Preparing for an Uncertain Climate—Vol. II

October 1993

OTA-O-568

NTIS order #PB94-134657

GPO stock #052-003-01357-6
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Preparing for an Uncertain

Climate--Volume II, OTA-O-568 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, October 1993).
Foreword

P

reparing for an Uncertain Climate is OTA’s second report on climate change. In

1991, we published Changing by Degrees: Steps to Reduce Greenhouse Gases,

which focused on ways to reduce the buildup of greenhouse gases in the

atmosphere. Slowing the rate of growth in these emissions continues to be very

important, but most analyses conclude that despite international efforts, the Earth is likely

to warm several degrees over the next century.

Climate change poses many potential problems for human and natural systems, and

the long-term effects of climate change on these systems are becoming increasingly

important in public policy, For example, international agreements were recently signed on

both climate change and biodiversity. Recognizing the potential problems, Congress asked

OTA to examine how the Nation can best prepare for an uncertain future climate. This

assessment tackles the difficult tasks of assessing how natural and human systems may be

affected by climate change and of evaluating the tools at our disposal to ease adaptation to

a warmer climate. Volume 1 addresses coastal areas, water resources, and agriculture;

volume 2 includes wetlands, preserved lands, and forests.

OTA identifies more than 100 options in the full report that could help ease the

transition to an uncertain climate. We categorized a subset of these options as ‘‘first steps. ’

Options that fall into this group are near-term concerns because they will take a long time

to complete, address ‘‘front-line” or urgent issues that need attention first in order to make

better decisions later, can be approached through efforts already under way, are beneficial

for reasons other than helping to prepare for climate change, or represent near-term ‘targets

of opportunity.‘‘

The United States has put in place an ambitious Global Change Research Program to

‘‘observe, understand, and ultimately predict global and regional climate change. ” This

effort, which has so far been based overwhelmingly in the physical sciences, is not geared

to help make natural resource planning and management decisions, to identify ecosystemlevel responses to climate change, or to readily provide policy guidance on mitigation or

adaptation. While scientists continue to reduce uncertainty, policy makers will continue to

reauthorize environmental legislation, manage natural resources, and develop energy

policy. Having mechanisms for integrating research and evaluating reasonable policy

routes while we are completing the science would be a valuable addition to the Federal

effort. This assessment could help guide these needed improvements.

Preparing for an Uncertain Climate was requested by three congressional

committees: the Senate Committees on Environment and Public Works and on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation, and the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

OTA appreciates the support this effort received from hundreds of contributors. Workshop

participants, reviewers, contractors, and informal advisors gave us invaluable support as we

attempted to sift through the voluminous material on this subject. OTA, however, remains

solely responsible for the contents of this report.

Roger C. Herdman, Director
Advisory Panel

Helen M. Ingram, Chairman

Director

Udall Studies in Public Policy

University of Arizona

Richard M. Adams

Professor of Resource Economics

Department of Agricultural and

Resource Economics

Oregon State University

Vera Alexander

Dean, School of Fisheries

and Ocean Sciences

University of Alaska

Michael J. Bean

Senior Attorney

Environmental Defense Fund

Margaret Adela Davidson

Executive Director

South Carolina Sea Grant

Consortium

J. Clarence Davies

Director

Center for Risk Management

Resources for the Future

Baruch Fischhoff

Professor of Engineering

and Public Policy

Carnegie Mellon University

Michael H. Glantz

Program Director

Environmental Impacts Group

National Center for Atmospheric

Research

George Hoberg

Assistant Professor

Political Science Department

University of British Columbia

Henry D. Jacoby

Director, Joint Program on the

Science and Policy

of Global Change

Sloan School of Management

Massachusetts Institute of

Technology

Waiter Jarck

Corporate Director

Forest Resources

Georgia-Pacific Corporation

David N. Kennedy

Director, California State

Department of Water Resources

Jon Kusler

Executive Director

Association of State Wetlands

Managers

Douglas MacLean

Associate Professor

Philosophy Department

University of Maryland

Jerry Mahlman

Director, Geophysical Fluid

Dynamics Laboratory/NOAA

Princeton University

Barbara Miller

Senior Civil Engineer

Tennessee Valley Authority

Steve Peck

Director, Environmental Sciences

Department

Electric Power Research Institute

Herman Shugart

Chairman

Department of Environmental

Sciences

University of Virginia

Phil Sisson

Director, Commodities and

Economic Analysis Division

Quaker Oats

Don Wilhite

Director

International Drought

Information Center

University of Nebraska

Gary Yohe

Professor

Department of Economics

Wesleyan University

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members.

The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this-report. OTA assumes full responsibility for the report

and the accuracy of its contents.

iv
Project Staff

Clyde Behney

Assistant Director, OTA

Health and Environmental

Sciences Division

ROSINA BIERBAUM

Project Director

Sherry Showell

Analyst

Michael Bowes

Senior Analyst

Nadine Cutler

Research Analyst

John Andelin

Assistant Director,

to Aug. 31, 1993

Elise Holland

Research Analyst

William Westermeyer

Senior Analyst

Robert Niblock

Program Manager

Oceans and Environment

Jacqueline Courteau

Analyst

CONTRACTORS

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF Timothy Beatley

University of Virginia

Julie Phillips

Indexer

Kathleen Bell

Office Administrator Stanley Changnon

Illinois State Water Survey

Frank Potter

consultant

Kimberly Holmlund

Administrative Secretary

William Cline

Institute of International Economics

Charles Cooper

San Diego University

Carleton Ray

University of Virginia

Theodore Schad

Consultant Sharon Knarvik

Secretary

William Easterling

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Daniel Sheer

Water Resources Management, Inc.

CONTRIBUTORS

Bob Friedman

Beth Robinson

Mark Zinniker

Jae Edmonds

Pacific Northwest Laboratory

Environmental Defense Fund

David Gillilan

University of Arizona

Joel Smith

RCG/Hagler, Bailley, Inc.

William Smith

Yale University

Nick Sundt

consultant

Richard Wahl

University of Colorado

Patrick Hal pin

University of Virginia

Robert Lilieholm

Utah State University

EDITOR

Cynthia Allen

Editorial Services

Scott Warren

Connecticut College

Daniel Willard

Indiana University

Janice Longstreth

Pacific Northwest Laboratory

Geraldine McCormick-Ray

University of Virginia

Mary McKenney

consultant

Walt Oechel

San Diego State University v
workshop

WORKSHOP ON WETLANDS

Tom Bancroft

National Audubon Society

Ann Bartuska

U.S. Forest Service

Michael Bean

Environmental Defense Fund

Elizabeth Bokman

U.S. Department of the Interior

Dieter Busch

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Douglas Canning

Washington Department of Ecology

James Chambers

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Kevin Erwin

Kevin L. Erwin Consulting

Ecologist, Inc.

Lee Foote

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Taber Hand

Association of State Wetlands

Managers

Suzette Kimball

University of Virginia

James Kundell

The University of Georgia

Jon Kusler

Association of State Wetlands

Managers

Bruce Moulton

Texas Water Commission

Walter Oechel

San Diego State University

Participants

Richard Park

Indiana University

Karen Poianl

Cornell University

Michael Sauer

North Dakota Department of Health

Charles Segelquist

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

John Simpson

Massachusetts Department of

Environmental Protection

James Titus

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

John Toliver

U.S. Forest Service

Richard Tomczyk

Massachusetts Department of

Environmental Protection

Virginia Van Sickle-Burkett

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Don Voros

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Scott Warren

Connecticut College

Dennis Whigham

Smithsonian Environmental

Research Center

Daniel Willard

Indiana University

Tom Winter

U.S. Geological Survey

Irene Wisheu

University of Ottawa

Donald Witherill

Maine Department of Environmental

Protection

WORKSHOP ON FORESTS

Robert Bailey

University of Georgia

Richard Birdsey

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station

Bruce Bongarten

University of Georgia

J.E. de Steigeur

U.S. Forest Service

Phil Dougherty

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station

Lauren Fins

University of Idaho

Michael Fosberg

U.S. Forest Service

Kathleen Geyer

U.S. Forest Service

Robin Graham

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Robert Haack

Michigan State University

Edward Hansen

U.S. Forest Service

Roy Hedden

Clemson University

Arnold Holden

U.S. Forest Service

David Le Blanc

Ball State University

F. Thomas Ledig

U.S. Forest Service

Robert Lilieholm

Utah State University

vi
Rex McCullough

Weyerhaeuser Company

Stephen Nodvin

University of Tennessee

David Parsons

National Park Service

Phillip Riggan

U.S. Forest Service

Clark Row

consultant

Con Schallau

American Forest Council

Hank Shugart, Chair

University of Virginia

William Smith

Yale University

Alan Solomon

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Jack Winjum

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

John Zerbe

Forest Products Laboratory

Robert Ziemer

U.S. Forest Service

WORKSHOP ON

WESTERN LANDS

Cecil Armstrong

U.S. Forest Service

Will Blackburn

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Terence Boyle

Colorado State University

Michael Cassity

University of Wyoming

Stan Coloff

Bureau of Land Management

Charles Cooper

San Diego State University

Doug FOX

U.S. Forest Service

Helen Ingram, Chair

University of Arizona

Linda Joyce

U.S. Forest Service

John Kelmelis

U.S. Geological Survey

Gil Lusk

Glacier National Park

Mitch McClaran

University of Arizona

Gary McVicker

Bureau of Land Management

Ron Moody

U.S. Department of Agriculture

David Mouat

Desert Research Institute

Walter Oechel

San Diego State University

Pat Reece

Panhandle Research and Extension

Center

Patrick Reed

University of Georgia

Tim Seastedt

University of Colorado

Richard Stroup

Political Economy Research Center

Eleonora Trotter

University of New Mexico

Sara Vickerman

Defenders of Wildlife

Mary Wallace

University of Arizona

WORKSHOP ON CLIMATE

TREATIES AND MODELS

Dan Bodansky

University of Washington

Tony Brenton

Harvard University

Herman Cesar

Tilburg University

Joel Darmstadter

Resources for the Future

Hadi Dowlatabadi

Carnegie Mellon University

Jae Edmonds

Pacific Northwest Laboratory

Howard Gruenspecht

U.S. Department of Energy

James Hammitt

Rand Corp.

William Hogan

Harvard University

Ted Parson

Harvard University

Steve Rayner

Pacifilc Northwest Laboratory

John Reilly

Massachusetts Institute

of Technology

Joel Scheraga

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Dennis Tirpak

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

David Victor

HarvardI University

John Myant

Stanford University

Don Wilhite

University of Nebraska

vii
WORKSHOP ON

AGRICULTURE

Richard Adams

Oregon State University

Robert Chen

Consortium for the International Earth

Science Information Network

Ralph Chite

The Library of congress

John Clark

Battelle Institute

Roy Darwin

U.S. Department of Agriculture

William Easterling

University of Nebraska 

Dean Ethridge

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Gary Evans

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Steven Hollinger

University of Illinois

Marvin Jensen

Colorado State University

C. Allan Jones

Texas A&M University

Jan Lewandrowskl

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Robert Loomls

University of California

Robert Mendelssohn

Yale University

Calvin Quaiset

University of California

Wayne Rasmussen

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Steve Rawlins

Us. Department of Agriculture

John Reilly

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Norman Rosenberg, Chair

Battelle Institute

Cynthia Rosenzweig

Columbia University

Vernon Ruttan

University of Minnesota

Paul Unger

U.S. Department of Agriculture

John van Es

University of Illinois

WORKSHOP ON ECOLOGY

AND REMOTE SENSING

Jim Bunce

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Leonard David

Space Data Resources and Information

Ruth Defrles

University of Maryland

Irv Forseth

University of Maryland

Robert Hudson

University of Maryland

David Inouye

University of Maryland

Tony Janetos

National Aeronautics and

Space Adm inistration

Michael Kearnney

University of Maryland

Penelope Kolnes

University of Maryland

Bill Lawrence

University of Maryland

Eileen McLellan

University of Maryland

Alan Miller

University of Maryland

Raymond Miller

University of Maryland

Rob Nicholls

University of Maryland

Karen Prestegaard

University of Maryland

Steve Prince

University of Maryland

Alan Robock

University of Maryland

John Townshend

University of Maryland

Richard Weismiller

University of Maryland

Robert Worrest

Consortium for the International E

Science Information Network

WORKSHOP ON EOS AND

USGCRP: ARE WE ASKING

AND ANSWERING THE

RIGHT QUESTIONS?

Dan Albritton

National Oceanic Atmospheric

Administration

James Anderson

Harvard University

Francis Bretherton

University of Wisconsin

Ronald Brunner

University of Colorado

William Clark

Harvard University

Robert Corell

National Science Foundation

viii
Jeff Dozier

University of California

John Eddy

Consortium for the International Earth

Science Information Network

Diane Evans

Jet Propulsion Laboratory

James Hansen

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

Tony Janetos

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

Jerry Mahlman

Princeton University

Ari Patrinos

U.S. Department of Energy

Robert Watson

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

WORKSHOP ON

WATER RESOURCES

Tony Bagwell

Texas Water Development Board

Stanley Changnon

Illinois State Water Survey

Hanna Cortner

University of Arizona

Stephen Estes-Smargiassi

Massachusetts Water Resources

Authority

Myron Fiering

Harvard University

Kenneth Frederick

Resources for the Future

Jerome Gilbert

Water Transfer Associates

Michael Glantz, Chair

National Center for Atmospheric

Research

Helen Ingram

University of Arizona

William Kellogg

National Center for Atmospheric

Research

Steve Macaulay

California Department of Water

Resources

Barbara Miller

Tennessee Valley Authority

Peter Rhoads

South Florida Water Management

District

John Schefter

U.S. Geological Survey

Neil Schild

U.S. Department of the Interior

Rusty Schuster

Bureau of Reclamation

Joel Smith

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Eugene Stakhiv

Us. Army corps of Engineers

Dan Tarlock

Chicago-Kent College of Law

Richard Wahl

University of Colorado

Don Wilhite

University of Nebraska

Dennis Lettenmaier

University of Washington

lx
1 Synthesis, Summary and

Policy Options 1

The OTA Assessment 3

The Problem of Climate Change 7

Choosing Adaptation Strategies 15

Overarching Policy Themes 19

Near-Term Congressional Action 35

Summaries and First Steps for Each

Resource Chapter 39

Chapter 1 References 57

2 A Primer on Climate Change and

Natural Resources 65

How Do We Know Climate Is Changing? 66

What Causes Climate Change? 71

What Changes in Climate Are Predicted? 71

How Will Climate Change Affect Natural

Resources? 79

Which Natural Resources Are Most Vulnerable

to Climate Change? 99

Chapter 2 References 101

3 Global Change Research in the

Federal Government 109

The U.S. Global Change Research program 112

Priorities and Balance in USGCRP 119

Adaptation Research in the Federal

Government 132

Evaluation Mechanisms 139

Policy Options: Augmenting the Federal

Research Effort on Global Change 144

Chapter 3 References 151

contents

r 1

1

I xi
4

5

6

Wetlands 153

Overview 154

U.S. Wetlands Today 160

Survival of Wetlands Under Climate Change 172

Policy Context 185

Policy options 195

First Steps 211

Chapter 4 References 213

Preserves: Federally Protected Natural

Areas 219

Overview 220

Federally Protected Natural Areas Today 224

The Problem of Climate Change: A Shifting

Climate Over a Static Map 254

Policy Options 279

First Steps 289

Chapter 5 References 291

Forests 299

Overview 300

The Forest Resource 301

Forests and Climate Change 320

Responding to climate Change 330

Policy options 336

First Steps 349

Chapter 6 References 351

APPENDIXES

A: List of Tables and Figures 357

B: Acknowledgments 363

xii I
Synthesis,

Summary

and

Policy

Options 1

idespread public attention to the question of whether

or not climate is changing intensified during the hot

summers of the late 1980s. Since then, during the

time the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)

was conducting this assessment, the Nation has experienced

major drought in the western and southeastern United States,

powerful hurricanes in Florida and Hawaii, a destructive forest

fire in Northern California, and substantial flooding in the

Midwest. Although none of these events can be clearly linked to

climate change, they represent the types of extreme events that

may occur with greater frequency if climate warms.

Most scientists believe that the Earth’s climate is likely to

warm by several degrees during the next few decades. Although

our understanding of climate change has progressed a great deal

in the past few years, major knowledge gaps remain, and

empirical evidence of human-induced climate change is not

unequivocal. Many factors important to understanding climate,

such as the role of clouds, ocean circulation, and solar cycles and

the interactions between living organisms and the environment,

cannot yet be reliably incorporated into general circulation

models (GCMS), science-based computer models used to predict

potential changes in average global surface temperature. Some

key information that could guide policy response is likely to

remain unknown for another decade or two (69). We cannot

predict rates or magnitudes of changes in local or regional

temperature and precipitation patterns. Predicting changes in the

variability of climate and weather patterns, particularly on small

spatial scales, is also beyond current scientific capabilities.

Existing ecological, social, and economic models are similarly

limited and cannot adequately predict the responses to climate 1
2 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

changes by natural systems (e.g., forests and

wetlands) or managed systems (e.g., water resource systems and agriculture). Therefore, most

policy decisions made in the near future about

how to respond to the specter of climate change

will be made in light of great uncertainty about

the nature and magnitude of potential effects.

Although climate change has certainly become

a public and scientific concern, what to do about

it is not clear. Issues now being heatedly debated

are the technical feasibility and economic implications of reducing or offsetting emissions of

greenhouse gases. Several studies concluded that

cutting U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2

),

the most important anthropogenic greenhouse

gas, below current levels is plausible. OTA’s

1991 report, Changing by Degrees: Steps to

Reduce Greenhouse Gases, concluded that by

adopting a package of low-cost measures, the

United States could significantly slow the growth

of its CO2 emissions over the next 25 years-but

could not easily decrease them to below current

levels (172). With aggressive-but potentially

expensive--initiatives, OTA found that the United

States might be able to decrease its CO2 emissions

to 35 percent below today’s levels by 2015. Even

in this case, U.S. emissions of C02 are expected

to rise again after 2015 unless there are successful

programs for developing alternatives to fossilenergy supplies (such as solar and nuclear power)-

programs that would lead to substantial increases

in market penetration of one or more of these

energy alternatives by 2015.

Since the 1992 United Nations Conference on

Environment and Development (UNCED) in

Brazil, many countries have signed the Climate

Convention, seeking to freeze greenhouse gas

emissions at 1990 levels in the near future. On

Earth Day 1993, President Clinton announced

that the United States would participate in this

effort. The Climate Convention represents a

landmark agreement and recognition that global

environmental problems must be addressed on a

global scale.

Nonetheless, the bulk of scientific evidence

indicates that simply freezing greenhouse gas

emissions at 1990 levels will not stop global

warming. Stabilizing emissions is different from

stabilizing atmospheric concentrations. Constant

annual emissions will still increase the total

concentration of greenhouse gases and, thus, the

heat-trapping capacity of the atmosphere. The

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC), an international group representing more

than 50 countries, concluded that to stabilize the

concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at today’s levels would require up to an 80

percent reduction in world CO2 emission levels

immediately, along with significant reductions

in other greenhouse gases. Even if such reductions could be achieved, the world would warm

about 1 to 4 OF (1 to 2 ‘C) because of long-lived

greenhouse gases emitted over the last century.

Given the virtual certainty that energy use (and

associated C02 emissions) in developing countries will rise as they pursue economic growth,

and given the intense debate in the United States

and other industrialized countries about the feasibility of achieving even a freeze in emissions, it

seems certain that global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise.

Thus, unless the predictive GCMS are seriously flawed, average global temperatures are

expected to increase several degrees over the

next century, even under the most optimistic

emissions scenarios (see box 2-B).1

If climate change is inevitable, then so is

adaptation to climate change. Society and nature

may have to cope with rising sea levels, more

frequent drought and periods of temperature

extremes, changes in water supplies, disruption of

ecosystems, and changes in many other climatesensitive natural resources (see ch. 2). The term

adaptation, as used here, means any adjustment to

1 All chapters, boxes, figures, and tables cited here can be found in volumes 1 and 2 of this report. Volume 1 addresses coastal areas, water

resources, and agriculture; volume 2 includes wetlands, preserved lands, and forests.
Chapter l-Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options I 3

altered conditions; it can be a biological, technical, institutional, regulatory, behavioral, or economic response. It encompasses passive adjustments (e.g., biologically driven changes in plant

communities or gradual changes in human behavior and tastes), deliberate reactive responses

(management responses after climate change

effects are observed), and anticipatory actions,

(plannin g, engineering, or regulatory responses

taken in preparation for climate change). Throughout this report, we examine the ability of naturalresource-based systems, both unmanaged and

managed, to adapt to climate change and consider

means by which adaptation can be enhanced by

modifying management, advancing research and

technology, disseminating information, and taking legislative actions.

Given the current inability to predict accurately

where, when, and how much change will occur,

decisionmakers must plan for natural and managed systems in light of considerable uncertainty.

It is understandable, under these circumstances,

that postponing responses until more is known

about climate change is very appealing. Nonetheless, uncertainty does not mean that the Nation

cannot position itself better to cope with the broad

range of impacts possible under climate change or

protect itself against potentially costly future

outcomes. In fact, delay in responding may

leave the Nation poorly prepared to deal with

the changes that do occur and may increase the

possibility of impacts that are irreversible or

otherwise very costly. Many options that will

increase the Nation’s ability to cope with the

uncertainties of climate change will also help in

dealing with existing threats to natural resource

systems, such as those related to climate extremes

(e.g., droughts, floods, and fire) and the fragmentation of natural habitat.

The following sections of this chapter discuss

the OTA assessment, general problems posed by

climate change, criteria for choosing strategic

responses, near-term opportunities for Congressional action, and summaries and frost steps for

the six resource systems studied in detail.

THE OTA ASSESSMENT

Three Committees of Congress asked OTA to

help them think about coping with potential

climate change. OTA was asked: How can the

United States set prudent policy, given that we do

not know for certain what the climate will be?

This assessment attempts to answer three key

questions:

What is at risk over what time frames?

Which natural ecological systems and managed natural resource systems are at risk

from climate change? How do the lead times

needed for human interventions in these

systems vary?

How can we best plan for an uncertain

climate? When and how should decisionmakers consider the uncertain effects of a

changing climate as they plan the future

management of natural and managed systems in the United States? What criteria

should be used?

Will we have answers when we need

them? Does the current U.S. Global Change

Research Program (USGCRP) reflect the

short- and long-term needs of decisionmakers? Will it provide information about

rates of climate change, the potential for

‘‘surprise’ effects on different systems,

potential strategies for making systems more

resilient in the face of uncertain climate

change, and adapting to the changes that may

occur?

Society depends on natural and managed systems for both basic needs and amenities. These

include, for example, food, shelter, clothing,

. . drinking, energy, and recreation. Many

social and economic problems arise when the

availability and diversity of goods and services

decline. Such disruptions can range fromd to

severe, and they include unemployment, famine,

migration of workers, and political instability.

Climate change heightens the uncertainty about

future availability of desired goods and services.
4 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

In the West, center-pivot sprinklers irrigate wheat,

alfalfa, potatoes, and other crops. Increasingly

efficient irrigation techniques may be critical if

regional climates become drier.

Yet, given the potentially long delays until the

onset of significant changes, reacting to climate

change as it occurs may seem more practical than

undertaking anticipatory measures. Why adopt a

policy today to adapt to a climate change that may

not occur, for which there is significant uncertainty about regional impacts, and for which

benefits of the anticipatory measure may not be

seen for decades? Effort put into adopting the

measure could well be wasted. Furthermore,

future generations may have more sophisticated

technologies and greater wealth that can be used

for adaptation (91).

The Committee on Science, Engineering, and

Public Policy (COSEPUP) (27)2 concluded that it

is theoretically possible to put technology and

practices into place to adjust to the changing

climate as it happens if the change is gradual

enough. However, the rate of climate change is,

admittedly, unknown. FCC concluded: “it is

uncertain whether these changes-should they

come--would be gradual or sudden” (68). Furthermore, “our imperfect understanding of climate processes . . . could make us vulnerable to

surprises; just as the human-made ozone hole

over Antarctica was entirely unpredicted” (69).

Waiting to react to climate change may be

unsatisfactory if it is possible that climate change

impacts will be very costly. Of greatest concern

may be those systems where there is the possibility of surprise-of facing the potential for high

costs without time to react--or where the climate

change impacts will be irreversible. Such impacts

seem more likelvif long-lived structures or

slow-to-adapt natural systems are affected, if

adaptive measures require time to devise or

implement, or if current trends and actions make

adaptation less likely to succeed or more costly in

the future. In these cases, anticipating climate

change by taking steps now to smooth the path of

adaptation may be appropriate.

Ideally, a policy-relevant research program

could help identify appropriate actions as the

current state of knowledge evolves. In response to

the potential risks of climate change and the

uncertainties surrounding the science, the Federal

Government launched a massive, multiagency

research effort in 1989 to monitor, understand,

2 cosm’s Im r~~ ajo~ publi~tion of the National Academy of Scies.m?s, the National ACdemy of h@mXr@, and the hE@UtC

of Medicrne, stated: “While inventions and their adoption may occur quickly, we must ask whether the broad spectrum of current capital

investments could be changed fast enough to match a change in climate in 50 to 100 years” (27). The report goes on to note that half a cesmu-y

should be time enough to allow most major technological systems (and some natural systems) to be tmnsformed and most capital stock to turn

over.
Chapter l-Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options I 5

and, ultimately, predict global changes and to

determine the mechanisms influencing these

changes (25, 26). Chapter 3 examines the

USGCRP and suggests ways to effectively broaden the program to both incorporate natural

resource concerns and assessment activities.

Other studies have examined systems at risk

from climate change in various ways (see boxes

I-A, l-B, and 2-F and refs. 27, 67, and 188). To

complement these analyses, OTA focused its

examination of adaptation potential on areas

where:

■ Costs of climate change may be very high.

For example, flood and wind damages from

more-intense storms could lead to death and

extensive property damage.

■ Impacts of climate change may be irreversible. For example, species extinction and

loss of valuable ecosystems—in wetlands,

forests, and wilderness areas-may be permanent.

■ The validity of long-term decisions made

today will be affected by climate change.

For example, trees planted with a life expectancy of many decades may not survive to

maturity if climate conditions change, Agricultural and coastal development in climatesensitive areas may add to the likelihood of

future losses to natural disasters.

■ Preparing for catastrophic events is already warranted. Reacting to climate

change may mean reacting to climate extremes-such as floods, droughts, storms,

and frees. Coordinated contingency planning

can help avert high costs and reduce risk of

loss.

■ There is a significant Federal role in the

research, planning, or management of

these systems.

On the basis of these criteria, OTA selected six

systems for further analysis:

1. coastal areas,

2. water resources,

3. agriculture,

4. wetlands,

5. preserves (federally protected natural areas),

and

6. forests.

The first three systems are managed natural-resource-based systems with a high degree of

government involvement and a complex system

of incentives and subsidies in place; these are

grouped together in volume 1 of the report. The

other three systems include less-managed natural

systems and are presented together in volume 2.

Both volumes contain this summary chapter, a

primer on climate change, and a chapter on the

Federal research effort. Box 1-A highlights our

overall methodological approach.

Each of the six systems OTA examined is

stressed to some degree today, and that may

influence how well it can respond to any change

in the future. For example, because populations in

coastal areas are growing, the exposure to costly

natural disasters is increasing. Water scarcity and

water-quality concerns are already common in

many parts of the United States. Current agricultural support programs often distort and constrain

choices about crop and farm management. Wetland loss continues-albeit at a much slower rate

than 20 years ago--despite a stated national goal

of “no net loss’ (see vol. 2, ch. 4). Preserved

natural areas serve aesthetic, recreational, and

biodiversity functions, but may not be adequate in

size or distribution to maintain wildlife and plant

species in the face of growing habitat loss and

fragmentation. U.S. forest managers are finding it

increasingly difficult to meet the sometimes

competing demands for recreation, environmental

services, and commercial wood products.

Water is an integral element of all of the

resource systems discussed in this report. Its

abundance, location, and seasonal distribution are

closely linked to climate, and this link has had

much to do with where cities have flourished,

how agriculture has developed, and what flora

and fauna inhabit a region. Water quality and

quantity will remain key to the economy. Future
6 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box l-A–The OTA Study in Context

Within the past 5 years, three major studies of the impacts of climate change have been released. The

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (166) and the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy

(COSEPUP) (27) issued reports on potential effects of global climate change on the United States; Working

Group II of the lntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) focused on potential impacts from climate

change worldwide (67).

The Sensitivity and Adaptability of

Human Activities and Nature

Human activity

and nature

Industry and energy

Heatth

Farming

Managed forests

and grasslands

Water resources

Tourism and

recreation

Settlement and

coastal structures

Human migration

Political tranquility

Natural landscapes

Marine ecosystems

Sensitive;

adaptation Sensitive;

Low at some adaptation

sensitivity cost problematic

SOURCE: Redrawn from Committee on Science, Engineering,

and Public Policy, Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse

Warming, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of

Engineering, and Institute for Medicine, Policy Implications of

Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the

Science Base (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,

1992).

COSEPUP divided human activities and natural systems into three classes of sensitivity and

adaptability to climate change: 1)low sensitivity,

2) sensitive but can adapt at a cost, and

3) sensitive with problematic adjustment or

adaptation (see table). The report concluded that

industry decisionmaking horizons and building

schedules are shorter than the time frame within

which most climatic changes would emerge, so

most industries could be expected to adapt as

climate shifts. COSEPUP listed human migration

and water resources as “sensitive to climate

change,” but adaptable “at some cost.” Finally, it

suggested that unmanaged natural ecosystems

respond relatively slowly and that their ability to

adapt to climate change is more questionable

and “problematic” than that of managed cropland

or timberland. The EPA report concluded that

natural ecosystems have only limited ability to

adapt if the climate changes rapidly and suggested that “managed systems may show more

resilience.”

The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)

analysis began with the EPA, COSEPUP, and

IPCC reports and related literature, but it goes

beyond them In several important ways. COSEPUP addressed natural systems primarily in

the general terms of “natural landscape” and

“marine ecosystems.” However, natural systems are much more numerous and complex than this categorization

suggests. We examine some natural systems in the United States at a much finer Ievel of resolution (e.g., wetlands,

forests, and preserved areas) and in different regions of the country.

We also consider systems under varying degrees of management intensity-from less-managed wilderness

areas, wetlands, and some coastal systems, to systems managed for multiple uses, such as forests and

rangelands, to intensively managed agricultural and commercial forestry systems. We consider each to be a

system for which we can characterize outputs and inputs. We focus on the outputs that society cares about,

whether for economic, recreational, aesthetic, or other reasons-in short, things about which policy is made.

While recognizing the value of climate predictions used in previous assessments, we chose to acknowledge

the uncertainties of our changing climate by deliberately avoiding predictions linked to any particular climate

change scenario. Instead, reexamine the vulnerabilities of natural resource systems to climate change, attempt

to elucidate how different climate variables drive natural resource systems, and examine the types of planning and

management practices that might help vulnerable systems adapt to a changing climate.
Chapter l-Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options 7

Timing is key to our analyses. In addition to the sensitivity of systems to climate change, the lead time needed

for human interventions in these systems also varies, as does the time frame for systems to respond. Continuation

of the structure, function, and services of many systems in an uncertain future depends on decisions being made

today. In this report, we highlight how today’s decisions about long-lived systems (e.g., forests and water resource

projects) may determine how those systems respond to tomorrow’s unknown climate.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly for Congress, our assessment examines the institutions and legislative

framework that surround natural and built systems in the United States today. Whether or not a system can adapt

to a changing climate may depend on how adaptable the institutions themselves are. Many systems transcend

agency, geographic, or legislative boundaries; such fragmentation can impede adaptation. OTA identifies these

rigidities and offers new legislative, coordination, planning, and management options to facilitate adaptation.

water availability is essential for continued services and functions from coasts, water resources,

agriculture, preserves, wetlands, and forests. Competition for water, whether for irrigation, recreation, wildlife, or urban use, is likely to heighten in

some regions of the country. Throughout the

report, we highlight this and other intersecting

issues in cross-cutting boxes, indicated by a bar of

icons representing the six systems studied (see

table l-l).

THE PROBLEM OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change alters the baseline against

which future actions are gauged. Our lifestyles,

water supplies, and food supplies and other things

society values from natural resources rely on a

dependable, consistent, and sustainable supply.

Our institutions and infrastructure presume that

the past is a reasonable surrogate for the future.

When designing reservoirs, for example, historic

rainfall patterns are assumed to provide a good

indication of the range of future patterns. A

farmer plants knowing that at times, weather

conditions will cause a crop to fail, but with the

expectation-based on past climate-that the

crop will succeed, in most years.

Climate change poses two potential problems

for existing management strategies for resources:

1) increased unpredictability resulting from changing climate averages, and 2) increased risk of

surprises or large-scale losses. These, together

with the ‘‘background’ of increasing population,

greater future demand, and growing competition

for the use of scarce resources, make the need to

improve the Nation’s ability to deal with an

uncertain climate all the more urgent.

Stresses on resources are most acute and visible during extreme events such as floods and

droughts. Our response to such events has often

proven to be expensive and unsatisfactory. Damages from the Mississippi River flooding in 1993

are expected to range from $5 billion to $10

billion, with Federal disaster payments of about

$3 billion. Almost $4 billion in Federal payments

went to farmers suffering crop losses during the

1988 drought. Hurricane Hugo cost the Federal

Government about $1.6 billion. Hurricane

Andrew topped $2 billion in Federal disaster

payments, and many complained about the Government’s response.3 Policies that improve the Nation’s ability to prepare for and cope more

effectively with climate hazards (e.g., floods,

frees, and droughts) would be valuable now and

would help prepare the Nation for a less certain

future.

3 Hurricane Andrew’s estimated cost to property insurers as of February 1993 is at least $15.5 billion (136). Additional losses involved

uninsured property, public utility equipment (e.g., power lines), crop damage, property insured under the National Flood Insurance and the

Small Business Adminis tration programs, lost tax revenue, and the costs of emergency services.
8 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Table 1 -l—List of Boxes in Reporta

Chapter 1 — Summary

Box 1 -A — The OTA Study in Context, p.6

Box 1-B — How Climate Change May Affect Various Systems, p.12

Box l-c — Solutions from General to Specific: Addressing the Overarching Problems, p.20

Box 1 -D — Climate Change, South Florida, and the Everglades, p.28

Box I-E — Water Allocation and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River System, p.31

Box 1 -F — Changes in Agriculture and the Fate of Prairie Potholes: The Impacts of Drought and Climate Change, p.33

Box I-G — Climate Change in Alaska: A Special Case, p.50

Chapter 2 — Primer

Box 2-A — What the Models Tell Us. GCMS and Others, p.68

BOX 2-B — Highlights of the IPCC 1990 Scientific Assessment of Climate Change, p.74

Box 2-C — Climate Change and Coastal Fisheries, p 81

BOX 2-D — Coping with Increased CO2 Effects on Ecosystem Productivity, p.88

BOX 2-E — Responses of Natural Systems to Climate Stress Adaptation, Migration, and Decline, p 92

Box 2-F — Major Assessments of Climate Change Impacts, p.102

Chapter 3 — Research

Box 3-A — Remote Sensing as a Tool for Coping with Climate Change, p.125

Box 3-B — Weaknesses in U.S. Environmental Research Identified by the National Research Council, p.137

Box 3-C — Lessons from NAPAP, p.141

VOLUME 1

Chapter 4 — Coasts

Box 4-A — Saffir-Simpson Hurricane-Intensity Scale, p.162

Box 4-B — Protector Retreat?, p.174

Box 4-c — South Carolina, Hurricane Hugo, and Coastal Development, p.189

Box 4-D — The “Maine Approach”, p.192

Chapter 5 — Water

Box 5-A — Climate Change, Water Resources, and Limits to Growth?, p.216

Box 5-B — Water Quality, Climate Change, and the Rio Grande, p.217

Box 5-C — Reauthorizing the Clean Water Act, p.220

Box 5-D — Major Doctrines for Surface Water and Groundwater, p.222

Box 5-E — Navigating the Mississippi through Wet and Dry Times, p.228

BOX 5-F — Important Water-Related Responsibilities of Key Federal Agencies, p.233

Box 5-G — Permanent Transfer Conserving Water in California’s Imperial Valley, p.237

Box 5-H — A Drought-Year Option: California’s Drought Water Bank, p.238

Box 5-1 — Seasonal Storage: The Metropolitan Water District’s Interruptible Water Service and Seasonal Storage

Programs, p 247

Box 5-J — The Use of Reclaimed Water in St. Petersburg, p.261

Chapter 6 — Agriculture

Box 6-A — Major Federal Programs Related to Agriculture and the Environment, p.278

Box 6-B — Primary U.S. Farm Products, p.285

Box 6-C — Previous Studies of Agriculture and Climate Change, p.290

Box 8-D — Water Transfers in the West: Winners and Losers, p.292

Box 8-E — Irrigated Agriculture and Water Quality: The Kesterson Case, p.294

Box 6-F — Historical Examples of Adaptability in Agriculture, p.298

Box 8-G — Adaptation to Declining Groundwater Levels in the High Plains Aquifer, p.301

Box 6-H — Current Technologies for Adapting to Climate Change, p.303

Box 6-1 — The Institutional Setting for Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change, p.311

Box 6-J — Structure of the Agricultural Research and Extension System, p.315

9 What Is at Risk? creased evaporation, and sea level rise. The

As described in chapter 2, climate change combination of these factors could cause signifipredicted by the models includes changes in cant impacts on all systems. For example, sea

precipitation patterns, increased temperature, in- level rise could lead to higher storm surges and
Chapter l-Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options I 9

VOLUME 2

Chapter 4 — Wetlands

Box 4-A —

Box 4-B —

Box 4-C —

BOX 4-D —

Box 4-E —

Box 4-F —

Box 4-G —

Box 4-H —

Box 4-I —

Chapter 5 —

BOX 5-A —

BOX 5-B —

Box 5-C —

BOX 5-D —

BOX 5-E —

Box 5-F —

60X 5-G —

BOX 5-H —

Box 5-1 —

BOX 5-J —

BOX 5-K —

BOX 5-L —

BOX 5-M —

Chapter 6 —

Box 6-A —

Box 6-B —

BOX 6-C —

Box 6-D —

Box 6-E —

Box 6-F —

Box 6-G —

Box 6-H —

Wetland Restoration and Mitigation. Maintaining Wetland Functions and Values, p.154

How Wet Is A Wetland? The Debate Over Which Wetlands to Regulate, p 157

Wetland Types and Distribution, p 160

Why Care About Wetlands?, p.162

Is a Wetland a Place or a Process?, p 166

Louisiana and Sea Level Rise: A Preview of What’s to Come?, p.173

How Will Climate Change Affect Wetlands?, p 175

Will Climate Change Increase Conflicts Over Riparian Wetlands in the Arid West?, p.178

The Wetlands Policy Space, p 189

Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas

Climate Change and Management Philosophies for Natural Area Management, p 221

The Strategic Dilemma for Protecting Natural Areas Under Climate Change, p.223

Federally Protected Natural Areas The Legislative Framework, p.228

Implicatlons for Endangered Species Conservation Under a Changing Climate, p 235

Landscape Fragmentation Islands of Nature in a Sea of Human Activity, p.241

Some Innovative Management Models Toward Ecosystem Management in Natural Areas, p.244

Competition for Water: The Case of the Stillwater National Wildlife Management Area, p.252

Water and Natural Areas Under Climate Change, p.255

The Yellowstone Fires of 1988 Harbinger of Climate Change and Fire Management Conflicts, p 262

Possible Funding Sources for Conservation Programs, p 265

The Sustainable Biosphere Initiative Articulating an Ecological Research Agenda for Global Change, p 269

Buliding Blocks for Integrated Information Systems, p 270

Restoration Ecology Giving Nature a Helping Hand Under Climate Change, p 276

Forests

Major Forest Types of the United States, p 306

Forests and Carbon Sequestration, p 310

Major Federal Laws Related to Forest Management, p 312

Southern Bottomland Hardwoods” Converting Wetland Forests to Agriculture, p.316

The Blue Mountains: Forest Decline and Climate Change, p.318

Current Weather-Related Stresses on Selected Forests, p 324

Private Property and Fire Risk, p 329

Public Grazing Lands Management Dilemmas, p.334

a Shading indicates boxes that discuss interactions across resource systems

increased erosion of coasts (see vol. 1, ch. 4).

Shifts in precipitation patterns could cause more

floods, droughts, water-supply disruptions, hydropower reductions, and groundwater overdrafts,

especially in the arid West (see vol. 1, ch. 5). The

ideal range for agricultural crops might move

north as temperatures increase, and drought losses

could become more frequent (see vol. 1, ch. 6).

Forests could experience more-frequent fire and

diebacks driven by drought, insects, and disease

(see vol. 2, ch. 6). It could become difficult to

retain unique assemblages of plants and animals

in preserves as the climate to which they are

adapted effectively shifts northward or to higher

elevations (see vol. 2, ch. 5). With sea level rise,

loss of coastal wetlands may be accelerated, and

regional drying could eliminate some prairie

potholes (see vol. 2, ch. 4).

The loss of soil moisture that might result from

higher evaporation rates at warmer temperatures

is likely to present the greatest threat to natural

systems. Figure 1-1 shows areas of the United

States that may undergo significant changes in

soil moisture based on climate changes projected

by two GCMS. The Goddard Institute for Space

Studies (GISS) scenario suggests that large areas

face moderate drying. The Geophysical Fluid

Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) scenario shows

more severe drying across much of the eastern and

central United States. Figure 1-2 illustrates the
10 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume

The summer floods of 1993 in the Midwest

demonstrate the risks of floodplain development

combined with intensive control of river flow.

The satellite photograph on the top shows the

Mississippi River as it appeared in July of 1988 during

the drought; the one on the bottom shows the same

area during the floods of July 1993.

extent to which changes in soil moisture could

affect U.S. lands in natural cover (e.g., forests and

wetlands) or agricultural use. Much of the Nation’s natural resource base may face at least

moderate drying, which is likely to increase stress

on vegetation.

It is impossible to estimate with any confidence

the cost of climate change to society. Estimates of

the costs to the United States resulting from an

average temperature increase of 4 to 5 OF (2 to

3

o C)4 range from 0.3 to 2.0 percent of the gross

national product (GNP) (22, 23)---corresponding

to tens of billions of dollars per year. Box 1-B

highlights a broad range of climate impacts that

could be caused by climate: change.

2

Although it is desirable

change, the uncertainties

to anticipate climate

involved make the

design of appropriate policies challenging. These

uncertainties include: 1) the extent of global and

regional climate change, 2) its economic and

ecological impacts, and 3) the ability of society

to adapt.

I Uncertainties About Global and

Regional Climate Change

Atmospheric scientists generally agree about

the direction of climate change on a global and

latitudinal scale. Global temperatures will likely

rise, which would cause an increase in global

precipitation and sea levels. Temperature increases are likely to be greater at higher latitudes.

Winter precipitation could increase in middle and

high latitudes; decreased summer precipitation in

midcontinental, midlatitude regions could result

in reduced summer soil moisture (69). At finer

spatial scales, such as at the regional or State

level, uncertainty about climate change increases.

The rate of change is also uncertain. IPCC

estimated that global average temperatures will

increase at over 0.5 OF (0.3 ‘C) per decade. As

average temperatures increase, the entire range of

expected temperatures increases as well; thus,

both the warmest and coolest temperatures experienced will be warmer than before. This does not

preclude late frosts or early freezes if variability

increases. Some analyses show that climate

variability may increase at the regional level—a

series of warm years in a region could be followed

by a series of cool years (195). There is, however,

significant uncertainty about whether the frequency and intensity of extreme events will

change. It is likely that, on average, precipitation

worldwide will increase with climate change (69),

but the models suggest that the interior of

continents will get drier. It is not known whether

droughts or floods will increase or decrease.

4 This temperature increase is the estimated equilibrium warming from an atmosphere containing a greenhouse gas concentration equivalent

to a doubling of COZ above preindustrial levels. Although the atmospheric concentration of gases leading to this temperature change is expected

by about 2030, due to time lags, any resulting temperature effect might not be fully realized until several deeades later.
Chapter l-Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options I 11

Figure l-l—Potential Soil-Moisture Changes Under Two GCM Climate Change Scenarios

/

ier

~ Drier C13 Wetter

NOTE: GFDL=Geophysical fluid Dynamics Laboratory; GISS=Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

SOURCE: P.N. Halpin, “Ecosystems at Risk to Potential Climate Change,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment,

June 1993.

Some analyses predict that hurricane intensities

could increase (43), and drought in lower latitudes could be more severe (144).

Figure 1-2-Soil-Moisture Changes for Agricultural

Lands and Areas of Natural Cover,

by GCM Climate Change Scenario

B Uncertainties About Direct Effects

Even if the regional changes in climate could

be predicted, important uncertainties would remain about the physical and biological effects

they would have. We do not really know how

vegetation, animals, and other natural resources

will be affected by climate change. Rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2 will change the

rates at which plants grow, respire, use water, and

set seeds. Numerous laboratory experiments on

intensively managed agricultural systems suggest

that CO2 will boost plant growth and productivity

as long as other nutrients are plentiful (6, 39,81);

this is called the CO2 fertilization effect (see ch.

2). This effect has not yet been studied in many

natural ecosystems (72, 124). Many studies of

climate effects have used statistical models that

relate natural vegetation or crop productivity to

differences in current regional climates in order to

estimate impacts under climate change scenarios.

These are summarized in chapter 2 and in volume

1, chapter 6. The ability of plants and animals to

40

i D Much wettel

I GISS UKMO nn

0 Wetter

: o+-

= Drier

~fi _ Much drier I

Ou+

— - — 1 I

I

Natural cover Agricultural land

NOTE: Bars above the zero axis show the percent of land area

becoming wetter; bars below the axis show the percent of land area

becoming drier. GFDL=Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory; GIS=

Goddard Institute for Space Studies; OSU=Oregon State University;

and UKMO-United Kingdom Meteorological Office.

SOURCE: P.N. Halpin, ‘Ecosystems at Risk to Potential Climate

Change,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, June 1993.
12 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Box 1-B-How Climate Change May Affect Various Systems1

Natural ecosystems-These may be the systems most vulnerable to climate change. We are least able to

intervene and help with adaptation of natural ecosystems because of limited knowledge about ecological

processes (see chs. 2 and 3). The shift in climate zones may far exceed the ability of vegetation, such as forests,

to adapt through migration (see fig. 1-7). Climate zones may shift hundreds of miles in a century, whereas natural

rates of dispersal and canonization maybe on the order of tens of relies in the same time period (35). in addition,

fire and disease could result in rapid dieback of many existing forests and other terrestrial ecosystems (157).

Helping plants to migrate through such activities as widespread seed dispersal would be very expensive and have

dubious prospects for success (166). These issues are discussed in detail in “Forests" (vol. 2, ch. 6).

Climate change could also lead to a loss of species diversity. Isolated (“island”) species may find

themselves in climate zones that are no longer suitable for their survival (132). The potential for migration of plants

and animals to new suitable habitats is not known, but barriers such as water bodies or development could impede

migration (see fig. 1-6). Species in mountainous terrain could migrate to higher elevations. This creates reduced

habitat areas, which are correlated with reductions in spades diversity. For example, a study ofa5“F (3 ‘C)

warming in the Great Basin National Park in eastern Nevada concluded that it would cause 20 to 50 percent of

species in individual mountain ranges to go extinct (106). The ability for human intervention to maintain species

diversity in the face of climate change is currently limited. Selected species could be transplanted to new habitats,

but this could be very resource intensive and would only be feasible in certain cases; little research has actually

been done on transplantation of multiple-species systems. Migration corridors could be created, but their chances

of success are limited because migration rates are slow and the direction of species migration is unknown. In

addition, the creation of corridors maybe relatively expensive compared with setting aside new protected areas

(154). These issues are discussed further in “Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas” (vol. 2, ch. 5).

Climate change can result in the loss of coastal wetlands directly through sea level rise, and indirectly,

through interaction with societal response to sea level rise. Many coastal wetlands will likely be inundated because

the sea will rise faster than wetland sediments accrue (161). Some wetlands will adapt to climate change by

migrating upland with the rising tides. The areas with the greatest risk of wetland loss are along the Gulf and East

Coasts of the United States (see fig. l-4). This will result in a net loss of wetlands because vast areas of tidal flats,

such as in the Mississippi Delta, will be inundated, while inland migration will create new wetlands having only a

fraction of the area of today’s wetlands.2 This net lose of wetlands will be even larger where coastal structures,

such as bulkheads or levees, block the inland migration of wetlands (162).

Even if it were feasible to create new coastal wetlands, the costs of this would be so high that Iarge-scale

restoration programs would become unattractive. The average cost of creating wetlands has been estimated at

roughly $20,000 to $45,000 per acre ($50,000 to $100,000 per hectare),3 not including land-acquisition costs.4

This figure, however, can vary from just a few hundred dollars per acre to many hundreds of thousands of

dollars per acre.llwugh technology is improving (see vol. 2, box 4-A), attempts to recreate wetland structure and

function fully have been limited. Prohibiting the construction of or removing coastal structures would enable more

wetlands to colonize upland areas. It may not be feasible to move some existing ooastal structures that impede

wetland migration. For example, it is unlikely that areas of dense development would be rebated.

1 This box is a compendium of information drawn from previous studies, recent research, and OTA’s

assessment. The back chapters of this report discuss a subset of these issues.

2 S. Weatherman, University of Maryland at College Park, personal communication, November 1992.

3 TO convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405.

4 D. King, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland, personal communication, November

1$92.
Chapter 1--Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options 13

Prairie pothole and riparian wetlands in regions that get drier maybe at greater risk than those in regions that

get wetter. For example, in the North Central States, increases in temperatures and evaporation rates could cause

many prairie potholes to shrink or disappear, leading to further declines in already diminished continental waterfowl

populations (9). Tundra may shrink as increased temperatures allow the permafrost to thaw and drain (see box

l-G). In addition, wetlands of any type that are already degraded by pollution, water diversions, or fragmentation

may also be particularly vulnerable (196, 199). The status and vulnerability of coastal, riparian, depressional, and

tundra wetlands are discussed in “Wetlands” (vol. 2, oh. 4).

Fisheries-The potential effects of climate change on aquatic ecosystems have been studied very Iittle to

date, and could vary significantly. In some cases, marine fish may be able to migrate to new, more suitable habitats,

depending on several factors, if food sources are available (80). Some freshwater fish in open waters, such as

the Great Lakes, could benefit from a larger thermal niche (96). Fish in small lakes and streams, however, may

suffer from increases in temperature that adversely affect survival, reproduction, or their ability to migrate to coder

locations (101). Changes in water quality will also affect the survival of aquatic organisms. Climate change may

alter circulation patterns in many lakes, reducing dissolved-oxygen concentrations. Higher temperatures will also

act to reduce dissolved-oxygen concentrations (71 ). Sea level rise will increase saltwater intrusion of estuaries,

potentially benefiting marine fish at the expense of freshwater species (60). However, changes in estuaries could

have broad impacts on the U.S. fishery. By far, the greatest portion of commercial catches, with the exception of

those from Alaskan fisheries, are composed of estuarine-dependent species (139). Ongoing alterations of critical

habitat (such as those caused by geographic fragmentation and pollution) may be exacerbated by climate change.

Box2-C (ch. 2) discusses, by region, the condition and value of fisheries today, current problems, and the potential

impacts of climate change.

Agriculture-This system is very sensitive to climate, but climate change impacts maybe offset by intense

management over short time frames. High temperatures and drought could reduce crop yields, although this effect

could be counteracted by higher atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and longer growing seasons in

higher latitudes (129). The potential for agricuitural adaptation, particularly at the farm level, is very high (30).

Changes in management practices (e.g., changing planting dates or using irrigation or crop-switching) can reduce

or eliminate many of the potentially negative impacts of climate change. Shifts in climate zones would result in

changes in relative productivity y levels, with some areas increasing output, and other areas reducing output due

to increased competition (l). See “Agriculture” (vol. 1, ch. 6) for further discussion.

Coastal resources-Cities, roads, airports, and other coastal resources are vulnerable to flooding from sea

level rise and hurricanes. The population near the coast is growing faster than populations in any other region of

the country, and the construction of buildings and infrastructure to serve this growing population is proceeding

rapidly. As a result protection against and recovery from hazards peculiar to the coastal zone, such as hurricanes

and sea level rise, are becoming ever more costly (11). The combination of popularity and risk in coastal areas

has important near-term consequences for the Safety of coastal residents, protection of property, maintenance of

local economies, and preservation of remaining natural areas. These points are discussed further in “Coasts” (vol.

1, ch. 4).

Water resources-These resources are vulnerable to several climate change impacts. Changes in

precipitation and higher levels of evapotranspiration can combine to affect surface-water and groundwater

supplies, flood and drought frequency, and hydropower production. Arid basins could experience the largest

relative change in water flow from climate change (67). Numerous studies have been conducted on the relative

vulnerability of the major U.S. river basins to flood and drought, supply disruptions, hydropower reductions,

groundwater overdrafts, and extreme events (46,49,66, 166). They conclude that the water resource regions most

vulnerable to some or all of these events are the Great Basin, California Missouri, Arkansas, Texas Gulfl Rio

Grande, and Lower Colorado (see fig. 1-5). See “water” (vol. 1, ch. 5) for more information; Appendix 5.1 lists

State-by-State problems, (Continued on next page)
14 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box 1-B--How Climate Change May Affect Various Systems--(Continued)

Human health--Climate change could affect human health, but there is a great deal of uncertainty about

whether mortality and morbidity would actually increase and about the potential for adaptive measures (such as

the use of air conditioning) to offset any negative impacts. Several studies have concludedthat the potential range

of infectious diseases could shift with climate change, but the exact nature of these shifts is uncertain (94). Even

if the range of dbase-carrying vectors, such as mosqitoes, changes, enhanced pest-control measures could

nullify the increased threat of disease. Effects of climate change in other countries could displace some

populations. If “environmental refugees” lead to an increase in immigration, there is the potential for increased

importation of communicable diseases into the United States (164). Other studies have shown that climate change

could lead to increased cases of heat-stress mortality (74). Uncertainties about changes in human physiological

and behavioral response make it difficult to draw conclusions about the risks of climate change to human

health.

Energy--Higher temperatures will no doubt increase energy demand for cooling and decrease energy

demand for heating. This would result in an increase in the demand for electricity (primarily for air conditioning)

and for electric-generating capacity (93). This new demand would not be completely offset by reductions in the

use of oil and gas for heating (96). The largest capital costs would be associated with increased power plant

construction, which could cost as much as $170 to $920 billion, about 12 percent inure than the increases

capacity-needed to population and

in

economic growth through the middle of the next century (93). As with sea

level rise, adapting to increased energy demand could involve significant costs.

Transportation--Some forms of transportation could be positively or negatively affected by climate change.

inland shipping maybe the most sensitive to climate change. On the one hand, warmer winters wouid likely result

in less ice cover and a longer shipping season. For example, ice cover on the Great Lakes could be reduced by

5 to 13 weeks (4), lowering shipping and related costs (78). On the other hand, lower river flow and lake levels

could increase shipping costs by reducing shipping tonnage capacity or blocking shipping (143). Some roads near

the coast may have to be moved or protected from sea level rise. in many instances, adaptation is highly probable

in transportation at some cost to the economy (see vol. 1, box 5-~ “Navigating the Mississippi through Wet and

Dry Times”).

adapt to changes in climate, either through

physiological adjustment or through migration, is Ability to Adapt

uncertain. Historically, trees can disperse and

migrate about 60 miles (100 kilometers)5 

per

century, but the projected rates of temperature

change would require migration rates 5 to 10

times faster for forests to remain in suitable

habitats (35, 36). The success with which natural

vegetation can migrate will depend on seed

dispersal, physical barriers to migration (e.g.,

mountains and developed land), competition

between species, and the availability of fertile

soils in areas of suitable climate.

Finally, how society will respond to whatever

climate change occurs and the resulting impacts

are uncertain. Coping with climate change can

take the form of technical, institutional, regulatory, behavioral, and economic adjustments.

Future technologies and levels of income are

unknown, although they will most likely improve

and increase and will aid in adaptation (5). Will

population growth or environmental consensus

limit or expand adaptation options? Will people

5 To convert miles to kilometers, multiply by 1.609,
Chapter 1--Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options 15

Box l-B-How Climate Change May Affect Various Systems--(Continued)

The table below summarizes potential climate change impacts for these various systems.

Potential Climate Change Impacts for Various Systems

Systems Potential impacts

Forests/terrestrial vegetation Migration of vegetation.

Reduction in inhabited range.

Altered ecosystem composition.

Species diversity Loss of diversity.

Migration of species.

Invasion of new species.

Coastal wetlands Inundation of wetlands.

Migration of wetlands.

Aquatic ecosystems Loss of habitat.

Migration to new habitats.

Invasion of new species.

Coastal resources

Water resources

Agriculture

Human health

Energy

Inundation of coastal development,

Increased risk of flooding.

Changes in supplies.

Changes in drought and floods.

Changes in water quality and hydropower production.

Changes in crop yields.

Shifts in relative productivity and production.

Shifts in range of infectious diseases.

Changes in heat-stress and cold-weather afflictions.

Increase in cooling demand.

Decrease in heating demand.

Changes in hydropower output,

Transportation Fewer disruptions of winter transportation.

Increased risk for summer inland navigation.

Risks to coastal roads.

SOURCE: J.B. Smith and J. Mueller-Vollmer, “Setting Priorities for Adapting to Climate

Change,” contractor paper prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, March

1992

react quickly and efficiently to trends deemed CHOOSING ADAPTATION STRATEGIES

outside the range of normal, or will they assume

that conditions-will return to historic norms? Will How should decisionmakers incorporate the

people overreact to periodic climate extremes uncertainties posed by a changing climate into

that do not actually signal a substantial change in long-term plans for resource systems? What can

the underlying climate? Responses to recent be done to minimize vulnerability to climate

extreme events, such as the Mississippi River change? Uncertainty makes acting now difficult,

flooding in the summer of 1993, may provide an but it also makes preparing for a wide range and

interesting lesson. intensity of climate impacts essential.
16 I Preparing

g

for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

The Grand Teton National Park, along with other

national parks and preserves, provides habitat for

countless species of birds and wildlife. The parks and

preserves also offer extensive recreational opportunities such as hiking, camping, nature study, and

photography. These are examples of services at risk

from climate change.

Possible responses to the threat of climate

change depend on what one wants to save. Do we

try to maintain systems in their current form (e.g.,

the extent of forests and the varieties of crops), or

do we maintain the services they provide (e.g.,

enough food for the population, scenic views,

beach recreation facilities)? Do we wish to

minimize the economic costs of facing a changing

climate? Do we attempt to forestall only catastrophic events? However these interests are

balanced, two general primary characteristics of

adaptation policies stand out: flexibility and

robustness. By helping to ensure quick and

effective response to changing circumstances

(flexibility) and by being prepared for the worst

(robustness), the potential costs of an uncertain

future climate can be reduced.

Just how much effort should be expended to

avoid future risks will ultimately depend on the

perceived costs of the effort compared with the

likelihood and scale of future damages that will be

avoided. In some cases, the same strategies that

help protect against climate risks might also

provide some immediate and certain benefits:

enhanced services from natural systems, improved productivity in managed systems, better

means for dealing with existing climate variability and weather extremes, or reduced environmental damages from managed systems. The

costs of these low-regrets strategies or activities

may be relatively easy to defend. Other activities,

however, would be most useful only in the event

of severe climate change. The costs of such

activities may be considered in the same light in

which we consider the purchase of insuranceit may be better to pay a relatively small premium now than to be uninsured against the threat

of severe and more costly ecological and economic damage.

I Enhancing Flexibility

Any policies that improve the chances of

adapting more smoothly and painlessly provide a

buffer against the negative impacts of climate

change. Flexible systems and policies are those

that allow self-adjustments or midcourse corrections as needed without major economic or social

disruption. For example, flexible systems can be

fine-tuned to cope with hot and dry weather as

well as more-intense rainstorms. The system

should work now, under current climate conditions. Flexibility would not preclude potentially

desirable actions or lock policy makers into

expensive, irreversible decisions. For example, in

some cases, building a dam is a less flexible

policy than is water conservation. If new information becomes available that suggests that the dam

is not needed in that location or is the wrong size,

fine-tuning is difficult. Efforts to conserve water

can (within limits) be used to supply quantities of

water without building new, expensive infrastructure with 50- to 100-year lifetimes; the policy is

also reversible in times when water is plentiful

(see vol. 1, boxes 5-G, 5-H, 5-I, and 5-J).

Advancing the knowledge base will enhance

flexibility. In agriculture, the development of new

crops suited to a wide variety of climates,

improved understanding of the performance of

crops under a changing climate, and continuing
Chapter l-Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options I 17

education and extension programs to provide

better-informed decisionmaking by farmers will

all help smooth the path of adaptation (see vol. 1,

ch. 6). In general, research that clarifies how

systems respond to climate change will help

identify and expand the range of possible adaptive actions and will speed their successful

implementation.

Removing legislative or administrative constraints that now limit our ability to change would

also promote flexibility. For example, the complicated programs of price supports in agriculture

now penalize farmers who choose to change

planting or management practices significantly.

Given the importance of agriculture in the United

States, large economic costs could be associated

with even brief delays in agricultural adjustment

to a changing climate. Other subsidies, such as

those for irrigation and those implicit in the

support for infrastructure in coastal zones, add to

our inflexibility by encouraging the development

of built systems in areas that maybe increasingly

at risk to natural disasters. Resolving conflicts

over the use of natural resources, through the

creation of organizational structures or market

incentives, should also help with our ability to

implement change.

ti Enhancing Robustness

Policies can also minimize the risk of adverse

effects from climate change by making systems

less sensitive to climate. Robust systems are those

that can tolerate a wide range of climate conditions and are, therefore, less vulnerable to climate

change extremes. Actions that increase robustness in a system are those that help protect against

the threat of large-scale losses or climate surprises. The robustness of a system can be increased in several ways. One is to take actions that

make the system itself inherently more tolerant of

a variety of climate conditions. For example,

developing and planting crops that perform reasonably well under a wide range of climates may

be wise no matter how the climate changes.

Adding capacity to dams or other structures can

make them more ‘‘robust, that is, able to

accommodate greater variability in precipitation.

Another way to increase robustness is to put a

variety of mechanisms in place to protect against

possible losses, hoping that some mechanisms

will succeed even if others fail. For example, a

mix of management strategies for forests and

natural areas could be used to protect against

climate change.

Improving the robustness of a system will often

require an insurance strategy-something must

be initiated now in order to avoid extremely high

costs under a much warmer climate. The idea is

that paying a small amount now will reduce the

risks of a major loss in the future. For example,

establishing gene banks or learning how to

undertake ecosystem restoration may be an “investment” that would reduce the risks of catastrophic forest or ecosystem loss in the future.

Efforts that enhance the general health, productivity, or quality of a system can also enhance

robustness by making the system more resilient,

or able to tolerate some climate-related stresses.

Actions promoting robustness include improving

the quality and protection of wetlands, minimizing existing threats to natural areas, and establishing new preserves (see vol. 2, chs. 4 and 5).

Plannin g and management measures that avert

trends that make adaptation more difficult in the

future are also robust strategies.

It is not immediately obvious that natural

systems, such as forests or wetlands, are less

robust (more vulnerable) in the short term than are

managed systems such as agriculture and watersupply systems. Natural systems do have some

inherent buffering to protect themselves against

existing climate variability. However, what may

put natural systems at greater risk than systems

that are actively managed is continued stress from

climate change over a long time period. Once a

natural system declines, it may take many years to

recover. Of particular concern is the possibility

that losses to natural systems may be irreversible, such as the loss of species. In managed
18 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

systems, it is much more likely that there would

be intervention to reduce the losses because the

economic value at stake is often very high.

B Applying the Criteria

Federal agencies are currently making many

decisions about the management of natural resources that could be significantly affected by

climate change. What the Federal Government

decides now about the management of water

supplies, forests, wetlands, fish, wildlife, and

other issues could limit or foreclose the ability of

these resources and their managers to adapt to the

future effects of climate change, or could help

make us better prepared to deal with an uncertain

climate future.

Given the broad criteria of flexibility and

robustness, we identified a large class of policy

options that could remove inefficiencies, address

existing problems, and help insure against the

uncertainties posed by climate change to resource

systems. Many studies term such options no

regrets or low regrets because they make sense to

pursue now, even assuming no climate change.

The question that arises is: Why are actions that

are supposed to be prudent, anyway, even without

the added impetus of climate change, being

pursued in such a limited way (5)? Actions that

appear reasonable for protecting resources cannot

be considered in a vacuum. In reality, there are

barriers of many sorts-in information, institutions, and process--even 10 options that appear to

be low regrets. OTA’s policy analysis focused on

these barriers and tried to identify ways to

overcome them.

Another large class of policy options calls for

us to be prepared for the worst. Whether these

options will still be seen as no-regrets once

climate does change may depend on the rapidity

and magnitude of that climate change, and the

future response of decisionmakers. If, in the face

of signficant climate change, the no-regrets

options prove inadequate, there could indeed be

regrets that substantially more aggressive measures were not taken earlier. OTA has also looked

at some of the more aggressive measures that

would be appropriate if the likelihood of climate

change is considered high.

The policy options presented in this report to

enhance the flexibility and robustness of the

various resource systems represent a gradation

from ‘‘learn more about the natural resource

system” to “improve the technology or knowhow required for adaptation” to “relax the

institutional constraints that tend to inhibit the

ability or incentive to respond. ” This gradation

depends on whether the ability to respond to

climate change is limited by information, by

available technologies, or by the institutions that

govern the system.

Coastal systems and water resources (discussed in vol. 1, chs. 4 and 5, respectively) face

many institutional factors that may limit adaptation. Theoretically, there is enough water to

supply needs throughout the United States, even

under climate change. We know how to move

water from one place to another and have

technologies to save water or even to make fresh

water from salt water. However, the complex

system of water rights, lack of incentives to

conserve water, and limits on the transferability

of water result in daunting institutional constraints and inflexibility. In coastal systems, the

infrastructure of roads and bridges and subsidized

flood insurance encourage a degree of development in high-risk zones that maybe economically

unwise even under current climate conditions and

sea levels.

In agriculture, market incentives and annual

planting cycles make the system quite responsive,

or flexible, to change. As long as there are

continued efforts in research, technology, and

innovation that expand the base on which adaptation can proceed, coping with climate change

should be relatively easy for agriculture--barring

catastrophic changes (vol. 1, ch. 6). Yet, whether

adaptation is optimal may depend greatly on our

ability to remove certain institutional incentives

that may encourage uneconomic farming of areas
Chapter l-Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options I 19

where climatic risks are high. In this regard, farm

subsidies and disaster-assistance programs need

review and, likely, adjustment.

For less-managed systems, our ability to facilitate natural adaptation is limited by inadequate

information or understanding of natural processes

and by the narrow range of available and suitable

technologies for adaptation. In wetlands (vol. 2,

ch. 4), sea level rise and changes in the timing and

amount of precipitation will exacerbate ongoing

habitat loss. Efforts to reduce current loss will

make the system more robust and improve

chances for adaptation to climate change. Actions

to minimize the possibility of irreversible damage

should receive high priority. For forests and

natural preserves (vol. 2, chs. 5 and 6), climate

change may make the continued existence of

unique assemblages of plants and animals questionable. Natural areas have become the repository of biodiversity in the United States. Yet little

is known about maintainingg, changing, restoring,

or transplanting natural ecosystems. There is no

systematic effort to document what is currently

preserved and how that can be augmented or

protected under climate change, Enhancing these

areas through strategic acquisitions of land or

land easements and through innovative coordination of management with adjacent landowners

offers great promise as an approach for maximizing protection of biodiversity. Filling in gaps in

our knowledge through research would allow us

to better manage and protect these areas and to

reduce the risk of decline under climate change.

OVERARCHING POLICY THEMES

As we developed and evaluated policy options,

using the criteria described above, for the six

different resource sectors examined in this report,

many sector-specific policy options appeared to

coalesce into several broad themes, or problems.

Four particular themes were found to be shared by

several or all of the sectors:

■ geographic and institutional fragmentation,

W inadequate communication of climate risk,

H the need for contingency planning, and

■ an ongoing Federal research effort-the

U.S. Global Change Research Program--

that will not fill many key research and

information gaps.

Each chapter addresses these themes within the

context of the appropriate resource sector, but the

common threads are highlighted here. Below, we

describe the overarching themes more fully and

illustrate some possible directions Congress could

take to begin addressing these broader policy

challenges. Box 1-C examines some specific

options from the resource chapters, and relates

them to these common themes.

H Fragmentation

A key problem in natural resource management

is that the most sensible management units from

a resource perspective—watersheds or ecosystems—rarely correspond to the boundaries

within which resources are actually managed.

Furthermore, resources are usually owned and

managed for multiple purposes. Many different

government agencies and private owners may

have some responsibility for the management of

a given resource, with differing incentives motivating its management and use. As a result,

resources may be fragmented geographically and

jurisdictionally.

One aspect of fragmentation is the geographical division of landscapes and ecosystems that

results from uncoordinated development and the

encroachment of human activity. Such activity

has left few ecosystems intact in the lower 48

States (the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is

often cited as the most important remaining

example). In most parts of the country, remaining

natural areas have become ‘‘islands’ of habitat,

surrounded by developed or altered landscapes

and vulnerable to a variety of human stresses (see

vol. 2, box 5-E). This fragmentation of former

large ecosystems has led to greater stress on the

natural resources within the remaining fragments.

Many natural areas, including the federally pro-
20 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box 1-C--Solutions from General to Specific: Addressing the Overarching Problems

During the course of developing policy options for coping with climate change, OTA heard repeatedly from

many experts that climate change alone is not necessarily the most worrisome threat to natural resources. Rather,

climate change is likely to exacerbate various trends and problems that already plague natural resource

management. Current management policies and practices for coasts, water resources, agriculture, wetlands,

natural areas, and forests are perceived in many quarters as being inadequate in ways that not only hinder

management today, but could impose greater constraints under a changing climate. Four particular problems were

found to be common to several or all of the sectors: 1) Institutional and geographical fragmentation;

2) inadequate communication of information that would improve response to climatic risks; 3) lack of

contingency planning and, other measures to prepare for extreme events or weather surprises; and

4) information gaps in various key scientific and policy areas.

Addressing these overarching problems will pose numerous challenges for Congress and Federal agendas.

All four problems have been recognized to varying degrees in the past, but progress toward solving them has been

slow. Attempting to solve any of them could require far-reaching policy changes, but small piecemeal actions could

be undertaken for individual resource sectors by many different government agencies or by congressional

appropriations, legislation, and oversight committees. Big, bold policy changes could accomplish the job more

uniformly or effectively, but reaching agreement on solutions and then garnering sufficient support to implement

them could prove impossible. Incremental changes do not require such widespread support and may accomplish

specific goals, but such policies can also detract from needed larger changes by leaving the impression that no

further action is necessary.

In the resource and research chapters of this report (vols. 1 and 2, ohs. 3 through 6), we suggest numerous

policy options that address parts of the four overarching problems in waysthat are specific to each resource sector.

In many cases these resource-specific options could be formulated in broader terms to attempt across-the-board

solutions to the overarching problems identified above. Furthermore, many of the sector-specific options are

interconnected, and could be more effective if enacted in a coordinated way. In some cases, any of several

different resource-specific policy options could form a first step toward solving an overarching problem. A few of

these options are described below.

Fragmentation

Options to help reduce Institutional fragmentation include:

■ Promoting the reestablishment and strengthening of Federal-State river basin commissions to improve

coordination among agencies. (Vol. 1, option 5-11 -’’Wade”)”)

■ promoting integrated resource management at the watershed level. (Vol. 2, option 4-22--’’Wetland.”)

● Creating a Federal coordinating council for ecosystem management. (Vol. 2, option 5-12-’’ Preserves.”)

■ Amending the Science Policy Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-262) to strengthen the ability of the Office of Science and

Technology Policy (OSTP) and the Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and Technology

(FCCSET) to coordinate research and ecosystem management across agencies. (Vols. 1 and 2, option

3-1—’’Research.”)

Although these options seem varied, all four address, in some way, the problem of institutional fragmentation and

the need for greater coordination and integrated management. If enacted individually, these policies could focus

on specific problems in the management of water resources, wetlands, and preserves. However, any of the four

could also serve as part of a larger effort to coordinate the management of all three retirees. Reinstated river

basin commissions could form a local base for watershed management that could be broadened to include

attention to wetlands and other natural areas within the watershed. Similarly, a Federal coordinating council for

ecosystem management could use watershed units as one level of coordination and examine the interac-
Chapter 1--Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options 21

tion of water resources with other natural resources in that unit. The problem in trying to expand any of these

individual options to cover the overarching concerns would be in how best to assign authority and enforcement

capabilities for any coordinating agency without interfering with the jurisdiction of the agencies to be coordinated.

Options to help reduce geographic fragmentation include:

Identifying and assigning priorities to the wetlands that are most important to protect and restore. (Vol. 2, option

4-19--’’Wetlands.”)

Directing agencies to modify their criteria for land acquisition to include underrepresented ecosystems and

long-term survivability. (Vol. 2, option 5-9--’’Preserves.”)

Using current conservation incentive programs administered by the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to

enhance the Federal effort to protect natural areas. (Vol. 2, option 5-10-’’ Preserve”)”)

Protecting highly valued forest sites. (Vol. 2, option 6-4--’’Forests.”)

Providing incentives to reduce fragmentation of private forestland. (Vol. 2, option 6-5--’’Forests.”)

Several of the policy options for wetlands, preserves, and forests either explicitly address the problem of

geographic fragmentation or could be used to do so. The options listed above would promote priority setting for

land acquisition or restoration of valuable natural areas, including wetlands, forests, and other types of preserves.

Reducing landscape fragmentation could be viewed as a high-priority goal. Furthermore, existing conservation

incentive programs of various types could be required to focus on the lands most valuable for preventing or

ameliorating fragmentation.

Communication of climate risk

Options to communicate risk through modifying subsidies include:

Raising premium rates for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policyholders who receive subsidized

flood insurance. (Vol. 1, option 4-1-’’Coasts.”)

Reducing the Federal share of public disaster assistance. (Vol. 1, option 4-7–-"Coasts.”)

Reforming pricing in Federal water projects. (Vol. 1, option 5-5--’’Water.”)

Defining disasters formally, with assistance provided only for unusual losses. (Vol. 1, option 6-3--’’Agriculture.”)

improving participation in the crop-insurance program. (Vol. 1, option 6-5-’’Agricuitur”)”)

Eliminating incentives to destroy wetlands. (Vol. 2, option 4-8--’’Wetlands.”)

Reducing Federal subsidies, such as Coastal Zone Management funds and flood insurance, in areas that have

not established setback or “planned retreat” policies. (Vol. 2, option 4-16--’ ’Wetlands.”)

One of the major ways the Federal Government affects the responsiveness to climate risk is in the distribution of

public money for disaster assistance and insurance subsidies. Subsidized and regulated prices distort the

perception of changing risks and could slow the response to growing water scarcity and to increases in the

frequency of droughts, floods, and storms. The options listed above suggest that policies to reduce or eliminate

such subsidies could be beneficial in encouraging greater precautions and faster responses to changing climate

risk in nearly every individual resource sector-as well as in reducing Federal spending in an era of constrained

budgets. If enacted together, these options could go a long way toward addressing the overarching problem of

misperception of risk.

Options to communicate risk through tax signals include:

■ Eliminating or reducing tax benefits for coastal development (such as the casualty-loss deduction). (Vol. 1,

option 4-16—’’Coasts.”)

■ Reforming tax provisions to promote conservation investments. (Vol. 1, option 5-4--’’Water.”)

■ Using current conservation incentive programs administered by the Secretaries of Agriculture and interior to

enhance the Federal effort to protect natural areas. (Vol. 2, option 5-9--’’ Preserves.”)

(Continued on next page)
22 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box 1-C--Solutions from General to Specific:

Addressing the Overarching Problems--(Continued)

The U.S. Tax Code can provide both incentives and disincentives for financial risks. Tax incentives can be used

to encourage behavior that might reduce risks to humans and the environment, including investments in water

conservation and in protecting natural areas. Tax disincentives could be used to help prevent unproductive

behavior, such as coastal development in high-risk zones or where development leads to the destruction of

wetlands or creates barriers against their movement inland as the sea level rises.

Other options to communicate risk include:

■ Improving the research and extension process (develop a database on successful practices; expand farmer

involvement; provide support for on-farm experimentation). (Vol. 1, option 6-11 -’’Agriculture.”)

■ Incorporating climate change scenarios into forest plans and assessments, (Vol. 2, option 6-11--"Forests.”)

■ Eliminating the even-flow-harvest requirement of the National Forest Management Act (P.L. 94-588), which

falsely implies that future timber supplies will be stable). (Vol. 2, option 6-12--"Forests.”)

■ Incorporating sea level rise into National Flood Insurance Program mapping. (Vol. 2, option 4-5--"Coasts.")

The Government is the source of considerable information that can serve to improve private sector response to

a changing climate. Outreach and extension services will be valuable in communicating changes in the

effectiveness of farm management techniques and crop choices, speeding the process of adaptation. Inventories,

monitoring, climate data, and resource--status assessments will indicate trends in natural resource conditions and

signal changes in the future supply of products and service from natural resource systems. Better understanding

of these trends will help businesses and individuals to anticipate and adjust more effectively to changing future

conditions. Inappropriate signals about climate risk that create an unrealistic expectation of stable conditions may

encourage unwise financial investments in resource-dependent communitiesthat are at risk of decline. The pubic

generally is not well-informed about the risks associated with living in coastal areas, and this lack of awareness

has led and will continue to lead to large public and private expenditures. Educating people now about the risk

of a rising sea level could greatly reduce future damages.

Contingency planning

Options to formalize contingency planning include:

■ Creating an interagency drought task force to develop a national drought policy and plan. (Vol. 1, option

5-16--’’Water.")

■ Creating a national flood-assessment board, (Vol. 1, option 5-17--’’Water.”)

■ Establishing criteria for intervention in order to protect or restore forest health through a forest health bill. (Vol.

2, option 6-7--"Forests.n)

Droughts, forest fires, floods, and hurricanes have all become the focus of public attention in recent years after

events such as the nationwide drought in 1988, the 5-year California drought of 1988-1992, the Mississippi floods

in the summer of 1993, and Hurricanes Hugo and Andrew in 1988 and 1992. in many cases, contingency plans

set up to deal with such disasters were either inadequate or nonexistent. Policy options for water resources and

forests suggest different types of contingency planning that may help address future disasters as the climate

changes. Because the presence of forests and wetlands moderates how water moves through the landscape, both

should be considered in flood planning and development.

Options that add a measure of “insurance” against catastrophic events include:

■ Increasing support for the development of new commercial crops. (Vol. 1, option 6-14--"Agriculture.”)

■ Conducting research on natural resources to prepare for climate change (restoration ecology, preservation of

biodiversity, effective preserve design). (Vol. 2, option 5-2--’’Preserves.”)

■ Directing agencies to modify their criteria for land acquisition to include underrepresented ecosystems and

brig-term survivability. (Vol. 2, option 5-9--’’ Preserves.”)
Chapter 1--Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options 23

● Enhancing forest seed banks and genetics research programs. (Vol. 2, option 6-1--”Forests.”)

Preparing for extreme future climate conditions through the development of technologies or institutions will assist

in recovery and can help reduce the threat of future damage. The development of crops well-suited to harsher

future climate may provide some insurance against a steep decline in our agricultural sector. Contingency

preparations for forests and preserves must consider the potential need for active restoration or protection if natural

processes become excessively disturbed. Seed banks may provide the material to rebuild a forest in the event

of severe decline and loss of spades or populations from their natural range.

Information gaps

Options to help decrease these gaps include:

■ Supporting long-term research and monitoring on the impacts of climate change on wetlands. (Vol. 2, option

4-24--’’Wetlands.”)

■ Increasing funding f or ecological research in the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). (Vol. 2,

option 5-1—’’Preserves.”)

● Supporting coordinated research in federally protected natural areas. (Vol. 2, option 5-4--’’Preserves.”)

■ Creating a national program for inventorying and monitoring. (Vol. 2, option 5-5-’’Preserves.”)

■ Using the Experimental Forests for research on adaptation to climate change. (Vol. 2, option 6-2—’’Forests.”)

● Using existing monitoring and inventorying efforts to identify causes and effects of forest decline. (Vol. 2,option

6-6--’’Forests.") 

■ Creating an Integrated Assessment program within or outside USGCRP positioned above the agency level.

(Vols. 1 and 2, option 3-8--’’ Research.”)

● Creating an adaptation and mitigation research program either within USGCRP or separate but parallel to it.

(Vols. 1 and 2, option 3-5--’’Research.”)

Many policy options suggest particular research questions or promote the use of specific existing programs to

address some of the information gaps regarding climate change. Coordinating these different research efforts

and ensuring that each considers some of the related concerns of others might yield synergistic results. For

example, while the Experimental Forests should be useful sites for examining how forests may adapt to climate

change, research could be focused more broadly to consider issues that affect natural areas (including questions

of how to maintain biodiversity and how to restore damaged ecosystems) and forested wetlands.

While these research programs in individual areas are forming useful building blocks toward solving the

overarching problem of lack of knowledge, a broader program of coordinated research across-the-board could also

be attempted. Some of the research listed could be coordinated under the Ecological Systems and Processes

priority group in the USGCRP. However, the USGCRP goals and purview need to be broadened to include

ecosystem research, adaptation and mitigation research, and an iterative integrated assessment in order to be

more useful to policy-making.

tected natural areas, may not be large enough to sheds, for example, for dozens of Federal, State,

withstand future stresses such as climate change.

Managing smaller areas as individual parcels in

an uncoordinated manner and without larger

needs in mind has become part of the problem.

A second aspect of fragmentation is the inefficiency that results from a lack of coordination in

management across government agencies. It is

not uncommon in even relatively small waterand local agencies to share jurisdiction overwater

and other natural resources. For instance, the

Delaware River Basin is divided among four

States (fig. 1-3). Responsibility for water resources alone in this basin is divided among at

least 10 agencies in each of the four States and

among more than 20 Federal agencies. In most

basins, responsibility for groundwater manage-
24 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Figure 1-3-The Delaware River Basin

v A\ \ (

Albany 0/

u

PENNSYLVANIA

){Xz!!$+5Wp1% .-

\ 9

MARYIAND

&P

Washi on, DC

Zi

\ DELAWARE )
Chapter 1--Synthesis, Summary, and

ment is separate from that for surface-water

management (see also vol. 1, box 5-D). Water

quality and water quantity are usually treated

separately. And jurisdiction over navigation,

recreation, flood control, and wetlands may also

be split, although all these aspects of water

resource management are related and may affect

one another. Problems are encountered in managing a single reservoir as if its operation does not

affect how others within a basin are operated, or

in managing to control floods without considering the role of wetlands. The result of this

jurisdictional fragmentation is often seen in

conflicting efforts, high management costs, and

foregone opportunities to provide better overall

service. These inefficiencies may be of increasing

concern if climate changes threaten the supply

and services of natural resources. Box 1-D

describes the complexities of trying to manage a

growing urban center, agricultural areas, and

the Everglades of South Florida (see also vol. 1,

box 5-B).

More effective management for coping with

current and potential future stresses on natural

resources and built systems is possible and

needed. Today’s agency-by-agency, owner-byowner, and system-by-system management

approach leaves much to be desired. Many

improvements can be made by going beyond our

customary fragmented style of management to

consider more comprehensively the services of

watersheds, ecosystems, and landscapes (see vol.

2, box 5-F). Within most sectors or systems

examined in this report, we have identified

options that can begin moving toward more

integrated management and reduced geographical

fragmentation: breaking down institutional barriers among agencies, acquiring and consolidating

natural areas, and providing private owners with

incentives to maintain the environmental services

of a landscape. Regional priorities could be used

to direct activities in regulatory, acquisition, and

incentive programs. We also consider some more

fundamental changes, such as creating major new

programs and reorganizing agency responsibilities, which can be pursued

Policy Options I 25

if the political will

exists. However, neither breaking down institutional barriers nor altering private incentives will

be easy. Watershed management, for example,

has been discussed for many years, but established styles of management have changed little

to date. Nevertheless, watershed management

seems to be a concept whose time has come: the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), backed

by the current Administration, has strongly advocated the approach, and watershed management is

being considered in current legislation to reauthorize the Clean Water Act (P.L. 92-500) (see

vol. 1, box 5-c).

More integrated planning and management

along watershed and ecosystem lines is likely to

be one of the best ways for the Nation to promote

the flexibility, robustness, and efficiency that is

desirable in coping with the uncertain impacts of

climate change.

I Communication of Climate Risk

If climate changes as predicted, resource managers and individuals will find it necessary to

adjust to new circumstances. Certain parts of the

country are likely to become much less desirable

Hurricanes and other tropical storms cause millions of

dollars’ worth of damage each year as homes, boats,

and businesses are destroyed by high winds and water.

Some Federal programs and regulations encourage

redevelopment in high-risk areas without requiring

appropriate safety measures.
26 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

places to live and work. Even where climate

changes are less harsh., current management

practices and lifestyles may not continue to be

appropriate. The speed with which resource

managers and individuals can recognize and

respond effectively to new climate conditions

will largely determine the economic and social

costs of climate change. Adaptation to change is

likely to be delayed by the inherent difficulties in

recognizing climate change against the background of normal climate variability. Responsiveness to changing climate risks may be further

impeded by existing Federal programs designed

to protect individuals from the financial risks of

climatic extremes. It maybe enhanced by providing information about the nature of climate

change risks, the changing resource situation, and

the likely success of particular adjustments in

resource-management techniques. Effective communication of the nature of climate-related risks

can be promoted through formal educational

efforts or through appropriate incentives.

The Government could better communicate

climate risk by reducing the various public

subsidies for developments in areas of high risk.

The public has come to depend heavily on

government disaster assistance and subsidized

insurance programs, which helps reduce exposure

to the financial risks from climate extremes. Such

programs have been valuable in allowing the

productive use of resources in areas of highly

variable climate. Problems may arise, however, if

the financial buffer provided by these Federal

programs unintentionally encourages people to

move into environments where they may be

exposed to greater risk in the future, or reduces

incentives to take adequate precautions against

climate risk. Because development decisions are

not easily reversible, and the consequences of

decisions taken now are, in some cases, likely to

be with us for many decades, it seems prudent to

begin reexamining policies that may encourage

development in climate-sensitive areas. Private

citizens should recognize the true costs of extending farms into economically marginal areas,

building structures in areas of high forest-fire risk,

or locating buildings in coastal erosion zones.

We assessed two systems in which a reexamination of current risk protection policies may be

especially important in the face of climate

change: coastal areas and agriculture (see vol. 1,

chs. 4 and 6). Flooding and erosion are of

particular concern in coastal areas, and these

hazards could increase in a warmer climate. We

discuss options in the coastal and agriculture

chapters that could help owners respond more

effectively to climate change and that would

decrease potential future exposure to climate risk.

For example, the National Flood Insurance Program has been only partially successful in reducing the need for taxpayer-funded disaster assistance and in encouraging local mitigation efforts.

In agriculture, Federal Crop Insurance, various

disaster-assistance programs, and irrigation subsidies all tend to distort the manner in which

farmers respond to climate risks. (See box 1-Eon

water allocation in the Sacramento-San Joaquin

River System and box 1-F on agriculture in the

prairie-pothole region.) Improvements can and

should be made in these program to ensure that in

the future, individuals, communities, and the

Federal Government are not exposed to excessive costs.

Equally important may be quickly communicating the detection of any change in key climate

variables and other information that will assist in

the responses to changing climates. Farmers and

foresters, for example, may be reluctant to alter

practices until they are convinced climate has

actually changed. The potential role of the Extension Services in tracking the changing success of

farming and forestry practices and spreading this

information to managers may prove important in

reducing the costs of adaptation.

9 Contingency Planning

The goal of contingency planning is to minimize losses from natural disasters or accidents by

preparing in advance to take appropriate actions.
Chapter 1--Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options I 27

Contingency planning is important where the

threat of significant losses is high in the absence

of preparation and prompt response-as is the

case with floods, forest fires, droughts, and

hurricanes (see vol. 1, chs. 4 and 5 and box 4-C;

vol. 2, box 5-I). Climate change could affect the

intensity or number of extreme climate events,

making preparedness perhaps even more important than it is now. However, adequate contingency plans do not exist for all parts of the country

that are vulnerable to extreme events. For example, only 23 States have drought-management

plans (197). The States that do have them,

however, have generally adapted better to

droughts than those without plans (197). We

identified options that could help mitigate damages, including the ecological harm caused by

natural disasters. Improvements in contingency

planning would be helpful both to minimize

near-term damages and to prepare for potentially

greater damages caused by climate change.

States have a key role in plannin g for most

extreme events and must continue to do so. States

should be encouraged to develop contingency

plans or to refine them with climate change in

mind. The Federal Government also has a role in

planning for natural disasters, with many agencies involved in some way in this activity (see

cartoon on page 34). However, the Federal

Government could do better at defining the

respective roles of the agencies that have responsibilities for extreme events. It could also promote

stronger coordination among Federal agencies

and among the various levels of government in

establishing requirements for assistance and in

providing such assistance in a more timely,

consistent, and equitable manner.

Contingency planning is also important when

emergency measures are likely to be controversial; it allows potential responses to be considered

in advance when there can be rational debate.

Such controversies are very likely to be associated with any efforts to restore the health of

natural ecosystems that have been severely

harmed by climate-related stresses. This is wellillustrated by difficulties now faced in responding

to “massively destructive forest health problems” in the Blue Mountain forests of Eastern

Oregon (176; see vol. 2, ch. 6 and box 6-E).

Although there is general agreement that major

changes in management are needed in those

forests, the response has been slow, and agreement about how to proceed has been hard to

achieve. Procedures for responding to ecosystem

health emergencies should be established.

9 Research and Information Gaps

The individual resource chapters outline the

important research gaps that need to be addressed

for coasts, water resources, agriculture, wetlands,

preserves, and forests. Overall, we found that

various strategies for coping with climate change

can be identified for managed natural-resourcebased systems (including the coastal zone, water

resources, and agriculture--see vol. 1, chs. 4-6).

Some of these strategies may require continued

support for research on new technologies or

management practices that will enhance the

potential for adaptation. For natural systems,

however (e.g., wetlands, unmanaged forests, and

nature preserves-see vol. 2, chs. 4-6), the

informational gaps in our understanding of these

systems are so large that realistic response

strategies are difficult or impossible to identify

now (see also vol. 2, box 5-K).

Although an estimated $900 million is spent

annually on what can be considered research in

‘‘environmental life sciences’ (54) or ‘‘environmental biology,”6

there is currently very little

research directed specifically at protecting natural

areas under climate change and helping land

managers modify management strategies to re6 J. ~5z, ~wutive swm~, su~mfittw on ~wirorlmenti Biology, Committee on Life Scienees md Hw.W Fede~ coordiKMtins

Council for Scienee, Engineering, and ‘IWmology, personal communication, Sept. 14, 1993. Only 11 percent of these expenditures overlaps

with the Federal Global Change Research Program budget.
28 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box 1-D--Climate Change, South Florida, and the Everglades

Lying dose to sea level and in the preferred path of a sizable percentage of Atlantic hurricanes, South Florida

is potentiality one of the most vulnerable areas of the United States to climate change. it is also one of the moat

distinctive. South Florida’s famed Everglades, a vast subtropical wetland of which about one-seventh is preserved

in Everglades National Park, is seen by many as one of the crown jewels of the U.S. National Park System. Miami,

Palm Beach, and other coastal communities in South Florida makeup one of the most popular seaside vacation

destinations in the world. Despite hurricane and flood hazards,these cities have experienced phenomenal growth

in recent years. In addition, varieties of crops can be grown in the warm, subtropical climate that grow nowhere

else in the United States. And Miami has become a gateway between North and South America, transforming

South Florida into an important international crossroads.

Despite, or perhaps because of, its distinctiveness and popularity, South Florida is under stress and, like a

few other heavily developed parts of the United States, beginning to bump up against limits to growth. The critical

factor is water. Although the region receives an annual average of 80 inches (152 centimeters) of rain, annual

evaporation can sometimes exceed this amount and rainfall variability from year to year is quite high, resulting

in periodic droughts and floods. In the past century, moreover, South Florida has been transformed from a virtual

wilderness into a complex, interconnected system of developed and undeveloped land. The main elements of this

system-the growing urban sector, agricultural areas, and the Everglades and other remaining natural

areas--must all compete for the limited supply of water, and the competition is increasing with every new resident.

Much of the growth of South Florida has occurred since 1870. Then, fewer than 100 people lived in what are

now Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. Now, about 5.2 million people occupy the same area The vast

unaltered Everglades, which originally extended from Lake Okeechobee to Florida Bay, were seen by early settlers

as hostile to human welfare and completely without value. Encouraged by a grant from the U.S. Congress, the

State of Florida began draining these “useless’’ wetlands for agriculture, and by the earty 20th century, the natural

character of the Everglades had begun to change. Farmers planted sugar cane and a variety of vegetables in the

drained area south of Lake Okeechobee now known as the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA).

The initial drainage system worked well enough during normal years but was stressed during occasional

abnormal events and failed completely during a major hurricane in 1928. At that time, 2,000 people died in the

EAA when the protective dike around Lake Okeechobee burst. This incident prompted the Initiation of a massive

public works project, as attention shifted from drainage of wetlands to flood control. Eventually, an 85-mile

(137-kilometer)1 earthen dike was built around Lake Okeechobee, and the meandering 98-mile Kissimmee River,

which fed the lake from the north, was transformed into a canal 48 miles long and 33 feet (10 meters) deep.

Flooding problems diminished, but the former broad, riverlike system north of Everglades National Park has been

greatly altered into a series of canals and pools. The former sheet-like flow of water to the park, necessary to its

health, has been blocked. Today, the area has more than 1,395 miles of canals and levees and 143 water-control

structures.

Projects to expand the supply of water to growing urban centers proceededin tandem with flood-control

projects. To accommodate demands for agricultural and urban expansion, diking and draining of wetlands

continued, and as the expansion progressed, more water was diverted for these purposes. Today, additional water

is diverted for sewage dilution, pest control, and frost protection. Some water is used to recharge aquifers that

supply cities east of the Everglades and the populated areas of the Florida Keys. Large quantities of water that

could be recycled or used to recharge urban aquifers are dumped into the Atlantic Ocean (see vol. 1, oh. 5, and

vol. 2, oh. 4, for complete discussions of water and wetland issues).

A major effect of this decades-long restructuring of the natural hydrological system has been to drastically

reduce the supply of water from the Kissimmee River watershed that reaches the much-diminished-in-size

1 To convert miles to kilometers, multiply by 1.609.
Chapter 1--Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options 29

Everglades. The natural system has suffered in several ways as a result: 1) the abundance of species

characteristic of Everglades habitats (e.g., wood storks, white ibis, tri-colored herons, and snowy egrets) has

declined dramatically in the past 50 years, 2) more than a dozen native species have been listed as endangered

or threatened (e.g., the Florida panther, snail kite, Cape Sable seaside sparrow, American alligator, and American

crocodile), 3) nonnative and nuisance species have invaded the area (e.g., Melaleuca quinquinervia and the

Brazilian pepper tree), 4) sizable land subsidence and water-level declines have occurred throughout the region,

5) water quality has been degraded by agricultural runoff containing excessive nutrients, such as phosphorus,

6) saltwater intrusion of coastal aquifers has occurred, 7) vulnerabilitytofire has increased, and 8) massive algal

blooms have appeared in Florida Bay, accompanied by die-offs of shrimp, lobster, sponge beds, and many fish.

The impacts of development have not been limited to natural areas. As water use in the region has grown,

susceptibility to periodic droughts has increased. A 1981 drought, for example, led to mandatory water restrictions

for half the counties of South Florida and water rationing in the EAA. Pollution from cities, as well as from

agricultural areas, has added to water-quality problems. Saltwater intrusion threatens aquifers used for urban

water supplies.

Everglades National Park was created in 1947, the culmination of efforts that began in the 1920s. The

transition of the Everglades from being perceived as ‘Worthless land” to an important preserve worthy of

designation as an International Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Site took decades, but preservation of this

area and restoration of other degraded wetlands are now considered high priority by a broad spectrum of people

and organizations. Although there is broad agreement that the hydrology of the Everglades should be restored

to a pattern similar to that found in the original system, it will not be easy to balance the needs of the Everglades

for water with the similar needs of other users.

South Florida’s Everglades and coastal areas, clearly already under stress, face an unusually difficult problem

in the light of global climate change. Both are already vulnerable to sea level rise and intense tropical storms (see

vol. 1, ch. 4). (Damage from Hurricane Andrew, for example, was not confined to urban areas--coastal mangrove

forests were heavily damaged, as were trees in many densely forested hammocks.) Climate change could

increase the current vulnerability to these events. Climate change may also result in a hotter and drier climate for

South Florida, although predictions from general circulation models (GCMs) are not consistent on this point.

Whatever occurs, the future is likely to be increasingly stressful for South Florida. Cities are likely to continue to

grow and will almost certainty be protected from sea level rise, but the expense of protecting them could be

immense. The Everglades, once deemed worthless, is now considered a valuable natural resource. As valuable

as it is, however, the Everglades will probably not receive the same attention as cities threatened by rising seas

will. Farmers are likely to resist attempts to hinder or reduce long-established patterns of agriculture in favor of other

uses for water. In short, South Florida is a system increasingly “close to the edge.” The flexibility to satisfy

competing interests for water and land has been reduced by actions taken since the turn of the century, and climate

change may further reduce flexibility.

in recent years, some efforts have been made to offset some of the damage to the Everglades and restore

some of the Iost flexibility to the natural system. In 1970, for example, Congress directed that not less than 315,000

acre-feet (389 million cubic meters) of water be delivered annually to Everglades National Park. In 1989, Congress

enacted the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act (P.L. 101-229), one purpose of which was

to enable more natural flow of water through a portion of the park. More recently, the Federal Government sued

the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation for not upholding its own water-quality laws, thereby allowing

degradation of the Everglades to continue. As a result, the State has agreed to design and construct treatment

areas in the EAA where drainage could be filtered before it is discharged to the park. The State has also directed

the South Florida Water Management District to implement an Everglades Surface Water Improvement and

Management Plan. Finally, as authorized in the 1992 Water Resources Development Act (P.L. 101-640), the US.

Army Corps of Engineers will soon begin a long-term project to restore the Kissimmee River to an approximation

(Continued on next page)
30 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Box 1-D--Climate Change, South Florida, and the Everglades--(Continued)

of its original meandering route, thereby increasing wetlands north of Lake Okeechobee, helping to improve water

quality in the lake, and increasing the water-storage capacity of the entire Everglades system.

Although important steps are being taken to restore the Everglades, some major obstacles are stymieing the

more comprehensive ecosystem plating that will be required to address the full range of South Florida’s current

and climate-change-related problems. One of the most vexing, and one encountered many times In OTA’s study,

is the lack of coordination among the responsible State and Federal agencies. Part of the problem is a result of

a lackof shared values among agencies and among the constituencies they represent. Furthermore, each agency

has a different mandate, and agencies’ jurisdictional boundaries seldom coincide with boundaries of natural

systems. One might expect that the preservation mandate of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida

Department of Environmental Regulation would often dash with the fIood-control mandate of the Corps of

Engineers and with the interests of EAA farmers, and such has been the case in South Florida. However, lack of

coordination has extended even to agencies with similar mandates; a prominent example has been the difficulty

of reconciling the National Park Service’s ecosystem-wide approach to restoring the Everglades with the Fish and

Wildlife Service's mandate under the Endangered Species Act (P.L. 100-707) to focus on protection of individual

species.

Recently, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt expressed a strong interest in Everglades National Park and has

made dear his intention to get the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service to work more closely

together to develop a common policy. Babbitt has also announced plans to form a Federal taskforce in an attempt

to overcome some of the coordination problems.

The broader challenge for the region is to manage this complex system in an integrated fashion to maximize

the health of all its diverse elements. This is no small challenge because it may be very difficult to sustain agriculture

without environmental costs, for example, or for urban areas to continue to grow indefinitely without some

restraints. The effort to sort through these problems must take place with some understanding of what climate

change may mean.

SOURCES: S. Light, L. Gunderson, and C. Holling, “The Everglades: Evolution of Management in a Turbulent Ecosystem," University of

Florida, Arthur C. Marshall Laboratory, unpublished manuscript, 1993; National Audubon

Everglades and Endangered Species(New York: National Audubon

Society, Report of the Advisory Panel on the 

Society, 1992);J. de Golia, Everglades: The Story Behind the Scenery

(Las Vegas, NV: KC Publications, Inc., 1978); K. Kemezis, "BabbittToTest Ecosystem Policy in the Everglades,"Environment Week, Feb.

25, 1993.

spend to climate change. In 1992, only $8 million or the ecological information that would be

was spent on research focused on adaptation to helpful in providing policy guidance and adaptaclimate change.7

tion options for natural systems. Overall,

The U.S. Global Change Research Program USGCRP is more focused on understanding the

(USGCRP) is a $1.4 billion research program. causes for and rates of climate change8 than on

However, as currently designed, it will not examining the ecological and human impacts of

provide either the practical technologies that change (see ch. 3 for a more complete explanation

might make us more prepared for climate change of USGCRP). The agencies primarily responsible

7 The Working Group on Mitigation and Adaptation Research Strategies (disbanded in 1992) of the Committee on Earth and Environmental

Sciences of FCCSET identified Federal research that focuses on or contributes to adaptation to global change (24).

8 USGCRP is designed to produce a predictive understanding of the Earth system and focuses on three interrelated streams of activity:

documenting global change (observations), enhancing understanding of key processes (process research), and predicting global and regional

environmental change (integrated modeling and prediction). For FY 1994, a fourth activity stream, assessment, was added.
Chapter 1--Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options 31

Box l-E–Water Allocation and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River System

The complexity and divisiveness of western water problems--and the potential for climate change to

exacerbate those problems-is well-illustrated in the continuing battle over allocation of water in California The

Sacramento-San Joaquin River System, and especially the Delta area where the two rivers come together in

Northern California is the focal point of this conflict. Before western water development began, about 40 percent

of California’s runoff converged into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta on its way to San Francisco Bay and,

eventually, the Pacific Ocean. However, about half of this water is now diverted to Southern California, the San

Joaquin Valley, and parts of the Bay Area via the massive State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project

(CVP). The water delivered through these huge “plumbing” systems has enabled California’s semiarid Central

Valley to become one of the Nation’s prime agricultural areas and has been partly responsible for the phenomenal

population growth of Southern California’s mild coastal areas.

Agriculture is now firmly established in the Central Valley, and about 16 million people-over 70 percent of

the State’s population—now live in Southern California. Water supply is crucial to California: it has been the basis

for most agricultural, industrial, and economic development However, the transfer of water from Northern to

Southern California has not come without a cost to the river system and the State. Water supply and allocation

issues directly conflict with water-qualityand ecosystem concerns, and they pit interests of southern Californians

against those of Northern Californians. Three issues are of special concern.

Delta fisheries-The Delta and extended Sacramento-San Joaquin River System provide important habitat

for over 40 species of fish. Coho and chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and striped bass all reside in the river system

atone point in their lives and have been especially important to the recreational and commercial fishing industries.

Yet these species of fish have declined 50 percent or more since the early 1960s. Fewer than 500 winter run

salmon have returned to spawn each year in the Upper Sacramento in recent years, compared with the 60,000

per year that returned 20 years ago. Only 432 steelhead returned in 1966 compared with over 17,000 in 1967 (16).

The Delta smelt is dose to extinction. Causes of these dramatic declines include loss of habitat; water pollution;

dam, levee, and diversion-facility obstructions; and drought. When conditions are poor in the Delta--when

flows are low and water temperatures and exports are high-losses of young, ocean-bound salmon can be

very high.

Fishermen, as well as fish, have suffered. Fish losses have cost the local economy over $15 million per year

in recent years. In effect, the benefits to people who receive water diverted from the Delta have come partially at

the expense of both fish and fishing interests. In March 1993, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National

Marine Fisheries Service invoked the Endangered Species Act (P.L. 100-707) to protect winter run chinook salmon

and Delta smelt, setting limits on the operations of the Central Valley Project and intensifying a dispute between

State and Federal officials on how best to protect the Delta.

Delta farmland and levees-The Delta, once a natural marshland, was developed for farming around the

turn of the century and now contains almost 550,000 acres (223,000 hectares)1 of rich farmland. The marshland

was converted to a mosaic of over 70 islands by building over 1,100 miles (1 ,800 kilometers)2 of levees. The levee

system is fragile, however. The peat soils of the Delta have been gradually compacting, requiring that levees

constantly be raised or repaired. Many of the levee-surrounded Delta islands are now well below sea level.

Maintenance of the levee system is important for protecting life, property, and infrastructure from flooding on Delta

islands. Permanently flooded islands would also have major adverse effects on both water quality in the Delta and

freshwater supplies. Since 1960,24 levees have failed, and with each year, the fate of these islands becomes more

uncertain.

1 To convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405.

2 TO convert miles to kilometers, multiply by 1.609.

(continued on next page)
32 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box 1-E--Water Allocation and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River System--(Continued)

Water quality--Water quality in the Delta is of concern because of possible salinity intrusion into the western

Delta from San Francisco Bay, wastewater discharges that contain chemical pollutants, and the inflow of

agricultural drainage water that may contain pesticide residues and other toxic agents (18). Maintaining water

quality and ecological health in the Delta(by, among other things, ensuring that an adequate amount of fresh water

reaches the Delta) is legally required by the State but may conflict with water transfers and Iocal consumptive uses.

This is especially true during drought, when there may not be enough water to fulfill all demands. Drought poses

another problem as well: during low-flow periods, water temperature in system rivers increases, and this has

contributed significantly to the decline of odd-water anadromous fish species in recent years.

In sum, Californians are making heavy demands on the Sacramento-San Joaquin River System. They

recognize that the means of transferring water from the Delta must be improved to maintain water quality and to

enable more efficient transfer of supplies to the southern part of the State, but the issue has proved to be one of

the most controversial water problems in the West. In 1982, for example, California voters defeated a referendum

to build the so-died Peripheral Canal around the Delta to improve the system’s efficiency. Northern Californians

overwhelmingly rejected the proposal, for fear that the Delta’s environmentwould not be adequately protected and

because they perceived that populous Southern California was attempting yet another “water grab.” A/though

there was more support in Southern California, many in that part of the State feared the project's high cost.

Studies of the potential impact of climate change in California suggest--but have by no means proven--that

the regional effects of climate change could be reduced mountain snowpack, a shift in runoff patterns (i.e., in timing,

amount, or duration of precipitation), and large decreases in summer soil moisture. Specifically, a possible result

of warming temperatures is that more winter precipitation will fall as rain and a reduced mountain snowpack will

start melting earlier in the spring. As a result, reservoirs would fill faster. Because a portion of reservoir space must

be reserved for flood-control purposes, the additional water would have to be spilled. A/though California’s total

water budget might remain the same, less would be available during the summer, when water demand is highest

The reduced snowpack in effect represents the loss of one or more storage reservoirs. Maintaining adequate

freshwater flow to San Francisco Bay would be more difficult in summer and could increasingly conflict with water

needed for consumptive purposes. Summer temperatures would also likely increase in the Sacramento and other

rivers and represent a threat to fish.

A further complication could be sea level rise. The intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts a

total sea level rise of 28 inches (65 centimeters)3 by 2100. Such a rise would inundate the entire Delta area and

have devastating effects on Delta islands and water quality. A sea level rise of more than 2 feet would transform

the current 100-year high-tide peak at Antioch, a western Delta location, into a 1 in 10 event--making such rare

occurrences more common. Levees would be even more expensive, or even impossible, to maintain. Because

the Delta islands are developed for farming and valued for helping preserve water quality, the initial response to

incremental sea level rise is likely be to try to preserve the islands. In the long run, a phased retreat from the Delta

may have to be considered (142). Choosing between preservation at any price and abandonment would not be

easy.

If the above impacts occur (Or worse, if California’s water budget actuallydecreases), maintaining California’s

water supplies for consumptive purposes and maintaining the health of the Delta will be a great challenge. This

would be especially true during droughts, which, if more common than-and as extreme as--the current

drought In California, could have devastating impacts. A suite of demand-and-supply management and

supply-augmentation responses to the State’s water problems is being considered. No one response will be

sufficient Conservation and water marketing could significantly ease California’s water problems, but building new

reservoirs and even some desalination plants and other responses may be needed as well.

3 To convert inches to centimeters, multiply by 2.540.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.
Chapter 1--Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options 33

Box l-F-Changes in Agriculture and the Fate of Prairie Potholes:

The Impacts of Drought and Climate Change

The prairies comprise millions of acres over a vast geographical area that includes parts of Canada, and the

States of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and lowa.The region is characterized by a glaciated,

depressed topography with poorly defined drainage that results innumerous small lakes and wetlands known as

prairie potholes.1 Millions of potholes dot the landscape, providing an impermanent water source for the region’s

agricultural operations and diverse wildlife, including migratory waterfowl. Since the early 1960s, a general shift

in the structure of the agricultural economy has occurred in the prairie region, involving a move toward

more-intensive farming practices (60). The drainage of prairie potholes has been accelerated in order to bring more

land into production and to increase yields on existing cropland. However, drought conditions in recent years have

evoked concerns about the sustainability of the regional agriculture and wildlife and have raised questions about

impacts that may result from climate change.

The drying effects of climate change are certain to affect the prairie-pothole region by altering aquatic

conditions. Agricultural operations and wildlife rely on prairie potholes for water. An increase in temperature, which

would influence aridity in continental interior areas, would reduce available volumes, thereby putting both farming

and waterfowl at risk in addition to changes in the availability of surface water, water storage in the soil is likely

to decrease (134). Temperature changes may also mean an extended growing season, which could alter the

nesting and feeding habits of wildlife. in total, climate change will affect the region by increasing existing stress

on the prairie-pothole ecosystems and agriculture.

Agriculture operations in the prairie region have long provided the bulk of the Nation’s wheat supply. Wheat

is well-suited to the region’s dryland agriculture, with the majority of precipitation failing during the growing season

and with relatively cool temperatures keeping evapotranspiration rates down. Farming in the region has become

more and more intensive as agriculture has become increasingly mechanized. These developments have had a

considerable effect on the fate of prairie potholes, which have decreased from 20 million to 7 million acres (8 to

3 million hectares)2 leaving only 35 percent of the original pothole acreage intact (179). A poor farm economy in

the 1980s coupled with mechanization caused prairie farmers to push every possible acre into production. North

Dakota’s potholes were being drained at an estimated rate of 20,000 acres per year to support conversion to

agriculture (179). And drainage rates became similarly high in other prairie States, as farmers recognized the

potential value of new farmland.

NOW, although 20 percent of all remaining prairie potholes are protected, 3 prairie potholes are among the most

threatened ecosystems in the United States. They provide prime nesting grounds and habitat for a multitude of

waterfowl and other wildlife. Since the 1970s, populations of three common duck species (the mallard, the pintail,

and the blue-winged teal) have declined dramatically. Populations of some other species of duck less dependent

on potholes in agricultural regions have increased. The mallard, pintail, and blue-winged teal nest in the

drought-prone zone of intensive agriculture (1 19). These migratory waterfowl have lost not only extensive areas

of breeding habitat, but also adjacent vegetated areas once used for food and cover. Here,the detrimental effects

of the loss of wetlands cleared for agricultural use are dramatic; wildlife populations have likely been cut in half

(60).

1 Prarie-pothole wetlands are relatively shallow, water-holding depressions that vary in size, water

permanence, and water chemistry.They are located in the glaciated Portion of the North American Great Plains and

are the single most important breeding area for waterfowl on this continent (63). They also support a variety of other

wildlife.

2 TO convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405.

3 Protection includes, but is not limited to: ownership by Federal or State governments,short- and long-term

government easements, and ownership by private conservation groups.

(Continued on next page)
34 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Box 1-F--Changes in Agriculture and the Fate of Prairie Potholes

The Impacts of Drought and Climate Change--(Continued)

Though these changes have been occurring over along period of time, effects were most dramatic during

recent drought conditions in the region. Severe drought marked both the 1988 and the 1989 growing seasons in

North Dakota, the heart of the country’s spring wheat production area (143). This dry spell was the second to occur

during the 1980s and the fourth serious drought in the past three decades (143). The Iack of precipitation and

subsequent loss of soil moisture resulted in dramatic decreases in agricultural yields and in abandonment of some

cropland. Despite the grain crop losses (some more than 70 percent), net farm income and farmed acreage did

not suffer. This was basically due to government drought assistance, in the form of insurance and direct aid The

combination of insurance, aid, and the higher grain prices requiting from the drought helped farmers avoid losses

that might ultimately have led to extensive farm failure and abandonment

Climate change may significantly alter growing conditions in the prairie region. Changes resulting from global

warming may decrease both water depth and the number of ponds holding water in the spring and summer. This

aspect is likely to further influence the degradation of waterfowl and wildlife habitat and to upset populations.

Waterfowl may respond by migrating to other areas, relying heavily on the semipermanent prairie-pothole

wetlands, remaining on permanent wetlands but not breeding, or failing to renest as they currently do during

drought (160). On the other hand, drier conditions in these shallow, temporary, seasonal wetlands will make

land-use conversion to agriculture much more reasonable in terms of expense and ease. Long-term changes in

agricultural activityinthe region, caused by economics and climate change, are sure to affect the fate of prairie

potholes and the waterfowl and wildlife they support, placing them at further risk.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

“LOOKS LIKE A DISASTER RELIEF CHECK, CROP LOSS COMPENSATION,AND A FINE FOR DISTURBING A WET LAND.”
Chapter l-Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options I 35

for research and management of public lands (the

Department of the Interior (DOI), the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Science

Foundation and EPA) combined receive less than

30 percent of the total funding for Ecological

Systems and Dynamics (less than 5 percent of the

total USGCRP budget). Given that such research

on ecological and human impacts may take years

or decades to produce results, the slow process

may cost us the ability to respond to global

change in areas that are especially at risk to

irreversible damage. In addition to understanding

climate impacts and effects, it is important to

know how to minimize socioeconomic impacts.

Ultimately, to be useful in plannin g for an

uncertain climate, USGCRP must include ecosystem research that can feed into management,

socioeconomic analysis, and adaptation research.

An assessment process that incorporates all these

categories and permits inputs from stakeholders

and policy makers is necessary to make USGCRP

truly policy relevant. This is a much broader

definition of “assessment” than USGCRP can

accommodate given its current research program

and structure.

NEAR-TERM CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

In the resource chapters (vol. 1, chs. 4-6, and

vol. 2, chs. 4-6) of this report, a series of ‘‘fnst

steps’ is outlined to illustrate ways to begin

incorporating climate change considerations into

statutes, policies, and programs relating to various natural resources-coasts, water, agriculture,

wetlands, preserved lands, and forests. The frost

steps for the resource chapters are summarized

briefly in the last section of this chapter. Several

of the first steps focus on actions that offer

important and immediate benefits, even without

climate change as an additional factor justifying

them. Several targets of opportunity in the nearterm congressional agenda, in the announced and

potential initiatives of the new Administration,

and in the programs of the various agencies can be

capitalized upon now.

Likewise, the USGRP offers annual opportunities for changes. Chapter 3 discusses several

directions the program could take; many of these

options are included below as possible near-term

congressional actions. The process of policy

development in government is not so orderly that

one can lay out and follow a detailed plan of

logical first steps, followed by logical second

steps, and so on. Regular congressional reauthorization cycles for major natural resource programs, the annual budget cycle, election cycles,

the fragmentation of responsibilities among congressional committees, and still other policymaking realities provide the context in which

decisions about climate change will be made.

Seen in this light, the choice of first steps is

significantly influenced by an assessment of

where the opportunities lie.

I Annual Appropriations

Even if Congress did nothing else, each year it

would enact legislation appropriating money for

carrying out governmental programs. Thus, an

immediate and recurrent annual opportunity to

address many of the issues considered in this

report is through the appropriation process. Most

simply and directly, to narrow the breadth of

uncertainties that exist today, Congress can ensure adequate levels of funding for existing

climate-change-related research programs.

Through the appropriation process, Congress can

also encourage natural resource management

agencies to carry out their monitoring and research programs in ways that meet their intended

objectives while simultaneously producing data

that could be useful to their own or other

agencies’ climate change research efforts.

The annual appropriation process is also the

means by which Congress makes major long-term

investments-for example, in land acquired for

National Parks and wildlife refuges and in dams

and other water resource projects. Until now,

climate change considerations have not been a

factor in deciding whether any of these invest-
36 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

ments were prudent. One could justify inclusion

of such considerations now because climate

change has the potential to lessen the value of

such investments. Thus, Congress could require that the land-acquisition, water-resourcedevelopment, and other similar proposals

brought before it be accompanied by explicit

evaluations of how climate change may affect

the long-term viability of the investment. Alternatively, in the case of lands proposed to be

acquired for conservation purposes, Congress

could direct that the criteria by which agencies

rank their acquisition priorities include some

consideration of potential climate change impacts

on those lands or their resources. Building up the

Nation’s reserve of protected land would help

stem some climate change impacts by reducing

fragmentation and, possibly, reducing other

threats to natural area resources. Increased protection and reduced fragmentation of these areas

could help build more resiliency into some

natural systems (see vol. 2, chs. 4 and 5).

Congress has increasingly linked policy direction to agency funding during the appropriation

process. Congress could include requirements

in its various appropriation bills that each of

the agencies managing natural resources potentially affected by climate change provide

Congress with its own evaluation of the agencies’ preparedness to cope with a range of

climate futures. The appropriation process may

also be especially well-suited to encouraging

agencies that implement climate-sensitive programs (e.g., agricultural disaster assistance, crop

subsidies, and flood insurance) to develop longterm budget projections for those programs based

on several future climate scenarios. In this way, a

budget-conscious Congress can better inform

itself early on about the potential costs of climate

change for those programs.

# Reauthorization Cycle

In addition to the annual appropriation cycle,

congressional action is heavily influenced by the

reauthorization cycles of major Federal programs.

Congressional attention is not focused on all

issues at once. Rather, at any given time, its

attention is disproportionately focused, through

its committees, on the major Federal programs for

which current authorization is about to expire.

The process of extending that authorization provides an opportunity to evaluate the workings of

a program closely and to provide legislative direction for that program for a period of many years.

Thus, at least with respect to changes in existing

Federal natural resource programs, the best opportunities to implement the first steps recommended here are in the context of laws and

programs that are about to be reauthorized.

Among these, the Clean Water Act is a highpriority target of opportunity (see vol. 1, box 5-C).

Comprehensive revisions of that law have been

proposed, and the act’s wetland provisions are

undergoing particular scrutiny. The reauthorization of the Clean Water Act provides a key

opportunity to address one of the more important

needs identified in this report-the need to

achieve more effective integration of resourcemanagement efforts across political jurisdictions.

Comprehensive watershed planning (see vol. 1,

ch. 5), which integrates wetland protection and

restoration goals (see vol. 2, box 4-A), water-useefficiency goals, strategies for controlling pointsource and non-point-source pollution, and both

water-quantity and water-quality concerns generally, could create the institutional capability and

flexibility to anticipate and plan for climate

change. Such planning could be especially valuable for finding creative ways to resolve current

conflicts in which landowner and development

interests chafe at restrictions on use of wetlands,

while environmental interests decry the continued

loss of wetlands (see vol. 2, ch. 4 and box 4-B).

Another major target of opportunity is the

upcoming reauthorization of farm programs in the

1995 Farm Bill. The next reauthorization cycle

could provide a forum for considering how to

enhance farmers’ flexibility and effectiveness in

responding to a changing climate and how climate
Chapter l-Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options I 37

change may affect Federal expenditures on disaster assistance and farm commodity programs (see

vol. 1, ch. 6).

I New Targets of Opportunity

In addition to the reauthorization of existing

laws, Congress regularly considers altogether

new legislation creating programs for existing or

new agencies of Government. A program of potentially great significance on the horizon is

Interior Secretary Babbitt’s proposal to create a

National Biological Survey (see vol. 2, box 5-L).

Legislation to establish the Survey has been

introduced in both the House and Senate, and a

National Research Council committee has been

asked to offer advice on the formation and role of

the Survey. The nature, mandate, resources, and

overall purposes of the National Biological Survey, however, are still very much in the process of

development. The bills introduced in Congress

thus far to establish the Survey give only a very

general description of its functions. Thus, there

exists an opportunity to shape the content and

direction of this new institution in ways that

would be useful to the management of natural

resource systems in a changing climate.

The rationale frequently offered by Secretary

Babbitt for creating a National Biological Survey

is its potential, by cataloging the biological

resources of the Nation and monitoring their

status and trends, to avert future ‘‘train wrecks, ’

that is, the disruptive and wrenching conflicts

between conservation and development goals. A

‘‘train wreck’ of another sort could take the form

of severe adverse impacts on our natural resources

from climate change for which we were unprepared. A National Biological Survey could help

detect, evaluate, and prepare for that climate

change. Thus, an important opportunity exists to

structure the mission and capabilities of the

Survey so that it can contribute to the early

detection of indicators of climate change, a better

understanding of the ability of organisms and

natural communities to respond to climate changes,

and the design and management of a system of

preserves best able to achieve the purposes for

which they were established. Careful congressional attention now to these details in the design

of a National Biological Survey could yield major

returns in the future (see vol. 2, ch. 5).

~ Existing Statutory Language

Of the many Federal statutes pertaining to the

management of the natural resource systems

discussed in this report, only one-the Coastal

Zone Management Act (CZMA; P.L. 92-583 )--

explicitly addresses climate change and its potential consequences. The 1990 amendments to that

law required that possible sea level rise resulting

from climate change be anticipated and addressed

in State coastal zone management plans (see vol.

1, ch. 4). Congress could extend this legislative

precedent to other statutory arenas; here, we

attempt to identify which statutes may be most

appropriate for this.

None of the statutes governing the various

natural resource systems discussed throughout

the full report precludes the agencies responsible

for their management from fully considering

climate change. Existing grants of authority are

sufficiently general and open-ended to allow an

agency, on its own initiative, to examine the

implications of climate change for the natural

resources under its jurisdiction and to tailor its

management of those resources accordingly.

The question, therefore, is whether Congress

wishes to supplement the existing legislative

framework with explicit directives pertaining to

climate change.

Several categories of legislation may be especially appropriate for considering possible climatechange-related amendments. First among these

are statutes, such as CZMA, that require longrange planning for the management of natural

resources. For example, the Rangeland and

Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974

(RPA; P.L. 93-378) requires the preparation of a

forest “resource planning assesment’ that looks
38 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

50 years into the future. Similarly, the Clean

Water Act requires preparation of area-wide

waste treatment plans that look two decades into

the future, a planning horizon also found in the

Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and

Conservation Act (P.L. %-501). In general, the

longer the time frame over which management is

to be planned, the greater the likelihood that

climate change may affect the resources being

managed. Thus, mechanisms to ensure that climate change is taken into account when longrange plans are being developed and to ensure that

plans can be revised as new information about the

direction and magnitude of climate change becomes available are clearly desirable.

A second statutory area, where it is especially

important to ensure that potential climate change

is considered is long-term public or private

investments affecting natural resources. Examples include public land acquisition for parks,

wildlife refuges, and the like (see vol. 2, box 5-C).

Historically, such public land acquisitions have

been viewed as permanent investments, with the

intention of keeping the areas acquired in public

ownership in perpetuity. The expectation implicitly accompanying these investments has been

that the areas acquired would, with appropriate

management, continue to provide the environmental and recreational benefits for which they

were acquired indefinitely into the future. Climate change introduces a new uncertainty about

the validity of this expectation. At the very least,

it suggests the need for a more careful examination of whether particular acquisitions are, in fact,

likely to continue to provide the environmental

benefits that they provide today.

Somewhat similar are public or private investments in dams and other water-resourcedevelopment projects. Public projects are governed by the Water Resources Planning Act (P.L.

89-80) and private ones are licensed pursuant to

the Federal Power Act (P.L. 102-486). The

implicit assumption underlying both has always

been that hydrological models based on past

climate will accurately predict future conditions

as well. The possibility of climate change casts

doubt on the continuing validity of that assumption and may warrant statutory revisions explicitly requiring water resource planning agencies

and Federal regulators to factor climate change

into their decisionmaking.

A third statutory arena relevant here includes

those laws that require an evacuation of the

expected environmental impacts of planned

actions. Foremost among these laws is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; P.L.

91-190); similar, though less far-reaching, laws

include the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

(P.L. 85-624) and the Endangered Species Act

(P.L. 100-707). Under these and similar laws,

expectations of the environmental impacts of

planned actions may vary, depending on whether

a constant or changing climate is anticipated.

Legislative direction could provide useful guidance to agencies with respect to their duties to

consider climate change possibilities in implementing their responsibilities (see, for example,

vol. 2, box 5-D).

A fourth set of laws that warrant discussion

consists of those that authorize research programs. The Clean Water Act and the Rangeland

and Renewable Resources Planning Act are

examples. As this report makes abundantly clear,

there are many uncertainties about climate

change, including its magnitude, its direction, and

its impact on natural resource systems. Natural

resource management will require research aimed

at resolving many of today’s uncertainties. Reflecting that need in the legislative description of

the various research missions may serve to

underscore the importance of this area of inquiry.

Each resource chapter highlights important research options to consider.

Finally, the Science Policy Act of 1976 (P.L.

94-282), which established the Office of Science

and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the Federal

Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering,

and Technology (FCCSET), could be amended to

strengthen the ability of these offices to coordi-
Chapter l-Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options I 39

nate science and ecosystem management across

agencies. 9 These offices have the authority to

develop and implement coherent, governmentwide science policy and have been the mechanism

for coordinating several multi-agency programs.

However, OSTP has not always been an active or

influential player in the executive branch, and

FCCSET lacks the authority to set priorities,

direct policy, and fully participate in the budget

process (17, 51). FCCSET acts largely as a

fulcrum for coordination. Agency participation in

FCCSET projects is voluntary, and FCCSET has

no authority over how participating agencies

spend their funds. Congress could amend

P.L. 94-282 to change this. Similarly, the U.S.

Global Change Research Act of 1990 (P.L.

101-606) could be amended to require periodic

integrated assessment reports to be presented to

Congress and to specify key participants in the

assessment process.

SUMMARIES AND FIRST STEPS FOR

EACH RESOURCE CHAPTER

B The Coastal Zone

The coastal zone is a complicated area that

includes both human-made and relatively ‘undisturbed” features, ranging from densely settled

urban areas to cypress swamps (see vol. 1, ch. 4).

Populations in coastal areas are growing faster

than in any other region in the United States, and

the construction of buildings and infrastructure to

serve this growing population is proceeding

rapidly. Consequently, protection against and

recovery from hazards peculiar to the coastal

zone, such as hurricanes and sea level rise, are

becoming ever more costly (163). The combination of popularity and risk in coastal areas has

important near-term consequences for the safety

of coastal residents, the protection of property, the

maintenance of local economies, and the preservation of remaining natural areas (see fig. 1-4).

The expected climate change impacts are likely

to exacerbate problems that already plague the

coastal zone (66). Sea level rise will substantially

increase flooding and erosion in areas already

vulnerable. Coastal storms-whether or not they

increase in intensity or frequency under a changing climate-will have increasingly greater effects as sea level rises.

The coastal areas most vulnerable to the effects

of climate change are those with low relief and

easily eroded shorelines-such as those in the

Southeast and Gulf Coasts-and those where the

coastline is already subsiding, such as in

Louisiana (52). Structures close to the ocean in

low-lying areas are also vulnerable.

Barrier islands provide protection for coastal

ecosystems and help stem erosion. In some cases, such

as this barrier island near Tampa, Florida, these

islands have been heavily developed, exposing many

communities to the risks of serious damage from

storms and high seas.

9 OSTP was established to “define coherent approaches for applying science and technology to critical and emerging national and

mternational problems and for promoting coordination of the scientiilc and technological responsibilities and programs of the Federal

departmats and agencies in the resolution of such problems,” and FCCSET wm established to ‘‘provide more effective planning and

administration of Federal scientiilc, enginmring, and technological programs” (P.L. 94-282, the Science Policy Act of 1976).
40 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Figure 1-4--An Assessment of Coastal Hazards: Texas and Louisiana

< )

1

Louisiana I

Mississippi “1

Texas

L--------

I

7

.-, -

.

f’

New -.

. s’ ~ fu

,f~

. +~+~

j

\ \ownsvi/le

e

1- — Overall hazard assessment

l_5– Relief

— Population density

Orleans

Population density

per square kilometer

m 2000 or more

m 500-1999

I--J 100-499

D Less than 100

Relief

_ Less than 3 m

N 3-9 m

n 10-19 m

m 20 m or more

Overall hazard

assessment

m High risk

~ Moderate to high

m Moderate risk

O Moderate to low

NOTE: To convert square kilometers to square miles, multiply by 0.624. To convert meters to feet, multiply by 3.260.

SOURCE: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), “Coastal Hazards,” in: National Atlas of the United States of America

(Reston, VA: USGS, 1985). - 

Although development pressures in coastal

areas are driven by many social and economic

trends, government policies can influence the

appropriateness, rate, quality, and location of

development. The current system of allocating

the costs of preventing or repairing climaterelated damage in the coastal zone among Federal, State, and local governments and private

entities encourages certain types of risky development, or at least does not discourage them (11).

Climate change will likely add to the risks and

costs of living in the coastal zone. It is essential

that all stakeholders, such as property owners,

understand them and that coastal development

and preservation are guided by this understanding. The sooner policies are in place that encourage an adequate appreciation of risk, that offer

sufficient incentives to take adequate precautions,

and that attempt to overcome the organizational

fragmentation that makes a unified approach to

coastal climate change issues impossible, the

easier and less costly adaptation to a changing

climate is likely to be.

The Federal Government has an interest in

promoting sound planning and public safety in an

effective and efficient manner. Federal coastal

zone policies can be improved in many ways to

better guide the decisions of those living in

coastal areas, and a suite of options for doing so

is presented in volume 1, chapter 4. We focus on

five general categories in that chapter: revamping

the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP),

improving disaster-assistance policies, revising

the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348)

and the Coastal Zone Management Act, changing

beach-renourishment guidelines, and altering the

U.S. Tax Code.

To help focus on where to start with responses

to climate change in the coastal zone, some first

steps that could be taken are listed below.
Chapter l-Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options I 41

■ Revamp the National Flood Insurance

Program. The National Flood Insurance Program could be revised to provide stronger

incentives to reduce the potential costs

associated with high-risk development in

coastal areas. Congress has been considering

revising the NFIP for several years, and bills

to do this have been introduced in both the

House and Senate. H.R. 62, the “National

Flood Insurance Compliance, Mitigation,

and Erosion Management Act of 1993,”

contains provisions that partially address

some of the NFIP improvements that maybe

desirable. Most pressing is the need to

adequately address erosion along the coast.

Erosion losses will increase with rising sea

levels. The Federal Emergency Management

Agency does not now have the authority to

map erosion risks or to reflect such risks in

insurance premiums, and as a consequence,

information and incentives to avoid development in eroding areas are inadequate. Also,

it seems especially desirable to increase

insurance premiums after multiple claims are

made on properties in high-risk areas subject

to repeated flooding.

■ Improve disaster assistance. Several bills

have also been introduced in the 103d

Congress to revise disaster-assistance policies and regulations. More stringent disaster mitigation by States and localities

could be required, which could hold down

future costs to the Federal Government.

This could be accomplished by more strongly

tying disaster assistance to adoption of

mitigation measures. H.R. 935, the “Earthquake, Volcanic Eruption, and Hurricane

Hazards Insurance Act of 1993, ” for example, would establish minimum criteria for

reducing losses, recommends such measures

as fiscal incentives to reduce losses, provides

for low-interest loans or grants to retrofit

facilities vulnerable to hurricanes, and provides guidelines for establishing actuarial

premium rates for disaster insurance. S. 995,

the “Federal Disaster Preparedness and Response Act of 1993, ’ would establish, among

other things, a grant program and accompanying performance standards to help States

prepare for, respond to, and recover from

major disasters.

■ Strengthen coastal zone management.

The Coastal Zone Management Act will

be up for reauthorization in 1995, and

this provides an opportunity to require

stronger State controls on risky development. Such controls could include, for

example, an erosion-setback program

(already adopted by several States), rerestrictions on construction of immovable

buildings, a relocation-assistance program,

restrictions on rebuilding damaged or destroyed structures in high-risk locations, and

adoption of minimum coastal-construction

standards. All of these controls would add

some degree of protection against sea level

rise and flood or storm damage. Another

possibility for reducing risks of living on the

coasts would be to encourage States to adopt

coastal-hazards-management programs.

These could be overseen jointly by the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Federal Emergency

Management Agency.

■ Promote public education. The public generally is not well-informed about the risks

associated with living in coastal areas, and

this lack of awareness has led and will

continue to lead to large public and private

expenditures. H.R. 935 provides one possibility for expanding public education. The

act authorizes education programs and

provides funds to States to implement

them through a self-sustaining mitigation

fund. The private sector, particularly the

private insurance industry, could also play an

important role in increasing awareness of

coastal hazards.

■ Require increased State and local contributions to beach-nourishment operations.
42 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Most benefits of the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineer’s beach nourishment and shorelineprotection projects are realized at the local or

regional level, yet these projects are often

heavily subsidized. In most instances, the

Federal share is 65 percent. Greater State

and local contributions could be required,

both for initial construction and for maintenance, and Federal funding could be

made conditional on adoption of stronger

mitigation measures. These adjustments

would tend to increase the interest of local

governments in acting to limit community

exposure to coastal hazards.

I Water Resources

Many factors are straining the Nation’s water

resources and leading to increased competition

among a wide variety of different uses and users

of water (see vol. 1, ch. 5). Human demands for

water are increasingly in conflict with the needs

of natural ecosystems, and this has led to significant water-quality and water-quantity problems

(see vol. 1, box 5-B). In addition, water infrastructure in many urban areas is aging.

Although it is unclear exactly how climate

change will affect water resources, climate

change has emerged as another important factor

to consider in water resource planning. Changes

in water availability as a result of climate

change could further affect already overburdened systems, and changes could occur in the

frequency, duration, and intensity of floods

and droughts (105). The areas that are most

vulnerable to climate change are, not surprisingly,

places that are already experiencing stressed

water resources (see fig. 1-5), such as many parts

of the Southwest and South Florida; the central

part of the country, which most models predict

will become hotter and drier; and areas where

competition for water is expected to increase.

The country faces a huge challenge in adapting

its water resource systems to the many current and

potential stresses. The numerous impediments to

this adaptation include the fact that traditional

engineering solutions for developing additional

water supplies-such as dam construction-have

become prohibitively expensive and politically

less acceptable because the best sites have already

been developed. Federal agencies’ responsibilities for water often overlap or conflict, and

coordination among different levels of government on water issues is often inadequate (166)

(see vol. 1, box 5-F). Many institutional arrangements for the management and allocation of water

resources are rigid and inefficient, making them

ill-equipped to cope well with water scarcity. And

there are very few incentives to conserve water.

Water resource planning is a complex political,

economic, sociological, scientific, and technological endeavor, so adaptation to change will not be

straightforward. In encouraging adaptation to

changes in water resources caused by climate

change, the Federal Government, in cooperation

with State and local agencies, should focus on

encouraging five types of activity: improving

demand management (e.g., through pricing reform and conservation); improving supply management (e.g., through improving coordination,

jointly managing ground- and surface-water supplies, and improving the management of reservoirs and reservoir systems); facilitating water

marketing and related types of water transfers;

improving planning for floods and droughts; and

promoting the use of new analytical tools that

enable more efficient operations.

The following first steps toward improving

water resources planning and management—

selected from a longer suite of options presented

in volume 1, chapter 5—are intended to both

relieve existing stresses and make sense for

climate change.

■ Improve extreme-events management.

Despite all efforts to date, both floods and

droughts continue to cause significant losses

to human and natural systems (143, 200).

Greater coordination of the many agencies with flood- or drought-related re-
Chapter l-Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options I 43

Figure 1-5-Water Withdrawals and Consumption in the Coterminus United States, 1985

Innessee

2/45

KEY (billion gallons per day) “\y//zz’ w v

sponsibilities is needed. Congress could

direct the executive branch to create highlevel coordinating bodies, such as an interagency drought task force and a national

flood-assessment board. Such bodies could

be given the responsibility to develop a

national drought policy and to establish

national goals for floodplain management.

The “National Flood Insurance Compliance, Mitigation, and Erosion Management

Act of 1993” (H.R. 62) calls for establishment of a flood-insurance task force. This

bill could also be broadened to create a more

comprehensive flood-assessment board.

Make it easier to manage reservoirs on a

basin-wide level. Operating reservoirs within

the same basin as a single system rather

than individually (as is often the case)

could greatly improve the efficiency and

flexibility of water-quantity management.

New legislation, perhaps as part of the next

omnibus water bill, could grant the Army

Corps of Engineers and the Department of

the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation greater

flexibility to manage their reservoirs basinwide and thus encourage development of a

more integrated approach to waterquality,

wetland, flood, and drought management.

Support water marketing. As long as

adequate attention is given to protecting

all affected parties, water markets could

provide an efficient and flexible way to

adapt to various stresses, including a

changing climate. It would be very useful

for Congress to clarify reclamation law on

trades and transfers and define the Federal
44 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Government’s interest in facilitating the

creation of markets (193). Congress could

urge the Department of the Interior to

provide stronger leadership to assist with

water transfers, and water marketing could

be thoroughly evaluated as part of the

Western Water Policy Review, authorized in

late 1992.

■ Promote the use of new analytical tools.

Further development, dissemination, and

use of new modeling and forecasting tools

could greatly enhance water resource

management. Some current analytical efforts have not been adequately funded, and

the most advanced tools now available are

not yet being used by many States or water

utilities. Small investments in promoting

dissemination and use of these tools today

could save substantial sums later. Section 22

of the Water Resources Development Act of

1974 (P.L. 93-251) authorizes funding for

training and technical assistance to States

and could be used to promote the adoption of

the new tools. Congress could also consider

providing funds to develop or refine tools

that incorporate climate uncertainty into

traditional hydrologic analyses.

■ Promote demand management. The upcoming reauthorization of the Clean Water

Act is one potential target of opportunity

for improving water-use efficiency (see

vol. 1, box 5-C). Congress could consider

making conservation projects eligible for the

State revolving-fund loans created under the

act to fund wastewater treatment plants. The

Federal Government could set an example

by adopting efficient water-use practices in

its own facilities. The Energy Policy Act of

1992 (P.L. 102-486) requires that Federal

facilities adopt conservation practices to the

extent practicable, but it concentrates primarily on energy conservation. A technicaladjustment bill to the Energy Policy Act

could be considered in the 103d Congress

and would provide a way to clarify and

underline congressional intent toward water

conservation in Federal facilities.

■ Expand the scope of the Western Water

Policy Review. With the enactment of Title

30 of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (P.L.

102-575), Congress authorized the President

to oversee a major water-policy study. Title

30 directs the President to undertake a

comprehensive review of Federal activities

that affect the allocation and use of water

resources in the 19 western States and to

report findings to appropriate congressional

committees by the end of October 1995

(190). Climate change is not mentioned as

a factor motivating the Western Water

Policy Review, but the study could provide an opportunity to assess more fully

how climate change may affect water

resources and to evaluate policy options

that might help with adaptation to a

warmer climate. Congress could expand

the scope of the Review beyond the West, or

it could authorize a similar follow-on study

of eastern water issues. The Review could

also provide an opportunity to explicitly

consider land-use practices and water resource issues jointly. The relationship between the two is close, and there appear to be

significant opportunities to improve both

water-quantity and waterquality management by improving land-use practices.

# Agriculture

Agriculture in the United States is an intensively managed, market-based natural resource.

Throughout the world, agriculture has adapted

continuously to the risks associated with normal

climate variability, just as it has adapted to

changes in economic conditions. The American

agricultural sector will undoubtedly make further

adaptations in response to climate changes, with

market forces rewarding and encouraging the

rapid spread of successful adaptation (30, 41,
Chapter l-Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options I 45

148). Just what these adaptations will be and what

public actions could be taken to encourage them

are addressed in detail in volume 1, chapter 6, of

this report.

The possible effects of climate change on

agriculture are difficult to predict. Agricultural

productivity is likely to be affected worldwide,

which would lead to alterations in the regional

distribution and intensity of farming (1, 188). The

range over which major U.S. crops are planted

could eventually shift hundreds of miles to the

north (13, 150) (see vol. 1, box 6-C). For

American farmers, already facing increasingly

competitive and growing world markets, any

relative decline in productivity compared with the

rest of the world would mean lost markets (40). A

significant warming and drying of the world’s

climate might lead to an overall decline in

agricultural yields (75, 150). Consumers would

bear much of the cost through higher food prices

or scarcities. Some individual farmers might still

benefit through locally improved yields or higher

prices; others might suffer because of relatively

severe local climate changes. Rapid geographical

shifts in the agricultural land base could disrupt

rural communities and their associated infrastructures.

If the United States wants to ensure its competitive position in the world market and meet the

growing demands for food without higher prices,

public efforts to support the continued growth in

agricultural yields remains necessary. Climate

change adds to the importance of efforts to

improve the knowledge and skills of farmers, to

remove impediments to farmer adaptability and

innovation, and to expand the array of options

available to farmers (157). Efforts to expand the

diversity of crops and the array of farm technologies insure against a future in which existing crop

varieties or farming systems fail (137) (see vol. 1,

box 6-H). Efforts to enhance the adaptability of

farmers-to speed the rate at which appropriate

farming systems can be adopted-lower the

potentially high costs of adjustment to climate

change.

This soybean field shows the devastating effects of

droughts. The farmer indicates how tall soybean

plants would normally be. Warmer climates could lead

to an increase in both number and severity of droughts.

Impediments to adjusting to climate change are

numerous (see vol. 1, box 6-I). Water shortages

will probably limit the potential for compensating

adjustments in certain regions. The uncertainty of

climate change makes effective response difficult, as do limitations on the availability of

suitable crops and agricultural practices. The

decline in the Federal Government’s interest in

agricultural research and extension is also a

problem (138, 174); more-vibrant research and

extension programs could enhance adaptability.

Certain agricultural programs may increase the

costs associated with a changing climate (90).

Because the commodity programs link support

payment to maintaining production of a particular

crop, they could inadvertently discourage adjustments in farming. Disaster-assistance programs

may become increasingly costly under a harsher

climate, and, if not well designed, may tend to

discourage farmers from taking appropriate cautionary actions to reduce exposure to climate

risks. Restriction on the marketing of conserved

water may limit the incentive for efficient use of

scarce water resources.
46 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

The most pressing tasks concerning agriculture and climate change that the Federal

Government should undertake are: improving technology and information transfer to

farmers in order to speed adaptation and

innovation in farm practice; removing the

impediments to adaptation created unnecessarily by features of commodity support and

disaster-assistance programs; and supporting

research and technology that will ensure that

the agricultural sector can deal successfully

with the various challenges of the next century.

The Government could organize its approach

around the following first steps, which should

increase the ability of the farm sector to adjust

successfully to a changing climate.

■ Revise the commodity support programs.

Congress addresses farm issues every 5

years in omnibus farm bills, with the next

one likely to be debated for passage in 1995.

The annual budget-reconciliation process

and agricultural appropriations bills offer

intermediate opportunities for revisions in

commodity support programs. Commodity

support payments are linked to the continued

production of a single crop. If a farmer

significantly changes crops, support payments will be reduced. This link discourages

the responsiveness of farmers to changing

market and climate conditions. The cumulative economic costs of even temporary

delays in adjusting to climate change might

prove to be large. Congress should consider

breaking the link between farm support and

the production of a single crop. A further

increase in flex acreage (an amount of land

that can be shifted to new crops with little

penalty) or other more substantial revisions

in the commodity support programs that

would allow greater flexibility in crop

choice (42) could be considered in the 1995

reauthorization of the Farm Bill. These

changes would increase the ability of farmers to adapt to climate change.

Encourage research and development in

computerized farm-management systems.

The competitiveness of the farm sector will

increasingly depend on advances that improve the efficiency of U.S. farmers-rather

than on further increases in intensity of input

use. Computerized farm-management systems include land-based or remote sensors,

robotics and controls, image analysis,

geographical information systems, and

telecommunications linkages packaged into

decision-support systems or embodied in

intelligent farm equipment. Such systems

will be increasingly important to the farmer’s

ability to increase yields, control costs, and

respond to environmental concerns. The

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service already provides

leadership in this area and has proposed an

‘‘Integrated Farm Management Systems Research’ program that would provide for the

development and broader use of technologies that have the potential to greatly enhance the efficiency of farming and to

increase the flexibility with which farmers

can respond to climate conditions.

Use the 1995 Farm Bill to modify disasterassistance programs. Since the late 1970s,

Congress has been considering how to best

structure the crop-insurance and disasterpayment programs (20, 21). After a flurry of

proposals and studies before the passage of

the 1990 Farm Bill, the programs were left

essentially unchanged. Major revisions are

likely to be considered in the 1995 Farm Bill.

The best option for revising these programs

remain unclear. For the purpose of preparing

for climate change, any program that

provides a greater incentive for farmers

or local communities to reduce their

exposure to risk should lessen the potential for large-scale future losses and encourage adaptation to changing climate

risks. Features of a restructured system

might include: defining disasters formallv. –––––-—a 7
Chapter l-Synthesis, Summary, and Policy OptionsI 47

with assistance provided only for statistically unusual losses; eliminating either crop

insurance or disaster payments (or merging

the two programs) so that one does not

undercut the incentives to participate in

the other; limiting the number of times a

farmer could collect disaster payments; and

requiring farmers or farm communities to

contribute to a disaster-payment fired, thus

providing a greater incentive to reduce

exposure to risks.

I Wetlands

More than half of the Nation’s wetlands have

been destroyed by activities ranging from agriculture to flood-control projects to urban development. Roughly 5 percent of the lower 48 States is

currently covered by wetlands (see vol. 2, ch. 4).

They provide diverse products of considerable

commercial value, playing a key role in the

production of goods such as finish, shellfish, fur,

waterfowl, timber, blueberries, cranberries, wild

rice, and peat. Wetlands also nurture biological

productivity, slow surface-water flows, and transform nutrients and toxic chemicals. Wetlands are

key to the harvest of 75 percent of the Nation’s

fish and shellfish and harbor about one-third

of the Nation’s threatened and endangered species (83).

As a result, in 1989, the Federal Government

embraced the policy goal of no net loss of

wetlands-any destruction of wetlands should be

offset by an equivalent restoration or creation of

wetlands (28, 184). Steps to achieve this goal,

however, have not been fully implemented. Part

of the problem is that no single Federal statute is

directed at protecting, restoring, and acquiring

wetlands, and there is no coordinated effort to

monitor and evaluate wetlands. Different authorities with different goals are scattered across

many Federal and State agencies, and the criteria

they use for decisionmaking are somewhat inconsistent. Federal policies have sometimes failed to

discourage--and sometimes have encouraged—

wetland destruction (179). Few programs for

wetland acquisition and restoration address

the possibility of climate-induced alteration of

wetlands.

Climate change is likely to accelerate the loss

of wetlands, especially of the following highly

vulnerable types: coastal wetlands, depressional wetlands in arid areas (i.e., inland

freshwater marshes and prairie potholes),

riparian wetlands in the arid West and Southwest, and tundra wetlands. Coastal wetlands

may be drowned by a rising sea or altered by

changing salinity (123, 194, 198). Depressional

wetlands are susceptible to the lowered water

tables that will likely result from the higher

temperatures, increased evaporation, and decreased summertime precipitation predicted for

these already dry areas. Riparian wetlands in the

arid West, which rely on water flowing through

rivers and streams, could also be threatened by

drier conditions. Tundra areas in Alaska may

shrink as increased temperatures allow the permafrost to thaw and drain.

Whether or not a no-net-loss goal can be

achieved as the effects of climate change become

more pronounced, the goal remains a useful focal

point for policy makers (1 14). Wetlands are a

diminishing resource, and the Federal Government could play a lead role in ensuring that

wetlands survive climate change by adopting

the following objectives: protect existing wetlands, restore degraded or converted wetlands,

facilitate migration (e.g., the upslope movement of coastal wetlands as sea level rises), and

improve coordinated management and monitoring.

Given the available policy levers (regulation

and acquisition, incentives and disincentives, and

research), limited money to fired programs, and

the level of scientific understanding of the impacts of climate change on wetlands, we identified the following strategies as first steps to use in

responding to climate change and the threats it

poses to wetlands. Additional options are assessed in volume 2, chapter 4.
48 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

w%4

Prairie potholes, like these in North Dakota, serve

valuable storm-water-retention functions and provide

breeding and stopover habitat for migratory

waterfowl. Agricultural development, encouraged in

part by Federal subsidies, has eliminated many of

these wetland. Climate change may pose further risks

if moisture declines or if farming intensifies with a

warming in these northern lands.

■ Revise the Clean Water Act. The act is up

now for reauthorization, and it could be

revised to improve wetland protection (169).

This could be done through minor revisions or through transforming the act into

a broad wetland-protection and watershedmanagement act. For example, the mitigation requirements could be clarified to ensure that lands set aside for protection or

restoration more than compensate for wetlands that are destroyed. Congress could

establish uniform standards for mitigation

activities and require that restoration projects be monitored and evaluated for success

in meeting these standards. At a broader

level, Congress could devise a mechanism

for coordinated management of water quality and wetland resources at a regional or

watershed level. For example, regulations

covering non-point-source water pollution

might be linked to wetland protection, allowing wetland restoration or protection in

exchange for relaxation in pollution-control

requirements (127).

■ Develop and implement a priority plan to

coordinate wetland protection across agencies. Direct Federal agencies to develop and

implement uniform regional plans guiding

wetland protection, acquisition, mitigation,

and restoration and to coordinate the designation of wetlands deemed high priority for

protection or restoration. These priority plans

could be built on existing plans under

various agencies (e.g., the Army Corps of

Engineers, the Environmental Protection

Agency, DOI’S Fish and Wildlife Service,

and the U.S. Department of Agriculture) that

now set priorities for wetland management

and acquisition. With better coordination

and guidance and a watershed-management

focus, existing programs could accomplish

wetland protection more efficiently.

■ Ensure that all Federal policies and incentives are consistent with wetland protection. Congress could ensure that all Federal

policies and incentives are consistent with

wetland protection, reviewing Federal programs to find and eliminate those that offer

incentives to destroy wetlands and to perhaps bolster programs that encourage wetland protection. For example, the Coastal

Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348, as

amended) might be extended to include

coastal wetlands; funding for the Wetlands

Reserve Program might be restored to at

least authorized levels and targeted to wetlands in high-priority areas. The Fish and

Wildlife Service could be required to complete and issue the report on the impact of

Federal programs on wetlands that was

mandated in the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-645).

■ Conduct research, development, monitoring, and evaluation in key areas. A new

National Biological Survey at the Department of the Interior could incorporate wetland monitoring as part of its mission (see

vol. 2, ch. 5). Relevant agencies should be

encouraged to include wetland research in
Chapter l-Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options I 49

their component of the U.S. Global Change

Research Program (USGCRP).

I Federally Protected Natural Areas

Over 240 million acres of land have been set

aside by the Federal Government to protect some

part of nature for generations to come. These

lands represent and protect the best of the

Nation’s natural heritage and have become a

source of national pride. Chapter 5 of volume 2

focuses on National Parks, Wilderness Areas, and

National Wildlife Refuges, which comprise the

bulk of the Federal lands held primarily for nature

conservation.

Because a variety of human activities has

altered or degraded the habitat for many species,

federally protected natural areas have become

repositories for the Nation’s rarest species and

sites for conserving biological diversity (181,

185). Protected natural areas are also subject to

increased stress from activities that occur both

within and outside their boundaries. Natural areas

are being effectively dissected into smaller and

smaller parts in some places-especially in the

East-leaving them more vulnerable to other

stresses that could degrade habitat quality and

ecosystem health (103).

Under climate change, the climate “map”

that has helped to shape natural areas will shift

while the boundaries that define the management and degree of protection for natural

areas will remain fixed (see fig. 1-6). As a

result, the biological makeup of the protected

natural areas will change. Some may become

incapable of providing the benefits or serving the

functions for which they were originally established, such as maintainingg their unique or

distinctive character, providing protection for rare

species and other biological resources, and maintaining the quality or availability of other services, such as nature study or certain kinds of

recreation (see vol. 2, box 5-B).

Figure 1-6-Preserves and Climate Change

Southern range limit

?

New southern

range limit

Q@ \ ❑

\

&

I

/

/

1

a

❑ 0

. -

.

t

Old southern range Iimit

NOTE: As climate changes, the preferred range of many species may

shift, leaving preserves dramatically changed.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

Certain general characteristics of protected

natural areas may make them more vulnerable to

climate change, such as being small, isolated,

fragmented, or already under considerable stress,

and containing sensitive species or ecosystems,

such as coastal, alpine, or Arctic ecosystems or

midcontinent wetlands (67, 133, 188). If climate

change leads to accelerated habitat loss or proceeds so quickly that some species cannot adapt

quickly enough, species loss may accelerate, and

overall biodiversity will decline (29, 196).

Even if species can move fast enough, adaptation by migration may be difficult because in

many places, the landscape has been sectioned off

into small pieces. Some natural areas are islands

in the middle of extensively developed areas.

Geographic fragmentation may limit the ability of
50 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box l-G-Climate Change in Alaska: A Special Case

Nowhere in the United States does there remain such a vast expanse of land so undisturbed by human activity

as in Alaska. Because of its distinctive character, pristine conditions, and abundant natural resources, Alaska has

become a national treasure. Nearly 66 percent of Alaska’s land base is protected in wilderness areas, National

Wildlife Refuges, National Forests, or public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Alaska

contains some 170 million acres (69 million hectares)1 of wetlands (over 60 percent of the Nation’s total) and 330

million acres of boreal forest. Alaskan plants and animals withstand some of the harshest environmental conditions

in the world and many are unique to polar climates. Although human activities are to some extent adversely

affecting this remote environment, it remains the most wild place in the United States and is rightly referred teas

our “last frontier.”

The unique characteristics of Alaska-the natural resources, the wildlife, and the pristine, harsh

environment-affect nearly every aspect of life, including the culture and industry of those who Iive here. For

example, traditions of the indigenous communities are deeply rooted In the distinctive wildlife and vegetation of

Alaska. Many indigenous communities, such as the Inupiat Eskimos of Alaska’s North Slope, still rely on wildlife

and natural vegetation for subsistence. The bowhead whale is central to their culture. The whales are a major food

source and the hunts are a community tradition. Caribou and fish are other staples for Inupiats. Athapaskan

Indians, who reside mostly in the boreal forest of interior Alaska, rely heavily on the plant Iife there for food, housing

materials, and heating fuels (120). Fish such as salmon and whitefish are primary elements of Athapaskan

subsistence, and caribou and moose are important sources of food and clothing (120).

Alaska’s economy is also deeply rooted in its abundant natural resources, with oil and gas, fishing, and

tourism providing the base for the economy. Nearly 85 percent of the State’s revenue comes from oil and gas

exploration or development. Two of the largest oil fields in North America (Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk fields) are

located near Alaska’s North Slope and provide the economic base for much of that region. Alaskan waters are

also sites of sores of the world’s most productive fisheries. The Bering Sea has the biggest fishery in the Untied

States; it is among the biggest in the world. In 1990, Alaska’s fish harvest(mostly salmon, king crab, halibut, shrimp,

and scallops) surpassed any other State’s, with more than 5.4 billion pounds (2.4 billion kilograms) 2 of seafood

harvested-half of all seafood harvested in the Nation. The seafood industry is also Alaska’s largest private-sector

employer, employing 23 percent of the State’s work force. In addition, Alaska’s vast expanse of rugged land and

abundant wildlife have made tourism a growing and important industry there. Visitors to Alaska spent almost

$1 billion in 1989, the third largest source of income in the State. With 13,500 workers in tourist-related industries,

tourism is second only to fisheries as a source of employment

Because climate changes resulting from rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (C02

) are expected to be

especially pronounced in Alaska and other high-latitude regions, Alaska may provide an "early warning” of initial

climate effects. In very general terms, Alaska can expect to see increased average temperatures, increased

precipitation, and melting of sea ice. The rate and ultimate severity of the climate changes is at present unknown

(67). In addition, Iittle is known about the sensitivities of wiidlife, vegetation, ecosystems, indigenous cultures,or

the economy to any potential climate changes.

Warmer temperatures in polar regions are expected to lead to some melting of sea ice. A recent study of

climate change effects on the Canadian Beaufort Sea determined that, based on a doubling of atmospheric CO2,

the open-water season could increase from an average of 2 months to 5 months, the extent of open water could

increase from about 100 miles (160 kilometers)4 to 300-500 miles, and maximum ice thickness could decrease

1 TO convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405.

2 TO convert pounds to kilograms, multiply by 0.454.

3 P. Carison, Alaska Division of Tourism, personal communication, September 1993.

4 To convert miles to kilometers, multiply by 1.609.
Chapter 1--Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options 51

by 50-75 percent (102). Shoreline erosion could increase significantly with a longer open-water season. Overall

biological productivity is also expected to increase in parts of the Bering Sea with an increase in temperature and

change in ice cover. Because of the drying effects of warmer temperatures, there could be an increase in the

frequency and extent of fires. Over the past three decades, fires in Alaska have increased due to warmer and drier

conditions. More fires under climate change could expand the extent of early successional vegetation favored by

moose, beavers, Arctic hares, sharptailed grouse, and other wildlife species. However, fire may adversely affect

the lichen supply in spruce forests-an important food for caribou in winter.

The most profound consequence of warming in Alaska and other polar regions maybe the exacerbation of

global climate change through the release of carbon from the permafrost of the AIaskan tundra and boreal forests.

Worldwide, tundra and boreal forests contain nearly a third of the world’s soil carbon. Thawing of the permafrost

and the resulting decomposition of organic material, could release huge quantities of methane (CH4) and CO2 into

the atmosphere and contribute to accelerated warming (67).5 Climate warming may also be exacerbated by

melting of the vast expanse of ice and snow that now reflects away considerable incoming heat Little can be done

to stem the thaw and resulting secondary climate impacts, except to slow warming by reducing human-made

greenhouse gas emissions.

Potential Losers

Indigenous cultures-Alaska’s indigenous, subsistence communities could be at risk under climate change.

Thawing of the permafrost is likely to affect supported structures such as pipelines and bridges, and roads may

be threatened if thawing weakens the soil. Many indigenous peoples use the permafrost for food-storage cellars,

so warming may threaten their ability to preserve food during summer months. Hunting the bowhead whale, an

ancient and sacred tradition for many indigenous communities on the North Slope, is linked to the extent of sea

ice. Melting of the sea ice will likely change the whale’s migration and affect access to the whales by indigenous

hunters.

Plants and animals--Nearly half of the world’s peatlands (tundra) are in North America, with nearly a third

of these in Alaska. Even a 2oF (1 oC) warming could lead to forests replacing alpine tundra on many mountains

and islands (122). Some tundra species unable to adapt to climate change might decline. Caribou populations

depend on lichens for food. The distribution of lichens is sensitive to the amount and extent of snow cover, which

will change under a warming climate. Furthermore, because caribou calving is linked to vegetation produced during

early snow melt, changes in the timing of the melt could disrupt calving.

Some 25 species of marine mammals regularly use Alaskan waters. The marine mammals most likely to be

adversely affected by climate change are pinnipeds (seals and walruses) that winter primarily in the Bering Sea,

have regular contact with ice, and are closely associated with the continental shelf or shelf edge. These include

spotted and ribbon seals, which may suffer from increased competition with other species and reduced habitat,

and Pacific walruses and bearded seals, which are ice-associated bottom feeders and are therefore tied to the

seasonally ice-covered continental shelves. Both the beluga and bowhead whales are associated with sea ice,

but they may not be significantly affected by melting because they do not depend on ice cover to protect and

nurture their newborn.

Perhaps the biggest unknown impact of climate change is how it will affect fish populations and the fishing

industry. Variations in stock size and species abundance appear to be correlated with periodic variability of ocean

temperature, but are not completely understood. For example, huge fluctuations in groundfish stocks occur now. 6

Many scientists believe that overfishing will remain the primary concern for Alaskan fisheries (122). However,

5 Recent measurements indicate that the tundra of the North Slope of Alaska has in fact changed from a

‘(sink” to a “source” of C02 with the warming trend seen In Alaska over the past few decades (125).

6 V. Alexander, Dean, School of Fisheries and Ocean Science, University of Alaska at Fairbanks, personal

communication, May 27, 1993.

(Continued on next page)
52 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Box 1-G--Climate Change in Alaska: A Special Case--(Continued)

considering the importance of fishing to the Alaskan economy, the potential for loss under climate change is

Significant

Potential Winners

Oil and gas industry-Reduction of the sea ice could allow the use of less expensive offshore structures

and would reduce the costs of marine transportation. Some speculate that the opening up of the Northwest

Passage would offer a shortcut for shipping from Europe to the Pacific Rim but Alaskan ports probably would not

participate significantly in this traffic.

Plants and animals--In general, plant life is likely to benefit from an increase in temperature, though the

composition of forests and other vegetated areas will likely change. Some boreal forest species, such as white

spruce and birch, are likely to expand northward. Others, such as red and yellow cedar, may be less able to migrate

because of the rugged terrain, low genetic variability, and slow dispersing ability. Some migration is already

happening-white spruce ranges have been expanding over the past 40 years. Expansion of white spruce into

boreal forests may eventually be important for timber harvests.

Most wildlife species, including polar bears, moose,musk-oxen, mountain sheep, most marine mammals, and

many birds (e.g., grouse, raptors, owls, and migratory birds), will likely benefit from increased temperatures and

increased productivity in vegetation. These benefits might be stemmed by losses of tundra wetlands, increases

in disease spread, or changes in species assemblages that would result in changed predation patterns. Most birds

will likely benefit from having more forage, more insects, and a longer season during which to rear their young.

Omnivores such as bears should respond favorable to a changing climate because of the longer availability of

green vegetation in the spring. Other forbearers and carnivores should increase in response to larger prey

populations unless they are controlled by hunting, trapping, or other human activities.

Tourism--Higher temperatures are likely to benefit the tourism industry, although vigorous advertising by

the State has almost certainly had more impact on the industry in recent years than has its climate. increased

wildlife populations will probably attract more hunters, hikers, and campers. However, increased tourism could also

mean more impacts on the environment that is so important to indigenous, subsistence communities.

species to find new habitat-they may have no factors that make natural areas valuable: characplace to go (34).

Natural areas in the West are currently much

larger and much less fragmented than they are in

the East. However, the institutions that manage

these lands are designed to manage only their own

parcels-in isolation-and are not encouraged to

consider the often more extensive natural ecological system. This compartmental approach to

management, or institutional fragmentation, may

prevent effective solutions to problems that transcend individual management parcels, such as

those posed by climate change (64, 92).

The main challenge for policy is to maintain

the high value of the system of natural areas while

realizing that climate change may affect the very

ter, species protection, and environmental services. The ideal response to this challenge might be

some combination of three general management

approaches: 1) maintain species where they are

today, 2) help species migrate through more

intensive management, and 3) acquire lands that

will be valuable under a changed climate. However, the lack of adequate knowledge and information precludes the full implementation of

either approach now.

It is difficult to predict how climate change will

affect natural areas and how they will respond.

his lack of knowledge limits the ability to help

natural areas adapt. We do not know which

species are most sensitive to climate change,
Chapter l-Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options I 53

which could be saved, or how to recreate habitats

or entire ecosystems elsewhere. The limited

success with restoring populations of endangered

species illustrates how little is known about

restoring species and their natural habitat. In

addition, we do not know what lands will be most

valuable as preserves under climate change. We

do not even know all of the species and kinds of

ecosystems currently under formal protection in

preserves today.

The most useful approaches that the Federal

Government could take to facilitate adaptations to climate change in natural areas fall

into two categories: information gathering

(including research, inventory, and monitoring options) (115, 171), and managing natural

areas now to minimize the impediments to

adaptation and to increase their resiliency. The

second category includes taking direct Federal

action to influence the management of natural

areas, establishing incentives to private landowners to encourage conservation under uncertainty,

and promoting larger-scale management through

more partnerships among agencies, communities,

and governments. A variety of options that

address these needs are assessed in volume 2,

chapter 5.

Because money to implement every policy

option and the scientific understanding of how

climate change will affect natural areas are

limited, we have identified some strategies that

represent inexpensive or useful frost steps for

facilitating adaptation to climate change in natural areas. These options meet at least one of

several criteria: they will take a long time to

complete; they address “front-line,” or urgent,

issues that need attention before informed policy

decisions can be made; they can be approached

through mechanisms that are already in place or

through efforts already under way; and/or they

have benefits in addition to those that help

prepare for climate change. In some cases, a

near-term legislative action will provide a target

of opportunity to pursue these options.

■ Use the National Biological Survey (NBS)

to assess ecological inventory and monitoring needs. Future strategies to protect

natural areas and their resources will require

a national picture of current biological resources and the extent of the protection

of--or the threat to-these resources. A

national inventory and monitoring program

would be particularly beneficial in supporting efforts to protect endangered species and

biodiversity. DOI’s proposed new National

Biological Survey presents an opportunity to

implement some of these activities (131,

132, 188). Congress could ask NBS to

initiate a nationwide inventory and monitoring program, synthesize ecological and biological information for managers and planners, establish a mechanism for facilitating

regional-level research and management,

and develop a priority plan for expanding

protection of natural areas.

■ Support basic research on key gaps in our

understanding of ecosystems. This research would include work on species sensitivity to climate change, restoration and

translocation ecology, the design and effectiveness of migratory corridors or protective

buffer zones, the development of ecological

models, and the effect of elevated CO2

concentrations on plants and animals. Basic

research in these areas is needed now to

determine how species might respond to

climate change and how best to provide for

their protection in the future.

■ Conduct a review of ecological research

within USGCRP and across Federal agencies. Such a review would evaluate how

much ecosystem research relevant to climate change and other long-term ecological

problems (e.g., loss of biodiversity) is being

done, and would identify important gaps. A

review of all research on ‘natural resources’

has not yet been conducted across the

Federal agencies. Existing analyses suggest

that a great deal of money is spent on
54 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

research relevant to the environment, but

how much is useful to understanding longterm ecological problems is not known.

Further, there is currently no mechanism for

consolidating results from disparate research

efforts into ‘‘general patterns and principles

that advance the science and are useful for

environmental decisionmaking. Without

such synthesis studies, it will be impossible

for ecology to become the predictive science

required by current and future environmental problems’ (97). An effort to characterize and synthesize ongoing research could

help bridge the gap between basic research

and natural resource planning. Such a review could be conducted by the Office of

Science and Technology Policy, the National Academy of Sciences, or an independent commission.

■ Provide funding for the Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-366).

This law establishes a Federal cost-share

program for “nongame” species conservation. It has already been enacted, but has

never been funded. Many States have prepared initial plans that could qualify for

Federal matching funds, making it a target

of opportunity to promote natural area

conservation at the State level. With some

amendments to promote multispecies, or

‘‘ecosystem, protection at the State level

and adequate funding, the Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Act could be used to encourage natural area protection and conservation

on State and private lands.

H Use acquisition strategies to enhance protection. Federal land-management agencies

should be directed to consider whether all

future land acquisitions and exchanges:

1) augment underrepresented ecosystems in

the Federal natural area holdings, 2) buffer

or connect other preserved land parcels, and

3) provide habitat or services likely to persist

over the long term despite anticipated stresses.

Setting aside a given amount of land within

the modem fragmented landscape does not

alone ensure that the ecological features for

which it is valued will be preserved. To best

conserve species, natural areas should include an array of ecosystems and transition

zones between them to allow for the many

complex interactions that rely on links

between different parts of the landscape. By

asking agencies to incorporate such concerns into future acquisitions, Congress could

minimize future geographic fragmentation

and use limited monies to maximize the

range of protected ecosystems.

1 Forests

Forests cover roughly one-third of the U.S.

land area, shaping much of the natural environment and providing the basis for a substantial

forest-products industry. These forests are enormously variable, ranging from the sparse scrub of

the arid interior West to the lush forests of the

coastal Pacific Northwest and the South. The

Nation’s forests provide essential fish and wildlife habitat, livestock forage, watershed protection, attractive vistas, and an array of recreational

opportunities. Timber is one of the Nation’s most

important agricultural crops.

Climate change may pose a significant

threat to forests, particularly forests that are

not actively managed for timber production.

Within a century, climate change might shift the

ideal range for some North American forest

species more than 300 miles to the north (see fig.

1-7). Such a shift would almost certainly exceed

the ability of natural forests to migrate (35, 36,

146). Forests stranded outside their ideal climatic

range could suffer from declining growth and

increased mortality from climate-related stresses

such as insects, disease, and fires (2, 58, 100,

157). Some forests may collapse, and species and

unique populations may be lost from isolated

ranges if climate change is too rapid.

The most vulnerable forest resources are those

in regions subject to increased moisture stress, as
Chapter l--Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options 155

Figure 1-7-Current and Projected Range of Beech

Under Climate Change

——–—- ———

I [ f’

~+Nl “0”’””’

NOTE: Based on climate projections from the Goddard Institute for

Space Studies GCM under the assumption of a doubling of atmospheric

CO2. To convert miles to kilometers, multiply by 1.609.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993, adapted from M.B.

Davis and C. Zabinski, “Changes in Geographical Range Resulting

from Greenhouse Warming: Effects on Biodiversity in Forests,” in:

Global Warming and Biological Diversity, R.L. Peters and T.E. Lovejoy

(eds.) (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992).

in the dry continental interiors (14, 15, 159, 191).

Forests in coastal regions may be at risk from

rising sea levels, with the threat of flooding and

saltwater intrusion, or from increases in damaging

wind storms (61, 106). Forests with small or

highly fragmented ranges may be lost, such as

those at the upper elevations of mountains with

nowhere to migrate (89). Forests in locations

already subject to droughts, free, and wind damage will be at high risk if the frequency or

intensity of these stressors is increased (157).

The extent to which intervention to facilitate

adaptation may be practical or desirable is limited. Even timber-industry forests are not intensively managed by the standards of annual

agricultural crops. On large areas of public forest

lands, even a minimal management response

might be viewed as incompatible with the goals

for which the forest is held. The challenge is to

find unobtrusive and cost-effective means to help

ensure that the health and primary services of the

Nation’s forest resource will not be lost if climate

change proves to be as serious a threat to forests

as some believe it will be.

The Federal Government can prepare itself

to respond to the threats that climate change

poses to forests in several ways: 1) by better

understanding which forests are at risk (e.g.,

by supporting research on species sensitivity to

climate and monitoring changes in forests);

2) by acting to avoid the potential loss of forest

species (e.g., by promoting and improving

forest seed banks, mass propagation techniques, and forest-restoration techniques);

3) by being ready to react promptly to the

threat of large-scale forest mortality (e.g., by

preventing fires, managing pests, or thinning

to promote drought tolerance—in forests

where such activities are determined to be

appropriate); 4) by redirecting incentive programs to encourage improvement in the health

of private forests; and 5) by increasing the

adaptability of the forest industry and forestdependent communities to climate change

through forest-product research and incentives for diversification.

Given the existing policy levers, the limited

money to fund programs, and the poor level of

scientific understanding of impacts of climate

change on forests, the following subset of policies, discussed in volume 1, chapter 6, are frost

steps that Congress could take. Each would help

the Nation begin to position itself to respond to

the effects of climate change on both timber and

nontimber forests. These options are justified

now either because of existing problems (such as

free, pests, and drought) that will be exacerbated

by climate change, or because of the time required

to complete the process.

■ Establish an expanded forest seed-bank

program. A rapid climate change could
56 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

threaten the genetic diversity of U.S. forests.

A national effort in the conservation of

forest seeds would provide an opportunity to

respond to the potential for loss of genetic

diversity in the forest resource under climate

change. An appropriate goal for such a

program would be to maintain sufficient

seed variety, or other genetic material, so

that much of the original diversity of the

Nation’s forests could eventually be restored

(86, 87). (Current forest seed-collection

activities are uncoordinated and focused on

only a small number of species (113).) To

accomplish this goal, Congress could authorize and fired a National Forest Genetic

Resources Program within the Forest Service, providing funds for the construction and

operation of seed-storage facilities, for the

establishment of associated plantations to be

used for continuing, seed production, and for

a forest genetics research program that

would address climate tolerance of trees and

means for large-scale propagation. Such a

program could be partially supported

through fees for private access to the seed

collection.

■ Develop strategic plans for responding to

major forest declines. Increased risk of

fries and insect damage may result under a

warmer climate. The relative value of prevention activities to reduce risk is likely to

be increased. The need for aggressive intervention to protect forest resources may also

be increased. Because of the need for prompt

action and because of the contentiousness

that often accompanies forest management,

policy rules for pest-control activities and

silvicultural management to reduce forest

health risks are best established before they

are needed. Congress could enact a foresthealth bill that would establish criteria that

would allow prompt action to protect against

threats of catastrophic mortality or restore

forests after large-scale mortality and decline. Such a bill might allow for the

declaration of temporary forest-health emergencies, under which accelerated actions to

protect or restore forest health would be

authorized-as long as these actions were

consistent with established standards for

protection of all forest values. A policyreview group made up of academics, representatives of interest groups, and Federal

forestry personnel could develop criteria for

undertaking actions to stem forest decline.

■ Prepare for a forest-management response

to climate change. A changing climate may

eventually require innovations in forestmanagement and planting practices. Experimental efforts will be important in establishing a scientific basis for any necessary

changes to future management practices that

might later be applied to public multiple-use

forests. Congress could support a program of

research on the Forest Service’s Experimental Forests, or other research facilities, to

address adaptation to climate change. The

Experimental Forests are already designated as outdoor laboratories for evaluating

forestry practices. The research could be

directed toward finding practical and

environmentally appropriate techniques for

managing the public forests that will help

buffer them or help them adapt to a changing climate.

■ Improve incentives for private management of forest lands. The Federal Government controls only about one-quarter of the

Nation’s forestland. In the East especially,

where Federal holdings are limited, efforts to

support the protection of private forestland

may take on increased importance. The

Federal Government may use incentives,

disincentives, and cooperative approaches to

promote the health and productivity of this

forestland. Existing subsidy programs under

the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of

1978 (P.L. 95-313), as amended by the 1990

Farm Bill, provide cost-sharing assistance to

owners of small, private forests. Traditional
Chapter l-Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options I 57

forest-support programs (e.g., the Forestry Incentives Program) target funds on

the basis of potential gains in timber

supply. These programs could be modified so that funds could be targeted to

areas at high risk of insect and fire

damage and to ecologically valuable forestland, which would encourage activities

that maintain the health of the private

forestland and discourage the further

fragmentation of forestland. Expanding

the role of the Forest Stewardship and Forest

Legacy Programs might help to accomplish

these goals. The funding priorities of the

Forest Stewardship Program could be clarified, thus ensuring that most funds are

targeted to the areas identified above.

CHAPTER 1 REFERENCES

1.

2,

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Adarns, R. M., et al., “Global Climate Change and US

Agriculture,” Nature, vol. 345, 1990, pp. 219-24.

Anderson, R.L., “Effects of Global Climate Change on Tree

Survival and Forest Pests in the Sou@” paper presented at the

Society of American Foresters Convention in WashingtorL DC,

July 30, 1990.

Armentano, T. V., R.A, Park and L.C. Cloonan, “Impacts on

Coastal Wetlands Throughout the United States,” in: Greenhouse Effect, Sea Level Rise, and Coastal Wetlands, EPA

23005-86-013, J, Titus (cd.) (WashingtorL DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Oftlce of Policy, Planning and

Eva.huNiou Jtdy 1988).

Assel, R.A., ‘‘Implications of COZ Global Warming on Great

Lakes Ice Cover,” Climatic Change, vol. 18, 1991, pp. 377-95,

Ausube~ J.H., “A Second Imok at the Impacts of Climate

Change,” American Scientist, vol. 79, 1991, pp. 210-21.

Bazz.az, F. A., and E.D. Fajer, “Plant Life in a CO#ich

World,” Scientific American, vol. 266, No. 1, January 1992, pp.

68-74.

Beaq M.J., “Federal Laws and Politics Pertaining to the

Maintenance of Biological Diversity on Federal and Private

Lands, ” contractor report prepared for the Oft3ce of lkdmology

Assessment’s report Technologies to Maintain Biological

Diversity, Oct. 1, 1985.

BeaQ MJ., “Waterfowl and Climate Change: A Glimpse into

the Twenty-First Century,” On”on Nature Quarterly, spring

1989, pp. 22-27.

Beaq M. J., “Non-Indigenous Species in the United States: The

Role of the United States Department of the Interior in

Non-Indigenous Species Issues, ” contractor paper prepared for

the OffIce of lkchnology Assessment, November 1991.

10,

11,

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

Beatley, T., ‘Hurricane Hugo and Shoreline Retreat: Evaluating

the EffeetivcsEss of the south Carolina Beachfront Manage

rnent AcL’ final report to the National Science Foundation

September 1992.

Beatley, T., “Risk Allocation Policy in the Coastal Zone: The

Current Framework and Future Directions, ” contractor paper

prepared for the Office of Tkdmology Assessmen~ February

1993.

Bernabo, C.J., Science and Policy Associates, Inc., testimony at

hearings before the House Committee on Science, Space, and

‘lkchnOlogy, May 19, 1993.

Biasing, TJ., and A. Solomoq Response of the North American

Corn Belt to Climatic Warming, Publication 2134, Environmental Sciences Division (Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National

Laboratory, 1982).

BotlcirL DB,, R.A. Nisbes and T.E. Reynales, “Effects of

Climate Change on Forests of the Great Lake States,” im The

Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the Uru”ted

States, AppendixD: Forests, J.B. Smith and D.A. Tirpak (eds.)

(WashingtO% DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Policy, Planning and EvaluatiorL 1989).

Bowes, M.D., and R.A. Sedjo, “Impacts and Responses to

Climate Change in Forests of the MINK Regioq” CZimatic

Change, vol. 24, June 1993, pp. 63-82.

Bricksoq B., “The River, ” Western Water, July/August 1990.

Browq G.E., Jr., Chairmq Committee on Science, Space, and

lkchnology, U.S. House of Representatives, “Report of the

l%sk Force on the Health of Research, “ Chamnan’s Repofi ”

Serial L, Committee I%.@ 1992.

California Department of Water Resources, California Water:

boking to the Future, Bulletin 160-87, November 1987.

Carnegie Commission on Science, ‘lkehnology and Government, Environmental Research and Development: Strengthening the Fe&ral Infrastructure (W%sh.kgtonj DC: Carnegie

Commission on Science, lkchnology and Govunmen4 December 1992).

Chite, R,M., Library of Congress, Congressional Research

Service, “Federal Crop Insurance: Current Issues and Options

for Reforrq” 92-318 ENRj March 1992,

Chite, R. M., Library of Congress, Congressional Research

Service, “Agricultural Disaster ASSiStiUIW, ” ~91099, July

1992.

Cline, W.R., The Economics of Glo&al Warming (Waahingtoq

DC: Institute for International Economics, 1992).

Cline, W.R., “The Impact of Global Warming on the United

States: A Survey of Recent Literature,” contractor paper

prepared for the Oft3ce of lkchnology lkwessmem~ March 1993.

Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES),

Mitigation and Adaptation Research Strategies Working Group,

Directoq of Federal Research Activities Related to Mitigation

of or Adaptation to GlobaI Change (Washington, DC: CEES,

1992).

Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES), Our

Changing Planet: The FY 1993 U.S. Global Change Research

Program (Wasl@to~ DC: CEES, 1992).

Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES), Our

Changing Planet: The FY 1994 U.S. Global Change Research

Program (WAingtoq DC: CEES, 1993),
58 I Preparing for an Uncertain Ciimate--Volume 2

27.

28,

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, Panel

on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, National

Academy of Sciences, National Academy of J@@cdng, and

Institute of Medicine, Policy Implications of Greenhouse

Warnu”ng: h4itigation,Adaptation, and the Science Base (Wash-

-DC: National Academy Resa, 1992).

Conservation FoundatiorL Protecting America’s Wetlands: An

Am”on Agenda, the fti report of the National Wetlands Policy

Forum (Washington DC: Conserv ation Foundation 1988).

-* c~.s “Smaitivities of Western U.S. Ecosystems to

Climate change” contmctor report prepared for the Office of

‘Ikchnology Assessment August 1992.

Council for Agricultural Science and lkchnology, Preparing

US. Agricuhurefor Global Climate Change, ‘l&k Force Report

No. 119 (Ames, IOWW CourCiI for Agricultural Science and

‘lMlrlology, 1992).

Crumpacker, D., ‘‘Status and Trends of Natural Ecosystems in

the U.S.,” contractor report prepared for the ~lce of ‘I&imology Assessment’s report Technologies to Mcu”ntain Biological

Diversity, Septernlxr 1985.

D@ T.E., Wetlan& Losses in the United States, 1780s t o

1980s, report to Congress (Washington DC: U.S. Department

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990).

Dal& T.E., and C.E. Johnao& Status and Trends of Wetlands in

the Conternu’nous Um”ted States, Mid-1970’s to Mid-1980’ s

(WaahingtorL DC: U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 1991).

Davis, G.D., “Natural Diversity for the Future Generations: The

Role of Wilderness,” in: Proceedt”ngs of the Natural Diversity

in Forest Ecosystems Workshop, J.L. Cooley and J.H. Cooley

(eds.) (Athens, GA: University of Georgi& 1984).

Davis, M.B., “Lags in Vegetation Response to Greenhouse

Warming,” Climatic Change, vol. 15, 1989, pp. 75-82.

Davis M.B., and C. Zabinski, “Cbanges in Geographical Range

from Greenhouse Warming: Effects on Biodiversity in Forests, “ in: Global Warming artd Biological Diversity, R. Peters

and T. Lovejoy (eds.) (New Havem CT: Yale University Press,

1992).

de Gel@ J., Everglades: The Story Behind the Scene~ (Las

Vegas, NV: KC Publications, Inc., 1978),

Dowlatabad4 H., and M.G. Morgan, “Integrated Assessment of

Climate Change,” Science, vol. 259, Mar. 26, 1993, pp. 1813,

1932.

Drake, B. G., “Effect of Elevated COZ on Chesapeake Bay

Wetlands,” Responses of Vegetation to Carbon Diom”de, vol.

51, April-November 1990.

DuncQ NLR., “U.S. @’iC’UltUl’C: Hard Realities and New

Opportunities,” Econon”c Review: Federal Reserve Bank of

Kansas City, February 1989, pp. 3-20.

~~-,W.E., “AdaPt@ United StateS &@xl~ t.

climate Changq” contractor report prepared for the Office of

Tkclmology Asseasmen4 January 1993.

EIL C.W., Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, “Normal Crop Acreage,’ 89-467 ~ August 1989.

Emanuel, K.A., ‘‘The Dependence of Hurricane Intensity on

Climate,” Nature, vol. 326, 1987, pp. 483-85.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

Environmmtal and Energy Study Institu@ 1993 Briejhg Book

on Environmental and Energy Legislation (lVas@toq DC:

EQvironmcmtal and Energy study Institutq 1993) .

Federal EmergesIcyWna&ment Agelxy, “Projected Impact of

Relative Sea Ixwel Rise on the National Flood Inmramc

Progranq” October 1991.

Frederick K., ‘Wvenfiew,” k Scarce Water andhwitutional

Change, K. Frederick (ed.)(W@ingtoQ DC: Resources for

the FMurG 1986).

_ D., “Innovative Approaches to Water Ramurce

Management,” contractor report prepared for the Of3ce of

‘IIXlmology Assessment, September 1992.

Giant.q H.M. (cd.), Societal Responses to Regional Clime

Change: Forecasting by Analogy (Boulder, CO: Westview

Preas, 1988),

GleicL P., “Vulnerability of Water Systems,” im Climate

Change andU.S. Water Resources (NewY~ NY: John W~

& sons, 1990).

Godddk, D., D. Brewer, and T Beat@, catastrophic

Coastal Storms: HasardMitigah”on and Development Manage -

ment (DurhanL NC: Duke University PrwM, 1989).

Gore, A., “From Red ‘lhpe to Results: Creating a Governrmmt

that Works Better and Costs Less,” report of the National

Performance Review, Sept. 7, 1993.

Gornitz, V., ‘E White, and R. Cushmq “Vuhmbility of the

U.S. to Future Sea Level Rise,” in: Proceedings of the 7th

Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management (Long BCA: American Society of Civil “ Engwers 1991).

Grahaq ILL., M.G. ‘hner, and V.H. D;q “HOW Incmas@

C02 and Climate Change Meet Forests,” Bioscience, vol. 40,

No. 8, Septemba 1990, pp. 575-87.

Gramp, K.M., A.H. ‘Ric& and S.D, Nelsoq Federal Fundi”ng

for Environmental R&D: A Special Report, R&D Budget and

Policy Projecg The American Association for the Advancunmt

of science, M publication number 92-48S (Waahin@Q

DC: AAAs, 1992).

Halpiq PN., “Ecosystems at Risk to PMentird Climate

Change,” contractor report prepared for the Office of ‘Rclmology Assessment, June 1993,

Harkness, W.E., H1. Lina, and W.M. Alley, “Drought in the

Delaware River Basiq 1984-85,” im National Wtier Summary

198S-Hy&ological Events andh.rface WaterResources, U.S .

Geologictd Survey Water Supply Paper 2300 (Waah@tcq DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986).

Harper, S.C., L.L. F- and E.W. Rank@ The Northern Forest

Land Study ofNew England and New York (IWlar@ VT: U.S.

Department of Agricukurq Forest Service, and Governors’ l%sk

Force on Northern Forest Lands, April 199Q 2rKl priding,

February 1992).

Hexideq R.L., “Global Climate Change: Implication for

Silvicuku.re and Pest Management,” u“ Proceedings, F~

Biennial Southern Sihdcuhural Research Conference, Germal

‘Rchnic-al Report No. SO-74 (New Orleans, LA: USDA F%rest

Service, Southern Forest hpcriment StatiorL 1989).

Herrik C.N., and D. Jarnieso~ “l%e Social Construction of

AcidRaim Some Implications for Science/Policy Aasesmen4 “

paper to be presented at the 18th annual meeting of the Society

for the Social Studies of Science, Nov. 19-21, 1993.
Chapter l-Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options I 59

60. Hey, D., “Prairie Potholes,” in: Restoran”on of Aquatic

Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy, National

Research Council (Washington DC: National Academy Press,

1992), pp. 505-509.

61. Hodges, D.G., etal., “Regional Forest Migrations and Potential

Economic Effects,” Environmental Ton”cology and Chemistry,

vol. 11, 1992, pp. 1129-136.

62. Holdridge, L.R., L#e Zone Ecology (San Jose, Costa Rica:

Tropiml Science Center, 1%7).

63. Hubbar& D.E., “Glaciated Prairie Wetland Functions and

Mdues: A Synthesis of the Literature,” U.S. Fish and Wildlijle

Service Biological Report, vol. 88, No. 43, 1988.

64. Hudsoq W.E., Landscape b”n.kages andBiodiversity (Washington DC: Defenders of Wildlife and Island Press, 1992).

65. Institute of Ecology, Experimental Ecological Reserves: A

Proposed Nationa[ Network, report prepared for the National

Seiencx Foundation (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1977).

66. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Response Strategies Working Group, Coastal Zone Management Subgroup,

Global Climate Change and the Rising Challenge of the Sea

(The Hague: Ministry of Transport 1992).

67. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (WCC), World

Meteorological Organiza tion+ and United Nations Environment

Program, Climate Change: The IPCC Impacts Assessment,

report prepared for IPCC by Working Group IL W. McG.

‘lkgartj G. Sheldo& and D. Griffith (eds.) (Canberra, Australia:

Australian Govemrnent Publishing Service, 1990).

68. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), World

Meteorological Organiza tioq and United Nations Environment

Program, Climate Change: The IPCC Response Strategies,

report prepared for IPCC by Working Group III, 1990.

69. Intergovemrnental Panel on Climate Change (WCC), World

Meteorological Organiza tioq and United Nations Environment

Program+ Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment,

report prepared for WCC by Working Group I, J. Houghtoq G.

Jenkins, and J. Ephraums (eds.) (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1990).

70. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (TPCC), World

Meteorological Organizatiom and United Nations Environment

Progrq Climate Change 1992: The Supplementary Report to

the ZPCC Scientific Assessment, report prepared for IPCC by

Working Group I, J. Houghton, B. Callander, and S. Wrney

(eds.) (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press,

1992).

71. Jacoby, H.D., “Water Quality,” in: Climate Change and U.S.

Water Resources, P.E. Waggoner (cd.) (New Yorlq NT: John

Wiley & Sons, 1990).

72. Jamis, P.G., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Forests,”

Plu”losophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, vol.

B 3W, 1989, pp. 369-92.

73. Jones, E., and W. Stolzenberg, “Building in Coastal Barrier

Resource Systems” (Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation 1990).

74. Kalkste~ L. S., ‘‘Impacts of Global Warming on Human

Health: Heat Stress Related Mortality,” in: Global Climate

Change: Implications, Challenges and A4itigation Measures, S.

Majurndar et al. (e&.) (Philadelphia Pennsylvania Academy of

Scierms, 1992).

75. Kane, S., J, Reilly, and J. ‘Ibbey, “An Empirical Study of the

Economic Effects of Climate Change on World Agriculture,”

Climatic Change, vol. 21, No. 1, 1992, pp. 17-36.

76. Kareiv& P.M., Biotic Interactions and Global Change, J.

Kingsolver and R. Huey (eds.) (Sunderland, MA: Simmer

Associates, Inc., 1993).

77. Karl, T.R., ‘‘Missing Pieces of the Puzzle,’ Research &

Exploration, vol. 9, No. 2, Spring 1993, pp. 23449.

78. Keith, V.F., C. DeAvila, and R.M. Willis., “Effect of Climate

Change on Shipping within I.Ace Superior and Lake Erie,” in:

The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United

States, EPA-23 @05-89-050, J. Smith and D. Tirpak (eds.)

(Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

1989).

79. Kemezis, K., “Babbitt to ‘l&t Ecosystem Policy in the

Everglades, “ Environment Week, Feb. 25, 1993.

80. Kennedy, V. S., ‘‘Anticipated Effects of Climate Change on

Estuarine and Coastal Fisheries, ” Fisheries, vol. 15, No. 6,

1990, pp. 16-25.

81. Kimball, B.A., N.J. Rosenberg, and L.H. Alleq Jr. (eds.),

Impact of Carbon Dioxide, Trace Gases and Climate Change

on GZobal Agriculture, Special Publication No. 53 (Madisoq

WI: American Society of Agronomy, 1990).

82. War@ P., and M. Hershmaq “Response of Coastal Zone

Management Programs to Sea Level Rise in the United States,’

Coastal Management, vol. 18, 1990.

83. Kusler, J.A., Our Nationul Wetlands Heritage: A Protection

Guidebook (Washington DC: Environmental Law Institute,

1983).

84. Kusler, J.A., and M.E. Kenh@ Wetland Creation andRestoration: The Status of the Science (Washington DC: Island press,

1990).

85. Leatherrnaq S., “Impact of Accelerated Sea bvel Rise on

Beaches and Coastal Wetlands, “ in: Global Climate Change

Linkages, James C. White (cd.) (titerd~ l%e Netherlands:

Elsevier Science Publishing, 1989).

86. Ledig, F.’E, A Strategy to Manage Forest Genetic Resources in

the United States (Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Institute of Forest Genetics, Pacific

Southwest Research Statioq 1992).

87. IAig, F.T., and J.H. Kitzmiller, “Genetic Strategies for

Reforestation in the Face of Global Climate Change,” Forest

Ecology and Management, 1991.

88. Lettenmaier, D,, T Gaq and D. Dawdy, “Interpretation of

Hydrologic Effects of climate Change in the Sacramento-San

Joaquin River Basirq Californ@” h The Potential Eflects of

Global Climate Change on the Uru”ted States, AppendLx A:

Water Resources, J. Smith and D. Tirpak (eds.) (Waahin@oq

DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989).
60 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

89. Leverenz, J.W., and DJ. Lev, “Ef%cts of Carbon DioxideInduced Climate Changes on the Natural Rauges of Six Major

CommercisJ Tree Species in the Western United States,” in:

The Greenhouse Efect, Climate Change, and U.S. Forests, W.

Shads andj. Hoffman (eds. ) (Washington DC: The Consemation Foundation 1987), pp. 123-155.

90. Lewandrows& J., and R. 13razee, “Government Farm Prop~d C-te -c: A First J.mok’ in: Economic

Issues in Global Climate Change: Agriculture, Forestry, and

Natural Resources, J. Reilly and M. Anderson (eds.) (Boulder,

CO: Westview Press, 1992), pp. 132-147.

91. Light S., L. Ounderson, and C. Helling, “The Everglades:

Evolution of Management in a lbrbulent Ecosystem,’ Arthur

C. Miimhall Laboratory, University of Flon@ Gainesville,

unpublished manuscript 1993.

92. Lillieholm, RJ., Presewes at Risk: An Investigation of

Resource Management Strategies, Implications, and Opportu -

tu”ties, contractor report prepared for the Office of lkchnology

Amessment January 1993.

93. Linder, K.P., and M.R. Inglis, “The Potential Effects of

Climate Change on Regional or National Demands for

Electricity,” in: The Potewial Effects of Global Climate

Change on the United Statt*s, Appendix H: Ir@astructure, J.

Smith and D. Tirpak (eda.) (Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ]989),

94. Longstre@ J., and J. Wisemam “The Potential Impacts of

Climate Change on Patterns of Infectious Disease in the United

States,’ ti The PotentialEflects of Global Climate Change on

the Utu”tedStates, Appendix G: Heulth, J. Smith and D. Tirpak

(eds.) (WashingtoqDC: U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionA gency,

1989).

95. Lovejoy, T.E., “Diverse Considerations, ” Biodiverw”ty, E.O.

Wilson (cd.) (Washington DC: National Academy Press,

1988).

%. Imveland, J.E, and G.Z. Brown,Impacts of Climate Change on

the Energy Performance o}’ Buz”ldings in the United States,

contmctor report prepared for the Office of ‘Ikchnology

Assesrnen4 December 1990.

97; Lubchenco, J., et al., “The Sustainable Biosphere Initiative:

An Ecological Research Agen@” Ecology, vol. 72, No. 2,

1991, pp. 371412.

98. MagnusorL JJ., H.A. Regxer, and BJ. Shuter, “Potential

Responses of Great Lakes Fishes and Their Habitat to Global

Climate Warming,” in: The Potential Efiects of Global

Climate Change on the United States, Appendix E: Aquatic

Resources, J. Smith and D. Tirpak (eds.) (Washington DC:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989).

99, MaMmarL J.D., “Assessing Global Climate Change: When

Will We Have Better Evidence?” in: Climate Change and

Energy PoZicy, IJJS Alamos National Laboratory IA-UR-92-

502, L. Rosen and R. GlasseI (eds.) (New York NY: American

Institute of Physics, 1992), pp. 17-31.

100. Mattson, W.J., and RA. HaacL ‘‘The Role of Drought in

outbreaks of Plant-Eating Insects,” Bioscience, vol. 37, No.

2, Februaq 1987, pp. 110-16.

101. Matthews, WJ,, and E.G. Zimmerrnaq “Potential Effects of

Global Warming on Native F’ishes of the Southern Great Plains

and the Southwest,” Fisheries, vol. 15, No. 6, 1990, pp. 26-32.

102. McGill.ivary, D,G., T Agnew, G.R. PilMngtonet al., “Irnpacta

of Climate Change on the Beaufort Sea-Ice Regime: Implications for the Arctic Petroleum Imh@,” Canadian Climate

Centre Report 92-6 (DownsView, Ontario: Atmospheric Environment Service, 1992).

103. McNeely, J. A., “Climate Change and Biological Diversity:

Policy Implications,” in: Landscape-Ecological Impact of

Climatic Change, M. Boer and R. de Groot (ala.) (AmsterdanL

~ Netherlands: 10S Press, 1990), pp. 406-429.

104. McNeely, J.A., ‘‘The Future of the National Parks,” Environment, vol. 32, No. 1, 1990, pp. 16-20 and 37-41.

105. Mcarns, L., “Implications of Global Warming for Climate

Wuiability and the Occurrence of Extreme Climate Eventa,”

in: Drought Assessment, Management, and Planning: Theory

and Case Studies, D. Wilhite (cd.) (Bostoq MA: Kluwex

AC$MkdC Publishers, 1993).

106. Miller, W.F., P.M. DOU@CSty, and G.L. Switzer, “Effect of

Rising Cmbon Dioxide and Potential Climate Change on

Imblolly Pine Distribution Grow@ Suwival and Productivity,” in: The Greenhouse Effect, Climate Change and Us.

Forests, W.E. Shands and J.S. Hofhan (eda.) (Wash@toq

DC: The Consemation Foundation 1987).

107. Moreau D1-L, “It Will Be a Long Wait for Proof,” paper

presented at the Southeast Climate Symposium Chan@ng

Climate and Water Resources, Charleston SC, Oct. 27-29,

1992.

108. Murphy, D.D., and S.B. Weiss, “Effects of Climate Change on

Biological Diversity in Western North Americ.tu Species

Losses and Mechanisms “ in: Global Warnu”ng and Bwlogical

Diversity, R.L. Peters id T E. Lovejoy (eds.) (New HaverL

CT: Yale University I%ss, 1992), pp. 355-368.

109. National Audubon Society, Report of the Adn”sory Panel on

the Everglades and Endangered Species (New Y* NY:

National Audubon Society, 1992).

110. National Committee on Property Insurance, Amen”ca’s Varu”shing Coastlines, October 1988.

111, National Research Cod Toward an Understand@ of

Global Change (Washington DC: National Academy Pnx,

1988).

112, NationalResearchCounci~ Managing CoastalErosion (Waahingtom DC: National Academy Press, 1990).

113. National Research Councu Managing Global Genetic Resources: Forest Trees (Waahingto& DC: National Academy

Press, 1991).

114. National Research Council, Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy (Washin@o~

DC: National Academy Rew, 1992).

115. National Research CounciL Science and the Nationaf Parks

(WSShingtorq DC: National Academy Ress, 1992).

116. National Research Council, Water Tram-firs in the West:

Eflciency, Equity, and the Environment (Waahingto& DC:

National Academy Press, 1992).

117. National Research CouncL Research to Protect, Restore, and

Manage the Environment (WaahingtoU DC: National /kxulemy Press, 1993).

118. National Research’ Council, Setting Pnoritiesfor Land Conservation (WashingtorL DC: National Academy Press, 1993).
.

Chapter 1--Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options I 61

119. Nelsoq J.W., “The Duck Depression of the 1980’+An

Agenda for Recove~,’ a Ducks Unlimited Discussion Paper,

Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Long Grove, IL, 1989.

120. NelsoqRK., “AthapaskanSubsistenceA daptationsinAlas@”

in: Alaska Native Cultures in History, U. Kotani and M,

Workman (eds.) (OsalQ Japan: National Museum of EthnolOgy, 1980).

121. Oechel, W.c., “Effects of Anticipated Changes in Global

Climate and Atmospheric COZ on Western Ecosystems:

Chaparral and Asociated Forest Ecosystems,” contractor

report prepared for the Offlce of lkchnology Assessment, July

1992.

122. Oechel, W.C., “Sensitivities of Alaskan Biological and Social

Systems to Climate Change: A Scenario,” contractor repofi

prepared for the Offke of ‘IWnology Assessment May 1993.

123. Oechel, W.C., and W.D. Billings, “Effects of Global Change

on the Carbon Balance of Arctic Plants and fiosystems, ’ in:

Arctic Ecosystems in a Changing Climate: An Ecophysiological Perspective, F.S. Chapin Ill, R.L. Jefferies, J.F, Reynolds,

G.R. Shaver, and J. Svobo& (eds.) (San Diego, CA: Academic

PK2SS, 1992), pp. 139-68.

124. Oechel, W. C., and B.R. Strain, “Native Species Responses to

Increased Carbon Dioxide Concentration” in: Direct Eflecrs

ofkreasing Carbon Diom”de on Vegetation, DOE/ER41238,

B. Strain and J. Cure (txls.) (Washington.L DC: U.S. Department

of Energy, December 1985).

125. oeche~ W.C., et aI., “Recent Changes of Arctic Tkmdra

Ecosystems from a Net Carbon Dioxide Sink to a Source, ”

Nature, vol. 361, 1993, pp. 52023.

126. Oversight Review Board of the National Acid Precipitation

Assessment Program (NAPAP), The Experience and~gacy of

NAPAP: Report to the Joint Chairs Council of the Interagency

Task Force on Acid Deposition (Washington, DC: NAPAP,

April 1991).

127. ParlG R.A., et al., “The Effects of Sea Level Rise on U.S.

Coastal Wetlands,’ in: The PotenhaiE#ects of Global Climate

Change in the U.S., Appendix B: Sea Level Rise, J. Smith and

D. Tirpak (eds.) (WashingtorL DC: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 1989).

128. Parker, B.B., National Oceanic and Atmospheric A&rums ‘ “ tration (NOAA), Ocean and Lake Levels Division+ Offke of

Ocean and Earth Sciences, National Ocean Sexvice, NOAA,

“The Use of Long Historical Sea ~vel Records in the Study

of climate and Global Change, ’ paper presented at Marine

‘Ikdmology Society ’92, Washington, DC, Oct. 19-21, 1992.

129. Parry, M.L., and P.N. Duinker, “Agriculture and Foreshy, ”

in: Climate Change: The IPCC Impacts Assessment, W. McG.

‘lkgrixl G. Sheldoni and D. GriMths (eds.), WMO/UNEP

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (canbem& Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1990).

130. Peine, J., J. Burde, and W, Harmm“q “Threats to the National

Wilderness Preservation Systerq” in: Wilderness Benchmark

1988: Proceedings of the National Wilderness Colloquium,

General ‘Ikchnical Report SE-51 (Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest

Experiment Statioq 1989), pp. 133-141.

131. Peters, R.L., ‘The Effeet of Global Climatic change on

Natural Communitiq” im Biodiversity, E.O. Wilson (cd.)

(WaahingtOrL DC: National Academy Ress, 1988), pp. 450-

464,

132. Peters, R.L., and J.Il. Darling, “The Greenhouse Effect and

Nature Reserves,” Bioscience, vol. 35, 1985, p. 707.

133. Peters, RL., and T.E. Imvejoy (eds.), GlobaZ Warming and

Biological Diversity (New Haveu CT: Yale University Press,

1992).

134, Poiani, K. A., and W.C, Johnsoq “Global Warming and Prairie

Wetlands: Potential Consequences for Waterfowl Habi@”

Bioscience, vol. 41, No. 9, October 1991, pp. 61 1-18;

135. President’s Commis sion on Americans Outdoors, Americans

Out&ors: The Legacy, The Challenge (Washingtm DC:

Island prCSS, 1987).

136. Property Claim Services, A Division of American Inauranee

Services Group, Inc., ‘ ‘Hurricane AndrCW’S Estimated cost to

Property Insurers Revised to $15.5 Billion by Pqerty Claim

Services,” Fetnuary 1993 (press release).

137. RawsorL J.M., Library of Congress, Congressional Research

S-ice, “New Crops and New Farm Products: A Briefing,”

88-771 ~ December 1988.

138. Rawsou J.M., Library of Congress, Congressional Research

Sewice, “Agricultural Research and Extensiorr Current Issues,” 93-83 ~ January 1993.

139, my, G.C., M.G. McCormick-Ray, and F.M. Potter, “Global

Climate Change and the Coastal Zone: Evaluation of Impacts

on Marine Fisheries and Biodiversity of the U.S.,” contractor

report prepared for the Office of ‘Ibdmology Assessment,

February 1993,

140. Ray, G.C., et al., ‘‘Effects of Global Warming on the

Biodiversity of Coastal-Marine “ Zones,” iru Global Wimnz”ng

and Biological Diversity, RL. Peters and T.E. Lovejoy (eds.)

(New Haveq CT: Yale University Press, 1992), pp. 91-104.

141. Reisner, M., Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its

Disappearing Water (New York NY: Viking Pengu@ k.,

1986).

142. Riebsame, W., and J. Jacobs, “Climate Change and Water

Resources in the Saerament&San Joaquin Region of California’ ‘ working papex 64, Natural Hazards Reseamh and

Applications Information Center, University of Colorado,

December 1988.

143. Riebsame, W., S. ChangnorL and T. KarL Drought and Natural

Resources Management in the Um”ted States: Impacts and

Implications of the 1987-89 Drought (Boulder, CO: Weswiew

Press, 1991).

144. Rind, D., R Goldberg, J. I-Iansq C. Rosenzweig, and R.

Ruedy, “PotesMiaJ Evapotranspi.ration and the Likelihood of

Future Drought,” Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 95,

No. 7, 1~, pp. 9983-10004.

145, Ritchie, J.T, B.D. Baer, and T.Y. Chou, “Effect of G1oIMI

Climate Change on Agriculture in the Great bkea RegioL”

in: The Potential Eflects of Global Climate Change on the

United States, Appendix C, Volume 1: Agriculture, J. Smith

and D. Tirpak (eds.) (Waahin@oK DC: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 1989), pp. 1-1 to 1-30.

146. Roberts, L. “HowFast Can Trees Migrate?” Science, Feb. 10,

1989.
62 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

147, Rocky Mountain- Inatituttz Water Eficiency: A Resource for

Utility Managers, Commauu”ty Planners, and Other Decim”onmakers, m cooperation with the U.S. Environmental protection

*OfliCC of Water (Sno wroaas, co: Rocky Mountain

Institute, 1991).

1*. R~ NJ.) “Adaptatiim of Agriculture to Climate

-,”Ckhalz-c Change, vol. 21, No. 4,1992, pp. 38545.

149. Rosenzweig, C., “Potential Effects of Climate Change on

-M production in the Great Plains: A Sixn~tion

Study,” tie The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on

the Um”tedSmtes, Appendix C, Volume I: Agriculture, J. Smith

and D. Tirpak (eds.) @%lh@tOw DC: U.S. EIIVhOlllll=td

Protection Ageney, 1989), pp. 3-1 to 3-43.

150. Rosenzwe”q, C.,~ M. P~Y, Climate Change and World

Food Supply (OxforL En@nd: University of Oxford in

m).

151. RuttaQ V.W., “W. Parry: Climate Change and World Agriculture,” Environment, vol. 33, 1991, pp. 25-29 (book review),

152. Scow MJ., B. Csuti, and S. Caieco, “GapAnalysis: Assessing

Protection Needs,” in: L.atdrcape Linkages and Biodz”versity

(Wash@@a DC: Island press, 1991), pp. 15-26.

153. Sheer, D., “Rmervoir and Water Resources Systems in the

Face of Global Climate Change,” contractor report prepared

for the Office of ‘Rchnology Assessmen4 December 1992.

154. Simberloff, D., J.A. FaK, J. Cox, and D.W. Me -

“Movement Corridors: Conservation Bargains or Poor Investments?” Conservation Biology, vol. 6, No. 4, 1992, pp.

493-504.

155, SmitlL JB,, “Amending Natural Resourw Statutes to Anticipate Climate Change,’ con&actor report prepared for the

Office of lkchnology Assessrnen4 March 1993.

1S6. Smi@ JB., and J. Mueller-Vollrner, “Setting Priorities for

Adapting to Climate Change,’ contractor report prepared for

the Office of lkchnology Assessment, Febnuq 1993.

157. Smi@ W.H., “United States Freest Response and Vulnerability to Climate Change,” contractor report prepared for the

Gfflce of ‘lkchnology Assessment May 1992.

158. Solley, W., R Pieree, and H. Pt:rl.rnaq Estimated Use of Water

in the Utu”ted States in 1990, United States Geological Survey

(USGS) Survey Cimular 1081 (TWhi@om DC: USGS,

1993).

159. Solomo% A.M., “Transient Response of Forests to C02-

Indueed Climate Change: Simulation Modeling Experiments

in Eastern North Ameriq” Oecologia, vol. 68, 1986, pp.

567-79.

160. swanacm GA., and H.F. Duebbert, “Wetland Habitats of

Waterfowl in the Prairie Pothole Regionj” i.w Northern

Prairie Wetlands, A. vander Wdk (cd.) (Ames, IA: Iowa State

University Press, 1989), pp. 22.8-67.

161. Titus, J.G. (cd.), Greenhouse Eflect, Sea Level Rise, and

Coastal W&landr, EPA 23(M5-86-013 (wfiSh.@tO~ DC:

Us. Environment tal Protection Agency, OffIce of Policy,

Planning and hduatioq July 1988).

162. Titus, J.G. “Greenho use Effect and Coastal Wetland Policy:

How Americans Could Abandon an Area the Size of Massachusetts at Minimum Cost,’ EnvironmentaZManagement, vol.

15, No. 1, 1991, pp. 39-58.

163. Titus, J.G., and M. Greene. “An Overview of the Nationwide

Impacts of Sea Level Rise, “ i.ru The Po{entialEflects of Global

Climate Change on the United S@zr, Appendix B: Sea Level

Rise, J, Smith and D. Tirpak (eds.) (Washington DC: U.S.

Environmental Rotection Ageney, 1989).

164. ‘Ibrner, M., D. Swezy, and J. Longstrethj “Potential Impacts

of Global Climate Change in the U. S.: Importation.V

Exacerbation of Human Infectious Diseases,” mntrwmr

report prepared for the Of&-e of ‘lbchnology Assessmen$

December 1992.

165. United Nations, United Nations Convenn”on on Climate

Change, Article 2 and Article 4, Sec. 2(b), 1992.

166. U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovemmmtal Relations

(ACIR), Coordinating WaterResourcesin theFe&ralSystem:

The Groundwater~urjace Water Connection (WasMngto~

DC: ACII& October 1991).

167. U.S. by corps of “ Engmeem, Institute for Water Reaourees,

4’IWR Review Report for U.S. Congress, Office of ‘Rchnology Assessmen6 in Referenee to Draft Report on Systems at

Risk from Climate Change,” IWR Policy Study 93-PS-1, July

1993.

168. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office (GAO), Natio?ud

Wildlife Rej@?s: Continuing Problems with Incompatible

Uses Call for Bold Action, GAOIRCED-89-1% (wt@ixI@JQ

DC: U.S. GAO, September 1989).

‘169. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Oftice (GAO), WetZands

Overview: Federal and State Po(icies, Legislan”on, and Programs, GAO/RCED-92-79FS (W@ingtoU DC: U.S. GAO,

November 1991).

170. U.S. Congress, Offke of TMmology Aisessme@ Wedandk

Their Use andRegulation, OTA-O-206 (Washington DC: U.S.

Government Printing Oflice, March 1984).

171. U.S. Congress, Office of ‘lkchnology Assessmen4 Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity, OTA-F-30 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1987).

172. U.S. Congress, Offlce of ‘Ikchnology Assessment, Changing

by Degrees: Steps to Reduce Greenhouse Gases, O’IA-0482

(T%shingtoa DC: U.S. Government Print@ Off&, February

1991).

173. U.S. Congress, Off& of ‘IHmology Assesamen4 En&gy

Eflciency in the Federal Government: Government by Good

Example? OTA-E42 (WashingtoxL DC: U.S. Government

Printing office, May 1991).

174. U.S. Congress, Offlce of ‘Rzhnology Assessment A New

Technological Era for American Agriculture, OTA-F474

(WashingtorL DC: U.S. Government Printing Oftice, August

1992).

175. U.S. Congress, Office of lkehnology Awessmeq Harmfid

Non-Indigenous Species in the United S@es (Wash@to~

DC: Government Printing Gffke, in press).

176. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Blue Mountains Forest Health Report: New Perspective in Forest Health

(Portland, OR: U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Regioq

April 1991).
Chapter 1-Synthesis, Summary, and Policy Options 163

177. U.S. Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory,

Environmental Assessment and Information Sciences Divisioq RdmOlogy and Environmental Policy Sectiom E..eczs of

Scientific Uncertainties on the Accuracy of Global Climate

Change Predictions: A Survey of Recent Literature, DOE

internal repom M.E. Femau and D.W. South (eds.) (Agonne,

IL: U.S. Department of Energy, October 1991).

178. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy ResearcL Office

of Basic Energy Sciences, Carbon Dioxide Research Divisioq

Direct Effects of Increasing Carbon Dioxide on Vegetation,

DOWER-(X238, B. Strain and J. Cure (eds.) (Washington DC:

U.S. Department of Enqy, December 1985).

179. U.S. Department of the Interior, The hnpact of Federal

Programs, Volume 1: The Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plan and

the Prain”e Pothole Region, a report to Congress by the

Secretary of the Interior, October 1988.

180. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

Fish and Wildlife 2000: Spea”al Status Fishes Habitat Management, BLM/SC/PT - 91/005+6844 (WashingtoXL DC: U.S.

Government Printing 0ff3ce, May 1991).

181. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

Fish and Wildlife 2000: Annual Report ofAccomplishmentsFY

1991 (WashingtorL DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,

1991).

182. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serviceman

Overview of Major WetlandFunctions and Values, FWS/OBS84/18, contractor paper prepared by J. Sather and R, Smith

(Washington DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Semice, September

1984).

183. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Semice,

Endangered and Threatened Species Recove?y Program (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. December

1990).

184. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Semice,

Wetlands: Meeting the Presi&nt’s Cha11eng+1990 Wetlands

Action Plan (T%.shingtou DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

1990).

185, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,

R@ges 200374 Plan for the Future of the National Wildlife

Refige System, Issue 2, March 1991.

186. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and

U.S. Department of Commtice, Bureau of the Census, 1991

National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated

Recreation (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Offke, 1993).

187, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, The

Nationul Parks: Shaping the System (Waahingtow DC: National Park Service, 1991).

188. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Potential Effects

of Global Climate Change on the Um”ted States, EPA-23@05-

89-050, J. Smith and D. Tirpak (eds.) (Washington, DC: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, December 1989).

189. U.S. Geological Survey, “Coastal Hazards,” in: National

Atlas of the United States of America (Restoq VA: U.S.

Geological Sumey, 1985) (map).

190. U.S. House of Representatives, Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992-Conference Repo*

Report 1(32-1016 (Title ~: Central Wiley Project

Improvement A@ Title IOCX: Western Water Policy Review),

Oct. 5, 1992.

191. Urbaq D.L., and H.H. Shugartj ‘ Forest Response to Climatic

Change: A Simulation Study for Southeastern Forests,” irx

The Potential Efects of Global Climate Change on the United

States, Appendix D: Forests, J. Smith and D. Tirpak (eds.)

(W#dngtoq DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

1989).

192. Mm Sickle-BurketL V., et al., National Wetlands Research

Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, tables describing

coastal wetland vulnerabilities to climate change, prepared for

U.S. Office of ‘Rdmology Assessment, May 1992.

193. Wr@ R., “The Management of Water Resources in the

Western U.S. and Potential Climate Change,” contractor

report prepared for the Of&e of ‘Rdmology Assessmen4

October 1992.

194, Warreq R.S., Coastal Wetland Vuherabilities to Climate

Change, contractor paper prepared for the Oftlce of ‘Ik&nology Assessmen4 July 1992.

195. Washington W., “Reliabilityofthe Models: ‘fheirhfatchwith

Obsenations, “ in: Climate Change and Energy Policy, L.

Rosen and R Glasses (eds.) (New York: American Institute of

Physics, 1992).

1%. Webb, T., “Past Changes in Vegetation and Climate: I_xxsons

for the Future, ” im Global Warnu”ng and Biological Diversity,

R. Peters and T. Lovejoy (eds.) (New HaverL CT: Yale

University Press, 1992), pp. 59-75.

197. Wilhite, D,, “Drought Management and Climate Change,”

contractor report prepared for the Ofllce of ‘Rdnology

Assessmen4 December 1992.

198. Willan$ D.E., et al., “Wetland Vulnerabilities to Climate

Change,” contractor paper prepared for the Offke of lbchnology Assessment, August 1992.

199. WillarL D.E., and L.D. Kosmond, A Watershed-Ecosystem

Approach to L.iandand Water Use Planning and Management,

contractor report prepared for the Offlce of ‘IWmology

ASSCSSUHC Aug. 28, 1992.

200. Wingerd, D., and M. Tseng, “Flood and Drought Functions of

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,” in: National Water

summq 1988-8-ydrologic Events and Floods and

Droughts, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2375

(Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing 0i3ice, 1991).

201. World Resoumes Institute (WRI), The World Conservation

Union (lUCN), and United Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP), Global Biodiversity Strategy: Policy-Makers’ Guide

(Baltimore, MD: WRI Publications, 1992).

202. Wright G.R., Wildlife Research and Management in the

National Parks (Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press,

1992),
T

A Primer on

Climate Change

and Natural

Resources 2

his chapter summarizes the current state of knowledge

about climate change and describes the interaction of

climate variables with natural systems. Background

information key to understanding the impacts described

in each of the resource chapters (coasts, water, agriculture,

wetlands, preserves, and forests) is included here. This chapter

illustrates the range of effects climate change could cause across

systems and at different spatial and temporal scales.

Human activities have increased the rate at which greenhouse

gases-carbon dioxide (CO2

), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide

(N20), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)-are building up in the

atmosphere. This increase is likely to lead to changes in climate

that could have significant effects on natural systems. The

first-order effects of a buildup of greenhouse gases-increasing

average temperature, rising sea level, and changes in precipitation and evapotranspiration--can be estimated with some

confidence at the global scale. Global average temperature may

increase about 2 OF (1 ‘C) by 2030 and sea level is predicted to

rise by about 8 inches (20 centimeters)l in the same period;

precipitation and evapotranspiration globally will also increase.

As scientists consider smaller spatial scales, their certainty

about these effects decreases. Some midcontinent regions are

likely to become warmer and drier rather than warmer and wetter,

for example, but not enough is known yet about climate change

on a regional scale to be confident about the direction and

magnitude of changes. A decade or more of research will be

needed before such precision is available. Second- and thirdorder effects, such as changes in individual plants and animals or

whole ecosystems, are ultimately the impacts that humans care

1 To convert inches to centimeters (cm), multiply by 2.540.

I 65
66 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

about. These changes in the natural and managed

systems that societies depend on have socioeconomic consequences and result in costs or benefits.

Plants and animals are more immediately

affected by extreme events, such as droughts,

floods, or storms, than they are by changes in the

long-term averages of climate variables. However, individuals may not be able to tolerate

sustained changes in average temperature and

precipitation. Such conditions might, for example, lead to increased vulnerability to pests,

disease, and fires. Repeated stress will adversely

affect not only individuals but also populations

and species, potentially resulting in altered ecosystem ranges and composition.

As the climate changes and average temperature increases, the extremes experienced by

ecosystems will change as well. The hottest

temperatures may be hotter than previously experienced; the coldest temperatures may not be as

cold as they are now. Ultimately, temperature

shifts may alter the geographic range of species

and ecosystems. Climate change may also benefit

some plants and animals. Certain plants, for

example, may derive benefits from the rising

concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, which

can act like a fertilizer. Higher temperatures could

enable some plants and animals to increase their

geographic ranges.

Ecosystems are always changing and would

continue to do so without climate change. However, projected rates of change in temperature

exceed the estimated rates for the past 15,000

years, which averaged about 2OF(1‘C) per 1,000

years; under a changing climate, temperatures

could rise 3 to 8 OF (1.5 to 4.5 ‘C) over the next

century. These changes may be too rapid to allow

forest ecosystems to migrate with the changing

climate. Atmospheric concentrations of C02 are

changing 30 to 100 times faster than shown in

ice-core records, which go back millennia. Natural ecosystems are more vulnerable to climate

change than are managed ones, such as fares and

plantation forests, because active measuresMany animals, such as this Roe@ Mountain coyote,

require large expanses of remote and undisturbed

habitat to sustain populations. Human disturbance or

fragmentation of habitat leads to declines in prey

populations and vegetation cover. Affected species

can migrate, decline, or alter their food sources.

irrigation, replanting, and fertilizing, for example--

are much more difficult to undertake in natural

areas.

Many natural systems are already degraded by

pollution and geographic fragmentation. Additional human-caused stress may lead to undesirable changes in the values and functions of natural

systems from which humans now benefit. ‘Under

stress, natural systems of plants and animals tend

to breakup and reformulate in new systems with

different species or mixes of species” (21). The

total change in an ecosystem depends not only on

its sensitivity to climate change, but also on the

system’s absolute sensitivity to a variety of other

changes that influence soil and water chemistry or

habitat fragmentation (21).

HOW DO WE KNOW CLIMATE

IS CHANGING?

The Earth’s average temperature has increased

0.8 OF (0.45 ‘C) over the past 100 years, with an

uncertainty range of +/-0.27 OF (+/-0.15 oC). The

broad range reflects many inaccuracies introduced in the 100-year land-based temperature

record by recording temperatures in cities (which
Chapter 2–A Primer on Climate Change and Natural Resources I 67

tend to be warmer than rural areas),2 using

different instruments over time, and inadequate

and changing spatial coverage.

Because the climate system is so inherently

variable, it takes a long time to detect trends.

Besides greenhouse gases, urban ozone, decreases in stratospheric ozone, increases in acidic

air pollution, volcanic aerosols, and the solar

cycle are all likely to have influenced the observed global temperature record. For example,

the sum of all known greenhouse gases emitted to

the atmosphere to date should have increased the

heat-trapping capacity of the atmosphere by 2.1

watts per square meter (W/m2). However, over the

past few decades, other forces could have counteracted as much as 50 percent of the effect by

cooling the earth. Urban air pollution (e.g., soot

and acid aerosols) could have offset the warming

by up to 24 percent, ozone depletion by CFCS, 10

percent, and increased cloudiness by 20 percent.

Although these cooling effects temporarily mute

the greenhouse effect, they do not negate it, so net

warming is expected. Simultaneously, solar irradiance (the output of the sun) may have enhanced

the greenhouse effect by 14 percent.

Other naturally occurring events can confound

the temperature record, too, such as the 3- to

7-year occurrences of El Niño. Volcanic eruptions (such as El Chichon in 1982 and Mount

Pinatubo in 1991) can more than offset the entire

greenhouse effect temporarily (for 2 to 4 years).3

Recent satellite temperature measurements taken

over a 12-year period show no warming trend

(84). This satellite record cannot be used to refute

global warming for three reasons: 1) the record of

measurements is over too short a period; 2) two

major volcanic eruptions occurred during that

period (Chichon and Pinatubo), followed by a

several-year cooling due to the particles they

injected into the atmosphere; and 3) the satellite

Figure 2-l—Long-Term Global

Temperature Record

,.-.

●

,“-’-*” ‘*B

— As obsewed

--- Adjusted

I I I I 1 1 I

1S60 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980

NOTE: Global average temperature from raw observations (solid line)

vs. data adjusted for known biases (dashed line). Lack of data quality

and continuity has Ied to an undesirable level of uncertainty about these

records. To convert oC to oF, multiply by 1.8 and add 32,

SOURCE: T.R. Karl, “Missing Pieces of the Puzzle,” in: Research and

Exploration, Spring 1993, pp. 235-49.

does not measure the near-surface temperature of

the earth; rather, it integrates a 6,500-yard (6,000-

meter) swath of the atmosphere (48).

Despite all the confounding factors, the longterm temperature record shows warming that is

consistent with that calculated by the general

circulation models (GCMS) (44) (see fig. 2-1 and

box 2-A). The observed 0.8 OF rise is within—

but at the low range of—the 0.7 to 2.0 OF (0.4 to

1.1 oC) that models predict. The warmin g is not

“statistically significant’’--that is, it is not outside the range of normal variability. The unequivocal detection of a climate change signal from

such complicated records requires at least another

decade of measurements (44). The nine warmest

years since 1891 were all in the 1980s and early

1990s (6). Several ancillary pieces of evidence

consistent with warming, such as a decrease in

Northern Hemisphere snow cover, a simultaneous

z Bias due to ‘the heat island effect’ is likely to be less than 0,1 OF (0.05 ‘C), or less than 10 percent of the observed temperature incxease

(43).

s For example, Pinakubo injected 25 million tons (23 billion kg) of sulfur dioxide 15 miles (25 km) into the stratosphere; the cooling caused

by reflectivity of those particles should offset the warming from greenhouse gases for 2 years undl the particles settle out of the atmosphere.
68 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box 2-A–What the Models Tell Us: GCMs and Others

To describe how the climate system operates and to predict how changes in the composition of the

atmosphere will affect climate, scientists have developed models known as general circulation models (GCMs).

GCMs are composed of mathematical equations that describe the physical climate processes and interrelationships, including seasonal changes in sunlight, global air currents, evaporation and condensation of water vapor,

and absorption of heat by the oceans. The models incorporate basic physical principles (such as the conservation

of energy and mass) and empirical evidence from observations of how the climate system seems to operate (such

as statistical equations describing the humidity and temperature at which clouds generally form). The four major

GCMs have generated somewhat different predictions about how climate might change largely because they use

different empirical evidence and starting assumptions and incorporate different sets of climate variables. Even

models that agree on global averages may predict different regional distributions becausethey have different ways

of accounting for small-scale climate processes.

The differences in climate change predictions from the various major climate models have drawn

considerable attention. So, too, has the fact that observedchanges in global average temperature have been lower

than initial estimates. Many models have predicted that based on the increases of human-generated greenhouse

gas emissions (particularly carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted during fossil fuel combustion) over the past century,

global temperatures should already have increased by 0.5 to 2.0°F(0.3 to 1.0oC). Measurements of warming to

date suggest that global average surface-air temperatures have increased approximately 0.5 to 1.0 oF (0.3 to

0.6 oC)-on the low end of the predicted range (45).1

That global warming appears to be proceeding more slowly than predicted maybe due to difficulties in

distinguishing short-term climate patterns from long-term trends, as well as to the complex and incompletely

characterized interactions of oceans, clouds, and air pollution with weather and climate (44,92). Natural variations

in weather(e.g.,rainfall and temperature) occur over years or decades, which may mask longer-term (century and

millennium) climate patterns for many years (83). in addition, oceans have an enormous capacity to absorb heat,

which may delay atmospheric warming for some time (81, 88). Clouds also play an important but uncertain role

in moderating planetary climate. Depending on their composition and location, clouds may either cool the planet

by reflecting incoming solar radiation or warm it by contributing to the greenhouse effect,so it is not clear whether,

in the aggregate, they contribute to orsomewhat offset global warming (1,88). Finally, global warming maybe

offset somewhat in the Northern Hemisphere because sores human-generated pollution (particularly sulfur

aerosols) may actually exert a cooling effect: when converted to sulfate particles in the atmosphere, they reflect

incoming solar radiation (44, 88).

Generalities and uncertainties

GCMs paint the following general picture of global climate change. Average global air temperatures will

increase. With increased temperatures will come an increase in average global precipitation because warmer air

causes faster evaporation, speeding up the rate at which water vapor becomes available for cloud formation and

precipitation. Increased temperatures will cause the water in oceans to expand (water expands as it warms above

39 oF (4 oC)), and as ocean volume increases, sea levels will rise. Sea level rise may be moderated if increased

1 Global-average temperature statistics are compiled from historical temperature measurements from

weather stations around the world. Accurate Interpretation of historical temperature data is complicated and

controversial because changes In measurement techniques and locations over the past century make the data

difficult to compare. Data analysis is further complicated by the urban “heat Island effect’’--local warming In areas

with many buildlngs and paved surfaces that tend trap heat-which has raised temperatures at some monitoring

stations, reflecting changes In local climate apart from any potential global changes. The estimated temperature

change reported here was a consensus figure developed by the lntergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (lPCC)

that attempts to account for both the changes in measurement and the confounding effects of data from urban areas.
Chapter 2–A Primer on Climate Change and Natural Resources 69

temperature and water-holding capacity of

the air lead to more snow at the poles, which

may cause arctic ice sheets to grow thicker

in the near future; on the other hand, warmer

temperatures could cause parts of the

Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to melt,

causing even more sea level rise. Beyond

these generalities, significant uncertainties

remain about regional impacts, rates of

change, and feedback Regional predictions are quite murky, and they are the ones

that are most important to individual resources and human societies. A variety of

factors, including local or mesoscale effects

of hills, and vegetation boundaries, are

Important in determining regional climate.

GCMs cannot at present incorporate features this small (see the figure in this box)

because spacing between grid points is

between 150 and 800 miles (250 and 1,000

kilometers)2 (94). Because models differ in

how they treat these physical features and

because the current generation of models is

only beginning to incorporate the modeling

of ocean currents and cloud cover, it is not

surprising that the major GCMs differ markedly in predicting regional changes in precipitation, soil moisture, and other hydrologic variables. For example, certain models

predict that precipitation will increase in

some regions while others suggest that it will

decrease (83). The range (and therefore

uncertainty) in model output for soil moisture

and runoff is even greater than it is for

precipitation (49).

Most climate modelers agree that preNOTE: Models cannot yet incorporate regional features

adequately because grid sizes are too large. The smaller the

grid size, the more complex and time-consuming each model

run becomes. The top figure shows how a 460-km grid can

obscure important geologic features. The bottom figure shows

what the topography of the United States looks like with a

120-km model grid. The degree of resolution In the bottom

figure is typical of present global weather prediction models.

SOURCE: National Center for Atmospheric Research.

cipitation is most likely to increase at high latitudes and that the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere

(cloudiness) will be largest in low to mid latitudes (30). In the midcontinent areas, especially in summer,

evapotranspiration may outstrip precipitation, and thus soil moisture and runoff would decrease. The potential for

more-intense or longer-lasting droughts would therefore increase. Some scientists (78) suggest that GCMs

(because of their lack of realistic land-surface models) understate the potential for the intensification of

summertime drought in Iow to midlatitudes. If current trends in greenhouse gas emissions continue, they predict,

the frequency of severe drought in the United States would be expected to increase dramatically, with effects

becoming apparent sometime on the 1990s (78).

A second likely regional consequence of global warming is that it will lead to changes in the type and timing

of runoff. snowmelt is an important source of runoff in most mountainous areas. Warmer temperatures in such

2 TO convert miles to kilometers, multiply by 1.609. (Continued on next page)
70 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Box 2-A–What the Models Tell Us: GCMs and Others--(Continued)

areas would cause a larger proportion of winter precipitation that now fails as snow to fail as rain. Thus, the

proportion of winter precipitation stored in mountain snowpack would decrease. Winter runoff would increase, and

spring runoff would correspondingly decrease. During times when flooding could be a problem, seasonal changes

of this sort could have a significant impact on water supplies because adequate room in reservoirs would have

to be maintained (53), and thus some early runoff would probably have to be released.3

Uncertainty surrounds predictions of the rate at which climate change may proceed. Most assessments of

climate change have assumed that it will proceed gradually and continuously until the climate reaches some new

equilibrium (21). These assessments attempt to characterize what the climate might eventually be Iike when the

equivalent of doubled C02has been reached; relatively few studies have examined the intermediate,or transient,

climate stages. However,a few suggest that the change may not be linear and gradual. For example,the capacity

of the oceans to absorb heat may delay warming for some time, but there maybe some threshold after which ocean

heat absorption slows and a relatively rapid warming of air temperatures follows (81)-or proceeds in steps in a

series of punctuated equilibria (relatively rapid change for a short time followed by a period of relative stability),

so transient climate stages might be important (15).

Uncertainties also arise from lack of knowledge about potential climate feedbacks--that is, processes that

occur in response to global warming that either augment or diminish the effect in complex and interacting ways.

For example, at warmer temperatures, the atmosphere can hold more water vapor, which is a powerful greenhouse

gas, and this will magnify warming. On the other hand, some portion of the additional water vapor could form into

clouds, which can, depending on their size, shape, and distance from the Earth’s surface, reflect solar radiation

and either amplify or offset some of the warming. The role of ice and snow in climate systems has not yet been

quantified, and it is not dear whether it will prove to be an additional feedback. Warming in the polar regions will

Iikely melt sores portion of the polar ice caps, reducing the extent of land and wean covered by them. Ice and

snow are more reflective than either land or water; redwing the amount of ice and snow will allow both land and

seato absorb more heat. In addition, sea ice tends to insulate the ocean; when the ice is not present, the ocean

may release heat to the atmosphere more readily. Both processes could add to the warming cycle, so that as the

atmosphere becomes warmer, it triggers various additional processes that will make it warmer still (88).

Other feedbacks may, however, counteract warming. For example, some scientists point out that vegetation

may grow better in an atmosphere with higher concentrations of CO2

. Increased plant growth could allow plants

to take up mom carbon from the atmosphere, potentially acting as a brake to greenhouse warming (61).

Despite the uncertainties attached to climate change predictions,there are many areas of agreement on the

global, and even some regional, outlines of change. The effects on ecosystems and natural resources are more

uncertain. Even if models could now generate accurate regional and local climate predictions, scientists do not

yet have the theoretical knowledge to predict with confidence how ecosystems will react to the predicted climate

changes--and how ecosystem response will translate into impacts on natural resources and on the people who

depend on then And they are further still from being able to forecast how or whether systems could adapt.

3 The California Department of Water Resources has estimated, for example, that if average temperatures

warm by5oF (3 oC), winter snowmelt runoff would increase, but the average ApriI-JuIy runoff would be reduced by

about 30 percent (M. Roos, Chief Hydrologist, California Department of Water Resources, personal communication,

1992).

SOURCES: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (lPCC), World Meteorological Organization, and United Nations

Environment Program, Climate Change: The IPPC Scientific Assessment,report prepared for IPCC by Working Group I, J.T.

. EpmlImO (d.) (Cambltdge, l%f$and: camlXklgO UnlvOmlty h,Wso); ltlt~

PaIMIm &&Q,WukiMduudo$d Or$anizatlm, and United Nation9 Emimmmt

~wv R@@ fo ttm IPCC scktifio

f’wm% -C%8?r@o f-” m

A8mmm@ report prepared for IPCO by Wrklng Qmup i, J.T.~ B.A.

0dland8r, and M. Vamey (ads.) (Cam-, England: Carnbddge Unlvordty Praq 1902); U.S. Congmoq Offiao d%chmbgy

Awamont (OTA), Changhg byfbgre: Steps b RsckKw c3mdwuse Qamw, OTA-O-42 (Washington, DC: U.S. Qovmund

_~,F*v 19S1).
Chapter 2–A Primer on Climate Change and Natural Resources I 71

decrease in Arctic sea ice, continued melting of

alpine glaciers, and a rise of sea level (48), have

also been corroborated.

WHAT CAUSES CLIMATE CHANGE?4

The Earth’s atmosphere is a natural greenhouse. Sunlight passes through the atmosphere

and strikes the Earth, and as the planet warms and

radiates heat, a large share of the heat is trapped

by gases in the atmosphere, primarily Co2 and

water vapor. Although these gases make up only

0.25 percent of the atmosphere by volume, they

are responsible for increasing the average temperature of the Earth from O OF (the temperature it

would be without these natural greenhouse gases)

to 59 oF. The evolution of such an atmosphere

offered the appropriate conditions for the development of life on Earth. Humans have added more

CO2 and other greenhouse gases (CH4, N2O, and

CFCS) to the atmosphere over the past 100 years.

These gases effectively trap the heat that would

normally be radiated from the earth into space.

Instead, heat is reflected back to the Earth, and

both the surface and the lower atmosphere get

warmer-causing global warming. This greenhouse effect is illustrated in fig. 2-2.

An international panel of scientists was established in 1988 to assess potential climate change

and its impacts. This Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC) includes more than 50

countries, and operates under the aegis of the

World Meteorological Organization and the United

Nations Environment Program. IPCC issued a

report in 1990 and an update in 1992 (44, 45) that

represent the best scientific assessment to date

about climate change and its causes. IPCC

scientists agree on the basic atmospheric mechanisms that make the planet a greenhouse. They

also concur that human activities, such as burning

fossil fuel, deforestation, and agriculture, have

increased the rate at which greenhouse gases are

emitted to the atmosphere, and that the concentrations of those gases in the atmosphere are

increasing.

WHAT CHANGES IN CLIMATE

ARE PREDICTED?5

M Carbon Dioxide and Other

Greenhouse Gases

In contrast to measurements of temperature and

precipitation, which do not reveal clear trends,

measurements of greenhouse gases show significant, steady increases over the past century.6 For

example, the concentration of atmospheric C02

,

the most important greenhouse gas (other than

water vapor), has been systematically monitorted

since 1958 at the Mauna Loa Observatory in

Hawaii. 7 It has been increasing steadily for the

past 35 years. Data from air bubbles in ice cores

show that preindustrial atmospheric C02 concentrations were 280 parts per million (ppm); in

1990, the concentration had increased by more

than 25 percent to an annual average of 353 ppm

and is increasing at 0.5 percent per year (see fig.

2-3, lower data points). Seventy to 90 percent of

the C02 added to the atmosphere today (about 8

4 This section briefly summarizes the mechanisms and the greenhouse gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect. For a more detailed

treatment of climate change, see chapter 2 of OTA’s previous report on clixnate change, Changing by Degrees (88). That report also examines

how the United States and other countries could reduce emissions that contribute to climate change,

s ‘l’he predictions given throughout this section are based on an equivalent doubling by 2025 to 2050 of greenhouse gas concentrations fkom

preindustrial levels. In additioq the predictions refer to a future equilibrium climuk-that is, one in which the climate has Mshed chaqing

and the climate system has arrivtxi at a new bahce-rather than the rrun.sient climute, or intermediate stage, that occurs as climate change

is underway. Scientists debate whether the climate will reach a new equilibrium or whdher we are instead entering an era of continuous change.

Equilibrium may not be reached for centuries. (J. Mahhnaq Director, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton University, July 28,

1993, at a briefing sponsored by the World Resources Institute and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.)

s For a mm de~~ discussion of the emissions and effects of gKxXhOuSe -s,~r~~m 88.

7 COZ is responsible for about 70 percent of the radiative forcing (heat trapping) caused by greenhouse gases h the 1980s.
72 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Figure 2-2—The Greenhouse Effect

\

70

C#ttimg

-90 ‘c Ii

4a; \

\

Greenhouse n~gases “k \v/ 29

Atrnospenc

processes

1

Sa

Greenhouse d’ J4

!

45

Absorbed w

I

effect

)\ / I_ ?9?.

EARTH

+15°c ‘

\

(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, February 1991 ).

to 9 billion tons, or 7 or 8 trillion kilograms, of

carbon each year) is due to the burning of fossil

fuels--coal, oil, and natural gas; the remainder is

attributed to deforestation. IPCC notes that under

a “business-as-usual” scenario, the concentration of CO2 could rise as high as 800 ppm—nearly

triple the preindustrial level-by the end of the

next century (44). If world emissions were frozen

at 1990 levels, CO2 concentrations would still rise

to 400 ppm by about 2070 (see fig. 2-4),8 and

temperatures would continue to rise about 0.4 OF

(0.2 ‘C) per decade for many decades.

Increases in the atmospheric concentrations of

the greenhouse gases CH4

, N2O, and CFCS have

also been documented and can be linked to

anthropogenic emissions. As the upper line in

figure 2-3 shows, these gases effectively augment

the greenhouse effect caused by CO2. Sources of

CH4 emissions include rice paddies, domestic

animals (cattle and sheep), natural gas production

and delivery, coal production, and landfills (44).

CH concentrations increased about 1 percent per

year between 1978 and 1987 (from 150 to 168

parts per billion (ppb)). Recently, this increase

has slowed to 0.5 percent per year; the cause of

this slowdown is unknown (45).

Atmospheric concentrations of N2O began a

rapid ascent in the 1940s and increased at 0.2 to

0.3 percent per year during the mid-1980s, with

current concentrations at about 310 ppb. Ice-core

g Given that developing countries currently use one-tenth the energy of the developed world and their usage is increasing 6 to loperecnt

per year, this later scenario is unrealistic (88).
Chapter 2–A Primer on Climate Change and Natural Resources I 73

Figure 2-3-Measured and Equivalent CO2

Concentrations in the Atmosphere

Figure 2-4-Expected C02 Concentrations

in the Atmosphere According to Various

Emissions Scenarios

425

i

I d

/1

275~

1890 00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 1990

data show preindustrial concentrations of 285

ppb, which had been relatively stable for 2,000

years. Anthropogenic sources appear to be responsible for about 30 percent of N20 emissions 9—primarily from nylon production, nitric

acid production, and the use of nitrogenous

fertilizers. l0

CFCS are humanmade chemicals used primarily for refrigeration and insulation. A worldwide

treaty (the Montreal Protocol signed in 1987 and

augmented by several subsequent amendments)

will eliminate use of these chemicals by the end

of the century. The concentration of CFCS in the

atmosphere had been increasing at 4 percent per

year in the 1980s. These chemicals cause ozone

depletion worldwide and the Antarctic ozone

hole. Given world action to phase out CFCS, the

‘1 A = IPCC “business as usual”

B = frozen emissions after 1990

550 C = no emissions after 1990 A

/

$500

E i

g 450-

: 400-

a

350-

--------------

1 I I I I 1

18&3 Iti 1960 2000 2050 2100

ozone hole is expected to close in 70 years. CFCS

are greenhouse gases and trap heat, but because

they also destroy ozone (another greenhouse gas),

the net warming

zero (45).

I Temperature

IPCC predicted

from CFCS is approximately

that global average temperature would increase at a rate of 0.5 OF (0.3 ‘C) per

decade, amounting to a 5.4 OF (3.0 “C) increase by

2100. BOX 2-B summarizes the IPCC findings.

Although the global average temperature has

increased about 0.80 OF (0.45 ‘C) over the past

100 years, a warming of 1.4 to 4.0 OF (0.8 to 2.2

oC) is expected as an eventual result of the

greenhouse gas concentration increases of the

past century (this estimate does not include any

warming from future emissions).

g J. Mahlmaq Director, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton University, personal cornmunicatio~ Aug. 27, 1993.

10 However, tie sum of all known anthropogenic and natural sources is still insufficient to explain rates of atmosphtic k~w (45).
74 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box 2-B--Highlights of the IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change

IPCC is certain that:

● There is a natural greenhouse effect that already keeps the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be.

■ Emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmosphericconcentrations of the

greenhouse gases.

IPCC calculates with confidence that:

■ Atmospheric concentrations of the long-lived gases (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and the chlorofluorocarbons)

adjust slowly to changes in emissions. Continued emissions of these gases at present rates, would cause

increased concentrations for centuries ahead.

■ The long-lived gases would require immediate reductions in emissions from human activities of over 60 percent

to stabilize their concentrations at today's levels; methane would require a 15 to 20 percent reduction.

■ The longer emissions continue to increase at present-day rates, the greater reductions would have to be for

concentrations of greenhouse gases to stabilize at a given level.

Based on current model results, IPCC predicts that:

as-usual” SCenario,1 the global mean temperature will increase about 0.5oF(0.3o

■ Under the IPCC “business- C)

per decade (with an uncertainty range of O.4 to 0.9 oF per decade), reaching about 2

oF (1 oC)*~t~P~~

value by 2025 and5‘F (3 uC) before the end of the 21st century.

■ Land surfaces wilt warm more rapidlythan the ocean, and high northern Iatitudes will warm more than the global

mean in winter.

■ Global mean sea level will rise about 2 inches (6 cm) per decade over the next century, rising about 8 inches

(20 cm) by 2030 and 25 inches (65 cm) by the end of the 21st century.

All predictions are subject to many uncertainties with regard to the timing, magnitude, and regional

patterns of climate change, due to incomplete understanding of:

■ sources and sinks of greenhouse gases,

■ clouds,

■ oceans, and

■ polar ice sheets.

The IPCC judgment is that:

■ Global sea Ievel has increased 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 cm) over the past 100 years.

■ Global mean surface air temperature has increased by about O.80oF (0.45 oC)(withanunoertainty range of O.5

to 1.OoF (0.3 to 0.6oC) over the past 100 years), with the five globally averaged warmest years ocourring in the

1980s.

■ The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same

magnitude as natural climate variability. Thus, the observed temperature increase could be largely due to natural

variability;alternatively, this variability and other human factors (such as aerosol air pollution) could have offset

a still larger human-induced greenhouse warming. The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse

effect from observations is not likely for a decade or more.

1 This scenario assumes that few steps are taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The atmospheric

oonoentrationof COawouid doubie(ovwrpreindustdaileve18)byabout2060, buttheeffeotlve (x)a OOIlwltratbn (the

oumuiative effect of aii trace gases) would double by about 2030.

SOURCES: Intargcwemmental Panel on Cllmate Ohanga (WCC), Climate Cha~: 7he SC#WMC Ausssm@ Wudd MoteOroIOgieal

Organization and U.N. Environmental Program (Cambddga, England Camtxktgo Unkrdty Prea6, 1890); Inter@vu nmental Pad on

Clknata Changa (lPCC), f9# /FCC Su@wn@H Mdaordogicd Orgadzatlon and lbhd NatkMs Env&onmont Progfam

(CambMgO, England: Cam- Univwsityf%ess, 1992).
Chapter 2–A Primer on Climate Change and Natural Resources I 75

Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere will have effectively doubled11 relative to

their preindustrial values by 2030 (44, 45).

Changes in global temperature will affect global

patterns of air circulation and wind, possibly

changing the frequency or pattern of convective

storms. Some research suggests that a warmer sea

surface may lead to a longer cyclone season with

more-intense storms. TO date, however, evidence

on whether storm frequencies will change is

inconclusive (81).

On the regional level, average temperatures are

expected to increase more in the higher latitudes

(in the Arctic and Antarctic), particularly in late

fall and winter. In the northeastern part of North

America under a doubled C02 climate, for

example, warming could reach 14OF(8‘C) during

the winter (44), and average annual temperatures

could increase as much as 18 OF (10 ‘C) in some

high-latitude areas (81). In addition, summer

warming in the middle latitudes, including much

of the United States, could be greater than the

global average, potentially reaching 7 to 9 OF (4 to

5 ‘C) in the Great Lakes area (45). In the tropics,

however, temperature increases are likely to be

less than the global average, and will vary less

from season to season. Figure 2-5 (top) shows

changes in the average annual, winter, and

summer temperature ranges predicted for different regions of the United States used for studies

performed for the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) (94). Regional temperature predictions

such as these are accompanied by only a medium

level of confidence, but the predictions are likely

to improve within the next decade (81).

I Precipitation

Worldwide, average precipitation is expected

to increase by 7 to 15 percent under a doubled

C02 atmosphere. Regional changes will be much

more variable, with estimated increases of 20 to

40 percent in some locations (e.g., coasts), and

decreases of up to 20 percent in other areas (78,

94). The seasonal distribution and form of precipitation are likely to change. In regions where

precipitation increases, a significant share of the

increase may come during the winter; in some

locations, more winter precipitation will come in

the form of rain than snow (81). Although

researchers are fairly confident about the predicted rise in average global precipitation, they

are much less confident about regional precipitation because of the many uncertainties surrounding small-scale climatic processes. Figure 2-5

(bottom) shows EPA’s predicted average annual,

winter, and summer precipitation patterns for

different regions of the United States (94).

Natural climate variability is great relative to

the expected changes in climate variables. Hence,

separating the signal of climate change from the

noise of natural variability is difficult. One

statistical analysis of climate data from the

southeastern United States indicates that if average rainfall increased 10 percent, there would be

only a 7 percent chance of detecting that trend

after 25 years; even a 20 percent increase in

rainfall could only be detected with a 65 percent

probability after 50 years (63). More concretely,

it is difficult to know whether the recent 6-year

drought in the western United States is a rare but

possible outcome of natural climate variability,

an early indication of climate change, or a return

to the average climate after a long particularly wet

spell. Longer climate records are needed to

distinguish among these various possibilities. It is

unlikely that researchers will be able to resolve

the uncertainties to develop better predictions for

another decade or two (81).

11 ~~~v~e~ doub~ of COZ mf~ to the point at which the combined total of C02 and other greenhouse g~es) such as ~4) b~t

up in the atmosphere have “radiative effect equivalent to doubling the preindustrial value of carbon dioxide from about 280 ppm to 560 ppm”

(81). The full WUmiXlg associated with that amount of greenhouse gases maybe delayed by ocean q:“me ~ge ~t Capaciw of the

oceans will delay ~“on of full equilibrium warming by perhaps many decades. This implies that any spec~lc time when we reach an

equivalent COZ doubling . . . the actual global temperature increase may be considerably less [than 2 to 5 ‘C]. However, this ‘unrealized

warming’ will eventually occur when the climate system’s thermal response catches up to the greenhouse-gas forcing. ’
76 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

m

u u ==$I

1 , 0 m 0

co

m

I

u

c

m

.-c

I

, I

0 m m0 m . .

(

Elan

-1

<

3

z

z

a

<

3

z

z

<

r%
Chapter 2–A Primer on Climate Change and Natural Resources I 77

Figure 2-6-Potential Soil-Moisture Changes Under

the GISS Climate Change Scenario

\-l 1 / ) [

\-

— Much wetter (> 0.05)

Wetter (0.025 to 0.05)

No change (-0.025 to 0.025) 4

Drier (-0.025 to -0.05) .&!/

Much drier (< -0.05) ‘i

) \

B Moisture

Despite overall increases in precipitation, soil

moisture is predicted to decrease in many midcontinental regions. Soil moisture, which is

generally more important for vegetation than is

total precipitation, may decrease for two reasons.

First, the rate at which moisture evaporates from

the soil surface and from plants (evapotranspiration) would increase as temperatures rise. The

increased evaporation rates may cause soil to lose

moisture at a faster rate than is supplied by the

increased precipitation, particularly during the

summer. Second, the manner in which added

precipitation arrives can affect soil moisture by

changing runoff patterns. There are limits to how

much soils can absorb at once.12 For example,

sandy soils allow for relatively quick percolation

of water through the soil column and into

surface- and groundwater systems. However,

the percolation rates of clay soils are slow. If

increased precipitation comes in a few large

storms rather than being evenly distributed over

the year, more of it may runoff rather than remain

in the soil. Thus, increases in average annual

precipitation will not necessarily lead to increases

in soil moisture and could be accompanied by

drier conditions.

Figures 2-6 and 2-7 identify areas of the United

States that may face significant changes in soil

moisture based on the climate changes projected

12 ~a~~ of SOiIS to rer.ain wat~ vties Comi(,terably according to soil composition (the proportion of Wld md Chiy the SOfl COnblh)

and organic-matter content. In gene@ sandy soils with little organic material, such as those in central Florih have a low capacity for water

storage. Soils with more clay and a higher organic content characteristic of the Midwest, can generally retain more water (13).
78 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Figure 2-7—Potential Soil-Mokture Changes Under

the GFDL Climate Change Scenario

y~

—

CZ.2 Much wetter (> 0.05)

0 Wetter (0.025 to 0.05) u

U No change (-0.025 to 0.025) *

_ Drier (-[3.025 to -0.05)

_ Much drier (< -0.05)

o

NOTE: Numbers represent the degree of drying or wetting, calculated aa the change in the ratio of actual

evapotranspkatbn (AE~ to potential evapotranspiration (PET). GFDL-Geophysical Fluid Dynamles Laboratory.

SOURCE: P.N. Halpin, ‘Eeosysterns at Risk to Potential Climate Change,” contractor report prepared for the Office

of Tdnolegy Assessment, June 1993.

by two GCMS. An index of soil moisture was

calculated as the ratio of available moisture to

potential moisture demand (calculated as the ratio

of actual evapotranspiration to potential evapotranspiration) .13 White areas in the maps indicate

regions of no significant change in the moisture

index, dark shading indicates areas of drying, and

lighter shading shows areas that become relatively wetter. The Goddard Institute of Space

Studies (GISS) scenario (fig. 2-6) produces a

mixed result, with large areas of moderate drying

iintermixed with patches of wetting in the Southeast and northern Rocky Mountain States. The

Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL)

scenario (fig. 2-7) provides the most extreme

outcome for North America, with significant

drying across the eastern and central United

States and along the Pacific Coast.

M Sea Level

IPCC predicts that global average sea levels

will rise by around 2 inches (6 cm) per decade for

the next century, in contrast to the historic rate of

0.4 inches (1 cm) per decade that occurred since

the end of the 19th century. By 2030, IPCC

predicts that sea levels will have risen by around

8 inches (20 cm), with a total rise of 26 inches (65

cm) expected by the end of the century (44).

Sea level rise will result from the expansion

that occurs as water warms. Oceans will also be

13 ~~~~ for ~ OffiCC of mchnolo~ ~ses~ent by P. N. Halpin (34). Evapotranspiration is the loss of water fXOm *H_

resulting h both evaporation and plant transpiration. PotentiuZ evapotranspiration is the amount of water that would be lost if there were

never a shortage of soil moisture. Actual evapotranspiration is the actual amount of water released to the atmosphere (reflecting peeipitation

and limited availability of soil moisture).
Chapter 2–A Primer on Climate Change and Natural Resources I 79

affected by the melting of ice in polar regions. The

area of sea ice and seasonal snow cover will also

diminish (42). It is likely that ice on the margins

will melt more quickly in warmer waters. This

result could change the mix of fresh and saline

waters in high-latitude seas, and could further

change ocean circulation patterns.

Sea level may increase more along some coasts

and less along others because sea level rise

depends not only on whether the oceans are rising

but also on whether adjacent land masses are

rising or sinking. Some coasts are sinking as soils

are compressed; others are rising due to tectonic

forces or as they gradually rebound from the

weight of glacial ice that burdened them during

the last ice age.

14 The Mississippi River Delta in

the Gulf of Mexico is subsiding, leading to

relatively rapid rates of land loss, while much of

the West and the Alaskan coasts are experiencing

tectonic uplift and glacial rebound. Thus, the

relative sea level rise and the associated land loss

is predicted to be greater along the Gulf Coast (as

well as in parts of Florida’s Atlantic Coast and the

South Atlantic States) than along the Pacific

Coast. The interaction of sea level rise, altered

waves and currents, and storms could lead to

greatly increased erosion on sandy coasts and

barrier islands (77; see vol. 1, ch. 4).

HOW WILL CLIMATE CHANGE AFFECT

NATURAL RESOURCES?

Climate interacts with ecosystems at every

level, from the individual to the landscape,

throughout the energy and nutrient cycles, and on

time scales ranging from seconds to centuries.

The effect of climate can be direct, through the

action of temperature, evapotranspiration, and

sunlight, and indirect, through variables such as

wind, cloud cover, ocean currents, and the chemical composition of the atmosphere. For example,

photosynthesis rates are affected by the amount of

sunlight striking a plant’s leaves, which is determined by cloud cover, which in turn is determined

by such climatic factors as temperature, evaporation, and wind. Similarly, global temperature

affects the amount of precipitation and runoff,

which in turn affects the transport of nutrients on

land and through wetlands; ocean currents, which

are also strongly affected by global temperatures,

carry nutrients through marine systems. Indeed,

over the long term, climate both shapes the

physical landscape and determines where various

ecosystems can exist (see fig. 2-8). Climate

change of the predicted magnitude is not unprecedented, but scientists who warn of the potential

harms of human-induced climate change point

out that past global warming and Cooling occurred

over centuries and millennia rather than decades

(see fig. 2-9).15

# Direct Climate Impacts

Climate is often defined as the long-term

“average weather. ” Likewise, predictions for

climate change characterize changes in the Earth’s

average annual temperature. However, individual

plants and animals respond to events on small

temporal and spatial scales. Variability is usually

more important than annual totals or averages.

The seasonal distribution of precipitation and

temperature, the form precipitation takes (whether

rain or snow), extreme events such as droughts or

floods, climate-generated fire cycles, late spring

frosts, and early fall freezes are all significant

factors in determining the survival and productiv14 Land in del~ U- ofh subsides. Sediment horn upland areas loosely packs layers at the river delta where tie fiv= HW tieoas sediment accumulates over time, it gradually grows heavier and compresses the underlying layers, so the delta land mass sinks relative to

the ocean. Coastal land may also subside in areas where offshore oil and gas extraction or pumping of water from coastal aquifers, has hollowed

out underground spaces that are gradually compacted by the masses of land and water alwve. Much of the northexn part of the North American

continent is still slowly rising as it rebounds from the weight of glaciers that covered it during the last ice age and is situated on a tectonic plate

that is being lifted as the adjacent plate slides beneath it both processes may cause sea levels on the western and Alaslmn c4Msts to appear lower

relative to the coastal land mass.

IS ~~ou~ r=ent icecover ~ys~ ~w=~ tit c~te my ~ve ~t~ sever~ de~ms ti a d-de or less over NgiODS of G~tid.
80 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Figure 2-8-Approximate Distribution of the

30

Major Biotic Regions

I

[ I I I

100 200 300 400

Mean annual precipitation (cm)

NOTE: Based on mean annual temperature and mean annual predpitatbn. To convert % to oF, multiply by 1.8 and add 32; to convert

eentlrneters to Inches, multiply by 0.394.

SOURCE: Adapted fmm A.L. Hammond, “Ecosystem Analysis: Biome

Approach to Environmental Science,” ScJencw, vol. 175, 1972, pp.

46-48.

ity of individual organisms. One or several

extreme events (such as a hurricane or drought)

may shape ecosystem boundaries more than many

years of “average” weather. Eventually, however, when the ‘‘average’ has shifted well

beyond “normal,” ecosystems may have trouble

Persisting. l6

The Role of Temperature

Temperature and its distribution are important

determinants of plant productivity and survival.

Temperature range exerts three classes of effects

on plants: 1) low temperatures can damage plant

tissues, causing die-offs during unusual extreme

events and controlling the northward or altitudinal migration of plants; 2) in intermediate ranges,

temperature governs the rates of photosynthesis,

Figure 2-9-Long-Term Temperature and C02

Records from Antarctic Ice Cores and

Recent Atmospheric Measurements

1990 y

date (AD) ‘ j

\ “

1958 :

t160 120 & i 0

Thousands of years ago

NOTE: Data show that COZ Is Inereaeing in the atmosphere much

faster than It haaatanytlme overthepast 160,000 years.llwsobserved

Increase in temperature la not yet outside the range of natural varkMty.

To convert% to oF, multiply by 1.8 and add 32.

SOURCE: C. Lorius, J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, J. Hansen, and H. k

Treut, ‘The ice-Core Record: Climate Sensitivity and Future Greenhouse Warming,” Nature, vol. 347,1990, pp. 139-145,

respiration, the growth and development of seeds,

and other processes; and 3) high temperatures

may stress plants to the limits of their ability to

withstand heat and moisture loss, thus controlling

plant distribution and migration (19). Seasonal

distribution, diurnal cycles (i.e., the variation

from night to day),17 and the occurrence and

timing of extremes (e.g., late spring frosts, early

winter storms, and peak summer high and winter

low temperatures) are all aspects of the effects of

16A s~t upw~d ~ be rne~ tcm~~me (with an unchan&d standard deviation) will UMke heat waves Of tOdSy mOm ‘av-~” h dlC

future.

17A loWer gro~ se~on bas<d on temperature may actually prove beneficial for some plants beeause day hmgth is a mSjOr fSCtOI in

pmduetivity.
Chapter 2–A Primer on Climate Change and Natural Resources 81

Box 2-C-Climate Change and Coastal Fisheries

Background

The U.S. commercial, recreational, and sport fishing industries, worth an estimated $14 billion in 1986 (73),

rely on the health of nearshore and coastal areas (such as tidal marshes, coral reefs, seagrass beds, mangrove

forests, estuaries, and banks). Two-thirds of the world’s fish catch, and many other marine species, depend on

coastal wetlands and estuaries for their survival (42). By far the greatest portion of U.S. commercial fisheries

catches, with the exception of those from Alaskan fisheries, are composed of estuarine-dependent species.

Ongoing alterations of critical habitat (such as geographic fragmentation and pollution) may be exacerbated by

climate change.

Much is yet to be learned about the marine environment and the long-term effects that humans have on it.

Understanding the breadth of environmental stresses that affect fish and coastal systems will be essential to

forecasting how climate change may affect these valuable areas. During the 1970s and 1980s, populations of

many commercially important estuarine-dependent fish plummeted. Human activities in the coastal zone are

thought to have been responsible for many of the dramatic declines in fish populations. Overfishing has been

implicated as a primary cause of the declines of some fish stocks, with some 42 percent of species in American

waters considered to be overfished (52). The Atlantic cod fishery of the Grand Banks area has all but collapsed,

triggering industry-related layoffs (primarily in Canada) of more than 30,000 people (75). Migratory species such

as salmon, shad, herring, and striped bass have decreased due to a combination of habitat degradation and

overfishing. The Chesapeake Bay’s oyster harvest has declined 96 percent from the levels of 100 years ago due

to disease, over-exploitation, predators, and habitat degradation (18). Nearly half of the Chesapeake’s wetlands

and seagrass meadows, which serve as primary nursery habitat for many migratory species, have been destroyed.

Such destruction will adversely affect future fish populations.

The fishing industry from Southern California to Alaska is experiencing similar troubles as a result of

overfishing, the damming of spawning rivers, water-quality degradation from logging, and other anthropogenic

(Continued on next page)

temperature on plants. Length of the growing and indirect influences on animals. Higher-thanseason is also very important, particularly for

agricultural crops. Seed production generally

requires a certain number of days with a temperature above freezing, often expressed in terms of

degree-days. At northern latitudes, the growing

season may not be long enough for some species

to set seeds. Longer growing seasons in a warmer

climate could boost productivity of trees and

other plants, especially those that could tolerate

erratic spring and fall weather (e.g., early or late

frosts). Seeds of many tree species, including

conifers, need to be chilled for particular periods

before they will germinate (17, 21), so a shortened

cool season could be detrimental to such species.

In addition to the numerous effects of temperature on vegetation, temperature exerts other direct

usual temperatures can adversely affect the reproductive success of many birds, mammals, and

insects (26). Increased water temperature limits

the availability of oxygen in the water and, in turn,

reduces the amount of oxygen available to fish

and other aquatic organisms (87). For many fish

species, ambient water temperature is critical for

survival (see box 2-C). In addition, temperature

increases can actually reduce the number of

species in a given ecological community (87),

though total biomass may increase.

Warmer temperatures could allow some insects, including various agricultural pests, to

survive winters farther north than they now do.

For example, the potato leafhopper, which is a

pest on soybeans and other crops, now overwin-
82 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box 2-G-Climate Change and Coastal

,— - - - .

------ -

Californian -., , / Carolinian

Fisheries--(Continued)

activities. In Alaska,where the seafood industry employs 23 percent of the State’s work

force, this could prove to be a major problem.

More than half of the Nation’s seafood harvest

comes from Alaskan waters.

Scientists have hypothesized that climate

warming is likely to alter the distribution and

reproductive success of coastal species (77).

Many marine species are sensitive to narrow

temperature variations. Water temperature

controls the respiration and reproduction rates

of fish. Changes in temperature can also

affect the geographical distribution of species

range because some species will thrive in

warm waters, while others function effectively

only in coder waters. Changes in stream

flows will also be important because they can

alter the salinity of coastal bays and estuaries.

The interactions of temperature and salinity

determine the “tolerance zone” for most fish

species. Anadromous fishes--which swim

upstream to spawn, such as salmon--also

depend heavily on stream flow and water

quality (33). If these are altered by climate change, there maybe serious effects on reproductive success. in ail

these cases, climate change would be expected to alter the dose associations between species distributions and

reproductive success, and the success of the fishery as a whole. Although it is difficult to estimate the magnitude

of these changes, impacts could upset the stability of the commercial fishing industry on which many coastal

residents rely.

Coastal areas have also been affected by human activities that contribute toxic pollutants and polluted runoff to marine waters. Runoff from developed and agricultural areas and overflow from storm-water systems

adversely impact these areas. Nutrients cause algal blooms, which deplete oxygen available for fish and other

organisms. Stressed species may become more susceptible to disease and predators. Shoreline construction and

dams have also contributed to fishery population declines. Destruction of estuarine and coastal zones limits

nursery and breeding areas, and dams prohibit fish from reaching upriver spawning grounds (see vol. 1, ch. 4,

and vol. 2, ch. 4).

Regulatory attention has generally not addressed coastal zone management in Iight of the potential impacts

of climate change. Harvest regulations, which are either inadequate or insufficiently enforced, seem unable to keep

pace with the decline in fish populations (52). In she@ too many fishermen are taking too many fish from

overburdened ecosystems. Traditional fishery management is concerned primarily with a few major resources and

tends to pay far less attention to the other ecosystem elements that fish depend on (77). Increasing concerns about

ecosystem management (see vol. 2, ch. 5) and the upcoming reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation

and Management Act (P.L 94-265, as amended) and the Clean Water Act (P.L 92-500, as amended) offer

opportunities to work toward improving fisheries and their habitat. Below, we highlight the regional importance of

marine fisheries and identify particular problems (77).
Chapter 2–A Primer on Climate Change and Natural Resources 83

Regional Characteristics of the U.S. Coastal Marine Fisheries

Acadian-Boreal (Newfoundland and southern Greenland to Cape Cod, MA)

■ Cultural: Indigenous coastal people-New England dam diggers.

■ Fishing:

■

—7 percent of the Nation’s commercial fisheries

--estimated value, $250 million in 1990

--multispecies trawl fishery

--32 percent of species estuarine-dependent

-important species include hard dam, soft dam, American lobster, sea scallops, northern shrimp, Atlantic cod,

butterfish, cusk, flounder, haddock, red and white hake (sliver hake)

–Atlantic cod most commercially important fish in 1989 (valued at $45 million)

Common problems:

-only remaining self-supporting U.S. salmon runs are in Maine

-lobsters are overharvested

-northern shrimp are at maximum harvest and subject to environmental variability, especially when waters

are warmer

Virginian-Mid Atlantic (Cape Cod, MA, to Cape Hatteras, NC)

■ Cultural:Indigenous coastal people--Chesapeake Bay watermen.

■ Fishing:

--estimated value, $500 million in 1990

—11 percent of the Nation’s commercial fisheries

-most important species are blue crab and surf and ocean quahog

-Chesapeake Bay fish: 87 percent are estuarine-dependent

Common problems:

-region ‘is the most urbanized and densely populated in the United States

--disease, overharvesting, predation, and pollution are rampant--responsible for reductions in harvestable

shellfish, forcing many watermen out of business

--second to the Gulf of Mexico in the number of point sources of pollution

--striped bass began a precipitous decline in 1973

Carolinian-south Atlantic (Cape Hatteras, NC, to Cape Canaveral, FL)

■ Fishing:

-3 percent of the Nation’s commercial fisheries

-estimated valued, $169 million in 1990

-94 percent of species estuarine-dependent

-over half of this harvest from estuarine-dependent species

-most important species include Atlantic menhaden, blue crabs, and penaeid shrimp

■ Common problems:

-application of pesticides and fertilizers to extensive commercially harvested forested wetlands

degradation of shellfish habitat due to agricultural runoff and septic system overflow

Floridian-West Indian (Cape Canaveral to Key West, FL, and West Indies)

● Fishing:

-values for individual species are not observed

-important species include the Queen conch, spiny lobster, Nassau grouper, and more than 100 reef fishes

(Continued on next page)
84 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Box 2-C--Climate Change and Coastal Fisheries--(Continued)

■ Common problems:

--growing human populations, greater demands, and technological improvements in catch

-virtually all assessed reef-fish stocks are overharvested

--major tropical storms, including hurricanes, generally affect the area

Louisiana-Gulf of Mexico (Northern Gulf of Mexico from Central West Florida to South Texas)

● Fishing:

—17 percent of the Nation’s commercial fishery (with Vera Cruzian)

--estimated value, $648 million in 1989

--leading seafood producer among regions

■ Common problems:

--subject to devastating floods, tornadoes, hurricanes and tropical storms, erosion, land subsidence, saltwater

encroachment, and sedimentation

--second-fastest-growing population rate of all regions

-more point sources of pollution than any other region

-application of pesticides to agricultural lands is the highest among all regions

Vera Cruzian-West Indian (South Texas to Yucatan Peninsula)

■ Fishing:

--fourth leading U.S. port in fisheries value

-major commercial species are similar to those of the Gulf region

■ Common problems:

-hurricanes and intense thunderstorms

California-subtropical Eastern Pacific (Southern California(LosAngeles basin) southward to Mexico and

Central America)

■ Fishing:

-major commercial species include Pacific sardine, northern anchovies, and Jack mackerel

■ Common problems:

-most wetlands already lost; restoration doubtful

-low-lying coastal areas subject to sea level rise

Oregonian-Temperate Eastern Pacific (California north of Los Angeles to British Columbia)

■ Fishing:

-estimated value, $337 million in 1989

-ens-fifth of catch estuarine-dependent species, especially Pacific salmon (Chinook, coho, sockeye, pink and

chum)

--commercial landings of salmon valued at $140 million

-other important species include northern anchovies, Pacific sardine, Jack mackerel, and groundfish

(flatfishes, rockfish, including Pacific whiting, sable fish, Dover sole, widow reddish, and others)

■ Common problems:

--confiicts among fishermen, the Fisheries Council, various States, Canada and foreign fisheries regarding

the allocation of resources

-worsening freshwater (spawning) habitat has been the main cause of the salmon decline, and wild coho

stocks of the lower Columbia River were recently declared extinct

Sitkan-North Pacific (British Columbia to base of Alaska Peninsula)

■ Fishing:

--56 percent of the Nation’s commercial landings of fish (with other Alaskan fisheries)
Chapter 2–A Primer on Climate Change and Natural Resources 85

--estimated value, $1.5 billion in 1990

-5.4 billion pounds (2.5 billion kg) landed In 1990 (with other Alaskan fisheries)

—76 percent of species estuarine-dependent

--most important species include Pacific salmon, Pacific herring, Pacific halibut, Gulf groundfish (Pacific

cod, stablefish), king crab, and tanner crabs

■ Common problems:

-some rookeries threatened by fishery operations

-Exxon Valdez oil spill severely contaminated coastal areas

Arctic-Boraal/Arctic (Southeast Bering Sea to Chukchl and Beaufort Seas and Canadian archipelago)

Cultural:Coastal indigenous people--Eskimo, Aleute

fishing:

-most important species include Pacific salmon, Alaska pollock, Pacific herring

—Pacific salmon fisheries rank as the State’s largest nongovernmental employer

-provides an integral part of Alaska’s native culture and heritage

Common problems:

-acme stocks (chinook and echo) may be harmed by foreign high-seas catches, and some salmon may be

regionally overfished

-destruction of spawning and rearing habitat

-human population in this area is expected to increase by 380 percent between 1960 and 2010

Aleutian-North Pacific (Alaska Peninsula base to Aleutian and Pribilof Islands and Including southwest

Bering Sea)

■ Fishing:

-estimated value of groundfish, $352 million in 1990

-dominant groundfish groups are walleye pollock, flatfishes (Yellow sole, rocksole, other), Pacific cod, Atka

mackerel, and shrimp

—Alaska king crab value, $88 million in 1990

■ Common problems:

--The U.S. fishery for shrimp in Alaska is at a low level, and potential yields are not well-understood (91)

Insular-lndo Pacific (Tropical Indian and Pacific Oceans; not shown in figure)

■ Cultural: Coastal indigenous people--Papuan, Micronesia, and Hawaiian

■ Fishing:

—7 percent of the Nation’s commercial flsheries taken in the Pacific United States and Hawaii

-major species include invertebrates species (spiny and slipper lobsters; gold, bamboo and pink

corals), bottom fish (snappers, jacks, groupers, Pacific armorhead), tropical tunas (yellowfin and

skipjack), and albacore

■ Common problems:

-coastal pollution

-destructive fishery technologies (explosives, poison, etc.)

--overfishing by foreign fleets

--ambiguous application of Federal environmental laws

SOURCES: M.R. Chambers, ‘U.S. Coastal Habitat Degradation and Fishery Declines, " in: Transactions of the North American Wildlife and

natural Resources Conference (Washington, DC: The Wildlife Management Institute, In press); U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Our Living Oceans, The First Annual report

on the Status of the U.S. Living Marine Resources, NOAA Technical Memo, NMFS-F/SPO-1, 1991; C.G. Ray, G. McCormick-Ray, and F.M.

Potter, Global Climate Change and the Coastal Zone: Evaluation of lmpacts on Marine Fisheries and Biodiversityof the U.S., contractor

report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.
86 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

infiltration, runoff, and evaporation)--directly

affects plant growth through its role in photosynthesis. Although average annual precipitation is

often used to characterize climate zones, the

seasonal distribution is more significant than the

annual total. Adequate moisture during the growing season is critical. Seeds need moisture to

germinate, and young plants-both annuals and

perennials--are often quite sensitive to drought.

Vegetation may respond by defoliating, which

reduces water and nutrient demand, helping

plants survive dry periods. Precipitation during

the growing season controls wood growth as well

as the size and maturation time of seeds (21, 42).

Decreases in soil moisture can slow growth,

interfere with reproduction, and cause plants to

die early. Increases in soil moisture are less likely

to cause harm unless the soil in normally dry areas

becomes saturated with water for extended periods. Standing water can drown the roots of plants

not adapted to wetlands by interfering with

normal respiration; extended saturation of roots

may kill the entire plant.

Direct effects of moisture on many land animals may often be less important than the indirect

effects-that is, moisture affects plant growth,

which then affects the availability of food and

habitat (86). However, moisture does play a

critical, direct role in the natural history of

invertebrate species (e.g., snails) and is essential

to the survival and reproduction of amphibians

(105). Fish and other aquatic organisms that

inhabit rivers and streams can be threatened by

either too little water during drought periods or

too much runoff flowing into streams. During

periods of high precipitation, water may become

turbid, interfering with the health and functioning

of the aquatic ecosystem. Moisture is also important to many microorganisms and fungi, including

many that contribute to human disease or are

considered forest or agricultural pests (described

in more detail below and in vol. 1, ch. 6, and vol.

(the result of a combination of precipitation, 2, ch. 6).
Chapter 2–A Primer on Climate Change and Natural Resources I 87

Sunlight

The amount of available sunlight, or solar

irradiance, that strikes vegetation is an important

variable in photosynthesis and productivity. Individual plants or species that make up the canopy,

those near the edges, or those growing in clearings receive more light, whereas those in the

understory are better adapted to lower light levels.

Solar irradiance varies regularly from season to

season and from latitude to latitude. Cloud cover

also affects the quality and quantity of solar

irradiance and its distribution over time, allowing

less sunlight to reach the surface on cloudy days.

If climate change is accompanied by increased

cloudiness, as some models predict, overall plant

productivity could decline. Water stress and high

temperatures may also affect plant response;

however, plant response to changes in solar

irradiance is complex and difficult to predict (19).

In addition to the total amount of solar irradiance, the number of hours of sunlight per day (day

length, or photoperiod) plays a role in plant

functions such as flowering and the setting of

fruit, and influences the rising of sap indeciduous

trees, such as sugar maple, in spring. Light quality

may also affect productivity. For example, cotton

depends on very regular day lengths, which only

occur in southern latitudes. Plant species that

might migrate northward as the climate warms

may not be able to reproduce as effectively

because day length is longer at northern latitudes

during the summer and drastically reduced during

the winter (41). On the other hand, adaptation to

a shorter photoperiod may limit northward movement.

Increased C02

Rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2 may

affect the rates at which plants grow, respire, use

water, and set seeds. This is known as the CO2

fertilization effect (see box 2-D). Numerous

laboratory experiments and intensively managed

agricultural systems that have been studied suggest that CO2 has the potential to boost plant

growth and productivity by speeding the rate of

photosynthesis, relieving nutrient stress (by improving efficiency of nutrient uptake and use),

increasing water-use efficiency, decreasing respiration (which is a major source of water loss),

slowing the rate at which leaves die, and speeding

the development of seeds (27, 42,66,68,69, 93).

Theoretically, the fertilization effect could

compensate for the water stress faced by plants in

areas that become warmer and drier due to climate

change, and might actually increase the total

global biomass (41). On the other hand, various

studies have suggested that in some settings, there

may be limits to and even detrimental effects from

increased CO2. For example, changes in the

amount of carbon in plant leaves affect nutritional

quality (65), which could mean that foraging

animals would have to eat more leaves to gain the

same amount of nutrition. Increased CO2 may

also cause starch to accumulate in plant leaves to

such high concentrations that it could actually

harm the plant by interfering with photosynthesis

(50), though there is no field data to support this.

Numerous complex factors interact to determine the extent to which fertilization actually

occurs in natural ecosystems, and many uncertainties about the overall impacts remain. Plant

responses to CO2 vary according to species and

stage of development, as well as to water and

nutrient availability (42). Some plant species

already use CO2 efficiently and will not receive

much of a boost, whereas other species are now

limited by their inefficient use of CO2 and could

profit from higher atmospheric concentrations.

Plants may experience the greatest productivity

boosts from increased CO2 when other nutrients

are plentiful (7). Thus, for example, field studies

have demonstrated that higher CO2 concentrations boost productivity in Chesapeake Bay salt

marshes, where water entering the bay is rich in

nutrients (2, 27, 28, 107), but CO2 fertilization

does not appear to be significant or permanent in

nutrient-limited tundra and other arctic ecosystems (32, 68). Few other ecosystem types have yet

been tested in the field. Intensively managed

agricultural systems, in which nutrient deficien-
88 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box 24)-Coping with Increased CO2: Effects on Ecosystem Productivity

Climate,particularly the combination of temperature and moisture, largely determines where plants grow (14),

and vegetation, in turn, is key to the distribution of animal species. Generally, climate belts vary within the United

States from humid and damp in the Southeast and Northeast to moderately dry in the central regions, to arid in

much of the West, except for a humid belt along the Pacific Coast from northern California to Washington.

Temperature and precipitation maps of the United States reveal bands across the Nation from north to south for

temperature, and east to west for precipitation. Vegetation growth, in type and lushness, varies with temperature

and altitude, but in all cases, solar irradiance is critical to the productivity of living things.

The sun provides the energy that fuels ecosystems; this energy is transformed through the processes of

photosynthesis and photorespiration. During photosynthesis, plants use water and the energy from sunlight to

convert carbon dioxide (CO2

) and other nutrients into organic matter and oxygen. This process is dependent on

the concentration of CO2 in the air (i.e., ambient CO2

), and, therefore, changes in normal CO2 levels may affect

photosynthesis and, likewise, plant growth. External environmental factors, such as temperature and the

availability of nutrients, may modify photosynthesis as well. The output of organic matter by an ecosystem is

characterized as its biological, or primary, productivity. Linked to primary productivity is nutrient cycling--the

absorption by plants of vital nutrients (e.g., carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorous) and their subsequent conversion

into usable forms.1 The combination of energy and nutrient cycling in vegetative systems determines the nature

of the assemblage of plants and animals in a given area Certain types of plants, growing in certain conditions,

have higher primary productivities than others, Ecosystems that are highly productive often support both large

numbers of other organisms and many diverse species-that is, they are characterized by high secondary

productivityand high biodiversity.2 Productivity is also key to carrying capacity --the number of organisms that a

particular area can support. Carrying capacity can vary from year to year based on many factors, including climate,

1 Carbon is derived from CO2

through photorespiration; nitrogen and phosphorous are taken up from the soil

and converted to usable forms during the same process.

2 Although definitions vary, biodiversity generally refers to the "variety and variability among living organisms

and the ecological complexes in which they occur" (89).

cies can be remedied by adding fertilizers, may be fires, which play an important and visible role in

more likely to receive a productivity boost from

additional C02 than are natural ecosystems.

Many complex interactions determine to what

extent, if any, the C02 fertilization effect documented in laboratory studies will occur in natural

ecosystems. The responses will likely vary so

much from ecosystem to ecosystem and location

to location that there cannot be a simple answer to

the question of whether it will present a net

benefit or a net harm.

■ Indirect Climate Impacts

Through Stressors

Climate will also have numerous secondary

impacts. Increases in herbivores, disease, and

mediating the near-term effects of climate change

on communities and ecosystems, could result. For

example, although few trees in a forest may die

outright due to heat or drought, it is likely that

many trees will sicken and become more susceptible to insects and disease. At the same time, trees

in decline will provide more fuel for frees (83).

The extent to which an area is stressed by

anthropogenic activities, such as land clearing

and pollution, will also influence the effects of

climate change.

Insects and Disease

Climate may affect the proliferation of insects

and disease in numerous ways. Higher tempera-
Chapter 2–A Primer on Climate Change and Natural Resources 89

and refers to the individual species or mix of species in a particular ecosystem. Overall, however, ecosystem health

and productivity is dependent on the availability of sunlight, water, nutrients, and C02.

Considerable experimental evidence has shown that an increase in the atmospheric concentration of C02

has the potential to increase plant growth and ecosystem productivity (28). This expected effect of increased plant

productivity in the presence of elevated C02 concentrations is known as the “CO2 fertilization effect,” and it is

expected to be particularly pronounced in the presence of plentiful supplies of light, water, and nutrients. Over the

long run, this effect may help alleviate the rate of global warming by drawing excess C02 from the atmosphere

(8), although researchers are uncertain about the extent to which this will occur (vol. 2, see box 6-B).

Plants vary in their response to C02 in part because of differing photosynthetic mechanisms-- most species

follow the C3 pathway and some, the C4 pathway. C3 species (e.g., wheat, rice, soybeans, and all woody plants)

are not yet fully saturated with C02 and may greatly increase their productivity, whereas C4 species (e.g., corn,

sorghum, sugar cane, and tropical grasses) are almost saturated with CO2 and their productivity may not be much

affected. Added productivity of C4 species from doubled C02 may be in the O to 20 percent range, and in the 20

to 60 percent range for C3 species. The differential effects of C02could alter the dynamics of competition among

species, with C3 plants potentially prospering at the expense of C4 species. In agriculture, this competition among

plants may prove important. Because 14 of the world’s most troublesome weed species are C, plants that occur

amidst C3 crops, enhanced CO2 concentrations may make such weeds less competitive (73). However, many of

the major weeds of corn (a C4 crop) in the United States are C3 plants; climate change may favor the growth of

these weeds. Similarly, natural grassland ecosystems where C4 grasses now dominate may be invaded by weedy

plants. Competitive success, however, does not depend solely on response to CO2. Competition among species

in natural ecosystems will continue to depend on the ability of species to tolerate soil, light, temperature, and

moisture conditions. Because of the complex effects of competition among species, it is by no means clear how

the overall productivity of natural ecosystems will increase under elevated CO2 (8).

SOURCES: B.G. Drake, "The Impact of Rising C02on Ecosystem Production,” Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, vol. 64,1992, pp. 25-44; P.M.

Kareiva, J.G. Kingsolver, and R.B. Huey (ads.), Biotic Interactions and Global Change (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc., 1993).

tures could accelerate the growth rate of insects. Once stressed by heat or drought, vegetation

If the number of warm days per year increases, the

number of insect generations per year may

increase. Also, the range of many insects is

determined by cold winter temperatures. As

described in the section above on temperature

impacts, milder winters could allow insects such

as leafhoppers (agricultural pests) to spread north

of their present range. Hot, dry conditions encourage the growth of numerous fungi in forests (such

as Armillaria mellea, a fungus that causes root

disease), which can cause widespread damage in

many types of forests. Warm, humid conditions,

which favor soil and leaf-litter organisms as well

as decomposition, may encourage the growth of

other fungi and insect pests, such as aphids, which

can also be quite damaging,

may become more susceptible to pests (58).

Changes in CO2 concentration may affect the

composition of leaves, potentially making them

less nutritious, so insects might have to consume

more to obtain the same amount of nutrients (8).

Thus, damage from insects and disease might

increase, and in some cases, the effects of climate

change may become noticeable over the short

term. Over the long term, damage from insects

and disease may cause less-adaptable species to

decline, potentially opening the way for exotic

species to migrate into communities (21, 83).

Extreme Events

Periodic but unpredictable events such as

extended drought, storms, and fire are among the

primary natural factors that shape ecosystems.
90 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Severe storms accompanied by high winds and

rain, hail, or ice may cause significant wind

damage in forests, toppling older trees and

leaving a trail of debris, but also clearing space for

new vegetation to take root (see vol. 2, ch. 6).

Storm damage may reduce habitat for birds and

wildlife that prefer a dense forest canopy and little

undergrowth, but could increase food and habitat

for animals that thrive in mixed forests with

cleared areas, such as deer. In coastal areas,

tropical storms and their accompanying high

winds and waves play an enormous role in coastal

processes (see vol. 1, ch. 4).

The occurrence of fire is critical in determining

vegetation types, successional history, and wildlife species in forests in more arid areas, such as

prairie and chaparral, and in wetlands. Fire is

important in maintaining prairie, but the control

of fire has virtually eliminated most naturally

occurring prairie areas. In some wetlands, including the Okefenokee Swamp and others along the

Atlantic coastal plain, fire has played an important role in clearing shrubby growth and maintaining wetland vegetation. Under normal conditions,

fire clears out forest undergrowth, damaging

some trees but allowing new ones to take root,

thus creating a more open stand of trees (see vol.

2, box 5-I).

Fire has been recognized for playing an important role in vegetation succession. In areas where

fires have been suppressed and fuels have accumulated, however, fires may become so hot that

they cause severe damage, and forests may

regenerate slowly or not at all. For example,

chaparral ecosystems in the foothills of California

rely on fire to spur the growth of the shrubby

plants that dominate the area; however, in areas

where fire has been suppressed, a fire that does

occur will be more damaging, and the regeneration of chaparral species maybe affected. Natural

fire regimes are influenced by the frequency of

lightning (which may or may not increase as the

climate changes), the presence of hot, dry winds

to carry a fire once ignited, and an abundance of

dry fuel provided by the buildup of undergrowth

or vegetation that has died from drought or

disease, as well as by dry, living vegetation (22).

Fires may increase under changed conditions, but

the ability of species to regenerate in areas with

less moisture, because of climate change, maybe

reduced. Thus, recovery may not occur.

Anthropogenic Forces

Climate change may serve to make species or

ecosystems more susceptible to stresses from

human disturbance. Human activities have become so widespread that they are now a pervasive

influence on much of the environment. Agriculture, timber harvesting, road building, and urban

development have fragmented the landscape,

carving natural areas into ever smaller and

less-connected patches (see vol. 2, box 5-E). This

fragmented landscape may offer few opportunities for organisms to adapt to a changing climate.

Fragmentation often isolates small populations of

plants and animals, which may limit genetic

diversity and make them less able to adapt to

change over time. These small, isolated populations may also be prevented from moving to new

and more favorable areas by barriers such as

roads, buildings, or large cultivated fields. In

addition, humans may respond to changes in

climate by adopting land uses (such as more

extensive cultivation) that further fragment the

landscape, exacerbating the stresses on flora and

fauna.

Human activities may also result in the intoduction of weedy and nonindigenous species that

flourish in the disturbed areas and that may

eventually outcompete other species, leading to

local extinctions and reducing the diversity of

ecosystems. In areas where weedy or nonindigenous species already pose a threat to a particular species or ecosystem, the added stress of

climate change may further tip the balance in

favor of weedy species that thrive in disturbed

conditions. Similarly, air pollution in urban areas,

and in much of the Northeast, already threatens

the health of many plant species. Climate change

could further weaken individuals that are already
.

Chapter 2–A Primer on Climate Change and Natural Resources I 91

stressed by pollution, and could make them more

susceptible to insects or diseases.

Although climate change might not be the

proximate cause of ecosystem harm, it could

increase the potential for damage. In sum, climate

change may exacerbate many other stresses, both

natural and anthropogenic.

9 Direct Climate Impacts on Ecosystems

As temperature and moisture regimes change,

climatic zones could shift several hundred miles

toward the poles, requiring plants and animals

either to migrate or adapt to a new climate regime.

The rate of change will determine the degree of

impacts: some species might be able to keep up

with change, others could become extinct-either

locally or globally (see box 2-E). The ability of a

species to adapt will be critical to its survival. By

the same token, the decline and disappearance of

species that are unable to adapt will decrease the

biodiversity of ecological communities. Such a

reduction may leave the remaining species more

vulnerable to catastrophic events. Ecosystems,

the assemblages of plants and animals, are

unlikely to move as units, but will instead develop

new structures as species abundance and distribution are altered (42).

The general distribution of ecosystems is

related to climatic conditions. The Holdridge life

zones shown in figure 2-10 characterize regions

of North America according to the general

vegetative ecosystem suited to current climate

conditions. Under climate change scenarios projected by four GCMS, this distribution of vegetation zones will shift significantly (34). There is

general agreement among scenarios about the

direction of change: the extent of tundra and

cold-desert climate zones will decrease, and the

area of potential forest and grasslands will

increase. Despite this general agreement, there

are qualitative differences, with dry forest types

increasing under some climate scenarios, and

moister forests increasing under others. Overall,

as much 80 percent of the land in the United States

.

‘=$wtw+

. , * ,’ ,$

J’ . . . !. ~,.

Alpine areas are awash in color when spring and

summer flowers bloom.

may shift to anew vegetation zone (see fig. 2-11).

Associated with such

could be large-scale

ecosystems.

Adjustment of Species

shifts in climatic zones

disturbances to existing

Natural adjustments to climate change could

begin with the failure of some species to reproduce because flowering, fruiting, and seed

germination-and in some animals, reproductive

physiology or mating behavior--could be affected. All of those processes are particularly

sensitive to climate. Reproductive failure might

allow new species to invade, or give a competitive

advantage to other species already present. Thus,

a gradual adjustment could occur, although in
92 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box 2-E--Responses of Natural Systems to Climate Stress:

Adaptation, Migration, and Decline

Resonses of individuals and communities to climate stress fall into three basic categories: adaptation,

migration, and decline and die-back The extent to which individuals and communities respond may depend on

the rate and magnitude of climate change.

Adaptation

It is difficult to predict which species, populations, communities, ecosystems, and landscapes will prove most

able to cope with climate change because of the many variables and uncertainties that exist. However, biological

diversity affords populations the ability to adapt to changes in the environment by serving as a natural protection

against shocks and stress."The rule that there is security in diversity is an axiom of ecology as well as finance....

Biological diversity is a natural protection against surprises and shocks, climatic and otherwise. Among diverse

species will be some adapted to prosper in a new landscape in new circumstances” (21).

in species with diverse gene pods, the chances will be greater that some individuals will possess a

combination of genes that is useful in new environments, such as genes that determine drought resistance and

tolerance to extreme temperatures or salinity. These individuals will be the most likely to survive and pass along

adaptive characteristics to their offspring. At the community level, diversity may also increase the chances for

survival. For example, a forest stand composed of a single species or of trees that are all the same age may be

less able to withstand climate change than a forest composed of several species within a range of ages.

Biodiversityis generallyconsidered an important trait at the ecosystem level, too, because it increases the chances

that the overall structure and function of an ecosystem will persist or adapt to changing conditions, even if some

species that were formerlypart of the ecosystem no longer remain (21).

Some species may prosper under climate change conditions, others may be able to adapt relativiely quickly,

and still others may prove unable to adapt at all and may face extinction. As a result, ecosystems may change

as differed plant species become dominant and different animal species become associated with altered habitats

(21). Species in varied landscapes maybeable to find microclimates within their current ranges that are suitable,

and some species may even thrive and expand their ranges. Species already adapted to disturbed environments

(e.g.,weedy species) may be particularly resilien to changes in climate. On the other hand, species with extremely

specific and/or narrow habitats maybe more at risk to changes in climate. In addition, species on the fringe of

habitats, in transitional zones, may also experience greater stress from the impacts of climate change because

these species may not be well-established. On the whole, sores species may be restricted bya variety of biological

and physical imitations, but others will be able to adapt to the conditions brought on by climate change.

Certain wildlife species may be able to alter their diet in favor of other, exotic but newly available plant species.

White-tailed deer, mule deer, moose, elk, and other species benefit from human activities that disturb ecosystems

and alter habitat (22). If, for example, climate change contributes to the conversion of a dense, forested habitat

to a more open area, species such as these would likely benefit. Similarly, some birds, such as robins, starlings,

and @is, may adapt easily to alterations in habitat caused by climate change (22). These species tend to feed

on a variety of different organisms and are territorial and aggressive in nature. They are very good at vying for

resources with less competitive and smaller birds.

Migration

Some communities and ecosystems might have to migrate to survive the environmental conditions that could

result from climate change. Most species of vegetation and wildlife have the ability to migrate to some extent.

However, adverse conditions, such as landscapefragmentation, may limit this ability (see vol. 2,ch.5). in addition,

the ability of a species to migrate depends not only on environmental conditions but on dispersal rate. Animals

can generally disperse much more quickly than plants (22). However, because wildlife independent on vegetation
Chapter 2–A Primer on Climate Change and Natural Resources 93

for survival, many species are forced to migrate only as fast as vegetation does (94). Therefore, the health and

survival of many species will be dependent on the response of vegetation to climate change.

Dispersal rates for vegetation are considerably slower than the projected rate of climate change, and,

therefore, some species will not be able to migrate as fast as their corresponding climatic regimes. For example,

most North American tree species can migrate at 12 to 25 miles (20 to 40 kilometers) per century, but climate

regimes are expected to migrate at much faster rates, in some cases by at least an order of magnitude (106). In

particular parts of the United States, climatic regimes may shift hundreds of miles by as early as the middle to the

end of the next century (43, 74). Because some species will be unable to keep up with the pace of climate change,

their range may be reduced, or they may become extinct.

Coastal and estuarine wetland vegetation will Iikely attempt to migrate inland as the sea level rises. Their

success in migrating will depend on the steepness of the coast and obstructions to migration that might exist, such

as rocky areas and human-built structures. Wetlands fringing the playa lakes of the Southwest may retreat along

with the water levels if increased evaporation, in a hotter and drier climate, causes water levels to drop. Alpine

tundra will likely migrate toward higher altitudes as lower areas become warmer and drier.

In all of these cases, wildlife and other organisms that are dependent on these ecosystems for survival may

attempt to migrate as well. The least Bell’s vireo, an endangered species completely dependent on riparian

vegetation for survival, may lose a great deal of habitat if inland drying occurs (22). The jack-pine forest in northern

Michigan, which provides critical habitat for the endangered Kirtland’s warbler, could die off and be replaced by

a sugar maple forest in as few as 30 years under climate change conditions (1 1).

In each case, the ability to migrate will be limited by adjacent land-use patterns and the availability of areas

to which organisms can migrate. “Barriers,” such as roads, cities, and agriculture, degrade habitat quality and limit

the ability of vegetation and wildlife to move or spread. Roads may pose a formidable physical barrier to animal

migration, and even plants may have difficulty “moving” across roads if their seeds are too heavy to be dispersed

easily and overlarge distances by wind. Vast expanses of suburban developments now occupy sites that formerly

could have offered either suitable destinations or pathways for migration of plants and animals from one Iocale

to another. Many animals will not cross seemingly small obstructions, such as railroad clearings or roads, to get

to nearby suitable habitat (22). Agricultural land and other highly managed areas prevent species from naturally

establishing themselves. In general, the ability of plants and animals to migrate in response to climate change is

largely affected by anthropocentric influences and factors. Nevertheless, many species will be sufficiently

resourceful to migrate successfully, and some may even thrive and expand their ranges.

Decline and die-back

If climate change is rapid or severe, some species, ecosystems, and landscapes may not be able to adapt.

Changes in climate may cause severe loss of function or value in certain species, ecosystems, and landscapes,

or may result in the disappearance of certain species or entire ecosystems. Just as human land-use patterns may

limit migration, they may also ultimately Iimit the chances for some species or ecosystems to survive. Some species

are well-suited to a very narrow set of environmental conditions, but lack characteristics that would allow them to

move or adapt easily to new environments. When human activities reduce or eliminate their normal habitats, these

species are likely to show signs of stress leading to decline or die-back.

in forest systems, decline and die-back occur when a large proportion of a tree population exhibits visible

symptoms of stress, unusual and consistent growth decreases, or death over a large area Such distinguishing

characteristics can be irregular in distribution, and discontinuous but recurrent in time. In all cases, however,

decline and die-back are the result of complex interactions of multiple stress factors (83). Some common abiotic

factors include drought and low- and high-temperature stress. Biotic agents include defoliating insects,

root-infecting fungi, and borers and bark beetles. Typically, declines are initiated by an abiotic stress, with mortality

ultimately caused by a biotic stress agent.

(Cotinued on next page)
94 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Box 2-E—Responses of Natural Systems to Climate Stress:

Adaptation, Migration, and Decline--(Continued)

More often than not, the decline and die-back scenario is a direct or indirect response to a change in some

climatic variable. Changes in precipitation and temperature patterns have been shown to have an interactive and

sequential influence on the health of forest systems. Drought conditions tend to enhance the possibility of insect

attack For example, sugar maple in northern forests is extremely sensitive to extreme changes in temperature.

Moist, warm weather is particularly conducive to the spread of Eutypella canker, a serious stem disease, whereas

drought periods favor the spread of Armillaria decay; wind damage and sudden temperature drops significantly

favor certain cankerous fungi, and the Iack of snow cover can result in deep root freezing (83). Nevertheless, these

phenomena have sufficient common characteristics in various forest tree species to allow for some generalization;

changes in climate will almost certainty exacerbate existing stresses, further influencing forest decline and

die-back

Some ecosystems will be influenced by changes in sealevel rise. For example, coastal wetlands have been

able to keep pace with a sealevel rise of approximately 0.04 inches (1 mm) per year for the past 3,000 years, which

Is the rate at which many marshes are able to accumulate material. However, climate change is sure to increase

the rate at which sea Ievel rises, which may ultimately drown these wetlands (98). Likewise, alpine and arctic

ecosystems may shrink and, in some sites, disappear if the amount and speed of climate change exceed the rate

at which these systems can migrate upslope. On the whale, the rate at which climate change occurs will have a

direct effect on the rate at which ecosystems experience declines in population and die-back responses.

SOURCES: P.M. Karelva, J.G. Kingsolver, and R.B. Huey (de.), Biotic Interactions and Global Change (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer

Associates, Inc., 1993), 559 pages; R.L. Peters and J.D.S. Darling, “The Greenhouse Effect and Nature Reserves," Bioscience, December

1985, pp. 707-17; C. Zabinski and M.B. Davis, “Hard Ti mes Ahead for Great Lake Forests: A Climate Threshold Model Predicts Responses

to CO2-induced Climate Change,” in: The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on The United States, Appendix D: Forests

EPA-230-95-89-054, J.B. Smith and D. Tirpak (eds.) (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 19S9).

some areas, or for some species, slow processes of widely dispersing species (e.g., weeds) increase

seed dispersal, soil development, and achievement of sexual maturity may curtail adaptation.

Pollen records suggest that temperate forests can

migrate at approximately 62 miles per century,

but the correlated growing-season conditions may

shift by 200 miles for every 4 OF (2 ‘C) of

warming, so even in the lower range of climate

change predictions, some tree species might not

be able to keep up. Modeling results suggest that

if a forest includes some species that are better

adapted to a new climate, those species may

become dominant, but if none of the species are

better adapted, the whole forest might decline.

However, climate change is unlikely to decimate

vegetation and make land barren, except in

limited areas that are now arid and that may

become even drier. Rather, ecological communities are likely to change as rapidly moving and

in number, while slower-moving species decline

and disappear (21).

The adjustment process will not occur uniformly across species, communities, and ecosystems. Plants or animals attempting to migrate to

new areas may face competition from those that

still remain. Some migrators may be able to

compete effectively, and others may not. For

example, wetland vegetation may attempt to take

root further inland as sea level rise inundates

coastal marshes, but existing inland plants that

survive may temporarily block the path. Migration may also be blocked by areas rendered

unsuitable as a result of human use. Some wetland

species may be more capable than others of

establishing themselves among the inland vegetation. Thus, many species, as well as ecosystem

processes and interactions, may be reshuffled,
Chapter 2–A Primer on Climate Change and Natural Resources I 95

Figure 2-10-The Distribution of Holdridge Life Zones Under Current Climate Conditions

e-’

= Dry forest Y

~ Cool desert

~Warrnternperate forest

~ Semiarid

- Hot desert [

Y

_ Coolternperateforest -

_ Subtropmlrn olstforest ~

Tundr a

m Boreal forest Y

m Steppe +shrublands T

fl Polar deserthce + cold Darklands \-%

especially at the boundaries of current ecological

zones, where ecosystems are the least mature and

the most stressed (21). However, plants that are

capable of migrating or adapting may not necessarily be the most desirable. Climate change

could lead to an increase in less-valued species

and a change in ecosystem composition.

Development of Asynchrony

The migration of vegetative species could put

many organisms ‘‘out of sync’ with their environments and disrupt many symbiotic relationships. As plants migrate inland and upland,

pollinators and other vectors that assist in the

reproductive process may not move at the same

rate. If insects and birds are left behind, plants will

face significant losses in populations, and some

may become extinct. This may be especially true

for organisms with very specific ranges, whether

they be limited by topography, precipitation, or

temperature. In addition, insects and birds may

arrive at their migratory destinations prematurely,

before feeding and nesting conditions are optimal, or too late, after resources have been

exhausted. Organisms will be exposed to different and varying conditions, such as photoperiod,

intensity of sunlight, and temperature, unlike

what they are currently acclimated to, which may

affect reproductive capabilities as well. In addition, some plant species may alter nutrient cycles

and other processes in order to adapt to new soil

and moisture conditions. This could not only

adversely affect the health of plants, but could

reduce their nutritional value, thereby affecting

the health of the wildlife that depends on them for

sustenance. Marine species will face similar
96 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 1

Figure 2-n-Percent of U.S. Land Area Shifting

Holdridge Life Zones After CO2 Doubling

100. t

0 L

UKMO Osu GFDL GISS

NOTE: UKMO=United Kingdom Meteomiogioal Office, OSU-Oregon

State University, GFDL-Geophysical fluid Dynamics Laboratory, and

GISS-Goddad Institute for Space Studies.

SOURCE: P.N. Halpin, “Ecosystem:; at Risk to Potential Climate

Change,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, June 1993.

Many species of birds, like this Clark’s nutcracker,

are &pendent on specific habitats that provide

sustenance and cover. Fragmentation of these areas

could have a dramatic impact on populations unable

to locate mating, nesting, feedhg, and over-wintering

habitat.

difficulties because most fish require specific

conditions for reproductive activities to occur at

optimum rates. Anadromous fish (those that swim

into freshwater streams from the sea to spawn)

may be most affected as salinity in intertidal

waterways is altered due to sea level rise. On the

whole, the migration of vegetation in response to

altered climate and the subsequent response of

insects, birds, and other organisms could have

significant impacts on ecosystem structure, function, and value.

U Interactions Among Climate, Ecosystems,

and the Physical Environment

Climate change will affect living organisms

both directly and indirectly, as described above,

but it will also affect the processes of the physical

environment in which they exist-soils and

nutrient cycling, the hydrologic cycle, and photorespiration. Effects on the physical environment and living organisms will interact and cause

further modifications to the environment and the

organisms. Because the various biological and

physical processes are intricately interconnected,

with many feedbacks among them, it is difficult

to predict what the overall effect of climate

change will be. The following sections suggest

the range of interactions between climate and the

biological and physical processes it affects.

Interact/on of Water Resources and Ecosystems

Water influences ecosystem function, but ecosystems, in turn, influence the flow of water

through the hydrologic cycle (see fig. 2-12 and

vol. 1, ch. 5). Waterfalls to the Earth’s surface in

the form of precipitation. Some water stays on the

surface and evaporates relatively quickly. Some

percolates into the soil and is taken up by

vegetation, from which it is eventually transpired

through the processes of photosynthesis and

respiration. The remaining precipitation moves

from upland to low-lying areas--on the surface,

as shallow groundwater flow toward rivers or

streams, or by infiltrating more deeply into and

through aquifers, eventually emptying into rivers,
Chapter 2–A Primer on Climate Change and Natural Resources I 97

Figure 2-1 2—The Hydrologic Cycle Shows

r’-~ i; ~ ‘ -d--/#->

AtrnosDheric moisture ~: -} ~r,.f clouds

How Water Moves Through the Environment

4&D0 BGD ‘“ *(: - r ‘, :

r : S( SUN )?

solar i~)

radiation

‘“~-

Evaporation and transpiration‘“::4

from surface water bodies,

land surface and vegetation ~-~ ‘/$

i~

‘ .,.. .’,.;,.

,,, , :

. . . ‘, ,“

- . .

,.

.- . . .

“. ,

.,

~. . .

-

groundwater

NOTE: BGD - billions of gallons per day. To convert gallons to liters, multiply by 3.785.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1992.

lakes, and oceans, from which it eventually

evaporates-and the cycle begins again.

The extent to which water evaporates, discharges to surface water, seeps into the ground, or

remains on the surface depends on the amount and

form of precipitation, the temperature, the topography, the nature of soils (whether sandy or

clayey, and the content of organic matter), and the

types of vegetation. Vegetation moderates the

cycle in several important ways: it adds to the

organic matter of soils, increasing their water

retention; roots and stems may physically anchor

soils and slow the passage of water and channel

water below ground, further reducing runoff; and

canopies of leaves reduce droplet impact on the

soil and affect the rate of evapotranspiration.

Because of these interactions, changes in vegetation may cause changes in the hydrologic cycle.

For example, a semiarid grassland that is stripped

of vegetation through overgrazing (by either wild

or domestic herbivores) may lose some of its

ability to retain water as plants no longer slow

runoff or take up water to release it slowly later.

The interaction of changes in the ecosystem and

the hydrological system may eventually lead to

desertification.

Climate interacts with the hydrologic cycle on

different scales. Global average temperatures

affect how much moisture can be carried in the

air, how quickly clouds form, how readily clouds

yield precipitation, and how much precipitation

occurs and in what form (e.g., rain or snow), as

well as the large-scale wind patterns that carry

clouds from one region to the next. On a regional

or local scale, temperature affects the rate at

which water evaporates from the surface or
98 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

transpires from plants. Temperature further affects the rate of evapotranspiration by influencing

the form in which precipitation falls. Rain typically runs off soon after it falls. Snow may remain

on the surface for a considerable amount of time,

with the delayed runoff supplying downstream

and adjacent areas with water during the spring.

Thus, global and regional changes in temperature

and precipitation can affect the hydrologic cycle

and the related ecosystem interactions in numerous ways.

The predicted changes in global climate will

essentially increase the rate at which the hydrologic cycle occurs, although different hydrologic

models yield rather different scenarios of what the

regional results will be (79). As outlined above

and in volume 1, chapter 5, total global precipitation is expected to increase 7 to 15 percent, but

warmer temperatures will allow for greater and

more rapid evapotranspiration, which could lead

to drier conditions in some areas (particularly in

midcontinent, midlatitude regions). Hydrologic

studies suggest that river watersheds can be quite

sensitive to even small climatic changes, particularly in arid and semiarid areas, where annual

runoff tends to be highly variable. In river basins

where snowmelt is important, both the annual

total runoff and its seasonal distribution can be

affected by changes in temperature and precipitation. Overall, climate change is expected to lead

to significant changes in both high-flow and

low-flow runoff extremes (42).

Soils, Nutrients, and Vegetation

Soil development and nutrient cycling rely on

a dynamic interaction among rock, plants, fungi

and microorganisms, and atmosphere. The development of soils depends in part on the rock that

contributes sediments as it erodes and weathers,

on the kinds of plants that grow on the soil

generating detritus of varying composition, and

on the microorganisms associated with the plants

that decompose the detritus into nutrients and

organic matter. Nutrients, including carbon and

nitrogen, are cycled in various forms through

plants, soil, and the atmosphere. The type of soil

that has developed may limit the kinds of plants

that can easily take root and survive (which then

provide habitat for particular animal species that

affect nutrient turnover from plants). The presence of vegetation further affects the soil by

anchoring it, thus preventing erosion.

Both temperature and moisture affect the type

of vegetation that grows, the amount of detritus

produced, and the rate at which litter decomposes

and releases nutrients that can then be used by

other plants, animals, and microorganisms. With

intermediate levels of moisture, increased temperatures accelerate decomposition. This may free

more nutrients in the short term, potentially

boosting productivity. However, faster decomposition could also release more carbon (in the form

of CO2 from the soil, particularly in the northern

United States, where soils store a large share of

the global carbon, thus amplifying the greenhouse

effect. Furthermore, as described in the earlier

section on CO2

, increased concentrations of

atmospheric C02 will likely lead to changes in the

composition and structure of plant leaves. The

ratio of carbon to nitrogen may increase, which

may actually slow the rate at which these leaves

decompose and release minerals (see box 2-D).

Changes in precipitation and runoff will also

affect whether nutrients are maintained or lost

more quickly from soils. More-frequent or moresevere storms could cause more erosion and soil

loss in areas where land use is intensive or where

vegetation has declined because of altered climate

conditions (19, 42, 64).

The overall effects of climate change on soils

are difficult to calculate because of the many

complex and interacting processes that contribute

to soil development. Regardless of the long-term

change in soils, in the shorter term, soils may play

an important role in vegetation changes. As

temperatures warm, the suitable ranges or climate

conditions for many plant species may expand

northward. However, soils at the northern edge of

the United States and into central Canada tend to

be thinner and less fertile than those in the
—.

Chapter 2–A Primer on Climate Change and Natural Resources I 99

Midwest, which may make adaptation difficult

for some species. In agricultural systems, any lack

of nutrients in the soils can be compensated for by

adding fertilizers, although there may be environmental costs associated with this (see vol. 1,

ch. 6).

Sea Level, Oceans, and Coastal Ecosystems

The many interconnected physical changes in

oceans and coasts will affect marine ecosystems

in numerous ways (see box 2-C). Wave patterns

in certain areas could be altered as a result of

changes in regional climate, which could affect

the stability of coastal areas.

Coral-building organisms thrive at a rather

narrow range of water temperatures and depths.

Although these organisms build reefs at a rate of

up to 0.6 inches (1.5 cm) per year, fast enough to

keep up with predicted sea level rise, other factors

such as storms and warmer water temperatures

could interfere with their growth and, in some

cases, could kill the organisms. Loss of coral reefs

would change the wave and water patterns near

the coast and could allow for increased coastal

erosion. Likewise, mangrove trees along many

tropical coasts play an important role in shore

stabilization. Sea level rise could inundate some

mangrove swamps. As these trees die, the coast

would be left vulnerable to erosion. In addition,

the potential elimination of salt marshes and

seagrass beds could have serious effects on

marine organisms. However, wetlands may migrate landward at a rate dictated by the landward

slope and sea level rise. In any case, the physical

and biological changes along oceans and coasts

could interact to amplify the effects of climate

change (see vol. 1, ch. 4).

WHICH NATURAL RESOURCES ARE MOST

VULNERABLE TO CLIMATE CHANGE?

Although regional predictions of the natural

resources most at risk from climate change cannot

be made based on existing knowledge, certain

characteristics may put some parts of a natural

resource system at greater risk than others. For

example, ecosystems with limited options for

adaptability-such as alpine ecosystems, oldgrowth forests, fragmented habitats, and areas

already under stress-may be particularly vulnerable to changes in climate (42) (see vol. 2, ch, 5).

How ecosystems will fare under climate change

also depends on other factors that influence soil

and water chemistry, including land use, air

pollution, and water use (21). Although systems

at the edges of their ranges and those already

stressed may be at the greatest risk from climate

change, some systems that now appear healthy

could also suffer.

Natural ecosystems may be more vulnerable to

climate change than managed ones. Furthermore,

natural or less managed ecosystems may be

affected not only by changes in climate, but by

further stresses resulting from human responses

to those changes, such as increased irrigation,

diversion of water from streams, and expanded

tillage or grazing (see vol. 2, chs. 4 and 5). On the

other hand, poor management responses in forestry and agriculture, such as planting species that

are not well-adapted or maintainingg stands at high

densities, could make some managed areas vulnerable as well (see vol. 1, ch. 6, and vol. 2, ch. 6).

Vulnerability to climate change will certainly

vary widely, and predictions about how systems

will respond to climate change are difficult to

make.

Changes in soil moisture may be among the

best indicators that a natural resource system is

becoming stressed. Figures 2-6 and 2-7 illustrate

areas of the United States that may face changes

in soil moisture under the climate change scenarios projected by GCMS. The extent to which

these changes in soil moisture will affect areas of

significant natural cover (34) is presented in

figure 2-13. The figure shows the percent of area

in each land class that is becoming effectively

wetter (measured above the zero axis) or drier

(below the zero axis). The GFDL scenario produces dramatic effects, with the majority of all

existing ecosystems except tundra and deserts
100 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Natural disturbances, such as the Yellowstone fires,

create openings in forested areas where grasses and

wildflowers can flourish. This provides new food

sources for elk and other wildlife. Fires also promote

recycling of nutrients, which enriches the soil,

moving toward drier climatic regimes. Almost 80

percent of agricultural lands of the United States

face drying under the GFDL scenario. The GISS

scenario produces a mix of wetting and drying in

areas of natural cover, with the exception of some

noticeable drying in the wetlands. Agricultural

lands (the Midwestern corn belt and California)

are more effected, with over 40 percent of the

agricultural lands showing some drying under the

GISS scenario.

Natural resource systems could change in any

number of ways in response to a changing

climate, but not all changes damage things that

humans value. For example, a gradual shift in the

boundaries of a wetland would probably not be

considered a damage unless this results in a

reduction of the habitat, flood control, water

faltering, or recreational services offered by that

wetland. Similarly, an increase in tree mortality

may be of no concern in a forest valued as wildlife

habitat rather than as a source of timber supply.

The degree of human intervention may also

influence the vulnerability of natural resource

systems to climate change. Depending on how

natural systems are valued, they may be managed

along a spectrum from active to passive management regimes. Because intensively managed systems are considered valuable, and because people

are already exerting effort and expense to keep

them productive, use of additional measures to

respond to a changing climate is likely. On the

other hand, wilderness areas are essentially

unmanaged-but highly valued precisely because

of this lack of management. Active intervention

to protect these areas seems unlikely (see vol. 2,

ch. 5), but there may be little loss of value from

any but the most extreme effects of climate

change on these natural areas. Thus, climate

impacts on natural resource systems and the need

for taking precautionary actions in preparation for

climate changes cannot be evaluated without also

considering how people value and manage these

resources. These are the issues considered in

subsequent chapters that investigate the effects of

and possible responses to climate change in

individual natural resource sectors: coastal systems, water resources, agriculture, wetlands, preserves, and forests.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change, the National Academy of Sciences, and

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have

all conducted assessments of the potential impacts of climate change (see box 2-F). Their

reviews describe numerous impacts of climate

change on U.S. natural resource systems, which

laid the foundation for this report. Subsequent

chapters will summmize some of the predictions

made by these reports for individual natural

resources, then explore in greater detail the
Chapter 2–A Primer on Climate Change and Natural Resources I 101

Figure 2-13-Soil-Moisture Changes Under the GFDL and GISS Climate Change Scenarios,

by Land-Use and Cover Type

GFDL—

EZ23 Drier

_ Muc h

—

GFDL

l==!H

drier

GFDL

GFDL

r-lrl

Much wetter

Wetter

GFDL

mm

GFDL

r——k—l

[

Tundra Coniferous Dec[duous Grass-shrub Desert Wetland Agricultural

forest forest land

NOTE: Bars above the zero axis represent the percent of land-use area predkted to become wetter; bars below the mds show the percent of land

area becoming drier. Dryfng or wetting iscalcuiated from the change in the ratio of actual evapotranspiration (AET) to potential evapotranspiration

(PET), No change is reported if the index changed (up ordovm) by leas than 0.025; wetter- 0.25 to 0.05; much wetter- M1.05; dderm -0.25 to 4,05;

much drier. .4.05. GFDL-Geophysical Fluid Dynamiea Laboratory, GiSS.Goddard Institute for Spaoe Studies.

SOURCE: P.N. Halpin, “Ecosystems at Risk to Potential Climate Change,” contractor report prepared forthe Office of Technology Assessment, June

1993.

vulnerability and adaptability of the various

resources and the potential management strategies and policies that might assist adaptation.

CHAPTER 2 REFERENCES

1,

2.

AllmchL B.A., “The E!%ct of Uncertainty in the Representation of Cloud Processes in Climate Models on Climate Change

Prediction” in: Effects of Scientific Uncertainties on the

Accuracy of Global Climate Change Predicn”ons: A Survey of

Recent Literature, M.E, Fernau and D.W. South (eds.), U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE) Internal Repq Argonne National Laborsto~, Environmental Awiwment and Information

Sciences Divisio~ Technology and Environmental Policy

Section (&gonne, IL: DOE, October 1991),

ArP, WJ., and B.G. Drake, “Increased Photosynthetic Capacity

of Scirpus oln.+ Afker 4 Years of Exposure to Elevated COz, ”

Plant, Cell, and Environment, vol. 14, No. 9, 1991, pp. 1003-6,

3.

4.

5,

6.

7.

8.

9.

Assel, R. A., “Impact of Global Warming on Great Lakes Ice

Cycles,” in: The Potential Eflects of Global Climate Change on

the United States, Appendix A: Water Resources, EPA-23&05-

89-050, J.B. Smith and D. Tirpak (CdS.) (wSShill@O~ DC: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, June 1989).

Ausube~ J.H., “Does Climate Still Matter?” Nature, vol. 3S0,

1991, pp. 649-52.

Ausube~ J.H., ‘‘A Second Ixwk at the Impacts of Climate

Change,” American Scientist, vol. 79, 1991, pp. 210-21.

Balling, R.C,, Jr., “The Global Temperature Da@” Research

& Exploration, vol. 9, No. 2, Spring 1993, pp. 201-07.

Bazzaz, F.A., “The Response of Natural Ecosystems to the

Rising Global C02 Levels,” AnnuaI Review of Ecology ad

Systematic, vol. 21, 1990, pp. 167-%.

Bazzaz, FA., and E.D. Fajer, “Plant Life in a CO#ich

Worl&” Scientific American, vol. 226, No. 1, Januaq 1992, pp.

68-74.

B- M.J., “Waterfowl and Climate Change: A Glimpse into

the ‘Rventy-First Century,” Orion Nature Quarterly, Spring

1989, pp. 22-27.
102 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Box 2-F--Major Assessments of Climate Change Impacts

Three major assessments by national and international organizations have addressed the potential impacts

of climate change: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA’s) 1989 report, The Potential Effects of

Climate Change (94), the three-volume climate change series issued by the Intergovernmental PaneI on Climate

Change in 1990 (42, 43,44, and the 1992 supplement (45)), and a 1991 report by the National Academy of

Sciences, Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (22), and its 1992 supplement These reports focus on

different aspects of climate change. Taken together, they lay the foundations for OTA’s assessment of the

adaptability and vulnerabilityof systems to climate change, and their findings are cited throughout this chapter!

The EPA Report-In 1987, Congress requested that EPA study “the potential health and environmental

effects of climate change including, but not... Iimited to, the potential impacts on agriculture, forests, wetlands,

human health, rivers, lakes, estuaries, as well as societal impacts.’’ To respond, EPA conducted a massive 2-year

effort, hiring more than a hundred contractors to model potential effects on each system, and contracting out

several regional case studies to integrate how all impacts might interact in different regions. The results were

synthesized in a 400-page report accompanied by 11 appendixes of contractor papers.

EPA used regional predictions of temperature and precipitation generated by four major general circulation

models (GCMs) to examine the sensitivities of managed and unmanaged systems and to evaluate regional effects.

The climate predictions were distributed to contractors, who then incorporated the results into their own models

for crop growth, forest productivity, farm-level decisionmaking, etc., to predict the potential effects on particular

systems and in particular regions.

EPA found that unmanaged systems such as coastal wetlands, parks, and forests “may be unable to adapt

quickly to rapid warming.” Effects could include a reduced range for many tree species, changes in forest

composition, a decline in cold-water fish and shellfish (although some warm-water species could benefit), an

increase in species extinction, Ioss of coastal wetlands, and an increase in salinization of estuaries. Such impacts

could begin in 30 to 80 years. Climate changes may heighten the effects of other stresses (such as pollution,

increased radiation accompanying stratospheric ozone depletion, pests and pathogens, and fire). For example,

climate-induced stress may make large regions of forests more susceptible to other stresses, such as fire, pests,

disease outbreaks, wind damage, and air pollution. Changes in forest species and productivity could lead to

secondary effects such as increased soil runoff and erosion, reduced aquifer recharge, reduced biodiversity, and

changes in wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities. Species extinctions could increase (and biological

diversity could decline), especially in areas where roads, agriculture, and urban development block or restrict

migration pathways or habitat, and in areas that harbor heat-or drought-sensitive species. Some forested land

could become grassland. As communities and ecosystems are displaced by climate change, it may be necessary

to expand scientific knowledge on the practice of ecosystem restoration, so that Communities can be rebuilt in

degraded sites or relocated to new areas where they have not existed in the past (94) (see also vol. 2, boxes 4-A

and 5-M).

Overall, EPA found that managed systems such as water resources and agriculture are more capable than

natural systems of withstanding climate change. However, problems may still arise as humans attempt to adapt

to the changes to these systems brought about by climate change. Agricultural yields might be reduced, but

productivity could shift northward so that overall production could probably meet domestic needs, with some

possible reductions in exports. Farmers might have to change their practices, such as beginning or increasing

irrigation, which might increase conflicts over water use. If climate change leads to reduced stream flows, water

quality may suffer because less water will be available for diluting or flushing pollutants and dissipating heat;these

1 All three reports were based on the assumption that there would be no major changes in climate variability.
Chapter 2–A Primer on Climate Change and Natural Resources 103

changes could affect fish and wildlife populations. The effects on agriculture might vary considerably over regions,

with declines, for example, in crop acreage in the Great Plains potentially offset by increased acreage in the Great

Lakes States.

Quality of life may not suffer much in areas where, for example, forests shift from one species to another, and

where the shifts are gradual; however, in areas where forests die out altogether (such as may occur in some parts

of California), people would face severe environmental and land-use effects. Recreation relies on relatively healthy

forests;rapid changes that caused stressed or declining forests would Iikely reduce recreational opportunities and

demand.

The IPCC Report--The intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an international group of

hundreds of scientists from more than 50 countries established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization

and the United Nations Environment Program. The IPCC setup three working groups: Working Group i to assess

the scientific basis for how human activities affect the climate; Working Group ii to study the potential impacts of

climate change worldwide; and Working Group III to formulate possible policy responses. The results were

published in the three-volume Climate Change report in 1990 (The IPCC Scientific Assessment, The IPCC Impacts

Assessment, and The IPCC Response Strategies). The working groups continue to meet, and issue occasional

updates to the 1990 reports.

The scientific assessment predicted that under a "business-as-usual” scenario (characterized by continued

reliance on coal-intensive energy sources and only modest efficiency increases), the global average temperature

would increase at a rate of 0.5‘F (0.3%) per decade, with a Iikely increase of 2 oF (1 oC) over current Ievels by

2025 and 5.4 oF (3 oC) before the end of the next century. The impact assessment used this business-as-usual

prediction for increasing temperature (with accompanying estimates that equivalent atmospheric C02

concentrations 2 would double by 2025 to 2050 and sea level would rise about 1 foot (0.3 meter) by 2030) to predict

potential impacts on systems including natural terrestrial ecosystems, agriculture, and forestry.

IPCC suggested that climate change could shift climatic zones several hundred miles toward the poles over

the next 50 years, requiring natural terrestrial ecosystems to either migrate or adapt to a new climate regime. The

rate of change will determine the degree of impacts: some species might be able to keep up with change, but some

could become extinct, thus reducing global biodiversity. Ecosystems are unlikely to move as units, but will develop

new structures as species abundance and distribution are altered. Most at risk are systems with limited options

for adaptability (montane, alpine, and polar areas, island and coastal communities, remnant vegetation, heritage

sites or reserves, and areas already under stress). Sealevel rise and ocean warming will affect fisheries, potentially

reducing habitat for several commercially important species. Coastal wetlands maybe inundated by rising seas

and forced to migrate inward, though in many areas, this may not be possible. inland wetland areas may come

under increased pressure for agricultural use. As for managed systems, forests may become more susceptible

to parasites, and losses from fires will increase. It is unclear whether global agricultural productivity would increase

or decrease overall, but many regions are Iikely to experience shifts or losses in production (for example, a decline

in cereal and horticultural production in the southern United States), which will alter trade patterns. Impacts will

differ considerably from region to region, as will the socioeconomic effects. Water availability will Iikely increase

in some areas and decrease in others, but regional details are not yet known. There may also be a change in

drought risk, which could seriously affect agriculture at both the regional and global levels.

The NAS Report-The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) convened three different scientific panels to

conduct preliminary analyses of climate change effects, mitigation strategies, and adaptation strategies. Each

panel drafted a report that described their analyses and conclusions. A fourth “synthesis” panel drew on the work

of the other three panels to formulate a policy report, which was published in April 1991.

2 The cumulative warming effect of all greenhouse gases is equivalent to a doubled C02 concentration.

(Continued on next page)
104 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Box 2-F-Major Assessments of Climate Change Impacts--(Continued)

The NAS panels assumed greenhouse warming in the range of 2 to 9°F (1 to 5oC), but did not give a specific

time frame of reference. Based on this scenario, NAS classified natural resource systems and human activities

into one of three categories: low sensitivity to climate change within the given range; sensitive but adaptable at

a cost; and sensitive with questionable ability to adjust or adapt. NAS concluded that built systems generally fit

into the first or second categories, and managed crop or timber lands fit into the second.

Water resources are quite sensitive to climate because runoff is the “small difference between the larger

quantities of precipitation and evaporation," and runoff “fluctuates relatively more” than either precipitation or

evaporation. Changes in runoff will have adverse impacts only when water supply no longer matches water

demand for use and consumption. In the United States, water supply and demand are now closely matched in the

Great Basin, Missouri, and California water regions, so these areas maybe particularly vulnerable to decreases

in precipitation (and conversely, they would reap large benefits should precipitation increase). Activities such as

irrigation are also vulnerable to decreased precipitation because irrigation is most common in areas where

precipitation is already light and evaporation is high. Unless climate changes quickly relative to demographic

changes that affect water demand, however, the NAS report concludes, “the overall impact of climate change is

unlikely to be substantially more serious than that of the vagaries of the current climate” (21).

In contrast, NAS suggested that unmanaged ecosystems--the “natural landscape” and marine ecosystems--

respond relatively slowly to climate change and that their ability to adapt is questionable and “problematic.”

SOURCE: Office of Technologyy Assessment, 1993.

10. Blumberg, A.F,, and D.M. Di Toro, “The Effects of Climate 18. Chambers, J.R., “U.S. Coastal Habitat Degradation and Fishery

Warming on Lake Erie Water Quality,” in: The Potential Effects

of Global Climate Change on the United States, Appendix A:

Water Resources, EPA-230-05-89-050, J.B. Smith and D.

Tirpak (eds.) (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, June 1989).

11. Botkin, D. B., and R.A. Nisbet, “Projecting the Effects of

Climate Change on Biological Diversity in Forests,” in: Global

Warming and Biological Diversity, R.L. Peters and T.E.

Lovejoy (eds.) (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992).

12. Botkin, D.B., R.A. Nisbet, and T.E. Reynales, “Effects of

Climate Change of Forests of the Great Lakes States,” in: The

Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United

States, Appendix D: Forests, EPA-230-95-89-054, J.B. Smith

and D. Tirpak (eds.) (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, June 1989).

13. Brady, N.C., The Nature and Properties of Soils, 9th Ed. (New

York NY: MacMillan Publishing 1984), 750 pp.

14. Brewer, R., The Science of Ecology (Philadelphia: Saunders

College publishing, 1988).

15. Broecker, W. S., “Unpleasant Surprises in the Greenhouse?”

Nature, vol. 328, 1987, pp. 123-26.

16. Browne, M.W., “Report Says Carbon Dioxide Rise May Hurt

Plants,” New York Times, Sept. 18, 1992, p. A14.

17. Burns, R. M., and B.H. Honkala, “Silvics of North American

Conifers,” vol. l, Agriculture Handbook 654 (Washington DC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1990).

Declines,’ in: Transactions of the North American Wildlife and

Natural Resources Conference (Washington, DC: The Wildlife

Management Institute, in press).

19. Clark, J. S., C.D. Reid, and G. Derda, Sensitivity of Major North

American Terrestrial Biomes to Global Change, draft report

prepared for the Electric Power Research Institute, 1992,

20. Clark, W.C., “Scale Relationships in the Interactions of

Climate, Ecosystems, and Societies,” in: Forecasting in the

Social and Natural Sciences, K.C. Land and S.H. Schneider

(eds.) (Boston, MA: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1987), pp.

337-78.

21. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, Panel

on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, National

Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering,

Institute of Medicine, Policy Implications of Greenhouse

Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1992).

22. Cooper, C.F., “Sensitivities of Western U.S. Ecosystems to

Climate Change, ” contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment, August 1992.

23. COX, G.W., “Review of Draft Report on Vulnerabilities of

Western U.S. Ecosystems to Climate Change: Biodiversity and

Wildlife Issues,” draft contractor paper prepared for Office of

Technology Assessment July 1992.
Chapter 2–A Primer on Climate Change and Natural Resources I 105

24. Croley, TE., 11, and H.C. HartmaM, “Effecta of Climate

Changes on the Laurentian Great Lakes Xzvek,” iru The

Potential Efiects of Global Climate Change on The Um”ted

States, Appendix A: Water Resources, EPA-230-05-89-050, J.B.

Smith and D. Tirpak (eds.) (WashingtorL DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 1989).

25. Davis, O.K., “Ancient Analogs for Greenhouse Warming of

Central (lilifo~’ in: The Pofentia/ E’ects of Global Climate

Change on the UnitedStates,Appeti”xD :Forests, EPA-23@95-

89-054, J.B. Smith and D. Tirpak (dS.) (wdlill@O~ DC: U.S.

Environmemal Protection Agency, June 1989).

26. Dawso~ W.R., “physiological Responses of ‘ Ammals to Higher

lkmperatures, “ im Global Warnu”ng and Biological Diversity,

RL. Peters and TE. Imvejoy (eds.) (lJew Haveq ff: Yale

University Press, 1992).

27. Drake, B. G., “Effect of Elevated C02 on Chesapeake Bay

Wetlands,” Responses of Vegetation to Carbon Dioxide, in:

Ecoytem and Whole Plant Responses, U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE), Oftlce of Energy Researc4 Carbon Dioxide

Research Division (Washingto% DC: DOE, April-November

1988).

28. Drake, B.G., Research Scientist, Smithsonian Environmental

Research Center, testimony before the Senate Committee on

Commeree, Science, and Transportation Hearing on Global

Change Research: Global Warmin g and the Biosphere, Apr. 9,

1992.

29. Emanuel, W.R., H.H. Shug@ and M.P. Stevensoq “Climatic

Change and the Broad-Scale Distribution of ‘Rxreshial Ecosystem Complexes,” Climate Change, vol. 7, 1985, pp. 2943.

30. Frederick K., and P. Gleilq “Water Resourcxs and Climate

Change,” in: Greenhouse Warm”ng: Abatement and Adaptation, N. Rosenberg, W, Easterling, P. Crossq and J, Darmstadter (eds.) (Washington DC: Resources for the Future,

1988).

31. Giant.z Ml-L, ‘‘The Use of Analogies in Forecasting Ecological

and Societat Responses to Global Warming,’ Enw”romnmt, vol.

33, December 1991, pp. 11-15,27-33,

32. Grulke, N.E., G.H. Riechers, W.C. Oechel, U. Hje@ and C.

Jaeger, “Carbon Balance in lhssock ‘Ibndra Under Ambient

and Elevated Atmospheric COz, ” Oecologia, VOL 83, 1990, pp.

485494.

33. Hains, D.K., and C.F. Hains, “Iznpacts of Global Warming on

Runoff in the Upper Chtahooehee River Bas@’ in: The

Potential E#ects of Global Climate Change on the United

States, Appendix A: Water Resources, EPA-23@05-89-050, J.B.

Smith and D. Tirpak (da.) (Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 1989).

34. HalpiQ P.N., “Ecosystems at Risk to Potential Climate

Change,” contractor report prepared for the 0f6ce of ‘lkchnology, June 1993.

35. Hammonx A.L., “Ecosystem Analysis: Biome Approach to

Environmental Science,” Science, vol. 175, 1972, pp. 46-48.

36. HanseQ AJ., TA. Spies, F.J. Swansoq and J.L. Ohmanq

“Conserving Biodiversity in Managed Forests, ” Bioscience,

vol. 41, 1991, pp. 382-92.

37. Hansenj J., W. ROSSOW, and 1. Fung, “bz)g-~rm Monitoring

of Global Climate Forcings and Feedbacks,’ in: NASA Goddard

Im”tuse for Space Stuh”es Conference Publication, New York

1992.

38. Heimanq M., “Modeling the Global Carbon Cycle,” paper

presented at the First Deme@a Meeting on Climate Friability

and Global Change, Chianciano Theme, Italy, Oct. 28-Nov. 3,

1991.

39. Holdridge, L.R., L#e Zone Ecology (San Jose, Costa Rica:

Tropical Science Center, 1%7).

40. Hopkins, A.D., Bioclimatics: A Science of Life and Climate

Re2ations, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Miscellaneous Publication 280 (Waahingtoq DC: USDA+ 1938).

41. Mao, S.B., “The Aerial Fertilization Effect of COZ and Its

Implications for Global Carbon Cycling and Max.un‘ um Greenhouse Warming,” Bulletin of the Amen”can Meteorotogica[

Socie~, vol. 72, No. 7, July 1991, pp. %2-65.

42. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (TPCC), World

Meteorological Organiza tiom and United Nations Environment

Prograrq Climate Change: The IPCC Impacts Assessment,

report prepared for IPCC by Working Group II, WJ, McG.

~gart, G.W. Sheldou and D.C. Grif.fM (eds.) (CanAustralia: Australian Government publishing Service, 1990).

43. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (WCC), World

Meteorological organization and United Nations Environment

Prograrq Climate Change: The IPCC Response Strategies,

report prepared for IPCC by Working Group III, 1990.

44, Intergovernmental Panel on Ctimate Change (IPCC), World

Meteorological Organiza tiom and United Nations Environment

Program, Climate Change: The fPCC Scientific Assessment,

report prepared for IPCC by Working Group I, J.T Houghtoq

GJ. Jenkins, and JJ. Ephraums (eds.) (Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press, 1990).

45. Intergovernmental Pmel on Climate Change, World Meteoo

logical Organizatl“o% and United Nations Environment Prov Climate Change 1992: The Supplementary Report to the

IPCC Scientific Assessment, report prepared for IPCC by

Working Group I, J.T. Houghtou B.A. Callander, and S.K.

Wrney (eds.) (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University

Press, 1992).

46. hrae~ Y.A., and S.M. Semenov, “Ecological Standards Setting:

Methodology and Practical Issues: Problems of Ecological

Monitoring and Ecosystems Modeling,” I.xm@p@ Gtiometeoizdat, vol. 13 (in press).

47. Kareiv% P.M., J.G. Kingsolver, and R.B. Huey (eds.), Biotic

Interactions and Global Change (Sunderlaz@ MA: Simmer

Associates, Inc., 1993),

48. Karl, TR., “Missing Pieces of the Puzzle,” Research &

Exploration, vol. 9, No. 2, Spring 1993, pp. 234-49.

49. Kellogg, W., and Z. Zhow, “Sensitivity of Soil Moisture to

Doubling of Carbon Dioxide in Climate Model Experiments

Part I: North Ame~” Journal of Climate, VOL 1, No. 4, April

1988.

50. Kdmer, D., and J.A. Arnone, “Responses to Elevated Carbon

Dioxide in Artificial ‘fkopicd Ecosystems, ” Science, vol. 257,

Sept. 18, 1992, pp. 1672-75.

51. Krutillq J, V., “Conservation Reconsider@” American Economic Review, vol. 57, No. 4, September 1%7, pp. 777-86.
106 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

LavvrczL B., “NET LOSS,” National WildI~e, vol. 30, October/

November, 1992, W, 47-50,52.

Letteimlal“er, D.P., ‘IIY. C@ and D.R. Dawdy, “Interpretation

of Hydrologic Effects of Climate Change in the Sacmnxmt*sari

Joaquin R.iVCX Basiq Calihr@” iw The Potential E&ects of

Global Climate Change on the United States, Appendix A:

Water Resources, EPA-230-05-894150, J.B. Smith and D.

Tirpak (eds.) (WashingtoXL DC: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, June 1989).

Lindzeq R. S., ‘Some Coolness Concernin gfflobal warming,”

BuUetin of the American h4eteoro10gical Society, VOL 71,1990,

pp. 288-290.

Imrius, C., J. Jouz(?L D. l?qmau~ J. Hanseq and H. b Treu$

“The IceCore Record: Climate Sensitivity and Future Greenhouse Warming,” Nature, vol. 347, 1990, pp. 139-145.

hhhlmaqJ.D.,‘‘AM%@ Global Climate Change: When WiIl

We Have Better Evidence?” irx Climate Change and Energy

Policy, L. Rosen and R. Glasser (eds.), Los Alatnos National

Laboratory, LA-UR-92-502 (New Yo* NY: American Institute of Physics, 1992), pp. 17-31.

Manabe, S., and R.T Wetherald “Reduction in Summer Soil

Wetness Induced by an Increme in Atmospheric Carbon

Dioxide,” Science, vol. 232, 1986, pp. 62678.

MattsorL W.J., and R.A. I-I& “The Role of Drought in

Outbreaks of Plant-Eating Insects,” Bioscience, vol. 37, No, 2,

February 1987, pp. 110-18.

McCormiclq M.J., “Potential Climate Changes to the Lake

Michigan Thermal Structure,’” in: The Potential Effects of

Global Climate Change on the United States, Appendix A:

Water Resources, EPA-23@05-894150, J.B. Smith and D.

Tirpak (eds.) (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agerwy, June 1989).

Michaela, P.M., ‘The Greenhouse Conflagration Clinton/Gore

and Global Warning,’ ‘ lecture [u The Cato Institute, Washington DC, Dec. 14, 1992.

Michads, P.M., Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of

GZobaZ Wm”ng (Wash@toQ DC: The Cato Institute, 1992).

Miller, BA., and W.G, Brock “Potential Impacts of Climate

Change on the ‘Iimnessee Wiley Authority Reservoir Sys~”

h The Potential Eflects of Giobal Climate Change on the

United States, Appendix A: Water Resources, EPA-230-05-89-

050, J.B. Smith and D. Tirpak (edS.) (Washin@oq DC: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, June 1989).

Moreaq D.H., “It Will Be a Lmg Wait for Proof,” paper

presented at the Southeast Clnnate Symposium: Chan@ng

Climate and Water Resources, Charleston SC, Oct. 27-29,

1992.

National Science Foundation “Soil-Warming Experimeds in

Global Change Research” report of a workshop held in Woods

Hole, MA, Sept. 27-28, 1991.

Norby, R.J., E.G. O’Neil, and R.J. Luxmo Orq “Effects of

Atmospheric C02 Enrichment on the Growth and Mineral

Nutrition of Quercus alba Seedlings in Nutrient Poor Soil,”

Pkant physiology, VO1. 82, 1986, pp. 83-89,

Oecllel, W.c., “Effects of Anticipated Changes in Global

Climate and Atmospheric C02 on Western Ecosystems: Chaparral and Associated Forest Ecosystems,” draft contractor paper

kx Office of lkchnology Assessrnentj July 1992.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

4

1

1

1

1

oecl14 W.c., ‘TtetpnSes of Alaskan Biological ad Social

Systems to C!bate q: A scenario,” contmctor paper

mfor Office of lbclmology Amwune@ Jan. 11, 1993.

OecheI, W.C., and W.D. Billings, “Effect8 of Global Change on

the CarbonBalance of Arctic Plants and~~’’~~ctic

Ecosystems in a Changing Climate: An Ecophysiological

Perspeti”ve, F.S. Chapin ~ RL. Jeff@es, J. SVObod& JR

Reynolds, and G.R Shaver (eds.) (San Diego, CA: Acadanic

press, 1992), pp. 139-68+

Geci@ W,C., and B.R. Straiq “Native Species Reqonses to

Wreased Carbon Dioxide Concentration” im DirectE&ts of

Increasing Carbon Dioxide on Vegetation, DOWER-(X238, B.R

strain awl J.D. cure (eds.) (washiqtoq DC: Us. Deparmm

of Energy, Dccem&r 1985).

Ovx J.’E, and PJ. Bartle@ “Assessing b Reqmnsc of

vegetation to Future climate change: Ecological Re8pomle

SUrfhceS ad Paleoecological Model WIMatioQ” kc The

Potent&d E#kcts of Global Climate Change on the United

States, Appenalx D: Forests, EEA-23095-89-054, JB. Smith

and D. Tirpak (eds.) (w&lShkl@Oq DC: U.S. Envimnmcn.tal

Protection Agency, June 1989).

Pa&w, BB., National Oceanic and Atmosphcxic AdmhMm—

tion (NOM), Ocean and Lake Levels DivisioQ office of ocean

and Earth Scieacq National Ocean Servi% NO* “The Use

of Long Historical Sea Izvel Records in the Study of Climate

and Global Change,” paper presented at Mnrine Tkdmology

Society ’92, Washington DC, Oct. 19-21, 1992.

Perry, D.A., “Landsqe Pattern and Fomt Pests,” Northwest

EnvironmentalJournal, VOL 4, No. 213, 1988.

Perry, M., “The Potential Effect of climate change on

Agriculture and Land Use,” Advances in Ecological Research,

vol. 22, 1992, pp. 63-91.

Peters, RL., and J.D.S. Darling, “The -ouse Effect and

Nature Reserves,” Bioscience, December 1985, pp. 707-17.

P@ D.E., “Data Leave Little Doubt l%at Fish Are in Peril ,“

The New York Times, Aug. 3, 1993, p. C4.

Ray, G.C., B.P. Haydm A.J. Bu&er, Jr., and M.G. McCmnickRayt “Effects of Global Warming on the Biodivemity of

Coastal-Marine Zones,” b Global Warming and Biological

Diversi(y, R.L Peters and TX. Lovejoy (da.) (New Haveq CT:

Yale University Press, 1992), pp. 91-104.

Ray, G.C., M.G. MSormick-Ray, and F.M. Potter, Global

Climate Change and the Coastal tine: Evaluation of Impacts

m Marine Fisheries and Bwdiversity of the U.S., cmtnwkm

mp-for the Office of llXhnology kmsamen~

Pebruary 1993.

W@ D., R Goldberg, J. Hanseq C, Rcznzwig, and R Rudy,

“Potential Evapotranspiration and the I&lihwd of Future

Drq@” Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 95, No. D7,

rune 20, 1990, p. 10,001.

Rin+ D., C,~ and R Goldbergj “Modelling the

IIydrological Cycle in Assessments of climate -“

Vature, vol. 358, 1992, pp. 119-122.

$chneider, S., P. GM+ and L. Meams, “prospects for Climato

3umge,” h Climate Change and U.S. Water Resources, P.

Waggoner (cd.) (New York John Wiley and Sons, 1990), pp.

!1-73.
Chapter 2–A Primer on Climate Change and Natural Resources I 107

81. Schneider, S.H., L, Mearns, and P.H. Gleick+ “Climate-Change

Scenarios for Impact Assessment” in: G106uI Warming and

Biological Diversity, R.L. Peters and T.E. Lovejoy (eds.) (New

Haveq CT: Yale University Press, 1992), pp. 38-55.

82. Sheer, DY., and D._ “Methods for Evaluating the

Potential Impacts of Global Climate Change: Case Studies of the

State of California and AtlanQ Gee@%” in: The Potential

Efects of Global Climate Change on the United States,

Appendix A: Water Resources, EPA-23CL05-89-050, J.B. Smith

and D. Tirpak (eds.) (WashingtorL DC: U.S. Environmental

Rotection Agency, June 1989).

83. Smit4 W. H., “United States Forest Response and Vulnerability

to Climate Change, ” contractor report prepared for the OffIce

of ‘Ikchnology Assessment May 1992.

84. Spencer, RW., and J.R Christy, “Precise Monitoring of Global

‘Rxnperature Trends from Satellites,” Science, vol. 247, 1990,

pp. 1558-62.

85. Titus, J.G., cd., Greenhouse Effect, Sea LevelRise, and Coastal

Wetlands, EPA-230-05-86013 (Washington DC: U.S. Environmental protection Agency, July 1988).

86. ‘lbpping, J. C., Jr., and J.P. Bond The Potential Impact of

Climate Change on Fisheries and Wiidlife in North America,

report of the Climate Institute to the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, May 1988.

87. Tracy, C.R., “Ecological Responses of Animals to Climate,”

in: Global Warming and Biological Diversity, R.L. Peters and

T.E. Lovejoy (eds.) (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,

1992).

88. U.S. Congress, CMce of lkchnology Assessment (OTA),

Changing by Degrees: Steps to Reduce Greenhouse Gases,

OTA-0482 (W%shingtou DC: U.S. Government printing

Office, February 1991).

89. U.S. Congress, GffIce of Ikchnology Assessment (OTA),

Forest Sem’ce Planning: Accommodating Uses, Producing

Outputs, and Sustaining Eco~stems, OTA-F-505 (Washingto%

DC: U.S. Governme nt Printing Offke, February 1992).

90. U.S. Congress, Gff3ce of ‘JkcImology Assessment (OTA),

Harrr@ Non-Indigenous Species in the United States (Wash-

@tom DC: Government printing Oftlce, 1993).

91. U.S. Department of Commeme, Nationat Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOM), National Marine Fisheries

Semice (NMFS), Our Living Oceans: The First Annual Report

on the Status of the U.S. Living Marine Resources, NOA4

Technical Memo, NMFS-FISPO-1, 1991.

92. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Argome National Laboratory, Environmental Assessment and Information Sciences

Divisiou Tdmology and Environmental Policy Sectioq Effects of Scientific Uncertainties on the Accuracy of Global

Climate Change Predictions: A Survey of Recent Literature,

U.S. DOE internal report, M.E. Fernau and D.W. Soutb (eds.)

(Argonne, IL: DOE, October 1991).

93. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Researc&

Office of Basic Energy Sciences, @bon Dioxide Research

Divisiow Direct Effects of Increasing Carbon Dioxide on

Vegetation, DOE/ER-0238, B.R, Strain and J.D. Cure (eds.)

(?Abh@ton+ DC: U.S. DOE, December 1985).

94. U.S. Environmental protection Agency (EPA), The Potential

Effects of Global Climate Change on the Uru”ted States,

EPA-23&05 -89-050,J.Jj.” Smith andD, Tirpak(eds.) (washington DC: U.S. EPA December 1989).

95. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency @PA), The Potential

Effects of Global Climate Change on the United Stites,

Appendix A: Water Resources, EPA-23 CMM-89-050, J.B.

Smith and D. Tirpak (MIs.) (T%shingtow DC: U.S. EPA June

1989).

%. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Potential

Effects of Global Climate Change on the United States,

Appendix D: Forests, EPA-230-95-89-054, J.B. Smith and D.

Tirpak (eds.) (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, June 1989).

97. Urba D.L., and H.H. ShugarL “Forest Response to Climatic

Change: A Simulation Study for Southeastern Forests,” in:

The Potential Eflects ~ Global Ciimate Change On The

United States, Appendix D: Forests, EPA-23 G95-89-054, JJ3.

Smith and D. Tirpak (eds.) (Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 1989).

98. Warre% S.R., Coastal Wetland Vulnerabilities to Climate

Change, contractor report prepared for Gt31ce of ‘lkchnology

Assessment July 30, 1992.

99. WarriclL R.A., R. Giffor& and M.L. Parry, “COz, Climatic

Change and Agriculture, ‘‘ in: The Greenhouse E#ect, Climatic

Change and Ecosystems, B. Bolin et al. (eds.), SCOPE 29

(New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1986).

100. Webb, T., III, “Past Cbanges in Vegetation and Climate:

hssons for the Future, “ in: Global Warming and Biological

Diversity, R.L. Peters and T.E. Lovejoy (eds.) (New Haveq

CT: Yale University press, 1992), pp. 59-75.

101. WillarL D. E., and L.D. Kosmond, A Water.rhed-Ecosystem

Approach to Land and Water Use Planning and Management,

contractor report prepared for the Oftlce of Technology

Assessment Aug. 28, 1992.

102. Willard, D.E., et al., Wetland Vulnerabilities to Climate

Change, contractor report prepared for the 0fi3ce of lkchnology Assessment, Aug. 18, 1992.

103. WilIiams, P,B., ‘‘The Impacts of CIimate Change on the

Salinity of San Francisco Bay,” in: The Potential E’ec:s of

Global Climate Change on the United States, Appendix A:

Wafer Resources, EPA-230-05-89-050, JB. Smith and D.

Tirpak (eds.) (Washington DC: U.S. Envimrunentid Protection Agency, June 1989).

104. Woodrnaq J.N., and C.S. Furiness, “Potential Effects of

Climate Change on U.S. Forests: Case Studies of California

and the Southeasl’ in: The Potential Effects of Global Climate

Change on the United States, Appendix D: Forests, EPA-23(L

95-89-054, J.B. Smith and D. Tirpak (eds.) (%hShiKi$j’tO~ DC:

U.S. Environmental Rotection Agency, June 1989).

105. Wyman+ R.L., ‘‘Multiple Threats to Wildlife: Climate Change,

Acid Precipitation and Habitat Fragmentation” in: Global

Climate Change and Lfe on Earth, RL. Wyman led.) (New

York, NY: Routledge, Chapman, & Hall, 1991), pp. 134-55.
108 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

106. 2Minaki, C., and M-B. Davis, “Hind Times Ahead for @eat 107. Ziskaj L.H,, B.G. Drake, and S. Chamberlain+ “Lon&’I&rm

~For@s: A tie Threshold Model hdiCtS Responses Photosynthetic Response in Single haves of a ~ and Cd Srdt

to CO+duccd Climate Change,’ m: The Potential Effects of Marsh Species Grown at Elevated Atmospheric COZ in Situ,’

G1oW Climate Oumge on the United States, Appendix D: Oecologia, vol. 83, 1990, pp. 469-72.

Forests, EPA-230-95-89-0S4, J.Il. Smith and D. Tiqxtk (e&.)

(Washington DC: U.S. Environmc@zd Protection Agency,

b 1989).
Global Change

Research

in the

Federal

Government

n October 13, 1992, the United States ratified the United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The convention was one of the key accomplishments of

the United Nations Conference on Environment and

3

Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Its

declared goal is ‘‘stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations

at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, ’ and it calls for parties to return

“individually or jointly to their 1990 levels of these anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases

not controlled by the Montreal Protocol” (46). Most of the 166

countries that signed the convention have pledged to do so by

2000 (on April 21, 1993, President Clinton made a commitment

to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by that

year). The convention also requires all participating countries to

prepare action plans detailing their strategy to mitigate climate

change. The Biodiversity Convention, signed by most developing and industrialized countries at UNCED, calls for the

development of strategies for global biodiversity conservation,

and Agenda 21, the comprehensive action agenda to promote

sustainable development adopted at UNCED, also calls for

policies to minimize environmental degradation.

All these concerns about climate change, biodiversity, and

sustainable development reflect a policy agenda that is inextricably linked to scientific research. “The relationships between

scientific and technological advancement and government support are complex, and the stakes in these decisions are high, not

just for scientists and engineers, but for society as a whole.

Consequently, a better understanding of the process of articulating goals, both within and outside science, is vital” (3).

I 109
110 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

The Federal Government launched a multiagency research effort in 1989 in response to the

uncertainties and potential risks of climate

change. Its purpose is to observe, understand, and

predict global change (9) When the U.S. Global

Change Research Program (USGCRP) was created as a Presidential Initiative in 1989, it did not

have an explicit plan to link research to policy.

Before codifying the program, Congress directed

it to provide information useful to policy makers;

however, Congress did not identify or mandate

any mechanism to ensure this. When the program

was first implemented, key questions of the

scientists and policy makers were: Are humans

significantly changing the climate, and can climate change be predicted? The program was

intended to replace a crisis-driven, one-problemat-a-time approach to environmental problems

with a more systemic, proactive approach that

recognizes that different environmental problems

are linked by the very nature of the Earth system.1

Although the program is scientifically well-

-grounded, it has become overwhelmingly a physical science program focused on basic Earth

system processes that largely ignores the behavioral, economic, and ecological aspects of environmental problems. For example, understanding

the role clouds play in climate change and the role

of the ocean-kind-atmosphere interface is now its

highest priority.

Understanding the size and scope of USGCRP

can be difficult, and the coordination challenges

of such a large interagency program are formidable. Agency personnel committed to the program

have made a commendable effort to ensure that

the program functions smoothly. However,

USGCRP is not a managed entity with one

budget, nor does it have an authoritative body

making decisions on projects. It is, rather, a

loosely coordinated collection of several programs and budgets. Even this level of coordination is undermined at the legislative level, where

the program, collected into a compilation of

budgets by the Federal Coordinating Council for

Science, Engineering, and Technology

(FCCSET), is splintered into several parts and

never considered as a whole during the authorization, appropriation, and oversight processes.

The primary questions of policy makers have

changed since 1989 in the wake of the world

climate treaty and the publication of several key

reports: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC) reports, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports on the potential

effects of climate change and policy options, and

the Committee on Science, Engineering and

Public Policy (COSEPUP) report. 2 It is now

generally accepted that unequivocal detection of

the greenhouse effect requires another decade of

measurements, and that rates of climate change

and regional details about climate changes will

not be available for at least that long (see ch. 2).

Thus, questions being asked today have moved

beyond the basic science issues of “observing,

understanding and predicting’ climate change to

a second set of concerns: What can be done to

mitigate or adapt to climate change? What are the

climate effects of most concern? How can we

manage natural and human systems wisely given

an uncertain climate? Consequently, USGCRP’S

mission statement and priorities are now too

narrow to address questions such as how to

minimum negative impacts of climate change.

The congressional committees requesting this

study recognized that decisionmaking must continue in the face of uncertainty. They expressed

the following concerns to the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA):

1 ‘Ile Earth system is the sum of all interactions among living organisms and their biotic and abiotic environments.

2 IPCC’S Scientific Assessment (28), Impacts Assessment (26), Response Strategies (27), and Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scienh~c

Assessment (29); EPA’s Policy Optiomfor Stabilin”ng Global Climate (52) and The Potential Eflects of Global Climate Change on the Utu”ted

States (51); and COSIIPLJP’S Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of

Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, A&aptation, and the Science Base (10).
■

■

✘

Chapter 3-Global Change Research in the Federal Government I 111

“We think it is prudent to begin--today—

investigating how our research and development programs should incorporate concerns

about climatic uncertainty. ”3

‘‘Do current U.S. R&D Programs focus on

the right questions to provide information

about effects on different systems, potential

strategies for making systems more resilient

in the face of climate change and adapting to

such changes that may occur?’

“What information can more research provide over various time frames to guide

decisions about reducing greenhouse gas

emissions, ameliorating effects of global

climate change, and building resiliency into

systems?’

Conducting research to answer some of these

questions has been a low priority. Although the

results of the program, as currently structured,

will provide valuable information for predicting

climate change, they will not necessarily contribute to the information needed by public and

private decisionmakers to respond to global

change. Three areas are particularly lacking:

ecosystem-scale research, adaptation research

(ecological, human, and economic), and integrated assessments (evaluation of all focused

and contributing research results and their implication for public policy). Research can begin now

on topics more closely related to policy decisions

despite incomplete answers from the physical

sciences. More research is needed on the impacts

of climate change on natural and managed ecosystems and the resulting implications for land

and water resource management, on how people

adapt, and on why people resist change. Key

projects for a USGCRP committed to policyrelevant research should also include gathering

information about the relative importance of

population size and expectations of quality-of-life

improvements, the demand for goods and services

(including clean water, agriculture and forestry

products, and access to natural areas), and economic and institutional barrriers to the dissemination and adoption of technological innovation.

Some of the research in these areas will take

decades and, if started now, may leave us much

better prepared to respond to global change in the

future.

Implicit in the current structure of USGCRP is

that the initiation of a comprehensive adaptation

research program must wait until predictions of

climate change are reliable. However, there are

several important reasons not to wait to initiate

adaptation research. First, according to IPCC

estimates, few reliable predictions of climate

change on a regional scale will be available before

the next 15 to 20 years. Although such regional

information might help focus research on managed and natural systems in areas expected to

experience the most change, research on ecosystems is a multidecade task (see vol. 2, chs. 4-6)

and should begin now. Second, even though the

effects of climate change on a regional level

cannot currently be modeled accurately, general

effects can be predicted, such as sea level rise.

Adaptation research that addresses sea level rise

and other effects of climate change need not wait

for reliable predictions. Third, much adaptation

research makes sense regardless of climate

change. For example, restoration of wetlands

addresses adaptation to climate change, but it also

addresses the current depletion of wetlands due to

other causes. Adaptation research can use historical records of societal, economic, and environmental impacts of environmental change combined with reasonable hypothetical scenarios for

future environmental change (31).

Because policy makers and scientists have

different educational and professiona1 backgrounds,

scientific research findings need to be translated

3 HOUSC cotintX OXI SCICIKC, sptMX, @ khROIO~, k~r to o~ Sept. 27* 1~1.

4 Senate Cornrnittee on Environment and Public Works, letter to 0~ Oct. 4, 1991,

s Senate Committec on Commerce, Science, and Tnmsportatioq letter to Ow Oct. 8, 1991,
112 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

into terms relevant to policy making and decisionmaking. Regardless of the “completeness”

of climate research, policy makers are making

decisions now that affect global change and

whether the Nation will mitigate and/or adapt to

it. They also decide where to allocate scarce

resources for research.

A recent National Research Council report,

Research to Protect, Restore, and Manage the

Environment (37), stated: “No matter how good

the science, environmental problems cannot be

solved without integrating the science with environmental policy. To accomplish that, integrative

study is needed to bridge the multidisciplinary

gaps and deal with the conflicting goals held by

varied constituencies. Research is necessary but

not sufficient to solve problems. ’ One way to

improve the relevance of research results for

policy makers is through the use of integrated

assessments. Integrated assessments are a mechanism for synthesizing all the research relevant to

an identified problem and for presenting research

results in policy-relevant language. Such assessments, if conducted by multidisciplinary teams on

a regular basis, could help bring together and

evaluate research results produced by USGCRP,

which is now composed largely of isolated

programs and projects.

Although assessments were not included in the

original USGCRP program, they are included in

a rudimentary form in the FY 1994 budget (8).

However, there has been no fundamental change

in the mission of USGCRP, which remains

predominately focused on understanding climate

change. As a result, different people draw different conclusions about what changes in research

focus to expect from USGCRP. In addition, the

quality of assessments is determined solely by the

information fed into them and the backgrounds of

those constructing the assessment framework. If

ecological, economic, and sociological research

continues to be neglected, the planned assessments will not be useful to policy makers (24).

John Gibbons, assistant to the President for

science and technology, testified recently that

USGCRP needs to expand the scope of its

research to include the impacts of climate change

on natural and human environments and strategies for mitigating and adapting to climate

change. He also recognized the need to improve

the integration of research with policy making

(20).

This chapter will examine the broad issues

surrounding the Federal research effort to understand climate change-particularly within the

context of the natural and managed systems

discussed in chapters 4 through 6 of volumes 1

and 2. The options presented here, if implemented, could help commit the Federal Government to addressing areas of imbalance in

USGCRP, the need for adaptation research, and

the issues surrounding a national research program with an explicit science-policy interface.

These program changes could benefit policy

makers and decisionmakers by ensuring that

USGCRP and other federally funded global

change research supply the integrated information they need to make choices in the face of

uncertainty about global change and its impacts.

THE U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE

RESEARCH PROGRAM

I Inception and Structure

Recognition that human activity could significantly alter the global environment grew during

the 1970s and 1980s. Concerns focused particularly on the threat of climate change from

increased emissions of greenhouse gases and the

depletion of the ozone layer by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCS). In response to the potential risks of

climate change and the uncertainties surrounding

the science, the Federal Government launched a

massive, multiagency research effort in 1989 “to

observe, understand, and, ultimately, predict global

changes and to determine the mechanisms influencing these changes” (9). In 1989, USGCRP

was developed by the Committee on Earth

Sciences (now the Committee on Earth and
Chapter 3-Global Change Research in the Federal Government I 113

Figure 3-l A-Organizational Chart for the Federal Coordinating Council for

Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET)

(

FCCSET membership

DOS DOEd HUD

DOD DOL OMB

DOI DOT NASA

USDA V A EPA

DOC GSA NSC

DOE HHS NSF

~“—”

John H. Gibbons

Chair

r—r’—-----::

FCCSET Secretariat

Charles Dickens, Executive Secretary

Elizabeth Rodriguez, Senior Policy Analyst

Alicia Dustira, Senior Policy Analyst I

T

—————..——. — A

—~ I ➤ -— 1 E’!!!: :_E::iii&z.] Committee on International Sctence,

Frederick M. Bernthal (NSF), Chair

—~

——

CFAFR CEHR

Committee on Food, Agriculture and Committee on Education and

Forestry Research Human Resources

Chair vacant

\ J

Luther Williams (NSF), Acting Chair

J — .

CPMES r

CLSH

Committee on Physical, Mathematical Committee on T

and Engineering Sciences Life Sciences and Health

Frederick M. Bernthal (NSF), Acting Chair David Galas (DOE), Acting Chair

— 1

r

—L

CTI

Committee on Technology and Industry

Chair vacant

—

NOTE: For definition of terms, see figure 3-1 B, next page.

Environmental Sciences, CEES), an interagency

group under FCCSET in the President’s Office of

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) (see fig.

3-l). USGCRP became the first Presidential

Initiative 6 indicating that it was to be a highpriority program with strong administrative backing. In 1990, Congress passed the U.S. Global

Change Research Act (P.L. 101-606), which

(Continued)

codified USGCRP. In 1992, USGCRP became a

National Research Program.7 Between FY 1989

and FY 1993, the Government spent $3.7 billion

on this effort. A new administration that asserts its

commitment to taking action on climate change

issues and a Congress with a large number of new

members coincide with this 5-year benchmark

and could change the direction and scope of the

6 ~sidenti~ tititivm~e PmgXWIIS of particular importance to the national interest. Aside horn USGCRP, four other Presidential

klititltk% exist: high-perfo rrnarw computing and communication+ advanced materials and processing, biotechnology research and

mathematics and science education. The Administration uses FCCSET to coordinate interagency research in these areas.

T FCCS13T developed this category for continuing Presidential Initiatives that have reached maturity.
114 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Figure 3-1 B-Organizational Chart for the Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES)

F-l

Frederick M. Bernthal (NSF) Lennard Fisk (NASA)

Chair Vice-Chair

I

DOI HUD CEQ

USDA OMB SI CEES Secretariat

DOC OSTP NRC Penelope Firth, Executive Secretary

DOE NASA TVA Sylvia Edgerton, Senior Science Associate

NIEHS FEMA ICA Betty Wong, Professional Assistant

SGCR

Subcommittee on

I

Robert Corell (NSF), Chair

Global Change Research L

I

l-TEl_._J- Joseph Bordogna (NSF”), Intenm Chair

1

SERNRE

Subcommittee on

Economic Research on Natural

Resources and the Environment

Joseph Stiglitz (CEA), Chair

I

+

SNDR

Subcommittee on

Natural Disaster Reduction

Robert Hamilton (USGS), Chair

I

SUSCOS

Subcommittee on

U.S. Coastal Ocean Science

Donald Scavia (NOAA), Acting Chair

I1

SWR

Subcommittee on

Water Resources

Stephen Ragone (USGS), Chair

t 1

I

SFOFC

Subcommittee on Federal

SAR

Subcommittee on

Atmospheric Research

+17 Oceanographic Fleet Coordination

Richard Greenfield (NSF), Acting Chair R. Adm. Peterson (NOAA), Chair

L

1

PEGI

Working Group for Private Enterprise/

Government Interactions

William Busch (NOAA), Chair
Chapter 3-Global Change Research in the Federal Government I 115

program for FY 1994. There is no official

termination date for the program; however, program plans indicate that it will last at least 40

years (11).

Three “activity streams,” or program elements, defined the USGCRP mission between its

inception and FY 1994:

Documentation and analysis of Earth system changes, which include observation—

using both ground- and space-based observation systems—and data management;

Process Research to enhance the understanding of the physical, geological, chemical, biological, and social processes that

influence Earth system behavior; and

Integrated Modeling and Prediction of

Earth system processes.

Each of these priorities is represented by a

working group under the Subcommittee on Global

Change Research under CEES. The chair of the

subcommittee along with the chair of each of the

working groups make up the principal body

responsible for the planning, development, coordination, and review of USGCRP (7). In FY 1994,

a new activity stream, Assessment, was added.

USGCRP was originally envisioned as a complete global change research program, covering

research on natural climate change, humaninduced climate change, impacts of climate and

land-use change on the Earth system, and impacts

of human activity on ecosystem health. The

program has evolved in parallel with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and

has drawn heavily from the panel’s work.8

Consequently, the main focus of global change

research under USGCRP has become climate

change. Important global changes other than

human-induced climate change, such as loss of

biodiversity, changes in land use, and increases in

industrial pollution, were determined to be beyond the scope of USGCRP and are addressed

only to the extent that they interact with the

climate system. This is reflected in the research

priorities of the program’s science elements.

To guide research, CEES identified and prioritized seven scientific research elements, or science elements.9 In order of priority, the science

elements are Climate and Hydrologic Systems,

Biogeochemical Dynamics, Ecological Systems

and Dynamics, Earth System History, Human

Interactions, Solid Earth Processes, and Solar

Influences (7). More-specific areas of research

are prioritized under each of these seven research

elements (see fig. 3-2). Several criteria, although

not applied systematically, are used to evaluate

projects under each research element, including:

relevance and contribution to the overall goal of

the program, scientific merit, ease or readiness of

implementation, links to other agencies and

international partners, cost, and agency approval.

~ New Developments

In 1992, CEES began developing a management plan for the program that would include the

addition of Assessment as a fourth activity stream

along with Documentation, Process Research,

and Integrated Modeling and Prediction (see fig.

3-3). The primary function of the Assessment

working group is to ‘‘. . document the state of

scientific knowledge and address the implications

of the science of global change for national and

international policy-making activities over abroad

spectrum of global and regional environmental

issues” (8). The group will also help coordinate

the scientific assessments of global change with

8 IPCC is an intergovernmental body sponsored jointly by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nation’s Environmental

Programme. The group was set up in 1988 to assess the scientitlc undemanding of natural and human-induced climate change, its impacts,

and potential response strategies. IPCC is scheduled to produce another full assessment in 1995,

9 CEES (formerly CES) works closely with and has drawn heavily on the ongoing activities of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS),

the World Climate Research Program (WCRP) of the World Meteorological Organizatio~ the International Council of ScientMc Unions

(ICSU), the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP), and IPCC in designing the structure of USGCRP and in identifying the

program’s key scientitlc issues and research priorities.
Figure 3-2—Priority Framework for USGCRP

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

. Support broad U.S. and international scientific effort

. Identify natural and human-induced changes

● Focus on interactions and interdisciplinary science

. Share financial burden, use the best resources, and encourage

full participation

\

INTEGRATING PRIORITIES

. Documentation of Earth system change

● Observational programs

● Data-management systems

● Focused studies on controlling processes and

improved understanding

. Integrated conceptual and predictive models

\

I1

I I I

I 1 1 I

I

I

Climate and

hydrologic systems

Role of clouds

Ocean circulation

and heat flux

Land/atm/ocean

~ua:&and energy

Coupled climate

system and

quantitative Ilnks

Ocean/atm/cryosphere interactions

Bio eochemicai

%ynamics

Bio/aMocean fiuxe:

of trace species

Atm processing of

trace species

Surface/deep water

biogeochemistry

Terrestrial biosphere

nutrient and

carbon cycling

Terrestrial inputs to

marine ecosystem

Ecolo ical systems

an dynamics J

Long-term measurements of structure/

function

Response to climate

and other stresses

Interactions between

physical and

biological process

Models of InteractIon

feedback, and

response

Productwity/resource

models

SCIENCE PRIORITIES I

1

Earth system

history

Paleoclimate

Paleoecology

Atmospheric

composition

Ocean circulation

and composition

Ocean productivity

Sea level changes

Paleohydrology

Human

interactions

latabase

development

dodels Imking:

population growth

and distribution

energy demands

change in land use

industrial producttol

I

Solid Earth

processes

Coastal erosion

Volcanic processes

Permafrost and

marine gas

hydrates

Ocean/seafloor heat

and energy fluxes

Surflcial processes

Crustal motions and

sea level

I1

Solar

influences

EUV/UV monitoring

Atm/solar energy

coupling

Irradiance (measure/

model)

chfEI@k3kM record

Proxy measurement:

and long-term

database

IQ

Increasing priority

NOTE: aim-atmosphere; EUVAJV-axtrema ultravbiethdtraviolet

SOURCE: Cunmlttea on Earth and Erwhonrnantal Sciences (CEES), or ChW@ng I%met: The FY 1993 U.S. Global Change Rosean51 -mmxon, DC: CEES, 1992).
Chapter 3-Global Change Research in the Federal Government I 117

related assessments on environmental impacts,

technologies for adaptation and mitigation, risk

assessment, and policy-response strategies (12).

Although the FY 1994 budget proposal reflects

these changes, it is unclear how much money

agencies will allocate for assessment and how the

assessments will be structured. The FY 1994

budget does not show Assessment separately but,

rather, embeds it within the other three activity

streams. Comprehensive assessments cannot be

carried out without expanding the ecological and

socioeconomic aspects of the program and incorporating impacts research into it. The FY 1994

budget does not reflect any significant expansion

in these areas.

Nonetheless, the Administration has expressed

interest in significantly broadening the program

to include studies of environmental and socioeconomic impacts and of mitigation and adaptation

strategies. “The development of a successful

assessment activity in the USGCRP will, I believe, go far toward demonstrating the ClintonGore administration’s commitment not only to

research but to effective action to manage this

Nation’s national and international environmental

policy’ (19). If this research materializes, it could

then be integrated with research on Earth system

processes to conduct integrated assessments. The

expanded program should be reflected in the

FY 1995 USGCRP budget.

To ensure progress in each of the activity

streams, timetables and milestones have been

included in each agency’s USGCRP research

program, although they have not appeared in any

published document. These milestones, specified

for both the near term (5 to 10 years) and the long

term (10 to 30 years), “will guide program and

budget development and serve as a critical

element in evaluating program accomplishments

and progress’ (11). The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) could hold research programs

to these targets only if the milestones are clearly

stated and easily measured and, therefore, enforceable. Representative George Brown, chairman of the Committee on Science, Space, and

Figure 3-3-Functional Architecture of USGCRP

m

/

$ EEzl

17f $~ ~+

El Inte rated

—

%

m

Process

mo cling ~research

SOURCE: Committee on Earth and Environmental sciences (CEES),

Our Changing Planet: The W 1993 U.S. Globai Change Research

Program (Washington, DC: CEES, 1992).

Technology, has suggested building performance

guidelines into authorizing legislation as well as

mandates that would redirect or terminate programs that do not make sufficient progress toward

stated goals (2).

1 The Interface Between Policy and Science

Research programs intended to be relevant to

management and policy making often fail because of fundamental tensions among researchers, resource managers, and decisionmakers. These

tensions are created because of conflicts in the

time horizons of each group, differences between

priority- or goal-setting processes, and differences in the agendas of extramural research

organizations (e.g., universities, industries, and

independent laboratories), mission-oriented agencies, and Congress.

The timetable for governmental decisions is

driven primarily by the annual budget cycle and

an election cycle that ranges between 2 and 6

years. Not surprisingly, policy makers funding

global change research often have a shorter time

horizon for “answers” than do researchers. This

disparity leads to tension between Government

officials, who are required to formulate annual
118 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

budgets and make immediate decisions, and the

scientific community, whose long-term research

is dependent on continuous and reliable funding.

When the questions of policy makers are not

answered in one or even a few years, it may

become more difficult to sell a program as

relevant to policy needs. Mission-oriented agencies are repeatedly deflected by the ‘crisis-of-themonth’ syndrome, which siphons resources away

from long-term programs (37). The result may be

annual budget fluctuations and/or rapidly shifting

priorities-both of which are detrimental to the

development of a sound scientific program. A

balance between continuity in priorities and

funding and flexibility in project direction is

essential (3).

Tension arises between extramural research

organizations and the Federal Government because of different research agendas. Universities

and independent laboratories judge their scientists to a large extent on their ability to raise funds

for research. Adherence to management- and

policy-relevant goals is not seen as important

unless it leads to more Federal funding.

Many scientists believe that the science must

be “complete” before policy conclusions can be

made safely. Policy makers, on the other hand,

cannot afford the luxury of complete information.

Decisions about reauthorizing environmental legislation and natural resource planning and management will continue to be made based on the

best available information. “[I]f policy is to be

effectual, then we must make policy while we

continue to investigate the physical and societal

effects of global warming. But this means that

policy will also enter the feedback loop, influencing societal responses and physical effects’ (30).

Science need not proceed in a sequential fashion.

Research on the climate system need not be

“complete” before research on the ecological

effects of climate change is undertaken nor does

research on the ecological effects of climate

change need to be ‘‘complete’ before research on

the societal impacts of and potential responses to

climate change is initiated (45). If USGCRP is to

address policy-relevant questions, a parallel approach to climate effects and response research is

necessary.

In a narrow sense, USGCRP is policy-relevant

if the most important policy concern is to gain a

better understanding of Earth system processes in

order to predict climate change. However, the

major international assessments conducted by

IPCC demonstrate that the key questions policy

makers need to address move far beyond the

narrow definition of ‘‘observe, document, and

predict” global change, into the realm of issues

related to adaptation and mitigation. As a result of

focusing research funds on climate prediction,

USGCRP is not addressing other key science

issues or broad policy questions for the near term.

For example, what plants and “ animals are sensitive to climate changes? How might biota and

vegetation respond to changes in climate? What

are the implications for forestry, agriculture, and

natural areas? What mitigation strategies would

slow climate change the most? How much would

they cost? To whom? How might society respond

to changes in climate and global ecosystems?

What technologies should be developed? How

will the effects of climate change interact with

other global environmental changes? How important is climate change in the scheme of long-term

environmental threats? How can natural resources

be managed to minimize economic and ecological

loss? These issues were largely excluded from

USGCRP to keep it primarily driven by the earth

sciences. Even if accurate regional climate predictions could be given today, land managers,

planners, decisionmakers, and policy makers

would not have all the information they need to

guide their response (33). As originally envisioned in 1990, these issues were to be addressed

under the CEES Working Group on Mitigation

and Adaptation Research Strategies (MARS),

which was abolished in 1992.

If USGCRP begins to address this broader set

of questions, it will be moving closer to policyrelevant research. Some fear that a program

driven by policy concerns will undermine or
Chapter 3-Global Change Research in the Federal Government 1119

Table 3-l—List of Departments and Agencies or Bureaus Involved in USGCRP Research

DOC

DOD

DOE

DOI

EPA

HHS

Department of Commerce

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Department of Defense

CRREL Cold Regions Research and Engineering

Laboratory

ONR Office of Naval Research

Department of Energy

OHER Office of Health and Environmental

Research

Department of Interior

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BOM Bureau of Mines

BOR Bureau of Reclamation

Fws Fish and Wildlife Service

NPS National Park Service

0 s Offiw of the Secreta~

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

Environmental Protection Agency

ORD Office of Research and Development

Department of Health and Human Services

NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health

Services

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

OSSA Office of Space Science and Applications

NSF National Science Foundation

BIO Directorate for Biological Sciences

GEO Directorate for Geosciences

SBE Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and

Economic Sciences

SI Smithsonian Institution

Ic International Center

NASM National Air and Space Museum

NMNH National Museum of Natural History

NZP National Zoological Park

SAO Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory

SERC Smithsonian Environmental Research

Center

STRI Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority

RBO River Basin Operations

USDA Department of Agriculture

ARS Agricultural Research Sewice

CSRS Cooperative State Research Service

ERS Economic Research Service

FS Forest Service

Scs Soil Consewation Service

SOURCE: Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES), Our Changjng Pknet: The H’ 1993 U.S. G/obd

Change Research Program (Washington, DC: CEES, 1992).

change the direction of science. Others maintain

that the second set of policy-relatd questions can

be addressed adequately by research driven by the

earth sciences. Maintaining the long-term policy relevance of scientific research under

USGCRP will require a formal and iterative

assessment link that simultaneously transfers

scientific research results in policy-relevant

language to decisionmakers and policy concerns to the research community.

PRIORITIES AND BALANCE IN USGCRP

I Budget

CEES designed USGCRP as a cohesive, integrated research program that would encompass

the unique attributes of 11 Federal agencies,

including 31 bureaus, but it did not assign a

central management body (see table 3-l). The

priority scheme set up by the three activity

streams and the seven science elements is intended to guide budget decisions, and, to date,

finding levels have followed these priority areas.

Since the program formally began in FY 1990,

the USGCRP budget has grown from $660 million in its first year to $1.33 billion in FY 1993 (7,

9). The proposed budget for FY 1994 is $1.47 billion (8). The budget can be analyzed in terms of

distribution across agencies, activity streams, and

science elements (see figs. 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6). In

FY 1993, projects funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) comprised 69 percent of the program’s budget ($921

million) while projects funded by the Department

of the Interior (DOI), which contains most of the

land-management agencies, comprised 3 percent

of the program’s budget ($38 million). For FY

1994, the requested budget for DOI’s global
120 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

1,200

1,000

800

(n

c

=.—Q 600

E

w

400

200

0

Figure 3-4-U.S. Global Change Research Program Budget by Agency

m 1993

n 1994 1013

921

169

124

67 70

89 98

9 1

46 48

7 7 <1 <1

NOAA DOD DOE DOI EPA HHS NASA NSF Smith- TVA USDA

sonian

NOTE: For definition of terms, see table 3-1. FY 1994 values are the requested, not the appropriated, amounts.

SOURCE: Committee on Earth and Environmental Sclenees (CEES), ~ Char@g Planet: 7?Ie FY 1994 U.S. Gkid

Chaoge Reseamh Progmm (Washington, DC: CEES, 1993).

change research program decreased to 2.3 percent

of the total.

Of the activity streams, Documentation, including observation and data management, received 45 percent of the budget ($595 million) in

FY 1993. Earth Process Research for understanding climate change received 46 percent of

the budget ($610 million), and Integrated Modeling and Prediction received 9 percent of the

budget ($121 million).l0

Although USGCRP programs include projects

on almost every aspect of climate change, the

bulk of the funds is focused on answering

scientific questions related to understanding the

physics and chemistry underlying climate systems. Research on Climate and Hydrologic Systems and Biogeochemical Dynamics constituted

about 71 percent of the program’s FY 1993

budget ($937 million). Ecological Systems and

Dynamics received 17 percent of the budget

($224 million). The remaining 12 percent of the

budget ($165 million) was divided among the

remaining four research elements: Earth System

History, Human Interactions, Solid Earth Processes, and Solar Influences (8).

Projects are categorized as focused--directly

relating to global change--or contributing—

justified on a basis other than global change but

having the potential to contribute to the global

change knowledge base (see fig. 3-7).11 Even

when both focused and contributing research are

considered, 70 percent of all funds is targeted for

10 Most of fie funds for model~ and prediction go toward nonmodeling process researeh. The major modeling groups hve RJ3E@ed ody

a small potion of these funds.

11 Udess ~~lca~y no@ budget figures refer to the focused budget.
Chapter 3--GIobal Change Research in the Federal Government I 121

800

600

mc

o

= 400 F

m

200

0

Figure 3-&USGCRP Focused Budget

by Activity Stream

680 m 1993

n 1994

. n. 143

Documentation Process

m

Modellng and

research prediction

NOTE: Total budget does not Include one-time appropriation of

$5million for the State Department in FY 1993 because the distribution

of funding among proposed projects is still being determined. The

budget for the FY 1994 Assessment activity stream is embedded in the

otherthree activity streams. FY 1994 values are the requested, not the

appropriated, amounts.

SOURCE: Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES),

&r Changing Planet: The W 1994 U.S. Global Change Researd

Program (Washington, DC: CEES, 1993).

projects in the first two priority research areas.

There are no standardized criteria for classifying

contributing research, and each agency uses its

own system. Consequently, it is difficult to know

precisely the extent of contributing research or to

get a comprehensive picture of relevant research.

Both focused and contributing programs are

considered in a procedure called the ‘‘budget

crosscut. ” USGCRP is one of only a few Federal

programs that uses a budget crosscut as a coordinating mechanism. This approach has been reasonably successful in facilitating cooperation and

securing new funding for global change research.

The USGCRP budget-crosscut process works as

follows.

Each program within an agency submits new

projects to the appropriate subworking group of

CEES. This subworking group determines whether

to recommend to the agency that the project be

included in USGCRP (projects can be added later

in the budget process, but this is the most likely

step at which new projects are added).

Each agency that participates in USGCRP then

develops its own GCRP budget, with some

coordination between agencies for joint projects.

These budgets are then submitted to CEES, which

may continue to negotiate with the agencies.

CEES submits one budget proposal incorporating

programs from all participating agencies to the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB). When

the proposal reaches OMB, it is initially reviewed

at one meeting by all of the budget examiners for

the various agencies involved in USGCRP. Although one examiner takes the lead for USGCRP,

the participation of the other examiners is critical

because each must understand the purpose of the

USGCRP projects that fall within his or her

agency’s budget. The USGCRP budget is returned to each agency when that agency’s whole

budget is returned. At that point, deliberations

between OMB and the agencies proceed as

normal. As agencies work to meet OMBestablished budget targets, they look at modifying

all projects-they can accept or reject OMB’S

recommendations and reprogram their global

change budgets.12 The final USGCRP budget is

presented to Congress along with the annual

Presidential Budget Request.

13 When the program first started, approximately 70 percent of the

proposed budget consisted of research funds from

already existing projects.

The USGCRP budget falls within the jurisdiction of several congressional authorization and

appropriations committees and subcommittees

(see table 3-2). With all of these committees

reviewing components of the USGCRP budget, it

12-@ f~t few years of the progr~ USGCRP required agencies to ‘‘fence off,” or commit, their global change researeh budget

requests to the program. They could not reprogram this money later if OMB cut overall ageney funding further down the line.

13 mfiit two budget qests were long, detailed d ocuments accompanied by executive summaries, but since FY 1992, only the sum.mmies

have been pubLished. USGCRP staff deterrnined that the information in the detailed budgets changes slowly and, therefore, needs to be

published only every 5 years.
122 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

700

600

500

(/J 400

c

=o

=

: 300

200

100

0

Figure 3-6-USGCRP Budget by Science Element

376

341 l-’-”-l

249

224 m

Ii,:. , . ,’ .:,: 20 25 22 24

108 ’

1 7

II__

,,, .:...

k2__

CHS BD ES&D ~SH HI SEP SI

NOTE: CHS-Clirnate and Hydrologic Systems; BD-Biogeoohemloal Dynamics; ES&D-Eeobgloal Systems and

Dynamics; ESH-Earth System Hiat6ry; H-Human interactions; SEP-Solid Earth Pmceeees; S1-Solar Influences.

FY 1994 values are the requested, not the appropriated, amounts.

SOURCE: Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciencea (CEES), LWWangh?g Rand: 7he /+’7994 U.S. Q&ba/

Change Reseamh Program (Washington, DC: CEES, 1993).

is much more difficult for Congress to consider

the USGCRP budget as a whole than it is for the

executive branch to do so. Several members of

Congress have complained about the fragmentation of congressional attention to the USGCRP

budget, but no alternatives have been proposed. It

might be useful for Congress to consider using an

ad hoc appropriations subcommittee consisting of

members from the committees with primary

jurisdiction over elements of USGCRP to review

the program’s budget as a comprehensive unit. If

two or three agencies are cooperating on a single

project, but one agency does not receive funding

for it, the entire project could beat risk.14 Large,

interagency programs such as USGCRP will

require innovative methods of funding if they are

to succeed.

9 Satellite vs. Nonsatellite Measurements

NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE)

program accounts for over 60 percent of

USGCRP focused funding (crossing several of

the priority research areas). The core of the MTPE

program is the development and maintenance of

the Earth Observing System (EOS), an ambitious

satellite program originally designed to provide

M MI ~mpk, at OTA’S workshop ‘‘EOS and USGCIU? Are We Ask@ and AIISWCX@ *R@ -~?” @b. 2$26 IW).

participants cited program soch as the World ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE), Tropical Oceans Globtd Atmosphere (TOGA), aml the

Joint Global ocean~ux Study (JGOFS)(50). All three are intcnqyncy m$earch pqrams wke the success of the dire program depeda on

contributions from NASA the National Oceanic and Atmospbmic Admin&@ “q and the National Science Foundation. However, in a recent

budget cycle, NASA received more than it asked for these programs while NOAA and NSF received no money. Rather than kt the programs

die, NASA filled the f~cial gap left by inadequate funding for NOAA and NSF.
1,000

800

600

w

~&

=

E

*

400

200

0

Chapter 3-Global Change Research in the Federal Government [ 123

Figure 3-7-FY 1993 USGCRP Budget of Focused and

Contributing Programs by Agency

_ Focused

m Contributing

603

279

-flHHS

921

274

NASA

L

NSF Smlth177

_----Ll 15 9

TVA USDA

sonian

NOTE: For definition of term, saa table 3-1.

SOURCES: Committes on Earth and Environmental Sclances (CEES), OurChm@g Planet: The W 1993 U.S. Global

Change Reseati Pmgnzn (Washington, DC: CEES, 1992); Offica of Technology Assessment 1993.

data over a 15-year period related to the study of

precipitation; ocean circulation; sources and sinks

of greenhouse gases; changes in land use, land

cover, hydrology, and ecology; changes in glaciers and ice sheets; ozone; and volcanic activity.

Because of EOS’S central role in NASA’s

USGCRP effort and the great expense of putting

satellites in space, the USGCRP budget as a

whole is heavily weighted toward satellite-based

measurements. 15

EOS has suffered extensive restructuring over

the past few years, which may jeopardize the

quality of information gained from remaining

EOS instruments. Some instruments that were

supposed to have improved the understanding and

observation of possible climate change impacts

Artist’s conception of NASA’s Earth Observing System

(EOS). EOS (AM-1 Platform) is scheduled to be

launched in 1998.

15 Alrhou@ about 50 pcrcxmt of NASA’S USGCR.P budget is classifkd as nonsatellite progmms, mOst of tise support bh ti~

ad operation of the satellite programs.
124 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Table 3-2--Congressional Authorization Committees and Appropriations Subcommittees

with Significant Legislative Authority over Agencies with a USGCRP Component

House and Senate Authorization Committees

House

Agriculture

Armed Services

Energy and Commerce

Natural Resources

Sciences, Space, and Technology

Public Works and Transportation

Merchant Marine and Fisheries

Senate

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

Armed Services

Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Energy and Natural Resources

Labor and Human Resources

Environmental and Public Works

Rules and Administration

House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees

Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education

Housing and Urban Development and independent

Agencies

Energy and Water Development

Interior and Related Agencies

Agriculture and Rural Developmentb

Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary

Defense

Jurisdiction a

USDA

DOD, DOE

DOE, HHS

DOE, USDA/FS, SI

NASA, NSF, DOE, EPA, NOAA, SI

NOAA, SI

USDA, NOAA, SI

USDA

DOD, DOE

NSF, NASA, NOAA

DOE, DOI

DOE, DOI, HHS

EPA, SI

SI

HHS

NASA, NSF, EPA

DOE

DOE, USDA, DOI, SI

USDA

NOAA

DOD — —

a For definition of terms, see table 3-1.

b The corresponding subcommittees of the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations have the same name with

one exception: the Senate Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies and the House

Subcommittee on Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies,

SOURCES: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), Federally Funded Research; Decisions for a

Decade, OTA-SET-490 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, May 1991); Office of Technology Assessment,

1993,

have been dropped or postponed. For example,

the High Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (HIRIS),

an instrument potentially capable of resolving

some of the more subtle aspects of ecological

change that cannot be detected by satellites today,

was originally scheduled to be part of EOS, but

was dropped during program restructuring (54).

EOS began as a $30 billion program, but was

scaled back to an $8 billion program (see box

3-A). 16

Most participants at OTA’s workshop “EOS

and GCRP: Are We Asking and Answering the

Right Questions?” agreed that had EOS been

designed initially to be an $8 billion program, it

likely would be different from the program we

have today. All acknowledged that much good

data will be collected and good science will be

done through EOS, but that it will provide neither

the continuous, multidecade data set necessary

for ecosystem studies nor a true global monitoring

16 For more dismssion of EOS, see references 49 md 50.
Chapter 3--Global Change Research in the Federal Government] 125

Box 3-A-Remote Sensing as a Tool for Coping with Climate Change

Remote sensing is the observation of the Earth from a distance. The ability to view and monitor large areas

of the Earth has become valuable in understanding regional and global-scale phenomena such as weather

systems, deforestation rates, and, most recently, climate change. Remote sensing can help reduce the

uncertainties associated with climate change in two ways: 1) by improving climate predictions through better

understanding of atmospheric and climate processes and 2) by improving scientists’ ability to detect and predict

the effects of climate change on the biosphere. Both uses of remote sensing would be important for coping with

climate change. However, most biosphere-related climate research to date has focused on the former, whereas

relatively little has focused on the latter. This box examines the uses and limitations of remote-sensing

technologies for observing, detecting, and understanding changes in the biosphere resulting from climate change,

land-use change, or other factors.

Development of remote-sensing technology

Airborne sensors-The oldest form of remote sensing-invented about 100 years ago--consists of

photographs taken from balloons. The development of the airplane made aerial photography the primary way to

monitor and study the Earth’s surface from a distance. Scientists also discovered t hat images created from other

parts of the electromagnetic spectrum (i.e., the infra red region) could provide additional information about surface

characteristics, such as mineral composition, soil moisture, and crop condition.

The U.S. Forest Service has been using aerial photography since the 1930s to measure the area of forests,

monitor forest health, and plan timber harvests. Aerial photography is also an important tool in the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service’s National Wetland Inventory Program The technique is best suited for observing relatively small

areas and for studies requiring a high level of spatial detail. Riparian wetlands and wetlands less than 5 acres

(2 hectares)1 in area, for example, cannot be accurately characterized by satellite-based observations (18).

Therefore, aerial photography is an essential tool for comprehensive wetland monitoring.

However, using aerial photography to get consistent coverage overlarge areas for regional analysis is very

difficult and costly. The aerial photography technology used frequently by the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA) for ecological studies can cost about $10,000 per flight. Difficulties also lie in determining

exactly where the plane is in space so that the area being photographed can be precisely identified. Also, taking

photographs at different times from exactly the same vantage point is difficult. Although aerial photography may

be preferable for ecological applications requiring high levels of detail (e.g., wetland inventory and forest

monitoring), it is not practical for routine, regular measurements or for studies of large-scale ecological

phenomena.

Remote sensing from satellites--By the late 1960s, advances in technology made transmitting electronic

images to Earth from satellite-based instruments practical. Polar-orbiting satellites (orbits pass over both the North

and South Poles) allow imaging of the entire globe. These Earth observation satellites are equipped with various

sensors that detect natural radiance (electromagnetic waves emitted by surface features) and reflectance (those

reflected from Earth’s surface).2 The intensity and wavelength of the signal detected become a type of signature

for certain surface features. By combining these signals, various vegetation types and other characteristics can

be identified.

1 TO convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405.

2 Sunlight is absorbed by Earth’s atmosphere, scattered and reflected off Earth’s surface, or absorbed by its

surface. Surface features that absorb some waves can re-emit electromagnetic signals-often at longer

wavelengths. In general, reflected (or scattered) signals give information about the structure of the surface features,

and radiated signals give information about Its chemical composition.

(Continued on next page)
126 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Box 3-A-Remote Sensing as a Tool for Coping with Climate Change--(Continued)

Satellites include several instruments that monitor Earth with ’’passive sensors’’ designed to detect a narrow

range, or window, of various parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. These windows are called spectral bands. By

detecting different parts of the spectrum, a variety of signatures is obtained. Being able to detect narrower bands

improves the ability to categorize detected signatures by wavelength. More narrow bands over a wider range of

the spectrum enables detection of more signatures, which improves the ability to discern closely spaced objects

and identify surface features. Identification of a wetland, for example, generally requires analysis of three or more

infrared spectral bands (18): one discriminates amounts of vegetation, water, and soil moisture; another helps

determine water quality; and another helps to classify different vegetation types. However, detailed geographic

and spectral resolution is more expensive, requires higherdata-collection rates, and limits spatial coverage (49).

Passive optical sensors detect only surface features. They cannot be used for Earth observation through clouds,

accurate measurement of soil moisture through dense vegetation cover, or detection of submerged vegetation.

Radar instruments have “active” sensors that provide their own illumination via microwave pulses and then

measure the reflected energy. Unlike optical sensors, radar data can be acquired through clouds and at night.

Radar signals are especially sensitive to water and may improve the way soil and vegetation moisture are

measured (53, 54). In addition, radar can probe to greater depths and may provide better information about surface

roughness, canopy height, and, perhaps, vegetation beneath a dense canopy than can optical sensors (53,54).

Several countries besides the United States, including France, Japan, India and Russia, have launched

satellites for environmental studies and Earth observation. Discussed below are satellites whose data are most

widely used by US. scientists for detecting change in the biosphere and for large-scale ecosystem studies.

Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR)--This scanning radiometer, aboard NOAA’s Polar

Orbiting Environmental Satellite (POES), uses five detectors to create surface images in five spectral bands (49).

AVHRR data allow multispectral analysis of vegetation, clouds, lakes, coasts, snow, and ice and have been used

to monitor crop conditions, classifyglobal vegetation, and demonstrate the scale of deforestation in the tropics (44).

AVHRR provides daily coverage of the Earth, allowing frequent monitoring of a large region and the creation of

virtually cloud-free images at a fraction of the cost and computing time required for aerial photography or other

satellite technologies (43).3 Although AVHRR data have much lower spatial resolution than do data from aerial

photography--about 0.7 miles (1.1 kilometers)4 per pixel, or data point--O.6-mile to 16-mile resolutions are

adequate for “assessing many global or regional trends in land cover, vegetation damage, deforestation, and other

environmental conditions” (44).

Landsat--ln 1972, NASA launched the first of a series of Landsat satellites for civilian Earth observation and

monitoring. Now, a 20-year continuous data set has been acquired for some selected areas (primarily in the United

States and the former Soviet Union), making Landsat data the primary source of data for detecting long-term

ecological trends. This long-term record is just now beginning to provide valuable information about trends and

changes In wetland area, vegetation types, forest growth, deforestation rates, and urban expansion.

Consistency in measurement is very important for maintaining accurate and useful long-term records.

Landsat missions have been designed so that data from different missions can be compared while allowing

moderate advances In technology. Sustaining Landsat missions and maintaining a continuous data set over 20

years has not been easy. Over this time, operation of Landsat has changed from public to private and back to public

3 The EROS Data Center makes global data sets that are almost aloud-free by imaging over approximately

10 days.

4 TO connvert miles to kilometers, multiply by 1.609.
Chapter 3-Global Change Research in the Federal Government 127

hands.5 These changes have threatened to limit the availability of data to users, have increased the costs of data

to users, and have limited the number of scenes imaged. Landsats 4 and 5 have already surpassed their expected

life spans by several years. The recently launched Landsat 6 (October 1993) never reached orbit, and the

long-term Landsat record is now threatened.

The main advantage of Landsat and similar satellites is that they can distinguish surface features with higher

spatial and spectral resolution and broader spectral coverage than do AVHRR data. 6 Landsat data have been used

to identify and monitor crops, classify forest stands with finer classification scales, and assess damages from

natural disasters. However, Landsat provides less frequent coverage of an area (every 16 days) and requires more

computing time and power than do AVHRR data sets. For these reasons, AVHRR is more widely used than

Landsat for global data analyses. Landsat data sets are also significantly more expensive than are AVHRR data

sets. According to one scientist, “The 10-times greater expense and 1,000-times-greater data volume [of Thematic

Mapper of Landsat (TM) data as opposed to AVHRR data preclude] use of multiple annual [Landsat] data sets

for global studies” (43). (The cost of each 120-by 110-mile scene is about $5,000 (18)).

New technologies7—instruments considered for Landsat 7 will improve surface resolution and allow the

creation of topographic images (by having the ability to point to the side), thereby increasing Landsat’s revisit

frequencies from once every 16 days to once every 3 days (49). Until recently, a High Resolution Imaging

Spectrometer (HIRIS) was under consideration for development as part of NASA’s Earth Observing System (EOS)

program. In principle, HIRIS data could be used to detect specific species of trees or other ground cover, track

pollutants in water, and identify natural vegetation that is under stress. A Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) proposed

for EOS--but recently canceled--would have been capable of multiangle, multifrequency, and multipolarizartion

measurements (49). SAR could have measured soil moisture under vegetated land, determined the vertical

structure of vegetation canopies, and measured canopy moisture (53). However, both HIRIS and SAR were

dropped from consideration because of high costs and launch requirements (54).

Uses of remote sensing under climate change8

Many questions about climate change impacts and how to respond to them remain unanswered. For

example, which plant and animal communities are likely to change first? How will they change? How fast will

changes occur? Which species are already declining? Why? Where? Which are flourishing? Satellite data are

already being used to answer many questions related to large-scale ecological change, but limitations in both

satellite technology and in ecological understanding prevent some of the most compelling questions about global

ecological change from being addressed with satellite data. The table in this box (next page) lists some potential

uses of remote-sensing data.

Remote sensing for scientific study-Although an Earth observation satellite has never been launched

specifically for ecological studies (41), current operating satellites can help reveal some important aspects of

5 Landsat 4 and 5 are operated and maintained by the Earth Observation Satellite Company (EOSAT, a

private company. Landsat 6 will be launched by the U.S. Government but operated by EOSAT (16). The Land

Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-555) transfers all control of future Landsat missions (starting with

Landsat 7) to the Department of Defense and NASA (49).

6 Landsat4 and 5 carry the Thematic Mapper (TM) sensor, providing 100-foot (30-m) ground resolution in six

spectral bands (one thermal infared band has a 390-foot (120-m) resolution). Landsat 6 is scheduled for launch on

September 5,1993, and will carry an Enhanced Thematic Mapper Imaging Instrument (ETM). ETM will improve the

TM by adding a 5-foot resolution panchromatic sensor, making it possible to collect data streams with sharper

resolutions and increase vegetation discrimination.

7 See The Future of Remote Sensing from Space: Civilian Satellite Systems andApplications (49) for a more

complete discussion of the future of remote-sensing technologies.

8 Much of this section was developed from a workshop, “Ecology and Remote Sensing,” held September 18,

1992, at the University of Maryland at College Park.

(Continued on next page)
128 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Box 3-A--Remote Sensing as a Tool for Coping with Climate Change--(Continued)

Potential uses of current remote-sensing data for biosphere study

Classify land-surface cover

Detect Vegetation- climate relationships

Detect frequency and extent of fire

Detect inundation extent

Detect surface soil moisture in areas of low vegetation cover

Detect land and ocean surface temperature

Calculate ocean color indices

Calculate vegetation indices

Estimate global net primary production

Estimate ranges of evapotranspiration

Measure horizontal canopy structural characteristics

Measure canopy biochemical constituents

Measure vegetation water content

Potential uses of future remote-sensing data.a

Classify vegetation cover by community types or species assemblages

Detect and monitor margins of ecosystems

Detect successional stages in forests

Characterize vegetation stress (in natural communities as well as in crops)

Estimate contaminant concentrations in water and snow

Estimate biochemical composition of vegetation canopies in more detail

Estimate canopy structural characteristics with independent methods

Estimate biomass

Estimate extent of deforestation

Measure soil moisture in vegetated areas

Measure vertical canopy structural characteristics

Measure canopy biochemical constituents in more detail

Measure canopy moisture content

Measure canopy height

a Some uses may require further research in order to be proven.

SOURCES: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), Ecology and Remote Sensing Workshop, Center for

Global Change, University of Maryland at College Park, Sept. 18, 1992; U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment

(OTA) workshop, ‘EOS and USGCRP: Are We Asking and Answering the Right Questions?” Washington, DC, Feb. 25-26,

1393; S.L. Ustin et al., “Opportunities for Using the EOS Imaging Spectrometers and Synthetic Aperture Radar in Ecological

Models,” Ecology, vol. 72, No. 6,1991, pp. 1934-45; D.E. Wickland, "Mission to Planet Earth: The Ecological Perspective,”

Ecology, vol. 72, No. 6,1991, pp. 1923-33.

>

<– Radar – ●

Gamma Far

rays EHF SHF UHF VHF HF MF LF VLF ELF

1

0.01 0.1 1 10 0.1 1 10 0.1 1 1 10 1 10 100 1 10 100

nm nm nm nm um um um mm mm cm cm m m m km km k m

Most of the energy that is reflected, absorbed, or scattered by the Earth’s atmosphere is visible or shortwave

infrared energy (from 0.4 to 4 microns). in the thermal infrared, most attenuation is by absorption.

Short-wavelength radiation is reflected by clouds, water vapor, aerosols, and air; scattered by air molecules

smaller than radiation wavelengths; and absorbed by ozone in shorter wavelengths (<0.3 micron) and by

water vapor at the longer visible wavelengths (>1.0 micron).

SOURCE: A.M. Carleton, Satellite Remote Sensing in Climatology(Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1991).
Chapter 3-Global Change Research in the Federal Government | 129

changing ecosystems and the consequences of various impacts on the biosphere. Most importantly, satellite data

have allowed the biosphere to be studied from a new perspective and at much larger scales than ever before,

opening up a whole new area of ecological study. The most direct application of satellite data is the detection and

study of land-use change. Because satellite data can be used to discern broad classes of vegetation (e.g.,

grasslands, crops, evergreen forests, and deciduous forests), it has been an important tool in studying the extent

of deforestation in the tropics and the extent of desertification in Africa.

Leaf area, which can be calculated from remote-sensing data, has been used for identifying more specific

types of vegetation cover of large vegetated areas. A Leaf Area Index (LAI) is being used to identify the extent

of specific crops (such as wheat) and their stress levels throughout the growing season. It is also being used to

monitor the condition of rangelands, pastures, and other mostly homogeneous land cover. This technique is less

useful for natural vegetation where suboptimal growing conditions and a mix of species make t he links among LAl,

vegetation type, and health weak.

Remote sensing has also been used to monitor soil-moisture conditions in areas where--and during seasons

when--vegetation cover is sparse, but it cannot measure ground soil moisture in heavily vegetated areas. Thus,

satellite images miss most forested wetlands. Coastal erosion and some processes of large, shallow, open

wetlands (such as those in the Mississippi River Delta) can easily be studied and monitored over time with

remote-sensing data. For adequate delineation of wetlands, many wetland scientists believe that color infrared

data at a 16-foot (5-meter)9 resolution viewed in stereo is required (18). Landsat 7 may be able to get this kind

of resolution for wetland delineation, but wetland scientists studying the larger-scale processes of coastal wetlands

would rather have a coastal contour map at l-foot contour intervals than improved satellite remote-sensing

technology (50).

Remote-sensing data have been used for tipping forest evapotranspiration and photosynthesis-key

processes that control the exchange of energy and mass in terrestrial vegetation. Climate change will likely perturb

patterns of evapotranspiration and photosynthesis. Regional maps of these processes will help researchers detect

and understand such change.

Remote sensing for Iand-management and planning-Remote-sensing data are being used in

conjunction with data from other sources as a tool for land management and planning. For example, the Fish and

Wildlife Service launched the Gap Analysis Project (GAP) in 1991 to identify areas of potentially high biodiversity

and their protection status to guide future land acquisitions and habitat-protection efforts. Remote sensing (mostly

Landsat data) is the primary tool used to identify vegetation types (see vol. 2, box 5J),

In addition, Geographic Information Systems (GISs) have been developed and used throughout Government

agencies for regional analyses and planning. Vegetation and land-cover information from remotely sensed data

is combined with digitized geologic, geographic, hydrologic, and topographic data in one computer system, so that

one overlay containing all this information can be studied and used to test potential land-use decisions (such as

altering the hydrology). Such analyses can lead to a better understanding of the Earth’s surface and subsurface

processes and more sound regional land-use planning near environmentally sensitive areas (see vol. 2, box 5-J).

Ducks Unlimited uses remotely sensed data from satellites in combination with aerial photography from the

Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory project for wetland monitoring. For their purposes,

combining National wetlands Inventory digital data with satellite data for evaluating wetland functions is more

valuable than using either product alone (18).

Current satellite data are useful for studying ecological processes on a very large scale, but are relatively

inadequate for detecting more subtle ecological changes, such as those at ecotones, at the edges of ecosystems,

or within an individual plant community. “Satellite data cannot match the extent, classification detail, or reliability”

of data from aerial photography and other manual techniques used in the National Wetlands Inventory Project (18).

9 TO convert feet to meters, rmdtiply by 0.305.

(Continued on next page)
130 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Box 3-A-Remote Sensing as a Tool for Coping with Climate Change--(Continued)

Limitations to broader applications of remote sensing

The principal drawbacks of satellite data for detecting impacts of climate change are their limited spatial and

spectral resolution. Remote sensing can be used to determine broad classes of vegetation, but it cannot identify

species or communities. With satellite-based information, it is nearly impossible to study the more subtle aspects

of regional ecological change. These include vegetation health in natural areas and mixed forests, ecological

change at ecosystem boundaries, migration of a single species or even a species community, drought conditions

and soil-moisture trends in heavily vegetated areas, and exact rates of wetland loss. Furthermore, few ecologists

are skilled at studying ecosystems at large, coarse-resolution scales.

Technology is available to expand applications of satellite remote sensing for studying impacts of climate

change, but high costs, launching requirements, and scientific priorities have delayed its development Even

current satellite data have not been used to their full potential for studying potential impacts of climate change.

For example, Iarge-scale studies of the biosphere are limited by the availability of data sets. The only global

vegetation data set available is the Global Vegetation index (GVI), generated from AVHRR data. Even a

Landsat MSS Image

September 15, 1973

Landsat MSS Image

May 22, 1983

Landsat MSS Image

August 31, 1988

Landsat data have been used to identify and monitor crops, classify forest stands, and assess damages from

natural disasters. These Landsat images of Mount St. Helens show the area in 1973 before the volcano

erupted and in 1983 and 1988, after the volcano erupted.
Chapter 3-Global Change Research in the Federal Government 131

consistent, calibrated, single-source map of U.S. land cover and land use does not exist. More detailed coverage

of large areas on the global or continental scale is limited by high costs and data volume. In fact, many university

researchers have started to study AVHRR data despite its limited resolution and spectral information because of

the high costs of Landsat data.

Another factor that limits wider use of remotely sensed data stems from differences among scientific

disciplines. Many ecologists, for example, are not trained to use satellite data (41), and those who use

remote-sensing technologies are typically not mainstream ecologists. There has never been a remote-sensing

instrument designed specifically for ecological studies (41). Furthermore, few remote-sensing scientists have

backgrounds in ecology or biology (41). Ecologists must essentially take what they can get from remote-sensing

data that may not be optimal for their field. Opportunities for interdisciplinary studies at universities and the

relatively recent surge of interest in ecosystem research (spurred by climate change, deforestation, and global

pollution) may help to bridge the gap.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment 1993.

network. Both these shortcomings are important

to consider in future discussions about the science

base of USGCRP. Many correlative measurements made with airborne platforms or groundbased instruments (that would verify and calibrate

the satellite measurements and provide continuous coverage when satellites are not operating)

were originally planned to be part of USGCRP

but were not funded. Costs for such efforts could

be a small percentage of the USGCRP budget—in

the tens of millions of dollars each year.17

The Landsat satellite monitoring program is of

significant ecological interest because it is the

primary source of data for detecting long-term

ecological trends (18).18 Landsat satellites contain instruments that analyze multispectral data to

obtain images of the Earth (see box 3-A). New

technologies have allowed resolution to improve

from about 100 feet (30 meters)19 to a few feet.

Landsat data allow changes to be detected in

vegetation type and cover, hydrologic patterns,

extent of wetlands, land use, and soil moisture. It

is the only satellite monitoring program that has

a 20-year data set, despite several changes in

ownership and new technology over the years that

nearly resulted in its termination. The data are just

now becoming relevant for ecological studies of

changes in vegetation cover due to natural processes. Multidecade data sets are vital to global

change research; however, consistency is extremely difficult because the average life of a

satellite is only 5 years. A central element of an

extended set of missions must be ensuring the

compatibility of future satellite data with current

data while accommodating new technologies. In

addition, subsequent satellites must survive fiscal

fluctuations.

■ Balance Among NASA and

Other USGCRP Agencies

The question of balance between satellite and

nonsatellite measurements is directly connected

to the question of balance among participating

USGCRP agencies. Currently, NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA), and the Department of Energy (DOE)

17 OTA'S workshop "EOS and USGCRP: Are we Asking and Answering the Right Questions?’ Washington, DC, Feb. 25-26, 1993.

18 Landsat receives approximately 25 percent of its budget from NASA and 75 percent from DOD. It is a part of NASA’s Mission to Planet

Earth, but it is separate from EOS.

19 To convert feet to meters, multiply by 0.305.
132 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

This Landsat photo of Yellowstone National Park

demonstrates the different land-use patterns in the

vicinity of the park. A clear line, formed by different

land-use patterns, delineate the park boundary. The

area spans three States and is managed by Federal,

State, private, and tribal landowners. The Federal

portion of the area comprises two National Parks, nine

National Forests, and land owned by the Fish and

Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management.

(See vol. 2, ch. 5, box 5-F.)

control 80 percent of the focused research budget

for USGCRP. Even when contributing programs

are considered (e.g., those that are ongoing for

other reasons), NASA, DOE, and NOAA control

60 percent of the USGCRP budget (see figs. 3-4

to 3-7). The lack of participation by agencies

other than NASA has led to gaps in the overall

program. For example, DOI, which manages

approximately 500 million acres (200 million

hectares)20of public land that could be affected by

climate change, requested a decrease in

USGCRP funding for both FY 1993 and FY 1994.

This can be attributed partly to management

agencies focusing their resources on what they

perceive as more immediate management concerns.

Another dimension of the imbalance in agency

participation is the historical attraction that Congress and the executive branch have had for

space-based research. Federal agencies may correctly perceive that it is easier to get financial

support for large, space-based projects than for

lower-profile research such as monitoring (36,

55).

NASA’s contribution dwarfs contributions from

other agencies, but it is unclear how to bring more

balance to the program to help fill the gaps and

make the necessary links to other global change

issues. Because USGCRP does not have a program budget, it would be difficult to redistribute

funds across agencies; however, there might be

opportunities to modify projects within agencies

to help meet the needs of global change research.

ADAPTATION RESEARCH IN THE

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The Mitigation and Adaptation Research Strategies program was created about the same time as

USGCRP and operated as an independent working group under CEES. MARS was conceived to

develop ‘a coordinated Federal research strategy

for mitigation of, and adaptation to, global change

and with assessment of economic, social and

environmental effects of the proposed responses.

The program addressed four functions: mitigation, adaptation, economics, and social dynamics

(5). MARS objectives under its adaptation program were to:

1. determine the sensitivity and adaptive

capacity of human and other natural systems to global change, and the social,

cultural, economic, and other constraints or

impediments to implementation of adaptive

measures and methods to reduce those

constraints;

2. determine the mechanisms and timing required for current evaluation procedures

and practices to be modified to meet socim ~ ~nv~ acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405.
Chapter 3-Global Change Research in the Federal Government I 133

3.

ety’s needs to accommodate global change,

given the uncertainties about the timing and

magnitude of global change and its effects;

and

identify, develop, demonstrate, and evaluate technologies and strategies to adapt to

global change.

These objectives were to be directed toward

water resources; natural systems; food, forestry,

and fiber; and human systems. In a sense, MARS

was charged with conducting all the research

components missing from USGCRP.

However, MARS did not receive the administrative backing that USGCRP did and never

developed an interagency research program on

mitigation and adaptation research. By 1992,

MARS, as a formal entity, ceased to exist. Under

the CEES Subcommittee on Global Change, an

informal, and later formal, Subcommittee on the

Environment and Technology formed in 1992,

which continues to address mitigation and adaptation issues, but in a much broader context.

Although this subcommittee has no budgetary

power, it is holding the door open for agencies

with more interest in applied climate change

research than in basic research, such as the

Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),

the Tennessee Valley Authority, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Department

of the Interior, to redirect their funds to this end.

Although MARS provided a forum for agencies to discuss global change programs of mutual

interest, it was unable to exercise any influence

over project selection and funding. Consequently,

MARS served primarily to identify existing

agency programs and projects that addressed

mitigation, adaptation, social dynamics, and economic issues either as a main focus or as a

contributing element.

i Research “Focused” on Adaptation

MARS classified only a handful of projects as

focused on adaptation research, and funding for

Three-level, open-top chambers, such as these at

Finley Farm, North Carolina, can be used to study the

effects of increased carbon d-oxide, ozone, and

drought stress on trees and plants.

these projects totaled $8.18 million in N 1992

(5) (see table 3-3A). These projects are not

included in USGCRP per se because they do not

conform to the USGCRP mission of ‘‘observe,

understand, and predict. ”

Of the $8.18 million considered focused on

adaptation research, NOAA spent $4.1 million, or

close to 50 percent, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and EPA each spent $1.2 million, or

15 percent, each, and USDA spent $0.35 million,

or 4 percent, of the total spent on adaptation

research. DOI, the department that houses landmanagement agencies responsible for 500 million

acres of public land, was conspicuously absent

from the MARS list of agencies undertaking

focused adaptation research.

Examples of focused adaptation research include: a $200,000 NSF program on the effects of

climate change on coastal zones; a $1.1 million

USDA program that seeks to simulate the effects

of changing climate and management practices on

organic matter, crop yields, and rangeland productivity; a $20,000 TVA program on regional

climate scenarios; a $30,000 TVA program addressing the sensitivity of the TVA reservoir and

power supply systems to extreme meteorology; a

$250,000 Department of Defense (DOD) program

that assesses the impacts of potential climate
134 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Table 3-3A—FY 1991 and 1992 Focused Research by Agency and Function

($ millions)

Totals Mitigation Adaptation Economics

Agencya

1991 1992 1991 1992 1991 1992 1991 1992

DOC 3.3 5.1 0.1 1.0 3.2 4.1

DOD 1.1 1.1

DOE 1.7 2.2 1.7 2.2

DOS <0.1 0.1 <(). 1 0.1

DOT 0.2 0.2

NSF 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

USDA 3.5 2.1 0.4 1.0

EPA 3.3 3.3 2.4 2,1 1.0 1.2

Totals 9.5 16.5 4.1 7.3 5.4 8.2 1.0

a DOS= Department of State; DOT= Department of Transportation. For definition of other terms, see table 3-1.

SOURCE: Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES), Mitigation and Adaptation Research Strategies

Working Group, MARS Working Paper 1: Description of Proposed Cooordinated Program (Washington, DC: CEES,

1992).

Table 3-3 B--FY 1991 and 1992 Focused Adaptation Research by Agency and Element

($ millions)

Natural Human Food, Forestry, Water

Totals Systems Systems and Fiber Systems

Agencya

1991 1992 1991 1992 1991 1992 1991 1992 1991 1992

DOC 3.2 4.1 0.7 1.1 0.4 1.0 2.2 2.0

DOD 1.1 1.1

DOS <0.1 0. 1 <0,1 0.1

DOT 0.2 0.2

NSF 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

USDA 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

EPA 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0,2 0.3

Totals 5.4 8.2 1.0 1.6 1.8 2.8 0.2 0.3 2.4 3.4

a DOS= Department of State; 130 T= Department of Transportation. For definition of other terms, see table 3-1.

SOURCE: Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES), Mitigation and Adaptation Research Strategies

Working Group, MARS Working Paper I: Description of Proposed Coordinated Program (Washington, DC: CEES, 1992).

change on water resource management; and a

$50,000 DOE program on regional impacts that

seeks to develop a model designed to capture the

essential climate-sensitive relationships within

and between resource sectors (6).

Research that MARS classified as focused on

economics received $1.0 million in FY 1992; no

research was classified as focused on social

dynamics.

I Research “Contributing” to Adaptation

MARS identified research on the effects of

climate change on natural and engineered systems

and research on the potential impact on society of

these changes as contributing to adaptation research. With the exception of NASA’s component, the majority of USGCRP research under the

science elements Ecological Systems and Dynamics and Human Interactions can be considered impacts research--that is, how climate

change effects plants, animals and people. Ecological Systems and Dynamics research made up

$224 million, or 17 percent, of the FY 1993

USGCRP budget, and Human Interactions research made up $22 million, or less than 2 percent

of the USGCRP budget. NASA spent 66 percent
Chapter 3--Global Change Research in the Federal Government I 135

Table 34A-Percent of Total FY 1992 USGCRP Budget for the

Third Science Element, Ecological Systems and Dynamics (ESD), Compared with

Percent of Each Agency’s GCRP Budget for ESDa

Percent of USGCRP ESD Percent of USGCRP ESD budget

budget allocated allocated or requested as percent

or requested b

of each agency’s GCRP budget

Agency FY 1993 FY 1994 FY 1993 FY 1994

DOC/NOAA 1 1 5 4

DOD <1 <1 15 15

DOE 2 2 4 4

DOI 4 3 21 24

EPA 4 4 36 39

HHS o 0 0 0

NASAC

66 66 16 16

NSF 10 12 17 18

Smithsonian 2 2 62 62

TVA o 0 0 0

USDA 11 10 53 52

a ESD received $224,3 million in FY 1993; for FY 1994, the budget request is for $249.3 million

(approximately 17 percent of the total USGCRP budget).

b FY 1993 figures represent appropriated funds; FY 1994 figures represent requested funds.

c Part of the reason the NASA figures are so high is that the capital costs of their projects are greater

relative to other projects, Although these comparisons are instructive, they do not reflect information on the

cost and yield of research.

Table 3-4 B-Percent of Total FY 1992 USGCRP Budget for the

Fifth Science Element, Human Interactions (Hi), Compared with Percent of

Each Agency’s GCRP Budget for Hla

Percent of USGCRP HI Percent of USGCRP Hi budget

budget allocated allocated or requested as percent

or requested of each agency’s GCRP budget

Agency FY 1993 FY 1994 FY 1993 FY 1994

DOC/NOAA 3 3 1 1

DOD o 0 0 0

DOE 11 10 3 3

DOI 13 6 7 4

EPA 15 11 13 10

HHS 5 6 100 100

NASA o 0 0 0

NSF 42 53 8 8

Smithsonian 3 3 10 10

TVA o 0 0 0

USDA 8 9 3 4

a HI received $22.2 million in FY 1993; for FY 1994, the budget request is for $24.4 million (approximately

1.6 percent of the total USGCRP budget).

b FY 1993 figures represent appropriated funds; FY 1994 figures represent requested funds.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

of the total USGCRP Ecological Systems and climate change on ecological systems. In contrast,

Dynamics budget; however, Ecological Systems USDA spends only 11 percent of the USGCRP

and Dynamics research represents only 16 per- Ecological Systems and Dynamics budget, which

cent of the agency’s global change research represents 53 percent of their global change

budget (see table 3-4A). In addition, NASA’s research budget. DOI spends 3.5 percent of the

research in this area focuses primarily on ecologi- USGCRP Ecological Systems and Dynamics

cal functions and characterizations, not effects of budget, which represents 21 percent of their
136 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

global change research budget (see table 3-4A).

The agencies that one would expect to conduct the

bulk of research on ecological systems and the

effects of climate change on ecosystems—EPA

and the land-management agencies of DOI and

USDA—play only a minor role. The reasons are

varied and complex, but include the higher capital

costs of NASA projects and the reluctance of

some agencies to actively support and participate

in the program. Consequently, these agencies’

contributions to USGCRP comprise projects that

are in place for reasons other than climate change

research, such as characterizing ground- and

surface-water flows, maintaining weather data,

and monitoring ecosystem change.

Definitions of what encompasses Ecological

Systems and Dynamics research become very

important in the face of such disparate budget

allocations among agencies. If the definition is

not consistent across agencies, or if it is too broad,

large gaps could potentially exist. For example, it

is unclear how much large ecosystem research is

being conducted—such as research on the use of

corridors for the migration of plants and animals

in response to global change or techniques for

ecosystem transplantation. Are we clarifying

rates at which various species in an ecosystem can

migrate? Do we understand how to maintain

ecosystems in place? Will pest ranges increase?

Will fire hazards increase’? Are our crop and tree

varieties genetically diverse enough to cope with

the range of potential changes? What agencies are

addressing these questions, and is research adequate to find the answers to these questions? What

questions under this research category does

NASA attempt to answer compared with what

questions USDA attempts to answer? NASA’s

contribution to the understanding of ecological

systems comes largely from space-based measurements and observations, whereas the landmanagement agencies’ contribution comes more

from field research. Box 3-B highlights weaknesses in environmental research identified by the

National Research Council (NRC).

Of the $22 million spent on Human Interactions, NSF spends 42 percent, which represents

7.5 percent of their global change research

budget. Except for the Department of Health and

Human Services (HI-IS), which spends $5.41

million, or 100 percent, of its USGCRP budget on

Human Interactions, the percent of agency

USGCRP budgets allocated to Human Interactions ranges from 0 to 10 percent (see tables 3-3B

and 3-4B). Although it is difficult to obtain

reliable numbers, because social science research

has many labels, it is doubtful that any Federal

agency devotes as much as 1 percent of its total

research budget to environmental social science

(37).

Specific projects classified as contributing to

adaptation include: a $4.7 million program at

DOI’s National Park Service (NPS) to improve

the scientific basis of adaptive management of the

types of ecosystem responses likely to be associated with climate and other global environmental

changes; a $1.3 million program at DOI’s Bureau

of Reclamation (BOR) to study the changes in

hydrologic processes under scenarios of global

climate change and to determine the potential

impacts on snowpack, snowmelt, and runoff in

the 17 Western States; a $1.5 million program at

DOI’s U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to evaluate the sensitivity of water resources to climate

variability and change across the United States;

and a $150,000 DOE program to evaluate the

existing social science knowledge base concerning energy and the analysis of the role of

institutions in making decisions affecting climate

change (6).

Very little of the effects research described

above could also be considered research on the

impacts of global change on human systems.

USGCRP’S new Economics Initiative does consider the impact of climate change on the economy, and several agencies support research in this

area, including NSF, NOAA, and USDA (in its

Economics Research Service). However, the eco-
Chapter 3--Global Change Research in the Federal Government! 137

Box 3-B-Weaknesses in U.S. Environmental Research Identified

by the National Research Council

The research establishment is poorly structured to deal with complex, interdisciplinary research on large spatial

scales and long-term temporal scales. These traits characterize the primary needs of an effective environmental

research program.

There is no comprehensive national environmental research plan to coordinate the efforts of the more than 20

agencies involved in environmental programs. Moreover, no agency has the mission to develop such a plan, nor

is any existing agency able to coordinate and oversee a national environmental research plan if one were

developed.

The Iack of unintegrated national research plan weakens the ability of the United States to work creatively with

governments of other nations to solve regional and global problems.

The Nation’s environmental efforts have no clear leadership, As suggested by the lack of a cabinet-level

environmental agency, the United States has lacked strong commitment to environmental research at the

highest levels of government. Environmental matters have been regarded as less important than defense,

health, transportation, and other government functions.

Although individual agencies and associations of agencies analyze data to provide a base for decisions on

strategies and actions to address specific environmental problems, no comprehensive "think tank” exists for

assessing data to support understanding of the environment as a whole and the modeling of trends whose

understanding might help to set priorities for research and action.

Bridges between policy, management, and science are weak There is no organized system whereby

assessments of environmental problems can be communicated to decisionmakers and policy-setters.

Long-term monitoring and assessment of environmental trends and of the consequences of environmental rules

and regulations are seriously inadequate. The United States has a poor understanding of its biological resources

and how they are being affected by human activities. Although biological surveys have a long history at the State

and Federal level in the United States, it is only very recently that we appear to be approaching a consensus

on the need for a comprehensive, national biological survey.

There is insufficient attention to the collection and management of the vast amount of data being developed by

the 20 agencies involved in environmental research. Collection and management of environmental life-science

data are less well organized than those of environmental physical-science data.

Education and training in the Nation’s universities are still strongly disciplinary, whereas solution of

environmental problems requires broadly trained people and multidisciplinary approaches, Opportunities for

broadly based interdisciplinary graduate degrees are few, and faculty are not rewarded as strongly for

interdisciplinary activities as they are for disciplinary activities. Thus, there is a risk that environmental scientists

appropriately trained to address pressing needs will be lacking.

Biological-science and social-science components of environmental research are poorly supported, compared

with the (still inadequate) support given to the physical sciences.

Research on engineering solutions to environmental problems is seriously underfunded. That reduces our ability

to protect ecosystems and restore damaged ones to productivity and jeopardizes the Nation’s ability to achieve

major economic benefits that are certain to derive from increasing worldwide use of technologies for these purposes.

With respect to environmental affairs, government operates in a strongly adversarial relationship with both

industry and the general public, to the detriment of integrated planning and maintenance of an atmosphere of

mutual trust that is essential for effective government functioning.

With important exceptions in the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, and the U.S. Geological Survey, most environmental research and development is narrow,

supporting either a regulatory or a management function. That appears to be particularity true in the

environmental life sciences.

SOURCE: National Research Council, Research to Protect, Restore, and Manage the Environment, Committee on Environmental

Research, Commission on Life Sciences (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993).
138 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

nomics component of USGCRP is not wellintegrated with the rest of the program.21

CEES is aware of the absence of research on the

impacts of climate change and has slightly

expanded Earth Process Research, the second

integrating priority, to include research to determine the impacts associated with predicted global

changes (12). However, explicit recognition of

the need for research on impacts of climate

change is not yet reflected in the program

structure.

S A New Adaptation Program

For reasons discussed above, it is necessary to

pursue research on impacts of global change and

potential response and adaptation strategies without waiting for USGCRP to complete climate

research. The issues addressed by MARS continue to be discussed because MARS sought to

answer near-term policy questions and questions

that naturally accompany climate change research: If the climate is changing, how will

forests, agriculture, and natural areas be affected

and what should we do? MARS may not have had

the administrative, congressional, and program

support it needed to pursue its mission a few years

ago, but now MAIM-related questions are being

asked with more persistence, and it might be time

to consider reinstating another MARS-type program.

22The following discussion addresses how

such a program might be structured. We suggest

some possible ways to incorporate adaptation into

USGCRP below and in option 3-5.

A framework for developing research priorities

for an adaptation research program (ARP) should

be developed through a combination of an interagency committee and an external advisory panel.

The interagency committee should consist of

members from several scientific disciplines and

the policy- and decisionmaking communities.

Committee and advisory panel members should

be committed to the goal of creating a managementand policy-relevant research program.

The committee and advisory panel could address the following questions:

1.

2.

3.

What areas of science are important to

pursue in order to support adaptation research? What existing federally supported

research, which is not currently classified as

global change research, could be augmented

to support an adaptation-focused research

program?

What areas of research would most effectively reduce the physical, biological, socialbehavioral, and economic uncertainties faced

by decisionmakers in choosing among policy options affecting global change?23

How can ARP be organized so that it is

useful to public and private decisionmakers?

Answers to these questions require cooperation

and coordination in the ecological and social

sciences communities, coordination among the

land-management agencies, and a clear delineation of the role of adaptation research in agency

policy and management. As concluded by the

Committee on Human Dimensions of Global

Change, there is “an almost complete mismatch

between the roster of Federal agencies that

support research on global change and the roster

of agencies with strong capabilities in social

science” (35). There is a similar mismatch

between the roster of Federal agencies with

environmental responsibilities and the roster of

agencies with strong capabilities in social science

(37).

21 OTA’S wor~hop “EOS @US-:AN We A&@ and AnSWU@ thc Right QllCSdOIIS?’ W-XL~, Feb. X-26, 1993.

21 OWSS wor~hop ‘‘EOS md Us(3CRP: &e We Asking and Answering the Right Questions?’ W-QX, Feb. 2S-26, 1993.

22 ~n~s ~fi~y SS~OTA m addreM adaptation issues however, if Congress ChOOSCS to tit@tC ~*P@onPro~ it m

also decide whether related mitigation wsues should readdressed along withan adaptationpro~ as a separate prograq orwithin USGCRP.

23 ~qu@on VV~ &VclO@ in the National Acid Precipitation &SSIMnt ~~’s @NM’@ 19M ~~- for ~

Group I (39). Unfortunately, that task group was disbanded the next year.
—.

Chapter 3-Global Change Research in the Federal Government I 139

The Ecological Society of America’s Sustainable Biosphere Initiative (SBI) has made a start in

fostering cooperation among the ecological and

social sciences. SBI has clearly laid out scientific

priorities in the ecological sciences. Coordination

among the land-management agencies is also

beginning with groups such as the Terrestrial

Research Interest Group, an ad hoc coordinating

committee of Federal agencies and other organizations conducting terrestrial research (see box

5-J). An adaptation program could continue to

encourage such efforts.

Budget Mechanisms for ARP

Because the scope of any ARP would reach

across agencies, a new agency or executive body,

or a new office in an existing agency, could be

created to house it or, as with USGCRP, a budget

crosscut could be used. Because several agencies

have significant expertise and infrastructure to

pursue research on adaptation to global change

and because of budget constraints, Congress

might find it difficult to create a separate body for

ARP. If an existing agency housed ARP, it could

undermine the ARP mission by creating tension

among agencies about interagency authority.

Because budget crosscuts have worked well in the

past, at least until the point when they are

submitted to Congress, the use of a budget

crosscut for ARP might be desirable.

FCCSET currently coordinates the budget

crosscut of USGCRP and could coordinate the

budget crosscut for ARP. However, because

FCCSET supports science, engineering, and technology initiatives but does not initiate managementand policy-relevant deliberations within these

programs, it may not be the best organization for

ARP budget coordination. If an office within the

White House coordinated ARP’s budget, the

program could more easily maintain its emphasis

on policy-relevant research; however, it might be

more subject to political pressure.

ARP Within USGCRP

If Congress does not wish to create anew ARP,

but chooses instead to augment the existing

USGCRP three points should be considered.

First, the priorities of USGCRP would need to be

changed. In addition to observation, understanding, and prediction, “planning’ for climate

change and other global changes, including adaptation, would have to be incorporated into the

USGCRP goals. The seven scientific elements in

the priority structure of USGCRP might need to

be rewritten, with the help of advisory panels,

agency personnel, and, perhaps, the National

Research Council. More funds would need to be

allocated to the research topics under the present

Ecological Systems and Dynamics and Human

Dimensions elements. Adaptation would have to

be incorporated into the existing elements, or a

new adaptation element would have to be added.

Second, as would be the case with a separate

program for adaptation, the land-management

agencies must be encouraged to unify their

research programs that address ecological and

human-system response to and management of

global change. Congress must commit more

resources to the Ecological Systems and Dynamics and Human Interactions research areas, especially within the land-management agencies.

Finally, projects currently supported under

USGCRP would need to be reviewed for their

usefulness to adaptation research. For example,

the Earth Observing System (EOS) currently

concentrates on climate monitoring and ecological monitoring, primarily for the sake of determining land-atmosphere interfaces for global

climate models. Could EOS be modified to

provide information on processes that are important for adaptation?

EVALUATION MECHANISMS

To date, there has been no formal evaluation of

the overall scope, goals, and priorities of

USGCRP and of whether its activities collectively are addressing the needs of policy makers.
140 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Several evaluation mechanisms could be used to

address the dichotomy between science and

policy in USGCRP, including internal and external reviews, integrated assessments, and coordinated congressional oversight. Appropriate communication links among scientific disciplines,

Federal agencies, State agencies, policy makers,

decisionmakers, and all levels of USGCRP are

vital for its success.

■ Reviews

Most formal reviews of USGCRP elements

have centered on the instruments and methods

used in research about specific scientific priorities

or have focused on individual projects within the

program. For example, teams reviewing the EOS

program have addressed specific instruments that

EOS should use, and the National Academy of

Sciences (NAS) has carried out reviews and

midcourse evaluations of specific agency programs and projects.

Reviews should be used as a mechanism for

maintaining flexibility in the program and to

redirect its activities, if necessary. Reviews

should: be timely and efficient; include people

who do not have an immediate stake in USGCRP,

but do have significant knowledge about its

current structure, content, and history; be conducted periodically to reflect the nature of the

questions being asked; and identify programs that

can be eliminated as well as recommend new

ones. Perhaps most importantly, reviews that call

for a redirection in the overall program should

consider that research on global change issues

requires a financial and institutional commitment

that transcends political and budgetary cycles.

Reviews should not be used to respond to the

political crisis of the day or as a mechanism to

undermine effective programs with long time

horizons.

■ Integrated Assessments

Reviews generally look at individual parts of a

program or the program as a whole and determine

how they are functioning; they do not try to

integrate the program’s different research results.

Integrated assessments are a mechanism for

synthesizing all the research relevant to an

identified problem and for presenting research

results in a policy context to decisionmakers (13,

42).24 Just as important, integrated assessments

help guide research and identify key assumptions,

uncertainties, gaps, and areas of agreement. The

Federal Government tried to incorporate an assessment process into the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) in the

1980s with only limited success (see box 3-C). A

challenge for the global change research community will be to devise assessments that minimize

disruption of ongoing programs but still allow for

redirection of program elements in light of new

discoveries, advances in technology, and changing long-term needs of policy makers.

Scientific information is critical, but not sufficient, in determining how the United States

should respond to the risks of global change. If

USGCRP is to be driven by social relevance as

well as by scientific curiosity, its research priorities should include sociocultural factors as well as

physical factors (23). Integrated assessments

could help determine the importance of the

problems presented by global change relative to

other policy problems, outline alternative policies

to respond to global change, and explain the pros

and cons of various responses and implementation strategies.

For example, preliminary results of an integrated assessment computer model to prioritize

policy-relevant research, by Carnegie Mellon

University, suggest that: economic and ecological

impacts are unambiguously the most important

24 Integrated assessment (also known as comprehensive and end-to-end Assessment) is an evolving concept. An integrated assessment of

global change would generally include at least the following activities: assessments of the physical science component of a project; assessments

of the potential impacts of change on the environment, human health, and the economy; assessments of the effectiveness and economic impact

of possible societal responses to change; and assessments of the political feasibility of possible responses (31).
Chapter 3-Global Change Research in the Federal Government 141

Box 3-C--Lessons from NAPAP

In 1980, Congress passed the Acid Precipitation Act (Title Vll of the Energy Security Act, P.L. 98-294) and

thereby established an interagency task force to plan and oversee a 10-year National Acid Precipitation

Assessment Plan (NAPAP). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency jointly chaired the task force, which included representatives

from the Department of the Interior, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Commerce,

the Department of Energy, the Department of State, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the

Council on Environmental Quality, the National Science Foundation, and the Tennessee Valley Authority along

with representatives of the Argonne, Brookhaven, Oak Ridge, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratories and

four Presidential appointees. The purpose of NAPAP was to increase our understanding of the causes and effects

of add precipitation through research, monitoring, and assessment activities that emphasized the timely

development of science for use in decisionmaking (39).

NAPAP (with an annual budget that ranged from about $17 million at the beginning of the program to just

over $300 million at its end) was one of the most ambitious interagency programs ever focused on a particular

problem (47). It was designed to be a major research effort that provided policy-relevant information in a timely

manner. It succeeded in its research efforts, but it did not provide policy-relevant information in a timely manner.

Because the nature of problems facing the country is increasingly interdisciplinary and global in scope, it is

reasonable to assume that the government will mandate more programs that try to bridge the gap between science

and public policy. To reap the greatest benefits from these programs, it will be necessary to incorporate the lessons

of NAPAP into program structure. This box focuses on the Task Group on Assessments and Policy Analysis and

the overall lessons learned from such a large, interagency program.

When founded, NAPAP consisted of 10 task groups, each with a single agency serving as the coordination

contact: Natural Sources of Acid Precipitation, Human Sources of Acid Precipitation, Atmospheric Processes,

Deposition Monitoring, Aquatic Effects, Terrestrial Effects, Effects on Materials and Cultural Resources, Control

Technologies, Assessments and Policy Analysis, and International Activities. In 1985, the assessments and policy

analysis task group was disbanded--a decision that undermined the value of the program for decisionmakers.

Congress established NAPAP in large part to determine whether acid rain was a problem. However, in the

context of research NAPAP did not approach acid rain as a unified issue. Rather, it examined the subject at

multidisciplinary and subdisciplinary levels with Iittle emphasis on synthesizing findings, As stated in one critique

(24):

The program reported findings in excruciating disciplinary detail, an approach which was not especially

helpful to non-specialist decision makers. The disciplinary pluralism of NAPAP also allowed policy

advocates to pick and choose among NAPAP’s reported findings, emphasizing facts or uncertainties

supporting a particular position and reemphasizing others. NAPAP lacked an extra-disciplinary

perspective that would have allowed it to characterize acid rain as a problem, non-problem, or

‘ something in between,

Assessment and policy analysis research develops and uses quantitative methods to organize and

communicate scientific and other information in ways that allow comparison of policy choices. These methods

include decision analysis, benefit-cost analysis, risk analysis, and technology assessments. The NAPAP Task

Group on Assessments and Policy Analysis attempted to begin early in the program to develop integrated

assessment methodologies and to perform multiple assessments throughout the program to ensure policy

relevance. A 1985 report was to include an assessment of the current damages attributed to acid deposition, an

uncertainty analysis of key scientific areas, and the implications of uncertainty for policy choices. The task group

also tried to develop a framework for the methodology for subsequent integrated assessments in 1987 and 1989

(25),

(Continued on next page]
142 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Box W-lessons from NAPAP--(Continued)

However, in 1985, NAPAP’s management changed and, consequently, the focus of the program changed.

The assessments task group was disbanded, and responsibility for assessments was transferred to NAPAP’s

director of research. It was uncertain whether NAPAP would produce even one assessment: NAPAP ceased

funding integrated assessment modeling because the Interagency Scientific Committee decided to spend their

limited funding on other research. The new director repeatedly delayed the 1985 assessment, but it was finally

released-with much controversy--in 1987. The 1987 and 1989 integrated assessments were never produced.

Finally, during the Iast few years of the program, NAPAP produce its second integrated assessment; however, the

1990 publication of the report came too late to be of maximum use to policy makers in formulating the amendments

to the Clean Air Act (47).

Because NAPAP failed to carry out the full range of assessmentis t originally planned, key components for

the 1990 integrated assessment were either not pursued or were underfunded, and the assessment was

incomplete (39). For example, although NAPAP was initially supposed to evaluate the economic effects of add

deposition on crops, forests, fisheries, and recreational and aesthetic resources and to determine the implications

of alternative policies, funds were significantly reduced for research in these areas (47).

The Oversight Review Board (ORB) of NAPAP, in its 1981 report to the Joint Chairs council of the Interagency

Task Force on Acidic Deposition, strongly emphasized that an assessment function be given primacy throughout

an interagency program (39). ORB’s keyrecommendation on lessons learned about the interface between science

and policy was to give assessment priority over research (24) because “science and research findings per se have

little to offer directly to the public policy process, [and] their usefulness depends on assessment, defined as the

interpretation of findings relevant to decisions” (39). ORB also outlined eight other suggestions that any program

with such a close interface between science and policy should follow:

1. Match institutional remedies to problems.

2. Obtain and maintain political commitment.

3. Take steps to ensure continuity.

4. Configure organization and authority to match responsibility.

5. Give assessment primacy.

6. Provide for independent external programmatic oversight.

7. Understand the role of science and how to use it.

8. Take special care with communication.

9. Prepare early for ending the program.

The insights gained from the experiences of NAPAP were not considered when designing the U.S. Global

Change Research Program (USGCRP)-a much larger program on both a temporal and spatial scale than

NAPAP. Some argue that USGCRP is following the same path as NAPAP--good research will come from

USGCRP, but the results will not be used to inform policy, and decisions concerning global change will be made

with little more knowledge than is available today (42). The logical questions to ask are: Why didn’t Congress use

the experiences of NAPAP in formulating Iegislation for USGCRP, and how should incorporation of lessons from

NAPAP be integrated into USGCRP and future Interagency programs?

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

sources of uncertainty and that reducing the according to the policy objectives chosen and the

uncertainty is more important than resolving the time horizon; although they must not be ignored,

differences among climate models; the priority uncertainties about climate variables appear, in

placed on research in different fields will vary many cases, to be less important than certain
Chapter 3-Global Change Research in the Federal Government I 143

social, economic, and ecological factors; and

models that measure all impacts in monetary

terms are unlikely to be able to explore many of

the most important aspects of the climate problem (15).

Regardless of the scope of an integrated

assessment, its primary functions should be: to

identify key questions to be answered, to survey

the state of current scientific judgments about

what we know and do not know about global

change and its impacts, to identify and prioritize

what the key uncertainties are in relation to policy

needs, to list key assumptions and judgments, to

identify where new research is needed to aid the

policy process most effectively, including research on key uncertainties in understanding the

climate system and fostering mitigation and

adaptation research, and to establish the requirements for peer and public review (24, 42).

Assessments need not be conducted sequentially (e.g., results of earth science research or

economic research need not be complete before

an assessment can begin), but should begin at the

beginning of a program and continue throughout

the life of the program (l). The ideal assessment

would pay particular attention to bridging gaps

and maintaining essential links among various

research projects and disciplines and would

determine the value of new information.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Carnegie Mellon University, the Electric Power

Research Institute, and Battelle Pacific Northwest

Laboratory have programs for developing computer models for integrated assessments. For

example, the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory is developing an Integrated Climate Change

Assessment Model (ICCAM)25 that will incorporate information from models on human activities, atmospheric composition, climate and sea

level, and terrestrial ecosystems (17). ICCAM is

intended to be an integrated collection of these

models in a reduced, or simplified, form, with the

goal of giving practical answers to practical

questions. The models are limited by the complexity and uncertainty of each system, and some

fear that the results from these integrated assessments could be difficult to understand. However,

these models can at least help to structure thought,

direct inquiries, identify which uncertainties are

important and which are not, and suggest courses

of action (40).

Assessments could be performed by independent, nongovernment committees, Federal interagency task forces consisting of agency personnel

who are participating in the program, a mix of the

two groups, or by the National Academy of

Sciences (42). Nongovemment committees would

offer the fresh perspective of independent evaluators who are less weighed down by political

agendas; however, they might have little control

over the agencies they are trying to influence.

Interagency committees would have the advantage of using Government researchers who are

well-informed about the program and who could

not easily ignore assessment findings.

To date, integrated assessments have received

little admini strative support and almost no funding from any ongoing program. Some agency

personnel have expressed interest in integrated

assessments, but few have committed any resources to it (EPA and DOE have funded some

assessment research). The little funding that

integrated assessments have received has come

largely from NSF and the Electric Power Research Institute. A small percentage of the total

USGCRP budget—perhaps 1 to 5 percent--could

be set aside for integrated assessment (15, 50).

The Carnegie Commission also recommends that

a larger percentage of environmental research and

development dollars go toward assessment and

policy research (4).

~ Bafielle PKifIC Nort.hwmt Iabomtov is working in conjunction with the University Corporation for Atmospheric Rese=b tie EICC~C

Power Researeh Institute, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Ageney.
144 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

■ Congressional Oversight

Congress has held several hearings on global

climate change that have focused predominantly

on what we know, what we do not know, the

accuracy of current data, reconciling the existence

of conflicting data, the implication of climate

change for natural resources and the economy,

and the potential costs of actions designed to

mitigate climate change. However, these hearings

have not successfully addressed USGCRP as a

program. Some hearings have focused on the

current research of program participants, which is

a first step in determining the necessity of the

research, but few have focused on whether

USGCRP research was supplying information

needed to develop policy responses to global

change. The direction of the program and its

emphasis on the frost two science elements have

not been altered.

In addition, the different committees with

jurisdiction over USGCRP have not been equally

active in their oversight activities. As a result,

certain portions of the program are regularly

reviewed while others are never reviewed.

New approaches to traditional authorization

and appropriation procedures for large interagency programs such as the USGCRP need to be

considered. The current authorization and appropriation process guarantees that USGCRP will be

examined by Congress only in pieces (38). An

annual, ad hoc appropriation subcommittee might

be created to specifically address the USGCRP

budget as a whole. This committee should consist

of members from appropriation subcommittees

with jurisdiction over elements of USGCRP (see

table 3-2).

For congressional oversight to be effective in

influencing USGCRP, a long-term systematic

approach to communication and oversight must

be developed. Congressional feedback, expectations, and prospective actions must be communicated quickly to the program. Oversight should be

extended to include regular meetings among

policy makers who have jurisdiction over

USGCRP and USGCRP participants; an interdisciplinary, multiagency group working with

USGCRP; and outside reviewers. Results from

these meetings should be freely and widely

disseminated. Oversight hearings should be coordinated with all committees who have jurisdiction

over USGCRP (see table 3-l).

POLICY OPTIONS: AUGMENTING

THE FEDERAL RESEARCH EFFORT

ON GLOBAL CHANGE

To policy makers, climate change does not

become a problem the moment that the change in

the Earth’s mean average temperature becomes

statistically significant. For them, it becomes a

problem when a community feels the pinch of an

unwanted event-drought or flood or decline of

timberland, for example. Knowing how best to

ameliorate or cope with any costs that climate

change might induce is important to policy

makers. Knowing how mitigation efforts to reduce greenhouse gases will affect our ability to

adapt is important. Knowing what information is

knowable and unknowable over various time

scales is important to policy makers. This kind of

information does not automatically emerge from

a basic research program. To be useful to the

governing bodies of the world, the science facts

gained by USGCRP must somehow be translated

into potential costs or benefits incurred by climate

change and must guide strategies to prepare for or

react to change. Currently, there is no formal

mechanism in USGCRP for making the link

between policy and science.

Given the complicated and long-term nature of

climate change, the research needed to understand

it, and the shorter-term needs of policy makers,

a research program for global change should

ideally:

■ identify the key science and policy questions

for the near term and the long term;

■ orchestrate a research program that involves

the physical, biological, and social scientists;
—

Chapter 3-Global Change Research in the Federal Government I 145

■

■

integrate the research results across disciplines (i.e., assess the state of understanding)

periodically; and

communicate results back to the researchers

and policy makers effectively.

Identifying the outcomes that matter to policy

makers should be the first step in refining global

change research programs, with scientists helping

the policy makers to ask pertinent questions (14).

Next, scientific priorities should be compared

with the policy questions. Where there are serious

mismatches between scientific and political priorities, programs should be reevaluated-not to

direct a basic science agenda, but to ensure that

key information needed for policy decisions from

many disciplines is available alongside the fundamental chemistry and modeling. The particular

disciplines, research methods, and instruments

that would be used to gather and analyze data

should flow from these priorities and should be

science-driven. Ideally, information needs of

decisionmakers will influence questions asked by

scientific researchers, and vice-versa. For example, the communication between scientists and

policy makers may cause a change in key policy

questions, which in turn may redirect the research

program; “policy makers need to understand the

limitations of what science can determine, and

scientists must understand what the policy community really needs” (42). This has proved

difficult in past research efforts, such as NAPAP’s

(See box 3-C).

The following policy options generally fall

under three categories:

9 Effectively broaden USGCRP by incorporating results of Federal research relevant

to but not currently under its purview.

USGCRP as currently constructed and implemented cannot do this. It could require

congressional or executive branch codification. There are several policy options directed both at broadening USGCRP and at

ensuring that USGCRP and other programs

relevant to global change are connected (the

Figure 3-8-Alternative Organizational — Schemes

for Global Change Research

=(y/F

nAssessment

(OSTP/FCCSET)

pJ-( [ ;F,

Biodiversity

1 1

— — . — —. —— — — — —— .———

Basic Applied Social

research research + dynamics and

(USGCRP) (mltlgatlon, economics

\

adaptation)

/‘

research

Assessment

. — — — —- — — — — —

Earth systems Impacts Socioeconomic

science and +

research and human

prediction dimensions

research

~~Fy~<fi

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

diagrams in fig. 3-8 show some possible

organizational schemes for building in some

of the missing components). The National
146 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

9

9

Research Council has recommended the

creation of a National Environmental Council in the Executive Office of the President

(37), and the National Commission on the

Environment (NCE) recommended the development of a National Environmental Strategy (34); either or both of these could

complement the options described below.

Increase funding or redirect funding to

areas where research is inadequate. A

modest redirection of 1 to 5 percent of

current funding ($15 to $70 million) could

begin filling in the large gaps between the

current climate change program and a policyrelevant global change program (15, 50).

Because the bulk of this OTA report focuses

on natural-resource-based systems and the

Nation’s potential to adapt to climate

change, we discuss coordinating existing

ecosystem research and initiating new efforts

that are critical to planning for and/or managing natural resources under climate change.

However, building strong socioeconomic

components of USGCRP is equally important.

Make the program more relevant to policy

making by incorporating an assessment

function. Assessment and regular reevaluation of USGCRP could be instrumental in

identifying the current information base on

climate change, gaps in knowledge, and

short- and long-term policy questions.

I Effectively Broaden USGCRP

As currently structured, USGCRP is a collection of programs from several agencies with no

central management. Although research should

remain decentralized, coordination should be

centralized and top-down. The Subcommittee on

Global Change Research under the Committee on

Earth and Environmental Sciences is currently

responsible for coordinating activities under the

Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology. FCCSET acts largely as

a fulcrum for coordination, but agency participation in FCCSET projects is voluntary, and

FCCSET has no authority over how participating

agencies spend their funds. A previous OTA

report (48) looked broadly at the health of U.S.

research and development and concluded:

In the Executive Branch, Congress should insist,

at a minimum, on iterative planning that results

in: a) making tradeoffs among research goals; and

b) applying (after scientific merit and program

relevance) other criteria to research decisionmaking that reflects plarnning for the future. . . OSTP

[Office of Science and Technology Policy] could

initiate broader priority-setting.

Option 3-1: Amend the Science Policy Act of

1976 (PL. 94-282), which established the Office

of Science and Technology Policy and the Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and Technology, to strengthen the ability of

these offices to coordinate science and ecosystem

management across agencies. OSTP was established to “define coherent approaches for applying science and technology to critical and emerging national and international problems and for

promoting coordination of the scientific and

technological responsibilities and programs of

the Federal departments and agencies in the

resolution of such problems, ’ and FCCSET was

established to “provide more effective planning

and administration of Federal scientific, engineering, and technological programs” (P.L. 94-

282). These offices have the authority to develop

and implement coherent, Government-wide science policy and have been the mechanism for

coordinating several multiagency programs. However, OSTP has not always been an active or

influential player in the executive branch, and

FCCSET lacks the authority to set priorities,

direct policy, and fully participate in the budget

process (2, 21). The directions for environmental

research must be set—and responsibilities among

various Federal agencies must be coordinated-at

the executive level because environmental research is of the highest national importance.
—

Chapter 3-Global Change Research in the Federal Government I 147

About 20 Federal agencies have major responsibilities related to the environment. In all instances

(except for EPA), concern for the environment is

not the primary role of the agency conducting the

environmental research (37). For example, DOE

supports much environmental research, but the

department’s primary responsibility is energy,

not the environment.

OSTP could be given budgetary authority,

perhaps in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget, to guide agency programs

that contribute to science and technology. This

could mean reinstating “fencing,” or requiring

agencies to commit funds to USGCRP projects

(see footnote 12). These funds could not then be

redirected to meet OMB targets for other areas

within each agency.

A further step would be to create a National

Science and Technology Council to replace

FCCSET as proposed by Vice President Gore in

his National Performance Review (21). Under

this plan, agencies would clear their budgets with

the science council as well as with OMB.

Option 3-2: Establish a committee within

FCCSET to standardize the criteria for classifying focused and contributing research to

USGCRP and to classify all government research

accordingly. Much research that could qualify as

‘‘contributing’ to USGCRP may be ongoing

under another title (such as ‘‘Environmental

Biology;’ see option 3-6 below). Likewise, more

“focused work” might occur in the agencies if

the USGCRP scope is broadened. A defined set of

criteria for classifying research would be of great

value in identifying Federal research that is truly

pertinent to the global change problem and in

identifying critical gaps in research.

Option 3-3: Reassess program priorities. Reassess the order of priority given to the seven

science elements. Although the current structure

is producing good science, research results will

not be sufficient to provide the informatio n

necessary to answer policy questions concerning

the impacts of climate change on the Nation’s

resources. To answer these questions, more emphasis needs to be directed toward the science

elements that address the ecological, socio economic, adaptation, mitigation, and human aspects

of global change. Some of this can be done easily

within the current construct of USGCRP; some

may require additional programs outside the

USGCRP research structure.

Option 3-4: Make research on the human

dimensions of global change a primary element of

the program. A human-dimensions program would

look at the interface between human actions and

the natural environment. Humans alter the environment through population growth, economic

growth, technological change, political and economic institutions, and attitudes and beliefs.

Human response to a changing environment will

depend on individual perceptions, markets, sociocultural systems, organized responses at a

subnational level, national policies, international

cooperation, and global social change (35). These

elements of a human-environment interface will

directly influence adaptation responses to climate

change.

Option 3-5: Create an adaptation and mitigation research program (ARP) either within

USGCRP or separate but parallel to it. This

program should either have the authority to

influence project selection throughout USGCRP

or feed into a formal assessment process that

influences program direction. Congress must

decide whether an ARP should function as a

program separate from, but parallel, to USGCRP

or whether ARP should operate within USGCRP.

If ARP is created as a separate program, it should

have formal ties to USGCRP. If USGCRP subsumes adaptation, the USGCRP mission would

have to change to make adaptation equal in

importance to the other three activity streams.

The mission of such a program must explicitly

state its management and policy orientation.

ARP’s mission might be:

. . . to pursue research that will support public and

private decisionmaking on issues related to global

change if climate change occurs. At a minimum,
148 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

research will include studies of the public and

private management of natural and managed

systems and of how to develop strategies to adapt

to the effects of climate change. Annually, the

program will assess the state-of-the-science, develop Government policy and management options for responding to the potential for global

change (including programs that supply information to private decisionmakers), and incorporate

these findings into new research directions. The

assessment, policy options, and new directions

for research will be reported to Congress in an

annual report presented along with the President’s

Budget Request,

The program must include a formal mechanism

for bridging the gap between science and policy;

specifically, integrated assessments need to be at

the center of any ARP structure. Congress should

consider mandating this in any enabling legislation in order to ensure that assessments are given

top priority.

Congress should consider several “rules of

thumb” in structuring the program:

w

■

■

Management agencies should act as the lead

agencies.

Goals for research must have problemoriented task descriptions and milestones

that are specific and easily measurable.

Congress should consider retaining the “power

of advice and consent in the appointments

of the director and assistant directors of the

program.

Other mechanisms for ensuring policy relevance

could include requiring the program to make

periodic reports to Congress, and giving Congress

oversight and investigation authority.

If Congress chose to augment USGCRP, it

must recognize that the program has little ability

at present to target its programs to help public and

private decisionmaking. Given the structure of

USGCRP, management- and policy-relevant research would be hard to initiate because the

process of setting priorities in USGCRP is

dominated by key agency personnel in conjunction with members of the national and international scientific

1 Incorporate

Research and

Into USGCRP

community.

More Ecosystem

Natural Resource Planning

Although an estimated $900 to $943 million is

spent on what can be considered research in

environmental life sciences (22) or environmental

biology, 26 there is currently very little ecological

research directed specifically at protecting natural

areas under climate change and helping land

managers modify management strategies to respond to climate change.27 Of the $943 million

that FCCSET estimates is spent on environmental

biology, only 11 percent was also reported as

USGCRP program money.

28 A former working

group under FCCSET found that in 1992, only

$8 million was spent on research focused on

adaptation. 29 This number represents less than

0.8 percent of the USGCRP budget and less than

0.9 percent of the amount spent on environmental

biology research. A review of ecological experiments from 1980 to 1987 found that 50 percent of

all studies were done on very small scales--on

plots less than 3 feet in diameter; only 7 percent

lasted longer than 5 years. Large-scale and

long-term experiments are essential to respond to

26 J, GOSZ, fi~tive s~re~, subcommittee on Environmental Biology, Committee on Life sciences and Hed.h+ Feda COOrk@!

Council for Science, Engineering, and ‘llxhnology, personal communication, Sept. 14, 1993.

27 ~csET d~fines ~nviromtlfa~ b~~~~gy w ~1 WM of biology d-titi tie smdy of organisms and their in@~tions ~th their biotic

and abiotic environment (J. GOSL personal communication, Sept. 14, 1993). Grarnp et. al. (22) defiie environmental life sciences as processes

and interactions of living resources such as environmental biology, including ecology, forestry, biology, and marine biology.

28 GOSZ, op. cit., footnote M.

29 The wo~ @oup on M@;abon and ~p~tion Strategies (disbanded in 1992) of the Committee on Ikuth ~d fivh~entd ScieQcC3

of FCCSET identifkd Federal research that focuses on or contributes to adaptation to global change (6).
Chapter 3--Global Change Research in the Federal Government I 149

the challenges of global research (37). Yet,

research on large-scale ecosystem management,

structure, and function is necessary to protect

natural areas in the future, and it is not clear that

it is occurring under the auspices of ‘ ● environmental biology’ or USGCRP.

USGCRP as currently designed will not provide either the practical technologies that might

allow us to be more prepared for climate change

or the ecological information that would be

helpful in providing policy guidance and adaptation options for natural systems.

Option 3-6: Conduct a review of ecological

research within USGCRP and across Federal

agencies, evaluate how much long-term ecosystemlevel research relevant to climate change, biodiversity, and other long-term problems is under

way; and identify important gaps in ecological

research. A review of all research on ‘‘natural

resources’ has not yet been conducted across the

Federal agencies. Existing analyses suggest a

great deal of money is spent on research relevant

to the environment, but how much is useful to

understanding long-term ecological problems (such

as biodiversity and climate change) is not known.

There is currently no mechanism for consolidating results from disparate research efforts into

‘‘general patterns and principles that advance the

science and are useful. for environmental decisionmaking. Without such synthesis studies, it

will be impossible for ecology to become the

predictive science required by current and future

environmental problems’ (32).

In volume 2, chapter 5, of this report, we

highlight key gaps in our understanding of

ecosystems, such as: past climate changes and

corresponding species responses, restoration and

translocation ecology, the effectiveness of corridors and buffer zones, the development of ecological models, and the effect of elevated CO2 

on

assemblages of plants and animals.

Basic research in these areas is needed now to

determine how species might respond to climate

change and how best to provide for their protection in the future. Agencies could attempt to

redirect existing funds within USGCRP or procure new funds for addressing these basic ecological research needs under the Ecological Systems and Dynamics research area. Alternatively,

NSF, whose mission is to support basic scientific

research, could take the lead in supporting these

research areas outside the auspices of USGCRP.

The new National Biological Survey (see ch. 1

and vol. 2, ch. 5) could also be an appropriate

vehicle to use in addressing some of the research

that directly relates to land-management issues.

An effort to characterize and synthesize ongoing research could help bridge the gap between

basic research and natural resource planning.

Such a review could be conducted by OSTP,

NAS, or an independent commission.

Option 3-7: Make research on monitoring and

managing natural resources a key component of

a broadened global change research program.

One of the most prudent approaches to natural

area conservation under climate change is more

coordinated management on the ecosystem or

regional scale. This approach would also help

address threats to biodiversity and maximize

possibilities for species survival under climate

change. The land-management agencies should

receive increased funding--or existing funds

should be redirected-for research that would

directly address concerns of managing natural

resources under climate change. In particular, as

the National Research Council recommends (37),

“environmental research should advance the

social goals of protecting the environment for

present and future generations, restoring damaged environments so that they are productive

once more, and managing our natural, economic,

cultural, and human resources in ways that

encourage the sustainable use of the environment.

Inventory and monitoring programs are usually

the last to get funds and the first to be cut in a

budget crisis (36, 55); existing institutions are

poorly designed to support and strengthen them

(37). Many monitoring programs that have been

established in protected natural areas have been
150 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

discontinued because of personnel changes, policy alterations, or budget cuts (55).30 Baseline

information is needed on the status and trends of

vegetation cover, plant distributions, animal distributions, soils, and water resources to detect and

monitor climate-induced changes. All Federal

agencies conduct some type of inventory as a

matter of policy, but these efforts vary widely in

completeness and quality, are not consistently

implemented and funded, and are not coordinated

at the national or even agency level.

A concerted effort to connect, in a timely

manner, the information contained in inventories

to the resource-management and land-useplanning process is vital. If these connections are

not adequately addressed, the gap between research and management could increase, which

would be detrimental to DOI’s new National

Biological Survey.

I Incorporate Assessment and Oversight

Option 3-8: Amend the U.S. Global Change

Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-606) to require

periodic integrated assessment reports to be

presented to Congress and specify key participants in the assessment process. If such a

program is incorporated into USGCRP, it should

be positioned above the agency level. However,

because all of the elements necessary for an

integrated assessment are not found in USGCRP,

an assessment program would have to incorporate

information from outside the program and include

research that is not formally contained within

USGCRP but that contributes to it. An assessment

program should fund external and internal assessment efforts. Because integrated assessments that

use computer models to knit together all aspects

pertinent to global change are not welldeveloped, they should be used only as a guide to

steer program elements. To ensure policy relevance, an assessment program must be given the

authority to influence program priorities and

project selection. Assessment teams must be

interdisciplinary. Documenting the state of scientific knowledge is listed as the primary function

of the newly created Assessment Working Group;

however, the results of such a survey are highly

dependent on the questions being asked-what is

regarded as unknown or uncertain depends on

what one wants to know and the perspective and

background of the person or team carrying out the

assessment (24). To ensure commitment and

accountability to the assessment process, the

director of an assessment program could be

appointed with the advice and consent of Congress.

Option 3-9: Create innovative congressional

involvement in USGCRP. USGCRP does not

function as an individual agency, and Congress

cannot expect to interact with the program in the

same manner it does with agencies. Congress

needs to create a forum where USGCRP can be

addressed as a whole before being broken down

into individual components that fit neatly into

authorization and appropriation jurisdictions. For

example, the Environmental and Energy Study

Institute could conduct an annual seminar for its

congressional members on the USGCRP budget,

or Congress could establish an ad hoc appropriation committee consisting of members from each

committee and appropriations subcommittee with

jurisdiction over USGCRP to consider the program’s budget as a whole.

Congress should conduct oversight of the

program as a whole. Because USGCRP is an

interagency program, it cannot be evaluated

effectively by Congress on an agency-by-agency

basis or through the activities of individual

committees working independently. Committees

with jurisdiction over USGCRP should coordinate oversight of the program.

-W For e~ple, iII n 1993, tie Bureau of Land Management (BLM) eliminated 6 of its 16 acid rain stations to rekWe about $~,ooo fOr

other BLM activities. Several of the six stations had been in operation for 10 years and had bra maintaining data seta to monitor the health

of forests and the effects of acid rain. Continuation of this long-term reeord was lost as a result of these cuts.
Chapter 3-Global Change Research in the Federal Government I 151

CHAPTER 3 REFERENCES

1,

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10,

11.

12.

13.

14.

Bernabo, C.J., Science and Policy Associates, Inc., testimony at

hearings before the House Committee on Science, Space, and

-lkchnology, May 19, 1993.

Brow G.E. Jr., Chamnaq “ Committee on Science, Space, and

‘IMmology, U.S. House of Representatives, “Report of the

I&k Force on the Health of Research, “ Chamnan’s Repo%”

Serial L, Committee Pr@ 1992.

Carnegie Commission on Science, lkchnology and Government, Enabling the Future: Liti”ng Science and Technology to

Societal Goals (Washington DC: Carnegie Commission on

Science, Technology and Government, September 1992).

Carnegie Commission on Science, ‘lkchnology and Government, Environmental Research and Development: Strengthening the Federal Infrastructure (Washington, DC: Carnegie

Commission on Science, lkchnology and Governmen4 December 1992).

Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES),

Mitigation and Adaptation Research Strategies Working Group,

hL4RS Working Paper I: Description of Proposed Coor&”nated

Program (TVashingtoq DC: CEES, 1991).

Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES),

Mitigation and Adaptation Research Strategies Working Group,

Directory of Federal Research Activities Related to Mitigation

of or Adaptation to Global Change (WashingtorL DC: CEES,

1992).

Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEIX), Our

Changing Planet: The FY 1993 U.S. Global Change Research

Program (Washington DC: CEES, 1992).

Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES), Our

Changing Planet: The FY 1994 U.S. Global Change Research

Program (Washington DC: CEES, 1993).

Committee on Ewth Sciences (cES), Our Changing Planet: The

FY J990 Research Plan (Washington DC: CES, July 1989).

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, Panel

on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, National

Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Enginm@, and

Institute of Medicine, Policy Implications of Greenhouse

Wm”ng: Mitigation, A&ptation, and the Science Base (Wash-

@@% DC: National Academy Press, 1992).

Corell, RW., Geosciences, National Science Foundation testimony at hearings before the House Subcommittee on the

Environment Committee on Science, Space, and ‘Rchnology,

May 5, 1992.

CoreL R.W., Committee on Earth md Environmental Sciences,

Subcommittee on Global Change Research and Geosciences,

National Science FoundatiorL testimony before the House

Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and

Technology, Mar. 30, 1993.

Dowlatabti H., and M.G. Morgaq ‘‘A Model Framework for

Integrated Studies of the Climate Problerq” Energy Policy,

March 1993, pp. 209-221,

Dowlatabadi, H., and M.G. Morgan, ‘‘Integrated Assessment of

Climate Change,” Science, vol. 259, Mm. 26, 1993, pp. 1813,

1932.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27,

28.

Dowlatabadi, H., and M.G. Mor~ Department of Engineering

and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, testimony at

hearings before the House Committee on Science, Space, and

‘IkchnOlogy, May 19, 1993.

Earth Observation Satellite Company @OSAT), La&&t Technical Notes, EOSAZ September 1992.

Edmonds, J.A., H.M Pitcher, F.N.J. Rosenberg, and TM.L.

Wigley, “Design for an Integrated Global Environmesmd

Change Model,” report prepared for the Electric Powex

Research Institute and the U.S. Department of Energy, July 13,

1993 (draft).

Federal Geographic Data Committee, Wetlands Subcommittee,

Application of Satellite Data for Mapping and Mom”ton-ng

Wetlands, fact-finding draft report, April 1992.

Gibbons, J.H., Assistant to the President for Science and

lkchnology, memorandum to Frederick M. Berntl@ Acting

Director, National Science FoundatiorL July 8, 1993.

Gibbons, J.H., Assistant to the Pnxident for Science and

‘Ikchnology, testimony at hearings before the Senate Committee

on Energy and Natuml Resources, Mar. 30, 1993.

Gore, A., “From Red Thpe to Results: Creating a Government

that Works Better and Costs Less, ” report of the National

Performance Review, Sept. 7, 1993.

Gramp, K.M, A.H. lkich and S.D. Nelsou Federal Funal”ng

for Environmental R&D: A Special Report, R&D Budget and

Policy project ‘he Amerkn Association for the Advancement

of Science, AAAS publication number 9248S, 1992 (Waahingtom DC: AAAs).

Herrick, C.N., “Science and Climate Policy: A History

kwom” Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 8, No. 2,

winter 1991-92, pp. 56-57.

Herrick, C.N., and D. Jamiesoq “’IIE Social Construction of

Acid Rain: Some Implications for Science/Policy Assessrnen4°

paper to be presented at the 18th annual meeting of the Society

for the Social Studies of Science, Nov. 19-21, 1993,

Interagency Task Force on Acid precipitatio~ Annual Repoti

1982 to the President and Congress (Washington DC: National

Acid Precipitation Assessment pro= 1982).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), World

Meteorological C@anizatioq and United Nations Environment

Prograq Climate Change: The IPCC Impacts Assessment,

report prepared for IPCC by Working Group u W. McG.

Tkg@ G. Sheldou and D. Griffith (eds.) (CQAustralix

Australian G’OV ernment publishing Service, 1990),

Intergov ernmenta.1 Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), World

Meteorological organizatio~ and United Nations Environment

pro- Climate Change: The IPCC Response Strategies,

report prepared for LPCC by Working Group Ill, 1990.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (WCC), World

Meteorological Organizatioq and United Nations Environment

pro- Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment,

repofi prepared for WCC by Working Group I, J. Houghtou G.

Jenkins, and J. Ephraums (eds.) (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
152 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

29. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, World Meteorological Organizatl“oq and United Nations Environment ProW Climte Change 1992: rhe Supplementary Report to th

IPCC Scientific Assessment, report prepared for IPCC by

Working Group ~ J, Houghton, B, Callandex, and S. Wrney

(eds.) (Cambridge, England Cambridge University Press,

1992).

30. JamiesorL D., “Managing the Future: Public Policy, Scientific

Uncertainty, and Global Warming, ’ in: Upstream/

Downstream: Issues in Environmental Ethics, D. Scherer (cd.)

_elp@ PA: ~ple un~v~sity -s, 1~).

31. Lancaster, J., “Global Warming Integrated Assessment and

Interdisciplinary Research’ proceedings of a Batelle workshop

on Regional Impacts of Climate Change, Oct. 18-21, 1993,

RichlanL WA (RicW, WA: Batelle Pacific Northwest

Laboratory, in press).

32. Lubchenco, J., et al., “The SuWainableBiosphere Initiative: An

Ecological Research Agen@ ‘ Ecology, vol. 72, No. 2, 1991,

pp. 371-412.

33. Mahlmaq J.D., “Understanding Climate Change,” in: Joint

Climate Project to Address Decision Makers’ Uncertainties:

Report of Findi”ngs (Washington.L DC: Science and Policy

Associates, Inc., 1992).

34. National Comrnis sion on the I?nvironment, Choosr”ng a Sustainable Future, report of the National Commission on the

Environment convened by the World Wildlife Fund (Washington, DC: Island Press).

35. National Research Council, Global Environmental Change:

Understanding the Human Dimensions (WashingtorL DC:

National Academy Press, 1992).

36. National Research Council, Science and the National Parks

(Washington DC: National Academy press, 1992).

37. National Research Cmmc& Research to Protect, Restore, and

Manage the Environment (Wah@to@ DC: National Academy

Press, 1992).

38. National Research Council, Sca”ence, Technology, and the

Federal Government: National Goals for a New Era (Washingto~ DC: National ACtl(kllly Press, 1993).

39. Oversight Review Board of the National Acid Precipitation

Assessment Program (NAPAF’), The E.xpen”ence and Legacy of

NAP~: Report to the Joint Chaz”rs Council of the Interagency

Tak Force on Acid Deposition (WaahingtOU DC: NAPAP,

April 19!31).

40. Parsons, T., “UseiMness of Climate Models in Developing

Climate Treaties,” contractor report prepared for the Of6ce of

‘lkchnology Assessmen4 Sept 20, 1993.

41. Roughgardeq J., S.W. Rum@, and P.A. MatsorL “WhatDoes

Remote Sensing Do for Ecolo~y?’’Ecoiogy, vol. 726, 1991, pp.

1918-22.

42. Rubi.q E.S., L.B. Lave, and M.G. Morgaq “Keeping Climate

Research Relevant,’ Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 8,

No. 2, Winter 1991-1992, W. 47-55.

43. Runnin g, S.W., “EWmating Tkxreatrial Primary Productivity

by Combi.ning Remote Sensing and Ecosystem Simulation” irx

Remote Sensa”ng of Biosphere Functiona”ng, R.J. Hobbs and H.A.

Mooney (eds.) (New YorlG NY: Springer-Vcrlag New York

Inc., 1990), pp. 65-86.

44. Sayn-WittgczWeiq L., “Land Cover Mapping for Mission to

Planet Earth,” IEEE Technology and Socn”ety Magazine, Spring

1992, pp. 1622.

45. Science and Policy Associates, Inc., Joint Climate Project to

Address Decision Makers’ Uncertainties: Report of Findings

(w-oq DC: Scics.we and pOtiCy i%WCilltCS, kc., 1992).

46. United Nations, United Nations Convention on Climate

Change, Article 2 and Article 4, Sec. 2(b), 1S92.

47. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office (GAO), Acid Rain:

Delays and Management Changes in the Federal Research

Program, GAO/RCED-87-89 (Washington DC: GAO, April

1987).

48. U.S. Congress, Office of ‘fkchnology Assessment, Federally

Funded Research: Decisions for a Decade, OTA-SET+O

(Washingtor4 DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May

1991),

49. U.S. Congress, Offke of lkchnology Assessmen4 The Future

of Remote Sensingfiom Space: Civilian Satellite Systems and

Applications, OTA-ISC-558 (Washington DC: Government

printing ~lce, July 1993).

50. U.S. Congress, Office of lbchnology Assessment “EOS and

USGCRP: Are We Asking and Answering the Right Questions?” background paper prepared by OTA (in press).

51. U. S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, The PotentialEflects qf

Global Climate Change on the United States, EPA-23M5-89-

050, J. Smith and D. Tirpak (eds.) (Washin@oq DC: U.S.

13nvironmrmtal Protection Agency, December 1989).

52. U.S. Environmental protection Agency, Policy Options for

Stabilizing Global Climate, Report to Congress, EPA 21P2003.1, D. Lashof and D. TirPak (dS.) (Washh@oq DC: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, GfIlce of Policy, Planning

and Evaluation December 1S90).

53. UstiQ S.L., et al., “Opportunities for Using the EOS Imaging

Spectrometers and Synthetic Aperture Radar in EcoIogicid

Models,” Ecology, vol. 72, No. 6, 1S91, pp. 1934-45.

54. Wickland, D.E., “Mission to Planet Earth: The Ecological

Perspective,” Ecology, vol. 72, No. 6, 1991, pp. 1923-33.

55. Wright, G.R,, Hiildlife Research and Management in the

National Parkx (Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1992).
Wetlands 4

Status

g Despite “no-net-loss” policy, wetland destruction and degradation continue.

■ No single statute directly protects wetlands.

Climate Change Problem

■ Climate change is likely to accelerate wetland loss.

What Is Most Vulnerable?

■ Coastal wetlands (sea level rise).

■ Western depressional wetlands (midcontinent warming and

drying).

■ Western riparian wetlands (midcontinent warming and drying).

■ Tundra (largest warming at high latitudes).

Impediments

■ Absence of clearly stated national policy for protecting wetlands.

■ Different authorities and goals scattered across numerous Federal,

State agencies.

■ Federal policies have often failed to discourage, and have sometimes

encouraged, wetland destruction.

■ Inadequate criteria for decisionmaking; lack of an overarching

priority plan for protection, restoration, and acquisition.

■ No coordinated effort to monitor and evaluate wetlands.

Types of Responses

■ Protect existing wetlands.

■ Restore degraded or converted wetlands.

■ Facilitate migration.

■ Improve coordinated management and monitoring.

I 153
154 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Voiume 2

OVERVIEW

Wetlands are extremely complex and sensitive

ecological systems that cover roughly 5 percent of

the lower 48 States, but even today, the value of

these systems is not always understood or appreciated.

Concern about steadily increasing losses of

wetlands led the Federal Government to embrace

a policy goal of no net loss of wetlands in 1989.

The policy specifies that destruction of wetlands

should be offset by an equivalent restoration or

creation of wetlands (see box 4-A). Efforts to

move toward that goal have led to major controversies over how to define wetlands, the criteria

and procedures necessary for mitigation, and the

extent of Government involvement in regulating

Box 4-A–Wetland Mitigation and Restoration: Maintaining Wetland Functions and Values

During the 1950s to1970s,458,000 acres (183,200 hectares) 1 of wetlands were being lost each year, mainly

to agriculture and urban and suburban development. That pace has been slowed to 100,000 to 200,000 acres per

year, primarily due to Iegislative efforts. Wetlands serve many functions that are difficult to quantify in eoonomic

terms; they are critical for storm-water retention, water quality control, and provision of wildlife habitat. Developing

methods of restoring lost or degraded wetlands would help to alleviate problems resulting from their destruction,

help achieve the Nation’s goal of no net Ioss of wetlands in the short term, and increase the quantity and quality

of wetlands in the long term.

Wetland mitigation is simplyalleviating any or all detrimental effectsthat may arise from harming a wetland.

Mitigation includes enhancement, creation, and restoration; it may be done to formally complywith Section 404

of the Clean Water Act or for other reasons. Mitigation may involve the in-kind restoration or creation of

wetlands-in another location--or the enhancement of services and functions of the wetland being harmed in

place.Enhancement involves increasing one or more functions or values of an existing wetland (e.g., flood control,

water quality improvement, and habitat provision). Creation refers to the complete conversion of an upland area

into a wetland; it is the most difficult of the three and, so far, the least successful.

Wetland restoration involves the reestablishment of aquatic functions and related physical, chemical, and

biological characteristics that were Iost from a wetland. There are basically three categories of restoration

techniques: 1) reestablishing and/or managing wetland hydrology, 2) eliminating or controlling wetland

contaminants, and 3) reestablishing and/or managing the native plants. Sound plannig, project management and

broad-based scientific knowledge regarding wetland processes are all critical elements in achieving a successful

restoration. Wetland restoration is not easy because wetlands are complex ecosystems that Involve interactions

between a multitude of species, and many of these relationships are not fully understood.

Wetland restoration is also a controversial practice for several reasons. The success of restoration techniques

is not dear, mostly because there has been little investment in monitoring and evaluation (13). In addition, the

measurement of success is elusive and complex. Success varies according to the value and function the project

aims to restore. These functions range from providing wildlife habitat to flood control to water filtration. Determining

success on the basis of these functions requires long-term evaluation as systems evolve and mature; some

wetland system will respond more quickly and more positively to restoration than others. There are few

documented, definitively successful cases; however, coastal marsh-restoration projects are generally more

successful than restoration of inland freshwater marsh systems, mostly because coastal hydrology is better

understood and, thus, more easily restored (13). Projects that have occurred outside the regulatory process have

been more successful.2 Factors such as unclear project goals, lack of monitoring, and an inadequate

understanding of the wetland ecosystem have contributed to restoration failures,

1To convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405.

2 K.L. Erwin, Consulting Ecologist, Inc., personal communication, July 1993.
Chapter 4–Wetlands 155

Several Federal agencies are attempting to incorporate wetland-mitigation activities into their landmanagement plans. For the most part, these aim to retard wetland loss while doing little in the way of actual

restoration (7). These efforts are heralded by the Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Marine Fisheries service (NMFS).

The Corps is mainly concerned with replacing or providing substitutes for wetlands that have been reduced or

subject to the adverse effects of water-resource development projects (7). EPA follows the Corps’ criteria for

evaluating discharges that have an adverse impact on surface- and groundwater systems, but has yet to issue

any specific guidance on mitigation (7). FWS has developed a comprehensive mitigation policy that focuses on

habitat value, and mandates that the degree of mitigation requested correspond to the value and scarcity of the

habitat at risk. More importantly, the policy recommends that altering highly valued wetlands be avoided. NMFS

has taken a proactive approach by participating in the early planning stages of wetland-restoration projects. In this

way, the agency can offer guidance on identifying alternatives to wetland destruction, decreasing conflict

anticipating problems, and minimizing potentially adverse effects on living marine resources and habitat.

In response to vast wetland losses, a mitigation banking program was developed as a mechanism for

compensating unavoidable habitat losses associated with development activities (e.g., construction of roads and

buildings) and administered primarily under the Clean Water Act (CWA; P.L. 92-500). The program includes the

participation of agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private entities and involves off-site creation, restoration,

and/or enhancement of wetlands. It is carried out by the private sector through the Section 404 permitting process

and other similar State and local wetland regulations. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; P.L. 91-1907)

and the wetlands Executive Order (1 1990) encourage the exploration of alternatives to actions that would destroy

wetlands. Mitigation, as an alternative, must address impacts and cannot be used simply to offset the acreage of

wetland losses. Successful mitigation includes “replacing the loss of aquatic resource values by creating,

restoring, and enhancing similar functions and values” (33 CFR, App. A, 334, July 1, 1992). This does not

necessarily imply a one-to-one ratio of destroyed to mitigated acreage. Problems with enforcement,

implementation, and monitoring of wetland mitigation have raised questions about the success of mitigation

programs.

Restoration goals are bound to vary from region to region. For example, in urban areas, flood control and

water filtering are highly valued functions of wetlands. Restoration of these functions does not require a fully

vegetated wetland that supports fish and wildlife; the most important part of restoring these functions maybe simply

to dear obstacles from the site and plant enough vegetation to anchor the soil. In other sites, including those in

areas important for wildlife but where considerable habitat has been destroyed, a more complete restoration

project to rehabilitate a broader range of functions maybe preferred. In some cases, technologies can be used

to establish an artificial wetland for tertiary wastewater treatment. This application requires greater manipulation

of the land and the installation of piping systems to regulate flow across the manually planted areas. Artificial

wetlands are being successfully used to treat agricultural and urban wastewater in smaller communities across

the country. As this technology is expanded, it may be more widely used as a low-cost, low-maintenance

alternative to traditional wastewater treatment applications.

Using restoration as a way to offset loss of healthy wetland systems by creating new wetlands in another

location often results in a trade to Iower function and value. In some cases, though, a trade may make good sense.

For example, allowing development on a small, isolated wetland in a highly urbanized area in exchange for

protecting a larger tract that is in a migratory bird flyway could be beneficial in the long term. Several such

projects are under way on the California and Oregon coasts, where migratory waterfowl habitat has been lost at

rates that surpass those in the rest of the country.

In the San Francisco Bay area, for example, hundreds of acres of tidal marshland were restored after having

been diked off and converted for cattle grazing, mostly during the 1930s. The original salt marsh was dominated

(Continued on next page)
156 Preparing for an Uncertain CIimate--Volume 2

Box 4-A-Wetland Restoration and Mitigation:

Maintaining Wetland Functions and Values--(Continued)

by pickerel weed, which moved into "seasonal wetlands” toward upland areas, which are inundated by

precipitation during the fall and winter months but dry out in the spring and summer. The restoration was a joint

project between a private entity and the State.The private group was interested in developing the upland areas

and, in exchange, created a restoration design that aimed to reestablish the original water-flow patterns in the

degraded marsh, which allow vegetation to prosper; the design assumed that vegetation would colonize

the area gradually, so an extensive planting program would not be needed. Sand and silt were excavated to create

basins within the marsh, surrounded by a shelf that would support vegetation, and the dike was breached, allowing

the bay waters to flow inland and reclaim the dormant marshland. Natural sedimentation processes could then

occur, helping to resters the proper substrate conditions that would eventually support new tidal-marsh vegetation.

The restoration is continuing naturally and, with monitoring, the wetland will probablybefunctional in a few years.

In other cases, plants might have to be manually reestablished, and in inland or riparian-wetland situations,

restoring the hydrology would be much more difficult. In all cases, however, it is important to perform a complete

environmental assessment of the site before any fieldwork begins.

Wetlands are extremely complex systems that include a multitude of species of microbes, plants, birds, and

other wildlife. Their interactions are highly developed; it has taken hundreds or thousands of years for these

systems to achieve their level of ecological and functional diversity. Restoring destroyed wetlands or improving

damaged ones requires not only a clear understanding of this dynamic and complex ecosystem, but also a

well-ordered plan that attempts to account for difficulties that may arise during the restoration. A comprehensive

monitoring program is necessary to track the restoration of a wetland’s functions. Additional research is needed

to improve restoration technology to help prevent the continued loss of the Nation’s wetlands and to begin to regain

some of what has already been lost.

SOURCES: K.L. Erwin, An Evaluation of Wetland Mitigation in the South Florida Water Management District (1990), Volume 1, report

prepared for the South FloridaWater Management District, July 1991; K.L. Erwin, Consulting Ecologist, Inc., personal communication,July

1993,Interagancy Committee on Wetlands Restoration and Creation, A National Program for Wetlands Restoration and Creation, report

to the Policy Coordinating Group Interagency Task Force on Wetlands, August 1992;J.AKusler and M.E. Kentula, Wetland Creation and

Restoration: The Status of the Science (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1990); L. Roberts, “Wetland Trading is a Loser's Game, Say

Ecologists," Science, vol. 260, June 25, 1993, pp. 1890-92; D. Salveson, Wetlands:

(Washington, DC: The Urban Land Institute, 1990).

 Mitigating and Regulating Development Impacts

the use of private land where most wetlands exist

(see box 4-B). As the debate continues on how to

achieve the no-net-loss goal, the possibility of

climate change, which may make halting the loss

of wetlands even more difficult, looms on the

horizon.

Four types of wetlands appear to be particularly

vulnerable to climate change: coastal wetlands,

depressional wetlands in arid or semiarid regions,

riparian wetlands in the arid West and Southwest,

and tundra wetlands. Coastal wetlands may be

drowned by rising sea or altered by changing

salinity. Arise of about 1.5 feet (about 0.5 meter)1

could inundate more than 30 percent of coastal

wetlands. Depressional wetlands maybe affected

by lowered water levels-the likely result of

higher temperatures, increased evaporation, and

decreased precipitation in already dry areas. Drier

conditions in the West also may threaten riparian

wetlands that rely on water from rivers and

streams. Tundra areas may shrink as increased

temperatures allow the permafrost to thaw and

drain.

Climate change may cause loss of wetlands,

even as the need for wetlands becomes greater

under climate change. For example, healthy

1 To convert feet to meters, multiply by 0.305.
Chapter 4–Wetlands 157

Box 4-B-How Wet Is a Wetland?: The Debate Over Which Wetlands to Regulate

The regulatory system has tied itself into knots attempting to meet the policy goal of "no net Ioss’’ of wetlands.

The simple-sounding goal is made complicated by the lack of an accepted definition for "wetland.” Other issues

have also yet to be reconciled, such as: How wet must a wetland be--and how often must it be wet? How can

boundaries be drawn around it to distinguish a wetland that is covered by Federal regulatory programs (a

jurisdictional wetland)from an adjacent area that is not? TheAdministration’s efforts to clarify these issues set off

a firestorm of controversy surrounding not only fundamental issues in wetland science, but also the relationships

among science, politics, and policy.

In August 1991, a new policy program to meet the no-net-loss goal was announced. As part of that program

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), the Soil Conservation

Service (SCS), and the Fish and Midlife Service (FWS) published in the Federal Register proposed new

delineation manual, which was to be used for decisions about wetlands across all agencies. The manual stated

that to be considered a wetland, an area must be flooded for 15 consecutive days, or saturated to the surfacefor

21 consecutive days, sometime during the growing season. This definition would exclude from regulation wetlands

that are only sporadically inundated (e.g., in floodplains and prairie areas) and that may be dry for the greater part

of the year. The manual imposed a high burden of proof, requiring that certain vegetation types, soils, and

hydrology (water flow) be documented according to detailed rules of evidence.

The proposed manual set off an immediate uproar. Critics in the scientific and environmental communities

claimed that there was no defensible scientific rationale for stating that wetlands must be flooded or saturated for

so many days in a row, that the proposal would exclude up to half of the areas now regulated as wetlands, and

that the manual--which was supposed to streamline the regulatory process--was actually more difficult,

time-consuming, and expensive to use than the manual then in use. Supporters of the proposal, including farmers’

and developers’ organizations, favored the exclusion of “drier” wetlands, contending that the wetter ones were

more important to protect. They argued that existing regulations were inconsistent, placed too great a burden on

private landowners, and interfered in property rights, producing numerous horror stories of permits gone awryand

causing untoward delays. By January 1992, EPA received more than 60,000 comments on the proposed manual.

To date, no further revisions have been issued. in the interim, Congress requested a National Academy of

Sciences study of wetlands delineation, and the agencies have fallen back on one or another version of manuals

used in the past to determine what a wetland is.

Although particularly heated in 1991 and 1992, the debate over what to regulate and how to recognize it dates

back to 1972, when the Clean Water Act (P.L. 92-500) was passed. The act promoted protection of the Nation’s

water quality and established a permit program to regulate the dredging and filling of U.S. waters. The permit

process was to be overseen by the Corps in its capacity for managing navigable waters. Four other Federal

agencies-EPA, FWS, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and SCS--along with State agencies were

also allowed to review and comment on permit applications, but of the four, only EPA could veto a permit. When

the Corps published regulations to implement the act it interpreted the mandate narrowly as including only

traditionally navigable waters. Environmental groups sued, and a court order forced the Corps to issue new

regulations in 1977 that covered a broad range of headwaters and wetlands. After considering 22 different

definitions of wetlands, the Corps settled on the definition, also adopted by EPA, that is still used today in its

regulatory decisions: “areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration

sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life

in saturated conditions” (33 CFR328.6(6), 1991). Somewhat different definitions are used by other-s, such

as FWS or the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), whose purview includes wetlands.

Broad application of the CWA sometimes resulted in actions that private landowners protested were unfair

takings of their property (see vol. 1, ch. 4). Each agency issued its own set of field guidelines on how to determine

(Continued on next page)
158 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Box 4-B-How Wet Isa Wetland?:

The Debate Over Which Wetlands to Regulate--(Continued)

what constitutes a jurisdictional wetland. Regulation varied considerablyfrom one jurisdiction to the next because

separate regional offices of the decentralized Corps of Engineers interpreted or applied regulations differently, and

some States were more active in overseeing wetland programs than others. Furthermore, changes by the Reagan

administration intended to curtail the regulatory program by revising the Corps’ procedures were opposed by many

In EPA and FWS, leading to numerous conflicts over policy. By 1987, these differences made dear the need for

a more coordinated national policy. Former EPA Administrator Lee Thomas requested that The Conservation

Foundation, a private environmental organization, convene the Wetlands Forum in 1987 to try to resolve some

of these issues. In 1983, this forum offered the idea for an interim goal of “no net loss” of wetlands with a longterm goal of a net gain in the quality and quantity of the Nation’s wetlands.

A year later, the agencies were spurred to joint action. The Corps and EPA signed a memorandum of

agreement detailing how they would meet the no-net-loss policy goal and encouraging more rigorous

implementation of the Section 404 permit program. in addition, the Corps, EPA, FWS, and SCS adopted an

lnteragency delineation manual to be used by the four agencies in making regulatory andprogram decisions (33).

The manual was developed by a panel of wetland scientists and set mandatory technical criteria and suggested

field indicators. Although the interagency manual changed little in the Section 404 policy, it did result in a more

coordinated and uniform application of the 404 program nationwide. Because it was not an official policy document,

the manual was adopted without public notification and comment, which rankled those regulated.Th ey complained

that the manual was too technical and difficult for people who had to delineate wetlands-in some jurisdictions,

the landowners themselves. The groundswell of dissatisfaction was effectively consolidated by a series of public

hearings convened across the country by the President’s Council on Competitiveness. Protests gradually grew

more vocal and more organized, and eventually led to the Administration decision to issue the revised manual that

became the center of so much controversy in 1991.

Although the 1989 manual was accused by some of being too technical, it had at least won the support of

the scientific community. The 1991 revision did not enjoysuch scientific support. During the revision, the chief ERA

scientist onthe panel resigned, protesting that modifications demanded by the White House and some members

of Congress were politically motivated rather than scientifically sound. Federal agencies such as the Office of

Management and Budget and the Council on Competitiveness assumed major rolesinthe revision, further fueling

suspicions by scientists and environmentalists and leading to a huge number of comments protesting the revised

manual.

The regulatory question, “How wet is a wetland?” has still not been resolved. A revised manual is unlikely

to be issued soon. In the meantime, EPA and the Corps have reverted to using the Corps’ 1987 guidelines. The

outcry over the manual has encouraged many States to become more active in their oversightof the Section 404

program, and some are preparing to assume primary responsibility for implementing the Federal programs, as

many have done for air-pollution-control regulations. But whatever the resolution on the regulatory side, the debate

has demonstrated the difficulty of reaching consensus on natural resource protection. The boundaries of a wetland

will appear to be boated indifferent places depending on when in the moisture cycle it is examined: a wetland

may not always be wet. Moreover, protecting only the obviously wet areas may fail to protect the ecosystem as

a whole (2). Protection based on larger areas---watersheds or ecoregions bounded by their topography,

hydrological systems, and biological characteristics---will be more Iikely to maintain the function of wetlands and

other important ecosystems.

SOURCES: J.A. Kusler, “Wetlands Delineation: An Issue of Sciences or Politics’?’ Environment vol. 34, March 1992, pp. 7-11, 29-37; J,

Alper, “War Over the Wetlands: Ecologists v. the White House,"Science, vol. 257, August 1992, pp. 1043-44; J.P. Cohn, ‘How Wet Must

a Wetland Be?” Government Executive, vol. 24, March 1992, pp. 20-25; C. Copeland, Federal Wetlands Manual Revisions:Summaryof

Interagency Team Reports (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Feb. 25, 1992); U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, “Proposed Revision to the FederaI Manual for Delineating Wetlands,"

Federal Register, vol. 56, Aug. 14,1991, pp. 404446-80.
. . .

Chapter 4–Wetlands I 159

wetlands can help control coastal erosion and

flooding that may result from accelerated sea

level rise (see vol. 1, ch. 4). Wetlands will help

absorb and slow water runoff in urban areas that

may result from more frequent and intense

storms. In areas that become drier, concentrations

of pollutants may be higher in runoff and surface

water (see vol. 1, ch. 5). Wetlands will help falter

out these pollutants and improve water quality.

They may also become even more important as

habitats for fish, waterfowl, invertebrates, and

other wildlife under various warming scenarios.

Wetlands are not protected by any single

Federal law or regulation, but by an amalgam of

programs at all levels of government, many of

which might be called on to cope with the impacts

of climate change on wetlands. Federal programs

over the past 50 years have focused on protecting

existing wetlands through acquisition and, starting two decades ago, regulation. More recently, as

the loss of wetlands has continued, interest has

also turned toward restoring degraded and

drained wetlands and creating new ones.

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA;

P.L. 92-500) has played a limited but contentious

role in the protection of wetlands. As one part of

the broad CWA program to maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the

Nation’s waters, Section 404 regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of

the United States, including wetlands. However,

Section 404 effectively covers activities responsible for just one-fifth of the area of wetlands that

disappears each year (112). Attempts to tighten

direct Federal regulation of other wetlands have

been constrained by the perception that strong

restrictions on privately owned wetlands could,

under appropriate circumstances, constitute a

taking, which requires compensation (see vol. 1,

ch. 5). With nearly three-quarters of all remaining

wetlands in private hands, an appropriate structuring of Federal incentives for activities on private

lands is an essential complement to existing

strategies for regulating wetlands (25). Incentive

programs include direct payments, removal of

various Federal subsidies, and tradable rights

provisions such as mitigation banking (discussed

below).

State and local regulations, including zoning

and land-use controls, and efforts by private

conservation organizations are essential to an

overall strategy for protecting wetlands, both now

and as the climate changes. However, because

this report focuses on Federal programs, discussion of State and local activities is limited to

considering how Federal programs might encourage or coordinate-or at least refrain from hindering-efforts at other levels.

A program designed to protect and regulate

wetlands on almost any scale will be most

effective if it incorporates an integrated approach

to evaluating and managing wetlands within the

context of the watersheds and hydrological systems in which they are located. Decisions on how

to balance loss of wetlands against the need for

development and other activities can best be made

when decisionmakers have a clear understanding

of the particular functions and values of a wetland

within a given watershed-whether for wildlife

habitat, flood control, water quality, or recreation,

for example-and of how important that site is

compared with other natural areas in the same

vicinity that offer similar or complementary

functions and values. An integrated approach to

protecting wetlands will likely become even more

important under a changing climate because the

value of functions such as flood control and

maintenance of water quality may increase in

many areas due to changes in storms and hydrological regimes (see also vol. 1, chs. 4 and 5).

Whether wetlands change, migrate, or decline

in response to climate change will depend largely

on how humans decide to protect and restore

wetlands now and in the future. Because loss of

wetlands has already been extensive and degradation continues, many coastal wetlands and some

inland wetlands are unlikely to be able to adapt to

climate change--and a net loss of U.S. wetlands

will occur. The existing Clean Water Act seeks to

restore and maintain the physical, chemical, and
160 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate---Volume 2

biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. To

achieve the act’s goals, existing wetlands should

be protected from destruction or degradation to

the maximum extent practicable; formerly destroyed or degraded wetlands could be restored as

part of watershed-based plans. Current and future

protection policies must be tailored to anticipate

the effects of climate change and to maximize the

adaptability of the wetland systems that exist

now.

This chapter summarizes the current location

and status of wetlands in the United States,

outlines the fictions and products they provide,

and describes the legislative framework under

which they are regulated and managed. The ways

in which wetlands might be affected by climate

change and whether they will be able to adapt to

it are also addressed. Finally, the chapter suggests

various policy responses that could help maintain

a full range of functioning wetlands.

U.S. WETLANDS TODAY

■ What Are Wetlands?

Wetlands are dynamic systems, characterized

as much by constant processes of change as by

any truly constant features (see box 4-C). Wetlands are often difficult to recognize or define

precisely because the boundary between wet and

dry in the continuum from open water and lands

that are always wet (aquatic ecosystems) to

upland areas (terrestrial ecosystems) that are

often dry is rarely discrete. In general, however,

most scientists agree that wetlands can be defined

by the composition of the vegetation, the soil

characteristics, and the presence of water at or

Box 4-C-Wetland Types and Distribution

Wetlands are usually categorized according to their characteristic vegetation, their location(coastal or inland),

and the salinity of the water they contain (ranging from fresh to brackish to salt water). Ecologists have developed

a comprehensive technical classification of U.S. wetlands (22); these areas are described in the broadest

categories in general vernacular terms below.

Coastal salt marshes grow along relatively calm, low-lying coasts of the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic, and sores

parts of the Pacific (with the greatest expanses occurring on coasts in the Southeast), and are alternately inundated

and drained by the rise and fall of the tides. The relatively small number of plant species that can tolerate the

extremes in temperature and the continuous changes in water level and salinity consist primarily of Spartina

grasses.

Mangrove swamps along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts in Florida (southwestern Florida harbors the largest

expanses) and in a few patches in Louisiana and Texas contain any of several species of salt-tolerant trees and

take the place of salt marshes in areas that are mostly free from frost

Tidal freshwater marshes occur in the upper reaches of tidal zones in estuaries along the Atlantic, Gulf, and

Pacific coasts, but are most common in the mid-Atlantic region, Texas, and Florida Vegetation includes both

grasses and broadleaf species and maybe extremely diverse and productive in the upper reaches of the marsh.

Freshwater nontidal wetlands comprise 95 percent of the Nation’s vegetated wetlands. They may occur at

any latitude but are not common at very high altitudes. Water depths of these wetlands usually range from 6 inches

to 3 feet (from 0.15 to 0.90 meters)1 and vegetation is generally characterized by soft-stemmed plants, grasses,

sedges, and rushes. These include common plants such as waterlilies, cattails, reeds, arrowheads, and pickerel

weed. Most of these wetlands serve vital storm-water and water-quality-control functions.

Inland depressional marshes may be either freshwater or saline. The freshwater marshes are most commonly

found in depressions in the Great Plains States (prairie potholes), in Florida, and in California (vernal pools) and

1 To convert inches to meters, multiply by 0.025; to convert feet to meters, multiply by 0.305.
Chapter 4–Wetlands 161

have water depths ranging from several inches to 3 feet. Vegetation consists of soft-stemmed plants--grasses,

sedges, and rushes, such as waterlilies, cattails, reeds, and wildrice-that emerge above the water surface. The

saline marshes occur primarily along shallow lake basins and other depressions in the arid western United States,

and include playas and rain-basin wetlands. These marshes are generally saturated with water and maybe 2 or

3 feet deep during the growing season. Plant life includes hard-stemmed or alkali bulrushes, widgeon grass, and

sago. Many of these wetlands are semipermanent or seasonal, and some are found only occasionaIIy

during wet years.

Peatlands, including bogs and fens, are found throughout the Upper Midwest and in the Northeast, as well

as in North Carolina and Honda, in shallow lake basins and flat uplands and along slow-moving streams. The soil,

which is often composed of peat and maybe covered by moss, is generally saturated with water and may support

both woody and herbaceous plants. Typical vegetation in northern bogs includes cranberries, leather-leaf,

Labrador tea, and cotton grass, whereas southeastern bogs (known as pocosins) harbor pitcher plants, pond pine,

Cyrilla, Persea, Gordonia, sweet bay, and Virginia chain fern. Bogs are typically valued for their production of

renewable resources such as blueberries and cranberries, and can also be used as a source of peat and

sphagnum moss for use in agriculture and horticulture. In some areas, the water-purifying properties of bogs are

also important. Bogs are home to various insectivorous plants, which are valued for their scientific interest and as

exotic house plants. Several varieties of these plants, including hooded and golden pitcher plants, are threatened

or endangered species.

Tundra is a wet grassland found in cold climates, either at high altitudes on mountains (alpine tundra) or at

northern latitudes (arctic tundra). Up to 25 percent of the State of Alaska is covered by arctic tundra and alpine

tundra cart be found in the Rocky Mountains in the West and in the White Mountains in New England. Tundra

generally has a deep Iayer of water-saturated soil that is permanently frozen (pemafrost), covered by a thick, often

water-saturated mat of living and decaying vegetation including lichens, sphagnum mosses, grasses, sedges, and

dwarf woody plants.

Shrub swamps are found along slow-moving streams and floodplains throughout the Southeast and Upper

Midwest. The soil, which is often saturated during the growing season and may flood up to 6 inches deep, supports

vegetation such as alder, willows, and dogwood.

Wooded swamps may be found alongside sluggish streams, in floodplains or shallow lake basins, and on

flat uplands in the Southeast and Upper Midwest. The Soil is generally water-saturated during most of the growing

season, and may be covered by up to 2 feet of water during periods of heavy rain or flooding. Typical northern

vegetation includes tree species such as tamarack, white cedar, balsam, red maple, and black ash, often

accompanied by a thick covering of moss, whereas further to the west, willows, red alder, and western hemlock

are more common. In the South, vegetation may feature water and overcup oak, tupelo gum, swamp black gum,

and cypress.

Bottomlands and other riparian habitats are found in low-lying floodplain areas adjacent to rivers throughout

the eastern and southern United States as well as the arid West. These areas are not always recognized as

wetlands because they are not necessarily water-saturated throughout the full growing season and they may only

have standing water after an occasional flood. In the South, the lowest areas are characterized by hardwood trees

such as bald cypress, tupelo gum, and water elm Higher areas that are less-frequently flooded support red maple,

sweet gum, and various types of oak. The most infrequently flooded sites contain shagbark hickory, swamp

chestnut oak, and post oak. In the West, riparian habitats are widely scattered along the permanent and intermittent

rivers and streams that course through the arid and semiarid terrain; common trees include willows, alders,

cotton woods, salt cedar, and mesquite.

SOURCES: R. Brewer, The Science of Ecology(Philadelphia: Saunders College Publishing, 1988); U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI),

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), An Overview of Major Wetland Functions and Values, FWS/OBS-84/18 , contractor paper prepared by J.H.

Sather and R.D. Smith (Washington, DC: U.S. DOI, FWS, September 1984); US. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Wetlands:

Their Use and Regulation, OTA-0-206 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office March 1984); R.S. Warren, "Coastal Wetland

Vulnerabilities to Climate Change,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, July 1992.
162 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate---Volume 2

near the soil surface for some part of the year. Wetlands are lands where saturation with water is

These elements are set forth in the definition of the dominant factor determining the nature of soil

wetlands used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife development and the types of plant and animal

Service (FWS) as the basis for the National communities living in the soil and on its surface.

Wetlands Inventory (22) (several similar but The single feature that most wetlands share is soil

distinct definitions are used by other agencies for or substrate that is at least periodically saturated

regulatory purposes (see box 4-D)): with or covered by water . . . Wetlands are lands

Box 4-D--Why Care About Wetlands?

Wetlands are a resource of tremendous yet sometimes unrecognized, economic importance. The jobs of

commercial fishers rely on wetlands---75 percent of the commercially landed fish and shellfish are dependent on

wetlands (14). Sport fishing and waterfowl hunting, both of which depend on wetlands, generate several billion

dollars of economic activity annually, offering significant stimulation to local economies. Commercial trappers

make their living from wetlands, with over a third of the furs harvest in the United States coming from mammals

that live and grow in wetlands. Millions of dollars in flood damage and pollution control may be averted by the

presence of healthy wetlands. Wetlands provide crucial habitat for many endangered species. They also provide

an environment highly valued for its aesthetic and recreational enjoyment

The degree to which and the frequency with which a wetland performs these various functions depend largely

on where it is located. For example, although all wetlands perform some water filtration, this function is valued more

where runoff waters are polluted than in pristine areas. Similarly, although nearly all wetlands provide wildlife

habitat, the significance of that habitat varies. Some Wetlands provide major societal benefits only occasionally,

such as the floodplains and t emporary ponds that may store or slow runoff during heavy rains or flooding, but may

not even appear to be wetlands during dry years. Furthermore, value is in the eye of the beholder. A resident of

a flood-prone area may value nearby wetlands because they attenuate floods and may eliminate the need to

construct walls or ditches to control floods, whereas a mare distant resident may value the same wetland more

for its aesthetic and recreational values.

The loss of these functional values usually comes at an expense to the surrounding area Removing or

degrading a wetland that serves an important flood-control function will require investment in additional

storm-water controls or replacement of property and resources damaged by floods. Degradation of a wetland that

serves a prims water-filtration function will require additional investment in wastewater treatment facilities in the

long term. By the same token,loss of valuable wetland wildlife habitat will result in a decrease in species. Though

it is difficult to quantify these values, their loss certainly results in reverberating effects on surrounding communities

and the landscape.

Economic values of wetlands are difficult to calculate and vary widely among different types of wetlands and

the particular functions and products they provide. An array of approaches has been used to assess the values.

Some studies have examined one or several services that wetlands provide to society, such as removing

pollutants, providing flood control, or slowing coastal erosion, then have calculated the dollar value necessary to

construct and operate sewage treatment plants or flood-control barriers that would perform equivalent services;

the value of a wetland is assumed to be equal to the cost of replacing these services. Such studies have arrived

at replacement values ranging from hundreds to hundreds of thousands of dollars per acre (70, 71, 89, 116).

However, market values of wetlands rarely reflect the full replacement values indicated in such studies.

Furthermore, despite numerous attempts, many values defy quantification. The value of habitat provided by

wetlands for endangered species, for example, cannot easily be translated into dollar figures, but can only be

hinted at through often-criticized surrogate pricing methods, such as surveys of the public’s willingness to pay.

Wetlands clearly make huge indirect contributions to the national economy through their roles in supporting the
Chapter 4–Wetlands 163

Relationship Between Wetland Processes and Values

Periodic inundation Wetland processes

High plant productivity

Ecological services

Food and habitat

Food chain support

Nutrients and

suspended

materials

Temporary water storage

Trapping of suspended material I

Groundwater recharge

Water-quality improvement

Shoreline erosion control

SOURCE: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation, OTA-O-208 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, March 1984).

multi-billion dollar U.S. fisheries and recreation industries, but pinpointing the proportion of value added by

wetlands to these industries is difficult. Although scientists and economists may not agree on such dollar values,

moat do agree that wetlands provide important functions, services, and products. Some of the major ones are

outlined below.

Fisheries habitat—inland and coastal wetlands are essential to maintaining fish and shellfish populations.

Billions of dollars a year are generated by the associated sport and commercial fisheries. About three-quarters

of the commercial marine harvest consists of fish and shellfish that depend on wetlands--with regional estuarine

dependency ranging from 98 percent for the Chesapeake Bay and 78 percent for the Gulf Coast to 76 percent

in Alaska and 52 percent in the Pacific Northwest (14). In 1980 in Louisiana alone, the crayfish harvest amounted

to $11 million (56). The Department of Commerce estimated in 1987 that the fish products from coastal wetland

areas contribute more than $10 billion per year to the gross national product (GNP; 100). The value of marine

(Continued on next page)
164 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Box 441-Why Care About Wetlands?--(Continued)

Economic Values of Wetlands

Selected dollar value

Function or service estimates per year

Fisheries habitat

Waterfowl habitat

Recreational activities

Flood and erosion

control

Pollution filtering

Timber and specialty

crops

Trapping

Commercial fisheries harvest:

$10 billion; marine recreational

fishing: $13.5 billion

Recreational hunting:

$638 million

Spending on recreation:

$55 billion

$2,025/acre a

$400/acre

Standing timber value:

$8 billion; cranberry, blueberry,

wild rice harvest value: unknown

Fur-bearing-mammal harvests:

$295 million; alligator hides:

$1.7 million

aTo convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

recreational fishing (both shellfish and finfish)

has been estimated at $13.5 billion (3). In

addition, nearly all freshwater fish depend on

wetlands for food and spawning grounds.

Waterfowl habitat--Wetlands are crucial

to the existence of many birds. They are

especially important as breeding grounds,

feeding grounds, and wintering areas for

migratory waterfowl. The hunting of waterfowl

is a major wetland activity. In 1980,5.3 million

people spent $638 million hunting waterfowl

(WVS estimate cited in ref. 56).

Recreational activities--Wetlands support a range of recreational activities such as

boating, birdwatching, and hiking in addition

to hunting and fishing. The majority of these

activities depend on wetlands with healthy

vegetation (108). Wildlife refuges that contain

wetlands, such as the Okefenokee Swamp in

Georgia and Sanibel Island in Florida are

among the most frequently visited of the lands

managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS) (95).1 FWS estimated that in

1980, recreational users spent $148 million

observing and photographing fish and wildlife in the United States (56). A 1985 survey of fishing, hunting, and

wildlife conducted by FWS estimated that overall “141 million Americans participated in wildiife-associated

recreation, and spent $55 billion” (108), and an estimated 17 million sport anglers spent $8.2 billion (78).

Flood and erosion control--Inland wetlands decrease erosion by slowing runoff and by trapping sediment.

They also Iimit flood damage by serving as a buffer zone and by absorbing the energy from overflows. Coastal

wetlands act to slow erosion by buffering wave action and by trapping and anchoring sediment to the shore. Like

inland wetlands, they also aid in flood control, reducing the destructive energy of waves and storm surges. The

value of flood control and shoreline protection can be estimated by calculating the potential costs avoided. For

example, a 1972 study by the Army Corps of Engineers determined that protecting 8,422 acres (3,389 hectares) 2

of wetlands adjacent to the Charles and Neponset River watersheds in Massachusetts could prevent more than

$17 million in flood damages (106). In the Midwest, the Mississippi has been artificially controlled for years to

provide land for agricultural and other uses, and its flood-control capacity has been dramatically decreased,

resulting in exorbitant damage costs.

Pollution filtering--Wetlands contribute to water quality by trapping sediment and pollutants before they

enter waterways. These areas are particularly helpful in reducing excess burdens of nitrogen and phosphorus that

may otherwise cause harmful overgrowths of algae. A study in Georgia estimated that one 2,500-acre marsh, if

given the opportunity, could have performed around $1 million in water pollution control per year. This suggests

a value of $400 per acre per year for that wetland’s pollution-control services.

1 J.W. Beaver, Biological Scientist, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, personal communication, May 13-14, June 1,1932.

2To convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405.
Chapter 4–Wetlands 165

Timber and specialty crops--Bottomland wetland forests of the southeastern United States have a

standing value of some $8 billion. Hardwood timber harvests from bottomland forests can be accomplished with

minimal harm to wetlands. Other wetland areas in the South support rice farming and aquaculture. Wetlands in

the Northeast and North Central States provide cranberries and blueberries, and some North Central wetlands also

grow wild rice. Grasses in wetlands also serve as livestock feed in many areas of the country, particularly along

rivers and streams in the arid West.

Trapping--Both the coastal and inland wetlands provide valuable habitat for fur bearers and reptiles.

Fur-bearing mammals that live in wetlands include beavers, muskrats, raccoons, minks, and otters; FWS

estimated the harvest of these mammals from wetlands to be $295 million in 1980 (nearly one-third of the industry’s

total). The sale of alligator hides that year generated an additional $1.7 million (56).

Endangered species habitat-More than one-third of the United States’s threatened and endangered

species use wetlands as their primary habitat (69), and numerous others rely on wetlands during some part of their

life cycles. Wetlands are necessary for the survival of such species as the American crocodile, the whooping crane,

the wood stork, the bald eagle, the manatee, the insectivorous hooded pitcher plant, and many others.

Carbon sink--Because of their high productivity, many wetland systems are very effective at storing, or

sequestering, carbon. Soils in tundra (and other northern ecosystems) may store up to one-third of the global pod

of carbon now stored in soils (which could, if released to the atmosphere, speed up climate change) (72). Coastal

wetlands, such as salt marshes, also store significant amounts of carbon (27).

Other cultural and aesthetic values---Wetlands hold many sites of historical and archaeological value and

offer opportunities for education and scientific study. The combination of land and water gives wetlands a unique

aesthetic appeal (120).

SOURCES: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation, OTA-0-206 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1984); U.S. Department of Commerce, Letter of Comment, dated Nov. 27, 1987, on the Sept. 1,

1987, Draft Wetlands Priority Plan; U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Fisheries of the United States, 1990, Current Fishery Statistics No. 9000 (Silver Spring, MD: Fisheries

Statistics Division, NMFS, NOAA May 1991).

transitional between terrestrial and aquatic sys- inland or coastal, fresh or saline. However classitems where the water table is usually at or near the

surface or the land is covered by shallow water. . .

[W]etlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: 1) at least periodically, the

land supports predominantly hydrophytes [plants

that can grow in water-saturated soil]; 2) the

substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil

[soil that displays properties associated with

having been saturated with water]; and 3) the

substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or

covered by shallow water at some time during the

growing season of each year,

How to apply this definition, or some variation

fied, wetlands cannot be considered in isolation

from the landscapes and the larger context of the

hydrological systems in which they exist, such as

the estuarine and inland landscapes shown in

figure 4-1 (68, 120; see also ch. 2). Because

wetlands are intricately connected to the quantity

and quality of water flowing through a watershed,

they are susceptible to any climate-induced changes

in temperature and precipitation that affect the

amount, speed, or temperature of water in the

system. Their close link to hydrological cycles

also means that they both affect and are affected

of it, has generated considerable controversy, by human activities in surrounding areas. For

particularly in attempts to define the boundaries example, wetlands that occur in sites where an

of wetlands subject to Federal regulation (see box aquifer discharges water at the surface may be

4-E). affected if the aquifer is depleted or reduced by

Wetlands can be classified according to many decreased precipitation, runoff, and increased

different characteristics, such as whether they are evaporation, or by human activities such as
166 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box 4-E-Is a Wetland a Place or a Process?

Part of the difficulty of regulating and protecting wetlands is that they are, by nature, dynamic systems.

Wetlands may follow a progression from being fully or partially saturated, through a period d uring which vegetative

material gradually accumulates, to being saturated less frequently, allowing for different species to move in. Many

are only seasonally or periodically wet. Or the opposite may occur---a wetland may gradually or suddenly become

saturated as a result of changes in water flow or levels in a lake, river, or estuary and eventually convert to open

water. A recent report by the National Academy of Science (68) states:

Along the edges of rivers, newly deposited sediments will be readily invaded by opportunistic plants

and animals. Initial colonists are unlikely to be the same species as those of the floodplain forest that

eventually develops. Along the edges of continents, mud fiats are formed by alluvial outwash and are

gradually colonized by salt marsh grasses and succulents, which in turn trap sediments that raise the

topography and attract additional plant and animal species. Along the edge of an acidic lake, sphagnum

moss and herbaceous plants develop a mat that eventually supports bog shrubs and bog forest trees.

in all these habitats, the nutrient content of the soil and the biomass of plants and animals increase

through time, along with increases in species diversity and ecosystem complexity.

Yet U.S. policyhas tended to treat wetlands,like many other natural lands, as if they were static systems that

will stay in the same place indefinitely if only further development is prevented. The Government has designated

National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National Estuarine Research Reserves, and National Marine

Sanctuaries as places where wetlands will be protected, but these areas are often surrounded by intensive land

use and development, which may limit the ability of wetlands to continue their processes of growth and evolution

(see vol. 1, ch. 4). in many parts of the Nation today, the natural processes of wetland evolution can no longer

take place: “Before the widespread impact of man, new wetlands would have regularly opened up---due to the

changing flow of a river for example--replacing those lost by succession or changes in drainage patterns.... In

our modern, human-dominated world, however, where rivers and coastlines are constantly being molded to suit

our whims, the natural recruitment of new wetlands is lost, depriving wildlife of a vital habitat . . .“ (41).

Where does climate change fit into the picture? By speeding up the rate at which the elements of the

environment change---the temperature, precipitation, and water-flow patterns, for example--climate change will

require that the processes of evolution and the migration of species that inhabit wetlands take place more rapidly

to keep up. In areas where there remains room to grow, where human activities have not yet blocked the paths

for a natural progression of wetlands, the wetlands maybe able to adapt in time. But regardless of the initial causes

of loss or degradation, in places where human activities have raised impenetrable barriers, the natural processes

of wetlands may simply be squeezed out.

SOURCES: E. Goldsmith, N. Hildyard, P. McCully, and P, Bunyard, Imperiled Planet:Restoring Our Endangered Ecosystems (Cambridge,

W

-The MIT Press, 1990); National Research Council (NRC), Committee on Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems --Science, Technology,

and Public Policy, Water Science and Technology Board, Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources, Restoration of

Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1992).

pumping water for irrigation and municipal use. ■ Why Are Wetlands Important?

Likewise, destruction of a wetland may cause Wetlands provide diverse products of considerdownstream changes in flooding or water quality able commercial value, playing a key role in the

and degrade the quality of habitat for fish and production of goods such as finfish, shellflsh, fur,

wildlife. Attempts to manage, protect, or restore waterfowl, timber, blueberries, cranberries, wild

wetlands must take into account the numerous rice, and peat (see box 4-D). Wetlands also

and intricate interactions among different parts of nurture biological productivity, slow surfacethe landscape and must recognize that wetlands water flows, transform nutrients and toxic chemimake up just one part. cals, and provide habitat that often harbors high
Chapter 4–Wetlands I 167

Figure 4-l-Cross-Sectional Diagrams of a Northeastern Salt Marsh and a Riparian Wetland System

&

v

Irregularly

flooded marsh

Storm tide

---------------------- -

Mean high tide

-------------------- -

Mean low tide

-.-------- -

v v -/

Rf~~;$J;y Intertidal flat Estuarine open

water (bay)

marsh

NOTE: Intertidal flats are only intermittently inundated, depending on tidal movement; irregularly flooded marshes are usually brackish because

they serve as a transition zone between the coastal marsh and the upland.

Upland d

I Inland

@

— .-—

Water table - - - - - ‘- Iill&sq ‘ater’ab’e

I

Groundwater

discharge

Seepage

wetland on

slope

NOTE: Overflow wetland areas are transitional between the wetland and the upland, are periodically Inundated, and provide a vital flood-contrd

function; deprmsional wetlands, or glacial pools, wbich are often filled in for agricultural use, oocur in the prairie-pothole region in the Midweet. To

convert feet to meters, multiply by 0.305.

SOURCE: R.W. Tlner Jr., kWtlands of the United Stares: Current Status and Recant Trerr&, National Wetlands Inventory (Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, March 1984).
168 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

biodiversity (described in more detail in ch. 2).

These ecological functions are often associated

with functions that are more directly valued by

humans, such as flood control, erosion reduction,

and improved water quality. Wetlands are also

considered valuable for their aesthetic appeal and

their recreational and educational opportunities.

More recently, wetlands have become valued for

their ability to store carbon (see ch. 2). They are

critical habitat for about one-third of the Nation’s

threatened and endangered species (57); some

species use them periodically (daily or seasonally) for food and water, whereas others reproduce

in wetlands, and still others spend their entire life

cycles there.

The many values of wetlands are closely

interrelated (see box 4-D). For example, the

aquatic plants in estuarine wetlands provide food

and shelter for numerous finfish and shellfish,

including many species valued for commercial,

sport, and subsistence fishing. The vegetation and

associated animal life also attracts waterfowl,

which may lure hunters, birdwatchers, photographers, weekend boaters, and students on field trips.

Such uses may profit local businesses and manufacturers that provide recreational services and

products such as boats, binoculars, cameras, hiking

boots, guns, and fishing gear (68, 95, 106, 120).

9 Where Are Wetlands Found?

In the mid-1980s, approximately 103 million

of nearly 2 billion acres (41 million of 0.8 billion

hectares) 2 of the conterminous States were occupied by wetlands (24). Roughly 5 percent of the

lower 48 States is covered by wetlands, which is

less than half the area of wetlands estimated by

FWS to have covered those States during colonial

times (23, 24). About 95 percent of total wetlands

are inland freshwater wetlands 3 and only 5

percent are saltwater in coastal areas and estuaries. Approximately 75 percent of all wetlands in

the conterminous States are privately owned

(108), and the remainder belong to parks, wilderness areas, forests, and refuges held by Federal,

State, and local agencies. Alaska has approximately 170 million acres of wetlands, comprising

around 45 percent of the interior area of the State;

approximately half of this consists of arctic

tundra. Hawaii contains approximately 7,000

acres of wetlands, less than 0.2 percent of its total

land area (23). The different types of wetlands and

their geographical distribution are summarized in

box 4-C and displayed in figure 4-2.

9 Why Are Wetlands Becoming Degraded?

Climate change is only one of numerous human-influenced environmental factors that impose increasing pressures and demands on natural

ecosystems, including wetlands. These factors

can be primarily chemical, physical, or biological

in nature, or any combination. Like many natural

areas, wetlands are degraded by air and water

pollution, including industrial air emissions, contaminated waters from urban or industrial

landfills, runoff laden with agricultural chemicals, contaminated irrigation water, and salinization from road salt. Inland and coastal wetland

areas alike may be affected by water diversions

and the altered water and sediment flows that

result from channelization and navigation projects, flood-control structures, upstream withdrawals, and the pumping of water from aquifers

2 ~ COIIW31 WITS to hectares, multiply by O.m.

3 FWS defines coastal wetlands narrowly to include primarily tidal wetlands. A recent report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) on coastal wetlands used the same database but defined coastal wetlands more broadly to include “wetlands within

waterskis or dndnage areas directly surrounding estuarine waters or within counties adjacent to marine waters” (101). According to this

definition NOM calculates that coastal wetlands account for nearly one-third of the Nation’s total area of wetlands (almost 27.4 million acres),

and that wetlands occupy 16 percent of the total land in coastal areas.
Chapter 4–Wetlands I 169

Figure 4-243 General Distribution of Wetlands in the United States

c

1 ;

\

r’(“

i- ‘ . .,. . .

. .

F

. .

4[ : L.

.<.

.,’

●

“,-r.

‘*’ -t’

NOTE: Shaded portions incorporate general wetland areas,

SOURCE: R.W. Tiner, Jr.r WeZ/andsoft/re /J-vledStakas; Current Status and Reuwt Trends, National Wetlands Inventory (Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Servke, March 19S4).

for municipal and industrial use.4 Construction of

public-works projects (e.g., roads, airports, power

plants, and darns) and private buildings (housing

developments, office buildings, and marinas), and

land-management practices (grazing, logging,

and mining) in or near wetlands may all degrade

or destroy them. These activities can also alter

stream flow and sedimentation patterns by cutting

off vital freshwater or sedimentation flow or by

changing the balance of freshwater and salt water

in estuarine areas (95, 112). Alterations of water

levels and hydrological systems may in fact cause

the most damage to wetlands (54).

Wetlands that are already degraded are often

more susceptible to encroachment of nonindigenous (nonnative or exotic) species that may

cause severe and sometimes irreversible damage

to the habitat of native species. Coastal wetlands

may be further affected by altered wave and

current patterns created by the construction of

dikes, sea walls, and other structures built to

protect the coast, as well as by activities such as

4 Although channelization and dredging projects may exert more-obvious pressures on wetlands, an increasing but less-obvious threat to

inland marshes and swamps is the development of new well fields to supply municipal water in areas where the population is growing or in

coastal areas (such as in Florida) where salt water has seeped into freshwater aquifers that were pumped down. Loss of wetlands due to well

fields has not attracted research and monitoring efforts and is unlikely to be adequately accounted for in wetland inventories, but could become

even more of a problem if climate change increases the intensity of well-field development (K.L. Erwin, Consulting Ecologist, Inc., personal

communication, December 1992).
170 I Preparing

-,

for an Uncertain Climate--VoIume 2

Figure 4-3-Wetland Acreage Lost in the United States, 1780s to 1980s

-38

-

-2

-12

D

L-------3 9

-54

-73

i

r) Percent of land

,* that is wetland

1 to 5

5 to 12

12 to 25

25 to 50

- 5oto5 5

area

SOURCE: T.E. Dahl, Wetlands Lossesm the Unkd%tes, 1780s to 1980s, report to Congress (Washington, DC: Department of the Interbr, FM

and Wklllfe Servics, 1990).

channelization, boat traffic, and subsidence following pumping associated with the off-shore

extraction of nonrenewable resources (oil, gas, and

groundwater) (46, 108, 113). FWS estimates that in

the 1780s, wetlands covered more than 25 percent of the land area of 11 States; by the 1980s, as

shown in figure 4-3 and box 4-D, only two States

still contained 25 percent or more wetlands (23).

More than 80 percent of the destruction of

wetlands aggregated over the past two centuries

(1780s to 1980s) has been attributed to converting

inland wetlands to agricultural uses, and agriculture remained the leading cause of loss from the

mid-1970s through the mid-1980s. Figure 4-4

shows the extent and location of wetlands drained

and converted to agricultural use as of 1985.5

Although agricultural conversions have slowed,

many wetlands could still be converted to agriculture. Around 5.2 million acres of wetlands are

considered to have high or medium potential for

5 Of the approximately 11 million acxes of wetlands destroyed from the 1950s through 1970s, 87 pement were converted to agricultural uses

(24)-an average rate of 480,000 acres per year-that were encouraged by various tax incentives and technical support. BetwecQ themid-1970s

and mid-1980s, however, the conversion of wetlands slowed to an average of 260,(X)0 acres pa year, aecding to FWS estimate% due in part

to decreasing mtes of agricultural drainage and incmasd Federal Government regulation. Although agricultural conversions declir@ they still

accounted for 54 percent of the decade’s losses (140,400 acres per year on average), while ‘‘other” land uses (that is, “lands that had been

draimxiand cleared of vegetation but not put to an identi.fhble use’ clairned41 pcrcen4 andurbanland uses wererqcmsibleforthe runaind~

(24). New program have compensated for some losses of wetlands to agriculture by restoring some wetlands; the U.S. Department of

Agriculture’s Swampbusterprogram (described later inthia chapter) added approximately 90,000 acrcx to the Nation’s wetlands inventory from

1987 to 1990 (24).
Chapter 4–Wetlands 1171

Figure 4-4-Extent and Location of Artificially Drained Agricultural Land

in the United States, 1985

(,.. ““, .: \

“1. ...’

. . . . . .. ~ z::; ‘X_ . . . . . . . . . . . . ,“. . ; .

.~ :~.”>~

9

C?2 .“ . . ,.

. . . . . . t. ;%.. ..

, .

A“ [::.. d

--

. , .. .

,.

=-”t .

. .0 “

. . . . . . }P

. .

.

“/

h--.

L—

I

\

-L

r

1 dot = 20,000 acres

1980 United States total = 107,483,00 acres

NOTE: To convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Researeh Service, “Farm Drainage in the United States:

History, Status, and Prospects,” Miscellaneous Publication 1455, G.A. Pavelis (cd.) (Washington, DC: USDA,

December 1987).

conversion; the lands most likely to be converted into small acreages surrounded by agriculture or

are small wetlands that interfere with farming residential development. The fragmentation of

activities and larger forested wetlands that could wetlands and associated habitat interferes with

be drained.6 The U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) reports that “although some wetlands

have been converted directly to agricultural uses,

about half were originally forested and may have

entered agricultural use after being cut over for

timber” (99). This practice may be slowing due

to economic trends (see box 6-D).

Even where wetlands remain because they

have been protected, they are often fragmented

many long-term processes associated with normal

wetland functions, so their ecological functions

are often diminished and their value as wetlands

deteriorates (see box 5-D). Wetlands remain,

however, an important component of federally

protected natural areas, with 380 of 408 National

Wildlife Refuges including substantial tracts of

wetlands. Chapter 5 discusses in greater detail the

issues surrounding federally protected lands of all

types.

6. CHi@ p~ten~ for conv~sion ‘‘ means that “simihu lands were being converted in the years preceding the inventory’ (99).
172 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

SURVIVAL OF WETLANDS

UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE

H How Could Climate Change

Affect Wetlands?

Scientists have not precisely quantified the

intricate interactions between wetlands and climate. No single factor determines whether wetlands will be at risk from climate change or

whether they can benefit. The variables that are

predicted to change include temperature, precipitation, carbon dioxide (CO> concentrations, and

sea level. Some predicted impacts are described

in chapter 2 and summarized in boxes 4-F and 4-G

and table 4-1.

Climate change will affect the ecological and

other functions of wetlands, but the rate and

magnitude of losses of functions and products

may differ, and may not be closely linked. As

described in chapter 2, the public’s perception of

the impacts on wetlands will be based primarily

on products and nonecololgical functions. Fully

accounting for and predicting the potential damages will require not only precise regional predictions about the rate and magnitude of climate

change, but also site-specific information on the

functions and products of wetlands and their links

to climate. Because such information is scarce

and precise regional climate predictions do not

yet exist, this section offers a qualitative rather

than a quantitative view of whether, and how,

wetlands can adapt to climate change and discusses what will make certain wetlands vulnerable to climate stresses (see table 4-l).

Climate change could affect the distribution

and condition of U.S. wetlands by reducing the

area they cover and potentially altering the

assemblages of plant and animal species they

.

*

(“ ‘

*4

. .

( v

The Florida coast hosts many mangroves that are

havens for a variety of wildlife and migratory

waterfowl. These dynamic wetlands also serve to

protect the shoreline from erosion and help to

maintain water quality.

support; both changes could affect the functions

and products for which wetlands are protected

(see box 4-D and ch. 2). The time frame over

which climate change will affect wetlands, and

the manner in which their functions and products

are altered, will vary widely from one region to

the next.7 In the short term (5 to 25 years),

wetlands may be most affected by extreme

weather events, such as unusually severe storms,

floods, droughts, and fires, which may disrupt the

growth of vegetation (see box 4-H). Although all

of these are normal, natural events that shape

wetlands, their impacts may be particularly severe in areas already disturbed by human activities. Over the longer term (25 to 100 years),

changes will likely include shifts in species

composition as space opened by disturbance from

extreme events is occupied by new species. In

areas that become drier, the edges of wetlands will

start to recede, while the structure of wetlands

7 ~Office of ‘ltchnology Assessment convened a 2-day workshop in May 1992 to idenw ~ti vulnerable to ClimfitC change and

to consider management strategies t.hnt could alleviate impacts. Participants included scientists and managers responsible for various aspects

of research and policy on wetlands. TIM workshop yielded few conclusions about which wetlands and which functions and products may be

lost firsg other than a general obsemation that the subsiding coasts of the Gulf of Mexico are likely to be in trouble sooner and more seriously

than the rockicz coasts of the Pacific and North Atlantic. Although the workshop did not aim for consensus in any formal way, nearly all

participants agreed that most functions of wetlands that humans value are vulnerable ❑ ow because so many wetlands have already been

destroyed and their fictions and products have diminished.
Chapter 4–Wetlands 173

Box 4-F--Louisiana and Sea Level Rise: A Preview of What’s to Come?

While coastal States up and down the Atlantic seaboard wrestle with what to do about impending sea level

rise, the question is more than academic for Louisiana. A glimpse of the future is already here. Louisiana lost

around 50 square miles (32,000 acres, or 12,800 hectares)1 of its coastal wetlands every year between 1986 and

1978 as delta land subsided and the sea level rose, accounting for 86 percent of the entire Nation’s annual losses

of coastal wetlands. Since 1978, the annual loss has slowed to approximately 25 square miles. The figure below

shows the dramatic decline of wetlands surrounding the mouth of the Mississippi from 1958 to 1978.

Wetland Changes in the Mississippi River Active Delta (1958-78)

NOTE: The light shading designates marsh and forested wetlands, and the darkest shading designates upland and dredge-deposit

areas. Between 1956 and 1978, there was a decrease of more than 50 percent in marsh and forested wetlands (about 100,000 acres

lost in all) and an increase of almost 300 percent (about 12,000 acres gained) in upland and dredge-deposit areas. One inch equals

50 miles (1 millimeter equals 3 kilometers); to convert acres to hectares, multiply by O.405.

SOURCE: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Research Center, Slidell, LA, 1993.

The alarming erosion of Louisiana’s coasts places at risk wetlands of great importance to fish and wildlife.

Louisiana’s coastal wetlands support nearly 30 percent of the Nation’s commercial fish and shellfish harvests,

provides the winter home for 20 to 25 percent of North America’s puddle ducks, and yield North America’s largest

fur and alligator harvests. But Louisiana’s coastal wetlands are important to Americans in other ways as well. The

wetlands can reduce damage to property from hurricane-related tidal surges, provide flood storage when the

Mississippi swells during large storm events, and remove pollutants from coastal waters.

Why the rapid decline? The coastal lands of Louisiana, like those in parts of neighboring Texas and

Mississippi, were formed over millennia as sediment carried by the Mississippi River and its tributaries from States

as far north as Minnesota, as far west as Montana, and as far east as Pennsylvania was deposited in the delta.

The Mississippi spewed water, silt, dirt, and sand, until the debris had piled up so high that water no longer flowed

easily seaward; the river then snaked around, changing its course, until it found the next path of least resistance.

The loose sediments of these delta lands were gradually compacted and sank lower toward and into the sea,

1 TO convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405.

(Continued on next page)
174 I Preparing for an Uncertain CIimate---Volume 2

Box 4-F-Louisiana and Sea level Rise: A Preview of What’s to Come?--(Continued)

eroding easily in the face of waves and storms, until wetland vegetation took root. Vegetation anchored the soil

and built up organic material and trapped sediment and land started to accumulate again in coastal marshes. This

dynamic process of deposition and growth continued until around a century ago, when human actions to control

floods and improve navigation on the Mississippi began to drastically alter the hydrological patterns and interfere

with the patterns of coastal and wetland growth. The consequences of human attempts to control alluvial

processes are often dramatic, as was seen when the Mississippi scaled its artificial barriers and inundated

hundreds of thousands of acres in its floodplain in July 1993--reclaiming, at least temporarily, many former

wetlands.

The primary cause of Louisiana’s wetland losses has been the construction of Federal and nonfederal

flood-control levees along the Mississippi River that have virtually eliminated the inflow of fresh water and sediment

into the delta marshes. Engineering projects designed to maintain navigation on the Mississippi River confine water

flow to deep, straight channels, forcing the sediment-laden water to bypass the wetlands and deposit its silt into

deeper Gulf of Mexico waters. Humanmade channels, built through the wetlands for navigation and for easy

access to off-shore oil rigs, increase the encroachment of salt water into interior wetlands, killing the salt-intolerant

vegetation and accelerating the loss of organic matter and the conversion of wetlands to open water. Wave action

from boats traveling along the channels accelerates the erosion of the shorelines.

The more rapid sealevel rise predicted with climate change, combined with continuing subsidence, will further

increase the rate and extent of wetland loss. Commercial fishers may actually see an initial increase in their

harvests and profits. Shrimp production may increase rapidly during the early stages of wetland decline as

open-water habitat increases, as marshes fragment, and as organic matter is released quickly by decaying

vegetation, providing food sources for aquatic organisms. However, the initial boost of productivity will likely be

followed by a long and potentially rapid decline. if sea level changes rapidly, some commercial fisheries may be

lost entirely (see box 2-C).

What can be done to slow the loss? Many scientists who study wetlands view engineering activities with

suspicion because they have been the cause of past damage. However, further engineering maybe necessary

to reverse the damage that has already been done. The Army Corps of Engineers has already experimented with

various techniques for offsetting the losses, and it should continue to evaluate their effectiveness to determine

whether they should be implemented more widely. The techniques include: 1) implementing projects to divert fresh

water to maintain the proper salinity, and to divert sediment to inhibit subsidence and to help create new wetlands

in shallow open water; 2) backfilling and plugging certain dredged canals to prevent saltwater intrusion;

3) establishing salt-tolerant vegetation in areas where the natural vegetation is threatened by salt water;

4) effectively using maintenance dredge materials to restore proper marsh elevations for wetland vegetation;

5) improving management of water levels and salinities by using levees and water-control structures to preserve

and enhance existing wetlands and to restore degraded wetlands; 6) restoring wetlands drained for grazing

purposes; and 7) reducing the widespread use of forced drainage of wetland areas, thereby reducing sediment

compaction and subsidence. Although levees and water-control structures are useful for controlling water level

and salinity, they prevent or restrict the mobility of aquatic organisms, and interfere with hydrology and

sedimentation patterns-the very reason why Louisiana marshes, and some others, are so degraded today, and

also why the Mississippi River appears to have reclaimed its floodplain.

SOURCES: Louisiana Wetlands Protection Panel (LWPP), Saving Louisiana’s Coastal Wetlands: The Need for a Long-Term Plan of Action,

EPA-230-02-87-026, report of a panel convened by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Louisiana Geological Survey at

Grand Terre Island, LA, Sept. 17-19,1985 (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, April 1987); J. McPhee, The Control of Nature (New York: Farrar,

Straus, Giroux, 1989); U.S. Department of the Interior (001), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Wetlands: Meeting the President's

Challenge---1990 Wetlands Action Plan (Washington, DC: U.S. DOI, U.S. FWS, 1990); V. Van Sickle-Burkett et al., National Wetlands

Research Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, tables describing coastal wetland vulnerabilities to climate change, prepared for U.S.

Office of Technology Assessment, May 1992.
Chapter 4–Wetlands 175

Box 4-G-How Could Climate Change Affect Wetlands?

Temperature---Increased air temperatures may speed evaporation of surface water from wetlands (and from

runoff and water bodies that supply wetlands) and could increase the rate at which wetland plants lose water

through evaporation and transpiration if the warmer temperatures are not accompanied by increased rainfall.

Drying is most likely to occur at the edges of wetlands and could reduce the size or extent of inland wetlands.

Warmer temperatures will increase the rates at which plants decompose, affecting the amount of organic material

buried on the marsh floor. Warming could also increase the frequency and severity of drought and fires in seasonal

wetlands, which could Iead to major changes in and loss of vegetation and habitat. Warming in tundra areas could

thaw the upper layer of the permafrost, making it more susceptible to drying, and could lead to significant

reductions in the areas of both arctic and alpine tundra (120). Changes in the diurnal and seasonal distribution

of temperature (such as warmer nights during winter and earlier spring thaws) will affect whether and, if so, how

wetlands benefit from warmer temperatures. For example, mangroves may expand northward, replacing

brackish marshes on the northern coast of Florida and throughout the Gulf of Mexico wherever frosts and freezes

become less frequent. Warmer temperatures in large bodies of water could boost productivity in the associated

wetlands but would affect the mix of species that could thrive,

Precipitation and soil moisture--Hydrology is an Important factor in determining levels of productivity,

decomposition, and nutrient cycling in wetlands. Whether precipitation increases or decreases, ail of these

functions will be affected. Shifts in hydrological effects may develop in a stepwise manner, with new climate

patterns first affecting current vegetation (through shifts in soil moisture), then plant cover, and finally the

permeability of soils. Alterations of plant cover and soil permeability may then act in a feedback loop to further

modify the hydrological cycle.

Increases in precipitation may cause shifts in vegetation but are not likely to cause as much disturbance to

wetlands as are drier conditions. In fact, increased precipitation along the Atlantic coastal plain, which is predicted

by some models (64), could benefit Atlantic coast wetlands by transporting increased sediment from upstream to

coastal areas, and by maintaining high freshwater flows to help offset saltwater intrusion-both of which may help

lessen the potential destruction of coastal wetlands by sea level rise.

Reduced precipitation is more likely to be harmful than is increased precipitation, especially in semiarid or

water-limited regions, leading to reduced riparian areas and desertification on semiarid flatlands. A drier

continental interior, predicted by many climate models (49, 64; see also ch. 2), will mean less water and sediments

moving down the Mississippi River and even greater problems for the coastal swamps and marshes of the

Mississippi River Delta. It will also likely exacerbate problems associated with saltwater intrusion up the Columbia

River and rivers associated with estuaries such as Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay, and the Tijuana River.

Throughout estuarine and coastal systems, lower precipitation will exacerbate ail the impacts and problems

associated with sea Ievel rise.

Increased carbon dioxide (CO2)--Concentrations of atmospheric C02 are expected to reach twice the

pre-industrial concentration (around 275 ppm) by the middle of the next century (49). The effects of this change

on the productivity and composition of natural plant communities, including those in wetlands, are difficult to

predict. The fertilizing effect of elevated CO2 concentrations has been shown to boost productivity in Chesapeake

Bay salt marshes (5, 26,27, 130), but the effect does not appear to occur for sustained periods in arctic tundra

(44, 72), and other types of wetlands have yet to be tested for the effect. Some of the best long-term,

open-environment experiments on the effects of increased C02 have been done on tidal wetlands. These studies

do not provide definitive answers but suggest that elevated C02 concentrations tend to favor C3 species over

plants using the C4 pathway for photosynthesis (see ch. 2 for a discussion of C3 and C4 plants). Most coastal

wetland grasses are C4 plants, whereas most sedges, rushes, forbs, and the weedy grass Phragmites australis

are C3 plants, as are all mangrove species. With rising CO2, therefore, the C3 species, which now tend to be

(Continued on next page)
176 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Box H-How Could Climate Change Affect Wetlands?--(Continued)

relatively less abundant, especially in more saline areas, may tend to become more important members of the plant

community of the salt marsh--but the magnitude of this change and its effects on salt marsh functions are

impossible to predict.

Accelerating sea level rise--Sea level has been rising at a gradual rate of 4 inches (10 centimeters)1 per

century for the past 3,000 years. At this rate, intertidal low marshes were able to accrete sedimentsts and produce

peat at a rate that allowed the vertical marsh growth to keep up with or exceed the sea level rise. Behind the

intertidal zone, marsh surface elevations rose above mean high tide, creating anew "high-marsh" niche flooded

only by spring tides, where marsh vegetation could grow. As sea level rises, high-marsh vegetation moves

landward, over the gradually submerging uplands. For a particular marsh to survive in the face of rising sea level

requires-at a minimum--room for Iandward expansion as well as sufficient sediments to support a rate of surface

accretion that on average, tracks the sea level rise. The extent of sea level rise expected to occur with thermal

expansion of the oceans due to global warming--5 to 11 inches by 2050---may exceed the ability of tidal wetlands

to accrete sediments and produce roots fast enough to keep up with the rising sea level. Vegetation may change

and productivity may decrease; in some areas, wetlands maybe converted to open water.

In addition to the possibility that a rising sea may inundate coastal wetlands, it may also increase the distance

that salt water intrudes into estuaries, rivers, and even coastal aquifers. Saltwater intrusion may be magnified if

precipitation within a watershed decreases at the same time that sea level increases, or if upstream water

withdrawals for human use reduce water flows. Saltwater intrusion could affect brackish and fresh tidal wetlands

and freshwater coastal swamps, either converting thereto salt marsh or damaging vegetation enough that those

areas are converted to open water.

1 TO convert inches to centimeters, multiply by 2.540.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

along the lowest-lying coasts may begin to likely to benefit. Wetland expansion might be

change (i.e., become larger or disappear) as they

are inundated.

While some wetlands may lose species and

area because of either increased drying or inundation associated with climate change, others could

prosper or expand. For example, the fertilizing

effect of elevated CO2 concentrations (described

in ch. 2) boosts productivity in Chesapeake Bay

salt marshes (5, 26, 27, 130). However, the

fertilization effect does not appear to extend to

tundra (44, 72). The extent of the fertilization

effect in other wetland types has yet to be tested.

In many cases, land use in adjacent areas will be

a determiningg factor in whether any benefits can

be realized. Wetlands buffered by undeveloped

natural areas may have room to move and grow,

whereas wetlands in areas where land is fragmented among many competing uses will be less

accompanied by changes in vegetation, which

could alter the products of, and the functions

currently performed by, a given wetland.

Even where climate change benefits wetlands,

however, expansion of wetlands in one region

will not necessarily compensate for reductions in

distant or dissimilar wetlands because the functions and values differ so widely. For example, in

part of the Southeast, rainfall is predicted to

increase enough to compensate for higher evaporation rates as the temperature warms, so parts of

the region may become wetter. Riparian areas and

bottomland hardwood wetlands could expand

under these conditions. At the same time, vast

areas of arctic tundra may be at risk as warming

in the upper latitudes allows the permafrost

underlying the wetlands to melt and drain (described in more detail below). Gains in southeast-
Chapter 4–Wetlands I 177

Table 4-l—Wetland Vulnerabilities to Climate Change

Key climate factor,

Wetland type Vulnerability functions at risk

Coastal salt marshes

Mangrove swamps

Tidal freshwater

marshes

Inland freshwater

marshes (including

prairie potholes)

Inland saline marshes

Bogs

Tundra

Shrub swamps

Wooded swamps

Bottom lands and

other riparian habitat

High

Medium

High

High

Medium to high

Low to medium

High

Low to medium

Low to medium

High (in the

Southwest)

Sea level rise and coastal erosion from storm surges

could inundate these areas faster than they can

migrate

At risk fish, shellfish, flood and erosion control,

habitat

Increased winter temperatures could favor growth, but

sea-level rise, storm surges, and saltwater intrusion

could cause net reduction

At risk fish, shellfish, habitat, flood and erosion

control

Decreased precipitation (lower water flow in rivers

entering estuaries) combined with sea level rise could

diminish or convert to salt marshes or open water

At risk fish, shellfish, flood and erosion control,

habitat

Increased temperatures, decreased precipitation

could dry out shallower marshes such as prairie

potholes

At risk key migratory bird breeding grounds

Increased temperatures, decreased precipitation

could dry out shallower fringes

At risk: waterfowl and wildlife habitat.

In the Southeast, a wetter climate could aid bogs In

the Northeast and Midwest, decreased precipitation

could further degrade contaminated bogs

At risk: cranberries, blueberries, water quality

Warmer temperatures in alpine and arctic zones

could melt and dry permafrost

At risk key source of carbon storage, wildlife habitat

Higher precipitation in the Southeast could allow for

expansion, lower precipitation in the Midwest would

diminish the fringe areas,

At risk flood and erosion control, water quahty,

habitat

Higher precipitation in the Southeast could allow for

expansion; lower precipitation in the Midwest would

diminish the fringe areas

At risk: flood and erosion control, water qua/@,

habitat.

Increased temperatures, lowered precipitation and

runoff would reduce riparian habitat in the arid

Southwest.

At risk fish and wildlife habitat, flood and erosion

control, water quality, grazing

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993 (adapted from Office of Technology Assessment

Wetlands Advisory Panel Workshop, May 1992)
178 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Box4-H--Will Climate Change Increase Conflicts Over Riparian WetIands in the Arid West?

Like cases in the desert, riparian wetlands in the arid West offer lush vegetation and cool shade, presenting

a respite from the hot sun and dry climate that attracts humans as well as wildlife. Riparian areas occupy just

1 percent of the arid lands in the West, but provide food and habitat for three-quarters of the wildlife species in

those areas, including half of ail bird and vertebrate spades in the region (40, 103, 104). Rafting, fishing, and

canoeing on western rivers and streams make an enormous contribution to local economies in the West. The

river-outfitting industry in Colorado alone generates $70 million annually (77). Riverside and streambed wetlands

are valued by ranchers as a haven for cattle, which seek out the cool shade of cottonwood and willow and the

high-quality forage. After heavy rains, riparian vegetation filters sediment from runoff water, helping to build and

maintain stream banks, protecting against erosion, and offering a buffer against floods. Riparian wetlands even

play an important role in how a watershed functions: the vegetation shields water and soil from the sun, slowing

evaporation (19).

Yet despite their many functions, riparian wetlands are under constant threat, even In the existing climate.

As wet areas in a landscape where water is scarce, they are often overused. The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) estimates that overgrazing has been the most geographically extensive cause of riparian wetland

degradation and loss (15). Overgrazing, either by too many animals or for too long a period of time, prevents new

plants from taking root and holding down the soil. As a result, stream banks erode, channels become shallow and

laden with sediments, water quality and quantity decrease, and, eventually, the stream may flow only intermittently

or not at all. Riparian wetlands may also be destroyed by the destructive Iand-clearing practices associated with

mining and logging. Removing vegetation often leads to erosion that washes sediment into rivers and streams,

filling wetlands and allowing them to dry up.

Even more threatening to riparian areas has been the diversion of water from rivers and streams for

competing uses, either by direct pumping or by projects designed to channel the water. Water rights are hotly

contested in many parts of the West, with water from many rivers already allocated in greater amounts than

normally flow, and the need for water to remain instream (i.e., in the river rather than pumped out or directed) for

fish, wildlife, and wetlands is not always recognized. Farmers channel or pump from streams to fields for

agricultural use, while cities siphon off water for drinking and other purposes. These water diversions leave less

water for riparian areas downstream, and because riparian vegetation depends more on flowing water than on

precipitation, Iess water in the stream bed translates to Iess or even totally lost vegetation (28, 38). All told, more

than 80 percent of riparian wetlands have been destroyed by human activity, with an associated loss of habitat

and decline of wildlife populations (40, 51, 117).

Climate change could impose greater water stress on already-degraded wetlands, both from lower

precipitation and from ever-increasing competition with human activities. Climate models predict that conditions

will be hotter and drier in the already-arid West (49). A warmer climate may bring rain rather than snow in the winter,

allowing precipitation to run off immediately rather than to remain in snowpacks that melt in spring as the growing

season begins. The earlier runoff could mean that drier conditions would start earlier in the year, making summer

and fall water shortage and quality problems worse in many parts of the West (84). As water becomes more scarce,

the competition and potential conflicts over water use could increase. Drought-stricken farmers and expanding

cities alike may demand more water development projects to makeup for lower precipitation, and ranchers may

be more inclined to encourage grazing in riparian areas (or demand grazing rights on publicly owned properties)

as surrounding rangelands decline. Riparian wetlands, along with the fish and wildlife that inhabit them, may well

lose out among the competing demands and decreasing water flows.

Although most riparian wetlands are protected from the physical disturbances of dredge and fill activities

(Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (P.L. 92-500)), they receive little legal protection against the upstream water

diversions that might ultimately cause their destruction. Some fish and wildlife agencies and other conservation
Chapter 4–Wetlands 179

groups have recently begun to purchase water rights for instream flows to protect riparian wetlands and wildlife,

including fish. In the West, however, water is allocated according to the prior appropriation doctrine, which gives

priority to those who first diverted water from a river and put it to use--"first in time, first in right.” (See vol. 1, ch.

5.) In most cases, the water rights purchased for natural areas are “junior” to those owned by farmers and cities,

so in a water crisis, water for natural areas would be among the first to be lost. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

(P.L. 90-542) protects instream flows for certain designated rivers, but water rights for National Parks and

wilderness areas have yet to be claimed by the Federal Government. Even these protections, which are already

controversial, may become more so as water becomes more since.

SOURCES: E. Chancy, W. Elmore, and W.S, Platts, L/vestal Grazing on Western Riparian Areas, report prepared for the U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency (Eagle, ID: Northwest Resources Information Center, Inc., 1990); U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau

of land Management, Riparian-Wetland Initiative for the 1900's, BLM/WO/Gl-91/001-4340 (Washington, DC: Bureau of Land

Management, September 1991); U.S. General Accounting Office, Range/and Management: Forest Service Not Performing Needed

Monitoring of Grazing Allotments, GAO/RCED-91-148 (Washington, DC: General Accounting Office, May 1991).

ern wetlands could not compensate for the loss of

habitat and carbon storage provided by arctic

tundra wetlands. Likewise, expansion of inland

wetlands within a coastal watershed as sea level

rises may be important to the estuary, but those

wetlands would not perform the same nursery

functions for fish and shellfish as do the wetlands

right at the coast. Regardless of the benefits, then,

climate change may still pose a threat to many

functions and products of wetlands.

Although climate change may affect wetlands

directly, many scientists and policy makers consider the activities currently degrading and destroying wetlands-agriculture, development, pollution, and changing water and sediment flows—

to be the biggest threats to wetlands and their

economically important functions in the future.

Climate change would add to the stresses posed

by these activities: a decrease in runoff in the

Northeast could worsen water quality; competition with urban and industrial water uses would

probably reduce the water available for wetlands;

and increased pressure for water diversions might

further alter water and sediment flows to wetlands

(84). Thus, in many areas, the direct effects of

climate change may not overtake existing sources

of degradation and loss as the dominant threat to

wetlands in the near term, but will likely exacerbate current trends of loss and degradation.

Because the United States has already lost

more than half of the wetlands it contained 200

years ago (over 100 million acres), the potential

for climate change to spur further losses and

degradation could pose a significant threat to

valued functions of wetlands (103). If losses

continue at current rates, FWS estimates, the

Nation may lose another 4 percent (approximately 4 million acres) of remaining wetlands in

the conterminous States by the year 2000--and

this estimate does not account for any additional

losses in area or function due to climate change

(108). Losses of inland wetlands will likely

continue to make up the bulk of total losses of

wetlands because that is where most U.S. wetlands lie, but coastal wetlands may suffer larger

proportional losses in a changing climate because

of the threat posed by a rising sea level.

B Can Wetland Species

Adapt to Climate Change?

No single factor determines whether the various plant and animal species that make up a

wetland can adapt to climate change or whether a

particular wetland system will lose some or all of

its functions and products. In any given site,

wetland species may respond in three interrelated

ways as the environment changes around them:

they may change, migrate, or decline. Which

response prevails will depend on where a wetland
180 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

lies in the landscape, its size, its hydrology, the

health of its vegetation, and other physical,

biological, and anthropogenic factors that have

shaped it over time, combined with the rates at

which regional patterns of temperature, precipitation, and evaporation change.

Change

Depending on the rate and magnitude of

climate change, wetlands and the species that

inhabit them may adapt to new climate conditions. New plants may become dominant, and

different animal species may be associated with

them (66). In a given wetland, a moderate change

in precipitation may induce a gradual change in

plant species composition but cause little harm to

wildlife habitat, recreational use, or floodplain

protection. A greater change might convert a

year-round wetland into a, seasonal one, affecting

vegetation and impairing wildlife habitat and

recreational value, but perhaps allowing continued floodplain protection.

Migration

Wetland vegetative species may migrate to

surrounding, similar areas if such areas exist and

if migration pathways are not blocked by topographical or anthropogenic barriers. For example,

coastal and estuarine wetland vegetation will

begin to take root further inland as the sea level

rises. Whether the vegetation becomes established successfully will depend on the rate at

which water levels rise, the steepness of the coast,

and the presence of barriers, such as rocky areas

and human-built structures. Wetlands fringing the

playa lakes of the Southwest may retreat or

become degraded along the water line if increased

evaporation in a hotter and drier climate causes

water levels to drop, and farmers may then till up

to or through the fringe. In many areas, adjacent

human activity severely limits the ability of

wetlands to move or flourish.

The likelihood of successful migration will

differ for coastal and inland wetlands. In coastal

areas, vegetation attempting to take root upslope

of the rising sea may face competition from plants

already in place that have well-established root

systems and that may not give way easily. In

inland areas where drying and drought occur,

plants attempting to move downslope to follow

declining water levels in rivers or depressions will

not likely face the same kind of competition; the

submerged plants that might have competed will

likely die when the water recedes. In both coastal

and inland areas where channels have been dug,

however, migration will be difficult or impossible

because the sharp slope at the channel’s edge may

present an insurmountable barrier.

Even where room to grow is available, there are

limits to migration. As noted in chapter 2, it is

unlikely that entire assemblages of plants and

animals can simply pick up and move together in

lockstep. Some species will migrate quickly,

others slowly, others not at all. Patterns of

competition and predation may be significantly

altered, affecting which species will survive

migration. Long-term studies of degraded or

damaged wetlands suggest that change may take

place slowly, one species at a time, and that not all

species recover.8 Random events, such as weather

and chance dispersal of seeds, affect the probabilities of migration and survival, Any migration

may be accompanied by a loss of biodiversity

along with the loss of some of the wetland’s

functions and products.

Decllne

Wetlands in some sites may disappear entirely

or become so severely degraded that they lose the

functions and products by which they are now

characterized. If climate change is rapid or

severe, some wetland species may not be able to

adapt. Coastal wetlands not degraded by human

activities have kept pace with a sea level rise of

s B. Bedford, Direetor, Association of Ecosystem Research Centers, and Professor of Ecology, Cornell University, personal ecxnmunieatio~

Nov. 4.1991.
Chapter 4-Wetlands I 181

approximately 0.04 inch (1 millimeter) per year

(the rate at which many marshes are able to

accumulate material) for the past 3,000 years, but

at significantly faster rates, they would drown

(114). Likewise, alpine and arctic tundra wetlands

may shrink and, in some sites, disappear if the

amount and speed of climate change are too great.

The ability of many wetlands to survive has been

diminished by land-use patterns that have fragmented or degraded them so much that they have

little capacity to migrate or evolve.

E Which Wetlands Are Vulnerable to

Climate Change?

Some wetlands may continue to perform their

most valued functions even if they are degraded

by climate change. For example, changes in

habitat quality in an urban wetland might not be

considered a particularly large impact. On the

other hand, maintenance of the flood-control

function may be considered vital. Thus, as long as

some vegetated areas remain to slow incoming

flood waters, the valued functions of this wetland

might not be considered vulnerable to climate

change. If coastal wetlands decline, however,

many of their important functions, including

providing habitat for fish and buffering the

shoreline, may suffer. Although both functions

could to some extent be replaced by artificial

constructs (e.g., fish hatcheries and ponds could

be created to produce fish commercially), such

measures would incur large and continuing costs

and would involve other tradeoffs. These measures could not replace such functions as nurturing

biodiversity and providing recreational opportunities. Thus, coastal wetlands might be considered vulnerable because they cannot easily adapt

to sea level rise and because many of the

functions and products that they provide are

threatened.

Overall, four types of wetlands are likely to

face difficulties in adapting to climate change and

can thus be considered highly vulnerable:

1) coastal wetlands, 2) depressional wetlands in

Prairie potholes such as these in the Lostwood

National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota, are scattered

throughout the Midwest (North Dakota, South Dakota,

Montana, Iowa, and Minnesota). They have been

subjected to increased drainage due to agricultural

demands, yet they serve as prime habitat for nesting

waterfowl, and support countless other species as well.

arid or semiarid areas (i.e., prairie potholes in the

North Central States and vernal pools in California), 3) riparian wetlands in the arid West and

Southwest, and 4) tundra wetlands (see table 4-l).

Coastal and estuarine wetlands maybe drowned

by a rising sea or altered by the changing salinity

levels. Depressional wetlands are susceptible to

the lowered water tables that will likely result

from the higher temperatures, increased evaporation, and decreased summertime precipitation

predicted for these already arid or semiarid areas.

Riparian wetlands in the arid West, which rely on

water flowing through rivers and streams, could

also be threatened by drier conditions and increased competition for water. Tundra may shrink

as increased temperatures allow the permafrost to

thaw and drain. In addition, wetlands of any type

that are already degraded by pollution, water

diversions, or fragmentation may be particularly

vulnerable (119, 123). These vulnerabilities are

described in more detail below.

Coastal Wetlands

Accelerated sea level rise combined with

tropical storms (even if storm frequency does not
182 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

increase) will exacerbate “the current losses of

coastal wetlands. Wetlands along the low-lying

coasts of the Southeast, from North Carolina in

the Atlantic to Texas in the Gulf of Mexico, are

already subsiding due to compaction (i.e., compression of estuarine or deltaic sediments by new

layers of sedimentary deposits). These areas may

be either flooded or washed away as prevailing

water levels rise (see ch. 2). Lands in the

Mississippi River Delta are expected to suffer the

highest rates of coastal erosion and loss of

wetlands (see vol. 1, ch. 4). Indeed, erosion of

coastal wetlands is already proceeding rapidly in

Louisiana, and increasing rates of loss are expected with accelerated sea level rise (see box

4-F). Approximately half of the 5.5 million acres

of coastal wetlands that remain in the United

States are found along the Gulf of Mexico (16),

making the potential for loss great.

Accelerated sea level rise will also be accompanied by saltwater intrusion-that is, salt water

moving inland into estuaries and rivers-which

may further alter or destroy coastal wetlands that

depend on fresh water or a balance of fresh and

salt water (see vol. 1, chs. 4 and 5, for further

discussion). This effect may be especially damaging to tidal freshwater wetlands that lie near the

upper reaches of tides in many coastal rivers. The

higher and rockier coasts bordering the North

Atlantic and Pacific Oceans are less likely to

experience losses of wetlands, in part because

these rocky coasts harbor fewer to begin with.

However, some important estuarine systems in

these areas, including Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay, and Tijuana Estuary, may be highly

vulnerable because of local subsidence, erosion,

and water diversions that have dramatically

altered water and sediment flows. Each of these

areas has already lost many wetlands to water

diversion and competing land uses. Further losses

might irreparably harm the already-diminished

functions and products (83, 126).9

The key to whether coastal wetlands will be

able to adapt to climate change is migration--the

ability to move inland to keep pace with the rising

sea (114) (see vol. 1, ch. 4). Although topography,

geology, and the coast-shaping processes that

accompany storms are important limiting factors

to migration, human responses to sea level rise

will perhaps be even more important. Societal

measures taken to protect the coasts will help

determine the pattern and rate of loss; such

measures could range from no additional protection (which is unlikely in developed areas) to

efforts to protect not only major coastal developments but more rural areas as well. Wetlands

along highly developed coasts, including much of

the Atlantic coast from Maryland to Massachusetts, may become quite vulnerable to climate

change because control structures such as sea

walls and bulkheads already form barriers to

migration. As the sea level rises, the public may

desire to take even more aggressive measures,

such as constructing dikes, to protect human life

and property values in densely settled areas. Even

along undeveloped coasts, the land just above sea

level into which wetlands could migrate is

generally smaller than the area of wetlands at risk

from climate change (91). Thus, coastal wetlands

may simply be squeezed out between the rising

sea and the flood-control structures that are

already in place or that may be constructed to

protect coastal properties.

Several functions and products are at risk if

coastal wetlands are diminished and altered by

climate change. In ecological terms, Atlantic tidal

marshes are remarkably homogeneous in species

composition from Florida to Maine, so it may

appear that some losses will not pose a significant

threat to overall fictions and products. However, regional populations of many species have

developed adaptive characteristics that may not

be common in the species as a whole, so declines

in any region still reduce the genetic diversity

9 D. J. Canning, Shorelan& and Coastal Zone Management Pro- Washington State Department Of kology, pod Comrnunicatioq

Nov. 11, 1992.
Chapter 4–Wetlands I 183

within individual species. Furthermore, some fish

populations spawn and feed in specific estuaries;

significant losses in one estuary could have large

ripple effects on the fishery as a whole.

Coastal wetlands play a vital part in supporting

the commercial fish and shellfish industries.

Nationwide, estuarine wetlands provide essential

food and habitat for three-quarters of the commercial catch of fish and shellfish, valued at $5.5

billion per year dockside, not counting the value

added from processing (see box 4-D). The shrimp

harvest in Louisiana alone is worth some $100

million. Degradation and destruction of coastal

wetlands due to sea level rise may initially boost

the production of fish and shellfish. However, the

near-term productivity boost may be followed by

a longer-term decline if new vegetation cannot

take root and survive. The potential impacts on

the fish and shellfish industries and the people

who rely on them for jobs and livelihood could be

substantial (see box 4-F) (64, 113, 129). In the

Chesapeake Bay, landings of migratory fish

species, including shad, herring, and bass, declined 66 to 96 percent from the mid- 1960s

through the mid- 1980s. Oyster harvests declined

96 percent in the past century, and the bay has lost

half its wetlands, including 90 percent of all its

seagrass meadows, which form prime nursery

habitat. Although many other factors, including

pollution and overfishing, have contributed to this

decline, the loss of habitat in wetlands is considered to be a primary cause (14, 16).

Loss of coastal wetlands will also reduce their

capacity to control floods, reduce shoreline erosion, and filter pollution from runoff water as it

passes from land to sea. The costs of these losses

in function are hard to quanttify and are intricately

related to other coastal issues (see vol. 1, ch. 4).

Depressional Wetlands

Shallow depressional wetlands in arid and

semiarid parts of the West (including the prairie

potholes of the Great Plains; the playas, flats, and

Southern bottomland hardwood wetlands-this one in

the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain--are one of the

Nation’s most important and most at-risk resources.

They are home to millions of migratory birds and

countless other species of wildlife, and they play vital

roles in controlling floods and in maintaining water

quality.

rainwater-basin wetlands of Utah, Nevada, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas; and the

vernal pools of California) are particularly vulnerable to hotter, drier conditions. Most depressional wetlands are oases of habitat for birds and

wildlife in the midst of an otherwise dry landscape. Some form important feeding grounds for

waterfowl that migrate from Canada to the Gulf of

Mexico, whereas others provide year-round habitat for numerous wildlife species. California’s

vernal pools are particularly valuable as habitat

for several endangered species (128). The prairiepothole region is valued for the recreational

opportunities it provides to hunters and birdwatchers (see box l-F).

Higher temperatures and increasing frequency

or severity of drought will speed evaporation and

lower water levels in these wetlands or reduce the

time during which they remain wet. These alterations in the water regime could cause extensive

changes in vegetation, and reduce the quantity

and quality of food and habitat for migratory

waterfowl (6).10 Larger wetlands are likely to

10 K, A. pioti, Ikosystms Resmh Center, Cornell University, personal COIXIfIWiCatiOn, NovakIW.
184 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

better withstand the effects of drying and maintain the range of diverse habitat conditions that

will continue to support a wide range of species.

Smaller ones will change the most under warmer

and drier conditions; as they become shallower,

they will become choked with cattails and other

cover plants that will leave less open water for

waterfowl breeding. In addition, some smaller

wetlands may convert from year-round to seasonal wetlands, which would significantly change

their use as habitat. Spring precipitation maybe

one of the most important factors in determining

the degree to which smaller and semipermanent

depressional wetlands are affected by drier

conditions. 11

Protection of prairie potholes was the impetus

for the passage of the Migratory Bird Hunting and

Conservation Stamp Act in 1937 (P.L. 94-215),

which levied fees on hunters to support the

purchase of some pothole areas; these purchases

signaled the start of a national system of wildlife

refuges (see ch. 5). Numerous laws and land

acquisitions since then have sought to protect the

wildlife and recreational values of the prairiepothole region. However, competition for land

and water resources may further increase under

climate change, particularly if climate change

leads to expansion of agriculture in the region (see

vol. 1, ch. 6).

The ability of western depressional wetlands to

sustain waterfowl and other species that rely on

them during climate change will depend in large

part on the Nation’s success in protecting them

against other threats and restoring areas that have

already been damaged. The key to maintaining

depressional wetlands throughout the arid West

will be to conserve water to help maintain water

tables at their present levels, to find supplemental

supplies where possible, and to restore degraded

or drained wetlands where possible. Other possible conservation strategies include maintaining

existing wetlands, increasing protection of deeper

areas that may provide better habitat and are more

likely to persist in dry years, and coordinating protection of wetlands within regions so that if some

are lost others in the general vicinity may remain.

Western Riparlan Wetlands

Riparian areas in the arid West are also highly

vulnerable to the hotter and drier conditions

predicted for much of the interior West. Predicted

increases in temperatures and evaporation rates in

this region, combined with reduced rainfall during the growing season, could greatly reduce the

runoff entering streams and rivers. Some small or

seasonal streams and their associated wetlands

could disappear altogether.

Riparian wetlands in the West are highly

valued for the habitat they provide to waterfowl,

fish, and wildlife. Those habitats now comprise

less than 1 percent of the western landscape, yet

they support a vast recreational industry including hunting, fishing, and boating. Riparian wetlands are often the only forested areas in western

flatlands, and they are critical for breeding,

hunting, and cover for many mammal and bird

species that inhabit these areas. They offer lush

grazing grounds for deer and other wildlife and

range-fed cattle. USDA estimates that over 80

percent of riparian habitat has been lost due to

grazing and diverting water for irrigation and

municipal uses (98). Climate change and increasing competition for scarce water resources could

accelerate the loss of riparian habitat and could

lead to diminished wildlife and fish populations,

degraded rangeland, and reduced recreational

values. 12 The potential for conflicts among different uses of riparian land and water is discussed in

more detail in box 4-H.

Like coastal wetlands, riparian wetlands have

some capacity to adapt to a changing climate by

migrating along river edges up- and downstream

11 ~id.

12 C. Sege@@ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Research Center, Ripatian ~d Wetland ~ology ~oJ~4 peno~

communicator July 15, 1992.
as well as up- and down-slope to follow the water.

However, in those areas subject to hotter and

drier conditions, rivers are likely to shrink, so

migration will likely involve retreat rather than

expansion.

Tundra

Alpine and arctic tundra peat lands with

water-saturated soils are highly vulnerable to

climate change. Warmer temperatures will allow

the permafrost layer, on which tundra relies for

sustaining moisture, to thaw and drain.13 As the

upper layers of permafrost dry, the tundra vegetation and soils will start to decompose, releasing

stored carbon into the air and potentially adding

to the feedbacks that spur global warming (see ch.

2). Permafrost melting and decomposition of

tundra soils may also cause the surface to subside,

which could affect the stability of roads and

pipelines built on tundra. Where arctic tundra is

situated near the coast, these processes may also

lead to increased loss of coastal land as frozen

peat melts and slumps into the sea.

Because tundra serves important and diverse

functions, its economic value is difficult to judge

(see box 4-D). Along with the other northern

soils, the tundra sequesters approximately onefifth of the world’s total soil carbon (44, 72, 80).

Arctic tundra provides critical habitat and breeding grounds for migratory waterfowl, including

certain geese, swans, and ducks, some of which

migrate to the Arctic from as far away as the

Southern Hemisphere. Organic matter from tundra peat is an important food source for freshand saltwater fisheries. In Alaska, arctic tundra

provides habitat for the caribou, wolves, foxes,

and waterfowl that contribute to the subsistence

of the indigenous human population (see ch. 1,

box l-G).

Chapter 4–Wetlands I 185

Alpine and arctic tundra both have limited

capacity to adapt to climate change. As temperatures warm, alpine tundra is likely to shrink as

lower-altitude and lower-latitude edges dry. Species now found in alpine and arctic tundra are

unlikely to adapt easily in dry areas where the

permafrost has been the primary means of maintaining moisture. As soon is it becomes warmer,

it will become drier, and the tundra vegetation

will decline. Although large areas of relatively

pristine arctic wetlands remain protected by their

isolation from many of the activities that have

harmed wetlands in the rest of the Nation, this

does not make them less vulnerable to the risks

and impacts of climate change. Few policies other

than successful efforts to slow greenhouse warming are likely to stem the loss.

POLICY CONTEXT

9 The Challenge for Policy

Since 1989, the Federal Government has embraced the policy goal of no net loss of wetlands,

but steps to achieve it have not been fully

implemented. The impetus for a no-net-loss

policy arose from the widespread perception that

historical losses of wetlands due to human

activities have reduced the ability of remaining

wetlands to provide the numerous functions and

products for which they are valued, and that further losses would threaten the integrity of wetlands

and the larger ecological systems in which they

are found. A policy aimed at achieving net gains,

promoted initially in 1987 by the National Wetlands Policy Forum (NWPF), received further

endorsement in 1992 from the National Research

Council (NRC), the policy-research branch of the

National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which

13 h ~~sy5tem, Petirost ac~ as an impermeable layer between water on the soil surface (the active zone, where vegetation grows

during brief Summer thaws) and the soil layers below. When the permafrost melts, the barrier is broke% and water from the surface can then

seep into the lower layers, causing the active zone to drain and dry. Drying will likely be most severe in “cold desert’ areas of tundr% where

precipitation is scarce but moisture has accumulated in the active zone over thousands of years because it was prevented from draining. Not

all tundra has accumulated enough moisture to support wetlands, but in areas that do have pmt wetlands, those with a relatively thin permafrost

layer may be most vulnerable [o climate change.
186 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume

recommended that 10 million acres of wetlands

be restored by 2010 (68).

The no-net-loss policy does not prohibit some

loss of wetlands to development or other uses if

that loss cannot be avoided. What it does seek to

ensure is that the overall quantity and quality of

wetlands will remain stable. Efforts to restore and

create wetlands must be undertaken on some sites

to compensate for degradation and losses elsewhere (88).

Climate change may make it more difficult to

halt the loss of wetlands and safeguard the

multitude of functions and products they provide.

This is particularly true in areas where wetlands

are surrounded by development, limiting the

areas into which wetland plants and animals can

migrate. Changes in climate could cause far-

-reaching alterations in the complex ecological

and hydrological systems that make up wetlands.

For example, in the North Central States, increased temperatures and evaporation rates could

cause many prairie-pothole wetlands to shrink or

disappear, leading to further declines in alreadydiminished continental waterfowl populations

(6). In the arid West, drier conditions combined

with increased competition for water for human

consumption and agricultural use could diminish

the riparian and depressional wetlands (those

along rivers and in low-lying areas) that now

serve as habitat for diverse flora and fauna (84).

Increased evaporation could also diminish water

flow through streams and rivers in the Northeast

and reduce water levels in the Great Lakes,

leading to diminished water quality and eutrophication that could degrade wetlands. Rainfall may

increase enough in the Southeast to offset the

increased evaporation rates that accompany increased temperatures, potentially expanding the

sites where wetland vegetation could grow, but

gains may be limited by existing land uses and

development. In coastal areas, a 20-inch (0.5-

meter)

14 rise in sea level could inundate 35

percent of coastal wetlands nationwide by 2100

2

(84, 73, 74, 91). These and other changes may

pose an enormous challenge for Federal efforts

aimed at preventing further loss of wetlands.

Yet the same changes in climate will make

maintenance of wetlands all the more important.

Along coasts where climate change will likely

lead to accelerated sea level rise, healthy wetlands

can help control coastal erosion and flooding (see

vol. 1, ch. 4). In urban areas, large amounts of

water-impermeable paved and built surfaces have

lead to an increase in runoff during storms, which

could become more frequent in some areas as

climate changes. Wetlands may help absorb and

slow this runoff and prevent flooding. Wetlands

filter water and improve water quality, which may

become increasingly important in areas where

climate change leads to drier conditions and thus

to higher concentrations of pollutants in runoff

and surface water (see vol. 1, ch. 5). Habitat

provided by wetlands harbors diverse species of

fish, waterfowl, invertebrates, and other wildlife;

climate change may pose further threats to some

species by eliminating habitat in some areas,

making the remaining wetlands even more vital to

efforts to protect endangered species (see ch. 5).

1 Wetland Management

Whatever is done to address the problems

associated with wetland protection, restoration,

and migration, those efforts will be more effective

if the Nation addresses the problems caused by

fragmentation-both of the landscape (see ch. 5)

and of Federal agencies that oversee wetlands.

Management decisions affecting wetlands are

made by many different agencies, authorized by

piecemeal legislation, often with conflicting goals

or criteria for decisionmaking. All of the many

scientists and managers consulted by the Office of

Technology Assessment (OTA) emphasized the

need for more integrated, coordinated management, planning, and decisionmaking for wet14 ~ conv~ iDCkS to meters, multiply by 0.02S.
Chapter 4–Wetlands I 187

lands. Three aspects of coordination demand

attention now:

clarifying the goals for which wetlands are

managed and amending or eliminating Federal programs that conflict with those goals;

developing and applying a method for identifying which wetlands should receive the

highest priority for preservation and restoration within particular watersheds; and

using approaches that would coordinate management across resources and across watersheds or ecosystems (see ch. 1).

Integrated management should include intensive and broad-based monitoring to assess the

rates at which features of wetlands are being

affected by climate change, to evaluate the

effectiveness of efforts to protect and restore

wetlands, and to gauge the impacts of the

degradation and loss of wetlands on the functions

and products they provide. Monitoring is essential for identifying where limited funds should be

directed.

Wetlands cannot be managed effectively in

isolation. Many of the functions and products that

make wetlands important-wildlife and fisheries

habitat, flood control, biodiversity, and so on—

depend on the integrity of a broad system of

wetlands and water resources. Further, as described above, wetlands within watersheds are

often linked by surface- or groundwater flows, so

disturbance to one may affect others. For example, water diversions upstream of a wetland can

degrade or destroy the wetland’s vegetation and

habitat quality by altering water and sediment

flows, and overuse of groundwater for municipal

or agricultural purposes may disturb wetlands

throughout a given aquifer.

By considering wetlands along with the range

of pressures on other resources, planners and

managers can make better decisions about the

most ‘‘valuable’ areas to be protected and

restored in a given region. With the threat of

climate change and the possibility that the characteristics of wetlands may change, a coordinated

strategy for maintaining the functions and products of wetlands becomes all the more important.

The options presented in this chapter are based

on maintaining the national commitment to protect the existing net quantity and quality of

wetlands and, where wetlands have severely

diminished or been degraded, to restore them. To

maintain that commitment in the face of climate

change, policy makers should focus on these four

objectives, discussed in the following section:

1.

2.

3.

4.

Protect remaining wetlands. Mitigate the

rate of loss by strengthening the protection

and maintenance of existing wetlands, to

increase the chances that wetlands will

remain in locations from where they can

migrate or adapt.

Restore what has been lost. Encourage

restoration of wetlands to compensate for

past and expected future losses.

Facilitate adaptive migration. Prepare for

and assist in the migration of wetland species, which may be needed under a changing

climate and accelerated sea level rise.

Improve coordinated management and

monitoring.

15 Address the problems Of legal

and institutional fragmentation. The absence of clearly stated authority for protecting wetlands, inadequate criteria for decisionmaking and lack of a coordinated effort

to monitor and evaluate the quantity and

quality of wetlands and the water systems

that support them must be evaluated.

9 The Existing Regulatory Framework

Governing Wetlands16

Regulation of wetlands has increased over the

past two decades with the growing recognition of

15 COO*M management of wetlands cannot easily be accomplished without also considering management of water supplies (see vol.

1, C1l. 5).

16 ~don ~w~ &vfly on ~~n~ pub~h~ fi refer-s 95, ]@ 112 ~ on a ~nw paper p~pared for OTA (120).
188 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Tidal marshes are intermittently flooded, depending

on tidal movement, and include the splash zone of

coastal waters. These areas provide a filtering zone for

freshwater systems whose outlets are on the coast.

They also provide vital habitat for countless species of

migratory birds.

the valuable functions and products they may

provide. Wetlands are protected, acquired, managed, and restored under a complex array of

Federal and State statutes, regulations, and programs, along with common-law public-trust doctrines, local land-use and zoning laws, actions by

private landholders, and an increasing body of

case law.

No single agency leads the effort to protect and

regulate wetlands, and none has the protection of

wetlands as its primary goal. Instead, major

wetland programs are distributed among six

Federal agencies: the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS), USDA’s Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) and Soil

Conservation Service (SCS), and the National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Numerous other Federal agencies, including the

National Park Service (NPS), the Bureau of Land

Management (BLM), the Forest Service (USFS),

NOAA’S Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource

Management, and the Department of Defense (for

wetlands on military bases and reserves), contribute to some aspect of the protection or management of wetlands.

Wetlands are not subject to any single comprehensive Federal law, but are covered by an

amalgam of six statutes that address wetlands

directly, more than 19 additional statutes with

some impact on wetlands, two Executive Orders,

and the various programs and regulations

spawned by these statutes and orders. Moreover,

approximately 100 bills addressing some aspect

of wetlands were introduced in the 102d Congress. In addition, as described briefly below,

many States and some municipal areas have

enacted laws to protect wetlands; in some cases,

these laws may be stricter than the Federal

programs.

The major elements of the Federal “policy

space’—that is, the existing institutions, legislation, and regulations--are described in detail in

box 4-I. These programs can be categorized

according to three types of government actions:

direct Federal action, including regulation, acquisition, restoration, management, and oversight

of wetlands; indirect Federal action that encourages the protection and restoration of wetlands

through incentives to private property owners;

and coordination and research activities that

seek to provide information to managers and

promote interaction among these individuals.

Direct Federal Action

Regulation and permitting are perhaps the

most visible direct Federal controls on wetlands.

The principal authority for Federal regulatory

protection of private wetlands derives from the

Federal jurisdiction over navigation. Section 404

of the Clean Water Act requires permits for

discharges of dredge or fill materials into navigable waters, which originally included only those

through which boats could travel but have been

interpreted more recently to include almost all

wetlands. This law gives the Corps and EPA a

major role in wetland regulation at the Federal

level. Most large-scale construction activities

affecting wetlands are regulated under Section
Chapter 4–Wetlands 189

Box 44—The Wetlands Policy Space

Regulatory activities and permitting programs--The Army C orps of Engineers, through Section 10 of the

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, was given regulation and oversight authority of a permit program covering any

dredge and fill activities affecting navigable waters in the United States. “Navigable waters” has been broadly

defined by the Corps to include coastal and freshwater wetlands,1 and starting in 1968, the Corps expanded the

permit criteria beyond the original assessment of impacts on navigation to include assessments of impacts on fish

and wildlife, conservation, pollution, aesthetics, ecology, flood-damage protection, recreation, water supply and

quality, and others.

Although the Rivers and Harbors Act set forth the original regulatory authority, Section404 of the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92-500) of 1972, as amended by the Clean WaterAct of1977 (P.L. 92-217), has

become the principal Federal program that regulates activities in wetlands. Section 404 requires that any

landowner proposing to undertake activities that would result in the discharge of dredged material into U.S. waters,

including wetlands, must first apply for and obtain a permit from the Corps. The application is reviewed in

consultation with Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Environmental Protection Agency (ERA), the National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the State where the activity is to take place. Permit applications are

evaluated according to the extent of public and private need for the proposed project, whether alternative locations

or less environmentally damaging methods could be used to achieve the stated project goals and result in less

environmental impact, and the significance of the environmental impact the project may have.

Despite the Corps' broad interpretation of the extent of waters covered by permit requirements, the purview

of the Section 404 program is limited in several ways. Numerous activities are exempted from Section 404

jurisdiction, including normal farming, forestry, ranching activities that do not convert natural wetlands to anew

use (e.g., cropland), maintenance of flood-control structures, construction of bridges and dams, and maintenance

of farm ponds, irrigation systems, and drainage ditches. Other activities fall under “general permits," which

authorize activities expected to have minor impacts without the need for individual permits, as long as specified

procedures for minimizing impacts are followed. On the basis of these limitations, the General Accounting Office

(GAO) estimates that Section 404 "regulates only about 20 percent of the activities that destroy wetIands”(112).

Although States have the opportunity to assume primary responsibility for administering parts of the Section

404 program, only Michigan has done so. Many States are using their authorities under Section 401 to modify or

deny Section 404 permits as a way to further protect wetlands under the Clean Water Act

Land acquisition--Federai legislation to acquire wetlands dates back to the Migratory Bird Hunting and

Conservation Stamp Act (P.L. 94-215), passed in 1934. The act requires that waterfowl hunters purchase “duck

stamps”; proceeds from stamp sales are placed into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund to be used to acquire

habitat for migratory birds. Since the inception of the program, more than $240 million worth of stamps have been

1 ln1975,theCorps issued regulations defining "navigable waters’’to include the following:"coastal waters,

wetlands, mudflats, swamps, and similar areas; freshwater lakes, rivers, and streams that are used, were used in

thepast, or are susceptible to use to transport interstate commerce, including all tributaries to these waters; Interstate

waters; certain specified intrastate waters, the pollution of which would affect interstate commerce; and freshwater

wetlands, including marshes, shallows, swamps and similar areas that are contiguous or adjacent to the above

described lakes, rivers and streams, and that are periodically inundated and normally characterized by the

prevalence of vegetation that requires saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction” (34).

I
190 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box 44-The Wetlands Policy Space--(Continued)

sold and 2.5 million acres (about 1 million hectares)2of habitat purchased Although some habitat purchases have

been upland nesting areas, most acquisitions have targeted wetlands, particularly those in the prairie-pothole

region of the North Central United States. In addition to purchasing land, the program seeks to preserve additional

wetlands by acquiring perpetual easements under which landowners exchange their rights to drain, fill, burn, or

level wetlands for a one-time or annual payment. Although most easement programs have targeted agricultural

land, the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act authorizes the use of easements more generally.

By the end of FY 1989, the program had spent approximately $49 million to obtain easements on 1.2 million acres

of wetlands in the prairie-pothole region.

A more recent land-acquisition statute is the North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989 (P.L.

101-233), which established a cooperative effort between the United States, and Mexico aimed at

conserving or restoring 6 million acres of wetlands in the prairie-pothole region to help revitalize waterfowl

populations. This act authorized appropriations of up to $15 million for purchase of, and easements on, wetlands

that will accomplish the goal. Although a substantial portion of the money is to be spent on projects in Canada and

Mexico, some 25 to 50 percent of the total may be spent in the United States. Some funds are to be raised by excise

taxes on ammunition, sporting arms, and archery equipment, as well as by fines for violations of the Migratory Bird

Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act.

Various other programs support acquisition of wetlands.The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965

(LAWCON; P.L. 88-578) initiated a fund, bankrolled by fees from offshore drilling, to be used for the purchase of

natural areas, including wetlands. Amendments in 1986added explicit authorization for LAWCON funds to be used

to purchase wetlands, and further stipulated that States be required to consider wetlands in their State

Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, which they must complete to qualify for grants from the LAWCON pool.

FWS has used land acquisitions under this program to add to the National Wildlife Refuge System and to acquire

crucial habitat areas for protecting endangered species. Critics charge that in recent years, LAWCONfunds have

been underutilized and have not adequately met the mandate to acquire natural areas.

The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-845) called for the development of a National

Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan to direct the Federal Government's various wetland-protection efforts toward

the most valuable areas. The plan was developed by FWS and issued In 1989. The act also authorized funds to

acquire wetlands consistent with the plan, and provided various revenue mechanisms to support wetlandprotection and -acquisition activities.

Several Federal programs support wetland preservation through easements. The Water Bank Act (P.L.

91-559), passed in 1970, established a fund to help preserve, maintain, and restore wetlands. Administered by

the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Soil Conservation Service (SCS), water-bank funds are used*

negotiate easements from farms who agree not to drain, fill, burn, level, or otherwise destroy wetlands or

adjacent upland areas. Farmers receive annual payments ranging from $5 to $55 per acreforthe duration of the

10-year agreement (subject to review after the fourth year), after which the contracts maybe renewed. The Water

Bank (Program has concentrated on acquiring easements in the prairie-pothoie region, where it had nearly 550,000

acres enrolled as of July 1991, at an annual cost of $8 million. The Conservation Reserve and Wetlands Reserve

Programs described in the next section, also negotiate easements for the protection of wetlands.

2

To convert acres to hectares, multlply by 0.405

3 These figures are from reference 95. According to reference 112, the program had spent $102 million to

acqulre fee-simple title to 584,000 acres of wetlands in the prairie-pothole region under the Small Wetlands

Acquisition Program by the end of FY 1989.
Chapter 4–Wetlands I 191

Restoration—Perhaps because more than half of the Nation’s wetlands have already been converted to

other uses, particularly agricultural, recent policy initiatives have expanded the wetland-protection mandate

beyond the early framework of preservation and regulation to include restoration. Several programs attempt

restoration of agricultural land. Under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), authorized by the Food and

Security Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-198), USDA can enter into contracts to pay farmers to remove highly erodible or

environmentally valuable lands from production for 10 to 15 years in exchange for annual payments. A provision

making farmed wetlands eligible for the conservation reserve was added in 1989. As of July 1991, nearly 34.5

million acres of farmland were enrolled in the CRP. USDA’s Soil Conservation Service (SCS) estimates that

approximately 410,000 acres were wetlands, for which rental payments were around $20.1 million annually. The

wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), established by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990

(P.L. 101-824), was established with the goal of restoring up to 1 million acres of wetlands that had been converted

to agriculture. USDA’s Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) makes annual payments for

easement under which the farmer agrees to restore the wetlands. In addition, ASCS will provide up to 75 percent

of the cost of restoring once-farmed wetlands placed under permanent easement and 50 percent of the cost of

restoration for wetlands under 30-year easements.

The mitigation provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act require that applicants for Section 404 permits

offset unavoidable wetland impacts through the restoration or creation of wetlands. One party (often a government

agency) restores or creates wetlands, t hus establishing marketable credits t hat are held in a bank. The bank can

then arrange the sale of credits to Section 404 permit applicants to offset damage to wetlands that may be caused

by the permitted activit y, often at a ratio greater than one-to-one. Achieving no net loss of wetlands requires greater

than 100 percent replacement to compensate for areas where restoration does not succeed and for the time lag

between restoration activities and the return of some measure of function. The permit applicant must purchase

enough credit to offset potential wetland losses More t he permitted project begins and wetlands are destroyed.

Under current policies, mitigation banking can be used only where loss of wetlands cannot be avoided and where

there is no suitable site for restoration on the same property. If key areas for wetland migration are identified

through the National Wetlands Priority Plan (described below), a wetland banking program could attempt to target

those areas and allow mitigation credits for coastal development.

Other programs that support the restoration of wetlands are the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937

(P.L. 99-398), commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act and the Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act of 1950

(P.L. 100-448), the Dingel l-Johnson Act. Through the Pittman-Robertson Act, FWS provides grants to States to

cover up to 75 percent of the costs of acquiring, restoring, and maintaining wildlife areas, including wetlands. The

act is funded by Federal excise tax on firearm and ammunition sales. The Dingell-Johnson Act uses Federal excise

taxes on bait and fishing equipment to fund State projects up to 75 percent for “comprehensive fish and wildlife

resource plans,” including maintenance and restoration of wetland areas that provide needed habitat.

Coordinated planning and management--Because responsibility y for wetlands is divided among numerous

laws, programs, and agencies, several policies have been put in place to coordinate planning and management.

Some of these cover wetlands specifically, and others address wetlands within the larger context of natural

resources such as water resources, coastal areas, and wildlife and endangered species habitat.

At least four laws and one Executive Order explicitly call for coordination among wetlands-planning and

-management agencies. The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1988 (P.L. 99-845) seeks to increase

cooperation among the numerous agencies at the Federal, State, local, and private levels that protect, manage,

and conserve wetlands. The act calls for FWS to develop a National wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, which

would help decision makers at all levels of government identify the most valuable wetlands for protection. The act

(Continued on next page)
192 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box 44–The Wetlands Policy Space-(Continued)

also requires that State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans address wetlands, that FWS complete its

wetland inventory mapping by 1988 (24), and t hat FWS conduct a study of how Federal programs affect wetlands.

The Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-640) embodies the call for no net loss of the Nation’s

remaining wetlands as part of the Army Corps of Engineers water-resources-development program. The act

mandated that the Corps develop, in consultation with EPA, FWS, and other interested agencies, an action plan

for achieving the no-net-loss goal for wetlands. The Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act

(P.L. 101 -646) established a planning process for protecting and restoring Louisiana coastal wetlands, and has

been used to support various restoration projects. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, was issued in

1977 to direct all Federal agencies to take action in carrying out their individual activities to minimize destruction,

loss, and degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance wetlands and wetland functions and products.

Other programs that call for coordinated planning and management of wetlands as part of a larger set of

natural resource issues include the Coastal Zone Management Act (P.L. 92-583), described in more detail under

incentives (below and in vol. 1, ch. 4), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (P.L. 89-72), the Endangered Species

Act (P.L. 93-205), the National Environmental Policy Act (P.L. 91-190), and Executive Order 11988 (Flood Plain

Management). The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires that wildlife management be considered equal to

other purposes in the construction of water-development projects, and authorizes FWS and NMFS to evaluate the

potential impacts on fish and wildlife of Federal construction activities and projects being evaluated for Section 404

permits. The National Environmental Policy Act calls for a review of the environmental impacts of all proposed

Federal projects, such as road construction and dam building, some of which pose significant threats to wetlands.

The Endangered Species Act sets forth a procedure for listing threatened and endangered species and for

designating the areas they need as habitat. Federal agencies are prohibited from undertaking or subsidizing any

projects that will destroy habitat of the listed species. Because one-third of all listed endangered species depend

on wetlands, this prohibition prevents some development in wetlands. Executive Order 11988 requires that all

Federal agencies avoid supporting development in floodplain areas, either directly or indirectly; because many

wetlands lie in floodplains, this directive could help protect wetlands.

Incentives and disincentives-Approximately 87 percent of the loss of wetlands in the past decade is

attributed to agricultural conversions (108). Various Federal programs-including tax incentives, low-interest

Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) loans, technical assistance, and commodity and price-support

program--during the 1950s through the 1970s either directly or indirectly encouraged conversion of wetlands to

agricultural uses. Thus, it is not surprising that many of the incentive and disincentive programs now seeking to

protect and restore wetlands target agricultural lands. Furthermore, incentive and disincentive programs are in

many cases the Federal Government’s only chance to encourage conservation of the 74 percent of the Nation’s

remaining wetlands that are privately owned. The CRP and t he WRP, described above, offer direct payments to

farmers as an incentive to set aside and restore former wetlands.

The Swampbuster program, initiated by the Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-198) and expanded by the

Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-508), hinges on disincentives. As originally

written, the Swampbuster program prohibited subsidies only if wetlands were converted (e.g., drained, filled,

plowed, and burned)-after December 23, 1986-directly for the purposes of growing commodity crops (crop

subsidies are explained in detail in vol. 1, ch. 6). This approach left a large loophole: farmers did not have to

cultivate wetlands directly in a subsidized crop in order to boost their commodity acreage; rather, they could plant

the wetland in an unsubsidized crop, such as forage, to free up other land to increase acreage for subsidized

commodities. The 1990 amendments strengthened the program by calling for denial of crop subsidies if

conversions of wetlands were used to boost acreage in commodity crops, even if the wetlands were not directly

cultivated (1 12). Farmers caught in violation of Swampbuster regulations lose eligibility for all Federal farm
Chapter 4–Wetlands |193

benefits, including commodity programs, crop insurance, and disaster payments, for that year and all subsequent

years. As of August 1991, ASCS had withheld approximately $3.7 million in benefits because of Swampbuster

violations (112).

Although agriculture has been a major focus of incentive and disincentive programs, legislation has sought

to reduce or eliminate incentives for conversion of wetlands in other areas as well. The Coastal Barrier Resources

Act (COBRA; P.L. 100-707) prohibits Federal expenditures or financial assistance (in the form of loans, grants,

guarantees, insurance, payments, rebates, subsidies, and so on) to be used for development of coastal barrier

islands. The act aims to reduce harm to human life, property, and natural resources, and because many coastal

barriers are accompanied by wetlands, the withdrawal of Federal incentives to development may result in the

protection of coastal wetlands. First established in 1982, the program was considerably expanded by 1990

amendments; the approach it espouses-withholding Federal subsidies-is now widely considered to be a good

way to achieve environmental protection at low cost.

The Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-583, as amended) was designed to protect,

restore, and develop coastal-zone resources and to encourage States to address ecological and aesthetic values,

along with economic considerations, in managing their coastal areas. The CZM Act set forth a program in which

States develop CZM plans according to certain guidelines imposed by the Federal Government. Because the

requirements for CZM plans explicitly mandate the protection of ecological values of coastal resources (which

include wetlands), and requirements for the plans already cover issues such as beach protection and shoreline

erosion, the CZM program offers an appropriate mechanism through which the Federal Government could

encourage the adoption of setbacks, which could allow wetlands room to migrate inland as sea level rises. (For

a more detailed discussion, see vol. 1, ch. 4.)

An indirect incentive for wetland conversion that is being reined in is the National Flood Plain Insurance

Program (NFIP). Established in 1968 by the National Flood Insurance Act (P.L. 90-448), the intent of the program

was to encourage sound development policies in flood-prone areas. The act sought to accomplish this by requiring

that communities develop and implement plans to regulate construction in flood plains in exchange for eligibility

for Federal disaster-relief funds. Although the intent was to minimize floodplain development (and many wetlands

occur in coastal and inland floodplains), the effect was sometimes to encourage development by providing

subsidized insurance. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which administers the program, has

called for stricter regulations of development in t he most flood-prone areas. (See vol. 1, ch. 4, for more information

about flood insurance and other emergency-assistance programs.)

Research, inventory, and monitoring-Research on and monitoring of wetlands is conducted by several

different Federal agencies under various programs, as well as by researchers in land-grant and sea-grant

institutions, private institutions, and conservation organizations. Over the past two decades, long-term research

and monitoring of wetlands has been conducted through programs such as FWS's National Wetlands Inventory

and National wetlands Research Center; the National Science Foundation’s long-Term Ecological Research

(LTER) and Land Margin Ecological Research (LMER) programs; EPA’s office of Research and Development and

Wetlands Research Program; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Estuarine

Research Reserve System, National Estuary Inventory, Estuarine Habitat Program, and sea level monitoring; the

Corps’ Waterways Experiment Station, Wetlands Research Program, and Dredged Materials Program; USDA’s

National Resource Inventory (conducted by SCS); various water- and weather-monitoring programs carried out

by the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Weather Service; and others. New efforts include FWS’s Gap

Analysis Project (GAP) and EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), which are

described in chapter 5.

SOURCES: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Wetian& Their Use andl?egulation, OTA-O-20S (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, March 19S4); D.E. Willard et al., “Wetland Vulnerabilities to Climate Change,” contractor paper prepared for

the Offioe of Technology Assessment, August 1992; U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), W4#ands OWtiw: Federal end State

Poh’c%s, Legk/at/on, and Programs, GAO/RCEM2-79W (Washington, DC: U.S. GAO, November 1991).
194 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

404; many normal, ongoing agriculture and

forestry practices are specifically exempted. The

program does not cover draining of wetlands

unless the activity involves a discharge, nor does

it explicitly cover isolated wetlands (i.e., nonnavigable ones) unless there is a connection to

interstate commerce (e.g., use by migratory waterfowl). overall, the program protects coastal,

and particularly tidal, wetlands relatively well,

but the exemptions exclude from coverage activities responsible for approximately 80 percent of

the destruction of wetlands (1 12).

Federal acquisition of wetlands deemed particularly valuable for wildlife is done through

outright purchase or through the establishment of

easements, as authorized by legislation including

the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation

Stamp Act (also referred to as the Duck Stamp

Act), the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of

1986 (P.L. 99-645), and other laws related to the

National Wildlife Refuge System. The National

Wildlife Refuges now contain some 30 million

acres of wetlands. Smaller acquisitions have been

made through the National Estuarine Research

Reserve System (NERRS), which now holds

425,000 acres of estuarine wetlands and adjacent

waters and uplands, and the Marine Sanctuaries

Program, which contains some wetlands along

with open waters in eight sanctuaries. Additional

wetlands have been acquired as part of areas

purchased for parks or designated as wild and

scenic rivers or wilderness areas (see ch. 5).

Restoration and management of wetlands are

carried out through diverse programs. The Coastal

Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration

Act (P.L. 101-646), passed in 1990, established a

restoration cost-sharing program open to coastal

States, with a particular--but not exclusiveemphasis on restoring coastal wetlands in

Louisiana. NOW’S Damage Assessment and

Restoration Program conducts habitat restoration

and research in coastal wetlands that have been

severely contaminated. The Conservation Reserve and Wetlands Reserve Programs, established by Title XII of the Food Security Act of

1985 (P.L. 99-198) and the Food, Agriculture,

Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-

624) both allow USDA to enter into contracts

with farmers to set aside and pay up to 50 to 75

percent of the cost of restoration. Ongoing

programs conducted by the Army Corps of

Engineers, which is responsible for constructing

and maintaining dams, flood-control structures,

and navigable rivers and harbors, have given the

agency a role in affecting wetlands through

engineering techniques such as sedimentation

control and use of dredged materials to create or

restore wetlands.

Indirect Federal Action

Various incentive programs encourage wetland

protection and restoration, and some disincentives have been established to discourage activities that degrade or destroy wetlands. The Water

Bank Act (P.L. 91-559) provides payments to

farmers as an incentive to refrain from draining

wetlands important to migratory waterfowl. The

“Swampbuster” provision of the Food Security

Act of 1985 withdraws Federal benefits (i.e., crop

subsidies and disaster insurance) from farmers

who drain wetlands. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (COBRA; P.L. 100-707) denies such

benefits as flood insurance and infrastructure

support to development projects that would alter

coastal barrier islands to the point where they

would be unable to provide certain fictions,

such as erosion control. The Tax Reform Act of

1986 (P.L. 99-514) disallowed deductions for

farm expenses incurred in draining wetlands (e.g.,

by constructing drainage ditches).

Coordination and Research

At least four laws and one Executive Order

explicitly call for coordination among agencies

responsible for wetland planning and management, and at least seven agencies plus numerous

private and conservation organizations conduct

research on and limited surveys of wetlands. The

“Coordinated Planning and Management” and

“Research, Inventory, and Monitoring” sections
in box 4-I describe these programs. Despite these

and other programs, however, no coordinated

long-term Federal effort tracks the overall quality

of wetlands nationwide.

State, Local, and Private Programs

In addition to the many Federal programs,

States, municipalities, and private conservation

organizations also share responsibilities for protecting wetlands. States and municipalities play a

major role in regulation through their implementation of land-use controls and plannin g. Loca1

land-use efforts, such as storm-water management and setbacks (see vol. 1, ch. 4) from

wetlands and adjacent areas, can be effective in

maintaining wetlands and their functions. Many

States have also adopted various measures that

address coastal, inland, or all wetlands within

their boundaries, either specifically or in the

context of water-quality control and broader

mandates to protect natural areas (see table 4-2).

State and local parks and refuges are key to

preserving the natural values of wetlands (see

ch. 5). Private conservation groups such as The

Nature Conservancy, the Audubon Society, and

Ducks Unlimited, in addition to numerous regional and local land trusts, join the effort to

protect and maintain wetlands.

Because many different organizations at all

levels of government, along with private agencies, conduct programs that affect wetlands, any

Federal efforts to respond to the impacts of

climate change on wetlands must recognize and

interact with the full range of programs. In many

cases, State and local agencies have the ability to

form partnerships with Federal agencies to accomplish things that Federal agencies by themselves cannot.

POLICY OPTIONS

OTA has identified many actions that the

Federal Government could take to help protect

existing wetlands, restore degraded areas, facilitate migration, and promote coordinated manageChapter 4-Wetlands I 195

ment and monitoring. These actions, summarized

in table 4-3, run the gamut from incremental

changes in existing programs to major policy

revisions or additions. Many of the strategies are

interconnected, comprising different approaches

for accomplishing the same goal. To cope most

effectively with the potential impacts of climate

change on wetlands, the best approach would be

to undertake the strategies together. A specific set

of options, based on measures that are particularly

feasible or urgent and on opportunities that may

arise in upcoming legislative reauthorizations,

should be pursued. Those options are suggested in

the final section of this chapter, “First Steps.”

9 Protect Existing Wetlands

Minimizing the current rate of loss should be

the first priority of any comprehensive plan to

help wetlands adapt to climate change. As noted

above, the Nation has already lost more than half

its wetlands. Maintaining what is left is a necessary first step to ensure that some wetlands will

persist regardless of the rate and severity of

climate change. An active protection strategy will

yield benefits even if climate change proceeds

more slowly or less severely than predicted. The

goal of protecting existing wetlands has received

widespread and bipartisan support and, despite

the difficulties in achieving it thus far, that goal

should remain. Climate change only makes protection efforts more urgent.

Direct Federal Action

Option 4-1: Implement and oversee the no-net10SS policy. The no-net-loss policy has not yet

been incorporated into the legal and regulatory

framework in inexplicit and accountable way. In

1991, the Administration issued a plan for protecting wetlands that would include strengthening

acquisition programs, revising the wetlanddelineation manual, and improving regulation of

wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water

Act (25, 112). Although a few of the specific

provisions of the plan were implemented, many of

the more significant changes were not, due in
196 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Table 4-2—Responding to Climate Change Impacts on Wetlands:

Summary of Reported State Wetland Protection Programsa

Formal policy,

regulation, or

guidelines for

Coastal Freshwater Comprehensive issuing Section 401

permit nontidal coastal and certification for

State program proq ram inland program wetlands

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Nebraska

Nevada

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

● —

—

NA

NA

NA

●

●

9

—

—

— —

*

—

*

—

—

— —

— — — ●

+

—

—

—

— — —

8

●

●

●

☛

NA

NA

NA

●

●

*

8

●

—

—

—

—

—

8 *

+

8

●

—

*

48

—

—

—

●

NA

NA

NA

o

●

NA

—

—

—

—

—

●

—

9

—

—

—

NA

●

9

—

—

*

m —

●

9

NA

NA

8

8

—

—

—

NA

●

— —

●

—

—

NA

●

—

ao=Program in place; +=program in place, legislation enacted but not yet implemented, regulations

to be developed; D=program in place, can be delegated to local or regional authorities; —=no data;

NA=not applicable.

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Water Quality Inventory 1990

Report to Congress (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, 1992).
Chapter 4–Wetlands I 197

Table 4-3--Examples of Laws and Agencies That

May Be Affected by Various Policy Optionsa

Affected laws

Option and/or agencies

Protect existing wetlands

Implement and oversee the nonet-loss policy,

Expand coverage and strengthen

enforcement of CWA Section

404.

Acquire key wetlands that may be

lost soon

Design Federal projects to

incorporate climate change

predictions and safeguard water

and sediment flow to wetlands

Augment and coordinate

monitoring of wetlands

Require direct payments

Require traded obligations

Eliminate Federal incentives for

wetland destruction.

CWA-reconstituted WRC

COE, EPA, FWS, NMFS

FWS, NPS, NOAA

NEPA, COE, BOR

All agencies coordinated

under interagency task

forces; FWS, EPA,

USGS, NMFS

WRP, Water Bank Act

U.S. Tax code, CWA,

Swampbuster

ASCS and SCS costsharing; COBRA

Restore degraded or converted wetlands

Fully fund existing restoration WRP

programs.

Require that restoration projects CWA

set goals and monitor and

evaluate success.

Use opportunities to restore and FmHA CEP; DOD base

preserve reclaimed wetlands, closures

Remove hard engineering COE, BOR, FERC review

structures that degrade wetlands;

restore normal water and

sediment flow,

Utilize dredged-materials COE

program to facilitate wetland

restoration,

Target key areas for wetland CWA, COE, EPA, FWS,

restoration programs. NMFS

Affected laws

Option and/or agencies

Improve coordinated management and monitoring

Identify, assign priorities to

wetlands important now, under

climate change,

Clarify national goals for wetland

protection,

Ensure that Federal policies do

not inadvertently lead to loss of

wetlands.

Promote integrated resource

management at the watershed

level by offering financial and

other incentives.

Use legislative reauthorizations to

explore new ways to protect

biodiversity and ecosystems and

to integrate preservation and

restoration.

Support research on the impacts

of climate change on wetlands

Facilitate migration

Require building setbacks from

coastal and riparian wetlands

Identify wetlands most able to

migrate and sites to which they

could migrate.

Acquire lands important for

migration (including buffer

zones).

Reduce Federal subsidies such

as CZMA funds and flood

insurance in areas that have not

established setback or “plannedretreat” policies.

LAPS, GAP, C-CAP,

NWPCP, NAWMP,

EMAP

CWA; EO 11990

CWA, CZMA, COE,

ASCS, SCS, OEP,

Swampbuster

NFIP, CZMA

CWA, ESA, DOI, NPS,

NBS

EPA, NOAA, FWA,

NMFS

CZMA, NFIP

LAPS, GAP, C-CAP,

NWPCP, NAWMP,

EMAP

Duck Stamp Act, LWCF,

WRA, WRP and CRP

CZMA, NFIP

a ASCS=Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service; BOR=Bureau of Reclamation; C-CAP= Coastwatch-Change Analysis program;

CEP=Conservation Easement Program; CoBRA=Coastal Barrier Resources Act; COE=U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; CRP=Conservation

Reserve Program; CWA=Clean Water Act; CZMA=Coastal Zone Management Act; DOD=U.S. Department of Defense; FWS=U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service; EMAP=Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program; EPA= Environmental Protection Agency; ESA=Endangered

Species Act; EO=Executive Order; FERC=Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; FmHA=Farmers Home Administration; GAP=Gap

Analysis Program; LAPS=Land Acquisition Priority System; LWCF=Land and Water Conservation Fund; NAWMP=Norfh American Waterfowl

Management Plan; NFIP=National Flood Insurance Program; NEPA=National Environmental Policy Act; NOM= National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration; NMFS=National Marine Fisheries Service; NPS=National Park Service; NWPCP=National Wetlands Priority

Conservation Plan; OEP=Office of Environmental Policy; SCS=Soil Conservation Service; USGS=U.S. Geological Survey; WRA=Emergency

Wetlands Resources Act; WRC=Water Resources Council; WRP=Wetlands Reserve Program,

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.
198 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

large part to the controversy that surrounded the

proposals. Two previous Executive Orders addressing activities that could destroy wetlands are

also still in effect (No. 11990, Protection of

Wetlands, and No. 11988, Floodplain Management); although many agencies have promulgated

rules and regulations in accordance with these

directives, no oversight mechanism exists.

Implementation and oversight of the no-net10SS policy could be achieved in several ways.

The Water Resources Council (WRC), which

operated from 1967 until 1982 to recommend

coordinated water policies and oversee the integrated plarnning efforts of river basin commissions, could be funded again with oversight of

wetlands as a key function.17 (See vol. 1, ch. 5, for

more discussion of the WRC.)

Alternatively, an interagency committee or

task force, composed of representatives from each

agency whose activities affect wetlands, could be

appointed and directed to) oversee wetland policy

and to maintain an inventory of the quantity and

quality of wetlands. The leadership of the task

force could rotate among the members, or the task

force could be placed under the coordination and

oversight of the new White House Office of

Environmental Policy (OEP), which could play a

role similar to that of the Council on Environmental Quality in the past. Both types of bodies

would be primarily advisory. A third alternative

would be to appoint a single lead agency to

oversee the implementation, but such a designation may cause contention among the several

agencies that could legitimately claim a leading

role. This coordinated effort could oversee wetland research and data gathering as well.

No matter which institution is selected to

implement and oversee the no-net-loss policy, no

single regulatory program can by itself accomplish the goal. That will require coordinated effort

by many agencies under many programs, including programs that affect wetlands only indirectly.

Furthermore, active Federal oversight of the

no-net-loss policy will not eliminate problems

that stem from unclear goals for wetland protection (discussed in more detail below), but it could

help to minimize them.

Option 4-2: Expand coverage and strengthen

enforcement of CWA Section 404. The no-net-loss

policy is also constrained by the fact that the

Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting program

(described in box 4-I and ch. 5) covers activities

responsible for approximately 20 percent of the

destruction of wetlands (112). Permits cover only

activities that involve discharges of dredged or

fill material, but not activities such as water

diversions, draining, channeling, and clearing

that may also destroy wetlands but that do not

involve a discharge. These constraints allow for

incremental losses that appear small, but have a

large cumulative effect (1 15). Even where permits do offer the Federal Government a powerful

lever with which to control impacts on wetlands,

goals for protecting wetlands are not clearly

stated in Section 404. Thus, expanding the

coverage of Section 404 to include more activities

and small wetlands could greatly increase protection of existing wetlands (88).

Even where Section 404 could cover a given

area and activity, program implementation is

decentralized and has not been uniform across

regions. Other limitations are the large number of

permit applications that must be reviewed each

year (approximately 15,000 individual permits)

and the limited resources with which to conduct

the review and to monitor compliance. The

Section 404 permit program could be enhanced

by increasing finding and by requiring that

individual permit decisions be selectively reviewed by an oversight body, as recommended

above, for consistency and adherence to the goals

of wetland protection,

Option 4-3: Target acquisition programs to

wetland types that may be lost soon. Several

17 COWXj.1, au~ori~ by the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 (PL. 89-80), W= never OffkMy d imantled, but the funding was

discontinued. Reconstituting the Council would require appropriations rather than new legislation.
Chapter 4-Wetlands I 199

programs seek to preserve wetlands by either

acquiring the land outright or acquiring perpetual

easements under which landowners exchange

their rights to drain, fill, bum, or level wetlands

for a one-time or annual payment (see box 4-I).

These acquisition programs are, however, constrained by limited funds. For example, FWS has

about $150 million per year to spend on all

acquisitions (not just on wetlands), and funds are

limited in other programs as well.

Federal acquisition programs are not likely to

be expanded given the currently tight restrictions

on all new Federal expenditures. Thus, it is

essential that ongoing acquisitions made with

existing funds focus on important areas currently

in danger of being lost. Developing a list of highpriority wetlands within an integrated-resourcemanagement framework (described below) will

help direct funds to areas and wetland types that

are either insufficiently protected now or that

could be especially vulnerable to climate change.

Option 4-4: Design Federal projects to incorporate climate change predictions and to safeguard water and sediment flow to wetlands. The

environmental impact statements (EISS) required

under the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA; P.L. 91-190) are intended to ensure that

the potential environmental impacts of projects

that the Federal Government oversees are carefully considered and disclosed to the public.

However, wetlands have continued to be degraded in many areas despite the EIS process, in

part because wetlands are easily affected by

alterations in water and sediment flow in adjacent

areas-even if the wetland itself is not dredged or

filled. Since 1989, the Army Corps of Engineers

has had a policy of evaluating current and

potentially accelerated rates of sea level rise as

part of its planning process (94). NEPA, or its

implementing regulations, could be amended to

require that all future Federal projects consider

the effects of the proposed action on the water and

sedimentation regimes that supply wetlands, both

now and under climate change.

Option 4-5: Augment and coordinate monitoring of wetlands. Although numerous research

and monitoring programs cover some aspect of

wetlands, no single program comprehensively

addresses the quantity and quality of wetlands

today. The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)

conducted by FWS has been invaluable in recent

efforts to understand patterns of wetland loss.

However, its statistical sampling methods can

only reveal gross changes in the amount of

wetlands. NWI cannot supply information on the

status or quality of the wetlands not sampled. The

ongoing National Water Quality Assessment

conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

measures water-quality patterns nationwide but

does not relate water quality to loss or degradation

of wetlands. EPA’s Environmental Monitoring

and Assessment Program (EMAP) was initiated

in 1987 to assess and report on the status and

trends of ecological conditions in U.S. natural

resource systems. EMAP includes a wetland

program that aims to evaluate and monitor the

quantity and quality of wetlands on a regional

scale. The program is still in the pilot stage, but it

could provide a sound basis for coordination if a

consensus can be reached on data-collection

protocols and dissemination. The Department of

the Interior’s (DOI’S) Gap-Analysis Program

(GAP), described in a later section, also offers

potential for coordinated monitoring. Finally, the

National Biological Survey (NBS), a program

recently initiated by DOI, may prove invaluable

to coordinated monitoring and management among

agencies (see ch. 5). The goals of NBS are to

combine biological research activities within DOI

into an independent, non-advocacy biological

science arm.18

The Federal Government could strengthen the

protection of wetlands by reducing the overlap of

these and other existing research and monitoring

efforts. Coordinated monitoring could help idenIS E. T Roe, m~tor, Coowrative Research Unit Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, personal cO~~~OU -h1993.
200 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

tify areas that should be protected now, and could

provide a baseline against which to gauge the

future impacts of climate change. Increased

funding for programs such as EMAP, GAP, and

NBS, along with other monitoring and inventory

efforts, would aid in coordinating these efforts

among the agencies (see ch. 5).

Indirect Federal ActIon

The Federal Government could attempt to

make it difficult to destroy wetlands and profitable to preserve them. Numerous programs over

the years have offered direct or indirect subsidies

or incentives to private landowners for construction in wetlands and flooddplains. Among these

are the U.S. Tax Code, which for decades allowed

tax write-offs for the construction of drainage

and irrigation systems (often resulting in the

conversion of wetlands to agricultural uses);

various crop-support and commodity programs

(see vol. 1, ch. 6); and federally supported disaster

and flood insurance, which may have the unintended effect of promoting development in floodprone areas. (Disaster and flood insurance are

discussed in more detail in vol. 1, chs. 4 and 5.)

To minimize the loss of wetlands, subsidies and

tax incentives for protecting wetlands should be

created or expanded while subsidies and incentives for converting wetlands should be reduced

or eliminated.

Option 4-6: Pay to protect wetlands on private

property. This kind of program pays landowners

to refrain from destroying wetlands. Under programs such as the Water Bank Act and the Duck

Stamp Program (under the Migratory Bird and

Conservation Stamp Act), Congress has given

agencies authority to pay farmers who agree not to

drain, plow, burn, or otherwise harm wetlands on

their property. Funding for such programs could be

increased or at least maintained at the authorized

levels.

Option 4-7: Allow trading of regulatory or tax

obligations for wetland protection. A reduction in

existing regulatory or tax obligations can be

traded for wetland protection. For example, the

Federal Government could create tax incentives

for granting conservation easements on wetlands,

or for outright donations of wetlands to conservation agencies. The Tax Reform Act of 1986

decreased the deductions possible for charitable

giving, which includes the granting of conservation easements to Federal or State agencies.

Introducing the tax incentives for wetland preservation could assist protection efforts. The Open

Space Preservation Act of 1991 (H.R. 2149),

introduced during the 102d Congress, sought to

accomplish this goal.19

Some form of traded obligations might also be

used as part of watershed-based efforts to achieve

pollution control. The acquisition and restoration

of wetlands near water bodies could be used as

one element in a comprehensive water-quality

program. Such wetlands could serve as waterfiltering buffers to help control non-point-source

pollution from agricultural lands and urban areas.

Many communities have had to support expensive tertiary treatment processes at their sewage

treatment plants in order to meet the stricter

water-quality standards under the Clean Water

Act, even though non-point-source pollution constitutes a significant part of the problem. Despite

investments of $260 billion (1990 dollars) in the

construction of sewage treatment plants during

the 1970s and early 1980s, the non-point-sourcepollution problems in many water bodies, such

as the Chesapeake Bay, have still not been

resolved (68).

Municipalities and States that are able to

acquire, restore, and maintain sufficient amounts

of wetlands to attain measurable improvements in

water quality might be permitted to delay or scale

down installation of additional sewage-treatment

capabilities within the same watershed. Effluent

19 H, R, 2149 pmpo~ to ‘exclud~~ from the gross estate the value of land subjeet to a qualified Conservation cxisement if C@ain conditions

are satisfki and to defer some of the scheduled reduction in estate tax rates. ’
Chapter 4–Wetlands I 201

from sewage treatment plants or storm-water

drainage should not be discharged directly into

existing wetlands, although some municipalities

have constructed wetlands specifically for that

purpose. Alternatively, some portion of the Federal grants to States for constructing treatment

plants could be used for purchasing wetlands

located in areas within the watershed (see vol. 1,

ch. 5, options 5.1 and 5.2). Any program designed

to use wetlands to help control non-point-source

pollution would have to carefully avoid degrading

existing wetlands.

Option 4-8: Eliminate incentives to destroy

wetlands. The Swampbuster program (see box

4-I) is a prime example of reducing Federal

benefits-in this case, crop subsidies and disaster

payments— in order to protect wetlands.

Swampbuster could be expanded to cover any

activities adjacent to wetlands, such as ditching

and diverting water for irrigation purposes, that

result in destruction of wetlands.

For wetlands on federally owned land, including a significant share of the riparian wetlands in

the West, the Federal Government could use fees

charged for grazing permits to create an incentive

for lessees to protect riparian areas from overuse

by cattle. Offering a fee reduction or rebate to

lessees who implement certain measures for

restoring riparian wetlands might be an alternative way to protect wetlands on Federal land.

A far-reaching proposal that has received

considerable attention since it was proposed by

DOI in 1983 is to “CoBRAcize wetlands,” that

is, to adopt an approach for all wetlands similar to

that used in the Coastal Barrier Resources Act,

which eliminates Federal subsidies that indirectly

support destruction of coastal barrier islands (see

box 4-I and vol. 1, ch. 4). COBRA denies flood

insurance, new Department of Veterans Affairs

and Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) loans,

Urban Development Action Grants, Community

Development Block Grants, road-building monies, and other Federal support to development

projects that would alter the natural functions of

coastal barrier islands. The program increases

environmental protection while saving the Government money, provides an alternative to land

acquisition as a means of protection, does not

interfere with any State or local programs, and

avoids the issue of property takings (50).

9 Restore Degraded or Converted Wetlands

Recent reports documenting the extent to

which wetlands have been destroyed over the past

two centuries have stimulated the development

and use of methods to restore them (see box 4-A).

Restoration of wetlands has already been done

with varying degrees of success, and the goal of

restoring them to compensate for historic losses

has been promoted by both the National Wetlands

Policy Forum (NWPF) and the National Research

Council (NRC). NRC recommended that the

Nation undertake a program to restore 10 million

acres of degraded wetlands by the year 2010 (68).

Within the Federal Government, restoration is

practiced in two distinct contexts. On public

lands, wetlands may be restored, created, or

enhanced as part of the overall management

strategy of wildlife refuges and other natural

areas, or as a way to aid in flood control and

maintenance of water quality. 20 In the regulatory

setting, restoration may be performed for the

purpose of mitigation-that is, the Gov ernment

may require developers to restore or create

wetlands in exchange for receiving a CWA

Section 404 permit if damage to wetlands cannot

be avoided. There are still many questions concerning the success rates of these practices.

m~ currently used by wetland scientists, restoration means “rehnned horn a disturbed or totally altered condition a previously existing

natural or altered condition by some action of ~“ whereas enhancement means ‘‘the increase in one or more values of all or a portion of

an existing wetland by man’s activities, often with the accompanying decline in other wetland values. ’ For exarnpl% effo~ to enhance the

value of a wetland as habitat for migratory waterfowl may include pumping water into the wetlands or controlling water levels; although this

may make the area more att.mctive for ducks, it may athct other functions such as flood control or biodiversity. Creation is ‘‘the conversion

of a persistent non-wetland area into a wetland through some activity of man” (RR. Ixxvis, in ref. 59).
202 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Little comprehensive monitoring has been

performed to document the success of restoration

efforts in either context (37, 59). The evaluations

that have been done suggest that restoration has

been most successful in coastal and estuarine

wetlands. It has been somewhat less so in riparian

areas, forested or shrub-dominated freshwater

wetlands, and other areas where the hydrology is

not well-understood. Restoration is problematic

for isolated prairie potholes, which are typically

fed by groundwater. Flood-control and waterfowlproduction functions are the most readily restored; rejuvenating fisheries and other biological

functions, as well as pollution filtering and

aesthetics, is typically more difficult (59). Restoration projects may fail because people do not

understand well enough how these systems work,

the construction supervision is improper, the

location of the project is innapropriate, or management plans for the area once it has been

restored are lacking.

It is probably impossible to fully recreate or

restore a wetland, or any other natural system.

Any attempts at restoration in exchange for

unavoidable alterations to wetlands must ensure

that the uncertainty about the success of the

project is taken into consideration. Nonetheless,

within the broader context of managing and

conserving wetlands under changing climate

conditions, restoration is likely to become an

increasingly important part of the effort.21 A

coordinated management policy would seek to

preserve and restore a range of wetlands from

coastal to inland areas within a watershed.

Various programs enacted over the past decade

have sought to restore wetlands to make up for

past degradation and 10SS.

22 The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), established in 1990, aims

to set aside and restore up to 1 million acres of

wetlands that had been converted to agriculture

(see box 4-I). The Coastal Wetlands P1anning,

Protection, and Restoration Act set forth a program and authorized funds for protecting and

restoring coastal wetlands, particularly in

Louisiana. The act also provided funds for

restoration projects on approximately 6 million

acres of wetlands important for migratory waterfowl—with an emphasis on the prairie-pothole

region-as called for in the Fish and Wildlife

Service’s North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Mitigation-banking efforts under Section 404 can incorporate restoration of wetlands,

referred to here as wetland banking. This approach to wetland conservation allows wetlands

to be destroyed-when destruction is unavoidable-in exchange for restoring comparable wetlands elsewhere. Federal funds slated for improving grazing lands or other resources could be

targeted for wetland restoration and enhancement. 23 Alternatively, because receipts from

grazing fees are dwarfed by revenues from timber

and recreation on Federal land, perhaps more of

these monies could be channeled to protection

and enhancement of the riparian wetlands in arid

regions.

Option 4-9: Fully fund existing restoration

programs. Farmers selected to participate in the

WRP must develop restoration plans for lands to

be set aside as part of the wetland reserve. The

Federal Government pays up to $50,000 per year

to landowners for property easements and shares

50 percent of the restoration costs on lands

covered by 30-year easements. For lands under

permanent easement, the Federal Government

21 ~o~ to cr~~ we~ds may a~ be necessary, although generally restoration is preferable bcXaUSC it is more SuCCCSSfd ~d l-s Cosdy

(37, 59).

~ No@ however, that restoration goals may vary within and among regions. For example, in urban areas, flood Control ~wat~ -

are highly valued functions of wetlands. Restoration of these functions does not require aftdlyvegetated wetland that suppata f~ and wildlife;

the most important part of restoring these functions maybe simply to clear obstacles horn the site and plant enough vegetation to anchor the

soil. In other sites, including those in areas important for wildlife but in which considerable habitat has been destroyed, a more complete

restoration project to rehabilitate a broader range of fimctions, including wildlife habita~ may be preferred.

~ ~enfly, 5(.) pment of Bureau of Land Management and Fo~t Sefice_-fee receipts am targeted for improving rangelanda under

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (PL. 94-579).
Chapter 4–Wetlands I 203

reimburses 75 percent of the costs. The WRP goal

to set aside and restore up to 1 million acres of

wetlands over a period of 5 years has been

hampered by funding cutbacks. The WRP program received $46 million in funding during its

fist year (1991), but in 1992, Congress eliminated all funding for the WRP for FY 1993 (55).

In the 1995 Federal budget, funding has been

restored to $65 million, with a goal of enrolling

some 75,000 acres in the program during the year.

Additional wetland-reserve easements may be

purchased with emergency funds authorized for

Mississippi flood relief.

Other restoration efforts include the Army

Corps of Engineers’ Wetlands Research and

Dredged Materials Programs, which use dredged

material for wetland-restoration projects;

NOAA’s Habitat Restoration Program, a program

directed specifically at coastal wetlands; and the

interagency Coastal America program based in

Washington, DC, which operates at the national,

regional, and local levels to coordinate restoration

and mitigation projects. If these programs were to

address wetlands that lie somewhat above the

present sea level, they might be able to provide a

buffer against the loss of coastal wetlands to

accelerated sea level rise.

Option 4-10: Increase Government oversight

of restoration and mitigation; require that projects set goals to monitor and evaluate success.

Typical goals in restoring wetlands include the

maintenance of enough vegetation to aid flood

control or water retention and the restoration of

some habitat for fish and wildlife. Fully restoring

all natural functions of a wetland has proved very

difficult to do, and each case presents different

challenges. However, among the goals that can

reasonably be expected for all projects are sustainability and adaptability: the restored wetland

should be able to survive the range of current

conditions and adapt to at least small changes in

climate. Clear goals and a comprehensive understanding of wetland processes will increase the

probability of the success of restoration efforts.

The Federal Government could enhance restoration efforts by increasing oversight of and

guidance to the States and local agencies that

ultimately manage the process. Different strategies are needed for efforts on public land (restoration) and private land (mitigation). For restoration

projects on public land, an interagency committee

could be convened to administer the program. For

mitigation projects on private lands, CWA regulations could include explicit directions calling

for goals to be clearly identified at the outset of

any project, as well as for long-term monitoring

to be conducted to ensure that the goals are

achieved. In addition, there would have to be

mechanisms for collecting, storing, and analyzing

data and for evaluating the success of the project

over time.

The Federal Government can also set standards

for contractors who perform restoration and can

train the regulators who oversee the projects. One

approach for managing the restoration of wetlands under Section 404 mitigation requirements

is to have private parties pay into a restoration

fund and let the Government contract out the

work to approved technicians. The private parties

benefit because they have an interest in the

project’s success, and the approach would also

facilitate Government oversight because contractors who did not perform to standards could be

barred from participating in future projects.24

Option 4-11: Use opportunities to restore and

preserve reclaimed wetlands. The 1987 Agricultural Credit Act (P.L. 100-233) established the

Farmers Home Administration Conservation

Easement Program (FmHACEP), which authorizes USDA to grant or transfer easements for the

preservation of lands that have reverted to the

FmHA through farm foreclosures or voluntary

conveyance. The program is not aimed at wetlands, but it could be used to assist restoration of

wetlands that have been converted to agriculture.

Not all repossessed lands merit easements because agricultural use often transforms wetlands

past the point of return by draining, channeling,

~ K. L. -Comuhkg ECOIOgiS~ kc., personal communication November 1992.
204 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

and filling, but full use of the program could

bolster restoration efforts.

Another potential opportunity for reclaiming

and restoring wetlands is provided by militarybase closures. Decisions on the disposition of

land in closed military installations could include

consideration of whether wetlands exist or could

be restored, particularly in sites containing functions, species, or habitat that are not wellrepresented in existing preserves, or in areas

where the flood- and erosion-control functions

would be highly valued.

Option 4-12: Remove hard engineering structures that degrade wetlands, where feasible, and

attempt to restore normal water and sediment

flow. A vital first step in restoring many degraded

wetlands is to restore normal water and sediment

flows in river and hydrological systems that have

been altered. Construction of water-supply and

-control structures has in the past often led to

unforeseen damage to wetlands both upstream

and downstream. This became vividly apparent

with the Mississippi River flooding in the summer of 1993. The system of levees along the banks

of the Mississippi has isolated it from the

wetlands that once absorbed and slowed food

waters. The levees have made the river deeper and

swifter, with the consequence that when a breach

occurs-as happened repeatedly during the recent

flooding-the resulting flood is much more

destructive than it would otherwise have been.

In some areas, there may be opportunities to

remove structures not vital to the protection of

developed areas. Both the Corps and the Bureau

of Reclamation could review whether existing

structures associated with the degradation of

wetlands are still necessary and appropriate.

Given the extensive damage due to the flooding

of the Mississippi, Congress might consider

removing some of the levees, allowing certain

undeveloped areas to seine as floodwaterdetention areas, and restoring wetlands within

these areas. These flood-detention areas might

also be targeted for conservation-reserve and

wetland-reserve expenditures (see option 4-13

and the “first steps” at the end of the chapter).

The Corps, for example, has already begun to

modify the structures that forced Florida’s meandering Kissimmee River into a straight channel,

which led to destruction of wetlands and wildlife

habitat. Alleviation of impacts from waterdiversion projects should receive high priority

because restoring natural water regimes in a

wetland plays an essential role in restoring the

functions. Efforts to conserve the coastal wetlands of Louisiana, described in box 4-F, illustrate

some approaches to restoring water and sediment

flow. For example, the Mississippi River Gulf

Outlet is a navigation channel that could be

considered for modification because it is no

longer used, but its presence allows salt water to

flow into and harm freshwater wetlands (1 13).

Option 4-13: Use the Dredged Materials

Program to facilitate wetland restoration. During

the past decade, the by Corps of Engineers has

dredged an average of 334 million cubic yards

(255 million cubic meters)25 of material annually,

from rivers, harbors, and estuaries, to maintain

navigable waterways and for other purposes.

Some of this material could be used to replace

sediments in subsiding coastal wetland areas or in

areas that may be inundated if sea level rises. One

estimate suggests that 103 square miles (270

square kilometers)26 could be covered to a thickness of 3 feet each year with uncontaminated

dredged material.27 However, the use of dredged

material to restore wetlands is controversial

because some of this materialism contaminated and

could be harmful to wetland vegetation and

wildlife. The Corps has been directed to dispose

of dredged material in the least costly manner,

which is usually at sea. However, if the States

2S ~ ~nv~ cubic yards to cubic meters, multiply by 0.765.

26 ~ ~onva -miles to squm kilometers, m~tiply by 2S5~”

27 L. Wmos, pofi~ WMI Special studi~ Divisio~ Institute for WatcrResourva, U.S. Army Corps of ~, personal Communication

July 19, 1993.
Chapter 4–Wetlands I 205

wish to put the dredged material to some use, the

Federal Government will contribute half of the

increased costs of disposal if States pay the other

half. If the Federal Government wishes to promote the use of uncontaminated dredged material

for wetland restoration and enhancement, it may

want to increase the subsidy it currently gives to

the States.

Indirect Federal Action

Option 4-14: Target key sites for a wetlandrestoration program. Wetland restoration has

been attempted inside and outside the regulatory

process. More of an effort must be made in the

preliminary stages of projects to develop sound

construction and implementation plans. Equally

important are the development and application of

monitoring and evaluation plans.

Small-scale successes in restoration projects

could be used as models for larger-scale efforts,

and an expanded regional restoration program

could be created to target high-priority areas

within watersheds for restoration. It could incorporate planning and management for restoration

on public lands, as well as restoration for Section

404 permits. This way, a full array of wetlands

could be maintained and restored, which would

offer the broadest range of adaptive possibilities.

A broader strategy for restoring wetlands, termed

wetland banking, could be keyed to the watershed

level to create a market for wetland restoration in

cases where destruction of wetlands cannot be

avoided. Wetland banks allow for the marketing

of credits for wetland restoration and creation as

part of the CWA Section 404 program (see box

4-A). A watershed-level wetland bank may be

better able to protect functions and products of

wetlands than could numerous individual on-site

mitigation efforts.

So far, wetland banks, have been used very

little, and most of them have been setup by State

transportation departments rather than by private

industry. 28 Still, they offer greater potential for

Federal or regional government oversight than do

site-by-site mitigation efforts. As noted earlier,

individual mitigation projects are difficult to

enforce effectively, and the goals of mitigation

projects have often not been stated clearly enough

to determine whether the project succeeded (31).

Current Section 404 practice requires that a

wetland be restored to the extent practicable, as

determined by the Army Corps of Engineers and

EPA. However, specific criteria that can be used

to measure the success of a project designed to

restore wetland functions is often lacking. Furthermore, under standard permit requirements,

individual mitigation efforts are to be undertaken

‘‘on site’ and ‘in kind’ wherever possible--that

is, wetlands are to be restored on or near the

original site, with the attempt to duplicate the

characteristics of the original wetland. However,

if these objectives are not applied carefully within

the context of the overall watershed, they can

inadvertently lead to the development of numerous small, isolated, and fragmented restoration

projects (such as a pond surrounded by shoppingmall parking lots or tucked between the buildings

of an office complex). Larger, better-connected

projects are preferable and more likely to succeed.

Regional wetland-restoration projects might best

preserve habitat values. Some resource managers

have suggested, for example, that restoring wetlands adjacent to the Everglades would be a better

strategy than on-site mitigation for wetland losses

in the urban corridor of coastal South Florida

because it would reestablish historic water flows

and effectively recreate a larger, contiguous

wetland.

Failure to recognize that various wetlands and

their functions are not interchangeable has led to

the downfall of some mitigation projects. A

regional wetland-restoration strategy could avoid

some of the problems of case-by-case mitigation

by encouraging mitigation projects on the watershed level-on the basis of an evaluation of the

overall distribution and functions of wetlands

2$ M. J. Beaq Senior Attorney, Environmental Defense FuI@ personal cOII-ImUDicatiOU &t. 16, 1992.
206 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

within the watershed-and by targeting mitigation to areas that need it the most. By allowing

developers to pay into a bank, rather than

contracting mitigation projects individually, a

wetland-banking system could allow greater

Government oversight and more rigorous standards for restoration. Finally, by combining the

planning and management of Section 404 mitigation with the restoration projects that take place

on Federal lands, the Government could achieve

greater integration of its wetland-protection and

-restoration goals.

Standards for mitigation banking have been

proposed as guidelines in some regions by the

Corps and EPA but have not been uniformly

imposed.29 Additional Federal guidance could

link mitigation to a watershed-based priority plan

that seeks to maintain an array of wetlands.

Participation in regional wetland-restoration

schemes should not take the place of avoiding

impacts to wetlands. Where destruction of a

particular wetland cannot be avoided, however,

regional restoration projects could offer additional leverage for implementing wetlandrestoration goals on a watershed basis. The

regional restoration schemes could require that

more wetland areas be restored or created than

destroyed.

I Facilitate Migration

The biggest issue facing coastal wetlands is

whether they will have room to migrate as the sea

level rises.30 Because so many coastal wetland

areas already have a limited potential to grow, the

remaining areas for coastal wetland migration

could be identified and protected, either through

direct acquisition or through a program of easements. Vegetation in riparian wetlands may also

need to migrate toward new sites along rivers and

streams. Regional predictions of climate change

effects will probably not be available for a decade

or so, which will make identification of lands

needed for wetland migration difficult. However,

if planners and managers do not initiate efforts

now to identify where wetlands will be lost first

and where wetlands might be able to relocate, the

Nation may be ill-prepared to take advantage of

the advances in global climate modeling to

protect its natural resources. (See ch. 2 for a

discussion of climate models.) While this information is being developed, sensible land-use

policies-particularly in coastal areas--can be

implemented to allow wetlands to persist as well

as to reduce property loss and Federal payments

such as disaster relief and subsidized flood

insurance (see also vol. 1, ch. 4).

Many measures that could assist migration of

wetlands will involve State and municipal landuse laws and plarnning efforts. Although the

participation of States and municipalities is vital,

the following sections focus on Federal actions,

including those that might provide incentives for

appropriate programs at the State and local levels.

Direct Federal Action

Option 4-15: Require building setbacks from

coastal and riparian wetlands. A national policy

requiring buildings to be set back a given distance

from the coast according to actual or estimated

sea level rise-as practiced by the State of Maine

and described in more detail in volume 1, chapter

4-would not only allow room for wetlands to

migrate, but could have the additional benefit of

protecting or minimizing the loss of coastal

buildings.

Option 4-16: Identify the wetlands that are

most able to migrate and sites to which they could

migrate. Identification of key areas for wetland

migration in both coastal and riparian areas could

be done through modifications of the various

priority-setting mechanisms described below under

“Improve Coordinated Management, Monitor29 Ibid.

Jo Of course, even wi~ sufilcient land, the vegetation of wetlands xnay change from one tYIM tO IUIOther, Or WmC of tie *dOnS my ~

diminished, but without sufficient land for migratiom loss of wetlands is guaranteed.
Chapter 4-Wetlands I 207

ing, and Research. ” To date, none of these

programs has included climate change considerations, although existing statutes would provide

sufficient authority to do so. However, a congressional directive, perhaps with appropriations attached for the purchase of land for wetland

migration, might ensure that agencies consider

the need for land for migration.

Although accurate predictions of how climate

change will affect wetlands and where they might

migrate must await further research (outlined

below), rough guesses of vital migration areas can

be made now. EPA has already conducted several

studies that combine various estimates of sea

level rise with data on coastal topography and

existing development to predict where coastal

wetlands will be inundated (4, 52, 53, 73, 75).

Periodic reassessments should be made as new

information is obtained.

Option 4-17: Acquire lands important for

migration (including buffer zones). In the absence

of precise information on where wetland species

might migrate, priority should be given to acquiring and protecting buffer zones around existing

wetlands. This would be a logical first step in

wetland protection. Buffers can help guard the

present functions of wetlands, including flood

control and the provision of wildlife habitat, and

can also allow room for wetlands to grow in any

direction in the event of climate change. Estimates of how far a buffer should extend from the

wetland boundary vary, with a suggested range of

100 to 500 feet, depending on the area and the

functions. Existing acquisition programs could

be directed to incorporate suitable buffers with

every purchase of wetlands or, at a minimum,

with the purchase of wetlands most at risk from

climate change.

A potential stumbling block is that acquisition

programs focus on areas that are valuable now,

rather than on those that could become valuable

in the future. Although some areas important for

future migration also have a high present value,

such as the remaining coastal uplands in Florida,

this may not be true of all sites. Setting priorities

that balance a known present value with an

uncertain future value would be quite difficult but

could be accomplished through effective watershed-management plans, as discussed below and

in volume 1, chapter 5.

Indirect Federal Action

Option 4-18: Reduce Federal subsidies, such

as Coastal Zone Management (CZM)funds and

flood insurance, in areas that have not established setback or “planned-retreat’y policies.

The State of Maine recently adopted, as part of its

coastal-dune regulations, a rule known as planned

retreat, which ‘‘allows use of coastal property for

constructing a building, provided the building is

removed at some future time when the shoreline

(high water line) has advanced to the building

location” (86). Such planned-retreat policies are

generally aimed at protecting coastal structures

from costly damage, but these policies may also

provide significant benefits for coastal wetlands.

The Federal Government may best rely on State

and local setbacks because land-use-control measures (such as zoning) generally lie within the

purview of States or local areas. States’ abilities

to require or induce private-property owners to

allow coastal wetlands to migrate with a rising

sea, rather than to construct bulkheads, walls, and

other structural protections, will hinge on the

balance of private-property rights with the publictrust doctrine (which is rooted in case law and

varies from State to State). However, the plannedretreat rule could be added to the Federal CZM

program requirements, which explicitly mandate

the protection of ecological values of coastal

resources (including wetlands) and already cover

issues such as beach protection and shoreline

erosion. Of course, CZM cannot require States to

take action, but it can offer a financial incentive.

Another way for the Federal Government to

promote buffer zones is to eliminate funding for

activities that encourage development in areas

adjacent to wetlands or in floodplains (e.g., by

using the COBRA approach as described in option

4-8). One potential weakness of the COBRA
208 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

approach is that it addresses new construction and

land uses. Existing activities, no matter how

heavily subsidized by Federal programs in the

past, are not covered by the act.

The Community Rating System (CRS) is a

recent Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) initiative that provides an incentive for

communities to implement activities that exceed

the minimum requirements of the National Flood

Insurance Program (NFIP) (see vol. 1, ch. 4).

Program participants can receive discounts in

flood insurance premiums of up to 45 percent by

promoting activities that protect floodplains and

reduce flood losses. These activities include

relocating structures at risk, removing debris from

waterways, and preserving open space.

The CRS could be expanded to include the

restoration of floodplains, which occupy a large

part of the U.S. landscape and include many of the

Nation’s most productive wetlands and most

fertile soil. Their functions include storing and

conveying water, moderating floods, retarding

erosion and sedimentation, maintaining water

quality, recharging groundwater, and providing

wildlife habitat. Under expansion of the program,

credits could be given for actions that help to

restore these functions.

9 Improve Coordinated Management,

Monitoring, and Research

All three strategies presented above-protect

existing wetlands, restore: degraded ones, and

facilitate migration-will be more effective and

efficient if applied within a regulatory and

management framework that clearly identifies

priorities and goals and that is coordinated across

relevant programs and institutions to achieve

those goals. This theme of coordination, which is

important not just for wetlands but for all natural

resources, is discussed in chapter 1; recommendations specific to wetlands, which can involve

gradations from direct to indirect action, are

described below.

Direct or Indirect Federal Action

Option 4-19: Identify and assign priorities to

the wetlands that are most important to protect

and restore. Identifying and ranking the wetlands

that are the most important to protect now and in

the future would help efforts to protect and restore

wetlands. A listing of priorities that includes

climate change considerations could be used to

direct regulation, acquisition, and incentive programs throughout all levels of government. To be

most effective, lists should be compiled for each

major watershed and should be developed in

consultation with all relevant stakeholders.

None of the Federal priority-setting mechanisms now used to direct wetland acquisition and

restoration-the Land Acquisition Priority System (LAPS), the National Wetlands Priority

Conservation Plan (NWPCP), the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), the

Gap-Analysis Program (GAP) and the CoastwatchChange Analysis Program (C-CAP--explicitly

address the potential effects of climate change

and its implications for setting priorities.

LAPS is a decisionmaking process used by

FWS to set priorities for all of its land acquisitions, including wetlands. NWPCP, required by

the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986,

was developed by FWS to set criteria for identifying important wetlands to be acquired by Federal

and State Governments. NAWMP, developed by

FWS under the authority of the North American

Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989, sets priorities for wetland conservation and restoration in

the prairie-pothole region.

GAP is a land-use-analysis program at FWS

that seeks to identify priorities for protecting

endangered species. It addresses this and other

goals by examining patterns of land use and

ownership and comparing them with species

habitat, vegetation, and other ecological features

of the land (see ch. 5).

Run by the NOAA Estuarine Habitat Program,

C-CAP provides information on the location,

health, and loss rates of coastal habitats. To help

set priorities for restoration, C-CAP has devel-
Chapter 4–Wetlands 209

oped a standard protocol for rapid assessment of

changes in habitat quality in coastal wetlands and

the adjacent uplands.

These programs could be tied together and

expanded for use in all Federal, State, and local

efforts, including those involving regulatory,

incentive, disincentive, acquisition, and restoration activities. In addition, they could be used to

help identify indicators of climate change and

methods of addressing these changes. Priorities

could be reviewed periodically as new and more

region-specific information on potential climate

impacts is developed.

A potential problem with any general priority

or ranking scheme for wetlands is that it assumes

that the functions and products of different types

are understood well enough to be compared and

ranked accurately. Such schemes can easily fall

prey to problems of focus and scale. For example,

in coastal areas, FWS might need to evaluate

whether top priority should be given to acquiring

areas most at risk from sea level rise or to

maintaining an interconnected network of lands.

For inland wetlands, including riparian and depressional systems, it will also be important to

identify water sources linked to the health of

wetlands and to acquire water as well as land

rights, where necessary.

Option 4-20: Clarify national goals for wetland protection. Climate change makes the need

for clearly stated policy goals pressing. However,

the Federal no-net-loss policy for wetlands is not

clearly expressed in the regulatory framework,

nor has it been completely embodied in Federal

actions that provide incentives or disincentives to

private activities that affect wetlands. Laws and

programs should balance the need to preserve

existing wetlands in the places where they are

now with where they may or may not be in the

future due to climate change.

One way to clarify wetland-protection goals is

to use the opportunity offered by the upcoming

reauthorization of the Clean Water Act to make its

wetland-protection mandate explicit. Section 404

could be expanded, new sections could be added,

or the focus of the entire statute could be changed

from water quality to sustainable water use with

watersheds. Another possibility would be to

formulate a single new piece of legislation that

would address wetlands specifically-a Federal

omnibus wetland act. Some States have adopted

such legislation. For example, Florida’s Henderson Wetland Act of 1984 provides equal

protection for all the State’s waters and expands

the State’s jurisdiction over protection.

Option 4-21: Ensure that Federal policies do

not inadvertently lead to loss of wetlands. Many

Federal programs affect wetlands by encouraging

different patterns of land use and development.

The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986

called for the Department of the Interior (DOI) to

conduct and publish a comprehensive review of

the impacts of Federal programs on wetlands. One

part of that review has been completed and

released (102), but the second volume has yet to

be published. Volume I discusses the lower

Mississippi alluvial plain and prairie potholes.

Volume II was to include: the Everglades, coastal

Louisiana, Galveston Bay, Puerto Rico, California’s Central Valley, western riparian areas, and

Alaska. DOI should be urged to complete and

issue Volume II promptly. Once the review is

available, Congress may wish to consider amending programs that conflict with protection.

Option 4-22: Promote integrated resource

management at the watershed level. Greater

coordination and integration of programs and

institutions would allow more-efficient management of wetlands. The Federal Government

should explore ways to institute watershed-based

management programs that would consider wetlands along with other natural resources. There is

currently a great deal of interest in watershed

management, and S. 1114, the Water Pollution

Prevention and Control Act of 1993, contains a

major section promoting it. Watershed management essentially recognizes that the many uses of

water are tied together and that problems and their

solutions are most effectively considered on a

system-wide basis.
210 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Managing wetlands within a watershed context

would require an improved understanding of the

types and amount of wetlands needed within any

given watershed to support ecological functions

and to maintain the entire system in a healthy

state. This approach would require inventories of

land, water, and wetlands so that models can be

developed for estimating how changes in some

parts of the system (whether caused by climate or

by human activity) would affect functions elsewhere.

Many efforts already exist that could form part

of an integrated management program, and numerous studies have recommended the need for

such an approach (see ch. 1 and vol. 1, ch. 5).

Programs with some form of integrated planning

have been attempted in States including California, Florida, Georgia, Oregon, and Massachusetts. These programs should be reviewed so that

any Federal action would complement-and avoid

inadvertent interference with-successful programs at the State level.

Option 4-23: Use legislative reauthorizations

to integrate preservation and restoration. The

Clean Water Act and, to a lesser extent, the

Endangered Species Act (P.L. 93-205) are vital

elements of national wetland policies. Both are up

for reauthorization. The controversy surrounding

the Clean Water Act stems partially from the lack

of consensus about what the wetland mandate

should be. Also, the effectiveness of the speciesby-species approach used in the Endangered

Species Act has been questioned by critics as well

as by some who fully support its goals. Reauthorization offers an opportunity to explore new ways

to protect and restore biodiversity and ecosystems, both in wetlands and elsewhere.

Under the Clean Water Act, pilot projects in

watershed management could be initiated in

small watersheds where wetlands are either threatened or already degraded. Wetland-restoration

projects could be systematically monitored and

evaluated to explore whether restoration techniques can rejuvenate a full range of wetland

functions and support the original diversity of

flora and fauna in addition to accomplishing more

case-specific goals, such as providing habitat for

waterfowl.

Option 4-24: Support long-term research and

monitoring on the impacts of climate change on

wetlands. Efforts to identify which lands will be

most valuable as the climate changes-and, in

particular, estimating where migration of wetlands might occur-face a daunting lack of

detailed regional climate predictions and a poor

theoretical understanding of how climate and

other hydrological and ecological changes will

affect wetlands. Key areas of investigation that

are needed include:

establishing a baseline of wetland conditions

nationwide and a long-term monitoring network to document rates and types of change;

assessing how wetlands have already been

altered in areas where the water regime has

changed in ways similar to those predicted

for climate change;

determining g water needs for healthy wetlands and the hydrological connections between wetlands and groundwater;

evaluating salt movement through estuaries,

coastal aquifers, and inland surface- and

groundwater systems;

researching the adaptability of key wetland

species (both plants and animals);

assessing how extreme events such as storms

and droughts affect the functioning of wetlands; and

developing and evaluating restoration and

creation technologies.

Some of these topics are already the focus of

research efforts at the Fish and Wildlife Service’s

National Wetlands Research Center and the Army

Corps of Engineer’s Wetlands Research Program

at the Corp’s Waterways Experiment Station in

Vicksburg, Mississippi. EPA’s Environmental

Monitoring and Assessment Program has also

proposed monitoring some pertinent indicators of

the condition of wetlands. The NBS (see ch. 5)
Chapter 4–Wetlands I 211

could also incorporate wetland assessment into its

broader mandate.

FIRST STEPS

This chapter has described how the current

policies for protecting wetlands in the United

States fall short of meeting the stated no-net-loss

policy goal. Because climate change will exacerbate existing stresses on wetlands as sea level

rises in coastal areas and as some interior

wetlands dry out, the problems encountered under

current wetland-protection policies will become

more acute. Thus, policies designed to facilitate

adaptation of wetlands in the future must, at a

minimum, seek to accomplish four goals:

1. establish a clear national policy for wetland

protection,

2. integrate protection across agencies and

across other natural resources,

3. establish and implement a priority plan for

acquisition and protection, and

4. enhance protection of especially vulnerable

wetlands.

The Federal Government cannot use all policy

tools to address these problems with equal

assurance of success. Because 74 percent of all

wetlands are on privately owned lands, the

potential for direct Federal intervention is limited. Given the available policy levers (regulation,

acquisition, incentives, and research), the limited

funds for programs, and the level of scientific

understanding of the impacts of climate change

on wetlands, OTA has identified the following

strategies as potential “frost steps” to respond to

climate change and the threats it poses to wetlands. This list comprises policies that should be

initiated based on concerns about climate

change now.

■ Revise the Clean Water Act. The Clean

Water Act (CWA), which is up for reauthorization, could be revised in various ways to

improve the protection of wetlands. The

absence of a clear and explicit mandate

hampers wetland protection. Regulatory activity under Section 404, for example, is

limited because of ambiguity about its applicability to wetlands that are periodically

inundated or saturated-rather than wet all

year. Furthermore, because existing statutory language emphasizes only the protection of surface-water quality, drainage activity that may destroy wetlands is not regulated

unless it results in the discharge of materials

into protected waters. Congress could revise

the statutory language of CWA to spell out a

clear goal of protecting wetlands and to

extend regulation to all activities that destroy

wetlands. A bill introduced during the 103d

Congress, S. 1304, proposes revisions along

these lines.

Another potential target for revision is the

provision for mitigation banking. If properly

managed, regionally coordinated mitigation

projects could offer both greater regulatory

flexibility and more-effective restoration within

watersheds. CWA could be modified to

establish uniform standards for mitigation

activity and to require that activities be

comprehensively monitored and evaluated

for success. Success should be determined

by the restoration of the destroyed wetland’s

unique function and value as well as at least

equivalent lost-wetland area.

The act could also be expanded to promote

comprehensive watershed management. Regional watershed management could be fostered by revising CWA to set up coordinating mechanisms and incentives. Wetland

protection and restoration could be linked to

regulations covering non-point-source pollution to create a more integrated approach to

achieving mandatory water-quality levels.

The bills now under consideration include a

watershed-management component, but the

key will be to ensure that wetlands are

incorporated into this broader water-quality

framework.
212 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

■ Develop and implement priority plans to

coordinate wetland protection across agencies. Federal agencies including the Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS), the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), the Army Corps

of Engineers (Corps), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have developed

different methods for making decisions about

wetland protection. Methods for monitoring,

delineating, and assigning priority for acquisition or restoration vary according to the

particular goals and responsibilities of each

agency. These differences have led to enormous

actual and perceived disparities in the protection of wetlands.,

The various Federal agencies (e.g., the

Corps, EPA, FWS, and USDA) should coordinate the designation of wetlands that are

deemed to be high priority for protection,

restoration, or acquisition. Development of

regional priority plans and oversight of their

implementation could be supervised by a

multiagency task force composed of representatives from all Federal agencies that

have responsibilities for wetlands. Alternatively, the White I-louse Office of Environmental Policy (OEP) could provide coordination and oversight. Once in place, Federal

agencies could be directed to use this uniform priority plan in making decisions on

CWA Section 404 permitting, land acquisition, easements, and restoration (through

Swampbuster, Wetlands Reserve, and other

programs). Such a plan should be updated

periodically to reflect changing circumstances,

including the anticipated effects of climate

change.

■ Ensure that Federal policies and incentives are consistent with wetland protection. Although Executive Order 11990, issued in 1977, directs Federal agencies to

consider how their policies will affect wetlands, there are still many opportunities to

revise existing Federal programs to enhance

wetland protection.

Congress should urge the Fish and Wildlife Service to complete its review of the

impact of Federal programs on wetlands that

was mandated by the 1986 Emergency Wetlands Resources Act. Prompt completion of

the report could assist further efforts to

identify programs that could be modified to

reduce their impacts on wetlands.

Even without the review, some programs

appear to be prime candidates for modification. For example, Congress could amend the

Coastal Barrier Resources Act to expand its

coverage to include a broad range of coastal

wetlands. Extending the act would not only

help protect wetlands, but would also reduce

Federal expenditures and, by slowing development in high-hazard coastal areas, could

cut down on damage to human lives and

property during coastal storms. Congress

could also act to increase incentives to

private landowners to set aside and restore

wetlands. For example, Congress could maintain full funding for the Wetlands Reserve

Program in future appropriations. Tax benefits for landowners who grant conservation

easements on or make outright donations of

wetlands to Federal, State, or local conservation organizations could be increased, as

called for in H.R. 2149 (102d Congress).

Increased coordination across Federal programs could also promote wetland protection. Wetlands could be included among the

issues considered in the Western Water

Policy Review enacted by the 102d Congress

(see vol. 1, ch. 5), perhaps considering ways

to link conservation of riparian wetlands to

measures promoting water-use efficiency.

Agencies should be urged to take full advantage of the Farmers Home Administration

(FmHA) Conservation Easement Program to

review lands under FmHA loan defaults and

to acquire title or easements to high-priority

wetlands. Similarly, lands on decommissioned military bases should be reviewed for
Chapter 4-Wetlands |213

their value for acquisition or restoration as

protected wetlands.

Conduct research, development, and evaluation in key areas. Research and monitoring should be part of any long-term effort to

protect and restore wetlands, now and as the

climate changes. Congress could encourage

agencies to incorporate research on wetlands

into their U.S. Global Change Research

Progam efforts (see ch. 3). Congress could

also direct the Department of the Interior to

include an assessment of wetlands and periodic monitoring for the effects of climate

change in the proposed National Biological

Survey (see ch. 5).

CHAPTER 4 REFERENCES

I. AlbrechC VS., and D. Isaacs, “Wetlands Jurisdiction and

Judicial Review,” Natural Resources and Environment, vol. 7,

summer 1992, pp. 29-31, 65-67.

2. Alper, J., “War Over the Wetlands: Ecologists v. the White

House,” Science, vol. 257, Atigust 1992, pp. 1043-44.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

tierican Fisheries Society, letter to the Senate Committee on

Commerce, Science, and Transportation March 1, 1990, as

cited in J.P. Wise, Federal Conservation and Management of

Marine Fisheries in the United States (WashingtorL DC: Center

for Marine Conservation 1991), p. 1.

Arrnentano, TV., RA. ParlL and L.C. CkxmarL “Impacts on

Coastal Wetlands Throughout the Unittxl States,” in: Greenhouse Effect, Sea Level Rise, and Coastal Wetlands, EPA

230-05-86-013, J.C. Titua (cd.) (WashirIgton+ DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and

Eviduatio@ hdy 1988).

Arp, WJ., and B.G. Drake, “IncreasedPhotosynthetic Capacity

of SciWus olneyi After 4 Years of Exposure to Elevated Co2, ”

Plant, Ceil, and Environment, vol. 14, 1991, pp. 1003-6.

Beaq MJ., “Waterfowl and Climate Change: A Glimpse into

the ‘Nventy-First Century,” Orion Nature Quurterly, spring

1989, pp. 22-27.

Bi@arn, G., E.H. Clark II, L.V. Haygoo& and M, IxMie (eds.),

Issues in Wetlands Protection: Background Papers Prepared

for the National Wetlands Policy Forum, report prepardforl%e

Conservation Fouudatior.L WashingtorL DC, 1990.

8. Boo@ W., “Storm I&t Gash in Everglades’ HearL” The

Washington Post, Sept. 6, 1992, pp. 1, 14.

9. Brewer, R., The Science of Ecology (Phi.ladelphirx Saunders

College Publishing, 1988).

10. Canning, DJ., Sea&velRisein Wmhington State: State-of-theKnowledge, Impacts, and Potential Policy Issues, Version 2.1

(Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Ecology,

Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Prograuz 1992).

WETLANDS-FIRST STEPS

■ Revise the Clean Water Act

-Make the wetland protection mandate specific in Section 404 or elsewhere.

-Ensure that more land is set aside for protection or restoration than is destroyed.

-Establish uniform standards for mitigation activities.

■ Develop and implement priority plans to coordinate wetland protection across agencies

-Build on existing plans under various agencies (i.e., the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Fish and

Wildlife Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture).

—Direct agencies to use the priority plan in issuing permits (under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act)

and acquiring land and easements (through the Swampbuster and wetlands Reserve Program and

other programs).

-Coordinate planning and management for wetlands at the watershed level.

■ Ensure that ail Federal policies and incentives are consistent with wetland protection

—Extend the Coastal Barrier Resources Act to include coastal wetlands.

—Require the Fish and Wildlife service to issue Volue 2 of The Impact of Federal Programs a report

mandated in the 1986 Emergency wetlands Resources Act.

-Restore the wetlands Reserve Program at least to authorized levels; target wetlands in high-priority

areas.

—Restore tax incentives to private landowners who grant conservation easements.
214 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

11. Castelle, A.J., C. Conolly, M. 13mersetal., WetlandB#ers: An

AnnotatedBibliography, report prepared for the Shorelands and

Coastal Zone Management Prograrm Washington State Department of Ecology, Olymp@ WA Fctnuary 1992.

12. Castelle, A. J., C. Conolly, M Emers et aL, Wetland B@’ers:

Use and Effectiveness, report prepared for the Shorelands and

Coastal Zme Management ProgrwQ Washington State Department of Ecology, Olymp@ WA February 1992.

13. Caatelle, A.J., S. Luchessa, C. Conolly et aL, Wedands

Mitigation Bartk”ng, report prepared for the Shorehmds and

Coastal Zone Managemtmt PrognmL Washington State Department of Ecology, Olymp@ WA February 1992.

14. Chambers, J.R., National Marine Fisheries Service, National

oceanic and Atmospheric Admi.nistratioxL ‘U.S. Coastal Habitat Degradation and Fishery Deelines,” paper presented at the

57th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Charlotte, NC, March 27-April 1, 1992. (To be published

in Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural

Resources Conference by the Wildlife Management Institute,

Washingtorq DC.)

15. Chancy, E., W. Ehnore, and W,S. Platts, Livestock Grazing on

Western Riparian Areas, report prepared produced for the U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency (Eagle, ID: Northwest Resources Information Center, Inc., 1990).

16. Coastal Ocean Policy Roundtable, The 1992 Coastal Status

Report:A Pilot Study of the U.S. Coastal Zone and Its Resources

(NewarlL DE: Coastal Ocean Policy Roundtable, 1992).

17. Cohq J.P., ‘‘How Wet Must a Wetland Be?’ Government

Executive, vol. 24, Mardi 1992, pp. 2CL25.

18. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Ocean

and Coastal Resources: A Btiejlng Book (Washington DC:

Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Sept. 1,

1992).

19, Cooper, C., Sensitivities of Western U.S. Ecosystems to Climate

Change, contractor report prepared for the Office of ‘lMmology

Assessment, 1992.

20. Copedand, C,, Fe&ral Wetlands Manual Revisions: Summary

of Interagency Team Reports (Washington DC: Congressional

I&sear& Service, Library of Congress, Feb. 25, 1992).

21. Council on Environmental Quality and Interagency Advisory

Committee on Environmental Trends, Environmental Trenak

(W-OIL DC: U.S. Government Printing 0t31ce, 1989).

22. Cowar@ L.M., V. Carter, I?.C. GoleL and E.T. LaRoe,

Classljlcation of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the

UnitedStates, FWS/OBS-79/31 (WtA@tOq DC: U.S. DeP~-

ment of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1979).

23. Du TX., Wetlands Losses in the United States, 1780s to

1980s, report to Congress (Washington DC: U.S. Department

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990).

24. Dt@ T&., and C.Il. JohnsorL Status and Trends of Wetlands in

the Contenninous United States, Mid-1970’s to Mid-1980’s

(w_oQ DC: U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 1991).

2S. Delar@ M.R., “No Net Loss of Wetlands: A Comprehensive

Approack’ Natural Resourctw and Environment, VOL 7,

summer 1992, pp. 3-5.

26, Drake, B.G., “Effect of Elevated COZ on Chesapeake Bay

Wetlands,” Responses of Vegetation to Carbon Dioxide, VOL

51, April-November 1990.

27. Drake, B.G., Research Scientist Smithsonian Environmental

Research Center, testimony at the Hcxuing on Global Change

Reaeamh: Global Warming and the Biosphere, before the Semite

Committee on Commeree, Science, and ‘Mrqmtm“OIL April 9,

1992.

28. Drew, L., “Wmngling for Change on the Range,” National

Wildl#e, February-March 1992, pp. 46,4849.

29. Edgertow L.T., The Rising Tide: Global Warnu”ng and World

Sea Levels (WashingtorL DC: Island Press, 1991).

30. Ellison+ J. C., “Climate Change and Sea-hnwl Rise Impacts on

_vemsyst~,” k Impacts of Climate Change on

Ecosystems and Species, R. Leemrms et aL (eds.) (Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press, in press).

31. ErwirL K.L., An Evaluation of Wetland Mitigation in the South

Flori& Water Management Dism”ct (1990), Volume 1, report

prepared for South Florida Water Management Distri@ July

1991.

32. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Interagency

Floodplain Managermmt ‘Ihsk Force, Floodplm”n Management

in the Um”ted States: An Assessment Report, Volume 2 ,

1992-623-787/60303, prepared by L.R. Johnston Associates

(waahingtoq DC: Us. GOvernme nt Printing Office, 1992).

33. Federal I.nterageney Committee for Wetland Delineation Federal Manual for I&nn~ing and Delineating Jurisdim”onal

Wetlandi, cooperative technieal publicatio~ U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil

Conservation Serviee (WashingtoIL DC: U.S. Government

Printing ~lC%, 1989).

34. Federal Register, ‘‘Permits for ktivities in Navigable Waters

or Ocean Waters,” Federal Register, vol. 40, No. 144, July 25,

1975, pp. 3131943.

35. Fiel& D.W., A.J. Reyer, P.V. Genovese, and B.D. Shearer,

Coastal Wetlands of the United States: An Accounting of a

Valuable National Resource, a special National Oceanic and

Atmospheric A&mm“ “stration (NOAA) 20th anniversary report

(%hsh@toq DC: Department of Commerce, NOM February

1991).

36. Flather, CH., and T.W. Hoeks~ An Analysis of the Wildlife

and Fish Situation in the United States: 1989-2040, General

‘fkdMliCd Report RM-178 (wtlSh@tO~ DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, September 1989).

37. Foster, C,W., and P.P. Rogera, “Rebuilding the Nation’s

Wetlands Heritage: A Challenge for the 1990s,” reporl of the

Harvard Wetlands Policy Projeq Center for Science and

International Affairs Discussion Paper 91-5, Revised (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of

Government October 1991).

38. Gendler, lW, ‘‘lbwtud a Better Use of Coastal Resouxees:

Coordinated State and Federal Plannin g Under the Coastal Zone

Management Act,” Georgetown Law Journal, vol. 65, April

1977, p. 1059.
Chapter 4–Wetlands I 215

39. Georgia Department of Community Affairs, “Minimum Standards and procedures for Local Comprehensive Planning [to

implement Georgia Laws 1989],” Act 634 as amended by the

Board of Community Affairs (Atlan@ GA: Georgia Department

of community Affairs, April 1992), pp. 1317-91.

40. Gillis, A. M., ‘‘Should Cows Chew Cheatgrass on Commonlands?” Bioscience, vol. 41, No. 10, November 1991, pp.

668-75.

41. Goldsmit4 E., N, Hildyar4 P. Mccully, and P, Bunyar&

Imperiled Planet: Restoring Our Endangered Ecosystems

(Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1990).

42. Goldstein, J., “Introduction” in: A National Policy of “NoNet

Loss” of Wetlands: What do Agricultural Econonu”sts Have to

Conm”bufe?, AGES 9149, R.E. Heimlich (cd.) (Washington

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research

Service, Resource and ‘Ikdmology Division, 1991), pp. 1-3.

43. Gosselink, J.G., E.P. Odum, and RX, Pope, “The Wlue of the

Tidal kfarsk” Report No. LNJ-SG-74-03 (Baton Rouge, Lk

Center for Wetland Resourecs, Louisiana State Univcssity,

1974).

44. GruIke, N.E., G.H. Riechers, W.C. Oechel, U. Hjehm and C.

Jaeger, “Carbon Balance in TUssoek ‘Ihmlra Under Ambient

and Elevated Atmospheric COz, ” Oecologia, vol. 83, 1990, pp.

485-94.

45. Heimlic& R.E. (cd.), A National Policy of “No Net Loss” of

Wetlands: What Do Agricultural Econonu”sts Have to Conm”bute?, AGES 9149 (Washington DC: U.S. Ikp_~t of

Agriculture, Eamomic Research Semice, Resources and ‘Rzhnology Divisio~ 1991).

46. liil~ C.L., B.J. Ryaq BA. McGregor, and M. RUS4 Our

Changing Landscape: Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, U.S.

Geological Sumey CirculaT 1085, in: “Public Issues in Earth

Science” series (Washington DC: Government Printing Olllce,

1991).

47, Interagency Committee on Wetlands Restoration and Creatiou

A National Program for Wetlands Restoration and Creation,

report to the Policy Coordinating Group Interagency ‘lhsk Force

on Wetlands, August 1992.

48. I.ntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (WCC), World

Meteorological Organiza tioq and United Nations Environment

Prograq Climate Change: The IPCC Impacts Assessment,

report prepared for IPCC by Working Group II, WJ. McG.

lkgart, G.W. Sheldoq and D.C. Griffith (eds.) (Canti

Australia: Australian GOVfXXUIIC nt Publishing Service, 1990).

49. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (lPCC), World

Meteorological Orga.nizatioa and United Nations ~vironrnent

pro- Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment,

report prep~ for KC by VV’Orking Group I, J.’K Houghtonj

GJ. Jenkins, and JJ. Ephraums (eds.) (Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press, 1990).

50. Jones, E., “The Coastal Barrier Resources Act: A Common

Cents Approach to protection” Environmental Luw, vol. 21,

1991, pp. 1015-80.

51. Joyce, L.A., An Analysis of the Range Forage Situation in the

United States: J989-2040, a technical document supporting the

1989 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment General lkchnieal Report RM-180 (Washington+ DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest ServiIX, 1989).

52. ~ T.W., BJ. B- and M.L. Williams, “Charleston Case

Study, “ in: Greenhouse Efect, Sea Level Rise, and Coastal

Wethnds, EPA 23&05-86-013, J.G. Titus (ML) (Washin@oq

DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of policy,

Planning and Evdu.atioIL July 1988), pp. 37-59.

53. ~T.W., W.C. Eiser, BJ. Ba@ and M.L. Williams, “New

Jersey Case Study, ” irx Greenhouse Effect, Sea LevelRise, and

Coastal Wetlands, EPA 230-0586013, J.G. Titus (cd.) (Wash-

@tow DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Oftlce of

policy, Planning and EvahuXiOm July 1988), pp. 61-86.

54. Keddy, PA., ‘‘WaterUvel Fluctuations and Wetland Consenwtiorq” irx Wetlana3 of the Great Lakes: Protection and

Restoration Policies; Status of the Science, Pmeed@s of an

International Syrnposi~ J, Kusler and R. Smardon (eds.),

Niagara Falls, NY, hhy 16-18, 1990, pp. 799-91.

55. Kenworthy, T, “How Wetlands Funda Dried Up,” The

Washa”ngton Post, Get. 7, 1992, p. A3.

56. Kundell JJ3., and S.W, Woolf, Georgia Wetlands: Trend and

Policy Options (Athens, GA: Carl Vinson Institute of Government University of Georg@ 1986).

57, Kusla, J.A., Our National Wetlands Heritage: A Protection

Guidebook (Washin@oU DC: Environmatal Law Institute,

1983).

58. Kuskr, J.A., “Wetlands Delineatioru An Issue of Scienee or

Politics?” Environment, vol. 34, March 1992, pp. 7-11,29-37.

59. Kusler, JA., and M.E. Kent@ Wet/and Creation andRestoration: The Status of the Science (Washingto~ DC: Island Press,

1990)!

60. La.moq J.S. (cd.), Mo&ls for Assessment of Freshwater

Wet/an&, publication No. 32 (AmhessL MA: University of

Massachusetts, Watcx Resources Research Center, 1976).

61. Liebe_ L.R., and P.T Hundemannj ‘‘Regulatory Standards

for permits under Section 404,” Natural Resources and

Environment, vol. 7, summer 1992, pp. 12-14, 56-58.

62. Louisiana Wetlands Protection Panel (LWPP), Saving

Louisiana’s Coastal Wetlands: The Needfor a Long-Term Plan

of ti”on, EPA-23CW2-87-026, report of a panel convened by

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency @PA) and the

IJX1.isiana Geological Sumey at Grand Thrre Islax@ L& Sept.

17-19, 1985 @hShiX@Oq DC: U.S. EPA April 1987).

63. McPhee, J., The Control of Nature (New Yodc Farrar, Stmus,

Giroux, 1989).

64. Minello, TJ., and R.J. Zimmermam “The Role of Estumine

Habitats in Regulating Growth and Swvival of Juvenile Penaeid

Shrimp,” h Frontiers of Shrimp Research, P. DeLoach, WJ.

Dougherty, and MA. Davidson (eds.) (Amaterdarq The Netherlands: Elsevier Seiencx Publishers, 1991), pp.1-16.

65. Nationalkademyof Scienee, Committee on Science, R@neering, and Public Policy, Panel on Policy Implications of

Greenhouse Warming, Policy Implications of Greenhouse

Whrnu”ng: Report of the Adaptation Panel, prepublication

manuscript (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1991).

66. National Academy of Science, committee on Science, En@neering, ~public PolicY, Poiiq Implications of ~We

Warming-Synthesis pane~ Policy Implications of Greenhouse

Warnu”ng (WashingtorL DC: National Academy Press, 1991).
216 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adnums ‘ ‘ tration (NOAA),

Coastal Wetlands of the United States: An Accounting of a

Valuable National Resources, a special NOAA 20th anniversary

report (TWshi@ou DC: Department of Commerce, NOFebruary 1991).

National Research Council (NRC), Committee on Restomtion

of Aquatic Ecosystesns——Science, lkcimology, and Public

Policy, Water Science and Technology Board Commis sion on

Geosciences, Environment and Resources, Restoration of

Aquatic Ecosystems: Sa”ence, Technology, and Public Policy

(Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1992).

Niering, WA., “Endangere& Threatened and Rare Wetland

Plants and Animals of the Continental United States, ” in: The

Ecology and Management of Wetlands, Volume 1, Ecology of

Wetland, D.D. Hook et al. (ed.s,) (Portlan& Ok Timber Press,

1988).

Odum, E.P., “The Mdue clf Wetlands: A Hierarchical Approach,” in: Wetlands Functions and Values: The State of Our

Understanding, Proceedings of the National Symposium on

Wetlanak, P. Greesom J.R.. CM and J.E. Clark (MIs.)

(Minneapolis, MN: American Waters Resources Association

1979).

Odum, E.P., “Wetlands and Their %lues,” Journal of Soil and

Water Conservation, vol. 38, 1983, p, 5.

Oechel, W.C., and W.D. Billings, “Effectsof Global Change on

the Carbon Balance of Arctic Plants and Ecosystems,’ in: Arctic

Ecosystems in a Changing Climate: An Ecophysiological

Perspective, F.S, Chapin III, R.L. Jefferies, J1. Reynolds,

G.R. Shaver, and J. Svoboda (eds.) (San Diego, CA: Academic

Press, 1992), pp. 139-68.

P@ R.A., et al., “The Effects of Sca Level Rise on U.S.

Coastal Wetlands,” in: The Potential Effects of Global Climate

Change in the U.S.: Appendix B-Sea Level Rise, J. Smith and

D, Tirpak (eds.) (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989), pp. 1-1 to 1-55.

Pa.& R.A., et al., The Effects of Sea Level Rise on U.S. Coastld

Wetlana3 and Lowlands, contractor report prepared for U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Cooperative Agreement

CR814578-01, September 1989.

park R.A., J.K. Lee, and DJ. Canning, Potential Eflects of Sea

Level Rise on Washington State Wetlands, report prepared for

Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands and

Coastal Zone Management Program, OlympiiL WA, 1992.

Poiani, KA., and W.C. Johnson, “Global Warming and Prairie

Wetlands: Potential Consequences for Waterfowl Habi@”

Bioscience, vol. 41, No. 9, October 1991, pp. 611-18.

President’s Commis sion on the American Outdoors, Amen.ca’s

Outdoors: The Legacy, the Challenge (Wr@ingtoQ DC: Island

Press, 1987).

Presser, N. S., G.G. Rdonski, i~d D.B. Rock.kmd, “A Review of

State Agencies’ Capabilities to Manage Marine Recreational

Fisheries,” paper presented at the 118th Annual Meeting of the

American Fisheries Society, Toronto, Cana@ 1988 (Washington, DC: Sport Fishing Institute, 1988).

Roberts, L., “Wetlands Trading Is a Imer’s Game, Say

Ecologists,” Science, vol. 260, June 25, 1993, pp. 189@92.

Roots, E. F., “Climate Change: High-Latitude Regions,” Climatic Change, vol. 15, 1989, pp. 223-53.

2

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

%.

Salveso% D., Wetkwtds: Mitigating and Regulating Development Impacts (Wash.ingtoW DC: Urban Land Institutq 1990).

Sandersq J.W., “Section 404: Federal Interference with State

and Local Land Use?” Natural Resources and Ennronment,

vol. 7, summer 1992, pp. 6, 8-9, 53-54.

Sldpxnaq H., and D. Canning, “Vertical Land Movements in

Coastal Washingtoru Implications for Coastal Erosion and Sea

Level Rise,” a Pper pmsmted at the 12th I.nt~tioxMI

Conference of the Coastal Society, San Antonio, TX, October

1990.

Smiti J.B., and D. Tirpak (eds.) The Potential Effects of GlobaZ

Climate Change on the United States, EPA-23W5-89-050

(WUh@tOLL DC: U.S. Environmental protection Agency,

December 1989),

Sokolove, RD., and P.D. Huang, “Privatization of Wetland

Mitigation Banking,” Natural Resources andEnvironment, vol.

7, summer 1992, pp. 36-38,6869.

State of Maine, Department of Environmental ProtectiorL

“Natural Resources Rotection Act: Coastal Sand Dune Rules,

(hpter 355,” mViSCd JarL 4, 1988.

Taylor, W.E., and D. Magee, “Should All Wetlands Be Subject

to the Same Regulation?” Natural Resources andEnw.ronment,

vol. 7, summer 1992, pp. 32-35, 67-68.

The Conservation Foundation Protecting America’s Wetlands:

An Action Agenda, The Final Report of the National Wetlands

Policy Forum (Washington DC: The Conserv ation Foundation.L

1988).

Thorhang, A., and B, Miller, “Stemming the Loss of Coastal

Wetland Habitats: Jamaica as a Model for the Tropical

Developing Countries?” Environmental Conservation, vol. 13,

1986, p, 72.

Tiner, R.W., Jr., Wetlat@ of the Um.ted States: Current Statw

and Recent Trends, National Wetlands Invento~ (Waahin@orL

DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,

March 1984).

Titus, J.G. (cd.), Greenhouse Eflect, Sea LevelRise, and Coastal

Wetlands, EPA 230-05-86-013 (WashingtoIL DC: U.S. Envirom

mental Protection Agency, Oftlce of Policy, Planning and

Evlduatioq Jdy 1988).

Titus, J,G., ‘Shategies for Adapting to the Greenhouse Etl~’

APA Journal, ~CI 1990, pp. 311-23.

Titus, J.G., “Greenhouse Effect and Coastal Wetland Policy:

How Americans Could Abandon an Area the Size of Massachusetts at Minimum Cost” Environmental Management, vol. 15,

No. 1, 1991, pp. 39-58.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources

(IW’R), “IWR Review Report for U.S. Congress, Offke of

‘Rchnology ksessmenc in Refexence to Draft Report on

Systems at Risk from Climate Change,” IWR Policy Study

93-PS-1, July 1993.

U.S. Congress, Ofilce of lkchnology Assessment, Wetfanak:

Their Use and Regulation, OTA-O-206 (WashingtoxL DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, March 1984).

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research

Service, Farm Drainage in the United States: History, Status,

and Prospects, Miscellaneous Publication 1455, G.A. Pavelis

(cd.) (WashingtorL DC: USDA December 1987).
Chapter 4-Wetlands I 217

9’7. us. ~“t of @~- @sDA)~ Fo=t s~ce~ A“

Analysis of the Range Forage Situation in the United States:

1989-2040, General ‘Ikchnical Report RM-180, a technical

document Suppmthlg the 1989 USDA Forest Service RPA

Asessrnent, by L.A. Joyce (Washin@oq DC: USDA, 1989).

98. U.S. Depwtment of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Sewice, An

Analysis of the Wildlife and Fish Situation in the Um”ted States:

1989-20#0, General lkchnical Report RIM-178, a technical

document supporting the 1989 USDA Forest Service RPA

Assesamen4 by C.H. Flather and T.W. Hoekstra (WasMngtoL

DC: USDA 1989).

99. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation

Service, The Second RCA Appraisal: Soil, Water, and Related

Resources on Nonfederal Land in the United Stated nalysis

of Conditions and Trendr, Misccllaruous publication 1482

(W-OW DC: USDA, June 1989, slightly revised blay

1990).

1(M. U.S. Department of Commerce, Letter of Commen4 dated

Nov. 27, 1987, on the Sept. 1, 1987, Dmft National Wetlands

Priority Ptan.

101. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admml “ “stration (NOW), National Marine Fisheries

Sewice (NMFS), Fisheries of the United States, 1990, Current

Fishery Stm”stics No. 9000 (Silver Spring, MD: Fisheries

Statistics Diviaioq NMFS, NOW May 1991).

102. U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), The Impact of Fe&raZ

Programs, Volume 1: The Lower h4ississippi Alluvial Plain

and the Prairie Pothole Region, a report to Congress by the

Secretary of the Interior, October 1988.

103. U. S. Department of the Interior (D(X), Bureau of Land

Management Fish and Wildl~e 2000: Annual Report of

Accomplishments FY 1991 (WashingtorL DC: Government

Printing Office, 1991).

104. U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land

kfanagemen~ Fish and Wildlife 2000: Special Status Fishes

Habitat Management, BLM/SC/PT-91~5+6844 (Washington DC: Government Printing ~ce, May 1991).

105. U.S. Department of the Interior 0201), Bureau of Land

Management Riparian-Wetkmd Initiative for the 1990’s,

BLM/WO/GI-91/001 +4340 @bShhl@O~ DC: Bureau o f

Land lvfanagemen~ September 1991).

106. U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS), An Overview of Major WetlandFunctions and

Values, FWS/OBS-84/18, contractor paper prepared by J.H.

Sather and R.D. Smith (wNhillgtOu DC: U.S. DOI, FWS,

September 1984).

107. U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS), National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan

@hShiKl@O~ DC: U.S. DOI, FWS, Apti 1989).

108. U.S. Department of the Interior (XXX), Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS), Wetlands: Meeting the President’s Challeng*

1990 Wetlands Action Plan (Washington, DC: U.S. DOI,

Fws, 1990).

109. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Nationa/ Water

Quality Inventory 1990 Report to Congress (WashingtoIL DC:

Us. EPA 1992).

110. Us. Generalkmunting Office (GAO), RangeIand Management: BLMEfforts to Prevent Unauthorized Livestock Gram-ng

Need Strengthening, GAO/RCED-91-17 (WS.SMI@OU ~:

GAO, Decemba 1990).

111. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), Rangeland Managetnent: Forest Service Not Perfornu”ng Needed Monitoring of

Grazing AUotntents, GAO/RCED-91-148 (Washington DC:

GAO, my 1991).

112. Us. General Accounting O!Twe (GAO), WetZands Ovem”ew:

Fe&ral and State Policies, Legislation, and Programs,

GAO/RCED-92-79Fs (l%shingtom DC: U.S. GAO, NovCf”-

ber 1991).

113. Mm Sickle-Burkem V., et al., National Wetlands Researc h

Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife %-vice, tables describing

coastal wetland vulnexabilities to climate change, pxqxu-ed for

U.S. Offkz of lkchnology Assessmen4 May 1992.

114. Warrenj R, S., Coastal W2tland Vulnerabilities to Climate

Change, contractor paper prepared for the Office of lkchnology Assessment, July 1992.

115. Water Quality 2000, A National Water Agenda for the 21st

Century: Final Report (Alexan@ VA: Water Environment

Foundatio~ater Quality 2000, November IW).

116. WhigbanL D.F., and M.M. Brinson, ‘‘Wetland Value Impacts,” in: Wetlands and Shallow Continental Water Boch”es,

Vohme 1, B.C. Patten et al. (c&) (The Hague, The NetherhdS: SPB ACSdCI”iC PubIiahing, 1990), pp. W1-21.

117. WilkinsoL C.F., The Eagle Bird: Mapping a New West (New

York Pantheon Books, 1992).

118. Willard, D.E., and L.D. Kosmon4 ‘‘A Watershed-Ecosystem

Approach to bind and Water Use Planning and Management”

draft contractor paper prepared for the OfYicc of ‘RzhnoIogy

ASSeSSf”CXltj August 1992.

119. Willar&D.E., C.P. Wolfe, and A.G.B. Primack ‘‘l’he Peculiar

but Widespread Problem of Alte@ Degrad~ or Disti

Wetlands,” paper presented at an Association of State Wetland

Managers meeting, Oakland, @ 1991.

120. WillarA D.E., et al., “Wetland Vulnerabilities to Climate

Change,” contractor paper prepared for the Offlce of lkchnology Assessment, August 1992.

121. Winter, T.C., “A Physiographic and Climatic Framework for

Hydrological Studies of Wetlands,’ in: Aquatic Ecosystems in

Senu”-Arid Regions: Implications for Resource Management,

National Hydrology Research Institute Symposium Series #7,

R.D. Robards and ML. Bothwell (eds.) (Saskatoom Saskatchewan Cana@ Environment Canada, 1992), pp. 12748.

122. Wise, J.P., Federal Conservation and Management of Marine

Fisheries in the Um”ted States (Washingto& DC: Center for

Marine Conscrvatioq 1991).

123. WisheW I.C., et al., “Effects of Eutrophication on Wetland

Vegetatio~” im Wetlands of the Great Lakes: Protection and

Restoration Policies; Status of the Science, Proceedings of an

International Symposiuq J.L. Kusler and R. Swardon (eds.),

Niagara Falls, NY, h&y 16-18, 1990, pp. 112-21.

124. Wood, LD., “Federal Wetland Regulation is Essential,”

Natural Resources and Environment, vol. 7, summer 1992, pp.

7, 1011,54-56.
218 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

125. Zallm M., ‘The Mitigation Agrccmcnt-A Major Development in Wetland Rcguladom” Natud Resources and Environment, vol. 7, summer 19W, pp. 19-21, 60-62.

126. Zedler, JB., “m ChaUenge of Protecting Endangered

Species Habitat Along tho Southern California coast Coastal

Munagemenr, vol. 19, 1991, pp. 35-53.

127, Zcdler, J1l., “Coastal Wetlands: Multiple Management Protx

lcma in Southern Californ@” paper prcstntcd at the Multiple

Usa of the Coastal ZOm in a Chan@g World Symposi~

sponaod by the National Academy of Science, Commission

on~ Environment and Resources, woods Hole,

m June 1992.

128. Zedkr, PH., “The Ecology of Southcm California Vernal

Pools: A Community Profile,” Biological Reporter, VOL 85

(7.11), 1987.

129. Zimm~ RJ., ‘IV. MillCllO, E.P._ and J.M. Nance,

“Effbcta of Accelerated Sea-Level Rise on Coastal Secondary

producti~” im Coastal Wetlandk: Coastal Zone ’91 Cor@erence, H.S. Bolton and O.T. Magoon (da.), proceedings of

umferczm held by the American Society of Civil E@neera

(ASCE), ~B-CA JUly 1991.

130. Zi~ LH., B.G. Drake, and S. chambcr~ “Imng-Wrm

Photoayntbctic Response in Single Leaves of a ~ and C, Salt

Marsh Spccica Grown at Blcvatod Atmospheric COZ in situ,”

Oecologia, VOL 83, 1990, pp. 469-72.
Preserves:

Federally

Protected

Natural

Areas 5

Status

■ Represent and protect the best of the Nation’s natural heritage.

■ Repository for the Nation’s rarest species and for conserving

biodiversity.

■ Threatened by human activity.

The Climate Change Problem

■ A shifting climate ‘‘map’ over protected areas with fixed

boundaries.

What Is Most Vulnerable?

■ Areas that are small, isolated, fragmented, under other stress.

■ Areas containing climate-sensitive species or ecosystems.

■ Some biodiversity loss likely.

Impediments

■ Many levels of institutional and landscape fragmentation.

■ Lack of knowledge.

Types of Responses

■ Ideal responses (if we had the information): 1) maintain species

and/or ecosystems “in place”; 2) help them move.

n Realistic responses (given gaps in our knowledge): 1) acquire

needed information (basic research, inventorying, monitoring);

2) manage the areas to minimize impediments to adaptation and

to increase resiliency of natural areas (through direct Federal

action, indirect Federal action, partnerships).

I

2 19
220 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

OVERVIEW

Setting aside large areas of land to protect their

natural qualities and processes has become a

central strategy in preserving the American heritage. As long ago as the early 1800s, prominent

American writers and artists envisioned the preservation of parts of the wild, undeveloped frontier

and voiced their concern about the destructive

effects of western expansion. The establishment

of Yellowstone National Park in 1872 marked the

beginning of putting these ideals into practice

(157). Since then, the Federal Government has

established several systems of reserved lands

(e.g., the National Parks, the National Wilderness

Preservation System, and National Wildlife Refuges) and special management agencies (e.g., the

National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife

Service) to administer and protect valued resources (see box 5-A).1 Federally protected natural areas have become a repository for the

Nation’s rarest species and for conserving biological diversity. Over 240 million acres (97 million

hectares) 2 are now held by the Federal Government specifically to ensure the protection of

wildlife, aesthetic beauty, or other natural attributes for the enjoyment of future generations.

Nearly $3 billion is spent annually to manage,

maintain, restore, and protect these lands. Climate

change may threaten this substantial national

investment in protecting natural areas.

Projected rates of climate change are faster

than any that have occurred on a global scale over

the past 10,000 years-since the last ice age (57).

Climate regimes could shift dramatically.3 Whether

plants and animals accustomed to a particular

climate regime will be able to adjust to climate

change is uncertain (see ch. 2). The opportunities

for species to respond by migrating or adapting

may be limited; species in small, isolated, fragmented areas may be particularly at risk. The

climate “map” that has helped shape the distinctive vegetation and wildlife of many reserves will

shift, while the boundaries of the protected areas

remain freed. Some reserves may be ‘‘left behind,” incapable of providing the benefits or

serving the functions for which they were originally established, such as providing protection for

rare species or supporting wildlife-related recreation (see fig. 5-l). It may become too costly or

impossible to protect certain species. To protect

other plant and animal species, land-management

agencies might find it necessary to undertake

increasingly aggressive approaches to management (see box 5-B).

To compound the problems, many natural areas

have already become threatened by forces within

and outside their boundaries. Population growth

has led to development pressures, growing visitor

use, and increased geographic fragmentation of

natural areas. Institutional fragmentation, with

the management structure governing Federal

lands dispersed across several agencies and having no unifying goal, has in some cases also

compromised preservation efforts. Boundaries of

protected areas are somewhat artificially fixed,

with many surrounded by actively managed or

developed lands. With growing fragmentation, it

will be increasingly difficult for natural areas to

adapt to the stresses of climate change.

Given the vast amount of uncertainty surrounding climate change and natural area responses, the

most sensible ways to prepare for climate change

in federally protected natural areas today are to:

1) improve information gathering, and 2) enhance

protection of federally protected areas and their

resources.

1 The National Wilderness Preservation System is administered by four Federal agencies: the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest

Serviee and the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of I-and Management National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Semice.

z ~~nve~ acres to hectares, :multiply by 0.45.

3 A warming of 5.4 “F (3 “C) over the next century would shift climatic regimes perhaps 200 to 300 miles (300 to 500 kilometers) northward

or 1,600 feet (5(X) meters) in elevation (58, 96, 172).
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas |221

Box 5A-Climate Change and Management Philosophies for Natural Area Management

National Park System-Recent National Park Service (NPS) policies state that managers should seek to

“maintain all the components and processes of natural evolving ecosystems, including the natural abundance,

diversity, and ecological integrity of the plants and animals” (151). Although “change is recognized as an integral

component of the functioning of natural ecosystems,” NPS policies regarding wildlife and plant protection are

based on the assumption that climate is relatively static or at least slow to change. The changes currently protected

under NPS policies imply “natural,” including evolutionary, changes--not necessarily the rapid changes predicted

for human-induced climate change. Stated policies may encourage resisting migration and other adaptive

responses and maintaining only the existing species that now occur inside National Park boundaries. This goal

may be difficult to attain under climate change as wildlife and plants attempt to migrate. On the other hand, if

human-induced climate change is seen as a natural phenomenon, management of National Parks may tend to

accommodate species shifts.

National Wildlife Refuge System--Climate change may pose a problem for refuge management because

efforts to protect waterfowl and other species may require even more intensive and costly management than they

do today. The ability to protect species maybe greater for National Wildlife Refuges than for National Parks

because more intensive manipulation of habitat is allowed. Most refuges were established to protect waterfowl

habitat, flyways, and breeding grounds (6, 125), which explains why roughly one-third of wildlife refuges are

wetlands. Furthermore, refuge habitat and wildlife are often manipulated to meet production targets, such as

waterfowl population quotas (6, 144). Over 30 refuges were established to protect threatened and endangered

species, and their management is designed to protect those species--not necessarily to maintain the naturalness

of the area (144). Recent additions to the system, such as those added under the Alaska National Interest Lands

Conservation Act (P.L. 96-467), seek to “conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural

diversity,” signaling a more hands-off approach to management (6). In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Service is

currently reviewing the management philosophy for the entire System, and is advocating more emphasis on

multispecies and ecosystem-level management (1 51 ).l

National Wilderness Preservation System-For most wilderness areas today, changes that occur as a

result of human-induced climate change maybe consistent with maintaining the “wilderness character” of the area

if climate change is perceived as a natural phenomenon. However, allowing those changes may prevent

wilderness areas from offering high quality habitat or protection for rare or endangered species. Under the

Wilderness Act (P.L. 66-577), all agencies that administer Wilderness Areas are directed to “preserve the

wilderness character” of the area for future generations. Generally, a “hands-off” approach to management is

followed when possible, and natural processes are allowed to govern with minimal human interference. Extreme

threats of fire, insects, or disease can be controlled by using the “minimum tool necessary” to accomplish the

task-as defined by the courts-so that wilderness values are minimally damaged (129, 139). If climate change

is perceived as a human-caused disruption of natural processes, it is not dear how management would change.

Changes in wilderness areas caused by human-induced climate change maybe interpreted as changes in the

wilderness character of the area. If so, more active management to minimize these changes might be justified.

1 Because no law mandates an overarching direction for the Refuge System, this new management

philosophy may conflict with the legislatlve objectivesforwhich an individual refuge was established and, if so, would

become subordinate to those objectives.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.
222 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Figure 5-l-Preserves and Climate Change

I Southern range limit I

*

I f

I Southern range limit

$

I

NOTE: As climate regimes change, species may migrate, decline, or

become extinct, leaving preserves dramatically changed. Migrating

“dsouthernr ange’’mit~

species may find it difficult to find new habitat and may no longer be

protected.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993,

Additional research and monitoring are essential for informed decisionmaking about natural

areas in a changing climate. Information is

needed to help direct efforts in the acquisition of

natural areas, to determine the sensitivity of

species to climate, to restore damaged natural

areas to ecological productivity, and to anticipate

and respond to environmental hazards (85). To

even identify the effects of a changing climate,

baseline data on current ecosystem structure and

functions are needed.

Enhancing the protection of federally protected

areas that makes them more resilient to climate

change and more able to confront existing stresses can be achieved in numerous ways. Direct

Federal mechanisms, such as acquisition programs and agency management could be tailored

to better protect natural areas by enlarging or

joining existing areas, for example. Indirect

Federal actions, including the suite of incentive

and cost-sharing programs for private land

management, could also be tailored to help buffer

and protect natural areas. Partnerships among

Federal, State, local, and tribal governments as

well as private organizations and interest groups

could be more aggressively pursued as a way to

augment Federal natural area protection efforts.

Increasingly, land managers and scientists are

calling for a more holistic approach to land

management that is based on ecosystem, topographic, or watershed boundaries. For example, in

1992, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) announced policies that

would place greater emphasis on total ecosystem

management. Although this new approach is not

yet well-defined, it is generally understood to

include planning that transcends ownership boundaries and that requires active cooperation between

multiple agencies, governments, and interest

groups. Some see this new approach as the beginning of a fundamental change in the way the

Nation protects its resources and, to the extent

that landscape and institutional fragmentation

are reduced, an effective approach to helping

some protected areas adapt to climate change (13,

75, 96).
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas | 223

Box 5-B-The Strategic Dilemma for Protecting Natural Areas Under Climate Change

To minimize Ioss of the investment in natural areas and their resources, Federal agendas may ultimately need

to change their management approach to one that runs counter to currently prevailing approaches. Because

climate change may tend to change the composition of animals and vegetation in natural areas, management

policies that seek to protect the status quo at any cost as well as those that allow unlimited change will be called

into question. The “moving map” imposed by climate change will make each type of management scheme more

difficult to implement- Current philosophies are based on a relatively constant mean climate. Climate change will

shift this mean climate with year-to-year weather variations. Climate change will shift this mean. Subsequent

changes in natural resources and processes might not be easily addressed under management strategies that

are based on the assumption of a relatively static climate.

Areas valued for their ecological processes may require more manipulation and intensive management to

save valued resources. Agencies may have to develop contingency plans to facilitate change in management

direction when necessary. Three very general approaches to natural area protection are possible under climate

change: 1) maintain existing species composition, 2) maintain some species in place and allow change for others,

and 3) allow climate change impacts to occur.

Strategy 1: Maximize efforts to preserve current species composition-No management scheme

governing Federal protected natural areas fully embraces this philosophy, although management of the National

Park System in the 1960s advocated this approach. NPS policies were influenced by the 1963 Leopold Report,

which suggested that the overriding goal for National Park management should be to preserve “pre-settlement”

pristine conditions (88, 172). Hence, management policies favored protection of species historically living in the

park and directed active restoration of areas damnaged by’’post-settlement” activities. Although emphasis is still

on maintaining the historical mix of species in National Parks, most recent National Park Service (NPS) policies

also seek to protect evolutionary change and shifting natural processes. The overall goal is to maintain a healthy

ecosystem.

Maintaining the status quo may be important for protecting rare species and communities and for maintaining

biodiversity now. However, climate changes of the rate and magnitude predicted by scientists could cause

changes in vegetation and species mixes that would make maintaining historical communities increasingly difficult

and costly. Such preservation efforts may run counter to natural processes that are pushing for ecosystem change.

Because of new developments in the scientific understanding of ecological communities, this strategy is currently

being questioned even without considerations of climate change (88, 104).

To implement this strategy under climate change, more hands-on, intensive management will be required to

stave off nonnative or opportunistic species invasions, fight unnatural pests and disease, and possibly prevent

fires. Given the Nation’s experience with protecting endangered species, the costs of preserving entire ecosystems

by similar “brute force” will likely become prohibitive. Thresholds might have to be set to determine when to

terminate preservation efforts for some areas. To best manage resources under this strategy, research efforts

should focus on understanding how communities interact with-each other, respond to stress, and adapt to change.

Strategy 2: Preserve some species in place and allow change for others--Although this is not an official

management strategy for any Federal land-management agency today, it is by default the primary method of

management in National Wildlife Refuges. A National Midlife Refuge is generally managed to preserve a specific

community or species so management may allow change in other resources as long as the primary refuge

objective is not adversely affected. In addition, areas that contain endangered species are required by the

Endangered Species Act {P.L 93-205) to provide protection for these species despite other management

objectives. Still, the costs of protection for even a single species can be extremely high (see box 5-Don the

expenditures of endangered species recovery programs).

To implement this strategy in the future, research will be needed to identify what species should or can be

protected in an evolving habitat and which species could migrate. For migrating species, corridor theory and design

(Continued on next page)
224 | Preparing for an Uncertain Climate Volume 2

Box 5-B–The Strategic Dilemma for Protecting Natural Areas-(Continued)

techniques will need to be developed further, as will techniques for translocation of species. The current

understanding of ecosystem structure and function will have to be greatly expanded Again, thresholds for when

to intensify or abandon preservation efforts might have to be established to facilitate future management decisions.

Strategy 3: Allow climate change impacts to occur—This strategy represents a completely “hands-off’

policy. Although it is not an official policy for natural area management, minimal human intervention with natural

processes is an ideal goal advocated by the Wilderness Act (P.L. 66-577) and by some NPS policies. In practice,

however, managers must intervene with natural processes to minimize damage from human activities (e.g.,

pollution and visitor use) and to simulate other processes (e.g., the natural fire regime).

Under this strategy, climate impacts would be seen as simply changing the composition of the landscape in

a natural way. Extinctions and changing species composition would bean adaptation in and of itself. This may

bean appropriate approach for areas that are not valued for a specific species or community mix and that are large

enough to accommodate a wide range of natural processes. Because so Iittle is known about how ecosystems

work, this approach is favored by some experts as the best adaptive strategy for many species under climate

change (13, 51, 69, 98).

However, if climate change accelerates weed, disease, and pathogen spread, a “hands-off” approach could

result in serious conflicts with adjacent landowners. In addition, t his strategy offers the least active protection for

rare and endangered species. Public and political pressure may lead to intervention with natural processes. To

maintain the maximum amount of existing species and biodiversity while embracing this approach, new natural

areas with diverse species compositions may need to be established. Given the level of fragmentation and

development, especially in the East, there are few opportunities to establish new natural areas of sufficient size

to sustain large ecosystems. Much more information about reserve design, size, and connectivity will be needed

to effectively establish new natural areas,

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

FEDERALLY PROTECTED lands), some of which are as pristine as some

NATURAL AREAS TODAY

• What Are Federally Protected

Natural Areas?

Many lands under various Federal management designations as well as substantial amounts

of private- and State-owned land are more or less

in a ‘‘natural’ state (primarily governed by

nature). In addition to conserving natural processes, these areas can provide: protection for fish

and wildlife species and their habitat, a haven for

endangered and threatened plant and animal

species, and unique opportunities for certain

kinds of recreation including wildlife watching,

nature study, photography, hiking, and camping.

In this sense, millions of acres of U.S. lands

(including Federal, State, tribal, and private

designated Wilderness Areas, can be considered

natural areas.

About one-third of the Nation’s land base is

held by the Federal Government and administered

by several different agencies (see fig. 5-2).

Although much of this land is essentially “natural,’ its management varies. Some lands are

managed explicitly to retain relatively pristine

conditions by limiting human use and development and focusing on preserving the natural

processes that have shaped the landscape. Examples of the lands under Federal ownership include

National Parks, administered by the Department

of the Interior’s (DOI’S) National Park Service

(NPS), and units of the National Wilderness

Preservation System, administered by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Forest

Service, BLM, the National Park Service, and
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas I 225

Figure 5-2-Landownership of the U.S. Land Base

State and local (8’Yo)

Privately owned (62Yo)

SOURCE: Congressional Research Service, 1990.

DOI’s Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Some

lands axe managed to provide for a variety of uses

(multiple-use lands), including some resource use

and development that may alter natural processes,

and conservation of natural qualities and processes

such as wildlife habitat and watershed protection.

Examples of federally held lands managed for

multiple uses include 151 million acres of the

National Forest System4 administered by the

Forest Service and 236 million acres administered

by BLM.5 Other lands are managed primarily to

provide for a single purpose, such as the protection

of a specific species or ecosystem. Many National

Wildlife Refuges (NWRS), administered by the

Fish and Wildlife Service, are in this category.

Lands managed to protect a single species, such as

some National Wildlife Refuges, are often so

intensively managed for that purpose that they

may not strictly be considered natural areas.

Bighorn sheep require large expanses of alpine habitat

for survival. Wilderness areas provide sources of food

and cover that they and other wide-ranging speciessuch as bear, caribou, and coyote--rely on.

Many species require large areas of suitable

habitat-often much larger than contained in any

one management area—to sustain a healthy

population over the long term. Most natural areas

with special Federal protection are too small to

sustain whole ecosystems for larger species such

as grizzly bears, grey wolves, and the Florida

panther (29). Habitat for some species, such as

migratory birds and salmon, may span several

States. Thus, multiple, connected land parcels

under various management regimes and ownerships may be critical habitat for certain species.

Figure 5-3 illustrates the importance of surrounding lands for elk, eagles, and grizzly bears in

4 The National Forest System includes 191 million acres, 40 million of which are set aside for Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic River

areas, primitive areas, scenic research areas, recreation areas, game refuges, wildlife preserves, and monument areas and are therefore not

included in the multiple-use management plans (2).

S B~administers 269 million acres, 33 million of which are set aside for areas of critical environmental concerq research natural areas,

outstanding natural areas, national natural landmarks, wilderness study areas, and wilderness lands.
226 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

PI

Private and other

rwate and other Federal lands

Federal lands

Elk

Bald eagles

9

~ YellowStone ‘

z, National Park

if

Grand Teton > National forests ~

k National Park 1

-

Grizzly bears

Private and other

Federal lands

1’ Private and other

Federal lands
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas I 227

Yellowstone National Park. Increased recognition of the importance of large land areas in

maintaining natural processes and the species that

depend on them has led to the development of a

new management concept called ecosystem management. Although no one clear definition of this

new kind of management has emerged, it generally refers to an attempt to view and manage

natural processes on a larger scale. The Forest

Service defines ecosystem management as promoting “diversity, productivity, habitat for wildlife, and longterm sustainability” (135).

Although all natural areas (public and

private) are important for protecting the Nation’s natural heritage, this chapter will focus

primarily on federally protected natural areas

—lands set aside by the Federal Government

specifically for protecting unique natural

characteristics or processes.6 National Parks,

National Wildlife Refuges, and Wilderness Areas

compose the bulk of Federal lands under special

Federal protection. Table 5-1 lists the numerous

Federal designations for protected natural areas

in the United States. And box 5-C broadly

outlines the ‘policy space’’—the existing institutions, legislation, and regulations-for Federal

natural areas.

9 Current Distribution

The Federal Government has set aside about 71

million acres as protected natural areas (National

Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and Wilderness Areas)

in the lower 49 States, not including multiple-use

lands such as National Forests, and an additional

180 million acres of protected lands in Alaska

(see table 5-2).7 These Federal holdings represent

a range of land types that includes tundra,

wetlands, forests, alpine areas, deserts, grassTable 5-l—National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and

Wilderness Areas in the United States

Number of Area in

Official designation sites acresa

National Parksb49 47,240,000

National Wildlife Refuges 424 89,900,000

National Wilderness Areas 457 87,480,000

U.S. Forest Service 332 31,000,000

Bureau of Land 22 370,000

Management

National Park Service 38 36,780,000

Fish and Wildlife Service 65 19,330,000

a T. ~.nve~ acres to hectares, multiply by 0405

b National park acreage does not include all lands administered by

NPS (e.g., National Monuments). See box 5-C for further explanation.

SOURCE: Keystone Center, Biological Diversity on Federal Lands,

report of a Keystone Policy Dialogue (Keystone, CO: Keystone Center,

April 1991); U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity, OTA-F-30,

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1987).

lands, and seashores. In the continental United

States, the largest federally protected areas are

located in the Western States, on the coasts, and

in Alaska. There are also numerous, small protected natural areas in the East. Wilderness Areas

comprise the largest single system of protected

natural areas in the continental United States,

with over 80 percent of their 35 million acres

located in the 11 Western States. Most of the 23

million acres of the National Park System in the

continental United States is also located in the

West. The 13.4 million acres of National Wildlife

Refuges in the continental United States are

generally located along the major flyways of

migratory birds: eastern coasts and waterways,

the Great Plains, and desert areas of the West.

Figure 5-4 shows the geographical distribution of

federally designated natural areas and agency

jurisdiction.

s This is a distinction made by political ownership systems-not by the quality of the land under them.

y To avoid “double counting” of areas with more than one designation these figures include acreage of all lands managed by the National

Park Serviee and the Fish and Wildlife Service (although a small amount of NPS lands is proteeted as historic sites and battlefields), plus acreage

designated as Wilderness administered by other agencies (the Forest Serviee and the Bureau of Land Management). These f- may differ

tiom those in table 5-2 because the protected areas listed there may occur under more than one designation. For example, acreage for the

National Wilderness Preservation System cited in the table includes wilderness acreage located in the National Park System and the National

Wildlife Refuge System.
228 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box 5-C-Federally Protected Natural Areas: The Legislative Framework

The National Park System–The National Park System is administered by the National Park Service (NPS)

in the Department of the Interior (DOI). It comprises several unitst totaling 76 million acres (31 million hectares).2

Twenty-two official designations are used to group these units, and each designation reflects the primary purpose

for which the unit was created. Designations include National Parks, National Monuments, National Preserves,

National Lakeshore, National Seashores, and National Battlefields. The laws establishing some NPS units

explicitly encourage economic development near the park and allow heavy resource use, such as off-road-vehicle

use and oil development, while other NPS units possess legislative mandates t hat are more strict than those for

Wilderness Areas. Over half of the acreage of the National Park System is contained in National Parks, and over

80 percent of total NPS acreage is under designations designed to protect the naturalness of the area.

To achieve some management consistency, the National Park Service has grouped all units, regardless of

designation, into one of four management categories: natural zones, cultural zones, park development zones, and

special use zones.3 Natural zones are managed to conserve natural resources and ecological processes while

allowing visitor use.

All NPS units are joined by the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S. Code (U.S. C.) Sec.

1-4,22,43), which spells out the mission of the National Park Service: to “conserve the scenery and the natural

and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of t he same in such manner and by

such means that will leave them unimpaired for future generations.” This directive sets up a dual and sometimes

conflicting mission for NPS-to conserve and preserve park resources and to provide for public enjoyment.

The National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS)-The 91 million-acre NWRS is administered by the Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS) in DOI to “provide, preserve, restore and manage a national network of lands and waters

sufficient in size, diversity, and location to meet society’s needs for areas where the widest possible spectrum of

benefits associated with widlife and wiidlands is enhanced and made available” (147). Although the refuges are

administered by the Fish and Wilddlife Service, management of each one is largely guided by the legislation that

established it; thus, management varies widely among refuges. Early refuges were created as inviolate

sanctuaries to protect waterfowl and migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. Sec.

703-708,709a,710,711) and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715-715r). Although waterfowl

protection is still the major thrust of NWRS management, later refuges were created specifically to protect

endangered species, and the most recent additions aim to protect multiple species and ecosystems (148).

Because management of most refuges is aimed at protecting specific species, the habitat is often intensively

managed and manipulated. in addition, under the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (P.L. 87-714 et seq.) and the

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (P.L. 91-135 et suppl.), economic and recreational

uses such as oil and gas leasing, logging, grazing, haying, hunting, and fishing maybe permitted and encouraged

if such activities are deemed "compatible” with the purposes of the refuge.

To commemorate the IOOth anniversary of the first wildlife refuge (Pelican Island, FL, in 1903), the Fish and

Wildlife Service began preparing Refuges 2003, A Plan for the Future to address management issues facing the

system. This planning process has identified seven possible management directions from strict protection to more

emphasis on multiple use. In the most recent draft, the Fish and Wildilfe Service is advocating a “balanced” option,

which would put greater emphasis on ecosystem management and wildlife-oriented uses for the system (151).

1 A “unit’ refers to any area or parcel of land in the National Park System. For example, any given National

Park National Seashore, or National Monument is a unit of the National Park System.

2 TO convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405.

3 Cultural zones are managed for the “preservation, protection, and interpretation of cultural resources and

their settings” while providing for pubilc use and enjoyment. Park development zones are lands that contain

facilities for park managers and visitors. Special-use zones include lands and waters where activities can occur that

are not appropriate for other zones (e.g., mining and cattle grazing) (153).
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas | 229

The National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS)-This system is somewhat different from the

National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System because no single agency administers it The

92 million-acre NWPS is a collection of areas under special management from each of the four major

land-management agencies (the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service and DOI’S Bureau of Land

Management (BLM), NPS, and FWS). The Wilderness Act of 1964 (P.L. 68-577), which established the NWPS,

mandates stricter protection of resources in their natural state than any other Federal land designation. Its mandate

is “to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of

wilderness . . . in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment and so as to provide

for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character.” Any road building, construction,

or use of motorized equipment is generally prohibited by the act, but some mining, grazing, and prospecting may

be allowed in certain areas. Although “each agency administering any areas designated as wilderness shall be

responsible for preserving the wilderness character,” management of individual Wilderness Areas is the

responsibility of the land-management agency that managed the lands before they were designated, and

interpretation of that mandate may not be uniform across the system.

The National Wild and Scenic River System (NWSRS)-Like the NWPS, the NWSRS is largely a special

management designation for rivers under various Federal ownerships. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1966

(WSRA) (P.L. 90-542) established the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, now covering 9,260 miles (15,000

kilometers) 40n 119rivers, so that rivers possessing “outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish

and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and

their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.”

Management may vary among rivers in the system.

Other Federally Protected Natural Areas--Several other Federal designations are aimed at preserving

land and wildlife in their natural state. The loosely coordinated Federal system of Research Natural Areas (RNAs),

originally established for research and education purposes, are areas where natural ecological processes are

allowed to govern. The system currently includes over 400 units covering more than 4 million acres. Like

Wilderness Areas, RNAs are special management designations in various Federal Iand-rnanagement systems

such as the National Forest System or the National Park System. BLM is directed to identify Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern (ACECS) in its land-use planning. These are areas “where special management attention

is required . . . to protect . . . important . . . historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other

natural processes” (P.L. 94-579). This designation accounts for over 6 million acres of BLM land (some RNAs are

also ACECS). The system of National Natural Landmarks, administered by NPS to “identify and encourage the

preservation of the full range of ecological and geological features that are nationally significant examples of the

Nation’s natural heritage” is useful for identifying important natural areas-especially those on private land.

However, this designation relies on the stewardship of the landowner to voluntarily protect the land(7). The U.S.

Man and the Biosphere Program (USMAB) is part of an international program administered by the United Nations

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (Unesco) designed to foster cooperative protection of the

biosphere, This objective is realized through the establishment of an international network of Biosphere Reserve

areas with rnultiple ownership that represent the wide range of the Earth’s ecosystems. Although designation of

an area as a Biosphere Reserve is purely honorary, cooperative management, research, and education are

strongly encouraged on the reserves and are seen as integral components of fulfilling USMAB’S mission. Many

National Parks in the United States are also core areas of these Biosphere Reserves.

Other Natural Areas-Although preservation of wildlife and Biodiverslty has not been the top priority in

managing National Forests or Federal public lands, many National Forests and public lands are not frequently

4 TO convert from miles to kilometers, multiply by 1.607.

(Continued on next page)
230 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Box 5-C-Federally Protected Natural Areas: The Legislative Framework-(Continued)

harvested, mined, or grazed and play a critical role in providing habitat and continuous landscapes for wildlifeand

fish species. National Forests and public lands near natural areas can also be important for providing supplemental

habitat, for buffering natural areas from certain threats, and for minimizing fragmentation and development.

Because they fill the same role as some natural areas in protecting species and ecosystems, they are de facto

natural areas.

Likewise, all States have some system of protected lands: State parks, State forests, or State preserves. The

contribution of these lands to preservation efforts is significant. In addition to receiving matching-grant funds from

the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and other Federal programs, most States have passed laws

designed to promote natural area conservation on private lands (62).5 One important State effort that helps guide

and focus State conservation efforts is The Nature Conservancy’s National Natural Heritage Program. This

voluntary program is operated in cooperation with various State agencies to collect, manage, and use biological,

ecological, and related information.6 This information is then used to prioritize State and Nature Conservancy

conservation efforts. Heritage programs have been established in all 50 States.

5 Although LWCF funds provided to the States are often used to devehp reffeational sites and fadities,

many of these projects also protect open space and natural vegetation and may have significant benefits for wildlife (6).

6 Typi~ly, The Nature Conservancy provides methods, training, and technical support and coordinates data

exchange and interstate collaboration while State agency personnel actually conduct the inventories (86).

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

Table 5-2—Management Goals for Some Federally Protected Natural Areas

System title, Acres in millions~ Degree of protection

managing agency (in Alaska only) Goals from human intervention

Wilderness Preservation System,

multiple agency

National Park System, National

Park Service

Biosphere Reserves, multiple

agency

Wild and Scenic Rivers, multiple

agency

(%)

lo,500b

(3,210)b

To preserve “wilderness character . . .

unimpaired for future generations” (P.L.

88-577).

To conserve the scenery, natural and

historic objects, and wildlife so that they

will be Iefl unimpaired for future generations (16 U.S. Code 1).

To solve problems associated with the

effects of human impacts, over time, on

natural ecosystems through acategorization that inctudes a core protected area,

buffer zones, and transition areas (73).

To preserve rivers (and their immediate

environments) with outstanding scenic,

recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife,

historic, cultural, or other similar values in

their free-flowing condition for the benefit

and enjoyment of present and future

generations (P.L. 90-542).

High

High

Depends on zone

High-medium
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas I 231

System title, Acres In millionsa Degree of protection

managing agency (In Alaska only) Goals from human Intervention

National Wildlife Refuges, “TO preserve, restore, and enhance threat- Medium

Fish and Wildlife Service (76) ened and endangered species In their

habitats; to perpetuate the migratory bird

resource; to preserve a natural diversity

and abundance of flora and fauna; to

provide education and recreation to the

extend that these activities are compatible with refuge purposes” (148).

Marine Sanctuaries,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA)

Research Natural Areas,

multiple agency

Natural Estuarine Research

Reserves, National Ocean and

Atmospheric Administration and

State agencies

National Forest System,

Forest Service

Public lands, Bureau of Land

Management

0.02 "TO protect marine and Great Lakes

areas with conservation, educational, aesthetic, recreational, historic, and/or educational value of national significance”

(OOCRM)c.

5 “To provide for studies of naturally functioning ecosystems that can serve as

ecological reference points for baseline

monitoring and oontrols for experimental

research” (57).

0.4 “TO protect representative examples of

the United States’ diverse estuarine biogeography and typology” (OOCRM)C

.

191 “The National Forests are established

(22) and shall be administered for outdoor

recreation, range, timber, watershed and

wildlife and fish purposes” (P.L 86-517).

269 To “protect the quality of scientific, sce-

(90) nic, historical, ecological, environmental,

air and atmospheric, water resources,

and archaeological values” based on the

principles of multiple-use and sustained

yield (P.L. 94-579(a)).

High-medium

Medium

Medium-low

Medium-fow

Medium-low

Other (includes Experimental Eco- 5 Varies Varies

logical Reserves, Experimental Forests, Ranges and Watersheds, Outstanding Natural Areas Management, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, National Rivers,

and National Environmental Research Parks), rnultiple agency

a ExMpt for Wild and Scenic Rivers. To convert -es to hectares, mUh@ly by 0.W5.

b In miles (I 7,000 and 5,2oo kilometers, respectively).

C off~e of -an and Ctia] Resouroes Management, NOAA, personal communication, *pt. 811 ~3.

SOURCES: Man and f3i08phW3 Program, Practicai Gukie to MA8 (Park, Franoe: Uneaco, Division of Ecological Sobnoea, June 1987); U.S.

Congress, Congressional Reseamh service (CRS), ~M#orFdm/htiMa~gmwtAgti*of~rNat/on’s LandandR6sourmw, prepared

by A. Bachiel, Environmental and Natural Resouroes Pdlcy Division (Washington, DC: CRS, Feb. 8, 1993); U.S. Cangresa, Offke of Teohndogy

Assessment, Ttim%gies to Mahtain ~dogkal Dlvefslty, OTA-F-30 (Washington, DC: US. Government Prfnting office, March 1887); U.S.

Department of the Interfor, Fish and Wildllfe Service, Appk@on Mwwa/ for the Land Aqu&/tlonPdorfty System, Versbn 5.0, July 1992.
232 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

I Why Are Natural Areas Valued?

Natural areas are valued for the distinctive

character offered by a mix of physical and

biological factors. Many of the most notable

federally protected natural areas are famous for

their spectacular scenery (e.g., gorges and canyons), vegetation (e.g., alpine wildflowers, fall

foliage, and giant sequoias), and abundance of

unusual wildlife (e.g., grizzly bears, alligators,

and certain birds). The particular composition of

the landscape, vegetation, and animal species

makes natural areas valuable for certain kinds of

outdoor recreation such as camping, hiking,

sightseeing, wildlife watching, fishing, and, in

some places, hunting and trapping. The rare

species and biological diversity that natural areas

harbor and protect also contribute to the areas’

recreational value and unique character.

Over 75 percent of land-based outdoor recreation occurs on Federal land, and recreational use

of Federal natural areas is increasing (131). In

1992, people made over 274 million visits to units

of the National Park System—representing an

increase of over 76 million annual visits since

198@ (see fig. 5-5). According to a 1991 survey

of fishing-, hunting-, and wildlife-associated

recreation, over 108 million U.S. residents participated in viewing, photographing, and studying

wildlife that year (152). Wildlife-associated recreation can also contribute significant.ly to local

economies. Over $18 billion was spent on activities and equipment related to viewing, photographing, or studying wildlife in 1991 (152).

Demand for recreation that requires remote

areas, such as hiking, camping, and wildlife

watching, is expected to increase faster than any

other outdoor recreation (13 1). However, because

of development pressure, opportunities for this

kind of recreation are projected to decrease in the

future (131). Because of these trends, Federal

Figure 5-4A-Federally Owned Lands:

Agency Jurisdiction

Forest Service Fish and Wildlife

(29%)

National Park

Other (3?40)

r

Bureau of

~ Land Management

natural areas may eventually become even more

valued for remote outdoor recreation.

Federally protected natural areas are playing a

larger role in conserving rare species and biological diversity than they have in the past (13, 35,66,

100). In 1993, the list of species considered

endangered or threatened in the United States

surpassed 800,9 with thousands of additional

species officially awaiting consideration for threatened or endangered status (146). Because destruction of habitat remains the main cause of species

extinctions, preservation of adequate natural habitat is a key factor for most recovery efforts (126,

146, 176). As a result, many federally protected

natural areas with suitable habitat for endangered

species are an increasingly important component

of endangered species recovery programs. If

climate change accelerates the rate at which

species are threatened with extinction, Federal

natural areas may become even more valuable for

species-protection efforts. Box 5-D illustrates the

8 K. H~ U.S. Department of’ the Interior, National Park Service, personal COIMIUlliCXltiO~ August 1993.

9 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species OffiCc, pcXSO~ co~.QltiOIl, August 1993.
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas I 233

Figure 5-4 B-Federally Owned Lands: Percentage of State Area

-.

‘\

\ \ i!——\r—A———d

~ Iotozo%

U Under IO?/’

SOURCES: Congressional Research Service, 1993; U.S. Geological Survey, 1993.

kinds of problems climate change could pose for

species protected under the Endangered Species

Act (P.L. 93-205).

The loss of species, communities, and ecosystem types means a loss of biodiversity. Society

benefits in many ways from biodiversity—

medically, socially, culturally, and spiritually

(see table 5-3)-but one of the most compelling

reasons for conserving it may lie in the fact that

species are irreplaceable. Maintaining biological

diversity may be especially important if the natural

world is to be able to adapt to environmental

stresses such as changing climate (13, 96, 98).

Although the debate continues over how best to

conserve biodiversity, management policies of

some Federal natural areas increasingly recognize

the importance of conserving ecosystem and

species diversity. For example, the National Park

Service’s policy is to conserve the diversity of

native plant and animal species in units of the

National Parks System. Conservation of biodiversity is an explicit consideration for future

additions to the National Park System (153).

Federal natural areas may become the focal point

for the protection of biological diversity, as they

are now for the protection of endangered species
234 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Figure 5-5-Recreational Visits to

National Parks

IA-—TV—— I 1 I I I

1980 82 84 86 88 90 92

NOTE: Numbers cited for recreational visits do not include travel to and

from private homes, through traffic, or visits for business purposes.

SOURCE: National Park service, 1993.

-especially if trends in existing stresses continue.

Federal natural areas systems are defined by

legislative requirements that provide the basis for

their management. These legislative requirements and management directives are what make

each system slightly different. Table 5-2 summarizes the management goals for various types of

Federal natural areas.

The Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S. Code

(U.S.C.) Sec. 14,22,43) established the Park

Service to administer the National Park System

“to conserve the scenery and the natural and

historic objects and the wildlife therein and to

provide for the enjoyment of the same in such

management and such means that will leave them

unimpaired for future generations.” In addition,

each National Park unit possesses its own goals

and management philosophy. Over 20 different

designations are used to classify management of

River narrows, such as this one in Utah’s Zion

National Park, lure countless hikers each year. Public

use of the Nation’s parks and wilderness areas is

becoming increasingly popular and is expected to

continue to rise in the future.

some 340 units of the National Park System. Each

designation reflects the values for which the area

was protected. Some National Park System units,

such as National Battlefields or National Memorials, are protected for political or historical purposes. National Park System units valued primarily for their natural qualities include National

Parks, National Monuments, National Preserves,

National Seashores, National Lakeshores, and

National Rivers. Because nearly half of the

National Park System acreage is held as National
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas | 235

Box 5-O-Implications for Endangered Species Conservation Under a Changing Climate

Climate change is likely to alter the environment and habitat for all organisms. Many rare or endangered

spades require specialized environmental conditions and are extremely sensitive to changes in their habitat. In

many cases, these species are already threatened by habitat loss. Climate change could accelerate their decline

and push them to the brink of extinction (see box 2-E for details on how species may respond to climate change).

The United States has one major mechanism for protecting species in danger of extinction: the Endangered

Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (P.L. 93-205). Despite this law, species are still declining at increasing rates, the

backlog of species awaiting protection under ESA is growing, and conflicts between protection of species habitat

and human development are intensifying. The 1982 amendments to ESA provide an avenue that may help resolve

the potentially bitter conflicts between species protection and economic development: habitat conservation plans

(HCPS). These are voluntary agreements among the Federal Government, developers, and other stakeholders

that provide species protection while allowing some small amount of habitat destruction. Although HCPS are not

a substitute for species protection, they do offer a creative solution to some conflicts and backlog problems.

Natural areas, rare species, and climate change-Most species depend on suitable natural habitat for

survival. The rapid conversion of natural habitat to agriculture and settlements over the past century has led to

the decline of a diverse array of species that depend on them. Because there is little opportunity to regulate the

use of private lands, protected natural areas on public lands have become the focus of habitat protection for

declining species. Nearly 200 species of threatened and endangered amphibians, birds, clams, crustaceans, fish;

insects, mammals, reptiles, snails, and plants live on National Wildlife Refuges. Many refuges contain several

endangered species, and over 30 National Wildlife Refuges have been established specifically to protect

endangered species. Also, lands of the National Park System provide protection for one-third to one-half of the

rare and endangered species in the United States (1 77). Wilderness Areas on Bureau of Land Management and

Forest Service lands also contain numerous rare species.

Climate change could accelerate the rate of species decline, thereby adding substantially to the list of species

threatened with extinction. Habitats for rare or declining species are often already isolated or fragmented and are

extremely sensitive to any environment! changes (see box 5-E). Many endangered species require specialized

environmental conditions. Climate change is likely to substantially change the conditions of many habitats within

and outside natural areas and perhaps make them unsuitable to sustain certain species (see ch. 2). Some species

may not be able to adapt.

The implications for natural areas are numerous. Natural areas may become like large-scale zoos, requiring

intensive management to protect species from extinction. Widespread species decline coupled with continued

habitat destruction and modification could make natural areas more valued for species protection. Because natural

areas may offer the only option for survival other than captivit y in zoos or botanical gardens, public pressures may

build to use increasingly intensive management to sustain species mixes and concentrations that might no longer

otherwise be self-sustaining. On the other hand, the impacts of climate change on natural areas may make them

less able to provide choice habitat for species, and thus less able to protect species from decline or extinction.

If species are no longer adequately protected in natural areas, fulfilling the mandate of ESA may increasingly

require the cooperation of private landowners.

The Endangered Species Act—The Endangered Species Act of 1973 was enacted to stem loss of species.

It represents a commitment to preventing extinction even if that means tempering economic gain and development

(8, 50). Under the act, which is administered primarily by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),I a scientific

assessment determines whether a species is threatened with extinction by habitat destruction or overuse, disease,

1 Future administration of the Endangered Species Act, or parts of it, may beCOKW the responsibility of the

new National Biological Survey in the Department of the Interior.

(Continued next page)
236 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box !W-implications for Endangered Species Conservation

Under a Changing Climate--Continued)

or other factors. If such a determination is made, the species is “listed” and awarded Federal protection. To protect

a listed species, the act directs all Federal agencies to “use all methods and procedures necessary” to help the

listed species recover. Specifically, all Federal agencies (through consultation with the Fish and WildlifeService)

are to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the existence of the species.

Since its enactment, several important lessons and issues have emerged that were not foreseen in the act’s

early years. First it is now clear that the threat of extinction is much more far-reaching in the United States than

was recognized 20 years ago(8). Over 800 species are currentl`y listed as endangered, and thousands more are

candidate species, awaiting consideration for listing. Second, programs focused on recovery and protection efforts

require far more resources than have been made available (8). The Fish and Wildlife Service's Endangered

Species Program has grown from about $4.5 million in 1974 to over $30 million in 1988, and still the status

(improving or declining) of about 20 percent of listed species is unknown, and backlogs for listing candidate species

continue to grow (103, 145). By the time the winged maple leaf mussel was listed as endangered in 1990, 99

percent of its habitat had been lost and only one population remained (71). Similarly, the polo de jasmine plant

was listed in 1991 with only one individual remaining (71). Many candidate species maybe completely extinct

before they are listed (103). Habitat destruction caused by human development is the main cause of continuing

species decline, and conflicts over development and destruction of habitat are becoming more frequent and more

intense.

There is a growing consensus that those administering the Endangered Species Act are overburdened. Yet

it is likely that climate change will accelerate species decline. Adding more species to the list may dilute efforts

to protect other listed species so that none are protected adequately. On the other hand, earlier listing may help

recovery prospects. By the time species are listed, their habitats are usually destroyed or badly degraded, their

populations are dangerously low, and their genetic diversity is seriously reduced (19, 175). To date, less than 10

percent of all listed species are considered to be improving (145), 2 percent (1 1 species) are extinct, and despite

some herculean efforts, species loss continues. Only 15 species in the history of the act have recovered (103).

Protection for imperiled species may simply come too late. In 1992, the Fish and Wildlife service announced

measures to expedite the listing process, which are expected to help improve the chances for survival for many

species currently awaiting listing (106).

One partial solution to this problem maybe to begin protecting species before they become endangered-by

preserving habitats at a broad, ecosystem level (109). This “preventive care” approach may help augment the

“emergency room” efforts under the Endangered Species Act. Conservationists have long called for a

broadbased, multispecies protection effort and the current administration is beginning to embrace this concept

for Federal conservation efforts (5).

Habitat conservation plans: Hope for species under climate change?—The Endangered Species Act

requires the designation of critical habitat (areas that are “essential to the conservation of the species”) when a

species is listed, as well as development of a recovery plan, detailing actions to aid species recovery. Recovery

plans for listed species must identify specific recovery actions (which mayor may not include protection and

management of critical habitat), estimate a time frame and costs for recovery, and establish criteria by which to

measure recovery status. Economic impacts can be considered in both the designation of critical habitat and the

development of a recovery plan. However, because of the lack of personnel, resources, and adequate scientific

information, many species do not have designated critical habitat and over 40 percent of Iisted species do not

have a recovery plan.

Because Federal agencies are explicitly directed under ESA to conserve endangered species and are

forbidden to jeopardize the existence of endangered species, conservation rnechanisms such as the designation
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas | 237

of critical habitat and development of recovery plans have focused on regulating Federal activities. However, the

increasing decline of species and continued habitat destruction have required more aggressive extension of ESA

provisions to private landowners and local governments. Conflicts have increased in the past decade over the

application of Section 9, which prohibits any “taking” of spa-es, to private property. The 1982 amendments to ESA

established a mechanism to address this issue.

The 1982 ESA amendments allow the fish and Wildlife Service to issue incidental “take” permits (e.g.,

permits to destroy a certain amount of species) in cases where developers and landowners have an approved HCP

that would provide for long-term protection for the species elsewhere.2 This approach explicitly makes a

compromise between economic development and endangered species protection. Typically, an HCP establishes

a Federal natural area and employs other land-management techniques such as zoning, habitat restoration, and

management agreements to provide habitat protection (1 O). This approach to species conservation may become

a favored mechanism in the future because it approaches long-term conservation at a larger, ecosystem level, it

could provide an alternative to large direct acquisitions, and it provides a forum for bringing together many

landowners and interest groups. However, it is too early to tell whether the HCPS that have been prepared will

provide the long-term protection of the species t hey are designed to protect.

One notable example is the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard. HCP, designed to protect an endangered

Iizard that is uniquely adapted to its sandy desert habitat in California. Fringed toes, wedged snout, double-sealed

eyelids, and ear flaps are all features unique to this species and serve some function for its survival in the desert.

In 1983, conflicts overdevelopment of 400 acres (162 hectares)3 of the lizard’s habitat resulted in an agreement

among conservation groups, developers, local governments, State governments, and Federal agencies to develop

an HCP for the area (1 O). Biological assessments are required under ESA to help design the protection plan that

would maximize chances for long-term survival. The final plan included the establishment of three habitat reserves,

each with its own sand source, and an agreement t hat adjacent Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands were

to be managed to protect about 15 percent of the lizard’s potential habitat (about 370,000 acres) (1 O). Acquisition

funds were provided by the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, a BLM land exchange, The Nature

Conservancy, and mitigation fees paid by developers.

Although HCPS are an attractive model for resolving conflicts over endangered species preservation on

private lands, they are not without problems. It is not clear that HCPS themselves ensure long-term habitat

protection. Some criticize that an HCP essentially amounts to a license to destroy critical habitat in exchange for

establishing a “zoo” requiring intensive management (10). If HCPS allow development just outside the preserved

habitat, the effects of fragmentation and habitat isolation could degrade the protected habitat (e.g., development

could leave only the 15 percent of protected fringe-toed lizard habitat intact). In addition, most conflict that results

in the development of HCPS are near urban areas. Close proximity to urban development may indirectly degrade

habitat despite protection under the plan. On the other hand, HCPS may be the only alternative for habitat

protection in densely populated areas.

To effectively protect the national interest in these plans and perhaps to address some of these concerns,

FWS personnel who are involved in these negotiations and responsible for implementing the act should have the

skills necessary for negotiating with developers, economists, and politicians. Many negotiators from FWS are

2 me development of habitat conservation plans is different from the designation of critical habitat or the

development of recovery plans. HCPS are voluntary agreements pursuant to the “taking” prohibition of Section 9,

whereas designation of critioal habitat and development of recovery plans are mandated. However, the development

of an HCP mayor may not Include the formal protection of a designated critical habitat, and some recovery plans

may overtap with portions of the HCP. Nevertheless, because an HCP is a localized plan, It is not a substitute for the

development of an overall recovery plan for a spedes or for the designation of its critical habitat.

3 TO convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405.

(Continued on nexlpage)
238 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box 5-D-implications for Endangered Species Conservation

Under a Changing Climate-(Continued)

wildlife biologists with expertise infield biology and perhaps few skills in negotiation involving multiple interests

and disciplines.4 In addition, the scientific knowledge required to maximize species survival under a localized plan

is often not available (scientific information is also lacking for the mandated recovery plans and for designation

of critical habitat), and HCP preparation and implementation are not cheap (1 O). Because most sensitive habitat

is near urban areas, market values are high and acquisitions are expensive. Moreover, most funding for HCPS

to date has come from Federal sources.

HCPS also do not consider the larger issues of biodiversity because they are targeted to a single species

under the Endangered Species Act. A multispecies approach to conservation is frequently cited as the most

effective, but a few plans, such as the Balcones Canyonlands HCP, are beginning to take a broader approach (10).

The Balcones Canyonlands HCP seeks to provide protection for three endangered species as well as several rare

plants and invertebrates by preserving large habitat areas pursuant to an overall biological assessment of habitat

requirements for several species. Even so, HCPS are only pursued when a species is on the brink of extinction.

There is no mechanism for instituting conservation efforts when populations are still healthy. As conflicts between

human development and species survival become more frequent and intense, and as more and more species are

threatened with extinction from climate change and other stresses, new approaches to conservation will be

needed. HCPS, if properly developed and implemented, could be expanded from focusing on endangered and

threatened species to addressing a broader set of conservation efforts, including conservation of biodiversity (120).

4 M. Bean, Environmental Defense Fund, personal communication, May 1993.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

Parks, and the other types, such as National geological features, rare or unique species or

Monuments, make up a relatively small proportion of the units valued for natural qualities, this

chapter focuses primarily on National Parks.10

The “crown jewels” of the National Park

System (the oldest and largest National Parks

such as Yellowstone, Yosemite, Grand Canyon,

and Glacier) were originally preserved for recreation opportunities, outstanding scenery, and unique

geologic features (177). Current management

policies reflect an expansion of National Park

Service emphasis to include the preservation of

ecosystems and biological diversity. Today, areas

are designated as new National Parks only if they

contain rare remnant or disappearing landscapes

or biotic types, exceptional biological diversity or

communities, or outstanding scenic qualities

(153). 11

Most National Wildlife Refuges were established to protect and manage populations of a

single species or species group such as migratory

waterfowl (6, 125). The Fish and Wildlife Service

is beginning to take a broader approach to

managing the refuges. More and more refuges are

using the “ecosystem management” approach,

and a biodiversity target has been developed for

new acquisitions. Its current mission is to ‘‘provide, preserve, restore, and manage a national

network of lands and waters sufficient in size,

diversity, and location to meet society’s needs for

areas where the widest possible spectrum of

10 However, bma~e many of the other designated units (e.g., National Preserves) are designed to protect IMhmd qtities ~d ~~the

_ement of the= M* is simi~ to tit of Natio~ parks, much of this chapter applies to these units as well.

11 T@ Natio~ pmk se~ice uses these criteria to rank proposed additions to the National Park System, but Congress ~d.mMely designates

through legislation which land will be acquired for use as National Parks.
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas I 239

Table 5-3-Examples of Benefits from Ecosystem, Species, and Genetic Diversity

Ecological Cultural Recreation Agriculture and

processes Research heritage and tourism harvested resources

Ecosystem diversity

Maintenance of

productivity; buffering

environmental changes,

protection of watershed

and coastal protection.

Species diversity

Protection of the role of

plants and animals in

forest regeneration,

grassland production,

and marine nutrient

cycling

Genetic diversity

Protection of the raw

materials of evolution

required for survival and

adaptation of species

and populations,

Natural research

areas; sites for

baseline monitoring.

Models for research

on human diseases

and drug synthesis

(e.g., bristlecone

pine, desert pupfish,

medicinal leeches)

Fruit flies in genetics,

corn in inheritance,

and Nicotiana in virus

studies

Sacred mountains and

groves; historic landmarks

and landscapes (e g ,

Voyageurs Park, MN)

National symbols (bald

eagles); totems; objects of

civic pride (e.g., bowhead

whale, Ficus religiosa),

Bread and cultivars of

ceremonial, historic,

aesthetic, or culinary

value (e.g , Texas

longhorn cattle),

275 million visitors

per year to U.S.

National Parks

In 1991, 76 million

people in the United

States observed,

photographed, and/or

fed wildlife; 36 million

fished; 14 million

hunted

Rangelands for livestock

production (e.g., 34 in the

U.S.); habitats for wild

pollinators and pest

enemies (e.g , saving $40

to $60 per acre, or per 0.4

hectare, for grape

growers).

Commercial logging,

fishing, and other

harvesting industries ($27

billion/year in United

States); new crops (e.g.,

kiwi fruit, red deer,

catfish, and Ioblolly pine).

Required to avoid

negative selection and for

enhancement programs;

pest and disease

resistance alleles.

SOURCE: U S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity, OTA-F-30 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, March 1987); 1987; U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce,

Bureau of the Census, 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1993).

benefits associated with wildlife and wildlands is

enhanced and made available” (147). Waterfowl

hunting and other “compatible” recreation uses

are also valued services provided by this system.

Wilderness Areas are protected and preserved

for their “wilderness character,” where “earth

and community of life are untrammeled by man,

where man himself is a visitor who does not

remain, . . . which generally appears to have been

affected primarily by forces of nature,. . . [which]

has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a

primitive and unconfined type of recreation; . . .

[and also contains] ecological, geological, and

other features of scientific, educational, scenic or

historical value” (P.L. 88-577). Simply, Wilderness Areas are valued because they have remained relatively untouched by human activity .12

I Existing Stresses on

Protected Natural Areas

Landscape Fragmentatlon

The complete list of existing threats to natural

areas includes nearly every type of human activity

within and near designated natural areas, ranging

from poaching to visitor use to air pollution to

industrial development (52, 154, 159), but perhaps the most pervasive threat to all natural areas

is the landscape fragmentation that results from

development and the encroachment of human

12 k b~tmUniM s~tes, some areas ~ve been designated as Wilderness even though they were once IWLWilY f-d tiuse tiCY

have grown wild and seem pristine to an untrained eye. This pmctice is most common where more-pristine areas do not exist.
240 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Figure !%6--Geographicai Distribution of Some Federal Natural Areas

*l\ \ n

.

●

. “.F!!Z2L%

r

—

if

>

Lf0100 500 100

~zl=Ia

kilometers

*

_ National Park

m National Forests

Albers Equal Area prc)jection ~ National Wildlife Refuge

mBLM Land

NOTE: Protected lands in the heavily populated East are already quite fragmented. Much more land Is protected In the West, but as this map

shows, adjacent parcels are often managed by different agencies with different goals.

SOURCE: J. Jones, U.S. Geological Survey, 1993,

activity. These activities effectively dissect the

landscape into smaller and smaller parcels. Natural areas become ‘‘islands’ of habitat surrounded

by developed or altered landscapes and are

vulnerable to a variety of stresses. Figure 5-6

shows the distribution of National Parks, National

Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, and BLM

lands in the continental IJnited States. Although

most larger and older natural areas are protected,

or “buffered,” by adjacent undeveloped areas

managed for multiple uses (e.g., National Forests)

that effectively increase their size, many Federal

natural areas are not large enough to withstand

future stresses or to sustain ecosystems on their

own (29, 51, 75). Geographic fragmentation is

also a problem within natural areas as demands

for roads and facilities to support recreational use

increase. As natural areas become more fragmented, they become more vulnerable to stresses,

including climate change, especially if the area is

not large enough to absorb the impacts of

numerous threats. Box 5-E describes the numerous threats to natural areas caused by landscape

fragmentation.

lnstitutional Fragmentation

Institutional fragmentation also affects natural

areas. The two Cabinet-level departments that

manage the most land are the Department of the

Interior and the Department of Agriculture. Under

these departments are four major landmanagement agencies: the Forest Service in the

Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of
Chapter 5–Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas | 241

Box 5-E-Landscape Fragmentation: Islands of Nature in a Sea of Human Activity

Since civilization began, humans have been shaping the landscape with tools ranging from hand-held axes

and hoes to chainsaws and bulldozers. Throughout much of history, these activities carved out relatively small

patches of land for uses including agriculture, timber harvesting, mining, and dwelling. The intensively used

patches were still surrounded by vast natural areas where ecosystems continued to function more or less

undisturbed. As the human population has grown and encroachments into the landscape have expanded, human

actions have affected ever larger areas and have carved the landscape into ever smaller patches. In many areas,

the landscape is now characterized by a predominance of land used for human activities surrounding small

remnant patches of the original ecosystems-islands of nature in a sea of human activit y. Barriers such as roads,

buildings, and vast stretches of cleared and chemically treated agricultural fields may separate the plants and

animals that inhabit the remnants of formerly extensive ecosystems. These remnant wildlands contain much of

the diversity of terrestrial species that remains in this country, and afford the last invaluable glimpses of the

structure and function of ecosystems as they were once composed. Many remnant wildlands are already too small

to sustain habitat for some species without active management (1 9).

Although fragmentation of the landscape is not necessarily bad, it becomes a problem when species cannot

easily migrate from one area to another and when a habitat area is too small or poor in quality to sustain viable

species populations. The effects are often not immediately obvious nor are they always noticeable in each location,

but they accumulate over time and space. Fragmentation poses several distinct types of problems for plants and

animals and the larger communities in which they interact.

Small size-Fragmented landscapes may simply be too small to supply the forage and habitat needed by

individuals of various wide-ranging species. For example, the Florida panther routinely roams over a territory of

200 square miles (520 hectares)1

. The highly developed Southern Florida landscape offers an obstacle course

of roads and fields that limit the panther’s possibilities for finding prey and leave the panther vulnerable to dangers

such as cars. The endangered red cockaded woodpecker prefers to stay in wooded areas. When it must travel

through open fields to find new forest dwellings, it is at a much higher risk of predation from owls and hawks. Pairs

of northern spotted owls require a territory of several thousand acres to support food gathering, nesting, and

reproduction. The owls scout out territory in more or less random directions from their former sites; if t hey do not

find suitable nesting sites within several weeks, they may fail to reproduce or, in extreme cases, even die from

hunger and exhaustion (16). Numerous other species such as bears, wolves, moose, and elk range over large

territories but have rather specialized requirements for food and habitat (see fig. 5-3). If climate change alters

vegetation patterns, such species may have to travel even farther to satisfy their nutritional requirements. For some

species, an open space such as a field or road imposes an enormous behavioral barrier that will be crossed only

with great reluctance. Such species may effectively become trapped in a small area even if other suitable habitats

are relatively close by. When suitable habitat has been diminished to small and distantly separated parcels,

populations of many of these species decline. Isolation can also interfere with effective pollination and seed

dispersal.

Local extinctions-Another consequence of fragmentation is that the populations of plants and animals that

remain on a patch may have less genetic variability than does the species as a whole. Limited variability offers

fewer possibilities for adaptation to changes in the environment (see ch. 2). Small, isolated populations maybe

more vunerable to extreme events, such as fires, storms, drought, and late spring or early fall frosts-many of

which could become more common as the climate changes, and any of which could lead to local extinction. When

enough local populations become extinct, the species as a whole is endangered.

1 To convert square miles to hectares, multiply by 2.590.

(Continued on next page)
242 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Box 5-E—Landscape Fragmentation: Islands of Nature in a

Sea of Human Activity-(Continued)

More edges-Fragmentation also creates many more edge areas compared with the amount of land in the

interior of a habitat zone. As the landscape is divided up into more and smaller patches, the area that lies at the

edge of a patch increases. Forest edges are often zones of high diversity because the varied light conditions offer

a range of habitats and because they are areas where species from surrounding ecosystems may mix with forest

species However, many of the species that inhabit the edges are invasive species that can displace forest flora

and fauna For example, the cowbird, which rarely travels deeper into a forest than several hundred feet from a

clearing, is an aggressive competitor with many songbirds. What many ecologists fear is that increasing the

amount of edge may lead to a predominance of invasive and opportunistic species at the expense of an array of

historic species. The drying effects of the wind are generally greater at the edges of forests and wetlands than in

the interior, so as the ratio of edge to interior increases, so does the area susceptible to drought. In some areas,

cutting back forests has been linked to changes in wind and precipitation patterns, and in extreme cases, it may

lead to desertification.

Loss of transition zones-Fragmentation may obliterate the transition zones between different types of

vegetation or leave them separated by a large distance. This poses a problem for species that rely on different

types of habitat during different stages of their life cycles or during some seasons. For example, some species

of butterflies spend their larval stages on cordgrass, which grows in coastal wetlands, but live their adult lives in

habitats farther upland and inland. Land-use patterns that diminish or destroy the gradual transition between

wetlands and upland areas disrupt the butterflies’ reproductive cycles. The clapper rail, an endangered bird in

Southern California, is a another example. Although dapper rails dwell within the tidal zone of coastal wetlands,

they prefer to remain just above the reach of the water, past the high-tide line. However, in many areas (even those

bordering protected natural areas), development has occurred right up to the high-tide line. To escape January

and June high tides and numerous storm surges throughout the year, clapper rails often end up perched on cars

in seaside parking lots or near the edges of roads, where t hey are vulnerable not only to cars but also to predation

by domestic cats and dogs. Sea level rise due to climate change could further squeeze, if not eliminate, the

transition zone between coastal wetlands and uplands.

Natural areas in the United States today often make up relatively small patches in a larger fragmented

landscape. Although most large and older natural areas are buffered, or protected, by adjacent natural areas or

by de facto natural areas (such as multiple-use lands managed by the Forest Service or Bureau of Land

Management) that effectively increase their size, many ecologists claim that most Federal natural areas are not

Iarge enough to sustain ecosystems without suffering from some impacts of fragmentation (29). Combating those

impacts is not easy. In general, the !arger the contiguous area of land maintained with minimal human disturbance,

the less severe will be the consequences of fragmentation. However, even if the public wanted to set aside vast

new natural areas to protect a range of ecosystems, large relatively undisturbed sites simply do not exist anymore

in the East, and opportunities are quickly disappearing in the West. Many actions that humans may make in

response to climate change could accelerate the process and damage of fragmentation; the movement of

agriculture into new areas and increased water diversions could aggravate existing problems (see vol. 1, chs. 5

and 6).

Buffer zones around natural areas and corridors connecting different natural areas can help guard against

some fragmentation effects and allow for greater movement by species. (Some innovative programs for

establishing buffers around natural areas are described in box 5-F.) Although the concept of corridors is simple,

establishing optimal corridors is a complex, controversial, and incompletely understood process. The size, shape,

and location of corridors all affect their utility for any particular species. Furthermore, although corridors offer

migration pathways for the native flora and fauna that are often the target of protection efforts, they can serve

equally well as a conduit for the passage of invasive or opportunistic nonindigenous species Despite the potential

problems and the considerable amount of research that remains to be done, corridors have already been
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas | 243

established and used in a few cases, and the concept of linking natural areas is receiving increasing attention from

land-management agencies and private organizations. For example, there are new linkages between the Oceola

National Forest and Okefenokee Swamp in Florida and Georgia and an expanded network of corridor connections

across Florida is under consideration (90).

In sum, setting aside a given amount of land in natural areas within the modern fragmented landscape does

not alone ensure that the biological features for which they are valued will be preserved. To best conserve species,

natural areas should include an array of ecosystems and the transition zones between them, which will allow for

the many complex interactions that rely on links between different parts of the landscape.

SOURCES: P.L. Fiedler and S.K. Jain (eds.), Conservation Bb/ogy: T/w Theory and Practkx ofhlature Conservation, Prasarvatkm and

Management (New York, NY: Routfedge, Chapman, and Hall, 1992); W.E. Hudson, Landscape LMagas and Biodivmdfy (Washington,

DC: Defenders of Wildlife and Island Press, 1992); P. Karieva et al. (eds.), Blotich?temctbnsandG/oba/Change(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer

Associates, Inc., 1993); D.A. Saunders, RJ. Hobbs, and C.R. Margules, “Biological Consequences of Ecosystem Fragmentation: A

Review,” Conservation Biology, vol. 5, March 1991, pp. 18-32.

Land Management, the National Park Service, her own mission and as a result, the landscape is

and the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of the Interior. Each manages its own system

of natural areas under its own mission. The

National Wilderness Preservation System is managed by these four separate agencies and subject

to varying management policies depending on

which agency administers a particular Wilderness

Area. To speak of one Federal system of natural

areas as a single entity is, therefore, misleading.

The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, for example, comprises two National Parks, one National Parkway, six National Forests in two

different Forest Service regions (four of which

have designated Wilderness Areas adjacent to

park boundaries), three National Wildlife Refuges, BLM lands, State lands, Indian reservations, and private lands. The entire area encompasses about 19 million acres and is referred to as

the “largest single, essentially intact, functional

‘natural’ ecosystem“ in the lower 49 States (92).

The ecosystem has been able to support an

abundance and diversity of wildlife because the

land has remained relatively unfragmented. Maintaining a “whole” ecosystem depends on the

condition of its parts. In recent years, increased

visitor use, tourism, recreation, resource development (e.g., dam building and mining), timber

harvesting, and air pollution have been posing

threats to the ecosystem. Each landowner manages these stresses differently according to his or

managed in isolated fragments that may not lead

to effective protection of the entire ecosystem.

Problems that cross agency and ownership

boundaries may not be addressed uniformly.

Timber harvesting, construction, and heavy visitor use brought about by different management

regimes can pose a threat to the large habitats

required by some species, such as threatened

grizzly bears, bighorn sheep, endangered peregrine falcons, and trumpeter swans, by disrupting

the behavior and habitat of these species. A 1986

congressional evaluation of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem concluded that ‘regional boundaries fragment the area into three [parcels].. .

Even within the regions, individual unit boundaries often have little relevance to the Ecosystem. . . In virtually all agency decision-making,

the whole is subordinated to its fragments” (122).

In addition, efforts that do aim to coordinate

management over the entire ecosystem either

exclude important parties or are aimed at certain

species, reflecting a fragmentation of coordinating bodies (122).

To help minimize landscape and institutional

fragmentation and its consequences, there have

been movements toward practicing more coordinated management under the existing agency

structure with the goal of ecosystem management

(see box 5-F). However, reconciling differing

missions of agencies and interests of landowners
244 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box 5-F-Some Innovative Management ModeIs:

Toward Ecosystem Management in Natural Areas

As climate change begins to affect the plants and animals that reside on natural areas in the United States,

managers may seek to establish buffer zones and migration corridors to continue protecting the living resources

that these areas were designated to protect. Indeed, entire landscapes maybe required to accommodate range

shifts. However, differing ownerships, management structures, agency missions, and jurisdictions often preclude

management of areas larger than each individual management unit. Conserving biological resources is already

becoming increasingly difficult because problems like pollution, development, and landscape fragmentation

transcend management and ownership boundaries. Climate change is likely to compound these problems as yet

another global-scale threat to some natural resources.

Within the past few years, land managers have recognized these problems and the need to address land and

resource conservation on a larger scale. This relatively new concept for conservation has many names: ecosystem

management, landscape management, cooperative management, integrated management, regional management, watershed management, or river basin management. Although no specific definition of this large-scale

management concept has emerged, some generalizations can be made. Ecosystem, or landscape, management

generally refers to the management of natural resources on a scale that crosses management boundaries and

seeks to protect a variety of species and natural processes over the long term. Currently, no mechanism that

effectively facilitates this kind of cooperative management on a large scale is in place. However, some programs

are beginning to help bring some practical definition to the “ecosystem management” concept.

Many natural areas are located in regions where land is highly valued for economic uses, and attempts to

expand protection around a natural area often conflicts directly with pressures for economic development. In many

cases, especially in the eastern United States, land is simply no longer available. Thus, managers throughout the

country have begun to explore new and innovative management strategies other than acquisition for balancing

the needs of people who live and work near natural areas with t he needs of the ecosystems those natural areas

aim to protect. In some cases, these strategies involve greater coordination among various Federal agencies that

manage public lands; in other cases, they establish interactions between Federal land managers and local and

private interests. In all cases, these strategies seek to bring together a diverse set of interested parties and

harmonize conflicting needs before controversy erupts and complicates further action.

The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem-As the first National Park (designated in 1872), Yellowstone has

represented land-management leadership for the past century. Now, it is beginning to encompass a new

management philosophy based on regional landscapes (64, 68). The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is a region

under multiple ownership that scientists believe encompasses one of the largest and most important remaining

ecosystems in the United States. Two-thirds of the 19 million-acre (7.7 million-hectare)l area is owned by the

Federal Government: 2.5 million acres in Yellowstone and the Grand Teton National Parks, over 9 million acres

in seven National Forests (nearly 4 million acres are designated as wilderness), and another million acres are

managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Over

6 million acres are State, private, and tribal lands. The region covers parts of t three States: Wyoming, Idaho, and

Montana. Although each ownership and management scheme has its own philosophy and mission, regional issues

such as wildfire and wildlife management are forcing these diverse groups together.

The Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee was created in the 1960s to address these issues. The

committee includes regional and local representatives of the National Park Service (NPS) and the U.S. Department

of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Forest Service.2 The historical distrust among the differing Federal agencies limited the

1 TO convert from acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405.

2 Although the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management also hold land in the Greater

Yellowstone region, they are not represented on the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee. In addition,

private landowners, Indian tribes, and State agencies holding land in the Greater Yellowstone Area are also not on

the committee. —.— —
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas | 245

effectiveness of the committee and resulted in a Congressional report criticizing the committee-especially, the

lack of coordination between the Forest Service andNPS(125). The committee was revitalized in the late 1980s

after congressional threats of legislative reform and pressure from grass-roots organizations. The Committee then

developed an integrated management plan (or “vision” document) for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

Proposals included using a “compatible management” approach in which the surrounding National Forests

would essentially serve as buffers to the Park; however, diverse mandates of NPS and the Forest Service

precluded any management plan that would make one agency’s mission subservient to the other. Nevertheless,

a report entitled Yellowstone Vision Statement was released in 1990 and outlined how interagency cooperation

could lead to ecosystem management (48). Fierce opposition to the report by politicians, commodity groups, and

private landowners was so intense that the 70-page report was re-released as an 1 l-page document that removed

many of the original preservation and coordination themes (49, 114). Despite the failure to actually formulate an

ecosystem-management strategy for the region, the fact that such an effort was undertaken is significant given

the intense and almost war-like friction between environmentalists and members of the wide use movement (i.e.,

resource-development advocates) in this area. indeed, several obstacles to attaining cooperative management

of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem remain. However, there is still hope that some consensus can be reached

to protect the integrity of Nation’s first National Park.

The New Jersey Pine Barrens-The New Jersey Pine Barrens is a unique region of habitat for rare and

unusual plant and animal species that has remained largely undeveloped despite its proximity to New York City,

Philadelphia, and Atlantic City. in the 1960s, proposals emerged to develop the area for retirement villages and

jet ports (21). Forces aiming to preserve the area also grew (74). After several years of debate over how to best

protect the resources and interests of the Pinelands, the Pinelands National Reserve was established in 1978.

The 935,000-acre region is now managed by the Pinelands Commission, an intergovernmental (Federal, State,

and local) authority with the responsibility to implement a regional plan “designed to guide development away from

environmentally sensitive areas and into designated growth centers” (68). A variety of techniques is used to

implement this plan, including imposing levels of restricted development according to a zoning system and using

transferable development “credits” to help compensate landowners in restricted zones.

Early strategies for protecting the Pine Barrens recognized that acquisition by the Federal Government was

not feasible because oft he high costs of direct purchase and because traditional uses such as agriculture, logging,

and mining would have been disrupted. Early attempts by the State of New Jersey to form a conservation plan

were perceived as pro-development and drew criticism from conservationists. Interest in a cooperative

Federal-State effort grew. As a condition for Federal involvement, a Department of the Interior (DOI) task-force

report challenged the State to increase its land and water conservation policies for the area (141). The State

responded with a proposal for managing the area with a “graded” management scheme designed to protect the

core of the Pinelands and also to provide an intermediate “buffer” area (1 00).

In 1978, the National Parks and Recreation Act (P.L. 95-625) became law and established the Pinelands

National Reserve. However, the Federal Government had minimal authority to manage the reserve. A commission

was established with representatives from county and State governments, private interest groups, and one DOI

member to develop a Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) for the area. Under the final protection and

management plan, only 100,000 acres of key parcels were directly acquired by the State. Innovative incentives

were employed to ensure flexibility in land use and equity among interests and to facilitate long-term protection.

For example, a Pinelands Development Credit System was established to compensate landowners in areas with

special zoning restrictions. Development credits can be sold to developers in designated growth areas, allowing

them to build housing over the density limits specified in the CMP. In addition, local governments are compensated

for lost tax opportunities through payments in lieu of taxes. Tax credits and special loan and grant assistance are

also offered for management practices that promote land uses consistent with preservation of the reserve.

Because the Pinelands management scheme seeks to protect the region without placing excessive burdens

(Continued on next page)
246 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box 5-F-Some Innovative Management Models:

Toward Ecosystem Management in Natural Areas--(Continued)

on any particular group, it has been called one of the most successful regional land-use-planning efforts in the

United States and is to be regarded as a model for future protection efforts (99). Much of the success of this

management scheme stems from the diverse methods used to protect the Preserve, the involvement and support

of local residents, and the joint protection by the State and Federal Governments.

Unesco’s Man and the Biosphere Program--The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization (Unesco) established the international Man and Biosphere (MAB) Program in 1970 to “develop a

scientific basis linking the natural and social sciences for the rational use and conservation of the biosphere . . .

and for the development of the relationship between humans and their environment" (73). This objective is realized

through the establishment of an international network of Biosphere Reserves representing the wide range of the

Earth’s ecosystems. Although designation of an area as a Biosphere Reserve is purely honorary, cooperative

management, research, and education are strongly encouraged and are seen as integral components of fulfilling

MAB’s mission. MAB Biosphere Reserves seek to correct fragmentation of the landscape by approaching research

and management-training issues on a regional scale. Another purpose of the Biosphere Reserve program is to

combat fragmentation of institutions and landownership by bringing diverse interests and disciplines together

through education and research.

The Biosphere Reserves are generally composed of three regions in a Biogeographic Area (an area with

distinctive biological, geological, and geographical characteristics).3 These three regions are categorized as core

areas, buffer zones, and transition areas. A core area is managed to preserve natural processes and genetic

resources and is therefore usually under legal protection by the country (e.g., a National Park); a bufferzone is

managed to minimize harm to the core area by human activity; and a transition area is where traditional land uses

are found.

The U.S. component of the MAB program (U SMAB) was started in 1974, and 47 Biosphere Reserves have

been designated thus far, covering 49 million acres (60, see figure). Five directorafes were formed to ensure

interdisciplinary research in a variety of areas.4 Most core areas are National Parks, Wilderness Areas, or areas

under other legal protection (e.g., the Adirondack State Park in New York and the New Jersey Pinelands have been

designated Biosphere Reserves). Although management of a region does not change once it has been designated

a Biosphere Reserve, the various MAB committees facilitate integrated management through interdisciplinary,

region-wide research and education projects. The intent is t hat these programs and projects will serve as catalysts

for cooperative management. To help focus Biosphere Reserve activities, each USMAB directorate has a set of

“interest areas” that include sustainable development, cooperative policy development, global change monitoring,

and biodiversity protection (73).

The Nature Conservancy’s Last Great Places Initiative--The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a private

conservation organization, founded in 1951, with a mission to “preserve plants, animals, and natural communities

that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive” (118). In

addition to owning and managing over 1,300 preserves covering over 1.3 million acres, TNC launched a new

program, the Last Great Places Initiative, in May 1991, aimed at using a broader approach to protection efforts

by protecting entire ecosystems-not just isolated species.

Twelve sites, ranging in size from 40,000 to 11 million acres and spread around the country, are currently

included in the program, which has the potential of growing to 40 or more sites in the future. The sites are chosen

3 Bios@ere Re~rve isthetermusedin official MAB documents. The distinction between Biosphere Reserve

and Biogeographic Area is that a Biosphere Reserve is a site that has been explicMy designated by Unesoo whereas

a Biogeographic Area is a more conceptual term referring to an area exhibiting a given set of biological and geological characteristics. However, the terms are sometimes used interchangeably.

4 me USMAB directorates are: High Latitude Ecosystems, Human Dominated Ecosystems, Marine and

Coastal Ecosystems, Temperate Ecosystems, and Tropical Ecosystems (73).

— ———————.—.--.—— ——. .————.—. ._ ——-— ——-.————
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas | 247

Biosphere Reserve Sites In the United States

CANADA

34 ●

● 18

13

7 21 ● 4 7

I ●

● 4 3

ALASKA

EuroMAB DIRECTORY

HAWAII

● 26

27 .

31

29

●

●

41

45 ●

I {

800 km 28 ●

1. Aleutian Islands 13. Coram 24. Isle Royale 36. Rocky%

Mountain

2. Beaver Creek 14. Denali 25. Jornada 37 San Dimas

3. Big Bend 15. Deaert 26. Konza PraMe 38. San J

4. Big Thicket 16. Everglades 27. Land Between the *S

5. California Coast Ranges 17. Fraser 28. LU’UIIIO ‘“- ’

w=: 40. South Atiant CoaatalrcanyOn Plain

6. Carolinian-South Atlantic 18. Glader 29. Mammoth Cave Area 41. Southern

7. Caeoede Head 19. Glacier Bay-Admkalty 30. Mojave andcoiorado Deeerts %

palaohlan

42. Stanlalaua- olumne

8. Central California Coast Island 31. New Jereey PlnekInd8 43. Three Slaters

9. Central Gulf Coastal Plain 20. Guanioa 32. Ntwot Ridge 44. University of Mlchlgan

10. Central Plains 21. H.J. Andrews 33. Noatak *. Virgin Made

11. Champion-Adirondack 22. Hawaiian Islande 34. Olympic 46. W Inia Coast

12. Channel Islande 23. Hubbard Brook 35. Organ Pipe Cactus 47. Ye fowetone

SOURCE: National Park Service, 1993.

in part because they contain: 1) high-quality examples of terrestrial or aquatic communities that are endangered

or inadequately protected, 2) concentrations of rare species, 3) a large, relatively undisturbed example of a natural

community once characteristic of its ecoregion but now fragmented or degraded, or 4) a critical migratory stopover

point or corridor (14). The management concept for these bioreserves is not unlike that of the MAB Biosphere

Reserve concept: a core natural area is managed for preservation and is surrounded by a buffer zone with land

uses managed to minimize harm to the core area. Like MAB Biosphere Reserves, core areas are generally under

legal protection as a park or wilderness. However, TNC’S approach differs from MAB’s in that inactively negotiates

with local landowners to develop a plan to protect the core area while accommodating community growth.

TNC envisions using several protection measures including Habitat Conservation Plans, which have been

used in other TNC efforts to protect endangered species. For example, the Balcones Canyonlands Conservation

(Continued on next page)
248 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Box 5-F-Some Innovative Management Models:

Toward Ecosystem Management in Natural Areas-(Continued)

Plan was developed by environmentalists, developers, local government officials, and Federal agency personnel

to protect seven threatened and endangered species and other rare plants in the area and to fend off the threat

of habitat fragmentation.5 A 65,000-acre preserve was created near Austin, Texas, with about 30,000 acres to be

managed by FWS as a National Wildlife Refuge and the rest acquired by and/or managed in cooperation with Iocal

industries. Acquisitions will be funded by a combination of Federal, State, and local grants as well as by private

contributions. In addition, an impact fee imposed on new construction in designated areas will provide additional

revenues.

The Nature Conservancy's Last Great Places Initiative seeks to coordinate and balance very diverse interests

in order to preserve environmentally important regions that transcend ownership boundaries through various

incentives and agreements. As a result, it represents yet another innovative approach to land management that

does not require government ownership.

New York’s Adirondack Park—This 6 million-acre State Park Consists of a 2.6 million-acre Forest Preserve

established in 1885 and additional land under both State and private ownership added in 1892. The Park is

protected indefinitely by Article XlV Section 1, of the New York State Constitution. It is the largest State Park in

the continental United States and the largest single forested area east of the Mississippi, and it represents one

of the most significant hardwood ecosystems in the world. Protection of the area was prompted by timber

harvesting and other activities over a century ago and has been strongly supported until very recently (68).

The Adirondack Park Agency (APA), created in 1971 by the State of New York manages the development

pressures on public and private lands in the park. It set up a zoning system in its 1973 Land Use and Development

Plan that resembles the core and buffer idea with designations and density limits ranging from “resource

management areas” (with most protection of naturalness) to “hamlets” (population and commercial centers) (173).

Although APA established the density limits in the six land-use areas, actual control, enforcement, and

implementation of the plan lies with the local communities. As of 1990, only 11 of the 105 communities in the region

had developed zoning plans because of resistance to restrictions that would limit private-property rights.

Now, a century after the park was established, development pressures are threatening park protection.

Projected growth trends would fragment about 3 million acres of the park and increase the park’s population

fivefold (68). A commission was established by New York Governor Mario Cuomo in 1989 to study implications

of these pressures on t he park. The commission recommended a new administration for the park that would have

broad authority over land use and development with a focus on limiting fragmentation. The commission also

advocated the use of corridors to link the Adirondack natural community with those of the northeastern United

States and Canada and it recommended that “the processes which maintain habitats most likely to be affected

or lost through climate change should be determined” and that mechanisms to ensure their perpetuation be

investigated. However, it is estimated that implementing the plan would cost at least $15 million annually, with

proposed funding from luxury-home taxes and user fees. Not surprisingly, many residents and local governments

strongly oppose the commission’s recommendations.

Although tension between diverse interests is growing over future management of the Adirondack Park are%

the management ideas first suggested by APA incorporated some of the novel methods (e.g., graded protection

through zoning) that seem successful in other areas, such as the New Jersey Pinelands. If the residents of the

5 ~-es Canyon[an& conservation Plan is a Habitat Conservation Plan required under the

Endangered Species Act (see box 5-D). The threatened and endangered species that the plan seeks to proteot

Include two species of migratory songbird+he biaok-oapped vireo and the golden~eeked warbier, and five

species of invertebrates that have adapted to the unique oave environment-one spider, two types of beetfe, a

c$pseudo” scorpion, and a daddy iongiegs (10).
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas | 249

Adirondack Park region and other interested parties can jointly support a conservation goal for the region, efforts

for coordinated management may find greater success.

The Northern Forest Lands Study—As a result of rising land values and development pressures in New

England’s forests, the governors of New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine appointed a Governors’ Task

Force on Northern Forest Lands in 1966 to study the status and trends of roughly 26 million acres of their States’

forests with the help of the USDA Forest Service. The resulting report proposed several strategies for maintaining

undeveloped areas of private forest lands while keeping them open to the public (53). A variety of protection

measures was evaluated, including zoning, conservation easements, acquisition, and tax incentives. In essence,

the report challenges the States to find a common vision and to take the lead in developing a regional protection

plan for the area by encouraging the States and the Governors’ Task Force to evaluate the region’s resources and

to develop strategies for their protection in the future. It also includes a proposal for Federal assistance in these

planning efforts and for purchasing key parcels of land.

In 1990, the Northern Forest Lands Council was established to continue the Northern Forest Lands Study

for another four years. This council will further develop the themes and challenges raised in the report and present

a set of specific recommendations to the New England States and to Congress by the fall of 1994.

Because the 1990 report favors a variety of protection measures and cooperation among differing

ownerships, a “pinelands-like” management model may emerge from future negotiations. If successful, the

coordinated-management effort will be among the largest because of the degree of interstate cooperation required

in an area 25 times the size of the Pinelands National Reserve.

Glacier National Park Biogeographic Area, Crown of the Continent Project—This research and

education project represents an attempt tore-integrate a fragmented landscape by "creat[ing] and implement[ing]

a coordination process and the necessary facilities to achieve a quantitative understanding of the natural and

human environment of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem” (36). This idea is similar to the MAB approach in

that integrated, regionwide research and education will ideally lead to better-coordinated management of the

region. The “crown of the continent ecosystem” includes Glacier National Park, the Bob Marshall/Great

Bear-Scapegoat National Wilderness complex, and surrounding Indian Reservations and private land. An

Ecosystem Center, administered by an independent board of directors, would fill five specified roles: policy

exploration, basic research, monitoring and database management, ecosystem interpretation, and education (36).

The activities of the Ecosystem Center would generate an integrated and reliable source of information for various

management decisions. In addition, various advisory councils (representing interest groups, tribal governments,

Federal and State agendas, and local landowners) are envisioned to help facilitate communication and

cooperation. There are already significant efforts under way to begin to synthesize information for decisionmaking.

Both Glacier National Park and Flathead National Forest maintain well-developed Geologic Information Systems

that could contribute to better cooperative management. Although this project has not yet been funded or

implemented, the ideas embodied in its proposal illustrate yet another way to begin to consider landscapes as a

whole without undermining the owners and management regimes of individual parcels.

Rio Grande Basin Consortium-Although not directly targeted at natural areas, the Rio Grande Basin

Consortium (RGBC) is a recent attempt to engage disparate public agencies and private interests in a

multidisciplinary effort to conduct research and share information aimed at improving planning for the river basin.

The consortium was launched in 1990 after a well-attended and enthusiastic conference held in Albuquerque on

global climate change scenarios for the basin, “The Rio Grande Basin: Global Climate Change Scenarios.”

RGBC’S goals are to serve as a clearinghouse of environmental, social, and economic information on the region,

to match researchers with suitable projects and increase the effectiveness of those projects through greater

coordination, to provide a forum for interaction through means such as conferences and newsletters, and to

translate knowledge and guide planning in ways that will promote the sustainable development of the area’s

(Continued on next page)
250 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box 5-F-Some Innovative Management Models:

Toward Ecosystem Management in Natural Areas-(Continued)

resources (166). Members of RGBC’S steering committee include representatives from the Forest Service, the

Bureau of Reclamation, NPS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Geological Survey, as well

researchers from the University of New Mexico, New Mexico State University, and New Mexico Tech and officials

from local agencies ranging from the City of Albuquerque to the Indian Health Service. The consortium is also

exploring the possibility of working with the Houston Area Research Center to address Rio Grande issues on both

sides of the U.S. border. Although not directly linked to land management, RGBC’S activities are designed to further

protect the biological resources of the Rio Grande while at the same time meeting the needs of the diverse cultural

groups that inhabit the basin area.

SOURCE: RJ. Lilieholm, Preserves at Risk An hvestlgatim of Resouma Management Strategies, hnpkatiorrs and OpportunMes,

contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, January 1993.

is not easy and will require unprecedented leader- sion and agitation of water), and disrupt nesting.

ship and vision. The Yellowstone area is not

unique-institutional fragmentation threatens

ecosystems throughout the United States. Some

innovative first efforts are in place that aim to

minimize both landscape and institutional fragmentation for ecosystems or habitat areas. Although the effectiveness of these cooperative

management schemes is sometimes limited by

competing interests, the schemes signify promising frost steps toward innovative solutions to

fragmentation problems.

Human Impacts

In addition to the different types of fragmentation that impinge on natural areas, numerous

other threats exist within and outside their boundaries. Within designated natural areas, damage

from overuse and overcrowding by tourists and

recreationists is often cited as a major concern,

especially with respect to long-term impacts and

future management (76). These activities may

destroy vegetation and cause erosion that disturbs

wildlife habitat. Increased exposure to human

activity can disrupt breeding and modify animal

behavior. Other activities in federally protected

natural areas such as cattle grazing and boating

can increase water pollution, facilitate the spread

of exotic species, damage habitat (through eroFor example, power boating and water skiing

allowed on Des Lacs National Wildlife Refuge in

North Dakota during the 1980s has been found to

directly disturb migratory bird nesting and broods

of newly hatched chicks-the refuge’s primary

purpose (163). Grazing cows in the Browns Park

NWR in Colorado disturb the habitat of geese and

ducks by eating the vegetation necessary for bird

habitat (163). The cumulative effect of these

various threats can lead to the decline of sensitive

species that the reserves aim to protect and

increase the proportion of species that are tolerant

of landscapes disturbed by humans (44, 56).

A survey of managers of the Fish and Wildlife

Refuge System concerning the harmful effects of

secondary uses on the primary mission of refuges

found that at least one harmful use was occurring

on 59 percent of the refuges. Harmful uses

included public use (camping, hunting, boating,

and off-road-vehicle use), economic use (grazing,

logging, commercial fishing, and mining), an d

military use (air and ground exercises). For

example, airboats were considered harmful on 69

percent of the refuges where airboat activity takes

place, and beach use and swimming were considered harmful on 41 percent of the refuges where

beach use and swimming occur. More than one
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally

harmful use was occurring on several refuges

(163). 13 These activities can disturb wildlife

directly or indirectly by disturbing their habitat.

Resource damage from recreational activities

such as erosion caused by hiking and camping has

led to diminished wilderness character in one of

every four Wilderness Areas according to a 1988

Forest Service survey (93). Several reports on the

state of National Park resources cited visitor use,

consumptive uses, vehicle noise, soil erosion, and

invasion of exotic species as among the most

common internal threats to native vegetation,

animal habitat, and other resources (17, 154). The

larger National Parks, including Yosemite, Yellowstone, Glacier, Great Smoky Mountains, the

Everglades, and those designated as Biosphere

Reserves, endure over 30 different human-caused

internal and external threats (17)--over twice as

many as the NPS-wide norm (52).

Because internal stresses canto some extent be

regulated by the designated agency, they are

generally less threatening than external stresses,

which cross agency and ownership boundaries

and often fall out of the purview of agency

influence. The primary external threats include

encroaching development, air and water pollution, logging, encroaching exotic plant species,

fire, poaching, livestock grazing, and military air

exercises (93). These activities have the potential

to alter the natural processes in protected areas,

contribute to erosion, damage habitat and scare

wildlife, and contribute to a decline in biodiversity in protected areas, especially for species

sensitive to human disturbance (45, 87). For

example, resources in the Everglades National

Park have been severely affected by herbicides,

pesticides, and fertilizers in the agricultural runoff water that feeds into the park. In Yosemite

National Park, a buildup of Calthane (an agricultural pesticide) in the bodies of endangered

peregrine falcons causes a weakening of their egg

shells and makes

Protected Natural Areas I 251

them unable to breed in their

third to fifth year (154). Also, Kesterson National

Wildlife Refuge in California is threatened by

selenium toxicity from agricultural runoff (see

vol. 1, box 4-E). The sonic booms and lowelevation flybys associated with military air

exercises over the Cabeza Prieta NWR in Arizona

are believed to adversely affect the fawning and

calving of Sonoran pronghorn antelope and desert

bighorn sheep (163).

Water conflicts can also constitute a threat to

natural areas, especially in the arid West, where

water allocation is determined by the prior

appropriation doctrine (see vol. 1, ch. 5). Under

this doctrine, those who first put water to a certain

use obtain a‘ ‘right’ to use the water. The conflict

over water surrounding the Stillwater National

Wildlife Management Area, described in box

5-G, shows the complexity of water-allocation

issues. Unfortunately, water rights under State

law for wildlife and fish and other environmental

benefits are very junior (where they exist at all),

making water supplies dependent on those who

hold more senior rights. Securing adequate water

for Federal natural areas by claiming Federal

water rights (and overriding the State priority

system) is a continuing point of debate (see box

5-H).

The cumulative effect of landscape fragmentation, institutional fragmentation, and other threats

has taken its toll on federally protected natural

areas. In a recent survey, only around one-third of

all National Park units reported their resources in

“good” condition (154). Although similar surveys have not been conducted for other Federal

natural areas, there are indications that multiple

stresses are degrading them (159, 163). Climate

change may only intensify these existing threats

to resources, especially in the arid West, where

water is already a scarce resource.

13 WS IIM C@ pmau~ori~ over fier~-reso~~-development and military activities on some refuge lands &ZaUSe authO@ Over

these resources often falls under the jurisdiction of other agencies (145, 163).
252 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box 5-G-Competition for Water:

The Case of the Stillwater National Wildlife Management Area

Wildlife refuges occupy a precarious position in the arid West. Most refuges are centered around water

bodies--rivers, lakes, or marshes-but competing human demands for water have significantly reduced the

amount of water that actually remains in streams to flush through and replenish refuges. A study by the Bureau

of Reclamation on refuge water supplies and needs in the central valley of California found that only one refuge1

has a firm supply of water “in the amount considered necessary for proper management of existing wetlands and

facilities within the refuge boundaries” (142). If, as most climate models predict, the interior Western States

become hotter and drier due to climate change, Western refuges could themselves become threatened with

extinction (see chs. 2, and 4 and vol. 1, ch. 5).

Water has long been a precious commodity in the arid West. Scarce water flows from rivers and streams are

in high demand by farmers and urban residents, who seek to dam, divert, and pump water into offstrearn uses,

such as irrigation and municipal water supplies. At the same time, the maintenance of fish and wildlife habitat, as

well as traditional uses by Native Americans and recreational uses by Western residents and tourists, relies on

protecting instream flows--that is, keeping a certain minimum volume of water flowing through streams year-round

(the necessary volume depends on the type of habitat or use to be maintained). A complex legal structure has

grown up over the past century to mediate hotly contested battles over who gets water, and how much each party

gets. The legal doctrine for water allocation that has prevailed in the West is one of prior appropriation, which

means that those who historically used the water first have the highest priority in claiming present water supplies

for continuing use? Ironically, fish and wildlife habitat and traditional uses by native Americans were the initial uses

of most Western rivers in their natural conditions, yet these uses have rarely been quantified or been allocated

water; if water has been allocated to these uses, the rights are often considered junior to agricultural and municipal

claims.

The case of the Stillwater National Wildlife Management Area (NWMA) and Pyramid Lake in the

Truckee-Carson River basins illustrates the complex conflicts among competing human and natural area uses for

water, and suggests that the situation for refuges may worsen if climate change intensifies the squeeze for Western

water. The Truckee River originates in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. It is the only outlet of Lake Tahoe and flows

northeast from the lake through California and Nevada to drain into Pyramid Lake in northwestern Nevada (see

figure). The Carson River originates southeast of Lake Tahoe, near the California-Nevada State line, and flows

roughly parallel to the Truckee River to empty into a marshy area known as the Carson Sink. The Stillwater NWMA

was established in this area in 1948 and offers food and habitat to bald eagles, American white pelicans, and

numerous species of waterfowl. A dam upstream of Carson Sink created the Lahontan Reservoir, which has

diminished the flows to Stillwater Marsh and other wetlands in the Sink. A canal connecting the Truckee and

Carson Rivers was constructed in 1905 as part of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Newlands Project to supply water

for irrigated agriculture.

Four major users compete for water from the Truckee and Carson rivers: l) farmers served by the Newlands

Project, 2) Native American tribes, 3) Reno-area residents, and 4) the wetland ecosystem. The Newlands Project

which includes the Truckee Canal, is used by farmers to irrigate some 63,100 acres (25,600 hectares)3 down1 [nthestudy, 15 refugeswere mnsidered: lONational Wildlife Refuges, 4 StatewldlifeMana~e~tAreaS,

and 1 privately managed wetland area within the central valley hydrologic basin of California.

2 For example, if farmers occupying an area near a dam and reservoir have traditionally pumped 10,000

gallons (9,500 liters) a year for irrigation and a nearby munidpal area has only recently begun pumping from the

reservoir, the farmers would receive their water allocation first in drought years, when the reservoir might not be abfe

to supply all claims on the water.

3 TO convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405.
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas | 253

Stillwater National Wildlife

Management Area

I

I

I

I Pyrarnd

I Lake I-’!

I : ‘$,

I

:,; ,,.

I ;’ t

I

,,

I

:, O. < ~ StNwater ---. ,

,

I

I - Wlldllfe

---” j

,- -~, -,,

I Manageme~t Carson /

I Area , Smk ;

I

‘t

.. ...::.:,:

(’

.,,,.,,,,..,.,

. . . ,(

‘“”’ “::~~:;”’i

&#i

Winnemucca

Lake (Dry)

City

m{

.4d Lahontan

&G%@QP Reservow /

Bureau of Reclamation

,, Imaated Lands

Area of Detail — ~,.,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

,.,.,.,

1

L \

.::::.:.:.:.: :

,,,.,.,.,.,.,..., . . . . . . . . . . .

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...:.:.:.:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 50 miles . . . . . . . . . . . .

.:.::::::::::::::::::::., ..::::,:,:::::

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:.: :.:.:.:.:. . . . . . . . . . . . .

SOURCE: National Research Council, 1992. (Reprinted with permis.

sion from R.E. Morns, Permissions Managers, National Academy

Press, Aug. 31, 1993.)

stream of the Truckee canal and around the

lower Carson River. Until tribal Iawsuits forced

a change in operations in the 1980s, the

project diverted more than half the flow of the

Truckee River, which diminished water levels

in Pyramid Lake and completely desiccated

nearby Winnemucca Lake. The project also

diverted water from the Carson River, which

reduced the flow to the wetlands in Carson

Sink. Two different Native American tribes

with claims for water rights have been affected

by the Newlands Project The Pyramid Lake

Tribe has long maintained a traditional fishery

downstream of the Truckee Canal on the

lower Truckee River and in Pyramid Lake. The

Tribe argues that the lake should be maintained at its historic levels to support the

fishery as well as to protect the cui-ui, an

endangered fish species that the tribe considers sacred. The Fallen Indian Reservation is

on the Carson River side of the Truckee

Canal. The reservation contends that the

irrigation water it was promised in exchange

for surrendering most of the reservation lands

when the Newlands Project was constructed

has never been delivered. The tribe wants

water in order to sustain agriculture on the

reservation. Municipal users in the fastgrowing Reno metropolitan area on the

Truckee River upstream of the Canal continue

to clamor for more water from the Truckee because local groundwater can provide only about one-fifth of the

municipal demand. Despite storage at several reservoirs upstream of the city, there is not enough water to maintain

normal flows to the city in the event of a 2- or 3-year drought.

Finally, there are the needs of wetlands and wildlife. It is estimated that before human settlement wetlands

covered more than 85,000 acres in the Carson Sink (including the Stillwater wetlands), while separate wetlands

surrounded Pyramid Lake and Winnemucca Lake. Water diversions to operate the Newlands Project have

threatened the entire system. On the Truckee River side, completely drying out Winnemucca Lake destroyed

aquatic and wetland habitat. Water diversions also lowered the water levels in Pyramid Lake, which allowed the

formation of a delta that blocks spawning of the threatened Lahontan cutthroat trout and diminishes habitat for the

endangered cui-ui. On the Carson Riverside, water diversions diminished the Stillwater Marsh and surrounding

wetlands to 40,000 acres over several decades. Despite diminished water flows, the Stillwater wetlands still play

a critical role in protecting waterfowl and migratory birds. They support 90 percent of the Nevada snow goose

population during part of the year, as well as thousands of white pelicans and tundra swans. Half the population

of canvasbacks ducks on the Pacific Flyway pass through Stillwater NWMA, as well as one-third of the dowitohers

(a Water bird similar to snipes and sandpipers). Stillwater also harbors one of the world’s largest nesting colonies

of white-faced ibis (1 18).

(Continued on next page)
254 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box 5-G-Competition for Water:

The Case of the Stillwater National Wildlife Management Area-(Continued)

Ironically, efforts starting in the 1960s to improve the operating efficiency of the Newlands Project in order

to conserve water for tribal claims, restore Pyramid Lake, and protect the cui-ui and cutthroat trout have further

diminished the Stillwater wetlands. After water flows from the Carson River had been diverted, runoff from

agricultural fields became a major water source for the marsh. As improved efficiency cut the amount of runoff,

more wet!ands dried out. The various water diversions, combined with recent droughts, have reduced the marshes

in the Stillwater NWMA to an area of only 4,000 to 6,000 acres. In 1989, The Nature Conservancy purchased water

rights on 150 acres of marginal farmland to support Stillwater conservation efforts, but that supplied only a fraction

of the water needed to restore the area.

The conflict over water in the Truckee-Carson, which started early in the century, grew to such proportions

that Congress finally stepped in to help negotiate a settlement. The Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water

settlement Act (P.L. 101-618), passed in 1990, established a new allocation of water rights that attempts to

balance the competing uses and claims for the water. The act will allow water to be reallocated from agricultural

to other uses by increasing the operating efficiency of the Newlands Project and by retiring up to 23 percent of

the agricultural land it serves. Municipal users will be able to purchase water rights from agricultural users.

Congress authorized the Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase water rights from willing sellers in amounts sufficient

to maintain 25,000 acres of Stillwater wetlands in perpetuity.

Stillwater NWMA does not yet have all the water it needs, but at least there is now a mechanism for acquiring

it. A drier climate linked to greenhouse warming could delay, or even prevent, the restoration effort because

drought conditions would likely lead to increased demands for agricultural and municipal water conversions. If

conditions become dry enough, however, water prices may rise high enough to drive some adjacent farmlands

out of production, potentially freeing some water supplies. On the other hand, if urban growth in Reno continues

at the present rate, municipal uses could well absorb any water released from agriculture. Indeed, in the event of

a prolonged drought in which water supplies become critical, demand for municipal water could challenge the

legislative settlement that now supplies Stillwater wetlands with water rights.

The distribution of limited water among competing uses will continue to be a complicated and controversial

task as the climate changes. “The West is defined . . .by inadequate rainfall,” notes Western author Wallace

Stegner. “We can’t create water, or increase the supply. We can only hold back and redistribute what there is.”

Congress has intervened to ensure that at least some water will remain to nourish 25,000 acres of Stillwater refuge

wetlands in perpetuity. Whether other western refuges will reap any rewards from similar redistribution remains

to be seen.

SOURCES: National Research Coundl, Water Transfers In the Wsst Effkfwrcy, Equity, andhs Emdronrnent(Washlngton, DC: National

Academy Press, 1992); The Nature Conservancy, “Turning on the Tap at Stiliwater,” IVature Conservancy, vol. 40, July/August 1990, pp.

2s29.

THE PROBLEM OF CLIMATE CHANGE: A induced climate changes in the future (see ch. 2).

SHIFTING CLIMATE OVER A STATIC MAP Climate zones are expected to shift significantly

at unprecedented rates during the next century. A

The conditions that accompanied natural cli- warming of 5.4 OF (3 ‘C) by the year 2100 could

mate changes in the past are significantly differ- shift optimal climate regimes for some species

ent from those expected to accompany human- roughly 200 to 300 miles (300 to 500 kilometers)14

M ~ convw miles to kilometers, multiply by 1.6W.
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas | 255

Box 5-H-Water and Natural Areas Under Climate Change

Water is important for natural areas for a variety of reasons. More than 75 percent of wildlife and fish species

in the arid West depend on riparian (riverside) habitat at some point in their lives (43, 140). The Nation’s dwindling

wetlands (including those in riparian areas), which provide critical habitat for popular game and many endangered

species and numerous services such as flood control, depend on adequate water flows (see vol. 2, ch. 4). In

addition, instream water flows have become a primary concern for many types of outdoor recreation such as

recreational fishing, waterfowl hunting, canoeing, shoreline camping, and sightseeing (15, 110).

For example, the wetlands in California’s central valley provide essential habitat for migratory birds, resident

wildlife, and several threatened and endangered plant and animal species. These wetlands contain 10 National

Wildlife Refuges, 4 State Wildlife Management Areas, and several privately managed wetlands and are a critical

part of the Pacific Flyway, a migratory route ranging from Mexico to Canada (142). Over 10 million waterfowl and

other migratory birds pass through the Central Valley wetlands every year (142). Water supplies are controlled by

dams and water-delivery systems. Water withdrawals and diversions for agriculture and other development

activities have reduced the wetlands in this area from over 4 million acres to roughly 300,000 acres (1.6 million

to 122,000 hectares)1 (142). Biologists stress that unless a dependable supply of water is maintained, waterfowl

and wildlife could significantly decline (142).

Climate change and water supplies-lf climate change leads to drier conditions, pressures to divert water

to sustain growing cities and agriculture could contribute to additional habitat decline, increased species losses,

and reduced recreational opportunities. Efforts to secure water for fish and wildlife and other environmental

purposes have increased in recent years. Securing water rights for Federal natural areas would help ensure that

the functions of these areas are not sacrificed in the future and are given consideration in times of water shortage.

Water rights and Federal natural areas-Water rightsfor Federal natural areas can be obtained at the State

or Federal level. Most States have passed laws that recognize instrearn flows for the benefit of fish and wildlife

as a legitimate “beneficial use” under the prior appropriation doctrine in the West (see vol. 1, ch. 5, for more details).

The Federal Government Can try to secure water for the benefit of fish and wildlife by obtaining water rights under

State law just as any other landowner in a State can. However, unless purchased from more-senior rightsholders,

these rights would be junior, meaning they would be among the first to be sacrificed under extreme situations (123).

Water law also varies considerably from State to State. Instream flows can also be considered under the National

Environmental Policy Act (P.L. 91-190), under the Endangered Species Act (P.L. 93-205) (during critical habitat

designation), while acquiring State permits, or relicensing darns (1 10).

Normally, the allocation of water is determined by State water law, but the Federal Government has exercised

its power to claim “implied” water rights for “lands withdrawn from the public domain and reserve[d] for a federal

purpose” (Cappaert v. United States as cited by 123). Consideration of the purposes for which the land was

reserved and whether water is necessary to carry out those purposes are important factors in determining whether

Federal water rights were indeed “implied” when the land was reserved. Under this rule, only lands reserved from

the public domain are eligible for Federal reserved water rights; lands purchased or otherwise acquired by the

Federal Government from outside the public domain are not eligible. In addition, only unappropriated water can

be claimed, the right is prioritized by the date of the reservation, only water sufficient to carry out Federal purposes

Is granted under the right, and the right is lost if it is not put to immediate use (123).

Because they were reserved from the public domain, Federal water rights maybe claimed for most National

Parks. Even though the National Park Service states that it “will assert claims to reserved federal water rights for

water quantities determined to be the minimum amounts needed to protect the primary purposes of a given park”

(153), these rights have not been quantified for most National Parks, and there is no policy or program in place

to quantify necessary instream flows (110).

1 TO convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405. (Continued on next page)
256 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box 5+1-Water and Natural Areas Under Climate Change--Continued)

Although it is a matter of considerable controversy, Federal water rights are currently not reserved for

Wilderness Areas because it is not dear whether they are areas “reserved” for a Federal purpose or simply a

special management designation. In addition, it is debated whether the creation of water rights is necessary to

carry out the purposes of the Wilderness Act (P.L. 88-577) (123). Water rights for most of the early Wilderness

lands were not an issue because many of these areas included headwaters, and, therefore, water supplies were

not at risk from upstream diversions. However, recent and potential future designations include areas in the arid

West that lie downstream from other water users. Increased demands for water from population growth of climate

change could increase pressure to divert water that now feeds Wilderness areas and could escalate the debate

surrounding water rights for Wilderness Areas.

In many cases (especially in the West), the Fish and Wildlife Service has acquired water rights for National

Wildlife Refuges with land purchases and applied for rights under State law (147). However, these rights are often

very “junior” or of low priority compared with those of other water-rights holders, and they are subject to varying

State water laws. As a result sufficient water may not reach a refuge in water-stressed times. In addition, the water

flowing into many western refuges is in upstream reservoirs that are controlled by other agengies or subject to

certain Iimits that dictate the amount of water available to the refuge. Federal water rights have been reserved for

some refuges. Currently, 78 refuges west of the Mississippi River have Federal reserved water rights, but these

rights have not been quantified for most refuges (147).

Unlike other laws governing natural areas, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. 90-542) expressly claimed

Federal water rights in the amounts necessary to preserve the values for which the rivers were designated, and

authorized condemnation of existing rights, if necessary, to carry out the act. However, to date, no designation

of a river has included the condemnation of existing water rights (123).

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

northward and 1,600 feet (500 meters)15 upward regimes. However, although climate zones and

in elevation (58, 94). In response, plants and

. may either migrate to more suitable

locations, adapt to new climate conditions, or

decline and possibly face extinction (see box 2-E)

(91, %). Groups of species will not all respond the

same way, so the species composition found in

any given area will likely change (46, 172).16

Climate conditions for which some species are

best adapted could shift out of natural areas that

are now protected and into adjacent (or even

distant) areas that are more developed, fragmented, or subject to different management

ecosystems may shift in response to climate

change, the legislatively established boundaries

of protected natural areas are generally fixed (see

fig. 5-l).

• Vulnerability

Natural area vulnerability to climate change

depends largely on why the area is valued and on

the nature of the existing complex interactions

among climate and ecological systems. Therefore, although some general risks can be identified, it is difficult to determine exactly which

13 ~ convmt feet to meters, multiply by 0.305.

lb ~u@it isnot CIMU Cmcayhow species will respond to a change in their optimal climatic regime, paleoclirnatic evidence andmddhg

analysis suggest that species may migrate at different rates, and that some species may not be able to migrate or adapt to new conditions fast

enough (40, 46, 172).
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas I 257

federally protected natural areas are most at risk

from climate change. Protected areas established

primarily to protect unique geologic features such

as cliffs, gorges, or canyons-the Grand Canyon

National Park and the Craters of the Moon

National Monument, for example-are not immediately vulnerable to changes in temperature,

moisture, and carbon dioxide (CO2

) concentration (81).17 However, some of these areas are also

valued for their vegetation and wildlife. Natural

areas valued for wildlife protection, biodiversity

conservation, and wildlife-related recreation are

vulnerable to climate change to differing degrees

depending on the sensitivity of species to climate

change; the number of species the area protects;

the amount of human disturbance in the area; the

size, shape, and environmental diversity of the

area; and the nature of surrounding lands.

The disparity between shifting ecosystems and

stationary natural area boundaries places protected natural areas at risk in three distinct ways:

1) the character of an area could change,

2) biodiversity and endangered species could

experience diminished protection, and 3) the

quality of other services, such as recreation, may

be diminished. These three types of changes may

occur to varying degrees on different natural

areas. Areas that are small, long and narrow

(exposing more “edge” relative to the area

protected), and unbuffered; areas already under

significant stress; or areas with rare or climatesensitive species will be more vulnerable to

climate change. Many studies (28, 58, 97, 161)

have determined that coastal ecosystems, alpine

ecosystems, arctic ecosystems, and midcontinent wetlands may be particularly vulnerable to climate change because these areas are

sensitive to sea level rise, temperature change,

sea-ice melting, and drought.

Arches National Park, in Utah, pays tribute to the

geologic history of the West. This unique desert

ecosystem is greatly influenced by weather and climate

extremes.

Changed Character

Plants and animals make up an essential part of

the scenic and recreational values of natural

areas-bighorn sheep and alpine flowers are part

of the attraction of Roe@ Mountain National

Park in Colorado, while a distinctive array of

resident and migratory waterfowl makes the Ding

Darling National Wildlife Refuge on Sanibel

Island in Florida one of the most popular natural

tourist attractions in that State. Even in a constant

climate, biotic processes that have shaped these

areas are not static, but these changes generally

occur much more slowly than those projected to

occur under climate change (see ch. 2). As a

result, climate change may threaten the distinctive character of many natural areas,

particularly those set aside for ecological attributes, as species move in and out of fixed

natural area boundaries. To the extent that a

distinctive character is valued, more intensive

management measures may be required to maintain the ecological conditions for some species or

habitats. On the other hand, it may not be possible

or may eventually become too costly to maintain

certain species and habitats over the long term

regardless of management intensity.

17 ~te co~itio~ do play an important ro]e in tie long-term processes of erosion that have shaped the Grand CanyO% but tit h on a

geological rather than a human time scale.
258 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Dimikshed Protection of Biodiversity and

Endangered Species

Many natural areas are already islands in a sea

of development and human activity. The landscape outside protected natural area boundaries

may be fragmented and offer little suitable habitat

for species able to migrate. Moreover, if few

habitat types are available within the preserve,

then species have even fewer alternatives as

climate changes (89). As a result, some species

may decline in number or become extinct. Although not necessarily designed specifically for

the protection of species and biodiversity, the

Federal system of natural areas now plays a big

role in protecting habitat for rare and endangered

species and preventing additional species loss and

decline. Species that leave the boundaries of

protected natural areas in their attempts to find

suitable climate may no longer be protected.

Thus, to the extent that federally protected natural

areas are valued for nurturing biodiversity and

protecting endangered species, changes in climate may threaten and diminish their value.

Several types of species have been identified as

particularly vulnerable to climate change, including rare or threatened species, migratory species

(species that rely on appropriate habitat throughout their range), species that disperse slowly or

over very short distances, and some species in

alpine and coastal communities (see ch. 2). Table

5-4 summarizes the kinds of species and ecosystems most at risk from climate change. Endangered species may be especially at risk because

they are already significantly stressed and many

require a narrow band of environmental conditions for survival. The Endangered Species Act

(P.L. 93-205) is currently the primary mechanism

for protecting these species. Federally protected

natural areas may have difficulty fulfilling thei r

roles of endangered species protection in the

future under climate change. As a result, pressures to protect species may increasingly shift to

Federal lands not currently protected as natural

areas and lands under

lands are suitable for

other ownership, if those

species habitat. Box 5-D

highlights implications for this act under climate

change.

Diminished Ability to Provide Other Services

Species shifts that occur in a changing climate

will likely affect wildlife-related recreation in

existing natural areas. Many waterfowl habitats

already require intensive management to provide

for recreational hunting. Natural shifts in waterfowl migration patterns pose problems for wildlife management in some States.18 Species valued

for hunting that move out of protected preserves

will decrease the population of game available in

the preserve. On the other hand, rare or endangered wildlife that moves out of protected natural

areas and into private or multiple-use lands may

be more susceptible to hunting and poaching,

making their survival more tenuous. Consequently, opportunities for watching wildlife, photography, and nature study could be diminished in

many protected natural areas. One assessment of

future recreation supply and demand indicates

that, for many reasons, wildlife-related recreation

may be in the shortest supply relative to demand

of all outdoor recreation by the middle of the next

century (131). Climate change is likely to compound this problem if it makes wildlife more

susceptible to decline.

U Adaptability

Whether a natural area can “adapt,” that is,

persist and thrive, under climate change, depends

somewhat on what species live within its boundaries, but also on the management efforts that help

or inhibit adaptation. Climate-induced changes in

species composition, pest outbreaks, and the

frequency and intensity of fire and drought will

complicate the management of protected natural

areas. The challenge for managers will be to

conserve the processes and resources that characterize a natural area given that the boundaries of

18 M. B-, senior Attorney, Envmmrnental Defense F?@ pCXSOA CO_~_tiOU ah 23, 1993.
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas I 259

Table 5-4-Species and Ecosystem Types Most at Risk from Climate Change

Ecosystem, species, or community type Risk factor

Ecosystem or region type

Arctic communities

Montane and alpine communities

Coastal communities

Wetlands in arid and semi-arid environments

Species or community type

Geographically localized species (refugia) (e.g., the American burying beetle,

found in coastal areas of Massachusetts)

Populations at the edge of their range

(e.g., sugar maple refugia in the Caddo

Canyons of Oklahoma)

Species dependent on timing of snow

and/or ice melt

Rare or endangered species

Migratory species

Genetically impoverished species

Poorly dispersing species (e.g., freshwater mussels)

Likely to warm faster; many species in the high arctic depend on food chains based

on sea ice, which could be lost if sea ice melts.

Small, isolated habitat; no migration path; sensitive to temperature and precipitation

changes.

Vulnerable to sea level rise; sensitive to increased salinity.

Isolated, small: sensitive to precipitation changes.

Isolated population--climate change could make habitat unsuitable for the entire

population.

May be most sensitive to shifts in the climate regime; will be first to experience

unsuitable climate regime (some peripheral populations could expand if climate

conditions become more favorable).

Availability of water at specific times is crucial for successful breeding; earlier melt

means less water is available during summer months.

Often localized and isolated populations; vulnerable to any habitat changes;

vulnerable to cumulative threats.

Dependent on appropriate habitat throughout their entire migratory ranges.

Less able to adapt to environmental changes through natural selection.

Migrate slowly.

SOURCES: J.A. McNeely, “Climate Change and Biological Diversity: Policy Implications,” in: Landscape-Ecological Impact of Climatic Change,

Boer, Matthias, M. Rudolf S. de Groot (eds.) (Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press, 1990), pp. 406429; R.L. Peters and J.D.S. Darling, “The

Greenhouse Effect and Nature Reserves,” Bioscience, vol. 35, No. 11, December 1985, pp. 707-717.

the protected lands are freed but that species may ing areas need to be examined: 1) the managemove through, over, or around them. In addition, ment of natural and human-caused disturbances,

as species shift, managers will have to decide 2) Federal land-acquisition and land-use incenwhat changes should be assisted (e.g., finding tive programs, and 3) the information base that

suitable habitat for certain species) and what guides management decisions.

should be left to “natural processes. ” Climate

change may bring into question the general

management philosophies of different manage- Disturbance-hfanagefnent Challenges

ment regimes (see box 5-A). To incorporate Pests, nonindigenous species, fire, and human

long-term climate change considerations into use pose the greatest disturbance threat to ecosysoverall land-management decisions, the follow- tems under climate change.
260 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Pests and nonindigenous (exotic) species. It

is likely that climate change could accelerate

the spread of undesirable plants, insects, and

pathogens (128). Usually, indigenous species are

better adapted to the environment and compete

successfully with introduced species, thus, most

undesirable exotic species do not become established. However, under climate change, many

nonindigenous species considered undesirable

are predicted to be favored (see ch. 2) (72). Thus,

Opportunistic weedy species, pests, and diseasecarrying organisms may replace or infect indigenous species (95, 128, 161).

Invasion of nonindigenous species can have

profound effects on biological diversity. For

example, in the western United States, bunch

grasses, sagebrush, and other species dominated

the arid region of southern Idaho before human

settlement. Now, cheatgrass, an annual grass

introduced from Europe, dominates the region

(28). Cheatgrass is valuable as forage in the

spring, but in the summer, it becomes flammable

and worthless as forage. The Fish and Wildlife

Service estimates that nonindigenous species

have contributed to the decline of roughly 30

percent of the listed endangered species in the

United States (9). Increased invasions under

climate change pose a significant problem to

natural area management.

National Parks emphasize the maintenance of

historically, naturally occurring species within

their boundaries. The current policy explicitly

states that species that move onto the park as a

result of direct or indirect human activity are not

considered “native” (i.e., indigenous to the park)

and that “non-native species will not be allowed

to displace native species if this displacement can

be prevented by management” (153). Under a

strict application of this policy, trees or other

organisms that migrate into a park in response to

climate change would be considered ‘ ‘nonnative. ” Such a policy might be desirable today to

stem the spread of weedy and undesirable species,

but a three-pronged problem could emerge under

climate change: 1) control of undesirable nonnative species may become more costly in the future

if these species are favored under climate change,

2) policies may prevent “naturally” migrating

species from moving into parks, and 3) efforts to

protect existing or historical species composition,

if not impossible, may become more difficult and

costly. In short, what is considered “exotic,” or

nonnative, today may become ‘‘native” under

climate change. For the case of migration, it may

be useful to distinguish exotic but nationally

indigenous neighbors from exotic and nationally

nonindigenous neighbors.

The Fish and Wildlife Service policy on

nonindigenous species is not as clear as the

National Park Service policy. Clarification of this

policy could aid future management decisions

under climate change. Although FWS policy

maintains that the National Wildlife Refuge

System exists for the “protection and management of plants and animals native to the United

States,” this policy makes no regional distinctions among “native” species and is heavily

qualified elsewhere in other FWS policies: “[t]he

attainment of natural diversity is not an overriding objective of refuge management, but it

should be an underlying consideration for all. . .

management activities” (143). This tension reflects the fact that many refuges are actively and

intensively manipulated to attain certain objectives that may or may not conflict with efforts to

protect “native” species.19 Other ‘‘nonnative”

species, including pests, not purposefully introduced or already present on refuge lands are

controlled when they interfere with refuge objectives (128). Thus, despite a policy to consider

natural diversity on refuge lands and a policy to

protect ‘‘native,’ or indigenous species, some

tolerance for “nonnative” species is allowed and

sometimes encouraged.

19 Forcxample, “nonnative” grasses may be planted in rcikges “whcnnative grassland management will not achieve the * waterfowl

production objective” (144).
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas I 261

The policy regarding nonindigenous species is

also unclear for Wilderness Areas.20 Given the

general ‘hands-off” management philosophy for

most Wilderness Areas, increased invasions and

infestations of nonindigenous species under climate change could be considered consistent with

wilderness-management objectives. Yet, significant change caused by such invasions could also

be interpreted as diminishing the wilderness

character and wilderness values of the area.

Noxious farm weeds (i.e., pests that damage

agriculture plants), which are defined by State

agencies and may or may not be indigenous to the

area, can be controlled on Forest Service Wilderness when they threaten lands surrounding the

wilderness. Nonindigenous wildlife species already established on Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Areas ‘‘may continue where

they enhance the wilderness character of a particular wilderness’’21; however, management of

nonindigenous plant species has not been explicitly addressed (139). Forest Service Wilderness

Area policy does not permit control of “pests”

except in cases where resources on adjacent lands

are threatened or if the pest is nonnative and

contributes to a significant loss of the wilderness

resource (129). Only control measures that have

the least adverse impact on the wilderness area

can be taken.

Fire Management. Tree-ring studies in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks in

California have shown that regional intense and

frequent fries have been associated with drought

events in the past (116). Climate change could

increase the frequency and intensity of fires for

natural areas if droughts become more frequent

and if forest dieback accelerates and/or spreads.22

Several problems could emerge. Pressures to

suppress all fires in natural areas could intensify

(despite a change in the natural fire regime), and

costs of fire control could consequently increase.

23 Removal of fuel buildup may become

more important for catastrophic-fire prevention,

but as areas become drier and drier, it becomes

dangerous to bring heavy machinery into dry

forested areas to remove fuel because sparks and

motors may easily ignite frees. In addition, some

fire-control measures could damage natural area

values. Finally, efforts to maintain the ‘natural’

function of fire in ecosystem development in

protected natural areas may be severely hampered.

Fires have been recognized as an important

natural process that shapes an ecosystem as its

components evolve over time (67, 177). In recent

years, lightning-ignited frees have been allowed

to bum naturally in National Parks, if life or

property are not seriously threatened. This natural

fire policy was subject to considerable scrutiny

after the 1988 fires in Yellowstone National Park

(see box 5-I). Dry, hot weather conditions combined with years of fire suppression and excessive

fuel buildup caused over 740,000 acres of the park

to bum (167). A National Fire Management

Policy Review Team was established by the

Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to

review fire policies for parks and other federally

protected natural areas and to make recommendations for fire management in the future. The

team’s report reaffirmed the positive role of fire

in ecological processes for natural areas, but

urged that the policies be clarifled and strengthm However, management policies for Wilderness Areas under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service generally follow management

policies for NPS natural areas. Some of these policies maybe more strict than wilderness management policies in other Federal agencies,

21 It ~ not cl- ~w @ de termination is made that a species “enhances the wilderness character’ of a Wilderness Area.

22 ~Cqle of~e comb~~ fip~ts of &ou@t ~d dim spread is evident k the Blue hfOUXI@hM of ~gon-~p~~ ~~tio~

in the West bave left drought-intolerant Douglas-firs vulnerable to disease spread. Currently, over 50 percent of many forests and Wildem~S

Areas in these mountains arc dead or dying (133). The area has been described aa a tinderbox for wildfiies (see box W! for more detail).

~ M fiplcrn~t fie Ffie po]icy Review ‘Ikarn’s recommendations and to effectively carry out a comprehmsive, .@e f~~gunent

program, both the Forest Service and the Park Service have stated that substantial increases in funds and personnel are needed (165).
262 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Box 5-l-The Yellowstone Fires of 1966:

Harbinger of Climate Change and Fire Management Conflicts

The Yellowstone fires of 1966 illustrate how changes in climate may pose probiems for natural area

management. After nearly a century of fire-suppression policies on Federal lands, scientists and managers

recognized fire as an important part of ecosystem health and function. Recent policies for Federal natural areas

aim to reintroduce the natural role of fire by allowing naturally ignited (and some human-ignited) fires to burn under

certain conditions, as long as life and property are not threatened. Although this policy had been relatively

uncontroversial since the early 1970s, the fires in Yellowstone in 1966, and others like them, quickly brought such

seemingly sound policies into question. Climate changes that result in fire-favorable conditions could move the

natural “fire regime” toward more frequent and/or intense fires. The resulting implications for natural areas are

twofold. First, efforts to maintain the natural role of fires could be hampered. Second, increased risks to life and

property caused by fire could require more costly fire-control and -prevention measures.

Fire management in National Parks has evolved over the past century. The first experiments allowing

lightning-caused fires to burn (prescribed natural fires) occurred in 1972, and by 1976, over 75 percent of

Yellowstone was designated a natural fire zone. For 16 years, 235 fires were allowed to burn. The largest fire

burned 7,400 acres (3,000 hectares)1

, but the majority burned an acre or less. Because there was no loss of life,

property, or endangered species, the existing fire policy was considered a successful, tried, and tested

management practice by 1966.

The 1960s were marked by drought conditions for most of the Rocky Mountain region. However, peculiar

weather patterns over Yellowstone brought drier winters and wetter summers, which stemmed some drought

impacts. The spring of 1966 was beginning to look like the beginning of another wet summer. Although June was

a time of moderate drought, in July, the National Weather Service forecast normal precipitation Ievels for the rest

of the summer. However, by July 15, managers knew that the fire danger was extremely high; the decision was

made on July 21 to suppress all fires.

The dangerous fire situation was not a result of summer drying alone. Six dry, cold fronts that pushed through

the area created winds that helped the fires spread quickly. In addition, the fires did not die down at night, when

humidity usually slows fire movement.

When the fires finally died in September, over 1.4 million acres of the Yellowstone ecosystem region were

affected by fire-representing 10 percent of the entire ecosystem and 36 percent of Yellowstone National Park

itself (67). Over 9,500 fire fighters were in action at peak fighting time, and the cost of suppression efforts totaled

over $120 million. Even so, many speculate that the suppression effort did not significantly reduce the total area

burned. instead, 0.25 inches (6 mm) of precipitation on September 11 was largely responsible for ending the

fires-not human techniques. Wildlife losses were minimal considering the extent of the fires: less than 1 percent

of the summer elk population was lost, and nine bison, two moose, and four grizzly bears died. Native vegetation

has quickly reoccupied burned areas, and the diversity of plants and animals in the area is just as high as it was

before the fires. Yellowstone visitor rates have not been affected by the fires-the numbers of visitors in 1969 and

1990 were higher than ever before and reached 3 million for the first time in 1992.

Because there were no large fires under the natural fire-management policy before 1966, managers and the

public were not prepared for a grand-scale fire. Public perception of the fires as destructive to park resources and

local economies, and the possibility that the fires could spread to inhabited areas evoked harsh criticism of

fire-management policies of the National Park Service and other Federal agencies. To address these criticisms,

the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior established a Fire Management Policy Review Team to “determine

the appropriate fire policies for national parks and wildernesses which address the concerns expressed by citizens

and public officials about the management of fires on these lands as a result of the Yellowstone fire situation” (136).

1 TO convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405.
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas | 263

The review team found that the basic approach of allowing natural fires to play a role in ecological processes was

sound, but that policies regarding the treatment of wildfires needed to be refined. As a result, the agencies have

amended their policies to clarify procedures, improve coordination, and tighten criteria for using and managing

prescribed fires. For example, prescribed fires in Forest Service Wilderness Areas must be contained within a

specified perimeter, and resources must be available at all times to keep the fire in the prescribed area (1 73). To

be allowed to burn, fires in the National Parks must meet a set of criteria that include drought and size

considerations. When these criteria are not met the fire is to be considered “wild” and must be suppressed (79).

However, problems remain in implementing an effective, coordinated prescribed fire program (165). Interpretation

of the review team’s recommendations has not been uniform across land-management agencies, leading to

inconsistencies and revealing a lack of coordination in areas with common boundaries (3, 34, 79). Lack of

adequate funding, personnel, and equipment as well as internal resistance from some land managers have also

been cited as impediments to implementing a more controlled and coordinated prescribed-fire program (40).

If climate change leads to shifts in the natural fire patterns for some regions or leads to weather situations

conducive to large fires, it may be more difficult to allow fire to behave as a natural process in natural areas; t here

may be more pressure to control the fire regime and suppress large “natural” fires.

SOURCES: Tha Offica of Technology Assessment, 1993; J.D. Vaday and P. Schullery, “Reallty and Opportunity In the Yellowstone Fires

of 19SS,” in: T/w Greabr Ye//owstoneI%xystern, R.B. Keiter and M.S. Boyce (eds.) (New Haven, CT: Yale University Prass, 1991).

ened (136). 24 Despite the review team’s recom- are also not widely used in Wilderness Areas,

mendation that Federal agencies should cooperatively develop prescribed fire programs and

contingency plans, there have been problems in

achieving a truly coordinated program across

agencies (165). Lack of funding, personnel, and

equipment, and a resistance to instituting a

prescribed fire policy among some agency personnel have also been cited as impediments to

implementing an effective, safe, prescribed fire

program (34, 40, 165).

Although these policies pertain to both natural

and prescribed fires, use of prescribed fires is not

encouraged in some National Parks because of the

policy to let natural processes govern to the extent

possible (67). (However, prescribed fires are

more widely used in other National Parks to

control unnatural fuel buildup.25) Prescribed fires

especially during drought conditions, when fire

risks are high.2G Ironically, this could be the very

time that most ecologically significant fires have

occurred in the past. Removing trees to reduce

fuel loads is allowed only in emergency situations

in some Wilderness Areas. Fire management in

protected natural areas presents a dilemma to

managers: to minimize fire risk during dry years,

many fires are suppressed and few are ignited.

Yet, multiple dry years without frees result in

greater fuel buildup and very high risks of

catastrophic fires.

Human-Use Management. In recent years,

reports on the condition of the National Parks

have cited overcrowding and damage from visitor

use as among the main threats to park resources

(17, 154, 158). Because the parks were estab-

~ NPS ~d w agencies wir,hjurisdiction over Wilderness Areas (including FWS, the Forest Service, and BLM) have mvkd tiir Policies

to allow “prescribed” ties (human or lightning ignited) to burn only under speeillc conditions as stated in a Fire Management Plan. All fires

that do not conform to the specified conditions of the plan (e.g., they become more intense or spread outside the specified fire perimeter) are

considered “wildfiies” and are to be suppressed (79, 155, 173).

~ D. ptUSOnS, Research sci~ti~ National Park Service, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, pOId COmUrdWtiOIh --AP~

1993.

26 J.’I’. wi~~, Branch Chief, Fire Use and Fuels, Fhe and Aviation hkmagemen~ USDA Forest Service, personal COImUmkdiOIL -h

22, 1993.
264 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume

Lakes, ponds, rivers, and wetlands provide excellent

opportunities for canoeing and other aquatic sports.

This salt marsh along the Potomac River harbors

crabs, osprey, blue herons, and bald eagles, and serves

as a nursery for young fish.

lished by the Organic Act to allow visitor use,

pressure to keep them open to all visitors is high

despite the resource damage caused by overuse.

Although NPS maintains a policy of restricting

use if necessary to “prevent derogation of the

values and purposes for which the park was

established,” restricting visitor use remains controversial (153).

Under the Wildlife Refuge Administration Act

(P.L. 9044) and the Refuge Recreation Act

(P.L. 87-714), recreational uses such as hunting,

fishing, and boating are allowed on the National

Wildlife Refuges if the use is “compatible” with

the primary refuge objectives. A use is compatible if it does not materially interfere with or

detract from the purposes for which the refuge

was established (6).27 However, compatibility

judgments are subjective. A 1989 General Accounting Office (GAO) survey of refuge managers showed that about one-third of all uses

considered “harmful’ by refuge managers were

permitted as a result of political or community

pressures (163). Several other harmful activities

2

occurring on wildlife refuges are not under FWS

authority (e.g., military air and ground exercises)

or are included as one of the purposes for which

the refuge was designated (e.g., oil drilling), thus

limiting the ability of refuge managers to protect

refuge values. Since the GAO study, the Fish and

Wildlife Service has implemented several actions

to correct public-use problems including enhanced coordination with other agencies and the

alteration of use patterns on many refuges.”

Because of the mandate to maintain the pristine

condition of Wilderness Areas, these areas carry

the most restrictions with regard to human use.

The number of visitors is limited and generally

only foot and horse travel is allowed. Wilderness

areas still face threats from human use in the form

of eroded trails, litter, and trampled vegetation

(l64). As demands for wilderness-related recreation increase, these trends are likely to worsen

(131).

Acquisition Policies

Climate change may also bring into question

current land-acquisition policies for federally

protected natural areas. Future land-acquisition

decisions could consider the implications of

climate change. For example, will the area persist

under climate change, and will it buffer existing

natural areas or serve as abridge to other areas for

migrating plants and animals? Should corridors

(habitat that connects existing protected natural

areas) be encouraged? Should the edge of species

ranges be acquired and protected? Should habitats

such as coastal wetlands be acquired if they are

likely to become submerged as sea level rises?

Should protected areas be established along

elevational and latitudinal gradients to provide

for migration?

Federal Acquisition Programs. The Federal

Government continues to acquire substantial

amounts of land for its various protected natural

27 However, ~e~~ that frequently interfere with other refuge pwposes, such as eattlegrazing and ofl dribg, We authorhd W kw wti

the refuge is established.

~ ROM sc~len~rger, Chief, Division of Refuges, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ptxsOd COIIlnl~CtiO& -h1993.
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas | 265

Box 5-J-Possible Funding Sources for Conservation Programs

User f-These fees are politically attractive because, ideally, those who value the resource the most pay

for its protection. However, there is often strong opposition to such fees, especially for use of Federal lands. Also,

in the case of wildlife-related activities, it is often difficult to identify the “user.”

■ Recreation fees(for Federal land use)--Many federally protected natural areas and Federal multiple-use lands

charge fees for recreation: entrance fees, camping fees, concessioner fees, and seasonal and annual passes

for National Parks. Voluntary donations are also accepted. However, some contend that the fees are either too

low or do not feed directly into better management of the natural area (101). Some National Parks (e.g., Great

Smoky Mountains National Park) have legislation that prohibits entrance fees.

■ Excise taxes modeled on Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson programs-These taxes establish funds to

protect game and fish habitat, respectively, by imposing a tax on hunting and fishing equipment. Possible

additional targets for excise taxes include fuel for motorized vehicles (off-road vehicles and lawn mowers) and

back-country recreational equipment.

Mitigation fees-These fees have great potential as a funding source. The idea is to tax or charge a fee on

items or activities that are harmful to wildlife but that are perceived as necessary to society. The funds can then

be targeted for protecting wildlife habitat through acquisition or matching grants and for obtaining water for natural

Land and Water Conservation Fund-This fund is already in place and is the most widely used fund for protection

of wildlife and endangered species habitat. A certain percentage of revenues from oil drilling and exploration on

the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is placed in the fund for land acquisition and species protection. OCS activities

provide 85 percent of LWCF funding. However, appropriated amounts have been about one-third of the

authorized amount in recent years.

Fees on new development of nonrenewable resources (e.g., oil and gas, minerals, and geothermal

energy)-Eleven States have such programs in place.

Development and impactt fees--For example, developers who want to build insensitive habitat could be made

to contribute to a fund used to protect wildlife habitat elsewhere. Similarly, donation to a conservation fund could

be required for road-construction activities.

Mandatory land dedication--California cities can require developers to dedicate 3 to 5 acres (1.2 to 2.0

hectares)1 of open space for every 1,000 people the development will accommodate. A similar program can be

established at the Federal level for new development that uses Federal money. At the Federal level, wetland

mitigation is required for development activities that destroy wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

(P.L. 92-500) (see ch. 4 and vol. 1, box 5-C).

Voluntary donations-These can be a good source of revenue, especially when the donator benefits

indirectly from the donation through, say, enhanced business activity. However, voluntary funds are unpredictable

and subject to economic fluctuations and competition with other voluntary programs. Wildlife advocates stress that

voluntary donations should be used to supplement other funding sources, but should not be the sole funding

source (168).

• Recreation-enhancement taxes-Manufacturers of recreation equipment may pay voluntarily to a fund that

benefits the activity for which equipment is used.

• Income tax check-offs-Typically, there is a box that can be checked on income tax forms to dedicate money

for conservation efforts. Many States have successfully initiated this type of checkoff, but it appears that

competition with other checkoff boxes has limited its success.

● Land or land easement donations-Tax deductions or property tax relief may encourage donation of land or

easements under which property is protected.

1 To ~nvert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405.

(Continued on next page)
266 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Box 5-J-Possible Funding Sources for Conservation Programs-(Continued)

General funds-Congress can appropriate funds for wildlife and natural area conservation. However,

appropriations are also subject to short-term economic fluctuations and competition with other programs.

The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 funds--This act was established to provide up to $5 million in

financial assistance to States for nongame wildlife conservation. However, the act has not appropriated any

money since its enactment, even though many States are ready with conservation programs should the funds

be made available.

Highway-trust-fund appropriations--these could be targeted for natural area protection.

Partnerships and incentives program--The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service has initiated

several partnership and incentives programs aimed at encouraging private and State conservation and

stewardship efforts through matching-grant and other Federal assistance programs (see ch. 6).

SOURCES: Presidarrth Commission on Amedcan8 Outdoom, Amerfcarw Outdoonx Tbe Lagacy, 7be Chaknge (’Washington, DC: island

Proea, 19S7); S.D. Viekarman, “State Wiidlifai Protection Efforts: The Nongame Programs, in: “h Dehwsa of Wk#h: PreseNng

Oommun/t/us and Curd&rs (W%shin@on, DC: Dafenders of WVdiife, 19S9), pp. S7-96.

area systems. Land can be acquired for inclusion

in a Federal natural area system in a variety of

ways: through purchase, condemnation, donation, exchange with private landowners, or transfer from another Federal agency. Direct purchase

(where the cost is paid) is not the most common

method for acquiring lands. For example, FWS

and NPS have each acquired only 2 percent of

their land base since 1965 through direct land

purchases (124). Land exchanges, easements, and

purchase of partial interests are more common.

(Box 5-J describes some possible funding mechanisms for conservation projects.)

Funds for most acquisitions come from the

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF),

though additional funds from the Migratory Bird

Conservation Fund and the North American

Wetlands Conservation Fund are available to the

Fish and Wildlife Service. Since the LWCF was

established in 1964, the Departments of Interior

and Agriculture have spent $3.6 billion for land

acquisition and have given $3.2 billion to the

States for their conservation programs.29 Between

4 and 5 million acres of private land have been

acquired by the Federal Government through the

LWCF over the past 25 years (86). Although $900

million has been authorized for the LWCF each

year since 1978, actual appropriations have averaged less than one-third of the total authorized

amount in recent years (see fig. 5-7) (86).

Each land-management agency has different

procedures and criteria for acquiring land. NPS

does not have an overall, long-term acquisition

plan. It determines acquisitions on a case-by-case

basis considering the following criteria: 1) degree

of national significance, 2) degree of suitability

and feasibility, and 3) appropriateness of NPS

protection over State or private protection. Generally, preference is given to ecosystem types that

are not already represented in the system; are less

stressed, damaged, or fragmented; and are of

sufficient size and shape to “ensure long-term

protection of resources and to accommodate

public use” (153). Congress must also authorize

any new additions to the National Park System.

Acquisitions for the National Wildlife Refuge

System follow the Land Acquisition Priority

System (LAPS), a systematic priority-setting

scheme developed by FWS. Under this system,

areas for acquisition are targeted if they contain

endangered species, fishery resources, migratory

bird habitat, significant biodiversity, or nationally

29 ~ N toti app~priat~ aIT,IOUXI~ Up to 60 percent can be made available aa matching funda to the Statea for private hmd X@SitiOm
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas I 267

significant wetlands. Acquisitions for each target

area are authorized by separate congressional

mandates such as the Endangered Species Act and

the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (P.L.

99-645) (150). Criteria for target areas include

whether the size of the land will meet immediate

habitat requirements and whether the area is

accessible to the public; however, fragmentation

and long-term needs are not primary considerations.

Additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) usually include lands already under Federal ownership that have been

recommended by the major land-management

agencies. Thus, additions to the NWPS usually

require a change in management status rather than

ownership. Like additions to the National Park

System, new Wilderness Area designations must

be approved by congressional legislation. Ideally,

the most important criteria for new additions to

the NWPS are whether the area: 1) “generally

appears to have been affected primarily by the

forces of nature; 2) has outstanding opportunities

for solitude or a primitive or unconfined type of

recreation; 3) has at least five thousand acres of

land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable

its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and 4) may also contain ecological, geological or other features of. . . value’ (P.L. 88-577).

Each of the major land-management agencies has

been directed to evaluate its lands for additions to

the system. However, because of conflicts among

resource-use groups and wilderness advocates,

many areas are still under consideration and have

not yet been designated (102).

Federal Incentive Programs. In addition to

Federal acquisition programs, several incentive

programs are in place to protect natural areas and

to augment the Federal system of natural areas.

The Federal Government can use up to 60 percent

of the Land and Water Conservation Fund to help

States plan, acquire, and develop needed land and

water areas. Once a comprehensive plan has been

approved, the Federal Government may provide

up to 50 percent of the costs of the project.

Figure 5-7-Authorizations and Total Annual

Appropriations of Land and Water

Conservation Fund

‘ooo~

800 4 w 1- Authorized amount: $900 million

g 600

.-0

=

E

- 400

200

0

1978 80 82 84 86 88 90 92

SOURCE: National Research Council, 1993.

Although many of these projects are primarily

recreation projects, some do have substantial

benefits for wildlife (6).

Through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 (the Pittman-Robertson Act, P.L.

99-396), Federal financial and technical assistance is provided to the States for acquisition,

restoration, and maintenance projects for wildlife

habitat or for developing a fish and wildlife

resource-management plan. Up to 75 percent of

project costs are paid by the Federal Government,

and the rest is paid by State matching grants. The

Federal portion of the cost is paid primarily

through revenues from excise taxes on hunting

equipment. As a result, most projects are aimed at

benefiting game species. The Federal Aid in Fish

Restoration Act of 1950 (the Dingell-Johnson

Act, P.L. 100448) is a similar act that provides up

to 75 percent of the costs to the States for projects

or management plans pertaining to fish through

revenues from excise taxes on fishing equipment

and related items. In both cases, the Federal

money is dispersed to the States with little

guidance about how it should be used.
268 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of

1980 (P.L. 96-366) sought to fill the gaps in the

Pittman-Robertson, Dingell-Johnson, and Endangered Species Programs by providing protection

through a similar matching-grant program for

species that are not game and not endangered.

However, the program is funded at the Federal

level with direct congressional appropriation

(unlike the fish and game acts, which are funded

by taxes), and no money has ever been appropriated for this purpose since the law was passed in

1980. Under this program, the Federal Government would provide up to 75 percent of the costs

to the States of preparing a comprehensive

management plan for all vertebrate species. This

law—already on the books--could be funded and

amended to encourage an ecosystem-level approach to management by including protection

for plant and invertebrate species and by requiring

States to prepare ecosystem-management plans

before receiving funds.

In addition to these grant and cost-sharing

programs, other Federal programs provide easements and other incentives for resource protection. The Environmental Conservation Acreage

Reserve Program, which combined the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve

Program in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation,

and Trade Act of 1990 (P. L. 101-508), encourages owners to enroll certain wetlands and highly

erodible lands in the program in return for

easement payments and access to cost-sharing

programs. In addition, the “Sodbuster” and

“Swampbuster” programs established by the

Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-198) and the

Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act

seek to combat erosion and wetland destruction

by withholding Federal benefits if erodible lands

are planted or wetlands are converted. (See chs. 4

and 6 for more detail on these programs.) These

Federal programs encourage State and private

landowners to manage lands in particular ways.

The programs could be used to augment the

existing Federal system of natural areas while

accomplishing their broader environmental goals

and without changing landownership patterns.

1 Research, Inventorying, and Monitoring

There are many gaps in our understanding of

ecosystem structure and function. The Ecological

Society of America’s (ESA’s) Sustainable Biosphere Initiative identified five priority areas in

need of increased ecological research: 1) ecological causes and consequences of changes in

climate, soil, water chemistry, and land-use

patterns; 2) 'ecologica1 determinants and consequences of biodiversity and the effects of global

and regional change on biological diversity;

3) definition and detection of stress in natural and

managed ecosystems; 4) restoration of damaged

systems; and 5) management of pests, pathogens,

and disease on a sustainable basis (70, 85). (See

box 5-K.)

Our ability to detect and verify resource

changes and climate impacts is insufficient.

Nevertheless, there are some notable programs

(highlighted in box 5-L) that are beginning to

bridge the information gaps and could serve as

building blocks for future programs. These programs include the Environmental Protection Agency’s

(EPA’s) Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, FWS’S Gap Analysis Project, and

the National Science Foundation’s (NSF’s) LongTerm Ecological Research Program.

In early 1993, President Clinton announced the

establishment of a National Biological Survey

(NBS) in the Department of the Interior.30 Although the scope and structure of the NBS is still

in the formative stages, there are indications that

the NBS will consolidate the biological research,

inventorying, and monitoring activities for the

Department of the Interior into a free-standing,

M ~p~wnhtive ~Stud@, D-w introdu~ H.R. 1S45 to establish the National BioIo@~ S~@Y ~ ~ DeP artment of the Intaior

on April 22, 1993. The President’s FY 1994 budget requested that $179,445,000 be transferred from the eight DOI bureaus to the NBS. HR.

2520, appropriations for DOI and related agencies for FY 1994, suggests transferring $163,604,0(X).
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas | 269

Box 5-K—The Sustainable Biosphere Initiative:

Articulating an Ecological Research Agenda for Global Change

Responding to the need for definitive scientific priorities in a world of constrained research dollars and a

rapidly deteriorating environment, the ecological research community, through the Ecological Society of America,

has identified three areas of high-priority research that address fundamental ecological questions as well as

concerns about the sustainability of the biosphere: global change, biological diversity, and sustainable ecological

systems. The societyhasformalized these priorities in a program called the Sustainable Biosphere initiative (SBI).

SBI is a “call to arms” for ecologists as well as a framework for the “acquisition, dissemination, and utilization of

ecological knowledge which supports efforts to ensure the sustainability of the biosphere” (70). SBI is envisioned

to be broader than a basic research program by contributing to efforts in research, education, and environmental

decision making.

Several of the research areas identified by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) as important for

understanding the nature of climate impacts on natural areas and ecosystems in order to maximize adaptation

possibilities (such as restoration ecology and climate-ecosystem interactions) are also identified as high-priority

research areas by SBI. The key research topics identified by SBI are listed below (70):

■ the ecological causes and consequences of global climate change,

■ the effects of global and regional change on biodiversity,

• indicators of ecological responses to stress,

■ biological inventory,

■ the biology of rare and declining species,

■ the restoration of ecological systems,

• the ecology of disease spread,

■ the consequences of land and water-use change,

■ the causes and consequences of changes in atmospheric, soil, freshwater, or marine chemistry (including

changes in carbon dioxide), and

• the development and application of ecological theory to the management of ecological systems.

The Sustainable Biosphere initiative fosters the application of good science to large-scale questions and the

use of scientific knowledge to solve critical management issues. An interagency Working Group has been formed

to enhance communication and interaction between agencies and to promote decisions that solve critical

management issues in away that recognizes the need for sustainable ecological systems.

The Interagency Working Group has identified two interagency demonstration projects, one in south Florida,

and one in the Southwestern U. S., focused on the Rio Grande Basin. The vision is to use these projects to

demonstrate that several agencies (regulatory, scientific, and management based; Federal, State, and local) plus

academia can work together to meet a common objective: sustainability of critical ecological systems.

SOURCES: J. Lubchenco et al., “The Sustainable Biosphere Initiative: An Ecological Research Agenda,” &o/ogy, vol. 72, No. 2,1991,

pp. 371-412; Office of Technology Assessment 1993.

nonregulatory bureau (5). This change provides contribute to this process by identifying the gaps

an opportunity for the Department to seriously and strengths of existing research efforts that are

examine its existing and future research needs, important for the long-term management of

improve existing programs, eliminate ineffective Federal protected areas and other natural areas.

ones, and address gaps in research, inventorying, Research. Although ecological research is one

and monitoring that have developed over the of the overall priorities in the United States

years. An examination of existing research pro- Global Change Research Program (USGCRP),

grams, as they relate to climate change would relatively little research is being supported that
270 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Box 5-L-Building Blocks for Integrated Information Systems

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

Program-The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

Program (EMAP) program in 1967. It is aimed at: 1) estimating the current condition of the Nation’s ecological

resources, 2) monitoring indicators of pollutant exposure and habitat condition, and 3) providing periodic

summaries and interpretive reports on ecological status and trends to resource managers and the public (162).

The program stemmed from EPA’s Science Advisory Board recommendations for a comprehensive program to

monitor the status and trends of ecosystems so that environmental problems can be anticipated. This program

could be used to help detect and monitor climate-induced changes in the environmental EMAP is meant primarily

to provide a “national overview” of ecological status and trends. Because of the large grid size for monitoring, it

is not a substitute for intensive, site-specific monitoring that maybe required for actual land management.

The program is organized by resource category: estuaries, Great Lakes, surface waters, wetlands, forests,

agroecosystems, and arid ecosystems. The monitoring program for forests is the most developed so far. Several

ecological indicators are measured at each monitoring site. Condition indictators represent the ecological condition

or physical attributes of an organism, population, community, ecosystem, or landscape (e.g., vegetation and

species). Stressor Indicators can be measured to indicate contact with specific stressors or to quantify natural

processes and human-caused events that may affect biota and their habitats (e.g., pollutants). Data are acquired

through field surveys, remote sensing (e.g., satellite images and aerial photography), and other monitoring

programs. Much of this work is carried out in conjunction with other Federal agencies including the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of Interior (DOI), the Department of Energy (DOE), the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA). EMAP also draws on other monitoring initiatives, such as the Forest Health Monitoring Program of the

USDA’s Forest Service and the U.S. Geological Surveys (USGS’s) National Water Quality Assessment Program.

Twelve Federal agencies and 19 States are participating in EMAP through imperative agreements.

EMAP activities are not Iimited to monitoring. Other main components of the program include integration and

coordination activities that aim to ensure uniform, high-quality sampling and assessment methods, consistent

documentation, and effective information management. Research is under way to help improve EMAP through

pilot projects. The entire program, when fully implemented, should cost about $100 million annually.2

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife service’s Gap Analysis Pro]ect-in 1991, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

initiated the Gap Analysis Project (GAP), which was intended to aid in State and Federal wildlife acquisition and

protection efforts by identifying areas of high biodiversity that are not under formal protection (107)3 This

“pro-active” strategy aims to stem the accelerated rates of extinctions by allowing managers and planners to

protect species-rich areas and unprotected vegetation types before they are threatened and on the brink of

extinction.

GAP uses information from The Nature Conservancy (a private, nonprofit conservation organization), the

Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management USGS, State agencies and Heritage Programs,4 and satellite

images to map the potential distribution of plants, vegetation cover types, terrestrial vertebrates, endangered and

candidate species, and other indicator species to identify areas of potential species richness and uniqueness

1 ltis not~ear howthls program will contribute to ordrawfromthe inventory and M@Wtinfj aCtivhi9s of the

new National Blologicai Survey in the Department of the interior.

2 E.A. !vlartlnko, Direotor for the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program at the Environmental

Protection Agency, ietter to the OffIce of T6chnoiogy Assessment, Oct. 14, 1992.

3 it IS Possibie that GAP activities wiii beoome part of the new National BMogkai survey.

4 state Hwitage Programs areoooperative programs between State agendes and The Nature Conservancy

for conducting State-wide biological Inventories.
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas | 271

(109). These distributions are overlain with

regions under official protection by the State or

a Federal agency on a computerized map. The

resulting composite reveals “gaps” in protectionareas with high diversity that are not currently

protected (see figure at right). This can then

help resource managers target protection efforts to maximize the protection of biodiversity.5

GAP provides only a general picture of

biological resources. Data used for GAP analysis may be incomplete because remote areas

were not inventoried, outdated because inventories have not been conducted recently, or too

limited because only certain indicator species

have been mapped. For these reasons, the

vegetation maps produced by GAP maybe best

suited as a cost-effective tool for directing more

comprehensive biological inventories and for

providing a preliminary guide for agency acquisitions, easements, or cooperative agreements.

Although localized species may be “missed”

with the broad-brush approach, supporters of

GAP assert that it could “ensure that the vast

majority of species never become endangered.”

The National Science Foundation’s LongTerm Ecological Research Program-The

National science Foundation (NSF) has had a

long term research and monitoring program in

GAP Analysis Example: Distribution of Endangered

Hawaiian Finches in Relation to Existing Nature

Reserves on the Island of Hawaii in 1982

~ c Two aspecies overlap

= Three species overlap

mExisting nature reserves

SOURCE: National Park Service, 1993.

place since 1980, the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) Program. This was the first major program

established to provide sustained and systematic support for iong-term studies in ecology (42). Research at each

of 17 sites in the United States (and 2 in Antarctica, see figure, next page) combines monitoring activities with basic

research focused on five core areas: patterns of primary production, distributions of selected populations, patterns

and control of organic-matter accumulation, patterns of other inputs and movements of nutrients through the soil

and waters, and patterns and frequency of site disturbance. Because many of these processes require time scales

of decades to centuries, LTER projects address spatial and temporal scales normally outside the range of

ecological research programs. For this reason, LTER activities may be especially important for climate

change-related ecological research.

The LTER program is different from long-term activities in other agencies because it is more rooted in basic

research and relies on the peer-review process to ensure continuation of research activities at each site. Because

of this focus, the LTER sites were chosen by the quality of research proposals submitted to NSF, not simply by

location. However, the existing 19 sites do represent a variety of ecosystem types and degrees of human

disturbance (42). Research varies from site to site, but standardized measurements, methods, and software are

5 S.D. Vi&Mman, presentation at Managing Western Umds in a Changing Climate, OTA-SFWWX*

workshop held Juiy 1992, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Bouider, CO.

(Conthwedon nextpag8)
272 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box 5-L–Building Blocks for Integrated Information Systems-(Continued)

becoming an integral part of the program. Many The National Science Foundation’s Long-Term

stations have already produced major scientific Ecological Research Network

findings in watershed disturbance, lake acidification, and climatology.

A new plan is being developed for future

LTER activity, “LTER 2000,” that will create a

Global Environmental Research Network. The

number of NSF-supported LTER sites will be

increased, and links will be made to other sites

supported by other Federal agencies to cover

key biomes, habitats, and areas lacking adequate coverage.

Because LTER provides sustained, longterm support for basic ecological research, this

program could be one appropriate vehicle for

expanding and encouraging needed ecological

research on climate impacts and responses, as

well as for providing long-term baseline information for detecting climate changes in some

ecosystems.

The Federal System of Research Natural

Areas (RNAs)--This system was established

by the U.S. Forest Service in 1927 for conducting nonmanipulative research on a variety of

ecosystem types. In the 1930s, the National

Park Service (NPS) expanded the idea and

began to establish “research reserves” (7). The

effort later evolved to include areas for experimental management. A 1974 report of the

Federal Committee on Research Natural Areas

called for:

“.

erica

the completion of “the existing National 0 LTER research Sites

System of Natural Areas, with full repre- ● LTER Network Office

sentation of major ecosystems, to provide

sites for studies of naturally functioning

systems that can serve as ecological refer- SOURCE: Long-Term Ecological Research Network 1993.

ence points for baseline monitoring, and as

controls for experimental research” and

‘the National System of Ecological Research Areas, to provide sites for manipulative experiments, management

testing, and observations of the results of human impact” (57).

The idea of a network of Ecological Research Areas that fully represents the range of ecosystems throughout

the United States was articulated in a 1975 report by The Nature Conservancy (57). This vision has only partially

been fulfilled. The committee has not met since 1979, the integrated system of Ecological Research Areas never
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas | 273

materialized, and the existing system of RNAs, a subset of the Ecological Research Areas, is not coordinated and

is not representative of major U.S. ecosystems (7, 33). There are now about 340 RNAs constituting roughly

5 miIlion acres (2.1 million hectares)6 of land under various Federal ownerships, although most RNAs arewith the

Forest Service. Because RNAs are under the purview of various agencies and because there is no legislative or

institutional mechanism to guide management of the system, the RNA system remains a disjointed collection of

lands with no overarching management direction.

If the original vision for RNAs is revived, these areas could become an ideal and important part of natural area

conservation under climate change. These areas could function as centers for research on impacts of climate

change as well as vehicles for studying natural adaptation. However, because RNAs are typically small (14 to

9,000 acres), they should not be solely relied on for long-term protection (1 74).

The Nature Conservancy’s National Natural Heritage Program-The National Natural Heritage Program

is an inventory program coordinated by The Nature Conservancy, but implemented by state conservation

agencies. The goal of t he program is to maintain a “permanent and dynamic atlas and data bank on the existence,

identity, characteristics, numbers, condition, status, location, and distribution oft he elements of natural biological

and ecological diversity . . . “ (86). Rather than attempting to catalog all biological resources, efforts are targeted

toward “the last of the least and the best of the rest”: rare, endangered, and vulnerable species (86).

Comprehensive (though slightly less detailed) inventories are also conducted for communities and ecosystems

within each state.

State participation in the program is entirely voluntary, and except for some private start-up funds, funded

primarily by the States. Generally, TNC provides training, standards, procedures, and methods and facilitates

coordination with other States while the State conservation agencies are primarily responsible for conducting the

actual inventories. Heritage programs have been established in all 50 States. Because the program has been in

place and refined for nearly 20 years, because it is national in scope, because it has active State participation,

and because the methodologies have been established, this program could serve as a model for a federally based

inventory and monitoring effort.

Geographic Information Systems-A Geographic information System (GIS) is a computer-based tool used

to manipulate and analyze spatial data such as topography, soils, and vegetation. With a GIS, digitized thematic

data can be entered, stored, transformed, measured, combined, retrieved, and displayed. Various databases

containing information on flora and fauna topography, soils, geology, and hydrology are standardized and overlaid

to display a composite picture. The relative ease in analyzing and displaying these data can allow planners and

managers to explore and anticipate the results of various planning decisions at various spatial scales.

GISs have been used to predict the occurrence of populations of certain species, to identify potentially

suitable sites for certain species, to estimate the quality and quantity of some habitats, to quantify changes in

landscape patterns, and to examine some spatial interrelationships (e.g., distances to various habitats could be

computed for different conservation strategies). In addition, because “GIS could be used to identify areas

undergoing the most rapid change in which conservation needs might be most crucial,” it could be a valuable tool

for land management and planning under climate change (86). Although use of GISs is increasing, it varies

substantiality among Federal agencies, and the extent of interagency coordination is not clear (86).

The Terrestrial Research Interest Group (TRIG)-The Terrestrial Research interest Group (TRIG) is an

ad hoc coordinating committee of Federal agencies and other organizations that conduct terrestrial research.

Formation of this informal group was spurred by the perception that research on terrestrial impacts of climate

change was not adequately addressed in the Global Change Research Program (GCRP). TRIG seeks to provide

a forum for the exchange of information on terrestrial research efforts (including climate change research efforts)

and to develop a strategy by which these research efforts can be coordinated (65). The strategy includes

identifying relevant geographical regions, management concerns, information needs, and scientific research

6 To convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405.

(Continued on next page)
274 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Box 5-L-Building Blocks for Integrated Information Systems-(Continued)

needs and developing plans for efficiently coordinating research efforts and Iinking them to management and for

effectively managing data (65).

Although this group is not a funded entity and its members are volunteers, several efforts are under way to

help coordinate research activities across agencies. These efforts include the identification of major issues for

terrestrial research and management including issues relating to climate change, and the development of an

overall strategy document. Because many of the agencies voluntarily involved in TRIG are also represented on

the Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences in the office of science and Technology Policy, TRIG could

help facilitate coordination and collaboration between agencies on both research and management issues.

However, further expansion of this group would require some formalization so that members could devote more

time to coordinating activities.7

The Consortium for International Earth Science Information-The Consortium for International Earth

Science Information (CIESIN), a nonprofit corporation, was established in 1969 by FY 1990 appropriations for

National Air and Space Administration (NASA) as one of the nine data centers for the Earth Observing System,

the satellite component of NASA’s Global Climate Change Program. By establishing this corporation, the Federal

Government sought to broaden the information-management programs and facilities planned for NASA’s Earth

Observing System (EOS) and to take the lead in creating an integrated information network accessible to

decisionmakers at all levels of government (23). However, in 1993, the Senate Committee on Appropriations

deleted the full FY 1994 budget request for CIESIN (CIESIN received $75 million in FY 1993)8 citing a lack of

program focus and duplication of effort with the National Science Foundation.

As a part of its missbnio CIESIN was directed to investigate ways to improve data utilization and management

for global change. This effort encompassed several functions: 1) develop and maintain the Socio-Economic Data

Applications Center for EOS, 2) foster research on the human dimensions of global change, 3) link existing

environmental and global change data centers, 4) serve as an international gateway to scientists, educators, and

policy makers, 5) conduct regional cause-and-effect studies of global change, and 6) provide data to other

international programs and research efforts. Many of these plans were never implemented.

The Terrestrial Ecosystems Regional Research and Analysis Laboratory (TERRA)--TERRA is an

interagency research laboratory formed in 1992 under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreement

between the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, Soil Conservation Service, and Forest Service and the US.

Geological Survey in the Department of the Interior. As a part of the global change research activities in these

agencies, TERRA is organized to “provide a mechanism for strengthening the linkages between terrestrial

ecosystem, atmospheric, and human process components of large-scale ecosystem models” (1 17). The objective

of the Laboratory is to provide scientific information in support of national and regional decisionmaking that cuts

across scientific disciplines and conventional agency responsibilities; TERRA hopes to characterize the

interactions between land use, ecological resources, and land management through the development and analysis

of regional models (39). It is hoped that these models will ultimately be able to “test” the consequences of various

policies and management decisions affecting natural resources by predicting changes in the distribution and

nature of terrestrial ecosystems and developing quantitative methods of assessing ecosystem sustainability under

various climate change and land-use-change scenarios. To facilitate information transfer to land managers,

TERRA envisions creating a “neutral” facility where scientists, managers, and other stake holders can work with

the models to help address regional issues and problems.

7 J.A. Kdrnells, U.S. Geological Survey, ietter to the Offioe of Technology Assessment *W 14, 1992.

a J.R. LOUS~ president and CEO of CiESIN, letter to the Office of Ttinoiogy Assessment mt 8,1992.

SOURCE: Office ofkhndqy Assessme~ 1S83.
Chapter 5--Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas I 275

addresses the uncertainties surrounding the impacts of climate change on ecosystems (see ch. 3).

Funding for climate change research within DOI

has not been well-supported. In FY 1993, NPS

was the only DOI agency to request any increase

in USGCRP funding (from $2.6 million to $3.7

million between FY 1992 and FY 1993) (25, 26).

DOI was the only participating department that

requested a decrease in USGCRP funding in

FY 1993 and FY 1994 (25, 26).

Much remains to be discovered about how and

to what degree climate factors influence wildlife

and plant species, how wildlife interactions enhance or inhibit their ability to adapt, how various

changes in vegetation and landscape affect species populations, or what makes a species sensitive to climate change. More generally, little is

known about how to facilitate adaptation through

either reserve or corridor design, although educated guesses can be made. Transplantation and

restoration ecology may become important for

saving and protecting more species in a changing

climate. However, this discipline is relatively

new. Some techniques are not well-developed

and others are not widely known (see boxes 5-M

and 4-A). The National Research Council (85),

the Council on Environmental Quality (30) and

the Ecological Society of America (70) have all

called for increased efforts in ecological research, especially on larger spatial and temporal

scales. One of the functions of the NBS might

be to implement research on a large, ecosystem

basis (5).

Research for the National Park System is

conducted in each individual park unit, through

the 10 regional offices, and through some 23

Cooperative Park Study Units with various universities. However, no research is systematically

conducted throughout NPS (83). In addition, it is

not clear that the existing research efforts are

adequate for meeting current management needs,

much less management needs for the future. The

National Park Service’s component of the

USGCRP (NPSGCRP)31 seeks to “provide predictive and holistic understanding of the effects of

global change on species populations, ecological

communities, watershed processes and landscape

dynamics through the coordinated use of parks

and benchmark research sites within large [biogeographic areas]” (22). Research activities are

centered around the biogeographic area (BGA)

concept developed by Unesco’s32 Man and the

Biosphere Program (MAB) (see box 5-F), and

most NPS research activities for global change

take place in U.S. MAB Biosphere Reserves.

Although this effort is innovative because it is one

of the few USGCRP programs to take a regional

approach to climate change research, its scope

remains relatively limited, and the program has

proceeded more slowly than planned. In addition,

scientific research beyond the scope needed for

short-term, site-specific management does not

receive much support from NPS (83). ‘‘The NPS

science program is unnecessarily fragmented and

lacks a coherent sense of direction, purpose, and

unity,” according to a recent study (83).

Most research for the Fish and Wildlife Service

aims to aid management efforts and objectives at

each refuge. Consequently, “research on systems

and species most susceptible to consequences of

global climate change is lacking” (66). Research

activities at the Fish and Wildlife Service are

conducted through 13 national research centers

and 89 field stations. The Cooperative Research

Program of FWS facilitates cooperative research

between FWS, State wildlife agencies, and about

41 universities. Climate change research efforts

take place under the FWS Global Change Research Program (FWSGCRP), which seeks to

establish a reference base to clearly demonstrate

and assess the extent, magnitude, and rate of

ecological impacts of global change and to assess

the significance of global climate change on

FWS resources, especially coastal ecosystems,

31 ‘1’MS pro- aloW with other NPS re~ch activities, is slated to become part of the National Biological Survey.

32 unit~ Natiom E.ducatio@ Scientitlc, and Cultural @gtiZiltioI1.
276 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box 5= M-Restoration Ecology: Giving Nature a Helping Hand Under Climate Change

Changes in climate will likely alter the balance of plants and animals that now characterizes natural areas,

and could be accompanied by any number of changes in the physical environment including more erosion,

flooding or drying, and more frequent or more intense fires. The impacts of climate change will pose a dilemma

for managers of natural areas, who must balance the conflicting needs of protecting a specific set of resources,

such as endangered species or migratory waterfowl habitat, with the goal of allowing natural ecological processes

to proceed (see box 5-B). In some areas, managers may decide that the need to maintain a specific habitat may

call for active efforts to protect the plants and animals already in place and to restore habitat that is damaged. In

other cases, habitat that has already been damaged by pollution, road building, water diversions, erosion,

timbering and grazing, overuse by visitors, and fragmentation (see box 5-E) may now contain the most favorable

climate conditions for some species or communities; managers may attempt to add such sites to the boundaries

of natural areas and restore them to increase the chances that a given community will survive. In both cases,

restoration will be a key part of the management strategy.

Ecological restoration is the attempt to fully restore ecosystems by recreating the entire community of

organisms that originally inhabited them. It is different from habitat creation, reclamation, and rehabilitation-each

of which can involve manipulation of a small set of species. Restoration involves recreating both the form and the

function of a natural ecosystem that is integrated with t he landscape in which it occurs. Restoration varies from

site to site, but generally involves two major steps: site preparation to restore desired physical, chemical and water

conditions, and biological manipulation including the reintroduction of absent native plant and animal species To

begin with, the site is prepared by clearing unwanted vegetation (nonindigenous species), removing

contamination, adding topsoil if necessary, and, possibly, grading to create a varied topography. Vegetation is

planted, either with seeds from nearby sources of native species or by transplantation of plants from another site.

In some cases, measures to restore vegetation maybe more passive--a prepared site maybe allowed to reseed

naturally from the surrounding areas or from seed that has remained dormant on-site. However, natural

regeneration may be difficult in areas where native species are no longer prevalent or where invasive

nonindigenous species are likely to take root quickly. In many cases, animals are allowed to migrate into the area

of their own accord, under the assumption that once native vegetation is reestablished, animals will follow. In the

case of endangered species, however, managers may devote considerable effort to rearing the species off-site

and reintroducing them into the restored habitat.

Early efforts to go beyond simple reclamation and reforestation in attempts to restore full ecosystems were

pioneered by ecologists at the University of Wisconsin Arboretum in the 1930s. Researchers there began exploring

techniques for restoring the full array of species and functions to prairies and forests that had been cleared for

agricultural use. Long-term research on the plots established there continues to yield new information on

restoration techniques. Since then, restoration has been applied with varying degrees of frequency and success

on other ecosystem types ranging from savanna and shrubland to coastal salt marshes, freshwater wetlands, and

rivers and lakes.

One impetus for the development of restoration techniques has been an increasing demand by the Federal

Government. Restoration is called for in three separate contexts--regulation, planning, and management.

Restoration has entered the regulatory arena through the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water

Act (P.L. 92-500), in which restoration of wetlands can be demanded to compensate for activities that destroy

wetlands (see ch. 4), as well as through the requirements covering reclamation of surface mines. Restoration may

be part of the planning and construction of federally supported projects as required by the National Environmental

Protection Act (NEPA; P.L. 91-190), under which potential damages to the environment and alternatives for

mitigating those harms must be evaluated. Finally, restoration is part of ongoing management efforts of many

Federal natural areas to combat problems such as overuse by visitors and to protect and restore habitat for

endangered species.
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas | 277

An Example of Ongoing Federal Restoration Efforts-More than 3,000 species of wildlife and fish Iive on

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands, including 216 federally listed threatened and endangered species and

1,200 candidate plant and animal species BLM manages more fish and wildlife habitat than any other

organization. These highly diverse habitats encompass deserts, rangelands, mountains, forests, and tundra.

In 1988, BLM launched an action-oriented program aimed at the more efficient management of the fish and

wildlife resources on public lands. The program, Fish and Wildlife 2000, seeks to “ensure optimum populations

and natural abundance and diversity of wildlife resources on public lands by restoring, maintaining, and enhancing

habitat conditions.” A related BLM effort, the Riparian-Wetland Initiative for the 1990’s, which was launched in

1991, focuses on restoration and maintenance projects for riparian areas and wetlands with the goal of having

over 75 percent of these areas in functioning order by 1997 (138). BLM has utilized a variety of outreach and

cooperative programs with States and private citizens to achieve its goals in habitat restoration and improvement

efforts. This collaborative approach with partners is enabling BLM to stretch Federal funds and accelerate

on-the-ground management and restoration efforts.

BLM estimates that the Fish and Wildlife 2000 will require about $90 million per year for 10 years and the

Riparian-Wetlands Initiative will require a total of $127 million for full implementation. However, these programs

have not obtained the funds or personnel requested to date. The FY 1993 budget for Fish and Wildlife 2000 is

some $36 million, or about one-third of the planned funding level. Despite this, BLM has made substantial progress

in several areas. In California, efforts are under way to restore the hydrologic function and improve the habitat

quality for the Modoc sucker on a 9-mile (16-km) segment of Cedar Creek. In Montana, 3,800 acres (1,520

hectares)l of wetlands are to be created in native prairie to increase nesting habitat for waterfowl. In addition, other

vegetation management is planned to create habitat for a variety of other species in this area.

Despite the increasing demand for restoration techniques, restoration ecology is still a young science.

Problems encountered in restoration include site selection, survival of transplanted flora and fauna inadequate

nutrient supplies for plant growth, and pest invasions (83). Restoring an ecosystem to its former condition requires

a detailed understanding of the numerous components and functions that characterize it; for many types of

ecosystems, ecological knowledge is incomplete at that level of detail. To date, restoration research has tended

to focus primarily on techniques of reestablishing species composition and community structure. The functional

values of restored areas, although widely recognized, are seldom evaluated. For example, it has not been shown

that restored wetlands maintain regional biodiversity and recreate functional ecosystems (83). Considerable

research is needed in many areas of basic ecological interactions as well as further experimentation on a wide

array of ecosystems to ensure that the practice of restoration yields predictable and desired results.

Even as restoration techniques are being refined, the potential for climate change raises new challenges.

Past restoration efforts have generally sought to recreate self-sustaining ecosystems in their original

conditions-the way they were before human actions disturbed them. But as climate changes, the environmental

conditions that originally shaped an ecosystem may fundamentally change, so that an ecosystem restored to its

original or natural condition may no longer be self-sustaining. Whereas ecologists are trained to think of

ecosystems as dynamic and evolving, much of our natural resource legislation focuses on saving a particular

resource in a particular place-a freeze-frame in the film of ecosystem evolution. At what point should

restorationists take t hat snapshot? To what should an ecosystem be restored if t he climate has changed around

it? As species migrate in response to a changing climate, which will be considered the native species, and which

will still be considered nonindigenous? What are the implications of introducing new species that maybe more

adapted to the new climate conditions? A changing climate will test the boundaries of the Nation’s present thinking

about species and ecosystems.

1 TO convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405.

SOURCES: J.L. Berger and L.A. Riggs, Ecolog/ca/ Restoration and Norr-/nd@mous Speck, contractor paper prepared for the Office of

Ttinology Assessment August 1991; W.R. Jordan, R.L Peters, and E. E?. Allen, /3doglca/ F?estorat&rr as a Strategy fbr Conssrdng

Bbdiversity, contractor paper prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, January 19SS; National Research Council, Restoratlorr

of Aquat/c Ecosystems (Washington DC: National Academy of Sden~s Press, 1992).
278 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

prairie pothole wetlands, and priority fish and

wildlife (147). Support for these important research efforts has waned. In FY 1993, $3.1

million was allocated for the FWSGCRP program, representing a 14 percent decrease from

FY 1992.

There is no coordinated research program for

the Wilderness Preservation System. All research

activities for Wilderness Areas are subsumed in

the research programs for the agency that administers each area. However, research activities in

place in Wilderness Areas may provide useful

information to guide future management under

climate change (e.g., monitoring forest health or

improving understanding of ecosystems). Only

one climate change project, Ecological Change in

Environmentally Stressed Ecosystems of the

Western and Northern United States, has been

funded ($1 million) at BLM despite the large

acreage it adminis ters (270 million acres). The

Forest Service maintains a larger global change

research program (FSGCRP) ($22 million).

FSGCRP focuses on four research elements:

1) gas and energy exchange between the biosphere and atmosphere; 2) disturbance ecology;

3) ecosystem dynamics; and 4) human activities

and natural resource interactions. FSGCRP is

conducted through five regional programs, each

addressing the four research elements (134).

Because funds are limited, activities tend to focus

on immediate management concerns and popular

or controversial species (66).

Inventorying and Monitoring. Inventorying

and monitoring are extremely important for

detecting changes in natural areas (97, 126, 166).

However, inventory and monitoring efforts for

Federal natural areas are inconsistent, uncoordinated, and often incomplete for establishing a

baseline assessment of resource status and for

monitoring changes over the long term. NPS

maintains a policy to inventory and monitor its

resources, and most park units have written

descriptions of the plants and animals occurring

on park lands. However, NPS inventorying and

monitoring efforts are extremely varied in scope

and quality from unit to unit, and data are not

standardized or properly cataloged (83, 115,

177). Monitoring efforts are often directed at

“popular” species and undertaken for management considerations, rather than at representative

species and for studies of long-term trends (115,

177). Less than 30 percent of all National Parks

maintain adequate data for addressing management questions or for making informed management decisions (154). In 1992, NPS started a

program to conduct more complete inventories of

NPS lands, and this program is likely to continue

under the direction of the new National Biological

Survey.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has, possibly,

the most complete inventory of the animal species

that occur on the lands it manages because of its

strong biological focus. Most vegetation inventory efforts focus on wetlands through the National Wetlands Inventory Program. Most wildlife inventory and monitoring efforts emphasize

waterfowl, endangered species, and game species. Nongame species receive limited attention

(66). Few refuges monitor activities on important

adjacent lands, so data sets are incomplete and not

representative of the whole ecosystem (66). Some

Many western rangeland have been overgrazed by

cattle (land on right side of fence), causing declines in

biodiversity, loss of soil richness, and increased

erosion. Some of these ecosystems are under

continuous stress and utilized beyond their carrying

capacity.
Chapter 5--Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas I 279

managers only inventory animals found on the

refuge, and some inventory both animals and

plants. There is no explicit statutory mandate to

conduct inventory and monitoring activities on

Wildlife Refuges (66).

There is no systematic mechanism for inventorying and monitoring resources in the Wilderness

Preservation System as a whole. Inventory and

monitoring efforts for Wilderness Areas are

generally subsumed in the inventories of each

land-management agency that contains them.

Most efforts focus on the most visible impacts,

whereas monitoring for more subtle changes in air

quality and vegetation status are ignored because

adequate funds and personnel are not available.

Both the Forest Service and BLM have explicit

statutory mandates to inventory their resources,

including those in Wilderness Areas. Despite this

mandate, many units have not been inventoried

(164), and the most detailed inventories are

conducted for timber resource lands-not Wilderness Areas (66). Only about 15 percent of

BLM-administered land has been inventoried

according to minimum standards for vegetation

set by USDA’s Soil Conservation Service. Less

than 5 percent of BLM lands have been inventoried for their wildlife habitat, according to BLM’s

Habitat Inventory and Classification System, and

less than 5 percent of BLM riparian areas and

wetlands have been inventoried, according to a

parallel inventory system for wetlands (66). In

addition, a comprehensive listing of fragile or

endangered species is not available, and very few

species are included in BLM’s Threatened and

Endangered Species Data System (66).

Since the early 1980s, the Forest Service has

promoted a system--called “Limits of Acceptable Change’—for detecting changes in the conditions of wilderness resources and for guiding

management activities. Under this step-by-step

approach, issues of concern are identified, indicators of condition are chosen, standards for the

condition of wilderness resources are set according to these indicators, and management activities

are designed and chosen based on the entire

evaluation (113). However, the success of this

management tool relies heavily on complete and

accurate inventories and routine monitoring of

changing conditions. According to a 1988 survey,

76 percent of wilderness managers had not used

this tool for wilderness management (164).

In response to the public’s concern about a

wide range of environmental impacts, such as

acid rain and the subdivision of large forest tracks

for residential use, Congress directed the Forest

Service to initiate a program to monitor the health

of the Nation’s forests (Forest Ecosystems and

Atmospheric Pollution Act of 1988, P.L. 100-

521). Forest health monitoring under this act is

carried out by the Forest Service, EPA, and State

forestry agencies (132).

POLICY OPTIONS

1 The Policy Challenge

Climate change threatens the security of the

Nation’s investment in natural areas. Substantial

land, money, and time have been invested in

establishing various systems of natural areas

throughout the country to ensure that they are

protected for future generations to enjoy. A

variety of problems, such as fragmentation, pollution, and overuse, faces natural areas today, and

climate change will likely compound these problems and pose new threats to protected natural

areas.

The optimal climatic regime for many natural

area resources may shift to well outside the

legislatively established boundary that protects

them. It is not clear how climate change will

affect certain species in protected natural areas,

but it is certain that species composition will

change, and that research to establish baseline

information and to detector anticipate that change

is currently inadequate to inform decisionmaking.

It is also unclear which species will adapt,

migrate, or become extinct. However, it is clear

that development and fragmentation around and

within natural areas are already contributing to
280 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

species loss and greatly inhibit any ability to

adapt or migrate. Climate change may affect the

ability of land-management agencies to protect

biodiversity and rare species and provide certain

types of recreation opportunities. This may affect

the ability of land-management agencies to protect biodiversity and rare species and provide

certain types of recreational opportunities.

The management philosophies and preservation goals for natural areas may simply be

untenable under climate change and may have to

be modified. To minimize loss of some resources,

intervention, protection, and acquisition approaches

may need to be altered. With the high level of

uncertainty surrounding the nature of climate

change and its regional impacts, it is difficult to

identify exactly what should be done to minimize

adverse effects on natural areas. However, climate change presents a long-term strategic dilemma for natural area management that needs to

be considered now (see box 5-B). Although

estimates cannot be made of how much of which

types of habitat will be lost, some types of

habitat loss due to the dual impacts of climate

change and human activity will likely occur

despite attempts to adapt.

While addressing threats that are currently

affecting federally protected natural areas, there

are many ways to prepare for climate change in

natural areas that will minimize its impacts.

Congress could help combat the factors that

might inhibit adaptation to climate change by

approaching land management on a larger, ecosystem-oriented level. Although the definition of

“ecosystem management’ or how it should be

implemented is not clear, some models are

beginning to emerge that generally include largescale management and cooperation. Congress

could help agencies combat stresses that could

inhibit adaptation to climate change by building

from or supporting existing research and development models, by supporting research and monitoring on a regional scale, by supporting Federal

agency activities that seek to pursue the ideals of

ecosystem management, and by providing incentives for States and private landowners to participate in ecosystem-oriented programs. Many of

the options described below could be used to

further the ecosystem management concept.

The following policy options fall into two

broad categories: strategic information gathering and enhanced protection. Despite this categorization, which splits “research” and “management’ issues, the need for strong links between

the two cannot be stressed enough. Research that

might help guide future management of protected

natural areas is not useful if the information is not

made available and effectively communicated to

managers and decisionmakers.

9 Strategic Information Gathering

A better understanding of how ecosystems

change over time, interact with one another, and

respond to climate variables and management

activities is a necessary frost step in coping with

climate change in natural areas. The policy

options for research and for inventorying and

monitoring are summarized in table 5-5.

Table 5-5-Options for Strategic

Information Gathering
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas I 281

Strengthen Research Efforts

Even if climate scientists determine the exact

rate and nature of climate change tomorrow,

land-management experts would not know how to

respond appropriately. Research in federally protected natural areas is currently focused on

immediate management issues, and very little

research is being done to provide fundamental,

long-term data (e.g., on species response and

sensitivity to various climate variables, species

interactions and dependence on one another,

restoration ecology, preserve design, corridor

design and effectiveness, and transplantation

ecology).

A commonly cited solution for accommodating

species shifts in a fragmented landscape is to

facilitate species or ecosystems migration by

establishing corridors or by transplanting species

to their ‘‘appropriate’ new range. Although

theoretically possible, the knowledge base for

such options is very incomplete. Pilot projects are

ongoing in some places, especially for wetlands

(see box 4-A). Research activities that do address

these issues are often carried out in centers

separated from where management and decisionmaking take place, so they are less able to directly

influence management.

Option 5-1: Increase funding for the “Ecological Processes’ research area in the U.S.

Global Climate Research Program. The Subcommittee on Global Change Research under the

Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences

(see fig. 3-1) has prioritized global change

research for all scientitfic disciplines to help guide

Federal funding of the U.S. Global Change

Research Program (USGCRP). Under this structure, “Ecological Processes” is the third-highest

(out of seven) national priority research area for

global change (see fig. 3-2). However, 17 percent

of the USGCRP budget is allocated for research

under ecological systems and dynamics. In 1993,

of this $224 million, 66 percent ($148 million) is

for NASA programs, 15 percent ($37 million) is

for USDA (25), and 4 percent ($9 million) is for

DOI.

Increased funding for land-management agencies to carry out ecological research related to

global change (e.g., larger spatial and longer

temporal scales) would more directly address

management concerns. Whatever the funding

source, relatively modest funding increases

spread over a few years could significantly help

to advance the understanding of ecological systems under climate change (see ch. 3).

Option 5-2: A-fake research on natural resources a key component of a broadened global

change program. Arguably, research that would

most help prepare for climate change in natural

areas (i.e., on reserve design, migration patterns,

and translocation ecology) is not applicable

solely to the climate change problem. Such

research would also be valuable for other environmental goals such as preserving biodiversity,

conserving rare species, and mitigating impacts

from landscape fragmentation. In fact, climate

change may not be the most compelling reason to

conduct the kind of research needed for long-term

protection of natural areas. Therefore, the existing

USGCRP, now primarily a climate research

program, may not be the most appropriate mechanism for promoting natural resources research

that has significant application to a much broader

set of global environmental problems.

On the other hand, no other mechanism coordinates research on global-scale environmental

problems across the Federal Government under a

prioritized scheme to accomplish specified scientific goals and objectives. USGCRP offers the

best alternative to agency-by-agency research on

global environmental problems. If USGCRP is

expanded to address broad issues of global

change, it could better promote research for

long-term protection of natural areas on several

fronts. (See ch. 3 for more discussion of these

issues.)

Option 5-3: Direct the National Academy of

Sciences, the Office of Science and Technology

Policy (OSTP), or an independent commission to

assess the applicability of ongoing environmental

research to provide long-term guidance for
282 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume

natural resource protection under climate

change and other global changes. It is evident

that one of the most prudent approaches to natural

area conservation under climate change is more

coordinated management on the ecosystem or

regional scale. This approach would also help

address threats to biodiversity and maximize

possibilities for species survival under climate

change. However, relatively little research is

being done on ecosystem or regional-level interactions (30, 70)---most research is site- or speciesspecific. Several efforts in various agencies could

be supported and expanded to facilitate ecosystemlevel research (see boxes 5-F and 5-L).

Several recent studies have called for an

assessment of U.S. environmental research (see

ch. 3). The Federal Government spends about

$900 million on environmental research annually. 33 Although this figure is huge (almost as

much as the entire USGCRP budget; see ch. 3),

the term “environment” is also quite broad. It is

unclear how much of the research is applicable to

unmanaged ecosystems, and how much is coordinated to provide answers for long-term problems

like climate change and biodiversity. A task force

could attempt to categorize this pot of money for

environmental research in several ways: How

much is being spent on various natural resources:

air, water, land, wildlife, soil, forests, crops? How

much is being spent on various environmental

problems: pollution, biodiversity loss, climate

change, contamination, hazardous waste, natural

disasters? How much is being spent on long-term

issues?

A study conducted by the National Academy of

Sciences, OSTP in the Office of the President, or

an independent commission could examine programs addressing these areas, including programs

within USGCRP, and suggest how they could be

expanded, augmented, or integrated. Such a study

could build on NSF’s ongoing analysis of environmental research (unpublished).

2

Option 5-4: Support coordinated research in

federally protected natural areas. The research

programs for Wilderness Areas, National Parks,

and National Wildlife Refuges are uncoordinated

or inadequate. Because the agencies that administer these areas have traditionally been seen as

management agencies, scientific research has not

been a high priority--except to address immediate, agency-by-agency management concerns.

However, with the uncertain impacts of climate

change coupled with existing threats on natural

area resources, informed management decisions

will be nearly impossible in the future without a

strong research effort. The National Academy of

Sciences has recommended the development of a

National Environmental Research Plan (85). This

plan would set a research agenda and identify

agency responsibilities.

NSF’s Long-Term Ecological Research Program conducts basic ecological research and

long-term monitoring at 18 sites (see box 5-L).

This program could be investigated as a model for

long-term research in the Federal system of

natural areas. Although LTER research is not

formally focused on management activities, much

of this basic research has contributed to a better

understanding of specific sites with direct implications for future management (42). NSF also

supports basic research in areas such as sensitivity

of species to climate change and restoration and

translocation ecology.

A formal mechanism for linking research

results to management decisions and planning

should be incorporated into any natural areas

research agenda. There is a danger that if research

responsibility is taken away from the landmanagement agencies without sufficient links to

management in place, land managers will not be

aware of or will even be uninterested in scientific

results that could lead to more effective management.

33 J, ~sL ~mtive Sm~, !3ubcornmittee on EnviroxuxE~ BiOIOSY, C ommittee on Life Scienees and Heal@ Federal Coordbt@

Council for Science, En@nee@, ~d ~kology, ~XMI co~tiom Sept. 14, 1993.
Chapter 5--Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas I 283

Strengthen Inventorying and Monitoring Efforts

Adequate information about the existing state

of U.S. resources in natural areas and elsewhere

is an important element in a strategy to address

the impact of climate change in these areas.

Baseline information on species and their ranges

are not available for all species or species types in

the United States. In addition, virtually no information is available on land-use patterns that

might affect those species. Inventory and monitoring programs are usually the last to get funds

and the first to be cut in a budget crisis (83, 177).

Many monitoring programs that have been established in protected natural areas have been

discontinued because of personnel changes, policy alterations, or budget cuts (177).34 Baseline

information is needed on the status and trends of

vegetation cover, plant distributions, animal distributions, soils, and water resources to detect and

monitor climate-induced changes. All Federal

agencies conduct some type of inventory as a

matter of policy, but these efforts vary widely in

completeness and quality, are not consistently

implemented and funded, and are not coordinated

at the national or even agency level. In addition,

many species and ecosystems are not found in the

Federal system of preserved areas and, therefore,

they are not included in any Federal inventory and

monitoring efforts. The Federal Gov ernment

could play a key role in improving inventory and

monitoring activities.

Option 5-5: Create a national program for

inventory and monitoring. A nationwide inventory and monitoring program with consistent and

comparable inventory methods across all Federal

and State agencies would help assess the state of

the Nation’s resources. Such a program could

help facilitate regional planning by providing a

broad understanding of the resources within

various regions, guiding Federal acquisition and

conservation incentive programs, and detecting

large-scale changes in natural areas.

An interagency task force could evaluate existing efforts, identify shortcomings, and outline a

national program that addresses gaps in data

gathering. Nationwide minimum standards,

methods, and, possibly, reporting procedures for

inventory and monitoring activities could be

developed. All Federal agencies with landmanagement responsibilities could be required to

adhere to these standards, and States and private

organizations could be encouraged to adopt these

standards as an eligibility requirement for receiving conservation-oriented Federal grants. The

National Biological Survey within the Department of the Interior could help integrate activities

within DOI and serve as a liaison with other

groups. Although the NBS could take the lead in

this effort, it is essential that the Forest Service

and other USDA agencies, the National Science

Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency,

and the Department of Energy be included in the

task force. In addition, State agency representatives and private organizations, with existing

inventory programs, such as The Nature Conservancy should also be included. Several existing

efforts, such as EPA’s Environmental Monitoring

and Assessment Program (EMAP), the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service’s Gap Analysis Project

(GAP) program, and The Nature Conservancy’s

National Heritage Program, could be expanded or

incorporated into an integrated Federal effort (see

box 5-F). At the request of the Secretary of the

Interior, the National Research Council has

formed the Committee on the Formation of the

National Biological Survey to study these issues.

A national inventory and monitoring program

should include a clearinghouse, possibly through

NSF or NBS (see box 5-L), for storing and

evaluating information so that it would be easily

accessible to interested parties.

34 ~~mple, ~~ 1993, BLM C*M 6 of is 16 ~id-fi stations to release about $30,000 for Other BLM activities. Seved of the

six stations had been in operation for 10 yearn and had been maintaining data sets to monitor the health of formts and the effeeta of acid rain.

Continuation of this longer-term record was lost as a result of these cuts.
284 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

In developing a nationwide comprehensive

inventory and monitoring system, it is important

to ensure that the minimum standards and methods can be reasonably applied to all types of land

under all types of ownership and management.

Many National Parks and other protected natural

areas, for example, have special inventory and

monitoring needs, depending on their missions

and specific legislative purposes (e.g., managing

threatened and endangered species or encouraging visitor use). Whatever standards are developed should allow enough flexibility to accommodate the needs of individual areas while

achieving national objectives.

Finally, a concerted effort to connect, in a

timely manner, the information contained in a

national inventory and monitoring program to the

resource management and land-use planning process is vital. If these connections are not adequately addressed, the gap between research and

management could increase with the establishment of a separate research agency in DOI.

Option 5-6: Create a line item in agencies’

budgets for inventory and monitoring efforts. A

line item in agency budgets will ensure that

inventory and monitoring is receiving consistent,

adequate, and long-term attention. However,

although a budget line item may help ensure more

specific attention to the activity, it does not

guarantee consistent or long-term funding. It

may, in fact, become a more visible target for

cutting in budget-stressed times. NSF’s LongTerm Ecological Research (LTER) Program is

funded on 5-year cycles (see box 5-L). A similar

funding cycle for other agency programs might

help give them more long-term funding stability.

Option 5-7: Direct agencies to identify principal gaps in inventory and monitoring activities

within their existing programs. Congress could

address inventory and monitoring issues at the

agency level by focusing on the essential information that is missing from existing programs.

Agencies could be directed to develop a priority

list for inventory and monitoring needs with cost

estimates. This priority list could be used to guide

funding decisions for agency activities over a

period of time. However, it is likely that these lists

will vary according to each agency’s missions.

Option 5-8: Support programs that address

the most urgent inventory and monitoring needs.

A national-scale survey of the Nation’s biological

resources (even if it is a broad-brush survey) is

needed now to help foster regional land-use

planning and to provide better protection, now

and in the future, for the Nation’s natural areas.

Remote-sensing technologies and geographical

information systems (GISS) are powerful tools

that provide regional information on biological

resources, topography, and land use. The Fish and

Wildlife Service’s Gap Analysis program synthesizes information from satellites, State heritage

programs, and Federal agencies to identify vegetation-cover types, potential habitat for particular

species, and areas of potentially high species

richness as well as information on land-use and

protection status (see box 5-L). Support for this

program could produce a crude national inventory

by 1998. Although EPA’s EMAP project is

another national-scale inventory and monitoring

program that may be valuable in detecting longterm trends and assessing the status of various

resources, methodologies are still being developed. Land use and ownership are currently not

part of the program, and its spatial resolution may

be too coarse to guide regional-scale planning.

1 Enhanced Protection

Federally protected natural areas are a haven

for some species, and they have become a central

part of species-protection efforts. But natural

areas and the habitats they protect are not immune

to human disruption-habitat destruction, pollution, and other stresses threaten more and more

species with extinction (126), and climate change

may exacerbate these stresses. Many federally

protected natural areas are already too small to

contain functioning ecosystems for many large

.

animals (29, 51, 76). Because of these combined

factors, existing natural areas may be less able to
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas I 285

protect species in the future; other currently

unprotected lands may become more important

for species survival. Protection for existing and

future natural areas can be enhanced in several

targeted ways through both direct and indirect

Federal actions and by encouraging multigovernment-level partnerships. Options for enhanced protection are summarized in table 5-6.

Direct Federal ActIon

Direct Federal action-such as revising agency

mandates and modifying criteria used for acquisition, land transfers, and exchanges-could be

used to enhance the Federal system of natural

areas and make them less vulnerable to climate

change.

Acquisition policies for the National Park

Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service do

consider biological diversity and reflect a desire

to include a variety of ecosystem types. In

addition, all agencies that administer natural areas

have some kind of size requirement in their

acquisition policies that gives preference to larger

areas for protection. No acquisition policy gives

preference to areas that are adjacent to or link

existing natural areas-a criteria that could greatly

benefit the preservation of natural areas in the

future. Biodiversity is not considered in USDA

Forest Service and BLM wilderness designations.

In addition, although a variety of ecosystems is

federally protected, there is little duplication and

many ecosystems types are still unprotected. One

study revealed that of 135 ecosystem types,

24 percent were inadequately represented and

7 percent were not represented in any Federal land

system (see figs. 5-8 and 5-9).35 Another study of

just the Wilderness Preservation System found

that of 233 ecosystem types, 65 percent were

found to be inadequately represented (occurring

on less than two units of 1,000 acres or more) and

21 percent were not represented (32).36

Research Natural Areas (RNAs), first officially

established in the 1970s as lands from each

land-management agency designated for special

research and monitoring, were to form a system

that would have representatives of all ecosystem

types (57) (see box 5-L).37 The Federal Committee on Ecological Reserves, established by the

Johnson adminis tration, was to explore possibilities of expanding the RNA system to include

additional Federal lands as well as State, local,

and private lands, and to develop guidelines and

criteria for management. Though it has not been

formally disbanded, the committee has not met

since 1979 due to lack of funding and staff (7).

35 ~study used 1982 OW3MZShip maps based on Kuchlex’s Potential Natural Vegetation ~s (33). “Inadequately represented” meant

that relatively small aaeages were protected in the Fedend system of protected lands (includingNational Forests and BLM-administered Public

Lands as well as Indian reservations).

36 ~~~dy @~ sli~fly diff=nt detiation of ecosystem types 8S SpCC@d f~ *F-t ServiU’S fid~ evaluations.

37 Mthou@~~ M USDA F~ests-ice in the 1920s and the National Park Serviec in the 1930s sel aside some Of their hM.Kis for meareh

and monitoring, these lands did not become part of a coordinated Federal system of Research Natural Areas until the 1970s.
286 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Figure 5-8-Ecosystem Types Represented

on Federal Land

.)Inadequately

equalely

-— represented (24°\o)

*df . ..-, u

represented (69Yo)

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

Because Federal acquisition means that lands

are removed from the local tax base, the potential

exists for negative third-party effects on the local

economies in areas where land acquisitions take

place. The main Federal program to compensate

for this loss, the payment-in-lieu-of-tax program,

may not be perceived as adequate compensation

in some counties (127). In addition, Federal land

acquisition is a particularly volatile issue in the

West. Many local communities perceive Federal

acquisition as a “taking” of their land and,

effectively, an invasion of their “right” to it.

Therefore, there may be substantial political

resistance to new acquisitions in some areas.

Congress could avoid, or at least temper, some of

these conflicts by protecting corridors or adjacent

lands through easements or other incentives

where land does not change ownership.

Option 5-9: Direct agencies to modify their

criteria for land acquisition to include underrepresented ecosystems, long-term survivability

and connecting or enlarging land parcels. Congress could revitalize the Federal Committee on

Figure 5-9-Ecosystem Types Represented

in Nationai Wilderness Areas

Ecosystem

types not

represented

(21 ?40)

Ecosystem types

adequately represented (14Yo)

SOURCE: Office of Technology Aseeesment, 1993.

Ecological Reserves or create another committee

with representatives from Federal agencies, environmental groups, States, and citizen advisory

groups and direct it to conduct a study to

determine what ecosystem types are not adequately represented in the Federal system of

reserved and protected lands. Congress could

direct the managing agencies to develop longterm strategic “protection plans” for each federally protected natural area system. When designating new Wilderness Areas, National Wildlife

Refuges, establishing new National Parks, or

acquiring additions, agencies should target areas

containing high natural biological diversity, unrepresented ecosystem types, areas with climatesensitive species, areas with unique biotic communities, and areas adjacent to existing protected

areas. It is not the explicit policy of any landmanagement agency (except the Fish and Wildlife Service) to target future acquisitions to

protect or augment existing holdings and make

them larger, to link holdings together, or to

maximize the variety of ecosystems or the level of
Chapter 5--Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas I 287

biodiversity. 38 Yet, effectively enlarging protected areas, creating appropriate migration corridors, and ensuring that all ecosystem types are

under a protection system are frequently cited as

the best ways to begin preparing natural areas for

climate changes (13, 29, 94, 96, 111, 161).

However, whether or not an area can ultimately be

managed or acquired to protect a natural area may

depend more on political factors than on ecological factors because of the potential for negative

third-party effects.

Protection strategies could include options for

securing and quantifying necessary water for

natural areas (see box 5-H) and for helping to

mitigate internal and external stresses. Agencies

could outline how survivability would be achieved

through integrated and coordinated efforts with

other Federal agencies as well as with State, local,

and tribal governments and private organizations.

Indirect Federal Programs

The Federal Government has initiated several

programs that encourage State and private landowners to protect the natural resources on their

land. These programs were initiated for a variety

of reasons: to slow erosion, to slow wetland loss,

or to protect game species. Few of these programs

are designed to augment the Federal protection

effort. And, with the exception of programs for

game species, there are few Federal “incentive”

programs to protect species while populations are

still healthy. Addressing both or either of the

other issues would create more coherent programs better suited to aid the Federal effort to

protect natural areas while at the same time

achieving the broad goals for which the programs

were established.

Option 5-10: Use current conservation incentive programs administered by the Secretaries of

Agriculture and Interior to enhance the Federal

effort to protect natural areas. Numerous incentive programs already in place aim to encourage

.

Fragmentation of habitat, by human development in

remote and wild areas, has led to the dispersal and

decline of many species. Wildlife that depend on

corridors of habitat for food and cover have been

forced to survive with severely limited resources.

land conservation. The Conservation Reserve

Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program offer

easements to landowners who enroll highly erodible lands and wetlands into the program (see

ch. 4). The Federal Aid to Fish and Wildlife

Restoration Programs (the Dingell-Johnson and

Pittman-Robertson programs) are Federal-State

cost-sharing programs funded by excise taxes on

fishing and hunting equipment for projects that

benefit fish and game. The Forest Service’s Forest

Stewardship Program encourages forest conservation by providing financial assistance to private

landowners to prepare and implement an approved stewardship plan. However, none of these

programs are targeted to augment the Federal

effort embodied in the Federal natural area

systems. Many of these programs could be used

to effectively enlarge protected natural areas, to

create links between habitats, or to preserve

biodiversity or special vegetation types on private

land.

Administering agencies could give preference

to lands that are adjacent to, link up with, or

otherwise augment federally protected land.

38 b desi~~g ncw Wild-ss Areas and National Ptuks, however, some consideration is given to UXtrw8$2ntCd Or und~-nt.cd

ecosystem components.
288 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Alternatively Clongress could increase the easement benefits or the Federal share of payment

offered for desirable lands.

Option 5-11: Encourage ecosystem-level conservation at the State level by funding the Fish

and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980. Federa1

laws are now in place to protect both game species

and endangered species on non-Federal land, but

there is no mechanism to protect species between

the two extremes of “hunted” or “totally protected” until they decline to the point of near

extinction. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation

Act passed in 1980 could fill a large gap in the

Federal protection effort and help minimize

species loss under climate change. This act

establishes a cost-sharing program with the States

for nongame wildlife-conservation projects. Funding for the program must be congressionally

appropriated, but no money has ever been appropriated. The program could augment Federal

protection efforts especially if geared more broadly

to protect ecosystems rather than individual

species.

Partnerships Among Different Agencies and

Levels of Government

Because of shortages in funds and lack of large

pieces of available land to establish new protected

natural areas, protection of natural area resources

will require unprecedented levels of coordination

and cooperation in management and research

among Federal agencies; State, local and tribal

governments; private landowners; and interest

groups. There are many examples of innovative

protection mechanisms to draw on in establishing

effective partnerships. Most use a graded management system, where the innermost areas receive the most strict protection and more uses are

allowed for the outer areas. This is the management scheme supported by Unesco’s Man and the

Biosphere program (MAB), The Nature Conservancy’s Last Great Places Initiative, and the Pine

Barrens National Preserve in New Jersey. All of

these programs and others are outlined inbox 5-F.

A high degree of local participation and support,

willingness to compromise, and adequate compensation for those who sacrifice development

rights are vital to project success (68, 168).

Congress could encourage cooperative efforts

and spur local support by funding cost-sharing

programs and challenge grants, by linking a

portion of agency funds with cooperative efforts,

and by offering other incentives, such as income

tax breaks, to those who are willing to participate

in conservation and protection programs.

In addition, partnerships are becoming a popular way to enforce the Endangered Species Act

(P.L. 93-205). Under Section 10 of the revised act,

a party may be permitted some destruction of an

endangered or threatened species if a habitat

conservation plan (HCP) is prepared with the

cooperation of Federal, State, and local governments to arrange for the “permanent’ protection

of critical habitat elsewhere. The development of

an HCP often results in the establishment of a

federally protected natural area. If this method

becomes more widely used to protect endangered

species, the Federal Government will need to

ensure that national interests are protected during

negotiations. (See box 5-D for a more detailed

discussion of the Endangered Species Act and

HCP.)

Whatever the protection mechanism, efforts

should aim to create a diverse network (regionally

and biologically) of protected areas of maximum

size (111). Although federally protected natural

areas will remain the focus of conservation

efforts, a complete, diverse, and representative

preserve network will require consideration of

other Federal systems as well as State and private

holdings.

Option 5-12: Use “cooperative research and

management funds” to foster cooperative management among agencies. Under the current

funding structure, there is little financial incentive

for Federal land managers to actively participate

in cooperative ventures with other agencies, State

governments, or private parties. Congress could

appropriate a certain sum of money for each

agency with terrestrial research and management
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas I 289

responsibilities. These monies could be used for

multiagency or multigovernment-level projects

that address identified research priorities. Congress could also appropriate funds for regionally

based, cooperative pilot projects. These projects

could include the development of interagency

strategic kind-management plans.

Many programs already in place in some

agencies could be expanded and supported with

these funds. Both the Forest Service and BLM

have Challenge Cost Sharing Programs in which

matching funds are made available to the States

for habitat-improvement projects. HCPS under

the Endangered Species Act are developed

through a coordinated effort with Federal agencies, landowners, industry, environmental

groups, and developers. Although not centered in

any Federal agency, Unesco’s MAB is an example of a regional research effort involving many

Federal agencies.

Option 5-13: Create a Federal Coordinating

Council for Ecosystem Management. Congress

could build from the idea that produced the

Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology, to create a Federal

Coordinating Council for Ecosystem Management that would provide a forum for facilitating

cooperative management at the national level.

This council could evaluate interagency projects

and make recommendations regarding needed

collaboration. Such an evaluation may identify

the extent of existing research or activity in this

area, and enable an easier identification of areas

in need of more emphasis. Although this council

could be effective in facilitating integrated activity at the national level, the successful implementation of national programs would rely on incentives and support for “ecosystem management,”

or cooperation at the land-management (grassroots) level.

FIRST STEPS

Because money to implement all the above

options and the scientific understanding of how

climate change will affect natural areas are

limited, the following frost steps represent reasonable actions for facilitating adaptation to climate

changes in natural areas. The first steps identified

here are those that meet one of several criteria:

—they should be undertaken early because

they will take a long time to complete;

—they address “front-line,” or urgent, issues

that need attention first in order to make

informed policy decisions in the future;

—they can be approached through mechanisms

already in place or efforts already underway;

—they are beneficial for reasons other than

helping to prepare for climate change; or

—there is a near-term ‘target of opportunity.”

These first steps begin to address the research,

monitoring, and protection needs identified in this

chapter. By starting with these options, the Nation

can respond to the impacts of climate change in

federally protected natural areas while strengthening its commitment to natural area protection in

general. These are first steps to pursue because of

present climate change concerns; they are not all

the things one could do to prepare natural areas

for the future impacts of climate change.

● Use the National Biological Survey to

assess biological and ecological inventory

and monitoring needs. A nationwide ‘map’

of biological resources, topography, land

use, and protected areas is needed now.

Future strategies to protect natural areas and

their resources will require a national picture

of what biological resources currently exist

and where they are located, what lands are

under protection, and how adjacent lands are

used. Simply, a baseline resource map is

necessary before detection of long-term changes

in resource conditions can be made and

protection efforts modified. A national inventory and monitoring program would also
290 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

be beneficial for protecting endangered species and biodiversity.

The new National Biological Survey in

the Department of the Interior is the closest

mechanism to a single, multiagency, national effort to address global change issues

for biological resources. Because the NBS is

in its formative stages, it presents a clear

opportunity to implement some of the options outlined above. However, unlike the

U.S. Geological Survey, the only agency that

deals extensively with geological research

and information, there are several agencies

outside DOI with responsibilities for biological resources. The ideal, nationwide NBS

program would effectively incorporate the

activities of these other agencies as well as

State and private organizations (see box

5-L). To do so, the NBS will have to create

a formal mechanism to link and coordinate

with activities in other agencies.

Because most basic ecological research is

funded through NSF, that agency should be

actively and formally involved in any comprehensive ecological research. Other agencies that

manage biological resources should also be

involved. This office could be charged to

produce a document that synthesizes the

condition of the Nation’s biological resources and the state of the scientific understanding about how they work and interact.

Congress could ask the NBS to develop a

priority plan for expanding protection of

natural areas to include all ecosystem types

and areas with environmentally sensitive

species and high biological diversity. The

plan could incorporate a variety of techniques including acquisition, easements, cooperative management, incentive programs,

and cost-sharing programs.

■ Support basic research on key gaps in our

understanding of ecosystems, such as:

1) past climate changes and corresponding species responses, 2) restoration and

translocation ecology, 3) the effectiveness

of corridors and buffer zones, 4) the

development of ecological models, and 5)

the effect of elevated CO2 on assemblages

of plants and animals. Basic research in

these areas is needed now to determmi e how

species might respond to climate change and

how to best provide for their protection in the

future. Agencies could attempt to redirect

existing funds in the USGCRP or procure

new funds for addressing these basic ecological research needs under the “Ecological

Processes” research area (see ch. 3). Alternatively, NSF, whose mission is to support

basic scientific research, could take the lead

in supporting these research areas outside the

auspices of USGCRP. The new NBS could

also be an appropriate vehicle to use in

addressing some of the research that directly

relates to land-management issues.

= Conduct a review of ecological research

within USGCRP and across Federal agencies, evaluate how much long-term ecosystemlevel research relevant to climate change,

biodiversity and other multidecadal problems is being done, and identify important

gaps. A review of all research conducted on

“natural resource” has not yet been compiled across the Federal agencies. Existing

analyses suggest a great deal of money is

spent on research relevant to the environment but how much is useful to understanding long-term ecological problems (such

as biodivesity and climate change) is not

known.

Further, there is currently no mechanism

for consolidating results from disparate research efforts into “general patterns and

principles that advance the science and are

useful for environmental decisionmaking.

Without such synthesis studies, it will be

impossible for ecology to become the predictive science required by current and future

environmental problems” (70).
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas | 291

An effort to characterize and synthesize

ongoing research could help bridge the gap

between basic research and natural resource

planning. Such a review could be conducted

by OSTP, NAS, or an independent commission.

● Provide funding for the Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Act of 1980 to promote

natural area conservation and protection

at the State level. This law establishes a

Federal cost-share program for “nongame”

species conservation. It is already enacted,

and many States have prepared initial plans

that could qualify for Federal matching

funds, making it a target of opportunity to

promote natural area conservation at the

State level. With some amendments to proSetting aside a given amount of land within

the modem fragmented landscape does not

alone ensure that the ecological features for

which they are valued will be preserved. To

best conserve species, natural areas should

include an array of ecosystems and transition

zones between them to allow for the many

complex interactions that rely on links between different parts of the landscape.

By asking agencies to incorporate such

concerns into future acquisitions, Congress

could minimize future geographic fragmentations and use limited monies to maximize

the range of protected ecosystems.

CHAPTER 5 REFERENCES

mote multispecies, or “ecosystem,” pro- 1

tection at the State level and adequate 2.

funding, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination “

Act could be used to encourage natural area

protection and conservation on State and 3.

private lands.

■ Direct management agencies to explicitly

consider three ecosystem criteria in all 4“

future land acquisitions: 1) likely to persist over the long term despite current and 5.

anticipated stresses, 2) augments underrepresented ecosystems in the Federal

natural area holdings, and 3) buffers or

connects other preserved land parcels.

Ackerso~ VJ., “Effects of Global Climate Change on Montane

Island Biodiversity,” draft repo~ Apr. 30, 1992.

Anerican Forest Council, The A-”can Forest: Fact and

Figures J991 (Washington DC: The American Forest Councfi

1991).

Amicarellq L.A., Director, Fire and Aviation Managernen$

USDA Forest Service, testimony before the Subcommittee on

Energy and Natural Resources, House committee on Government Operations, May 24, 1990.

Andersoq R., and M. Rockelj Econonu”c Valuation of Wetkands,

Discussion Paper #605 (Washington DC: American Petroleum

institute, April 1991).

Babbitt, B., Secretary of the Interior, U.S. Department of the

Interior, testimony at hearings before the House Committee on

Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Subcommittee on Environment

an. Natural Resources and the House Cornrnittee on Natural

Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Fonxts and Public

Lands, Jtdy 15, 1993.

PRESERVES-FIRST STEPS

■ Use the National Biological Survey to assess biological and ecological inventory and

monitoring needs

■ Support basic research on species and ecosystem sensitivity to climate change,

restoration and translocation ecology, and the design and effectiveness of corridors and

buffer zones

• Conduct a review of ecological research within the U.S. Global Change Research

Program and across Federal agencies

• Provide funding for the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 to promote natural

area conservation and protection at the State level

• Direct agencies to acquire areas that are likely to persist in their natural state over the

long term, link or buffer existing holdings, and increase representation of ecosystems

not currently under Federal protection
292 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

6. Beam MJ., The Evolution qfNata”onal WiltfhjleLuw (New Yo~

NY: Pracfyxpublishcrs, 1983), 448 pp.

7. Beaq MJ., ‘TcdcraI Laws and Politic9 Pmainhg to the

Maintenance of Biological Diversity on Federal and pIiV*C

hnds,” Contractor- pmparcdfor the office of ‘r&bnoIogy

hwament’s Report Technologies to Maintain Bwlogicai

Diversity, wt. 1, 1985.

8. BcaQ MJ., “TIE 1973 Endan&rcd species Act: Look @Back

Over the First 15 Years,” Endangered Species Wpdate, vol. 5,

No. 10, August 1988, pp. 4-6.

9. Bcanj M.J., “No*hd@cnous Specks intlw United States: TIM

Rok of the United States Department of the Interior in

Nonindigcmua Species Issues,” contractor paper prqared for

the mice of lmnology Asscmn@ Novcxnba 1991.

10. Bcatlcy, T., “USC of Habitat Conservation Plans Under the

~~Species Ac&” in Wildl#e Conservaa”on in

Metropolitan Environments, L. W. Adams ad D. L. Lee@

(cds.) (Colum~ MD: National Institute for Urban Wildlife,

1991), pp. 123-137.

11. Bcrgcr, J.L., and L.A. Riggq “Ecological and Restoration and

Non-Indigcnoua Spcciq” contractor PFPm for the

Office of ‘lbchnology Asscmmc@ August 1991.

12. Boa D.B., and RA. Nisbcg “projecting the Effects of

climate Change on Biological Diversity in Forests,” in: GZohaf

Wfing and Biological Diversity, RL. Peters and T E.

hwejoy (cds.) (Ncw Havm ~: Yale University Press, 1992),

pp. 277-2%.

13. Bridgcwatcr, P., and SJ. Wood@ “Global Warming and

Nature Conscrv atioq” Land Use Policy, April 1990, pp.

165-168.

14. B- B.A., “Landscape Rutection and the Nature Conscrvamy,” m: Lan&cape Linkages andBiodi”versity, W.E. Hudson

(cd.) (Wash@tm, DC: Island hss, 1991), pp. 66-71.

15. BrowIL TC., “Wata for Wilderness Areas: Ins&cam Flow

Needs, Pmtcctioq and Economic Mluq” Rivers, vol. 2, No. 4,

October 1991, pp. 311-325.

16. Brmvq ‘EC., J.C?. lhylor, and B. Shelby, “Asscsalng the Direct

Effects of Strcamflow on Rcucatl “(XU A Literature IWvicw,”

Water Resources Bulktin of the Armxican Water Rcsoumcs

&sochti~ VO1. 27, No. 6, IMembcr 1991, pp. 979-989.

17. Cahq R, “TIM Conservation Challenge of the 1980’ s,” h

National Par& in Crisis (WasMngtoq DC: National Parka and

conservation Associdon 1982), pp. 7-W.

18. CaMmda J@artrncnt of Watcx Rmunxs, California’s Continuing Drought: A Summary ofhnpacts and Conditions as of

Decetier 1,1991 (Sacramcnto, CA: CaMornia Department of

W-Remurccs, December 1991).

19. Carroll, CR., “Ecological Mana@mm t of Sensitive Natural

Area&” in: Conservalz”on Biology, P.L. Ficdkr and S.K. Jain

(da.) (NCW YoriL NY: Chapman and Hall 1992), pp. 347-372.

20. Clawsq M., The Federal Lands Revisited (Washin@q DC:

Resources For the Future, 1983).

21. Collins, B.R., and E.W.B. Russell (cds.) Protecting the New

Jersey PineLands:A New Direction in Land-Use Planning (NCW

B~NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1988),

22. Colnanor, P.L., and WY. Gregg, Jr., “Role of U.S. National

Parka in Global Change Raearc4° paper~ at the

I%urtk World Congress on National Parka and Protected h

Caracas, Vcnczu~ Feb. l@21, 1992, George WrightFORUM,

(in press).

23. Commiss ion on the Adirondacks in the llvcnty-First Ccsmuy,

The M”rondack Park in the IWenty-First Century (NY: 1990),

97 pp.

24. Committee on ~ and &VhWMIKS@ Scicrxcs, Ecological

systems (CEEs) and Dynmica lhsk Group, Ecological Networks of Networks, Workshop Report Sponsored by CEES,

October 1991 (w~ “ DC:~ofs- ~9m

25. Committee on Earth and Bnvimnmental sciences (cBBS), our

Changing Planet: The FY 1993 Us. Global Change Research

Program (Washin@oq DC: CRES, 1992).

26. Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciuxe.s (CEBs), our

Changing Planet: The FY 1994 U.S. Global Change Research

Program (WasMngtoq DC: CEES, 1993).

27. Consordum for International Earth Sciemc Information Network (CIBSIN), Pathways qfUnderstanding: The Interactions

of Humanfty and Global Environmental Change (University

Cultor, m: CIESIN, May 1992).

28. Coopes, C.F., “salaitivitics of Wcstan Us. EcoayStCma to

~. -6,. contractor report prepared for b Omcc of

‘Rchnology Asscssrnal ~ 1992.

29. Cooprridcr, A., “Conservation of Biodhmity on Wcstan

Rar@ands,” h Dqfendkrs of Wfldffe, fundmrpe finkagtw

and Bbdiverdty, W.E. Hudson (cd.) (Washir@q DC: Island

Press, 1991), pp. 40-53.

30. Council on EnvironmcnEd Quality, “Environmental Ww

21st Annual Rx” (Wash@toQ DC: U.S. GovCmKncnt

Plinting office, 1991).

31. Crawky, MJ., “’IIM Responses of ‘Ikrrestrial Ecosystems to

Global Climate Change,” im Global Climate and Ecosystem

Change, OJ. Macdmdd (cd.), h“ Proceedings @ a N“

AdvancedResearch Workshop on Afo&lEcosystems and Thdr

Changes, Sept. 44, 1989, A4eratea, Italy (NCW Y- NY:

Plenum w& 1990), pp. 141-164.

32. Crurnpacker, D., “Status and ‘lYcrxk of Natural~rn

the U.S.,’* Contractor mpat plwpamd for b Office of ‘lbdlllology Assessment’s Report Technologies to Maintain Biological

Diversity September, 1985.

33. Cmnpa&r, D.W., S.W. Hodgq D. Frkdky, and W.P. Gregg,

Jr., “A Prchninary Assesamnt of * status of Major

lbrreatrial and Wetland Bmystesns on Federal and Indian

Lands in the United States,” Conservation Biology, vol. 2, No.

1, March 1988, pp. 103-115.

34. Dabncy, W.D., Cbicf, Division of Ranger Activitica, National

ParkscNicc, testimony before the Subcomml“ttcc on Entrgyand

Natural Resources, House cOrxnittce on Govcrmnent @=-

tions, May 24, 1990.

35. Davia, G.D., “NaturalDivcrsityf ort.bcFuturc Gemrations: ‘me

Role of Wiklemcq” k Proceedings @the Natural Dbersity

in Forest Ecosystems Wotihop, J.L. Cooky ad J.H. Cooky

(cds.) (Athens, GA: hivcrsity of Gcoq@L 1984).

36. Darrow,CLF., etal., “CrownofthcConthmtPm@t” (CMciLZ

MT: Glacier National ~ Mar. 20, 1990).

37. Dam (Ml., “Prcsmration of Natural Diversity: llx Role of

--wmentadm within Wildancss,” b Wilderness

Benchmark 1988: Proceedings of the National WiMerness

COI!O* Gcmral ‘khnkal Report SB-51 (AsbillG NC:
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas I 293

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46,

47,

48.

49.

50.

51.

Us. Departmalt of AgIicultlm, RmSt Servi(x, southeastern

Forest Expcnme “ nt Statioq January 1989), pp. 7682.

Davis, M.B., and C. Zabins& “Changes in Geographical Range

Resulting h Greenhouse Wmming: Effects on Biodiversity

in Forests,” in: Global Warmin g and Biological Diversity, R.L.

Peta and T E. Imvejoy (eds.) (New Havenj (X7 Yal e

Uniwxsity press, 1992), pp. 297-308.

DeCmusey, D.G., D.G. RX, RG. Woodmwkc, B.G. Faber,

and W.W. Wallace, “TerrestrM Ecosystems Regional Research and Analysis: An Interagency Laborato~”, im Advances in Hy&oscience and Engineering, vol. 1, S.S, Wang

(cd.) (1993), pp. 61-70.

Duffus, J,, Director, Natural Resource Managem at Issues,

Wxourccs, Community, and Economic Devcloprmmt Divisio~

U. S. Government Accounting Office, testimony at hearings

before the Subcommittee on Energy and Natural Resources,

House Comrm“ttee on Government Operations, May 24, 1990.

Fiedler, P.L., and S.K. Jain (eds.), Conservation Biology: The

Theory and Practice ofNature Conservation, Presemation, and

Management (New York NY: Routledge,~ and w

1992).

Frankl@ J.F., C.S. Bledsoe, and J,T.C- “Contributions

of the Imng-%rrn Ecological Research pro-” Bioscience,

vol. ~, No. 7, July/August 1990, pp. 509-523.

Gillis, A.lvL, “Should Cows Chew Cheatgrass on Commonlands?” Bioscience, vol. 41, No. 10, November 1991, pp.

668-675.

Gle~ S.M., “Regional Analysis of Mammal Distributions

Among Canadian Parks: Implications for Park Plann@,”

Canadian Journal of Zoology, vol. 68, 1990, pp. 2457-64.

Gle~ S.lvt, and T.D. Nudds, “Insular Biogeography of

Mammals in Canadian“ Parks,” Journal of Biogeography, vol.

16, 1989,261-268.

Grahanq RW., ‘Late Pleistocene Faunal Changes as a Guide to

Understanding Effects of Greenhouse Warming on the Mammalian Fauna of Norih hmri~” in: Global Warming and

Biological Diversi~, RL. Peters and T.E. Xavejoy (eds.) (New

I-Iaveq CT: Yale University Ress 1992), pp. 76-90.

Great Lakes Commissiow A Gui&book to Drought Planning,

Management, and Water Level Change in the Grtwtfukes (Ann

Arbor, MI: Great bkes Commission 1990),

Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee, The Greater

Yellowstone Area: An Aggregation of National Park and

National Forest Management Plans, (TVashingto~ DC: U.S.

*artment of the Interior, National Park Sewice and U.S.

Depmtm@ of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1987).

Greater Yellowstonc Coordma “ dng Committee, A Framework

for Coordinata”on of National Parks and National Forests in the

Greater Yellowstone Area, September 1991.

Grecnwalc L.A., “Reflections on the Power andpotentird of the

qer~ SFRX5eS AcL” Endangered Species Update, vol. 5,

No. 10, August 1988, pp. 7-9.

Gregg, W.P., Jr, “Potential Impacts of Climate Change and

Adaptive Strategies for Natural Areas,” paper presented at

conference on Forests and Global Change, convened by the

American Forestry Assocmh“ “o% June 11-12, 1991 (Arlingto~

VA: American Forestry Associatio~ in press).

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

660

~ory,a., “StateoftheParks 1980: Roblansandplans,” i.w

National Parks in Crisis (Washin@oq DC: National Parks and

Conservation AssocMioq 1982), pp. 75-90.

Harper, S.C., L.L. F* and E.W._ The Northern Form

Lami3 Study of New England and New York (RutlaQ4 VT: U.S.

Department of Agricultmq Forest Service, and @v_OfS’ ‘Ihsk

Force on Northern Forest IAUI&, April 199Q 2rxl @ntin&

Fcbrualy 1992).

Harris, L.D., and K. Atkins, “Faunal Movement corridors in

Flori@” k Landscape Linkages and Biodiversity, W.Ii.

Hudson (cd.) (Washington DC: Island Prw, 1991), pp.

117-134.

HudsoL W.E., iiandscape b“nkagesandBio@ersity (Washington DC: Defenders of Wildlife and Island Press, 1992).

Humphreys, W.F., and DJ. Kitchener, “TIM Effect of Habitat

Utilization Species-Area Curves: Implication for Optimal

Reserve Are&” Journal of Biogeography, vol. 9, 1982, pp.

391-3%.

Institute of Ecology, Experimental Ecological Reserves: A

Proposed National Network, report prepared for the National

science Foundation (TVMhingtq DC: U.S. Government Priming office, June 1977).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, World Meteom

logical Grganidon, and United National Enviromnent h

granq Climate Change: The IPCC Impacts Assessment, report

prepared for IPCC by Working Group II, WJ. lkgarg G.W.

Sheldoq and D.C. Griffith (C@.) (Canberrw Austmlim Govanment Publishing Service, 1990).

Intergovcrnnmmd Panel on Climate Change, World Meteorological Orgamza “ tiom and United National Environment Rogramj Chhwte Change: The lPCC Sciendjic Assessment, report

prepared for IPCC. by Working Group I, J.T Hou@~ GJ.

Jenkins, and JJ. Ephraums (eds.) (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1990).

International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural

Resources (KEN), United Nations List of National Parks and

Protected Areas (Gla@ Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK:

IUCN, 1990), 284 PP.

Jordanj W.R, R.L. Peters, and E.B. AUeq “fiob@cd

Restoration as a Strategy for Consaving Biodiversity,” contractor report prepared for the Office of ‘lkchnology Assessrmq January 1986.

Juday, G1., “State I@slative Initiatives on Natural Areas,”

Natural Areas Journal, vol. 8, No. 2, 1988, pp. 107-114.

Karievq P.M., JX3. Kingsolver, and R.B. Huey (da.) Biotic

Interactions and Global Change (Sunderlax@ MA: Sinauer

Associates Inc., 1993).

Keiter, RB., and M.S. Boycq “Greater Yellowstone’s Future:

Ecosystem Management in a Wilderness Environment” ixx The

Greater Ye210wstone Ecosystem, R.B. Keiter and M. S. Boyce

(eds.) (New Hava CT: Yale University Press, 1991).

KeIrnelis, J.A., and S.E. Ragone, “A Geographically-Based

Strategy for ‘IhTcstrial-EfTccts Research Orgamzq ‘ “ Science to

Support Policy on a Global Scale,” World Resoume Rew”ew,

vol. 4, No. 2, 1992, pp. 156174.

Keysto~ Center, Biological Diversity on Fe&ralLandr, report

of a Keystone Policy Dialogue (Keystonq CO: Keystone

Center, April 1991).
294 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

67. Knigh4D.K., “’IhcYcllowstoneF ireControversy,” pp. 87-104

iru The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, R.B, Keiter and M.S.

Boyce (eds.) (New Havenj CT: Yale Univemity Press 1991)

68. LilieholnA RJ., Preserves atRisk:An Investigm”on of Resource

Management Strategies, Implications, and Opportunities, contractor report prepared for the Office of lkchnology Assessment, January 1993.

69. Lovejoy, ‘KE., “Diverse Considerations,” Biodi”versity, E.0,

Wilson (cd,) (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1988).

70. Lubchenco, J., etal., “The Sustainable Biosphere Initiative: An

Ecological Research Age~” Ecology, vol. 72, No, 2, 1991,

pp. 371412.

71. LuosmiL J.R., “Listing of Endangered Species Said to Come

Tbo Late to Help,” New York Times, Mar. 16, 1993, p. C4.

72. Macdonald, I.A.W., “Global Change and Alien Invasions,” irx

Biodiversity and Global Change, Monograph 8, O.T Sohig,

HAL van Emdm and P.G.WJ. van Oordt (eds.) (Paris, France:

International Union of Biological Sciences, 1992), pp. 197-208.

73. Man and Biosphere Program, Practical Guide to AMB (Paris,

France: Unesco, Division of Ecological Sciences, June 1987).

74. McCormi& J., A St@ of the Sign@cance of the Pine Barrens

ofNewJersey (Philadelpb@ PA: Academy of Natural Sciences,

1%8).

75. McNeely, J. A., “climate Change and Biological Diversity:

Policy Implications,” irx Lundscape-Ecological Impact of

Climatic Change, M Boer, and R.S. de Gmot (eds.) (Amsterdarq Netherlands: 10S Press, 1990), pp. 406-429.

76, McNeely, J.A., ‘‘The Future of the National Parks,’ Environment, vol. 32, No. 1, 1990, pp. 1620 and 3741.

77. Meyers, N., “Tropical forests and Their Species: Going, Going,

. . . ?“ im Bid”versity, E.O. Wilson (cd.) (WashingtorL DC:

National Academy Press, 1988), pp. 28-35.

78. Meyers, N., “Synergisms: Joint Effects of Climate Change and

Ok Forma of Habitat Destruction” ixu Global Wwm”ng and

Biological Diversity, RL. Peters and TE. hvepy (da.) (New

Hav~ CT: Yale University Press, 1992), pp. 344-354.

79. MoordM@J.M., Associate Director, Operations, National Park

Service, U. S. Department of Interior, statement before the

Subcommi ttee on Energy and Natural Resources, House Committee on Govemrnent Operations, on the implementation of the

newly established fire management policy for federal land

mmaging agencies, May 24, 1990, pp. 48-56.

80. Murphy, D.D., and S.B. Weiss, “Effects of Climate Change in

Biological Diversity in Western North America: Species Imsses

and Mechanisms,” im Global Warming and Biological Diverm“ty, R.L. Peters and T. E. Lovejoy eds. (New Haveu C’I’: Yale

Univcmity Press 1992), pp. 355-368.

81. National Research Council, Toward an Understating of

Global (Mange (Washington DC: National Academy Press,

1988).

82. National Research CounciL Restoration of Aqutic Ecosystem

(National Academy Sciences Press, 1992).

83. National Reaearc h Counc& Science and the National Parks

(WXOQ DC: Natio~ Aademy press, 1992).

84. National Research coum~ Water Transfers in the West:

E~ciency, Equi”ty, and the Environment (W@ingtoq DC:

National Academy Press, 1992).

85. National Research COW% Research to Protect, Re.w.we, and

Manage the Environment (Washington, DC: National Academy

Press, 1993).

86. National Research Council, Setn”ng Priorities fbrLandConservation (Washington DC: National Academy press, 1993).

87. Newmark W.D., “Species-Area Relationship and its Detaminants for Mammals in Western North American National

Parks,” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, No. 28,

1986, pp. 83-98.

88. NodvirL S.C,, “RegionalC onservationManagemeMRelative to

NPS Policy and the Conservation Ethic,” G. Wright FORUM,

VO1. 6, No. 4, 1990, pp. 10-15.

89. NOSS, R.F., “From Plant Communities to Landscapm in

Conservation Inventories: A bok at the Nature Conservancy,” Biological Conservation, vol. 41, 1987, pp. 11-37.

90. Ness, RF., “Landscape Connectivity: Different Functions at

Different Scales,” im Landscape Linkages and Biodiversity,

W.E. Hudson (cd.) (WaahingtoU DC: Island Press 1991), pp.

27-39.

91. Parsons, D., “Plannin g for Climate Change in National Parks

and Other Natural Areas,” The Northwest Environmental

Journal, vol. 7, 1991, pp. 255-269.

92. PatterL D.X, “Defii the Oreater Yellowstone Ecosy~”

in: The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, R.B. Keitcr and M.S.

Boyce (eds.) (New Hav4 CI’: Yale University press 1991).

93. Peine, J., J. Burde, and W. Hammi4 “Threats to the National

Wildem=s Preservation Sys~” iru Wil&rness Benchmark

1988: Proceedings of the National Wilderness Coll~”um,

General ‘I&hnical Report SE-51, HR. Freilia (comp.)

(Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Wrv@ Southeastern Forest ExpdmeM Statioq 1989), pp.

133-141.

94. Peters, RL., “The Effect of Global ~tiCChange on

Natural Comrnunities,” im BiA”versz”ty, E.O. Wilson (cd.)

(W@@@q DC: National Academy Press, 1988), pp. 450-

464.

95. Peters, RL., “ConservationofBiologicdDiversity intheFace

of Climate Change,“ iru Global Wm”ng and Biological

Diversity, R.L. Peters and T E. Lovejoy (eds.) (New Hav~

CT: Yale University Press, 1992), pp. 15-30.

%. Peters, R.L., and J.D.S. Darling, “The Greenhouse Effect and

Nature Reserves,” Bioscience, vol. 35, No, 11, December

1985, pp. 707-717.

97. Petera, R.L., and T.E. hwejoy (eds.), Global Warming and

Biological Diversity (New Hav~ CT: Yale University Press,

1992).

98. Petersoq D.L., A. Woodward, and R.DHamrner, “Global

Environmental Change in Mountain Protected Areas: Cons&

quenees for hfanagement” iru Proceedings of the Workshop

on Protected Areas in Mountain Environments, S. Fhller (cd.)

(Volcano, HI: East-West Center, in press).

99. Pinelands Commiss io~ “U.S. Interior Secretary praises Pinelands ~“ The Pine/an&r, vol. 9, No. 2, 1989, p. 1.

100. Pineland Review Committee, Plannz”ng and Management of

the New Jersey PineZands (lkntom NJ: Pinelands Review

committee, 1979).
Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas I 295

101. President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors, American

Outdbors: The Legacy, The Challenge (WashingtorL DC:

Island Press, 1987).

102. Reed, P.C., “The National Wilderness Preservation System:

The First 23 Years and Beyond,” in: Wilderness Benchmark

1988: Proceedings of the National Wilderness Colloquium,

General lkchnical Report SB51 (Asheville, NC: USDA

Forest Service, Southeastern Experiment Statio% January

1989), pp. 2-20.

103. Reffa14 W. C., “United States Listing for Endangered Species:

Chronicles of Extinction?” Enabngered Species UPDATE,

vol. 5, No. 10, 1988, pp. 10-13.

104. Salwasser, H., “Roles and Approaches of the USDA Forest

Sewice,” irx Landrcape Linkages and Biodiversity, W.E.

Hudson (cd.) (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1991), pp. 54-65.

105. Saunders, D.A., R.J. Hobbs, and C.R. Margules, “Biological

Consequences of Ecosystem Fragmentation: A Review, ”

Conservation Biology, vol. 5, No. 1, March 1991, pp. 18-32.

106. Schneider, K., “U.S. to Speed up Saving of Species,” New

York Times, Dec. 16, 1992, p. Al.

107. ScoK M.J., B. Csuti, and S. Caicco, “Gap Analysis: Assessing

Protection Needs,” in: Latalreape Linkages and Biodiversity

(Washingto~ DC: Island fiW, 1991), pp. 15-26.

108. Sco~ MJ., et al., “Beyond Endangered Species: An integrated Strategy for the Preservation of Biological Diversity, ”

Endangered Species Update, vol. 5, No. 10, August 1988, pp.

43-48.

109. Scow MJ., et al., ‘‘Gap Analysis: A Geographic Approach to

Protection of Biological Diversity, ” Wildll~e Monographs, a

supplement to the Journal of Wildlife Management, vol. 57,

No. 123, January 1993.

110. Shelby, B., T.C. Brow and J.G. Taylor, Streamflow and

Recreation, General ‘Ikchnical Report RM 2D209 (Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Semice, Rocky Mountain Forest and

Range Experiment StatioW March 1992).

111. Soule, Ml!., ‘‘Theory and Strategy, “ in: Landscape Linkages

and Biodiversity, W.E. Hudson (cd.) (Washingto% DC: Island

Press 1991), pp. 91-104.

112. Soule, M.E., and D.S. Simberloff, “What Do Genetics and

Ecology ‘IM1 Us About the Design of Nature Reserves?”

Bioiogicai Conservation, vol. 35, 1986, pp. 19-40.

113. Stankey, G.H., et al., The Limts of Acceptable Change (LAC)

System for Wil&rness Planning, Genend lkchnical Report

INT-176 (Ogdem UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain

Forest and Range Experiment Statio% January 1985).

114. Stapletoz R. M., “On the Western Fron4° National Parks,

vol. 67, Nos. 1-2, Januarymebm.my 1993, pp. 32-36.

115. Stohlgre~ T., et al., “National Park Biotic Inventories

Assessed,” Park Science, vol. 11, No. 4, Fall 1991, pp. 1617.

116. Swe- TW., et al., “ Maximum Fire Frequency and

Synchrony in Giant Sequoia Groves During Medieval Perio&”

paper presented at the Workshop on the Medieval Warm

Period, NOV. 68, 1991, ~CSO~ /%.

117. ~~R-Reseamhandhalysis (TERRA)

Laboratory, Memorandum of Understanding among U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Reseamh Service,

Forest Service, Soil Conservation Service, and the U.S.

Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Regarding

the Establishment of a Cooperative Interagency lkrrestrial

Ecosystems Regional Research and Analysis (TERRA) Laboratory, Signed Aug. 28, 1992, by each agency head.

118. The Nature Conservancy, ‘“Ilming on the ‘I@ at Stil.lwater,’

Nature Conservancy, vol. 40, July/August 1990, pp. 28-29.

119, The Nature Conservancy, Facts: Background Information

(Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy, 1992).

120. Thomto% R.D., “Searching for Consensus and PIU!iCtitit’y:

Habitat Conservation Planrdng Under the Endangered Species

Act of 1973, ” Environmental Law, vol. 21, No. 3, 1991, pp.

605-656.

121. Tracy, C.R., “Ecological Responses of . Ammals to climate, ”

in: Global Warming and Biological Diversity, R.L. Peters and

T. E. Imvejoy (eds.) (New Havem CT: Yale University Press

1992), pp. 171-179.

122. U. S. Congress, CongressionalResearchSexvice(CRS) ,Greater

Yellowstone Ecosystem: An Analysis of Data Submitted by

Federal and State Agencies (Washingto% DC: Govemm ent

Printing ~lce, December 1986). ~eproduced by the Library

of Congress, CRS, June 25, 1987.]

123. U.S. Congress, Congressional Research Service (CRS), Wila%rness Areas and Federal Water Rights (Washington DC:

CRS, Jan. 4, 1989).

124. U.S. Congress, Congressional Research Service (CRS), Land

Purchases and Acquisitions of Four Federal Land iUanagement Agencies, prepared by B.A. Cody, Environment and

Natural Resources Policy Division (WashingtorL DC: CRS,

1991).

125. U.S. Congress, Congressional Research Service (CRS), The

Major Federal Land Management Agencies of Our Nation’s

LundandResources, prepared by A. Bachiel, Environment and

Natural Resows Policy Division (Washington DC: CRS,

Feb. 8, 1993).

126. U.S. Congress, Office of ‘Ikdmology Assessment Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity, OTA-F-30 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1987).

127. U.S. Congress, Offke of Technology Assessment Forest

Service PIanning: Accornmo&ting Uses, Producing Outputs,

and Sustaining Ecosystems, OZA-F-505 (Washington DC:

Government Printing ~lce, February 1992).

128, U.S. Congress, GIXce of ‘lkchndogy Assessment Harmful

Non-Indigenous Species in the United States (Washington+

DC: Government Printing Office, in press).

129, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service,

Forest Service Manual, Title 2300, RecreatiO~ Wilderness,

and Related Resource Management, Chapter 2320, Wilderness

Managermmt (WashingtorL DC: USDA, Forest Service, April

1986).

130. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, An

Analysis of the Wildl#e andFish Situation in the UnitedStates:

1989-2040, a technical docum ent SUppOltiIlg the 1989 USDA

Forest Service AssmmenL General ‘Rdmical Report RM178, prepared by C.H. Glather and T W. Hoekstra (Fort

Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Statioq September 1989).

131. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Semicc, An

Analysis of the Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Situation

in the United States: 1989-2040, a technical document
296 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

132.

133.

134.

135.

136.

137.

138.

139.

140.

141.

142.

143.

144.

145.

146.

147.

supporting the 1989 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessmen4

General ‘fkchnical Report RM-189, prep- by H.K, CordeU

J.C. Bergstrom, L.A.H~ and D.BIL English April

1990.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest ffea2th

Mow”tort”ng in New England: 1990 Annual Report.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Blue Mountains Forest Health Report: New Perspectives in Forest

Health, Pacific Northwest Regional Office, April 1991.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Service

Global Change Research Program: Program Plan U+te,

October 1992.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Report of the

Forest Service: Fiscal Year 1992 (WSShingtoxq DC: U.S.

Government printing Office, 1993),

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U. S. Department of the

Interior, Final Report on Fire Management Policy, preparedly

the Fire Management Policy Review lkaIw May 5, 1989.

U.S. Department of the Interior, “The U.S. Department of the

Interior Global Change ResearchPro~ working documen~

spring 1992.

Us. Department of the Interior (USDOI), Bureau of Land

Management (13LM), Annual Report of Accomplishments FY

1992: Fish and Wildl~e 2000, Riparian-Wetland Im”tiativefor

the 1990’s (TVashir@oU DC: USDOI, Bw 1993).

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land lvfanagemen~

Manual Transmittal Sheeg Section 8560, Management of

DeS@llf@f Wilderness Areas, Apti 1983.

Us. Departmen t of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

Fish and Wildl~e 2000: AnnuafReportofAccomplishmentsFY

1991 (washin@m DC: Governme nt Printing Offke, 1991).

U.S. Department of the interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recrwtiow New Jersey Pine Barrens: Concepts for Preservation

(Washingtorq DC: USDOI Bureau of Outdoor Recreation

1976).

U.S. Department of the Interior (7JSDOI), Bureau of Reclamation Mid-pacific RegiorL Report on Refuge Water Supply

Investigations (Washingto% DC: USDOI, Bureau of Reclamation March 1989).

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), Fish and Wildlife

!%avice Rejhge Manual, 7 RM 14 Pest Control (Washingto~

DC: USDOI, Fish and Wildlife Service, March 1982).

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), Fish and Wildlife

Service, R@ge Manual, 6 RM 1-9 Habitat Management

(Waahingtom DC: USDOI, Fish and Wildlife Service, May

1986).

Us. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Report

to the Director: A Review of Second@ Wses Occum”ng on

National Wd.&e Rejbges, submitted by the Compatibility

‘fhsk Group, June 1990.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,

En&ngeredandThreatened Species Recovery Progmm (Mshingtoq DC: Government Printing Office, December 1990).

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fkh and Wildlife Service,

R@ges 200U Plan for the Future of the National Wildlfe

Refhge System, Issue 2, March 1991.

148. U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), Fish and Wildlife

Service (TWS), Vision For the Future (Was@toU DC:

USDOI, FWS, 1991).

149. U.S. Department of the Interior (DOX_), Fish and Wildlife

150.

151.

152.

153.

154.

155.

156.

157.

158.

159,

160.

161.

162.

163.

Service (IT/S), Annual Report of Lands Under Control of the

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Servi”ce as of September 30, 1992

(Wash@to% DC: DOI, FWS, 1992).

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Semicc,

Application Manual for the LatdAcquisition Pn”on’ty System,

Version 5.0, July 1992.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fkh and Wildlife Service,

Rejhgees 200- Plan for the Future of the National Wifdli$e

Rejhge System, draft environmenttd impact stateme@ Issue 5,

January 1993.

U.S. Department of the I.ntedor, Fish and Wildlife Service, and

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, J991

National Survey of Fish”ng, Hum”ng, and Wildfife-Associated

Recreation (TVasMngtoIL DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1993).

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI’), National Park

Service (NPS), Management Policies (WasldngtmL DC:

USDOI, NPS, December 1988).

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOl), National Park

Service (NP!I), Natural Resources Assessment and Action

Program (Washin@oq DC: USDOI, NPS, March 1988).

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), National Park

Sesvice @PS), Wiidland Fire Management Guideline, NPS

18, release no. 3, Appendix A (WashingtoXL DC: USDOI, NPS,

June 1990) .

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), National Park

Service (NPS), J991 Annual Abstract (Denver, CO: USDOI,

NPS, Soci&Ecmnornic Studies Divisioq 1991).

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), National Park

Stice~), The National Parks: Shaping the System

(W-Q DC: USDOI, NPS, 1991).

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), National Park

Service (NPS), Nm”onal Parks for the 21st Century: The Vii

Agenda, report to the National Park Scmice by the Steuing

Committee of the 75th Anniversary Symposi~ NPS Document D-726 (Washington DC: USDO~ NPS, 1992).

U.S. Departrmmt of the Interior, National Park Sewicc, Threats

to the National Wilderness Preservation System: The Managerial Response, ‘Rchnical Session Handbook A.C. Schmiemr,

comp,, Apti 1992.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and

U.S. Department of Agriculture, The Greater Yellowstone

Area: An Aggregation of National Park and Nattonal Forest

Service Management Plans (Washington DC: US. Government Print@ office, 1987).

US. Environmental Protection Agency, The Potential E#ects

of Globr.d Climate change on the United States, EPA-230-05-

89-050, JB. smithandD. Tirpak(eds.)(waahmgbqxx:u.s. “

Environmental Protection Agency, Dwcmber 1989).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency @PA), Office of

Rescarchand Developme@ EM24P Monitor, EPA 6CtOO/M-91-

051 @hShhl@OQ DC: U.S. EPA August 1992).

U.S. Congress, General Accounting office (GAO), National

Wildlife R@ges: Continuing Problems with Incompatible
.

Chapter 5-Preserves: Federally Protected Natural Areas I 297

Uses Call for Bold Action, GAOIRCED-89-1% (Washington

DC: U.S. GAO, September 1989).

164. U.S. Congress, General Acmunting Office (GAO), Wi2&rness

Preservation: Problems in Some National Forests ShouJd Be

A&iressed, GAO/RCED-89-202 (WashingtorL DC: U.S. GAO,

September 1989).

165. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office (GAO), Federal

Fire Management: Linu”ted Progress in Restarting the Prescribed Fire Program, GAO/RCED-91=12 (Washington DC:

U.S. GAO, Decembex 1990).

166. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

AdrninistratiorY U.S. Department of Agricuhure (USDA),

Forest Service and Agricultural Research Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Monitoring the

Condition of Our Nation’s Ecological Resources, EPAJ600fM90/011 (wMhingtoq DC: EPA July 1990).

167. Mrley, J.D., and P. Schullery, “Reality and Opportunity in the

Yellowstone Fires of 1988, ” in: The Greater Yellowstone

Ecosystem, R.B. Keiter and M.S. Boyce (eds.) (New Have~

CT: Yale University Press, 1991).

168. Vie_ S.D. , “State Wildlife Protection Efforts: The

Nongarne Progmms, “ irx In De$ense of Wildlife: Preservz”ng

c o~“ties and Corridors (Washington DC: Defenders of

Wildlife, 1989), pp. 67-%.

169. Vie_ S.D., paper prewmtedathhnagmg“ Western Lands

ina Chan@ng Climate, an OTA-sponsored workshop held July

1992, National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder,

c o .

170. Wailer, D.M., “ConservingBiodiversity: alhified ApproaclL

IntroductioxL” im Landscape L“nkages andBiti”versity, W.E.

Hudson (cd.) (%hhin@om DC: Island Ress, 1991), pp. 3-15,

171. Water Resource Research Institute, “The Rio Grande Baaim

Global Climate Change Scenarios,’ WURl Report, No. M24,

1991.

172, Webb, ‘E, Ill, “Past Changes in Vegetation and Climate:

Lessons for the Puture,” irx Global Warming and Biological

- Divers@, RL. Peters and T E. Imvejoy (eds.) (New Havm

CT: Yale University Press 1992), pp. 59-75.

173. West AJ., Deputy Chief, Forest Service, U. S. De@mentof

Agriculture, testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy

and Natural Resources, House Committee on Governrmmt

Operations, May 24,1990, pp. 2147,

174, Wilcove, D. S., National Forests: Policies for the Future,

Volume 2: Protecting Biological Diversity (Washingto% DC:

The Wilderness Society, 1988).

175, Wilcove, DA,, M. McMilltuL and K.C. WinstotU “Wha t

Exactly is an Endangered Species? An Analysis of the U.S.

Endangered Species List: 1985-1991,” Conservation Biology,

VO1. 7, NO. 1, March 1993, pp. 87-93.

176. World Resources Institute (WRI), The World Conservation

Union (IUCN), and United Nations Environment Prograrnme

(UNEP), Global Biodiversity Strategy: Policy-Makers’ Guide

(Baltimore, MD: WIU Publications, 1992).

177. WrighL G.R., Wildlife Research and Management in the

National Parks (Chicago, IL: University of Illinois press,

1992).

178. Zinzer, CL, The Econonu”c Impact of the Adirondack Park

Private Land Use and Development Plan (Albany, NY: State

University of New York Press, 1980), 319 pp.
Forests 6

Status

- Currently stable resource.

, Significant area of public forest—with increasing limits on

timber management.

Climate Change Problem

■ Shifts in the ideal range for tree species.

m Potential for significant forest decline or loss to fire, insects, and

disease.

● Potential dislocations within local or regional economies.

What Is Most Vulnerable?

~ Forests in regions subject to increased moisture stress.

■ Species or forests with little tolerance to climate changes.

Impediments

● Slow process of tree growth; reliance on older trees for products

and services.

● Knowledge limits: climate sensitivity of species; large-scale

restoration.

■ Restrictions on public forest management response.

m Limited incentives for private protection of forest environment.

Types of Responses

■ Learn what is at risk (research on species sensitivity; monitor

change).

~ Deal with the potential for loss of species (seed banks, mass

propagation techniques, experiment with forest restoration techniques).

m Prepare for possibility of large-scale mortality (planning process,

private incentive programs, technologies for use of salvage

wood).

1- Increase adaptability of forest industry and forest-dependent

communities (information, product research).

NOTE: Many parts of this chapter have been drawn from contract papers prepared by

W.H. Smith for an OTA workshop held June 1992 (76, 77).

I 299
300 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

OVERVIEW

Forests cover roughly one-third of the U.S.

land area shape much of the natural environment,

and provide the basis for a substantial forestproducts industry. Forest management has always

been a challenging endeavor due to the long-lived

nature of forests, the varied random events that

perturb them, and an incomplete understanding of

forest development and structure.

Considerable uncertainty is associated with

predictions of climate change and its effects on

forests. However, global warming could shift the

ideal range for some North American forest

species as much as 300 miles (500 kilometers)l to

the north. Such a shift would almost certainly

exceed the ability of the natural forest to migrate

(34, 35, 56, 75). Forests stranded outside their

ideal climatic range could suffer from periods of

declining growth and increased mortality from

climate-related stresses such as insects, disease,

and fires. Some forest systems may collapse, and

species or unique populations may be lost from

isolated ranges. Although mortality and the decline of a forest ecosystem can occur quite

rapidly, the regrowth of a productive forest may

take many decades or even centuries. A natural

forest system will not necessarily regrow quickly

into similar or equally valuable forest cover.

Both the lifetime of trees and the timescale for

climate change are multi-decadal. Therefore,

most trees living today could beat some risk from

climate change. The most vulnerable forests may

be those in regions already subject to moisture

stress, as in the dry continental interior. Forests in

coastal regions of the Southeast may be at risk

from rising sea levels and damaging wind storms,

leading to flooding and saltwater intrusion. Forests with small or highly fragmented ranges may

be lost, perhaps including those at the upper

elevations of mountains, which have nowhere to

migrate.

Of course, not every change in the forest results

in an economic or aesthetic loss or is reason for

public concern. Forests have always changed

over time and will continue to do so with or

without climate change. The significance of any

change differs across forest types, determined by

the nature of ownership, the values for which the

forest is managed, the magnitude of change, and

the rate at which change occurs. Some decline in

growth rates or moderate increases in tree mortality may be acceptable on wilderness lands; the

same decline would be of great consequence on

industry timberland. For many users of the frost

and industries dependent on the forest resource, it

is the rate at which change occurs that will matter

most. For example, if climate change occurs

gradually, the forest-products industry might

adjust with little cost, eventually focusing on

more suitable locations or adopting technologies

that make best use of available wood supplies.

If climate changes quickly, impacts could be

quite different. The potential for widespread

mortality or extinction of some forest species is of

general concern. Substantial forest decline--with

losses in species, uniquely valued forest stands, or

entire ecosystems--would put at risk much of the

social and environmental value that the Nation’s

forests now provide. Rapid and unanticipated

changes in the forest could lead to extensive local

and regional impacts, including:

■ losses in species, uniquely valued forest

stands, or entire ecosystems;

■ widespread catastrophic damage from fires,

insects, or disease; and

■ extensive dislocations within local or regional economies.

The threat of these potential impacts appears to be

the primary justification for public action in

preparation for the uncertainties of climate

change.

The challenge of these threats to managers of

the forest resource is the limited extent to which

1 lb convert miles to kilometers, multiply by 1.609.
Chapter 6-Forests I 301

adaptive responses are possible. Forest lands

range from the managed industrial forest to the

purposefully unmanaged wilderness reserves (discussed in ch. 5). In between, lie large areas of

multiple-use forestland-forests valued for services other than just timber production or wilderness. Even the industrial forests are not intensively managed by the standards of annual

agricultural crops (see vol. 1, ch. 6). Still, the

private industry manager does have the latitude

and the incentive to respond quickly to limit the

extent or duration of any loss in timber. On large

areas of public, multiple-use forestland, however,

the active management that might buffer the

forest from climate risks may be viewed as

incompatible with the values for which the forest

is held. (The special concerns raised by the threat

of climate change to the system of parks and

reserves are addressed in ch. 5.) On many other

public and private forestland areas, active management may be financially impractical. The

challenge is to find unobtrusive and cost-effective

means to help ensure that the health and primary

services of the Nation’s forest resource will not

be lost.

The Federal Government can prepare itself to

respond to the threats that climate change poses to

forests in several ways: by determiningg which

forests are at risk (e.g., by supporting research on

the sensitivity of various species to climate and

monitoring changes in forests); by acting to avoid

the potential loss of forest species (e.g., by

promoting and improving gene banks, masspropagation techniques, and forest-restoration

techniques); by being ready to react promptly to

reduce the threat of large-scale forest mortality

(e.g., through fire prevention, pest management,

or thinning to promote drought tolerance in

forests where such activities are determined to be

appropriate); by redirecting incentive programs to

encourage improvements in the health of private

forests and to discourage conversion of forestland

to other uses; and by increasing the adaptability of

the forest industry and forest-dependent communities to climate change through support for

forest-products research and through incentives

for diversification.

This chapter describes the status of forests in

the United States today, the functions for which

they are managed, and the current understanding

of the potential vulnerability of forests to climate

change. The chapter then turns to the strategies

and actions that could help in preparing for

possible changing climate, while being mindful

of the uncertainties and sensitive to the purposes

for which forestland is held.

THE FOREST RESOURCE

Forests dominate the landscape in much of the

United States. They cover roughly one-third (731

million acres, or 292 million hectares)2 of the

Nation’s land area and are found in all 50 States

(90). 3 These forests are enormously variable,

ranging from the sparse scrub of the arid interior

West to the lush forests of the coastal Pacific

Northwest and the South (see fig. 6-1 for forest

regions). In percentage terms, forests are most

prevalent in the East, covering over 40 percent of

the land. In the drier West, where they are a less

significant element of the overall landscape,

forests are prominent features in the coastal States

and the Rocky Mountains. The density of forest

cover across the United States is mapped in figure

6-2, and the regional distribution of forestland relative to overall land area is shown in figure 6-3.

The Nation’s forests provide essential fish and

wildlife habitat, livestock forage, watershed protection, attractive vistas, and a large array of

recreational opportunities. In 1992, for example,

there were some 300 million visitor-days of

2 lb cOnwt acres to hectares, multiply by O.a.

3 A considerable additional arm of wooded land is found in au- urbaq and agricuhura.1 areas but is not classifkd as forest. Land is

classified as forest only if it has at least 10 percent tree cover (or once had such cover and trees are expected to return), an area of at least

1 acrG and a width of at least 120 feet (37 meters). ‘Ib convert feet to meters, multiply by 0.305.
302 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

recreational use on Forest Service lands (98). In

urban and suburban settings, trees add significantly to property value and can provide a

valuable service in shading homes from summer

heat. Wooded strips in agricultural areas reduce

the drying effects of winds and limit erosion. In

New England, the fall colors are a focal point for

tourism. The Sequoias and giant redwoods of

California are a similar attraction. Some of the

various products and services associated with a

healthy forest are listed in table 6-1.

In recent years, timber has often been the single

most valuable agricultural crop produced in the

country (90). Nationwide, in 1990, the forestproduct sector4 employed some 1.5 million people and added about $80 billion to the gross

national product (102). Timber is particularly

important to the economies of the Pacific Northwest and the South. The industry is also important

across much of the northern edge of our Nation.

The top four States in terms of earnings from

logging are Oregon, Washington, Georgia, and

South Carolina (103). California, Oregon, and

Wisconsin have the highest earnings from forestrelated industries, including paper and lumber

processing. In percentage terms, Maine and

Oregon are most dependent on the forest resource,

with over 8 percent of earnings coming from

forest industries. Over 4 percent of earnings in

Idaho, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Mississippi, Minnesota, and Montana are generated from employment in the timber industries.

4 Including primary forestry activity and the secondary forest-products industries such as the pulp and paper-processing industries.
Chapter 6-Forests I 303

Figure 6-2—Forest Density Within Advanced Very-High-Resolution Radiometer Plxeis

E3 0%

n 33 %

m 66 %

m 100%

The biodiversity of our forests is a rather

different type of value. There are roughly 700

native tree species in the continental United

States (44). Some 300 are large tree species that

have significant value for current or potential

commercial use or for their aesthetic value. Of

these, perhaps less than 50 species are used

extensively by the forest-products industry. Much

attention is directed to the even fewer species

potentially useful for plantation forestry. However, extinction of any species could be a threat to

the Nation’s heritage of biological diversity. In

addition, such a loss in forest diversity could

represent, or signal, a threat to the future commercial potential of the Nation’s forests.

1 Forestland

Forestland is usually classified according to its

timber productivity and availability for timber

management. Some two-thirds, or 483 million

acres, of U.S. forestland is classified as timberland (111). This forestland is productive enough

to potentially support timber managements An

additional 213 million acres of forestland is

classified as otherforestland(11 1). These forests

s ‘rimbdand h forcsuand that is accessible to Iuirvcsc not witldmwn from timber managcmc@ and capable of a growth rate of 20 cubic

f~pcr ~ (1.4 CUbiC meters pcrhcctarc) per y= Of~lnfn~~yVllhX!d wood. This growth rate is OfkJl described W the mirdrnulll thrcabld

forpotcntial tirnbcrrnanap.~ f- considerably higher growth is typically required to justify rnana

hnds, where ~StS arc high.

-especially on luss-accessible
304 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Figure 6-3-Area of Forest and Nonforest Land

600

500

400

;

%

c 300

.-0

=

s

200

100

0

by Region, 1987

C2 Timberland -

- Other forested land

u Non-forested land

n

—

NE NC SE SC GP RM PSW PNW

produce scrubby trees or a sparse cover that

would not support active timber management.

About 46 million acres of forestland is reserved

forestland (87). Forests in this category, such as

those in National Parks and Wilderness Reserves,

are administratively or legally unavailable for

timber management. There are almost 35 million

acres of reserved timberland, productive forestland that would be classified as timberland if it

were not reserved (111). The regional distribution

of acreage in timberland, and other forestland is

presented in figure 6-3. Much of the timberland

is found in the moister eastern half of the country.

The timberlands of the West are concentrated in

the Pacific Coast and Rocky Mountain States.

The less-productive forestland is found mostly in

arid regions of the West and in interior Alaska

Table 6-l—Human Values Associated with

Forest Systems

Products Services

Recreation and tourism

Biological diversity

Genes

Species

Communities

Wildlife habitat

Landscape diversity

Amenity function

Microciimatic amelioration

Sound attenuation

Visual attractiveness,

screening

Runoff, erosion management

Soil, nutrient conservation

Pollutant and carbon

sequestration

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

B Forest Types

The Forest Service also classifies forests of

similar character into major forest types (87).

These types are most generally described as

belonging to one of two broad classes: the

softwoods, which include needle-leafed conifers

such as the pines and firs, and the hardwoods,

which are broadleafed trees such as oaks, hickories, and maples. In the East, most forests are a

mixture of hardwood species, although large

areas of softwoods are found in the southern and

northern forests. The forests of the West are

primarily softwood forests. The regional distribution of the major forest types is mapped in figure

6-4, and the distribution of timberland by forest

type is detailed in table 6-2. A description of the

major forest types of the United States can be

found in box 6-A.

9 Timberland Ownership and Management

Nationwide, a little less than one-third of the

total timberland is publicly owned.6 Twenty

percent of the timberland is on Federal lands,

8 percent is on other public (State and local) land,

6 ~~bli~ ~~tor ~~o holds abut 75 p~ent of ~213 fiflion _ of ~foresfland that is not productive enough to be ~tid~

dmbcxlsnd (1 11) and the 35 million acres of reserved timberland.
Chapter 6-Forests I 305

Figure 6-4-Major Forest Types of the United States

-. //

,—’”

ALASKA

15 percent is owned by the timber industry, and

57 percent is held by other private landowners

(fig. 6-5). The pattern of ownership varies across

the country. In the East, most timberland is

privately owned. In the West, much of the

timberland is publicly owned. The distribution of

timberland ownership by region is illustrated in

figure 6-6.

Private Timber Industry Lands

Timber industry lands (71 million acres) are

generally highly productive sites and are actively

managed to enhance timber productivity. There is

a heavy concentration of timber industry lands in

the loblolly pine forests of the South. Industry

A pine plantation forest in the Southeast. The United

States is becoming increasingly dependent on the

supply of timber from intensively managed loblolly

pine forests of the South.
306 | Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Table 6-2—Area of Timberland in the United States by

Major Forest Type, 1987 (in millions of acres)a

Eastern forest Western forest

type Area type Area

Softwood types

Loblolly-shortleaf pine

Spruce-fir

Longleaf-slash pine

White-red-jack pine

Total

Hardwood types

Oak-hickory

Maple-beech-birch

Oak-pine

Softwood types

49 Douglas-fir

17 Fir-spruce

16 Ponderosa pine

14 Lodgepole pine

Hemlock-sitka spruce

95 Larch

Redwood

118 Other western softwoods

44

31

Total

33

27

25

12

11

3

1

1

112

Oak-gum-cypress 28 Western hardwoods 16

Aspen-birch 18

Elm-ash-cottonwood 14 Nonstocked 2

Total 253

Nonstocked 6

Total, East 354 Total, West / 130

a To convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405.

SOURCE: USDA, Forest Servce, An An8/ysis of the Timber Situation in the United States: 1989-

2040, General Technical Report RM-199 (Fort Collins, CO: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1990).

Box 6-A-Major Forest Types of the United States

The eastern hardwood forests-The eastern hardwood types account for about half of the U.S. timberland

and almost three-quarters of the eastern forest. Although many of these hardwood forests are harvested for wood

products, they are rarely thinned, planted, or otherwise managed for timber production. Oak-hickory forests are

the most widespread eastern forest type (see table 6-2), dominating in all but the more southern and northern

areas. The acorns and hickory nuts area good food source for wildlife. Oak wood is valued for furniture and flooring.

A limited market for the wood of the associated tree species and the difficulty in establishing oak plantations has

limited timber management on this forestland. Mixed oak-pine forests are interspersed across the southern fringes

of the oak-hickory forests. These forests, which often originate on cut-over pine sites, are attractive forests rich

In wildiife and diversity. The maph-beech-birch forests of the Northeast and North Central regions are highly

valued for their fall colors and for the sugar maple, yellow birch, and cherry wood that is desirable for furniture and

specialty wood products. The oak-gum-cypress forest of the South, often associated with wildlife-rich wetlands and

bottomlands, has been an important source of valuable hardwood timber. The aspen-birch forest is an early

successional forest type in the North Central region that becomes established after fires and heavy logging.

Aspen-birch stands revert to another type if left undisturbed. The development of technology that allows the use

of aspen in waferboard structural panels has resulted in increased harvesting. The increased harvesting has

slowed the loss of the aspen-birch forest type because the trees regenerate quickly after logging.
Chapter 6-Forests | 307

The eastern softwood forests-The eastern softwoods are the most important commercial timber forests

of the East. Many of these softwood forests are under active management, with both planting and thinning taking

place on the more productive lands. Recreational values of these forests for wildlife and hunting are also high. lle

/ob/o//y-short/eaf pine forests of the Southeast and South Central regions are the most prevalent eastern pine

ecosystem. The Ioblolly pine, especially, is the basis for a large and growing lumber and wood-fiber industry. The

rapid growth oft he Iobloliy pine makes it t he preferred species for plantation forestry across the Coastal Plain and

Piedmont regions of the South. Shortleaf pine can be found over a somewhat wider range than the Iobioily, but

it is now most prevalent outside the range where the Ioblolly is successful. Shortieaf pine is most concentrated

in Arkansas, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama.

Lmg/eaf-s/ash phe forests are found mostly in Florida and southeastern Georgia. Slash pine is a

commercially vaiuable species that occurs naturaily on wetter sites protected from fires. It is widely planted and,

as a result its range is expanding, so it now dominates most of the Iongleaf-slash pine range. lmgleaf pine stands

were once found over much of the South. Logging and the control of wildfire (fire disturbance perpetuates the

kmgleaf pine) led to the near eradication of the Iongieaf pine stands. i.ablolly and shortieaf pines were often pianted

as replacements. The difficulty and high costs of artificial regeneration discoura~ Iongleaf pine plantations.

However, with better understanding of this attractive species it has recently made a comeback.

The white-red-jackpine and spruce-firforests are fwnd in the North. The spru~-firforests are dominant in

Maine and are also found across the northern areas of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. They are an important

source of fiber for pulpwood. Partiy because of their remote location, they have also been a valuable recreational

resource. The white-red-jack pine lands are scattered across New England, New York and the northern areas of

the Lake States. These were the primary timber forests of the earty 1900s, but after heavy cutting and regrowth

in hardwoods, relatively little remains of that softwood lumber industry. Although the northern lumber industry has

declined, there is stili some planting of red and white pine across the North.

The western softwood forest%The western forests are primarily softwoods. F’onubmsa phe forests are

found throughout California, the Rocky Mountains, the Southwest, and east of the Cascades in the Pacific

Northwest. In drier regions, ponderosa pine is usually the first forest ecosystem found above the desert floor. At

higher elevations, Porlderosa is replaced by Douglas-fir or other species requiring more moisture. The ponderosa

pine forests are a major source of lumber. Lkx.gks-fir tiesk, found in the Paafic Northwest and scattered

throughout the ponderosa pine regions of the Rocky Mountains, are the most extensive western forest type. The

Douglas-fir forests of the coastal slopes and Cascade Mountains of the Paafic Northwest are among the most

productive of commercial forests. The wood is valuabie for construction. The remaining old-growth stands of

Douglas-fir are now also increasingly appreciated for thek recreational and aesthetic vaiues.

1%-sprweforests are found at medium to high elevation, generally above the Douglas-fir zone. These forest

are becoming a significant source of wood products. Large areas of spruce forest (white and biack spruce) are

found in Alaska’s interior. Few of these interior Alaskan forests are productive enough to be classified as

timberland.

Other major western forest types include the hem/o&-sMa spnm forests found in the moist fog belts near

the coasts in Oregon, Washington, and Alaska, and the Mg@epineforests found throughout the drier interior

of the Pacific Northwest and the northern Rocky Mountains States. Pinyonjum’’rforests are found extensively

across the arid Southwest and chaparra/ lands are found across the Southwest, California, and Eastern Oregon.

Despite the low productivity for timber (no land in these forest types is classified as timberland), these lands are

increasingly valued for recreation, wildlife habitat, livestock grazing (especially after clearing to increase forage

production), and as a source of fuel wood. The pinyon-juniper lands are also used for the commercial harvesting

of pinyon nuts.

SOURCES: OffIca of Technology Assessment, 1993; USDA Forest Service, An Anal@a of tha Thnbw S/tuatlonh the Un/ted States;

1989-2040, General Technical Report RM-199 (Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain and Range Experime~ 1990).
308 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Figure 6-5-Status of U.S. Forestland and Distribution of Timberland Ownership, 1967

---- -.

~berland

483

-----

----- ----

t 1

----

----

Other Federal 2°/0

State and local 89’o

Timber industry 15°/0

Forest Service 18?40

Farmers 20V0

Other private 37?40

Figure 6-&Timberiand Ownership

by Region, 1967

120 ~

—

—

.

- National Forest

= Other public

c1 Timber industry

o Other private

u n

NE NC SE SC GP RM PSW PNW

holdings in the softwood forests of the Northeast,

the Lake States, and Pacific Coast States are also

significant. About 30 percent of the Nation’s

commercial timber harvest comes from timber

industry lands (90). In 1988, the timber industry

planted almost 1.4 million acres of forestland (see

fig. 6-7), with most of the planted acreage in the

South (88). Intermediate management activities,

typically thinnings, occurred on about 0.8 million

acres of industry land in 1988, again primarily on

forestland in the South (88). The seemingly small

area where industry thinning or planting occurs

equals about half of the total forest acreage where

such active management takes place (88).

Farmer-Owned and Other Private Lands

Some 276 million acres of timberland are held

by nonindustrial private landowners, that is,

owners whose primary business is not the manufacture of wood products. Farmers are the largest

identifiable subgroup of these landowners. Holdings are concentrated in the East. Although timber

management is often not the primary motivation
Chapter 6-Forests I 309

Figure S-7-Forest Area Planted or Seeded h the Unhd States

by SectIon and by Ownership

Other

South (81°/0)

private

(47”/0)

SOURCE: U.S. Department of A@culture, Forest Service, W 1988, U.S. Forest SendoePlanting Repmt, Phmthg,

Seeding and Si/vicu/tura/ Treatments in the United States (Washington, DC: USDA, Foreet Servioe, 1989).

for ownership, this private forestland is an important source of wood products, accounting for

almost half of the Nation’s timber harvest volume. In 1988, tree planting on nonindustry private

lands accounted for only 0.5 percent of the total

acreage planted. Planting acreage on the nonindustry lands has risen since the early 1980s

because of the implementation of various Federal

and cooperative programs intended to encourage

investments in forestry. These programs are

discussed in more detail later. Reforestation on

private lands is now considered an important way

to sequester carbon that might otherwise add to

atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2

) concentrations

(box 6-B).

National Forest Lands

The National Forest System, managed by U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service (USFS),

includes some 191 million acres of land. Roughly

142 million acres are forested (87), and 85 million

acres of that are classified as timberland (111).

The National Forest holdings make up by far

the largest share of the publicly owned timberland, and comprise almost 18 percent of U.S.

timberland. The forested acreage not considered

timberland includes wilderness reserves along

with a larger area of low-productivity forestland.

Much of the National Forest land is in the West.

Typically, this land remained in public hands

because of its inaccessibility or unsuitability for

settlement. National Forest lands in general tend

to be less productive and more costly to harvest

than the average private timberlands. Low productivity, poor access, and the desire to provide

services other than timber production limit the

National Forest land available for timber harvest

to about 57 million acres. Still, because these

forests now contain roughly 40 percent (by

volume) of the Nation’s harvestable softwood

timber, they are an important potential source of

timber supply. The National Forests now supply

about 13 percent of the Nation’s timber harvest

Management intensity varies across the National Forest lands. Except for the management of

wilderness lands, National Forest management

must reflect a concern for the multiple uses-for

timber, recreation, wildlife, rangeland, and watershed-and for the long-run sustainability of the

forest. The Forest Service also manages 37

million acres of wilderness reserves, has habitatmanagement responsibility for over 30 percent of
310 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box 6-B-Forests and Carbon Sequestration

Climate change can affect forest growth and distribution; forests, in turn, can affect climate change because

they store and release carbon. Carbon dioxide (CO~ is the major greenhouse gas accountable for more than half

of the projected warming. The 731 million acres (246 million hectares) of U.S. forests serve both as a source of

C02emissions (when harvested, tnmed, wd=a@g) and as asi~for C02amhn (whi~ WO~w). Reaction

of atmospheric C02 can be achieved through a wductbn in fossil ~el use of through ~z emission offwts (that

is, measures that effectively remove some emissions from the atmosphere). Forestry offers one avenue for

temporary C02 emission offsets, and it is @ing actively cond*rd as pat of the U.S. strategY to ~~ing

international obligations under the Climate Convention. On Earth Day 1993, President Clinton pledged to freeze

greenhouse gas at 1990 levels by the year 2000, as many industrializing countries had already done at the 1992

Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

The fateat which treestake up or sequestercarbon is directiy related to growth; the total

amomf of carbon in a tree depends on size or

total biomass. Oldgrowth forests contain large

amounts of carbon (over 240 tons per acre’ in

some areas of the Pacific Northwest) but exhibit

little or no net growth or additional carbon

storage (83). Second growth forests contain

less carbon, but continue to take up and store

carbon. Plantations with rotation periods of 50,

75, and 100 years result in storage of 38,44,

and51 percent, respectively, of thecarbonthat

an oidgrowth forest stores (24).

A comparison of accumulation and release of C02 shows that U.S. forest trees

currently store 117 million tons of carbon per

year more than they release. For comparison,

this is equivalent to about 9 percent of the

annual U.S. emissions of carbon to the atmosphere from all sources (96).

For the United States, OTAestimatesthat

with massive planting and management efforts,

trees could offset another 2 percent of U.S. C02

emissions (26 million tons) by the year 2000. By

2015, this uptake of C02 could triple (83). The

Average Carbon Storage per Acre of

Forestland in the United States

“ .-x’ IS 70 to 90 tons/acre

■ 90 to 125 tons/acre

NOTE: Numbers Include carbon stored In soil, forest floor, understo~

vegetation, and both live and dead trees. Northern forests tend to be

older than southern forest and therefore store more carbon. Also,

carbon storage In the forest floor Is higher In cooler, wetter dlmates.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service,

Carbon Storage and Accumulation in United States Forest Ecosystems, General Technical Report WO-59 (Washington, DC: USDA

Forest Service, August 1992).

uptake of carbon by forests can be increased by managing forests more intensively, increasing the forest-covered

are% restricting some commerdal harvests, and increasing efficiency in the manufacture of forest products.2

More-intensive management practices include increasing the site preparation (through drainage and some

fertilization), using genetic manipulation and selecting particular strains, using improved nursery practices, and

using techniques to protect from fire, insects, and disease.

I 600 tons per heotare. To convert aores to hectares, multiply by 0.405.

2 ITIiS assIJti doubling the enrollment of Conservation Resewe Pr~ram lands by lw5; in~m

productivity on one-third of nonindustry lands; improved productivity on two-thirds of industry lands; general

afforestatlon of another 70 milllon acxes; and planting 1 miilion acres of biomass orops.
Chapter 6-Forests 1311

Increased forest cover can be accomplished through afforestation, reforestation, and urban planting.

Afforestation-planting trees on land that has never supported forests or where forests have been cleared for

decades-offers opportunities to store carbon and help stabilize soil. Reforestation-planting trees on land that

has recently been deared oftrees+an be encouraged by incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve

Program (CRP), which aims to plant trees on 6 million acres of cropland. Urban planting can help to reduce the

“heat isJand” effect common in cities and can reduce the need for air conditioning.

There are several caveats tousing trees tooffset C02emissions. C rbonwill eventually be released tothe

atmosphere either when trees die and decompose, when they are harve1 ed or burned, or when products made

from them decompose. Unless wood is used todisplacefossil fuels or is permanently stored under conditions that

do not allow decomposition, carbon offsets in later years will dwindle. The average fore# in the United States

holds approximately 60 tons of organic carbon per acre. However, the quantity of carbon sequestered, or stored,

varies considerably by forest type and region. Douglas-fir forests and Spruce-fir forests hold roughly 100 tons of

carbon per acre, whereas Pinyon-juniper forests and Ioblolly pine forests hold around 40 to 75 tons of carbon per

acre respectively (96)4

. Forests in the Pacific Coast States store approximately 100 tons of carbon per acre (40

percent of the total carbon stored in U.S. forest ecosystems) (96). Forests in the South Central States store

approximately 60 tons of carbon per acre (10 percent of the total carbon stored in U.S. forest ecosystems) (96).

Soil stores the largest portion of carbon in U.S. forest ecosystems, 50 percent (29 billion tons).

If timber harvests are restricted to avoid releasing C02 and to store carbon, alternatives to wood products

would have to be found to meet an increasing demand for wood and paper products. Small-scale restrictions, such

as restrictions on harvesting old-growth forests, will not have a large effect on C02 emissions; however, this action

can be justified for a variety of other reasons such as the preservation of biodiversity and virgin forests.

Forestry options designed to reduce or offset COz emissions in the United States cannot be considered a

substitute for reducing total energy use or for developing alternatives to fossil fuel. However, they can be used

as an avenue to ease the transition to developing alternative sources and improving the eff iciency of energy use

in general.

3 Forests refer@ s~l, forest f~r, and tr~s.

4 ne average annual carbon storage rate for all U.S. timberland was 0.3 rnetflc tons Carb POr a=e;

potentially, fully Stocked forests could average about 0.6 metrlctonscarbon peraae. Under experknental conditions,

genetically improved Ioblolly pine aohieved 1.2 metric tons carbon per acre over a 3S-year pertod.

SOURCE: Offka of Techno@y Astwssment, 1993.

the Nation’s threatened and endangered species Other Public Lands

of plant and animals, and attracts a growing

number of visitors who participate in recreational

activities (89). (Box 6-C summariz es the major

Federal laws that regulate forest management.)

National Forest lands account for about 9 percent

of total acreage of forest that is replanted in the

United States and about 25 percent of the forest

acreage that is thinned.7

Other public timberland accounts for about 11

percent of U.S. timberland. This includes 5.4

million acres of the Federal public lands held by

the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of

Land Management (BLM) and acreage administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the

Defense Department, along with a much larger

area of State and local timberland. The greatest

7 III lg$xl, 215,000 wes of National Forest lands were planted or reseeded, while 140,000 acres were wowed to mge-@ ~~Y *=

harvesting (94). In the same year, 190,000 acres (less than l/500thof the Forest Senkefomsted acreage) received some intermediate treatment

mostly thinnkg to remove lower-valued timber and to improve the growth of the mmdning trees.
312 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box 6-C-Major Federal Laws Related to Forest Management

The Multiple-Use and Sustained-Yield Act of 1960-The Multiple-Use and Sustained-Yield Act (MUSY;

P.L 86-517) provided formal statutory authority to the Forest Service for managing the National Forests for outdoor

recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife. The authority to manage for these “multiple uses” supplemented

the Forest Service’s original charge, provided by the Forest Service Organic Act of 1897, to furnish a continuous

supply of timber and to secure water flows. MUSY does not setup any new management system or provide a

planning structure, but it is the legal foundation for the concepts of balancing use and preservation. Despite the

lack of management direction, the MUSY philosophy continues to be the cornerstone of both Forest Service and

Bureau of Land Management practices, affecting a total of some 460 million acres (190 million hectares)1 in the

United States (81).

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969-The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; P.L.

91-190) responded to a growing concern that Federal agencies were placing excessive emphasis on economic

values over environmental values. This act represents a major divergence from the traditional focus on economic

gain by suggesting that environmental goals might outweigh economic gain in some cases. NEPA mandates

certain decision making procedures and requires public participation in major Federal activities to ensure that

environmental values are given appropriate consideration in decisionmaking. The environmental impact statement

(EIS) required for Federal activies that “significantly affect? the human environment must include the identification

of adverse environmental effects, alternatives to minimize adverse impacts, and short-and long-term ramifications

of the proposed project, and it must be made available to the public for comment.

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) as amended by the

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA)-These two laws taken together specify and direct Forest

Service management and planning activities. Enactment of RPA (P.L. 93-378) and NFMA (P.L. 94-588) stems

from: 1) concern over adverse environmental impacts on forest resources in the 1970s, 2) the lack of specific

direction in MUSY and 3) NEPA’s mandate that all agencies use a systematic approach in their decisionmaking

processes. Whereas RPA sets goals, objectives, and planning strategies at the national level, NFMA directs forest

planning at the local level, closely following the EIS process. Together, RPA and NFMA allow for a top-down and

bottom-up approach to National Forest planning. Goals and objectives are set out at the national level under RPA,

while the actual balancing of various resource uses is generally left to the National Forest manager under NFMA.

The acts represent a comprehensive and relatively specific planning directive for the Forest Service based on the

principles of multiple use and sustained yield.

RPA is based on the assertion that the “renewable resource program must be based on a comprehensive

assessment of present and anticipated uses, demand for, and supply of renewable resources from the Nation’s

public and private forests and range lands, through analysis of environmental and economic impacts, coordination

of rnultiple use and sustained yield opportunities.” Four documents are required periodically: an Assessment a

National Program, a Presidential Statement of Policy, and an Annual Report.

The RPA Assessment which is updated every 10 years and considers a 50-year planning horizon, contains

an analysis of expected uses and price trends, an inventory of all renewable resources, and an outline and

description of Forest service responsibilities and other policy considerations (e.g., laws and regulations). The RPA

Program which is updated every 5 years with a 50-year planning horizon, contains a listof needs and opportunities

in National Forest management and identifies benefits and costs. The Presidential Statement of Policy is used to

frame budget requests when the RPA Program is sent forward. By enacting this provision, Congress sought to

retain and assert control over the Forest Service budget by specifying its ability to disapprove and revise the policy

statement. The Annual Report is intended to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. Specifically, it provides

1 To convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405.
Chapter 6-Forests 1313

information to assist Congress in its oversight responsibilities, requiring the Forest Service to account for expenditures and to evaluate progress in implementing the RPA Program.

The National Forest Management Act directs the Forest Service to produce long-term, integrated forest plans

for each National Forest unit at least every 15 years, with updates as needed. NFMA directs the Forest Service

to set substantive standards and guidelines for timber managenwmt and protection of water and other renewable

resources. Some provisions of NFMA are very specific to harvest practices and reflect a concern that the Forest

Service’s timber-harvesting methods were degrading the environment unreasonably. NFMA also provides for

extensive public involvement in Forest Service planning processes.

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 197&The Federal Land Policy and Management Act

(FLPMA; P.L. 94-579) established the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as a permanent agency and claimed

permanent Federal ownership of 270 million acres of public lands, primarily in the VWt and Alaska. FLPMA sets

goals for BLM, prescribes a pianning process, and allows for public involvement. Under the provision of FLPMA,

the public lands are managed in a manner that protects the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological,

environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archaeological values; that provides food and habitat for

fish and wildlife and dor&tic animals; that provides outdoor recreation; and that recognizes the Nation’s need

for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber and fitwr.z Clearly, BLM is charged with balancing a wide variety

of values.

FLPMA requires BLM to prepare Resource Management Plans for each region. These plans, prepared with

a 15-year planning horizon, must reflect the multiple-use and sustained-yield principle. In practice, a benefit-cost

analysis is required before any implementation project begins. FLPMA requires that the public be allowed an

opportunity to participate in the planning process and that BLM conduct an inventory of its resources. Further,

FLPMA does not give any timetables or deadlines for compieted plans and does not require that they be regularly

updated. However, it does set up provisions for some management of BLM land.

The Wilderness Act of 1964-The stated purpose of the Wilderness Act (P.L. 66-577) is to provide for the

protection of the wilderness resource in such a manner that it is left unimpaired for future use and enjoyment and

that the preservation of its wilderness character is ensured. The Forest Service, the Fish and wildlife Service, the

National Park Service, and, later, the Bureau of Land Management were required to study their lands and submit

appropriate tracts to Congress for admission into the WMerness Preservation System (areas atready designated

as wild or primitive were automatically included). Administration of t he Wilderness Preservation Systen current!y

at 92 million acres, is the continued responsibility of the land-management agency that applied for admission. Each

XncY*t~mi~s fm itSOtitiat is appropriate management of the wilderness lands, consistent with the directions

given by the act. This act does give more explicit guidelines than MUSYA. In general, it prohibits timber harvesting

and motorized access, thus severely limiting active management in wilderness areas.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973-The endangered species legislation, as amended (P.L. 100-707),

is the most restrictive and binding of all preserve laws. The puqmse of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to

conserve the ecosystems on which endangered species and threatened species depend. A species is considered

endangered if it is in danger of extinction throughout atl or a significant portion of its range, or threatened if it is

likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. A speaes is listed as endangered or threatened based

solelyon sckmtificevidence, without regard to the costs of protection. Federal agencbs are then required to ensure

that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of these species. Once a species is listed, it is unlawful

to harm, capture, or kill it. The Secretary of the Interior may designate critical habitat for the specie~n area in

which both private and pubiic activity is restricted-after taking into consideration the scientific evidence and the

potential economic impact.

243 U.S. code (U. S. C.) 1701(8).

(Continued on next page)
314 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climat*Volume 2

Box 6-C-Major Federal Laws Related to Forest Management--(Continued)

In Oregon, Californi% and Washington, the ESA has led to heated conflicts between logging communities

and proponents of protection for the northern spotted owl. The spotted owl, which nests in valuable forests of

the Pacific Northwest is listed as endangered. Iqging activities in many areas have been halted by ciaims that

further logging would cause extinction. If the restrictions on logging are upheld, some 5,000 or more jobs maybe

at stake (17).

The National Park Service Organic Act of 191&This act (P.L. 85434) spells out the goals of the National

Park System, administered by the National Park Service (NPS) of the Department of Interior. The general mission

is to conserve the scenery, wildlife, and natural and historic objects within the parks, managing the parks to provide

for public enjoyment and to leave them unimpaired for future generations. This directive sets up a dual mission

for NPS to conserve and preserve the values in the parks and to provide for public enjoyment. Specific goals and

purposes for each National Park unit are spw”fied in its establishing legislation and management documents.

The National Parks and Recreation Act of 197%Planning has evolved in the National Parks since the

1960s to allow for zoning within park boundaries to protect pristine areas and allow greater development and

management in other specified areas. The National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625) required the

preparation of general management plans for each unit of the National Park System. Generally, three documents

are prepared. The Statement for Management, prepared by the park superintendent and updated every 2 years,

provides a concise description of the park’s purpose and current management practices. The General

Management Plan sets forth the basic philosophy for the park and provides strategies to meet the issues and

objectives (specified in the Statement for Management) within a 5-to 10-year time frame. Finally, the Outline of

Planning Requirements, prepared by an interdisciplinary team, is an analysis of the plans and tasks that must be

done to address the issues and objectives (105).

The Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended in 1977 and 1990)--The purpose of the Clean Air Act (P.L. 91*)

is to promote and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources in order to protect pubiic health and welfare.

Generally, the act sets two types of National Air Quality Standards, primary and secondary. Primary standards are

set to protect human health, and secondary standards seek to protect public welfare.3 Prescribed burns on

foresttand can be limited by the need to comply with the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

The Clean Water Act of 1972 (as amended in 1977,1981, and 198+l%e goal of the Clean Water Act

(P.L. 92-500) is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s water. me

1987 amendments to the act encourage “best management practices” (BMPs) to control non-point-source

pollution. Best management practices required to control soil erosion will often restrict the nature of harvesting

activity allowed within stream zones. Section 404 of the act is a regulatory mechanism for wetland protection,

restricting the draining or filling of wetlands. Standard forestry activities are exempted from the permitting

requirements of Section 404, allowing temporary drainage during harvesting and planting. Activity byaforestiand

owner that would permanently alter wetiands, through drainage or filling, may be restricted.

3 Sco@ry standards generally seek to protect all aspects of the human and natural entiron~nt Wmpt

for human health and may Include protection for soil, water, cxops, vegetation, materials, animals, wildllfe, weather,

vlslbllity, climate, transportation hazards, and personal oomfort (45).

SOURCE: Offh of Technology Assessment, 1993.
Chapter 6--Forests I 315

concentrations of these other public timberlands

are in the North and in the Pacific Northwest

States. Again, the intensity of management varies, but multiple-use management is usually

allowed. Much of the other Federal forestland is

not counted as timberland; this other land includes forests in the National Park System (see

ch. 5), wilderness reserves (variously administered by the National Park Service, BLM, and the

Forest Service), other reserves, such as those

administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service,

and large areas of unproductive forestland (many

held by BLM and the Forest Service).

~ Trends in the Forest Resource

Much of the loss of the Nation’s original

forestland occurred when colonists settled the

various regions of the United States. The decline

in the forest resource slowed in about 1920, which

marked the end of a period of heavy logging and

conversion of forestland to agriculture (20,

73). Since the 1920s, the general trend has been

toward a gradual increase in forest acreage, with

much of that increase resulting from the reversion

of eastern farmland to forests. More recently,

there has been some loss in forest acreage,

particularly during the 1970s, when growing

export demands for agricultural products led to

the conversion of forestland to agriculture. This

conversion seems to have ended, and projections

suggest some cropland acreage will likely revert

to forest cover (100) (see vol. 1, ch. 6). Conversion of forest to residential and commercial use

may result in some future loss in forestland.

However, the rate of loss is expected to be

modest, with forestland projected to decline from

731 million acres in 1987 to about 710 million

acres by 2020(87). The condition of forestland, as

measured by the volume of standing timber, has

greatly improved since the 1920s—with the

maturing of forests on previously cleared or

degraded lands. Despite the reduction in forest

area in recent years, the volume of timber

increased by 24 percent from 1952 to 1987 (111).

Other trends are cause for concern. Much of the

loss of forestland has been regionally concentrated. For example, in the South, agricultural

conversion and urbanization rates have been high.

Perhaps more significant than the overall forest

acreage loss has been the great reduction in the

area of some natural forest types. For example,

the longleaf pine forests of the Southeast have

been essentially lost due to past logging; to fire

suppression, which changed the natural forest

ecology; and to the planting of loblolly and

shortleaf pines. The bottomland hardwood forests

of the lower Mississippi valley have been extensively cleared and converted to agriculture (see

box 6-D). This large-scale conversion of bottomland forests, however, is not expected to

continue because of wetland-conservation efforts

(see ch. 4), the lack of adequate drainage on

remaining lands, and the declining demand for

agricultural land (70).8 In the Pacific Northwest,

the extensive old-growth Douglas-fir forests have

been greatly depleted. This trend also appears to

have been slowed by efforts to preserve the

habitat of the spotted owl, which is protected

under the Endangered Species Act (P.L. 100-707).

More generally, and particularly in the East,

forest holdings have become fragmented by urban

development and agricultural conversion. Landscape fragmentation may complicate tree migration or lead to the elimination of local populations, thus threatening the genetic diversity of the

Nation’s forests (see chs. 3 and 5).

Of additional concern are diverse natural and

human threats to forests on a regional scale.

overall timber mortality is now relatively low,

with annual losses less than 1 percent for established trees (111). For the most part, the loss is

widely scattered and not easily attributed to a

specific cause. However, there are cases of

regional forest decline, caused either by unusual

climatic conditions or by people. Recent exSW. J- Corporate Director, Forest Resources, Georgia-Pacflc, personal communication, June 1993.
316 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Box 6-D-Southern Bottomland Hardwoods: Converting Wetland Forests to Agriculture

The Mississippi Delta is home to the largest contiguous wetland in the lower48 States. Swthern bottomland

hardwood forests cover 5.2 million acres (2.2 million hectares)l along the waterways of this delta wetland region,

including areas of Imuisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. These southern bottomland hardwood (SBH) forests host

a variety of tree species that are of high economic value for forestry. They also play a vita! role in flood prevention,

in erosion control, and as flyways and habitat for millions of migratory birds. To date, 80 percent of this once vast

system of forested wetlands has been lost (18). Past Federal flood-control and drainage projects in the Delta led

to the clearing, draining, leveling, and conversion of large parcels of SBH to agricultural use (1 04). These activities

created the potential for irreversible damage to the entire wetland system. Global climate change promises to place

the system under further stress.

The cumulative impacts of small changes in the SBH of the Delta can have wide-ranging effects on species,

hydrologic function, soil erosion, and water quality. The hardwood reserve is home to a multitude of deciduous

speaes (cottonwood, cypress, tupelo, sycamore, red@ green ash, sugarberry, and sweetgum). The hardwood

timber industry of the southern United States depends on these productive forests as a source of highqualitywood

products and pulpwood supplies. The underbrush provides essential habitat for a variety of waterfowl (e.g., wood

duck, pintail, teal, and black duck). A host of geese, diving ducks, and migratory songbirds relies on this ecosystem

for a wintering and nesting area. In addition, an active hunting economy is supported by the plethora of squirrels,

white-tailed deer, and wild turkey that make their home in these bottomland communities. These systems are

dependent on fluctuations in water level to maintain their high productivity, and altering the SBH ecosystem, by

disturbing the hydrology, alters the forest vegetation and soils and ultimately can leave the land incapable of

handling high flood peaks and large storm events. Such flood-cxmtroi functions andvaluesare difficulttoquantify,

but as the Mississippi floods of 1993 demonstrated, t hey are essential to maintain. (See box 4-D for a discussion

of wetland values.)

Federal flood-control and drainage projects common in the Delta during the 1930s resulted in levees,

floodways, channelization, and tributary basin modifications. These projects, while providing flood protection for

nearly 20 million acres of land in t he Delta, also paved t he way for agricultural conversion in t he bottomJands. The

advent of these projects made agriculture not only technically feasible but economically attractive. In addition, the

Federal Government created myriad farm programs that further supported conversion and promoted agricultural

use. These farm programs came in the form of production subsidies, technical assistance, and support for the

expansion of exports. Flood-control and drainage projects, farm programs, and periods of high agricultural prices

were together the causes of most of the wettand forest depletion from 1935 to 1984 (see ch. 4, figs. 4-3 and 4-4,

for illustrations of wetiand losses).

With an end to the Federal drainage projects, a decline in the markets for agricultural products, a strong

market for higher-quality hardwoods, and growing interest in the protection of wetiands, there has been a

slowdown or reversal in the conversion of the SBH forest to agriculture over the past decade. The new economic

realities have brwght agricultural conversion to a virtual halt. Instead, there has been increased investment in

restoring once-forested wetland and in managing the forest resource on those still intact.2 Some of these

reconversion efforts are being championed and even subsidized by members of the timber industry who have

significant economic interests in maintahing southern timber reserves. Small landowners are turning to the timber

industry for support in these projects, with ecological restoration of lost forest acreage as a long-term goal. The

silvicultural activity is generally not incompatible with maintaining the wetland services of the lands. Indeed,

relatively high values for hardwood forest products and other economic incentives for hardwood forest

1To convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405.

z R. C)lezsewSM, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, personal cmmmunkdon, JUIY 1993.
Chapter 6--Forests 1317

management should help promote the continued conservation of wetlands. Global climate change may bring new

physical stresses and changes to the nature of human demands on the bottomlands. Increases in temperatures,

changes in preapitation, and altered hydrofogy of the wetland systems may change the economics of agricultural

production and lead to disturbance and changes in forest composition. In addition, sea level rise might cause some

inundation of coastal systems. Asa result SBH could suffer from alterations in biodiversity influenced by changes

in vegetative composition and soil characteristics and distribution (95). Collectively, these changes could change

the future of agriculture and silviculture in the Delta region, incre~”ng uncertainty about whether there will be

continued maintenance of these valuable wetland forest resources.

SOURCES: A. Bartuska, U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServicxA personal communication, July 1993; Environmental Deferwe Fund (EDF) and the

WMd Wildlife Fund (WWF), How Wbt Is a k#4tkmf7 lhe Impacts of the Proposed Revisions to the Fedeml Wb%n& Delineation Manual

(New York NY and VVaehington, DC: EDF and WWF, 1992); U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Foreet Service, Researti Nee&

Aesodatad with Gbba/ Change /mpacts on Southern Foreated Wt/anck, Summary of a VWkshop Convened by the Consortium for

Reeearch on Southern Forest Wtande, Feb. 13-14,1991, Baton Rouge, IA (Washington, DC: USDA, A@ 1991); U.S. Department of

the Interior, 7he Impact of Fedwa/ Prvgranm, Vime 1: The lowar Mk?sissipplAkvial PM and the Prairie Pothole Region, a report to

Congrees by the Secretary of the Interior, October 19SS; U.S. Department of the Interior, F&h and Wildlife Service, “Synopsis of Wetland

Functione and Values Bottomland Hardwoode with Special Emphasis on Eastern Texas and Oklahoma,’” Blok@ca/ Report vol. 87, No.

12, September 1987.

tended droughts in California and in many interior

areas of the West (particularly eastern Oregon and

Idaho) have been a major factor in locally very

high rates of insect infestation, fire, and forest

mortality (see box 6-E). Excessive fiie suppression and selective harvesting of drought-tolerant

ponderosa pines in the past may have increased

the forest’s vulnerability to drought and disease

(92). Airborne pollution is implicated in the

death of high-elevation red spruce in the Northeast and in the decline in the growth of pines in the

Southeast (87). Ozone and smog are implicated in

damage to forests near urban areas, such as those

of Southern California (82). Acid rain and heavy

metals may eventually alter forest soils and have

some cumulative effects on forest productivity.

Acidic deposition and management activities are

suspected causes of the apparent sugar maple

decline in the northeastern United States (76).

One of the striking tkends in forestry over the

past 70 years has been the reduction in forest

acreage burned by wildfire (20, 94). Until 1945,

forest fires often burned over 30 million acres

annually. Individual catastrophic frees in the West

have at times burned more than a million acres of

forestland (20). Since the early 1950s, however,

the annual acreage burned has never exceeded 10

million acres and is usually below 5 million acres.

This reduction in loss to f~e has resulted from

changes in private land-management practices

(less brush buming for pasture clearing, fewer

sparks from logging equipment, and less arson),

better access and equipment for fire suppression,

and increased State and Federal fire-suppression

efforts. The droughts of the late 1980s did lead to

an increase in the number of fires and the acreage

burned, but not to levels that were high by past

standards (fig. 6-8).

E Trends in Forest Management

Over the course of the past few decades, the

perception of the value of forests has changed

among scientists and the public, and so has the

acceptability of certain forest-management practices. Scientists have learned more about the

complexity of forest ecosystems and about how

overall productivity of forests can be damaged in

ways that had not been anticipated. Together,

these changing public and scientific perceptions

are altering the manner in which all forestkmd can

be managed.

The decades a.fler World War II were a period

of rapid growth in the use of the public forestland,

with increases in both timber harvests and recrea-
318 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box 6-E–The Blue Mountains: Forest Decline and Climate Change

If climate change leads to hotter and drier conditions in the M&t, forests will become more vulnerable to

drought stress, disease, and infestations. Increased mortality rates could lead to rapid fuel buildup and increase

the risk of intense, widespread wildfire. In many parts of the M&t, the impacts of drought stress on forests are

already well-known. The 7 years of drought in the klkst coupled with over 100 years of fire suppression

transformed many western forests from healthy, robust stands to weakened, overcrowded, and disease-ridden

tinderboxes. These conditions exist today without the added impacts of climate change. Because a drier climate

in the VWst can only exacerbate drought stress, an examination of this situation may give some dues about the

complicated nature of future climate impacts in other forested areas.

The forests of the Blue Mountains in Oregon are facing the most severe and widespread effects of drought

and drought-induced disease. In 1850, this region was characterized by stands of mature pine and western larch,

large grassy openings, and lack of underbrush. Frequent fires were a critical part of preventing overcrowding and

of stemming disease spread. A series of droughts and intense logging of the valuable pines in this area around

the turn of the century set the stage for a new generation of trees. Fire suppression allowed shade-tolerant fir

species to sprout and fill areas where the pines had been logged. Because new sprouts and weak trees were not

eliminated by fire, the stands have become dense. Furthermore, fir species are generally less disease- and

fire-resistant than the pines they are replacing. Although disease has plagued the forests of the Blue Mountains

many times this century, the most recent outbreak, fueled by the continuing drought, poses grave threats to local

communities, industry, wildlife, and the ecosystem.

Drought impacts-in 1990,53 percent of three Nationai Forests in the Blue Mountains contained dead or

insect-defoliated trees. Over 20 types of insects and diseases, including the Douglas-fir tussock moth and the

western spruce budworm, were identified as causing forest mortality. In 1992, the Paimer drought index showed

the area under extreme drwght conditions (triple the size of 1991 ), “covering nearly ali of the western forests”

(48). Conditions were ripe for catastrophic fires that could destroy homes and communities. However, drought is

not the only threat to forest resources in the Biue Mwntains. The upper Grand Ronde River that runs thrwgh the

Blue Mountains has lost 70 percent of its salmon pool habitat in the past 45 years due to road building and logging.

Salmon fishing is an integral part of Indian tradition in this area, but many have been unable to pass it on to their

chiidren because the fish populations have gotten so low. Logging in this area has created a fragmented

landscape, with more wildlife habitat at the vulnerable fringes.

Fragmentation and risk allocation-Although most agree that there isaseriousforest-health problem and

fire risk in the Biue Mountains, it is less clear what the solutions are. These Blue Mwntain problems transcend

ownership and management boundaries. Three National Forests with up to 25 different management areas, six

towns, several Indian reservations, several private forests, and a smattering of private homes are intertwined in

the Biue Mwntains. Any management decision for the Blue Mountain forests wiil affect all of these parties, and

even if ecologically sound, it may be met with resistance by inhabitants and communities that depend on the forests

for their economic base.

One suggested solution includes the use of fire to reduce fuel ioads and prevent the disease spread.

However, this poses a risk to small communities and homes that are nestled within forested iands. In addition,

Ciean Air Act provisions restrict fire use because of particulate pollution. In many places, the risk that prescribed

fire would burn wt of control is very great, and the fuel buildup is so dense that any such fire wwld be extremely

hot and wouid destroy soil nutrients, turn day soils to brick, and cause massive erosion and environmental

darnage.

Salvage harvests are another proposed solution supported by the timber and forest products industries.

Diseased timber is only good for commercial use up to 2 years after it dies. Salvage harvests wwld “salvage” some

of this revenue, reduce fuel loads, and provide local jobs. In addition, the thinned stands would enhance the
Chapter 6-Forests 1319

remaining trees by removing the competition for soils, moisture, and nutrients. However, this measure is not

supported by environmental groups, who seethe widespread use of salvage harvests as a ploy to build roads into

roadless wilderness areas, accelerate logging, promote dear-cutting, and avoid environmental considerations and

public partiapation. Dead trees also provide valuable shelter for wildlife spedes that reside in these forests.

Climate change may only add to these drought problems, and there is Iittleagreement over howtobest move

toward solutions. Nevertheless, it is apparent to land managers and experts in the Blue Mountains that simply

treating the symptoms is not an adequate strategy. Efforts to move to an ecosystem or landscape approach that

focuses on biodiversity, watershed health, the natural rde of fire, and long-term site productivity oan slowly restore

the forest to a healthy system.

SOURCES: H.E. Mcban, ‘q’he Blue Mountains: Forest Out of Oontrol,” Arnekarr Forests, September/October 1992, pp. 32-35, 5S, 61;

USDA, Forest Service, Blue Mountains Forest Health ReporC hkw Perspective/n Forest Health (Portland, OR: USDA, Foreet Service,

Pacific Northwest Region, April 1991 ).

tional use. The resulting conflicts over appropri- tilcial regeneration (i.e., planting of seedlings)

ate use of public forestland have not yet been

resolved-despite efforts to formalize the forestplanning process and open it to public scrutiny

(9). In fact, there has been a rising sentiment that

timber management may be leading to the degradation of forest ecosystems (21, 63). This perception has been reflected in a trend toward morerestrictive legislation and regulation of forest

practices (box 6-C). Clearcutting of forests and

are increasingly viewed as controversial and

perhaps unacceptable forest practices. Even private landowners are finding that their forestland

cannot be managed as if timber were simply

another agricultural crop. State laws regulating

private forest practices are becoming more common. The Endangered Species Act has the potential to lead to large-scale restrictions on timber

management in old-growth forests of the Pacific

Figure 6-8-Forest Fires in the United States, 1924-87

60,

50-

-u

2 40-

3G

(/) al

$j 30-

T5

U)

g 20-

2

lo0--

1924 1944 1954 1964 1974 1964

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreet Service, Report of the Forest Sendcs, E/sad Year 1990 (Waehin@on,

DC: USDA, Forest Service, 1991 ).
320 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Protection of the northern spotted owl under the

Endangered Species Act is limiting timber

management in the Pacific Northwest.

Northwest (spotted owl habitat) and perhaps in

the pine forests of the South (red-cockaded

woodpecker habitat).

The Forest Service has responded to the

growing concerns over the impact of timber

management by establishing ‘‘Ecosystem Management” as its new approach (69, 71). Although

not yet fully developed or defined, this approach

promises to lead to significant changes in management. Ecosystem management addresses the

services and the quality of the overall forest

environment, rather than the production of a

single species or commodity. To some, it means

managing the forest so that it more closely

mimics the structure of a natural forest (21).

Harvesting might be designed to mimic the role

that natural mortality from fire or insects played

in removing trees from the natural forest. It is

unclear whether Ecosystem Management will

necessarily lead to a reduction in timber harvesting from National Forest lands. Other administrative and legal actions, however, almost certainly

will. For example, the Forest Service has recently

proposed ending “below-cost” timber sales-a

change that would eventually end commercial

logging on more than one-third of the National

Forests (72).9 The plan for protecting spotted owl

habitat in the Pacific Northwest will also reduce

timber sales well below the levels harvested there

in the 1980s (31).10

Against the background of increasing constraints on timber management is the rising

demand for wood products. The Forest Service

projects that consumption of wood will increase

50 percent by the year 2040 (89). The increased

supply of timber is anticipated to come from

higher productivity and intensified management

on private forestland. The forestland of the South

is expected to increase in importance as the major

source of timber. The area in intensively managed

plantations in the South-now about 20 million

acres-is expected to double over the next few

decades (90). The restrictions on harvests in the

Pacific Northwest may also lead to intensified

harvesting pressures elsewhere in the country.

FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Forest management has always been a challenging endeavor due to the long-lived nature of

forests, the varied random events that perturb

them, and an incomplete understanding of frost

development and structure. A climate change,

especially rapid climate change, would impose an

additional severe challenge to this already difficult management situation. It is not yet possible

to project with any precision the future climate for

specific forest regions. Neither is it well established how forest development might proceed

under a changed climate, particularly with elevated concentrations of atmospheric carbon diox-
. —

horn forest fires, insects, and pathogens might be

driven by climate change is also unknown.

Despite these uncertainties, it is known that

climate and shorter-term weather extremes are

important regulators of natural-forest structure

and health. Climate is the long-term regulator of

forest distribution; weather extremes and iweatherrelated stresses are the primary drivers of changes

in forest structure.

The projected global temperature increases of

5 “F (3 ‘C) could mean that the ideal range for

many forest species shifts north by 200 to 300

miles (33, 34, 50). In the long-term, perhaps after

many hundreds of years, species will gradually

migrate or compete to become established in new

ranges, changing the composition of forests.

However, the slow rate at which trees mature and

the limited distance over which seed is naturally

dispersed by wind and animals (15, 68) are

thought to limit forest migration to about 25 miles

per century. In the mean time, forests stranded in

a climate unlike that of their present range maybe

exposed to stresses that will lead to declining

growth rates and increased mortality. The vulnerability of a forest to climate change may depend

upon the forest’s location, biology, and management. Whether the effects of climate change are

of concern, will depend upon the purposes for

which the forest is owned or managed. Changes

in forest condition may trigger adjustments in

regional timber industries and alter the recreational and amenity services provided by each

region’s forests.

9 The Long Term

Climatic variables, principally temperature and

moisture, establish the geographic range of

plants, animals, and ecosystems. The current

distribution of forests represents species assemChapter 6--Forests I 321

blages adapted to the range of today’s climate.

Climate change can alter this mix. The ultimate

response would be a change in the geographical

distribution of species and in forest community

types. There could be impacts on reproductive

biology, on the efficiency of resource acquisition

and use, and on the relative competitiveness of the

species in each community. If climate change is

rapid, new trees that become established may

themselves later be threatened by the continuously changing climate.

The very long-term effects of climate change

may vary widely by region, but they are expected

to include a shifted and reduced range for many

tree species, along with changes in the species

composition of forests. In the end, some forestland could become more productive as longer

growing seasons, greater warmth, and rising

atmospheric CO2 concentrations promote growth.

Other forest regions could decline due to the

drying effects of warmer temperatures, changes in

the seasonal distribution of rainfall, or the inability of existing trees to compete against grasses,

shrubs, and less-valued trees.

Various methods have been used to predict

long-term forest responses to altered climate.

Some researchers have attempted to relate climatic requirements of individual tree species to

the conditions thought to be likely under a future

climate.110thers have looked at historical changes

in vegetation-those that occurred during the

warming that followed the ice ages—to predict

future vegetation changes.12 Mathematical simulations of forest growth provide an alternative

approach to estimating the response of forests to

a changing climate (5, 74).13 The general conclusions from these predictive exercises suggest that

productivity in areas where cold temperatures

11 ~~~~e IMS been used to e xmni.ne potential effects of future climates on forests in California (1 16), the Southeast (53, 116), and

the we5tern United States (46).

12 fittitriktiomofvegeutionc~be reconstructed~ using fossil pollen from the periods of abrupt climate C-dtib~t_

transition (59). These distributions have been used to model the Iong-term response of current forest vegetation to a change in climate (58, 61).

13 Stition ~~Wes ~ve ken u~ t. m~el forest development ~ tie ~tem u~t~ S~&S (62, ’79, 110), M A&ik bo~ fo~t

(4), and the Paciilc Northwest forests (14, 40).
322 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

(’L

/~ Current ra.ge

?’ mGFDL’enar’O

\ 0)

~ Current range

UIIn Potential

future range

EBB Overlap

now limit growth will eventually be enhanced,

productivity in areas where moisture limits

growth will be reduced, and the ranges of all

species will be shifted northward or up-slope.

Any more specific predictions about long-term

effects of climate change, several of which are

described below, are often highly dependent on

particular assumptions about soils, forest development, and climate changes.

New England’s coniferous forests and sugar

maples might be replaced by oak-hickory forest

types (60, 79). Beech and sugar maple may die out

across most of the northeastern United States

(16). The present geographical range of sugar

maples and the potentially suitable range under

doubled CO2 is illustrated in figure 6-9. The

boreal forests of Alaska (spruce, birch, and aspen)

might be converted to aspen or to steppe-like

vegetation (4), and the boreal forests of Minnesota might be converted to northern hardwoods

(6). Where there is adequate moisture, net productivity in these northern forests could be increased

with the increased warmth and longer growing

season. Other forests of the continental interior

that are already subject to moisture stress maybe

lost-reverting slowly to grass or stunted woodland (8, 62).

The potential range of the southern pines could

move north into the present hardwood forestland

of Pennsylvania and New Jersey (52, 53,79, 110).

Valuable forestland of the Southeast from South

Carolina to the Gulf Coast may become marginal

for timber production due to temperature extremes. 14 If there is a shift in the range of the

Mm= PIUIMOQS mbSSd 011- pine f- and do not take into account the ability of tree br=xkra to select and introduce

mortMolcrant varieties on plantation forests.
Chapter 6-Forests I 323

loblolly pine forests into more mountainous

northern regions, it could mean higher costs of

timber management. Rising sea levels in the

coastal plain could threaten perhaps 10 percent of

the southern pines and some of the associated

pulp and paper mills (29).

In the West, the range of ponderosa pine is

predicted to move up-slope at the expense of

species that are less tolerant of dry soils, such as

firs (46). The Douglas-fro may expand or at least

maintain its range over most of its commercially

important distribution. The upper elevation of

Douglas-fir is expected to move up-slope (14);

coastal Douglas-fir stands are expected to be

relatively unchanged. Douglas-fir stands in drier

regions may be lost, however.

The potential effects of elevated CO2 o n

long-term forest productivity are not wellunderstood. Trees, like other plants, are expected

to benefit from elevated CO2 by showing improved growth and greater efficiency in water use.

Laboratory studies do, in fact, find that seedlings

of many tree species respond positively to elevated C02 (36, 43, 53). However, the large size

and long life span of trees make extended

experimental studies difficult. There are some

indications that the increases in productivity do

not continue over long time periods or if nutrients

and/or water are limiting (3, 64). Forest trees face

competition from other trees and plants. Those

species most favored by elevated CO2 may not be

the species that are valued within the forest; for

example, more rapid growth by shrubby or small

trees could tend to suppress development of larger

species. For these reasons, many researchers are

cautious in extrapolating from experimental studies that show increased growth rates to ecosystem

effects.

9 The Transition Period

The frost observable effects of climate change

will not be so much climate-related as weatherrelated. 15 The near-term effects of climate change

will be driven by changes in weather extremes

and mediated through those stressors that have

always been the primary controllers of forest

structure and health-insects, disease, winds, and

fire. Even in regions where forest productivity

may be ultimately improved, the transition period

could be extended and punctuated by sudden

dieback and decline.l6 Forests are complex,

long-lived systems that can only slowly adjust to

climate but that can suddenly be threatened by

weather-related stresses.

The near-term response of forest systems to

climate change will involve complex reactions to

new averages, new patterns, and new extremes in

weather variables. Some forest species that are

specialized to current climate conditions may not

thrive (44). Altered patterns of exposure to high

and low temperatures could mean that winter

chilling requirements will not be met (38).

Flowering, seed-formation, and seed-dispersal

processes could be disrupted especially if pollenators do not adjust to changing conditions (11).

With longer growing seasons, trees might add

more light earlywood relative to the dense latewood that forms at the end of the growing season

(66). This would mean a lower-quality wood for

structural lumber and higher costs for pulp mills.

Changes in early-growing-season weather conditions, particularly moisture and frosts, may effect

the establishment of seedlings. Warmer and

moister weather might favor the spread and boost

the significance of certain fungal diseases and

insect pests. Elsewhere, the drying effects of

higher temperatures could be especially damaging, especially where the frequency of drought is

increased. Associated with droughts would be

15 Thoughtful discussions of the importance of clearly defii climate (average) vs. weather (extreme) effects ~ provided in mfmnus

22 and 23. See also chapter 2.

16A model of the kcreme in atmospheric C02 that could result from the dieback in forests is discussed in reference 39. The POtmuy @e

release of COZ to the atmosphere could speed up the rate of climate change.
324 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Drought-dumaged trees in Colorado. Warmer climate

may increase forest mortalityfiom climate-related

stresses such as drought, insects, and disease.

I

higher risks of secondary threats fkom forest fires

and insects (51). Insect darnage may increase, for

example, if insect pests produce more generations

or persist longer during the tree-growing seasons

(1, 27).

The initial effects of climate chauge will not at

first be easily recognized as distinct horn the

effects of the normal regulators of forest growth

and development. The potential initial effects of

climate change can be illustrated by current

weather-related stresses on selected highly valued

tree species in several regions of the United

States, described in box 6-F. The potential

vulnerabilities of forests, by region, are illustrated

in table 6-3.

H Factors Influencing Vulnerability to

Climate Change

The vulnerability of a forest to climate change

will be a fimction of the forest’s location, biology,

and management practices (see table 6-4). It will,

of course, also be determined by the regional

differences in the extent and pace of climate

change. These differences will be influenced, in

part, by latitude, altitude, proximity to continental

margins, and distance from large water bodies.

Box 6-F-Current Weather-Related Stresses on Selected Forests

The Northeast: sugar maple-Sugar maple, a dominant tree species in the northern hardwood forem is

one of the most valuable hardwood trees in the northeastern United States. Sugar maple develops best in mds$

welldrained, nutrient-rich soils. Unusually warm or COOI weather during the growing season or drought can have

serious implications for sugar maple health. Numerous insects and pathogens are linked to weather conditions.

Defoliators, such as the tent caterpillar, the saddied prominent, and the maple webworm, are frequently associated

with warm, dry weather (47, 84). Drought periods favor the spread of Afrn///ada root decay, the most impwtant mot

disease in maptes. A Iackof winter snow cover can cause deep roots to freeze and lead to death of the tree (30).

For sugar maple, changes in temperature ranges and in soil moisture have the potential to exacerbate insect

stress, disease, and general decline.

The South: Ioblolly pln~dly pine is the most commercially valuable tree species of the southern

United States. The natural distribution is mostiy contained within the Coastal Plain and Piedmont regions from
Chapter 6-Forests 1325

Virginia to eastern Texas. It is often mixed with shortleaf or Iongleaf pines, dominating these stands in areas with

high soil moisture. Numerous important biotic stressors of Ioblolly pine are intimately related to weather conditions.

The southern pine beetle is the most destructive forest insect of the Southeast. Prolonged drought stress and warm

weather favor expansion of beetle populations, predisposing trees to being attacked and allowing extra

generations to develop during the growing season (26, 27). Fungal diseases, such as fusiform rust, which causes

significmt economic loss, are favored by warmer and moister weather conditions (93). Fires can be a significant

factor in shaping these forests. An increased fire frequency, which might result under warmer and drier conditions,

would favor Iongleaf pine or shrub growth over Ioblolly pine. Increased frequencies of hurricanes or major storms

would add to existing risks to pines of the coastal plain. Warmer weather, with or without altered preapitation, is

judged to have the potential to increase the risks to most southeastern forests.

The Mountain West: ponderosa pin&Ponderosa pine is extensively distributed west of the Great Plains,

primarily at lower elevations and relatively dry sites. Many of its insect and pathogen stressors are Iinkedto weather

cycles. The most damaging insects to ponderosa pine are bark beeties, which are favored by drought conditions.

For example, during the drought in the late 1960s, California saw increased ponderosa pine mortality due to beetle

activity (93). Fires in much of the ponderosa pine regions are frequent, often large, and sometimes damaging.

Although ponderosa pine is favored in a fire regime, the overall productivity of the forest could dedine with more

frequent fires. Any increase in the frequency of lightning strikes or in drought severity will increase the risk of fire.

Because of the dry habitat of ponderosa pine, this species may become more competitive undera warmer climate

(46). Success at the stand level, however, depends more on near-term weather events and the interactions of

weather extremes with pest, fire, and other stresses.

The Pacific Northwest: Douglas-fir—Douglas-fir is the most important commercial tree species of the

Northwest. The Douglas-fir has developed in a region dominated by wet winters and dry summers. Much of the

morbidity, mortality, and growth loss in the Pacific Northwest is caused by dwarf mistletoe infection and stemwood

decay. These stressors are not particularly important in the more productive coastal forest and do not appear to

be regulated by weather. insect defoliators are relatively unimportant in the moist coastal forests. Root diseases,

which are of somewhat greater concern, seem to be only indirectly affected by temperature. With the relatively long

interval between fire and wind events and with the lack of cfimate-driven stress, it appears that the coastal

Douglas-fir forests will be relatively resistant to near-term stresses under a changing climate, unless there is severe

drying. Insects and fire present a greater risk to the Douglas-fir in the less-humid interior West. Outbreaks of the

Douglas-fir tussock moth occur in the drier regions where fir overlaps in range with ponderosa pine. l%e western

spruce budworm and Douglas-fir bark beetle can also be damaging to fir growing under drier conditions. Extensive

mortality from insects and diseasa has already occurred in the Douglas-fir of the drought-stricken Blue Mountains

of eastern Oregon (see box 6-E). Further drying under climate change would be very damaging to the Douglas-fir

of the interior W6st.

Alaska: spruce-White and black spruce are the principal components of the boreal forest ofinterior Alaska.

The environment of irtterior Alaska is harsh, and abiotic stresses are numerous and severe. Fire is an integral part

of the ecosystem. Snow, ice, and wind damage are frequent, and permafrost development and poor soil drainage

are often problems. The most damaging forest insect in Alaska is the spruce beetie, a bark beetle that is very

sensitive to weather events. Extended growing seasons would increase the period of exposure to beetfe

populations and allow for greater damage. The weather-related nature of the many stresses on these forests

suggests that they could be rapidly affected by a changed climate.

SOURCE: office of Technology Aasessmen~ 1993; W.H. Smith, “United States Forest Response and Vulnerability to Climate Change,”

contractor paper prepared for the office of T~hnology Assessment, June 1992; C.F. Cooper, “Sensitivities of V&etern Ecoeysteme to

Climate Change,” contractor paper prepared for the Offke of Technology keessmen~ August 1992.
326 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Table 6-3–Forest Vulnerability

Region Tree Potential stressors/key climate factor and vulnerability

Northeast

North Central

Southeast

Rocky Mountain/

Pacific Southwest

Pacific Northwest

(Coastal)

Alaska

Maple

Loblolly pine

Ponderosa

pine

Douglas-fir

Spruce

Insect defoliators/warm, dry weather

Armillaria (root decay)/drought

Deep root freezing/lack of winter snow cover

Vulnerability: High potential for damage with warmer temperatures; drier conditions

Southern pine beetle/prolonged hot, dry weather

Fungus (fusiform rust)/warm, moist weather

Fire (favors Iongleaf or shrub)/warm, dry weather

Storm damage/increase in coastal storms

Vulnerability: Potential for much warmer weather (with increase or decrease in

precipitation) to reduce productivity.

Borers, bark beetles/drought

Fire/drought or lightning

Vulnerability: If stands can overcome fire and insect risks, maybe more competitive

in warmer weather since adapted to warm, dry climate.

Most stressors not strongly weather related.

Vulnerability: Resistant to near-term climate change, though productivity may

decrease.

Spruce beetle/warm weather (speeds insect development), moisture problems, erratic

freezes

Vulnerability: High potential for rapid effects because climate plays pervasive role.

SOURCE: W.H. Smith, “United States Forest Response and Vulnerability to Climate Change,” contractor paper for the Office of

Technology Assessment, June 1992

Location

The greatest climate perturbations will probably be associated with the more northern U.S.

latitudes, so forests there may be most at risk of

disturbance. However, in areas where low temperatures now limit growth, the longer growing

season and warmer climate may ultimately become more hospitable to forest productivity.

Forests with small or highly fragmented ranges

may be at particular risk of loss from climate

change (e.g., forests at the upper elevation of a

montane environment may simply have nowhere

to go). Other forests in montane environments

may beat low risk over the long term because they

need migrate only a small distance to find a more

suitable climate zone. Forests located in coastal

regions may be at risk from rising sea levelswith the threat of flooding, saltwater intrusion,

and poor drainage to increases in damaging

winds. Forests in already dry continental interiors

may be at risk of soil-moisture limitations because continental interiors are expected to dry

more than are continental margins. Forests already under stress will beat high risk. The Fraser

fir and red spruce of the Appalachian Mountains,

already threatened by numerous stresses, including pollution, may be lost. Forests in locations

subject to droughts, fire, and wind damage will be

at increased risk if the frequency or intensity of

these stressors is increased.

Forest Biology

Species that are able to use increased C02

efficiently will have an advantage over other

species (see ch. 4). Likewise, species that distribute seeds widely may fare better under climate

change. A mixed-species forests might tolerate a

wider variety of changes than would a singlespecies forest. Individual trees with a low tolerance for climate fluctuations would be least

adaptable to ongoing climate change. Individual

populations with little genetic diversity among
Chapter 6--Forests I 327

Table 6-4-Characteristics of Higher-Risk Forests

Forest location Forest biology Forest management

Higher Iatitude Small, fragmented range Fragmented forests

Higher elevation No or few migration corridors Less-diverse forests

Continental interior Low genetic variance High stand density

Maritime sites Low species diversity Inappropriate species

Forest-range boundaries Genetically specialized to site

Low-productivity sites History of widespread dieback

High-fire-risk sites Heavy seed

Drier sites

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1993

trees might prove to be at greatest risk of

long-term decline.17 The genetic composition of

tree populations tends to vary over the species

range. Species that are highly adapted to local

climate and soil conditions may beat high risk to

climate change across their full geographical

range (45, 67).

The stage of forest development is also an

important factor in forest vulnerability to climate

change. Seedlings are especially sensitive to heat

and soil-moisture extremes, and their risk of

damage from climate change may be high. Older

stands, past the period of vigorous growth, are

prone to insect defoliators, bark beetles, and root

disease (42). Younger, vigorous stands, presumably able to withstand stresses, maybe least at risk.

Management Status

The most intensively managed industry and

private forestland may be least at risk of catastrophic loss or long-term decline because efforts

to reduce such effects will be undertaken. Private

forest managers have both the financia1 incentive

and the latitude to protect against extensive loss

from climate-related threats. They can use several

available techniques: short rotations to reduce the

length of time a tree is exposed to an unsuitable

climate; planting better-adapted varieties or varieties developed through selection and breeding

programs to reduce vulnerability; and thinning,

weeding, managing pests, removing fallen wood,

irrigating, improving drainage, and fertilizing to

improve general health. These actions reduce the

likelihood of moisture stress and of secondary

risks from fire, insects, and disease. Thinning, for

example, reduces competition for moisture and

can effectively increase tolerance to drought;l8

it may also speed development of a climateadapted forest by removing trees that are growing

poorly.

Planting single-species forests might seem to

pose increased threats of 1oss from insect pests or

disease due to Limited genetic diversity (63). Yet

surprisingly, commercial tree species show a

tremendous genetic diversity among individualseven among trees from the same parents (41).

This inherent diversity could make trees less

likely to succumb to a single pest or disease than

are most agricultural crops (37). Forests managers attempt to ensure diversity in the seedlings

they use to establish their forest stands even if

they are planting single-species forests.19 Nonetheless, a healthy mixed-species, mixed-age forest is probably less susceptible to insect infesta17 l.ugm~ai, trees ShOW a high dqpe of genetic diversity among individuals-eonsiderably more than do rmimah Or mOSt O~r p@tS (41).

la TIM con-t &mv~ thinned and hcdthy industry forestland and adjacent, drought-stricken public forestland ti IdahO is Striking (D@.

Smit& Vice president Timber[and Resources, Boise-Cascade Corporation personal communication and videotape, June 1992).

19 W. JWC~ D&tor of Forest Resources, Georgia-Pacific Corporation% peIsOrud COmm~CatiO14 My 1993.
328 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

tion than are extensive contiguous areas of

uniformly aged forests.20

Less-managed forests may not be inherently at

any greater risk than actively managed forests.

However, once a decline in forest health begins,

less-managed forests may face greater tire and

pest damage. At particular risk will be those

forests already subject to moisture stress and fire

hazard. Once they are subjected to stress, wilderness forests and National Parks may be at elevated risk of substantial decline due to policy

restrictions imposed on silvicultural and pestmanagement activities. Similarly, because management is currently limited on most National

Forest lands and the less-productive nonindustrial

private forestland, those forests could be at risk of

unchecked loss. If the general health of these

forests declines, vulnerability to large-scale mortality could increase.

B Forest Values at Risk

The services for which forests are managed

range from the protection of naturalness (see ch.

5) to timber production. The significance of forest

decline or change depends almost entirely on

what the forest is being used for. For example,

decay of the trunk and loss of timber would be of

great concern in a forest managed for wood

products. However, it would be relatively without

consequence in a forest managed for watershed

protection, and could be of value in a forest

managed to favor habitat for cavity-nesting birds.

Commercial Timber Products

Forests maintained for the production of wood

products and fiber would benefit from any nearterm or long-term increase in productivity. Reduced growth or increased mortality would have

a damaging effect on them. Managers of industry

forests and other private timberlands can be

expected to respond with adaptive measures if

and when they perceive changes in climate and

market conditions. Although no timber company

is altering forest practices today, some are actively preparing for the types of risks posed by

climate change. Weyerhaeuser, for example, is

conducting experimental silvicultural programs

to examine the effects of thinning practices on

ameliorating the effects of droughts (19). It is

also sponsoring research on the genetics, physiology, and biotechnology of heat- and droughttolerant seedlings. Such technological developments should help protect the timber industry and

future wood supplies.

Despite the possibility of some adaptive management responses, climate change could still be

very costly to the timber industry. In the southern

United States, declining timber volumes could

lead to $300” million in lost annual revenues,

whereas the increased management measures

needed to compensate for poorer conditions could

add $100 million to the annual costs of production (29, 66). A sea level rise could force the

movement of coastal pulp and paper mills, further

increasing the costs of climate change. Some of

these mills would cost as much as $1 billion to

replace.

For the Pacific Northwest, an expanded upslope range of the Douglas-fir forests might add

some 5 percent to the regional timber harvest (29).

However, the increased costs of logging at higher

elevations could offset much of this potential

gain. Furthermore, with the increasing institutional and environmental constraints on harvesting in the Pacific Northwest (e.g., the spotted owl

recovery plan), increased harvest levels from this

region seem unlikely.

Recreation, Wildlife, and Amenities

Modest changes in forest productivity may

have little impact on the recreational or aesthetic

values of the forest. However, extensive dieback

and mortality could have considerable impacts. A

study of the economic costs associated with forest

mortality caused by an insect infestation in the

Front Range of the Colorado Rocky Mountains

m R. H~de@ Profssor, Department of Forest Resourees, Clemson University, personal CommtiCtiow J~UUY 1993.
Chapter 6-Forests 1329

gives a sense of the importance of these recreational and aesthetic values (113). Each household in the region would have been willing to pay

~ost $60 per year to avoid the reduced attractiveness of the forest caused by insect infestation. Dry timber in dead forests adds to fire risks,

threatening adjacent forests and property (see box

6-G). Indeed, the costs of removal of dead trees

and the temporary loss in property value in the

urban and suburban settings might be among the

highest costs associated with climate change.

Longer-term change in forest composition may

be of little sigtilcance to the value of some

services, including providing recreation, enhancing landscape and water quality, and protecting

against soil erosion. However, certain species that

depend on the unique structure of an existing

forest could be at great risk (e.g., Kirtland’s

warbler and the spotted owl). The costs of

protecting threatened and endangered species

could rise considerably if it becomes difficult to

maintain specialized habitat (see ch. 5). The

production of certain forest outputs-for example, seeds, nuts, pharma ceuticals, resins, and

syrupis also highly species dependent. Similarly, some tourist and recreational activities

Box 6-G-Private Property and Fire Risk

If dirnate change leads to drier conditions in forested areas (as some climate models predict), wildfire risk

is likely to increase as trees become more susceptible to disease and mortatit y. Because of recent droughts and

100 years of fire-suppression policy, many forests are already experiencing massive diebacks and holding

excessive fuel loads. Over half of some western forests, like those in the Blue Mountains in Oregon (see box S-A),

contain dead and dying trees and are especially prone to catastrophic fire (92). Combining prescribed fire and a

gradual reintroduction of the natural fire regime to some forested areas is one proposed way to reduce fire risk

in places already primed for wildfire as well as to reduce risk in a drier climate (48). However, many forests are

already so dry that even controlled burning carries unacceptable risks of turning into an uncontrolled wildfire. In

addition, a natural fire regime in many natural areas is much less feasible now than 150 years ago, when preserves

contained virtually no development. Because natural areas are increasingly popular places for people seeking

escape and solitude from urban life to build vacation and weekend homes, a “let-burn” policy is nearly impossible

without destroying life and property.

Wildfires have contributed to significant losses in recent years. In 1990, eight large wildfires contributed to

over $305 million losses in property damage+7 percent of total losses due to large fires in the United States that

year. Over 700 homes were destroyed and 270,000 acres (110,000 hectares)l burned. Wildfires were the largest

single type of fire in 1990, and in all fires with large losses, dry weather and vegetation were named as major

contributing factors. More recently, fires near Lake Tahoe, caused by extremely dry weather conditions, charred

24,000 acres, destroyed over 30 homes, and incurred roughly $250 million in damage.

As climate becomes drier and more people build vacation and weekend homes on forestland, the potential

losses due to uncontrolled wildfire become even more devastating. As widespread use of prescribed fire in these

areas to reduce fuel loading becomes less feasible-because it carries great risks of becoming uncontroliabtealternatives to reduce fire risk must be examined. The sheer magnitude of the problem makes it impossible to

enforce codes on all properties. Also, the public benefit derived from using risk-reducing measures on private

property is not recognized as a public benefit. Conversely, private owners are not held liable for neglecting to use

fire safety measures that result in passing the fire risk to adjacent lands. In addition, It Is generally accepted that

the public agencies ultimately have the responsibility to protect homes from fire.

1To convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405.

(Continuedon rmxtpage)
3301 Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Box 6-G–Private Property and Fire Risk-(Continued)

Although many aspects of this problem are best handled by State and local authorities, there are opportunities

for Federal involvement, especially for areas containing large Federal holdings mixed with private parcels. Some

possible land-protection measures include fuel management (thinning dead, flammable wood) combined with a

conversion to a less hazardous type of tree around structures and in strategic locations such as ridge tops. This

“fuel-break” method has proven effective in saving life, property, and fire-suppression costs. It is costiy, however,

and may therefore be feasible only in smaller areas or in areas where the fuel breaks are used for multipb purposes

(e.g., wildlife, recreation, and rangeland) to offset the costs. Opportunities for the Federal Government to

encourage fuel-break use on lands mingled with public land include outright purchase of land or an easement

agreement where the private landowner is paid to let the public agency build a fuel-break system using some of

the private land. Improvements in fuel-defense systems through road building and enhanced water facilities may

be feasible in some areas, but less so in or near areas where such development is restricted (i.e., wilderness

areas). An improved fire-alert system that informs residents about critical fire and weather conditions regularly

could also reduce risk. Although this may be most appropriate for State and local authorities, the Federal agencies

could play a vital role for residences in or near public holdings.

Although some management actions may partially reduce fire hazards, fire risks are likely to remain for

dwellings in natural areas in the future. The presence of private homes in preserves poses an enormous problem

for land managers in dangerously dry areas. There are no dear solutions. A growing population will continue to

be drawn to remote areas, and a drier climate will increase fire risk in National Forests. Although a natural fire

regime or a let burn policy maybe the best ecological solution, it may no longer be feasible in wild land tamed by

the presence of private homes.

SOURCES: K.T. Taylor and MJ. Sullivan (ad.) (Quincy, MA: NFPA, May 1992); Anonymous, “Sierra f% BattJe Haats Up,” Reno

Gazetklournal, June 28,1992, p.lA; Forest Service, Blue Mountains FbrestHealth RepOrLe NewPerspectives in ForestHaalth (Portfand,

OR: USDA, Forest SeMce, Paafic Northwest Region, April 1991); USDA, Forest Servicq Protecting Reskdances fmm Wildfkes: A GUMS

for Homeowners, Lawmakers, and Planners, prepared by H.E. More, May 1981.

depend on the nature of the existing forest (e.g., ing the health of nonindustrial private forests.

enjoying the colors of autumn foliage and the

old-growth and giant sequoia and redwood

stands). For example, a northward retreat of the

sugar maple could have significant effects on the

tourist industry of the Northeast.

RESPONDING TO CLIMATE CHANGE

The Federa.lGovemment plays several primary

roles in forestry, all of which may be relevant in

responding to climate change concerns. The

Government must plan for and manage its own

forests, which make up about one-quarter of the

total U.S. forestland and include much of the

less-managed forest.land. The Government also

has a cooperative role in protecting and monitorFederal forest research, monitoring, and assessment efforts will also be valuable in facilitating

better adaptation to climate change within the

private forest sector. The array of major Federal

laws and programs under which forest management and research is regulated or influenced is

presented in table 6-5.

The Federal Government could respond to the

threats that climate change poses to forests in

various ways. Forest-management pmctices—

such as seeding, tree planting, thinnm“ g, harvesting, and free, weed, and pest control-mi ght be

designed to delay or offset forest decline or to take

advantage of new opportunities. Institutional

responses—incentives programs, cooperative
Chapter 6-Forests I 331

Table 6-5--Major Federal Acts or Programs Affecting the Use of Forest Landsa

Implementing

Act or program agency Effect of program

Federal land management

Federal Land Policy and Management Act

(1976) (P.L, 94-579)

Forest and Rangeland Renewable

Resources Planning Act (1974)

(P.L. 93-378)

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (1960)

(P.L. 86-517)

National Forest Management Act (1976)

(P.L. 94-588)

National Park Service Organic Act of 1916

(P.L. 85-434)

Wilderness Act (1964) (P.L. 88-577)

Federal research

Forest and Rangeland Renewable

Resources Research Act (1978)

(P.L. 95-307)

Federal cooperative role

Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of

1978 (P L. 95-313)

Farm BiII (1990): Forestry Title

(P.L. 101-624, Title 12)

National Forest Dependent Rural

Communities Economic Diversification Act

of 1990 (P.L. 101-624, Title 23)

Renewable Resources Extension Act

(1978) (P.L. 95-307)

Other legislation

Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended)

(P.L, 91-604)

Clean Water Act of 1972 (as amended)

(P.L, 92-500)

Endangered Species Act of 1973

(P.L. 100-707)

BLM

USFS

USFS

USFS

NPS

USFS, NPS, BLM

USFS

USFS

USFS

USFS

USFS

EPA

EPA

DOI

Provides BLM authority for land management.

Authorizes overall USFS planning and the

assessment of forest-resource trends

Sets principles of USFS land management.

Prescribes individual forest-planning requirements

Provides general principles for management for

NPS management.

Provides general principles of management for

wilderness reserve systems.

Authorizes USFS research role in forest

management and forest products.

Authorizes cooperative programs in forest health

and promotes private forest productivity.

Authorizes programs to promote multiple-use

management and protection of private forests.

Promotes diversification of economies that are

timber-dependent.

Authorizes extension service programs in forestry.

Limits prescribed burning.

Limits forest management near waterways and

wetlands.

Restricts forest management if necessary to protect

endangered species.

aDOI=U.S. Department of the Interior; BLM=Bureau of Land Management; NPS=National Park Service; USFS=U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service; EPA=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.
332 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Table 6-6–Suitability of Silvicultural Practices

National National

Silvicultural practices

Small land

Forests Parks Industrial owners

Shorter rotations Low Low High Intermediate

Thinning Intermediate Low High High

Site preparation Low Low High Intermediate

Planting Intermediate Low High Intermediate

Manage to promote mixed species High Low Low Intermediate

Prescribed fire Intermediate Low Low Low

SOURCE: W.H. Smith, “United States Forest Response and Vulnerability to Climate Change,” contractor

paper for the Office of Technology Assessment, June 1992

support, research, monitoring, planning, and policy setting-can serve to reduce the social impacts

of change.

Perhaps most importantly, the Federal Government could ensure technical preparedness for

quick response in the event of large-scale mortality. Central to such planning would be the

development of the storage capacity and the field

testing of a variety of seeds.

I Federal Forestland

The large Federal share in forest ownership

allows a significant, direct Federal role in preparing for climate change. Nevertheless, deciding

how or when to respond will not be straightforward. Although forest-management activities

could speed forest adaptation, any intensification

in management activity might be controversial if

broadly applied to public forests. On Federal

forestland, the response to climate change must

depend very much on the different services of the

forests and on the degree to which those services

are threatened.

The management approach used on Federal

forestland ranges from preserving natural systems

to the moderately active timber management

found on some multiple-use forests (see box 6-C).

Forestland within the wilderness reserve system

is by law off limits to active timber management.

Within the National Parks, manipulation of the

forest resource is held to the minimum needed to

preserve the ecological integrity of the park. The

more extensive multiple-use forestland, including

the National Forests managed by the Forest

Service and the smaller area of forested lands

managed by BLM, is generally available for

timber management. Even on this land, the

intensity of management is rarely high. Much of

the multiple-use forest is valued primarily for its

recreational or aesthetic services; other areas are

remote and not very productive, making them too

costly to manage.

For Federal forestland, climate change may

present some difficult challenges. Under rapid

and substantial climate change, it is unlikely that

all services of the public forests could be maintained. The threat of large-scale mortality or the

extinction of forest species might call for unusual

and costly management interventions to facilitate

forest protection or forest migration-perhaps

even on those lands where active management is

now prohibited. The intervention that might be

required to sustain or restore the long-term

services of the Federal forest resource may be

inconsistent with protecting the naturalness or the

recreational services for which many public

forests are valued. In table 6-6 the suitability of

various silvicultural practices to different forest

lands is summarized.

For the National Park Service, the realities of

global climate change may raise questions about

the mandates for forest management and protection provided for under existing management

policies and laws. How much effort should be

spent to preserve and protect a forest system that
is out of phase with the current climate? Will the

policy restrictions on active forest management

and pest control endanger some of the very

resources that the Parks were created to preserve?

(See ch. 5.) For the National Forests and BLM

forestland, climate change may raise challenges

to the sustained yield concepts and multiple-use

practices (see box 6-C). Can the promises of

stability implied by the sustained-yield philosophy be maintained against the backdrop of a

declining forest? With the restrictions on timber

management practices, will managers have the

flexibility needed to respond to the perhaps

greater threat that climate change may pose to the

recreational and amenity services of the forest?

With the contentiousness of the current National

Forest planning process, will there be the institutional strength or sense of direction needed to act

with the foresight that may be required during a

period of rapid climate change? The Forest

Service and BLM manage extensive areas of

grasslands, in addition to forestlands. Some issues

related to grasslands are discussed in box 6-H.

Given the potential for significant forest decline, the long time needed to regrow a forest, and

the slow rate at which any management responses

can be implemented across the large areas of

forestland, developing the institutional preparedness to guide future action may be a useful first

step. It would also be helpful to conduct a policy

review to determine acceptable rules for interventions that would protect forest health or to restore

Federal forestland after widespread mortality.

Strategic planning could include contingencies

for responding to sharp forest declines under

future climate change.

It is also important to develop the technical

preparedness that would allow a rapid and effective future response to large-scale forest decline--

in case the need arises. In research, attention

should be paid to finding relatively low-cost and

minimally obtrusive means for protecting forest

health and for assisting with the restoration of

forests after widespread decline. The effects of

Chapter 6-Forests I 333

A forest fire burns out of control. Uncontrollable and

damaging forest fires are associated with long-term

droughts. Warmer and drier climates may increase the

frequency and intensity of these damaging forest fires.

techniques could be investigated in experimental

forests. Other appropriate measures might include

monitoring forest change and undertaking research about the sensitivity of forest species and

ecosystems to a changing climate. Without that

knowledge, it will be difficult to target future

responses or research efforts effectively.

An expanded and better-coordinated program

of storage for forest seeds and genetic resources

could provide insurance against the possibility of

substantial forest and species loss. The current

systems for preserving seeds and genetic material

of forest species are narrowly focused on a few

commercial species and are inadequate for rebuilding the forest in the event of a worst-case

decline. Associated with an expanded seed bank,

research on effective approaches to large-scale

forest restoration from seed or clonal material

may be needed.

At a minimum, the Federal Government might

want to ensure the capability of restoring forest

resources in the event they decline sharply. Such

a strategy might require only an expansion of

existing programs on forest genetics and an

associated research effort to develop restoration

adaptive management practices and restoration techniques. Understanding the possible means
334 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climat&Volume 2

Box &H—Public Grazing Lands: Management Dilemmas

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the Nation’s single largest manager of public lands, with

jurisdiction over one~ighth of all land in the United States, which is more than the U.S. Forest Service, the National

Park Service, and U.S. fish and Midlife Service combined. These lands are generally used as rangelands (grazing

lands) or managed for timber, depending on location and resources. The land-use policies that govern rangeland

management have begun to come under dose scrutiny, with mounting pressure to raise grazing fees and to

increase control over the use of these lands. BLM claims that US. rangelands are in better condition now than

ever before, but conservation groups point to a lack of proper management and t he deterioration of many of t hese

lands. Climate change effects resulting from temperature and seasonal changes will only exacerbate existing

stresses. As t his Administration revisits current BLM polices regarding rangeland management, changes maybe

made that address these and other concerns.

In 1976, passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) (P.L. 94-579) gave BLM a

multiple-use mandate for rangelands. In 1978, the Public Rangelands Improvement Act (P.L. 95-514) was passed

with the goal of improving upon declining rangeland conditions. These congressional mandates were meant to

guide BLM in developing and promoting sound mangement practices that would help to promote the wise use of

resources on Federal lands. Part of this effort included inventory and monitoring protocols t hat would provide BLM

with a picture of present range conditions and help document trends in range condition. In addition, the act

instructed the BLM to develop and periodically review allotment management plans. Unfortunately, the agency

has been unable to meet the mandates of these acts, and as a result rangelands have experienced extensive

deterioration.

Many of the western rangelands have been exposed to severe overgrazing and mismanagement. Wetlands,

riparian areas, and springs have been developed for livestock watering to the point of extreme environmental

impact. As a result, many of these areas have experienced near complete vegetative loss and radical dedines

in biodiversity. The environmental impacts of both are often staggering. Defoliation and exposure of the soil results

in erosion and a loss of nutrients, as well as an increase in sedimentation and pollutant loading in nearby

waterways. Such upsets in aquatic ecosystems have far-reaching ramifications for fish and other organisms

dependent on aquatic health. A loss of biodiversity and the resultant influx of exotic species may, in some =ses,

be irreversible (65). Climate change and its effects may make recovery of some of these areas mre difficult by

futher stressing plant communities and water systems.

and consequences of restoration would require may be wise to begin to implement a diverse

active experimentation on public forestland. Particuku attention should be paid to finding lowcost and environmentally benign ways to facilitate migration and restoration of natural forests.

A more proactive response might call for

increased efforts to improve the general health of

the existing forest and to reduce the likelihood of

forest free, pests, and drought damage. Such

efforts might increase the forest’s ability to face

future climate threats. The uncertainties of climate change seem to suggest that there are few

prescriptions that can be offered for immediate

changes in management practices. However, it

portfolio of strategies, experimenting with different strategies across a forest to provide some

hedge against the risky future. This is ofien the

best way to deal with risk.

I Nonfederal Forestland

The Federal role in protecting the health of

private forestland may take on greater importance

under a changing climate. Nonfederal forestland

comprises ahnost three-quarters of the Nation’s

total forestkmd. Along with its role in providing

much of the Nation’s supply of wood products,

this forestland provides wildlife habitat, recrea-
Chapter 6-Forests ] 335

Poor rangeland conditions are generally attributed to poor livestock distribution (65). In the past, BLM has

addressed these “distribution problems” with water developments, grazing systems and other range

“improvements,” which generally move livestock into areas previously Iightiy or unused, without making

improvements in degraded areas (65). Range improvement projects are a major BLM management emphasis,

however rangelands that are steep sloped or lacking in a water source are often relegated to livestock use and

grazing. These improvements include spring development (by diverting water from natural springs to troughs), the

construction of reservoirs (usually in wetlands or other natural depressions along watercourses), and large-scale

vegetation changes on uplands (usually due to overstocking), all of which have contributed to a decrease in usable

rangeland through resultant environmental effects. In some cases these areas can recover if livestock use is

limited for prescribed periods of time.

Currentiy, two of the most debated issues surrounding public rangeland management are grazing fees and

the land-use permitting process (57, 112). BLM collects a (per head) monthly fee for grazing cattle on Federal

land= fee that is considerably less than would be charged on private lands. In addition, Federal permits are

issued to ranchers, miners, and others who use the resources (i.e., water) on these Federal lands. The low fees

are generally viewed, by all parties, as a necessary subsidy for the western livestock industry. In the past, industry

proponents have balked at suggestions of raising grazing fees to bring them in line with market values. The current

movement is to phase in the increase over a 3-year period, but after that time the new fees will still remain below

those charged on most private lands. In addition, if rangeland management poiiaes are revamped, the reissuance

ofgra.zing permits would be contingent on past management practices and could potentially be vvithheidforabuse

of resources.

Decisions regarding the management of Federal rangelands are currently made by those with an interest in

profitable resource consumption (i.e., cattle grazers). However, there has been increasing interest in how these

lands are being used by the scientific and conservation communities, which are generaliyinterested in preserving

these resources for their ecological, recreational, and aesthetic value. As a result, BLM may begin to seek input

on rangeland management issues from an expanded group of advisors.

SOURCES: New York 77mes, “Clinton Planning to Increaee Fees on Grazing Lande,” Aug. 10, 1993; Public Employeea for Environmental

Reeporwibility (PEER), “Public TNSt Betrayed: Employee Critique of Bureau of Land Management Rangeland Management,” a report

written by BLMemp/oyeee, Mehlngton, OC, June 1993; W/ Sfreet&urna/, “U.S. Renewa Its Efforta to Overtmul Grazing Polky, calling

for Higher Feee,” Aug. 10, 1993.

J

tional opportunities, watershed protection, and My under the Cooperative Forestry Assistance

amenities that are valued by the general public.

To protect these services, the Federal Government plays a cooperative role in monitoring the

health of these forests and in limiting forest fire

and pest hazards. With climate change increasing

the potential threat to forest health-adding to the

threats of spreading forest fires and pests-the

importance of existing programs of forest health

monitoring and of cooperative support for forest

protection will be enhanced.

The Federal Government has no direct regulatory role in nonfederal forestkmd. However,

through a variety of existing programs, particuAct of 1978 (P.L. 95-313), as amended by the

Forestry Title of the 1990 Farm Bill (the Food,

Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act, P.L.

101-624, Title XII), direct financial incentives

can be provided to owners of small forest areas for

reforestation, forest improvement, and forest

protection. The recently funded Forest Stewardship and Forest Legacy Programs have been

innovative in their attention to maintaining the

environmental services on private forestkmd (in

contrast to the more traditional emphasis of the

Forestry Incentives program on enhancing timber

supplies). Cooperative support is also provided
336 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

under the new programs to States and localities

for forest health monitoring and for fire and pest

control.

Existing Federal programs that help to diversify the economy of rural communities may also

be increasingly important. Within the private

sector, adaptive responses to climate change will

occur as the owners of timberland, the related

forest industries, and the consumers of forest

products and services take action to reduce the

threat to their income, property, or welfare. In the

end, though, the timber industry will decline in

regions where relative production costs have

risen, perhaps abandoning some dependent communities. If this transition is sudden, the resulting

local economic decline could become a source of

public concern. A key to reducing the potential

for such regional declines is to act now to improve

the resiliency and adaptability of the forest sector.

The Federal Government can improve the

adaptability of the forest sector through its

support for innovation, particularly those innovations that reduce the dependence of local industry

on forest species or log sizes that may not be

available in the future. Forest Service research

programs developed under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978

(P.L. 95-307) have long supported such innovation in forest-product technologies and forest

management. 21 Existing programs designed to

improve the diversification of income sources

within rural communities, such as were authorized under the National Forest-Dependent Rural

Communities Economic Diversification Act of

1990 (P.L. 101-624; Title 23 of the 1990 Farm

Bill), may become increasingly important, Small

cost-sharing programs, such as the Economic

Diversification Grant program and the Rural

Development Initiative, have recently been

funded to improve the stability of rural communities through diversification away from resourcedependent industry and through projects designed

to promote flexibility and efficiency within the

wood-products industry.

The process of adaptation within the private

sector may also be improved if the Federal

Government conveys accurate information about

the risks and opportunities associated with climate change. Forest users should be aware of the

changing nature of forests and the fact that change

might be accelerated under a warming climate.

The industry purchasing timber from Federal

lands can best plan for the future if uncertainties

in the future supply of timber are known and not

misguided by false promises of sustained flows of

timber harvests. A well-informed public may also

be more likely to accept the Federal landmanagement actions needed to respond to changing forest conditions. Information on climate

change is best conveyed through: the periodic

assessments of the Nation’s forest resource trends

provided by the Forest Service; the Forest Service’s National Forest management plans; the

Bureau of Land Management resource-management plans; the management statements for each

National Park; the results of Forest Service

research, inventory, and forest health monitoring;

and the cooperative research and extension programs.

POLICY OPTIONS

Potential strategies for adapting to climate

change are considered below for the three problems we have identified as being of primary

concern: the potential loss of species, uniquely

valued forest stands, or entire ecosystems; the

increased potential for catastrophic mortality; and

the potential for regional or local dislocations in

forest-dependent communities.

1 Biodiversity and Forest LosS

Option 6-1: Enhance forest seed banks and

forest genetics research. A national effort to

21 Fe&al fomtry rewarch is organized through eight regional USDA Forest Service Rctwarch and Experiment Stations and one F-t

Products Labolatoly.
Chapter 6-Forests I 337

collect and conserve a wide variety of forest seeds

would ensure that the means are available to

respond to the potential loss of forest species or

populations under climate change. The coordination and cataloging of existing public and private

forest seed-storage programs would be a useful

first step. Use of the seed bank for restoration will

require the development of improved techniques

for long-term storage of seeds and large-scale

propagation of trees from stored genetic material.

Such efforts should most logically be coordinated

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s)

Forest Service, which already has seed storage,

forest nurseries, and forest genetic research programs supporting current planting needs. Congress could fired a National Forest Genetic

Resources Program within the Forest Service,

providing funds for seed collection, for an expansion of seed-storage facilities, and for associated

research needs.

There is currently no national program for

forest genetic resource conservation. Current

seed-collection activities are uncoordinated and

focused on a relatively small number of species

(45, 55). The systematic storage of seeds is done

primarily for the few species that have high

commercial value, such as the pines. Some

arboretums, universities, and Forest Service researchers also have limited programs associated

with threatened or endangered species or species

of particular interest to the researchers. Existing

Forest Service seed-storage facilities and nurseries are limited and intended to meet the current

regeneration needs of the National Forests. Many

of the existing genetic research programs within

the Forest Service also have modest seed collections, usually established as the basis for commercial tree-improvement work.

A much broader national program focused on

protecting the seeds of most major forest tree

species and associated shrubby and herbaceous

forest plants may be needed.22 Maintaining the

large quantities of seeds needed for a major

replanting would bean unrealistically costly goal.

Instead, a useful goal for the seed banks might be

to maintain a sufficient variety of seeds that the

original genetic diversity of forests could eventually be rebred. The capabilities exist for storing

the seeds of the majority of woody species for

about 50 years under refrigeration (about 200 of

the 270 major tree species) (45). Certain other

trees, particularly the white oaks and poplars,

have seeds that deteriorate quite rapidly. For these

species, conservation in plantations might be

considered. From this ‘Noah’s Ark,” the gradual

restoration of lost species or forest populations

might be attempted, if the need ever arises. The

systematic storage of seeds would also prove

valuable to commercial tree breeding and for

biotechnology efforts in tree improvement.

Seed storage requires refrigerated facilities,

with primary and secondary collections. The

secondary collections serve as the working collections, with seeds made available for ongoing

research and breeding purposes. Working collections could be distributed regionally and coordinated through existing Forest Service Research

and Experiment Stations. Distributing seeds regionally allows species to be matched to the areas

in which they grow. The primary collections

might be located in the USDA’s National Seed

Laboratory in Fort Collins, Colorado--now used

for agricultural-seed storage. 23 Use of these -

storage facilities and existing databases on stored

genetic resources might avoid some duplication

of effort. Alternatively, the primary collection

could be located in one or more of the same Forest

Service facilities used for the secondary collections, taking advantage of staff expertise in

tree-seed storage.

Eight Forest Service Research and Experiment

Stations currently have genetics research pro-
338 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume

grams. Three additional programs have been

proposed (for Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico).

These 11 programs could serve as homes for

the working seed collections-collections made

available for ongoing research and breeding—

and as expanded centers for forest genetics research. One or two of these programs (e.g.,

one eastern and one western) might be designated

to coordinate the seed-storage program and to

serve as primary centers for genetics research.

Associated with the genetics research programs

might be efforts addressing the genetic distribution of tree species, sampling strategies for seed

collection, the sensitivity of trees to climate,

large-scale propagation techniques, and cryogenic techniques for improved long-term storage

of genetic material.

Seed collections should represent the variety of

genotypes for each species. Ideally, a sampling

scheme would capture the genetic extremes

within the species as well as some intermediate

populations. In the absence of knowledge about

the genetic distribution, a practical approach is to

sample on a geographic grid following Forest

Service guidelines already frequently used for

seed-collection zones (every 50 to 100 miles, or

every 1,000 feet of elevation) (41).24 A collection

could be accumulated over the next decade.

Collections could be made on a priority basis.

First, those species already at risk or least able to

adapt to climate change might be collected. The

next priority might be those species of obvious

high ecological, economic, or aesthetic value.

Currently, the Forest Service spends about

$1.25 million annually on its genetic research

programs and tree-improvement programs. It is

estimated that a new forest genetic-conservation

program would require continued funding of

about $5.5 million annually,25 with an additional

2

$30 million in one-time construction and seedcollection costs.26 This would include research on

genetic diversity and sampling design, construction of new or expanded storage facilities at 11

program centers, maintenance of the seed collection, and establishment of plantations for genetic

conservation and continuing seed production.

Some funds to support this expanded program of

seed storage and genetics research might come

from fees charged for access to the working

collection by industry or private researchers.

Access to an extensive and well-cataloged seed

collection would be valuable to industry treebreeding programs.27 A fund that draws on Forest

Service and Bureau of Land Management revenues, a tax on timber and outdoor recreation

products, or existing tariffs on timber products

might be other appropriate sources of funds. For

example, the Reforestation Trust Fund established in 1980 (P.L. 96-451) drew about $30

million annually from the tariff on timber imports, supporting an expanded reforestation effort

in the early 1980s.

Option 6-2: Use the Experimental Forests for

research on adaptation to climate change. Experimental Forests are established by the chief of the

Forest Service to serve as the outdoor laboratories

for testing and demonstrating new management

techniques (86). Some 60 Experimental Forests

are spread across the National Forests, each

typically 5,000 to 10,000 acres in size. Research

efforts on these Experimental Forests are important in establishing the scientific basis for the

management practices that will be applied to

public multiple-use forestland in the future.

A new research program in Experimental

Forests could be directed toward finding practical

techniques for accelerating and improving the

adaptation of forests to climate change, with a

~ wa widely dism SpCC&, this might mean ICK) sampling points with 30 to 50 _~pkd at *POti M-E1,~sper tree (45).

2S Wih -~~xp=of $2.5 million for research $1 million@ maintain the collections, and $2 million for genetic plantations.

us.~=D~tor, Forest Managermmt Research, USDA Forest Stice,p~ c ommunimtiou August 1S93.

27 R ~~ou~ ~~or, Fo~tR~o~~ R.esea@ Weyerhaeuser Company, personal (xmummicatio% June 1992,
Chapter 6-Forests I 339

Species with limited geographical range, such as these redwoods in California, may be lost if climate changes

occur too rapidly to allow migration.

focus on techniques appropriate to the multipleuse forest (which may be different than techniques appropriate for single-use plantation forests). Productive research topics might include

evaluations of the means and effectiveness of

introducing populations into new climatic zones,

of unobtrusive silvicultural-management strategies that might improve adaptability to climate

change, of the effects of increased species or

age-class diversity in promoting forest adaptability, and of strategies to protect existing forests

against climate-related threats. The Experimental

Forests provide the opportunity for long-term

observations of the effectiveness of these management practices in preparing for climate

change, and the lessons learned will serve as the

basis for future management response on the

larger forest.

The Forest Service might also be encouraged to

increase the number of Experimental Forests in

order to provide greater representation of forest

ecosystems and climatic zones. With public

forestland seeming less important for timber

production, a larger area of the public forest may

now be available for research and experimentation purposes-at little cost to the Government.

Ideally, Experimental Forests would be widely

distributed to represent many of the various forest

ecosystems. Currently, these Experimental Forests are not representative of eastern forests,

especially in the South, where National Forest

holdings are limited. A more representative
340 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

distribution of eastern forest types could be

achieved by adding some areas on military lands

or through cooperative arrangements with States

and universities.”

Research on the Experimental Forests is undertaken by Forest Service research staff and cooperating private researchers. Current annual expenditures on each Experimental Forest average $0.5

million or less, which covers maintenance of

roads and structures and on-site expenses of the

experimental program.

29 An expanded effort On

Experimental Forests would result in an increase

in these support costs, but no new research staff

would be required. An experimental climate

change program, with one or two active projects

per forest, could probably be supported with an

additional annual appropriation of about $250,000

to $500,000 per forest.30 Included in this might be

a small cooperative grants program to attract

university research projects, increasing the pool

of new ideas. Some existing Experimental Forests

have been so extensively managed already, however, that experiments that require more-natural

forest conditions cannot be considered. Any new

Experimental Forest would require start-up expenditures for access roads and facilities.

Option 6-3: Encourage diverse management

practices on portions of the public forests as a

buffer against climate change. This option extends the idea of option 6-2, to suggest considering cautious implementation of experimental

practices on public multiple-use forests. The

Forest Service and BLM could be encouraged to

actively hedge against the risk of an uncertain

future climate by using different silvicultural and

planting practices across the forest and techniques

that introduce genetic, species, or age diversity

within stands. The diversity in practices, strategies, and species may provide a buffer against the

uncertainties of climate change, with some efforts

succeeding while others fail.

For example, a mix of different planting practices might be used to help reduce vulnerability to

future climate change. A greater variety of species

might be planted--either within a single stand or

across stands. The effectiveness of using diverse

seed sources for plantings could also be considered. It is standard practice now for seeds to be

drawn from a variety of local sources that closely

match the conditions on the harvested site. It may

be appropriate to regenerate some modest proportion of the forest with seeds or seedlings drawn

from climate zones that are somewhat warmer

than the planting site’s.31 Initial planting densities

might also be increased to compensate for the

possibility of higher mortality in poorly adapted

seedlings (10, 45). These practices all present

some risk of failure, but if warming does occur,

losses may be less severe than they might have

been without the experimental efforts.

A mix of different timber-harvesting strategies

offers another way to promote forest diversity.

The Forest Service has recently committed itself

to an Ecosystem Management approach, under

which forests are to be managed with greater

sensitivity to the ecological processes of the

forest (69). Among the suggestions for management are the ‘new forestry’ techniques proposed

for the Douglas-fir forests of the Pacific Northwest (21). These harvesting techniques create a

diverse forest through selective cutting that eventually produces a multiple-aged forest stand. This

or other harvest-management strategies designed

to promote ecological diversity might be intro2$ A r- prepared for the National Scien~ Foundation in 1977 (32) su~ests tk df~ _CZ@wlO@dR~~ ~

a wide array of ecosystems. ‘I’M report suggests possible site locations that would add to the emwrage of forest ecosystems.

29 S.fi-D~tor, Forest Managmat Rcse~ USDA F~st StiCG pCIXOd COmmUIliUttiOw Au~t 1993.

N ~~up~ ~~consid~ titfiII utikation of these -CUMFo-ts wodd ~ ~@’~ w’i~ ~ increase of perhaps $1.5 to $2.5

million per forest (S. Km- personal eommunicatiorL August 1993).

31 It is comide~ pti~le to draw secdshorn lower elevations tbanfkornmore southerly SitCS. -S frommorc SOu~y si@ ~@Wti

to different day-length regimes (45),
Chapter 6-Forests I 341

duced in some areas of multiple-use forestland.

Harvesting practices designed to achieve a mixture of species and age classes are likely to protect

a forest against the spread of insects and fires. At

the other extreme, some areas of the forest—

perhaps those subject to high risk of pest and fire

damage managed with shortened harvestrotation periods. Shortened rotations are thought

to allow faster adaptation to a changing climate

because each harvest creates an opportunity to

achieve a new stand composition that is better

suited to current climatic conditions.32

Option 6-4: Protect highly valued forest sites,

The Federal land-management agencies should

identify and evaluate whether there are measures

they could take to protect some highly valued or

unique forest stands (such as the giant sequoia and

redwood stands of California) from loss under

climate change. These sites are highly valued

because of specific characteristics of the existing

forest, which might be threatened by climate

change. The decision could be made to protect

some of these stands against change or loss,

where practical. If conditions allow, this might

mean developing irrigation systems and using

intensive efforts to control insect and fire threats.

Congress may need to be prepared to act quickly

in funding protective actions, if they become

appropriate.

Option 6-5: Provide incentives to reduce

fragmentation of private forestland. Fragmentation and loss of private forestland may threaten

the ability of forests and forest species to migrate

or adapt to changing climate. Some expansion of

Federal funding might be considered for existing

incentives programs that encourage multiple-use

management on private forestland (e.g., the Forest Stewardship and Stewardship Incentive Programs) and the maintenance of forest cover in

areas of ecological value threatened by land-use

conversion (e.g., the Forest Legacy program).

Such funding might come from a reallocation of

funds now directed toward providing incentives

for enhanced timber production from private

lands. Some modifications to the U.S. Tax Code

could also be considered to encourage landowners to keep lands in forest cover.

The Forest Legacy program, authorized under

the 1990 Farm Bill (the Food, Agriculture,

Conservation, and Trade Act, P.L. 101-624), is a

conservation-easement program that encourages

forest protection in areas of environmental importance and areas threatened by conversion. The

program is a cooperative State and Federal effort.

Priority is given to protecting areas of high scenic

or recreational value; riparian areas; and habitats

of particular wildlife, including threatened and

endangered species. Property owners are paid in

exchange for agreeing to property easements (i.e.,

restrictions on the deed of ownership) that will

ensure continued protection of the resource.

Implementation of this program is beginning in

six States (New York, New Hampshire, Vermont,

Maine, Massachusetts, and Washington) with the

development of criteria for potential acquisitions.

So far, only 12 tracts have been placed under

easement.

33 Other States are considering

whether to join the program. Funding was almost

$10 million in 1993, but it is expected to be

reduced in the 1994 budget.

An advantage of easement programs is that

they are cheaper than outright purchase of land.

Still, the costs of acquiring easements can be

high, including administrative costs of tailoring

easements to each property and the costs of

monitoring for compliance, in addition to the

purchase costs. In areas where development is

imminent, the cost of acquiring an easement may

be little less than the cost of outright purchase.

Easement programs are also somewhat controversial. Because this program will involve only

willing sellers, it imposes no unwanted restrictions on use of private property. Still, a program

that will create permanent Federal rights restrict3Z Mwmd A. am USDA Forest Service, personal communication June 1992.

33 J. Norm ~Wmtive Fores~, USDA Forest Semice, personal comlmmicatiow Au@t 1993.
342 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

ing the future use of private property is troublesome to some. The fact that easements can be

purchased only from willing sellers also suggests

that easement programs alone, although they may

be effective at protecting individually valuable

pieces of lands, may not be able to stop a general

fragmentation of forest holdings.34

The Forest Stewardship and Stewardship Incentive Programs, authorized by the 1990 Farm

Bill, provide technical assistance and financial

support to landowners who wish to manage their

forestland to provide multiple-use benefits. Under

the Forest Stewardship Program, funds go to the

States to cover costs of developing multiple-use

management plans for nonindustrial private forestland. These plans encourage management that

enhances multiple-use values-such as the productivity of fish and wildlife habitat, water

quality, wetlands, or recreational resources-in

addition to timber productivity. The declared goal

is to enroll 25 million acres in the Forest

Stewardship Program by 1995. By 1992, some

3.7 million acres across the country had authorized plans (98). In many States, demand for these

stewardship plans is outstripping the State’s

ability to develop them.35

Funding for the cost-sharing Stewardship Incentive Program was about $18 million for 1993.

This popular program may encourage landowners

to keep their lands in well-maintained forest

cover. Congress could provide clearer priorities

for which forest areas and what types of activity

are to be funded. For example, some funds could

be explicitly targeted. Areas identified as having

high environmental value and being threatened by

conversion, such as those identified under the

Forest Legacy Program, might be given high

priority. Areas at high risk for fire and insect

damage could also be given priority. The extent to

which this incentive program can fund the conversion of natural forests to plantation forestry

could be clarified by Congress; much of the

funding could be reserved for management that

maintains a more natural forest cover.

Certainly more controversial than the incentive

program would be modifications to the U.S. Tax

Code that might encourage protection of forestlands.36 One possible modification is to reduce or

eliminate the capital gains tax due on receipts

from the sale of conservation easements. This

would tend to make landowners more willing to

agree to the sale of an easement. On the other

hand, this might be viewed as a budget maneuver

that results in foregone tax revenues instead of

higher expenditures on easements. Another possible approach is to tax inheritance of land at fair

market value, rather than at current use value,

unless the new owners agree not to develop the

land for some specified period.37 This would

provide a strong incentive not to break up forested

estates on the death of the previous owner. This

would have some effect in preserving very large

forested estates.

# Threats of Catastrophic Mortality

Prudent management, in view of the risk of

climate change, would anticipate an increased

probability of weather-related stresses and increased forest mortality. Not all increases in forest

mortality will require intervention. Indeed, the

opening of a forest that results from fires and

insect damage may speed the regrowth of betteradapted species in the natural forest, much as

harvesting and thinning do. However, large-scale

mortality poses a threat to forest values, and

places adjacent properties at increased risk to

~ A &~~ “dlamssioil of the bcncfita and Shortumhgs of easunalt progmns can be find in b Northern Forest Lands study, which

addrcsd ways to slow forest fhlglnealtation in b Dortheastun united statea (25).

ND. m,coo~tive Forcatry, USDA Forest ~,~~~w August W93.

K Mof these possibil.itics is analyzed in more detail in the N- Forest Lands Study (M).

37 Cumently, land is taxed at current usc value rather than at fair market vaiuc, ahhough adjustmtmt Wnnot reduce b value of b estate by

more than $750,000.
Chapter 6-Forests I 343

damage from spreading fires and pest infestations.

Option 6-6: Use existing monitoring and

inventorying efforts to identify causes and effects

offorest decline. Monitoring strategies are essential for determiningg changes or trends in forest

systems and in the environmental variables influencing these systems. To be useful for management decisions, such monitoring programs must

be maintained over long periods and their design

should be scientifically based so that the causes of

forest change can be determined. The recently

established Forest Health Monitoring Program

could be provided with secure and long-term

funding to ensure its usefulness and to sustain

cooperation with the States.

Congress directed the Forest Service to initiate

a program to monitor the health of the Nation’s

forests about 5 years ago through the Forest

Ecosystem and Atmospheric Pollution Act of

1988 (P.L. 100-521). The act calls on the Forest

Service to conduct the surveys necessary to

monitor long-term trends in the health and

productivity of domestic forest ecosystems. A

new national initiative, the Forest Health Monitoring Program, a cooperative effort of the USDA

Forest Service, the States, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has begun

under this forest health-monitoring authority

(97).38 The program has ongoing efforts in 12

eastern States and initial efforts in two western

States. Further expansion is planned, as budgets

allow. 39 Participating States share in the costs of

the surveys. The frequency and scope of the

surveys planned under this program are designed

to detect unexpected changes in forest conditions

and to help correlate these changes with potential

stressors. The Forest Health Monitoring Program

provides frequent monitoring at a set of forest

inventory sites, tracking soil, air, water, climate,

and land-use conditions-along with details on

vegetation and forest pests—at frequent intervals.

If significant changes in forest conditions are

found, intensive research efforts will be directed

at determining specific causes of decline.

In a related activity, the Forest Service conducts periodic inventories of timber resources in

all States, under the authority of the Forest and

Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act

(RPA) of 1974 (P.L. 93-378). These infrequent

inventories (done approximately every 10 to 15

years) detect major trends in forest mortality and

vigor, but provide little understanding of cause

and effect. The Forest Service also makes aerial

and ground surveys of existing pest damage on

Federal forestland. With Federal assistance, State

forestry agencies provide similar forest health

surveys of State and private forestland. These

surveys provide the support for ongoing pestmanagement activity but, again, provide little

information on the causes of the existing pest

problems. These inventories and surveys could be

required to include analyses of potential causes of

observed trends.

Option 6-7: Establish criteria for intervention

in order to protect or restore forest health

through a forest health bill. Congress could

establish criteria-through a forest health bill—

for prompt intervention that would guard against

threats of catastrophic mortality or that would

restore forests tier large-scale mortality and

decline. Given the emotional level of debate that

often accompanies public forest management, it

can be difficult to make timely responses to major

declines. The congressional debate on a forest

health bill in the 102d Congress highlights the

controversy that forest management can arouse;

efforts to ease restrictions on salvage harvests in

SE me Forest Health Monitoring Program also serves as one component of the Environmental Monitoring ~d ASStiSInent~p

@hIAP), an interagency program coordinated by EPA and designed to monitor the health of the Nation’s ecological resources (106). See

chapter 6.

39 ~~F~e~ fm~ to tie Forest SeNice has been flat at about $14 million, H. F. Kaiser, Director, Forest Inventory S@ff, USDA

Forest Service, personal communication% August 1993.
344 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

the drought-stricken interior Pacific Northwest

forests became entwined with the broader and

very contentious debate over old-growth-forest

management in 1992 (109). Climate change,

however, may increase the urgency for intervention designed to protect forest resources. Policies

should be in place that set appropriate criteria for

salvage harvests (i.e., the removal of dead,

damaged, or insect-infested trees), for the use of

silvicultural management practices (e.g., thinnings) to protect against threats to forest health,

for aggressive insect and fire prevention and

control, and for restoration activities after forest

decline.

Congress might request that the Forest Service

and BLM forma policy-review group made up of

outside academics and Federal forestry officials.

The group could consider appropriate responses

to the threat of large-scale forest decline and

criteria that should be met before such responses

are undertaken. These criteria would have to take

into account the environmental services of the

forest, as well as the financial interest in the

timber resource. Once such criteria have been

determined, Congress could again consider a

forest health bill that would help streamline the

funding process and the procedures for undertaking actions appropriate for maintaining forest

health.

A new forest health bill could allow for the

declaration of temporary forest health emergencies, under which the Secretary of Agriculture and

the Secretary of the Interior could accelerate

actions to protector restore forest health, as long

as these actions are consistent with established

standards and guidelines for protecting of all

forest values. During the period of emergency,

funds available for forest salvage, timber-sale

activities, reforestation, and insect or fire management might be reallocated to forest health

projects. This flexibility in funding would allow

for prompt response. A salvage fired, comparable

to that now available to the Forest Service, should

be created for BLM. The provisions of the Forest”

Service salvage and reforestation funds could be

amended to allow the use of those funds in efforts

to restore or protect forest health. Procedures to

expedite the public review and appeals processes,

consistent with forest management and national

environmental laws, might be considered.

Particular attention should be paid to establishing the criteria for treatments in existing roadless

areas and reserved forestland. Management standards and guidelines may be needed to ensure that

salvage harvests do not open roadless areas to

future timber management or lead to higher levels

of timber harvests than are called for in current

forest plans. On the other hand, certain policies

restricting management activities may need to be

reconsidered in light of climate change. For

example, currently, the National Park Service

controls only introduced pests (see ch. 5). Under

climate change, with changed dynamics of the

natural pest populations (see ch. 2), controlling

only “exotic” species may prove unwise. There

is a risk that extensive fires and pest infestations

will increase in unmanaged forestland.

Option 6-8: Increase fire- and pest-prevention

activities. With climate change likely to increase

the risk of forest loss to fire and pests, Congress

may consider funding increased prevention activities in order to reduce the likelihood of high

future costs of fire suppression and pest control.

Consideration should be given to promoting a

balanced and flexible program that promotes the

general health of the forest, allowing for funding

of silvicultural activities as well as the more

traditional elements of fire and pest management.

Appropriate silvicultural practices can reduce the

susceptibility of forests to fire and pest risks.

If climate change kills trees, the result will be

a buildup of dead and downed wood that may lead

to damaging forest fires. A reduction in fire risk

can be accomplished through fuel management

(i.e., removal of fallen logs and dead and dying

trees)--with prescribed burns or mechanical removal of excessive fuels-and through thinnings

that reduce forest density and improve the vigor

of remaining trees. A National Fire Management

Policy Review Team, established by the Secretar-
—

Chapter 6-Forests I 345

ies of Agriculture and Interior, recently recommended substantial increases in funds and personnel to deal with existing hazards from fuel buildup

(101, 107, 108). The risks associated with climate

change may strengthen this call for funding

preventative activities that reduce the fuel hazards

on forestland.

Prescribed fire is a practice by which fire is

started or allowed to burn under carefully controlled conditions. The goal is the removal of

fuels before they accumulate and lead to intense

and uncontrollable fires. Although the use of

prescribed fire is broadly accepted as beneficial

ecologically (101), it can be costly and controversial. Public sentiments aroused by runaway fires

and the associated property losses have made the

use of prescribed fire difficult.40 The limited

humanpower available for setting and controlling

the prescribed fires and complying with the

requirements of the Clean Air Act limit their

greater use. Although cautious use of controlled

fire is possible in areas with heavy fuel accumulation, more expensive mechanical means of removing brush and fuels are often also needed.

Salvage harvesting, the removal of dead or dying

trees, can also be useful in reducing current fire

risks.

Forest thinning can be effective in reducing the

long-term potential for future forest mortality.

. . Thinning a forest reduces moisture demands on

remaining trees. With less moisture stress, mortality from the secondary threats of pests and frees

can be reduced(51 ). The most striking example of

the benefits of “thinning can be found in the

drought-stricken regions of the West, After several successive years of drought in Idaho and

eastern Oregon, mortality rates on some National

Forest lands have been extraordinarily high, with

much of the forest lost (see box 6-E). On adjacent,

thinned industry lands, the forest remains healthy .41

Extensive thinnrn“ g is now being undertaken on

some of the drought-stricken National Forests of

Idaho (49). When the wood from thinning and

salvage cutting can be marketed,42 these activities

can often be cost-effective ways of reducing the

threat of large forest fires. However, silvicultural

management is not appropriate under all conditions. Thinnm“ g, for example, can sometimes lead

to excessive damage to residual trees. Salvage

harvesting—like any large-scale harvesting

activity--can lead to environmental problems

(e.g., erosion and watershed damage) and is

generally not appropriate where harvesting would

otherwise be excluded.

Long-term reductions in forest pest problems

can be accomplished through integrated pest

management programs, which combine monitoring, thinning to control stand density and species

mix, quick salvage or removal of infested stands,

and suppression through pesticides and fungicides. Just as it enhances fire prevention, improving the general health of the forest through

silvicultural activity may be the best way to

reduce the likelihood of future mortality caused

by pests.

In 1992, the Forest Service received about $13

million for fuel management, that is, for prescribed fires and mechanical removal of downed

WO Od.

43 In contrast, about $175 million WaS

allocated for the other elements of fire protection--equipment and personnel needed to maintain readiness for firefighting-while roughly

~ The reation to tie Yeflowstone fires of 1988 illustrates the problems of applying prescribed b-(101). Some of tic= tis, which

eventually burned 740,000 acres of the Park, were initially allowed to bum as prescribed fins. It is doubtful, however, whether more rapid

suppression of those fues would have done much to limit the overall damage (101; see box 5-I).

41 D.F.sfi~ Vice ~esiden~ Timberland Resources, Bois&Cascade Corporation+ personal communication ~d videotape, Jue 1992.

42 way can ffily rapidly r~uce he po~ntial sale value of wood once a -has died. Witi 2 ye~ of dea@ much of tie ~nomic value

of the wood is lost.

43 About $50 million in brush-disposal funds-deposits by timber purchasers fOr cka.nup after sde~ also be considered support for

fuel-management activity, although this money does not help address existing fuel buildup.
346 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

$400 million (including $300 million in emergency appropriations) went to firefighting itself.

Increasing interest in the ecological benefits of

prescribed fire and modifications in the Forest

Service’s fire-management-planning system to

better incorporate the benefits of fuel management are thought likely to lead to an increase in

the relative emphasis the Forest Service will place

on fuel management in future budget requests.44

Climate change would seem to add to the reasons

for supporting such a shift in fire funding

priorities.

On Forest Service lands, special funding for

salvage harvests is provided through monies

drawn from timber-sale revenues, making it

relatively easy to undertake salvage harvests as

needed. “ Thimnings are usually undertaken for

timber management reasons. There may be increasing demands to fund thinning programs that

promote general forest health-as has already

happened in the National Forests of Idaho and

eastern Oregon-rather than explicitly for timber

management. Support for “thinning activities may

be increasingly appropriate, as climate change

poses a threat to future forest health.

Option 6-9: Ensure that potential restrictions

on below-cost sales do not prohibit activities

needed to maintain forest health. Much of the

timber supplied from National Forests has

brought in less in revenues than it cost to put the

timber up for sale (114). It appears that belowcost sales on National Forests may be increasingly restricted (72). Congress may wish to ensure

that timber-harvesting or thinning activities necessary to maintain the health of National Forests

(e.g., to counteract damage from insects, disease,

and fires) are not made impossible by legislative

action designed to end below-cost sales.

Option 6-10: Provide incentives and information to private forest owners to reduce hazards

and to improve forest health. The Forest Service

offers technical and financial assistance to State

and private forest owners through a variety of

programs aimed at protecting and improving the

management of forestland. Several cooperative

programs in hazard control through fire protection and insect suppression are in place and may

become increasingly valuable if climate change

threats materialize.45 Other useful programs are

aimed at reducing exposure to risk.

Under authority of the Cooperative Forestry

Assistance Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-313), as amended

by the 1990 Farm Bill (P.L. 101-624), the

Forestry Incentives Program (FIP) and various

other forestry assistance programs offer financial

support to owners of small, private forests. Funds

under the FIP are allocated on the basis of

potential improvement in commercial timber

production, with much of the money going

toward planting pine forests. This program is now

scheduled to end in 1995. The amendments to the

Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act have established broader goals for cooperative support,

including increased emphasis on the environmental and multiple-use services of private lands.

No specific program, however, targets support to

private landowners to promote activities that

might protect forest health. 46 A forest health

incentives program might be considered, which

would target funds to forest landowners in areas

where there are high risks of insect and fire

damage, encouraging silvicultural activity to

improve the health of private forestland.

44 D. ~~e, F~@Avi~on qmmt Staff, USDA Forest S&vice, personal W-ticatiOn Au8ust 1993.

45 m~~report of the Forest Service (98) describes the many State and p~va~ fo~@y W%WM.

46 ~g~ wo~d k compatible with the broader criteria for support under the Forest st~“p Progra@ however. support is provided

through the States for pest sumeys, pesticide applications, and technical information services.
Chapter 6-Forests I 347

Among the greatest costs of wildfires are the

losses of property and life in buildings at the edge

of forests.47 The issues related to the high costs

these homeowners impose on the general taxpayer for firefighting activity will certainly become more prominent as development adjacent to

forests increases or if fire becomes more prevalent. There is perhaps little direct Federal leverage

to discourage owners from building in high-firehazard zones. However, the Federal Government

can encourage appropriate building practices for

structures built near forests by supporting information and education programs for homeowners

in such areas. The Forest Service’s Urban/

Wildland Fire Protection Initiative disseminates

information on measures that homeowners can

take to protect against forest-fire risks. Such

programs should be continued.

~ Economic Dislocations

The timber industry will inevitably move from

regions where relative profitability has declined

under climate change. Such movements in the

location of the forest industry could result in the

abandonment of forest dependent local communities. If rapid or unexpected, dislocations of this

sort can be costly. Although little can be done to

stop the movement of industry from less productive regions, there may be options that would help

reduce the likelihood of economic disruptions.

One approach is to increase the flexibility of

the timber industry and the diversity of the

economy in forest-dependent communities. That

is, increase the ability of communities to adapt to

changing forest conditions by expanding the

technologies for using forest products and services. A second approach is to provide accurate

information about the risks and uncertainties that

climate change may pose for forests and timber

supplies. The industry and communities that

depend on forests might then have time to respond

and to lessen the potential for sudden economic

losses.

Option 6-11: Incorporate climate change scenarios into forest plans and assessments. Ensure

that National Forest plans and BLM resource

plans provide one or more climate change scenarios that project timber supplies and resource

trends under potential climate changes. The plans

should address the potential stresses that climate

change poses to the forest resource. However,

forest plans are already deficient in addressing the

uncertainties associated with current stresses that

lead to fire and insect damage (91).

The Forest Service has expressed some reluctance to use specific projections for a changing

climate in its National Forest plans because of

doubts about the precise nature of climate change

in any specific location. Although understandable, this reluctance may be misguided because it

is precisely this uncertainty that should be conveyed to the public. The timber industry, which

depends on Federal timber sales, and dependent

timber communities may be better able to take

appropriate precautions in a timely manner if they

are made aware of the uncertainties in future

timber supplies.

No new legislative authority is needed for the

land-management agencies to begin addressing

the uncertainties that climate change presents.

With previous encouragement from Congress, the

Forest Service’s next RPA assessment (in preparation for the 1995 update) is considering climate

change scenarios in its national projections of

future timber supply trends.48 More encouragement may be needed before similar efforts are

made at the level of individual forest plans.

Option 6-12: Eliminate the even-flow-harvest

requirement of the National Forest Management

Act (NFMA). The NFMAj Section 13(a), requires

that timber sales from National Forests generally

be limited to a level that can be sustained in

47 Reference 13 offers some thoughts on policies for dealing with fire risks ad the urban-forest ktdwe.

~ Linda Joyce, USDA Forest Servim, persomd communicatio~ June 1993. titial efforts app~ently have not addressed tie PO@ntiId ~a

that climate change poses for existing forest.
348 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

perpetuity, a requirement usually known as nondeclining even flow. This well-intentioned provision was meant to help maintain stability in local

communities and to avoid biologically damaging

rates of harvest. The policy as applied has not

produced the intended results. Instead, it creates

a false promise of sustained timber supplies,

distorting the planning decisions of timber industries and workers. Perversely, it has also tended to

encourage unsustainable forestry practices on

Federal forestland, increasing the land area on

which active timber management is practiced and

encouraging intensification of management on

poorer-quality lands. These consequences add to

the costs and reduce the area left as natural forest

(7, 94).

Under climate change, with the possibility of a

declining forest, the even-flow policy will have

further undesirable effects. The policy creates a

strong incentive for Forest Service managers to

ignore climate change considerations in the NFMA

planning process. Under the nondeclining-evenflow constraint, any expected reduction in the

future timber productivity of the forest would

require an immediate reduction in current allowable timber sales. Thus, the acceptance of the

possibility of negative effects of climate could

lead to disruptions in the local timber industry and

communities-a result the forest managers would

prefer to avoid. A more gradual decrease in

harvest levels would be preferable. Federal timber

sales could be based on supply-and-demand

conditions, subject to reasonable market tests of

profitability and to the requirement of maintaining the multiple-use and environmental services

of the overall forest.

Option 6-13: Increase flexibility in the timber

industry. Rapid climate change may result in

changes in the quality or type of timber available

for harvesting on the Nation’s forestland. There

may be changes in the species available for

harvest; younger trees might be harvested if

climate risks discourage long-rotation forestry

and damage existing older stands; and there may

be increases in the availability of low-quality and

salvaged logs. Research directed at increasing the

flexibility with which industry can adapt to these

potential changes in timber supplies may help

reduce the costs of climate change. This increase

in flexibility might be accomplished through

research and product development that allows the

timber industry to use more varied log sizes, log

qualities, and tree species. Although these areas

of research and development are already of active

interest, many think that forest-products research

has been greatly underfunded (54, 99). In real

dollars, Federal funding of forestry research has

declined by more than 10 percent over the past

decade (99) despite the high economic returns of

this research (28).

Option 6-14: Increase flexibility in forestdependent communities. Forest Service programs

to diversify within forest-dependent rural communities were authorized by Title 23 of the 1990

Farm Bill, the National Forest-Dependent Rural

Communities Economic Diversification Act of

1990 (P.L. 101-624). Under this authority, the

Forest Service has begun to play a role in

implementing the President’s initiative on rural

development. The existing efforts include technical assistance and small cost-sharing programs to

help improve the stability of rural communities

through diversification away from resourcedependent industry and through projects that

promote diversification within the wood-products

industry. Funding has been modest. For example,

about $0.5 million annually is available in Economic Diversification Grants to assist communities in developing plans for attracting new industries that might reduce dependence on timber.

There are other specially funded programs, such

as those that assist economically distressed communities in the Pacific Northwest, an initiative

that encourages the use of wood in building

bridges, and demonstration projects of uses of

waste wood, including recycling. Climate changes

may increase the importance of programs designed to diversify forest-dependent communities, but it is still unclear how successful these

effort can be.
—.——

An opportunity may exist to turn salvaged and

thinned wood into a useful resource. The Forest

Service should be encouraged to expand efforts,

through its Forest Products Research and Cooperative Assistance Programs, to develop and promote wood-product technologies that use salvaged wood. Rural development grants could be

given to identify and encourage local industries to

create highly valued products from these lowquality wood resources. The risks associated with

such strategies include the perception that subsidized industries in one region are unfairly competing against existing similar industries elsewhere. The stability of supply is critical; industry

is unlikely to become established where the

supply is erratic.

FIRST STEPS

Although all of the options presented in the

preceding section could be considered, not all are

equally feasible and not all are equally appropriate as immediate responses to the threat of climate

change. Given the limited money available to

fund programs and the poor level of scientific

understanding of impacts of climate change on

forests, the following subset of policies have

been identified as the “first steps” Congress

could take. Initiating all of them now is justifiable

because of current concerns about climate

change. By beginning with this package, the

Nation can position itself t{. respond to the effects

of climate change on both timber and nontimber

forests. Some of these options must begin today

because of existing problems (such as fire, pests,

and drought) that will be exacerbated by climate

change or because current programs are already

wanting. Others must begin today because it will

be years before the process can be completed

(such as developing a seed bank and understanding how to facilitate migration). The options

listed below were chosen because they meet two

criteria: they reduce vulnerability to climate

change, and there is a clear advantage to acting

Chapter 6-Forests I 349

~ Establish an expanded forest seed-bank

program. A National effort in the conservation of forest seeds would provide an opportunity to respond to the potential for loss of

genetic diversity in the forest resource under

climate change. There is currently no national forest-seed conservation program. An

appropriate goal for such a program would

be to maintain sufficient seed variety, or

other genetic material, so that much of the

original diversity of the Nation’s forests

could eventually be restored.

A forest genetics conservation program

would require facilities for seed storage.

Primary storage facilities would provide for

safekeeping; secondary collections would

provide working access to seeds and security

through redundancy in storage. Working

collections could be based at regional centers for forest genetics, such as those now

located at several Forest Service Research

and Experiment Stations. The primary collection could be maintained at those same

facilities or at the existing USDA agricultural seed storage facility in Fort Collins,

Colorado. Associated with the working collections should be a research program addressing issues related to seed collection,

storage, large-scale propagation, and climate

sensitivity of forest trees.

To accomplish these goals, Congress could

authorize and fund a National Forest Genetic

Resources Program within the Forest Service, providing funds for the construction and

operation of storage facilities needed for the

seed collections, for the forest genetics

research program, and for the establishment

of plantations to be used for continuing seed

production. Funding is estimated to require

about $5.5 million annually, plus a one-time

expense of about $30 million for construction. Such a program could be partially

supported through fees for private access to

now. the seed collection.
350 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

H Prepare to respond to major forest declines. Increased risk of fires and insect

damage may result under a warmer climate.

The relative value of preventive activities

that reduce risk and the need for prompt

intervention to protect forest resources may

increase. Because of the need for prompt

action and because of the contentiousness

that often accompanies forest management,

policy rules for salvage harvesting, pestcontrol activity, and silvicultural management to reduce forest health risks are best

established before they are needed.

Congress could provide a forest health bill

that would establish criteria that would

allow prompt action to protect against

threats of catastrophic mortality or to restore

forests after large-scale mortality and decline. Such a bill might allow for the

declaration of temporary forest health emergencies, under which accelerated actions to

protect or restore forest health would be

authorized-as long as these actions were

consistent with established standards for

protection of all forest values. A policyreview group made up of outside academics,

representatives of interest groups, and Federal forestry personnel could develop criteria

for undertaking actions to stem forest decline. During the period of emergency, funds

available for forest salvage, timber-sale activity, reforestation, and insect or fire management could be freely reallocated to forest

health projects, allowing a prompt response.

In conjunction with this bill, Congress

should be prepared to increase funding for

forest health maintenance and for activities

that reduce potential fire hazards (e.g., removing fuels and thinning the stands at risk);

such efforts might reduce the likelihood of

much greater future costs.

Prepare for a forest-managernent response

to climate change. A changing climate may

eventually require innovations in forestmanagement and planting practices. Experimental efforts will be important in establishing a scientific basis for any necessary

changes to future-management practices that

might later be applied to public multiple-use

forestland. Congress could support a program of research on the Forest Service’s

Experimental Forests, or other research facilities, to address adaptation to climate change.

The Experimental Forests are in place and

designated as the outdoor laboratory for

evaluating forestry practices. The research

could be directed toward finding practical

and environmentally appropriate techniques

for managing the public forests that will help

buffer them or help them adapt to a changing

climate. Funds would be necessary to support the cost of managing the forests. Some

funds might be allocated on a competitive

basis to support experiments suggested by

university and other private forestry researchers, helping ensure a creative pool of

ideas.

Improve incentives for maintaining and

protecting private forestland. The Federal

Government controls only about one-quarter

of the Nation’s forestland. In the East

especially, where Federal holdings are limited, efforts at supporting the protection of

private forestland may take on increased

importance. The Federal Government will

have to use incentives, disincentives, and

cooperative approaches to management to

promote the health and productivity of this

forestland.

Existing programs under the Cooperative

Forestry Assistance Act as amended by the

1990 farm bill provide cost-sharing assistance to owners of small, private forests.

Traditional forest-support programs (e.g.,

the Forestry Incentives Program) targeted

funds on the basis of potential gains in

timber supply. The support programs could

be modified to target money to: 1) areas at
Chapter 6-Forests 1351

high risk of catastrophic insect and fire

damage, encouraging silvicultural activity to

maintain the health of the private forestland,

and 2) activities that prevent fragmentation

and further loss of scarce or ecologically

valuable forest types. Expanding the role of

the Forest Stewardship and Forest bgacy

Programs, and reducing support for commercial foresfry under the Forestry Incentives

Program might promote better protection on

private forestland. The Forest Stewardship

Program could remodified to provide clearer

funding priorities, thus ensuring that some

fi.mds are targeted to the areas identified

above.

2. honymous, Reno GazetteJournal, “Sierra Fire Battle Heats

Up,” $une 28, 1992, p. 1A.

3. Bazzaz, F.A., and E.D. Fajer, “Plant Life in a C02-Rich

Worl&” Scientific American, January 1992.

4. Bonq G.B., et al., “The Sensitivity of Some High-Latitude

Boreal Forests to Climate Parameters,” Climatic Change, vol.

16, No. 1, February 1990, pp. 9-29.

5. Botkiq D.B., J.F. Janak and J.R. Wdlis, “some mOIOf@d

Consequences of a Computer Model of Forest Grow@”

Journal of Ecology, VO1.60, 1972, pp. 849-72.

6. Botkiq D.B., R.A. NisbeL and TX. Reynales, “Effeets of

Climate Change on Forests of the Great Lake States,” im The

Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the Wu”ted

States, AppendixD: Forests, J.B. Smith and D.A. Tirpak (eds.)

(Wt@@tOIL DC: U.S. Environmental Roteetion Ageney,

OftW of Policy, Planning and Evdu2tiOIL 1989).

7. Bowes, M.D., andJ.V. Krutill&Multiple-UseManagement: The

Econonu”cs of Public Forestlands (Washington DC: Resources

for the Future, 1989).

8, Bowes, M.D., and R.A. Sedjo, “Irnpaets and Responses to

CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES Climate Change in Forests of the MZNK Regioq” CZimrtic

1. AndersoxL R.L., “Ef&cts of Global Climate Chauge on Tme Change, in press, 1993.

Survival and Forest Pests in the South” Daner mesented at the 9. Boyle, B., andJ.H. Beuter, “TheFutureofForestry: TWo Views

. . K

Society of American Foresters Convention in Washington DC, tim the ‘lbp,’’Ametican Forests, June 1993, pp. 13-16.

Jdy 30, 1990.

FORESTS-FIRST STEPS

w Establish an expanded forest seed-bank program

-Establish a national program in forest seed oonsewation to help preserve the diversity of our forests.

-Fund a National Forest Genetic Resources Program within the USDA Forest Service, providing funds

for storage, seed coiiection, and research.

--Establish vvoridng ooliections at regionai centers for forest genetics (e.g., Forest Service Experiment

Stations).

~ Prepare to respond to rnaJor forest decllnes

-Estabiish criteria for prompt intervention in the event of iarge-scaie mortality or decline thrwgh a new

West Health Biii.

-initiate a policy review group to deveiop standards for undertakhig actions to stem forest dedine.

--Aiiow reallocation of funds (forest 8aivage, timber 8aie activity, reforestation, and irwect or fire

management) for prompt response in times of forest health emergency.

B Prepare for a forest-management response to climate change

-Fund research on the USDA experimental forests to find practical and environmentally appropriate

techniques to heip forests adapt to a changing climate.

■ Improve incentives for maintaining and protecting private forestland

-FkMent the Forestry incentives Program away from its current focus on timber production to forest

health.

--Ciarify the funding priorities of the Forest Stewardship Program to target areas of high environmental

value and promote natural forest cover.
352 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

10.

11.

12.

13,

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

Campbell, R. K., “Adaptational Requirements of Planting

Stock” irx Global Forestry and the Western Role, proceedings

from the Western Forest Conservation AssociatioxL Portlan&

OR 1975, pp. 103-107.

Canneu M.G.R., “Climate Warming and Spring Fhenology of

Trees, ” im Woody Plant Growth in a Changing Chemical and

Physical Environment, D.P. Lavender (cd.), proeedngs fkom

the Workshop IUFRO Working Party on Shoot Growth

Physiology, Wneouver, BC, 1987, pp. 283-295.

Cooper, C.F., “Sensitivities of Western Ecosystems to Climate

Change,” contractor report prepared for the Office of 7kchnology Assessment, August 1992.

Cortner, H.J., and R.D, Gale, “People, Fire, and Wildkmd

Environments,” Population and Environment: A Journal of

Interdisciplinary Studies, vol. 4, summer 1990, pp. 245-57.

Dale, V.H., and J.F. Franklin, “Potential Effects of Climate

Change on Stand Development in the PacKlc Northwes~”

Canaalan Journal of Forest Research, vol. 19, pp. 1581-1590,

Davis, M.B., “Quatenary History and the Stability of Forest

Communities, “ in: Forest Succession: Concepts and Application, D.C. Wesg H.H. Shugar$ and D.B. Botkin (eds.) (New

York: Springer-Verlag, 1981).

Davis, M.B., and C. ZabinsM “Changes in Geographical Range

Resulting from Greenhouse Warming: Effects on Biodiversity

in Forests, ” in: Global Warming and Biological Diversity, R.L.

Peters and T,E. Lovejoy (eds.) (New Have~ CT: Yale

University Press, 1992).

Davis, P,A., “Economy, Politics Threaten Species Act Renewal,” Congressional Quarterly, Jan. 4, 1992, p. 16.

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the World Wildlife

Fund (WWF), How Wet Is a Wetland? The Impacts of the

Proposed Revisions to the Federal Wetlands Delineation

Manual (New York, NY and Washington DC: EDF and WWF,

1992).

Famuq P., “Forest Adaptation to Global Climate Change

Through Silvicultural Treatments and Genetic hnprovemen~”

discussion paper, Weyerhaeuser Co., Feb. 4, 1992.

Fedkiw, J., The Evolving Use and Management of the Nation’s

Forests Grassland, Croplands and Related Resources (Washington DC: U.S. Deparbmmt of Agriculture, Forest Sewice

Resources Program and Assessment Staff, 1988).

Frankl@ J.F., et al., “Mod.if@g Douglas-Fir Management

Regimes for Non-Timber Objectives,” in: Douglas-Fir Stand

Management for the Future Proceedings ofa Symposium, C.D.

Oliver, D,P, H.anley, and J.A. Johnson (eds.) (Seattle, Wk

College of Forest Resourws, University of Washingto@ 1986).

Greenland, D., and L.W. SwifL “Overview of Climate Friability and Ecosystem Response,” in: Climate Van-ability and

Ecosystem Response, D. Greenhmd and L.W. swift (dS.),

USDA Forest Service General ‘Ikchnical Report SE-65

(Aaheville, NC: USDA Forest Sewice, Southeastern Foreat

Experiment statiom 1990).

Grahar% R.L., M-G. ‘fhrner, and V.H. Dale, “How Inemuing

@and Climate change Affect Forests,” Bioscience, VO1. 40,

No. 8, September 1990, pp. 575-87.

Harmon M., W. Femell, and W, Frankliq “Effects on Carbon

Storage of Concession of Old-growth Forests to Young

Forests,” Science, 247, 1990, pp. 699-702.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

Harper, S.C., L.L. F- and E.W. Rat@ The Northern Forest

Lands Study of New England and New York (Rutlan& VT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Foreat Savice and Governors’ H

Force on Northern Forest Lands, April 1990: 2nd printing,

Februmy 1992).

Heddem RL., “Impact of Climate Change on Forest Insect

Pests in the Southern U. S., “ in: Proceedings, Symposium on

Climate Change in the Southern United States: Future Impacts

and Present Policy Issues, M. Meo (cd.) (Washingto~ DC: US

Environmental Protection Agency, 1987).

Hedde~ R.L., “Global Climate Change: Implications for

Silviculture and Pest lkfanagemen~” in: proceedings, Fif?h

Biennial Southern Silvicuhural Research Conference, General

‘Ikehnical Report, No. SO-74 (New Orkmns, LA: USDA Forest

Service, Southern Forest Experiment StatiorL 1989).

Hodges, D.G., PJ. Jakes, and F,W. Cubbage, Status of Forest

Management Research in the United States, General ‘Ikchnieal

Report NC 126 (Saint Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment StatioQ

December 1988).

Hodges, D.G., et al., ‘‘Regional Forest Migrations and Potedal

Economic Effects,’ Environmental Tom”cology and Chema”stry,

vol. 11, 1992, pp. 1129-1136.

Houstou et al., “Beech Bark Disease: A Comparison of the

Disease in North Amenc& Great BritahL France and Germany,” European Journal ofForest Pathology, vol. 9, 1979, pp.

199-211.

IfiL G., “Clinton Backs a $1 Billion Plan to Spare Trees and

Aid Loggers,” The New York Times, July 1, 1993, p. Al,

Institute of Ecology, Expen”mental Ecological Reserves: A

Proposed National Network, a report prepared for the National

Science Foundation (WashingtorL DC: U.S. Govemment Printing Office, June 1977).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, World Meteorological Organization, and United National Environment Frogr~ Climate Change: The JPCC Scientiic Assessment, report

prepared for WCC by Working Group I, J.T Houghtom G.J.

Jenkins, and JJ. Ephraums (eds.) (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1990).

tntergovemmental Panel on Climate Change, World Meteorological Org*“oq and United Nations EIIVirOMleIlt ~-

gtUQ climate Change: The iPCC Impacts Assessment, report

P- for WC by Working Group II, WJ. n= G.w.

Shelddo% and D.C. Griffitha (eds.) (Canti Australix

Australian Government Publishing Semice, 1990).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, World Mctecmx

logical Organizatl“oq and United Nations Environment Prom1992 IPCC Supplement, February 1992.

Jarvis, P.G., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Forests,”

Philosophical fiansactions of Royal Society Lmdon, vol. B

324, 1989, pp. 369-92.

Kellisoq R.C., and RJ. Weir, “Breeding Strategies in Form

Tree Populations to Buffer Against Elevated Atmospheric

Carbon Dioxide hvels,” ixx The Greenhouse Eflect, Climate

Change and U.S. Forests, W.E. Shands and J.S. Hoffinan (eds.)

(washingto@ DC: The Conservation Foundation 1987).
Chapter 6-Forests I 353

38. Kimmins , J.P. and Lavender, D.P., “Implications of Climate

Change for the Distribution of Biogeoclirnatic Zones in British

Columbia and for the Growth of Temperate Forest Species,’ in:

Woody Plant Growth in a Changing Chem”cal and Physical

Environment, D.P. Lavender (cd.), proceedings from the

Workshop IUFRO Working Party on Shoot Growth Physiology,

%lCOUVeT, BC, 1987, pp. 297-309.

39. King, G.A., and R.P. Neilso& “The Transient Response of

Vegetation to Climate Change: A Potential Source of COZ to the

Atmosphere,” Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, vol. 64, 1992, pp.

365-83.

40. King, G.A., and D. Tingey, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Corvallis, OR., ‘‘Potential Impacts of Climate Change

on Pacflc Northwest Forests,” discussion paper, May 1991.

41. Kitzmiller, J.H., “Genetic Considerations in Propagating Diverse Tree Species, “ in: Proceedings, Western Forest Nursery

Association, General Tkchnical Report RM-221, T.D. Landis,

(cd.) (Fofi Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment StatiorL

1993).

42. Kozlowski, T.T. (cd.), “Tree Physiology and Forest Pests, ”

Journal of Forestry, vol. 67, 1%9, pp. 118-123.

43. Kramer, PJ., and N. Sionit, ‘‘Effects of Increasing Carbon

Dioxide Concentrations on the Physiology and Growth of Forest

Trees, “ in: The Greenhouse Effect, Climate Change and U.S.

Forests, W.E. Shands and J.S. Hoffman (eds.) (Washingto~

DC: The Conservation FoundatiorL 1987).

44. Ledig, F. T., A Strategy to Manage Forest Genetic Resources in

the United States (Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Semice, Institute of Forest Genetics, Pacitlc

Southwest Research StatiorL 1992).

45. ~g, FT., md J.H. Kitzmiller, “Genetic Strateg’ie.. fOr

Reforestation in the Face of Global Climate Change,” Forest

Ecology and Management, 1991.

46. bverenz, J. W., and D.J. bv, “Effects of Carbon DioxideInduced Climate Changes on the Natural Ranges of Six Major

Commercial Tree Species in the Western United States, ” in: The

Greenhouse Eflect, Climate Change, and U.S. Forests, W.E.

Shartds and J.S. Hoffman (eds.) (Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation, 1987), pp. 123-155.

47. McI1veeu W.D., S.T. Rutherford, and S.N. Linmn+ “A

Historical Perspective of Sugar Maple Decline Within Ontario

and Outside Ontario, ARB-141-86 (Toronto, Canada: Ontario

Ministry of the Environmen~ 1986).

48. Mckm, H.E., “The Blue Mountains: Forest Out of Control, ”

American Forests, September/October 1992, pp. 32-35, 58,61.

49. McLean, H.E,, “The Boise Quickstep, ” American Forests, vol.

99, No. l&2, January/February 1993, pp. 11-14.

50. MacArthur, R.H. Geographical Ecology: Patterns in the

Dis~”bution of Species (New York NY: Harper& Row, 1972).

51. Mattsoq W.J., and R.A. Haack, “The Role of Drought in

Outbreaks of Plant-Eating Insects, ” Bioscience, vol. 37, No. 2,

February 1987, pp. 110-18.

52. Miller, W,F., “AlternativeFutures for Resource Managemen~”

in: Wafer-A Resource in Demand, proceedings of a symposium

on Future Climate and Potential Impacts of Natural Resource

Management, ‘Mas A&M University, College StatioL Texas,

Aug. 16-18, 1982, pp. 17-28.

53. Miller, W.F., P.M. Dougherty, and G.L. Switzer, “Effect of

Rising Carbon Dioxide and Potential Climate Change on

I.mblolly Pine Distribution Growth+ Survival and Productivity,”

in: The Greenhouse Effect, Climate Change and U.S. Forests,

W.E. Shands and J.S. Hoffman (MS.) (%ShiD@O~ DC: The

Conservation Foundation 1987).

54. National Research Council+ Forestry Restmrch:A Matitefor

Change (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1990).

55. National Research Council, Managing Global Genetic Resources: Forest Trees (Washington DC: National Academy

Press, 1991).

56. National Research Council, Policy Implications of Greenhouse

Warndng (WashingtotL DC: National Academy Press, 1991).

57. New York Times, “ClintonPlanning to IncreaseFeesonGrazing

Lands,” Aug. 10, 1993.

58. OverPeck, J.T., “Modeling the Transient Response of Vegetation to Climatic Change: A Paleoecological Time Series

Perspective, ” Bulletin of the Ecological Society ofAmerica, vol.

69, 1988, p. 251.

59. Overpcxk, J.T., et al., “Climate Change in the Circum North

Atlantic Region During the Last Delegation” Nature, vol. 338,

1984, pp. 553-557.

60. Overpeck, J.T, and PJ, Bartlem in: U.S. Environmenta l

Protection Agency Report, EPA-23@05-89-54, (Washin@oIL

DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989), ch. 1, pp.

1-32.

61. OverPeck, J.T, P.J. Bartle@ and TW. Webb, “Potential

Magnitude of Future Vegetation Changes in Eastern North

America: Comparisons with the Past,” Science, Nov. 1, 1991.

62. Pastor, J., and W.M Post, “Response of Northern Forest to

COz-Induced Climate Change,” Nature, vol. 334, No. 7, July

1988, pp. 55-58.

63. Perry, DA., and J. Maghembe, ‘‘Ecosystem Concepts and

Current Trends in Forest Management: Time for Reappraisal,”

Forest Ecology and Management, vol. 26, 1989, pp. 123-40.

64. PitelQ L., “Forest Response to Carbon Dioxide, ” EPRI

Journal, January/February 1992, pp. 3841.

65. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER),

‘‘Public Trust Betrayed: Employee Critique of Bureau of Land

Management Rangeland Management,’ a report written by

BLM employees, WashingtorL DC, June 1993.

66. Regens, J.L., F.W. Cubbage, and D.G. Hodges, “Greenhouse

Gases, Climate Change, and U.S. Forest Markets,” Environment, vol. 31, No. 4, May 1989, pp. 4-5, 51.

67. Rehfeldt, G,E., “Microevolution of Conifers in the Northern

Rocky Mountains: A View From the Common Garde~” iru

Proceedings, of the Eighth North American Forest Biology

Workshop, ImgU w 1984, pp. 32-46.

68. Roberts, L. “How Fast Can Trees Migmte?” Science, Feb. 10,

1989.

69. RobertsorL F.D., Chief, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, memorandum to Regional Foresters and Station

Directors on Ecosystem Management of the National Forests

and Grasslands, June 4, 1992.
354 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

70. Rudis, V.A., and R.A. Birdsey, “Forest Resourw Trends and

Current Conditions in the Mississippi Mdley,” Resource

Bulletin SO-1 16 (Nw Orleans, IA: U.S. Department of

A@dure, Forest Service, Soutkrn Forest Experiment StatiO~ 1986).

71. Salwasscr, H., D.W. MacCleczy, and TL4. Snellgrove, “New

PcMpectives on Mana@ns the U.S. National Forest Systa”

report to the North American Forestry Commission Sixteenth

Session, C- Mexico, February 1992 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Deplmmt of Agriculture Forest Service, 1992).

72. Schneider, K., “U.S. Would Bnd cutting of Trees in M$llly

Forc&s,” TheNew York Thnes, Apr. 30, 1993.

73. Sedjo, RA., “ForestResources: Resilient and Serviceable,” h

America’s Renewable Resources: Historical Trends and Current Chdenges, RA. Sedjo and K.D. Frederick (eds.) (Wash-

@tom DC: Resources for the Future, 1991).

74. Sh~ H-H., A Theory of Forest Dynamics: The Ecological

Implications of Forest Succession Models (New York NY:

Springer-vczlag, 1984).

75. SmitlAJ., and D. Tirpak ThePotentialEflects ofG1obal Climate

Change on the Utu”ted States (WasMngtoIL DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989).

76. Smi@ W.H., Air Pollution and Forests (New York+ NY:

Springer-vcrlag, 1990).

77. Sxtdtlq WH., “Man@ng For@ Undcz A Chan@ng Climate:

workshop summary,” summary of workshop convened by the

Office of lkchnology Assessment, Washin@XU DC, June

18-19, 1992.

78. Smi@ W.H., “United States Forest Response and VIdnerability

t o~”

-Q” c-~WP_fOI tk Office of

RXhrlology Assesamcl14 June 1992.

79. Solom~ A.M., ‘Transient Response of Forests to C02-

Induccd Climste Change: Simulation Modeling Experiments in

EastesnNorth ArnX” Oeco20gia, vol. 68,1986, pp. 567-79.

80. ‘I)tyIor, K.T, and M.J. Sullivm Lu.rge-Loss Fires in the United

States During 1990 Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection

Assdatioa May 1992).

81. U.S. Congress, Co-siond Resesmh Service, The Major

Fe&ral Lund Management Agencies Management of Our

Nation’s Lunds and Resources (WasMngtoG DC: Congressional Research service, 1990).

82. U.S. con@’ess, OHkx of lbcbnology Assessmen4 Catc&”ng

OurBreath:NtxtSteps forReducing Urban Ozone, OTA-(M12

~XoXL DC: U.S. OOVernm=t Printing Office, July

1989).

83. U.S. congmq Office of’kchnologykmsxncn; Changin8By

Degrees: Steps to Reduce Greenhouse Gases, O’llMl-482

(w@@i@& DC: us. Government Printing Office, February

1991).

84. U.S. Deprtmw of A@ukare, Forest Semice, “The Causes of

Maple Blight in the Lake Stat@,” Researc h Paper LS-10 (St.

Paul, MN: USDA Forest Su-vicq Lake States Foreat Expailrmrlt statioa 1964).

85. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Scrvict+ “Protecting

Ikiderwes from WiM13rea: A Guide for Homeowners, ~w-

~S~~,” prepared by H.B. More, May 1981.

86. U.S. Departmmt of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Service

Manual 4062, Experimental Forest and Ranges (Washington

DC: USDA Forest Service, 1985).

87. U.S. Departnwatof Agriculture, Forest Semicc, An Anafysis #

the Land Base Situation in the Uru”ted States: 1989-2040,

General lkcbnic.al Report RM-181 (Fort Collins, CO: USDA

Forest Semice Rocky Mountain Forest and Ran@ Experhnent

Statiou 1989).

88. Us. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, FY J988, US.

Forest Service Planting Report, Forest Plhnting, Seeding, and

Silvicultural Treatntents in the United States (Washington DC:

USDA Forest service, 1989).

89. U.S. Departxmat of Agriculture, Forest Service, RRA Assessment of the Forest and Rangefand Situatfon in the United

States, FRR-26 (Washing&W DC: USDA, Forest Service,

1989).

90. u.s. Depsrrrnen t of Agriculture, Forest Scrvice,AnAnalyds of

the Timber Situation in the Um”ted States: 1989-20#0, Oenaal

%ChniCd Report RM-199 @Oti Cob, CO: USDA, Forem

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Statioq 1990).

91. U.S. Dq)artment of Agriculture, Fmwt Service, Critique of

Land Management Plannin8, Analytical Tools and I@onnation, FS-455 (Washington, DC: USD4 Forest Service, Policy

Analysis Sti, June 1990).

92. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Blue Mountains Forest Health Report: New Perspective in Forest Health

(Porth@t OR USDA Forest Service, PllCifiC Nortbest

Regioq April 1991).

93. U.S. Department of Agricul~ Forat Suvice, Forest Insect

and Disease Conditions in the United States, 1990 (WasMngtonj DC: USDA Forest Service, 1991).

94. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest ServiW Report of the

Forest Service, Fiscal Year 1990 (TVasMgtoq DC: USD~

Forest Service, 1991).

95. Us. Department of Agriculture, Forest service, “Reseamh

Needa Associated with C310bal Change Impacts on Southern

Forested Wetlands,” summary ofaworkshop convened by the

Consortium for Research on Southern Forest Wetlands, Feb.

13-14; 1991, Baton Rougq LA (Washin@q DC: USDA

April 1991).

96. U.S. ~t Of @~~! Fo~t SIXVi% Carbon

Stora8eandAccumuhtion in United States ForestEcosystems,

Oeneral ‘lbchnical Report WO-59, August W92.

97. u.s.~tof A@~tmF~tS~* For~tHe~th

Monitoring in New f?nghld: ]M Annual Report, Reaource

Bulletin NE-125 (Radnor, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Fore??t Ex@ment Statiorq October 1992).

98. U.S. Department of Agriculm Forest Sewicq Repon of the

Forest Service, Fiscal Year 1992 (Vhshingtq DC: USD~

Forest Service, 1993).

99. Us. Department of Agriculture Ikmst Suvice, National

Association of Professional Foremy Sclmls ad Collegq

and USDA Cooperative State Resmrch Service, Forests for

America’s Future: A Research Program jbr the 1990s

(washingmQ DC: USDA Forest kvice, JtuM 1989).
Chapter 6-Forests I 355

100. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Semice,

The Second RCA Appraisal (WashingtorL DC: USDA Soil

Conserv ation Service, 1989).

101. U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the

lnterior,FinalReport on Fire ManagementPolicy, prepared by

the Fire Management Policy Review ‘E-amj May 5, 1989.

102. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, J990

Annual Survey of Man@actures (WashingtorL DC: Bureau of

the Census, 1992).

103. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis,

Regional Economic Information Systems (Washington DC:

Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1988).

104. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,

“Synopsis of Wetland Functions and Values: Bottomhmd

Hardwoods with Special Emphasis on Eastern ‘Ikxas and

Oklahow” Biological Report, vol. 87 No. 12, September

1987.

105. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,

Management Policies (Washingto& DC: Government Printing

Office 1988).

106. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), EM4P A40nifor, EPA 60WM-9 1-051 (Washington DC: U.S. EPA, March

1992).

107. U.S. General Accounting OIYlce (GAO), Federal Fire Management: Lim”ted Progress in Restarn”ng the Prescn’bed Fire

Program, GAO/RCED-9-42 (WashingtorL DC: U.S. GAO,

December 1990).

108. U.S. General Accounting Gftlce (GAO), Budget Zs.mes:

Funding Alternatives for Fire-Fighting Activities at USDA and

lntetior, GAO/AFMD-91=$5 (Wa.shingto@ DC: U.S. GAO,

April 1991).

109. U.S. Senate, Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Act,

Senate Hearing 102-980, hearing before the Subcommittee on

Public Lands, National Parks and Forests of the Committee on

Energy and Natura.1 Resources, U.S. Senate, 102d Congess, 2d

Sessiou on S. 1156, July 28, 1992 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government MMin.g Office, 1993).

110. Ur@ D.L., and H.H. Shug@ “Forest Response to Climatic

Change: A Simulation Study for Southeastern Forests,” i.w

The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United

States, AppendixD, J. Smith and D. Tirpak (eds,) (W@ingtow

DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989).

111. Wadde~ K.L., D.D. Oswal~ and D.S. Powell, Forest Statistics of the United States, 1987, Resource Bulletin PNW-RB168 (Port.lan6 OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

!kvice, Pacific Northwest Research StatioU 1989).

112. Wall Street Journal, “U.S. Renews Its Efforts to Overhaul

_policY, Calling for Higher Fees,” Aug. 10, 1993.

113. Wal@ R.G., et al., “Estimating the Public Benefits of

Protecting Forest Quality,” Journal of Environmental hfanagement, vol. 30, 1990.

114. WoIf, R.E., State-by-State Estimates of Situations Where

Timber Will be Sold by the Forest Service at a Loss or Profit:

A Report to the Subcommittee on htten”or Appropn’an”ons

(WashingtoIL DC: Congressional Reseamh Sewice, Library of

Congress, 1984).

115. Wolf, S.M., Pollution Luw Handbook: A Guide to Federal

Environmental Luws (Westpor$ CT: Greenwood Press, Inc.,

1988).

116. WoodrmuL J.N., “The Potential Impact of COZ Induced

Climate Changes on Management of Douglas Fir and Western

Hernloc~” in: proceedings of the Conference on Rising COZ

and Changing Climate; Forest Risks and Opportunities, W.E.

Shands (cd.) (WashingtorL DC: The Conservation Foundatio%

1989).
Appendix A:

List of

Tables

and

Figures

TABLES

Chapter l—Summary Page

Table l-l—List of Boxes in Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table in box l-A-The Sensitivity and Adaptability of Human Activities and Nature, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Table in box l—B-Potential Climate Change Impacts for Various Systems, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Chapter 3—Research

Table 3-1—List of Departments and Agencies or Bureaus Involved in USGCRP Research, ..,... . . . . . 119

Table 3-2-Congressional Authorization Committees and Appropriations Subcommittees with

Significant Legislative Authority over Agencies with a USGCRP Component . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Table 3-3A—FY 1991 and 1992 Focused Research by Agency and Function. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Table 3-3B—FY 1991 and 1992 Focused Adaptation Research by Agency and Element. ,... . . . . . . . . . 134

Table 3-4A-Percent of Total FY 1992 USGCRP Budget for the Third Science Element, Ecological

Systems and Dynamics (ESD), Compared with Percent of Each Agency’s GCRP

Budget for ESD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Table 3-4B-Percent of Total FY 1992 USGCRP Budget for the Fifth Science Element, Human

Interactions (HI), Compared with Percent of Each Agency ’s GCRP Budget for HI...... 135

Table in box 3-A-Potential Uses of Remote-Sensing Data..............,...,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Volume 1

Chapter 4-Coasts

Table 4-l—Estimates of Insurance-Industry Potential Losses in 1987 Resulting from a Recurrence

of Past Hurricanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Table 4-2-Estimated Cost of a Major Hurricane Striking Densely Populated Areas (or Major Cities). . 165

Table 4-3—Insured Losses Likely To Be Experienced Under Different Maximum-Wind-Speed

Scenarios. .....................,.......,.,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Table 4-4--Estimated Probabilities of Exceeding Given Levels of Flood-Insurance Losses. . . . . . . . . . . 170

Table 4-5—Results of a Mail Survey of 132 Owners of Beachfront Property in South Carolina After

Hurricane Hugo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

For a list of boxes, see chapter 1, pages 8-9.

I 357
358 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Table 4-6-Community Rating System Designed by the Federal Emergency Management

Agency to Encourage Communities to Minimize Flood Damage.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

Table 4-7—Premium Reductions for Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAS) and Non-SFHAs in

the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Community Rating System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

Table 4-8—Rank of Project Categories by Dollar Amount and Percent of Estimated

Obligations in the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (January 1989 to August 1992) . . . . . . 184

Table 4-9—Status of U.S. Setback Authorities.,.....,...............,,., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

Table 4-10-Federal Programs and Laws Influencing Coastal Development:

Status and Potential Changes...........,...,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

Chapter 5—Water

Table 5-1—Federal Offices Involved in Water Resource Planning, Development, or Management . . . . . 226

Table 5-2—Ways to Use Water More Efficiently.......,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

Table 5-3—Possible Risk-Management and Risk-Minimization Measures the Federal Government

Could Consider to Lessen the Effects of Drought. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

Table 5-4--Summary of Options to Improve Water Resource Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

Chapter 6-Agriculture

Table 6-1—Harvested Acreage and Valueof Principal Crops, 1991.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284

Table 6-2—Projected Annual Rates of Growth in Agricultural Yields, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306

Volume 2

Chapter 4-Wetlands

Table 4-1—Wetland Vulnerabilities to Climate Change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Table 4-2—Responding to Climate Change Impacts on Wetlands: Summary of Reported

State Wetland Protection Programs. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

Table 4-3-Examples of Laws and Agencies That May Be Affected by Various Policy Options. . . . . . . 197

Table in box 4-D-Economic Values of Wetlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Chapter 5—Preserves

Table 5-1—National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and Wilderness Areas in the United States, . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

Table 5-2—Management Goals for Some Federally Protected Natural Areas., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230

Table 5-3—Examples of Benefits from Ecosystem, Species, and Genetic Diversity .......,. . . . . . . . . . 239

Table 5-4-Species and Ecosystem Types Most at Risk from Climate Change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

Table 5-5-Options for Strategic Information Gathering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

Table 5-6-Options for Enhanced Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285

Chapter 6-Forests

Table 6-1—Human Values Associated with Forest Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304

Table 6-2—Area of Timberland in the United States by Major Forestst Type, 1987... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306

Table 6-3—Forest Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326

Table 64--Characteristics of Higher-Risk Forests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327

Table 6-5—Major Federal Acts or Programs Affecting the Use of Forest Lands... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

Table 6-6-Suitability of Silvicultural Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332

FIGURES

Chapter l—Summary

Figure l-1-Potential Soil-Moisture Changes Under Two GCM Climate Change Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 1-2—Soil-Moisture Changes for Agricultural Lands and Areas of Natural Cover, by GCM

Climate ChangeScenario.. ...............,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A–List of Tables and Figures I 359

Figure 1-3-The Delaware River Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 14--An Assessment of Coastal Hazards: Texas and Louisiana.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure l-5-Water Withdrawals and Consumption in the Coterminous United States, 1985. . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Figure l-&Preserves and Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Figure l-7-Current and Projected Range of Beech Under Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Chapter 2—Primer

Figure 2-l-Long-Term Global Temperature Record, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Figure 2-2-The Greenhouse Effect.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Figure 2-3-Measured and Equivalent C02 Concentrations in the Atmosphere. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Figure 2-4-Expected CO2 Concentrations in the Atrnosphere According to Various Emissions

Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Figure 2-5-GCM-Estimated Changes in Temperature and Precipitation from a Doubling of C02. . . . . . 76

Figure 2-&-Potential Soil-Moisture Changes Under the GISS Climate Change Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Figure 2-7-Potential Soil-Moisture Changes Under the GFDL Climate Change Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Figure 2-8-Approximate Distribution of the Major Biotic Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Figure 2-9—Long-Terrn Temperature and CO2 Records from Antarctic Ice Cores and Recent

Atmospheric Measurements.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Figure 2-l&The Distribution of Holdridge Life Zones Undercurrent Climate Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Figure 2-11 -Percent of U.S. Land Area Shifting Holdridge Life Zones After CO2 Doubling . . . . . . . . . . 96

Figure 2-12—The Hydrologic Cycle Shows How Water Moves Through the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Figure 2-13—Soil-Moisture Changes Under the GFDL and GISS Climate Change Scenarios,

by Land-Use and Cover .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Figure in box 2-A— Modeled Topography of the United States by Use of Two Different Grid Sizes. . . . 69

Figure in box 2-C—U.S. Coastal Marine Fisheries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Chapter 3—Research

Figure 3-l A-Organizational Chart for the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering,

and Technology (FCCSET). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Figure 3-lB-Organizational Chart for the Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES).. 114

Figure 3-2—Priority Framework for USGCRP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Figure 3-3-Functional Architecture of USGCRP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Figure 3-4-U.S. Global Change Research Program Budget by Agency.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Figure 3—5-USGCRP Focused Budget by Activity Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Figure 3-6---USGCRP Budget by Science Element. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Figure 3-7-FY1993 USGCRP Budget of Focused and Contributing Programs by Agency . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Figure 3-8-Alternative Organizational Schemes for Global Change Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Figure in box 3-A-Incoming, Reflected, and Scattered Solar Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Volume 1

Chapter 4--Coasts

Figure 4-l—Historical Land Loss of Poplar Island in Chesapeake Bay as a Result of

Sea Level Rise and Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Figure 4—2-Schematics of a Developed and an Undeveloped Barrier Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

Figure 4-3 A-Intensity of Historic Hurricanes.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

Figure 4-3 B-Damage-Producing Potential of Historic Hurricanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Figure 4-4-Coastal Hazard Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Figure 4-5—FEMA’s Criteria for Imminent-Collapse and Setback Determinations Under the

Upton-Jones Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

Figure 4-6-New Zones Established by Beachfront Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Figure in box 4-A--Saffir-Simpson Hurricane-Intensity Scale. . . ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
360 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volume 2

Chapter 5—Water

Figure 5-l-Water Withdrawals and Consumption in the Coterminous United States, 1985. . . . . . . . . . . 211

Figure 5-2-Average Consumptive Use and Renewable Water Supply by Water Resource Region . . . . . 214

Figure 5-3-U.S. Groundwater Overdraft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

Figure in box5-B-The Rio Grande Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

Figure in box 5-E-Navigable Waters of the Mississippi River System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

Chapter 6-Agriculture

Figure 6-1-U.S. Production, Domestic Consumption, and Exports of Wheat, Corn, and Soybeans. . . .

Figure 6-2-The USDA Agricultural Regions of the United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 6—3-Regional Distribution of Cropland and Irrigated Cropland in the United States. . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 6-4-Characteristics of Nine Farming Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 6-5-Corn Yields in the United States, 1950-91. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 6-6-- Net Outlays of the Commodity Credit Corporation, 1982-91. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 6-7--Costs of Federal Disaster-Assistance Payments Over the Period 1980-90. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 6-8-Appropriations for USDA Agricultural Research and Extension Programs for

FY 1972-93. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure in box 6-C-Change in Simulated Crop Yields After Doubling of CO2, by Region,

Under Two GCM Climate Change Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure in box 6-D-The Arkansas River Basin of Southeastern Colorado. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure in box 6-E--Kesterson Reservoir and Surrounding Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure in box 6-E-The Potential for Water-Salinity Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure in box 6-F-Extent of the Hard Red Winter Wheat Zone in 1920 and 1980, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

Figure in box 6-F-Proportion of Wheat Planted to Leading Varieties in the United States . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure in box 6-F-Midwestern Soybean Acreage in 1949 and 1982, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure in box 6-G-The Ogallala Aquifer.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

278

281

282

283

289

314

314

317

290

293

295

296

298

299

300

301

Volume 2

Chapter 4-Wetlands

Figure 4-1-Cross-Sectional Diagrams of a Northeaster Salt Marsh and a Riparian Wetland System. . 167

Figure 4-2--General Distribution of Wetlands in the United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Figure 4-3-Wetland Acreage Lost in the United States, 1780s to 1980s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

Figure 4&Extent and Location of Artificially Drained Agricultural Land in the United States, 1985. 171

Figure in box 4-D --Relationship Between Wetland Processes and Values, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Figure in box4-F--Wetland Changes in the Mississippi River Active Delta (1956-78). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Chapter 5-Preserves

Figure 5-1-Preserves and Climate Change. ...,.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

Figure 5—2-Landownership of the U.S. Land Base. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

Figure 5-3-Habitat Needs of Elk, Eagles, and Grizzly Bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. . 226

Figure 5-4A-Federally Owned Lands: Agency Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

Figure 5-4B--Federally Owned Lands: Percentage of State Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

Figure 5—5-Recreational Visits to National Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

Figure 5-6--Geographical Distribution of Some Federal Natural Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240

Figure 5-7-Authorizations and Total Annual Appropriations of Land and Water Conservation Fund.. 267

Figure 5-8-Ecosystem Types Represented on Federal Land. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286

Figure 5-9-Ecosystem Types Represented inNationa1 Wilderness Areas. ... ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287

Figure in box 5-F-Biosphere Reserve Sites in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

Figure in box 5-G-Stillwater National Wildlife Management Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

Figure in box 5-L-GAP Analysis Example: Distribution of Endangered Hawaiian Finches in

Relation to Existing Nature Reserves on the Island of Hawaii in 1982. . . . . . . . . . . . 271

Figure in box 5-L-The National Science Foundation’s Long-Term Ecological Research Network. . . . 272
Appendix A–List of Tables and Figures I 361

Chapter 6-Forests

Figure 6-l—USDA Forest Regions of the United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302

Figure 6-2—Forest Density Within Advanced Very-High-Resolution Radiometer Pixels. . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

Figure 6-3-Area of Forest and Nonforest Land by Region, 1987. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304

Figure 6-4--MajorForest~s of the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

Figure 6—5-Status of U. S. Forestland and Distribution of Timberland Ownership, 1987. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308

Figure 6-6-Timberland Ownership by Region, 1987. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308

Figure 6-7-Forest Area Planted or Seeded in the United States bisection and by ownership . . . . . . . . 309

Figure 6-8-Forest Fires in the United States, 1924-87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

Figure 6-9-Current and Projected Range of Sugar Maple under Two Models of Global Warming. . . . 322

Figure in box 6-B-Average Carbon Storage per Acre of Forestland in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
Appendix B:

Acknowledgments

In addition to the workshop participants and the advisory panel listed in the front of this Report, OTA wishes

to thank the individuals and organizations listed below for their assistance with this Report. These individuals and

organizations do not necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this Report. OTA assumes full responsibility for

the Report and the accuracy of its content.

Joe Abe

EPA

Carlton Agee

OTA

Dave Almand

BLM

Patricia Anderson

NSF

Cecil Armstrong

USFS

Dick Arnold

USDA

Marilyn Arnold

Environmental and Energy

Study Institute

Adela Backiel

Congressional Research Service

Tom Baerwald

NSF

Dick Ball

DOE

Robert Barbee

NPS

Mary Barber

Science & Policy Associates, Inc.

Keith Bea

Congressional Research Service

Michael Bean

Environmental Defense Fund

Barbara Bedford

Cornell University

James Beever

Florida Game & Freshwater

Fish Commission

Michael Bessler

BOR

Clark Binkley

University of British Columbia

H. Suzanne Bolton

NOA A

Mark Brinson

East Carolina University

Blabby Brown

OTA

Mike Buckley

FEMA

Bill Busch

NOA A

Dixon Butler

NASA

I 363
364 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Anne Carey

USDA

Katherine Duffy

Duffy and Associates

Indur Goklany

DOI

Pete Carlson

Alaska Division of Tourism

Jae Edmonds

Pacific Northwest Laboratory

Julie Gorte

OTA

John Elklnd

Council on Environmental

Quality

Barbara Cherry

NASA

Ross Gorte

Congressional Research Service

Elizabeth Chornesky

OTA

James Gosselink

Joanna Ellison Louisiana State University

Bermuda Biological Station

for Research, Inc. James Clark

Duke University

James Gosz

NSF

Gary Evans

Stan Coloff USDA

BLM

William Gregg, Jr.

NPS

Jack Fellows

OMB Dennis Grossman

The Nature Conservancy

Peter Comanor

NPS

Arthur Felts

University of Charleston Howard Gruenspecht

DOE

Charles Cooper

San Diego State University

Robert Fischman

Indiana University Joan Ham

OTA

Lynne Corn

Congressional Research Service Len Fisk

NASA Frank Harris

NSF

Pierre Crosson

Resources for the Future Wendell Fletcher

OTA Chuck Hassebrook

Center for Rural Affairs

Jim Curlin

OTA Mike Fosberg

USFS Jimmy Hickman

USFS

William Davis

EPA Carl Fox

University of Nevada Robert Hirsch

USGS

Todd Davison

Doug FOX

USFS Donald Hodges

Mississippi State University

John Dennis

Jerry Franklin

University of Washington Marjorie Holland

Ecological Society of America

A.V. Diaz

NASA Bob Friedman

OTA John Housley

COE

Erich Ditschman

Clinton River Watershed

council

Mary Gant

Hi-Is LeeI Ischinger

FWS Bert Drake

Smithsonian Environmental

Research Center

Thomas Gedna

Oklahoma School of Electrical

and Computer Engineering

Dale Jamieson

University of Colorado

Paul Dressier Tom George

USDA

Anthony Janetos

NASA
Appendix B–Acknowledgments I 365

Katherine Jesch

USFS

Larry Larson

Association of State Floodplain

Managers, Inc.

Paul McCawley

USDA

Stanley Johnson

Institute for Policy Studies

John McShane

Don Laurine FEMA

NOAA William Jordan Ill

University of Wisconsin

Arboretum

Gary McVicker

Steven Leatherman BLM

University of Maryland Mark Meo

Eugene LeComte University of Oklahoma

National Committee on

Property Insurance

Linda Joyce

USFS

Jerry Melillo

Woods Hole Ecosystems Center Fred Kaiser

USFS Bob Ledzion

BOR Robert Mendelssohn

Sally Kane Yale University

NOAA Simon Levin

Princeton University Ben Mieremet

NOA A

Kerry Kehoe

Coastal States Organization Roy Lewis Ill

Lewis Environmental Services, Inc. Hal Mooney

Stanford University John Kelmelis

USGS Steven Light

South Florida Water

Management District

Lewis Moore

BOR Paul Ketty

University of Ottawa

David Mouat

Desert Research Institute

Harry Lins

USGS

John Kirkpatrick

USFS

Tom Muir

USGS

Orie Loucks

University of Miami

Robert Knecht

University of Delaware

Kit Muller

BLM

Jane Lubchenco

Oregon State University

Gordon Knight

BLM

Mary Fran Myers

University of Colorado

Alan Lucier

National Council of the Paper

Industry for Air and Stream

Improvement

Marge Kolar

FWS

Dan NewIon

NSF

Paul Komar

OTA

Ariel Lugo

Puerto Rico Department of

Natural Resources

Elvia Niebla

USFS

Stanley Krugman

USFS

Stephen Nodvin

NPS

James Kushlin

University of Mississippi

Kathy Maloney

USFS

John Nordin

USFS

Maria Lacayo-Emery

USFS

Stephanie Martin

University of Washington

Douglas Norton

NASA

Larry Langner

USFS

Mark Mauriello

New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection

and Energy

Edward LaRoe

D OI

John Pastor

University of Minnesota
366 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Ari Patrinos

DOE

Robert Schallenberger

FWS

Steven Sonka

University of Illinois

Jon Pershing

Department of State

Joel Scheraga

EPA

Raymond Squitieri

Council of Economic Advisors

Rob Peters

Consultant

Karen Schmidt

Environmental and Energy

Study Group

Eugene Stakhiv

COE

Mike Phillips

OTA

Linda Stanley

Rust y Schuster DOI

Rutherford Platt BOR

University of Massachusetts

at Amherst

Marty Strange

J. Michael Scott Center for Rural Affairs

University of Idaho Norton Strommen

USDA Boyd Post

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Cooperative State Research

Service

Fran Sharpeis

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Byron Tapley

Eileen Shea University of Texas at Austin

Brooks Preston NOAA

Senate Committee on Agriculture,

Nutrition, and Forestry

Eugene Tehru

David Shriner DOT

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Jack Ward Thomas

Pacific Northwest Forest and

Range Experiment Station

J.C. Randolph

Indiana University

Max Simmons

Congressional Research Service

Peter Raven

Missouri Botanical Garden Benjamin Simon

DOI

Shelby Tilford

NASA

Steve Rawlins

USDA David Smith

Southeast Regional Climate

Center

Dennis Tirpak

EPA

Francis Reilly

Don Trilling

Joel Smith DOT

EPA John Reilly

USDA Dennis Truesdale

Lowell Smith USFS

EPA Courtney Riordan

EPA Eugene Turner

William Smith Louisiana State University

Yale University Steve Ragone

USGS Lim Vallianos

Dave SoIenberger COE

General Accounting Office

Michael Ruggiero

NPS Jan van Schilfgaarde

Wayne Solley USDA

USGS

Nora Sabadell

NSF Virginia Van Sickle-Burkett

Bill Sommers FWS

USFS

R. Neil Sampson

American Forestry Association Hassan Virgi

Working Group on Global

Change, Executive Secretary

David Sandberg

USFS

Jack Sommers
Charles Wahle

Congressional Research Service

Geoffrey Wall

University of Waterloo

Jonathon Weiner

DOJ

Rodney Weir

NOAA

Trina Wellman

NOAA

William Werick

COE

Robin White

OTA

Don Wilhite

University of Nebraska

Jeffress Williams

USGS

Paul Windle

EPA

Appendix B–Acknowledgments I 367

Phyllis Windle

OTA

Frank Young

HHS

Mike Young

USDA

Joy Zedler

San Diego State University

Jeffery Zinn

Congressional Research Service
Index

adaptation to climate change

agricultural, 6, 13, 18-19,44-46 ~; 276-277,

286-328 ~

anticipatory actions, 3 ~

choosing strategies, 15-16 ~

coastal areas, 6, 18,40 ~]; 154-204 ~

communication of risk and, 25-26 ~

contingency plannin

defin~2-3~ “2627

flcxibi.li’ty in pd.icy making, 16-17, 18 ~

forests, 6, 15, 19,23,55 ~; 320-330,347-349 ~]

fragmentation, 19,2325

hiStOIiCd exampks, 298-300 ~

manag~ VS. unmanaged systems, 102-103 ~

photoperiod and, 87 ~; 287,299,303 ~]

preserves, 19, 53 ~; 235-238, 244-250, 258-268,

276-277,279-291 ~

rate of change and, 4 ~

research, 16-17, 23, 27, 30,35, 111, 132-139, 147-

148 ~

species adjustments, 91-95 ~; 179-181 ~

water resources systems, 6, 18,42 ~; 232-235 ~]

WCtkIldS, 12, 111 ~/II]; 172-185 ~

agriculture

adaptability, 6, 13,18-19,44-46 ~]; 276-277,

286-328 D]

biotechnology applications, 284,306-307,315,323,

325 ~

climate change effects, 5, 13, 15,45 ~; 286-296 ~]

commodity support programs, 17, 19, 45, 46 ~; 276,

297,310,311-312,317-319, 326,327 ~

competition for world markets, 284 ~

crop insurance, 21, 26, 33, 36-37, 45 ~; 254-255,

312-313,320,321,328 ~]

cropping systems, 46 ~; 287, 308-309 ~

disaster assistance, 19, 26,36-37,45-47 ~; 276,310,

312-313,319-322,326-328 ~]

domestic demand, 282 ~

drought and, 13,45 ~; 288,293,304-305 @J

dryland, 33 ~; 218,291,296,299 ~

economic issues, 276,277-278,280,288, 291,292 ~

environmental concerns, 284, 289, 292,294-2% ~

farm structural changes, 286,304-305 ~

Federal programs, 278-280,284 ~

fertilizers, 88 ~; 219,307 ~

growing season, 13,33 ~; 287,303 ~

information and management technologies, 46 ~; 284,

305,307-308,323-328 ~

institutional setting, 310-316 ~

intensive farming practices, 33,46,87-88 ~; 304 ~

legislation, 46-47 ~; 278-279,311,312,318, 321 ~

microclime mod.Mcation, 303 ~

policy options, 46=$7 ~]; 316-328 ~

in prairie pothole region, 26, 33-34 ~

regions of United States., 281, 283 ~

research and extension, 16-17, 22, 26, 35, 46, 133, 135

~]; 279,297,299,305,308, 309,310,317,323-324,

326 ~

salinization problems, 259,284,294-296,297 ~

Sodbuster Program, 284 ~

soil conservation, 278,279, 301,310,322,324 ~]

soil moisture and, 10, 11 ~; 303 ~

subsidies, 17, 19 ~; 192, 297, 310, 312-313,318,

320 ~

Swampbuster Program, 284 n]; 192-194,201 ~

technologies, 45,46 ~; 297-309 ~

trends, 281-286 ~

water demand and supply, 31,45 ~; 288-289,292-294,

296,300,313,322 ~

NOTE: Volumes 1 and 2 of the report are indicated by U] and ~, respectively.

1369
370 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

water pollution, 29,32 ~/II]; 217,219,278-279,284, 292,

294,296,328 ~; 168, 170-171,251 ~]

wetlands, 26, 28, 31, 33-34, 47 ~; 276, 278 ~);

170-171, 192-194, 199,200 ~]

world demand, 282-284 ~

see aZso crops; irrigation; livestock; U.S. Department of

Agriculture

Alabama, 270,273,305 ~]

Alaska, 13,50-52,81,82 ~]; 166,221 ~; 161, 163, 168,

185,209,221 ~

alpine areas, 91 ~]; 181,225 ~

American Indians, 212,222,243 ~

Antarctic

ice cores, 80 ~

ozone layer hole, 73 ~]

arid West

agriculture, 276 ~

drought, 210,288 ~

irrigation subsidies, 240, 313 ~

precipitation pattern shifts, 9 ~]

protected natural areas, 52 ~

snowrnelt, 213 ~]

water supplies, 212 ~]

water transfers, 18 ~]; 292-293 ~]

wetlands, 13, 47, 125 ~; 167, 176, 178-179, 181,

184-186,201, 202,209 ~

Arizona, 215,223,224,237,246, 250,272-273 ~]

Arkansas, 13 ~; 270, 280 ~

Arkansas River Basin, 228,292,293 ~

&sociation of State Floodplain Managers, 184 ~]

Babbitt, Bruce, 30,37 ~/ITl

barrier islands, 39, 79 ~]; 154, 156, 158, 165, 176-178,

185-186, 199-200 U]; 194 ~

Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, 141,143 ~

bears, 225,226,241 ~]

biodiversity

consematioh, 49, 55-56, 109 ~; 220, 232-233 ~; see

also natural areas

Everglades, 29 ~

fomts and, 336-342 ~

Gap Analysis Project, 129 ~; 270-271 ~

National Biological Survey, 37,48,53,129,137,149, 150

~/II]; 283-284 &I]

preserves and, 19,49 V/H]; 239,258 ~

protection, 53 ~; 258 ~]

wetlands, 167, 172, 178, 180, 182-183, 186 ~

Biosphere Reserves, 29 ~/11’J; 230,246-248,275,288,

289 ~]

biotechnology, 23 ~]; 284,306-307,315,323, 325 ~

birds, 29,33,51,93,96 ~]; 218,226,301 ~]; 165,

226-228 ~

Brown, George, 117 ~

Bureau of Land Management, 50 ~; 222, 248 ~]; 188,

222,224,225,229,231, 235,237,240,242-244, 261,

270,277,279,289,313, 332-334,336,338,340, 344,

347 pI]

Bureau of Reclamation, 43, 136 ~; 233-234, 240, 243,

246,248,249-250,254, 257,263,294,295,313 ~;

204,252 pq

California, 273 ~

agricukum, 31 ~; 280,294-297,304,315 ~

Central Wley Project, 31 ~; 219,223,224,236,238,

241,296-297 ~; 209,252,255 @Il

coastal population, 31 ~

drought, 22,32 ~; 238-239,261 ~

Drought Water Bank, 236,238-239 ~

fiIM, 1,90 ~, 261 ~

f100dS, 253 ~

Imperial Valley, 237 ~

irrigation districts, 237-238 ~

Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge, 294-2% ~

Metropolitan Water District, 224, 236, 237, 241, 247,

261-262 ~]

Owens Valley, 216,237,238 ~

Peripheral Canal, 32 ~; 237 ~

San Joaquin Vid.ley, 294-296,297 ~

San Luis Darn, Canal, and Reservoir, 295 ~

State Water Project, 31 ~; 236,238,251,259 ~

water issues, 13,31-32 ~; 214-215,216,219,222, 223,

224, 227, 236, 237, 240-241, W, 247, 259-262,

294-2% ~; 210 ~

wetlands, 155, 160-161, 183, 209, 277 ~

Canada, 33 ~; 230-231,260,298,299 PI; 190 I?ll

carbon dioxide, 71-74, 75,87-89,94,98 ~

Antarctic ice cores, 66,71,80 ~

atmospheric concentrations, 50,65,66,73,80,89 ~

doubling effkcts, 70,75,76,93 ~; 166,290 ~

ecosystem productivity, 88-89 ~

emission scenarios, 72,73 ~

fertilization effect, 11, 66, 70, 87-89 ~; 287 ~;

175-176,323 ~

long-term records, 71,80 ~

Sinks, 51 ~; 165, 168, 185,310-311 ~

CtibOU, 50 ~; 185, 225 ~

Carnegie Comrnission, 143 ~

Carnegie Mellon University, 140, 143 ~

Carson River Basin, 248, 2S1 ~]

Chesapeake Bay, 81,87 ~; 157 ~; 163, 175, 176, 183,

199 m]

chlorofluorocarbons, 65,72, 73, 112 ~

Clean Water Act

fishery improvement, 82 ~

municipal sewage treatment funding, 197-198, 202, 220-

221,242 U]

non-point-source pollution, 215,220 ~; 200 ~

reauthorization, 44 ~; 219,220-221 ~

water constnation, 44 ~; 264 ~

watershed management, 25,48 ~; 205,206,209,210,

220,215,256 ~

wetlands protection, 36, 48 ~; 202, 221 ~; 154, 155,

157, 159, 178-179, 188, 189, 191, 195-196, 198,200,

203,205-206,209-212 ~

clouds and cloud cover, 68, 87 ~
Index I 371

coastal areas

barrier islands, 39,79 ~]; 185-186, 199-200 ~

beach nourishment and shoreline protection, 41-42 ~];

154, 168, 172-176,202,204 ~

building COCkS, 199 m

demographic trends 155-156 ~

development pressures, 39,40 ~; 166 ~

development subsidies, 17,18,21 ~; 172,176,177 ~

disaster assistance, 21,41 ~; 171-173, 198-199 ~

erosion, 9,26,39,41,51,79 ~; 155,156,157,170-171,

181, 187-188, 191, 194-195, 201 ~; 173, 182, 183,

186 ~

flood insurance, 18, 21, 26, 41 ~; 168-171, 180-182,

194-198 ~]

flooding, 155, 156, 157 ~; 186 ~

hazard assessment and mitigation, 26,40 ~]; 166, 167,

174-175, 183-185, 198-199,200,201,203 ~

hurricanes and coastal storms, 13,39,90 ~; 154, 155,

159-166, 171, 188-191 ~]

institutional fragmentation and regulato~ obstacles, 18

~]; 178-179 ~]

land acquisition, 200,201 ~

management legislation and programs, 21,41 ~]; 154,

178-179, 185-194, 196,201 ~; 193 ~

mangroves, 29,99 ~; 160, 172 ~

pdiCy O@OI’LS, 4042 ~]; 194-204 ~]

population pressures, 5, 13,31,39,82 ~; 154, 156 ~

retreat policies, 175, 179, 188, 192-193, 197 ~; 207 ~

risk allocation and management, 154 ~; 201 ~

sahvater intrusion, 13,32,96 ~; 215 ~; 176, 182 ~]

sea level rise, 8-9, 13, 39, 79, 93,94 ~; 154, 155-157,

159, 197 ~; 173-174, 182, 186 ~

setback provisions, 175, 179, 181, 187, 196,201,202 ~;

193, 195,206 ~

“takings” issue, 177-178, 191 ~]

tax code subsidies, 21-22 ~; 168, 176,200 ~

V zones, 168, 169, 171, 181, 196 ~

vulnerability, 5,6, 13, 15,39 ~; 154-166 ~

wetlands, 9, 12, 15, 21, 47 ~; 159, 160, 165, 190, 202

~]; 169-170,180-183,186, 193,201 ~]

Coastal Barrier Resources System, 185,200 ~]

Colorado, 213,215,238,246,248, 272,280,285,292,293

~; 179,257 ~

Colorado River Compact, 224-225 ~

Colorado River Basin, 13 ~; 216, 2X-225, 237,239,246,

259 ~

Columbia River, 260 ~; 175 ~

Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES),

113-115, 118, 121, 132, 133, 136, 138, 146 ~

committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy

(COSEPUP), 4,6, 110 ~

Comecticut, 269 ~

conservation

biological diversity, 49,55-56, 109 ~

Federal programs, 278-280 ~

forest, 55-56 ~; 346 ~

funding, 54 ~; 265-266 ~]

habitat, 236-238 ~

incentives, 21 ~/IIJ; 287-288 ~

SOti, 278, 279, 301 ~

species, 54, 127 ~]; 235-238 ~

wetlands, 278 ~]; 192-193 ~

see also water conservation

Conservation Reserve Progrw 233,278,284,318 ~; 190,

191, 194,268, 287 ~

Consortium for International Earth Science Information,

274 ~]

conventions and treaties

Biodiversity Convention, 109 ~

Framework Convention on climate Change, 2, 109 ~

Montreal Protocol, 73, 109 ~

crop insurance, 21, 26, 33, 36-37, 45 w]; 172, 199,

254-255,312-313,320, 321,328 ~

cropland

distribution and land are% 277,282,294 ~

forest clearance for, 296 ~

harvested acreage, by crop, 284 ~

irrigated, 282, 287-289, 294-2%, 301-302 ~

soil moisture, 100 ~

crops

adaptation to climate change, 17 ~]; 291, 298-300,

308-309 ~]

barley, 302,311 ~

breeding, 277,289,298-299,306, 323,325,327 M

contingency planning, 22 m

corn, 278,284,285,287,288, 289,291,298,299,300, 302,

303,305,306,311 ~

cotton, 87 [I/II]; 284, 301, 302, 306, 308, 311 ~

disease- and pest-resistant, 299,306-307 ~

drought-tolerant species, 300 ~]

exports, 277-278 ~

genetically engineered, 307,325 ~

Kenaf, 309,311 ~]

new crops, 300, 308-309, 325 ~

nutritional quality, 287 ~

oats, 300, 311 ~

oilseeds, 309, 311 ~]

range, 9 [I/II]; 276, 277 ~

rice, 284, 287, 611 ~

sensitivity to climate change, 13,45, 81 ~; 287-289 ~

simulation, 290, 308 ~]

sorghum, 284, 287, 301, 302, 303, 305, 309, 311 ~

SOJtMIS, 45,81 ~]; 278,284,285,287,300, 305,306,

311 ~

sugar cane, 287 ~]

wheat, 33, 34 ~]; 277, 278, 284, 285, 287, 288, 291,

298-299,300,301,303, 305,306,311 &l]

yields, 290,305,306,322-323 ~

see aZso crop insurance

Crown of the Continent Project, 249 ~]

darns, 17 (VII]; 215, 258,293 ~

Delawarv, 269 (i]

Delaware River Basin, 23,24 ~

Delmana Peninsula, 157 ~

desalination, 259-260 ~
372 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

disaster assistance

agricultural programs, 19, 26, 36-37, 4547 ~; 276,

310,312-313,319-322, 326-328 N

congressional oversight, 199 ~

for crop losses, 7,21,45,46-47 ~;

deftig disasters, 21,4647 ~; 320,328 ~

Federal share, 198,310 ~

crop insurance, 21, 26, 33, 36-37, 45 ~; 172, 199,

254-255,312-313,320, 321,328 ~]

emergency loans, 173, 176,279,313 v]

hazard-reduction programs and, 166,198-199 ~

for hurricanes, 7 ~; 154, 172 ~

legislation, 41,4647 ~; 171,183-185,203,312, 313,

321 ~

Mississippi River floods, 7 ~, 228-231 ~, 175 ~

payments, 7,47 ~; 154,172,310,312,321, 328 ~]

policy options, 47-48 ~; 198-199,203,310,319-322,

326,327 ~

Residential disaster declarations, 178,185, 199,312 ~]

public assistance grants, 168-169,171-172, 198,199 ~]

reforms, 19,21,40,46-47 ~; 154,172-173,198-199 ~

riak perception and, 21,26 ~

self-insurance program, 322 ~

disease, 14,88-89 ~; 224 ~

drought

agricultural effects, 13,45 ~; 288,293,304-305 ~

assessment programs, 255 ~

Aust@i& drought policy, 252,320 ~

@.iforni% 22,32 ~; 238-239 ~

economic eflkcts, 228 ~

~OIiC@ 28-29 ~

~uency, 69 ~

government assistance, 34 ~

inland water transportation and, 227-231 ~, 288 ~

interagency task force, 22,43 ~

legislation, 255 ~

management, 27,42 ~; 251-256 ~

pests and, 94 ~

policy OptiOllS, 43 ~; 254-256 ~

prairie potholes and, 33-34 ~

precipitation pattern shifts and, 9 ~

preparedness planning, 255 ~

public-awareness programs, 255 ~

SWCIity iMkX, 69 ~; 228 ~

State l)kms, 27 ~, 252 ~

water bank, 236,238-239,279 ~

water resources and, 42 ~; 210,251, 293 ~; 179 ~

DUCkS Unlimited, 129 ~; 195 ~

Earth Day 1993,2 ~

tilogicid Society of Arneric% 138 ~; 268,269 ~

economic issues

-On research, 133-134 ~

in agriculture, 276-278,280,288, 291 ~

drought, 228 ~

fiSkliCS, 31 ~; 163-164, 183 ~

forests, 302, 316, 328-330, 332, 335-336, 341-342,

345-349 ~

gross national product, 10 ~

preserves, 232 @l

transportation, 14, 15 ~; 227,231 ~

water quality and quantity, 5,7 ~

wetlands, 154-155, 162-164, 166, 178, 183 ~

ecosystems

adaptability to climate change, 6,79-80 ~

anthropogenic stresses, 66,88, 90-91 ~

iUCtiC, 87 ~

corridors, 242-243 ~

declines and diebacks, 93-94 ~

direct climate impacts, 91-% ~

@Wn~tion, 19,49,66,90 ~; 239-MO ~

Greater YelIowstone, 19 ~; 226,243-245,250 ~

Hokiridge Life Zones, 91, 95, % ~

management models, 244-250 ~

research, 35,53-54, 111, 148-150 ~; 269 ~

restoration, 17 ~; 154-156,276-277 ~

water resources and, %-98 ~]

education, see public education

Electric Power Research Institute, 143 ~

endangered and threatened SpCCkS, 29, 30, 31,47, 53, 93

~; 219,221,235-238 ~; 162,165,183,186,190,

192,208,221,225,232-233, 241,258,268 ~

energy use

sensitivity and adaptability, 6, 14, 15 ~

water resources and, 211-213,227 ~

Environmental and Energy Study Institute, 150 ~

Environmental Conservation Acxeage Reaerve Prow

268 ~

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

adaptation research, 133,135 ~

agricuhurc-relatai programs, 280 ~

assessments of climate change, 100, 102-103, 110,

143 ~

climate change research, 75, 133 ~; 289, 290 ~;

207 pq

Environmental Monitoring and Assemment Rogram, 193,

199,200,210-211,268, 270 @IJ

watershed management, 245 ~

wetland management,48 ~; 178 ~; 155,157,179,188,

189, 193,205,206 ~

evapotranspiration, 13,33,65,69,77,97,98 ~

Executive OrdeXX

Executive Or&r 11988 (Flood Plain Management), 192,

198 ~

Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wdands), 155,

192, 198 ~

Executive Order 12656,252,254 ~

Experimental Forests, Ranges and Watmheds, 23,56 ~;

231 ~

extreme events

CW change and frequency of, 1,66 ~; 250-251 ~

contingency plarming, 5,22-23,26-27 ~

z~nt 42A3 ~; 250-257,262-263 pl

policy OptiOnS, 22-23 ~; 194-24)2, 254257, 319-322

~; 342-347 ~

uncertainty abou$ 10-11 ~
wetlands effects, 172, 176, 183-184 ~

see also droughts; fires; floods

farms, see agriculture; crops

Farmers Home Administration, 173, 176,279,313 ~; 192,

201,203,212 ~

Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and

‘Ikchnology (FCCSET), 20, 30 n.7, 38-39, 110, 113,

139, 146, 148 ~; 324 ~

Federal Crop Insurancs Program, see crop insurance

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 156, 168 ~

Community Rating System, 180, 182 ~; 208 ~

disaster assistance, 171-173, 179, 198-199,254 ~

flood insurarm, 178-179, 180, 197 ~; 193 ~

floodplain mapping, 171, 197 ~

ha.zard-mitigation requirements, 41 ~; 198-199,203 ~

Federal Energy Regulato~ Coremission, 233 ~

Federal Insurance Admuus ‘ “ tration (FIA), 168, 171, 1% ~

FiR Island, 171 ~

fires

ecological benefits, 51, 90, 100 ~]

forest, 1,9, 12,22,26,27, 100 ~], 317,324,325,327,

329,330,342-347

management in protected areas, 261-263 ~

f~heries

Aleutian-North PacFlc, 13,50,51-52,81-82,86 ~;

185 @Il

anadromous species, 82,95 ~

commercially important species, 83-85 ~

die-offs and declines, 29,31,81 ~

effects of climate change, 13,51-52,81-82 ~; 173-174,

183 ~]

endangered and threatened, 31 ~

estuarine-dependent, 81 ~

industry, 50, 81-82 ~; 190 ~

Imuisiana-Gulfof Mexico, 84 ~; 173-174 ~

overfishing of, 51-52 ~

OySterS, 81 ~; 186 ~

regional characteristics of, 83-85 ~

Sacramento-San Joaquin River System, 31 ~

salmon, 31, 50, 81, 82 ~; 215 ~; 226

Shrimp, 29 w]; 174, 186 ~

StlipCd bass, 31, 81 ~; 183 ~

temperature effects, 81 ~]; 215,219 ~

wetlands role, 47, 81 ~]; 163-164, 174, 181 ~

Fish and Wildlife 2000,277 ~

flood-control measures

coastal areas, 174-175 ~; 183 ~

Federal agencies involved in, 254 ~

jurisdictional fragmentation, 25 ~]; 233-234 ~

migration of wetlands and, 12 ~; 182 ~

and storm surges, 213 ~

water resource plarming and, 42 ~

and wetlands, 47 ~; 162, 164, 166, 168, 174, 182,

183 ~]

floodplain

development, 10 ~]; 253 ~; 192 ~

management, 43 ~; 168, 179-180,253,256 ~; 208 ~

Index I 373

mapping! 171, 197 ~

wetlands, 161 ~

floods

coastal areas, 39 ~; 155 m

i.llfIWtIllCtlKC aging and, 227 ~

insurance, 168-171, 180-182 ~

land area subject to, 253 ~

managemen~ 253-254,256-257 ~

Midwest (1993), 1,7, 10,15,22 ~; 231 ~; 203 ~

national assessment board, 22,43 ~; 256 ~

policy options, 22 ~; 256-257 ~

vulnerability to, 253-254 ~

see also National Flood Insurance Program

Florida

agriculture, 280,285,305 ~

barrier islands, 39 I?/111

building codes, 179, 193 ~

coastal management, 187, 191, 193,200 ~

coastal population and development, 155, 156, 164, 174,

179 ~

dIOU@S, 28-29 ~

endangered species, 241 ~

Everglades, 25,28-30 ~; 219 ~; 205,209 ~

f~heries, 84 ~

flood control, 28 ~

hurricanes, 1,7,22,28,29 ~; 154-156,163-165,171 ~

mangroves, 172 ~

protected anms, 257 ~

sea level rise, 79 ~; 156, 157 ~

water issues, 28,42 ~; 215,219, 223,261,270 ~;

210 ~

wetlands, 160, 161, 164, 175, 182, 207,209 ~

Forest hgacy Programs, 57 ~; 335,341,341 ~

fonX management, 6 ~

even-flow-hamest reqUirement, 22 ~; 347-348 ~

@@tC lands, 56 ~; 334-336 ~

protection of forest health, 22,56 ~; 343-347 ~

public lands, 332-334 ~

risk communication, 22,26 ~

response to climate change, 17,55,56 ~; 330-336 @3J

trends, 27 ~]; 317,319-320 ~

Forest Stewardship progr~ 57 ~; 335,341,342 ~

Forestry Incentives Progmrn, 57 ~; 335,341,342,346 @IJ

forests

adaptability, 6,15,19,23,54,55 ~; 320-330 ~

Blue Mountains, 27 ~; 318-319,329 @IJ

boreal, 50,51 ~

carbon releases, 51 ~

COZ concentrations and, 66 ~; 323 ~

consewation and preservation methods, 55-56 ~

declines and dieback, 9, 12, 54, 55, 56, 93-94 ~;

342-346 ~

dispersal and colonization rates, 12 ~; 304-305,

308-309,311,315 ~

fins, 1,9,12,22,26,27,100 ~; 261-263,317, 3M, 325,

327,329,330,342-347 ~

forest health, 22,56 ~; 343-347 m

fragmentation, 21,55 ~; 326 ~
374 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

hunicane damage, 189-190 ~

incentive programs, 56-57 ~; 342,346-349

land are% 54 ~; 303-304,308-309,311, 315 ~

legislation, 56-57 ~; 312-314,343,346,348 ~

-don, 12,14,52,54,94 ~; 321-323,332-333,336

monitoring, 125 ~

policy OptiOllS, 21,22 ~; 336-349 ~

precipitation pattern shifts and, 9 ~

PriVtlte lands, 21 ~; 341-342,346-347,348-349

research, 23,55 ~

resou.rws, 301-303,315-317 ~

seed banks, 23, 55-56 ~; 336-338 ~

vulnerability, 6, 15,19,54-55 ~; 324,326-328 ~

types, 304 ~

see also timberland

fossil fuels, 2 ~; 212,227 ~

General Accounting Office (GAO), 186,200,252 ~; 189,

264pIl

general circulation models (GCMs), 78,91,99 ~

C02 doubling effect, 76 ~; 166,290 l?’1

global climate change predictions, 68-70 ~

precipitation changes, 76 ~

principles, 68 ~

11.UIOff pIdiCtiOnS, 212-213 ~

soil-moisture predictions, 9, 11,69,77-78,99, 101 ~]

tempmmm pI’diCtiOIIS, 2,29,67,76 ~

uncertainties and generalities in, 68-70 ~]; 213 ~]

vegetation shifts, 91 ~

Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), 9,11,76,

78,99-101 ~; 290 ~; 322 ~

Geor~ 157,186,194,215,270 ~; 164,210 ~

C3ibbons, John, 112 ~

&cklard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), 9, 11, 76-78,

100-101 ~; 290 ~; 322 ~

Gore, Albert, 147 ~

&athikcs, 13,14,75 ~; 166,186,192,228,230-231 ~;

186 ~

greenhouse gases

atmospheric concentrations, 65,74,75

.

~

Chmate Convention and, 2 ~

emissions, 2, 74 ~

feasibility of reduction, 2 ~

predicted changes in, 71-73 ~

sources, 72,73 ~

groundwater

adaptation to declines in, 301-302 ~]

integrated management with surface water, 23, 25 ~];

210,250,246-247,301-302 ~

overdrafts, 9 ~; 212,218,223-224 ~

pollution, 219,284 ~

precipitation pattern shifts and, 9 ~

reasonable use doctrine, 222 ~

saltwater intrusion, 29 ~; 155, 212, 213,217, 219 ~;

176 ~

Gulf Coast (U.S.), 12, 13, 39 ~; 156, 159, 164, 167,

217-218 ~

Gulf of Mexico, 79 w]; 156-157 ~; 175 ~

Gunison River Basin, 248 ~

habitats

conservation plans, 236-238 ~

fragmentation, 3,5,13,19,86,92-93, % ~

needs of wildlife, 226 ~

wetlands, 164-165 ~

Hawaii, 1,71,85 ~; 166,273 ~; 168 ~

hazard assessment, coastal, 26,40 ~; 166, 167,

183-185 ~

Hazard Mitigation Grants program, 180, 183-185 ~

health (human), 6, 14,15 ~

Holdridge Life Zones, 91, 95, % ~

hurricanes and storms

Andrew, 7,22,29 ~; 154-156,163,165,168, 171,172,

179, 193 ~

coastal effects, 13, 39 ~; 159-166, 189-191 ~

contingency plans, 22 ~

damage-producing potential, 161, 163, 166,202 ~

economic costs, 163, 165, 168, 172, 189-191 ~

Federal disaster payments, 7 ~; 154, 172 ~

flood-insurance claims and payments, 168 ~

historic, 159-160 ~

Hugo, 7,22 ~; 154, 155, 163, 165, 168, 172, 175-176,

188-191 ~

m 154,155, 168 ~

intensity, 11,75 ~; 159, 160, 162-163 ~

personal losses, 159, 191 ~

property damages, 189 ~

redevelopment in high-risk areas, 25 ~

Saffir-Simpson scale, 162-163 ~

hydrologic cycle, %-97 ~]; 212-213 ~; 165, 174,175,

186 ~

hydropower, 9 ~; 211,227,231,233,248 ~

ice/snow melts

agricultural effects, 289 ~

mountain snowpacks, 32,67,71 ~

oceanic effects, 79 ~

IUIIOff and, 213 ~]

sea ice, 50-51,71,79 ~]

sea level rise and, 69,79 ~; 156 ~

temperature increases and, 70 ~

transportation and, 14 ~

Idaho, 273,280 ~; 244,260 ~

m.iIIOiS, 186,231,271,280,285, 288,305,315 ~]

Illinois River, 228,230 ~

Indian Reservations, 222-223,243 ~

Indiana, 270,285 ~

indigenous cultures, 50,51, 83-85 ~; 212 ~; 185 ~

information technologies

agricultural applications, 46 ~]; 284, 305, 307-308,

323-328 ~]

Geographic Information Systems, 129 ~; 273 ~

inland waterways

barge traffic, 227-228,288 ~

dredge and fill activities, 188, 189, 198,229-230 ~
Index I 375

drought effects, 227-231,288 ~

shipping, 14 m

insects, 81, 86, 88-89, 94 ~; 288

Intergovemmental Panel on Climate Change (WCC), 2,4,6,

72, 115 ~

climate change predictions, 10, 32,68,73, 111 ~

scientific assessment of climate change, 71,74, 100, 102,

103, 110, 118 ~

sea level predictions, 78-79 ~; 156, 159 fl]

Interstate Coremission on the Potomac River Basin, 245,

249 m

Interstate Council on Water Policy, 252 ~

Iowa, 33 ~; 271,280,285 ~; 181 ~]

irrigation

adaptation to climate change, 303-304 ~]

alternatives to, 296,301 ~

conservation technologies, 4 ~; 282, 301-305 U]

cropland distribution and acreage, 280, 282, 294,301 ~

groundwater withdrawals for, 301 ~]

moisture conservation and, 303 ~

Newlands Project, 252-253 ~]

with reclaimed water, 261, 293 ~

in saline soils, 294-296 ~

scheduling, 303, 305 ~

subsidies, 17, 26 ~]; 240, 310, 313, 322, 326, 327 ~;

200 p]

water quality and, 294-296 ~

water supplies and, 217, 237, 239, 276,288-289,304 ~]

wetlands losses and, 184 ~]

Kansas, 271,285,298,301 ~]; 183 ~

Kentucky, 271 ~

Kissirnmee River, 28,29-30 ~; 204 ~]

Land Acquisition Priority System, 208,266 ~

Land and Water Conservation Fund, 230,237 ~

Land-use pl arming, 129 ~/II]; 201 ~]; 159, 206, 207, 229,

248 ~]

bgislation

Acid Precipitation Act, 141 ~

Agricultural Credit Act, 203 ~]

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 221 [111

Baucus-Chafee Water Pollution Prevention and Control

Act, 220 ~

Central valley Project Improvement Act, 224,264 ~]

Clean Air Act, 314,318 ~]

Clean Water Act, see Clean Water Act

Coastal Barrier Improvement Act, 186 ~

Coastal Barrier Resources Act, 40,48 ~; 180,185-186,

199-200 ~; 193, 194,201,212 ~]

coastal development, 191 ~

Coastal Zone Management Act, 21,37,40,41 ~; 180,

186-188, 191-194, 199,201 ~; 192, 193 ~]

Coastal Wetlands Plannin g, Protection and Restoration

Act, 192, 194,202 ~

Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978,56-57 ~/11],

335,346 ~

Dingell-Johnson Act, 191 ~

drought-related, 255 ~

Duck Stamp Act (see Migratov Bird Hunting and

Conservation Stamp Act)

Earthquake, Volcanic Eruption, and Hurricane Hazards

Insurance Act of 1993,41 ~; 203,204 ~

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, 48 ~;

190, 191-192, 194,208,209,212,267 ~]

Endangered Species Act, 30,31 ~; 219 ~; 192,

210,223,233,235-236, 255,258,267,288,313, 315,

319 ~

Energy Policy Act of 1992,44 ~; 242,264 ~

Energy Security Act, 141 ~

environmental impact assessments, 38 ~

Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act,

29 ~]

existing statutory language, 37-39 ~

Farm Bi.h, 36-37,46,56 ~; 278-279, 312, 313,321,

324,327 [TJ; 335,341,346,348 ~

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937, 191,

267-268 ~

Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act of 1950, 191,267-

268 ~

Federal Crop Insurance Act, 312 ~

Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1990,321 ~

Federal Disaster Preparedness and Response Act of 1993,

41 ~; 203 ~

Federal J.nsecticide,Fungici&, and Rodenticide Act, 279,

280 ~

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976,313,

334 ~

Federal Power Act, 38 ~

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 189 ~]

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980,54 ~; 291,

266, 268,288 ~

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 38 ~; 192 ~

Flood Disaster Protection Act, 168 ~

Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act, 309,312

~; 190,192, 194,268,335,341 ~

Food Security Act of 1985,312 ~; 191, 192, 194 ~

Forest ~osysterns and Atmospheric Pollution Act of

1988,279,343 ~

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Reseaxh

Act, 336,343 ~

Fonxt and Renewable Resources Plmnin g Act of 1974,

312,325 ~

forest management, 56 ~

Hatch Act, 315 ~

Henderson Wetlands Act of 1984,209 ~

Housing and Community Development Act, 180-181 ~

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, 190 ~

Magnuson Fishery Act, 82 ~

Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 228 ~

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act

(DUCk Stamp kt), 184,189,190,194,200 ~

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 228 ~

MorriU Act, 315 ~

Multiple Use and Sustained-Yield Act, 312 ~

National Environmental Protection Act, 276 ~
376 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

National Environmental Policy @ 38 ~; 155, 192,

199,255,312 ~

National FONSt Management Act, 347 ~

National Flood Insursnce Act, 168,180 ~; 193 ~

National Flood Insurance Compliance, Mitigation, and

Erosion Management Act of 1993,41,43 ~; 194,

203,256,263 ~

National Flood Insurance Reform Act, 194,203 ~

National Fom@ependent Rural COmrnunities Bconomic

Diversification Act of 1990,336,348 ~

NationaI Forest Management Act, 22 ~; 312 ~

National Psrk Semice Organic Act of 1916,228,234,

314 fyt-J

National Parks and Recreation Act, 245,314 ~

National Wildlifb Refuge System Administmtion Act of

1966,228 ~

North American Wetlands Consawtion Act of 1989,190,

208 ~

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, 311,318 ~

Open Space Pmwrvation Act of 1991,200 ~

Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Ac\ 38 ~

Pittman-Robertson Act, 191 ~]

protected natural areas, 228-230 ~

public land acquisitio~ 38 ~

Public Rangclands Improvement Act, 334 ~

Reclamation Act of 1902,313 ~

Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act

of 1992,44 ~; 264 ~

Refige Recreation Act of 1%2, 228,264 @TJ

research authorization, 38 ~

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899189 ~

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 171, 180, 184, 198 ~

Safe Drinkm“ g Water Act, 227,280 ~

Science Policy AX of 1976,20,38-39,146-147 IJ/llJ

Srnith-hver Act, 316 N

Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act, 326 ~

Tax Reform Act of 1986,242 ~; 194,200 ~

Txuckee-Carson-Pyramid Lske-Water Settlement Ax,

254 p.rl

U.S. Global Change Research Act, 39, 113,150 ~

Water Bank Act, 190,194,200 ~

Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act, 219,245,249

m; 209 ~

Water Quality Act, 280 ~

Water Resources Developmmt Act, 29,44 ~; 250,264

~; 192 ~

Water Resources Plarming Act, 38 ~; 249 ~

wetlsnd protection, 47,48 ~; 188 ~

Wild and Scenic RiVCrS Act 179,229,256 ~

Wikkrness Act, 221,224,229,239,256, 267,312 ~

Wildlife Refuge Admrms “ “ tration Act, 264 ~

livestock, 200,202,280-281,285, 288-290,300,304,306,

309-310 ~; 178 ~

hmg-~rm Biological Research pro- 268,271,2$3 ~

Louis~ 39,40 ~; 156-157,166,215,270, 280,315 ~;

160, 163, 173-174,182, 192, 194,204,209 ~

Maine, 159,170,188,192,269 ~; 182,206,207 @IJ

Man and the Biosphere Prognuq M-247, 275,2$8,289 ~;

see abo Biospharc RCSCNCS

marine mammals, 50,51,52 ~; 190-191 ~

Marine Sanctuaries PrograQ 194 ~

Maxyland, 157,176,269,315 ~

Massachusetts, 225,240,269 m; 164,210,259 m

Massachusetts Institute of lkchnology, 143 ~

Mauna Loa Observatory, 71 ~

methane, 51,65,72,73 ~

h&CiCO, 215,217-218 ~; 190 ~

MiCh@l, 192-193,271,285 ~; 189 ~

migration

corridors, 12 ~; 223-224, X2-244, 286,287 ~

facilitation of, 187,206-208 ~

flyways, 183,227,247,253,255 ~

forests, 12 ~; 321-323,332 ~

@pnentation of habitats snd, 92-93 ~; 181, X2 ~

obstacles to, 12,93,94 ~; 180, 182, 186 ~

pnxellms, 247,250-251 ~

WCtltlIldS, 12,47,93,94,99, 100 ~; 166, 192 ~; 176,

180, 182,186,206-208 ~

M@ltOry Bird Conservation Fu@ 189 @IJ

Minncso@ 33 ~; 271,240,285,290 ~; 173, 181 ~

Mississippi, 270 ~; 164,173,174 ~

Mississippi Delta, 12,79, 129 ~; 157,215 ~; 173-175,

182, 183 ~

Mississippi River

barge backups, 227-231,288 ~

diversions, 260 ~

drought effects, 10 ~; 228-231 ~; 175 ~

flooding, 7,10, 15,22 ~; 228-231 ~; 175,204 ~

Gulf outlet, 204 ~

international controversy, 230-231 ~

navigation on, 22$-231 ~

MiSSOUIi, 13 ~; 229,230,271,285 ~

Missouri River, 227,229,232 ~

Mitigation and Adaptation Reseamh strategies (MARS),

118, 132-134, 138 ~

models/modeling

crop simulation, 290,308 ~

Extended SWarnflow Prediction, 248 ~

funding for, 250 ~

hydrological, 38,44 ~; 248 ~

Integrated “Chrnate Change Assessnmt Model, 143 ~

for water-rnana ement decisiomnaking, 248 ~

weather Reso~s Forecasting Sys- 248 ~

see also general circuhtion models

Mon~ 33 ~; 232,272,285,313 ~; 173,181,244,

277 ~

municipal sewage treatment, 220-221 ~; 155,200-201 ~

National kSdCmy of Sciences (NAS), 54, 100,

102-104,140,143,149, 252 ~; 157,166,185-186,

281-282 ~

National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (IWIPAP),

140-142 ~
Index I 377

National Aeronautics and Space Administration,

136, 141 ~

ecological studies, 125, 134-135 ~

Global Climate Change Program, 274 ~]

Mission to Planet Earth, 122-124 ~

National Biological Survey, 37,48,53, 149, 150

200,210-211,283-284, 289-290 UIl

119, 131,

I./IQ; 199,

National Commission on the Environment; 145 ~

National Committee on Property Insurance, 165 ~]

National Estuary Program, 234,280 ~; 193 ~

National Flood Insurance Fund, 169-170 ~

National Nood hxmrance fiO~iUIl, 166 ~

claims and payments, 163, 168, 170 ~]

coastal high-hazard (V) zones, 168, 169, 171, 196-197 ~

community participation, 168-169, 253 ~]

costs per structure, 170 ~

disaster-assistance grants, 168-169, 172, 199 ~

erosion zones and management standards, 170-171, 194-

195 ~

Federal financial liability, 169, 1% ~

flooded-properties-purchase program, 175, 180 ~

floodplain-management standards, 168, 179-180 ~]

hurricane darnages, 163 ~

legislation, 41,43 ~; 168, 194,203 ~

mandatory participation, 168, 170 ~

mapping and rate structure, 197 ~

premium rates, 21 ~; 169, 194, 197 ~

reform options, 21,22,40,41 ~; 154, 194-198,203 ~

risk calculations, 257 ~

sea level rise and, 22 ~; 197 ~

Section 1362 Flooded Properties Purchase Program,

180 ~

Upton-Jones Relocation Assistance, 175, 178, 180-182,

197-198 ~

wetland development and, 193,206, 208 ~

National Forest Genetic Resources Program, 56 ~; 337 ~

National Forests, 50 ~; 190,222,223 ~; 229,230,231,

309 m]

National Institutes of Health, 315 ~

National Marine Fisheries Service, 31 ~; 155, 157, 188,

189 ~

National Marine Sanctuaries, 231 ~

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; 231 ~]

adaptation research, 133, i36-137 ~

coastal-hazards-management progmm, 41 ~; 178, 186

194,201,203 ~

Estuarine Habitat program, 208-209 ~

Habitat Restoration Program, 203 ~

National Acid Precipitation Assessment Plan, 141 ~]

non-point-source-pollution-management program, 201 ~

Office of ocean and Coastal Resource Management,

188 ~

USGCRP research budget, 131 ~

Water Resources Forecasting System, 248,250,264 ~

wetlands protection, 188, 193, 194 ~

National PA Service, 30,136 ~; 188,220,221,223,224,

226,228,233, ~3-245, 251,255,260,275,278, 285,

313-315,332,334,344 ~

National Parks

acquisition of sites, 266, 267,286 ~

categories, 228 ~

Everglades, 25,28-30 ~]; 219 ~]; 205,209,251 ~

Glacier, 238,249,251 ~

Grand Canyon, 238 @l]

endangered species, 235 ~

land area and sites, 226 ~

legislative framework, 228,234 ~

management philosophies and goals, 221, 223, 230,

262-263 ~

research needs, 282 ~]

Rocky Mountain, 257 ~]

value, 232, 238 ~

water rights, 222, 223 ~

Yellowstone, 100, 132 ~; 220,227,238,251,

261-263 ~

Yosemite, 238,251 ~]

National Research Council, 112,136-139,145 ~; 306 ~;

181, 185 D]

natural resources

agriculture, 275-329 ~]

coasts, 153-204 ~]

forests, 299-351 ~

preserves, 219-291 ~

water, 209-273 D]

wetlands, 153-213 [II]

National Science and ‘lkchnology Council, 147 ~

National Science Foundation, 35, 133, 137, 141, 143, 149

~]; 315 ~; 193 ~

L.ong-’knn Ecological Research Program, 271-272 ~

National Water Commis sion, 265 ~

NationaI Weather Service, 193 ~

National Wetlands Inventory Program, 125, 129 ~; 162,

165, 199,200,278 ~

National Wetlands Policy Forum, 185,200,208 ~

National Wetlands priority Conservation Plan, 190, 191 ~

National Wild and Scenic River System 229,230 ~]

National Wilderness Preservation System, 221, 224, 228-

230, 243,267, 278, 279, 285 @J; see also wilderness

Nation~$ildlife Refbges, 50 ~; 220,227,279 ~

acquisitions, 190, 194, 266, 286 ~

Balcones Canyonkmds Consenation Plan, 238,247-

248 ~

Browns Park, 250 ~

Cheyeme Bottoms Wildlife Area, 301-302 ~

Des Lacs, 250 ~

Ding Darling, 257 ~]

endangered and threatened species, 235 ~

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 243 ~

Kesterson, 294-296 ~; 251 ~

land area, 226,240 ~

legislative framework, 228 ~

management philosophies and goals, 221, 223, 225, 231,

238-239,260,264 ~]

Pelican Island, 228 ~

policy options, 282,286 ~]
378 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

Stillwater, 251,252-254 ~

water-allocation issues, 252-254 ~]

wetlands, 171, 255 ~

natural areas

acquisition policies, 17,21,22,36,54 ~; 222,264-268,

291 ~]

adaptability, 19,53 ~; 220,258-264,266-268 ~

Alaskan, 50 m

buffer zones, 242-243,244,245,246 ~

climate change and, 49 ~; 222,254,256-258 ~

defined, 224-22S, 227 ~

distribution, 227,240,247 ~

disturbance management challenges, 259-264 ~

economic issues, 232,236 ~

and endangered species conservation, 235-238,258 ~

exotic species, 260-261 ~

fn management, 261-263 ~

human imp-, X8, 250-251, 263-264 ~

institutional fragmentation, 20, 52 ~; 220, 222, 240,

243,250 ~

inventorying, and monitoring, 22, 23 ~; 268-279,

280-285 ~

land acquisition, 189-190 ~

landscape fragmentation, 239-240,241-243 ~

legislative framework, 228-230 ~

management philosophies and goals, 52 ~; 220, 221,

222,223,230-231,244-246 ~

pest control, 260-261 ~

protection strategies, 284-289 ~

research, 22,23 ~; 268-279,280-284 ~

_ with climate change, 49 ~; 220 ~

size considerations, 5, 19,23 ~; 225-226,241 ~

S&&X4CS (existing), 49 l?/IX]; 220,239-253 ~

Sustainable Biosphere Initiative, 138 ~; 269 ~

water allocation issues, 251, 252-256 ~

see UZSO national parks; national wildlife refuges; wilderness areas

~]Natun Conservancy

Last Great Places Initiative, 246-248,273,283,288 ~

National Natural Heritage Program, 230,273 ~]

wetlands protection, 195 ~

Nebr~ 271,280,285,298,301 ~; 183 ~

Nevada, 12 ~; 215,216,273 ~; 183 ~

New Hampshire, 269 ~

New Jersey, 157, 176, 187,269 ~

Pine Barrens, 245-246 ~

New Mexico, 216,217,246,272 U]

New York, 156, 157, 171,173, 187,269 ~

Adirondack Park, 248-249 ~

non-point-source pollution, 201, 220 ~; 199,200 ~

North American Free Trade Agreement, 217 ~

North tiha, 133 ~; 172,179,187,188,191, 193,195,

270 ~; 161, 182 ~

North Dako@ 33,34,48 ~]; 232,250,272,285,289 ~;

181 @I]

Northern Forest Lands Study, 249 ~]

Office of Management and Budget, 117, 121,147 ~

Office of Science snd lkchnology Policy (OSTP), 20,38-39,

54, 113,149 ~; 281-282 @l_l

Ogallala Aqui.fkr, 223,301-302,304 @J

Ohio, 271,285 ~

Ohio River, 227-229 ~

oil and gas exploration and development, 50,52 ~;

190 m

Okefenokee Swamp, 90 ~

Oklahom 272,285 ~; 183,259 ~

Oregon, 159,273 ~; 155,210 ~

Blue Mountain forests, 27 ~; 318-319,329 ~

Oroville, Lake, 251 ~

ozone layer depletion, 67,73, 112 ~

Pennsylvania, 270,315 ~; 173 ~

pest control, 14,56,81,86,89 ~; 260-261,279,292,

307 ~]

photosynthesis, 87,88, % ~; 175 ~

policy issues and options

adaptation andmitigationresearchprogram, 147-148 ~

agricultural, 4647 ~; 316-328 ~

barrier island subsidies, 199-200 ~

beach-nourishment and shoreline-protection programs,

202,204 ~

biodiversity protection, 336-342 ~

classification criteria for research, 147 ~

coastal zone management, 200,201,203-204 ~;

206-208 ~

commodity support programs, 17, 19, 45, 46 ~;

317-319,326,327

communication of risk, 19,21-22, 25-26 ~

consewation incentives, 21 ~; 287-288 @Il

contingency plarming, 19,22-23,26-27 ~

cross-agency coordination, 48 ~; 201 ~; 186-187,202,

282,288-289 ~

disaster assistance, 4748 ~; 198-199, 203, 319-322,

326,327 ~

drought management, 43 ~; 254-256 ~

flood insurance, 194-198,203 ~

flood management, 256-257 ~

forests, 21,55-56 ~; 336-349 ~

geographic fragmentation, 19-21, 23 ~; 186-187,

244-250 ~

irrigation subsidies, 322,326, 327 ~

land acquisition, 21,54 ~; 200 ~; 1%-197, 207,

291 ~

National Biological Survey, 37, 48, 53, 149, 150 ~;

283-284,289-290 ~

prOtCCtCd areas, 21,53-54 ~; 210,279-291 ~

reauthorization cycle, 36-37 ~

research and information gaps, 19,23,27,30,35 ~

research augmentation, 19, 20, 53-64 ~; 144-150 ~;

210-211,213,281,290-291 ~

science interface with, 117-119 ~

statutory language, 37-39 ~

U.S. Global Change Research Act amendments, 150 ~

water-demand management, 242-243 ~
Index I 379

water-marketing, 243-244 ~

water-quality management, 48 ~

water-supply management, 249-250, 262 ~]

wetlands protection, 21,4749 ~]; 200, 202 ~];

195-213 ~

poph.r Island, 157 ~

population growth

agricultural demand and, 282,284 ~

coastal areas, 5, 13, 31, 39 ~

water supplies and, 212, 214-215, 218 ~

Potomac River Basin, 245 ~]

prairie potholes, 9,12,26,33-34,47,48 ~; 160-161,181,

183-184, 186, 190,202 ~

precipitation

distribution and forms, 79,98 w]

predicted changes, 9,65,69,75-76,98 ~

soil moisture and, 10, 77 ~]

temperature increases and, 10,68 v~

water resources and, 13 ~~

wetlands and, 19 ~; 175 ~]

preserves, see natural areas

Presidential Initiatives, 113 ~

public education

COaStd hazards, 41 ~]; 203-204 ~

drought mitigation, 255 D]

risk communication through, 26,41 ~]

water consemition, 240, 302 ~

public lands

acquisition policies, 17,21,22,36 ~; 2tM-268 ~

administration of, 50 ~]; 226,231 ~]

for nature conservation, see natural areas

water rights, 222, 223 ~

Puerto Rico, 189 ~]; 209 ~]

Puget Sound, 159 ~; 175, 182 ~

recreation, 6, 25 ~; 211-212, 228, 231, 232, 248 ~;

162-164, 168, 183, 184,202,232,239,328-330 ~

remote sensing, 123-132 ~; see also satellites

research

adaptation, 30, 111,132-139,147-148 ~

agricultural, 16-17, 22, 26, 46 ~; 279, 297, 299, 305,

308-310,317,323-324, 326 ~

appropriations process, 35-36 ~]

cross-agency coordination, 20, 22, 54, 131-132 ~;

282-283 ~

ecosystem-scale, 35,53-54, 111 ~; 290 ~

integration of information systems, 270-274 ~

new developments, 115-117 ~]

policy options, 20, 53-64 ~]; 144-150 ~; 281,

290-291 ~

in protected areas, 239 ~; 282 ~

satellite vs. nonsatellite measurements, 122-131 ~

wetlands, 23, 4849 ~]; 193-195, 210-211, 213 ~

see also U.S. Global Change Research Program

Research Natural Areas, 229,231,272-273 ~]

reservoirs and reservoir systems, 7, 32, 43 ~; 210, 227,

232, 244-N, 251,257-259,263-264, 294-2%,

313 ~

Resource Conservation and Development Program, 279 N

Rhode Island, 269 ~

Rio Grande Basin, 13 ~; 215,217-218,249-250, 298,

309 m

river basin management, 20 ~; 210,224-225,244,249 ~

rivers, flood+sontrol measures, 10, 12 ~

IUIIOff, 69-70,77,86 ~; 212-213, 217 ~

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, 159,239,295 ~

Sacramento-San Joaquin River System, 26,31-32 ~;

216 ~

San Francisco Bay, 32 ~; 159 ~; 155-156,175, 182 ~

San Joaquin River, 294-296 ~

satellites

Earth Observing System, 122-124, 127, 139, 140 ~

Landsat, 126-127, 129, 130,131, 132 ~

limitations of, 130-131 ~

passive sensors, 126 ~

temperature measurement, 67 ~

sea level rise

cause, 68-69,78-79 ~

coastal effects, 8-9, 13,39,79,93,94 ~; 155-157, 159,

213 ~

flood insurance and, 197 ~

historic, 78 ~

Imuisiana, 173-174 ~

Poplar Island erosion, 157 ~

predicted changes, 32,65,74,78-79 ~

saltwater intrusion, 13,55 ~; 213 ~; 182 ~

setback legislation and, 187 ~

storm surges and, 8-9 ~; 155, 162-163,213 ~; 173 ~

wetlands and, 9, 12, 19, 29,47 ~; 192 ~; 176 M

seed banks, 23, 55-56 ~

Small Business Adrrums “ “ tration, 163, 173 ~

Small Watershed Program, 233 ~

soil moisture

agriculhue and, 10, 11, 34 ~; 303, 308 ~

precipitation patterns and, 10,77,86 ~

predicted changes, 11,69,77-78,99, 101 ~

remote sensing, 127, 129, 131 ~

soils

carbon emissions, 51,98 ~; 185 ~

consewation, 233, 254, 279 ~

erosion control, 284 ~; l@l ~

nutrient cycling, 88, %, 98-99 ~; 175 ~

percolation rates, 77 ~

salinization, 259,284, 296, 297 ~

vegetation changes and, 98-99 ~

South Carolina, 155, 157, 175, 177-179, 188-191, 193,

270 ~

South Dakota, 272,285,289 ~; 181 @TJ

South Florida Water Management District, 29 ~

South Platte River, 293 ~

species

adaptation to climate change, 49 ~; 179-181 ~
380 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

cXtinCtiOXIS, 5, 17-18 ~; 224i 241-242 ~

nonnative (exotic) and nuissnce, 29,89,90,92 ~; 169,

223,260-261,288 ~

reproductive failure, 91,94 w]

vulnerable, 259 ~

see also endangered and threatened species

states

Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, 190,192 ~

contingency plans for extreme events, 27 ~

protected areas, 230 ~

wetlands protection, 195 ~

statutes, see legislation

subsidies

agricultural, 17, 19 ~; 192,297,310,312-313, 318,

320 ~

coastal development, 17 ~; 176, 177 ~

forestry, 56-57 ~; 342,346-349 ~

irrigation, 17, 26 ~; 240, 310, 313 ~

risk communication through reforms, 21 ~], 26

Superior, Lake, 230 ~

surface water

integrated management with groundwater, 210,

246-247 ~

prior appropriation doctrine, 222 ~

IipaI’iaIl doctrine, 222 ~

Sustainable Biosphere Initiative, 268,268 ~

“takings” issue, 177-178, 191 ~; 159,200 ~

taxes

CWldty-10SS ddUCtiOIIS, 176, 186, 200 ~

coastal development subsidies, 40 ~; 168, 176, 186,

200 ~

losses due to hurricanes, 190 ~

reforms, 40 ~; 242-243 ~

policy OptiOIIS, 21-22 ~; 200,322 ~

risk communication through reforms, 21-22 ~

water-conservation incentives, 242 ~

wetlands conservation incentives, 190, 191, 194, 200,

212 ~

temperature

changes in, 1,2, 10, 14, 65,66,68,73, 75,76, 91 ~

crop yields and, 288 ~

global long-term record, 67,80 ~

plant productivity and survival and, 80-81 ~

role of, 80-81, 86 ~

water, 81 ~; 215, 217 ~

lknnessee, 126 ~; 258,227-231,271 ~

lknnessee Valley Authority, 133, 141 ~; 234, 254, 257,

258 ~

lkrmstrial Ecosystems Regional Research and Analysis

Laboratory, 274 ~

‘lkrrestrial Research Interest Group, 138-139 ~; 273-274

m

‘kXSS, 272,309 ~, 209 ~)

agriculture, MO, 280,285,301 ~

building COdCS, 179 ~

coastal hazards, 40 ~; 156, 157, 179 ~]; 173 ~]

coastal management program, 186, 194 ~]

flooding, 157,170 ~

High Plains, 223,240 ~

hurricanes, 159, 163, 193 @j

preserve, 248 ~

sea level rise, 156, 157 ~

water issues, 13 ~; 215, 217,222, 223, 240, 246, 301,

302 ~

wetlands, 160, 182, 183 ~

Tijuana River, 175, 182 ~

timberland

fanner-owned, 308-309 @IJ

hurricane damage, 189-190 ~

National Forest lands, 309,311

ownership and management, 304-305, 308-309,311,

315 ~

private timber industry lsnds, 305,308 ~

public lands, 311,315 ~

revenues for conservation, 202 @Il

tourism, 6,50,52 ~; 189 ~; 239 ~

transportation, 14, 15 ~; 228-231,288 ~; see ako inland

waterways

treaties, see conventions and treaties

Truckee River Basin, 248,252 ~

tundr~ 185 ~

a&@tion to climate change, 185 ~

ildC, 178, 179, 181, 185 ~

carbon releases, 51 ~; 185 ~

COZ fertilization effect, 87 ~

indigenous people, 185 ~

Pemm&ost, 13,51 ~; 161, 175, 176, 185 ~

vegetation changes, 51 ~

wetlands, 13,47 ~; 161, 175, 176, 179, 181, 185 ~

United Nations

Conference on Environment and Development, 2,

109 m

Educational, Scientilc , and Cultural organi.mtio~

246~

Environment Program, 71,103 ~

Us. Army corps of Engineers

Dredged hhtCX’iidS Program, 204-205 ~

drought-management assessment, 252,254 ~]

flood control, 254 ~

inland water projects, 175,229 ~

Institute for Water Resources Municipal and Industrial

Needs, 242 ~

Kissimmee River restoration, 29-30 ~

policy options for improvements in, 249-250 ~

reservoir management, 43 ~; 232,246,257,263-264 ~

responsibilities, 233 (I_J

shoreline protection and beach no “undunent, 41-42 ~;

159, 173-175,202,204 ~

water demand-rnsnagement evaluation program, 248 ~

wetlands protection, 48 ~; 178,202 ~; 155, 157, 158,

164, 174, 188, 189, 192-194, 199,203-206,210,

212 pq

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 141 ~

agriculture regions, 278, 280, 281 ~
Index I 381

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, 311

~; 188,191 @q

Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization

Center, 309 ~

8SSiSt/N103 ~O~i3mS, 279 ~

Commodity Cnxlit Corporation,311, 314 ~

&ought-watch system, 256 ~

Economic Research Sewicc, 316 ~

Farmers Home Adnums ‘ “ tration, 173, 176, 279, 313 ~;

192,201,203,212 ~]

National Resource Inventory, 193 ~

research and extension, 16-17, 22, 26, 35, 46, 133, 135

~; 279,297,308,310,315-316, 323-325 ~

resource assessment and program evaluation, 325-326 ~

Soil Conservation Service, 233,254, 157,279,302,310,

316,322,324,326 ~; 157,188, 190,193 ~

Water Bank Program, 190 ~

water-related mpcmsibilities, 190, 233 ~

wetlands protection, 48 ~; 157,171,184,188,190, 191,

203,212 ~

see also U.S. Fonxt Service

U.S. Department of Commerce, 141 ~; 233 ~; 163 ~

U.S. Department of Defense, 133 ~; 188 ~]

U.S. Department of Energy, 131, 133, 136, 141, 143 ~;

233+ 315 ~

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 136, 141

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 133

~; 176 ~

U.S. Department of Interior

adaptation mearch, 133,135 ~

coastal banier mapping, 186 ~

conservation incentive programs, 287 ~

ecosystems research, 274,281 ~

Everglades policy, 30 ~]

global change research budgeg 119-120 ~

interagency activities, 141 ~]; 245 ~

land acquisition, 266 ~

land-management agencies, 224,225,228,240-241 ~

monitoring initiatives, 270, 274 ~

National Biological Survey, 37, 48, 53, 149-150 ~;

199,200,268,278,283 ~

public lands, 35, 131-132 ~

water-marketing role, 44 ~]; 243, 264 ~]

water-related responsibilities, 233-234 ~

see also National Park Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Selvice

U.S. Department of State, 141 ~

U.S. Department of Transptation, 173,176 ~

U.S. Department of Veterans AfYairs, 168,176 ~; 200 ~

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 220,226,231 ~

Endangered Species Program, 235-238 ~

fag limits, 31 ~]

Gap AIMi@iS pfOjCCt, 129 ~; 193, 199,208,

270-271 ~

land acquisition, 200 ~; 190 ~

lands administered by, 225,228,244 ~

management philosophy, 221, 238-239 ~

National Wetlands Inventory Progmm, 125, 129 ~;

162, 192,193, 199,200 ~

National Wetlands Research Center, 193,210 ~

North American Waterfowl Management Plan, 202,

208 ~

responsibilities, 234 ~

“take” permits, 237 ~

wetlands protection,48 ~; 155,157,164,165,170, 179,

188-190, 192, 193, 199,212 ~

water rights, 244 ~

U.S. Forest Sewice, 56, 125 ~; 188,222,225-227,229,

231,240,242,244,249-251, 261,263,266,270,274,

279,289,309,312,313, 325,326,332,334,336, 338,

340,343-345,347,349 m

U.S. Geological Survey, 136, 137 ~; 166,234,248,250

~; 193,199 ~

U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)

adaptation and mitigation research, 23, 110, 112, 116,

138-139, 147-148 ~

appropriations, 121-122 ~

Assessment program, 23, 111, 115-117 ~

balance among participating agencies, 110,131-132 ~

broadening, 145-148 ~

budget, 23,35, 112, 116, 119-132, 139, 143, 148 ~;

281 ~

Climate and Hydrologic Systems and Biogeochernical

Dynamics research, 120 ~

Earth Process Research, 120, 136 ~

Ecological Systems and Dynamics research, 23, 53-54,

111,120,134-136,139, 148-150 ~; 269,275,281,

290-291 ~

Economics Initiative, 136 ~

Human Interactions research, 120,134, 136, 139 ~

integrated assessments, 111, 112, 140-143, 146, 150 ~

mission and priorities, 3,4-5, 30,49, 110-112, 114, 116,

118-133, 136-138,139 ~

Integrated Modeling and Prediction, 115, 120 ~

oversight, 143-144, 150 ~

policy options, 143-150 ~; 281 ~

structure, 110, 112-115, 117 ~

Utah, 272 ~; 183 ~

Vermont, 269 ~

Virgin Islands, 189 ~

Virginia, 163,198,270,313 ~

Washington, 159,227,273,285 ~

water allocation

agricultural &rnand and, 288-289,292-294, 2%, 313 ~

cmmvation practices and, 240-244 ~

&mand management and reallocation, 42A13, 44 ~;

210, 235-U, 264 ~

“dry-year” option contracts, 293 ~

illstitUtiOI@ problems, 18 ~; 224-225 ~

marketing and transfer ammgernents, 32, 42, 4344, 45

~; 210,235-239,243-244, 264,313,322 ~

pricing xeform, 21,42 ~; 210,218,235,239-240,

243 ~
382 I Preparing for an Uncertain Climate--Volume 2

prior appropriation doctrine, 179,251 ~

Sacramento-San Joaquin River System, 31,32 ~

transfers, 18 ~; 225,250,292-293,322 ~

Water Bank Program, 279 ~

water conservation, 210, 240-244 ~]

demand management and, 42 ~; 210,240-243,264 u]

and drought management, 254 ~

economic incentives and disincentives, 240-243,263 ~

in Federal facilities, 44 ~; 242 ~

interruptible water service programs, 247 ~

metering and use restrictions, 301-302 ~

municipal programs, 241,242 ~

policy options, 242-244 ~

pricing ~forms and, 239-240,243 ~

public education and, 240-241,302 ~

reclamation and recycling, 43A14 ~; 210, 218, 243,

260-262,264,322 ~

seasonal storage progrsms, 247 ~[

supply management, 244-250 ~

tax reforms and, 242-243,322 ~

technologies, 242-243,289,301 ~

wetlands protection and, 184 ~

water quality

agriculture and, 29, 32 ~; 217, 219, 278-279, 284,

294-296 ~

drought and, 215 ~

Fcxleral programs, 279 ~

fish pO@tiOXIS and, 215,219 ~

incentive programs, 318 U]

legislation, 29 ~; 219,220-221,278-279 ~

non-point-source pollution, 215, 220 ~

RiO Grande and, 217-218

thermal pollution, 81 ~; 215,217,227 ~]

Water Quality Incentives Program, 278-279 ~

water resowce system stress

population, 214,216 ~

water quality, 215-219 ~, 28-29 ~

environmental needs and, 219 ~

reserved water rights, 221-222

groundwater overdraft, 223-224

outmoded institutions, 224-225 ~, 18 ~

aging water infrastructure, 225

c W change and, 210,212-213 ~, 15 ~, 75-78 ~

Water Resources Council, 249 ~; 1% ~

water rights, 18 ~]; 212,221-223,225, 240, 243-X5, 302

~; 178,179,251,255 ~

water supply augmentation, 257-262 ~

IWWOifS, 257-259

desalination, 259-260

interregional diversions, 260

wastewater reclamation, 260-262

water supply management

coordination, 21,23-25,36,42 ~], 210,244-245,263 ~]

reservoir system management, 245-246 ~

conjunctive use, 246 ~]

analytical tools and forecast systems, 247-248,250,264 ~]

river basin mnunksions, 249 ~

water resouxces council, 289 ~

water project reassessment, 249-250 ~

groundwater management, 250,301 ~

extreme events management, 250-257,262-263 @J

floods, 253-254,256-257,262-263 ~

droughts, 27,42,251-252,254-256, 262-263 ~

waterfowl, 13,29, 33,34, 126 ~; 235-238,294,301-302

~; 155,162,164,183-186, 194,218,221,228 ~

watershed management 25,36 ~; 220,225, M245, 249,

250 ~; 209-210 ~

West (U.S.), see arid West

West Virginia, 190,271 ~

Western Governor’s Association, 243,252 ~

Western Water Policy Review, 44 ~; 212,264-265 ~

wetlands

adaptation to climate change, 12,15,111 ~;

172-185 ~

agriculture, 26, 28,47 ~; 276, 278,294 ~; 170-171,

192-193, 199,200 ~

@k, 181 ~

biodiversity, 167,172, 178, 180, 182-183, 186 ~

btir zones, 192,200 ~; 207 W

coastal,9, 12,15,47 ~; 159,190 ~; 160,169-170,179,

181-183, 186, 194 ~

conservation, 278 ~; 159, 192-193 ~

coordination of protective efforts, 48 ~; 191-192,

212-213 ~

deftition for n@atory purposes, 157-158,165 ~

distribution, 50 ~; 160-161,168, 170 ~

economic issues, 154-155, 162-164, 166, 178, 183 ~

extreme events an~ 172, 175, 176, 183-184 ~

Federal programs and legislation, 47A8 ~; 154-159,

187-208,211-212,278 ~

fuheries, 81,96 ~; 163-164, 174, 179, 181, 183,

185 ~

flood management and, 22,47 ~]; 162, 166, 167, 174,

181-183, 186 ~

forested, 129, 161 ~, 176, 183 ~

fragmentation, 25 ~, 171-172,176,181,186 ~

bshwater nontidal, 160, 168 ~

groundwater declines and, 301-302 U]

importance, 47 ~; 162-166, 168, 183, 188 ~

interagency ti force, 198 ~

inventory, 125, 129 ~]; 162, 199, 200 ~

land acquisition, 189-190, 194, 198-199,207-209 ~

10ss, 19,47 ~]; 170, 179, 180-181, 184 ~

management, 17 ~; 178 ~; 186-187,208-210 @Tl

mangroves, 160, 175 @l’1

migration, 12,47,93,94,99, 100 ~; 192 ~; 176, 180,

181, 182,186, 187,206-208 ~

mitigation and restoration, 12,48 ~; 221 ~; 154-155,

174, 188, 190-191, 194,201-206,250 ~

monitoring, 23,47,48, 129, 131 ~; 186, 187, 193-194,

199-200,202,208-210, 213 ~

“no-net-loss” policy, 5,47 ~; 185-186, 192, 195, 198,

209 @l]

policy challenges and options, 47-48 ~]; 200,201 ~;

185-186, 195-213 ~

* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFlCE.1993-301 -804/98971
Index I 383

prairie potholes, 9, 12, 26, 33-34,47,48 ~]; 160-161,

181, 183-184, 186, 190,202,208,278 ~]

priorities, 21,47 fl/II]; 157-158,206-209 ~

protection, 48 fl/II]; 200-202 ~; 165, 178-179, 184,

195-201 ~

research, 23,48-49, 111 ~/II]; 193-195,210-211,213 ~]

lipti~, 13, 47, 125 ~/IIl; 167, 176, 178-179, 181,

184-186,201,202,206 ~

salt marshes, 87 ~]; 160, 167, 175 ~]

saltwater intrusion, 176, 182 ~

sea level rise and, 9, 12, 19,47 ~/II]; 173-174, 182,

186 ~]

species adaptation to climate change, 179-181 ~]

State, 10CS.I and private programs, 195 ~]

tidal fi-eshwater marshes, 160, 175, 182, 188 ~

tundra, 13,47,87 ~; 161, 175, 176, 179, 181, 185 ~

types, 160-161 ~

vegetation, 93, 94 ~~; 160-161 ~]

vulnerable areas, 12, 13,47 ~]; 181-185 ~

Wetlands Reserve Program, 48 ~; 233,278,318 ~; 190,

191, 194,202,212,268,287 ~

White House Office of Environmental Policy, 196,212 ~

wilderness areas, 50 ~]; 221,225-227,235,239, 243,246,

251,256,261,263,267, 278,279,282,286 ~

wildlife

adaptation, 92 ~

habitat fragmentation, 86 ~

management, 192 ~

migration ability, 92-93 ~

trapping, 165 ~

Wisconsin, 271, 285 ~]

wise use movement, 178 ~]

World Meteorological Organization, 71, 103 ~

Wyoming, 272 ~; 244 ~]