Implications of global change for the maintenance of water quality and ecological integrity in the context of current water laws and environmental policies
- 333 Downloads
There is both a fundamental and applied need to define expectations of changes in aquatic ecosystems due to global changes. It is clear that programs using biological indicators and reference-based comparisons as the foundation for assessments are likely to make increasingly erroneous decisions if the impacts of global change are ignored. Global changes influence all aspects of water resource management decisions based on comparisons to reference conditions with impacts making it increasingly problematic to find an “undisturbed” water body to define acceptable conditions of ecological integrity. Using a more objective scale for characterizing reference conditions that is anchored in expectations for what would be attainable under undisturbed conditions, such as the Biological Condition Gradient (BCG) is one approach that maintains consistent definitions for ecosystem conditions. In addition, protection of reference stations and of unique or undisturbed aquatic resources is imperative, though the scope of protection options is limited. Projections indicate that encroaching land use will affect 36–48% of current reference surface waters by the year 2100. The interpretation of biological indicators is also at risk from global changes. Distinguishing taxonomic attributes based on temperature or hydrologic preferences can be used to enhance the ability to make inferences about global change effects compared to other stressors. Difficulties arise in categorizing unique indicators of global changes, because of similarities in some of the temperature and hydrologic effects resulting from climate change, land use changes, and water removal. In the quest for biological indicators that might be uniquely sensitive to one global stressor as an aid in recognizing probable causes of ecosystem damage, the potential similarities in indicator responses among global and landscape-scale changes needs to be recognized as a limiting factor. Many aspects of global changes are not tractable at the local to regional scales at which water quality regulations are typically managed. Our ability to implement water policies through bioassessment will require a shift in the scale of assessment, planning, and adaptations in order to fulfill our ultimate regulatory goals of preserving good water quality and ecological integrity. Providing clear expectations of effects due to global change for key species and communities in freshwater ecosystems will help water quality programs achieve their goals under changing environmental conditions.
KeywordsGlobal change Climate change Water law Environmental policy Bioassessment
The authors would like to thank L. Yuan, R. Novak, K. Metchis, and several anonymous reviewers for their comments, which greatly improved this article. The authors would also like to thank R. Cantilli of the U.S. EPA for supporting some of our initial thinking on climate change implications to water policy. The Global Change Research Program in the National Center for Environmental Assessment in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development provided financial support for the analyses contributing to this article through contract # GS-10F-0268K, DO 1107 to Tetra Tech, Inc. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and they do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
- Allan, J. D. & M. M. Castillo, 2007. Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters, 2nd edn. Springer, the Netherlands. ISBN 978-1-4020-5582-9: 436 pp.Google Scholar
- Bailey, R. C., R. H. Norris & T. B. Reynoldson, 2004. Bioassessment of Freshwater Ecosystems: Using the Reference Condition Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, USA.Google Scholar
- Barbour, M. T. & J. Gerritsen, 2006. Key features of bioassessment development in the United States of America. In Ziglio, G., M. Siligardi, & G. Flaim (eds), Biological Monitoring of Rivers: Applications and Perspectives. Wiley, Chichester, England: 351–366 (469 pp).Google Scholar
- Barbour, M. T. & M. J. Paul, 2010. Adding value to water resource management through biological assessment of rivers. In Moog, O., S. Sharma, & D. Hering (eds), Rivers in the Hindu Kush-Himalaya – Ecology and Environmental Assessment. Hydrobiologia 651: 17–24. doi: 10.1007/s10750-010-0287-7.
- Bates, B. C., Z. W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu & J. P. Palutikof (eds) (2008). Climate Change and Water. Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Secretariat, Geneva: 210 pp.Google Scholar
- Brekke, L. D., J. E. Kiang, J. R. Olsen, R. S. Pulwarty, D. A. Raff, D. P. Turnipseed, R. S. Webb & K. D. White, 2009. Climate Change and Water Resources Management—A Federal Perspective: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1331: 65 p. [Also available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1331/].
- CCSP, 2008. Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (Julius, S. H. & J. M. West (eds); Baron, J. S., B. Griffith, L. A. Joyce, P. Kareiva, B. D. Keller, M. A. Palmer, C. H. Peterson & J. M. Scott (Authors)). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
- Chessman, B., 2009. Climatic changes and 13-year trends in stream macroinvertebrate assemblages in New South Wales, Australia. Global Change Biology. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01840.x.
- Daily, G.C., 1997. Introduction: what are ecosystem services? In Daily, G. (ed.), Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC: 1–10.Google Scholar
- Diaz, A. M., M. L. Suarez Alonso & M. R. Vidal-Abarca Gutierrez, 2008. Biological traits of stream macroinvertebrates from a semi-arid catchment: patterns along complex environmental gradients. Freshwater Biology 53: 1–21.Google Scholar
- Directive, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities L 327:1–72.Google Scholar
- Doledec, S., J. Dessaix & H. Tachet, 1996. Changes within the Upper Rhone River macro-benthic communities after the completion of three hydroelectric schemes: anthropogenic effects or natural change? Archiv Fur Hydrobiologie 136: 19–40.Google Scholar
- Dolédec, S., J. M. Olivier & B. Statzner, 2000. Accurate description of the abundance of taxa and their biological traits in stream invertebrate communities – effects of taxonomic and spatial resolution. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 148: 25–43.Google Scholar
- Gerritsen, J. & E. W. Leppo, 2005. Biological Condition Gradient for Tiered Aquatic Life Use in New Jersey. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Science and Technology, USEPA Region 2, and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, by Tetra Tech, Inc., Center for Ecological Sciences.Google Scholar
- Helmuth, B., B. R. Broitman, C. A. Blanchette, S. Gilman, P. Halpin, C. D. G. Harley, M. J. O’Donnell, G. E. Hofmann, B. Menge & D. Strickland, 2006. Mosaic patterns of thermal stress in the rocky intertidal zone: implications for climate change. Ecological Monographs 76(4): 461–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Herlihy, A. T., S. G. Paulsen, J. Van Sickle, & J. L. Stoddard, 2008. Striving for consistency in a national assessment: the challenges of applying a reference-condition approach at a continental scale. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27(4): 860–877.Google Scholar
- IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2000. Emissions Scenarios. A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, UK. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/091.htm.
- IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
- IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2007. Climate change 2007. The physical science basis. Summary for policy makers. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
- Jungwirth, M., S. Muhar & S. Schmutz, 2000. Assessing the ecological integrity of running waters. Hydrobiologia 422/423. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht: 487 pp.Google Scholar
- Konrad, C. P., A. M. D. Brasher, & J. T. May, 2008. Assessing streamflow characteristics as limiting factors on benthic invertebrate assemblages in streams across the western United States. Freshwater Biology 53: 1983–1998.Google Scholar
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Norris, R. H. & M. T. Barbour, 2009. Bioassessment of aquatic ecosystems. Encyclopedia of Inland Waters 3:21–28.Google Scholar
- Palmer, M. A., D. P. Lettenmaier, N. L. Poff, S. L. Postel. B. Richter & R. Warner, 2009. Climate change and river ecosystems: protection and adaptation options. Environmental Management. doi: 10.1007/s00267-009-9329-1.
- Paul, M. J., 1997. Back to Odum: using ecosystem functional measures in stream ecosystem management. In Hatcher, K. J. (ed.), Proceedings of the 1997 Georgia Water Resources Conference. March 20–22, 1997, University of Georgia.Google Scholar
- Paul, M. J. & J. L. Meyers, 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 32:333–365.Google Scholar
- Poff, N. L., J. D. Olden, N. K. M. Vieira, D. S. Finn, M. P. Simmons & B. C. Kondratieff, 2006b. Functional trait niches of North American lotic insects: traits-based ecological applications in light of phylogenetic relationships. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 25(4): 730–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Postel, S. & S. R. Carpenter, 1997. Freshwater ecosystem services. In Daily, G. (ed.), Nature’s Services. Island Press, Washington, DC: 195–214.Google Scholar
- USEPA (2008) Climate Change Effects on Stream and River Biological Indicators: A Preliminary Analysis. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-07085.Google Scholar
- USEPA (2010) Implications of Climate Change for Bioassessment Programs and Approaches to Account for Effects. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-09/xxx.Google Scholar
- USGPO (U.S. Government Printing Office), 1972a. Report of the Committee on Public Works – United States House of Representatives with Additional and Supplemental Views on H.R. 11896 to Amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. House Report 92–911. 92nd congress, 2d session, March 11, 1972: 149 p.Google Scholar
- USGPO (U.S. Government Printing Office), 1972b. Report of the Senate Public Works Committee – United States Senate. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. P.L. 92–500. Senate Report 92–414: 1468 p.Google Scholar
- Whitehead, P. G., E. J. Wilson & D. Butterfield, 1998a. A semi-distributed integrated nitrogen model for multiple source assessment in catchments (INCA). Part I – model structure and process equations. The Science of the Total Environment 210(211): 547–558.Google Scholar
- Whitehead, P. G., E. J. Wilson, D. Butterfield & K. Seed, 1998b. A semi-distributed integrated flow and nitrogen model for multiple source assessment in catchments (INCA). Part II – application to large river basins in south Wales and eastern England. The Science of the Total Environment 210(211): 559–583.Google Scholar