Itfl'1 41ac4 /@ : 2001 U.S. Climate Action Report

Itfl'1~ 41ac4~/@ ( ~
Agency Review Draft-January 11,2002--6:00 PM

0
Do not cite or quote
2001 U.S. Climate Action Report

2 Chapter 6: Impacts and Adaptation
3
4 Overview
5
6 In its report in June 2001, the Committee on the Science of Climate Change, which was convened by the
7 National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. concluded that U[h]uman-induced
8 wanning and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21" century" (NRC, 2001).
9 At the same time they recognized that there remains considerable uncertainty in current understanding of
10 how the climate varies naturally and will respond to proj ected, but uncertain, changes in the emissions of
11 greenhouse gases and aerosols. They also noted that "[t]he impacts of these changes will be critically
12 dependent on the magnitude of the wanning and the rate with which it occurs" (NRC, 2001)/To develop
13 an ini rial understanding of the potential impacts of climate change for the US during the 21 sl century, the
14 US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) has sponsored a wide-ranging set of assessment
'15 activities since the submission of the Second National Communication in 1997. These National
16 Assessment activities examined regional, sectoral and national components of the potential consequences
17 to the environment and key societal activities in the event of changes in climate consistent with
18 projections drawn from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Regional studies ranged
19 from Alaska to the Southeast and from the Northeast to the Pacific Islands. Sectoral studies considered
20 the'potential influences of climate change on land cover, agriculture, forests, human health, water
21 resources. and coastal areas and marine resources. A national overview drew together the findings to
22 provide an integrated and comprehensive perspective.
23
24 These assessment studies recognized that accurate prediction of potential outcomes is not yet feasible as
23 a result of the wide range of possible future levels of greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions, the range of
26 possible climatic responses to changes in atmospheric concentration, and the range of possible
27 environmental and societal responses. These assessments therefore evaluated the narrower question
28 concerning the vulnerability of the US to a specified range of climate warming, focusing primarily on the
29 potential consequences of climate scenarios that projected global average warming of abol,lt 2.5 to almost
30 4'C (about,4.5 to 7'F). While narrower than the full 1.4 to 5.S'C (2.5 to 10.4'F) range of estimates of
31 future warming projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2001a), the
32 selection of the climate scenari£,s that were considered did recognize that it is important to treat a range
33 of conditions about the mid-range predicted wanning, which was given by the NRC as 3'C (5.4 'F).
34 Similarly, assumption of a mid-range value of sea level rise of about 48 cm (19 inches) was near the
35 middle of the IPCC range of9 to 88 cm (about 4 to 35 inches) given by the IPCC (2001a). Because of
36 these ranges and their uncertainties, and because of uncertainties in understanding potential impacts, it is
37 important to note that this chapter cannot present absolute probabilities of what is likely to occur, but
38 instead can only present judgments about the relative plausibility of outcomes in the event that the
39 projected changes in climate that are being considered do occur.
40
41 To the extent that actual emissions of greenhouse gases turn out to be lower than projected or that
42 climate change is at the lower end of the projected ranges and climate variability about the mean varies
43 little from the past, the projected impacts of climate change are likely to be reduced or delayed and
44 continued adaptation and technological development are likely to be able to reduce the projected impacts
45 and costs of climate change within the US. Even in this event, however, the long lifetimes of greenhouse
46 gases already in the atmosphere and the momentum of the climate system are projected to cause climate
47 to continue to change for more than a century. Conversely, ifthe changes in climate are toward the upper
CEQ 008346
Agency Review Draft-January 11,2002-6:00 PM

1 end of the projected ranges and occur rapidly or lead to unprecedented conditions, the level of disruption
2 is likely to increase. As a result, adapting to a changing climate is inevitable and the question is whether
3 we adapt poorly, or we adapt well. With either weak or strong wanning, however, the US economy
4 should continue to grow, with impacts being reduced if actions are taken to prepare for and adapt to
5 future changes.
6
7 Although successful adaptation to the changing climatic conditions experienced during the 20 ril century
8 provides some context for evaluating the potential vulnerability to projected changes in climatic
9 conditions, the assessments indicate that the challenge to the US of adapting to changing climatic
10 conditions is likely to be greater during the 21 sr century than it has been in the past. Natural ecosystems
11 appear to be the most vulnerable to climate change because there is generally little that can be done to
12 help them adapt to the projected rate and amount of change. Sea-level rise at mid-range rates is projected
13 to cause additional loss of coastal wetlands, particularly in areas where there are obstructions to landward
14 migration. and put coastal communities at greater risk of stonn surges, especially in the southeastern US.
15 Reduction in snowpack is very likely to alter the timing and amount of water supplies, potentially
16 exacerbating water shortages, particularly throughout the westem US, if current water management
17 practices cannot be successfully altered or modified. Increases in the heat index (which combines
18 temperature and humidity) and in the frequency of heat waves are very likely. These changes will, at a
19 minimum, increase discomfort, particularly in cities, however, their health impacts can be ameliorated
20 through, among other measures, increased availability of air-conditioning.
21
22 At the same time. greater wealth and advances in technologies are likely to help facilitate adaptation,
23 particularly for human systems/. In addition, highly managed ecosystems appear more robust than natural
24 and lightly managed ecosystems, and some potential benefits were identified in the assessments. Crop
25 and forest productivity is likely to increase where water and nutrients are not limiting, at least for the
26 next few decades, due to increased carbon dioxide (C0 2) in the atmosphere and an extended growing
27 season. As a result, the potential exists for an increase in exports of some US food products, depending
28 on impacts in other food-growing regions around the world. Increases in crop production in fertile areas
29 could cause prices to fall, benefiting consumers, Other potential benefits include extended seasons for
30 construction and warm weather recreation, reduced heating requirements, and reduced cold-weather
31 mortality.
32
33
34 At the same time, while most studies done to date have primarily had an internal focus, the US also
35 recognizes that its well-being is connected to the world through the global economy, our common
36 environment and shared resources, historic roots and continuing family relations, travel and tourism,
37 migrating species, and more. As a result, in addition to internal impacts, the US is likely to be affected,
38 both directly and indirectly and both positively and detrimentally, by the potential consequences of
39 climate change likely to affect the rest of the world. To better understand the potential consequences of
40 climate change and the potential for adaptation worldwide, we are conducting and participating in
41 research and assessments both within the US and internationally (see Chapter 8). To alleviate
42 vulnerability to adverse consequences, we are undertaking a wide range of activities that \vill help
43 nationally and internationally, from developing medicines for dealing with infectious disease to
44 pronoting worldwide development through trade and assistance. As described in Chapter 7, the US is
45 also offering many types of assistance to the world community, believing that information about and
46 preparation for climate change can help reduce adverse impacts.
47
48 Introduction
49
CEQ 008347
Agency Review Draft-January 11, 2002-6:00 PM
1 To contribute to fulfilling obligations under Articles 4.1 (b) and (e) of the l.JNFCCC, this chapter provides
2 an ovel\'iew of the potential impacts of climate change affecting the US. The chapter also summarizes
3 current measures and future adaptation and response options that are designed to increase resilience to
4 climate variations and reduce vulnerability to climate change. The chapter is not intended to serve as a
5 separate assessment in and of itself, but rather is drawn largely from analyses prepared for the US
6 National and IPCC Assessments, where more detailed consideration and specific references to the
7 literature can be found (see NAST, 2000, 2001; IPCC, 2001a, including the review of these results
8 presented in NRC, 2001).
9
10 As indicated by the findings presented here, considerable scientific progress has been made in gaining an
11 understanding of potential consequences of climate change. At the same time, considerable uncertainties
12 remain because the actual uncertainties that result will depend on how emissions change, how the climate
13 responds at global to regional levels, how societies and supporting technologies evolve, how the
14 environment and society are affected, and on the ingenuity and commitment societies show in responding
15 to the potential impacts. While the range of possible outcomes is very broad, all projections prepared by
16 the IPCC (2001a) indicate that the anthropogenic contribution to global climatic change will be greater
17 during the 21 sl century than during the 20 11' century. Although the extent of climate change and its impacts
18 nationally and regionally remain uncertain, it is generally possible to undertake "if this, then that" types
19 of analyses. Such analyses can then be used to identify plausible outcomes to changes in climate and, in
20 some cases, to evaluate the relative plausibility of outcomes.
21 Clear and careful presentation of uncertainties is also important. Because the information is being
22 provided to policymakers and because the limited scientific understanding of the processes involved
23 generally preclude a fully quantitative analysis, extensive consideration led both the IPCC and the
24 National Assessment experts to express their findings in terms of relative likelihood of an outcome
25 occurring. To integrate the wide variety of information and to differentiate more likely from less likely
16 outcomes, a common lexicon was developed to express the considered judgment of the National
27 Assessment experts about the relative likelihood of the results. An advantage of this approach is that it
28 moves beyond the vagueness of ill-defined terms such as "may" or might" that allow an interpretation of
29 likelihood of an outcome occurring of from, for example, 1 to 99% and so provide little basis for
30 differentiating the most plausible and likely outcomes. Although the expert judgments about relative
31 likelihood of an outcome can generally be based on several lines of supporting evidence. drawing from
32 published findings and data, emerging trends in the observations, analytic studies, model simulations,
33 and other evidence, caution must be exercised because of the potential for inadvertently overlooking
34 possibilities and uncertainties that could have important influences over the 100-year prediction.
35 In this chapter, which uses a lexicon similar to that developed for the National Assessment, the term
36 "possible" is intended to indicate there is a finite likelihood of occurrence of a potential consequence, the
37 term "likely" is used to indicate that the suggested impact is more plausible than other outcomes, and the
38 term "very likely" is used to indicate that an outcome is much more plausible than other outcomes. While
39 the degree of scientific understanding regarding most types of outcomes is not complete, the judgments
40 included here have been based on an evaluation of the consistency and extent of available scientific
41 studies (e.g., field experiments, model simulations), historical trends, physical and biological
42 relationships, and the expert judgment of highly qualified scientists actively engaged in relevant research
43 (see NAST 2000; 2001).
44
45 Because this chapter is an overview, it generally focuses on types of outcomes that are considered at least
46 "likely," leaving discussion of the consequences oflower likelihood to the more extensive scientific and
47 assessment literature. However, it is important to recognize that there are likely to be unanticipated
48 impacts of climate change that occur. Such "surprises," positive or negative, may stem from either (a)
49 unforeseen changes in the physical climate system, such as major alterations in ocean circulation, cloud
CEQ 008348
1 distribution, or storms; or (b) unpredictt.d biological consequences of these physical climate changes,
2 such as pest outbreaks. For this reason, the set of suggested consequences presented here should not be
3 considered comprehensive. In addition, unexpected social or economic changes, including major changes
4 in wealth, technology, or political priorities, could affect society's ability to respond to climate change.
S
6 This chapter first describes the weather a.ld climate context for the analysis of impacts, and then provides
7 a summary of the types of consequences that are considered plausible across a range of sectors and
8 regions. Th~ chapter then concludes with a brief sununary of actions being taken at the national level to
9 learn more and to encourage adaptation to potential climate change. Although the Federal Government
10 can support research that expands understanding and the available set of options and can provide
11 information about the potential consequences of climate change and viable response strategies. many of
12 the adaptation measures are likely to be implemented at state and local levels and by the private sector.
13 For these reasons and because of identified uncertainties, the results presented are incomplete.
14 Nonetheless, the more plausible types of consequences and impacts resulting from climate change and
15 the types of steps that might be taken to reduce vulnerability and increase adaptation to climate variations
16 and change are identified.
17
18 Weather and Climate Context
19
20 The United States experiences a wide variety of climatic conditions. Coming across from west to east,
21 the climates range from the semi-arid and arid climates ofthe southwest to the continental climates of the
22 Great Plains and the moister conditions of the eastern US. North to south, the climates range from the
23 Arctic climate of northern Alaska to the extensive forests of the Pacific Northwest to the tropical
24 climates in Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, and Caribbean. Although US society and industry have largely
25 been able to adapt to the mean and variable climatic conditions of their region, this has not been without
26 some effort' and cost. In addition, a variety of extreme events each year still cause significant impacts
27 across the nation. Weather events causing the most death, injury and damage include hurricanes (or mOre
28 generally tropical cyclones) and associated storm surges, lightning, tornadoes and other windstorms,
29 hailstorn1s, severe winter stonns. deep snow and avalanches, and extreme summer temperatures. Heat
30 waves, floods, landslides, droughts, fires, land subsidence, coastal inundation and erosion, and even dam
31 failures also can result when extremes persist over time.
32
33 To provide an objective and quantitative basis for an assessment of the potential consequences of climate
34 change, the. US National Assessment was organized around use of climate model scenarios that specified
35 changes in the climate experienced across the US (NAST, 2001). Rather than simply considering the
36 potential influences of arbitrary changes in temperature, precipitation, and other variables, the use of
37 climate model scenarios ensures that the set of climatic conditions considered is internally consistent and
38 physically plausible. For the National Assessment, the climate scenarios were primarily drawn from
39 results available from the United Kingdom'S Hadley Centre and the Canadian Centre for Climate
40 Modeling and Analysis. In addition, some analyses also drew on results from model simulations made at
41 US centers, including the National Center for Atmospheric Research, NOAA's Geophysical Fluid
42 Dynamics Laboratory, and NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
43
44 While use of these model results is not meant to imply that they are providing accurate predictions of the
45 specific changes in climate that will occur over the next 100 years, the models are considered to be
46 providing plausible projections of potential changes for the 21 5t century.I.For some aspects of climate, all
I For the purposes of this chapter, "prediction" is meant to indicate forecasting of an outcome that will occur as a
result of the prevailing situation and recent trends (e.g., tomonow's weather or next winter's EI Nino event), whereas
CEQ 008349
·
Agency Review Draft-January] 1,2002-6:00 PM
1 models, as well as other lines of evidence, are in agreement on the types of changes to be expected. For
2 example, compared to changes during the 20°' century, all climate model results suggest that wanning
51
3 during the 21 century across the US is very likely to be greater, that sea level is going to rise more, that
4 the heat index is going to rise more, and that precipitation is more likely to come in the heaviest
5 categones experienced in each area. Also, although there is not yet close agreement about how regional
6 changes in climate will differ from larger-scale changes, the model simulations do indicate some
7 agreement in projections of the general seasonal and subcontinental patterns of the changes (IPCC,
8 2001 a). This consistency has lent confidence to these results. For some aspects of climate, however, the
9 model results differ. For example, some models, including the Canadian model, project more extensive
10 and frequent drought in the US, while others, including the Hadley model, do not. As a result, the
11 Canadian model suggests a hotter and drier Southeast during the 21 Sl century while the Hadley model
12 suggests warmer and wetter conditions. Where such differences arise, the primary model scenarios
13 provide two plausible, but different alternatives. Such differences were helpful in exploring the particular
14 sensitivities of various activities to uncertainties in the model results.
15
16 Drawing from these results, the model scenarios used in the National Assessment project that the
17 continuing growth in greenhouse gas emissions is likely to lead to annual-average warming over the US
18 that could be as much as several degrees Celsius (roughly 3 to 9OP) during the 21'1 century. In addition,
19 both precipitation and evaporation are projected to increase and occurrences of unusual warmth and
20 extreme wet and dry conditions are expected to become more frequent. For those experiencing these
21 changes, they would feel similar to an overall northern shift in weather systems and climatic conditions
22 such that, for example, the central tier of states would experience climatic conditions roughly equivalent
23 to those now experienced in the southern tier of states and the northern tier of states would experience
24 conditions much like the central tier. For example, Figure 6.1 provides a schematic illustration of how the
25 summer climate of lllinois might change; while there is rough agreement on the amount of warming, the
26 differences between these two model projections arise because of differences in projections of how
27 summertime precipitation might change.
28
29 Recent analyses indicate that, as a result of an uncertain combination of natural and human-induced
30 factors, changes of the type that are projected for the 21 'I century were occurring to some degree during
31 the 20°\ cenrury. For example, over the last 100 years most areas in the contiguous US warmed during the
d
32 20 \ century, although there was cooling in the Southeast. Also, many areas experienced both very wet
33 and very dry conditions, and most areas experienced more intense rainfall events. While warming over
34 the 48 contiguous states amounted to about 0.6'C (about I'F), warming in interior Alaska was as much as
35 1.6'C (about 3 OF), causing changes ranging from the thawing of permafrost to enhanced coastal erosion
36 due to melting of sea ice.
37
38 Model simulations project that minimum temperatures are likely to continue to rise more rapidly than
39 maximum temperanrres, extending the trend that started during the 20 th century. Although winter
40 temperatures are projected to increase somewhat more rapidly than summer temperatures, the
41 summertime heat index is projected to rise quite sharply because the rising absolute humidity will make
42 summer conditions feel much more uncomfortable, particularly across the southern and eastern US.
43
"proj ection" is used to refer to potential outcomes that would be expected if some scenario of future conditions were
to come about (e.g., concerning greenhouse gas emissions). In addition to uncertainties in how the climate will
respond to a changing atmospheric concentration. projections of climate change necessarily encompass a wide range
because of uncertainties in projections of future emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols and because of the
potential effects of possible future agreements that might limit such emissions.
CEQ 008350
1 Although a 0.6°C (1°F) warming may not seem large compared to daily variations in temperature, it
2 caused a decline of about two days per year in the number of days that minimum temperatures fell below
3 freezing. Across the US, this change was most apparent in winter and spring, with little change in the
4 autumn. Changes in the timing of the last spring frost changed in a similar way, with earlier cessation of
5 spring frosts contributing to a lengthening of the frost-free season over the country. Even these seemingly
6 small temperature-related changes seem to have had some effects on the natural environment, causing
7 such changes as shorter duration of lake ice, a northward shift in the distributions of some species of
8 butterflies, changes in the timing of bird migrations, and a longer growing season.
9
10 With respect to changes in precipitation, observations for the 20 111 century indicate that total annual
11 precipitation has been increasing, both worldwide and over the US. For the contiguous US, the increase
12 in total annual precipitation is estimated to have been about 5-10% over the past 100 years. With the
13 exception of localized decreases in parts of the upper Great Plains, the Rocky Mountains, and Alaska,
14 most regions have experienced increased precipitation (Figure 6.2), This increase is evident in both daily
15 precipitation rates and in the number ofrain-days. These increases in precipitation have caused
16 widespread increases in streamflow for all levels of flow conditions, particularly during times of low to
17 moderate flow conditions, which has generally improved water resource conditions and reduced
18 situations of hydrologic drought.
19
20 For the 21;t century, models project a continuing increase in global precipitation. with much of the
21 increase occurring in mid- and high latitudes. The models also suggest that the increases are likely to be
22 evident in rainfall events that, based on conditions in each region, would be considered heavy (see Figure
23 6.3). Estimates of the regional pattern of changes vary significantly, however. While there are some
24 indications that wintertime precipitation in the southwestern US is likely to increase due to warming of
25 the Pacific Ocean, changes across the key forest and agricultural regions of the US remain uncertain.
26
17 Projections of changes in soil moisture, which is critical for agriculture, vegetation, and water resources,
28 are depend.ent on many factors. Not only do soil moisture changes depend on precipitation and runoff,
29 but they also depend on changes in the timing and'form of the precipitation (i.e., rain or snow) and on
30 changes in water loss by evaporation, which is in turn dependent on temperature change and on
31 vegetation and the effects of changes in COe concentration on evapotranspiration. As a result of the many
32 interrelationships. projections remain somewhat uncertain of how changes in precipitation are likely to
33 affect soil moisture and runoff, although the rising surnnlenime temperature is likely to create additional
34 stress by significantly increasing evaporation.
35
36 As have other highly developed nations, US communities and industries have made substantial efforts to
37 reduce their vulnerability to normal weather and climate t1uctuations. However, there is significant
38 interest in potential changes in weather extremes and climate variability, to which adaptation is likely to
39 be more difficult and costly, Unfortunately, projections of such changes remain quite uncertain,
40 especially because variations in climate differentially affect different regions of the country. Perhaps the
41 most well-mown example of a natural variation of the climate is caused by the EI Nmo-Southern
42 Oscillation (ENSO), which currently is occurring every several years. ENSO has reasonably well-
43 established effects on seasonal climatic conditions across the US. For example, in the EI Niiio phase,
44 unusually high sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the eastern and central equatorial Pacific act to
45 suppress the occurrence of Atlantic hurricanes (Figure 6.4) and result in higher-than-average wintertime
46 precipitation in the southwestern and southeastern US and above average temperatures in the Midwest
47 (Figure 6,5). During a strong El Nino, effects can extend into the northern Great Plains.
48
CEQ 008351
1 During the La Nina phase, which is characterized by unusually low SSTs off the west coast of South
2 America, higher-than-average wintertime temperatures prevail across the southern half ofthe US, more
3 hurricanes occur in the tropical Atlantic, and more tornadoes occur in the Ohio and Tennessee valleys
4 (see Figures 6.4 and 6.6). In the summertime, La Nina conditions can contribute to the occurrence of
5 drought in the eastern half of the US.
6
7 Other factors that affect the interarmual variability of the US climate include the Pacific Decadal
8 Oscillation (PDO) and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). The PDO is a phenomenon similar to
9 ENSO, but is most apparent in the SSTs of the North Pacific Ocean. The PD~ has a periodicity that is on
10 the order of decades, and like ENSO, has two distinct phases, a warm phase and a cool phase. In the
11 warm phase, oceanic conditions lead to an intensification of the storm-generating Aleutian Low, higher-
12 than-average winter temperatures in the Pacific Northwest, and relatively high SSTs along the Pacific
13 coast. The PD~ also leads to dry winters in the Pacific Northwest, but wetter conditions both north and
14 south of there. Essentially, the opposite conditions occur in the cool phase. The NAO is a phenomenon
15 that displays a seesaw in temperatures and atmospheric pressure between Greenland and northern
16 Europe. However, the NAO also includes effects in the US. For example, when Greenland is warmer
17 than normal, the eastern US is usually colder, particularly in winter, and vice-versa.
18
19 Given these important and diverse interactions, research is being intensified to improve model
20 simulations of natural climate variations, especially to improve projections of how such variations are
21 likely to change in the future. Although projections remain uncertain, the climate model of the Max
22 Planck Institute in Germany, which presently provides the most realistic simulation of the ENSO cycle,
23 calculates stronger and wider swings between EI Nino and La Nina conditions as the global climate
24 warms (Timmermann et al., 1999) while other models simply project more El Nifio-like conditions over
25 the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (IPCC, 200 1a). Either type of result would be likely to cause important
26 climate fluctuations across the US.
27
28 Using the selected model scenarios as guides, but also examining the potential consequences of a
29 continuation of past climatic trends and of the possibility of exceeding particular threshold conditions,
30 the National Assessment focused its analyses on evaluating the potential enviromnental and societal
31 consequences of the climate changes projected for the 21 st century, as described in the next section.
32
33 Potential Consequences of and Adaptation to Climate Change
34
35 Since the late 1980s, an increasing number of studies have been undertaken to investigate the potential
36 impacts of climate change on US society and the environment (e.g., EPA, 1989; U.S. Congress, 1993)
37 and as components of international assessments (e.g., IPCC, 1996, 1998). These studies have generally
38 indicated that many aspects of the US enviromnent and society are likely to be sensitive to changes in
39 climate, but were not able to provide in-depth perspectives of how various types of impacts might evolve
40 and interact. In 1997, the interagency US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP, see Chapter 8)
41 initiated a National Assessment process to evaluate and synthesize available information about the
42 potential impacts of climate change, to identify options for adapting to climate change, and to summarize
43 research needs for improving knowledge about vulnerability, impacts, and adaptation. The fmdings were
44 also undertaken to provide a more in-depth analysis of the potential time-varying consequences of
45 climate change for consideration in scheduled international assessments (IPCC, 2001b) and to contribute
46 to fulfilling obligations under sections 4.1 (b) and (e) of the UNFCCC.
47
48 Tne US National Assessment was carried out recognizing that climate change is only one among many
49 potential stresses that are faced by society and the environment, and that, in many cases, adaptation to the
CEQ 008352
1 challenges, posed by climate change can be accomplished in concert with efforts to adapt to other
2 stresses, For example, climate variability and change will interact with issues such as air and water
3 pollution, habitat fragmentation, wetland loss, coastal erosion, and reductions in fisheries in ways that are
4 likely to compound these stresses. In addition, an aging populace nationally, and rapidly growing
5 populations in cities, coastal areas, and across the South and West are social factors that interact with and
6 in some ways can increase the sensitivity of society to climate variability and change. In both evaluating
7 potential impacts and developing effective responses, it is therefore important to consider interactions
8 among the various stresses.
9
lOIn considering the potential impacts of climate change, however, it is also important to recognize that
11 climatic conditions across the US vary from the cold of an Alaskan winter to the heat of a Texas summer,
12 and from year-round near-constancy of temperatures in Hawaii to the strong variations in North Dakota.
13 Across this very wide range of climatic conditions and seasonal variation, American ingenuity and
14 resources have enabled communities and businesses to develop, although particular economic sectors in
15 panicular regions can experience losses and disruptions from extreme conditions of various types. For
16 example, the amount of property damage from hurricanes has been increasing, although this seems to be
17 mainly due to increasing development and population in vulnerable coastal areas. On' the other hand, the
18 number of deaths each year from weather extremes and from climatically dependent infectious diseases
19 has been reduced sharply compared to a century ago, and total deaths relating to the environment are
20 currently very small in the context of total deaths in the US, even though US population has been rising.
21 In addition, in spite of climate change, the productivity of the agriculture and forest sectors has never
22 been higher and continues to increase, with excess production helping to supply the world.
23
24 All of this adaptation to environmental variations and extremes has been accomplished because both the
25 public and private sectors have taken advantage of technological change and knowledge about the
26 fluctuating climatic behavior to implement a broad range of steps that have enhanced resilience and
27 reduced vulnerability. Such steps have ranged, for example, from better design and construction of
28 buildings and communities, to greater availability of heating in winter and cooling in summer, and from
29 better warnings about extreme events to advances in public health care. Because of this increasing
30 resilience to climate variations and the relative success in adapting to the modest changes in climate that
31 were observed during the 20 th century, infonnation about likely climate changes in the future and
32 continuing efforts to plan for and adapt to these changes are likely top prove useful in minimizing future
33 impacts and preparing to take advantage ofthe changing conditions.
34
35 With these objectives in mind, the US National Assessment process, which is described more completely
36 in Chapter 9, initiated a set of regional, sectoral, and national activities. Table 6.1 provides an overview
37 of key national-level findings (NAST, 2000, 2001). The following sub-sections elaborate on these
38 fmdings, covering both potential consequences and the types of adaptive steps that are undenvay or could
39 be pursued to moderate or deal with adverse outcomes. The subsections below summarize the types of
40 impacts that are projected, covering initially the potential impacts on land cover; then the potential
41 impacts on agriculture, forest, and water resources, which are key natural resource sectors on which
42 society depends; then potential impacts associated with coastal regions and human health that define the
43 environment in which people live; and finally summarization of the primary issues that are specific to
44 particular regions of the US. Additional details on all of these topics are available in the reports listed in
45 Table 6.2, and recognizing that the issues covered to date remain incomplete, additional activities are
46 planned in corning years to improve the regional characterization of potential consequences and to
47 analyze additional sectors such as transportation and air quality.
48
CEQ 008353
Table 6.1: Key national level [mdings adapted from the US National Assessmenr
2 1. Increased warming: Assuming continued growth in world greenhouse gas emissions, the primary
3 climate models drawn upon for the analyses carried out in the US National Assessment projected that
4 temperatures in the contiguous US would rise 3-5°C (5-9°F) on average during the 21 51 century. It was
5 concluded that a wider range of outcomes, including a smaller warming, is also possible.
6 2. Differing regional impacts: Climate change is likely to vary widely across the US. Temperature
7 increases are likely to vary somewhat from one region to the next. Heavy precipitation events are
8 projected to become more frequent. yet some regions are likely to become drier. The potential impacts
9 of climate change are also likely to vary widely across the nation.
10 3. Vulnerable ecosystems: Many ecosystems are highly sensitive to the projected rate and magnitude of
I1 climate change, although more efficient water use efficiency will help some ecosystems. A few, such as
12 alpine meadows in the Rocky Mountains and some barrier islands, are likely to disappear entirely in
13 some areas. Others, such as forests of the Southeast, are likely to experience major species shifts or
14 break up into a mosaic of grasslands, woodlands, and forests. Some of the goods and services lost
15 through the disappearance or fragmentation of natural ecosystems are likely to be costly or impossible
16 to replace.
17 4. Widespread water concerns: Water is an issue in every region, but the nature of the vulnerabilities
18 varies. Drought is an important concern virtually everywhere. Floods and water quality are concerns in
19 many regions. Snowpack changes are especially important in the West, Pacific Northwest, and Alaska.
20 5. Secure food supply: At the national level, the agriculture sector is likely to be able to adapt to climate
21 change. Mainly because of the beneficial effects of the rising carbon dioxide levels on crops, overall
22 US crop productivity, relative to what is projected in the absence of climate change, is very likely to
23 increase over the next few decades. However. the gains are not likely to be unifonn across the nation.
24 Falling prices are likely to cause difficulty for some farmers, while benefiting consumers.
25 6. Near-term increase in forest growth: Forest productivity is likely to increase over the next several
26 decades in some areas as trees respond to higher carbon dioxide levels by increasing water use
27 efficiency. Such changes could result in ecological benefits and additional storage of carbon. Over the
28 longer tenn, changes in larger-scale processes such as fire, insects, droughts, and disease could
29 decrease forest productivity. In addition, climate change is likely to cause long-term shifts in forest
30 species, such as sugar maples moving north out of the US.
31 7. Increased damage in coastal and permafrost areas: Climate change and the resulting rise in sea
32 level are likely to exacerbate threats to buildings, roads, powerlines, and other infrastructure in
33 climatically sensitive places. For example, infrastructure damage is expected to result from permafrost
34 melting in Alaska, and from sea-level rise and storm surge in low-lying coastal areas.
35 8. Adaptation determines health outcomes: A range of negative health impacts is possible f!om
36 climate change, but, as has occurred in the past, adaptation is likely to help protect much of the US
37 population. Maintaining our nation's public health and community infrastructure, from water treatment
38 systems to emergency shelters. will be important for minimizing the impacts of water-borne diseases,
39 heat stress, air pollution, extreme weather events, and diseases transmitted by insects, ticks, and
40 rodents.
41 9. Other stresses magnified by climate change: Climate change is very likely to modify the cumulative
42 impacts of other stresses. The impacts of some. such as air and water pollution and conversion of
43 habitat due to human development patterns, may be magnified by climate change, whereas the effects
44 of climate change on others, such agricultural and forest productivity, may be reduced, at least in some
45 areas. For example, for coral reefs, the combined effects of an increased CO] concentration, climate
46 change"and other stresses are very likely to exceed a critical threshold, causing large, possibly
47 irreversible impacts.
: Adapted from NASI (2000),
CEQ 008354
1 10. Uncertainties remain and surprises are expected: Significant uncertainties remain in the science
2 underlying regional changes in climate and their impacts. Further research would improve
3 lmderstanding and capabilities for projecting societal and ecosystem impacts. Increased lmowledge
4 would also provide the public with additional useful information about options for adaptation.
5 However, it is likely that some aspects and impacts of climate change, both positive and negative, will
6 be totally unanticipated as complex systems respond to ongoing climate change in unforeseeable ways.
10
CEQ 008355
1 Table 6.2: Listing of regional, sectoral, and national reports prepared under the auspices of the US
2 National Assessment process, and the date of release of summary reports from these studies. Additional
3 materials relating to research and assessment activities can be found at http://W\\w.uSgcrp.gov.
4
National Synthesis
Overview Report (2000)

Foundation Report (2001)
B.
A. Regional Assessment Reports C. Sector Assessment Reports
AJaska (1999) Agriculture (available early 2002)
California (available early 2002) Coastal Areas and Marine Resources
Central Great Plains (expected early 2002) (2001)
Great Lakes (2000) Forest (2000. 2001)
Gulf Coast (available early 2002) Human Health (2000)
Metro East Coast (2001) Water Resources (2000)
Mid-Atlantic (2000)
Native PeopleslNative Homelands-
Southwest (available early 2002)
New England and northern New York
(2001 )
Northern Great Plains (available early
2002)
Pacific Islands (2001)
Pacific Northwest (1999)
Rocky Mountains/Great Basin (available
early 2002)
Southeast (expected late 2001)
Southern Great Plains (available mid 2002)
Southwest (2001)
5
6
7 Potential Climate Change Interactions with Land Cover
8
9 The natural vegetation cover of the US is largely determined by the prevailing climate. Where not
10 altered by changes in land use, climatic conditions largely determine where individual species of
11 plants lind animals can live, grow, and reproduce. Thus, the collections of species that we are
12 familiar with--the southeastern mixed deciduous forest, the desert ecosystems of the arid Southwest, the
13 productive grasslands of the Great Plains, and mare--are all primarily a consequence of present climatic
14 conditions. Past changes in ecosystems indicate that some species are so strongly influenced by the
15 climate to which they are adapted that they are vulnerable even to modest changes. Far example, alpine
16 meadows at high elevations in the West exist where they do entirely because the plants that comprise
17 them are adapted to cold conditions that are too harsh for other species in the region, and the desert
18 vegetation of the Southwest is adapted to the high summer temperatures and the aridity of that region.
19 Similarly, the forests in the eastern US tend to have adapted to relatively high rainfall and soil moisture;
11
CEQ 008356
1 jf drought conditions were to persist, grasses and shrubs could begin to out-compete tree seedlings,
2 leading to completely different ecosystems.
3
4 To provide a common base of infonnation about potential changes in vegetation across the nation for use
5 in the US National Assessment (NAST. 2000), specialized ecosystem models were used to evaluate the
6 potential consequences of climate change for the dominant vegetation types and the increasing CO 2
7 concentration. Biogeography models were used to simulate potential shifts in the geographic distribution
8 of major plant species and communities (ecosystem structure). Biogeochemistry models were used to
9 simulate changes in basic ecosystem processes such as the cycling of carbon, nutrients, and water
10 (ecosystem function). Each type of model was used in considering the potential consequences of the two
11 primary model-based climate scenarios. These scenarios represented conditions across much of the US
12 that were generally either (a) wanner and moister, or (b) hotter and drier. The results from both types of
13 models indicated that changes in ecosystems would be likely to be significant.
14
15 In addition to potential impacts on terrestrial ecosystems, there are many freshwater and marine examples
16 of sensitivitie.s to changes in climate and sea level. For example. in aquatic ecosystems, many fish can
17 breed only in water that falls within a narrow range of temperatures. As a result, species of ±ish that are
18 adapted to cool waters can quickly become unable to breed successfully if water temperatures rise. As
19 another example, although wetland plant species can, within limits, adjust to rising sea levels by
20 dispersing to new locations, sea-level rise that is too rapid can surpass the ability of the plants to
21 reestablish themselves. Such impacts are described in the subsections below dealing with climate change
22 interactions with water resources and with the coastal environment, while issues affecting terrestrial land
23 cover are covered in this subsection..
24
25 Redistribution of Land Cover: The responses of ecosystems to projected changes in climate and CO 2
26 are made up of the indi vidual responses of their constituent species and how they interact with each
27 other. Species in current ecosystems can differ substantially in their tolerances to changes in temperature
28 and precipitation. and in their responses to changes in CO 2. As a result, the ranges of individual species
29 are likely to shift at different rates and different species are likely to have different degrees of success in
30 establishing themselves in new locations and environments. Because ofthis, changes in climate projected
31 for the coming hundred years are very likely to alter CUITent ecosystems. There is, however. significant
32 difficulty in projecting these kinds of biological and ecological responses and the structure and
33 ftmctioning of the new plant communities.
34
35 Analyses of present ecosystem distributions and of past shifts indicate that natural ecosystems are
36 sensitive to changes in surface temperature, precipitation patterns. other climate parameters, and the
37 annospheric CO 2 concentration. Changes in temperature and precipitation of the magnitude being
38 projected are likely to cause, for example, shifts in the areas occupied by dominant vegetation types
39 relative to their current distribution. Some ecosystems that are already constrained by climate, such as
40 alpine meadows in the Rocky Mountains, are likely to face extreme stress and disappear entirely in some
41 places. Other more widespread ecosystems are also likely to be sensitive to climate change. For example,
42 both climate model scenarios suggest that the southwestern US will become moister, allowing more
43 vegetation to grow (see Figure 6.7). Such a change is likely to have the effect of changing desert
44 landscapes into grasslands or shrublands, altering both their potential use and the likelihood of fire. In the
45 northeastern US, both climate scenarios suggest changes mainly in the species composi tion of the forests,
46 including the northward displacement of sugar maples, which could lead to loss in some areas. However,
47 the studies also indicate that conditions overall will remain conducive to maintaining a forested
48 landscape in this region. In the southeastern US, however, there was less agreement among the models. In
49 this region, the hot-dry climate scenario was projected to lead to conditions that would be conducive to
12
CEQ 008357
I the potential break up of the forest landscape into a mosaic of forests, savannas, and grasslands (see
2 additional discussion in Forest subsection). In contrast, the wann-moist scenario was projected to lead to
3 a northward expansion of the southeastern mixed forest cover.
4
5 Basically, changes in land cover were projected to occur, at least to some degree, in all locations, and
6 these changes cannot generally be prevented if the climate changes and vegetation responds as much as
7 projected.
8
9 Effects on the Supply of Vital Ecosvstem Goods and Services: In addition to the value of natural
10 ecosystems in their own right, ecosystems of all types, from the most natural to the most extensively
II managed, provide a variety of goods and services that benefit society. Some products of ecosystems enter
12 the market and contribute directly to the economy. For example, forests serve as sources of timber and
13 pulpwood and agro-ecosystems serve as sources of food. Ecosystems also provide a set of unpriced
14 services that are valuable, but that typically are not traded in the marketplace. Although there is no
IS current market, for example, for the services that forests and wetlands provide for improving water
16 quality, regulating stream flow, providing some measure of protection from floods, and sequestering
17 carbon, some of these services are very valuable to society. Ecosystems are also valued for recreational,
18 aesthetic, and ethical reasons that are also difficult to value monetarily, but are nevertheless important.
19 For example, the bird life of the coastal marshes of the Southeast and the bril1iant autumn colors of the
20 New England forests are treasured components of the nation's regional heritages, and important elements
21 of our quality of life.
22
23 Based on the studies carried out, changes in land cover induced by climate change and a potential
24 increase in the level of disturbances ecosystem services are likely to be impacted. For example, the
25 abilities of ecosystems to cleanse the air and water, stabilize landscapes against erosion, and store carbon
26 are likely to be affected. Even in regions such as the southwestern US where vegetation is expected to
27 increase as, a result of increased rainfal1 and enhanced plant growth due to the rising CO 2 concentration,
28 an important potential consequence is likely to be an increased frequency and intensity of fires during the
29 prolonged summer season. Increased fire frequency would likely be a threat not only the natural land
30 cover, but also to the many residential structures that are being built in vulnerable suburban and rural
31 areas, and later would increase vulnerability to mudslides as a result of denuded hills. Considering the
32 full range of available results, it is plausible that alterations to natural ecosystems due to climate change.
33
34 Effects of Increased CO, Concentration on Plants: Because the atmospheric concentration of CO 2
35 affects plant species via a direct physiological effect on photosynthesis, the process by which plants use
36 CO] to create new biological material, the ecosystem models used in the National Assessment included
37 consideration of the potential effects of increases in the atmospheric CO 2 concentration. Higher
38 concentrations of CO 2 generally enhance plant growth if the plants also have sufficient water and
39 nutrients. such as nitrogen, that are needed to sustain this enhanced growth. Because of this effect, the
40 CO 2 level in commercial greenhouses is sometimes boosted in order to stimulate plant growth. In
41 addition to enhancing plant growth, higher CO 2 levels can also raise the efficiency with which plants use
42 water and reduce susceptibility to damage by air pollutants.
43
44 As a result of these various influences, different types of plants respond at different rates to increases in
45 the atmospheric CO 2 concentration, resulting in a divergence of growth rates. Most species grow faster
46 and increase biomass; however, the nutritional value of some of these plants could be altered. Both
47 because of biochemical processing and because warming temperatures increase plant respiration. the
48 beneticial effects of increased CO 2 on plants are also projected to flatten, beyond which continuing
49 increases in the CO 2 concentration would not result in increased plant growth.
13
CEQ 008358
1
2 While there is still much to be learned about the COl "fertilization" effect, including its limits and its
3 direct and indirect implications, many ecosystems are projected to benefit from this influence, while at
4 the same time the use of water by plants is made more efficient.
5
6 Effects of Climate Change on Storage of Carbon: In response to changes in climate and Co.2
7 concentration, the biogeochemistry models used in the National Assessment generally simulated
8 increases in the amoW1t of carbon stored in vegetation and soils for the continental US. The calculated
9 increases were relatively small, however, and not uniform across the country. For example, one of the
10 biogeochemistry models, when simulating the effects of hotter and drier conditions. projected that the
11 southeastern forests would lose more carbon by respiration than they would gain by increased
12 photosynthesis, causing an overall carbon loss of up to 20% by 2030. Such a loss would indicate
13 indicating that the forests would be in a state of decline. The same biogeochemistry model, however,
14 when calculating the potential effects of the wanner and moister climate scenario, projected that forests
15 in the same part of the Southeast would likely gain between 5 and 10% in carbon over the next 30 years,
16 suggesting a more vigorous forest.
17
18 Susceptibility of Ecosvstems to Disturbances: Prolonged stress due to insufficient soil moisture can
19 make trees more susceptible to insect attack, lead to plant death, and increase the probability of fire as
20 dead plant material adds to an ecosystem's "fuel load." The biogeography models used in this analysis
21 simulated at least part of this sequence of climate-triggered events in ecosystems as a prelude to
22 calculating shifts in the geographic distribution of major plant species. For example, one of the
23 biogeography models projected that a hot dry climate in the Southeast would be likely to result in the
24 replacement of the current mixed evergreen and deciduous forests by savanna/woodlands and grasslands,
25 with much of the change effected by an increased incidence of fire, whereas the same biogeography
26 model projected a slight northward expansion of the mixed evergreen and deciduous forests of the
27 Southeast in response to the warm and moist climate scenario, with no significant contraction along the
28 southern boundary. Thus, in this region, changes in the frequency and intensity of disturbances such as
29 fire are major determinants of the type and rapidity ofthe conversion of the land cover to a new state.
30
31 As explained more fully in the sections on the interactions of climate change with coastal and water
32 resources: aquatic ecosystems are also likely to be affected by both climate change and unusual
33 disturbances such as storms and storm surges.
34
35 Potential Adaptation Options to Preserve Prevailing Land Cover: The US National Assessment
36 concluded that the potential vulnerability of natural ecosystems is likely to be more important than other
37 types of potential impacts affecting the US environment and society. This importance arises because in
38 many case there is little that can be done to help these ecosystems adapt to the projected rate and amount
39 of climate change. While adjustments in how some systems can perhaps reduce the potential impacts, the
40 complex, interdependent webs that have been naturally generated over very long periods are not readily
41 shifted from one place to another or easily recreated in new locations, even to regions of similar
42 temperature and moisture. Although many regions have experienced changes in ecosystems in the past as
43 a result of human-induced changes in land cover, and people have generally become adapted to and even
44 defenders of the altered conditions (e.g., reforestation of New England), the climate-induced changes
45 during the 21 st century are likely to affect virtually every region. In addition, the changes will affect both
46 the ecosystems where people live as well as those in the protected areas that have been created as refuges
47 against change.
48
14
CEQ 008359
1 Potential Climate Change Interacdons with Agriculture

2
.,
.:J Production of food is a major activity within the US and the productivity of US agriculture is important
4 both for the US and for the world. Croplands, grassland pasture, and range occupy about 900 million
5 acres, or nearly half of the land area of the US, excluding Alaska and Hawaii (AREI, 2000). Throughout
6 the 20 th ceJ;ltury, agricultural production 3hifted towards the West and Southwest; this trend allowed
7 regrowth of some forests and grasslands, generally enhancing wildlife habitats, especially in the
8 northeastern US, and contributing to sequestration of carbon in these regions.
9
10 The value of agricultural commodities (food and fiber) exceeds $165 billion at the farm level and over
1I $500 billion after processing and marketing, meaning food production and distribution amount to about
12 10% of the US economy. Because of the productivity of US agriculture, the US is a major supplier of
13 food and fiber for the world, accounting for more than 25% of the total global trade in wheat, com,
14 soybeans, and corton.
15
16 Changes in Agricultural Productivity: Agricultural productivity .has improved at over 1% per year
17 since 1950, resulting in a decline in both production costs and commodity prices. This growth in
18 productivity also limited the need for cropland, and has freed up land for the Conservation Reserve
19 Program that enhances natural habitat. Although the increased production and the two-thirds drop in real
20 commodity prices have been particularly beneficial to consumers inside and outside the US, and have
21 helped to reduce hunger and malnourishment around the world, the lower prices have become a major
22 concern for producers and have contributed to a continuing decline in the number of small farmers.
23 Continuation of these trends is expected whether or not the climate changes, \vith continuing pressures on
24 individual producers to further increase the productivity of their farms and reduce costs of production.
25
26 On the other hand, producers consider anything that might increase their costs relative to other producers
27 or that might limit their markets as a threat to their economic well-being. Issues of concern include
28 regulatory actions, such as efforts to control the off-site consequences of soil erosion, agricultural
29 chemicals, and livestock wastes; extreme weather or climate events: new pests; and the development of
30 pest resistance to existing pest control strategies. Future changes in climate are expected to interact with
31 all of these issues. In particular, although some factors may tend to limit growth in yields, the rising
concentration of carbon dioxide (C0 2) and continuing climate change are projected, on average, to
33 contribute to extending the persistent upward trend in crop yields that has been evident during the second
34 half of the 20 th century, In addition, if all else remains equal, these changes could potentially change
35 supplies of and requirements for irrigation water, increase the need for fertilizers to sustain the gain in
36 carbon production, lead to changes in surface water quality, necessitate increased use of pesticides or
37 other means to limit damage from pests, and alter the variability of the climate to which the prevailing
38 agricultural sector has become accustomed. However, agricultural technology is currently undergoing
39 rapid change, and future production technologies and practice could contain or reduce these impacts.
40
41 Assuming technological advances continue at historical rates, that there are no dramatic changes in
42 federal policies or in international markets, that adequate supplies of nutrients are available and can be
43 applied without exacerbating pollution problems, and that no prolonged droughts in major agricultural
44 regions, US analyses indicate that it is unlikely that climate change will imperil the ability of the US to
45 feed its population and to export substantial amounts of foodstuffs (National Agriculture Assessment
46 Group. 2001). For the changing climatic conditions that are projected, these studies indicate that, at the
47 national level, overall agricultural productivity is likely to increase as a result of changes in the CO 2
48 concentration and in climate proj ected for at least the next several decades. The crop models that were
49 used in these studies assume that the CO 2 fertilization effect will be strongly beneficial and also allow for
15
CEQ 008360
1 a limited set of on-farm adaptation options, including changes in planting dates and changes in varieties,
2 to be taken in response to the changing conditions. These adaptation measures contribute small additional
3 gains in yields of dryland crops and greater gains in yields of inigated crops. However, analyses done to
4 date have neither considered all of the consequences of possible changes in pests, diseases, insects, and
5 extreme events that may result nor been able to consider the full range of potential adaptation options
6 (e.g., genetic modification of crops to enhance resistance to pests, insects, and diseases).
7
8 Recognizing these limitations, available evaluations of the effects of anticipated changes in CO 2
9 concentration and climate on crop production and yield and the adaptive actions by farmers generally
10 show positive results for cotton, corn for grain and silage, soybeans, sorghum, barley, sugar beets, and
11 citrus fruits (Figure 6.8). The productivity of pastures may also increase as a result of these changes. For
12 other crops, including wheat, rice. oats, hay, sugar cane, potatoes, and tomatoes, yields are projected to
13 increase under some conditions and decrease under others, as explained more fully in the Agriculture
14 assessment (National Agriculture Assessment Group, 200 1). The studies also indicate that not all
15 agricultural regions of the US are likely to be affected to the same degree by the projected changes in
16 climate that have been investigated. In general, northern areas such as the Midwest, West, and Pacific
17 Northwest show large gains in yields, while influences on crop yields in other regions vary more widely
18 depending on the climate scenario and time period. For example, projected wheat yields in the southern
19 Great Plains could decline if the warming is not accompanied by sufficient precipitation.
20
21 Market-scale economic models were then used in these analyses to evaluate the overall economic
22 implications for various crops. These models allow for a wide range of adaptations in response to
23 changing productivity, prices, and resource use, including changes in irrigation, use of fertilizer and
24 pesticides, crops grown and the location of cropping, and a variety of other farm management options.
25 Based on studies to date, lIDless there is inadequate or poorly distributed precipitation, the net effects of
26 climate change on the agricultural segment of the US economy over the 11'1 century are generally
27 projected to be positive. These studies indicate that, economically, consumers benefit more from lower
28 prices than producers suffer from the decline in profits. Complicating the analyses. however, the studies
29 indicate that producer versus consumer effects will depend on how climate change affects production of
30 these crops elsewhere in the world. For example. for crops grown in the US, economic losses to farmers
31 due to lower commodity prices are offset under some conditions by an increased advantage of US
32 farmers over foreign competitors, leading to an increased volume of exports.
33
34 Because food variety and food-supplies within the US depend not only on foodstuffs produced within the
35 US, the net effect of climate change on foods available for US consumers will also depend on the effects
36 of climate change on production of these foodstuffs around the world. These effects will in turn depend
37 not only on international markets, but also on how fanners around the world are able to adapt to climate
38 change and other factors they will face. While there are likely to be many regional variations, experience
39 indicates that research, sponsored by the US and other nations, has been able to play an important role in
40 promoting the ongoing, long-term increase in agricultural productivity around the world. Further
41 research, covering opportunities ranging from genetic design to improving the salt tolerance of key crops,
42 are expected to be able to continue to enhance overal1 global production of foodstuffs.
43
44 Changes in Water Demands bv Agriculture: Within the US, a key detenninant of agricultural
45 productivity will be the ongoing availability of sufficient water where and when it is needed. The
46 variability of the US climate has provided many opportunities for learning to deal \vith a wide range of
47 climatic conditions, and the regions where many of crops are grOWTI in the US have changed over time
48 without disrupting production. In addition, steps to build up the amount of carbon in soils, which is likely
49 to be one component of any carbon mitigation program, win enhance the water-holding capacity of soils
16
CEQ 008361
1 and decrease erosion and vulnerability to drought, thereby helping to improve overall agricultural
2 productivity. For areas that are insufficiently moist, irrigation has been used to enhance crop
3 productivity. Currently, about 27% of cultivated land in the US is under reduced tillage. Several projects,
4 such as the Iowa Soil Carbon Sequestration Project, that are underway to promote conservation tillage
5 practices ~s a means to mitigate climate change will have the ancillary benefits of reducing soil erosion
6 and runoff while increasing soil water and nitrogen retention.
7
8 Analyses done for the US National Assessment project that climate change will lead to changes in the
9 demand for irrigation water, and, if water resources are insufficient, to changes in the crops being grown.
10 Although there will likely be substantial regional differences, model projections indicate that, on average
11 for the nation, agriculture's need for irrigation water is likely to slowly decline. At least two factors are
12 responsible for this projected reduction. One is increased precipitation in some agricultural areas. The
13 other is that faster development of crops due to higher temperatures and a higher CO] concentration
14 result in a.shorter growing period and consequently a reduced demand for irrigation water. Moreover, the
IS higher CO 2 concentration generally enhances a plant's water use efficiency. These factors can combine to
16 compensate for the increased transpiration and soil water loss due to higher air temperatures. However, a
17 decreased period of crop growth also leads to decreased yields, although it may be possible to overcome
18 this through crop breeding.
19
20 Changes in Surface Water Oualitv due to Agriculture: Potential changes in surface water quality as a
21 result of climate change are an issue that has only started to be investigated. For example, the
22 Chesapeake Bay is a highly valuable natural resource that has been severely degraded in recent decades
23 as a result, primarily, of soil erosion and excess nutrient runoff from crop and livestock production. In
24 simulations for the National Assessment, loading of excess nitrogen into the Bay due to com production
25 is projected to increase due to both the change in average climatic conditions, and due to the effects of
26 projected changes in extreme weather events such as floods or heavy downpours that wash large amounts
27 of fertilizers and animal manure into surface waters. Across the US, changes in future fann practices,
28 such as no-till or reduced till agriculture that enhance buildup and retention of soil moisture. and better
29 matching of the timing of a crop's need for fertilizer with the timing of application, are examples of
30 approaches that could possibly reduce projected adverse impacts on water quality. However, the potential
31 for reducing adverse impacts of fertilizer usage and soil erosion by use of genetically modified crops has
32 not yet been considered.
33
34 Changes in Pesticide Use bv Agriculture: To sustain productivity of current crop strains, climate
35 change is projected to cause farmers in most regions to increase use of pesticides. The increase in
36 pesticide use for current crop strains is projected to result in slightly poorer overall economic
37 perfonnance, but this effect is quite small because pesticide expenditures are a relatively small share of
38 production costs. Neither the potential changes in environmental impacts as a result of increased
39 pesticide use nor the potential for genetic modification to enhance pest resistance have yet been
40 evaluated.
41
42 Effects of Changes in Climate Variability on Agriculture: Based on past experience, agriculture is
43 also likely to be affected if there are changes in the extent and occurrence of climate fluctuations and
44 extreme events. The vulnerability of agricultural systems to climate and weather extremes varies with
45 location because of differences in soils, production systems, and other factors. Changes in the form (rain,
46 snow, or hail), timing, frequency, and intensity of precipitation and changes in wind-driven events (e.g.,
47 windstorms, hurricanes, and tornadoes) are likely to have significant consequences in particular regions.
48 For example, in the absence of adaptive measures, an increase in heavy precipitation events seems likely
49 in some areas to aggravate erosion, water-logging of soils, and leaching of animal wastes, pesticides,
17
CEQ 008362
I fertilizers. ~nd other chemicals into surface and groundwater; conversely, in other areas lower
2 precipitation may reduce some types of impacts in some areas .
.,
.J
4 A major source of climate variability within the US is the El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The
5 effects of ENSO events vary widely across the country, creating wet conditions in some areas and dry
6 conditions in others that can have significant impacts on agricultural production. For example, over the
7 past several decades, average corn yield has been reduced by about 15-30% in years with widespread
8 floods and drought. Better prediction of such variations is a major focus of US and international research
9 activities (e.g., tru-ough the International Research Institute for Climate Prediction) because, in part, such
10 information could increase the range of adaptive responses available to farmers. For example, given
11 sufficient warning of climate anomalies (e.g., of conditions being warm and dry, cool and moist, etc.),
12 crop species and crop planting dates could be optimized for the predicted variation, helping to reduce the
13 adverse impact on yields and overall production. Because projections suggest that ENSO variations may
14 become even stronger as global average temperature increases, achieving even better predictive skill in
15 the future will be especially important to efforts to maximize production in the face of climate
16 fluctuations.
17
18 Potential Adaptation Strategies for Agriculture: To ameliorate the deleterious effects of climate
19 change generally, adaptation strategies such as changing planting dates and varieties are likely to help to
20 significantly offset economic losses and increase relative yields. Adaptive measures are likely to be
21 particularly critical for the Southeast because of the large reductions in yields proj ected for some crops if
22 summer precipitation declines. With the wide range of growing conditions across the US, more fuJly
23 benefiting from the fertilization effect detected in experimental crop studies is likely to require specific
24 breeding for response to CO 2 • Breeding for tolerance to climatic stress has already been exploited and
25 varieties that do best under ideal conditions usually also out-perform other varieties under stress
26 conditions.
27
28 Although many types of changes can likely be adapted to, some adaptations to climate change and its
29 impacts may have negative secondary effects. For example, an analysis of the effects of climate change
30 on water use from the Edward's aquifer region near San Antonio. Texas found increased demand for
31 groundwater resources. Increased water use from this aquifer would threaten endangered species
32 dependent on flows from springs supported by the aquifer. In addition, in the absence of genetic
33 modification of available crop species to counter these influences, pesticide and herbicide use are also
34 likely to increase with warming. Unless chemical inputs are reduced, such increases would be expected
35 to incre<lse the potential for chemically contaminated run-off into prairie wetl<lnds and groundwater,
36 which. ifnot controlled by on-site measures, could pollute rivers and lakes, drinking water supplies,
37 coastal waters, recreation areas, and waterfowl habitat.
38
39 As they have in the past, farmers are going to need to continue to adapt to the changing conditions
40 affecting agriculture. For the future, the changing climate is likely to become a more and more influential
41 factor. Presuming adaptation to the changing climatic conditions is successful, the US agricultural sector
42 should remain strong, growing more on less land while continuing to lower prices for the consumer,
43 export large amounts of food to help feed the world, and storing carbon to enhance resilience to drought
44 and contribute to the slowing of climate change.
45
46 Potential Climate Change Interactions with Forests
47
48 Forests cover nearly one-third of the US. providing wildlife habitat; clean air and water; carbon storage;
49 recreational opportunities such as hiking, camping, and fishing. In addition, harvested products include
18
CEQ 008363
1 timber, pulpwood, fuelwood, wild game, ferns, mushrooms, and berries. This wealth of products and
2 services depends on forest productivity and biodiversity, which are in tum strongly influenced by
3 climate. Across the US, native forests are adapted to the local climates in which they developed;
4 examples include the cold-tolerant boreal forests of Alaska, the summer-drought tolerant forests of the
5 Pacific Northwest, and the drought-adapted pinon-juniper forests of the Southwest. Given the overall
6 importance of the nation's forests, the potential impacts from climate change are receiving close
7 attention, although it is only one of several factors meriting consideration.
8
9 A range of human activities causes changes in forests. For example, significant areas of native forests
10 have been converted to agricultural use, and expansion of urban areas has fragmented forests into
11 smaller, less-contiguous patches. In some parts of the US, intensive management and favorable climates
12 have resulted in development of highly productive forests, such as southern pine plantations, in place of
13 the natural land cover. Fire suppression, particularly in southeastern, mid-western, and western forests
14 has also led to changes in forest area and in species composition. Harvesting methods have also changed
15 species composition, while planting of trees for aesthetic and landscaping purposes in urban and rural
16 areas has expanded the presence of some species. However, large areas, particularly in the northeastern
17 US, have become reforested as forests have taken over abandoned agricultural lands, allowing
18 reestablishment of the ranges of many wildlife species.
19
20 Changes in climate and the carbon dioxide concentration are emerging as important human-induced
21 influences that are affecting forests. These factors are interacting with factors already causing changes to
22 forests to further affect goods and services provided by forests. Types of effects include affecting the
23 extent, composition, and productivity of forests, the frequency and intensity of such natural disturbances
24 as fire, the level of biodiversity, and the socioeconomic benefits provided by forests (National Forest
25 Assessment Group, 2001). Based on model projections of moderate to large warming, Figure 6.9 gives an
26 example of the general character of changes that could occur for forests in the eastern US by late in the
27 21 5t century.
28
29 Effects of Climate Change on Forest Productivity: A synthesis of laboratory and field studies and
30 modeling indicates that the fertilizing effect of atmospheric CO 2 will increase forest productivity.
31 However, these increases are likely to be strongly tempered by local conditions such as moisture stress
32 and nutrient availability. Across a wide range of scenarios, modest wanning is likely to result in
33 increased carbon storage in most US forests. However, under some of the wanner model scenarios,
34 forests in the Southeast and the-Northwest could experience drought-induced losses of carbon, possibly
35 exacerbated by increased fire disturbance. These potential gains and losses of carbon will be in addition
36 to changes resulting from changes in land-use, such as the conversion of forests to agricultural lands or to
37 development.
38
39 Other components of environmental change, such as nitrogen deposition and ground-level ozone
40 concentrations, are also affecting forest processes. Models used in the Forest sector assessment suggest a
41 synergistic fertilization response between CO2 and nitrogen enrichment, leading to further increases in
42 productivity (National Forest Assessment Group, 2001). Ozone, however, acts in the opposite direction.
43 Current ozone levels, for example, have important effects on many herbaceous species and are estimated
'44 to decrease production in southern pine plantations by 5%, in northeastern forests by 10%, and in some
45 western forests by even more. Interactions among these physical and chemical changes and other
46 components of global change will be important in projecting the future state of US forests. For example,
47 a higher CO 2 concentration can tend to suppress the impacts of ozone on plants.
48
19
CEQ 008364
Do Dot cite or quote
1 Effects of ClimateChange on Natl4ral Disturbances: Natural disturbances having the greatest effects
2 on forests include insects, disease, non-native species, fires, droughts, hunicanes, landslides, wind
3 storms, and ice storms. While some tree species are very susceptible to fIre, other tree species have
4 developed adaptations to some of these disturbances. For example, repeated ground fIres do not affect
5 some tree species that have very thick bark. Over millennia, local, regional, and global-scale changes in
6 temperature and precipitation have inf'.uenced the occurrence, frequency, and intensity of these natural
7 disturbances. These changes in disturbance regimes are a natural part of all ecosystems. However, as a
8 consequence of climate change, forests may soon be facing more rapid alterations in the nature of these
9 disturbances. For example, unless there is a large increase in precipitation, the seasonal severity of fire
10 hazard is projected to increase during the 21 st century over much of the US, particularly in the Southeast
11 and Alaska.
12
13 The consequences of drought depend on annual and seasonal climate changes and whether the current
14 adaptations of forests to drought will offer resistance and resilience to new conditions. The ecological
15 models used in the National Assessment indicated that increases in drought stresses are most likely to
16 occur in the forests of the Southeast, southern Rocky Mountains and parts of the Northwest. Hurricanes,
17 ice storms, wind storms, landslides, insect infestations, disease, and introduced species are also likely to
18 be climate-modulated influences that affect forests; projection of changes in the frequencies, intensities,
19 and locations of such factors and their influences are, however, difficult to project. What is clear is that,
20 as the climate changes, alterations in these disturbances and in their effects on forests are possible.
11
22 Effects of Climate Change on Forest Biodiversitv: In addition to the very large influences of changes
23 in land cover, changes in the distribution and abundance of plant and animal species are a result of both
24 the birth, growth, death, and dispersal rates of individuals in a population and the competition between
25 individuals of the same species and other species. These can all be influenced in tum by weather, climate,
26 contaminants, nutrients, and other abiotic factors. When aggregated, these processes can result in the
27 local disappearance or introduction of a species, and ultimately determine the species' range and
28 influence its population. Although climate and soils exert strong controls on the establislunent and
29 growth of plant species, the response of plant and animal species to climate change will be the result of
30 many interacting and interrelated processes operating over several temporal and spatial scales. Movement
31 and migration rates, changes in disturbance regimes and abiotic environmental variables, and interactions
32 within and between species will all affect the distributions and populations of plants and animals.
33 Analyses conducted using ecological models indicate that plausible climate scenarios are very likely to
34 cause shifts in the location and'mea of the potential habitats for many tree species and ecosystems
35 (NAST, 2000). For example, potential habitats for trees acclimated to cool environments are very likely
36 to shift north. Habitats of alpine and sub-alpine spruce-fir in the contiguous US are likely to be reduced
37 and, possibly in the long-term, eliminated as their mountain habitats warm. The extents of aspen, eastern
38 birch, and sugar maple are likely to contract dramatically in the US and largely shift into Canada, with
39 the shift in sugar maple causing loss of syrup production in northern New York and New England.
40
41 Potential habitats that could possibly expand in area in the US are oaklhickory and oak/pine in the
42 eastern US, and Ponderosa pine and arid woodland communities in the West. How well these species
43 track changes in their potential habitats will be strongly influenced by the viability of their mechanisms
44 for dispersal to other locations and the disturbances to these alternative environments. Because of the
45 dominance of non-forest land uses along migration routes, the northward shift of some native species to
46 new habitats is likely to be disrupted if the rate of climate change is high. For example, conifer
47 encroachment, grazing, invasive species, and urban expansion are currently displacing sagebrush and
48 aspen communities. The effects of climate change on the rate and magnitude of disturbance (forest
49 damage and destruction associated with fires, storms, droughts, and pest outbreaks) will be an important
20
CEQ 008365
Agency Review Draft-January 11,·2002-6:00 PM
1 factor in determining whether transitions from one forest type to another will be gradual or abrupt. If the
2 ratc and type of disturbances in New England do not increase, for example, a smooth transition from the
3 present maple, beech, and birch tree species to oak and hickory may occur. Where the frequency or
4 intensity of disturbances increases, however, transitions are very likely to occur more rapidly. As these
5 changes occur, invasive (weedy) species that disperse rapidly are likely to [md opportunities in newly
6 fonning ecological communities. As a result, the species composition of these communities will likely
7 differ significantly in some areas from those occupying similar habitats today.
8
9 Changes in the composition of ecosyste1TlB may, in tum, have important effects on wildlife. For example,
10 to the extent that climate change and the increasing CO 2 concentration increase forest productivity, this
11 might result in reduced overall land disturbance and improved water quality, tending to help wildlife, at
12 least in some areas. However, changes in composition can also affect predator-prey relationships, pest
13 types and populations, the potential for non-native species, links in the chain of migratory habitats, and
14 the health of keystone species, so much remains to be examined in projecting influences of climate
15 change on wildlife.
16
17 Socioeconomic Impacts of Climate Change: Forests are also the major source of wood products, and
18 North America is both the world's leading producer and consumer of wood products. US forests provide
19 for substantial exports of hardwood lumber, wood chips, logs, and some types of paper; coming the other
20 way, the US imports, for example, about 35% of its softwood lumber and more than half of its newsprint
21 from Canada. The market for wood products in the US will be highly dependent upon the future area in
22 forests, the species composition of forests, future supplies of wood, technological changes in production
23 and use, the availability of substitutes such as steel and vinyl, national and international demands for
24 wood products, and competitiveness among major trading partners. Analyses indicate that, for a range of
25 climate scenarios, forest productivity gains are very likely to increase timber inventories over the next
26 100 years (National Forest Assessment Group, 2001). Under these scenarios, the increased wood supply
27 leads to reductions in log prices. helping consumers, but, in tum, decreasing the profits of producers. The
28 proj ected net effect on the economic welfare of participants in timber markets increases about 1% above
29 current values.
30
31 Analyses done for the Forest sector assessment indicate that land use will likely shift between forestry
32 and agriculture as these economic sectors adjust to climate-induced changes in production. Hardwood
33 and softwood production in the US is projected to generally increase, although the projections indicate
34 that softwood output will only-increase under moderate warming. Timber output is also projected to
35 increase more in the southern than in the northern US, and sawtimber volume is projected to increase
36 more than pulpwood volume.
37
38 Patterns and seasons of outdoor, forest-oriented recreation are likely to be modified by the projected
39 changes in climate. For example, changes in forest-oriented recreation, as measured by aggregate days of
40 activities and total economic value, are likely to be affected, and these changes will vary'bY type of
41 recreation and location. In some areas, higher temperatures are likely to shift typical summer recreation
42 activities, such as hiking, northward or to higher elevations and into other seasons. In winter, downhill
43 skiing opportunities are very likely to shift geographically because of fewer cold days and reduced
44 snowpack in many existing ski areas. Costs to maintain skiing opportunities are therefore likely to rise,
45 especially for the more southern areas. Effects on fishing are also likely to vary; for example, warmer
46 waters are likely to increase fish production and opportunities to fish for some warm water species, but
47 decrease habitat and opportunities to fish for cold water species.
48
21
CEQ 008366
1 Possible Adaptation Strategies to Protect Forests: Even though forests are likely to be affected by the
2 projected changes in climate, the motivation for adaptation strategies is likely to be most strongly
3 influenced by the level of economic activity in the US. This level is, in tum, intertvvined with the rate of
4 population growth, changes in taste, and general preferences, including society's perceptions about these
5 changes. Market forces have proven to be powerful when it comes to decisions involving land use and
6 forestry, and, as such, will strongly influence adaptation on private lands. For those forests valued for
7 their current biodiversity, society and land managers will have to decide whether more intense
8 management is necessary and appropriate for maintaining plant and animal species that may be impacted
9 by climate change and other factors.
10
11 If new technologies and markets are recognized in a timely manner, timber producers could possibly
12 adjust and adapt to climate change under plausible climate scenarios. One possible adaptation measure
13 could be to salvage dead and dying timber and to replant species adapted to the changed climatic
14 conditions. The extent and pattern of timber harvesting and prices in the US will also be influenced by
15 the global changes in forest productivity and prices of overseas products.
16
17 Potential climate-induced changes in forests must also be put into the context of other human-induced
18 pressures, which will undoubtedly change significantly over future decades. "While the potential for rapid
19 changes in natural disturbances could challenge current management strategies, these changes will co-
20 occur with human activities such as agricultural and urban encroachment on forests, multiple use of
21 forests, and air pollution. Given these many interacting factors, climate-induced changes should be
22 manageable if planning is proactive.
23
22
CEQ 008367
·
Agency Review Draft-January 11. 2002-6:00 PM
I Potential Climate Change Interactions with Water Resources

2
3 Water is a central resource supporting human activities and ecosystems, and adaptive management of this
4 resource has been an essential aspect of societal development. Increases in global temperatures during the
5 20 d' century have been accompanied by more precipitation in the middle and high latitudes in many
6 regions of North America. For example, precipitation in the US increased by 5-10%, predominantly
7 during spring through autumn. Much of this increase resulted from an increase in locally heavy and very
8 heavy precipitation events, which has led to the observed increases in low to moderate streamflow that
9 have been characteristic of the wann season across most of the contiguous US.
10
11 Local to global aspects of the hydrologic cycle, which determine the availability of water resources, are
12 likely to be altered in important ways by climate change (National Water Assessment Group, 2000).
13 Because increased concentrations of CO 2 and other greenhouse gases tend to wann the surface, all
14 models project that the global totals of both evaporation and precipitation wiII continue to increase, with
15 increases particularly likely in middle and high latitudes. The regional patterns of the projected changes
16 in precipitation remain uncertain, however, although there are some indications that changes in
17 atmospheric circulation brought on by such factors as increasing Pacific Ocean temperatures may bring
18 more precipitation to the Southwest and more winter precipitation to the West. Continuing trends first
19 evident during the 20 th century, model simulations project that increases in precipitation are likely to be
20 most evident in the most intense rainfall categories typical of various regions. To the extent such changes
21 occur during the warm season when streamflows are typically low to moderate, increased streamflow
22 could increase available water resources; should the precipitation increase occur during high streamflow
23 or saturated soil conditions, the results suggest an increased potential for flooding in susceptible areas
24 where additional control measures are not taken, especially because under these conditions the relative
25 increase in runoff is generally observed to be greater than the relative increase in precipitation.
26
27 Effects of Climate Change on Available Water Supplies: Water is a critical national resource,
28 providing services to society for refreshment, irrigation of crops, nourishment of ecosystems, creation of
29 hydroelectric power. industrial processing, and more. In many rivers and streams in the US, there is not
30 enough water to satisfy existing water rights and claims. Changing public values about preserving in-
31 stream flows, protecting endangered species. and settling Indian water rights claims have made
32 competition for water supplies increasingly intense. Depending on how water managers are able to take
33 adaptive measures. the potential impacts of climate change could include increased competition for water
34 supplies, stresses on water qual1ty in areas where flows are diminished, adverse impacts on groundwater
35 quantity and quality, an increased possibility of flooding in winter and early spring, a reduced possibility
36 of flooding later in the spring, and more water shortages in summer. In some areas, however, an increase
37 in precipitation could possibly outweigh these factors and increase available supplies.
38
39 Significant changes in average temperature, precipitation, and soil moisture resulting from climate
40 change are also likely to affect water demand in most sectors. For example, demand for water associated
41 with electric power generation is projected to increase due to the increasing demand for air conditioning
42 with higher summer temperatures. Climate change is also likely to reduce water levels in the Great Lakes
43 and summertime river levels in the central US, thereby adversely affecting navigation, general water
44 supplies, and populations of aquatic species.
45
46 Effects of Climate Change on Water Qualitv: To the extent that heavy precipitation events increase,
47 such conditions are likely to flush more contaminants and sediments into lakes and rivers, degrading
48 water quality. Where uptake of agricultural chemicals and other non-point sources could be exacerbated,
49 steps to limit water pollution are likely to be needed. In some regions, however, higher average flows will
23
CEQ 008368
1 likely dilute pollutants, improving water quality. In coastal regions where river flows are reduced,
2
..,
increased salinity could also become more of a problem. Flooding can also cause overloading of storm
:J and wastewater systems, and damage water and sewage treatment facilities, mine tailing impoundments,
4 and landfills, thereby increasing the risks of contamination and toxicity.
5
6 Because the wanner temperatures \vill also lead to increased evaporation, soil moisture is likely to be
7 reduced during the wann season. Although this is likely be alleviated somewhat by increased water use
8 efficiency and reduced water demand of native plants, the drying is likely to create a greater
9 susceptibility to fire and then loss of the vegetation that helps to control erosion and sediment flows. In
10 agricultural areas, the COTinduced improvement of water use efficiency by crops is likely to decrease
11 demands for water, particularly for irrigation water. In addition, in some regions, increasing no or
12 reduced till agriculture is likely to improve the water holding capacity of soils, whether or not climate
13 changes, thereby reducing the susceptibility of agrjculturallands to erosion from intensified heavy rains
14 (sec National Agriculture Assessment Group, 2001 and National Water Assessment Group, 2000).
15
16 Effects of Climate Change on Snowpack: Rising temperatures are very likely to affect snowfall and
17 increase snowmelt conditions in much of the western and northern portions of the US that depend on
18 winter snowpack for runoff. This is of particular importance because snowpack provides a natural
19 reservoir for water storage in mountainous western and northern portions of the US, gradually releasing
20 its water in spring and even summer under current climatic conditions. Model simulations project that
21 snowpack in western mountain regions is likely to decrease as the climate warms (e.g., see Figure 6.10).
22 These reductions are projected, despite an overall increase in precipitation, because (a) a larger fraction
23 of precipitation will fall as rain as compared to snow, and, (b), the snowpack is likely to develop later and
24 melt earlier. The resulting changes in the amount and timing of runoff are very likely to have significant
25 implications in some basins for water management, flood protection, power production, water quality,
26 and the availability of water resources for irrigation, hydropower, communities, industry, and to sustain
27 natural habitats and species.
28
29 Effects of Climate Change on Groundwater Quantitv and Qualitv: Several regions of the US,
30 including parts of California and the Great Plains, are dependent on d\vindling groundwater supplies.
31 Groundwater supplies are less susceptible than surface water to short-tenn climate variability, but they
32 are more atIected by long-tenn trends. Groundwater serves as the base flow for many streams and rivers.
33 Especially in areas where springtime snow cover is reduced and where higher summer temperatures
34 increase evaporation and use of groundwater for irrigation, groundwater levels are very likely to fall, thus
35 reducing seasonal streamt10ws. River and stream temperatures fluctuate more rapidly with reduced
36 volumes of water, affecting freshwater and estuarine habitats. Small streams that are heavily influenced
37 by groundwater are more likely to have reduced streamflows and changes in seasonality of flows, likely
38 damaging existing wetland habitats.
39
40 Pumping groundwater at a faster rate than it can be recharged is already a major concern, especially in
41 parts of the country where other water resources are limited. In the Great Plains, for example, model
42 projections indicate that drought is likely to be more frequent and intense, which will create additional
43 stresses because groundwater levels are already dropping in parts of important aquifers such as the
44 Ogallala.
45
46 The quality of groundwater is being diminished by a variety of factors including chemical contamination.
47 Saltwater intrusion is another key groundwater quality concern, particularly in coastal areas where
48 changes in freshwater flows and increases in sea level will both occur. As groundwater pumping
49 increases to serve municipal demand along the coast and less recharge occurs, coastal groundwater
24
CEQ 008369
I aquifers are increasingly being affected by seawater intrusion. Because the groundwater resource has
2 been compromised by many factors, managers are having to look increasingly to surface water supplies
3 that are more sensitive to climate change and variability.
4
5 Effects of Climate Change on Floods, Droughts, and Heavv Precipitation Events: Projected changes
6 in the amount, timing, and distribution of rain and snowfall are likely to lead to changes in the amount
7 and timing of high and low water flows, although the relationship of changes in precipitation rate to
8 changes in flood is uncertain, especially due to uncertainties in the timing and persistence of rainfall
9 events and river levels and capacities. Because changes in climate extremes are more likely than changes
lOin the averages to affect the magnitude of damages and raise the need for adaptive measures at the
11 regional level, changes in the timing of precipitation events, as well as increases in the intensity of
12 precipitation events, are likely to become more and more important considerations.
13
14 Climate change is likely to affect the frequency and amplitude of high streamflows, with major
IS implications for infrastructure and emergency management in areas vulnerable to flooding. Although
16 projections of how the number of hurricanes that may develop remains uncertain, model simulations
17 indicate that, in a warmer climate, hurricanes that do develop are likely to have higher wind speeds and
18 produce more rainfall. As a result, they are likely to cause more damage unless more extensive (and
19 therefore more costly) adaptive measures are taken, including reducing the increasing exposure of
20 property to such extreme events. Historical records indicate that improved warning has been a major
21 factor in reducing the annual number of deaths due to storms, and that the primary cause of the increasing
22 property damage in recent decades has been the increase in at-risk structures.
23
24 Despite the overall increase in precipitation and past trends indicating an increase in low to moderate
25 streamflow, model simulations suggest that increased air temperatures and more intense evaporation are
26 likely to cause many interior portions of the nation to experience more frequent and longer dry
27 conditions. To the extent that the frequency and intensity of these conditions leads to an increase in
28 droughts, some areas are likely to experience wide-ranging impacts on agriculture, water-based
29 transportation, and ecosystems, although the effects on vegetation (including crops and forests) are likely
30 to be mitigated under some conditions by increased water use efficiency due to higher COl levels.
31
32 Water-driven Effects of Climate Change on Ecosvstems: Species live in the larger context of
33 ecosystems and have differing environmental needs. In some ecosystems, existing stresses could possibly
34 be reduced if soil moisture increases or the incidence of freezing conditions is reduced. Other
35 ecosystems, including some for which extreme conditions are critical, are likely to be most affected by
36 changes in the frequency and intensity of flood, drought, or fire events. Model projections indicate, for
37 example, that changes in temperature, moisture availability, and the water demand from vegetation are
38 likely to lead to significant changes in some ecosystems over coming decades (NAST, 2000). For
39 example, the natural ecosystems of the Arctic, Great Lakes, Great Basin, Southeast, and the prairie
40 potholes of the Great Plains appear highly vulnerable to the projected changes in climate (see Figures 6.7
41 and 6.9).
42
43 The effects of changes in water temperatures are also important. For example, rising water temperatures
44 are likely to force out some cold water fish species such as salmon and trout that are already near the
45 threshold of their viable habitat, while opening up additional areas for warm water fishes. Increasing
46 temperatures are also likely to result in reduced dissolved oxygen in water, reducing ecosystem health.
47 Temperature increases are also very likely to reduce ice cover and alter the mixing and stratification of
48 water in lakes, all of which are key to the nutrient balance and habitat value. In addition, wanner lake
49 waters combining with excess nutrients from agricultural fertilizers (washed into lakes by heavy rains)
25
CEQ 008370
Agency Review Draft-January 11,2002---6:00 PM
1 would be likely to lead to algae blooms on the lake surfaces, further depleting some lake ecosystems of
2 oxygen and harming other organisms .
...
J
4 Potential Adaptation Options to Ensure Adequate Water Resources: In contrast to the vulnerability
5 of natural ecosystems, humans have exhibited a significant ability to adapt to different amounts of water.
6 There are many types of water basins across the US, and many approaches are already in use to ensure
7 careful management of water resources. For example, more than 80,000 dams and reservoirs in the US,
8 and millions of miles of canals, pipes, and tunnels have been developed to store and transport water.
9 Strategies for adapting to climate change and other stresses include, for example, changing the operation
lOaf dams and reservoirs, re-evaluating basic engineering assumptions used in
11 facility construction, and building new infrastructure, although for a variety of reasons, large dams are no
12 longer generally viewed as a cost-effective or environmentally acceptable solution to water supply
13 problems. Other options that are potentially available include water conservation, changes in water
14 pricing, use of reclaimed wastewater, water transfers, and development of markets for water, which can
15 lead to increased prices that discourage wasteful practices. Existing or new infrastructure can also be
16 used in many cases t6 manage river systems in ways that provide opportunities to dampen the impacts of
17 climate-induced changes in flow regimes and influences on aquatic ecosystems. While significant
18 adaptation is likely to be possible, its cost could likely be reduced if the probable effects of climate
19 change are factored in at the time decisions are made prior to significant investments in repair,
20 maintenance, expansion, and operation of existing water supply and management infrastructure.
21
22 Because of the uncertainties associated with the magnitude and direction of changes in precipitation and
23 runoff due to climate change, more flexible institutional arrangements may be needed in order to allow
24 easier adaptation to changing conditions resulting from the full set of stresses. For example, although
25 social. equity, and environmental considerations must be addressed, market solutions offer the potential
26 for resolving supply problems in some parts of the US. However, because water rights systems vary from
27 state to state and even locally, the responses will need to occur at various levels, with those currently
28 having water management responsibilities taking the lead (see Table 6.3 for some types of approaches
29 that studie~ have indicated might prove useful).
30
31
32 Table 6.3: Potential Adaptation Options for Water Management in Response to Climate Change and
33 Other Stresses (adapted from National Water Assessment Group, 2000)
34
35 • Improve capacity for moving water within and between water use sectors (including agriculture to
36 urban).
37 • Use pricing and market mechanisms proactively to decrease waste.
38 • Incorporate potential changes in demand and supply in long-term planning and infrastructure design.
39 • Create incentives to move people and structures away from flood plains.
40 • Identify ways to manage supplies, including groundwater, surface water, and effluent, sustainably.
41 • Restore and maintain watersheds (e.g., restoring watersheds that have been damaged by urbanization,
42 forestry, or grazing can reduce sediment loads and nutrients in runoff, limit flooding, and reduce
43 water temperature.)
44 • Encourage the development of institutions to confer property rights to water. This would be intended
45 to encourage conservation, recycling and reuse of water by all users, as well provide incentives for
46 researc,h and development of such conservation technologies.
47 • Reduce agricultural demand for water by focusing research and development of crops and farming
48 practice~ on minimizing the need for water and by encouraging precision agriculture.
26
CEQ 008371
1 .. Reuse mWlicipal wastewater, improve management of urban storm water runoff, and promote
2 collection of rainwater for local use.
3 .. Increase the use of forecasting tools for water management. Some weather patterns, such as those
4 resulting from EI Nino, can now be predicted, allowing more efficient management of water
5 resources
6 .. Enhance monitoring efforts to improve data collection for weather, climate, and hydrologic modeling
7 to aid understanding of water-related impacts and management strategies.
8
9
10
II Because the US shares water resources with Canada and Mexico, it participates in a number of
12 institutions designed to address common water issues. These institutions include the US-Canada Great
13 Lakes Commission and joint cOnmllssions and agreements covering the Colorado and Rio Grande rivers.
14 These institutions could provide the framework for designing adaptive measures that might be necessary
IS to respond to the effects of climate change. For example, the US-Canada Great Lakes Commission has
16 already conducted studies to evaluate options for dealing with the potential for increased evaporation,
17 shorter duration oflake ice, and other climatic changes that are projected to affect the Great Lakes-St.
18 Lawrence River basin. Close coordination will be needed to ensure that the levels of these crucial water
19 resources are managed to ensure adequate water supplies for communities and irrigation, high water
20 quality, needed hydroelectric power, high enough levels for recreation and shipping, low enough levels to
21 protect communities and shorelines from flooding and wave-induced erosion, and more.
22
23 Potential Climate Change Interactions with Coastal Areas and Marine Resources
24
25 The US has over 95,000 miles of coastline and over 3.4 million square miles of ocean within its
26 territorial waters. These areas provide a wide range of goods and services to the US economy. Some 53%
27 of the total US population live on the 17% ofland in counties that are adjacent to or relatively near to the
28 coast. Over recent decades, populations in these coastal counties have been growing more rapidly than
29 elsewhere in the US. As a result of the population growth, as well as because of increased wealth and
30 affluence, demands on coastal and marine resources for both leisure activities and economic benefits are
31 rapidly intensifying while at the same time exposure to coastal hazards is increasing.
32
33 Coastal and marine environments are intrinsically linked to the prevailing climate in many ways. Heat
34 given off by the oceans wanns'the land during the winter, and helps to keep coastal regions cooler in
35 summer. Moisture evaporated from the oceans is the ultimate source of precipitation, and the runoff of
36 precipitation carries nutrients, pollutants, and other materials from the land to the ocean. Sea level exerts
37 a major influence on the coastal zone, shaping barrier islands and pushing salt water up estuaries and into
38 aqUifers. For example, as described in the Coastal sector report (National Coastal Assessment Group,
39 2000), cycles of beach and cliff erosion along the Pacific Coast have been linked to the natural sequence
40 ofEl Nifio events that alter storm tracks and temporarily raise average sea levels by several inches in this
41 region. During the 1982-83 and 1997-98 El Nino events, erosion damage was widespread along the
42 Pacific Coastline.
43
44 Climate change will affect interactions among conditions on land, sea, and in the atmosphere. Warming
45 is likely to alter coastal weather and could affect the intensity, frequency, and extent of severe storms.
46 Melting of glaciers and ice sheets and thennal expansion of ocean waters will cause sea Jeve1to rise,
47 which is likely to intensify erosion and endanger coastal structures. Rising sea level and higher
48 temperatures are also likely to impact the ecology of estuaries and coastal wetlands. Higher temperatures
27
CEQ 008372
Agency Review Draft-January 11, 2002--6:00 PM
1 coupled with the increasing CO 2 concentration are likely to severely stress coral reefs and the changing
2 temperature patterns are likely to cause relocation of fisheries and alter fish migration patterns. While
3 quantifying these consequences is difficult, indications of the types of outcomes that are possible have
4 emerged from US assessments (National Coastal Assessment Group, 2000).
5
6 Effects of Climate Change on Sea Level: Global sea level rose by 10-20 cm (about 4 to 8 inches)
th
7 during the 20 century, which was significantly more than the rate or rise that was typical over the Jast
8 few thousand years. Even in the absence of a change in Atlantic storminess, the deeper inundation that
9 results from existing storms exacerbated the flooding that resulted and led to damage to fixed coastal
10 structures from storms that were previously inconsequential. Looking to the future, climate models
11 proj ect that global wanning will cause an increase of from 9 to 88 cm (4 to 35 inches) during the 21 st
12 century, with mid-range values more likely than either the very high or very low estimates. Because of
13 the long time constants involved in warming the ocean and melting of glaciers and ice sheets, further rise
14 in sea level is likely for several centuries, continuing even after significant limitations in emissions of
15 CO 2 and other greenhouse gases were achieved (IPCC, 200la). These global changes are, however, only
16 one factor in what determines sea level change at any particular coastal location. For example, along the
17 Mid-Atlantic coast where land levels are subsiding, relative sea level rise will be somewhat greater;
18 conversely, in New England, where land levels are rising, sea level rise wiI) be somewhat less.
19
20 Not surprisingly, an increased rate of global sea-level rise is likely to have the most dramatic impacts in
21 regions where subsidence and erosion problems already exist. Estuaries, wetlands, and shorelines along
22 the Atlantic and Gulf coasts are especially vulnerable. Increased impacts to fixed structures will occur
23 even in the absence of an increase in storminess. However, because the slope of these areas is so gentle
24 that a small rise in sea level produces a large inland shift of the shoreline, the rise will be particularly
25 important if there is an increase in the frequency or intensity of storm surges or hurricanes. If increases in
26 the frequency or intensity of El Nino events occur, they would also likely combine with long-term sea-
27 level rise to exacerbate impacts. When coastal erosion occurs, this increases the threats to coastal
28 developmynt, transportation infrastructure, tourism, freshwater aquifers, fisheries (many of which are
29 already stressed by human activities), and coastal ecosystems. Coastal cities and towns, especially those
30 in storm-prone regions such as the Southeast, are particularly vulnerable and intensive residential and
31 commercial development in such regions is putting more and more lives and property at risk. Figure 6.11
32 illustrates the current vulnerability of US coastlines as compiled by the US Geological Survey.
33
34 Effects of Climate Change 011 Estuaries: In addition to threats to coastal communities, threats to the
35 natural coastal environment could be quite important. Of these envirorunents, estuaries are very
36 important because they are extremely productive ecosystems. Estuaries also play important roles in
37 filtering and purification of water and in providing important nursery and habitat functions for many
38 commercially important fish and shellfish populations. These ecosystems are likely to be affected in
39 numerous ways by sea level rise and climate change. For example, because winter temperatures are
40 proj ected to continue to increase more than summer temperatures, a narrowing of the annual water
41 temperature range of many estuaries is likely. As summarized in the Coastal sector report, this is likely,
42 in tum, to cause species' ranges to shift and to increase the vulnerability of some estuaries to invasive
43 species.
44
45 Changes in TIlloff are also likely to adversely affect estuaries. Unless new agricultural technologies allow
46 reduced use offertilizers, increased rates of runoff are likely to deliver increased amounts of nutrients
47 such as nitrogen and phosphorous to estuaries, while simultaneously increasing the stratification between
48 freshwater runoff and marine waters. Such conditions would be likely to increase the potential for algal
49 blooms that deplete the water of oxygen. These conditions would also increase stresses on sea grasses,
28
CEQ 008373
1 fish, shellfish, and other organisms living in lakes, streams, and oceans (National Coastal Assessment
1. Group, 2000, and see regional assessment reports mentioned in Table 6.2). In addition, decreased runoff
3 is likely to reduce flushing, decreasc the size of estuarine nursery zones, and increase the range of estuary
4 habitat susceptible to predators and pathogens of shellfish.
S
6 Effects of Climate Change on Wetlands: Coastal wetlands (marshes and mangroves) are highly
7 productive ecosystems, particularly because they are strongly linked to the productivity of fisheries.
8 Dramatic losses of coastal wetlands have already occurred along the Gulf Coast due to subsidence,
9 alterations in flow and sediment load caused by dams and levees, dredge and fill activities, and sea-level
10 rise. Louisiana alone has been losing land at rates of about 68 to 104 square kilometers (24 to 40 square
11 miles) per year for the last 40 years, accounting for as much as 80% of the total US coastal wetland loss.
12 In general, coastal wetlands will survive ifsoil buildup equals the rate of relative sea-level rise or if the
13 wetland is able to migrate inland (although this necessarily displaces other ecosystems or land uses).
14 However, if soil accumulation does not keep pace with sea-level rise, or if bluffs, coastal development, or
15 shoreline protective structures (such as dikes, sea walls, and jetties) block wetland migration, wetlands
16 may be excessively inundated and thus lost. The projected increase in the current rate of sea-level rise
17 will very likely exacerbate the nationwide rate of loss of existing coastal wetlands, although the extent of
18 impacts will vary among regions and impacts of some types may be moderated by the inland formation of
19 new wetlands.
20
21 Effects of Climate Change on Coral Reefs: Coral reefs playa major role in the environment and
22 economies of two states (Florida and Hawaii) as well as most US territories in the Caribbean and Pacific.
23 Coral reefs are valuable resources, encouraging fisheries, recreation, and tourism, and providing coastal
24 protection. In addition, reefs are one of the largest global storehouses of marine biodiversity, sheltering
2S one-quarter of all marine life and containing extensive untapped genetic resources. The demise or
26 continued deterioration of reefs could have profound implications for the US. The last few years have
27 seen unprecedented declines in the health of coral reefs. The 1998 El Nino was associated with record
28 sea-surface temperatures and associated coral bleaching (which occurs when coral expel the algae that
29 live within them and that are necessary to their survival); in some regions, as much as 70% of the coral
30 may have died in a single season. There has also been an upsurge in the variety, incidence, and virulence
31 of coral diseases in recent years, with major die-offs in Florida and much of the Caribbean region (see
32 National Coastal Assessment Group, 2000).
33
34 In addition to increasing sea sl.H'face temperatures, a number of factors are likely to be contributing to the
3S decline of coral reefs, including increased sediment deposition, sewage and agricultural runoff, excessive
36 harvesting of fish, and damage from ships and tourists. In addition to the potential influences of further
37 global warming, the increasing atmospheric CO 2 concentration is likely to decrease the calcification rates
38 of the reef-building corals, resulting in weaker skeletons, reduced growth rates and increased
39 vulnerability to wave-induced damage. Model results suggest that these effects would likely be most
40 severe at the current margins of coral reef distribution, meaning that it is unlikely coral reefs will be able
41 to spread northward to reach cooler waters. While steps can be taken to reduce the impacts of some types
42 of stress on coral reefs (e.g., by creating Marine Protected Areas, as called for in Executive Order 13158,
43 and constructing artificial reefs to provide habitat for threatened species), damage to coral reefs from
44 climate change and the increase in CO 2 concentration may be moderated to some extent only by
4S significantly reducing other stresses.
46
47 Effects of Climate Change on Marine Fisheries: Based on studies summarized in the Coastal sector
48 assessment, the total economic contribution of recreational and commercial fishing in the US has been
49 estimated at approximately $40 billion per year, \vith total marine landings averaging about 4.5 million
29
CEQ 008374
Agency Review Draft-Jalluary 11, 2002-6:00 PM
1 metric tons over the last decade. Clim~te change is very likely to substantially alter the distribution and
2 abundance of major tish stocks, many of which are a shared international resource. Along the Pacific
3 Coast, impacts to fisheries related to the EI Nino/Southern Oscillation illustrate how climate directly
4 affects marine fisheries on short time scales. For example, elevated sea-surface temperatures associated
5 with the 1997-98 El Nino had a tremendous impact on the distribution and abundance of market squid.
6 Although California's largest fishery by volume, landings fell to less than 1,000 metric tons in the 1997-
7 98 season, down from a record-breaking 110,000 metric tons in the 1996-97 season. Many other unusual
8 events occurred during this same EI Nmo as a result of elevated sea-surface temperatures. Examples
9 include widespread deaths of California sea lion pups, catches of wann-water marlin in the usually frigid
10 waters otT Washington State, and poor salmon returns in Bristol Bay, Alaska. The changes in fish stocks
11 resulting from climate change are also likely to have imponant implications for marine populations and
12 ecosystems. Changes over the long tenn that will affect all nations are likely to include poleward shifts in
13 distribution of marine populations, and changes in the timing, locations, and, perhaps, the viability of
14 migration paths and nesting and feeding areas for marine mammals and other species.
15
16 With changing ocean temperatures and conditions, shifts in the distribution of commercially important
17 species are likely, affecting US and international fisheries. For example, model projections suggest that
18 several species of Pacific salmon are likely to have reduced distribution and productivity, while species
19 that thrive in wanner waters. such as Pacific sardine and Atlantic menhaden, are likely to show an
20 increased distribution. Presuming that the rate of climate change is graduaL the many eff0l1s being made
21 to better manage the world's fisheries might promote adaptation to c1imate change, along with helping to
22 relieve the many other pressures on these resources.
23
24 Potential Adaptation Options for Coastal Regions: Because climate variability is currently a dominant
25 factor in shaping coastal and marine systems, projecting the specific effects of climate change over the
26 next few decades and evaluating the potential effectiveness of possible response options is panicularly
27 challenging. Effects will surely vary greatly among the diverse coastal regions of the nation. Human-
28 induced disturbances also influence coastal and marine systems, often reducing the ability of systems to
29 adapt, so that systems that might ordinarily be capable of responding to variability and change are less
30 able to do so. In this context. climate change is likely to add to the cumulative impact of both natural and
31 human-caused stresses on ecological systems and resources. As a result, considering adaptation strategies
"')
.J_ for the potential consequences of long-tenn climate change in the overall context of coastal development
33 and management is only beginning to be considered (National Coastal Assessment Group, :WOO).
34
35 It is, however, especially urgent for governing bodies at all levels to begin to take into consideration the
36 potential changes in the coastal climate and sea level as further plans are made for development of land
37 in the coastal zone. For example, the USGS is expanding its gathering and assembly of relevant coastal
38 information, and the EPA Sea-Level Rise project is dedicated to motivating adaptation to rising sea level.
39 Through this project, the probability and risk of sea level rise have been assessed and vulnerable low-
40 elevation coastal zones have been identified and mapped. In addition, cost-effective strategies and land-
41 use plaIllling approaches involving landward migration of wetlands, levee building, incorporation of sea
42 level rise in beach conservation plans, engineered landward retreats, and sea walls have all been
43 developed.
44
45 Several states have already included sea level rise in their planning, and some have already implemented
46 adaptation activities. For example, in New Jersey, where relative sea level is rising approximately one
47 inch (2.5 cm)every six years, $15 million is now set aside each year for shore protection, and the state
48 discourages construction that would later require sea walls. In addition, Maine, Rhode Island, South
49 Carolina. and Massachusetts have implemented various fonns of "rolling easement" policies to ensure
30
CEQ 008375
1 that wetlands and beaches can migrate inland as sea level rises, and that coastal landowners and
2 conservation agencies can purchase the required easements. Other states have modified regulations on,
3 for example, beach preservation, land reclamation, and inward migration of wetlands and beaches. Wider
4 consideration of potential consequences is especially important, however, because some regulatory
5 programs continue to permit structures that may block the inland shift of wetlands and beaches and in
6 some locations shoreline movement is precluded due to the high degree of coastal development.
7
8 To safeguard people and better manage resources along the coast, NOAA provides weather forecasts and
9 remotely sensed environmental data to federal, state, and local governments, coastal resource managers
10 and scientist, and the public. As part of its mandate and responsibilities to administer the National Flood
11 Insurance Program (NFfi», FEMA prepares Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that identify and
12 delineate areas subj ect to severe (l % annual chance) floods. FE~1A also maps coastal flood hazard areas
13 as a separate flood hazard category in recognition of the additional risk associated with wave action. In
14 addition, FEMA is working with many coastal cities to encourage steps to reduce their vulnerability to
15 stonns and floods, including by purchase of vulnerable properties. University and state programs are also
16 underway across the country, which is particularly important in that most coastal planning in the US is
17 the responsibility of state and local governments, with the federal government interacting with these
18 efforts through the development of coastal zone management plans.
19
20 Potential Climate Change Interactions with Human Health
21
22 Although the overall susceptibility of Americans to environmental health concerns dropped dramatically
23 during the :W th century, certain health outcomes are still recognized to be associated with the prevailing
24 environmental conditions. These adverse outcomes include illnesses and deaths associated with
25 temperature extremes; storms and other heavy precipitation events; air pollution; water contamination;
26 and diseases carried by mosquitoes, ticks, and rodents. As a result of the potential consequences of these
27 stresses acting individually or in combination. it is possible that projected climate change will have
28 measurable impacts, both beneficial and adverse. on health (see National Health Assessment Group,
29 2000,2001). Adaptation also offers the potential to reduce the vulnerability of the US population to
30 adverse health outcomes, including possible outcomes of projected climate change, primarily by ensuring
31 strong public health systems, improving their responsiveness to changing weather and climate conditions,
"')
.J~ and expand.ing attention given to vulnerable subpopulations. Although the costs, benefits, and availability
33 of resources for such adaptation must be found, and further research into key knowledge gaps on the
34 relationships between climate/,'t'eather and health is needed, to the extent that the US population can keep
35 from putting itself at greater risk by where it lives and what it does, the potential impacts of climate
36 change on human health can likely be addressed as a component of efforts to address current
37 vulnerabili ties.
38
39 Projections of the extent and direction of potential impacts of climate variability and change on health
40 are extremely difficult to make with confidence. This is so because of the many confounding and poorly
41 understood factors associated with potential health outcomes, including the sensitivity of human health to
42 aspects of weather and climate, differing vulnerability of various demographic and geographic segments
43 of the population, the international movement of disease vectors, and how effectively prospective
44 problems can be dealt with. For example, uncertainties remain about how the climate wiIl change and
45 how associated environmental conditions may change. Even in the absence of improving medical care
46 and treatment, while some positive health outcomes, notably reduced cold-weather mortality, are
47 possible, the balance between increased risk of heat-related illnesses and death and changes in ,vimer
48 illnesses and death cannot yet be confidently assessed. In addition to uncertainties about health outcomes,
49 it is also very difficult to anticipate what adaptive measures (e,g., vaccines, improved use of weather
31
CEQ 008376
I forecasting to further reduce exposure to severe conditions) might be possible and be taken in the future
2 to reduce the risks of adverse health outcomes.
.,
.)
4 Effects of Climate Change on Temperature-related illnesses and Deaths: Episodes of extreme heat
5 cause more deaths in the US than any other category of deaths associated with extreme weather. In one of
6 the most severe examples of such an event, the number of deaths increased 85% during a five-day heat
7 wave in 1995 in which maximum temperatures in Chicago, nIinois ranged from 34 to 40T (93 to 104'F)
8 and minimum temperatures were nearly as high. At least 700 excess deaths (deaths in that population
9 beyond those expected for that period of time) were recorded, most of which were directly attributable to
10 heat. For particular years, studies in certain urban areas show a strong association between increases in
11 mortality a~d increases in heat, measured by maximum or minimum daily temperature and by heat index
12 (a measure oftemperature and humidity). Over longer periods, determination of trends is often difficult
13 due to the episodic nature of such events and the presence of complicating health conditions as well as
14 because many areas are taking steps to reduce exposure to extreme heat. Recognizing these
15 complications, no nationwide trend in deaths directly attributed to extreme heat is evident over the past
16 two decades, even though some warming has occurred.
17
18 Based on available studies, heat stroke and other health effects associated with exposure to extreme and
19 prolonged heat appear to be related to environmental temperatures above those to which the population is
20 accustomed. Thus, the regions expected to be most sensitive to projected increases in severity and
21 frequency of heat waves are likely to be those in which extremely high temperatures occur only
22 irregularly. Within heat-sensitive regions, experience indicates that populations in urban areas are most
23 vulnerable to adverse heat-related health outcomes. It is just these urban core areas where daily average
24 heat indices and heat-related mortality rates are higher than in surrounding areas, and this is likely
25 because urban areas remain wanner throughout the night compared to outlying suburban and rural areas.
26 The absence of nighttime relief from heat for urban residents has been identified as a factor in excessive
27 heat-related deaths. The elderly, young children, the poor, and people who are bedridden, on certain
28 medications, or who have certain underlying medical conditions are at particular risk.
29
30 Plausible climate scenarios proj ect significant increases in average summer temperatures, leading to new
31 record highs. Model results also indicate that the frequency and severity of heat waves would be very
32 likely to increase along with the increase in average temperatures. The size of US cities and the
33 proportion of US residents living in them are also projected to increase through the 21 5t century. Because
34 cities tend to retain daytime heat and so are warmer than surrounding areas, climate change is very likely
35 to lead to an increase in the population potentially at risk from heat events. While the potential risk may
36 increase, heat-related illnesses and deaths are largely preventable through behavioral adaptations,
37 including use of air conditioning, increased fluid intake, and community warning and support systems.
38 The degree to which these adaptations can be even more broadly made available and adopted than in the
39 20 th century, especially for sensitive populations, \vill determine if the long-term trend toward fewer
40 deaths from extreme heat can be maintained.
41
42 Death rates not only vary with summertime temperature, but also show a seasonal dependence, with more
43 deaths in winter than in summer. This relationship suggests that the relatively large increases in average
44 winter temperature could reduce deaths in winter months. Howeyer, the relationship between winter
45 weather and mortality is not as clear as for summertime extremes. \Vhile there should be fewer deaths
46 from shoveling snow and slipping on ice, many winter deaths are due to respiratory infections such as
47 influenza. and it is unclear how influenza transmission would be affected by higher ,vinter temperatures.
48 AB a result, the net effect on winter mortality from milder winters remains uncertain.
49
32
CEQ 008377
1 Influences of Climate Change on Health Effects related to Extreme Weather Events: Injury and
2 death also result from natural disasters such as floods and hurricanes. Such outcomes can result both
3 from direct bodily harm and from secondary inf1uences, such as those mediated by changes in ecological
4 systems (such as bacterial and fungal proliferation) and in public health infrastructures (such as reduced
5 availability of safe drinking water).
6
7 Proj ections of climate change for the 21 Sl century suggest a continuation of the 20 th century trend toward
8 increasing intensity of heavy precipitation events, including precipitation during hurricanes. Such events,
9 in addition to the potential consequences listed above, pose an increased risk of floods and associated
10 health impacts. However, much can be done to prepare for powerful storms and heavy precipitation
11 events, both through community design and through warning systems. As a result of such efforts, the loss
12 of life and the relative amounts of damage have been decreasing. For the future, therefore, the net health
13 impacts of extreme weather events such as floods and storms hinge on continuing efforts to reduce
14 societal vulnerabilities. For example, FEMA's safe communities program is promoting implementation
15 of stronger building codes and improved warning systems, as well as enhancing the recovery capacities
16 of the narnral environment and the local population, which are also being dealt with through disaster
17 assistance programs.
18
19 Influences of Climate Change on Air Pollution-related Health Effects: Current exposures to air
20 pollution exceed health-based standards in many parts of the country. Health assessments indicate that
21 ground-level ozone can exacerbate respiratory diseases and cause short-term reductions in lung function.
22 Such studies also indicate that exposure to particulate matter can aggravate existing respiratory and
23 cardiovascular diseases, alter the body's defense systems against foreign materials, damage lung tissue,
24 lead to premature death, and possibly contribute to cancer. Health effects of exposure to carbon
25 monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide have also been related to reduced work capacity,
26 aggravation of existing cardiovascular diseases, effects on breathing, respiratory illnesses, lung irritation,
27 and alterations in the lung's defense systems.
28
29 Projected changes in climate change would be likely to affect air quality in several ways, some of which
30 are likely to be dealt with by ongoing changes in technology and some of which can be dealt with, if
31 necessary, through changes in regulations. For example, changes in the weather that affect regional
32 pollution emissions and concentrations can be dealt with by controlling sources of emissions. However,
33 adaptation will be needed in response to changes in nanrral sources of air pollmant emissions that result
34 from changes in weather. Anal)tSes show that hotter, sunnier days tend to increase the formation of
35 ground-1evel ozone, other conditions being the same. This creates a risk of higher concentrations of
36 ground-level ozone in the future, especially because higher temperatures are frequently accompanied by
37 stagnating circulation patterns. However, without knowledge of future emissions in specific places, the
38 success of air pollution control policies and health warming systems, and local and regional
39 meteorological scenarios, more specific projections of exposure to air pollutants and health effects
40 cannot be made with confidence.
41
42 In addition to affecting exposure to air pollutants, there is some chance that climate change will playa
43 role in exposure to airborne allergens. For example, it is possible that climate change will alter pollen
44 production in some plants and change the geographic distribution of plant species. Consequently, there is
45 some chance that climate change will affect the timing or duration of seasonal allergies. The impact of
46 po llen and of pollen changes on the occurrence and severity of asthma, the most common chronic disease
47 among children, is currently very uncertain.
48
33
CEQ 008378
Agency Review Draft-January 1 f, 2002-6:00 PM
1 Effects of Climate Change on Water- and Food-borne Diseases: In the US, incidence and deaths due
2 to waterborne diseases declined dramatically during the 20 th century. While much less frequent or lethal
3 nowadays, exposure to water-borne disease can still result from drinking contaminated water, eating
4 seafood from contaminated water, eating fresh produce irrigated or processed with contaminated water,
5 and from activities such as fishing or swimming in contaminated water. Water-borne pathogens of
6 current concern include viruses, bacteria (such as Vibrio vulnificus, a naturally occurring estuarine
7 bacterium responsible for a high percentage of the deaths associated with shellfish consumption), and
8 protozoa (such as Cryptosporidium, associated with gastrointestinal illnesses). Changes in precipitation,
9 temperature, humidity, salinity, and \vind have a measurable effect on water quality, so future changes in
10 climate have the potential to increase exposure to water-borne pathogens. In 1993, for example,
11 CJyprosporidium contaminated the Milwaukee, Wisconsin, drinking water supply, and as a result
12 400,000 people became ill. Of the 54 individuals who died, most had compromised immune systems
13 because ofHIV infection or other illness. A contributing factor in the contamination, in addition to
14 treatment system malfilllctions, was heavy rainfall and runoff that resulted in a decline in the quality of
15 raw surface water arriving at the Milwaukee drinking water plams. As another example, in Florida during
16 the strong El Nino winter of 1997-1998, heavy precipitation and runoff greatly elevated the counts of
17 fecal bacteria and infectious viruses in local coastal waters. In addition, toxic red tides proliferate as
18 seawater temperatures increase. Reports of marine-related illnesses have risen over the past two and a
19 half decades along the East Coast, in correlation with El Nino events. Climate changes projected to occur
20 in the next several decades, in particular the likely increase in heavy precipitation events, therefore, raise
21 the risk of contamination events,
22
23 Effects of Climate Change on Insect-, Tick-, and Rodent-borne Diseases: Malaria, yellow fever,
24 dengue fever, and other diseases transmitted between humans by blood-feeding insects, ticks, and mites
25 were once common in the US. The incidence of many of these diseases has been significantly reduced,
26 however, mainly because of changes in land use. agricultural methods, residential patterns, human
27 behavior, vector control, and public health systems (e.g., see Figure 6.12, which contrasts incidence of a
28 mosquito-borne disease in the US a'nd Mexico). However. diseases that may be transmitted to humans
29 from wild animals continue to circulate in nature in many parts of the COillltry. Humans may become
30 infected \vith the pathogens that cause these diseases through transmission by insects or ticks (such as
31 Lyme disease, which is tick-borne) or by direct contact with the host animals or their body fluids (such as
32 hantaviruses, which are carried by numerous rodent species and transmitted to humans through contact
33 with rodent urine, droppings, and saliva). The organisms that directly transmit these diseases are known
34 as vectors.
35
36 The ecology and transmission dynamics of vector-borne infections are complex, and the factors that
37 influence transmission are unique for each pathogen. Most vector-borne diseases exmbit a distinct
38 seasonal pattern, which clearly suggests that they are weather sensitive. Rainfall, temperature, and other
39 weather variables affect both vectors and the pathogens they transmit in many ways. For example,
40 epidemics of malaria are associated with rainy periods in some parts of the world, but with drought in
41 others. Higher temperatures may increase or reduce vector survival rate, depending on each specific
42 vector, its behavior, ecology, and many other factors. In some cases. specific weather patterns over
43 several seasons appear to be associated with increased transmission rates. For example, in the Midwest,
44 outbreaks of 81. Louis encephalitis (a viral infection of birds that can also infect and cause disease in
45 hmnans) appear to be associated with the sequence of warm, wet winters, cold springs, and hot dry
46 summers. Although the potential for such diseases seems likely to increase, both the US National
47 Assessment (National Health Assessment Group, 2000, ::'001) and a special report prepared by the
48 National Research Council (NRC, 200lb) agree that signiticant outbreaks of these diseases as a result of
49 climate change are illllikely because of US health and community standards and systems. However, even
34
CE 008379
Agency Review Draft-January 11,2002---6:00 PM
1 with actions to limit breeding habitat~ of mosquitoes and other disease vectors and to carefully monitor
2 for infectious diseases, the continued occurrence of local, isolated incidences of such diseases probably
3 cannot be fully eliminated.
4
5 AlthoughJhe US has been able to reduce the incidence of such climatically related diseases as dengue
6 and malaria, these diseases continue to extract a heavy toll elsewhere. Accordingly, the US government
7 and other governmental and nongovernmental organizations are actively supporting efforts to reduce the
8 incidence and impacts of such diseases. For instance, US agencies and philanthropies are in the forefront
9 of malaria research, including the search for vaccines and genome sequencing of the anopheles
10 mosquitoes and the malaria parasite, Plasmodium!alcipanll11. The results from this work will serve the
11 US and, perhaps more importantly, the world in the event that human-induced climate change, through
12 whatever mechanism, increases the potential for malaria. Efforts such as these should help to reduce
13 global vulnerability to malaria and other vector-borne diseases. and need to be considered part and parcel
14 of global adaptation strategies. In addition, these steps will be beneficial for those residing in the US
15 because our nation cannot be isolated from diseases occurring elsewhere in the world. Of significant
16 importance, the potential for disease vectors to spread into the US via travel and trade is likely to
17 increase just as the natural, cold-winter conditions that have contributed in the past to protecting those
18 living in the US are moderating. Not only will climate change affect the situations of places to which US
19 residents and others travel, but deteriorating health conditions in any part of the world could also lead to
20 both increased disease pressures within the US as travelers come to the US and expose residents to
21 diseases present in other nations in the course of travel for business and pleasure.
22
7~
-;) Potential'Adaptation Options to Ensure Public Health: As indicated by review of these many types of
24 health situations, the future vulnerability of the US population to the health impacts of climate change
25 wi1llargely depend on maintaining, ifnot enhancing, the nation's capacity to adapt to potential adverse
26 changes through legislative, administrative, institutional, technological, educational, and research-related
27 measures. Examples include basic research into climate-sensitive diseases, building codes and zoning to
28 prevent storm or flood damage, severe weather warning systems to allow evacuation, improved disease
29 surveillance and prevention programs, improved sanitation systems, education of health professionals
30 and the public, and research addressing key knowledge gaps in climatelhealth relationships.
31
32 Many of these adaptive responses are desirable from a public health perspective irrespective of climate
33 change. For example, reducing air pollution obviously has both short- and long-term health benefits.
34 Improving warning systems for extreme weather events and eliminating existing combined sewer and
35 storm water drainage systems are other measures that can ameliorate some of the potential adverse
36 impacts of current climate extremes and of the possible impacts of climate change. Improved disease
37 surveillance, prevention systems, and other public health infrastructure at the state and local levels are
38 already needed. Because of this, we expect awareness of the potential health consequences of climate
39 change to allow adaptation to go on in the normal course of social and economic development.
40
41 Potential Climate Change Impacts in Various Regions of the United States
42
43 While some appreciation can be gained about potential consequences of climate change for the US by
44 looking at sectors such as the five considered above, the US is a very large and diverse nation. There are
45 both importdnt commonalities and important differences in the climate-related issues and potential
46 economic and environmental consequences faced by different regions across the country. Therefore,
47 there are many different manifestations of a changing climate in terms of vulnerability, impacts, and the
48 potential for adaptation. As examples, all coastal regions are at risk, but the magnitude of the
49 vulnerabilities and the types of adaptation necessary will depend on particular coastal conditions and
35
CEQ 008380
-
I development, and water is a key issue in virtually all regions: however, the specific changes and impacts
2 in the West, in the Great Lakes, and in the Southeast will differ.
3
4 To gain an appreciation of the regional texture of potential consequences and how best to respond to the
5 changing climate the US will face in the coming decades and beyond, twenty regional workshops that
6 brought together researchers, stakeholders, and community, state, and national leaders were used to help
7 identify key issues facing each region and to begin the identification of potential adaptation strategies.
8 These workshops were followed by the initiation of sixteen regionally based assessment studies, some of
9 which are already completed and others of which are nearing completion. Each of the regional studies
10 has examined the potential consequences that would result from the climate model scenarios used in the
11 national level analysis (see Table 6.1, point 1), and from model simulations of how such climate changes
12 would affect the types and distributions of ecosystems. Table 6.4 provides highlights of what has been
13 learned about the regional mosaic of consequences from these studies. A much more comprehensive
14 presentation of the results is included in the National Assessment reports (see http://www.usgcrp.gov).
15
16 In summarizing potential consequences for the US, it is important to recognize that the US Government
17 represents not only the 50 states but also has trust responsibility for a number of Caribbean and Pacific
18 islands and for the homelands of Native Americans. In particular, the US has responsibilities of various
19 types for Puerto Rico, the American Virgin Islands, American Samoa. the Commonwealth of the
20 Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and for more than 565 tribal and Alaska Native governments that are
21 recognized as "domestic dependent nations."
22
23 For the island areas, the potential consequences are likely to be quite similar to those experienced by
24 nearby US states. With regard to Native Americans, treaties, executive orders, tribal legislation, acts of
25 Congress, and decisions of the federal courts determine the relationships between these tribes and the
26 federal gov.emment. These agreements cover a range of issues that will be important in facing the
27 potential consequences of climate change, including, for example, use and maintenance of land and water
28 resources. Although the diversity of land areas and tribal perspectives and situations makes
29 generalizations difficult a number of key issues have been identified for closer study concerning how
30 climate variability and change will affect Native peoples and their communities. These issues include:
31 tourism and community development: human health and extreme events; rights to and availability of
32 water and other natural resources; subsistence economies and cultural resources: cultural sites, wildlife,
33 and natural resources. Closer examination of the potential consequences for tribes in the southwestern
34 US is the topic of one of the regional assessments now underway.
35
36
CEQ 008381
1 Table 6.4: Key vulnerability and consequence issues that were identified across the set of regions
2 considered in the US National Assessment (see regional reports indexed at http://www.usgcrp.!!OV for
3 additional details).
4
5 • Northeast, Southeast, and Midwest: Rising temperatures are likely to increase the heat index
6 dramatically in summer. Warmer winters are likely to reduce cold-related stresses. Both types of
7 changes are likely to impact health and comfort.
8 • Appalachians: Warmer and moister air is likely to lead to more intense rainfall events in
9 mountainous areas, increasing the potential for flash floods.
10 • Great Lakes: Lake levels are likely to decline due to increased evaporation, leading to reduced
11 water supply and degraded water quality. Lower lake levels are also likely to increase shipping costs,
12 although a longer shipping season is likely. Shoreline damage due to high water levels is likely to
13 decrease, but reduced wintertime ice cover is likely to lead to higher waves and greater shoreline
14 erosion.
15 • Southeast: Under wanner-wetter scenarios, the range of southern tree species is likely to expand.
16 Under hotter-drier scenarios, it is likely that grasslands and savannas will eventually displace
17 southeastern forests in many areas, with the transformation likely accelerated by increased
18 occurrence of large fires.
19 .. Southeast Atlantic Coast, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands: Rising sea levels and higher storm
20 surges are likely to cause loss of many coastal ecosystems that now provide an important buffer for
21 coastal development against storm impacts. Presently and newly exposed communities are more
22 likely to suffer damage from the increasing intensity of stonns.
23 • Midwest/Great Plains: Higher CO] concentrations are likely to offset the effects of rising
24 temperatures on forests and agriculture for several decades, increasing productivity and thereby
25 reducing commodity prices for the public. To the extent that overall production is not increased,
26 increased crop and forest productivity is likely to lead to less land being farmed and logged, which
27 may promote recovery of some natural environments.
28 .. Great Plains: Prairie potholes, which provide important habitat for ducks and other migratory
29 waterfowl, are likely to become much drier in a warmer climate.
30 .. Southwest: With an increase in precipitation, the desert ecosystems native to this region are likely to
31 be replaced in many areas by grasslands and shrublands, increasing both flre and agricultural
32 potential.
33 .. Northern and Mountain Regions: It is very likely that warm weather recreational opportUnities
34 such as hiking will expamf"while cold weather activities like skiing contract.
35 • Mountain West: Higher winter temperatures are very likely to reduce late winter snowpack. This is
36 likely to cause peak runoff to be lower, which is likely to reduce the potential for spring floods
37 associated with snowmelt. As the peak flow shifts to earlier in the spring, summer runoff is likely to
38 be reduced, which is likely to require modifications in water management to provide for flood
39 controL power production, fish runs, cities, and irrigation.
40 • Northwest: Increasing river and stream temperatures are very likely to further stress migrating fish,
41 complicating current restoration efforts.
42 • Alaska: Sharp winter and springtime temperature increases are very likely to cause continued
43 meItback of sea ice and thawing of permafrost, further disrupting ecosystems, infrastructure, and
44 communities. A longer warm season could also increase opportunities for shipring commerce. and
45 tourism.
46 • Hawaii and Pacific Trust Territories: More intense El Nino and La Nina events are possible and
47 are likely to create extreme t1uctuations in water resources for island citizens and the tourists who
48 sustain local economies.
37
CEQ 008382
Agency Review Draft-January 11;2002-6:00 PM
2
3 Federal Interagency Coordination and Related Activities
4
5 The types and nature of impacts of climate change that are projected to affect the US make clear that
6 climate change is likely to become an increasingly important factor in the future management of the
7 nation's land and water resources. To better prepare for coming changes, it is important to enhance the
8 basis of understanding through research and to start to consider the potential risks that may be created by
9 these impacts in the making of short- and long-term decisions in such areas as planning for infrastructure,
10 land use, and other natural resource management. To promote these steps, the US Government sponsors a
1I wide range ofrelated activities reaching across the federal agencies and on to the states, communities and
12 the genera) public.
13
14 At the federal level, climate change and, even more generally, global environmental change and
15 sustainability, are topics that have ties to many agencies across the US Government. To ensure
16 coordination, the US Congress passed the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-606).
17 This law provides for the interagency coordination of global change activities, including research on both
18 how the climate is likely to change and on potential consequences for the environment and society.
19 Responsibility is assigned to the Executive Office and is implemented under the guidance of the Office
20 of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). To implement this coordination, OSTP has established
21 several interagency subcommittees. The Subcommittee on Global Change Research has responsibility for
22 the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), including research to reduce uncertainties about
23 climate change and potential impacts on climate, ecosystems, natural resources, and society; the set of
24 USGCRP research activities is described in Chapter 8. A number of the activities of the other
25 subcommittees are also related to the issues of vulnerability and adaptation to global climate change,
26 including:
27
28 • Nawral Disaster Reduction: This subcommittee promotes interagency etTorts to assemble and
19 analyze data and infonnation about the occurrence and vulnerability of the US to a wide range of
30 weather- and climate-related events. Through its participating agencies, the subcommittee is also
31 promoting efforts by communities, universities, and others to increase their preparation for, and
32 .resilience to, natural disasters. In that climate change may alter the intensity, lrequency, duration and
33 location of such disasters, enhancing resilience and flexibility will assist in coping with climate
34 change.
35 • Air Quality: This subcommittee promotes interagency etTorts to document and investigate the factors
36 contributing to sub-continental to inter-continental air quality issues, focusing particularly on
37 tropospheric ozone and particulate matter, both of which contribute to climate change as well as
38 being affected by it.
39 • Ecological Systems: This subcommittee promotes interagency efforts to assemble information about
40 ecological systems and services and their coupling to society and environmental change. The
41 subcommittee is sponsoring assessments that document the current state of the nation's ecosystems.
42 and provide scenarios of future conditions under various management and policy options, providing a
43 baseline for the National Assessment studies concerning how ecosystems are likely to change over
44 the long-term.
45
46 In addition to their interagency activities. various of the USGCRP agencies have various responsibilities
47 relating to the potential consequences of climate change and of consideration of responses and means for
48 coping and adapting to climate change. These agencies include:
38
CEQ 008383
Agency Review Draft-January 11, 2002--6:00 PM
1
2 • Department of Agriculture (USDA): USDA-sponsored research focuses on understanding terrestrial
3 systems and the effects of global change (including water balance, atmospheric deposition, vegetative
4 quality, and UV-B radiation) on food, fiber, and forestry production in agricultural, forest, and range
5 ecosystems. USDA research also addresses how resilient managed agricultural, rangeland, and forest
6 ecosystems are to climate change and what adaptation strategies will be needed to adjust to a
7 changing climate. Programs include long-term studies addressing the structure, function, and
8 management of forest and grassland ecosystems; research in applied sciences, including soils,
9 climate, food and fiber crops, pest management, forests and wildlife, and social sciences;
10 implementation of ecosystem management on the national forests and grasslands; and human
11 interaction with natural resources.
12 For example, ForestService research has established a national plan offorest sustainability to
13 continue to provide water, recreation, timber, and clean air in a changing environment. Two goals of
14 this program are to improve strategies for sustaining forest health under multiple environmental
15 stresses and to develop projections of future forest water quality and yield in light of potential
16 changes in climate. Similarly, research at the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) looks to
17 determine the impacts of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, rising temperatures, and water
18 availability on crops and their interactions with other biological components of agricultural
19 ecosystems. ARS also conducts research on characterizing and measuring changes in weather and the
20 water cycles at local and regional scales, and determining how to manage agricultural production
21 systems facing such changes.
22 o Department of Commerce (DOC): The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
23 supports ill situ and remote sensing and monitoring, research, and assessment to improve the
24 accuracy of forecasts of weather and intense StOilllS, and projections of climate change; to improve
25 the scientific basis for Federal, state. and local management of the coastal and marine environment
26 and its.natural resources; and to ensure a safe and productive marine transportation system. In
27 addition to direct responsibilities for managing National Marine Sanctuaries and for protected
28 threatened, endangered, and trust resources, NOAA works with states to implement their coastal zone
29 management plans and with regional councils to ensure sustained productivity of marine fisheries.
30 Climate change and variability inf1uence all areas of NOAA's responsibilities, both through direct
31 effects and through intensification of other stresses such as pollution, invasive species, and land and
... ')
.)- resource use.
33 o Department of Health and Human Services (DI-IHS): Through the National Institutes of Health
34 (Nlli), the DHHS sponsors.,esearch on a wide variety of health-related issues. These range from
35 sponsorship of research on treatments for existing and emerging diseases of various types to studies
36 of risks from exposures to various environmental stresses. For example, the National Institutes of
37 HealthlNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), conducts research on the
38 effects of exposure to environmental agents on human health. The core programs of the NJEHS
39 provide data and understanding for risk assessments due to changes in human vulnerability and
40 exposures. Climate change raises issues of susceptibility to disease and needs for assuring public
41 health services. Changes in crop production techniques can increase human exposures to toxic agents
42 and to disease vectors.
43 o Department of the Interior (DOl): Within the US, DOl is the largest manager ofland and the
44 associated biological and other natural resources. Its land management agencies. which include the
45 Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service. and the National Park Service, cumulatively
46 manage over 180 million hectares (or 20%) of the US's land area for a variety of purposes, including
47 preservation, tourism and recreation, timber harvesting, migratory birds, fish, wildlife, and a
48 multiplicity of other functions and uses. DOL's Bureau of Reclamation (BoR) is the largest supplier
49 and manager of water in the 17 western states, delivering water to over 30 million people for
39
CEQ 008384
Agency Review Draft-January 11; 2002-6:00 PM
1 agricultural, municipaL industrial and domestic uses. BoR also generates over a billion dollars worth
2 of hydroelectric power and is responsible for multi-purpose proj ects encompassing flood control,
3 recre~tion, irrigation, fish, and wildlife. Management of land, water and other natural resources is of
4 necessity an exercise in adaptive management (IPCe, 1991). DOl's United States Geological Survey
5 (USGS) research related to climate change includes efforts to identify which parts of the natural and
6 human-controlled landscapes, ecosystems, and coastlines are at the highest risk under potential
7 changes in climate and climate variability, water availability, and different land and resource
8 management practices.
9 • Department of Transportation: The DOT has recognized that many of the nation's transportation
10 facilities and networks, which are now generally exposed to weather extremes, are also likely to be
11 exposed to such influences as a result of rising sea level and increased streamflow. An assessment of
12 the potential significance of changes for the US transportation system and of guidelines for
13 improving resilience is being organized.
14 • Environmental Protection Agency: The EPA works closely with other federal agencies, state and
15 local governments, and Indian tribes to develop and enforce regulations under existing environmental
16 laws, such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. In line with
17 EPA's mission to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment, EPA's Global
18 Change Research Program is assessing the consequences of global change for human health, aquatic
19 ecosystem health: air quality, and water quality. Recognizing the need for "place-based" information,
20 these assessments will focus on impacts at appropriate geographic scales (e.g., regional, watershed,
21 etc.). In addition, EPA is supporting three integrated regional assessments in the Mid-Atlantic, Great
22 Lakes. and Gulf Coast. Finally, in support of these assessments, EPA laboratories and centers
23 conduct research through intramural and extramural programs.
24
25 In addition to federal activities, a number oflocal, state, and regional activities are underway. Many of
26 these activities have developed from the various regional assessments sponsored by the USGCRP or with
27 the encouragement of various federal agencies. In addition. the USGCRP and federal agencies have been
28 expanding their education and outreach activities to the public and private sectors, as described in
29 Chapter 9.
30
31 Recognizing our shared environment and the resources it provides, it is important that the nations of the
32 world work together in planning and coordinating their steps to adapt to the changing climate projected
33 for coming decades. As part of this effort, the US has been co-chair of Working Group II of the IPCC,
34 which is focused on impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. The US is also a leader in organizing the
35 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), which is being carried out under the auspices of the eight-
36 nation Arctic Council to "evaluate and synthesize knowledge on climate variability, climate change, and
37 increased ultraviolet radiation and their consequences.... The ACIA will examine possible future impacts
38 on the environment and its living resources, on human health, and on buildings, roads and other
39 infrastructure" (see http://www.acia.uaf.edu/). These and other assessments need to continue to be
40 pursued in order to ensure the most accurate information possible for preparing for the changing climate.
41
42 References
43
44 ARE! (Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators), :2000: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
45 Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division. Washington, DC, 2000 (see
46 http://www.ers.usda.Qov/emphases/harmonvhssues/arei20000
47
40
CEQ 008385
Agency Review Draft--January 11,2002----6:00 PM
1 EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), 1989: The Potential Effect of Global Climate Change on the
2 United States, J. Smith and D. Tirpak, editors, EPA-230-05-89-050, U.S. Environmental Protection
3 Agency, Washington, DC.
4
5 Groisman, P. Ya, R. W. Knight, and T. R. Karl, 2001: Heavy precipitation and high streamflow in the
6 contiguous United States: Trends in the Twentieth Century," Bulletin ofthe American Meteorological
7 Society, 82,219-246.
8
9 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 1991: Climate Change.' The IPCC Response
10 Strategies, Island Press, Washington DC, 273 pp.
11
12 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 1996: Climate Change 1995.' Impacts, Adaptations
13 and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses, R. T. Watson et al., editors,
14 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, 878 pp.
15
16 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 1998: The Regional Impacts of Climate Change: An
17 Assessment of Vulnerability, R. T. Watson et aI., editors, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK,
18 517pp.
19
20 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2001a: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis,
21 J. T. Houghton et a1. (editors), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, 881 pp,
22
23 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2001 b: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation,
24 and Vulnerability, 1. H. McCarthy et aI., editors, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, 1032 pp.
25
26 McCabe, G. J., and D. M. Wolock, 1999: General-circulation-model simulations offuture snowpack in
27 the western United States, Journal ofthe American Water Resources Association, 35, 1473-1484.
28
29 NAST (National Assessment Synthesis Team), 2000: Climate Change Impacts on the United States.' The
30 Potential Consequences a/Climate Variability and Change: Overview, U. S. Global Change Research
31 Program, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 154 pp.
32
33 NAST (National Assessment Synthesis Team), 1001: Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The
34 Pocelllial Consequences of Climate Variability and Change.' Overview, U. S. Global Change Research
35 Program, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 612 pp.
36
37 National Agriculture Assessment Group, 2001: Agriculture.' The Potential Consequences ofClimate
38 Variability and Change, US Department of Agriculture for the US Global Change Research Program,
39 also published in 2002 as Reilly, J. et aI., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK. 136 pp.
40
41 National Coastal Assessment Group, 2000: Coastal: The Potential COllSequences of Climate Variability
42 and Change, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce for the
43 US Global Change Research Program, Washington DC, 163 pp.
44
45 National Forr<;t Assessment Group, 2001: Forests: The Potential Consequences oj Climate Variability
46 and Change, US Department of Agliculture for the US Global Change Research Program, Washington
47 DC, 8 pp. (summarizes peer-reviewed articles representing chapters of the national forest assessment that
48 appeared in The Science of the Total Environment, November 2000; Ecosystems, Apri1200l: and
49 BioScience, September 2001).
41
CEQ 008386
Agency Review Draft-January 11, 2..Q02-6:00 PM
1
2 National Health Assessment Group (patz, J. A., M. A. McGeehin, S. M. Bernard, K. L. Ebi, P. R.
3 Epstein, A. Grambsch, D. 1. Gubler, P. Reiter, 1. Romeiu, J. B. Rose. et al.), 2000: The health impacts of
4 climate variability and change for the United States: Executive summary of the report of the health sector
5 of the U.S. National Assessment, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, 108,367-376.
6
7 National Health Assessment Group, 2001: Health: 171e Potential Consequences ofClimate Variability
8 and Change, Jolms Hopkins University, School of Public Health and the US Environmental Protection
9 Agency for the US Global Change Research Program, Washington DC (includes reprints of six peer-
10 reviewed articles making up the chapters of the National Health Assessment and that appeared in
11 Environmental Health Perspectives, Supplement 2, 109, 175-233,2001).
12
13 National Water Assessment Group, 2000: Water: ne
Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and
14 Change, US Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, and Pacific Institute for the US Global
15 Change Research Program, Washington DC, 151 pp.
16
17 NRC (National Research Council), 2001 a: Climate Change Science: An Analysis ofSome Key Questions,
18 Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 29 pp.
19
20 NRC (National Research Council), 2001 b: Under the Weather: Climate. Ecosystems, and Infectious
21 Disease, Committee on Climate, Ecosystems, Infectious Disease, and Human Health, National Academy
22 Press, Washington DC, 146 pp.
23
24 Timmermarin, A., Oberhuber, 1., Bacher. A, Esch. M., Latif, M., and E, Roeckner, 1999: Increased E1
25 Nino frequency in a climate model forced by future greenhouse warming, Nature. 398, 694-697.
26
27 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1993: Preparing for an Uncertain Climate-Volumes I
28 and II, OTA-O-567 and 568, U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington DC, 359 pp. and 383 pp.
29
30 Wigley, T. M. L., and S. C. B. Raper, 2001: Interpretation of High Projections for Global-Mean
31 Warming, Science 293: 451-454.
42
CEQ 008387
1 Figure Captions
2
3 Figure 6.1: Title: Potential Effect of 21 Sl Century Wanning on the Summertime Climate of Dlinois;
4 Caption: Schematic illustration of how the summer climate of Illinois would shift under two plausible
5 climate scenarios. The baseline climatic values are for the period 1961-90, with the red lines showing the
6 prevailing summer temperatures (OF) and the blue lines total annual precipitation (inches). For the hot-dry
7 climate scenario projected by the Canadian Climate Centre model, for example, the changes in
8 summertime temperature and precipitation would make the climatic conditions more like the current
9 climatic conditions of southern Missouri by the 2030s and Oklahoma by the 2090s. For the warm-moist
10 climate scenario projected by UK's Hadley Centre model (version 2), the summer climate would become
11 more like the climate of the central Appalachians by the 2030s and North Carolina by the 2090s. Both
12 shifts indicate warming of several degrees, but the scenarios differ in terms of projected changes in
13 precipitation (Source: D. J. Wuebbles, University of illinois Urbana-Champaign, as included in NAST,
14 2000)
15
16 Figure 6.2: Title: Observed Changes in Precipitation During the 20 u] Century; Caption: The geographical
17 pattern of observed changes in annual precipitation during the 20 ID century (1900-98) across the US
18 indicates that, although local variations are occurring, precipitation has been increasing in most regions
19 (from Groisman et aI., 2001). The results are based on data from 1221 Historical Climatology Network
20 stations being used to derive estimates of 100-year trend (% change per 100 years) for each US climate
21 division. Green dots indicate increasing and brown dots decreasing trends, with the size of the dot
22 indicating the magnitude of the trend.
23
24 Figure 6.3: Title: Proj ected Precipitation Changes for the 21 st Century; Caption: The projected changes in
25 US total precipitation as calculated by two models for the 21 51 century indicate that most of the increase
26 is likely to occur in the locally heaviest categories of precipitation. Each bar represents the percentage
27 change of precipitation in a different category of storm intensity. For example, the two bars on the far
28 right indicate that the Hadley Centre model projects an increase of about II % in the 5% most intense
29 rainfal1 events, whereas the Canadian Centre model projects an increase of over 55% in such rainfall
30 events. Because both historic trends and future projections from many global climate models indicate an
31 increase in the fraction of precipitation occurring during the heaviest categories of precipitation events in
32 each region, a continuation of this trend is considered likely. although this does not necessarily translate
33 into an increase in nooding (Source: NOAA National Climatic Data Center, as presented in NAST,
34 2000).
35
36 Figure 6.4: Title: Likelihood of Hurricanes to Affect the US Based on Occurrence of El Nifio and La
37 Nina Conditions; Caption: The frequency at which various numbers of hurricanes struck the US during
38 the 20 th century has been found to depend on whether an El Nino or La Nina event was occurring.
39 Because of this observed relationship, changes in the frequency and intensity ofEI Nino or La Nifia
40 events are expected to affect the potential for damaging hurricanes striking the US. (Source: NOAA
41 National Climatic Data Center, as presented in NAST, 2000)
42
43 Figure 6.5: Title: Climatic Tendencies across North America during El Nino Events; Caption: Schematic
44 illustration showing how temperature and precipitation across North America have tended to vary from
45 the normal wintertime conditions as a result of the occurrence ofEI Nino (warmer than normal)
46 conditions in the equatorial eastern Pacific Ocean. For many regions. the state of ocean temperatures in
47 the equatorial Pacific Ocean has been found to be the most important determinant of whether winter
48 conditions are relatively wet or dry. or relatively warm or cold. For example. winters in the Southeast
43
CEQ 008388
Agency Review Draft-January 11.2002-6:00 PM
I tend to be generally cool and wet during a warm (EI Nino) event. (Source: Center for Ocean-Atmospheric
2 Prediction Studies at Florida State University, http://www.coaps.fsu.edu).
3
4 Figure 6.6: Title: Climatic Tendencies across North America during La Nifia Events; Caption: Schematic
5 illustration sho\ving how temperature and precipitation across North America have tended to vary from
6 the normal wintertime conditions as a result of the occurrence of La Nifia (colder than normal) conditions
7 in the equatorial eastern Pacific Ocean. For example, winters in the Southeast tend to be warm and dry
8 during La Niiia events. (Source: Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State
9 University, http://w,"vw.coaps.fsu.edu).
10
II Figure 6.7: Title: Potential Changes in Ecosystem Distribution in the Southwest as a Result of Changes in
12 Climate Projected for the 21 st Century; Caption: Panels showing (a) the present distribution of vegetation
13 types in the southwestern US, and the projected distributions of vegetation at the end of the 21 sl century
14 in the event climate change is similar to that calculated by (b) the Canadian climate model, or (c) the
15 Hadley model (version 2). Both of these models project increasing wintertime precipitation in this region
16 and a conversion of desert ecosystems to shrub and grassland ecosystems. (Source: R. P. Neilson, USDA
17 Forest Service, Corvallis, OR; as presented in NAST, 2000)
18
19 Figure 6.8: Title: Effects of Potential Changes in Climate on the Yields of Important US Crops; Caption:
20 Projections of average change in yields for 16 crops, given as the percentage differences between future
21 yield for two periods (2030s and 2090s) and current yields. The results consider the physiological
22 responses of the crops to future climate conditions under either dryland or irrigated cultivation, assuming
23 a limited set of reasonable adaptive response by producers. Climate scenarios are drawn from two
24 different climate models that are likely to span the range of changes of future conditions, ranging from
25 the warm-moist changes projected by the UK's Hadley Centre model (version 2) to the hot-dry changes
26 projected by the Canadian Climate Centre model. The most positive responses resulted when conditions
27 were warmer and wetter in key growing regions (e.g., cotton), when frost occurrence was reduced (e.g.,
28 grapefruit), and when northern areas warmed (e.g., silage from pasture improvement). (Source: National
29 Agriculture Assessment Group, 2001)
30
31 Figure 6.9: Title: Effects of Projected Climate Change on Dominant Forest Types in the Eastern US;
32 Caption: Map showing the current distribution of forest types for the eastern US based on the climate
33 experienced from 1960-1990 (panel al, to be compared with maps showing the potential distributions of
34 dominant forest types for the late 21· t century if the climate becomes like the warm-moist climate
35 projection of the UK Hadley Centre (version 2) climate model (panel b) or like the hot-dry climate
36 projection of the Canadian Climate Centre climate model (panel c). All cases were calculated using the
37 DISTRIB tree species distribution model, which calculates the most likely dominant type of vegetation
38 for the given climatic conditions, assuming they have persisted for several decades. In general, these
39 analyses suggest a significant northward shift in prevailing ecosystems, with, for exarnple, the maple-
40 beech-birch forest type no longer present in the northeastern US. (Source: A: M. Prasad and 1. R.
41 Iverson, Northeastern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Delaware, Ohio, as reported in NAST,
42 2000)
43
44 Figure 6.10: Title: Projected Reductions in Western Snowpack as a Result of Potential Changes in
45 Climate; Caption: Projections of percentage decrease from the 1961-90 baseline in the April 1 snowpack
46 for fuur areas in the western US as simulated for the 21 st century for the wannings projected by two
47 different climate models: (a) for the case of warming toward the upper end of the set ofIPCC models;
48 and (b) for the case of warming near the middle of estimates from the set of IPCC models. The steep
49 reduction in the April I snowpack would dramatically shift the time of peak runoff and reduce flows in
44
CEQ 008389
Do not cite or quote'
1 spring and summer. (Source: redrawn from G. J. McCabe and D. M. Wolock, 1999, as presented in
2 NAST, 2000)
3
4 Figure 6.11: Title: Classification of the Rates of Erosion along US Shorelines; Caption: Preliminary
5 classification of annual shoreline erosion along US coastlines. The areas that are most vulnerable to
6 future increases in sea level are those with low relief and those that are already experiencing rapid
7 erosion rates, such as the Southeast and Gulf Coast. (Source: USGS Coastal Geology Program, as
8 presented in NAST, 2000)
9
10 Figure 6.12: Title: Reported Cases of Dengue Fever during a 20-year Period in Texas and Bordering
11 Regions of Mexico; Caption: Incidence of dengue in the Texas-Mexico border region. Dengue, a
12 mosquito-borne viral disease, was once common in Texas, where there were an estimated 500,000 cases
13 in 1922, and the mosquito that transmits it remains abundant. The striking contrast in incidence in Texas
14 versus incidence in tlrree Mexican states that border Texas (64 vs. 62,514 over the period 1980-99)
15 provides a graphic illustration of the importance of factors other than climate in the incidence of vector-
16 borne diseases. (Source: National Institute of Health, Mexico; Texas Department of Health; US Public
17 Health Service, unpublished data analyzed by the National Health Assessment Group and presented in
18 NAST, 200])
45
CEQ 008390
Figure 6.1
1" Canadian Model .O! Hadley Model
f-
- - Summer ProclplUllon
--- Sum~r Average Tempemure
II)
J,.. .
;'!
Illustration of how the summer climate of Illinois would shift under the Canadian and Hadley model scenarios. Under the canadian
scenario, the summer climate of IllinoIs would become more like the current climate of southern Missouri in 2030 and more like
Oklahoma's current climate in 2090. The primary difference in the resulting climates of the two models relates to the amount of sum·
mer rainfall.
n
tTl
,()
o
o
00
UJ
'-D
Figure 6.2
Precipitation Trends (1901-1998)
USHCN 1221 Stations
(All Stations/trends are-displayed regardless of statistical significance)
National Climatic Data Center I NESDIS I NOAA
,.~
~ .
. .•
!.~
"
,
\t
;
'\.
~~
...",,'4 -;r
,."-
••
Trends
%/100yrs
• 10
n • 20
tr1
D
o
o
00
e 40
VJ
\0
Iv
Projected 21st Century Change in US Daily Precipitation
60
F
::l
'E1IJ 50 ~
r
U
:a.u
'0"
40
r
n
i'<
'i i
:t::
a. 30 f~
l~
'u
~
a. F
III
Cl
20 r
~hJL'~\J~(' ~1~1~lhl~1r,LIfls1~1,~n
l:!
1IJ
>
10
'"
'0 ~lr" ,l',H;:j
~
-'J :l, --'.." ~• I"~j
, '~~
e::-
0
O>
"C '" , 1"'lA,
A
,',:. "':',
'11
.'="
1IJ
-10
20 . ", "_'"
Ughtest 5% 40 60 ~'" :-<'
Moderate
95
:: HadCM2 CGCM1 Percentiles Heaviest 5%
These projections by the Hadley and Canadian models show the changes in precipitation over the 21st century.
Each models' projected change in the lightest 5% of precipitation events is represented by the far left bar and the
change in the heaviest 5% by the far right bar. As the graph illustrates, both models project significant increases
in heavy precipitation events with smaller Increases or decreases In light precipitation events.
Figure 6.3
n
t'T1
10
,
o
o
00
W
'D
W
Figure 6.4
f
e c ts on th e Chance o
La Nilia E ff th Centu ry
EI Nino and Hurricanes over the 20
Landfalllng
90% rl
T~------_ ---,
80%
;f! 70%
'~El Nino La Nifia
E
..
u
e
60%
t:
:>
u
50%
<3
~
..
e
u
.c.
i,l~"
U
1
\
~ ~ ""';"""'6":''-'''''~,<
1
"'", '" ... 2
.a ii
3
', - 4 5
'" "" ''' or "" ",
6
or 1M"
7 .• ".
or "" '''
"
.. mo" cane$ per year

Number 01 Hurrl
(' )
2o
o
00
v..>
.,.
\0
CEQ 008395
CEQ 008396
UI
4i
'tI
o
..
==E
G.l
UI
~
o
u
w
CEQ 008397
CEQ 008398
Irrigated Yields in 2030 ~ 2090
With Adaptation
Cotton i.::;"~'::-Uft'-&~-H.~~<"" ~,~ > ......"
Com
E
Soybean ~~ Hadley Seenario 2090
Figure 6.8 Spring wheat

",r' • Hadley See nario 2030
D Canadian Scenario 2090
Winter wheat
r- • Canadian Scenario 2030
Sorghum iC-:
Rice tr'
Barley '\i.t"~H-:"r~--=--"-
Oats L--."r-
Hay £-)
Sugar cane c·
Sugar beets --ilWi-T--"·'-·'·
Polato
--"
Orange ...........::r::t!:r~:.
Ilia

Grapefruit l".ii':::;';::Fj*-""""i:u~ol")Il;",!,~~.'_~"'..J:~'-''I
Pasture
L-.... ._~~,~.i~:.:~':'~s:>r . C-I'I'JU!;,U~7'-lO~~~.;: .....;",f .•
-40 -20 o 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Percent
n
tn
o
o
o
00
I..J.J
'-0
'-0
Figure 6.9a
Dominant Forest Types
Current· 1960-1990
These maps show current and

projected lorest types lor the east-
ern US. The current dlstrlbuUon
ollorest types reflects tempera-
ture and moisture gradients In this
part 01 the nation. The simulated
changes In forest types by the end [E] White-Red.Jack Pine
of the 21st century are in
o Spruce-Fir
response to the Hadley and
Canadian climate scenarios using o Longleaf·Slash Pine
the DISTRIB model, a tree species • Loblolly-Shortleal Pine
distribution model. Plne-dominat- G] Oak.Plne
ed types decline in the Southeast • Oak·Hickory
under both climate scenarios.
Oak·pine and oak·hlckory forest
[J Oak·Gum-Cypress
£!il Elm.Ash.Cottonwood
types are projected to expand
northward. . .-) \ • Maple·Beech·Blrch
[fJ Aspen-BIrch
o
'\.J NoOala
n
tn
,0
o
o
00
.j:>.
o
o
Figures 6.9b and 6.9c
Dominant Forest Types
H;1oley Sccn"rio - 2070-2100 C;)n~di;>n Sccn;lrio - 2070-2100
(r
'~
n
tn
D
o
o
00
~
o
:)
~
~.
..,
(1)
0\
l--'
o
....
Percentage Change from 1961 ·1990 Base
...o, .x.o eno j,. ~ .x.0 ,
m .b. N
o o o o '"
0
0
0 0 0 0 o '"
o
999 1999 n
003 ::J: 2003 n ::r
Dl
007 Dl Dl :I
a. 2007 ::s lQ
011 iD 2011 Dl
a. II
015 '< Dj'
III
2015
019 ::
o 2019 ::s :i'
::
...~
023 a. 2023
!!. 0
a. III
027 2027
031 2031
!!. CD
035 2035
'"
:I
(I)
039 2039 :I
o
043 2043 ~
047 'a
2047 Dl
051
055
2051
2055
II II
("lC/) "oc/)
n
":l\"
.. 0
059 2059 ~ iir n c:
063 2063
_=l
Al OJ s-
n~
-z z~
067 2067 ;;u'"
0<
o ::J
n .. ::1.:0
071 2071 ~g-
:TO
~ n
075 2075 3: m~
0
c: -3:
079 2079 ::J 0
c:
083 2083 S" :::J
:i' 0;
087 2087 <II
:i'
en
091 2091
095 2095
Figure 6.11
This map is a preliminary Annual Shoreline Change

classification of annual
shoreline erosion -._-- ---
throughout the US, In
coarse detail and resolu·
tion. The areas most vul·
nerable to future
sea·level change are
those with low relief
~(
which are already experi·
encing rapid erosion
rates, such as the
Southeast and Gulf Coast.
\\
.J~~ ~
~~
/:;3
\I
)
. . . . . ,._- r-·
~ ... I - '\..,
-L "1 J,t,u.J~"---...!~~4;',..(
"t;/ ,15
.;:l...?T-'
~..t-\ -\
. . V·\·
,<)
~~
\
r,.
'.-.....
\
~j)~
~
_".r> ~ 0:"-, "l (
;~'. \.
i _)
/
"'-.
.
Ill .I1E] SevElrelyeroding Modcratcfy erooing o Relativ:?ly stablE
n
tn
!O
o
o
00
.j::.
o
vJ
Reported Cases of Dengue 1980·1999
Figure 6.12
Border States
62,514 Cases
Figure 8: Dengue along the US-Mexico border. Dengue, a mosquito-borne

viral disease, was once common In Texas (where there were an estimated
500,000 cases in 1922), and the mosquito that transmits it remains abundanl
The striking contrast In the Incidence of dengue In Texas versus three Mexican
states that border Texas (64 cases VS. 62,514) In the period from 1980·1999
provides a graphic Illustration of the Importance of factors other than tempera-
ture, such as use of air conditioning and window screens, in the transmission
of vector-borne diseases. National Institute of Health, Mexico; Texas
Department of Health; US Public Health Service. Unpublished data.
()
tTl
;::)
o
o
. ,.
00
.o,.

Itfl'1 41ac4 /@ : 2001 U.S. Climate Action Report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Itfl'1 41ac4 /@ : 2001 U.S. Climate Action Report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Itfl'1~ 41ac4~/@ ( ~

Agency Review Draft-January 11,2002--6:00 PM

Do not cite or quote

2001 U.S. Climate Action Report

Agency Review Draft-January 11,2002-6:00 PM

: Adapted from NASI (2000),

Overview Report (2000)

1 Potential Climate Change Interacdons with Agriculture

I Potential Climate Change Interactions with Water Resources

1" Canadian Model .O! Hadley Model

.. mo" cane$ per year

Figure 6.8 Spring wheat

-40 -20 o 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

These maps show current and

Dominant Forest Types

H;1oley Sccn"rio - 2070-2100 C;)n~di;>n Sccn;lrio - 2070-2100

This map is a preliminary Annual Shoreline Change

Ill .I1E] SevElrelyeroding Modcratcfy erooing o Relativ:?ly stablE

Figure 8: Dengue along the US-Mexico border. Dengue, a mosquito-borne

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen