Implications of global climate change for natural resource damage assessment, restoration, and rehabilitation

Abstract

Various international and national regulations hold polluters liable for the cleanup of released hazardous substances and the restoration/rehabilitation of natural resources to preincident baseline conditions, a process often referred to as natural resource damage assessment and restoration (NRDAR). Here, we, the authors, describe how global climate change (GCC) will challenge each of the steps of NRDAR processes and offer eight recommendations to improve these processes in light of GCC. First, we call for a better understanding of the net effects of GCC and contaminants on natural resources. Second, we urge facilities and environmental managers to plan for GCC-related factors that are expected to increase the probability of contaminant releases. Third, we suggest re-evaluating definitions of baseline and reference conditions given that GCC will alter both their trajectories and variability. Fourth, we encourage long-term monitoring to improve the quantification of baseline conditions that will change as climate changes. This will enhance the accuracy of injury assessments, the effectiveness of restoration, and the detection of early warning signs that ecosystems are approaching tipping points. Fifth, in response to or anticipation of GCC, restoration projects may need to be conducted in areas distant from the site of injury or focused on functionally equivalent natural resources; thus, community involvement in NRDAR processes will be increasingly important. Sixth, we promote using NRDAR restoration projects as opportunities to mitigate GCC-related impacts. Seventh, we recommend adaptive management approaches to NRDAR processes and communication of successes and failures widely. Finally, we recommend focusing on managing the stressors that might be exacerbated by GCC, such as pollution and habitat loss, because there is a long history of successfully mitigating these stressors, which can be more easily managed on local scales than climate change. We believe that adoption of these recommendations will lead to a more efficacious NRDAR process, despite the challenges posed by climate change. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2013;32:93–101. © 2012 SETAC

Combined and interactive effects of global climate change and toxicants on populations and communities

“…If effects of a toxicant will be more pronounced under future climatic conditions, more stringent environmental quality standards will be needed for this chemical. Regarding ecological restoration 17, removing one stressor may result in a greater benefit than expected in case of a synergistic interaction, while in case of an antagonistic interaction, removing one stressor may be less effective than expected. The physiological mechanisms underlying the interactive effects of toxicant and climatic stressors can be interpreted from two different angles, as proposed by Hooper et al 13: (1) climate-induced toxicant sensitivity (CITS), where exposure to a climate-related stressor makes an organism more sensitive to subsequent toxicant exposure (Fig.…”

“…1). The ultimate aim is to provide support for improved ERA 16 and ecosystems restoration 17 under GCC.…”

The pros and cons of ecological risk assessment based on data from different levels of biological organization

“…This is a significant limitation because the toxicity of many contaminants is often highly context dependent, changing with environmental conditions, such as light, pH, hydroperiod, and temperature gradients (Barron et al 2003, Kimberly and Salice 2013, Noyes et al 2009, Rohr et al 2004, Rohr, Johnson, et al 2013, Rohr and Palmer 2005, Rohr et al 2011, Stampfli et al 2011), and common intra- and interspecific interactions (Relyea 2003, Relyea et al 2005, Rohr and Crumrine 2005, Rohr, Raffel, et al 2008). For example, warming up cells, tissues, or organs in isolation will not necessarily produce the same results as warming up an entire organism.…”

Potential Implications of Approaches to Climate Change on the Clean Water Rule Definition of “Waters of the United States”

“…A Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry international workshop was dedicated to discussing how climate change would impact the foundations and applications of environmental toxicology and chemistry. Several papers resulted from the workshop on the following topics: contaminant occurrence, fate and bioaccumulation , mechanisms of toxicity , effects at population and community scales , human health risk assessment , ecological risk assessment , and damage to natural resources and their restoration or rehabilitation (Rohr et al 2013). A couple consensus points of the workshop were that effects of climate change may be slow, variable, and difficult to detect and baseline or reference conditions for toxicity and restoration will continually shift due to climate change, both of which will present substantial challenges to practitioners .…”

“…Furthermore, regions receiving less precipitation may experience enhanced volatilization of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and pesticides to the atmosphere, while regions that experience increased precipitation will have lower levels of air pollution, but will likely also have increased runoff of contaminants to aquatic ecosystems (Noyes et al 2009). A better understanding of the interactions between effects of climate change and contaminant toxicity will be critical to managing and reducing impacts to natural resources (Rohr et al 2013). (2010), 5 Haukos and Smith (1994) The EPA acknowledges that an understanding of the potential consequences of climate change for aquatic ecosystems is an initial step toward protecting these ecosystems (EPA 2008).…”