Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
primary source of pollutants to the Puget Sound ecosystem and a primary threat (PSP
2008), the Climate Impacts Group has noted the increasing difficulty of stormwater
infrastructure to handle new extremes and erratic frequencies (Rosenberg et al. 2010).
In addition, nutrient runoff combined with rising atmospheric and ocean tempera-
tures is leading to declining dissolved oxygen levels that threaten aquatic life in Puget
Sound (Roberts et al. 2009).
The PSP follows an adaptive, science-based approach, with input from a science
panel and scheduled, peer-reviewed updates on conditions, strategies, and progress.
The scale of the problem and the responsibility of shepherding hundreds of millions
of state and federal dollars require an approach with a high probability of success. The
confluence of declining ecological conditions with intensive use and negative im-
pacts combine to create a restoration challenge that is costly in terms of financial de-
mands and resource opportunity costs. The confounding forces of climate change ex-
acerbate the forces driving ecological decline and increase the uncertainty of success
for restoration project options.
While still in its infancy, the Puget Sound project exemplifies the kind of regional-
scale restoration planning efforts that will likely be needed in coastal areas around the
world as climate changes and sea levels rise. In many ways, this sort of restoration and
the planning behind it will be working in situations modern humans have never
faced—situations with high levels of risk and uncertainty. In the remainder of this
chapter, we explore how to understand and navigate these possible scenarios.
Planning Implications for Restoration
Climate change can lead to conditions whereby once-rational planning and imple-
mentation rules are no longer useful. These rules must be updated, but how? The pre-
cautionary principle is a frequent and appropriate policy recommendation when con-
sidering the risks, uncertainties, and ambiguities associated with situations such as
those presented by climate change. This particularly holds for ecological restoration
projects. For example, given the uncertainty about future climatic conditions, it is
now appropriate for restorationists to choose reversible decisions that employ incre-
mental, flexible approaches (Millar, Stephenson, and Stephens 2007). While this
would ideally always be the case, this approach is now more justifiable because of the
societal costs involved with taking no action or embarking on a restoration action with
a diminished chance of success. These approaches also require explicit identification
and communication of changes to risks, uncertainties, ignorance, and ambiguities
about natural phenomena that restoration projects can address. Generally, climate
change will increase the need for adaptive management-based mechanisms so chang-
ing conditions and demands do not excessively stifle restoration efforts.
However, planners typically work within a context that is time limited, often con-
ventional in terms of its approach, and adverse to the cost and risk associated with test-
ing new rules. A common challenge facing restoration planners—one that climate
change will exacerbate—involves motivating changes to decision rules. Now that we
are beginning to see the effects of climate change, this might become easier. For
