Ecological Drought: Accounting for the Non-Human Impacts of Water Shortage in the Upper Missouri Headwaters Basin, Montana, USA

Jamie McEvoy, Deborah J. Bathke, Nina Burkardt, Amanda E. Cravens, Tonya Haigh, Kimberly R. Hall, Michael J. Hayes, Theresa Jedd, Markéta Poděbradská and Elliot Wickham
Additional contact information
Jamie McEvoy: Department of Earth Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59715, USA
Deborah J. Bathke: National Drought Mitigation Center and School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA
Nina Burkardt: Fort Collins Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA
Amanda E. Cravens: Fort Collins Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA
Tonya Haigh: National Drought Mitigation Center and School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA
Kimberly R. Hall: North America Region, The Nature Conservancy, Haslett, MI 48840, USA
Michael J. Hayes: School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA
Theresa Jedd: National Drought Mitigation Center and School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA
Markéta Poděbradská: National Drought Mitigation Center and School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA
Elliot Wickham: National Drought Mitigation Center and School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA

Resources, 2018, vol. 7, issue 1, 1-16

Abstract: Water laws and drought plans are used to prioritize and allocate scarce water resources. Both have historically been human-centric, failing to account for non-human water needs. In this paper, we examine the development of instream flow legislation and the evolution of drought planning to highlight the growing concern for the non-human impacts of water scarcity. Utilizing a new framework for ecological drought, we analyzed five watershed-scale drought plans in southwestern Montana, USA to understand if, and how, the ecological impacts of drought are currently being assessed. We found that while these plans do account for some ecological impacts, it is primarily through the narrow lens of impacts to fish as measured by water temperature and streamflow. The latter is typically based on the same ecological principles used to determine instream flow requirements. We also found that other resource plans in the same watersheds (e.g., Watershed Restoration Plans, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Watershed Assessments or United States Forest Service (USFS) Forest Plans) identify a broader range of ecological drought risks. Given limited resources and the potential for mutual benefits and synergies, we suggest greater integration between various planning processes could result in a more holistic consideration of water needs and uses across the landscape.

Keywords: ecological drought; drought planning; prior appropriation; instream flows; Upper Missouri Headwaters Basin; Montana (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/7/1/14/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/7/1/14/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jresou:v:7:y:2018:i:1:p:14-:d:132500

Access Statistics for this article

Resources is currently edited by Ms. Donchian Ma

More articles in Resources from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().