Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1007/s00267-001-0025-z
FORUM
Applying Ecological Risk Principles to Watershed
Assessment and Management
VICTOR B. SERVEISS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (8623-D)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460
ABSTRACT / Considerable progress in addressing point
source (end of pipe) pollution problems has been made, but
it is now recognized that further substantial environmental
improvements depend on controlling nonpoint source pollution. A watershed approach is being used more frequently
to address these problems because traditional regulatory
approaches do not focus on nonpoint sources. The watershed approach is organized around the guiding principles
of partnerships, geographic focus, and management based
on sound science and data. This helps to focus efforts on
the highest priority problems within hydrologically-defined
geographic areas. Ecological risk assessment is a process
to collect, organize, analyze, and present scientific information to improve decision making. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) sponsored three watershed assessments and found that integrating the watershed approach with ecological risk assessment increases the use
of environmental monitoring and assessment data in decision making. This paper describes the basics of the watershed approach, the ecological risk assessment process,
and how these two frameworks can be integrated. The
three major principles of watershed ecological risk assessment found to be most useful for increasing the use of science in decision making are (1) using assessment endpoints and conceptual models, (2) holding regular
interactions between scientists and managers, and (3) developing a focus for multiple stressor analysis. Examples
are provided illustrating how these principles were implemented in these assessments.
1998). In addition, many states have implemented watershed restoration action strategies in response to the
Clean Water Action Plan (US EPA 1998a). These strategies focus management actions on geographic regions
rather than on specific media (e.g., air, water).
Efforts on a watershed scale rely heavily on voluntary
compliance, stakeholder involvement, and an understanding of the cumulative impact of multiple physical,
chemical, and biological stressors over a broad range of
spatial scales. Consistently incorporating science in watershed management decisions, however, is challenging
because the data needs for watershed-scale decision
making are complex. Multiple physical, chemical, and
biological stressors may co-occur due to human activities and natural causes. These stressors, when combined with a network of interrelated environmental
conditions, may cause diverse impacts on numerous
ecological resources. Even when the science is understood, it remains difficult to use science in watershed
management decisions because the watershed typically
overlaps multiple jurisdictional areas, is managed by
organizations with divergent goals and responsibilities,
and contains numerous stakeholders with their own
self-interests. Tradeoffs among environmental, political, economic, and social factors based on subjective
value judgements occur as part of the decision process.
As a result, valuable data from many monitoring and
assessment efforts frequently do not play a major role in
146
V. B. Serveiss
Continuous improvement
based on sound
science
Partnership and
stakeholder
involvement
method to incorporate scientific information into decision making (Serveiss and others 2000).
The strengths of the Watershed Approach are its
emphasis on a naturally defined geographic area, on
partnerships, and stakeholder involvement and on basing decisions on sound science. The strength of ecological risk assessment is in providing specific advice on
how to develop, analyze, and present scientific information so that it can best inform management decisions.
The integration of the watershed approach with ecological risk assessment, hereafter called watershed ecological risk assessment, achieves the collective benefits
of both frameworks. Table 1 summarizes the valuable
and complementary linkages between the watershed
approach and ecological risk assessment.
This paper describes how watershed ecological risk
assessment can be used to select, analyze, integrate, and
present environmental data so that it is most useful for
watershed assessment and management. It builds on
principles articulated in the Watershed Approach
Framework (US EPA 1996) and Ecological Risk Assessment Guidelines (US EPA 1998), and draws on experience from three EPA sponsored watershed assessments.
These watershed assessments demonstrate the value of
using three key principles of watershed ecological risk
assessment: developing assessment endpoints and conceptual models, holding recurring interactions between scientists and managers, and developing a focus
for performing multiple stressor analysis. This paper
discusses the value of using these watershed ecological
risk assessment principles and provides examples of
how they were applied. While the emphasis is on using
147
148
Table 2.
V. B. Serveiss
Location and
size
Human activities/stressors
Upper Clinch
and Powell
Riversa
Mining, forestry,
agriculture,
spills/sediments, and
toxic substances
Waquoit Bayb
Big Darby
Creekc
Agriculture,
urbanization/sediments,
nutrients
Process for
analyzing multiple
stressors
Environmental management
actions being implemented or
considered
b
c
Valued ecological
resources/analyzed
assessment
endpoints
149
150
V. B. Serveiss
151
152
V. B. Serveiss
In the Clinch Valley assessment, data on environmental stressors, their sources, and mussel and fish data
were entered into a graphical information system
(GIS). Using the conceptual model, hypotheses concerning source stressor-effect relationships were developed and tested using multivariate statistics. Stepwise
multiple regression analyses of land uses with fish index
of biotic integrity (IBI) indicated that 55% of the variance in fish community integrity scores could be explained by certain land use categories (Diamond and
Serveiss 2001). Further analyses demonstrated that fish
IBI was inversely related to both the number of active
mining facilities in a subwatershed and to proximity to
mining activities. These analyses along with other literature provided lines of evidence to strongly suggest
certain stressor-effect relationships. Maps and cumulative stressor-response curves were especially useful in
visualizing cumulative sources of stress in relation to
locations of threatened and endangered mussel species
which could then be used to evaluate vulnerability and
prioritize management strategies.
Pilot projects using subwatersheds may also be useful
(MacDonald 1994) to explore analytical approaches. The
Clinch Valley assessment studied two subwatersheds. The
first watershed was used to confirm that fish IBI could be
used as a surrogate measure for mussel species richness
and to define the optimal size of upstream area for comparing land use with biological effects. The second subwatershed was used to quantify uncertainties in this procedure (see Suter 1998 for discussion of uncertainties). In
addition, the geographic focus and scope of the analysis
may need to be altered to get sufficient data or reduce
costs, as was the case in the Big Darby Creek assessment.
To better define the relationships between stressor and
effect, it was determined that the geographic scope
needed to be expanded to the entire Eastern Corn Belt
Ecoregion.
The Big Darby Creek assessment sought associations
between stressors and impacts (Norton and others
2000). The analysis of risk is retrospective in that its
conclusions relied on current and past land use practices and biological measurements taken at specific
sites. Researchers used the index of community integrity for macroinvertebrates (DeShon 1995) and the
index of biotic integrity (Karr 1981) for fish to represent ecological status within stream segments in the
watershed. Multivariate analyses were used to determine relationships between index results, instream
stressors, and land use patterns in the watershed. The
analysis identified components of the community that
were associated with specific types of stress. For example, the percent of Tanytarsini midges and Glypotendipes
increased at sites having low and high biological oxygen
Discussion
A major challenge when dealing with multiple nonpoint source stressors is to obtain useful scientific information to help consider, evaluate, and select options
for environmental management. This paper has described how the watershed approach can be integrated
with ecological risk assessment to improve environmental management decision making. Examples from three
watershed assessments illustrate the use of a model or
statistical investigation to identify associations between
land use and impacts. Whether using these or other
approaches, biological monitoring data are very helpful
in identifying the biological and ecological consequences of human actions and provide an essential
foundation for assessing ecological risks (Karr and Chu
1999). Identifying risks and areas in need of protection
may help managers obtain grants and assistance from
various water resource programs. With the information
in hand, managers may be able to petition for regulation of previously unregulated activities. In addition,
risk characterization may provide the reasonable assurance required to show whether a TMDL will attain the
state-adopted water quality standard.
Through watershed ecological risk assessment, scientists and managers interact more, helping scientists
understand the technical needs of the decision-makers
and managers to better understand the ecological implications of their actions. This dialogue offers numerous benefits for those faced with the challenge of structuring environmental monitoring and analysis efforts
and using such data for decision-making. The process
increases the likelihood that (1) the optimal suite of
scientific data is collected, analyzed, and considered;
(2) monitoring, analysis, and restoration decisions are
made that reflect management goals, along with the
interests and most valued ecological concerns of stakeholders; and (3) ecological and hydrological processes
which impact those resources are considered.
The benefits of applying the integrated watershed
risk assessment approach are described in a review
153
Acknowledgments
Jerry Diamond, William van der Schalie, Susan Norton,
Barry Tonning, James Andreasen, Doug Norton, Patricia
Cirone, Randy Bruins, Robert Coats and anonymous reviewers provided helpful input or comments. The author
also thanks the many participants of the three watershed
assessments, in particular, Don Gowan, Roberta Hylton,
David Dow, Ivan Valiela, Jennifer Bowen, and Susan Norton. The views expressed in this paper are those of the
author and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Literature Cited
Armitage, Derek. 1995. An integrative methodological framework for sustainable environmental planning and management. Environmental Management 19(4):469 479
154
V. B. Serveiss
Lemly, A. D. 1997. Risk assessment as an environmental management tool: considerations for freshwater wetlands. Environmental Management 21(3):343358
US EPA. 2000. Report on the watershed ecological risk characterization workshop. EPA/600/R-99/111. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC
National Research Council. 1996. Understanding risk. Informing decisions in a democratic society. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 249 pp.
Ward, R. C., J. C Loftis and G. B. Mcbride. 1986. The datarich but information poor syndrome in water quality monitoring. Environmental Management 10(3):291297