Regional Scale Ecological Risk Assessment: Using the Relative Risk Model

Regional Scale Ecological Risk Assessment......Page 3
Preface......Page 5
About the Editor......Page 6
Acknowledgments......Page 7
Contributors......Page 8
Contents......Page 9
CONTENTS......Page 11
A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS......Page 12
THE PROPERTIES OF ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS......Page 13
Gradients......Page 14
Reference Condition as an Alternative......Page 15
CASE STUDIES......Page 16
REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS......Page 18
CONTENTS......Page 20
REGIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINED......Page 21
FRAMEWORK OF THE RELATIVE RISK MODEL......Page 22
THE 10 STEPS OF THE RELATIVE RISK MODEL FOR REGIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT......Page 24
Step 1. List the Important Management Goals for the Region. What Do You Care about and Where?......Page 27
Step 2. Make a Map. Include Potential Sources and Habitats Relevant to the Management Goals......Page 28
Step 4. Make a Conceptual Model that Ties the Stressors to the Receptors and to the Assessment Endpoints......Page 29
Step 5. Decide on a Ranking Scheme for Each Source, Stressor, and Habitat to Allow the Calculation of Relative Risk to the Assessment Endpoints......Page 31
Integrating Ranks and Filters......Page 32
Step 7. Evaluate Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis of the Relative Rankings......Page 33
Step 8. Generate Testable Hypotheses for Future Field and Laboratory Investigation to Reduce Uncertainties and to Confirm the Risk Rankings......Page 35
Step 10. Communicate the Results in a Fashion that Portrays the Relative Risks and Uncertainty in a Response to the Management Goals......Page 36
OVERVIEW OF THE RELATIVE RISK MODEL STUDIES......Page 37
REFERENCES......Page 43
CONTENTS......Page 45
EXAMPLES OF THE MANAGEMENT DECISION/RISK ASSESSMENT LINK IN ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT PARADIGMS, FRAMEWORKS, GUIDANCE......Page 46
EVOLUTION OF THE MANAGEMENT DECISION/RISK ASSESSMENT LINK IN REGIONAL-SCALE ASSESSMENTS......Page 49
Tasmania......Page 53
Brazil......Page 54
Cherry Point Reserve......Page 55
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ? IMPROVING THE LINK AND LIKELY NEXT STEPS IN ITS EVOLUTION......Page 56
REFERENCES......Page 59
CONTENTS......Page 61
PROJECT BACKGROUND......Page 62
LIMITATIONS OF TRADITIONAL RISK ASSESSMENTS AT THE REGIONAL SCALE......Page 64
RELATIVE RISK MODEL DESIGN......Page 65
Background Investigation and Stakeholder Involvement......Page 66
Assessment and Measurement Endpoints......Page 67
Relative Risk Model......Page 68
Ranking......Page 70
Filter Design......Page 71
Uncertainty Analysis......Page 74
Benchmark Values......Page 79
Relative Risk in Port Valdez......Page 80
Uncertainty......Page 84
Sensitivity......Page 86
Comparison to Benchmark Values......Page 88
Estimating the Risk of Toxicity Due to PAH......Page 90
DISCUSSION......Page 91
Implications of the Relative Risk Model and Confirmatory Analyses......Page 92
Importance of Stakeholder Participation and Scientific Collaboration......Page 93
Relative Risk Model as a Tool for Risk Assessors and Resource Managers......Page 94
Limitations of Relative Risk Models......Page 95
REFERENCES......Page 96
CONTENTS......Page 99
INTRODUCTION......Page 100
Description of the Willamette–McKenzie Study Areas......Page 101
Assessment Endpoints......Page 102
Sources of Stressors......Page 103
Risk Regions......Page 105
Risk Characterization......Page 106
Sources of Stressors......Page 109
Riparian Landuse......Page 110
Water Rights......Page 111
Industrial Effluent......Page 112
Hatchery Releases......Page 113
Calculation of Relative Risks......Page 114
RRM RESULTS......Page 115
CONFIRMATION OF RISK RANKS......Page 118
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS......Page 119
The Relative Risk Approach......Page 121
Uncertainty......Page 122
REFERENCES......Page 123
CONTENTS......Page 126
Regional Risk Assessment and the Relative Risk Model \0刀刀䴀......Page 127
The Codorus Creek Watershed......Page 128
Conceptual Site Model......Page 129
Overall Risk Ranks......Page 130
PART II: VERIFICATION OF RELATIVE RISK CLASSIFICATIONS......Page 131
Biological Datasets......Page 132
Data Analysis......Page 134
Index of Biotic Integrity \0䤀䈀䤀......Page 135
Uncertainties......Page 136
Fish Population Analysis......Page 137
Macroinvertebrate Analysis......Page 141
DISCUSSION OF THE CONFIRMATION OF THE RISK ASSESSMENT......Page 144
CONCLUSIONS......Page 147
REFERENCES......Page 148
CONTENTS......Page 150
DECISION MAKING, SUSTAINABILITY, ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT......Page 151
RELATIVE RISK MODEL EcoRA......Page 153
RRM EcoRA Predictive Model Method......Page 154
Tested Decision Options......Page 155
Uncertainties......Page 156
Predictions of Risk Trend Changes for Option 1 Increase in Riparian Forestation......Page 157
Predictions of Risk Trend Changes for Option 2 10% Increase in Urban Area......Page 158
Predictions of Risk Trend Changes for Option 5 Elimination of Mill......Page 160
DISCUSSION......Page 161
CONCLUSIONS......Page 163
REFERENCES......Page 164
CONTENTS......Page 166
THE RELATIVE RISK MODEL......Page 167
The Risk Region......Page 168
Defining Assessment Endpoints within the Mountain River Catchment......Page 169
Identifying Habitats in the Region......Page 171
Interaction of Stressors and Habitats ? Risk Hypotheses in the Conceptual Model......Page 173
RISK ANALYSIS USING THE RELATIVE RISK MODEL......Page 174
Ranking Stressors......Page 175
Relative Risk Calculations Using the Conceptual Model......Page 177
RISK CHARACTERIZATION......Page 178
Sensitivity Analysis......Page 179
DISCUSSION: REGIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT......Page 182
REFERENCES......Page 183
CONTENTS......Page 193
PLANNING PROCESS......Page 194
PROBLEM FORMULATION......Page 195
Delimitation of Subareas......Page 198
Density of Sources......Page 199
Distribution of Aquatic Habitats......Page 200
Relative Risk per Source......Page 201
Relative Risk per Subarea......Page 202
DISCUSSION......Page 205
REFERENCES......Page 206
CONTENTS......Page 209
Methods......Page 211
Study Area......Page 212
Ecological Endpoints Identification......Page 213
Conceptual Model......Page 214
Stressor Sources......Page 215
Habitats......Page 216
FILTERS......Page 217
Risk Characterization......Page 220
Habitats......Page 221
Risk Regions......Page 223
UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS......Page 225
Sensitivity Analysis Methodology......Page 226
Sensitivity Analysis Results......Page 227
Application of the Relative Risk Model......Page 228
Risk Management......Page 229
Introduction......Page 230
METHODS......Page 232
Option 2: Increase 25 and 50%, Respectively, of Forested Area in Agricultural Land Riparian Corridor......Page 233
UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS......Page 234
Risk Changes to Option 1: Convert the Impassable Culverts to Passable Culverts......Page 235
Risk Changes to Option 6: Eliminate Mining Activities......Page 239
DISCUSSION......Page 240
CONCLUSIONS......Page 241
REFERENCES......Page 242
LIST OF EQUATIONS FOR THIS STUDY......Page 243
CONTENTS......Page 245
INTRODUCTION......Page 246
Cherry Point......Page 247
CP Herring Stock......Page 248
1999 Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment......Page 249
WDNR Decision-Making and Management Needs......Page 250
CP Study Area......Page 251
Offshore Environments......Page 252
On-Land Environments......Page 253
ALTERNATIVE ENDPOINTS......Page 254
Summary of the Alternative Endpoint Study......Page 255
REFERENCES......Page 256
INTRODUCTION......Page 258
RETROSPECTIVE RRM AND WOE SYNTHESIS......Page 259
Use of Ranks and Filters to Quantify Relative Risk......Page 260
RETROSPECTIVE WOE ANALYSIS FOR CHERRY POINT PACIFIC HERRING......Page 261
REFERENCES......Page 268
CONTENTS......Page 270
INTRODUCTION......Page 271
Risk Assessment and the Cherry Point Region......Page 272
Study Area and Subregions......Page 274
Identification of Assessment Endpoints......Page 275
Identification of Habitats......Page 276
Identification of Sources of Stressors......Page 277
RISK ASSESSMENT METHODS......Page 278
Exposure and Effects Filters......Page 280
Monte Carlo Analysis......Page 286
Alternative Habitat Ranking Scheme......Page 288
Risk Characterization......Page 289
Uncertainty Analysis......Page 290
Monte Carlo Analysis......Page 292
Alternative Habitat Ranking Scheme......Page 293
Relative Risk in the Cherry Point Area......Page 295
Monte Carlo Uncertainty Analysis Techniques......Page 296
Alternative Habitat Ranking Scheme......Page 297
CONCLUSIONS......Page 298
REFERENCES......Page 299