1
2
3
4
i
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
EPA/600/A-97/087
2. ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
2.1. INTRODUCTION
Ecological risk assessment is a process of organizing and analyzing data, information,
assumptions, and uncertainties to evaluate the likelihood of adverse ecological effects (U.S. EPA,
1996). Ecosystem management is a process for maintaining the integrity of ecosystems over
time and space (Quigley et al., 1996a). Ecosystem sustainability increasingly is being stated as
the goal of ecosystem management. A variety of ecosystem management assessments have been
lead by Federal agencies in recent years to provide a framework to help decision makers and
other interested parties to better understand and evaluate consequences of actions with respect to
regulation and/or allocation of natural resources within a larger social, economic, and ecological
framework. This chapter provides information on the ongoing development of the ecological
risk assessment process and the ecosystem management assessment process. The linking of
these two processes can bring improved organizational and analytical consistency to the
assessment of information in support of multiple scales of resource planning and decision
making needed for ecosystem management.
Section 2.1 of the chapter presents an overview of several ecosystem assessments done in
recent years. Section 2.2 provides several Agency case study illustrations of assessment
approaches. Section 2.3 discusses risk assessment methodology development. Section 2.4
examines ecological risk assessment in the ecosystem decision-making context. Section 2.5
discusses possible next steps, beginning with a description of cost-benefit considerations
following with suggestions for expanded use of the proposed EPA ecological risk assessment
guidelines in ecosystem assessments; the section concludes with an analysis of technical and
research challenges.
2.1.1. Ecosystem Management Assessments
A fundamental challenge to ecosystem management is the need to understand and
manage complex ecosystems simultaneously across large and small temporal and spatial scales.
In light of this challenge, decision makers are faced with making complex social, economic, and
environmental decisions. These decisions bring with them an inherent level of uncertainty for
decision makers and stakeholders alike. Decision makers and stakeholders need to recognize this
inherent uncertainty and be flexible enough to adjust their decisions in the face of surprise.
Ecological risk assessments are tools decision makers can use to help identify and, it is
hoped, reduce uncertainty. The primary reason for conducting assessments then is to provide a
framework for decision makers and stakeholders to help them understand and evaluate the
consequences of actions with respect to regulation and/or allocation of natural resources within
2-1 DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
the larger social, economic, and ecological context. It is within this context of ecosystem
management, uncertainty, and adaptation that a series of "lessons learned" workshops, designed
as an adaptive learning approach to ecoregional assessments, are being conducted to discuss and
document the knowledge gained by various assessment teams throughout the country.
The first iteration of assessments, which include the Report of the Forest Ecosystem
Management Assessment Team, the Columbia River Basin Assessment, and the Sierra Nevada
Ecosystem Project, were chartered by either the President or Congress, These were generally
high-cost projects ($6 million to $36 million) directed at a number of high-profile issues in the
Pacific Northwest and Northern California.
The second generation of assessments were chartered by decision makers (Forest Service
regional foresters) with the purpose of providing state-of-the-art information needed to revise
forest land management plans. These are best represented by the recently completed Southern
Appalachian Assessment and the ongoing Great Lakes Assessment, the Northern Great Plains
Assessment, and the Ozark/Ouachita Highlands Assessment. These are low-cost alternatives
($0.5 million to $2 million) to the earlier generation noted above.
Key findings from the "lessons learned" workshops are summarized below.
• The assessment process
—Assessments are not decision-making documents. However, they do provide a
synthesis of information in support of multiple scales of resource planning and decision
making.
—Assessments should be issue driven.
—Data synthesis and acquisition need to be strongly focused on the assessment issues.
—Preassessment planning is critical to conducting an assessment.
—Process, structures, and functions are the ecosystem components evaluated during the
assessment process. These components need to be analyzed at multiple spatial and
temporal scales.
—Broad-scale assessments are a rich source of new information. Recognizing emergent
properties of ecosystems at broader scales is an important part of this new information.
• Linkages to other assessments and programs
—There is a need to develop implementation, effectiveness, and validation monitoring
programs at multiple scales. These programs should update assessment information over
time.
—Ecoregional assessments can be linked using common information themes and
protocols.
2-2
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
—Cooperation with the Federal Geographic Data Committee will help ensure data *
linkages among other national, regional, and landscape assessments.
• Public involvement and partnerships
—Public participation for ecoregional assessments should be based on adaptive principles
focused on achieving awareness and active involvement of a diverse array of
stakeholders.
—Public involvement is crucial to the success of assessments and provides benefits in
later decision-making forums.
—Due to their sheer size and to the complexity of ownership patterns, ecoregional
assessments have a greater need for partnerships than any other planning process.
• - Assessment products
—Assessments produce various tangible and intangible products, including findings,
data, maps, references, changed relationships with participating agencies and the public,
and institutional and organizational change. Products that address immediate needs and
issues are most likely to get immediate use.
• Information management
—An interagency commitment needs to be made to ensure maintenance of data, maps,
meta data, etc., for future assessment and monitoring efforts.
—Establishing an information management infrastructure in place before the assessment
should be a high priority.
2.2. CASE STUDIES
2.2.1. Interior Columbia River Basin Scientific Assessment
The Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project was initiated by the
Forest Service (FS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) of the U.S. Department of Interior in response to decisions to adopt an ecosystem-based
management strategy; the need to replace interim direction; concerns about declining forest,
rangeland, and aquatic health; and concerns about single-species approaches to conservation and
management. The project area includes those portions of the Columbia River Basin within the
United States and east of the Cascade crest and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins in
Oregon (the Basin). The primary products called for in the charter include (1) a framework for
ecosystem management (Haynes et al., 1996), (2) an integrated scientific assessment (Quigley et
al., 1996a; Quigley and Arbelbide, 1996), (3) two environmental impact statements (EISs)
addressing management of FS- and BLM-administered lands within the Basin, and (4) an
evaluation of the EIS alternatives (Quigley et al., 1996b). The framework, assessment, and
2-3 DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
evaluation of alternatives are products of the science team, and the EISs are products of the EIS
teams. In addition to these primary products, more than 40 scientific publications are expected
from this work over the next several years. The following material is drawn mostly from the
executive summaries of the science documents cited above. The Basin includes 145 million
acres, with the FS and BLM administering more than one-half (76 million acres) of the area.
This sparsely populated area covers portions of 7 States and 100 counties. It encompasses a
variety of climatic, topographic, socioeconomic, forest, and rangeland conditions. It extends
from the Continental Divide on the east to the Cascade crest on the west. It includes resources of
international significance such as Yellowstone National Park and Hells Canyon. It is home to
some 22 Native American Indian tribes and more than 3 million people.
2.2.1.1. Framework
With the announcement by the FS and BLM of the intent to adopt an ecosystem-based
strategy came the need to frame the interactions among decisions at multiple levels and their
relationship with assessments. The framework assumes the purpose of ecosystem management is
to maintain the integrity of ecosystems over time and space. It is based on four ecosystem
principles: ecosystems are dynamic, can be viewed as hierarchies with temporal and spatial
dimensions, have limits, and are relatively unpredictable. This approach recognizes that people
are part of ecosystems and that stewardship must be able to resolve tough challenges, including
how to meet multiple demands with finite resources. The framework describes a general
planning model for ecosystem management that has four iterative steps: monitoring, assessment,
decision making, and implementation. Since ecosystems cross jurisdictional lines, the
implementation of the framework depends on partnerships among land managers, the scientific ,
community, and stakeholders. It proposes that decision making be based on information
provided by the best available science and the most appropriate technologies for land
management.
2.2.1.2. Integrated Scientific Assessment
This integrative assessment links landscape, aquatic, terrestrial, social, and economic
characterizations to describe biophysical and social systems. Integration was achieved through
the use of a framework built around six goals for ecosystem management and three different
views of the future. The assessment represents the largest and most comprehensive assessment
of ecosystems undertaken. The overall purpose of the assessment is to develop a better
understanding of the current, historical, and potential future biophysical, economic, and social
conditions and trends in the Basin. The assessment is not a decision document nor does it
2-4 DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
resolve specific resource issues. Rather, the assessment provides the foundation for proposed
additions or changes to existing FS and BLM resource management plans to consistently, manage
risks and opportunities at multiple scales. Some highlights of the findings include the following:
• There has been a 27% decline in multilayer and a 60% decline in single-layer old-
forest structures from historical levels, predominantly in ponderosa pine and Douglas-
fir forest types.
*
• Aquatic biodiversity has declined through local extirpations, extinctions, and
introduction of exotic fish species, and the threat to riparian plants and animals has
increased.
• Some watershed disturbances, both natural and human induced, have caused and
• continue to cause risks to ecological integrity, especially owing to isolation and
fragmentation of fish habitat,
• The threat of severe lethal fires has increased by nearly 20%, predominantly in the dry
and moist forest types.
• Rangeland health and diversity have declined because of exotic species introductions,
historical grazing, changing fire regimes, agricultural conversions of native
shrablands and herblands, and woodland expansion in areas that were once native
shrublands and herblands.
• Human communities and economies of the Basin have changed and continue to
change rapidly, although rates of change are not uniform.
There are tremendous opportunities to restore ecosystem processes and functions as well
as provide for the flow of goods and services demanded by society. In addition to tremendous
opportunities, risks are also associated with attaining these opportunities. Some risks are related
to natural events such as wildfire, insect, and disease outbreaks, while other risks are associated
with management activities such as road building, timber harvest, and prescribed fire. These
risks and opportunities vary greatly across the Basin. The assessment has characterized the
broad-level risks and opportunities across the Basin. Realizing the opportunities and managing
the risks involves working within the adaptive management framework presented.
2.2.1.3. Ecosystem Integrity
Drawing from the detailed assessment of historical and current conditions within the
Basin, two concepts were used to integrate the major functional areas to determine status of the
• * •
ecosystems. Maintaining the integrity of ecosystems is assumed to be the overriding goal of
ecosystem management. The integrity of ecosystems encompasses both social and biophysical
components; the health of the Basin's people and economy is not a separate issue from the health
2-5 DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
and integrity of other ecosystem components. Ecological integrity refers to the presence and
functioning of ecological components and processes. The basic components of ecological
integrity include the forest, range, and aquatic systems with a hydrologic system that overlays the
landscape as a whole. The counterpart to ecological integrity in social and economic terms is
resiliency (measured at the county level), which in the context of ecosystem management reflects
the interests of people to maintain well-being through personal and community transitions.
2, 2.1.4, Composite Ecological Integrity
Integrity ratings were developed for five ecological components—forestland, rangeland,
forest and rangeland hydrologic, and aquatic systems. This information became the primary
basis for estimating composite ecological integrity for each subbasin (approximately 850,000
acres in size) within the Basin. Currently, 16% of the Basin is rated as having high relative
composite ecological integrity, 24% as moderate, and 60% as low. Eighty-four percent of the
systems with high integrity are on FS- and BLM-administered lands, while 39% of the low-
integrity systems are on FS- and BLM-administered lands.
2.2 .1.5. Socioeconomic Resiliency
Socioeconomic resiliency, estimated at the county level for this analysis, dealt with the
adaptability of human systems. High ratings imply that these systems are highly adaptable;
changes in one aspect are quickly offset by self-correcting changes in other sectors or aspects.
High levels of socioeconomic resiliency should reflect communities and economies that are
adaptable to change, where sense of place is recognized in management actions, and where the
mix of goods, functions, and services that society wants from ecosystems is maintained. A low
rating applies to 54 Basin counties. Another 20 Basin counties were rated as having an
intermediate level of resiliency. A high socioeconomic resiliency rating applies to the 26 Basin
counties that are more densely populated. While 68% of the area within the Basin is rated as
having low socioeconomic resiliency, 67% of the people of the Basin live in areas with high
socioeconomic resiliency.
2.2.1,6. Findings From the Future Management Options
Projections of the future are mostly a result of evaluating options proposed by the FS and
BLM as alternatives in the EIS. Three options were considered: (1) continuation of current
approaches, (2) restoration emphasis, and (3) reserve area emphasis. Managing FS and BLM
resources under an approach that continues current management generally results in the lowest
ratings compared with other approaches. Results would include declines in species habitat and
2-6 DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
.population outcomes, increases in fire severity, continued declines in fish habitat and population
strongholds, and continued departures from long-term disturbance processes. Trends generally
would be a decrease in composite integrity and an increase in risks in terms of people and
ecological integrity interactions. From a social and economic perspective, this option would
continue, and even accelerate, many of the conflicts in resource use present today.
Managing FS and BLM resources under a reserve area option within the Basin generally
results in mixed outcomes against the ecosystem management goals. This approach provides
improvements in aquatic and terrestrial habitat conditions as compared with continuing current
management approaches, yet large severe fires are projected to have detrimental effects on
landscape patterns and processes. Currently degraded systems within the reserve areas would
recover very slowly; some may not recover for hundreds of years.
Managing FS and BLM resources under a restoration emphasis option within the Basin
generally results in more favorable outcomes than continuing the current approaches or
managing with a network of reserves. This approach is more consistent with long-term
disturbance processes, has fewer species with declining habitat outcomes, and generally halts the
decline of salmonid fish habitats.
Finally, one feature that these management options share is that long-term sustainability
of resources and environments, resiliency of social and economic systems, and meeting socially
desired resource conditions cannot be predicted without continually assessing the results of
management activities and adjusting these activities accordingly. When compared with
traditional approaches, active management appears to have the greatest chance of producing the
mix of goods and services that people want from ecosystems as well as maintaining or enhancing
the long-term ecological integrity of the Basin.
2.2.1.7. From Science to Management
With the framework and assessment in hand, the next step is to use this information in the
development of the draft and final EIS. Land managers then will engage in a process of dialog
about the content and processes of selection of the preferred strategy for managing FS- and
BLM-administered lands within the Basin.
2.2.2. The Southern Appalachian Assessment
The Southern Appalachian Assessment (SAA) is an ecological description of conditions .
within a region encompassing parts of seven States. The area extends southward from the
Potomac River to northern Georgia and the northeastern comer of Alabama. The SAA assembles
the best available knowledge about the land, air, water, and people of the region. The SAA is not
2-7
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
a typical risk*assessment. Rather, it attempts to describe change in the environment and the
stresses that affect it. However, it is similar to risk assessment in that it avoids recommending
actions.
The recently completed assessment was not the first. Early in the 20th century, the
Appalachian landscape and its natural resources had been badly abused by destructive
agricultural practices and exploitive logging. In 1901, at the request of the U.S. Congress, the
Department of Agriculture conducted a similar assessment for the region. Its findings led to the
Weeks Act, which authorized the establishment of the national forests and national parks in the
eastern United States.
Although there was no specific statutory requirement for the latest assessment, national
forest management plans required by the 1976 National Forest Management Act had been in
place for more than 10 years and needed to be revised. The management of national forests and
other Federal lands is directly influenced by the biological, social, and economic conditions that
surround them. Also, Federal and State regulatory agencies were concerned that increasing
population pressures and economic development were adversely affecting environmental quality
in the region. Thus, there was a need for a comprehensive and credible source of information to
serve as a basis for planning.
Even before the SAA got under way, Federal and State agencies in the Southern
Appalachian region had worked together on several projects of mutual interest. A coordinating
group had been established, initially to address land management problems, but later expanded to
include most environmental issues within the area. This was the Southern Appalachian Man and
Biosphere (SAMAB) program, SAMAB now includes 12 Federal and 3 State agencies.
Through the coordination of the SAMAB program, most of these agencies were involved in
some way in conducting the SAA.
The SAA began in the spring of 1994. A dialog that involved SAMAB agencies and
forest planners outlined a number of issues that needed to be addressed. There was no single
issue producing conflict or confrontation, but there was widespread concern for the health and
welfare of the region's resources. Starting with an initial set of issues, a series of public
meetings was held at different locations within the area. People were told about the assessment
that was planned and asked about their concerns 'and suggestions. The issues and concerns
became the basis for a set of questions that the assessment would address.
The SAA was organized around four major environmental components: air, land, water,
and people. Interagency teams were established to address each of these themes. An initial
evaluation of the data indicated the need for a strong emphasis on map-based geographic
information system technology. An interagency policy group was formed to guide the
2-8 DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
assessment. One of the group's first functions was to establish constraints or targets for the time
of completion, money and people available, size of reports, and sources of data. Early in the
process, it was decided to invite the public to attend and participate in most aspects of the
assessment.
Each of the four major topics making up the assessment culminated in separate technical
reports (atmospheric, aquatic, terrestrial, and social/cultural/economic reports). Although the
analyses differ, the reports have several common features. Each starts with a set of questions that
were derived from the issue identification process. The questions served to guide the analysis
and to define the scope of the assessment. In addition, each interagency team was asked to
describe the current resource situation and, to the extent possible, look for past and future trends
in resource condition. Part of the assessment also consisted of evaluating the quality of available
data sources and documenting future research and monitoring needs. The following paragraphs
give a brief summary of each assessment topic.
The atmospheric team concentrated its analysis on four pollutants: nitrogen oxide, sulfur
dioxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds. These pollutants are important
because the secondary pollutants formed from them are suspected of reducing visibility, • _
producing ozone, and having consequent impacts on vegetation and human health; the pollutants
also are important because of the acid deposition impacts on terrestrial and aquatic environments.
In addition, these are the pollutants directly affected by the Clean Air Act legislation. The report
describes the location of emissions and concentrations where emissions are greatest, and it
projects likely future trends. Visibility is especially important in the SAA analysis because the
Clean Air Act established as a national goal the "prevention of any future, and the remedying of
any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class 1 Federal areas where impairment
results from man-made pollution." The majority of the visibility data was obtained in the seven
Class 1 areas within the SAA region.
The terrestrial report is divided into two separate sections: (1) plant and animal resources
and (2) forest health. The report responds to the considerable interest in the status of threatened,
endangered, or sensitive species. Of more than 25,000 species known to inhabit the area, 472
were given special attention. The group includes 51 species that are federally listed as threatened
or endangered and 366 whose numbers are sufficiently restricted that their populations are
considered at risk. Most of these species can be grouped into 19 associations based on similar
habitat requirements. Historically, the most significant event to affect the region's forests was
the initial logging that was largely accomplished in the early decades of this century. Perhaps
equally profound, although less dramatic, are the effects of a number of forest health factors.
The chestnut blight, gypsy moth, and dogwood anthracnose have altered species composition of
2-9 DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
the region's forests. Other recently discovered diseases such as hemlock woolly adelgid and
butternut canker are also cause for concern. Although historic data are inconclusive, it seems
clear that the most serious threats to the health of the region's forests are coming from exotic
pests introduced from other parts of the world.
The headwaters of nine major rivers lie within the boundaries of the Southern
Appalachians, making it the source of drinking water for most of the Southeast. The aquatic
assessment compiled the best available data on water resource status and trends, riparian
condition, impacts of various land management or other human activities, water laws, aquatic
resource improvement programs, and water uses. The report discusses the distribution of aquatic
species and identifies some problems, including degraded streams, eutrophication of lakes, and
the impacts of increasing human population and development. There is general agreement,
however, that water quality has improved significantly since the adoption of the Clean Water Act
in 1972.
Humans are a part of the ecosystem. Natural resource values are derived from the utility
and aesthetic or intrinsic benefits that come from human culture. The social/cultural/economic
assessment looked at four aspects of human influence: (1) communities and human influences,
(2) the timber economy, (3) outdoor recreation, and (4) roadless and designated wilderness areas.
The relationship between people and public lands in the Southern Appalachians has changed
greatly during the past two decades. The growing economy has become more diverse and less
dependent on manufacturing. Newcomers to the region, many of them retirees, resort owners, or
those employed in service industries, are more interested in scenery and recreation than in
resource extraction. Also, the increasing population throughout the area is fragmenting land use
and ownership, with adverse effects on wildlife habitat and timber availability. These changes
are reflected in diverse, and often incompatible, demands on public lands. The assessment was
aimed at better understanding the public and how their collective values have changed in recent
years. This should be useful to both land managers and community planners.
The S AA documents consist of four technical reports and a summary report. But equally
important are two other products of the assessment. The first is a set of five computer disks (CD-
ROMs) that contain all the maps and data used in the assessment in digital form. These were
distributed to the 400 selected Federal Depository Libraries used by the U.S. Government
Printing Office and to individuals who requested them. The second medium is the Internet. In-
depth versions of the text and data are available on the SAMAB, Forest Service, and Info South
home pages on the World Wi3e Web (www).
The spirit of the SAA can best be summarized by a quotation from the documents: "The
Southern Appalachian Assessment was accomplished through the cooperation of federal and
2-10 DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
state natural resource agency specialists. The strong emphasis placed on working together
toward a common goal is increasingly recognized as essential to effective government operation.
Teamwork has strengthened our understanding and communication. With the assessment as a
framework for future action, government policy and management can become more consistent
and better coordinated." This basic principle is being applied as various groups work to further
apply the information contained in the SAA.
2.2.3. EPA Watershed Assessments
EPA, other Federal and State agencies, environmental groups, and communities are
placing increasing emphasis on community-based environmental protection and integrated
ecosystem management. This emphasis arises from a recognition that the impacts of multiple
human activities combine in the environment to cause significant adverse ecological effects that
are not amenable to regulation under current environmental law. Unless these stressors are
managed at the community level, local and national environmental goals may not be achievable.
As the Agency shifts emphasis from command and control toward voluntary compliance and
community-based environmental protection, it becomes critical that EPA provide the scientific
basis for community level management decisions. States and local organizations need a process
and tools they are able and willing to use for determining what ecological resources are at risk
and how best to protect those resources through management action. Case studies for evaluating
risk to watershed ecosystems were initiated to develop examples and guidance on how to use
science more effectively in ecosystem management.
2.2.3.1. Background
The watershed ecological risk assessment case studies were initiated in September 1993
to evaluate the feasibility of applying the ecological risk assessment process as provided in the
Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1992) to the more complex context of
watershed ecosystem management. The Risk Assessment Forum and the Office of Water agreed
to jointly sponsor the development of prototype ecological risk assessment case studies in
watersheds under the guidance of a Risk Assessment Forum technical panel. The case study
watersheds served as natural laboratories where teams used the process of ecological risk
assessment to address ecosystem-level problems concerning diverse stressors, ecological values,
and political and socioeconomic concerns in watersheds of different type, size, and complexity.
The case studies served as a mechanism for learning about key management and research
questions, limitations to the risk assessment process provided in the framework report and issues
surrounding involvement by interested parties that must participate in resource management.
2-11 DRAFT--DQ NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Watershed ecosystems were-chosen as the landscape unit for ecological, pragmatic, and
programmatic reasons. (1) Watersheds are natural geomorphological units with definable
boundaries where water flows across the landscape and collects in surface water bodies and
ground water. Because water flows across a landscape, the effect of human impacts occurring on
land and directly in the water become combined as water flows toward collection basins such as
rivers, lakes, wetlands, and estuaries, thus providing an effective landscape unit to assess the
combined and cumulative effect of multiple stressors. (2) Watershed ecosystems are highly
flexible in size. The size defined is based on the type of issues and relevant management
decisions, A small community may be interested in the watershed in its valley and may focus
management efforts at its level of influence, even though its watershed is part of a larger system.
A State may choose to focus on a watershed that covers one-quarter of the State to organize
permitting activities. Multiple States may become involved in cooperative management of large
watersheds that cross political boundaries. Thus watersheds can be local or regional in scope,
and can cover multiple ecologically diverse regions. (3) Clean abundant water will increasingly
become a highly valued limiting resource, both for direct human use and for supporting
ecosystems. (4) EPA is encouraging States to organize regulatory and nonregulatoiy efforts
according to watershed boundaries. This is intended to focus efforts in such a way as to promote
the coordination of management efforts to improve environmental protection and reduce
management cost. Geographic areas defined by a watershed are not appropriate for all
environmental problems requiring management. The type of assessment question being asked
determines the rationale for defining landscape boundaries. For example, a watershed would be
appropriate for addressing risk to aquatic resources within a surface water body but would not be
effective for concerns about air pollution on a forest ecosystem that covers parts of several
watersheds. Although the case studies are focused on watershed ecosystems, the project's focus
is on the process of conducting risk assessments for ecosystem-level problems. This process is
readily adaptable to other ecosystem management problems.
2.2.3.2. Process
The case studies were initiated in 1993 through joint sponsorship by the Office of Water
and the Office of Research and Development and administered under the Risk Assessment
Forum through a technical panel.
2.2.3.3. Watershed Case Study Selection
Early in 1993, a solicitation for candidate watersheds for the project was announced and
resulted in more than 50 applications. Watersheds were selected for the project based on specific
2-12
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
selection criteria, including data availability, identification of local participants, diversity of
stressors, and significant and unique ecological values. The watersheds selected represent
different surface water types and an array of chemical, physical, and biological stressors and a
diversity of valued ecological resources, scales, management problems, socioeconomic
circumstances, and regions. Case study teams were established and began work in September
1993.
2.2.3.4. Case Study Teams
Each case study is being developed by an interdisciplinary, interagency team of scientists
and natural resource managers. Professionals recruited for the teams include EPA scientists and
managers from Regions and program offices, State scientists and regulators, and scientists from
other Federal agencies, nongovernmental groups, industry, and academia. When forming teams,
every effort was made to recruit individuals with expertise in ecological risk assessment,
ecological processes, the ecological resources and stressors in the targeted watershed, and
ecosystem management. Recruitment has been a continuing process throughout development.
Team size ranges from 10 to 50 members and participants, and other professionals are consulted
as needed. The teams hold regular meetings (normally by conference call), and all teams have
met in the watershed as part of the work on the case study.
2.2.3.5. Characteristics of Selected Watersheds
Five watersheds were selected for the project: Big Darby Creek in central Ohio, Clinch
River Valley in southwest Virginia, Middle Platte River in south central Nebraska, Middle Snake
River in south central Idaho, and Waquoit Bay on the southern shore of Cape Cod in
Massachusetts. These watersheds are diverse in size, type, and ecological characteristics,
stressors, and socioeconomic context. Although ground water is an important element in several
of the case studies and is addressed in the assessments, the watershed boundaries were defined by
surface water flow. Only the Big Darby Creek and Waquoit Bay case studies include the
hydrologic boundaries of an entire watershed. The Clinch River Valley includes most of the
watershed as defined by topography, but the southern part of the watershed was inundated
because of dam construction and the reservoir isexcluded. Both the Middle Snake River and
Middle Platte River watershed case studies are based on important middle segments of the rivers
but do not attempt to consider the very large watershed system of which they are a part.
Big Darby Creek is a medium-sized river system in a relatively flat agricultural landscape
that is considered to be of high quality. One of the Nature Conservancy's Last Great Places, it
contains highly diverse communities of fish and mussels, good riparian areas, and clean water.
2-13 DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Agricultural management practices and urban and suburban encroachment are placing these
values at risk. The local community is interested in better land use planning and management
practices to prevent degradation.
The Clinch River Valley contains highly valued fish and mussel communities and
includes the greatest diversity of mussels in North America, many of which are rare and
endangered. Also a Last Great Place, agricultural practices and mining are major stressors in the
high-relief terrain environment. Protection of these valued resources must be done in a
socioeconomically depressed area.
The Middle Platte River wetlands support millions of birds migrating in the Central
Flyway, including the endangered whooping crane, as well as many resident species. As part of
our Nation's breadbasket, competition for water in the Middle Platte River is a politically
charged issue. Hydrological modifications have changed the broad braided river wetlands of the
Middle Platte to a 50-mile stretch of narrowed wetland systems.
The Middle Snake River, once charged by natural springs bursting from canyon walls, is
now primarily fed by irrigation return flows. Considered the most impaired watershed among
the case studies, the Snake River has become an algae- and sediment-choked stream in many
parts of its reach. Better management of dams, irrigation return flows, sediments, and trout
hatcheries are central for protecting and restoring at least part of the river's function.
Waquoit Bay is the smallest watershed among the case studies, valued for its aesthetic
beauty, recreational opportunities, and commercial fisheries. Currently, residential development,
a Superfund site, and other activities in the watershed are placing these values at risk. The fairly
affluent community is seeking ways to reverse degradation and regain ecological values.
2.2.3.6. Resources to Support Case Study Development
The case studies were designed to demonstrate what can be accomplished using available
data and limited resources. The project was organized to approximate the kinds of expertise,
resources, and data likely to exist in communities that would be responsible for using guidance
for implementing ecosystem management at the community level. The following statements -
characterize case study resources:
• Members and participants on watershed teams are professionals from diverse
disciplines whose time was volunteered by their organizations for the effort.
• A small minority of participants were familiar with risk assessment.
• Each watershed ecosystem is being evaluated within the context of many competing
socioeconomic and political concerns.
2-14
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
• The case studies are being conducted with minimal funding and a reliance on existing
data.
2.2.3.7. Lessons Learned
The watershed ecological risk assessment case studies were developed using available
guidance on ecological risk assessment as presented in the framework report (U.S. EPA, 1992).
During case study development, several adjustments to this process were found to be valuable.
Each team's experiences added dimension to our interpretation about what adjustments were
needed. Sometimes teams experienced successes, sometimes readjustments and redirection. All
were important learning opportunities.
We believe that the process that emerged from the case studies is sound and valuable and
will be the focus of detailed guidance in the future. However, all of the lessons learned are now
incorporated at a general level in the Agency's Draft Proposed Guidelines for Ecological Risk
Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1996). Specific issues and changes that emerged from conducting the
case studies include how value-initiated risk assessments alter the process of problem
formulation, the importance and process of "planning" for establishing ecosystem management
goals, how to develop and interpret management goals for an ecosystem-level risk assessment,
how to select and define assessment endpoints, how to develop conceptual models for watershed
ecosystems with multiple stressors, when and how to define measures and data that will be used
in the assessment, and the explicit need for analysis plans.
2.2.3.8. Reviews and Current Status
In May 1993, the Risk Assessment Forum Ecorisk Oversight Committee held a peer
review of the draft problems formulations. Substantial discussion at that review centered on the
generation of management goals for the watershed and their interpretation into assessment
endpoints. The Risk Assessment Forum organized a second peer review in September 1994 that
focused on the analysis plans generated from conceptual model development. Significant
discussion centered on aspects of the risk assessment process that were changing as a result of
case study development. Throughout development, case study drafts have undergone technical
peer review by independent professionals knowledgeable about the watershed. In July 1996, the
"process" and "lessons learned" and draft "planning and problem formulation" sections of the
five case studies were presented to the EPA Science Advisory Board for preliminary review of a
work in progress. The results of that peer review are pending; Based on initial feedback, the
case study teams continue to refine work on problem formulation and are moving into analysis
and risk characterization. Many of the teams are reconfiguring to ensure that adequate expertise
2-15 DRAFT--DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
is on the teams for the next phase. Some teams have obtained substantial grant an3 extramural
funds to expand and improve the risk assessment based on the success of the first phases of the
case study work. It is anticipated that an additional 2 years will be necessary to complete the full
ecological risk assessment and finalize ecosystem-level guidance.
2.2.4. U.S. Department of Defense Ecological Risk Assessments
The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has been proactive in the stewardship of natural
resources. Out of a long history of conservation on DoD's 25 million acres, a concept is
emerging that involves new scientific perspectives and an innovative decision-making
framework. Known commonly as ecosystem management, this framework embodies many of
the principles of ecological risk assessment. Ecological risk assessment is an analytical tool
useful to military and civilian personnel concerned with sustaining ecosystems and the people
who inhabit them.
Ecosystem management was proactively adopted by the U.S. military in recognition of
DoD's responsibility as a manager of public trust resources. It also was recognized that
responsible management with a long-term perspective will ensure the continuing availability of
training resources, thereby enhancing the sustainability of the military's readiness mission. The
Army's Integrated Training Area Management Program, implemented on more than 60
installations nationwide, is an excellent example of the military's efforts to integrate land
management objectives with combat requirements through standard methods for monitoring land
condition and trends, managing training lands to their carrying capacities, and rehabilitating
resources toward a natural state of biodiversity. Within the Army Corps of Engineers Civil
Works Program, there is a long history of cumulative impact assessment of watersheds that is
now developing risk-based approaches in many regions.
An excellent handbook for military resource managers, Conserving Biodiversity on
Military Lands, was recently published by DoD and the Nature Conservancy. In addition, the
Army published Tri-Service Procedural Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment in June 1996,
which provides cost-effective tiered procedures with which to coordinate the defense ecological
risk assessment efforts of contractors and follows the paradigm put forward in EPA's Framework
for Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1992).
2.2.4.1. DoD's Ecosystem Management Policy
• * m
Initial DoD guidance on ecosystem management established the goal of ecosystem
management to balance sustainable human activities, such as the support of DoD missions, with
the maintenance and improvement of native biological diversity. Ecosystem management is a
2-16 DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
balance of ecology, economics, and social values. Partnering and public involvement are
stipulated as means to achieving shared goals and making decisions. Goodman (1994) outlined
10 ecosystem management principles and guidelines, which can be summarized in four general
themes: ecological approach, stakeholder involvement and collaboration, scientific and field-
tested information, and adaptive management. This guidance was institutionalized in the new
DoD Instruction 4715.3 Environmental Conservation Program May 3,1996. The following
example initiatives are but a few of many efforts, but they illustrate how the military services and
DoD are making strides toward foil implementation of ecosystem management.
2.2.4.1.1. Ecological approach. Alternative Futures for the Region of Camp Pendleton,
California, is a project sponsored by the Strategic Environmental Research and Development
Program (SERDP). The intent of the study is to "examine the connections between urban,
suburban, and rural development and the consequent stresses on native habitats and
biodiversity." The study poses an important question: How will urban and suburban growth
and change which is forecast and planned in the rapidly developing area between San Diego and
Los Angeles influence biodiversity? The question is particularly relevant for Camp Pendleton
because it constitutes the largest unbuilt segment of land on the southern California coastline and
one of the most biologically diverse environments in the United States. Given its position and
cache of unbuilt land, Camp Pendleton is central to maintaining the long-term biodiversity of the
region. Camp Pendleton plays a key role in the connectivity of the region's ecosystems and over
the long term faces the risk of becoming a "habitat island" for species. Camp Pendleton is also
the only facility on the West Coast where amphibious assault maneuvers can be practiced. Camp
Pendleton resource managers believe that a regional perspective is necessary if a true ecological
perspective is to be achieved and that an ecological perspective enhances the long-term readiness
mission.
2.2.4.1.2. Stakeholder involvement and collaboration. Partly in response to the National
Performance Review, more than 13 Federal agencies have come together in partnership to be part
of the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). As part of the agreement, each Federal agency commits
to managing the Chesapeake Bay watershed as a cohesive ecosystem and to working together
and with EPA, States, and other parties to achieve the goals of the agreement. DoD is the lead
agency in two key areas: (1) a commitment to upgrade all of its wastewater treatment plants and
(2) inclusion of ecological value information in the decision-making process for the disposal of
closed Federal facilities. In June 1994, the Navy was designated as the DoD lead in the CBP.
The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps each participate in and contribute to the program.
2-17 DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
The Navy began participating in CBP in July 1988, when the Commander of the Naval Base
Norfolk was delegated the lead Navy role as spokesman and coordinator for Navy and Marine
Corps installations in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Currently, 65 military installations are in
the watershed, ranging from small radio transmitter facilities to large industrial and operational
installations. The Commander of Naval Base Norfolk represents the Navy at Chesapeake Bay
Commission meetings and on visits to installations to promote CBP and regional environmental
initiatives. The Navy hosted the annual CBP Chesapeake Executive Council meetings in 1989
and again in 1992 and has hosted numerous other CBP-related visits and activities. The Navy is
planning activities and pollution prevention assessments on its facilities in cooperation with other
Federal agencies. In its new lead DoD service role, the Navy is coordinating with the other
services to implement the DoD commitments to the agreement of Federal agencies on ecosystem
management in the Chesapeake Bay and to ensure that other environmental commitments are
met.
2.2.4.1.3. Scientific andfield-tested information. Perhaps the aspect of ecosystem management
most relevant to ecological risk assessment is the incorporation of scientific and field-tested
information. The Mojave Desert Ecosystem Initiative (MDEI), a DoD project led by the U.S.
Army, first and foremost represents DoD's commitment to utilization of peer-reviewed science
to support land management decisions. The project goal is development and implementation of a
database to facilitate collection, storage, transfer, sharing, and analysis of information regarding
inventories, resource assessments, scientific documentation, and land management by all Federal,
State, and local agencies and other interested parties. Ultimately, a queryable database will
provide land managers and resource specialists with the tools for attempting to create a regional-
scale database to affect dynamic, sustainable ecosystem management. MDEI is an important
example of DoD's ecosystem management activities for several reasons: (1) It is an attempt to
provide uniform data coverage across an entire scientifically defined ecoregion, regardless of
political or administrative boundaries; (2) data collection, interpretation, documentation, and
sharing will be a significant tool used for integrated planning and decision; and (3) it provides an
important model for sharing, integration, and use of data for ecosystem management purposes by
a broad and varied group of participants.
2.2.4.1.4. Adaptive management. Adaptive management means the ability to change
management structures and protocols to adjust to new or enhanced understandings advanced by
the scientific community. Eglin Air Force Base, a 463,000-acre facility near Pensacola, Florida,
is home to the largest remaining longleaf pine system. Eglin and the surrounding landscape
2-18 DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1 contains 153 rare specie!, including 13 that are federally listed, and many exceptional
2 occurrences of imperiled natural communities. In partnership with the Nature Conservancy and
3 30 other organizations, Eglin has developed an ambitious ecosystem management program
4 featuring an adaptive approach. Among the natural resource management program's most
5 important goals is to restore and maintain the resiliency of native species and ecosystems.
6 Eglin's military and natural resource management staff believe this approach best provides the
7 broadest array of options for pursuing the base's military mission of testing conventional
8 weapons and munitions. As it is being practiced at Eglin, adaptive management is an integrated,
9 science-driven, and policy-based set of methods and principles for grappling with regional-scale
10 environmental management problems. It seeks to answer two fundamental questions: (1) How
11 do ecosystems change, and (2) how do institutions learn and adapt? Its goal is to integrate
12 knowledge of ecosystem behavior with the policy processes of human institutions and to create
13 learning institutions that can adapt to ecological and social change. The work of putting adaptive
14 management into practice includes ecological modeling, ecosystem monitoring, management
15 experiments, training, and development of a comprehensive decision-making process. Eglin
16 resource managers describe their support of the base's military mission in ecological terms and
17 define the current situation and desired outcomes based on a quantitative vision of ecological
18 integrity.
19 2.2.4.2. Benefits to Mission
20 The military recognizes its fiduciary responsibility to manage public resources
21 responsibly and is aware of the added incentive to doing so presented by the fact that healthy,
22 realistic training environments are an enhancement to the readiness mission. For example, the
23 principle mission of Camp Pendleton is to train Marines for combat, but there is a danger that
24 lack of coordinated off-base management for conservation and habitat protection, especially as
25 these relate to developable land, may in the long run overwhelm Camp Pendleton's ability to
26 manage for boot training and habitat concerns. The purpose of the regional approach to
27 biodiversity conservation developed in the Pendleton project is to maintain the health of
28 ecological systems to enable sustainable human use of the land, fulfilling the installation's
29 training mission. From a DoD perspective the project asks, "Can appropriate management of
30 biodiversity and landscape planning allow the military to more effectively manage its property
31 and efficiently fulfill its mission?" From the Camp Pendleton perspective it asks, "How might
32 issues of biodiversity affect or influence land management activities of the Camp?" and "How
33 might future development or conservation 'upstream' from Camp Pendleton influence
2-19 DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
-1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
hydrology, ecosystems, and biodiversity on the base and thus potentially influence its primary
mission of training?"
2.2.4.3. DoD's Progress Toward Ecosystem Management
The example projects presented here and the approach to ecosystem management that
they collectively represent shed light on issues confronted in employing ecosystem management
concepts and tools. U.S. military ecosystem managers are only beginning to scratch the surface
when it comes to developing the tools necessary to adequately evaluate the current and projected
states of ecosystem health on military lands. The Army is investing research effort in ecosystem-
based approaches to endangered species management, land-based carrying capacity, landscape
modeling "and simulation, and integrated land management systems for decision support. Civil
Works research now includes ecosystem management and restoration projects.
There is also much to be done in terms of developing stakeholder involvement processes and
partnerships with neighboring ecosystem managers that will enable more informed decisions
about what to manage for or what management priorities should be to effectively manage and
sustain robust, healthy ecosystems. With highly unique and high-value posts, camps, and
stations, or "habitat islands" in the context of this report, DoD and the U.S. military services will
continue to partner with neighboring ecosystem managers, experts, and the public to sustain our
Nation's ecosystems for present and future generations.
2.3. RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
2.3.1. Expanded Use of the EPA Guidelines
Several agencies have gained experience with ecosystem assessments in recent years.
These assessments have varied in scope, cost, and specificity of problems addressed. The
agencies and scientists involved have learned lessons along the way, and there is general
consensus that the utility of the assessments has improved as experience has been gained.
Likewise, practitioners believe that individual assessments should be tailored to address the
specific issues and circumstances generating the need for the particular assessment. However, as
the need for ecosystem assessments appears likely to continue or expand, continuation of a
completely "hand-crafted" approach is not efficient, will overuse available scientific resources,
and will not sustain improvement in the assessment craft We believe expanded use of the EPA
Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1996) offers an opportunity for several
agencies to improve the efficiency and utility of ecosystem assessments. While the guidelines
were developed for EPA use, judicious use by other agencies can provide govemmentwide
benefits.
2-20 DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
I
1 -Ecosystem assessments do not focus on adverse impacts. In fact, their main focus is to
2 provide comprehensive, integrated information to assist with planning and decision making in an
3 ecosystem context. The EPA guidelines are designed to evaluate the likelihood of adverse
4 effects because they are based on a risk assessment paradigm. The conceptual impasse between
5 ecosystem assessments, which do not have an a priori focus on adverse impacts, and the EPA
6 ecological risk assessment guidelines, which do have an a priori focus on adverse effects, is more
7 apparent than real. Sustainability is the goal of ecosystem management, and the EPA guidelines
8 specifically address methodologies for translating sustainability goals to risk assessment
9 endpoints.
10 Dialog among parties interested in ecosystem assessment needs to yield an agreement on
11 general long-term goals for ecosystem management, such as sustainability, and the translation of .
12 those goals to endpoints amenable to ecological risk assessment approaches. Scientists and/or
13 risk assessors should be involved as facilitators of this dialog while avoiding a role as
14 determiners of the goals and endpoints. Benefits for decision makers and other interested parties
15 will be greater accuracy, clarity, and precision of scientific information available for decision
16 making. Benefits for ecosystem assessment scientists and/or risk assessors are clarity of".
17 expectations and lessening of end product controversy.
18 Flexibility and rigor need to be balanced when use of the EPA guidelines is expanded for
19 application to ecosystem assessment. Traditional risk assessments require data and process rules
20 that are simply not available for most ecosystem assessments. The EPA guidelines clearly
21 recognize the need to adjust risk assessment data rigor to the information available. The
22 guidelines are sufficiently flexible for application to most ecosystem assessments. Principals
23 responsible for ecosystem assessments need to embrace this flexibility while striving to retain as
24 much rigor as possible. Expanded use of the EPA guidelines will increase the value of the
25 Agency's investment in producing them while simultaneously increasing the value of ecosystem
26 assessments that utilize them. Agencies responsible for ecosystem assessments and other
27 ecosystem management activities should seek to understand the EPA guidelines and expand their
28 use. EPA should actively seek to transfer guideline technologies to agencies with ecosystem
29 management responsibilities and expand their use.
30
31 23.2. Technical and Research Challenges
32 Two concepts currently dominate discussions oyer the future of natural resource
33 management and ecological policy: ecosystem management and ecological risk assessment
34 Both concepts have many, often vocal, champions, so it is not surprising that there are many
35 efforts to adapt ecological risk assessment to help implement ecosystem management. In many
2-21 DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
respects, the convergence of the-two somewhat-related concepts is an expected development.
However, there may be serious challenges to confront before there will be widespread, if not
credible, use of ecological risk assessment to implement ecosystem management.
Some tout ecosystem management as a revolutionary paradigm that will fundamentally
change public policy (Grumbine, 1994), but others argue the entire concept is little more than
smoke and mirrors (Fitzsimmons, 1996). Still others contend that it is simply another stage in
the evolution of our basic management paradigm—a paradigm that society and natural resource
professionals have followed for a century (Lackey, 1997). There are competing visions of
ecosystem management, arguments over fundamental assumptions, debates over who should set
goals and objectives, and interminable haggling over exact definitions. The concept is evolving
rapidly, but for the purposes here the following definition of ecosystem management will be
used: The application of ecological and social information, options, and constraints to achieve
desired social benefits within a defined geographic area and over a specified period (Lackey,
1997). This and most other definitions of ecosystem management do not appear radical until
terms such as desired social benefits are defined (Freemuth, 1996).
The second concept is ecological risk assessment. Risk assessment has been used
effectively in many fields (e.g., automobile, casualty, health, and life insurance; flood
management; nuclear accidents) as an aid in decision making. It is used to estimate the
likelihood of an event occurring that is clearly recognized as adverse. Its typical use in decision
making with regard to ecological issues is similar: estimating the likelihood of a certain, defined
event occurring (e.g., the event of a species going extinct, as is outlawed by the Endangered
Species Act). The key requirement is that the consequence is adverse by definition, which
enables the analyst to conduct the risk assessment. In classical risk assessment, this assumption
of what is adverse is relatively easy to justify: a nuclear accident is universally accepted as
adverse, as is an automobile fatality, a skiing injury, a heart attack, or an airplane crash.
Achieving consensus on an analogous adverse event in ecological risk assessment has proved to
be more elusive.
Ecological risk assessment also has enjoyed widespread support and become a commonly
used tool in policy analysis (Molak, 1996), but its use continues to be controversial (O'Brien,
1995). Opinions are diverse; they range from fervent support to caustic dismissal. Much of the
controversy with using risk assessment in ecological policy analysis revolves around defining the
initial policy question or problem to be assessed (Karr, 1995) rather than identifying the technical
» >
details. Additional criticisms deal with the misuse of risk assessment (a value-neutral analytical
tool) when risk management (a value-based decision-making activity) is appropriate.
2-22
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
-1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Like all analytical techniques used to assist management, ecological risk assessment has
strengths and weaknesses; it is used appropriately in some circumstances, but not in others.
Proponents, opponents, and those occupying various positions in a vast middle ground have
presented opinions in the scientific and policy literature and at many conferences and symposia.
The emerging consensus appears to be that ecological risk assessment will be useful in
management for at least a certain class of policy questions: those dealing with the effects of
chemicals, especially where there is a legislative or policy basis for defining what is adverse
ecologically.
2.3.2.1. Problems of Definition
To be technically tractable and credible, the risk problem must be defined in fairly narrow
policy and scientific terms. Even defined in fairly narrow terms, the analysis may be technically
quite complex and require sophisticated scientific information. Most often the narrowing is done
by a legislative policy mandate. The risk problem then becomes relatively simple analytically
(e.g., one chemical [or at most a few] is the stressor causing effects on a few biological
components; the effects, if present, are adverse by definition). To skeptics the vast majority of
ecosystem management decision problems appear to be simply too complicated to be addressed
by traditional risk assessment methods without resorting to arguable assumptions about societal
values and preferences or technical simplification that shrouds the essence of the decision or
policy issue. Even the traditional requirement of risk as a probability of occurrence of a defined,
adverse event has been relaxed to merely predicting the response of a component of an
ecosystem to a stressor of concern.
It would be easy to create a long list of challenges, including needed research,that would
need to be confronted when using ecological risk assessment to implement ecosystem
management. Most of the individuals or groups creating such lists have strong natural science
backgrounds, and not surprisingly, their lists of research needs and priorities tend to reflect such
an orientation. An implied premise of creating such a list is that insufficient research is the main
limitation to "better" management or at least conducting better ecological risk assessments. It is
not. Ecosystem management deals with policy problems that are every bit as challenging as
those in welfare and economic issues. This is not to say that additional research on ecosystems,
watersheds, and plant and animal communities would not be useful, but rather that lack of this
information is rarely the primary limitation on using risk assessment. What is needed most is to
better link research and technical information to the way society makes decisions in general and
how ecosystem management is implemented in particular.
2-23 DRAFT--DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
* The traditional risk analysis approach needs to be modified for maximum use in
ecosystem management to reflect the realities of decision making: the concept of risk applied to
natural resources will work only for a narrow set of problems where there is a clear public (and
legal) consensus and on issues where there is an agreed-upon time frame of interest (e.g., are
benefits and risks defined over 10 years or 10 centuries?). In ecosystem management, a
probability (of cause and effect or ecological change) is neither good nor bad; it is only a
probability. Ecological change or condition becomes risk only when someone defines the change
or condition as adverse. Thus, the resolution of many ecosystem management decision problems
is not limited by lack of scientific information or technical tools but by the conflict of
fundamentally different values and social priorities (e.g., cheap food vs. irrigation water use;
cheap power vs. free flowing rivers). If we are dealing with an ecological problem that is at an
impasse because some of the stakeholders do not accept a shared set of values, much less
preferences, we should not be surprised when risk assessment is of little use in resolving the
issue. One modification that might help is to drop the concept of ecological risk and conduct
ecological consequence assessment. This is not a magical solution, but it does tend to focus
debate over ecological values and priorities outside of the assessment process.
Many of the criticisms of ecological risk assessment apply to other tools used to assist
decision makers. Whether or not it turns out that ecological risk assessment is useful for only the
simplest ecological policy questions in implementing ecosystem management, it is important to
come to a consensus. Right now there is a lack of consensus on its proper role. Some even argue
that ecological risk assessment has little or no constructive use in ecosystem management
because policy debates are almost always clashes over values and priorities and the probability of
an adverse event is irrelevant until someone defines what is adverse. Even the definition of what
constitutes an ecosystem is context and policy specific. What an analyst considers to be the
ecosystem of concern must be defined and bounded by the policy or management question being
assessed.
23.22. Challenges to Confront
Several specific and imposing technical challenges must be overcome before ecological
risk assessment can serve a significant role in implementing ecosystem management. The
challenges summarized below are not the only technical problems to be sure, but they are the
ones that currently limit the acceptance and use of ecological risk assessment.
First, the concept of ecological health needs to be better defined and understood by
politicians and the public. Although fraught with serious conceptual, scientific, and semantic
issues, ecological health is at the core of all visions of ecosystem management. The fundamental
2-24 DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
challenge with the use of ecological health is not lack of technical information, although *
scientific questions abound, but what is meant by health. Is a wilderness area defined as the base
or preferred level of ecological health? Is the degree of perturbation by human activity the
measure of ecological health? The concept of ecological "degradation" is strictly a human (and
value-based) one; the concept of ecological "alteration" is a scientific (and value-neutral) one.
The identical ecological condition could be either healthy or degraded depending on the
judgment of the person doing the valuing. Further, if we look at the consequences of cyclic
climate change and chaotic events to ecosystems, what is "natural?" Without answers, it is
impossible to define scientifically what is adverse, thus hampering use of ecological risk
assessment in ecosystem management, at least as it is presently formulated.
Second, we need better ways to use expert scientific and technical opinion. Most of the
policy-relevant problems in ecosystem management are too complex for easy or rapid scientific
experimentation or analysis. To paraphrase an old rule in policy analysis: if something can be
easily and quickly measured with precision, it is probably irrelevant in ecosystem management.
If management and policy problems are simplified to the point of making them scientifically
tractable, then the result may lack policy relevance. Expert opinion must be used with all the
pitfalls of bias, credibility, and charges of elitism, especially in defining who will be considered
an expert. For example, how does the assessor incorporate scientifically derived data versus
observational information from long-term residents? Computer-generated maps and computer-
assisted models may be elegant, but for many decisions in ecosystem management, only
observational and judgmental information is available.
Third, we need to credibly evaluate and measure public preference and priorities to frame
ecological (ecosystem management) issues. Public opinion polls consistently show that the
public is very supportive of the "environment," as it is of "peace," "freedom," and "economic
opportunity." More specifically, numerous polls document that the public is similarly
sympathetic to preserving biological diversity. What does this mean? Preserving all species
throughout some historic range? Preserving the ecological function of ecosystem components?
Preserving certain highly prized species? Without specifying public preferences and priorities
with greater precision, analytical tools such as risk assessment are of limited utility. Many of the
decision issues in ecosystem management are exactly of this type. It may be that tools to
credibly evaluate and measure public preference and priorities presently exist and they merely
need to be applied; or it may be that innovative or modified tools need to be developed.
Fourth, there is a critical need to develop better ways to present options and consequences
to the public, policy analysts, and decision makers. Society is not well served by statements such
as, "It is a complicated problem and you need to have an advanced degree in ecology to
2-25 DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
.6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
understand it," or "You can select this option without significant cost to society" when there will
be costs to some people. The main take-home message in risk assessment—in all decision tools
for that matter—must be that there are no free lunches and that decisions must be clearly flamed
as decision alternatives. Ecosystem management will not overcome the unpleasant fact that
management decisions result in winners and losers, costs and benefits. The value of risk
assessment or any other decision tool in ecosystem management is whether it can focus policy
debate (and decision making) around costs and benefits, winners and losers, and whether it can
accurately predict the ecological consequences of the range of decision options.
Risk assessment has been successfully used in many fields to assist in decision making,
particularly in insurance, industrial operations, and business management. Application of risk
assessment to ecological problems has been limited to certain types of narrowly constrained
problems (usually associated with assessing the probability of adverse consequences of manmade
chemicals). The principal technical limitation to wider use of risk assessment in ecological
policy is to better define societal values and preferences in credible ways. To help overcome this
limitation, four specific research needs are proposed:
• Develop procedures to define ecological health.
• Improve ways to use expert opinion.
• Develop methodologies to measure public values, preferences, and priorities.
, • Develop or improve ways to present decision consequences to the public in a decision-
neutral manner.
2.4. ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT IN ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
Ecosystem risk management is the continuous process of manipulating a system of
multiple risks to the physical, biological, and human components with the objective of holding
overall risks to acceptable levels at minimum costs. The concepts underlying risk management
are relatively straightforward (Marcot, 1986; Bartel et al., 1992; Burgman et al., 1993; Covello
and Merkhofer, 1993; Morgan et al., 1990; Lackey, 1994; Suter, 1993). However, the
application of these concepts in a complex of ecological, organizational, and sociological
processes is quite difficult.
2.4.1. Risk Assessment and the Risk Management Cycle
Risk assessment is part of a cycle of processes that make up risk management. The cycle
is a series of human judgments and decisions by scientific experts, ecosystem managers, policy
makers, and the public. The quality of risk assessment or any other phase is determined by the
quality of judgments and choices of its participants (Kleindorfer et al., 1993).
2-26 DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
•The risk management process for ecosystem management involves seven phases:
1. Hazard identification—identifying human actions or natural events, the conditions
under which they could potentially produce adverse effects, and the parts of the
ecosystem that might be affected.
2. Risk Assessment—characterizing risks imposed by some proposed action by
estimating magnitudes of potential loss, exposure pathways, and likelihoods of
occurrence.
3. Evaluation—judging the relative acceptability of assessed risks in light of policies,
standards, organizational or cultural norms, public opinion, and other expressions of
human values. Also, comparing different risks for their relative contribution to the
• overall level of severity.
4. Adjustment—choosing strategies for modifying, avoiding, accepting, or otherwise
dealing with the risk profile of proposed actions or likely natural events. These
choices involve comparing risk adjustment benefits and costs of various strategies and
policy instruments and making difficult tradeoffs among risks and costs.
5. Implementation—interpreting the strategy mix in practical standards, guidelines, and
incentive systems. Strategies can be implemented through modifications in the
proposed actions, mitigations for particular risks, or planned responses under a
planned adaptive monitoring program (Holling, 1978; Walters, 1986).
6. Monitoring—tracking the effectiveness of the risk adjustment strategies by measuring
exposure pathways and risk endpoints sensing for "signal" events that could trigger
adaptive responses.
7. Risk communication—translating the results of one phase to another, between
ecosystem managers, scientists, policy makers, and the public. The traditional view
of risk communication was of a one-way flow of technical information from experts
to the public. Recent approaches emphasize multiway communication with an
emphasis on understanding the mental models and belief systems on which people
judge the acceptability of risks. For the risk management cycle to work sucessfully,
risk communication—clarity, completeness, accuracy, and compatibility with
information processing styles—needs to be built into every phase of the cycle.
The effectiveness of the cycle depends in part on the quality of the human judgments and
decisions that support it. A high-quality decision is one that (1) solves the correct problem; (2)
clearly describes the problem, criteria, and alternatives to the decision maker; (3) generates and
evaluates many relevant alternatives; (4) makes choices consistent with criteria and information;
and (5) provides for learning that will improve future decisions.
2-27 DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Most successful attempts to improve decision making have involved better organizing
and structuring of basic cognitive tasks. Kleindorfer et al. (1993), Dawes (1990), Bazerman
(1994), and other decision scientists contend that unstructured tasks are subject to many biases
and illusions. Generic decision tasks include (1) process mapping, (2) problem framing, (3)
intelligence gathering, (4) evaluation and choice, and (5) learning from feedback. Each of these
tasks are subject to unique biases and opportunities for improvement.
Risk management involves decisions about how to reduce probabilities, lower potential
losses, interrupt exposure pathways, or collect information to better predict events (MacCrimmon
and Wehrung, 1986; Head and Horn, 1991). Each phase of the risk management cycle
corresponds to one or more generic decision tasks. The cycle itself is a process map that lays out
a sequence of steps, and prescribes methodologies and protocols. Hazard identification is a
problem-framing and intelligence-gathering task. Risk assessment takes these tasks to higher
levels of rigor by requiring probabilistic judgments and analysis of complex pathways. Risk
evaluation and adjustment are tradeoff evaluation and choice tasks. Risk monitoring is an
intelligence-gathering and learning task.
2.5. NEXT STEPS
• Link ecological risk assessment and ecosystem management to improve
organizational and analytical consistency in support of multiple scales of resource
management.
* Expand the use of EPA's Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessments (U.S. EPA,
1996) across agencies to improve the efficiency and utility of ecosystem assessments.
• Evaluate technical limitations to the wider use of risk assessment in ecological policy.
through better definition of societal values and preferences.
* Specific research needs: (1) develop procedures to define ecological health; (2)
improve ways to use expert opinion; (3) develop methodologies to measure public
values, preferences, and priorities; and (4) develop or improve ways to present
decision consequences to the public in a decision-neutral manner.
2.6. REFERENCES
Bartel, SM; Gardner, RH; O'Neill, RV. (1992) Ecological risk estimation. Chelsea, MI: Lewis
Publishers. , .
Bazerman, MH. (1994) Judgment in managerial decision making, 3rd ed. New York, NY: John
Wiley and Sons.
2-28 DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1 -Burgman, MA; Ferson, S; Akcakaya, HR. (1993) Risk assessment in conservation biology.
2 Lndon: Chapman and Hall.
3 Carpenter, RA. (1995) Communicating environmental science uncertainties. Environ Prof
4 17:127-136.
5 Cleaves, DA. (1994) Assessing uncertainty in expert judgments about natural resources. General
6 Technical Report SO-110. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest
7 Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA.
8 Covello, VT; Merkhofer, MW. (1993) Risk assessment methods: approaches for assessing health
9 and environmental risks. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
10 Covello, VT; von Winterfeldt, D; Slovic, P. (1986) Risk communication: a review of the
11 literature. Risk Abstr 3:171 -182.
12 Cross, FB. (1994) The public role in risk control. Environ Law 24:821-969.
13 Dawes, RM. (1988) Rational choice in an uncertain world. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace
14 Jovanovich.
15 Fitzsimmons, AK. (1996) Sound policy or smoke and mirrors: does ecosystem management
16 make sense? Water Resources Bull 32(2):217-227.
17 Freemuth, J. (1996) The emergence of ecosystem management: reinterpreting the gospel? Soc
18 Natural Resources 9:411-417.
19 Goodman, S. (1994) Memorandum from Deputy Undersecretary for Environmental Security
20 Sherri Goodman on ecosystem management, August 8,1994.
21 Grumbine, RE. (1994) What is ecosystem management? Conserv Biol 8(l):27-38.
22 Haynes, RW; Graham, RT; Quigley, TM, eds. (1996) A framework for ecosystem management
23 in the Interior Columbia Basin including portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. General
24 Technical Report PNW-GTR -374. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Pacific
25 Northest Research Station, Portland, OR, 66 pp.
26 Head, GL; Horn S, II. (1991) Essentials of risk management. Vol. I and II. 2nd ed. Malvern, PA:
27 Insurance Institute of America.
28 Holling, CS. (ed.) (1978) Adaptive environmental assessment and management. New York, NY:
29 John Wiley and Sons.
30 Karr, JR. (1995) Risk assessment: we need more than an ecological veneer. Hum Ecol Risk
31 Assess 1(4):436-442,
2-29 DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1 Keeney, RL. (1983) Issues in evaluating standards. Interfaces 13:12-22.
2 Kleindorfer, PR; Kunreuther, HC; Schoemaker, PJH. (1993) Decision sciences: an integrative
3 perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
4 Lackey, RL. (1994) Ecological risk assessment. Fisheries 19(9): 14-18.
5 Lackey, RT. (1997) Seven pillars of ecosystem management. Landscape Urban Plan (accepted).
6 Little, IMD; Min-lees, JA. (1994) The costs and benefits of analysis. In: Cost-benefit analysis.
7 Layard, R; Glaister, S, eds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8 MacCrimmon, KR; Wehrung, DA. (1986) Taking risks: the management of uncertainty. New
9 York, NY: The Free Press, 380 pp.
10 Marcot, BG. (1986) Concepts of risk analysis as applied to viable population assessment and
11 planning. In: The management of viable populations: theory, applications, and case studies.
12 Wilcox, BA; Broussard, PF; Marcot, BG, eds. Stanford, CA: Center for Conservation Biology,
13 Stanford University, pp. 1-13.
14 Molak, V, ed. (1996) Fundamentals of risk analysis and risk management. New York, NY:
15 CRC/Lewis Publishers, 472 pp.
16 Morgan, M; Henrion, G; Henrion, M. (1990) Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in
17 quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18 O'Brien, MH. (1995) Ecological alternatives assessment rather than ecological risk assessment:
19 considering options, benefits, and dangers. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 1(4):357- 366.
20 Quigley, TM; Arbelbide, SJ, eds. (1996) An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior
21 Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. General Technical Report PNW-
22 GTR-XXX. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,
23 Portland, OR.
24 Quigley, TM; Haynes, RW; Graham, RT, eds. (1996a) Integrated scientific assessment for
25 ecosystem management in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great
26 Basins. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-382. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
27 Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, 303 pp.
28 Quigley, TM; Lee, KM; Arbelbide, SJ, eds. (1996b) Evaluation of EIS alternatives by the science
29 integration team. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-XXX. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
30 Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.
31 Sandman, PM. (1985) Getting to maybe: some communication aspects of siting hazardous waste
32 facilities. Seton Hall Legis J 9:442-465.
2-30
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
* 1 Slovic, P. (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280-285.
2 Suter, GW, II, ed. (1993) Ecological risk assessment. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers.
3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1992) Framework for ecological risk assessment. Risk
4 Assessment Forum, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/630/R-92/001.
5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1996) proposed guidelines for ecological risk
6 assessment. Federal Register 61(175):47552-47631.
7 Walters, C. (1986) Adaptive management of renewable resources. New York, NY: MacMillan
8 Publishing Co.
2-31
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
NHEERL-COR-2187a
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read instructions on the reverse before complet-
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/600/A-97/087
2.
3.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Ecosystem management. Chapter 2
5. REPORT DATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
CODE
7. AUTHOR(S) William T. Sommers1 Robert T. Lackey2
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT
NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
'U.S. Forest Service 2 US EPA NHEERL
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, Oregon 97333
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
US EPA ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD
COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/02
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES:
16. Abstract:
Ecological risk assessment is a process of organizing and analyzing data, information, assumptions, and uncertainties to evaluate
the likelihood of adverse ecological effects (USEPA, 1996). Ecosystem management is a process for maintaining the integrity of
ecosystems over time and space (Quigley et al„ 1996a). Ecosystem sustainability increasingly is being stated as the goal of
ecosystem management. A variety of ecosystem management assessments have been led by federal agencies in recent years
to provide a framework to help decision makers and other interested parties to better understand and evaluate consequences of
actions with respect to regulation and/or allocation of natural resources within a larger social, economic, and ecological
framework. This chapter provides information on the ongoing development of the ecological risk assessment process and the
ecosystem management assessment process. The linking of these two processes can bring improved organizational and
analytical consistence to the assessment of information in support of multiple scales of resource planning and decision making
needed for ecosystem management.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED
TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Ecological risk assessment; ecosystem
management; natural resources; watershed.
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS {This Report)
21. NO. OF PAGES: 31
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page!
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220 1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
------- |