Transcript Rivers and Wetlands: A Common Assessment Approach

Ecological Assessment:
An Overview
Environmental Issues and Public Policy
Zoo 446
Fall 2001
Standard Questions
• Is there a problem?
• Is it getting better or worse?
• What’s causing the problem?
• Can we fix it?
• Is it getting better or worse?
Risk Assessment
Stressor-Response
Assessment
Response
Assessment
Risk Management
Legal Considerations
Social Factors
Public Health
Risk (Condition)
Characterization
Exposure (stressor)
Assessment
Management
Options
Risk
Management
Decision
Politics
Economics
Modified from EPA 1996
Ecological Risk Assessment
Ecological Condition
(Ecological Values and
Indicators)
(Is there a problem?)
Response Assessment
high
low
low
CWA Ultimate Goal
(e.g. protect all native
taxa)
Stressor-Response
Relationship
Stressor Gradient
Exposure Assessment
(What’s Causing the Problem?)
high
Ecological Risk Assessment
Ecological Condition
(Ecological Values and
Indicators)
(Is there a problem?)
Response Assessment
high
low
low
CWA Ultimate Goal
(e.g. protect all native
taxa)
Stressor-Response
Relationship
Stressor Gradient
Exposure Assessment
(What’s Causing the Problem?)
high
Ecological Risk Assessment
Ecological Condition
(Ecological Values and
Indicators)
(Is there a problem?)
Response Assessment
high
low
low
CWA Ultimate Goal
(e.g. protect all native
taxa)
Stressor-Response
Relationship
Stressor Gradient
Exposure Assessment
(What’s Causing the Problem?)
high
Risk Assessment
Stressor-Response Relationship
Observational Approaches
Experimental Approaches
Hazard Assessment
Quality of Life
Human Health
Ecological Health
Risk Characterization
Diagnosis, Certainty
Multiple Lines of Evidence
Indices of Sustainability and
Restorability
Exposure Assessment
Stressors
Physico-chemical Measurements
Biotic Indices
Human Activities (GIS & Modeling)
Mod. From EPA 1996
Study Design
• Objectives
• Conceptual Model
• Hypotheses & Indicators
• Sampling Plan
Ecological
Assessment
Framework
Analysis
• Define Expected Condition
• Measure Observed Condition
• Assess Human Effects (E-O)
• Stressor-Response Relationships
Integration
• Determine Causes or Threats to
Impairment
• Develop Management Plans
• Assess Management Success
Study Design
• Objectives
• Conceptual Model
• Hypotheses & Indicators
• Sampling Plan
Ecological
Assessment
Framework
Analysis
• Define Expected Condition
• Measure Observed Condition
• Assess Human Effects (E-O)
• Stressor-Response Relationships
Integration
• Determine Causes or Threats to
Impairment
• Develop Management Plans
• Assess Management Success
Ecological Assessment Framework
Study Design
Define Objectives
Ecosystem Services
Conceptual Model
Analysis Plan
(Hypotheses, Indicators, Sampling Plan)
Objectives:
Defining the Problem Legislatively in US
• Protect Species†
• Protect Ecological Integrity *
– Physical and Chemical Integrity
– Biotic Integrity: Structural and Functional
• Protect Fish, Shellfish, and Wildlife*
– Interim Goal: larger and important animals
• Protect Ecosystem Services
– Biodiversity support, flood control, nutrient retention,
aesthetics, sustainable productivity
† Endangered Species Act
* Clean Water Act Goals
Objectives (Support Designated Uses),
Measurable Responses and Indicators
• Drinkability
• Taste, odor, toxic,
• Microbial Contamination
• Fishability
• Low DO, Temp
• Swimmability
• Water clarity
• Microbial Contamination
Natural Stressors/Geographic Setting (Climate, Geology, Latitude, etc.)
Stream
Channel
Modification
Urbanization/
Residential
Development
Forest
Practices
Agriculture
Mining
Recreation
& Mgmt
Atmospheric
Deposition
Habitat Alt.
Toxic Waste
Oil
Gravel
Extraction
Heavy Metals
Liming
Roads
Construction
Habitat Alt.
Boating
Fishing
Fish Intro.,
Poisoning
NOx
SOx
Air Toxics
Liming
Human Activities
Dams
Channelization
Diversions
Levees
Revetments
Increasing
Population
Roads
Construction
Point Sources
Wastewater
Pets
Changes in
flow, timing,
amount,
pathway
Fragmentation
Fertilizers
Pesticides
Roads
Monoculture
Compaction
Sedimentation
Fertilizers
Livestock
Pesticides
Habitat Alt.
Irrigation
Compaction
Animal Waste
Changes in
Vegetation
Changes in
sediment
load
Chemical
Loading;
Toxins
Nutrients
O2 Demand
Acid/Base
Stressors
Physical
Habitat
Mobilization
of heavy
metals
Water Quality
Chemical Habitat
Endpoints
Changes in Biological Assemblages
Conceptual Model
modified from Bryce et al. 1999
Study Plans
• Surveys
– Use: primarily to assess
condition of ecosystems and
establish probable exposure
problems or threats
– Pros
• Realistic Responses
• Realistic Exposures
– Stressors
– Human Activities
– Cons
• Expensive
• Time consuming
• Poor cause-effect
determination
• Experiments (Bioassays)
– Use: primarily to establish
exposures at which undesirable
effects occur
– Pros
• Cost-effective
• Relatively Rapid
• Establish cause-effect
– Cons
• Unrealistic Responses
• Unrealistic Exposures
– Stressors not natural
Ecological Assessment Framework
Analysis
Expected Condition
Observed Condition
Response Indicators
Stressor Indicators
Response Indicators
Stressor Indicators
Land Use Indicators
Land Use Indicators
Human Effects
Assessment
StressorResponse
Relations
Ecological
Understanding
o
o
o o
o
o
o
o
oo
o
Stressor Indicator
Response Indicator
o
o
o
oooooo
o
oooo o o
oo o
oo o o
o
o
o
o
oo
Observed
Conditions
&
Relations
Land Use Indicators
Human Activities – BMPs
Response Indicator
Stressor Indicator
oo
o o
o
o
oo
o
o
o
oo o
ooo o o o
o
o
ooo oo
o
o
oooo o
o oo
oo o
o
o
Land Use Indicators
Human Activities – BMPs
o
o
o o
o
o
o
Expected Condition
o
oo
o
Stressor Indicator
Response Indicator
o
o
o
oooooo
o
oooo o o
oo o
oo o o
o
o
o
o
oo
Observed
Conditions
&
Relations
Land Use Indicators
Human Activities – BMPs
Response Indicator
Stressor Indicator
oo
o o
o
o
oo
o
o
o
oo o
ooo o o o
o
o
ooo oo
o
o
oooo o
o oo
oo o
o
o
Land Use Indicators
Human Activities – BMPs
CWA Ultimate Goal (e.g.
protect all native taxa)
(Ecological Values and Indicators)
Ecological Condition
high
Stressor
Criterion
low
low
Stressor Gradient
high
CWA Ultimate Goal (e.g.
protect all native taxa)
BioCriterion for IBI
based on Protecting Goal
(Ecological Values and Indicators)
Ecological Condition
high
Indicator of BI (e.g.
change in species
composition)
Stressor
Criterion
low
low
Stressor Gradient
high
CWA Ultimate Goal (e.g.
protect all native taxa)
BioCriterion for IBI
based on Protecting Goal
(Ecological Values and Indicators)
Ecological Condition
high
Indicator of BI (e.g.
change in species
composition)
Stressor
Criterion
low
low
Stressor Gradient
high
CWA Ultimate Goal (e.g.
protect all native taxa)
BioCriterion for IBI
based on Protecting Goal
(Ecological Values and Indicators)
Ecological Condition
high
Indicator of BI (e.g.
change in species
composition)
Stressor
Criterion
low
low
Stressor Gradient
high
CWA Ultimate Goal (e.g.
protect all native taxa)
BioCriterion for IBI
based on Protecting Goal
(Ecological Values and Indicators)
Ecological Condition
high
Indicator of BI (e.g.
change in species
composition)
Stressor
Criterion
low
low
Stressor Gradient
high
Criteria for Indicators (NRC)
•
•
•
•
•
General Importance
Conceptual Basis
Reliability
Statistical Properties
Temporal & Spatial
Scale
• Data Requirements
• Skills Required
•
•
•
•
Data Quality
Data Archiving
Robustness
International
Compatibility
• Costs, Benefits, and
Cost-Effectiveness
NRC Recommended Indicators
• Extent and Status of Nation’s Ecosystems
– Land cover type and area
– Land use
• Ecological Capital
– Total species diversity, Native species diversity
– Nutrient runoff, Soil organic matter
• Ecosystem Function and Performance
– Carbon storage, Productive capacity, Net primary
production,
– Lake trophic status, Stream oxygen
– Nutrient use efficiency and Nutrient balance of ag.
ecosystems
Multimetric Indices of Biotic Integrity
• Multiple variables combined into one index
–
–
–
–
Species richness
% Sensitive Species
% Predator Species
6-10 variables responding to different stressors
• Good summary
• Easy to communicate
• More reliable in broad use, but not as sensitive as
refined, single-indicator responses
Response Indicators
• Change in Species Composition
• Change in Ecosystem Function
• Loss of Native Species in Sensitive
Assemblages (Microbes and Invertebrates)
• Loss of Health of Tolerant Organisms (e.g.,
Fish and Wildlife)
• Loss of Native Species of Tolerant
Organisms
Stressor Indicators
Land Use Indicators
• Nutrient Enrichment
• Decrease in Dissolved
Oxygen Concentration
• Sedimentation
• Changed Temperature
• Habitat Alteration
• Habitat Loss
• Biotic Indices:
• % Urban Land Use
• % Agricultural Land
Use
• % Impervious Surface
• Width Riparian Buffer
• Proximity of Use to
Habitat
– % High P spp.
Muskegon Watershed
Land Use Regions
Effects of Human Activities Differ
With Activity and Habitat and Endpoint
B. Pijanowski
M. Colunga
Ecological Assessment Framework
Integration
Cause/Threat
Assessment
Management
Options
Restoration/ Protection
Assessment
Management Decision &
Implementation
Stressor-Response Relationship
Natural
Acceptable
ok
A
B
Stressor Level
Everglades,
South Florida,
USA
Conceptual Model for Everglades
Mats
+
P
Algae
Growth
-
+
P harvest & Stability
?
CaCO3
% Mat Cover
Change in Floating Mat Cover
= f (Distance from P Source In Everglades)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
6
8
10
12
14
Distance from P Source (km)
Change in Number of Native Spp
In Everglades
Native Diatom Taxa
6
5
4
3
2
1
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Distance from P Source (km)
Percent Similarity
Deviation in Spp Relative Abundance
from Reference in Everglades
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Distance from P Source (km)
TP on Gradient
Distance from input structures (km)
Sediment P on Gradient
Algal
Responses
in the
Everglades
Dosing
Facility
Total Sediment
Phosphorus
(mg/kg)
Contour Map
for WCA-2A
F0
E0
F1
F2
F3
E1
E2
E3
F4
E4
F5
U3
E5
U2
U1
SFWMD Transect Site
Water Control Structure
Risk Assessment
Response-Stressor
Relationship
Hazard
Assessment
Exposure
Assessment
Risk Management
Legal Considerations
Social Factors
Public Health
Risk
Management
Decision
Risk
Characterization
Management
Options
Politics
Economics
Modified from EPA 1996
Sampling Sites
for
KY – MI
Stream Survey
A Stream Problem…..
excessive Cladophora
SAIN Conceptual Model
Geology
Landscape Development
Nutrients
Flow Stability
Diatom
Biofilm
Thick
Diatom
Mat
Climate
Scraping
Herbivores
Cladophora
filaments
Predators
CollectorGatherers
SAIN Sampling Sites
Parameters Assessed
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Discharge
Temperature
Canopy Cover
Conductivity
pH, alkalinity
NO3+NO2, NH4, TN
PO4 (SRP), TP
Silica
Chloride
Total Suspended Solids
• Water Column Chl a
• Periphyton Cover and
Thickness
• 3 3-rock clusters for
algal biomass & species
composition **
• Inverts on 10 rocks5
• 5-rock clusters for
invertebrate biomass &
species composition **
• ** Only sampled 1/8 wk.
Assess Algal
Biomass Visually
In Field
Visual Biomass
Macroalgae &
Microalgae
Sample Algae
(Targeted or
Multihabitat)
Take to Lab
Identify and Count Algae
Microscopically
Cell Density
Species Relative Abundances
ALGAL
METHODS
Split Sample
Dry & Burn
Assay Pigments with
Spectrophotometer
AFDM
Chl a
Phaeophytin
Rapid Periphyton
Survey
• View Bottom at Sites
along Transects
• Characterize % Cover
of Different Algal
Types
• Characterize
Thickness of Each
Algal Type
% Cladophora Cover
Peak Cladophora Biomass
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
100
TP Concentration (ug P/L)
Similarity to Reference
Similarity of Diatom Composition
Between Test and Reference Assemblages
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
10
100
Average TP ( g P/L)
1000
Standard Questions
• Is there a problem?
• Is it getting better or worse?
• What’s causing the problem?
• Can we fix it?
• Is it getting better or worse?