Perspectives of the Scientific Community on the Status of Ecological Risk Assessment

/ Views from a wide variety of practicing environmental professionals on the current status of ecological risk assessment (ERA) indicate consensus and divergence of opinion on the utility and practice of risk assessment. Central to the debate were the issues of whether ERA appropriately incorporates ecological and scientific principle into its conceptual paradigm. Advocates argue that ERA effectively does both, noting that much of the fault detractors find with the process has more to do with its practice than its purpose. Critics argue that failure to validate ERA predictions and the tendency to over-simplify ecological principles compromise the integrity of ERA and may lead to misleading advice on the appropriate responses to environmental problems. All authors felt that many improvements could be made, including validation, better definition of the ecological questions and boundaries of ERA, improved harmonization of selected methods, and improvements in the knowledge base. Despite identified deficiencies, most authors felt that ERA was a useful process undergoing evolutionary changes that will inevitably determine the range of environmental problems to which it can be appropriately applied. The views expressed give ERA a cautious vote of approval and highlight many of the critical strengths and weaknesses in one of our most important environmental assessment tools.KEY WORDS: Ecological risk assessment; Ecology; Probability     

Clarifying the definition ofSustainable agriculture

A number of distinct definitions ofsustainable agriculture have been proposed. In this paper we criticize two such definitions, primarily for conflating sustainability with other objectives such as economic viability and ecological integrity. Finally, we propose and defend a definition which avoids our objections to the other definitions.     

Improving the TMDL Process Using Watershed Risk Assessment Principles

Ecological risk assessment (ERA) evaluates potential causal relationships between multiple sources and stressors and impacts on valued ecosystem components. ERAs applied at the watershed scale have many similarities to the place-based analyses that are undertaken to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), in which linkages are established between stressors, sources, and water quality standards, including support of designated uses. TMDLs focus on achieving water quality standards associated with attainment of designated uses. In attempting to attain the water quality standard, many TMDLs focus on the stressor of concern rather than the ecological endpoint or indicators of the designated use that the standard is meant to protect. A watershed ecological risk assessment (WERA), at least in theory, examines effects of most likely stressors, as well as their probable sources in the watershed, to prioritize management options that will most likely result in meeting environmental goals or uses. Useful WERA principles that can be applied to TMDL development include: development and use of comprehensive conceptual models in the Problem Identification step of TMDLs; use of a transparent process for selecting Numeric Targets for TMDLs based on assessment endpoints derived from the management goal or designated use under consideration; analysis of co-occurring stressors likely to cause beneficial use impairment based on the conceptual model; use of explicit uncertainty analyses in the Linkage Analysis step of TMDL development; and frequent stakeholder interactions throughout the process. WERA principles are currently most applicable to those TMDLs in which there is no numeric standard and, therefore, indicators and targets need to be developed, such as many nutrient or sediment TMDLs. WERA methods can also be useful in determining TMDL targets in situations where simply targeting the water quality standard may re-attain the numeric criterion but not the broader designated use. Better incorporation of problem formulation principles from WERA into the TMDL development process would be helpful in improving the scientific rigor of TMDLs.     

A WATERSHED-LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY1

ABSTRACT: We present an ecological risk assessment methodology at the watershed level for freshwater ecosystems. The major component is a pollutant transport and fate model (a modified EUTROMOD) with an integrated uncertainty analysis utilizing a two-phase Monte Carlo procedure. The uncertainty analysis methodology distinguishes between knowledge uncertainty and stochastic variability. The model assesses the ecological risk of lentic (lake) ecosystems in response to the stress of excess phosphorus resulting in eutrophication. The methodology and model were tested on the Wister Lake watershed in Oklahoma with the lake and its trophic state as the endpoint for ecological risk assessment. A geographic information system was used to store, manage, and manipulate spatially referenced data for model input.     

黄河中上游能源化工区重点产业发展战略生态风险评价

结合黄河中上游能源化工区重点产业发展战略生态风险宏观性、综合性、复杂性的特点,论文以生态风险景观评价方法及3S技术等为研究手段,综合考虑重点产业发展战略人为风险源及自然风险源,以生态风险受体和终点选择、风险源分析、暴露危害分析、生态风险综合评价及生态风险分区为评价步骤,揭示了重点产业发展战略潜在生态风险空间分异特征。研究结果表明：黄河中上游重点产业战略实施区可划分为三类生态风险监控区,生态风险重点监控区自然风险源分布集中,重点产业人为风险源和自然风险源交织在一起,极易发生生态风险放大效应,生态风险次重点监控区自然生态风险源分布较单一,局部重点产业人为风险源强度增强,将增加区域生态风险水平,生态风险监控区自然生态风险源分布范围较小,潜在生态风险水平相对较低。论文探索了战略环评生态风险评价方法和评价思路,为国内重点产业发展战略生态风险评价提供了借鉴。     

Methodological aspects of life cycle assessment of integrated solid waste management systems

Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) developed rapidly during the 1990s and has reached a certain level of harmonisation and standardisation. LCA has mainly been developed for analysing material products, but can also be applied to services, e.g. treatment of a particular amount of solid waste. This paper discusses some methodological issues which come into focus when LCAs are applied to solid waste management systems. The following five issues are discussed. (1) Upstream and downstream system boundaries: where is the ‘cradle’ and where is the ‘grave’ in the analysed system? (2) Open-loop recycling allocation: besides taking care of a certain amount of solid waste, many treatment processes also provide additional functions, e.g. energy or materials which are recycled into other products. Two important questions which arise are if an allocation between the different functions should be made (and if so how), or if system boundaries should be expanded to include several functions. (3) Multi-input allocation: in waste treatment processes, different materials and products are usually mixed. In many applications there is a need to allocate environmental interventions from the treatment processes to the different input materials. The question is how this should be done. (4) Time: emissions from landfills will continue for a long time. An important issue to resolve is the length of time emissions from the landfill should be considered. (5) Life cycle impact assessment: are there any aspects of solid waste systems (e.g. the time horizon) that may require specific attention for the impact assessment element of an LCA? Although the discussion centres around LCA it is expected that many of these issues are also relevant for other types of systems analyses.     

A conceptual model for assessing ecological risk to water quality function of bottomland hardwood forests

Ecological risk assessment provides a methodology for evaluating the threats to ecosystem function associated with environmental perturbations or stressors. This report documents the development of a conceptual model for assessing the ecological risk to the water quality function (WQF) of bottomland hardwood riparian ecosystems (BHRE) in the Tifton-Vidalia upland (TVU) ecoregion of Georgia. Previus research has demonstrated that mature BHRE are essential to maintaining water quality in this portion of the coastal plain. The WQF of these ecosystems is considered an assessment endpoit—an ecosystem function or set of functions that society chooses to value as evidenced by laws, regulations, or common usage. Stressors operate on ecosystems at risk through an exposure scenario to produce ecological effects that are linked to loss of the desired function or assessment end point. The WQF of BHRE is at risk because of the ecological and environmental quality effects of a suite of chemical, physical, and biological stressors. The stressors are related to nonpoint source pollution from adjacent land uses, especially agriculture; the conversion of BHRE to other land uses; and the encroachment of domestic animals into BHRE. Potential chemical, physical, and biological stressors to BHRE are identified, and the methodology for evaluating appropriate exposure scenarios is discussed. Field-scale and watershed-scale measurement end points of most use in assessing the effects of stressors on the WQF are identified and discussed. The product of this study is a conceptual model of how risks to the WQF of BHRE are produced and how the risk and associated uncertainties can be quantified.     

Prioritizing ecological and human welfare risks from environmental stresses

The ecological systems of Earth are subjected to a wide array of environmental stresses resulting from human activities. The development of appropriate environmental protection and management policies and the appropriate allocation of resources across environmental stresses require a systematic evaluation of relative risks. The data and methodologies for comprehensive ecological risk assessment do not exist, yet we do have considerable understanding of econological stress-response relationships. A methodology is presented to utilize present knowledge for assignment of relative risks to ecological systems and human welfare from anthropogenic stresses. The resultant priorities, developed for the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) relative risk reduction project, highlight global climate change, habitat alteration, stratospheric ozone depletion, and species depletion as the highest environmental risks, significantly diverging from the present emphasis by EPA and the public on toxic chemical issues. Enhanced attention to ecological issues by EPA and development of ecological risk assessment methodologies that value ecological and economic issues equitably are key recommendations.     

Effect of Cattle Grazing and Seedling Size on the Establishment ofAraucaria cunninghamiiin a Silvo-pastoral System in Northeast Australia

A study was undertaken to assess the effect of tree age at which grazing commenced and seedling size on the establishment ofAraucaria cunninghamii(hoop pine) trees in a silvo-pastoral system on the Atherton Tablelands of northeast Australia. Grazing with dairy cattle commenced at three ages after tree planting: (1) 2 weeks; (2) 6 months and (3) 18 months. Seedlings of two size classes, small (15 cm tall and 18 months old) and large (45 cm tall and 27 months old), were used. Trees were measured for survival and height, and assessed for physical damage and development of multi-stems at ages 6, 12 and 24 months. Results showed that tree survival and height did not differ significantly with age at which grazing commenced and that grazing did not cause unacceptable mortality, damage or reduction in height growth ofA. cunninghamii. The lack of cattle impact was mainly becauseA. cunninghamiihas a special morphological feature, prickly needles, which discourages cattle from physical contact. Although tree height ofA. cunninghamiivaried significantly between the two seedling sizes, the difference became smaller as the trees grew. It is suggested that for the establishment ofA. cunninghamiiin silvo-pastoral systems, grazing can be allowed almost immediately after tree planting, providing an appropriate stocking rate is used. There are no apparent advantages in using larger, compared with smaller, seedlings.