Using Ecological Risk Assessment to Identify the Major Anthropogenic Stressor in the Waquoit Bay Watershed,Cape Cod,Massachusetts

The Waquoit Bay Watershed ecological risk assessment was performed by an interdisciplinary and interagency workgroup. This paper focuses on the steps taken to formulate the analysis plan for this watershed assessment. The workgroup initially conducted a series of meetings with the general public and local and state managers to determine environmental management objectives for the watershed. The workgroup then decided that more information was needed on the impacts of six stressors: nutrient enrichment, physical alteration of habitat, altered freshwater flow, toxic chemicals, pathogens, and fisheries harvesting. Assessment endpoints were selected to establish the link between environmental management objectives, impacts of stressors, and scientifically measurable endpoints. The following assessment endpoints were selected: estuarine eelgrass cover, scallop abundance, finfish diversity and abundance, wetland bird distribution and abundance, piping plover distribution and abundance, tissue contaminant levels, and brook trout distribution and abundance in streams. A conceptual model was developed to show the pathways between human activities, stressors, and ecological effects. The workgroup analyzed comparative risks, by first ranking stressors in terms of their potential risk to biotic resources in the watershed. Then stressors were evaluated by considering the components of stressors (e.g., the stressor chemical pollution included both heavy metals and chlorinated solvents components) in terms of intensity and extensiveness. The workgroup identified nutrient enrichment as the major stressor. Nutrient enrichment comprised both phosphorus enrichment in freshwater ponds and nitrogen enrichment within estuaries. Because phosphorus impacts were being analyzed and mitigated by the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, this assessment focused on nitrogen. The process followed to identify the predominant stressor and focus the analyses on nitrogen impacts on eelgrass and scallops will serve as an example of how to increase the use of the findings of a watershed assessment in decision making.     

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.