Applying Ecological Risk Principles to Watershed Assessment and Management

Considerable progress in addressing point source (end of pipe) pollution problems has been made, but it is now recognized that further substantial environmental improvements depend on controlling nonpoint source pollution. A watershed approach is being used more frequently to address these problems because traditional regulatory approaches do not focus on nonpoint sources. The watershed approach is organized around the guiding principles of partnerships, geographic focus, and management based on sound science and data. This helps to focus efforts on the highest priority problems within hydrologically-defined geographic areas. Ecological risk assessment is a process to collect, organize, analyze, and present scientific information to improve decision making. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sponsored three watershed assessments and found that integrating the watershed approach with ecological risk assessment increases the use of environmental monitoring and assessment data in decision making. This paper describes the basics of the watershed approach, the ecological risk assessment process, and how these two frameworks can be integrated. The three major principles of watershed ecological risk assessment found to be most useful for increasing the use of science in decision making are (1) using assessment endpoints and conceptual models, (2) holding regular interactions between scientists and managers, and (3) developing a focus for multiple stressor analysis. Examples are provided illustrating how these principles were implemented in these assessments.     

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.     

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     

Using Wildlife as Receptor Species: A Landscape Approach to Ecological Risk Assessment

To assist risk assessors at the Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site (SRS), a Geographic Information System (GIS) application was developed to provide relevant information about specific receptor species of resident wildlife that can be used for ecological risk assessment. Information was obtained from an extensive literature review of publications and reports on vertebrate- and contaminant-related research since 1954 and linked to a GIS. Although this GIS is a useful tool for risk assessors because the data quality is high, it does not describe the species’ site-wide spatial distribution or life history, which may be crucial when developing a risk assessment. Specific receptor species on the SRS were modeled to provide an estimate of an overall distribution (probability of being in an area). Each model is a stand-alone tool consisting of algorithms independent of the GIS data layers to which it is applied and therefore is dynamic and will respond to changes such as habitat disturbances and natural succession. This paper describes this modeling process and demonstrates how these resource selection models can then be used to produce spatially explicit exposure estimates. This approach is a template for other large federal facilities to establish a framework for site-specific risk assessments that use wildlife species as endpoints.Current address: Biology Department, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD 57069     

环境风险评价的实践与发展

环境风险评价（Environmental Risk Assessment ERA）是环境影响评价的一个重要分支,主要分析评价环境中的潜在危险。本文围绕开展ERA的必要怀、国内外ERA发展现状等方面进行了评述,在此基础上针对目前ERA工作中的不足提出了三点建议。     

Indirect Effects in Aquatic Ecotoxicology: Implications for Ecological Risk Assessment

Understanding toxicant effects at higher levels of biological organization continues to be a challenge in ecotoxicology and ecological risk assessment. This is due in part to a tradition in ecotoxicology of considering the direct effects of toxicants on a limited number of model test species. However, the indirect effects of toxicity may be a significant factor influencing the manner in which ecosystem structure and function respond to anthropogenic stressors. Subsequently, failure to incorporate indirect effects into risk assessment paradigms may be a significant source of uncertainty in risk estimates. The current paper addresses the importance of indirect effects in an ecotoxicological context. Laboratory, mesocosm, and whole ecosystem research into indirect effects is reviewed. The implications of indirect effects for ecological risk assessment and potential areas of profitable future research are also discussed.     

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING: Risk Assessment in the Face of Controversy: Tree Clearing and Salinization in North Queensland

/ Several lines of evidence were followed to assess the risk of salinization after tree clearing in the upper Burdekin River basin in north Queensland. Conceptual, biophysical process-based approaches (pedological interpretation, event tree analysis, one-dimensional water balance modeling, and Boolean spatial analysis) were compared to empirical methods and field evidence. The convergence of all lines of conceptual reasoning to the conclusion that there exists a risk of salinization in north Queensland, consistent with field evidence of naturally occurring waterlogging and salinity, strengthens the argument against tree clearing.     

环境风险评价构架的探讨

本文归纳并概括了国际上和我国环境风险评价的一般构架,从环境风险评价、安全评价、健康评价、生态评价、最大可信灾害事故及最大可接受水平等几个方面对我国环境风险评价一般构架进行了探讨,分析了我国环境风险评价构架中存在的问题,提出了进一步完善我国环境风险评价一般构架的方法,并辅以了案例分析。     

比较风险评价在环境风险管理中的应用

在环境风险管理中,需要针对不同的管理目标进行评估与排序,实现有限资源供给下的风险管理效率最大化提升。作为环境风险优先管理中的一个重要内容,比较风险评价是针对不同类型环境问题进行评估与排序的方法,它可以从宏观尺度上有效识别出各类环境问题的风险大小顺序,并有针对性进行管理优先级的设置。本文在对国内外比较风险评价研究进行系统梳理的基础上,分析其对我国环境风险管理的意义,提出我国在开展环境问题的比较风险评价、建立与完善环境风险管理工作优先级等方面的建议。     

浅议环境风险评价与管理

论述了环境风险评价的有关基本概念,阐明了环境风险评价主要步骤。探讨了环境风险管理的内容与方法。并提出了一些建议。     

毒害污染物生态风险评价模型研究进展

随着化学品的使用种类和数量日益增加,有毒有害污染物的生态效应逐渐受到重视.生态风险评价模型作为较好的科研和管理技术工具,被越来越广泛地用于扩散到环境中化学物质的生态风险评价中;欧美等发达国家和地区已经建立了多个生态风险评价的模型,并投入到实际应用中.本研究系统综述和总结了毒害污染物生态风险评价模型的构建方法、种类、结构以及特征,归纳了重金属和有机污染物等主要毒害物质的风险评价模型发展状况,比较了几种较为成熟的风险评价模型的具体模块和特点,分析了模型在生态风险评价中的应用以及不足之处,在总结我国生态风险评价模型的研究方向和趋势的基础上,提出模型研究和发展的具体建议.     

风险评价模式在HSE管理中的应用

根据《中印石油管道项目HSE手册》,对项目进行风险模块划分,以盾构施工模块为例,对其施工过程进行模块综合评价,得到系统安全级数为0.7077,处于中等安全与较安全之间,基本满足要求,为项目的安全环保进行提供了科学依据。     

美国环保署农药地下水风险评估模型

在介绍美国农药环境风险评估的概念、分级、地下水农药监测情况及水资源的立法保护等基础上,重点阐述了美国环保署在农药登记管理过程中使用的2个地下水风险评估模型,即SCI-GROW和PRZM-GW模型。SCI-GROW是以好氧条件土壤半衰期和土壤有机碳分配系数为自变量的经验线性回归模型,而PRZM-GW则是描述农药在土壤中运动的一维、有限差分模型。本文通过对美国环保署这2个特点鲜明的模型的介绍,希望能为我国的农药地下水风险评估及模型的开发提供一个新视角。     

土壤污染风险评价研究进展

随着工业化和城镇化快速发展,土壤污染带来的人体健康和生态风险日益凸显.本文针对我国土壤污染环境风险评价体系在风险管控中的缺失问题,系统总结了国内外土壤污染的风险研究发展成果,按照土壤污染的人体健康风险和生态风险,分别进行评价方法、评价标准和管理实践的总结与评述.文章着重指出:土壤污染风险评价在生态系统水平及区域流域尺度上缺失,评价方法未能与污染物存在形态完全匹配,评价指标还不能覆盖大部分重金属和有机物,健康风险与生态风险还没有实现综合评价.     

污染土壤的生态风险评估标准、方法和模型

本文介绍了生态风险评估的定义,国外在污染土壤生态风险评估领域的相关土壤标准、标准设置情况及其内容,生态风险评估的方法和步骤,土壤-有机污染物变化及迁移暴露模型、农药根区模型、土壤模型、土壤迁移及变化数据库和模型管理系统、农药径流对地表水的污染模型、多介质污染物变化、迁移和暴露模型等计算机模型及其理论基础。尤其是美国环保署在这一领域的系列工作及其思路,为国内在这方面的工作和研究提供一些参考。     

PROFILE: Risk Assessment as an Environmental Management Tool: Considerations for Freshwater Wetlands

/ This paper presents a foundation for improving the risk assessmentprocess for freshwater wetlands. Integrating wetland science, i.e., use of anecosystem-based approach, is the key concept. Each biotic and abiotic wetlandcomponent should be identified and its contribution to ecosystem functionsand societal values determined when deciding whether a stressor poses anunreasonable risk to the sustainability of a particular wetland.Understanding the major external and internal factors that regulate theoperational conditions of wetlands is critical to risk characterization.Determining the linkages between these factors, and how they influence theway stressors affect wetlands, is the basis for an ecosystem approach.Adequate consideration of wetland ecology, hydrology, geomorphology, andsoils can greatly reduce the level of uncertainty associated with riskassessment and lead to more effective risk management. In order to formulateeffective solutions, wetland problems must be considered at watershed,landscape, and ecosystem scales. Application of an ecosystem approach can begreatly facilitated if wetland scientists and risk assessors work together todevelop a common understanding of the principles of both disciplines.KEY WORDS: Ecological risk assessment; Freshwater wetlands;Environmental pollution; Chemical stressors; Physical stressors; Biologicalstressors     

Assessment of Nonpoint Source Pollution from Inactive Mines Using a Watershed-Based Approach

/ A watershed-based approach for screening-level assessment of nonpoint source pollution from inactive and abandoned metal mines was developed and illustrated. The methodology was designed to use limited stream discharge and chemical data from synoptic surveys to derive key information required for targeting impaired waterbodies and critical source areas for detailed investigation and remediation. The approach was formulated based on the required attributes of an assessment methodology, information goals for targeting, attributes of data that are typical of basins with inactive mines, and data analysis methods that were useful for the case study. The methodology is presented as steps in a framework including evaluation of existing data/information and identification of data gaps; definition of assessment information goals for targeting and monitoring design; data collection, management, and analysis; and information reporting and use for targeting. Information generated includes the type and extent of and critical conditions for water-quality impairment, concentrations in and loadings to streams, differences between concentrations in and loadings to streams, and risks of exceeding target concentrations and loadings. Data from the Cement Creek Basin, located in the San Juan Mountains of southwestern Colorado, USA, were used to help develop and illustrate application of the methodology. The required information was derived for Cement Creek and used for preliminary targeting of locations for detailed investigation and remediation. Application of the approach to Cement Creek was successful in terms of cost-effective generation of information and use for targeting.KEY WORDS: Water quality assessment; Nonpoint source pollution; Inactive mines; Watershed     

重庆市城区饮用水源健康风险评价

通过对重庆市8个饮用水源地枯水期水体中NH3-N、CN、As、Hg、Cr^＋6、Pb、Cd、Cu、F和挥发酚的浓度进行了调查研究,应用美国环保局推荐的健康风险评价模型对重庆市饮用水源水中污染物引起的健康风险作了评价。结果表明,污染物平均浓度范围分别为NH3-N：0．119—0.740mg／L,CN：0．002—0．004mg／L,As：0．001—0．007mg／L,Hg：0．000001—0．00005mg／L,Cr^＋6：0．004—0.023mg／L．Pb：0．004—0．053mg／L．Cd：0．00035—0．005mg／L．Cu：0．0005—0．0254mg/L,F：0．140—0．335mg／L,挥发酚：0．001—0．0027mg／L。重庆市通过饮水途径引起的非致癌健康风险中Pb的风险最大,F次之,两者风险水平在10^-8～10^-9／a;Cr^＋6引起的致癌风险最大达到10^-4／a;以长江为饮用水源的人群总健康风险大于嘉陵江,其健康风险达到EPA要求,但高于国际辐射防护委员会（ICRP）的最大可接受风险水平。     

基于环境污染责任保险的环境风险评估研究进展

环境风险评估是环境污染责任保险制度实施和应用的重要环节,是一种为投保人和承保人量化环境风险的方法,量化结果是保险公司厘定保费的重要参考依据。随着环境污染责任保险的发展和推广,构建适用于环境污染责任保险的环境风险评估体系逐渐成为当前的研究热点之一,但目前针对环境污染责任保险环境风险评估缺乏深入系统的研究与总结。在已有研究基础上,本文进一步明确环境污染责任保险环境风险评估内涵及特征,并对其评估体系进行科学界定,简要评述当前环境污染责任保险环境风险评估的相关研究主题,并在已有模型和方法基础上构建环境污染责任保险环境风险评估的理论框架,最后在总结当前研究不足的前提下,探讨未来环境污染责任保险环境风险评估的研究趋势,为环境污染责任保险的实施和应用提供思路和参考。