Ecological Assessment: An Overview Environmental Issues and Public Policy Zoo 446 Fall 2001

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?

Stressor-ResponseAssessment

ResponseAssessment

Exposure (stressor)Assessment

Risk (Condition) Characterization

RiskManagementDecision

ManagementOptions

Politics

Legal ConsiderationsSocial Factors

Public Health

Economics

Risk Assessment Risk Management

Modified from EPA 1996

Stressor Gradient

Eco

logi

cal C

ondi

tion

low

high

low high

(Eco

logi

cal V

alue

s an

d In

dica

tors

)

CWA Ultimate Goal (e.g. protect all native taxa)

Res

pons

e A

sses

smen

t(I

s th

ere

a pr

oble

m?)

Exposure Assessment

Stressor-Response Relationship

(What’s Causing the Problem?)

Ecological Risk Assessment

Stressor Gradient

Eco

logi

cal C

ondi

tion

low

high

low high

(Eco

logi

cal V

alue

s an

d In

dica

tors

)

CWA Ultimate Goal (e.g. protect all native taxa)

Res

pons

e A

sses

smen

t(I

s th

ere

a pr

oble

m?)

Exposure Assessment

Stressor-Response Relationship

(What’s Causing the Problem?)

Ecological Risk Assessment

Stressor Gradient

Eco

logi

cal C

ondi

tion

low

high

low high

(Eco

logi

cal V

alue

s an

d In

dica

tors

)

CWA Ultimate Goal (e.g. protect all native taxa)

Res

pons

e A

sses

smen

t(I

s th

ere

a pr

oble

m?)

Exposure Assessment

Stressor-Response Relationship

(What’s Causing the Problem?)

Ecological Risk Assessment

Risk Assessment

Mod. From EPA 1996

Stressor-Response Relationship

Hazard Assessment

Exposure Assessment

Risk CharacterizationQuality of LifeHuman HealthEcological Health

Stressors Physico-chemical Measurements Biotic IndicesHuman Activities (GIS & Modeling)

Diagnosis, CertaintyMultiple Lines of EvidenceIndices of Sustainability and Restorability

Observational ApproachesExperimental Approaches

Ecological Assessment Framework

Study Design

Analysis

Integration

• Objectives• Conceptual Model• Hypotheses & Indicators• Sampling Plan

• Define Expected Condition• Measure Observed Condition• Assess Human Effects (E-O)• Stressor-Response Relationships

• Determine Causes or Threats to Impairment• Develop Management Plans• Assess Management Success

Ecological Assessment Framework

Study Design

Analysis

Integration

• Objectives• Conceptual Model• Hypotheses & Indicators• Sampling Plan

• Define Expected Condition• Measure Observed Condition• Assess Human Effects (E-O)• Stressor-Response Relationships

• Determine Causes or Threats to Impairment• Develop Management Plans• Assess Management Success

Define Objectives

Conceptual ModelEcosystem Services

Analysis Plan(Hypotheses, Indicators, Sampling Plan)

Ecological Assessment Framework

Study Design

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

* Clean Water Act Goals

† Endangered Species Act

Objectives (Support Designated Uses), Measurable Responses and Indicators

• Drinkability

• Taste, odor, toxic,

• Microbial Contamination

• Fishability

• Low DO, Temp

• Swimmability

• Water clarity

• Microbial Contamination

Stream Channel

Modification

Urbanization/Residential

Development

Forest Practices

Agriculture Mining Recreation & Mgmt

Atmospheric Deposition

DamsChannelization

DiversionsLevees

Revetments

Increasing Population

RoadsConstruction

Point SourcesWastewater

Pets

FragmentationFertilizersPesticides

RoadsMonocultureCompaction

Sedimentation

FertilizersLivestockPesticidesHabitat Alt.Irrigation

CompactionAnimal Waste

Habitat Alt.Toxic Waste

OilGravel

ExtractionHeavy Metals

Liming

RoadsConstructionHabitat Alt.

BoatingFishing

Fish Intro.,Poisoning

NOx

SOx

Air ToxicsLiming

Changes in flow, timing,

amount,pathway

Changes in sediment

load

Changes in Vegetation

Chemical Loading;Toxins

NutrientsO2 Demand

Acid/Base

Mobilizationof heavy metals

Physical Habitat

Changes in Biological Assemblages

Water QualityChemical Habitat

modified from Bryce et al. 1999

Natural Stressors/Geographic Setting (Climate, Geology, Latitude, etc.)

Human Activities

Stressors

Endpoints

Conceptual Model

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

Stressor-Response Relations

Human Effects Assessment

Stressor Indicators

Land Use Indicators

Expected Condition

Response Indicators

Ecological Understanding

Observed Condition

Land Use Indicators

Response Indicators

Stressor Indicators

Stressor Indicator

Str

esso

r In

dica

tor

Res

pons

e In

dica

tor

Res

pons

e In

dica

tor

Human Activities – BMPs

Land Use Indicators

Land Use Indicators

Human Activities – BMPs

o o

oo

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

oo

oo

o

oo

o

o

o

o o

oo

o

o

o

o

o o o

oo

oo o o

o

o

o

oo o

o o

o

o

o

o

oo o

oo

oo o o

oo

o

o

o o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o o o

oo

oo o o

o

o

o

o

oo o

o

o

o

o o

ooo

oo ooooo

o o

ooo

oo

o

o

o o

oo

o

oo oooooo

o

o

Observed Conditions

& Relations

Stressor Indicator

Str

esso

r In

dica

tor

Res

pons

e In

dica

tor

Res

pons

e In

dica

tor

Human Activities – BMPs

Land Use Indicators

Land Use Indicators

Human Activities – BMPs

o o

oo

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

oo

oo

o

oo

o

o

o

o o

oo

o

o

o

o

o o o

oo

oo o o

o

o

o

oo o

o o

o

o

o

o

oo o

oo

oo o o

oo

o

o

o o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o o o

oo

oo o o

o

o

o

o

oo o

o

o

o

o o

ooo

oo ooooo

o o

ooo

oo

o

o

o o

oo

o

oo oooooo

o

o

Expected Condition

Observed Conditions

& Relations

Stressor Gradient

Eco

logi

cal C

ondi

tion

Stressor Criterion

low

high

low high

(Eco

logi

cal V

alue

s an

d In

dica

tors

)CWA Ultimate Goal (e.g. protect all native taxa)

Stressor Gradient

Eco

logi

cal C

ondi

tion

Indicator of BI (e.g. change in species composition)

BioCriterion for IBI based on Protecting Goal

Stressor Criterion

low

high

low high

(Eco

logi

cal V

alue

s an

d In

dica

tors

)CWA Ultimate Goal (e.g. protect all native taxa)

Stressor Gradient

Eco

logi

cal C

ondi

tion

Indicator of BI (e.g. change in species composition)

BioCriterion for IBI based on Protecting Goal

Stressor Criterion

low

high

low high

(Eco

logi

cal V

alue

s an

d In

dica

tors

)CWA Ultimate Goal (e.g. protect all native taxa)

Stressor Gradient

Eco

logi

cal C

ondi

tion

Indicator of BI (e.g. change in species composition)

BioCriterion for IBI based on Protecting Goal

Stressor Criterion

low

high

low high

(Eco

logi

cal V

alue

s an

d In

dica

tors

)CWA Ultimate Goal (e.g. protect all native taxa)

Stressor Gradient

Eco

logi

cal C

ondi

tion

Indicator of BI (e.g. change in species composition)

BioCriterion for IBI based on Protecting Goal

Stressor Criterion

low

high

low high

(Eco

logi

cal V

alue

s an

d In

dica

tors

)CWA Ultimate Goal (e.g. protect all native taxa)

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

• Nutrient Enrichment• Decrease in Dissolved

Oxygen Concentration• Sedimentation• Changed Temperature• Habitat Alteration • Habitat Loss• Biotic Indices:

– % High P spp.

• % Urban Land Use• % Agricultural Land

Use• % Impervious Surface• Width Riparian Buffer• Proximity of Use to

Habitat

Land Use Indicators

Muskegon Watershed Land Use Regions

B. Pijanowski

M. Colunga

Effects of Human Activities DifferWith Activity and Habitat and Endpoint

Ecological Assessment Framework

Integration

Cause/Threat Assessment

Restoration/ Protection Assessment

Management Options

Management Decision & Implementation

Stressor Level

Eco

logi

cal R

espo

nse

(e.g

. Eco

-Int

egri

ty)

ok

Acceptable

Natural

Stressor-Response Relationship

A B

Everglades, South Florida, USA

P Algae

CaCO3

P harvest & Stability+-?

+Growth

Conceptual Model for Everglades Mats

Change in Floating Mat Cover = f (Distance from P Source In Everglades)

6 8 10 12 140

102030405060708090

100%

Mat

Cov

er

Distance from P Source (km)

Change in Number of Native SppIn Everglades

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14Distance from P Source (km)

1

2

3

4

5

6N

ativ

e D

iato

m T

axa

Deviation in Spp Relative Abundance from Reference in Everglades

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14Distance from P Source (km)

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9P

erce

nt S

imil

arit

y

TP on Gradient

Distance from input structures (km)

Sediment P on Gradient

Algal Responses

in the Everglades

Dosing Facility

Total Sediment Total Sediment PhosphorusPhosphorus

(mg/kg)(mg/kg)Contour MapContour Mapfor WCA-2Afor WCA-2A

Total Sediment Total Sediment PhosphorusPhosphorus

(mg/kg)(mg/kg)Contour MapContour Mapfor WCA-2Afor WCA-2A

E 0

E 1E 2

E 3

E 4

E 5

F 0

F 1

F 2

F 3

F 4F 5

U 1

U 2

U 3

S F W M D T ran sect S ite

W a ter C o n tro l S tru ctu re

Risk Assessment Risk Management

Modified from EPA 1996

Response-StressorRelationship

HazardAssessment

ExposureAssessment

RiskCharacterization

RiskManagementDecision

ManagementOptions Politics

Legal ConsiderationsSocial Factors

Public Health

Economics

Sampling Sitesfor

KY – MI Stream Survey

A Stream Problem….. excessive Cladophora

SAIN Conceptual ModelLandscape Development ClimateGeology

Nutrients Flow Stability

Diatom Biofilm

Thick Diatom Mat

Cladophora filaments

ScrapingHerbivores

Collector-Gatherers

Predators

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.

ALGAL METHODS

Sample Algae(Targeted orMultihabitat) Split Sample

Take to Lab

Assay Pigments withSpectrophotometer

Identify and Count Algae Microscopically Dry & Burn

Cell Density

Species Relative Abundances

AFDM Chl a

Phaeophytin

Assess AlgalBiomass Visually

In FieldVisual BiomassMacroalgae &Microalgae

Rapid Periphyton Survey

• View Bottom at Sites along Transects

• Characterize % Cover of Different Algal Types

• Characterize Thickness of Each Algal Type

Peak Cladophora Biomass

10 100TP Concentration (ug P/L)

0102030405060708090

100%

Cla

doph

ora

Cov

e r

10 100 1000Average TP (g P/L)

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

Si m

i lar

ity

t o R

efer

ence

Similarity of Diatom Composition Between Test and Reference Assemblages

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?