A Bayesian Approach to Integrated Ecological and Human Health Risk Assessment for the South River, Virginia Mercury‐Contaminated Site

We estimated the risk to populations of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) due to chlorpyrifos (CH), water temperature (WT), and dissolved oxygen concentration (DO) in 4 watersheds in Washington State, USA. The watersheds included the Nooksack and Skagit Rivers in the Northern Puget Sound, the Cedar River in the Seattle–Tacoma corridor, and the Yakima River, a tributary of the Columbia River. The Bayesian network relative risk model (BN‐RRM) was used to conduct this ecological risk assessment and was modified to contain an acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibition pathway parameterized using data from CH toxicity data sets. The completed BN‐RRM estimated risk at a population scale to Chinook salmon employing classical matrix modeling runs up to 50‐y timeframes. There were 3 primary conclusions drawn from the model‐building process and the risk calculations. First, the incorporation of an AChE inhibition pathway and the output from a population model can be combined with environmental factors in a quantitative fashion. Second, the probability of not meeting the management goal of no loss to the population ranges from 65% to 85%. Environmental conditions contributed to a larger proportion of the risk compared to CH. Third, the sensitivity analysis describing the influence of the variables on the predicted risk varied depending on seasonal conditions. In the summer, WT and DO were more influential than CH. In the winter, when the seasonal conditions are more benign, CH was the driver. Fourth, in order to reach the management goal, we calculated the conditions that would increase juvenile survival, adult survival, and a reduction in toxicological effects. The same process in this example should be applicable to the inclusion of multiple pesticides and to more descriptive population models such as those describing metapopulations. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;00:1–15. © 2019 SETAC

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integration of Chlorpyrifos Acetylcholinesterase Inhibition, Water Temperature, and Dissolved Oxygen Concentration into a Regional Scale Multiple Stressor Risk Assessment Estimating Risk to Chinook Salmon

Landis

Chu

Graham

et al. 2019

“…Determining which FEGS are currently limited is based on consideration of historic as well as current information regarding environmental conditions in the watershed and how the waterbody or watershed has been used by people in the past. Those FEGS that stakeholders determine exist currently, or are deemed worthy of further consideration, are assigned quantitative or qualitative measures, analogous to measurement endpoints in a risk assessment framework (see, e.g., Maltby ; Harris et al ; Figure ). The FEGS indicators should be informed by, and related to, factors critical to the regulating and maintenance services needed to maintain a particular FEGS.…”

Section: Framework For Including Egs Into Du Assessmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating Aquatic Designated Use Protection and Restoration Strategies Using an Ecosystem Goods and Services Framework

Diamond

Tonning

Parry

et al. 2019

Water quality standards programs in the United States and other countries are based on designated uses (DUs), which are linked to criteria that specify maximum pollutant levels and other characteristics that are thresholds for waterbody compliance with regulatory goals. Most DUs are similar to certain provisioning ecosystem goods and services (EGS), such as drinking water supply and recreation (e.g., boating, fishing). Absent in the DU concept are supporting or regulating services, which results in disjointed and often ineffective aquatic ecosystem protection and restoration strategies. The focus on discrete sets of water quality parameters in the DU concept can often result in the appearance of conflicting DUs, resulting in poor provisioning of certain DUs. We present a framework that uses EGS to provide a more holistic assessment of DUs and to help inform best management practices that could result in fuller attainment of DUs while providing greater provisioning of desired goods and services. Two case studies are discussed, demonstrating some of the issues with the DU concept, how it is implemented in the United States, and how the EGS framework can provide a crosswalk between the DU paradigm and stakeholder goals for a watershed. A process is presented that could help regulatory agencies and stakeholders make better use of the EGS framework in DU decisions, including watershed protection and restoration. The EGS framework presented here, coupled with a watershed stakeholder process focused on developing an integrative management strategy based on the framework, could help achieve multiple beneficial uses in an aquatic system. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;15:808–818. © 2019 SETAC.

“…The sensitivity of the result to the inputs is also determined. We use the Bayesian Network Relative Risk Model (BN‐RRM) originally described in Ayre and Landis () and further developed in subsequent studies as reported in a number of publications (Ayre et al ; Hines and Landis ; Harris ; Herring et al ; Johns et al this issue; Landis et al this issue). Other techniques that address multiple stressors at landscape scales should also be adaptable.…”

Section: Framework For a Risk‐based Adaptive Management Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three risk assessments of the South River have been conducted that used the BN‐RRM (Harris ; Johns et al this issue; Landis et al this issue). Detailed descriptions of the BN‐RRM methodology and its use with management alternatives are included in those studies.…”

Section: Application Of the Risk‐based Adaptive Management Process Tomentioning

confidence: 99%

A general risk‐based adaptive management scheme incorporating the Bayesian Network Relative Risk Model with the South River, Virginia, as case study

Landis

Markiewicz

Ayre

et al. 2016

Adaptive management has been presented as a method for the remediation, restoration, and protection of ecological systems. Recent reviews have found that the implementation of adaptive management has been unsuccessful in many instances. We present a modification of the model first formulated by Wyant and colleagues that puts ecological risk assessment into a central role in the adaptive management process. This construction has 3 overarching segments. Public engagement and governance determine the goals of society by identifying endpoints and specifying constraints such as costs. The research, engineering, risk assessment, and management section contains the decision loop estimating risk, evaluating options, specifying the monitoring program, and incorporating the data to re-evaluate risk. The 3rd component is the recognition that risk and public engagement can be altered by various externalities such as climate change, economics, technological developments, and population growth. We use the South River, Virginia, USA, study area and our previous research to illustrate each of these components. In our example, we use the Bayesian Network Relative Risk Model to estimate risks, evaluate remediation options, and provide lists of monitoring priorities. The research, engineering, risk assessment, and management loop also provides a structure in which data and the records of what worked and what did not, the learning process, can be stored. The learning process is a central part of adaptive management. We conclude that risk assessment can and should become an integral part of the adaptive management process. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:115-126. © 2016 SETAC.