Military Ecological Risk Assessment Framework (MERAF) for Assessment of Risks of Military Training and Testing to Natural Resources (original) (raw)
Related papers
New approaches to the ecological risk assessment of multiple stressors
Marine and Freshwater Research, 2016
So as to assess how emerging science and new tools can be applied to study multiple stressors at a large (ecosystem) scale and to facilitate greater integration of approaches among different scientific disciplines, a workshop was organised on 10–12 September 2014 at the Sydney Institute of Marine Sciences, Sydney, Australia. The present paper discusses the limitations of the current risk-assessment approaches and how multiple stressors at large scales can be better evaluated in ecological risk assessments to inform the development of more efficient and preventive management policies based on adaptive management in the future. A future risk-assessment paradigm that overcomes these limitations is presented. This paradigm includes cultural and ecological protection goals, the development of ecological scenarios, the establishment of the relevant interactions among species, potential sources of stressors, their interactions and the development of cause–effect models. It is envisaged tha...
Supporting Risk Assessment: Accounting for Indirect Risk to Ecosystem Components
PloS one, 2016
The multi-scalar complexity of social-ecological systems makes it challenging to quantify impacts from human activities on ecosystems, inspiring risk-based approaches to assessments of potential effects of human activities on valued ecosystem components. Risk assessments do not commonly include the risk from indirect effects as mediated via habitat and prey. In this case study from British Columbia, Canada, we illustrate how such "indirect risks" can be incorporated into risk assessments for seventeen ecosystem components. We ask whether (i) the addition of indirect risk changes the at-risk ranking of the seventeen ecosystem components and if (ii) risk scores correlate with trophic prey and habitat linkages in the food web. Even with conservative assumptions about the transfer of impacts or risks from prey species and habitats, the addition of indirect risks in the cumulative risk score changes the ranking of priorities for management. In particular, resident orca, Steller...
Ecosystem-based management (EBM) is promoted as the solution for sustainable use. An ecosystem-wide assessment methodology is therefore required. In this paper, we present an approach to assess the risk to ecosystem components from human activities common to marine and coastal ecosystems. We build on: (i) a linkage framework that describes how human activities can impact the ecosystem through pressures, and (ii) a qualitative expert judgement assessment of impact chains describing the exposure and sensitivity of ecological components to those activities. Using case study examples applied at European regional sea scale, we evaluate the risk of an adverse ecological impact from current human activities to a suite of ecological components and, once impacted, the time required for recovery to pre-impact conditions should those activities subside. Grouping impact chains by sectors, pressure type, or ecological components enabled impact risks and recovery times to be identified, supporting resource managers in their efforts to prioritize threats for management, identify most at-risk components, and generate time frames for ecosystem recovery.
Ecological vulnerability in risk assessment — A review and perspectives
Science of The Total Environment, 2010
This paper reviews the application of ecological vulnerability analysis in risk assessment and describes new developments in methodology. For generic non-site-specific assessments (e.g. for the requirements of most European directives on dangerous chemicals) risk is characterised just on the basis of the ratio between an effect indicator and an exposure indicator. However, when the actual risk for a specific ecosystem is desired, the concept of ecological vulnerability may be more appropriate. This calls for a change in thinking, from sensitivity at the organism level to vulnerability at higher organization levels, and thus forms the link from laboratory toxicology to field effects at population, community or ecosystem level. To do so, biological and ecological characteristics of the ecosystems under concern are needed to estimate the ecological vulnerability. In this review we describe different vulnerability analysis methods developed for populations (of a single species), communities (consisting of different populations of species) and ecosystems (community and habitat combined). We also give some examples of methods developed for socio-ecological systems. Aspects that all methods share are the use of expert judgment, the input of stakeholders, ranking and mapping of the results, and the qualitative nature of the results. A new general framework is presented to guide future ecological vulnerability analysis. This framework can be used as part of ecological risk assessment, but also in risk management. We conclude that the further quantification of ecological vulnerability is a valuable contribution to vulnerability assessment.
Enhancing the Ecological Risk Assessment Process
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2008
The Ecological Processes and Effects Committee of the US Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board conducted a self-initiated study and convened a public workshop to characterize the state of the ecological risk assessment (ERA), with a view toward advancing the science and application of the process. That survey and analysis of ERA in decision making shows that such assessments have been most effective when clear management goals were included in the problem formulation; translated into information needs; and developed in collaboration with decision makers, assessors, scientists, and stakeholders. This process is best facilitated when risk managers, risk assessors, and stakeholders are engaged in an ongoing dialogue about problem formulation. Identification and acknowledgment of uncertainties that have the potential to profoundly affect the results and outcome of risk assessments also improves assessment effectiveness. Thus we suggest 1) thorough peer review of ERAs be conducted at the problem formulation stage and 2) the predictive power of risk-based decision making be expanded to reduce uncertainties through analytical and methodological approaches like life cycle analysis. Risk assessment and monitoring programs need better integration to reduce uncertainty and to evaluate risk management decision outcomes. Postdecision audit programs should be initiated to evaluate the environmental outcomes of risk-based decisions. In addition, a process should be developed to demonstrate how monitoring data can be used to reduce uncertainties. Ecological risk assessments should include the effects of chemical and nonchemical stressors at multiple levels of biological organization and spatial scale, and the extent and resolution of the pertinent scales and levels of organization should be explicitly considered during problem formulation. An approach to interpreting lines of evidence and weight of evidence is critically needed for complex assessments, and it would be useful to develop case studies and/or standards of practice for interpreting lines of evidence. In addition, tools for cumulative risk assessment should be developed because contaminants are often released into stressed environments.
An exposure-effect approach for evaluating ecosystem-wide risks from human activities
ICES Journal of Marine Science, 2015
Ecosystem-based management (EBM) is promoted as the solution for sustainable use. An ecosystem-wide assessment methodology is therefore required. In this paper, we present an approach to assess the risk to ecosystem components from human activities common to marine and coastal ecosystems. We build on: (i) a linkage framework that describes how human activities can impact the ecosystem through pressures, and (ii) a qualitative expert judgement assessment of impact chains describing the exposure and sensitivity of ecological components to those activities. Using case study examples applied at European regional sea scale, we evaluate the risk of an adverse ecological impact from current human activities to a suite of ecological components and, once impacted, the time required for recovery to pre-impact conditions should those activities subside. Grouping impact chains by sectors, pressure type, or ecological components enabled impact risks and recovery times to be identified, supporting resource managers in their efforts to prioritize threats for management, identify most at-risk components, and generate time frames for ecosystem recovery.