Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 215, Issue 3, pp 189–203 | Cite as

Developing a risk assessment strategy for the Chesapeake Bay

  • David R. Orvos
  • John CairnsJr.
Article

Abstract

Increased use of the world's natural resources, including water bodies such as the Chesapeake Bay, has resulted in additional burdens being placed on them. If continued, unrestricted use of such resources continues, degradation will occur to such an extent that some areas will be unsuitable for economic, social, and environmental uses. Regional risk assessment strategies must be developed so that actual or perceived risks can be evaluated and predicted on a regional scale. This article presents an initial strategy for the Chesapeake Bay that may be useful to scientists, managers, and elected officials responsible for other bodies of water as well. This article reviews risk assessment practices and proposes a strategy that utilizes appropriate endpoints to ascertain and predict risk.

Key words

risk assessment endpoints Chesapeake Bay resource management pollution 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, F. R., D. R. Mandelker & A. D. Tarlock, 1984. Environmental Protection: Law and Policy. Little, Brown & Company, Boston, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  2. Bandurski, B. L., 1988. Biodancing: the 1–2–3 of Great lakes monitoring. In L. K. Caldwell (ed.), Perspectives on Ecosystem Management of the Great Lakes. State University of New York Press, Albany, New York: 191–241.Google Scholar
  3. Barnthouse, L. W. & G. W. Suter, 1984. Risk assessment ecology. Mech. Eng.: November.Google Scholar
  4. Barnthouse, L. W., D. L. DeAngelis, R. H. Gardner, R. V. O'Neill, C. D. Powers, G. W. Suter, II & D. S. Vaughn, 1982. Methodology for Environmental Risk Analysis, ORNL/TM-8167. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.Google Scholar
  5. Barrett, G. W. & R. Rosenberg (eds), 1981. Stress Effects on Natural Ecosystems. Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England.Google Scholar
  6. Bella, D. A., 1978. Impact assessment and future generations. Coastal Zone Manage. J. 4: 249–267.Google Scholar
  7. Biggs, R. B., T. B. DeMoss, M. M. Carter & E. L. Beasley, 1989. Susceptibility of U.S. estuaries to pollution. Revue aquat. Sci. 1: 189–207.Google Scholar
  8. Bonner, P. A., 1988. The evolution of the Chesapeake Bay program. Envir. Profess. 10: 110–120.Google Scholar
  9. Bostater, C. R., P. V. Pepino & J. V. Roland, 1980. Monitoring, analysis, and control of toxic and hazardous materials in the Chesapeake Bay. In J. G. Eaton, P. R. Parrish & A. L. Hendricks (eds), Aquatic Toxicology, STP 707. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 142–154.Google Scholar
  10. Cairns, J., Jr., 1978. Hazard evaluation. Fisheries 3(2): 2–4.Google Scholar
  11. Cairns, J., Jr., 1980. Estimating hazard. BioScience 30: 101–107.Google Scholar
  12. Cairns, J., Jr., 1983. Are single species toxicity tests alone adequate for estimating environmental hazard? Hydrobiologia 100: 47–57.Google Scholar
  13. Cairns, J., Jr., 1986. What is meant by validation of predications based on laboratory toxicity tests? Hydrobiologia 137: 271–278.Google Scholar
  14. Cairns, J., Jr., 1988. Politics, economics, science — going beyond disciplinary boundaries to protect aquatic ecosystems. In M. S. Evans (ed.), Toxic Contaminants and Ecosystem Health: A Great Lakes Focus. Wiley & Sons, New York: 1–16.Google Scholar
  15. Cairns, J., Jr., 1990. Gauging the cumulative effects of development activities on complex ecosystems. In J. G. Gosselink, L. C. Lee & T. A. Muir (eds), Ecological Processes and Cumulative Impacts Illustrated by Bottomland Hardwood Wetland Ecosystems. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan.Google Scholar
  16. Cairns, J., Jr. & D. R. Orvos, 1989. Ecological consequence assessment: predicting effects of hazardous substances upon aquatic ecosystems using ecological engineering. In W. J. Mitsch & S. E. Jorgensen (eds), Ecological Engineering: An Introduction to Ecotechnology. Wiley & Sons, New York: 409–442.Google Scholar
  17. Cairns, J., Jr. & J. R. Paatt (eds), 1988. Functional Testing of Aquatic Biota for Estimating Hazards of Chemicals, STP 988. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  18. Caldwell, L. K. (ed.), 1988. Perspectives on Ecosystem Management for the Great Lakes. State University of New York Press, Albany, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Calow, P. & L. Maltby, 1987. Review of Methods for Assessing the Impact of Episodic Pollution. WRc Environment, Medmenham, England.Google Scholar
  20. Dickson, K. L. & J. H. Rodgers, Jr., 1986. Assessing the hazards of effluents in the aquatic environment. In H. L. Bergman, R. A. Kimerle & A. W. Maki (eds), Environmental Hazard Assessment of Effluents. Pergamon Press, New York: 209–227.Google Scholar
  21. Erickson, P. A., 1979. Environmental Impact Assessment: Principles and Applications. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Fisher, N. S., 1977. On the differential sensitivity of estuarine and open-ocean diatoms to exotic chemical stress. Am. Nat. 111: 871–895.Google Scholar
  23. Gaylor, D. W., 1988. Quantitative risk estimation. In C. R. Cothern, M. A. Mehlman & W. L. Marcus (eds), Risk Assessment and Risk Management of Industrial and Environmental Chemicals. Princeton Scientific, Princeton, New Jersey: 23–43.Google Scholar
  24. Grima, A. P., P. Timmerman, C. D. Fowle & P. Byer, 1986. Risk Management and EIA: Research Needs and Opportunities. Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council, Quebec.Google Scholar
  25. Hann, R. W., Jr. & J. Cairns, Jr., 1975. Episodic exposures. In Principles for Evaluating Chemicals in the Environment. National Academy press, Washington, D.C.: 263–268.Google Scholar
  26. Hartwell, I., in press. Population Risk Assessments Based on Toxicity Testing. Chesapeake Bay Ambient Toxicity Assessment Workshop Report.Google Scholar
  27. Hellmund, P. A., 1986. Landscape planning and the Bay: a case study. In C. Y. Kuo & T. M. Younos (eds), Effects of Upland and Shoreline Land Use on the Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Bay Research Conference, Williamsburg, Virginia: 149–157.Google Scholar
  28. Hunsaker, C. T., R. L. Graham, G. W. Suter, R. V. O'Neill, B. L. Jackson & L. W. Barnthouse, 1989. Regional Ecological Risk Assessment: Theory and Demonstration, ORNL/TM-11128. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.Google Scholar
  29. Jacobs, D., D. Haberman, D. Smith, D. Swartz, E. Sigel & M. Adams (compilers), 1987, Chesapeake Bay Environmental Data Directory. University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.Google Scholar
  30. Karr, J. R., K. D. Fausch, P. L. Angermeier, P. R. Yant & I. J. Schlosser, 1986. Assessing Biological Integrity in Running Waters: A Method and Its Rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 5, Champaign, Illinois.Google Scholar
  31. Karr, J. R., P. R. Yant, K. D. Fausch & I. J. Schlosser, 1987. Spatial and temporal variability of the index of biotic integrity in three midwestern streams. Trans. am. Fish. Soc. 116: 1–11.Google Scholar
  32. Kemp, W. M., M. R. Lewis, J. J. Cunningham, J. C. Stevenson & W. R. Boynton, 1980. Microcosms, macrophytes, and hierarchies: environmental research in the Chesapeake Bay. In J. P. Giesy (ed.), Microcosms in Ecological Research. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia: 911–936.Google Scholar
  33. Kimball, K. D. & S. A. Levin, 1985, Limitations of laboratory bioassays: the need for ecosystem-level testing. BioScience 35: 165–171.Google Scholar
  34. Kimerle, R. A., W. J. Adams & D. R. Grothe, 1986. A tiered approach to aquatic safety assessment of effluents. In H. L. Bergman, R. A. Kimerle & A. W. Maki (eds), Environmental Hazard Assessment of Effluents. Pergamon Press, New York: 247–264.Google Scholar
  35. Levenson, J. B. & F. W. Stearns, 1980. Application of Diversity to Regional Ecological Assessment: A Review with Recommendations, ANL/AA-21. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois.Google Scholar
  36. Limburg, K. E., S. A. Levin & C. C. Harwell, 1986. Ecology and estuarine impact assessment: lessons learned from the Hudson River (USA) and other estuarine experiences. J. Envir. Mgmt 22: 255–280.Google Scholar
  37. Lloyd, R., 1979. The use of concentration-response relationship in assessing acute fish toxicity data. In K. L. Dickson, A. W. Maki & J. Cairns, Jr. (eds), Analyzing the Hazard Evaluation Process. American Fisheries Society, Washington, D.C.: 58–61.Google Scholar
  38. Mackiernan, G. B., 1985. Sources and impacts of nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay. In C. W. Coale, J. P. Marshall & W. R. Kerns (eds.), Land Use and Chesapeake Bay. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia: 1–20.Google Scholar
  39. Magnien, R., R. Slegfried & R. Summers, 1987. Chemical and physical monitoring of the Chesapeake Bay mainstem and tributaries. In M. P. Lynch & E. C. Krome (eds), State of the Chesapeake Bay, Second Annual Monitoring Report. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Gloucester Point, Virginia: 3–19.Google Scholar
  40. Maki, A. W., 1979. An analysis of decision criteria in environmental hazard evaluation programs. In K. L. Dickson, A. W. Maki & J. Cairns, Jr. (eds), Analyzing the Hazard Evaluation Process. American Fisheries Society, Washington, D.C.: 83–100.Google Scholar
  41. Mehrle, P. M. & F. L. Mayer, 1985. Biochemistry/physiology. In G. M. Rand & S. R. Petrocelli (eds), Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology. Hemisphere Publishing, Washington, D.C.: 264–282.Google Scholar
  42. Meyers, T. R. & J. D. Hendricks, 1985. Histopathology. In G. M. Rand & S. R. Petrocelli (eds), Fundamental of Aquatic Toxicology. Hemisphere Publishing, Washington, D.C.: 283–331.Google Scholar
  43. Mlot, C., 1989. Global risk assessment. BioScience 39: 428–430.Google Scholar
  44. Moore, M. N., D. M. Lowe, D. R. Livingstone & D. R. Dixon, 1986. Molecular and cellular indices of pollutant effects and their use in environmental impact assessment. Water Sci. Tech. 18: 223–232.Google Scholar
  45. National Research Council, 1983a. Risk Assessment in Federal Government: Managing the Process. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  46. National Research Council, 1983b. Fundamental Research on Estuaries: The Importance of an Interdisciplinary Approach. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  47. National Wildlife Federation, 1989. Lake Michigan Sport Fish: Should You Eat Your Catch? Great Lakes Natural Resource Center, MSDO3, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
  48. NOAA, 1980. Second Interagency Workshop on In-situ Water Quality Sensing: Biological Sensors. Rockville, Maryland.Google Scholar
  49. Onishi, Y., A. R. Olsen, M. A. Parkhurst & G. Whelan, 1985. Computer-based environmental exposure and risk assessment methodology for hazardous materials. J. Haz. Mat. 10: 389–417.Google Scholar
  50. Perry, M. J., 1986. Assessing marine primary production from space. BioScience 36: 461–467.Google Scholar
  51. Rand, G. M., 1985. Behavior. In G. M. Rand & S. R. Petrocelli (eds), Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology. Hemisphere Publishing, Washington, D.C.: 221–263.Google Scholar
  52. Rand, G. M. & S. R. Petrocelli (eds), 1985. Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology. Hemisphere Publishing, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  53. Ricci, P. R. & L. S. Molton, 1981. Risk and benefit in environmental law. Science 214: 1096–1100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Ricklefs, R. E., 1979. Ecology. Chiron Press, New York.Google Scholar
  55. Rosenberg, D. M., V. H. Resh, S. S. Balling, M. A. Barnby, J. N. Collins, D. V. Durbin, T. S. Flynn, D. D. Hart, G. A. Lamberti, E. P. McElravy, J. R. Wood, T. E. Blank, D. M. Schultz, D. L. Marrin & D. G. Price, 1981. Recent trends in environmental impact assessment. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 38: 591–624.Google Scholar
  56. Schaeffer, D. J., E. E. Herricks & H. W. Jerster, 1988. Ecosystem health: I. Measuring ecosystem health. Envir. Mgmt 12(4): 445–455.Google Scholar
  57. SETAC (compilers), 1987, Research Priorities in Environmental Risk Assessment, Workshop Report. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  58. Simons, J. D. & R. J. Orth, 1987. Distribution and abundance of submerged aquatic vegetation. In M. P. Lynch & E. C. Krome (eds), State of the Chesapeake Bay, Second Annual Monitoring Report, Chesapeake Research Consortium, Gloucester Point, Virginia: 145–151.Google Scholar
  59. Strachan, W. M. J., 1988. Research needs in support of the assessment process. In N. W. Schmidtke (ed.), Toxic Contamination in Large Lakes, Vol. 1. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan: 343–359.Google Scholar
  60. Suter, G. W. & L. W. Barnthouse, in press. Population risk assessments based upon toxicity testing. Chesapeake Bay Ambient Toxicity Assessment Workshop Report.Google Scholar
  61. Suter, G. W., A. E. Rosen, E. Linder & D. F. Parkhurst, 1987. Endpoints for responses of fish to chronic exposures. Envir. Toxicol. Chem. 6: 793–809.Google Scholar
  62. Swartz, R. C., 1972. Biological criteria of environmental change in the Chesapeake Bay. Ches. Sci. S17–S41.Google Scholar
  63. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 1987. Chesapeaka Bay: Introduction to an Ecosystem. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  64. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 1988a. Review of Ecological Risk Assessment Methods, USEPA/230–10–88–041. ICF, Inc., Fairfax, Virginia.Google Scholar
  65. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 1988b. Appendix B: Strategies for Exposure Assessment Research, Report of the Subcommittee of Ecological Effects, SAB-EC-88-040C. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  66. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume II: Environmental Evaluation Manual, USEPA/ 540/1-89/001. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  67. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 1989b. Ecological Assessment of Hazardous Waste Sites: A Laboratory and Field Reference, USEPA/600/3-89/013.Google Scholar
  68. Wright, D. A. & D. J. H. Phillips, 1988. Chesapeake and San Francisco Bays: a study in contrasts and parallels. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 19(9): 405–413.Google Scholar
  69. Year 2020 Panel, 1988. Population Growth and Development in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed to the Year 2020. Chesapeake Bay Executive Panel, Gloucester Point, Virginia.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • David R. Orvos
    • 1
  • John CairnsJr.
    • 1
  1. 1.University Center for Environmental and Hazardous Materials Studies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityBlacksburyUSA

Personalised recommendations