Abstract
A cumulative effect analysis (CEA) is a tool that can be utilized for the review of multiple anthropogenic projects or activities for the purposes of planning, regulation, conservation, or the general evaluation of environmental health. Such an assessment is problematic because spatially consistent and temporally repeated data informing the condition of a location are often not available. When such data can be identified, the potential response of that resource to additional impacts may be unpredictable. Despite these limitations, in many cases, it may be critical to identify those locations for further scrutiny which may be vulnerable to collective impacts from development or other environmental challenges. Here, we present an approach which considers the vulnerability of aquatic resources in relation to the anticipated effects of development-related activities that could be used to identify locations where the potential for cumulative effects is the greatest. This application considers CEA in the context of identifying where development-related activities of minimal impact may be viewed as relatively more substantial when viewed cumulatively. We identify HUC 8-level watersheds where the current resource condition and anticipated development-related activities may have greater potential to result in an impact on watershed condition (i.e., water quality, water quantity, and habitat value). The vulnerability of the watershed was estimated from the number, type, and location of a specific suite of reported activities. The existing condition of the watershed was measured as a function of existing assessments of resource conditions. The relationship between the vulnerability and the existing watershed condition was used to project future conditions and to identify watersheds that warrant further scrutiny. This is a unique approach to CEA which allows for transparent, repeatable identification of watersheds which may be adversely impacted by further activities or projects.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brack RE, Apitz SE, Borchardt D, Brils J, Cardoso AC, Foekema EM, van Gils J, Jansen S, Harris B, Hein M, Hellsten S, de Maagd PG-J, Muller DI, Panov VE, Posthuma L, Quevauviller P, Verdonschot PFM, von der Ohe PC (2009) Toward a holistic and risk-based management framework for European river basins. Integr Environ Assess Manag 5:5–10
Brouwer R (2000) Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects. Ecol Econ 32:137–152
Canter LW, Ross B (2008) State of practice of cumulative effects assessment in management: the good, the bad and the ugly. International Association for Impact Assessment, Special Topic Meeting. Accessed on 13 Oct. http://www.iaia.org/IAIA08Calgary/documents/Keynote_AddressCanterandRoss.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
Canter LW, Chawla MK, Swor CT (2014) Addressing trend-related changes within cumulative effects studies in water resource planning. Environ Impact Assess Rev 44:58–66
CEQ (1997) Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Accessed on 27 Sept 2010 at the CEQ website: http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/ccenepa/ccenepa.htm
Collins M (2009) Evidence for changing flood risk in New England since the late 20th century. J Am Water Resour Assoc 45:279–290
Cowardin LM, Carter V, Golet FC, LaRoe ET (1979) Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington
Dahl TE, Stedman SM (2013) Status and trends of wetlands in the coastal watersheds of the Conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Accessed on 13 Oct 2015. http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/pdf/Coastal_Watershed.pdf
Dube MP, Duinker L, Greig M, Carver M, Servos M, McMaster B, Noble H, Schreiver L, Jackson K Munkittrick (2013) A framewaork for assessing cumulative effects in watersheds: an introduction to Canadian case studies. Integr Environ Assess Manag 9:363–369
EPA National Coastal Condition Report IV (2012) Accessed on 7 Oct 2013. http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/assessmonitor/nccr/index.cfm
EPA National Water Quality Assessment Report (2013) http://www.epa.gov/waters/ir/about_separate.html. Accessed on 7 Oct 2013
EPA Watershed Assessment Tracking and Environmental Results (WATERS) (2013) Accessed on 6 Nov 2013. http://www.epa.gov/waters/ir/
Francis SR, Hamm J (2013) Looking forward: using scenario modeling to support regional land use planning in Northern Yukon, Canada. Ecol Soc 16(4):18. doi:10.5751/ES-04532-160418
Füssel HM, Klein RJT (2006) Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Clim Change 75(3):301–329
Geospatial Data Gateway (2006) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Geospatial Management Center, Fort Worth, TX. http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/GDGHome.aspx. Accessed Nov 2012
Ghost River Watershed (2011) An assessment of the cumulative effects of land uses within the Ghost River Watershed, Alberta, Canada. Accessed on 13 Oct 2015. http://www.ghostwatershed.ca/GWAS/Research_&_Data_files/2011%20Ghost%20Report-web_1.pdf
Groffman PM, Baron JS, Blett T, Gold AJ, Goodman I, Gunderson LH, Levinson BM, Palmer MA, Pearl HW, Peterson GD, Poff NL, Rejeski DW, Reynolds JF, Turner MG, Weathers KC, Weins J (2006) Ecological thresholds: the key to successful environmental management or an importance concept with no practical application? Ecosystems 9:1–13
Jackson SD (2013) River and Stream Continuity Project, Department of Environmental Conservation, University of Massachusetts Amherst. http://streamcontinuity.org/online_docs.htm. Accessed 26 Nov 2013
Jackson SD, Bowden A, Lambert B, Singler A (2011) Massachusetts River and stream crossing standards. http://streamcontinuity.org/online_docs.htm. Accessed 9 Dec 2013
Jacobson CR (2011) Identification and quantification of the hydrological impacts of imperviousness in urban catchments: a review. J Environ Manage 92:1438–1448
Jennings DB, Jarnagin ST (2002) Changes in athropogenic impervious surfaces, precipitation and daily streamflow discharge: a historical perspective in a mid-atlantic subwatershed. Lansc Ecol 17:471–489
Keeney L, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Wiley, New York
Linkov I, Moberg E (2012) Multi-criteria decision analysis: environmental applications and case studies. CRC Press, New York
National Land Cover Data Set (NLCD) (2006) U.S. Geological Survey, Sioux Falls, SD. http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/GDGHome.aspx; http://nationalmap.gov/viewer.html. Accessed Nov 2012
Praskievicz S, Chang H (2009) A review of hydrological modelling of basin-scale climate change and urban development impact. Prog Phys Geogr 33:650–671
Reid LM (1993) Research and cumulative watershed effects. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR‐141. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture, Albany. Accessed on 13 Oct 2015. http://gis.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr141/psw_gtr141.pdf
Squires A, Dubé MG (2012) Development of an effects-based approach for watershed scale aquatic cumulative effects assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manag 3:380–391
Therival C, Ross B (2007) Cumulative effects assessment: does scale matter? Environ Impact Assess Rev 27:365–385
USGS WaterWatch (2013) Accessed on 6 Nov 2013. http://waterwatch.usgs.gov/index.php?id=romap3
Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife (2009) The Vermont Culvert Aquatic Organism Passage Screening Tool. Accessed on 24 June 2015 at: http://www.anr.state.vt.us/Dec/Waterq/rivers/docs/rv_VTAOPScreeningTool.pdf
Weber M, Krogman N, Antoniuk T (2012) Cumulative effects assessment: linking social, ecological, and governance dimensions. Ecol Soc 17(2):22
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by the USACE, and permission was granted by USACE to publish this material. Permission was granted by the Chief of Engineers to publish this information. We would like to thank Ryan Knox and Cathy Kashanski (State of Vermont), John Kiddon (USEPA), Patricia Toccalino (USGS) for direct access to the data they have collected for national assessments. The authors would like to thank three reviewers whose comments contributed to the improvement of this manuscript. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the individual authors and not those of the US Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, or other sponsor organizations.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Foran, C.M., Narcisi, M.J., Bourne, A.C. et al. Assessing cumulative effects of multiple activities in New England watersheds. Environ Syst Decis 35, 511–520 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-015-9575-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-015-9575-0