| | Integrating Ecological Risk Assessment and Economic Analysis |
| | 8,47 | | MB | in Watersheds: A Conceptual Approach and Three Case Studies |
| | 392 | | stron |
| | 5909 | | ID | UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |
| | 2004 | | rok |
| | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| | LIST OF TABLES ix |
| | LIST OF FIGURES xii |
| | LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .xv |
| | PREFACE xviii |
| | AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTERS AND REVIEWERS xix |
| | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xxvii |
| | 1. INTRODUCTION.1-1 |
| | 1.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF INTEGRATED, WATERSHED-LEVEL ANALYSIS1-1 |
| | 1.2 GENESIS OF THIS DOCUMENT.1-5 |
| | 1.3 OBJECTIVES AND ORGANIZATION. 1-7 |
| | 1.3.1 Create a context for understanding by a diverse, technical audience (Chapter 2)1-7 |
| | 1.3.2 Present a conceptual approach for integrating ERA and economics in the context of watershed |
| | management (Chapter 3).1-8 |
| | 1.3.3 Present and critically evaluate the methods and findings of three case studies (Chapter 4- |
| | 6).1-8 |
| | 1.3.4 Identify research needed to improve the integration of ERA and economic analysis in |
| | watershed (Chapter 7).1-8 |
| | 1.4 RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING USEPA GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS1-9 |
| | 1.4.1 USEPA Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment.1-9 |
| | 1.4.2 USEPA Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses.1-9 |
| | 1.4.3 USEPA Framework for Economic Assessment of Ecological Benefits.1-10 |
| | 1.5 LIMITATIONS1-10 |
| | 1.5.1 Lack of complete integration.1-10 |
| | 1.5.2 Specificity to a watershed context.1-11 |
| | 1.6 UNIQUE CONTRIBUTIONS.1-12 |
| | 1.7 REFERENCES1-13 |
| | 2. BACKGROUND: ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS IN |
| | WATERSHEDS AND THE NEED FOR INTEGRATION2-1 |
| | 2.1 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT.2-1 |
| | 2.1.1 Framework and methods for ecological risk assessment.2-2 |
| | 2.1.2 Critiques of ecological risk assessment.2-11 |
| | 2.1.3 Watershed applications of ecological risk assessment.2-14 |
| | 2.2 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS.2-17 |
| | 2.2.1 Welfare economics.2-17 |
| | 2.2.2 Economic value2-20 |
| | 2.2.3 Cost-benefit analysis2-25 |
| | 2.2.4 Complementary analyses.2-26 |
| | 2.2.5 Game theory.2-28 |
| | 2.2.6 Ecological economics2-30 |
| | 2.2.7 Applications of ecological economics.2-31 |
| | 2.3 ECOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FOR WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.2-33 |
| | 2.3.1 Water quality standards and ecological risk assessment2-34 |
| | 2.3.2 Water quality standards and economic analysis2-38 |
| | 2.4 THE NEED FOR INTEGRATION.2-41 |
| | 2.5 REFERENCES2-44 |
| | APPENDIX 2-A: DISCUSSION OF STATED PREFERENCE METHODS USED IN TWO CASE |
| | STUDIES.2-59 |
| | APPENDIX 2-B: USING MULTIMETRIC INDICES TO DEFINE THE INTEGRITY OF STREAM |
| | BIOLOGICAL ASSEMBLAGES AND INSTREAM HABITAT2-64 |
| | 3. A CONCEPTUAL APPROACH FOR INTEGRATED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT.3-1 |
| | 3.1 EXISTING FRAMEWORK FOR WATERSHED MANAGEMENT3-1 |
| | 3.2 GUIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR AN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PROCESS3-2 |
| | 3.3 DIAGRAMING AN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PROCESS3-7 |
| | 3.3.1 Assessment planning3-10 |
| | 3.3.2 Problem formulation3-11 |
| | 3.3.3 Analysis and characterization of baseline risk.3-14 |
| | 3.3.4 Formulation of alternatives3-16 |
| | 3.3.5 Consultation with extended peer community3-18 |
| | 3.3.6 Analysis and characterization of alternatives3-18 |
| | 3.3.7 Comparison of alternatives3-20 |
| | 3.3.8 Decision.3-21 |
| | 3.3.9 Adaptive implementation.3-21 |
| | 3.3.10 Linkage to regular management cycles3-22 |
| | 3.4 EXAMPLES OF ANALYSIS AND CHARACTERIZATION FOLLOWED BY COMPARISON OF |
| | ALTERNATIVES.3-23 |
| | 3.4.1 Example 1: Cost-benefit analysis of all changes that can be monetized, with qualitative |
| | consideration of other changes3-23 |
| | 3.4.2 Example 2: Use of stated preference techniques to effect integration of ecological, economic |
| | and other factors.3-25 |
| | 3.4.3 Example 3: Use of linked ecological and economic models to dynamically simulate system |
| | feedbacks and iteratively revise management alternatives3-27 |
| | 3.5 CONCLUSION3-29 |
| | 3.6 REFERENCES3-31 |
| | APPENDIX 3-A: DISCUSSION OF EXISTING FRAMEWORKS THAT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO |
| | WATERSHED MANAGEMENT3-38 |
| | 4. EVALUATING DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR A HIGH-QUALITY STREAM THREATENED |
| | BY URBANIZATION: BIG DARBY CREEK WATERSHED4-1 |
| | 4.1 WATERSHED DESCRIPTION4-2 |
| | 4.2 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT.4-4 |
| | 4.2.1 Planning.4-4 |
| | 4.2.2 Problem formulation4-6 |
| | 4.2.3 Current status of analysis and risk characterization.4-8 |
| | 4.3 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS.4-11 |
| | 4.3.1 Research approach.4-12 |
| | 4.3.2 Communicating the effects of urban development on ecological endpoints.4-14 |
| | 4.3.3 Communicating the effects of urban development on economic and social services.4-17 |
| | 4.3.4 Land use scenarios for framing expression of preference and value in the stream.4-19 |
| | 4.3.5 Eliciting monetary valuation4-30 |
| | 4.3.6 Linking stream integrity to the development scenarios.4-33 |
| | 4.3.7 Linking stream integrity and willingness to pay4-34 |
| | 4.4 DISCUSSION4-37 |
| | 4.5 REFERENCES4-42 |
| | 5. VALUING BIODIVERSITY IN A RURAL VALLEY: CLINCH AND POWELL RIVER |
| | WATERSHED.5-1 |
| | 5.1 WATERSHED DESCRIPTION5-1 |
| | 5.2 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT.5-4 |
| | 5.2.1 Planning.5-4 |
| | 5.2.2 Problem formulation5-8 |
| | 5.2.3 Risk analysis5-12 |
| | 5.2.4 Risk characterization5-22 |
| | 5.3 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS.5-25 |
| | 5.3.1 Methods for valuing biodiversity and environmental quality5-26 |
| | 5.3.2 Integrating the choice model with the ecological risk assessment5-29 |
| | 5.3.3 Results of economic analysis.5-36 |
| | 5.4 DISCUSSION5-43 |
| | 5.4.1 Consultation with extended peer community5-43 |
| | 5.4.2 Baseline risk assessment5-45 |
| | 5.4.3 Formulation, characterization and comparison of alternatives.5-45 |
| | 5.4.4 Adaptive implementation.5-49 |
| | 5.5 REFERENCES5-50 |
| | APPENDIX 5-A: EXCERPT FROM SURVEY ADMINISTERED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF |
| | TENNESSEE: EXPLANATION OF HYPOTHETICAL AGRICULTURAL POLICIES AND THEIR |
| | POTENTIAL IMPACTS.5-53 |
| | APPENDIX 5-B: RANDOM UTILITY MODEL5-56 |
| | 6. SEEKING SOLUTIONS FOR AN INTERSTATE CONFLICT OVER WATER AND ENDANGERED |
| | SPECIES: PLATTE RIVER WATERSHED6-1 |
| | 6.1 WATERSHED DESCRIPTION6-1 |
| | 6.1.1 Watershed resources and impacts of development6-1 |
| | 6.1.2 Watershed management efforts6-7 |
| | 6.2 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT.6-13 |
| | 6.2.1 Planning.6-13 |
| | 6.2.2 Problem formulation6-15 |
| | 6.2.3 Analysis6-21 |
| | 6.2.4 Risk characterization6-25 |
| | 6.3 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS.6-26 |
| | 6.3.1 Model I: Determining who should provide and pay for environmental water.6-29 |
| | 6.3.2 Model II: Determining how much water to allocate to environmental use6-35 |
| | 6.4 DISCUSSION6-62 |
| | 6.4.1 Assessment planning and problem formulation.6-62 |
| | 6.4.2 Formulating alternatives, and baseline ecological risk assessment6-63 |
| | 6.4.3 Analysis and characterization of alternatives, and comparison of alternatives.6-64 |
| | 6.4.4 Consultation with extended peer community6-68 |
| | 6.4.5 Decisions and adaptive implementation.6-69 |
| | 6.5 REFERENCES6-70 |
| | APPENDIX 6-A: SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESPONSE INFORMATION USED TO CALCULATE |
| | UTILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT POLICY OPTIONS FOR THE CENTRAL PLATTE |
| | RIVER FLOODPLAIN6-80 |
| | 7. CONCLUSIONS .7-1 |
| | 7.1 ACHIEVING ECOLOGICAL-ECONOMIC INTEGRATION REQUIRES A COHERENT |
| | STRATEGY7-1 |
| | 7.2 INTEGRATION REQUIRES ASSESSMENT PLANNING AND PROBLEM FORMULATION TO BE |
| | INTERDISCIPLINARY.7-3 |
| | 7.3 RESEARCH IS NEEDED ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF INTEGRATED |
| | CONCEPTUAL MODELS.7-5 |
| | 7.4 CLEARLY FORMULATED MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES FACILITATE INTEGRATED |