National Academies Press: OpenBook

Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium (1995)

Chapter: Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments

« Previous: Stage-Setting Papers
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Managing the Cumulative Impacts of Land and Water Activities in the Gulf of Maine Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

INTRODUCTION

Estuarine systems are characterized by complex, often nonlinear, relationships among biological, chemical, geological, and physical variables and are extremely dynamic. Impacts from human activities and natural events and processes can accumulate over time and space to yield problems that are far more serious than result from individual actions. For example, pollutants and other environmental impacts occur at specific locations, but can accumulate and spread to affect the entire Gulf of Maine region. Cumulative impacts may be additive or synergistic in their effects and may accumulate over decades or centuries. Scientific studies, environmental decisions by agencies, and legislative policy making rarely consider cumulative impacts.

The effect of cumulative impacts on coastal systems was selected as a topic for the symposium series because this issue can be addressed by natural and social science and it has become obvious that impacts accumulate over time and space and that coastal policies must consider such impacts. As noted by Hunsaker in the following paper, managing cumulative impacts is critical for sustaining ecosystems, their resources, and their services. Specific examples of cumulative impacts abound for the Gulf of Maine, including the decline of groundfish stocks over time due to fishing pressure and perhaps environmental factors, progressive pollution of harbors and estuaries in the region (e.g., Boston Harbor), and the widespread effect of tourism on coastal resources. Understanding cumulative impacts requires a fundamental understanding about how ecosystems operate, how they have changed over time, and the extent and timing of previous individual impacts.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

MANAGING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: A KEY TO SUSTAINABILITY?

Carolyn T. Hunsaker

Environmental Sciences Division

Oak Ridge National Laboratory1

P.O. Box 2008

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6038

Ecology forces us to recognize three major features of all life: interdependence, diversity and vulnerability. Its message is not that we should avoid change, but that no ecosystem is an island.

Introduction

Cumulative impacts on ecosystems are a function of increasing numbers of humans and their associated activities per unit area; as impacts continue to increase, the ability to sustain a desired condition for humans and other species becomes questionable. The implementing regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) define cumulative impacts as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future

1  

Based on work performed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-84OR21400 with Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

actions. . .” [40 C.F.R. Sect. 1508.7 (1978)]. Dickert and Tuttle (1985) provide a somewhat more detailed definition:

. . . cumulative impacts are those that result from the interactions of many incremental activities, each of which may have an insignificant effect when viewed alone, but which become cumulatively significant when seen in the aggregate. Cumulative effects may interact in an additive or a synergistic way, may occur onsite or offsite, may have short-term or long-term effects, and may appear soon after disturbance or be delayed.

Douglas et al. (1995) provide an excellent overview of works relevant to cumulative impacts, and Irwin and Rodes (1992) present a review of requirements for cumulative impacts in U.S. statutes and definitions of cumulative impacts.

Extensive literature exists on cumulative impacts—what they are, how their effects can be assessed or evaluated, and how they can be managed (e.g., Preston and Bedford, 1988; Williamson and Hamilton, 1989; Irwin and Rodes, 1992; Hildebrand and Cannon, 1993; Douglas et al., 1995). Despite the long-time recognition of this phenomenon and a substantial literature that addresses it, we have not been particularly effective at assessing or managing cumulative impacts. Better interaction between natural and social scientists and policymakers is necessary and should improve our ability to manage cumulative impacts. In addition, the assessment and management of cumulative impacts has to occur at all levels—local, regional, and national, and it has to be an interactive and ongoing process.

This paper addresses how science can be more effectively used in creating policy to manage cumulative effects on ecosystems. The paper focuses on the scientific techniques that we have to identify and to assess cumulative impacts on ecosystems. The term “sustainable development” was brought into common use by the World Commission on Environment and Development (The Brundtland Commission) in 1987. The Brundtland Commission report highlighted the need to address developmental and environmental imperatives simultaneously by calling for development that “meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the needs of future generations.” We cannot claim to be working toward sustainable development until we can quantitatively assess cumulative impacts on the environment: the two concepts are inextricably linked in that the elusiveness of cumulative effects likely has the greatest potential of keeping us from achieving sustainability. In this paper, assessment and management frameworks relevant to cumulative impacts are discussed along with recent literature on how to improve such assessments. When possible, examples are given for marine ecosystems.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Assessment Frameworks

Researchers in Canada and the United States (Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council and U.S. National Research Council, 1986; Peterson et al., 1987) have published excellent definitions and discussions of cumulative impacts and associated issues. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was one of the first federal agencies to work on developing an assessment protocol (Williamson et al., 1986). Very early the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supported research into cumulative effects in wetland ecosystems. Preston and Bedford (1988) synthesized concepts from an excellent collection of papers on wetlands; this was followed by the work of Liebowitz et al. (1992). Although not without problems, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC's) cumulative impact assessments and subsequent management of hydropower permits probably constitute the most extensive example of cumulative impact work within a U.S. federal agency. FERC's efforts include both a policy and numerous examples of its implementation (FERC 1985a,b; Cada and Hunsaker, 1990; Irving and Bain, 1993). Since 1978, the implementing regulation for NEPA required assessment of potential cumulative effects, and many of the states' “mini-NEPAs” also have such requirements.

Frameworks provide a useful construct for the thought processes and work needed to accomplish any assessment. Two general frameworks are especially relevant to cumulative impact assessments. Ecological risk assessment, especially when applied at the regional scale (Hunsaker et al., 1990; Hunsaker, 1993), is one of these. The objective of risk-based ecological assessment is to provide a quantitative basis for comparing and balancing risks associated with environmental hazards. Risk assessment is distinguished from other assessments in that it provides a systematic means of improving the estimation and understanding of those risks and it explicitly recognizes and quantifies uncertainty about the risks. The EPA's framework for ecological risk assessment (Risk Assessment Forum, 1992) is a good synthesis of current scientific thinking and is conceptually similar to the National Research Council 's paradigm for human health risk assessments. Components of the risk assessment framework include problem formulation; analysis (i.e., characterization of exposure and characterization of ecological effects); data acquisition, verification, and monitoring; and risk characterization (Figure 1).

Effective assessment and management of cumulative effects requires a holistic approach that recognizes the linkages between the activities that drive or create stress on ecosystems, the costs and benefits (market and nonmarket) of ecological effects, and the policy options. The World Bank (Serageldin and Steer, 1994) has stated that we will fail in our efforts to make development sustainable unless better progress is made to integrate the viewpoints of economists, ecologists, and sociologists. A truly holistic risk assessment would try to quantify, in some way, all of the applicable components shown in Figure 2. In reality, the assessment scientist is often able to quantify only some of these with any confidence—whether because of lack of information and knowledge or a lack of time and money. However, keeping the holistic picture in mind is important. Interaction between the

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

risk assessment scientist and the risk manager must occur at some level; however, risk analysis and risk management themselves remain separate activities (Figure 1). The risk assessment scientist provides the critical link between the policymaker and society and the scientists in the field and laboratory that gather and analyze ecological data (Figure 3). Often it is the assessment scientist who must translate fuzzy and complex questions and ideas from the policymaker or society into discreet assessment questions that can, hopefully, be answered through the use of data collected by the field and laboratory biologists. Suter (1993) discusses the role of societal values and ecological endpoints/indicators in the risk assessment process.

Regional ecological risk assessment is especially suited to quantifying cumulative effects because it addresses a larger geographic scale and focuses on a structured problem formulation phase and the quantification of uncertainty. Cumulative impacts are best addressed at the regional scale because it is at this spatial scale and associated temporal scales that the majority of cumulative effects will manifest themselves (Hunsaker, 1993). Because the availability of data and models, as well as time and/or money will constrain the completeness of the assessment, following the structured problem formulation phase of risk assessment (Risk Assessment Forum, 1992) should help ensure a successful assessment of cumulative effects. During problem formulation the goals, breadth, and focus of the assessment are established, and the conceptual model is developed, including the stressors, endpoints, and spatial/temporal boundaries. Finally, because risk assessments include uncertainty or confidence estimates throughout the process, during the problem formulation phase the assessor may better focus on those stressors and endpoints that seem most critical and tractable for assessment. Furthermore, the inclusion of uncertainty in cumulative impact assessments should assist the risk manager in making policy or management decisions, which usually require trade-offs, to curtail cumulative effects.

Irwin and Rodes (1992) present another unique framework developed to help identify the mismatch between the boundaries for management and the boundaries that define a cumulative impact (Figure 4). Crafted by scientists and policymakers actively involved in cumulative impact assessment, the framework provides program managers with a means of comparing the boundaries of management decisions with the boundaries of cumulative effects and their causes. On the basis of this comparison, managers should be able to determine whether a mismatch occurs and, if so, find ways to use more appropriate boundaries. A set of questions, discussions, and examples are provided to walk one through each step of the framework. The framework of Irwin and Rodes (1992) is complementary to risk assessment frameworks (Hunsaker et al., 1990; Risk Assessment Forum, 1992). The first assists managers in understanding why cumulative impacts are occurring; the latter, in quantifying those impacts. The separate frameworks highlight the important fact that assessment and management of cumulative impacts are separate but linked activities (Figure 1 and Figure 2). This linkage should be part of the role of the assessment scientist.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Good assessment scientists need to have multidisciplinary backgrounds and be able to synthesize and communicate information from the physical, biological, and social sciences (Figure 3). While a few good academic programs produce such graduates, significant impediments exist for the training and career development of such applied scientists. During the National Research Council's symposium Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy in the Gulf of Maine Region, discussions highlighted such impediments and included the following recommendations:

  • modify academic reward systems to encourage applied research and to improve science-policy interactions,

  • create incentives and/or provide adequate funding for interdisciplinary assessments, and

  • identify and foster academic degree programs that produce graduates skilled in integrating information and communicating it to all parts of society.

Techniques for Assessing Cumulative Impacts

Shopley and Fuggle (1984) and Hunsaker and Williamson (1992) provide reviews of techniques for assessing cumulative impacts. Assessment techniques can be divided into those used for problem definition and those used for analysis and interpretation, two of the phases illustrated in EPA's ecological risk assessment framework (Figure 1). Ad hoc techniques, checklists, and matrices are often used for the problem definition phase. Techniques used in the analysis and interpretation phase include network or system diagrams, cartographic techniques, mathematical modeling, evaluation techniques, and adaptive methods or combinations. Weaknesses in assessment techniques consist of inability to quantify effects, especially at the ecosystem scale, lack of interactive or coupled models, and lack of models that can deal with multiple media and stresses.

Concepts developing in the discipline of landscape ecology hold promise for helping with cumulative impact assessments, and several publications illustrate the importance of a landscape ecology approach (Bedford and Preston, 1988; Gosselink et al., 1990; Hunsaker et al., 1990) to evaluating cumulative effects. A landscape can be defined in terms of the following:

  • structure—the spatial relationships between distinct elements,

  • function—interactions between spatial elements, and

  • change—temporal alterations in the structure and function of the landscape mosaic.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Landscape ecology is the study of the distribution patterns of communities and ecosystems, the ecological processes that affect those patterns, and changes in pattern and process over time (Forman and Godron, 1986). The study of scale, both spatial and temporal, is a major part of landscape ecology, and a better understanding of scale issues is critical for cumulative effects assessments (Hunsaker, 1993).

While the majority of landscape ecology research has addressed terrestrial systems, landscape ecology concepts have been applied to marine ecosystems. Many of the impacts on coastal marine systems are caused by activities on land. Examples include (1) water pollution in coastal areas from land-use change and (2) habitat destruction in the land-water interface zone from increased recreation activities on the land. Landscape ecology seeks to relate landscape structure and pattern to ecosystem processes, and it often calculates pattern metrics on land cover maps developed from remotely sensed imagery. Using sonar data, the researcher can use the same computer algorithms to quantify the spatial pattern of ocean floor. Such information can be used to identify habitat for marine organisms and to measure change over time for large regions. The referenced studies illustrate how landscape ecology research and quantitative tools are relevant for marine ecosystems. Robbins and Bell (1994) discussed the application of landscape ecology principles to seagrass, and Browder et al. (1985) studied the relationship between marshland-water interface and marsh disintegration. Paine and Levin (1981) studied patch dynamics and disturbance in the rocky intertidal zone, and Steele (1989) evaluated pelagic zone habitat related to physical and chemical processes. Wetlands have served as case studies for landscape ecology, risk assessment, and cumulative effects research (Bedford and Preston, 1988; Gosselink et al., 1990; Liebowitz et al., 1992). Hunsaker et al. (1993) reviewed the use of geographic information systems and environmental models for the marine environment. Rieser and Vestal (1995 in press) reviewed both literature and case studies and organized a workshop on cumulative impacts. In their report on methodologies and mechanisms for management of cumulative coastal environmental impacts, Rieser and Vestal stress not only the contribution that landscape ecology has today but also it importance in the future.

Improving Cumulative Impact Assessment and Management

Many ideas have been discussed in the literature about how we can improve cumulative impact assessment, but only when assessment and management activities work together can we hope to be effective in understanding and controlling cumulative effects. Following are brief synopses of three recent papers that capture the essence of what we need to work on for improvement. Contant and Wiggins (1993) identified the following three areas to improve assessments:

  • improving monitoring and prediction of actions and impacts over space and time;

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
  • increasing the knowledge of the responses of environmental systems to development perturbations, including synergistic and indirect effects; and

  • developing management systems that provide the appropriate responses to actions that produce significant cumulative effects.

Williamson (1993) stresses the importance of remembering that an assessment is a process: “. . . employ a problem-solving process that can be applied intensively to a wide range of situations and that utilizes adaptively the most appropriate methods and techniques. ” He states that to be effective, a cumulative impact assessment must use both a problem-solving process and scientific cause and effect, while cumulative impact management must use both goal setting and collaboration. In highlighting the need for a common language among scientists and policymakers, Douglas et al. (1995) state that our institutional capacities are inadequate to manage cumulative impacts because of fragmented, incremental decisionmaking. In other words, we need to design a new way of business. With regard to the need to integrate science and policy, Douglas et al. (1995) identify the following issues:

  • management goals and research priorities;

  • identification of methods, indicators, and causal models for evaluation of cumulative impacts;

  • design of monitoring programs; and

  • design and maintenance of databases and information management systems.

As shown in Figure 3, the assessor and policymaker should know something about what society values. Often the scientist or policymaker assumes that they know about aspects of the environment the public values. However, this assumption is not appropriate. The EPA is funding a study to determine if people understand and care about the ecological indicators proposed by the scientists for monitoring and whether these indicators can be related to, or mapped onto, people's value domain(s). Figure 5 illustrates a schematic approach proposed for this research (Hunsaker et al., 1995).

Conclusions

Although NEPA legislation was effective in bringing both attention and efforts to bear on cumulative impacts, it has not provided an especially effective way of truly managing them except perhaps when a programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) is being done (Cada and Hunsaker, 1990; Hunsaker, 1993). Aside from the fact that cumulative impacts are very hard to assess within usual time, dollar, and data constraints, an EIS usually does not have a long-term plan or vision to guide or give context to the single proposed

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

project. To address cumulative impacts effectively, we need to improve our assessment capabilities and to revise our management approach to environmental resources. To forge a better science-policy interface, we need innovative thinking and activities. A collaborative goal is required for this to happen, and knowledge of societal values is important. The World Bank identified four broad categories of unresolved questions for sustainable development: valuation, decision making in the presence of thresholds and uncertainty, policy and institutional design, and social sustainability (Serageldin and Steer, 1994). The ecological risk assessment framework (Risk Assessment Forum, 1992) and the cumulative impact framework (Irwin and Rodes, 1992) strive to provide such a construct. Integrated coastal zone planning at local and regional scales, fishery and habitat management goals, and statements about desired ecosystem condition (like sustainability) —all of these could provide such a long-term context for marine systems that is consistent with societal values [see Rieser and Vestel (1995 in press) for recent direction about marine systems].

Reasonable blueprints surely exist for addressing cumulative impacts in a more effective manner—the assessment and management frameworks discussed in this paper. However, cumulative impact assessment needs to be viewed as an ongoing process and not a one-time report. Numerous examples or case studies of cumulative impact assessments can be studied for insights. Tools and materials exist for assessments, but they are not complete. Cumulative impact assessments will continue to be difficult until we have the following:

  • monitoring designed for regional assessment;

  • more experience with ecological indicators;

  • cause-effect relationships and more information from model comparisons at the ecosystem scale;

  • tools for describing and modeling spatial heterogeneity;

  • theory and data concerning the effect of spatial heterogeneity on ecological processes; and

  • better understanding of the error associated with data aggregation, remotely sensed data, and geographic information system processing.

To address cumulative impacts effectively requires a sustained effort that includes both evaluation of historic information and future prediction and planning. Neither science nor policy areas have an especially successful record of such sustained efforts (e.g., long-term ecological monitoring and data archiving as well as comprehensive planning and implementation at all levels of government rather than crisis management). It is time to stop talking about cumulative impact assessment and management and to start practicing it with the knowledge and tools that we have. Cumulative impacts are a key to understanding

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

sustainability. Sustainable development can serve as the common goal that brings science and policy together. Sustainable development must meet present economic needs in an equitable fashion while safeguarding Earth's natural heritage for future generations. How else can we do this if not through the use of quantitative tools and a framework that explicitly recognizes cumulative impacts and the importance of spatial and temporal scale? To perform such work, we need to seriously foster the development of interdisciplinary scientists and of multidisciplinary teams that include at least economists, ecologists, and sociologists.

Acknowledgments

I thank Glenn Cada of Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Alison Rieser of the University of Maine School of Law for their reviews of the manuscript. Figure 2 was developed during discussions of integrated assessment by Marshall Adams, Virginia Dale, Yetta Jager, James Loar, and Robert Turner of Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Based on work performed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-84OR21400 with Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. Publication No. 4413, Environmental Sciences Division.

References

Bedford, B.L., and E.M. Preston. 1988. Developing the scientific basis for assessing cumulative effects of wetland loss and degradation on landscape functions: Status, perspectives, and prospects. Environmental Management 12(5):751-771.

Bell, S.S., M.O. Hall, and B.D. Robbins. 1995. Towards a landscape approach in seagrass beds: using macroalgal accumulation to address questions of scale. Oecologia (in press).

Browder, J.A., H.A. Bartley, and K.S. Davis. 1985. A probabilistic model of the relationship between marshland-water interface and marsh disintegration. Ecological Modeling 29:245-260.

Cada, G.F., and C.T. Hunsaker. 1990. Cumulative impacts of hydropower development: Reaching a watershed in impact assessment. The Environmental Professional 12:2-8.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council and U.S. National Research Council. 1986. Cumulative Environmental Effects: A Binational Perspective. Hull, Quebec: Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Contant, C.K., and L.L.Wiggins. 1993. Toward defining and assessing cumulative impacts: Practical and theoretical considerations. Pp. 336-356 in Environmental Analysis: The NEPA Experience, S.G. Hildebrand and J.B. Cannon, eds. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers.

Dickert, T.G., and A.E. Tuttle. 1985. Cumulative impact assessment in environmental planning: A coastal wetland watershed example. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 5:37-64.

Douglas, P., E. Fuchs, and C. Lester. 1995. Managing the cumulative impacts of development: An opportunity for integration? Pp. 184-205 in Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1985a. Procedures for assessing hydroelectric projects clustered in river basins: Request for comments. Federal Register 50:3385-3403.

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 1985b. Final Environmental Impact Analysis of Small-scale Hydroelectric Development in Selected Watersheds in the Upper San Joaquin River Basin, California. FERC/EIA-001. Washington, D.C., Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Forman, R.T.T., and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape Ecology. New York: Wiley.

Gosselink, J.G., G.P. Shaffer, L.C. Lee, O.M. Burdick, D.L. Childers, N.C. Leibowitz, S.C. Hamilton, R. Boumans, D. Cushman, S. Fields, M. Kock, and J.M. Vfisser. 1990. Landscape conservation in a forested wetland watershed. BioScience 40(8):588-600.

Hildebrand, S.G., and J.B. Cannon (eds.). 1993. Environmental Analysis: The NEPA Experience. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers.

Hunsaker, C.T. 1993. Ecosystem assessment methods for cumulative effects at the regional scale. Pp. 480-493 in Environmental Analysis: The NEPA Experience, S.G. Hildebrand and J.B. Cannon, eds. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers.

Hunsaker, C.T., A. Schiller, M.A. Kane, and V.H. Dale. 1995. Relating indicators of landscape condition to societal values for ecosystems. P. 97 in Working in a World Dominated by Humans, Program and Abstracts, Tenth Annual U.S. Landscape Ecology Symposium, 22-26 April 1995. Minneapolis: International Association of Landscape Ecology and University of Minnesota.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Hunsaker, C.T., R.L. Graham, G.W. Suter II, R.V. O'Neill, L.W. Barnthouse, and R.H. Gardner. 1990. Assessing ecological risk on a regional scale. Environmental Management 14(3):325-332.

Hunsaker, C., and S. Williamson. 1992. Techniques for assessing cumulative impacts. Pp. 49-51 in Making Decisions on Cumulative Environmental Impacts: A Conceptual Framework, F.H. Irwin and B. Rodes, eds. Washington, D.C.: World Wildlife Fund.

Hunsaker, C.T., R.A. Nisbet, D.C.L. Lam, J.A. Browder, W.L. Baker, M.G. Turner, and D.B. Botkin. 1993. Spatial models of ecological systems and processes. The role of GIS. Pp. 248-264 in Geographic information Systems and Environmental Modeling, M. Goodchild, B. Parks, and L. Steyaert, eds. New York: Oxford Press.

Irving, J.S., and M.B. Bain. 1993. Assessing cumulative impact on fish and wildlife in the Salmon River Basin, Idaho. Pp. 357-372 in Environmental Analysis: The NEPA Experience, S.G. Hildebrand and J.B. Cannon, eds. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers.

Irwin, F.H., and B. Rodes. 1992. Making Decisions on Cumulative Environmental Impacts: A Conceptual Framework. Washington, D.C.: World Wildlife Fund.

Liebowitz, S.G., E.M. Preston, L.Y. Arnaut, N.E. Detenbeck, C.A. Hagley, M.E. Kentula, R.K. Olson, W.D. Sanville, and R.R. Sumner. 1992. Wetlands Research Plan FY92-96: An Integrated Risk-Based Approach. EPA/600/R-92/060. Corvallis, OR: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Paine, R.T., and S.A. Levin. 1981. Intertidal landscapes: Disturbance and the dynamics of pattern. Ecological Monographs 51:145-178.

Peterson, E.B., Y.-H. Chan, N.M. Peterson, G.A. Constable, R.B. Caton, C.S. Davis, R.R. Wallace, and G.A. Yarranton. 1987. Cumulative Effects Assessment in Canada: An Agenda for Action and Research. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council.

Preston, E.M., and B.L. Bedford. 1988. Evaluating cumulative effects on wetland functions: A conceptual overview and generic framework. Environmental Management 12(5):565-583.

Rieser, A., and B. Vestal. 1995. Methodologies and mechanisms for management of cumulative coastal environmental impacts. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Ocean Office. In press.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Risk Assessment Forum. 1992. Framework for ecological risk assessment. EPA/630/R-92/001, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Robbins, B.D., and S.S. Bell. 1994. Seagrass landscapes. A terrestrial approach to the marine subtidal environment. TREE 9(8):301-304.

Serageldin, I., and A. Steer (eds.). 1994. Making development sustainable: From concepts to action. Environmentally Sustainable Development Occasional Paper, Series No. 2. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Shopley, J.B., and R.F. Fuggle. 1984. A comprehensive review of current environmental assessment methods and techniques. Journal of Environmental Management 18:25-47.

Steele, J.H. 1989. The ocean “landscape.” Landscape Ecology 3(3/4):185-192.

Suter, G.W., II. 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers.

Williamson, S.C., C.L. Armour, and R.L. Johnson. 1986. Preparing a FWS cumulative impacts program: January 1985 workshop proceedings. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv. Biol. Rep. 85(11.2). Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior.

Williamson, S.C., and K. Hamilton. 1989. Annotated bibliography of ecological cumulative impacts assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv. Biol. Rep. 89(11). Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior.

Williamson, S.C. 1993. Cumulative impacts assessment and management planning: Lessons learned to date. Pp. 391-407 in Environmental Analysis: The NEPA Experience, S.G. Hildebrand and J.B. Cannon, eds. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Figure 1 Framework for ecological risk assessment (Risk Assessment Forum, 1992).

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Figure 2 Integrated assessment illustrates need to consider scientific, economic, and policy interrelationships.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Figure 3 The assessment scientist (assessor) plays a critical role in linking what the policymaker and society are interested in knowing with the data being collected by field and laboratory scientists.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Figure 4 Framework for matching boundaries of decisions and of cumulative impacts (Irwin and Rodes, 1992). Used with permission from the World Wildlife Fund.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Figure 5 Research activities being undertaken to link environmental indicators from the U.S. EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) with societal values.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS IN THE GULF OF MAINE REGION: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE CONSIDERATIONS

Graham R. Daborn

Acadia Centre for Estuarine Research

Acadia University

Wolfville, Nova Scotia

Introduction

At the present state of our knowledge about estuaries, in the Gulf of Maine as elsewhere, two characteristics seem to be of paramount importance: (1) the complexity of biophysical interrelationships and (2) the ubiquity of change. Despite the fact that a large and growing majority of people live in close proximity to an estuary, the dynamic features of these ecosystems are not familiar to most. The extent to which estuaries play roles in food or energy production, recreation, transportation, or human health is largely unrecognized until those systems collapse under the cumulative effects of human activities combined with natural processes of change. The Gulf of Maine provides plenty of examples of estuaries that reached stages of severe disruption before their dynamic features were sufficiently well studied to make sensible management decisions.

Effective coastal zone management needs to be based upon a sound knowledge of the processes that operate within the estuaries of the Gulf. But this understanding cannot be restricted to scientists and managers alone. It is equally important that the public share an appreciation of the functional processes that characterize estuaries, and that shape the responses of estuaries to human influence. Consequently, public education is absolutely essential.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Information Requirements

Estuarine Complexity

Developing a clear understanding of estuarine processes is not a trivial task. Estuarine ecosystems exhibit strongly interactive relationships between physical-chemical (e.g., temperature, wind, and tidal forces) and biological parameters (e.g., plankton, benthos, and fish populations). Harvesting or conserving the natural resources of estuaries requires that we have the ability to forecast future conditions and then to predict the effects upon living resources.

This understanding is to a considerable extent the claimed objective of ecosystem modeling. Many modelers, however, candidly admit that their models rarely satisfy either themselves or their critics. The causes are not hard to find. Apart from the complexity of the interrelationships, it is evident that most of the interactions among ecosystem components are nonlinear. A change in one variable often produces a proportionately greater change in dependent variables, and the proportionality varies with the state of the interaction. For example, a modest change in tidal amplitude, such as occurs over the spring-neap cycle or the 18.6 year (nodal) cycle, produces greater changes in tidal currents, which in turn yield much greater degrees of turbulent mixing in the water column. Turbulent mixing is a dominant signal in shallow waters (Garrett, 1977), affecting sea surface temperature (Loder and Garrett, 1978), nutrient recycling (Campbell and Wrobleski, 1986), and hence productivity (Iselin, 1939; Daborn, 1986). In the Bay of Fundy-Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank (FMG) system, the long-term nodal cycle change in tidal amplitude of about 3 percent has been shown to produce changes in important groundfish stocks. These changes are traceable in the fisheries landing records over the last century, in spite of the many changes in fishing effort and techniques (Cabilo et al., 1987). Although it seems evident that these oscillations in groundfish stocks are linked to vertical mixing, we do not have a clear idea of how these long-term relationships occur. It may be because higher tides produce cooler surface waters, which could favor northern stocks (the very ones that seem to benefit), or that greater mixing results in higher phytoplankton production because of increased nutrient supply. Alternatively, the connection between vertical mixing and groundfish production may really be a consequence of shifts within the estuarine food web.

Another example of ecosystem complexity can be found in the array of interactions that affect the stability of estuarine sediments, particularly where these contain a significant fraction of clay. The behavior of noncohesive sediments (e.g., sand, silt) can commonly be described in terms of grain size and the shear stress exerted by flowing water. Cohesive sediments (i.e., those containing clay), however, are influenced more by exposure to atmospheric conditions (Amos et al., 1988), salinity, organic content, bioturbation, and biostabilization (Daborn et al., 1993). Without a clear understanding of these relationships, we are unlikely ever to be able to predict the status of living resources, even where we may forecast future physical conditions with some confidence.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

This obviously demands that we make much greater efforts to understand the estuarine ecosystems of the Gulf. To develop that understanding, we require a concerted effort involving ecosystem modelers working in close collaboration with physical oceanographers, biologists, and others who have the capacity to collect appropriate information. Even though the Gulf has been the subject of some fine research for more than a century, our knowledge is still inadequate. The initial stages of ecosystem model construction will provide useful insights into the kinds of data that are still required.

Establishing comprehensive, long-term studies of ecosystem processes in selected Gulf estuaries would be an important first step toward developing adequate understanding of critical processes. Such studies need to be fully integrated and interdisciplinary, utilizing the talents and resources of government and university scientists in Canada and the United States.

Estuarine Transience

Estuaries are arenas of almost constant changes. Apart from the obvious tide- and river-related changes in depth, salinity, and temperature, there are long term progressive changes resulting from entirely natural phenomena. In the Gulf of Maine, most estuaries have existed for less than 10,000 years, having been formed by rising sea level and isostatic movements of land. These processes still continue, with sea level rising at 2-5 millimeters per year, and land subsiding in many areas, leading to steady changes in estuarine morphology. As the shape of the estuary changes, so does its relationship with the oceanic tide. In the upper Bay of Fundy, for example, evidence indicates that the tidal range 4,000 years ago was about 2 meters; as a result of sea level rise, isostatic rebound, and erosion, the tidal range of Minas Basin has increased at a fairly steady rate of about 20 centimeters per century to its present range of more than 16 meters (Amos, 1978; Bleakney, 1986).

On the landward side, changes in land use and water flow patterns have been continuous and accelerating over the last three hundred years since European settlement. Direct changes of estuarine morphology result from dyking of wetlands, harbor and channel dredging, landfilling, channelling, erosion protection, and land-based construction (causing increased sedimentation or modifying circulation patterns). Dam construction, in particular, results in manifold changes to the dynamic relationships that characterize a given estuary, no matter where in the watershed the construction takes place. For example, it was shown many years ago that the cumulative effect of construction of more than 40 dams in the watershed of the St. Lawrence River has been a substantial change in the seasonal variability of river outflow into the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Neu, 1975). Modifications of river flow have affected estuarine circulation (Sutcliffe, 1972), with subsequent effects on important biological resources (Sutcliffe, 1973). Comparable effects have been recorded for the Gulf of Maine (Sutcliffe et al., 1977).

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Occasionally the full effects of human modification of an estuary are not apparent until a relatively long time after the change. For example, severe shoreline erosion at Fort Anne National Historic Site in the Annapolis Basin (Nova Scotia), first recognized in 1990, was probably triggered by completion of an upstream tidal dam in 1960, although subsequent modifications to bridges, highways, and the development of a tidal generating station may have contributed to the change in dynamic processes (Daborn et al., 1993). Why was the erosion not noticed earlier? Probably it was because the response is a non-linear (possibly exponential) function of the change in current velocity. Other tidal dams, however, have had opposite effects (Daborn and Dadswell, 1988), which underscores the complex and individualistic nature of estuarine systems.

Water quality has also declined progressively as increased land-based development has led to eutrophication, anoxia, and the accumulation of toxic materials in estuarine sediments. The extent of these impacts has come into much clearer focus as estuarine waters are used more extensively for aquaculture, particularly for culturing shellfish. Instances where public health has been placed at risk, as with the appearance of domoic acid in mussels in Prince Edward Island, serve to enhance awareness of estuarine processes and of the cumulative effects of human activities, particularly among the public.

In order to enhance our knowledge of the long-term changes taking place in estuaries, whether natural or anthropogenic, we need to establish a comprehensive monitoring program for critical index properties in the Gulf. The variables that we monitor should reflect the processes that seem to be subject to long-term progressive change: water depth, mixing (indicated by sea surface temperature, salinity, and nutrient concentrations), suspended particulate matter, toxic contaminants, etc. Persisting with a standardized monitoring program for two or three decades will be necessary to enable us to distinguish between those changes that are cyclical or oscillatory, and those that are progressive, continuously moving in one direction. As remote sensing facilities become more comprehensive and available, a good deal of the monitoring could be achieved through these means. However, there will always be a critical role for on-the-spot measurements, which might be carried out by people who are not formally employed for the purpose. The various River Watch projects in the United States and elsewhere depend upon local volunteers for much of the data gathering, and the concept has been extended into Gulf estuaries through nongovernment organizations, such as those linked through the Canadian Atlantic Coastal Action Program (ACAP).

Comprehensive monitoring is also required to enhance our knowledge of the processes in coastal ecosystems that determine their characteristics and their response to stress. A collaborative effort to create an acceptable ecosystem simulation model for the Gulf would require baseline and verification data that relate to physical properties and biological ones. Among the latter would be included extensive surveys and long-term records of benthic populations, sediment properties, plankton populations, etc.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

The challenge is great, but it must be met. Recent intitiatives by the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment are leading in this direction, and this organization seems the most appropriate one to foster a gulf-wide study at the present time.

Implications for Policy Formulation and Management

Our present management approaches seem to be based upon a perception of ecosystems as relatively stable, self-sustaining or -perpetuating systems. The reality is surely much different. It is essential that future policy and management initiatives attempt to recognize the mutability of estuarine ecosystems and exercise extreme caution in regard to activities that affect basic estuarine processes. In our present state of ignorance, the consequences of changes in local processes often prove to be unpredictably broad in space and time.

In the present political climate, public acceptance of policy and management decisions depends upon the public believing that the decisions are based on valid precepts. General public education about estuarine properties and processes is clearly an imperative. This can be achieved most effectively by including the public in all stages: gathering and analyzing the data, developing an understanding of the processes, and discussing and selecting management options. Most people are not comfortable with the concept that all things change; consequently their acceptance of new policies based on a recognition of the dynamic and largely unknown processes at work in our estuaries will be difficult to achieve.

References

Amos, C.L. 1978. The postglacial evolution of the Minas Basin, N.S.: a sedimentological interpretation. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 48:965-982.

Amos, C.L., N.A. Van Wagoner, and G.R. Daborn. 1988. The influence of subaerial exposure on the bulk properties of fine-grained intertidal sediment from Minas Basin, Bay of Fundy. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 27:1-13.

Bleakney, J.S. 1986. A sea-level scenario for Minas Basin. Pp. 123-125 in Effects of Changes in Sea Level and Tidal Range on the Gulf Maine-Bay of Fundy System. G.R. Daborn, ed. Publication No. 1. Acadia Centre for Estuarine Research, Wolfville, Nova Scotia.

Cabilo, P., D.L. DeWolfe, and G.R. Daborn. 1987. Fish catches and long-term tidal cycles in Northwest Atlantic fisheries: a nonlinear regression approach. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44:1890-1897.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Campbell, D.E., and J.S. Wroblewski. 1986. Fundy tidal power development and potential fish production in the Gulf of Maine. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43:78-89.

Daborn, G.R. 1986a. Effects of tidal mixing on the plankton and benthos of estuarine regions of the Bay of Fundy. In Tidal Mixing and Plankton Dynamics. Bowman, M.J., C.M. Yentsch and W.T. Peterson, eds. Lecture Notes in Coastal and Estuarine Studies 17:390-413.

Daborn, G.R. (ed.). 1986b. Effects of Changes in Sea Level and Tidal Range on the Gulf of Maine-Bay of Fundy System. Publication No. 1. Acadia Centre for Estuarine Research, Wolfville, Nova Scotia.

Daborn, G.R., C.L. Amos, B. Brylinsky, H. Christian, G. Drapeau, R.W. Faas, J. Grant, B. Long, D.M. Paterson, G.M.E. Perillo, and M.C. Piccolo. 1993. An ecological cascade effect: migratory shorebirds affect stability of intertidal sediments. Limnology and Oceanography 38:225-231.

Daborn, G.R,, H.A. Christian, M. Brylinsky, and D. DeWolfe. 1993. An Experimental Study of Factors Affecting Current Flow and Sediment Stability on the Fort Anne Foreshore. Report No. 29. Acadia Cen. Est. Res., Wolfville, Nova Scotia.

Daborn, G.R., and M.J. Dadswell. 1988. Natural and anthropogenic changes in the Bay of Fundy-Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank System. Pp. 547-56 in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Natural and Man-Made Hazards. El Sabh, M. and T.L. Murty, eds. Reidel Publishing, Dortrecht.

Garrett, C.R. 1977. Tidal influences on the physical oceanography of the Bay of Fundy and Gulf of Maine. Pp. 101-115 in Fundy Tidal Power and the Environment, G.R. Daborn, ed. Acadia University Institute Publication No. 28, Wolfville, Nova Scotia.

Iselin, C. O'D. 1939. Some physical factors which may influence the productivity of New England's coastal water. Journal of Marine Research 2:74-85.

Loder, J.W., and C.R. Garrett. 1978. The 18.6-year cycle of sea surface temperature in shallow seas due to variations in tidal mixing. Journal of Geophysical Research 83:1967-1970.

Neu, H.J.A. 1975. Run-off regulation for hydro-power and its effects on the ocean environment. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 2:583-591.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Sutcliffe, W.H., Jr. 1972. Some relations of land drainage, nutrients, particulate material and fish catch in two eastern Canadian bays. Journal. Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29:357-362.

Sutcliffe, W.H., Jr. 1973. Correlations between seasonal river discharge and local landings of American lobster (Homarus americanus) and Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Journal. Fisheries Research Board of Canada 30:856-859.

Sutcliffe, W.H., Jr., K. Drinkwater, and B.S. Muir. 1977. Correlations of fish catch and environmental factors in the Gulf of Maine. Journal. Fisheries Research Board of Canada 34:19-30.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—AS IF PEOPLE MATTERED

Madeleine Hall-Arber

Sea Grant College Program

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

What is the societal impact when thousands of acres of shellfish beds are closed to harvesting?

What is the societal impact when many miles of beaches are closed to swimming?

What is the societal impact when private property blocks public access to the coast?

What is the societal impact when critical fisheries habitat is filled in for development?

What is the societal impact when septic systems leak into streams flowing into an estuary?

What is the societal impact when another pier is built or, on the other hand, not built?

What is the societal impact when one more fishermen is sold a permit to fish for lobster?

These are the kinds of questions that might ultimately be answered with a consideration of the socioeconomic effects of cumulative impacts in estuaries. However, in order to answer such far-reaching questions, social scientists must start with more modest inquiries. Before discussing such inquiries, however, it is appropriate to consider what is meant by cumulative impacts.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

The concern with cumulative impacts is not a new problem, nor is it confined to academic circles. Over five years ago, for example, the citizen's advisory board of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program formed a subcommittee called “cumulative impacts.” It was obvious to the board that individual small actions, ignored because of their apparently diminutive impact, were having negative effects over time. Science and policy, however, have lagged in determining how to address such impacts.

Part of the problem in addressing this issue is its nebulous quality. “Cumulative impacts of what?” is the first question that one might raise…followed quickly by, “cumulative impacts on what?” Until damage is detected, it is often difficult to determine what actions will ultimately have a harmful effect. Even if certain actions are suspect, it may be difficult to develop policies that can withstand challenges from those who benefit from those actions, particularly if a causal relationship between action and negative impact is not clearly determined. Because human impacts on estuaries are seldom either sudden or obvious, causal relationships may take decades to document, by which time, the damage may have already occurred.

Estuaries are remarkable, “made bountiful through the workings of physical, chemical and biological engines in complex and sometimes mysterious balance,” writes William Boicourt, a physical oceanographer from University of Maryland's Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies (Boicourt, 1993). The circulation patterns of fresh and salt water in estuaries, for example, affect the productivity of planktonic organisms which, in turn, affects the survival of many species of fish, shellfish, and migratory birds. It is the mystery in the “mysterious balance” of the physical, chemical, and biological components of estuaries that underlies some of the difficulty in detecting cumulative impacts.

The areas bounding North Atlantic estuaries boast such diverse ecosystems as salt marshes, eel grass beds, sand dunes, sand beaches, tidal flats, rocky shores, salt ponds, barrier beaches, and islands with an abundance of associated living resources. The same conditions that support this great diversity of living resources have also attracted vast numbers of humans to many of the region's estuaries. The natural harbors of estuaries are connected to inland areas by river systems, thus enabling commerce to thrive and encouraging the rise of cities.

In consequence, human-induced change threatens the “urban estuaries” by an influx of “unnatural amounts of nutrients, sediments and toxic materials,” as well as “by the concentration of human activity on the edge of major fish and waterfowl habitats” (Office of Technology Assessment, 1987; Boicourt, 1993). On the other hand, the commerce and other economic activities associated with the natural resources and the appeal of estuaries are extremely valuable to humans.

In the western counterpart of this symposium, in California, Peter Douglas of the California Coastal Commission states that “most of what drives the politics and decision

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

making within and among public institutions in societies of the world is based on values and beliefs, whether religious or secular. Rational, objective, scientifically based thinking, more often than not has little to do with the outcome.” He suggests that this weakness could be remedied by science, which he regards as “separating facts from values or interests” (NRC, 1995). The implication is that science is value-free. To be fair, Douglas does go on to point out that what purports to be scientific information is often biased by who wants or pays for the scientific information. Nevertheless, he says that “good science means that the right questions are asked, rigorous methodologies are used, reliable and verifiable results are provided, and it is all done in terms the decisionmaker can understand.”

I don't disagree, but I also do not believe that cumulative impacts in estuaries can be managed only through “facts” revealed by physical science, even if that science considers water quality, benthic communities, and other aspects of natural science and history, chemistry, hydrologic physics, sediments, etc. Rather, politics, culture, economics, and community-related activities must be seriously considered in any management effort. It is, after all, the activities of humans which tend to disrupt the natural balance. As one well-known article in the area of fisheries management points out, “Boats don't fish, people do” (Miller and Van Maanen, 1979). While physical science “facts” should inform decision making, policy development must continue to consider stakeholders' interests and values. Choices will always have to be made in this era of scarce resources (financial and natural). To make these choices better informed, broad-based coalitions of stakeholders should be built, promoting communication and cooperation.

Coalitions, however, are not always easy to form. The living and physical resources of estuaries attract people whose interests are not necessarily compatible, at least in an uncontrolled environment. For example, to those whose primary interest is recreational boating, multiple piers and marinas might be considered a benefit. To those who wish to dig clams, however, any addition of marinas and piers could be considered a threat—because associated wastes can lead to shellfish bed closures. Both recreational boaters and shellfishermen would be likely to regard a containership handling facility or an oil tank farm as damaging to their interests.

Even in those cases in which the parties' interests are apparently the same, the solution to one's problem may negatively impact others' interests. A classic example of this is the use of “hard” structures to curtail beach erosion. A jetty may protect one individual 's beach, but cause severe erosion of all downstream individuals' properties.

As the Maine Law Institute points out, management of cumulative environmental impacts entails an acknowledgment of the “interconnectedness of actions ”; a definition of critical resources as the starting point; a shift to a regional approach and cooperative management; an inventory of critical resources; comprehensive plans; and monitoring of approved actions (University of Maine School of Law, 1994).

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Furthermore, the Institute points out that “scientists [meaning, in this case, biologists, etc.] can clarify cause/effect relationships between particular types of actions and degradation of resources. . . But it will be rare that a scientist will be able to make a very specific, quantified prediction of cumulative impacts resulting from a specific project.” It is up to policymakers to “determine which resources are valued and what trade-offs they are willing to make to protect those resources.” Social scientists can aid policymakers in such evaluations.

To an anthropologist, the problem of how to maintain diversity, ensure equity, and balance social, economic, and biological needs in the face of competing or conflicting interests, while daunting, is also fascinating. For the past several years I have been looking at the impacts of changes in fisheries management. The problems in fisheries can be considered to be the ultimate of cumulative impacts. The downward trend in landings and the apparent lack of spawning stocks is directly attributed to too much fishing. Individual boats, rarely larger than 130 feet and the majority under 75 feet, although dwarfed by the ocean, when considered cumulatively, have managed to impact fisheries severely.

But interestingly, the biomass, on Georges Bank for instance, has not radically changed. What has changed is the species mix. Where once there were enormous quantities of cod, haddock, flounders, and other groundfish, now there are large quantities of dogfish and skate. In other words, the cumulative impact of fishing solely for market-favored species has distorted the species mix and threatens a loss of biodiversity. 2 What the consequences will be in the long term is unclear, though scientists are concerned. Spencer Appollonio from the Island Institute, for example, believes that an ecosystem approach to both the marine sciences and related policy planning (e.g., fisheries management) has been too long neglected. As in estuaries, once the balance of the physical, biological, and chemical aspects of an ecosystem are disrupted, management is complicated by the potential for uncontrolled, aberrant behaviors and unpredictable effects.

The disruption of the ecosystem balance naturally affects those directly dependent (economically) on the resources, i.e., the fishermen. But like the cumulative impacts on the ecosystem triggered by overfishing, a ripple effect comes into play, so that those dependent on the fishermen (i.e., their families) and on the related economic activities (suppliers of fuel, nets, food, electronics, bait, ice, insurance, wharf services, etc.) are also negatively affected by the cumulative impacts. Such indirect or secondary effects may accumulate to form waves—waves of crime, substance abuse, physical abuse, and other social problems —when whole communities suffer economic disruption.

While a host of contributing factors has led to the current crisis in fisheries, one issue that I believe is particularly relevant to this group is that for many years there has been a

2  

Conserving biodiversity is considered essential to sustainable use of natural resources (see Hammer et al., 1993.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

lack of real communication among the various interested parties (or “stakeholders”). Every stakeholder involved in fisheries blames at least one other stakeholder for the current problems. In fact, there is blame enough to be shared by all (Hall-Arber, 1993). However, if there is any hope that such cumulative impacts as have developed in the fisheries are to be avoided in the future, there must be earlier, closer attention to both communication and long-term planning.

The fishing industry is currently engaged in efforts to address long-term planning. Participants in the process are trying to develop a “vision ” of the fishing industry for the next couple of decades. Some hope that this first step may eventually lead to some form of comanagement for the fisheries.

Similar efforts have taken place in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays, Buzzards Bay, Narragansett Bay, and Long Island Sound in conjunction with these bays' inclusion in the National Estuary Program. Part of the responsibility associated with the National Estuary Program is that each program must prepare and implement a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Ideally, the development of the plan draws together a representative group of stakeholders to identify major goals, problems, and proposed solutions. One advantage of such a plan is that probable future development is taken into consideration, thus cumulative impact analysis can be incorporated in the process. In addition, potential adversarial relationships can be avoided if all the stakeholders are involved in the development of the plan.

Social scientists have various techniques for obtaining information about stakeholders and their values. Economists offer pieces of the puzzle with cost benefit analyses and contingent valuation. Anthropologists, on the other hand, are trained to look for the structure of a society, community, or organization. The structure reveals formal patterns of behavior and indicates something about the groups' norms. Looking beyond the norms, however, anthropologists are perhaps most intrigued by the differences between the expressed or official norms and actual values indicated by behavior.

Anthropologists generally seek key informants and then observe, participate in, and share, to the extent possible, the activities of their informants. This “hands-on” experience offers a rich understanding of and respect for the diversity that exists in most human groups. When differences between what people say and what they do become apparent, anthropologists can usually indicate factors that explain the variance.

By learning about a representative group's organization and day-to-day activity, as well as their norms and values, an anthropologist can answer the “societal impact” questions raised at the beginning of this paper. Combined with economic analyses, the responses can help guide policymakers in their decisions. Societal impacts are inexorably linked with the impacts identifiable by the physical sciences. However, all too often the physical scientists speak only to each other, in language that only they can understand. So, when I speak of the

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

need for communication, I'm really talking about the importance of ensuring the comprehension of scientific concepts, values, and needs.

Respect for differences of opinion, different values, and norms, is important in efforts to work cooperatively. Because of the nature of cumulative impacts, it is likely that problems will only be resolved, and damaged estuaries restored, if all the stakeholders [scientists (physical and social); regulators; industrial, commercial, or recreational users; conservationists; etc.] are able to cooperate in both short-and long-range planning on an ecosystem wide basis. The diversities in human society and in ecological systems must be understood and worked with rather than ignored.

References

Boicourt, W. 1993. Estuaries: Where the river meets the sea. Oceanus 36:29-37 (Summer).

Douglas, P.M. 1995. What do policymakers and policy-implementors need from scientists? Pp. 15-32 in Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Hall-Arber, M. 1993. “They are the problem”: Assessing fisheries management in New England. Nor'easter 5:2 (Fall/Winter).

Hammer, M., A.M. Jansson, and B.O. Jansson. 1993. Diversity and sustainability: Implications for fisheries. Ambio 203:97-105.

Miller, M., and J. Van Maanen. 1979. “Boats don't fish, people do”: Some ethnographic notes on the federal management of fisheries in Gloucester. Human Organization 38:377-385.

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1987. Wastes in Marine Environments. OTA-O-334, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

University of Maine School of Law, Marine Law Institute. 1994. Managing Cumulative Environmental Impacts of Coastal Development. E-MSG-94-9. Pamphlet #14-Citizen's Guides to Ocean and Coastal Law, Portland, Maine.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS IN THE GULF OF MAINE ESTUARIES: POLICY DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS3

Timothy Glidden

Deputy Director

Natural Resources Council of Maine

Introduction

The previous authors in this group have provided some historical context and specific research suggestions for the difficult issue of managing the cumulative impacts of human activity in the coastal environment. I hope to step aside from this historical and research-oriented discussion for a moment to add the perspective of a close observer of a particular kind of public policy making. My premise for this discussion is that in democratic societies, the most open and accessible policy making fora are state and provincial legislatures and parliaments. From this perspective, I will discuss what these policymakers need and how to best deliver research results to them.

What is the Appropriate Policy Development Perspective?

In selecting my vantage point for this discussion, I reviewed several perspectives. Public policy regarding the environment and natural resource management is affected by

3  

This paper was written when the author was employed by the Office of Policy and Legal Analysis at the Maine Legislature. The views expressed here are those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Natural Resources Council of Maine.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

many interests and is played out in many venues, each with its own rules and agenda. These include:

  • legislatures/parliaments,

  • executive branch,

  • municipal government,

  • corporate interests,

  • public interests, and

  • individual interests.

It is important to note that in many parts of the United States, substate and regional institutions for public policy development are weak or nonexistent. This is certainly the case in New England. This gap and the nature of cumulative environmental impact tend to force decision making back to the state level. In my experience, state legislatures most frequently provide the public arena where all of the various interests come together to understand and debate the policy needs of the day. Legislatures are also capable of delegating key authorities to others, as I will suggest later. Careful and thorough justification is needed, however, to achieve this result.

What do Policymakers Need?

In state legislatures around this country and, I suspect, in provincial parliaments in Canada, elected members are a wonderfully varied lot! Because of this variety, a common vocabulary is needed by all players. The professional language of academics and resource managers is typically not very accessible to legislators. Translation is required! In addition, each issue presented to a legislature for a policy making decision must be couched in terms that provide:

  • demonstrated relevance,

  • clear metaphors and concrete examples, and

  • clear identification of decision consequences.

Why are Cumulative Impacts So Tough?

What makes the issue of cumulative impact different from other aspects of environmental protection and management in the estuarine and coastal environment? Understanding this question is essential to the design of both the needed research and for communicating research results. In addition, the roots of this difficulty have profound implications for effective policy responses. In short form, cumulative environmental impacts are characterized by the following attributes.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
  • Cumulative impacts typically operate invisibly; sometimes over long periods of time.

  • Cumulative impacts are the product of larger numbers of “smaller” actors; it is more difficult to focus on both the actors and the individual consequences of their actions. Either they have no face or they have the face of a neighbor. As a consequence, those responsible for cumulative impacts are more difficult to fit conveniently into the typical stereotypes.

  • Political repercussions of management decisions or regulatory actions can be pervasive, strong, and much more difficult to isolate (closure of sport fishery, restrictions on park use, local land-use controls).

  • Conventional regulatory models for environmental protection are significantly less effective at the level of the individual unless coupled or integrated within a broader context that supports the objective.

  • Many cumulative impact problems and solutions will be resolved at the individual and local level; state-level policymaking must recognize this fact in the selection of appropriate responses.

Research to Strengthen Policymaking

At the risk of stepping on the toes of the previous authors, I do have some research suggestions in three areas that would be helpful to legislative policymakers.

  1. Baseline monitoring is required to document the incremental changes that characterize cumulative development (sediment contamination, benthic organisms, bioconcentrators generally, resource consumption trends, land-use patterns, socioeconomic trends).

  2. Historical research is needed to identify and illuminate the consequences of past human activity that have had cumulative impact. These include:

    • small industrial impacts,

    • distant pollution sources on major river systems,

    • wetlands loss,

    • public sewer and treatment systems (including direct sewers and overflows),

    • marine industrial and recreational activity, and

    • fishing industry activity.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
  1. Suggestions from researchers are needed on new models for motivating changes in individual behaviors (from the fields of economics, political science, sociology, law, philosophy, anthropology, etc.).

Methods to Convey Information

In my experience, conveying the results of research is an often neglected step. Too much good research stays on the shelf because the authors considered it sufficient (at best) to write the results up for a peer-reviewed journal and then to move on to the next project. It will come as no surprise to you, that legislators, by and large, do not read the scientific journals. Science moves in very small increments. Many people puzzle over the same problems, frequently reaching divergent conclusions. The language of science can be dense and jargon-laden. Very few people are surveying research results over time with an eye towards translating new research results into language and examples that are relevant to the policy questions of the moment. Scientists may not feel that this is their job but let me assure you that without attention to this task, research will have virtually no positive impact on policymaking.

Here are a few modest suggestions for methods to convey research results to legislators.

  • Develop ways to get policymakers more direct exposure to the science.

    • Take legislators and legislative staff on routine data collection field trips.

    • Set up visits to labs to create a better environment for discussion of results.

    • Involve legislators as participants in educational programs, particularly seminar style discussions of research problems, results, and implications.

  • Use nonscientific opinion leaders as messengers to convey and validate your scientific findings. These may include credible spokespeople for business, fishing industry, municipalities, public interest groups, etc.

  • Establish a routine or regular legislative presence. This does not have to be continuous and is clearly not possible for everyone. As an example, however, I would note my experience with a particular scientist in a state agency who, through regular, low-key legislative contact, has developed a level of credibility and respect that allows him to communicate research results effectively. Having had the fairly regular opportunity to ask him factual, real world questions (frequently tinged with policy implications), legislators are willing to listen to him and to trust his opinion when he needs to advocate for some policy result.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
  • Finally, be useful; do not simply frame problems. While it is certainly true that asking the right question is just as difficult and essential for a legislator as it is for any researcher, it is not particularly helpful to a legislator who needs to vote to be told only that they are looking at the problem in the wrong way. Reframe the issues if necessary, but be sure to point the way and offer solutions.

Future Steps

Having briefly discussed how to improve communication of research results to legislators, let me conclude by stating that it is my belief that many of the most difficult cumulative impact problems require resolution at a social level below that of state and provincial government. While regulatory actions, resource management programs, and tax and economic policies instituted by state, provincial, or federal governments will continue to be undeniably important, they will not be sufficient to achieve the desired results. Specifically, I suggest that we support and strengthen regional fora (substate/province) for discussion and action on cumulative impact issues. Activities like the Casco Bay and Damariscotta River projects in Maine and the River Corridor Commissions in several states offer good examples. The anticipated initiatives in multitown watershed planning also hold great promise. Legislative action will be required in many cases to empower these new entities.

An essential attribute of success in these projects will be their governance structure. Local opinion leaders and policymakers, along with members of the research community must be included. Include all these players in setting the research agenda to ensure relevance. Be sure to include legislators in these discussions on a regular basis. Support, both financial and legal, will be needed from state and provincial governments. Take these discussions to the legislature if you experience trouble in participation. Use local opinion leaders to encourage legislative participation or to serve as surrogates for direct legislative participation. Relationships with key legislators and staff need to be cultivated (appropriations, natural resource, economic development committees).

Unfortunately, academics have a bad reputation among legislators when it comes to responding to information and research requests in a timely manner. At the same time, legislators are thought to have an equally bad record at paying attention to research results. Resource managers should play a key role in catalyzing a change in this unproductive dynamic. The truth is that relevant, well-presented research is incredibly powerful and has an undeniably beneficial impact on policy.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

ISSUE SUBGROUP SUMMARIES

There was a great deal of interest in the cumulative impacts issue and too many interested participants for a single group, so two subgroups were formed to discuss this issue. Each subgroup produced a separate report, although the introductory sections of the two reports were combined. It was hoped that two subgroups would provide a greater range of suggestions on the topic of cumulative impacts than would a single group. The specific suggestions and approaches differed substantially among the two subgroups, although both suggested that early and regular involvement in planning and using science for management is important. Both subgroups also believed that state legislation similar to the National Environmental Policy Act could improve the use of science in coastal policy making and management.

Introduction

The problem of cumulative environmental impacts arises as a consequence of the accumulation of individual impacts over time or space. Non-accumulating impacts are only temporary and natural processes can restore the impacted system to its original state. Cumulative impacts are additive or even synergistic to some degree, so that the impacted system does not have the time or capability to recover from an individual impact before another occurs, changing the system further. A classic marine example is the action of commercial and recreational fishermen. Any individual harvesting fish will have little effect, but the summation of actions by numerous individuals can devastate a population of fish. To extend the example, the exposure of impacted fish populations to toxic chemicals in the environment, habitat degradation, or climate changes can further damage the fish populations and are part of the cumulative impacts problem.

Decisions at local, state, and federal levels regarding the use of coastal areas and resources usually do not consider cumulative impacts in a comprehensive manner. This occurs despite existing laws and regulations related to coastal water quality and habitat (e.g., Clean Water Act Section 404 regulations) that require managers to take account of cumulative impacts. Managing cumulative impacts requires the integration of the results of scientific activities focused on individual environmental stresses, as well as combinations of stresses.

Cumulative impacts often involve incremental changes over time that are unrecognized until a problem has reached crisis proportions. Although a single project may not have adverse cumulative impacts warranting denial of development permits, the addition of other similar future projects could produce adverse cumulative impacts. Because of the more indirect nature of effects that occur over greater time and space scales, regulations based on assessment and prediction of cumulative impacts require an especially strong

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

scientific basis. Because negative impacts may be neither sudden nor obvious, causal relationships are difficult to prove.

The scientific capability to address cumulative environmental impacts in the marine environment is not well developed. This is especially true for chronic, sublethal impacts. Most scientific institutions and disciplines have difficulty in addressing cumulative impacts because the study and management of many cumulative impacts requires interdisciplinary science activities.

The evaluation of cumulative impacts requires an analysis of multiple, additive, and synergistic effects, over a longer period of time and on more complex scales than is traditional, within a planning context that takes into account past and future conditions.

The absence of meaningful incentives is a major hindrance to interactions between scientists and policymakers in addressing cumulative impacts.

Coherent research programs focused on cumulative impacts should be established. These programs should be interdisciplinary and include modeling, monitoring, and research to achieve credible and effective analytical and predictive capabilities.

Report of the First Subgroup

Chair: Jack Wiggin (University of Massachusetts)

Facilitator: Peg Brady (Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management)

Rapporteur: Alison Rieser (University of Maine School of Law)

Other Participants: David Burdick (University of New Hampshire), John Catena (NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service), Christine Gault (Waquoit National Estuarine Research Reserve), Ramona Habler (EPA), Madeleine Hall-Arber (MIT Sea Grant College Program), Timothy Hennessey (University of Rhode Island), Jack Mette (Appledore Engineering, Inc.), Paul Scholz (NOAA Center for Coastal Ecosystem Health), and Jack Wiggin (University of Massachusetts)

Assessment and management of cumulative impacts is a multistep process that requires close cooperation between scientists, policymakers, and the public. Critical, initial steps of the cumulative impact assessment process are: (1) a definable area is perceived to have a problem with some or many natural resources; (2) groups that control the use of the area or natural resource develop (with scientists and policymakers) a consensus about what cumulative impacts need to be assessed in more detail; (3) the identified impacts can be assessed by (a) choosing indicators of resource condition, (b) performing historical analysis using existing data, (c) collecting more data if needed (which isn't always the case), (d) modeling, and (e) predicting scenarios using the “best available science/precautionary”

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

approach; and (4) policymakers, scientists, and the public must then work together so that everyone understands the management options, the predicted costs and benefits for each option, and the uncertainty of the predictions about how the social and natural systems will respond to each option.

Information Needs of Policymakers

Policymakers need a variety of information to enable them to manage cumulative impacts. In addition to information, they need to have legal, administrative, and technical support to incorporate cumulative impacts in the decision-making process. The definition of cumulative impacts needs to be simplified and environmental policies should be evaluated regularly within the cumulative impacts context. Often, there is neither the technical capability not a clear mandate on which to base decisions. When scientific information is presented to policymakers, it should include a range of scientific options, so that the policymakers can develop a range of management options. In this approach, policymakers can select the actions that are most acceptable or useful for both environmental protection and the needs of the stakeholders. The range of options may provide predictive information about stakeholders' needs of the future. Examples of information needed by policymakers include:

  • better knowledge and understanding of the potential cumulative impacts of policy decisions;

  • status and trends of resources managed (i.e., land-use patterns, demographics, economic pressures on resources);

  • stakeholders' interests (i.e., competing demands for resources and environmental quality from user groups and from other members of the public);

  • better information about the key indicators of cumulative impacts;

  • information about the relationships of ecosystem and social structures and functions. What impacts can we anticipate now and what can we predict about future human development patterns and their impacts on the affected environments?; and

  • the capacity of marine and estuarine systems to absorb impacts.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Natural Science Issues

There is no agreement about how to study and manage complex interactions among different environmental stresses that could contribute to cumulative impacts. It is clear, however, that the relationship between the degree of individual environmental stresses and their impacts on ecosystem function must be quantified, so that land-use controls, effluent limits, or other requirements can be focused on the most important sources of adverse effects. This is a key area for future research, including long-term research needed to understand some types of impacts.

Techniques of landscape ecology that relate landscape structure and patterns to ecological functions have allowed scientists specializing in terrestrial systems to (1) develop cumulative assessment methods for these ecosystems and (2) influence management and regulatory options to protect and restore terrestrial systems to some desired level of function. The same knowledge base of landscape patterns and structure does not exist for marine or estuarine systems; therefore, the causes and significance of cumulative impacts on marine systems are much less certain. In addition, marine systems possess unique variables, for example, three-dimensionality and larval transport over large distances, that prevent the direct application of landscape techniques developed for terrestrial systems. Increased knowledge of factors that are specific to marine systems will be needed to lay a foundation for transfer of these techniques.

The motivation for scientists to conduct research is often focused on the intellectual question or curiosity, rather than on the application of the information. This leaves some of the stakeholders in the coastal policy-making process with the perception that scientists are averse to applied research.

Social Science Issues

From the social sciences, we need knowledge about how best to involve all the stakeholders in planning, development, and evaluation, to ensure that all participants will be more likely to accept the management and/or regulatory consequences of new policies. We need a shared vision of the results that are achievable for a given ecosystem. There is a need for information about how to achieve balance among social, economic, and biological needs in the face of competing or conflicting interests.

There is also a need to use information from sociology, anthropology, political science, and economics for management, communications, education, and facilitation of coastal policy making and management. Social scientists can contribute information about the societal costs of adverse environmental impacts and about the benefits of avoiding these impacts.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Nature of Existing Science and Policy Interactions

Existing interactions between scientists and policymakers are minimal in the Gulf of Maine region for all levels of government and for all kinds of science. However, people in the region understand that improved interactions are desirable, and there is movement in the direction of greater interaction. The Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, where nutrient loading models have been developed to support local zoning ordinances to reduce nitrogen inputs to the estuary, appears to be a successful example. The group cited the Atlantic Canada Coastal Program in the Canadian Maritime Provinces as another successful example. National Estuary Programs of the Gulf of Maine region provide a potential avenue for greater involvement of social and natural scientists in science-policy interactions.

Impediments in the Existing Science and Policy Interactions

Scientific questions associated with assessing cumulative impacts are quite difficult, and scientists are somewhat daunted by questions raised under this issue because it involves so many processes and factors that not are well understood individually, much less in an integrated sense. Scientific investigations of cumulative impacts may require a higher degree of certainty or precision than is needed by management or regulatory programs.

Institutional factors can impede the sharing and integration of information that is necessary for dealing with cumulative impacts. This integration often requires the cooperation of scientists from several different disciplines. The goal should be to achieve a multidisciplinary approach to environmental problems, followed by a synthesis of results in a manner that is useful to managers. There is a need for both greater intra- and interagency collaboration and coordination.

Agencies often lack the capacity for synthesis and translation of research results. Presently, there are few people whose responsibility is to communicate scientific information between scientists and managers, to serve as translators (see Appendix E). Some research programs that were explicitly created to generate management-related scientific and technical information were, only recently, given the resources, including staff, to accomplish this function.

Managers and regulators tend not to be consulted in the design of research projects and in the review of research proposed in response to requests for proposals. Recently, however, a number of federal research programs have mandated the inclusion of managers in the peer-review process. For example, proposals for the Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) included state coastal zone managers and the representatives of the NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM). Likewise, OCRM/C-CAP collaborative research required

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

the involvement of state coastal managers in all proposals. Collaborative research projects between OCRM and the Environmental Protection Agency 's Office of Wetlands and Ocean Waters on nonpoint source pollution of coastal waters also required input from managers as part of the review process. Finally, state programs of the National Sea Grant College Program often ask industry and governmental users of research information to review program proposals.

Research and management programs have generally not been evaluated regarding the extent to which science and management were integrated. For example, the Section 312 reviews of the National Estuarine Research Reserves (NERRs) or of state coastal zone management programs have not been used in this fashion. Environmental managers have not asked these programs to be accountable for applying information developed by the NERRs or National Estuary Programs (assuming that these programs have generated information applicable to other systems).

Ways of Improving the Interaction of Science and Policy

Management agencies need to develop areawide comprehensive planning programs for all sectors of the coast to address the problem of cumulative impacts. Existing models might be the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans of the National Estuary Program or the Areas of Critical Environmental Concern program in Massachusetts. The characteristics of these programs worth emulating are (1) stakeholders' involvement in determining needs and direction in the early stages of the programs (stakeholders in this context means citizens, scientists, managers, and policymakers); (2) reliance of these programs on scientific information; and (3) conduct of foundational scientific research before program plans are developed. These characteristics ensure that social and scientific concerns form the foundation of the plans, rather than being considered later, as part of regulatory processes. For example, some members of the group believe that a state planning and approval process similar to that required for federal activities by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) would help to integrate science into decision making at state levels. A NEPA-like process allows greater opportunity for managing cumulative impacts.

Involvement of stakeholders in coastal policy making was highlighted as an important element of improving the use of science in coastal management. Stakeholders should be involved in setting priorities and selecting research activities and in evaluating and applying research results. Managers, scientists, and other stakeholders should be on panels to decide what scientific research will be funded as part of research programs that are designed to provide management-relevant science. Early involvement of stakeholders will make it more likely, although not entirely certain, that policy solutions will be acceptable to stakeholders later.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Cooperation among stakeholders, and particularly between scientists and policymakers, should include the joint preparation of written plans describing how agencies (local, state, and federal) will pursue integration of science and policy. As discussed above, agency managers can be encouraged to integrate science and policy by making their performance of such integration a part of their evaluations. NOAA 's Coastal Ocean Program and Center for Coastal Ecosystem Health are attempting to involve managers in research planning. The group suggested integrating or coordinating the evaluation of research and management programs and activities, for example, the Section 312 review of state CZM programs and NERRs. This suggestion could also logically be extended to other programs, such as the National Estuary Program.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Report of the Second Subgroup

Chair: John Teal (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)

Facilitator: Fran Rudoff (Maine Department of Economic and Community Development)

Rapporteur: Peter Douglas (California Coastal Commission)

Other Participants: Richard Burroughs (University of Rhode Island), John Costlow (Duke University, ret.), Daniel Farrow (NOAA), Jonathan Garber (EPA), Timothy Glidden (Natural Resources Council of Maine), Larry Hamilton (University of New Hampshire), Kenneth Hood (EPA/ORD), Carolyn Hunsaker (Oak Ridge National Laboratory), Jack Pearce (NOAA/NMFS), Wendy Porter (Champion International Corp.), Gail Wipplehauser (Maine Natural Areas Program), Melissa Waterman (Maine State Planning Office)

The subgroup organized its discussion around two scenarios—(1) a natural resource problem relating to cumulative impacts found on a very small scale (e.g., a small bay within a much larger regional embayment) and (2) a scenario based on the larger geographic reach. With respect to each scenario, the group agreed that six key questions need to be answered to promote effective science-policy interaction.

  1. Who are the policymakers/implementors?

  2. Who are the stakeholders?

  3. What are the information needs of each?

  4. What impediments exist to improving involvement of scientists?

  5. What means can be identified to improve interactions between scientists and policymakers?

  6. What specific suggestions for action can the group endorse?

First Scenario: Cumulative Impacts in Small-Scale Setting

The group specified a hypothetical small bay within a much larger embayment. The bay contains a variety of natural resources (e.g., commercial and recreational shellfisheries, beaches, fish nurseries, wetlands, wildlife, visual resources of greater than local importance). The watershed for this small bay contains a variety of land uses [e.g., residential, agricultural, managed and unmanaged forests, and public works (roads, sewer plant)].

The hypothetical cumulative impact was the decline of shellfish harvest as a result of pathogens harmful to humans. The group focused on the effect of land-use policies on this problem. The relevant policymakers/implementors include the legislative authorities (local/state/federal) and regulatory agencies with applicable jurisdiction. Stakeholders include commercial and recreational clam diggers, local homeowners, nonresidential

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

interests, small businesses, builders/developers, nongovernmental organizations having an expressed interest in the health of the bay, and the public agency stewards of the bay's natural resources.

Information needs of stakeholders and policymakers/implementors include:

  • an assessment of the environmental parameters and processes in the watershed and waters of the bay that relate to the biological health and productivity of shellfish,

  • measurements of the concentration of pathogens in the bay,

  • relevant water chemistry data,

  • identification of the potential multiple causes of contamination and data on the relative contribution of animals and humans to the pathogen problem,

  • an evaluation of alternative solutions to the problem and their potential short- and long-term consequences,

  • information about the costs and benefits of the potential solutions,

  • an evaluation of how the problem is linked to the larger system(s) affecting the bay (e.g., hydrology), and

  • an evaluation of the division of institutional responsibilities relative to the treatment of the problem(s).

Scientific input should be timely, understandable, and credible.

The provision of sound scientific information might be impeded by:

  • insufficient time to acquire, compile, and interpret the necessary information,

  • inadequate resources (funding) and lack of incentives to ensure that scientific work is performed and effectively communicated to policymakers,

  • uncertainties about the conclusions regarding cause and effect relationships,

  • political realities that discourage the development and communication of scientific information,

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
  • efforts by special interests seeking to interfere with and delay the gathering of the information,

  • failure of institutions and individuals to address long-term consequences, and

  • lack of consistently derived and readily available basic information for assessing environmental problems, prepared at appropriate scales (e.g., land-use cover, soils, shellfish areas).

Actions for improving the interactions of science and policy could include:

  • Gather and catalog relevant data, at the appropriate scale(s), on an ongoing basis.

  • Ensure that scientific information is translated into language that is understandable to stakeholders and communicated to them.

  • Initiate actions, such as workshops, to educate stakeholders about the availability and importance of scientific information.

  • Implement actions to bring stakeholders together on a regular basis to inform them about the information that has been developed. Encourage innovative techniques, such as using a facilitated dispute resolution mechanism, that require the use of scientific information and provide incentives to foster public participation.

  • Include socioeconomic considerations when alternative solutions are evaluated.

  • Take the necessary steps to match the solutions to the appropriate “institutions” to ensure efficiencies and to link those institutions in an appropriate way.

  • Take steps to ensure that the media is kept informed, so as to encourage the dissemination of accurate information to the public.

Second Scenario: Cumulative Impacts in Large-Scale Setting

Dealing with cumulative impacts on a larger scale is likely to involve all the factors mentioned for the small-scale scenario, plus some additional factors unique to the large-scale scenario. There are additional policymakers and implementors, such as international bodies, requiring that more decisions be made. The diversity of stakeholders (e.g., non-resident interests, federal agencies, international interests, financial interests) increases. Therefore, the goals and motivations of stakeholders are more diverse.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Additional information, with more emphasis on that larger perspective, would be required under this scenario. Information needs may increase due to the nature and extent of the larger system (physical, cultural, and political) and of problems at this larger scale. The additional information needed and the approach to it are somewhat different, and include:

  • information derived from modeling, used in an appropriate manner,

  • a better understanding of the limits of the knowledge that is available, and

  • information that addresses longer time periods.

The same obstacles to effective input of scientific information exist as for the small-scale scenario, but most are magnified. Additional obstacles include:

  • the likely absence of consensus on the nature (definition) of the problem,

  • the lack of agreement within the scientific community about certain technical issues and data,

  • the likelihood of “turf wars” among government agencies,

  • the probability of poor communications and coordination among agencies,

  • the existence of legal impediments (i.e., potential for litigation) to the sharing of technical information,

  • the increased difficulty of achieving effective public education and participation, and

  • the likelihood that the institutional arrangements and the division of management responsibilities will not be suited to the dimensions of the natural system in which the problem occurs.

It was suggested that policymakers take advantage of existing international arrangements, such as the International Council for Exploration of the Sea (primarily Atlantic nations) and the International Joint Commission (United States-Canada), to improve science-policy interactions. The following suggestions recognize that addressing cumulative impacts will require interdisciplinary scientific input. In addition to mechanisms identified for the small-scale scenario, the following measures apply to the large-scale scenario.

  • Make incentives (funding) available and find ways to encourage greater linkages among disciplines and among stakeholders.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
  • Modify academic reward systems to encourage applied research and to improve science-policy interactions.

  • Identify and foster academic degree programs that produce graduates skilled in integrating information and communicating it among stakeholders.

  • Establish apprenticeship and mentoring programs, career tracks, and other initiatives that further the integration of science and policy.

  • Expand intergovernmental personnel agreement programs at all levels of government and extend them to include nongovernmental organizations.

  • Plan and convene meetings designed to encourage the nonadversarial exchange of information among stakeholders.

  • Develop special incentive programs that improve the quality of science and environmental reporting in the media (e.g., special award programs).

  • Identify and implement initiatives and actions to expand the ethnic diversity of environmental managers and scientists.

A fundamental need in the Gulf of Maine region is for an environmental impact assessment process at the state level akin to the federal environmental impact assessment process required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Accordingly, appropriate legislation is needed to mandate that scientific information be prepared and made available for use by decisionmakers.

Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 116
Next: Protecting Regional Significant Terrestrial and Marine Habitats »
Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!