# Course Title: Floodplain Management 

**Module 6:** Course Exercise in Floodplain Management

**Session 20 A:** Optional Activity (Prepare ecological risk assessment)

**Author:** Bob Freitag CFM, University of Washington

> **Time: 75 minutes**

**Objectives: (PP1, and PP2, Title and Objectives)**

At the end of this session, the students will have outlined an
ecological risk assessment for their case study floodplain watershed.

**Scope:**

As was said in Session 1, this course will likely attract students from
a wide variety of disciplines and backgrounds, and the course is
designed to take advantage of this richness. Session 28A is designed to
give those students coming to the course from an ecological background,
an opportunity to practice preparing an ecological risk assessment and
give other team members exposure such an assessment.

This optional session is to allow students to:

-   Explore an ecological risk assessment,

-   Identify similarities with other risk assessments offered within
    this course and

-   Provide useful information for conducting the course case study
    exercise.

Three activities occur in Session 28A. Students will individually or
within a team:

1.  Review and be able to explain the example ecological risk assessment
    approach in the context of the hazard risk assessment procedures
    presented in Module 4.

2.  Expand on, develop, amend or re-work a session 28 problem
    sufficiently to outline an ecological risk assessment

3.  Prepare an ecological risk assessment outline and present it to the
    team for integration into the case study problem

Readings:

*Re-read in detail the following that was introduced but may have not
been sufficiently discussed in Session 11:*

# Severeiss, V. D. Norton, and S. Norton. 2000. "Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment." <http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/ecorisk/>. {#severeiss-v.-d.-norton-and-s.-norton.-2000.-watershed-ecological-risk-assessment.-httpwww.epa.govwatertrainecorisk. .River-I}

*Re-read the following information that was introduced in session 28:*

NEPA Process: <http://www.c470.info/hnepa.pdf>

*Suggested Reading:*

*E.O 11988 <http://www.fema.gov/library/eo11988.shtm>*

**General Requirements:**

Student teams must have participated in the previous course modules and
have chosen a case study problem.

**Remarks:**

Assessing risk is vital in the field of floodplain management. An
assessment alerts decision makers to probable futures and allows for the
integration of risk reduction and management practices into responses
for reducing or eliminating adverse impacts. Of course, local decision
makers can always wait for a disaster and try to reestablish what was
lost, be it a house, a critical facility, sensitive habitat, or an
endangered species. Waiting for disaster; however, is the antithesis of
a proactive, sound floodplain management practices

**I. Risk Assessment Approaches.**

Several risk assessment approaches were introduced in this course.

> A. Task 3 of each module exercise was drawn from the National
> Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
>
> Task 3 of each exercise forced students to create appropriate measures
> that address the scope of concerns identified in Task 2. To complete
> the exercise, students needed to create alternative measures that
> would address these concerns, identify significant impacts associated
> with these alternatives; consider cumulative impacts, and determine if
> these impacts were beneficial or adverse to some objective. These
> steps are basic to the NEPA process.
>
> B. Session 11 introduced an example of how ecological risk assessments
> might be undertaken.
>
> C. Sessions 15 through 20 presented hazards oriented assessments in
> detail. These 6 sessions offered examples of hazards based risk
> approaches based on:
>
> 1\. FEMA model Hazards-US (HAZUS), and
>
> 2\. The approach recommend by FEMA included within the "How to guides"
> (<http://www.fema.gov/fima/resources.shtm>) for writing DMA 2000
> hazard mitigation plans.

**II. Selected risk assessment approaches.**

> A. The purpose of this session is to consider risk assessments in two
> ways:
>
> 1\. Narrow- driven by a development problem such as the National
> Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Executive Order (EO) 11988.
>
> 2\. More comprehensive - not driven by problems, such as the FEMA
> models such as HAZUS and that offered by Severeiss, Norton, and Norton
> (2000)
>
> B. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
>
> 1\. The NEPA model examines risk from a specific point of reference,
> for example, the impacts resulting from a particular project.
>
> 2\. Most states have adopted NEPA type procedures for State projects.
> Some projects are categorically excluded from the process. These
> actions have, though past experience, proven to have no significant
> impacts. **(PP3 and PP4, NEPA Process and Definitions)**
>
> C. NEPA Example
>
> 1\. If the federally funded or permitted bridge is proposed, NEPA
> requires that the bridge be assessed to document its impacts.
>
> 2\. For example, if during a Scoping meeting the bridge was thought to
> remove a deer population's access to a mating ground or a migration
> route, NEPA would require a determination to find if this removal was
> significant in the Environment Assessment.
>
> a\. If the impact was not significant, a Finding of No Significant
> Impact (FONSI) would be prepared.
>
> b\. If the impact was significant, an Environmental Impact Statement
> (EIS) would be prepared.
>
> c\. This EIS not only informs, but also triggers other authorities and
> the design of the project may be significantly changed unless the
> adverse impacts could be mitigated.
>
> d\. There is also such a thing as a Mitigated FONSI where by an EIS
> would not have to prepared in light of the mitigation measure.
>
> D. Identifying Opportunities
>
> 1\. In the above example, let's assume that the deer populations were
> under stress because of limited access to mating areas or migration
> routes, but the bridge had no impact on this.
>
> a\. The bridge project "scoping meeting" and the resulting
> Environmental Assessment (EA) may address this issue, but would be
> under no obligation to consider it significant and would be under no
> obligation to examine the stresses involved.
>
> 2\. However, let's assume that the bridge project could easily
> incorporate in its design a corridor that would eliminate these
> stresses.
>
> a\. The NEPA process, even in addressing cumulative impacts, is
> designed to identify such opportunities. And here is where an
> Environmental Risk Assessment applies.

**III. Executive Orders (EO)**

> A. EO 11988 was signed by President Carter to better manage floodplain
> development.
>
> B. The EO binds all federal agencies to adopt its policy directives as
> agency regulations and go through a very rigorous eight-step procedure
> for all actions falling within its scope. (**PP5, EO 11988
> Requirements)**
>
> C. Agency regulations apply to actions that have the potential to
> affect floodplains or which would be subject to potential harm if they
> were located in floodplains.
>
> 1\. The basic test of the potential of an action to affect floodplains
> or wetlands is the action's potential to:
>
> a\. Avoid long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the
> occupancy and modification of floodplains and the destruction or
> modification of wetlands.
>
> b\. Avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development and
> new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable
> alternative.
>
> c\. Reduce the risk of flood loss.
>
> d\. Promote the use of nonstructural loss reduction methods to reduce
> the risk of flood loss.
>
> e\. Minimize the impact of floods on human health, safety, and
> welfare.
>
> f\. Minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands.
>
> g\. Restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by
> floodplains.
>
> h\. Preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values served by
> wetlands.
>
> i\. Involve the public throughout the floodplain management and
> wetlands protection decision making process.
>
> j\. Adhere to the objectives of the Unified National Program for
> Floodplain Management.
>
> k\. Continually analyze existing and new policies of the Council to
> ensure consistency between them and the provisions of E.O. 11988 and
> 11990.
>
> l\. Improve and coordinate the Council's plans, programs, functions,
> and resources so that the Nation may attain the widest range of
> beneficial uses of the environment without degradation or risk to
> health and safety.
>
> From PART 725.2 Policy---IMPLEMENTATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS 11988,
> FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT AND 11990, PROTECTION OF WETLANDS

**IV. Non-Development Driven Risk Assessment Models**

> A. An Ecological Risk Assessment and a risk assessment designed by
> FEMA/DHS to address hazards are remarkably similar.
>
> B. In an ecological risk assessment:
>
> 1\. Hazards are referred to as stresses in the ecological model
> offered by Norton (date) in our required reading
>
> 2\. Stresses are profiled as hazards in Session 15.
>
> 3\. Populations (flora, fauna, people/economic activities) exposed to
> these stresses are identified.
>
> 4\. These exposed populations are analyzed as to their vulnerability.
> Fragility estimates can be made as they can with such FEMA/DHS
> generated programs as HAZUS.
>
> 5\. Once vulnerabilities are analyzed, risk reduction measures can be
> developed (suggested), and
>
> 6\. Mitigation measures can be evaluated and implemented.

**V. Ecological risk assessment**

> A. An ecological risk assessment evaluates the potential adverse
> effects that human activities have on the plants and animals that make
> up ecosystems.
>
> B. The risk assessment process provides a way to develop, organize,
> and present scientific information so that it is relevant to
> environmental decisions.
>
> C. When conducted for a particular place such as a watershed, the
> ecological risk assessment process can be used to identify vulnerable
> and valued resources, prioritize data collection activity, and link
> human activities with their potential effects. (Severeiss, V. D.
> Norton, and S. Norton. 2000 or EPA website)
>
> 1\. Serveiss', Norton and Norton (2000) state that making good
> watershed management decisions requires science-based information that
> can be evaluated and priority-ranked in terms of the risks to the
> watershed.
>
> 2\. The same holds true for river corridors. Ecological risk
> assessments can be extremely valuable to risk managers who must make
> complex decisions and without such assessments may not see a clear
> path on how to incorporate science.
>
> 3\. Serveiss, Norton and Norton (2000) present a non development
> driven process that includes, planning, ecological risk assessment,
> communication and risk management.
>
> a\. For the purpose of this session we will concentrate on the
> ecological risk assessment part of that process while being aware of
> the merits of their integration of the planning process into their
> overall approach.
>
> D. The assessment process Serveiss', Norton and Norton offer includes
> problem formation (NEPA would call this the scoping process), an
> analysis phase addressing exposure and the ecological effects and
> lastly risk characterization. **(PP 6, An Ecological Risk Assessment
> Process)**
>
> E. Both the hazards risk process presented in Module 4 and the
> ecological risk process begin with defining the problem \-- narrowing
> the field of research such as identify the hazards and stressors to be
> studied.
>
> 1\. Both involve identifying and profiling primary and secondary
> hazards/stressor.
>
> 2\. Both use this profiling to identify that exposed to the
> hazards/stressors, and both determine the
> vulnerability/fragility/effects impacting what is exposed.
>
> 3\. Both have the same goals.
>
> a\. focus on the major stressor/hazards of concern (primary and
> secondary)
>
> b\. seek associations between stressors/hazards and impacts
>
> 4\. And both approaches use exposure scenarios to estimate costs.

**VI. Problem Formulation Phase**

> A. Problem formulation provides the organizing framework upon which
> the entire risk assessment depends.
>
> 1\. In this phase the primary and secondary stress/hazards are
> identified and profiled, a conceptual model is developed, and
> endpoints are proposed.
>
> 2\. Stressors are defined as the following and often the result of
> human activity, but also result from natural disturbances such as
> flooding, Earthquakes, Tsunami, fire...
>
> a\. Physical
>
> b\. Biological
>
> c\. Chemical
>
> B. Hazards are defined as follows and until recently were thought of
> as acts of god but now the damage caused by them is generally thought
> of as disasters by design -- human design[^1].
>
> 1\. Flooding
>
> 2\. Earthquake
>
> 3\. Tsunami
>
> 4\. Fire
>
> C. Stressors are profiled as to:
>
> 1\. Type
>
> 2\. Intensity
>
> 3\. Duration
>
> 4\. Frequency
>
> 5\. Timing
>
> 6\. Scale
>
> D. Hazards are profiled as to:
>
> 1\. Location
>
> 2\. Severity
>
> 3\. Frequency
>
> 4\. Warning time
>
> E. Conceptual Models
>
> 1\. Within the recommended ecological approach, conceptual models are
> developed noting the interrelationships among resources, stressors,
> and effects, and provides focus to the analysis phase.
>
> 2\. Similarly hazards risk assessments such as HAZUS and that
> presented in the "How to" series by FEMA/DHA are based on detailed
> conceptual models.

**VII. Endpoints**

> A. Assessment endpoints are expressions of the environmental value
> that are to be protects such as the recruitment of wild salmon.
>
> 1\. The measure would be the ecological characteristics that are
> related to the environmental value chosen such as species richness.
>
> B. Hazards based risk assessments don't typically establish endpoint
> as such.
>
> 1\. They do often establish specific objectives that often function as
> endpoints -- river channel deflected away from development, floodwater
> elevation doesn't exceed first floor of homes.

**VIII. Analysis Phase: (exposure and ecological effects) (PP7, Analysis
Phase)**

> A. The analysis phase evaluates offered by Serveiss', Norton and
> Norton requires identification of the exposure of valued ecological
> resources to stressors and the relationship between stressor levels
> and ecological effects.
>
> B. During risk characterization, the risks are described and if
> possible estimated quantitatively, forming the basis for the
> assessment's conclusions

**IX. Characterizing exposure**

> A. Exposure is estimated by measuring or modeling a stressor and
> describing the exposure pathways through which co-occurrence or
> contact between stressors and ecological resources may occur.
>
> B. The magnitude of exposure and the distribution in time and space of
> both the ecological resource of concern and the stressor are
> considered in identifying exposure pathways and developing a
> quantitative exposure profile.
>
> C. Hazards risk assessments typically take advantage of GIS technology
> and begin with the development of a hazard layer such as a floodplain
> and laying this file over inventory data such as home resulting in
> homes exposed to flooding.
>
> D. The suggested ecological assessment suggests the determination and
> evaluation of characterization of stressor-response relationships.
>
> 1\. This process often requires common statistical tools such as
> multivariate analysis, modeling, multiple regression analysis,
> principle components analysis, discriminant analysis and nonmetric
> clustering and association analysis, visualization techniques and
> simulation modeling (Foran and Ferenc, 1999).
>
> 2\. Hazards risk assessments incorporate a similar process when
> determining and assessing vulnerability, and developing and applying
> fragility estimates such as depth damage relationships for housing
> types.

**X. Risk Characterization Phase**

> A. The final phase of the ecological assessment is a determination of
> the significance of adverse effects due to exposure to stressors
> presented in a way that would allow managers to support science-based
> decision-making based on defensible assessment conclusions.
>
> 1\. This is the same for the approach presented in Module 4.
>
> B. In characterizing the risk, both approaches involve the development
> alternative future scenarios in documenting risk.
>
> 1\. Both characterize risk as a function of frequency and impact
> (e.g., there is an 80% chance of 50% forest mortality in the watershed
> due to air pollution), and both present clear evidence of causality.

**Student Activity:**

Three products will result from the activities of this Session.

1.  A one page paper describing the similarities and differences between
    the risk assessment presented in Module 4 with that offered within
    this session. Students can create a table that shows the two
    approaches.

2.  A paragraph or so reworking of a problem statement offered in
    session 28 that incorporates the "Problem Formation" material
    present within this session.

3.  A one to two page outline of an ecological risk assessment as
    presented within this session. The outline should draw upon
    information gathered to date from the student's involvement with
    their course case study. Students should be encouraged to develop
    assumptions were needed data has not be collected.

**REFERENCES:**

# Severeiss, V. D. Norton, and S. Norton. 2000. "Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment." <http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/ecorisk/> or <http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/pdf/wshedecorisk.pdf> {#severeiss-v.-d.-norton-and-s.-norton.-2000.-watershed-ecological-risk-assessment.-httpwww.epa.govwatertrainecorisk-or-httpwww.epa.govwatertrainpdfwshedecorisk.pdf .River-I}

NEPA Process: <http://www.c470.info/hnepa.pdf> (this is not hot linked
to the website)

*E.O 11988
<http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/aprqtr/pdf/18cfr725.2.pdf>
and any rule such as that offered by FEMA in*

[*http://www.fema.gov/library/eo11988.shtm*](http://www.fema.gov/library/eo11988.shtm)

Foran, J.A. and S. A. Ferenc. 1999. Multiple stressors in ecological
risk and impact assessment. SETAC Pellston workshop on multiple
stressors in ecological risk and impact assessment; 13-18 September
1997; Pellston, Michigan. Published by the Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), Pensacola, Florida, USA. 100p.

[^1]: See book of the same title. Disasters by Design: Dennis Mileti