Science Advisory Report  2014/026

Pilot application of an ecological risk assessment framework to inform ecosystem-based management in the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area

Summary

• A pilot application of the ecological risk assessment framework (ERAF) methodology (DFO 2012) was reviewed at an RPR meeting in June 2013. The pilot test was conducted with a subset of significant ecosystem components (SECs) and activities/stressors in the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA) to evaluate operational modifications to the Level 1 ERAF methodology and to assess the performance of the ERAF in providing a relative ranking of SECs (formerly called valued ecosystems components, VECs) and activities/stressors. The SEC terminology is recommended because it is a better descriptor of the components addressed by the ERAF and is consistent with international usage. The results of this pilot application further the development of the ERAF as a tool for identifying, and assessing the relative risk of harm to SECs from human activities and their associated stressors.
• The relative risk rankings and raw scores estimated in this pilot application are not intended to be used for further management action or to inform decision-making around PNCIMA conservation objectives or priorities since the results are based on scores from a small group of experts working on a subset of activities, stressors, and SECs chosen for the test based on perceived data availability.
• A Level 1 risk assessment is a triage method/approach best suited to assessing relative risk at large ocean management area (LOMA) spatial scales, where the list of potential SECs and activities/stressors is large and broad-scale data availability may be limited.
• The semi-quantitative Level 2 risk assessment is best suited to local or regional scales within PNCIMA, or on specific SECs of interest. The data requirements (quantity and quality) are much higher in a Level 2 assessment than for a Level 1 assessment.
• The operational modifications to the ERAF methodology reviewed at this RPR are suitable for conducting Level 1 risk assessment in the PNCIMA.
• Two methods of estimating risk to SECs were tested in the pilot: Binned Exposure and Uncertainty Propagation. Incorporating uncertainty directly into the risk calculation (Uncertainty Propagation) is the recommended approach to estimating relative risk for a Level 1 risk assessment.
• Peer-reviewed pathways of effects (POE) models should be used to identify SEC-stressor interactions and impacts in a Level 1 assessment when they are available. However, the absence of peer-reviewed POEs should not stall the process; rather the strength-of-evidence tables used in the pilot application are a suitable substitute until a peer-reviewed POE for a specific activity is available. Developing a library of activity-based POE models in collaboration with other agencies is recommended to facilitate future applications of the ERAF.
• The exposure term in the risk estimate was scored for the activity and the stressor it produces and thus a common value was applied across all SECs that interact with the given stressor. This approach to scoring the exposure term is appropriate for Level 1 risk assessments applied at a PNCIMA spatial scale, but Level 1 risk assessments applied to smaller scales should consider an individual SEC scoring approach to increase the accuracy of results.
• Individually scoring uncertainty for each subcomponent in the exposure and consequence terms of the risk equation and the implementation of a method to account for a lack of consensus in the scientific literature are important modifications in the pilot application that address uncertainty in biological data inputs. It is recommended that a Comments section be added to the scoring table to record information about the factors driving uncertainty, especially for subcomponents that are data deficient or lack scientific consensus concerning impacts since these variables are given a high uncertainty score.
• The ERAF allows for assumptions to be clearly stated and raw data scores available in tables for inspection. Individually scoring each subcomponent in the risk equation was designed to provide information to the user as to the main driver(s) of risk to a SEC.
• Scoring guides are clear and explicit. However, ERAF performance would be improved with input from subject-matter experts (including scientists from DFO, other agencies and non-governmental organizations, and stakeholders who can provide local knowledge) to the scoring process, either directly in conducting the scoring or indirectly in reviewing the assigned scores. More experience is needed in the application of the ERAF to enhance its repeatability, since the pilot application was conducted by a small group of experts.
• The Level 1 risk assessment performed well in identifying relative risk to SECs in that it can distinguish SECs with high and low risk profiles, and it provides considerable information on the drivers of risk.
• The selection of SECs is critically important to providing useable output from the ERAF. The absence of a suitable list hampered the pilot application of the ERAF in PNCIMA. Finalized lists of SECs and existing activities/stressors will be needed to support the full implementation of a Level 1 risk assessment in PNCIMA.

This Science Advisory Report is from the June 25-27, 2013 Regional Peer Review on the Pilot Application of an Ecological Risk Assessment Framework to Inform Ecosystem-based Management in the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area. Additional publications from this meeting will be posted on the Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Science Advisory Schedule as they become available.

Complete document (PDF, 336 KB)

Accessibility Notice

This document is available in PDF format. If the document is not accessible to you, please contact the Secretariat to obtain another appropriate format, such as regular print, large print, Braille or audio version.