CONCEPTUAL MODELS, MATRICES, NETWORKS, AND ADAPTIVE

a
MANAGEMENT – EMERGING METHODS FOR CEA

by
b
L.W. Canter

ABSTRACT

CEA can be aided by the use of an expanded set of methods. Four

examples include conceptual models, modified interaction matrices, networks,
and adaptive management (AM) processes. Conceptual models range from
summarized scientific knowledge to graphical depictions of environmental
resources, their interrelationships, and potential changes resulting from multiple
actions and stressors. Modified matrices and networks can be used to address
connections between proposed actions, other actions and identified VECs. Step-
wise approaches for developing modified matrices and networks are also
described. The AM process, which can be used to reduce uncertainties and
inform the science of CEA, is thoroughly described in a corollary paper.
Accordingly, and based upon concepts and case studies involving conceptual
models, matrices, and networks, it can be noted that there are numerous
examples of these three types of methods being used in CEA studies. The
examples could be directly used in other studies or appropriately modified to
meet specific site and study needs. Documentation of the rationale for the
selected methods, as well as their assumptions and key features, can facilitate
the aggregation of best practices approaches. The included case studies, and
their usage of these three types of methods, represent extensions of the use of
similar tools for addressing the direct and indirect effects of singular proposed
actions via the EIA process. Finally, as the practice of CEA matures, it can be
expected that continuing creativity will lead to still additional modifications and
improvements in conceptual models, matrices, and networks.

___________
a
Presented at Assessing and Managing Cumulative Environmental Effects, Special Topic
Meeting, International Association for Impact Assessment, November 6-9, 2008, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada.
b
Principal, Environmental Impact Training, Horseshoe Bay, Texas.

1
INTRODUCTION

The professional practice of environmental impact assessment (EIA) has

been supported by an expanding methodological (analytical) foundation since
1970. In an analogous manner, the professional practice of cumulative effects
assessment (CEA) also needs such a methodological foundation. The CEA
foundation has been expanding since the early practice of CEA beginning in the
mid-1980s. It is interesting to note that the developing CEA foundation is
comprised of both new methodologies as well as modifications of EIA-related
methodologies (Canter, 1997 and 1999; and Canter and Kamath, 1995).

Two main purposes can be identified for using methods within CEA
studies: (1) to facilitate the identification of cumulative effects; and (2) for usage
in the descriptive (qualitative) or quantitative prediction of such effects.
Identification methods can be useful in scoping for VECs (Valued Ecosystem
Components) and anticipated effects; establishing spatial and temporal
boundaries for the study; selecting VEC-related indicators of cumulative effects;
determining what features to address in preparing a description of historical to
current baseline conditions; and in communicating study results relative to
cumulative effects. Prediction methods are fundamental to delineating actual
cumulative effects and to determining the significance of such effects in relation
to thresholds and carrying capacities. The results from achieving these two
purposes can be incorporated within the decision-making phase of the study
process. This phase may incorporate multi-criteria decision-making methods,
with one of the decision factors being the cumulative effects of the proposed
action when considered in relation to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions (RFFAs) in the designated study area.

CATALOG OF GENERIC CEA METHODS

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) handbook on CEA identified

11 types of useful methods, included examples in appendices, and summarized
their strengths and weaknesses. Brief information on the 11 types was also
provided, with the key features of each being (Council on Environmental Quality,
1997, pp. 56-57):

 Questionnaires, Interviews, and Panels – Useful for gathering the wide

range of information on multiple actions and resources (VECs) needed to
address cumulative effects. Brainstorming sessions, interviews with
knowledgeable individuals, and group consensus building activities can
help identify the important cumulative effects issues in the study area or
region. These methodologies can be used in internal and external scoping
and in the identification of cumulative effects – these uses are
subsequently delineated by the code SI (scoping and identification).

2
 Checklists – Useful for identifying potential cumulative effects by providing
a list of common or likely effects and juxtaposing multiple actions and
VECs. Checklists can be dangerous for the analyst that uses them as a
shortcut to thorough scoping and conceptualization of cumulative effects
problems. These methodologies can be used for SI and for descriptively
predicting (DP) cumulative effects.

 Matrices – Use a tabular format to organize and quantify the interactions

between human activities and resources of concern. Matrices can also be
used to combine the values in individual cells in the matrix to evaluate the
cumulative effects of multiple actions on individual resources, ecosystems,
and human communities (typically referred to as VECs). These
methodologies can be used for SI and DP.

 Networks and System Diagrams – Useful for delineating the cause-and-

effect relationships resulting in cumulative effects. Can be used to analyze
the multiple, subsidiary effects of various actions, and trace indirect effects
to resources that accumulate from direct impacts on other resources
(VECs). These methodologies can be useful for SI, DP, and quantitative
predictions (QP).

 Modeling – A potential powerful technique for quantifying the cause-and-

effect relationships leading to cumulative effects. Modeling can take the
form of mathematical equations describing cumulative processes such as
soil erosion, the use of VEC-specific software, or an expert system that
computes the effect of various project scenarios based on a program of
logical decisions. There are numerous available mathematical models
which can be useful for QP.

 Trends Analysis – This methodology can be used to assess the status of

VECs over time and to develop graphical projections of past or future
conditions. Changes in the occurrence or intensity of stressors
(contributing effects from other actions) over the same time period can
also be determined. Trends can help the analyst identify cumulative
effects problems, establish appropriate environmental baselines, and
project future cumulative effects. This category of methodologies can be
used for both DP and QP.

 Overlay Mapping and GIS – These methods incorporate locational

information into cumulative effects analysis and help set the boundaries of
the analysis, analyze landscape parameters, and identify areas where
effects will be the greatest. Map overlays can be based on either the
accumulation of stresses in certain areas or on the suitability of each land
unit for development. These methodologies can be useful for SI, DP, and
QP.

3
  Carrying Capacity Analysis (a special method) – Carrying capacity
analysis identifies thresholds (as constraints on development) and
provides mechanisms to monitor the incremental use of unused capacity.
Carrying capacity in the ecological context is defined as the threshold of
stress below which populations and ecosystem functions can be
sustained. In the social context, the carrying capacity of a region is
measured by the level of services (including ecological services) desired
by the populace. These methodologies can be useful for DP and QP, as
well as the determination of the significance of cumulative effects.

 Ecosystem Analysis (a special method) – Ecosystem analysis explicitly

addresses biodiversity and ecosystem sustainability. The ecosystem
approach uses natural boundaries (such as watersheds and ecoregions)
and applies ecological indicators (such as indices of biotic integrity and
landscape pattern). Ecosystem analysis entails the broad regional
perspective and holistic thinking that are required for successful
cumulative effects assessment. These special methodologies can be
useful for DP and QP.

 Economic Impact Analysis (a special method) – This method is an

important component of analyzing cumulative effects, because the
economic wellbeing of a local community and region depends on many
different actions. The three primary steps in conducting an economic
impact analysis are (1) establishing the region of influence, (2) modeling
the economic impacts, and (3) determining the significance of the impacts.
Economic models play an important role in these impact assessments and
range from simple to sophisticated. These special methodologies can be
useful for DP and QP.

 Social Impact Analysis (a special method) – Social impact analysis

addresses cumulative effects related to the sustainability of human
communities by (1) focusing on key social variables such as population
characteristics, community and institutional structures, political and social
resources, individual and family changes, and community resources; and
(2) projecting future effects using social analysis techniques such as linear
trend projections, population multiplier methods, scenarios, expert
judgment, and simulation modeling. These special methodologies can be
useful for DP and QP.

Selection Approaches for CEA Methods

A typical CEA study requires the selection of one or more methods to

meet identified study needs. Accordingly, consideration needs to be given to
certain approaches which could be used in such a selection process. For some
CEA studies, the sponsoring agency (proponent) may specify the methods to be
used; such methods may have been specifically developed for the types of

4
projects conducted by the agency. For example, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) in the USA has developed several specific tools and
methods (Caltrans, et al., 2005; and Stanley, 2006). Depending upon the type of
study, such methods may be dictated by proponent best practices or by statutory
requirements. At the other extreme, and perhaps more typical of CEA studies, is
when the proponent does not specify any methods for usage with the
presumption being that the professionals on the interdisciplinary team conducting
the study will utilize appropriate methods depending upon the type of project,
selection of VECs, and study parameters such as time and funding. All CEA
studies require some methods selection, including those studies that have
stipulations for the usage of particular methods due to statutory requirements.
For example, it may be necessary to select one or more methods for impact
identification related to a proposed coal-fired power plant, but then to utilize a
specified air quality dispersion model for addressing the atmospheric dispersion
of sulfur dioxide from the plant stacks and other elevated point sources in the
study area.

Based on the assumption that selection of methods, either formally or

informally, is a component of every impact study, the question then becomes
focused on what approaches might be used to accomplish such selections.
Three examples are an approach based upon professional judgment only, an
approach based upon systematic but qualitative comparisons of different
methods for usage for different purposes, and an approach involving detailed
quantitative comparisons of different methods arrayed against a series of
weighted decision criteria (factors).

Method selection based upon professional judgment is actually involved in

all three approaches. For example, methods can be chosen based upon the
professional knowledge and judgment of individuals on an interdisciplinary study
team, or the collective judgment of the study team as a whole, regarding
comparative features of available methods and their usage in the pertinent CEA
study. In this regard, specific decision criteria for comparing methods may not be
delineated, with choices probably being related to the familiarity and possible
previous usage of methods by individuals on the team. On the other hand,
decision criteria could be used to aid the selection process. Finally, it is important
to note that professional judgment can relate to both substantive issues
addressed by individual methods as well as their comparative ease of usage in
terms of required data, time considerations, and budgetary limitations.

Comparison Criteria for Methods

Several sets of criteria for selection of CEA methods have been

promulgated since the mid-1980s (Council on Environmental Quality, 1997;
Irving, et al., 1986; Smit and Spaling, 1995; and Vestal, et al., 1995). Such
criteria could aid in the evaluation of existing CEA methods. Further, they could

5
be used as a basis for combining the features of multiple methods, or modifying
existing EIA or CEA methods for usage in specific studies.

One example of desirable criteria (or features) for a CEA methodology

was promulgated in 1986 (Irving, et al., 1986). The six criteria, which could be
generally applied to each selected VEC within a study, included: (1) the
methodology should specifically address multiple developments or land use
practices; (2) it should incorporate scoping to facilitate the narrowing of the list of
potential impacts and impacted species and resources; (3) it should be adaptable
to allow for the large array of possible site-resource-impact combinations; (4) it
should have flexible boundaries in time and space because significant cumulative
effects may occur offsite (at least in the traditional sense) or over an extended
time frame; (5) it should be able to aggregate or tally incremental and interactive
effects to give an estimate of the overall total effect to which a species or
resource is being exposed; and (6) it should allow for differential levels of
resolution, that is, it should allow for a more general, extensive analysis of the
cumulative effects of all relevant developments, projects, or land use practices
while still allowing intensive site- and project-specific impact analysis.

SCOPE OF TOPICS

The emphasis herein will be on CEA-focused modifications of two of the

above types of methods – matrices and networks. Further, two additional
methods not included in the above list; i.e., conceptual models and adaptive
management, will be described. These additional methods are being increasingly
used in CEA studies, particularly in the current decade. Adaptive Management
will only be briefly addressed because a companion Special Topic Meeting paper
is available on the subject (Canter and Atkinson, 2008). Finally, lessons learned
from this review will be articulated.

CONCEPTUAL MODELS (CMs) IN CEA

Conceptual models (CMs) are simply abstractions of reality created to

express a general understanding of a more complex process or system
(Fischenich, 2008). Accordingly, a CM represents a summary of known scientific
and policy information about the components of an environmental or social
system (ecosystem), the characteristics and interactions of the components, and
the effects of societal actions on such characteristics and interactions. More
specifically, a CM has been defined as a representation of relationships among
natural forces and factors, and human activities (intended or not) that are
believed to impact, influence, or lead to an ecological or target condition. The
target condition – e.g., lake water quality, habitat, level of risk – is significant or
valued, ecologically and publicly (Henderson and O’Neil, 2004). Finally, it should
be noted that CMs can be developed for usage at regional or broad-scale levels,
or at localized or small-scale levels.

6
 The outputs from CMs are typically qualitative or descriptive narratives or
graphic representations that demonstrate the causal relationships between
natural forces and human activities that produce changes in human and
ecological systems (Henderson and O’Neil, 2004). More specifically, the
information summary from a CM can be presented in a picture model form, a
(descriptive) word, sentence, or paragraph model form, a tabular or interactive
matrix form, a questionnaire checklist, or via box-and-arrow diagrams (analogous
to network diagrams or cause-and-effects linkages used in EIA and CEA
practice) (Jorgensen and Bendoricchio, 2001). Scientifically sophisticated models
can include CMs which depict energy system diagrams or nutrient cycling.

Figures 1 and 2 are depictions of CMs which could be used in EIA and
CEA (Henderson and O’Neil, 2007a, pp. 3-4). Figure 1 was developed in
response to a breach in a dike at a confined disposal facility (Cdf). This breach
resulted in the uncontrolled discharge of contaminated sediments into a nearby
stream. The discharge triggered concerns about the degradation of fish and
wildlife by the identified pathways. Accordingly, this simple CM could be used to
anticipate the potential aquatic ecosystem consequences from the breach, and
for planning a stream restoration program.

Figure 2 illustrates how the above issue (contaminated sediments) could

be addressed in conjunction with urbanization effects in the stream, including an
increase in runoff and stream flows, introduction of more nutrients, and loss of
riparian vegetation. Increased runoff may re-suspend the contaminated
sediments and flush benthic invertebrates, thus moving them downstream into
the area of a drinking water intake structure. This flushing, along with increased
nutrients, could contribute to water quality changes at the intake, and raise
concerns about the treated water quality and potential human health conse-
quences. Finally, Figure 3 depicts a re-arranged conceptual model for addressing
both sediment quality and water supply issues in a river system (Henderson and
O’Neil, 2007a, p. 5). The information is organized in accordance with a standard
vocabulary involving drivers, stressors, essential ecosystem characteristics
(EECs), and endpoints. Although Figure 3 is simplified it would be useful for
considering cumulative effects in a river system.

In addition to EIA and CEA applicabilities, various forms of CMs (pictures,

word models, connector tables and matrices, etc.) have been used for several
decades in human health risk assessment, ecological risk assessment, eco-
system analysis and management, and ecosystem restoration programs. Despite
the more complex scientific and policy issues which can arise in conjunction with
CEA, there is a growing realization that CMs can be a useful tool in planning and
conducting such cumulative effects studies.

7
Figure 1: New England District Model of Contaminated Sediment Uptake
to Fish and Wildlife (Henderson and O’Neil, 2007a, p. 3)

8
Figure 2: Water Supply Effects Added to the Contaminated Sediment
Effects (Henderson and O’Neil, 2007a, p. 4)

9
Figure 3: Conceptual Model of Contaminated Sediment-Water Supply
Using D-S-EEC-E Formulation (Henderson and O’Neil, 2007a,
p. 5)

10
Potential Uses of CMs In CEA

The potential uses of CMs in CEA include, but are not limited to, the
following (National Park Service, 2008; National Park Service, undated;
Henderson and O’Neil, 2004; and Patton and Mantione, 2008):

 To summarize and formalize current scientific and policy-related

information related to pertinent environmental components, interactions
between such components, and the anticipated direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects of multiple societal actions within identified study spatial
and temporal boundaries.

 To identify linkages of processes and effects across disciplinary

boundaries.

 To contribute to communication among the staffs of proponent agencies or

private section entities, regulatory and other government agencies,
consultants, non-governmental organizations and the general public.

 To provide a scientific and policy basis for the identification of pertinent

VECs and their associated indicators, the establishment of spatial and
temporal boundaries for CEA studies, the designation of multiple actions
contributing to common cumulative effects, the determination of the
significance of such effects, and the development and evaluation of
potential proposed action-related mitigation measures, and regional CEs
management strategies.

 To enhance understanding of the response of VECs and their indicators to

environmental stresses or changes resulting from past and present
actions, and to inform predictions of the effects of future actions on such
VECs and indicators.

 To facilitate the design and management of proposed projects or actions

such that the promotion of environmental sustainability can be achieved.

 To aid the planning of follow-on monitoring and adaptive management

(AM) programs which are designed to reduce uncertainties relative to
cumulative effects. More specifically, lessons learned from the
development and use of CMs for ecological monitoring programs include
(National Park Service, 2008): (1) hierarchical sets of models can be
useful for addressing both regional and local issues in CEA; (2) separate
CMs may be needed to address plant or animal species and communities;
(3) it can be time-consuming to develop scientifically-defensible and
policy-consistent CMs; accordingly, collaborators with appropriate
disciplinary expertise should be engaged as early as possible in
development and sufficient time should be allowed for their revision; (4) at

11
 the more finite levels, models should include sufficient detail to link
indicators to ecological processes and effects, and, where possible, to
management actions; and (5) utilized CMs should be carefully described
and definitions of key terms and phrases should be included in reporting.

 To provide an understandable foundation for the development of one or

more quantitative models to address specific ecosystem processes and
anticipated changes therein resulting from natural events and human
intrusions.

 To serve as a useful tool to represent, communicate and analyze the

structure, functions, and hierarchical relationships of the terrestrial,
aquatic, and atmospheric systems affected by projects and actions
promulgated by governmental agencies and the private sector.

Generic Steps in the Development of a CM

There are six generic steps related to the development of a CM

(Henderson and O’Neil, 2004):

 Step 1 -- Identify the objectives and uses of the model. Examples of

objectives include: (1) identify influence or cause-effect relationships; (2)
communicate technical or complex issues to internal and external
stakeholder groups; and (3) utilize system components to demonstrate
processes and interactions, and to identify significant or critical attributes.
Examples of potential uses of a model are (Henderson and O’Neil, 2004,
p. 9):

 Assessment and evaluation of changes to the system – range of

natural variability; trends in model constituents, effects of planned
management actions, alternatives, and scenarios; and use of the
model as a simulation tool. Assessment and evaluation may support
or disprove assumptions or hypotheses about the system, and the
cause-and-effect relationships.

 Providing an organizational framework for integration of input from

multiple disciplines.

 Evaluation of representative elements for significant direct, indirect,

and cumulative effects on system resources and integrity, stress, and
risk.

 Step 2 -- Delineate the spatial and temporal scales or boundaries of the

model. Examples of questions which could be considered include
(Henderson and O’Neil, 2004, pp. 11-13):

12
  At what system level (local, regional, watershed, etc.) are we
interested?

 What are the requirements in the spatial extent of the system? For
example, should the extent include all nearby actions contributing to
cumulative effects on VECs; or should the extent address key
environmental transport and fate pathways?

 Is the system homogeneous or are there major natural or societal

components or divisions of the system?

 What are the limits to the applicability of the model; i.e., only within the
specified spatial boundaries, or also to adjacent areas, or to other
ecologically-similar areas?

 Does the model address a single existing or hypothetical point in time

or is the model to be used for evaluating past and future conditions?

 Step 3 -- Identify the structural components of the system. A useful

approach for structural components is to consider four types of
components – drivers, stressors, essential ecosystem characteristics, and
endpoints. These terms are described as follows (Henderson and O’Neil,
2004, pp. 16-20):

 Drivers are the natural and anthropogenic processes that cause

(‘force’) changes in environmental conditions; i.e., drivers identify the
source or cause of the stressors in conceptual models.

 Stressors are the physical, chemical, and biological changes that result
from natural and human-caused forces and effect other changes in
ecosystem structure and/or function. Drivers can be considered first-
order influences and stressors second-order influences in chains of
cause and effect, where there are several links before the final effects
on model endpoints. Stressors have associated time dimensions and
usually can be quantified, e.g., nutrient loading rates. Stressors may
affect a single resource or component, or the stressor may act on
multiple ecosystem components, so that stressor effects may be
limited or widespread.

 Essential ecosystem characteristics (EECs) are system categories

which depict major components acted on or through which the
stressors act to cause or result in endpoints in the system. The
organizing categories reflect or respond to the model domain, the
process being used for development or construction of the model, and
the resources of interest. Making decisions on EEC categories or the
approach to use is dependent on the technical disciplines involved and

13
 knowledge and understanding of endpoints to be measured. Example
system categories of EECs for the endpoints can include resources
(habitat resources, water resources, land and terrestrial resources) of
the location, site, or study area applicable to the conceptual model;
and categories or classifications of resource types (e.g., via
subregions). EECs can also include ecosystem structural and
functional categories, such as individuals, populations, communities, or
ecosystems; physical, chemical, and biological processes; “spheres” of
processes—atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere,
Sociocultural sphere, and metaprocesses (nutrient cycling, hydrologic
cycling); and ecosystem patterns and processes, such as the following:
patterns of landscape conditions, biotic conditions and chemical/
physical characteristics, and processes of hydrology/geomorphology,
ecological processes, and natural disturbances.

 Endpoints refer to ecosystem structures or functions that are

considered ecologically significant and important to the public.
Endpoints should be quantified and are often used in change
assessment and monitoring. Each of the EECs could have one or more
endpoints. Selecting an endpoint that is ecologically significant enables
the model to be used to distinguish changes that are important
ecologically or publicly from changes that have little ecological
importance or that represent the natural variability of the system.

 The endpoints identified in conceptual models may be broad, such as

“native vegetation mosaic”, and as such measurement of the endpoint
usually requires further specification. Often, for each endpoint or group
of endpoints, another construct is needed to represent the endpoint
measurement. These constructs are variously identified as assessment
endpoints, performance measures, or indicators, depending on
purposes, but all of them are indicators of output, or responses to
natural and/or human-caused changes in the modeled system.

 Step 4 -- Identify the sources of change in the system. The changes that
occur in ecological systems are often represented in conceptual models
as information transfers (as in management measures) and flows of
energy and materials, including nutrients and contaminants, through the
system’s structure. The system’s structure is often organized by functional
level in the system (e.g., primary producer, herbivore, carnivore,
decomposer). Natural and human developed processes, mechanisms,
and pathways link changes in drivers to stressors and stressors to
changes in EECs and to changes in endpoints (Henderson and O’Neil,
2004, p. 20).

14
  Step 5 -- Review the model. Most CMs are subject to periodic reviews
and adjustments over both their development and usage phases. Such
reviews could be conducted by the development and usage team, as well
as by external peer reviewers. The following five questions could be
considered in the review process (the first one is the primary question,
with the last four being diagnostic in focus). The questions are (Henderson
and O’Neil, 2004, p. 21):

-- How well, effective, efficient, and unambiguously does the

conceptual model fulfill its stated objectives and uses?

-- Does the system appear complete, or is it lacking in some part?

-- Can all of the relationships be verified to be consistent with existing

science or logic?

-- Are the relationships and linkages clear and not redundant or

overlapping?

-- Is the applicability (geographic, technical) appropriate, unclear, or

overstated?

 Step 6 -- Implement the model. Model usage can involve the

consideration of different drivers and stressors, and examination of the
resultant endpoints. Examination of the results of such usage can be
aided by the application of the following performance questions
(Henderson and O’Neil, 2004, p. 24):

-- Did the specification of drivers and stressors closely match the

management measures or alternative components?

-- Are there links or pathways of driver: stressor or endpoint: stressor

relationships that were not affected? Is there a possibility the links
are not important?

-- Is there redundancy in the response of drivers, stressors, EECs, or

endpoints? Does combining two or more make sense?

-- Does the evaluation of endpoint changes make sense and provide

decision-making or guidance capability?

Examples of Case Studies Involving the Use of CMs

CMs have been developed for a wide-range of uses. In some cases, the
models exhibited direct usage in environmental planning and the preparation of
NEPA compliance documents, including cumulative effects sections. In other

15
cases, such models have been used for enhancing scientific understanding,
monitoring and adaptive management, and general environmental management
purposes, including the promotion of environmental sustainability. The following
examples range from excerpts from specific studies to comprehensive reports
containing detailed information, each of the examples either were or could be
used in CEA. The case studies include the following:

 Fischenich (2008) – general discussion of usage of CMs for designing and

evaluating U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ecological restoration projects.

 Gentile, et al. (2001) – usage of several CMs to illustrate linkages and test
causal hypotheses for the environmental effects of potential ecosystem
management actions being considered for sustainability enhancement in
South Florida and Everglades systems.

 Gross (2003) – use of CMs for planning ecosystem monitoring programs

for National Parks. Numerous visual depictions of conceptual models are
included in Appendix IV.

 Henderson and O’Neil (2004) – excerpts of CMs are included on

sustainable navigation on the Upper Mississippi River, a nutrient-based
ecosystem model for Lake Okeechobee in the Florida Everglades,
ecosystem monitoring in the Sierra Nevada National Forest, habitat
evaluation along the Louisiana coastline, and ten major habitat types or
communities along an 83-mile reach of Long Island in New York.

 Henderson and O’Neil (2007a) – excerpts of CMs are included on the

consequences of contaminated sediments in aquatic ecosystems, and the
influence of natural and anthropogenic sources of flows and contaminants
in the Lower Brisbane River in Australia.

 Henderson and O’Neil (2007b) – several CMs for use by the Baltimore
District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in a watershed study of the
middle Potomac River are described.

 King and Brown (2006) – a CM for assessing the aquatic ecosystem

consequences of variable river flows in South Africa is described;
emphasis is given to both quantitative and policy challenges related to
model development.

 Lookingbill, et al. (2007) – the development of CMs for usage in

hypothesis testing and monitoring for urban parks in the National Capital
area is described along with their evaluation and usage in informing
management decisions.

16
 Manley, et al. (2000) – an hierarchical, comprehensive, and ecosystem-
processes CM for monitoring in the Sierra Nevada area of eastern and
northeastern California is described, including the selection of attributes
(indicators) based on their relationships to technical criteria and
operational issues.

 Monz and Leung (2006) – a soil disturbance stressor model related to

visitor usage in parks operated by the National Park Service is described
in relation to both its development and usage in monitoring of vital signs
indicators of visitor impacts.

 Napier (2006) – this detailed report describes alternative conceptual

models for addressing key processes in radionuclide transport in the
biosphere. There are a number of important features and processes that
all terrestrial biosphere models must address: these include radionuclide
behavior in soils, interception of deposition onto vegetation, weathering of
intercepted material from plant surfaces, foliar absorption and trans-
location within plants to other vegetative structures, uptake from soil by
plant roots, and transfer from plants to animals and animal products. This
type of information is directly useful in formulating inputs to radioecological
and food-chain models used in performance assessments and predictions
of environmental impacts. This food-chain pathway information could be
used to assess the radiation dose to persons in the reference biosphere
(e.g., persons who live and work in an area potentially affected by
radionuclide releases) of waste disposal facilities and decommissioning
sites.

 Panel … (2001) – This National Research Council book reviews various

processes through which CMs of flow and transport in the fractured
vadose zone are developed, tested, refined, and reviewed. Some key
conclusions are that the development of the CM is the most important part
of the modeling process. The CM is the foundation of the quantitative,
mathematical representation of the field site (i.e., the mathematical
model), which in turn is the basis for the computer code used for
simulation. Further, the context in which a CM is developed constrains the
range of its applicability. Accordingly, a CM is by necessity a simplification
of the real system, and the degree of simplification must be appropriate for
the problem (issue) being addressed.

 Thomas (2001) – several examples of CMs which can be used for

planning long-term ecological modeling on National Park Service lands
are summarized. They include a model for current anthropogenic
stressors of terrestrial prairie ecosystems, a model of core biotic and
abiotic relationships of such ecosystems, models of community-level
interactions and population dynamics of a plant species, an overall holistic

17
 model for the program, and a model related to monitoring feedback as an
enhancement to management decisions.

 Zaldivar (2006) – this report assesses different types of coastal ecosystem

models, e.g., population models, ecosystem models, chemical fate and
transport models, bioaccumulation models and food web exposure
models, and evaluates how an integrated fate and effect model should be
developed to consider the occurrence of points at which there is an abrupt
change in an ecosystem quality produced by a small change in an
environmental driver. The main objective is to focus on preventing
dramatic state changes in ecosystems and determine critical pollutant
loads. Two case examples are addressed – a stage-based population
model and a continuous food-web model that simulates a mesocosm
experiment with the fast addition of a contaminant.

Reviewing CMs

While there are no certification procedures for CMs, the utilization of

review criteria could be useful as a final check on model completeness and
information communication. To illustrate, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has
developed a list of questions for reviewing models in relation to the presentation,
scientific bases, and forcing functions and uncontrollable factors. The
comprehensive list of questions include (Fischenich, 2008, pp. 13-14):

 Presentation

(1) Is the CM accurate, at the appropriate level of detail, and easily

understood? Does the CM make effective use of various presentation
types (i.e., is there a narrative component that refers to the graphical
component for clarity)? Is the CM del figure (if used) well-designed
and clearly presented? What changes would improve its clarity?

(2) Is the source of the information used to support the linkages

described in the model (e.g., published literature, workshop reports,
expert opinion) provided? Is the importance of each linkage
identified? Are the certainty and predictability of the linkage described
and supported by citations as appropriate?

(3) Does the model adequately and efficiently describe the important
drivers, linkages, and outcomes related to the dynamics of the
ecosystem? Does the model include extraneous information? Among
the critical drivers and linkages identified that dictate function, does
the model provide quantitative (or qualitative) information that can be
used to evaluate the relative influence of each parameter on this
outcome variable? Are any measures of certainty (confidence
intervals, discussion of scientific consensus, etc.) that can be

18
 ascribed to each parameter provided within the model? Does the CM
indicate the effects, sensitivity, and direction of effects relative to
changes in individual drivers? Does the CM identify the critical
temporal and spatial junctures where the ecosystem elements are
most important to species recovery and sustainability? Does the CM
also highlight the possible limiting factors?

(4) If the model includes narrative and graphical components, can an

individual knowledgeable in the field use the graphic without the
narrative? Is the format easy to understand? Does the narrative
adequately support the dynamics of the ecosystem element shown in
the graphic?

 Scientific support, information gaps and scientific uncertainties

(1) Does the CM appropriately identify the assumptions, areas of

disagreement, and gaps in the state of knowledge? Does the
conceptual model accurately describe what is known about this
ecosystem element, and how certain scientists are that the system
performs or behaves in the manner described in the ecosystem?

(2) Does the CM identify monitoring or research needs that can help
address uncertainties or data gaps? What should be added or
changed to address uncertainties and how these uncertainties will be
addressed in the future?

 Forcing functions and uncontrollable factors

(1) Does the CM allow for evaluation of the dynamic nature of the
ecosystem element, including the role of uncontrolled drivers (e.g.,
local and global weather patterns)?

(2) Does the CM allow for evaluation of the nature of long-term

population trends and the extent and source of variability in those
trends?

Lessons Learned

Based upon the above information, three key lessons can be identified.
First, CMs are not: (a) the truth – they are simplified depictions of reality; (b) final
– they provide a flexible framework that evolves as understanding of the
ecosystem increases; nor (c) comprehensive – they focus only upon those
“parts” of an ecosystem deemed relevant while ignoring other important (but not
immediately germane) elements (Fischenich, 2008). Second, it should be noted
that “All models are wrong, but some are useful” (Box, 1979). Finally, EIA and

19
CEA practitioners routinely use CMs, although they may not actually use that
specific term.

INTERACTION MATRICES IN CEA

Interaction matrices were one of the earliest types of methodologies

developed for usage in impact studies. For example, in 1971, Leopold, et al.
promulgated a simple interaction matrix for usage across the range of actions
conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (Leopold, et al, 1971). The “Leopold
matrix” displayed project actions or activities along one axis (typically the x-axis),
with appropriate environmental factors listed along the other axis (y-axis) of the
matrix. When a given action or activity was expected to cause a change in an
environmental factor, this was noted at the intersection point in the matrix and
further described in terms of separate or combined magnitude and importance
considerations.

Many variations in the Leopold matrix have occurred over the four
decades of EIA practice. Arguably, matrices have been the most widely used
methodology in EIA practice. Further, they can be easily modified to address the
type of project and utilized in CEA. To illustrate matrix modifications and their
usage, seven examples will be noted herein along with the generic steps
involved in the development of a CEA matrix. The section will conclude with a
subsection on observations about CEA matrices.

Examples of CEA Matrices

An early example of a CEA-related matrix depicted the fish and wildlife

effects of small (less than 10 MW) hydropower projects in the Columbia River
Basin in the USA, along with similar effects on these resources from non-
hydropower activities in the Basin. The matrix is in Table 1 (Stull, et al., 1987).
The black dots in the matrix cells denote that the listed non-hydropower activities
can also contribute to the effects listed in the Hydropower Effects column.
Various dot sizes could have been used to denote relative contributions to the
listed effects. It would also be useful to change the title of the left-hand column to
“Effects”, and then include a new adjacent column entitled “Small Hydropower
Projects”. The new column would include dots for each cell.

Another early example is shown in Table 2. This matrix table displays the
effects of other existing and proposed activities that could affect the same 12
issues (resources or VECs) that were anticipated to be affected by the Castle
Mining Project in southern California (Council on Environmental Quality, 1997, p.
28). This matrix could be improved via the addition of a row for the proposed
project, division of the two status conditions (existing and proposed) into finite
time categories, delineation of indicators for the 12 VECs, and the support of
study area project locational maps for the time categories.

20
Table 1: Effects of Hydropower on Fish and Wildlife that also Occur from
Other Activities in the Columbia River Basin (Stull, et al., 1987)

21
Table 2: Other Activities (existing and proposed) that May Cumulatively
Affect Resources of Concern for the Castle Mountain Mining
Project (Council on Environmental Quality, 1997, p. 28)

22
 Watershed-based planning and management is being increasingly used in
the USA. As a consequence, there is a growing need to address cumulative
watershed effects for many larger-scale, regional studies. A useful reference
document, which includes several CMs, matrices, networks, and indexing and
quantitative models has been produced by the U.S. Forest Service (Reid, 1993).
The report summarizes information on changes in watershed and ecosystem
functions and processes that can arise from multiple land-use activities.
Consideration of these changes from a holistic perspective provides the basis for
analyses of cumulative watershed effects (CWEs). The land-use activities that
are addressed include roads, impoundments and water development, timber
management, grazing, mining, agriculture, urbanization, flood control and
navigation, and recreation and fishing. Finally, eight methods for evaluating
potential CWEs are described, including three procedures for calculating values
of indices, several analytical procedures, and a checklist of issues for
consideration.

Table 3 is a matrix related to the direct effects of selected land-use

activities on watershed properties (or characteristics or features) (Reid, 1993, p.
52). The left column lists a variety of activities (actions or types of projects) in a
watershed. The auxiliary use column delineates typical related components of a
given activity. For example, open pit mining includes both construction (C) and
road use/maintenance (R). Examination of the auxiliary use column reveals that
many common components can result from the listed activities. The five right-
most columns in Table 3 refer to common effects on five properties – vegetation,
soils, topography, introduction of chemicals, and other. For each property, from
two to five typical effects are identified by assigned codes. However, one note of
caution would be that the same letter code, for example, C, has been used for
several typical effects. To illustrate, C is used in two of the five right-most
columns – it represents effects on community composition under vegetation, and
effects on channel/bank morphology under topography. Finally, even though
some code letters are used multiple times, Table 3 contains such a wealth of
CEA-related information that the codes could be easily changed to reduce
confusion.

Table 4 is a matrix which displays the consequences of changes in

watershed properties (and their indicators or parameters) from Table 3 on five
watershed processes (runoff, sediment, organic material, chemicals, and heat)
(Reid, 1993, p. 56). The left column is comprised of the five watershed properties
and effects from Table 3 (the five right-most columns and their associated
codes). The cells in Table 4 are populated by letter codes denoting process
changes resulting from the effect displayed in the left column. Again, multiple
uses of the same letter codes for different processes should be noted, along with
the fact that they can be easily modified.

CEA matrices have also been used in Canadian practice. For example,
the following concepts and uses have been noted (Hegmann, et al., 1999, p. 23):

23
Table 3: Potential Direct Effects of Selected Land-Use Activities on Watershed
Properties (Reid, 1993, p. 52)

24
Table 4: Effects of Altered Environmental Parameters on Watershed
Processes (Reid, 1993, p. 56)

25
 “An interaction matrix is a tabulation of the relationship between two
quantities. Matrices are often used to identify the likelihood of
whether an action may effect a certain environmental component or
to present the ranking of various effect attributes (e.g., duration,
magnitude) for various VECs. Matrices are an example of one tool
that can be used during scoping exercises to identify the potentially
“strongest” cause-effect relationships, and later to concisely
summarize the results of an assessment. Matrices, however, only
show the conclusions made about interactions, and cannot them-
selves reveal the underlying assumptions, data and calculations
that led to the result shown; matrices are a simplistic representation
of complex relationships. Matrices should, therefore, be accom-
panied by a detailed explanation as to how the interactions and
rankings were derived (e.g., in a “decision record”).”

Three Canadian examples will be briefly noted. First, in a CEA study of the
Trans Canada Highway, the potential degrees of interaction between various
regional actions and VECs was determined. Sixteen actions were identified
within the study area, and the effects of each action on 10 environmental and
social VECs were ranked from negligible to low to moderate to high (Hegmann,
et al., 1999, p. 25). The 16 actions were listed in the left column of the CEA
matrix, and the 10 VECs were displayed in 10 columns to the right. The matrix
cells were populated with codes (- for negligible, L for low, M for moderate, and H
for high). Descriptions of the scientific and policy rationale for each cell’s
assignment were also included in the text.

The second Canadian example involves CEA matrices for examining the
effects of existing and proposed actions in and around Kluane National Park
Reserve (Hegmann, et al, 1999, p. 25). Several key wildlife VECs were included,
with one example being for grizzly bear. A specific CEA matrix for the grizzly
bear included a left column comprised of nine existing actions and nine future
actions. Seven additional columns highlighted potential effects on grizzly bear in
terms of habitat loss, fragmentation, alienation, obstruction, mortality, removals,
and an “overall” composite. Six categories of effects were used to populate the
cells – “blank”=no effect; L=low probability of occurrence or magnitude of effect
(on reproductive capacity of species or productive capacity of habitat) probably
acceptable; M=moderate or possibly significant effect; H=high probability of
occurrence or magnitude of effect probably unacceptable (e.g., population
recovery may never occur or may occur in the long-term). A ranking option for a
positive effect (+) was also provided. Again, descriptions of the scientific and
policy rationale for each cell’s assignment, and the overall composite, were
included in the text.

The final Canadian example includes the use of CEA matrices for analysis
and evaluation of cumulative effects resulting from 12 hydropower projects
proposed by Hydro-Quebec between 1999 and 2005 (Berube, 2007). The

26
following 15 VECs were considered in the initial planning of each CEA study –
fish species, mercury in fish, moose, bird species, wetlands, river banks,
heritage, landscape, recreational/tourism, air, water, soil, health, navigation, and
land use. Through scoping, from one to five of the 15 VECs were deemed
appropriate for a given CEA study. Then, Hydro-Quebec used bi-dimensional
tables (simple interaction matrices) to list and briefly describe the effects of all
past, present and future actions on selected VECs. For example, from a detailed
study associated with the Pikauba River regulation dam (Berube, 2007, p. 105),
the complete matrix table, which was several pages long, listed pertinent past,
present and future actions in the left column, with five additional columns noting
the pertinent VECs (river banks, navigable waters, brook trout, moose, and
wetlands). The cells in the table were populated with brief descriptive statements
relating the actions to the VECs.

Detailed Example for Waterway Navigation

In a CEA study related to navigation infrastructure improvements on the

981-mile long Ohio River in the midwestern part of the USA, specific attention
was given to the identification and analyses of the contributions of reasonably
foreseeable future actions (RFFAs) to cumulative effects on selected VECs. The
RFFAs, which also included similar past and present actions, were defined as
(Canter and Rieger, 2005, p. 7):

Actions identified by analysis of formal plans and proposals by public and

private entities that have primary (direct) or secondary (indirect) impacts
on VECs associated with the Ohio River. RFFAs also include potential
actions that are beyond mere speculation when incorporated in plans or
documents by credible private or public entities. RFFAs may also include
events forecasted by trends, probable occurrences, policies, regulations,
or other credible data that may have bearing on the VECs.

The original perception of the CPT (Central Planning Team) for the study
was that one “overall matrix” could be developed. The overall matrix would have
included all the identified RFFAs and the VECs and their subcomponents
(indicators) together. However, due to expediency relative to matrix completion, it
was recognized that individual matrices would be needed for 12 pre-identified
VECs. For the three VECs with multiple components (Aquatic Ecological
Resources, Riparian/Floodplain Ecological Resources, and Threatened/
Endangered /Protected Species), additional matrix columns were envisioned.
However, it was soon recognized that matrices focused on single subcom-
ponents (indicators) within VECs, or single VECs themselves, would be more
useable. As a result, 22 matrices were used; the listing is in the left column of
Table 5. Table 5 also indicates that several committees were involved in the
preparation and review of the matrices (Canter and Rieger, p. 15).

27
Table 5: Summary of Process Features Related to Completion
of the RFFA Matrices (Canter and Rieger, 2005, p. 15)
Preparation Review and
VEC of Summarization of
Matrix Matrix
AER – Water Quality/Sediment Qual CPTC CPT
AER – Fish ERTC CPT
AER – Mussels IWGC (Note 1) CPT
Air Quality CPTC CPT
RFER – Terrestrial Habitat IWGC CPT
RFER – Islands IWGC CPT
RFER – Wetlands IWGC CPT
RFER – Soils and Geology IWGC CPT
RFER – Floodplain Hydrology IWGC CPT
T/E/P Species – Fish IWGC CPT
T/E/P Species – Mussels IWGC CPT
T/E/P Species – Mammals IWGC CPT
T/E/P Species – Birds IWGC CPT
T/E/P Species - Plants IWGC CPT
Aesthetic Resources CPTC CPT
Noise CPTC CPT
Human Health and Safety CPTC CPT
Land Use CPTC CPT
Transportation and Traffic CPTC CPT
Socioeconomic Resources CPTC CPT
Cultural Resources CPTC CPT
Recreation CPTC CPT

Notes:

CPTC = central planning team committee (3-4 members)

CPT = central planning team
IWGC = interagency working group committee (3-4 members)
Note 1 = it was assumed that the T/E/P Species-Mussels RFFA Matrix is
applicable to AER-Mussels
AER = aquatic ecological resources
RFER = riparian/floodplain ecological resources
T/E/P Species = threatened/endangered/protected species

28
 Table 6 displays the first page only of a 5-page RFFA cumulative effects
matrix used for the water and sediment quality VEC. The 87 identified types of
RFFAs were divided into six categories: (1) navigation investment actions; (2)
other Corps actions; (3) “but for” actions; (4) actions by others (could occur
regardless of the Ohio River navigation system); (5) natural disasters; and (6)
regulatory environment. “But for” actions refer to those actions by others which
would not occur except for the existence and maintenance of the Ohio River
navigation system. Natural disasters are included since floods, droughts, severe
storms, and/or earthquakes can have major influences on many of the VECs and
subcomponents. Definitions for each of the listed types of RFFAs were included
in an appendix to the CEA report. Under the ORMSS (Ohio River Mainstem
Systems Study), only “navigation investments actions” were evaluated
programmatically for federal action. Finally, it should be noted that many of the
RFFAs represented continuations of past and present actions.

The second column in Table 6 relates to sources of information that were

the basis for the listed RFFA. Sources included plans, permits, census data,
other EAs (environmental assessments) and EISs, surveys, map and/or
navigation chart (Navchart) analyses, trends analysis data (TAD), and
professional opinion. A summary of the types of utilized sources was included in
an appendix to the CEA report.

The next three columns in Table 6 highlight relative characteristics of the

listed RFFAs. The following definitions relate to the “codes” which were used for
each of the characteristics:

(1) Time Period-short, medium and long-term. Short-term is the initial 10-
year period from the point of completion of the CEA study (2005) and
is based upon the probability of occurrence, availability of information,
status of funding, and other factors. The medium time frame is from
10 to 25 years beyond 2005. The long-term period is 25 to 55 years.
The date of 55 years is based on the economic analysis period for
the navigation investment plan (to 2060).

(2) Occurrence Probability - high, medium, and low. High denotes

substantial information exists and funding is already in place (already
“on the books”). Medium denotes some information is available, and
some funding possibilities exist. Low denotes minimal information
and no identified funding or proponent.

(3) Location on River- Three reaches of the River were routinely used
(upper, middle, or lower); the upper reach was from Pittsburgh to
approximately Huntington, West Virginia; the middle reach was from
Huntington, to Louisville, Kentucky; and the lower reach was from
Louisville to Cairo.

29
Table 6: Portion of RFFA Matrix for Water and Sediment Quality (Canter
and Rieger, 2005, p. 17)

Water Quality
RFFA Sources

Time Period

Location on
Occurrence

Importance
Probability

Sediment
Quality
River
Navigation Investment Actions
Lock Extensions/New Corps planning (districts);
Locks/Replacement or ORNIM study outputs
Rehabilitation
L&D operation and Corps O&M records, J.T.
maintenance Myers & Greenup Locks
Improvements EIS
Non-structural Examples from: Upper
navigation Mississippi -Illinois Waterway
improvements report, national park studies.
Dam replacement and (Category added by review
rehabilitation team)
Other Corps Actions
Channel Corps (districts), J.T. Myers &
dredging/dredged Greenup Locks Improvements
material disposal EIS
Navigation aids - Corps historic records, trends
Construction and O&M related to GPS, 1980 Corps
O&M EIS
Flood damage reduction projects
levees/floodwalls EAs and EISs from individual
communities, Corps O&M
records, ERP projects list
dry dams, other EISs in Corps planning offices
projects off mainstem (districts), projects planned on
tributaries
channel Point Pleasant project, projects
modifications planned on tributaries
nonstructural FEMA, flood relocation reports,
measures (e.g. Corps planning, Mill Creek
relocation) project
Emergency streambank Corps planning & operations
stabilization (Sec. 14) (districts)
Modification of Corps Corps planning & operations
structures for env. im- (districts)
provements (Sec. 1135)

30
 The final three columns relate to the effects on the VEC or sub-component
thereof, and the overall importance of the RFFAs regarding cumulative effects.
The key display information in the two VEC-related columns was associated with
whether the RFFA exhibits negative or positive effects. Descriptive rationale for
this determination was entered in “smart cells” as follows. The RFFA matrices
were provided to each committee as Microsoft® Excel spreadsheets. The “insert
comment” function was used to access a detailed definition of each RFFA.
Committee members were able to read each definition by moving their cursor
over the RFFA cell. The committee was also encouraged to insert comments to
expand upon coded entries. This proved most useful when the team was
describing the effects on the VEC or subcomponent, and rating the relative
importance of the RFFA’s impact. In so doing, the issues or values most
important in the formulation of their entries were identified.

The final column in Table 6 is entitled “Importance”. In this case, the

committee assigned an “importance rating” to all RFFAs identified as having
effects. The rating code was H (high importance), M (medium importance), or L
(low importance). Again, notes were added to the respective “smart cells” in the
Importance column to denote the rationale used. Some things that were
considered included: (1) the relative contribution of the RFFA to the cumulative
effects; (2) the spatial and temporal extent of the anticipated effects; (3) the level
of knowledge regarding the affected VEC or subcomponent, and the effects
themselves, and (4) the possibilities for cost-effectively mitigating the negative
effects. Although use of the comments function was optional, committees often
provided comments for all of their high and medium importance entries.

The final results from the matrix analyses are depicted in Table 7 (the first
page of a 3-page table) for the High and Medium ranked RFFAs (Canter and
Rieger, 2005, p. 19). The shading codes in the table denote importance (darker
is higher importance), and the “+ and – signs” denote positive or negative
impacts. Detailed information which provides the bases for these codes was
incorporated in the “smart cells” of the individual matrices.

To summarize the RFFA matrix approach, the following lessons were

identified relative to the value and uses of RFFA matrices in the ORMSS CEA
study:

 The RFFA matrix is a valuable tool that facilitated a systematic process for
considering and evaluating RFFAs in a CEA study. For example, in
traditional project-level impact studies, there is a tendency to consider the
effects of the project in isolation. CEA requires the consideration of the
effects of multiple past, present, and future actions. RFFA matrices force
the users to consider multiple future actions that may impact a given VEC
or subcomponents. Further, completed RFFA matrices provide a docu-
mented basis for “scoping” RFFAs and determining which should be

31
Table 7: Portion of RFFAs Ranked High and Medium and their Effects by VEC
(Canter and Rieger, 2005, p. 19)

Transportation &

Socioeconomics
Health & Safety
Recreation
WQ & SQ

Riparian
Mussels

Cultural
Traffic
Fish

Air
R
RFFA
Navigation Investment Actions
Lock Extensions/New Locks/Replacement - - - + + - + - H/M
or Rehabilitation +
L&D operation and maintenance - - - + + + -
Non-structural navigation improvements + + + + +
Dam replacement and rehabilitation - - - + + H/M+ -

Other Corps Actions

Channel dredging/dredged material - - - - -
disposal
Navigation aids - Construction and O&M +
Flood damage reduction projects
levees/floodwalls - - + - - +
dry dams, other projects off mainstem - - - + + +
channel modifications - - - +
nonstructural measures (e.g. + + + +
relocation)
Emergency streambank stabilization (Sec. - - +
14)
Modification of Corps structures for + + + + -
environmental
improvements (Sec. 1135)
Environmental restoration of aquatic + + + +
ecosystems (Sec. 206)
Recreation facilities - Construction and + + - +
O&M
Key to shading/symbols:
Indicates high importance ranking
Indicates high-medium ranking H/M
Indicates medium importance ranking
Effect on resource is primarily positive +
Effect on resource is primarily negative -
No symbol for mixed + and - impacts
No shading indicates the RFFA is of low importance ranking or was not ranked.

32
 addressed in a more detailed manner. In addition, due to the similarity of
actions over time along the Ohio River mainstem, matrices for past and
other present actions were also derived.

 Information extracted from completed RFFAs can be utilized to summarize

a number of key points related to a CEA study. Examples of such infor-
mation include expected time periods wherein given RFFAs are expected
to occur; their occurrence probabilities; the locations or settings on or
along the River wherein the given RFFAs are expected to occur; the
RFFAs with anticipated negative effects, positive effects, and combin-
ations thereof; and the importance categories for the RFFAs. Further, a
composite picture of the effects of a given RFFA across all VECs can be
drawn from an analysis of each of the 22 matrices.

 The RFFA matrix was used as an initial step in delineating the relative
contributions of individual RFFAs to the overall cumulative effects. For
example, RFFAs rated as having high importance would be expected to
contribute more to the cumulative effects on a VEC than RFFAs rated as
low importance. In certain cases, more detailed data gathering and
analysis efforts were conducted to quantify (approximate) the relative
contributions of an RFFA to the cumulative effects on a VEC.

 The majority of the RFFAs in the first five categories (4 in navigation

investment actions, 13 in other Corps actions, 19 in “but for” actions, 26 in
actions by others, and 4 in natural disasters) represent continuations of
past and present actions. However, from an historical perspective,
different actions were initiated in different time periods in the past.
Therefore, effects information from the completed RFFA matrices were
applied, as appropriate, to historical time periods and present actions, and
utilized to qualitatively summarize the effects of past and current actions
on the VECs.

 Information from the RFFA matrices was used to examine the relationship
between cumulative effects on a VEC or subcomponent (indicator)
thereof, and the environmental sustainability (ES) of that VEC.

 Necessary VEC sustainability needs and monitoring programs can be

developed for “not sustainable” or “marginally sustainable” VECs or
subcomponents determined to have significant cumulative effects. Such
needs and monitoring can be focused on the indicators and the potential
contributions of RFFAs identified as being in the high and medium
importance categories. Further, mitigation measures can be identified for
key RFFAs, thus forming an initial basis for interagency discussions
related to appropriate mitigation and adaptive management strategies for
specific VECs.

33
Developing Interaction Matrices for CEA

The steps for CEA matrix development, which can be patterned after
common steps for addressing direct and indirect effects (Canter, 1996, p. 78),
include the following:

 Step 1 – List all anticipated project actions and group them according to
temporal phase such as construction, operation, and post-operation. Note:
project refers to the proposed action or preferred alternative. If cumulative
effects are to be compared for a suite of alternatives, including the
proposed action, then a temporally-related list of actions for each
alternative would need to be developed. The list (or lists) would typically
comprise the x-axes (columns) in a simple CEA interaction matrix.

 Step 2 – List environmental factors in appropriate categories. One

categorization could be resources, ecosystems, and human communities;
while another approach could involve physical and chemical components,
biological and ecological components, historical and archeological
components, and social and socio-economic components. A particularly
relevant approach would be to list selected VECs and their indicators.
Such VECs and indicators would typically comprise the y-axes (rows) in a
simple CEA interaction matrix. Further, the VECs and indicators could be
based on various spatial boundaries within the CEA study area; for
example – local area and regional area, sub-watershed and watershed
area, and/or upstream, site, and downstream area.

 Step 3 – Decide on an impact rating scheme to be used within the x-y

cells in the matrix. The scheme could be based on color codes, circles or
squares of various size, and numbers or letter codes. The components of
the chosen scheme should be defined; with such definitions facilitating a
consistent approach for matrix completion.

 Step 4 – Add additional columns (x-axis) to the matrix to reflect the

contributions of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions
(RFFAs) to cumulative effects on the VECs and their indicators. The past
actions could be grouped into several time categories (e.g., more than 20
years ago, from 10-19 years ago, and from 0-9 years ago) and listed in
columns to the left of the project actions. The present actions (those under
concurrent development with the project action) could also be listed in
columns to the immediate left of the project actions. The RFFAs could be
listed in columns to the right of the proposed action. Future time
categories could also be considered as appropriate. The x-y cells
associated with other actions should also be completed, as appropriate,
using the chosen impact rating scheme from Step 3.

34
  Step 5 –Complete the CEA interaction matrix and prepare a systematic
description of the matrix, the key rationale for the x-y cells, and an overall
summary of the results. Definitions and explanations of the columns and
rows in the matrix should be included in the text of the study report or an
appendix. A matrix could be completed by an EIA/CEA professional, a
CEA study team, or a group of subject matter experts focused on selected
VECs. The summary should identify the most important relative
contributors to cumulative effects across the range of VECs, as well as the
key contributors to effects on specific VECs and their sustainability.

Summary Observations on Matrices

Based upon the above examples of CEA-related matrices and other

experiences in using matrices in impact studies, the following observations can
be made about the usage of this methodology:

 It is critical to carefully define the spatial boundaries associated with each

of the VECs and their indicators; further, it is necessary to describe the
temporal phases and specific actions associated with the proposed
project; and the impact rating or summarization scales used in the matrix.

 A matrix should be considered a tool for purposes of analysis of

cumulative effects, with the key need being to clearly state the rationale
utilized for the impact ratings or codes assigned to a given temporal phase
and project action, and a given spatial boundary and VEC/indicator.

 The development of one or more preliminary CEA matrices can be a

useful technique in discussing a proposed action and its potential direct,
indirect, and cumulative effects. This can be helpful in the early stages of
a study to assist each team member in understanding the implications of
the project and developing necessary plans for more-extensive studies on
particular VECs and the contributed effects from multiple actions.

 The interpretation of cumulative impact ratings should be carefully

considered, particularly when realizing that there may be large differences
in spatial boundaries, as well as temporal phases, for the VECs and
actions in a given setting.

 Interaction matrices can be useful for delineating the impacts of the first
and second or multiple phases of a two-phase or multi-phase project; the
cumulative impacts of a project when considered relative to other past,
present, and RFF actions in the area; and the potential positive effects of
mitigation measures. Creative codes can be used in the matrix to
delineate this information.

35
  Impact quantification and comparisons to relevant standards can provide a
valuable basis for the assignment of impact ratings to different project and
other actions on VECs and their indicators.

 Color codes can be used to display and communicate information on

anticipated impacts. For example, beneficial cumulative impacts could be
shown by using green or shades of green; whereas, detrimental or
adverse effects could be depicted with red or shades of red. Impact
matrices can be used with the incorporation of number or letter codes in
specific cells. For example, circles of varying size could be used to denote
ranges of cumulative impacts. Matrices can also be completed via the use
of bulleted descriptive information.

 One of the concerns relative to interaction matrices is that project actions

and/or VECs are artificially separated, when they should be considered
together. It is possible to use footnotes in a matrix to identify groups of
actions, VECs, and/or impacts which should be considered together. This
would also allow the delineation of interrelationships between VECs.

 Usage of an interaction matrix forces the consideration of actions and

impacts related to a proposed project within the context of other related
actions and their contributing impacts.

Finally, while the above observations are focused on CEA, similar

observations have been made regarding the usage of matrices for addressing
the direct and indirect effects of single projects (Canter, 1996, pp. 79-81).

NETWORKS IN CEA

“Networks” refers to methodologies which integrate impact causes and

consequences through identifying interrelationships between causal actions and
the impacted environmental factors, including those representing secondary and
tertiary effects. A typical presentation involves drawing “connector lines” between
actions and factors (VECs) which can be affected.

Network analyses can be useful for identifying anticipated direct, indirect,

and cumulative effects associated with potential projects. Networks can also aid
in organizing the discussion of anticipated project impacts as well as impacts
associated with other past, present, and future actions. Simplified network
displays can also be useful in communicating information about a CEA study to
interested stakeholder groups. Further, networks can be promulgated as output
from the development of CMs. The primary limitation of the network approach
can be the minimal information provided on the technical aspects of impact
prediction and the means for comparatively evaluating the impacts of
alternatives. In addition, networks can quickly become visually complicated
(Canter, 1996, p. 81).

36
 This section includes two brief illustrations of networks used in CEA
studies. Further, the generic steps associated with the development of a CEA
network will also be described.

Brief Examples of Networks

Networks do not have to be visually complicated. For example, Figure 4

displays four types of cumulative effects which could be related to activities A
and B (Reid, 1993, p. 20). In this case, and assuming that activity A is an existing
project in a watershed, while activity B is a proposed project, the cumulative
effects concepts can be readily displayed. Modification of these simple networks
would be necessary in watersheds with multiple past, current, and future projects
that could contribute to cumulative effects on selected VECs.

To serve as a second example, a cause-effect network for identifying the

cumulative effects of coastal zone development projects in Australia is in Figure
5 (Court, Wright, and Guthrie, 1994). This network displays relationships
between causes of environmental change, resultant perturbations, and primary
and secondary impacts. The “causes” column reflects various land uses and
development projects in the coastal zone. Their timing (past, present, or future)
could be delineated. The column entitled perturbation generally reflects
resources, ecosystems, or human communities (i.e., VECs). Stated differently,
the second column can generally be seen as a listing of identified VECs (e.g.,
national parks); however, actions such as commercial fishing and offshore mining
are also included. The column entitled primary impact is analogous to direct
impacts from the causes and perturbations, as appropriate. The secondary
impact column is reflective of the consequences of the primary impacts
(secondary impacts are often referred to as indirect effects). Finally, it should be
noted that the primary impact column could be used to delineate the continuing
causes and perturbations (move from right to left in Figure 5.

Even though only two examples of CEA networks are described herein, it
should be readily apparent that such networks can be useful prior to, during, and
following a public scoping process. For example, potential common effects on
VECs from multiple types of actions can be identified; further, networks can aid in
identifying actions that do not contribute to common effects on particular VECs.
This information can then aid CEA study planning, the analysis of cumulative
effects, documentation of the study process, and the development of local
mitigation and regional cumulative effects management programs.

Developing Networks for CEA

The steps for CEA network development, which can be patterned after
common steps for addressing direct and indirect effects, include the following:

37
Figure 4: Combinations of Activities that Can Cause Cumulative Effects in
Watersheds (Reid, 1993, p. 20)

38
Figure 5: Cause-Effect Network for Development Projects in the Coastal Zone of Australia (Court, Wright, and
Guthrie, 1994)

39
 Step 1 – Vertically list all anticipated project actions and group them
according to temporal phase such as construction, operation, and post-
operation. Note: project refers to the proposed action or preferred alter-
native. If cumulative effects are to be compared for a suite of alternatives,
including the proposed action, then a temporally-related list of actions for
each alternative would need to be developed, and separate networks
would be needed for each alternative. The list (or lists) would typically be
on the y-axis (in rows) in a simple CEA network.

 Step 2 – Vertically list, to the right of the actions list, environmental factors
in appropriate categories. One categorization could be resources,
ecosystems, and human communities; while another approach could
involve physical and chemical components, biological and ecological
components, historical and archeological components, and social and
socio-economic components. A particularly relevant approach would be to
list selected VECs and their associated indicators. Such VECs and
indicators would typically be on the y-axes (rows) in a simple network
depiction. Further, the VECs and indicators could be organized in accord-
ance with various spatial boundaries within the CEA study area; for
example – local area and regional area, various land uses, and protected
ecological resources.

 Step 3 – As appropriate, draw connector lines (arrows) between each

project action and each VEC/indicator that would be subject to the action’s
effects. While not required for network usage, the relative thickness of the
arrows could denote relative contributions to the effects on VECs/indi-
cators. A thicker arrow could be used to denote a greater relative con-
tribution to cumulative effects; a normal thickness arrow could denote a
moderate contribution, while a dashed arrow could depict a minor
contribution.

 Step 4 – In the original left column, add additional vertical lists of past,
present, and future actions which could contribute to cumulative effects on
the VECs and their indicators. These additional lists could be added either
above or below the above-noted vertical list of project actions (Step 1). In
effect, the composite vertical lists in the left-hand column could be used to
depict several time categories. For example, past actions could be
grouped into several time categories (e.g., more than 20 years ago, from
10-19 years ago, and from 0-9 years ago) and listed either above or below
the project actions. The present actions (those under concurrent
development with the project action) could also be listed either
immediately above or below the project actions. The RFFAs could be
listed at the top or bottom of the column containing the list of project
actions, depending upon whether the time considerations are increasing
or decreasing above or below the project actions. Future time categories

40
 could also be considered and utilized as appropriate. Following the listing
of all other actions (past, present, and future), they should also be
connected via arrows to appropriate VECs/indicators noted in Step 2
above. Again, different thicknesses for the arrows could be utilized to
denote relative contributions. It should be recognized that when all actions
are considered, the connecting arrows could overlap in multiple ways.
Accordingly, and in order for simplification, it may be desirable to develop
separate networks for specific VECs and their associated indicators.

 Step 5 –Complete the CEA network and prepare a systematic description

of the network, the key rationale for the arrows, and overall summary of
the results. Definitions and explanations of all actions and VECs/indicators
should be included in the report text or an appendix. A network could be
completed by an EIA/CEA professional, a CEA study team, or a group of
subject matter experts focused on selected VECs. The summary should
identify the most important relative contributors to cumulative effects
across the range of VECs, as well as the key contributors to effects on
specific VECs and their sustainability.

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT IN CEA

Adaptive management (AM) is an emerging method which has usefulness

in reducing numerous uncertainties associated with CEA, and in informing
decision makers regarding the effectiveness of both local mitigation of cumulative
effects and regional management of such effects resulting from multiple actions
within defined spatial and temporal boundaries. Key elements related to AM
include: (1) management objectives for identified VECs related to biophysical,
ecological, cultural, and social/socioeconomics features of the study area; (2)
multiple strategies for managing the selected VECs to achieve or enhance
sustainability conditions; (3) separate or collaborative monitoring programs to
evaluate the effectiveness of the strategies in meeting the identified objectives;
(4) one to several models of the relevant environmental and economic systems
to aid AM planners and related decision makers in their considerations and
analyses; (5) an integrated decision-making process wherein monitoring results
are considered, choices for subsequent actions are made, and their cones-
quences evaluated; and (6) a pro-active information dissemination program
involving various stakeholders, groups, and governmental agencies.

Although only briefly described herein, AM can be viewed as an emerging

post-EIS method which can be used to inform current and future studies focused
on CEA. Detailed information on AM planning, processes, and case studies was
included in a corollary paper in the IAIA’s 2008 Special Topic Meeting on
Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management (Canter and Atkinson, 2008).

41
LESSONS LEARNED

Based upon the above information related to concepts and case studies
involving conceptual models, matrices, and networks, the following lessons can
be noted:

 There are numerous examples of these three types of methods being

used in CEA studies. The examples could be directly used in other studies
or appropriately modified to meet specific site and study needs.

 Documentation of the rationale for the selected methods, as well as their

assumptions and key features, can facilitate the aggregation of best
practices approaches.

 The included case studies, and their usage of these three types of
methods, represent extensions of the use of similar tools for addressing
the direct and indirect effects of singular proposed actions via the EIA
process.

 As the practice of CEA matures, it can be expected that continuing

creativity will lead to still additional modifications and improvements in
conceptual models, matrices, and networks.

SELECTED REFERENCES

Box, G.E.P., Robustness in Statistics, Academic Press, London, England, 1979.

Berube, M., “Cumulative Effects Assessments at Hydro-Quebec: What Have We

Learned?”, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, Vol. 25, No. 2, June,
2007, pp. 101-109.

Caltrans, Federal Highway Administration, and U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, “Guidance for Preparers of Cumulative Impact Analysis”, June 30, 2005,
California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, California.

Canter, L.W., “Cumulative Effects Assessment”, Ch. 18 in Handbook of

Environmental Impact Assessment, Volume 1, Environmental Impact
Assessment: Process, Methods, and Potential, Petts, J., editor, 1999, Blackwell
Science, Ltd., Oxford, England, pp. 405-440.

Canter, L.W., “Cumulative Effects and Other Analytical Challenges of NEPA”, Ch.
8, Environmental Policy and NEPA: Past, Present, and Future, Clark, E.R., and
Canter, L.W., editors, St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida, 1997, pp. 115-137.

42
Canter, L.W., “Simple Methods for Impact Identification – Matrices, Networks,
and Checklists”, Ch. 3 in Environmental Impact Assessment, Second Edition,
1996, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York, pp. 56-101.

Canter, L.W., and Atkinson, S.F., “Adaptive Management and Integrated

Decision Making – An Emerging Tool for Cumulative Effects Management”,
Presented at Assessing and Managing Cumulative Environmental Effects,
Special Topic Meeting, International Association for Impact Assessment,
November 6-9, 2008, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Canter, L.W., and Kamath, J., “Questionnaire Checklist for Cumulative Impacts”,
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 15, No. 4, 1995, pp. 311-339.

Canter, L.W., and Rieger, D., “Cumulative Effects Assessment as the Integral
Component of the Programmatic EIS”, presented at the International Association
for Impact Assessment (IAIA’05) Theme Forum entitled “The Ohio River
Mainstem Systems Study (ORMSS) – A Case Study Illustrating Innovative
Approaches”, May 30-June 3, 2005, Boston, Massachusetts.

Council on Environmental Quality, “Considering Cumulative Effects Under the

National Environmental Policy Act”, January, 1997, Executive Office of the
President, Washington, D.C., pp. 49-57.

Court, J.D., Wright, C.J., and Guthrie, A.C., “Assessment of Cumulative Impacts
and Strategic Assessment in Environmental Impact Assessment”, 1994,
Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency, Barton, Australia.

Fischenich, J.C., “The Application of Conceptual Models to Ecosystem

Restoration”, ERDC/EBA TN-08-1, February, 2008, Ecosystem Management and
Restoration Research Program, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development
Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Gentile, J.H., Harwell, M.A., Cropper, Jr., W., Harwell, C.C., DeAngelis, D.,
Davis, S., Ogden, J.C., and Lirman, D., “Ecological Conceptual Models: A
Framework and Case Study on Ecosystem Management for South Florida
Sustainability”, The Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 274, Issues 1-3, July,
2001, pp. 231-253.

Gross, J.E., “Developing Conceptual Models for Monitoring Programs”, draft,

2003, Inventory and Monitoring Program, National Park Service, Ft. Collins,
Colorado. (can download from
http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/ConceptualModels.cfm)

Hegmann, G., Cocklin, C., Creasey, R., Dupuis, S., Kennedy, A., Kingsley, L.,
Ross, W., Spaling, H., and Stalker, D., “Cumulative Effects Assessment
Practitioners Guide”, February, 1999, prepared by AXYS Environmental

43
Consulting Ltd. and the CEA Working Group for the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Agency, Hull, Quebec, Canada, pp. 23-26.

Henderson, J.E., and O’Neil, L.J., “Template for Conceptual Model Construction:
Model Review and Corps Applications”, ERDC/TN-SWWRP-07-04, August,
2007a, System-wide Water Resources Program, U.S. Army Engineer Research
and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Henderson, J.E., and O’Neil, L.J., “Conceptual Models to Support Environmental

Planning and Operations”, ERDC/TN-SMART-04-9, September, 2004, System-
wide Modeling, Assessment, and Restoration Technologies, U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Henderson, J.E., and O’Neil, L.J., “Template for Conceptual Model Construction:
Model Components and Application of the Template”, ERDC/TN-SWWRP-07-07,
September, 2007b, System-wide Water Resources Program, U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Irving, J.S., Bain, M.B., Stull, E.A., and Witmer, G.W., “Cumulative Impacts –
Real or Imagined?”, presented at Annual Meeting of the Idaho Chapter,
American Fisheries Society, March 6-8, 1986, Boise, Idaho.

Jorgensen, S.E., and Bendoricchio, G., Fundamentals of Ecological Modeling,

Developments in Environmental Modeling 21, Third Edition, Elsevier Science,
Ltd., Kidlington, Oxford, England, 2001, pp. 211-224.

King, J., and Brown, C., “Environmental Flows: Striking a Balance Between
Development and Resource Protection”, Ecology and Society, Vol. 11, No. 2,
2006, pp. 26-39.

Leopold, L.B., Clarke, F.E., Hanshaw, B.B., and Balsley, J.R., “A Procedure for
Evaluating Environmental Impact”, Geological Survey Circular No. 645, 1971,
U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Lookingbill, T.R., Gardner, R.H., Townsend, P.A., and Carter, S.L., “Conceptual
Models as Hypotheses in Monitoring Urban Landscapes”, Environmental
Management, Vol. 40, No. 2, August, 2007, pp. 171-182.

Manley, P.N., Zielinski, W.J., Stuart, C.M., Keane, J.J., Lind, A.J., Brown, C.,
Plymale, B.L., and Napper, C.O., “Monitoring Ecosystems in the Sierra Nevada:
The Conceptual Model Foundation”, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,
Vol. 64, 2000, pp. 139-152.

Monz, C., and Leung, T.F., “Meaningful Measures: Developing Indicators of

Visitor Impact in the National Park Service Inventory and Monitoring Program”,
The George Wright Forum, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2006, pp. 17-27.

44
Napier, B.A., “Alternative Conceptual Models for Assessing Food Chain
Pathways in Biosphere Models”, NUREG/CR-6910, PNNL-15872, June 2006,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

National Park Service, “Developing Conceptual Models of Relevant Ecosystem

Components”, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., September 22,
2008. (can download from
http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/ConceptualModels.cfm)

National Park Service, “NPS Inventory and Monitoring Program: Northern and
Southern Colorado Plateau Networks”, PowerPoint slides, undated. (can
download from http://www1usu.edu/iron/media/IRON_Reports/flagstaff/nps)

Panel on Conceptual Models of Flow and Transport in the Fractured Vadose

Zone, Conceptual Models of Flow and Transport in the Fractured Vadose Zone,
National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 2001,
pp. 1-5.

Patton, M.D., and Mantione, J., “Overview of OSMP Adaptive Management and
Monitoring”, Open Space and Mountain Parks, National Park Service, June 19,
2008, Boulder, Colorado. (can download from
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/openspace/pdf_osbtmemos/08-
0619_d_adaptive_mgmt.pdf)

Reid, L.M., “Research and Cumulative Watershed Effects”, General Technical

Report PSW-GTR-141, 1993, Pacific Southwest Research Station, U.S. Forest
Service, Albany, California, pp. vii, 13, 20, 25-35, and 52-57.

Smit, B., and Spaling, H., “Methods for Cumulative Effects Assessment”,
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1995, pp. 81-106.

Stanley, M., “Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis”, NCHRP 25-25, Task 11,
January, 2006, National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

Stull, E.A., Bain, M.B., Irving, J.S., LaGory, K.E., and Witmer, B.W.,
“Methodologies for Assessing the Cumulative Environmental Effects of
Hydroelectric Development on Fish and Wildlife in the Columbia River Basin, Vol.
1: Recommendations”, July 1, 1987, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne,
Illinois, pp. 75-78, 110-113, and 126-139.

Thomas, L.P., “The Use of Conceptual Models in Designing and Implementing

Long-term Ecological Monitoring”, 2001, Prairie Cluster Long-term Ecological
Monitoring Program, National Park Service, Ft. Collins, Colorado. (can download
from http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/ConceptualModels.cfm)

45
Vestal, B., Rieser, A., Ludwig, M., Kurland, J., Collins, C., and Ortiz, J.,
“Methodologies and Mechanisms for Management of Cumulative Coastal
Environmental Impacts – Part I: Synthesis, with Annotated Bibliography, and Part
II: Development and Application of a Cumulative Impacts Assessment Protocol”,
NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 6, September,
1995, Coastal Ocean Office, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, Maryland, pp. xxi-xxvii and 125-
135 in Part I, and pp. 1-10 and 31-35 in Part II.

Zaldivar, J.M., Hakanson, L., Berrojalbiz, N., Dueri, S., Carafa, R., Marinov, D.,
Jurado, E., and Dachs, J., “The Use of Models for Ecological Risk Assessment in
Coastal Ecosystems: Thresholds Point of View”, EUR 22269 EN, 2006, Institute
for Environment and Sustainability, Joint Research Centre, European
Commission, Luxembourg.

46