Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:59:40.926Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RESEARCH ARTICLE: Defining Appropriate Spatial and Temporal Scales for Ecological Impact Analysis1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2015

Harriet L. Nash
Harriet L. Nash*
Affiliation:
Harriet L. Nash, PhD, Fish Biologist, ESA Interagency Cooperation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
*
Address correspondence to: Harriet L. Nash, ESA Interagency Cooperation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; (phone) 301-427-8412; (fax) 301-713-0376; (e-mail) harriet.nash@noaa.gov.
Get access

Abstract

Many environmental impact analyses, including those pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, do not identify the spatial and temporal scales used in the analysis. Without definition of analytical scales, the reader is left to infer scale, which could confound decision making when different readers infer different scales of analysis. For ecological analysis, site-specific spatial and temporal scales based on unique natural features and phenomena are most appropriate, given the inability of ecological resources to restrict themselves according to political boundaries or arbitrary time lines. Definition of scale in the environmental impact document allows the reader or decision maker to consider the impacts in the intended context. Scales of ecological analysis should be based on ecological principles as applied to a specific study area and the ecological resources that may be affected by the proposed action or activity. The multiscalar concept of biological connectivity should be addressed in spatial and temporal analysis, which inherently includes cross-scale considerations such as those for potential effects on metapopulations. Definition of spatial and temporal scales is critical to bound the impact analysis and to inform readers and decision makers, and suggested guidelines are provided as an example of an acceptable method. Although several different scales could be correctly chosen, analysts should identify and define spatial and temporal scales used to promote consistent interpretations of results and to facilitate the decision-making process.

Environmental Practice 16: 281–286 (2014)

Type
Features
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 281 - 286
Copyright
© National Association of Environmental Professionals 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1.

The scientific results and conclusions, as well as any views or opinions expressed herein, are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or the Department of Commerce.

References

Carlile, D.W., Skalski, J.R., Batker, J.E., Thomas, J.M., and Cullinan, V.I.. 1989. Determination of Ecological Scale. Landscape Ecology 2(4):203–213.Google Scholar
Cash, D.W., Adger, W.N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L., and Young, O.. 2006. Scale and Cross-Scale Dynamics: Governance and Information in a Multilevel World. Ecology and Society 11(2), article 8. Available at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art8/.Google Scholar
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997, January. Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act. CEQ, Washington, DC, 122 pp. Available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G-CEQ-ConsidCumulEffects.pdf.Google Scholar
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2005. 40 CFR 1500–1508. In 40 CFR: Protection of the Environment. CEQ, Washington, DC. Available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/NEPA-40CFR1500_1508.pdf.Google Scholar
Joao, E. 2002. How Scale Affects Environmental Impact Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22(4):289–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibold, M.A., Holyoak, M., Mouquet, N., Amarasekare, P., Chase, J.M., Hoopes, M.F., Holt, R.D., Shurin, J.B., Law, R., Tilman, D., Loreau, M., and Gonzalez, A.. 2004. The Metacommunity Concept: A Framework for Multi-scale Community Ecology. Ecology Letters 7(7):601–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, S.A. 1992. The Problem of Pattern and Scale in Ecology. Ecology 73(6):1943–1967.Google Scholar
Parker, V.T. 2001. Conceptual Problems and Scale Limitations of Defining Ecological Communities: A Critique of the CI Concept (Community of Individuals). Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 4(2):80–96.Google Scholar
Ruggiero, L.F., Hayward, G.D., and Squires, J.R.. 1994. Viability Analysis in Biological Evaluations: Concepts of Population Viability Analysis, Biological Population, and Ecological Scale. Conservation Biology 8(2):364–372.Google Scholar
Turner, M.G., O’Neill, R.V., Gardner, R.H., and Milne, B.T.. 1989. Effects of Changing Spatial Scale on the Analysis of Landscape Pattern. Landscape Ecology 3(3–4):153–162.Google Scholar
US Congress. 1970, January 1. 42 USC 4321 et seq.: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). US Congress, Washington, DC, 7 pp. Available at http://energy.gov/nepa/downloads/national-environmental-policy-act-1969.Google Scholar
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999, October. Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants: Environmental Standard Review Plan for New Site/Plant Applications. NUREG-1555, Initial ESRP. NRC, Rockville, MD, 913 pp. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1555/initial/.Google Scholar
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2011, May. Environmental Impact Statement for the Combined License (COL) for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3: Final Report. NUREG-1936, Vol. 1. NRC and USACE, Rockville, MD, 879 pp. Available at http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1112/ML11129A167.pdf.Google Scholar
Wiens, J.A. 1989. Spatial Scaling in Ecology. Functional Ecology 3(4):385–397.Google Scholar