Examining the gap between ecological science and environmental management
Working for more than 15 years in Alaska’s Bristol Bay region, Sarah O’Neal is part of the SAFS PhD program. Recently publishing a new paper in BioScience examining the gap between ecological science and environmental management, Sarah’s article focuses on indirect ecological effects and how these are often defined differently in regulatory decisions. Indirect ecological effects are those in which the interactions of two species are modified by another species or abiotic factor (for example, valuable metals like copper, physical habitat alteration, and other factors).
Part of a larger effort involving her PhD research, advised by SAFS Professor Daniel Schindler, Sarah led a team that reviewed more than 20 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents for proposed mining projects across the US, to compare the treatment of indirect effects in regulatory versus ecological literature.
What she found was a clear dichotomy between regulatory and academic definitions of indirect effects, which in turn has far-reaching consequences when being used to make environmental management decisions. Where does this disconnect come from? “In part, some of this comes down to the terminology used in science, by scientists,” Sarah shared. “Especially when evaluating indirect ecological effects – which are by nature a bit harder to define and assess than direct ecological effects – the terminology used can be confusing. The ecological literature often uses overly complicated and redundant language, and is limited in its utility by regulators as a result.”
In some of her other PhD work, Sarah is using GIS and statistical tools to consider spatial correlation within stream networks, as opposed to the more common method of Euclidean (straight) line-to-line distance. Doing this in concert with environmental DNA (eDNA), Sarah collected data from a small watershed in Bristol Bay, only accessible via helicopter. These eDNA methods were particularly useful for covering more ground in this remote part of the world with difficult access. “What’s cool about this research is that it’s one of very few watersheds in the area that doesn’t support a ton of salmon,” Sarah shared. “The assumption was that it didn’t support any salmon at all, but we found evidence to the contrary. Now we can plug this into the spatial stream network and predict salmon distribution throughout that watershed.”
Why is work like this important? Because it ties directly into the work behind NEPA documents when considering proposed mining and other development projects. “The importance of headwater streams to fish as well as their contributions to downstream habitat are often overlooked, so developers often assume alteration of headwater habitats will have minimal effects to aquatic life. Our work shows that this isn’t the case,” Sarah added.
Copper is one of the most toxic elements to aquatic life, even at levels far below regulatory criteria. It impacts the ability of salmon to find their way home, find food, detect predators, find mates, and even find other family members. “The known impacts of copper on fish behavior—even at concentrations well below legal limits—is a clear example of indirect effects being overlooked in a regulatory context,” Sarah shared. Improving this situation, according to Sarah, would require regulators and scientists to work together to come to an ecologically relevant and legally applicable definition of indirect effects to ensure they are considered in environmental assessments. To bolster the ability to regulate indirect effects of development, ecosystem-wide experiments before, during, and after the development of a project are critical. In regard to more comprehensively incorporating indirect effects into regulation, Sarah added, “We have a job to do as scientists to simplify our language and make it more understandable. We showed that in a quantitative way in this new paper.”
Another area of Sarah’s work, funded by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and others, is to evaluate sculpin, a bottom-dwelling small fish, as a bio-indicator species of contamination. “Sculpin are a good fit for this because they don’t have swim bladders and therefore generally don’t move very far over their lifetime. They’re easy to catch, sensitive to many contaminants, and ubiquitous,” Sarah shared. “Right now, we’re comparing the utility of sculpin relative to other species in the watersheds we’re studying in relation to the effects of copper.”
Over the course of her research, Sarah has worked with numerous partners including Trout Unlimited, the University of Alaska Anchorage, EPA, Bristol Bay Native Corporation, the National Park Service, the Center for Science in Public Participation, United Tribes of Bristol Bay, the Bristol Bay Native Association, the Nature Conservancy, Nondalton Tribal Council, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
