A Regional Multiple-Stressor Rank-Based Ecological Risk Assessment for the Fjord of Port Valdez,Alaska

We conducted an ecological risk assessment of the marine environment of Port Valdez, a fjord in south-central Alaska. Because the assessment was regional rather than site-specific and contained a large number of different stressors in a variety of environments, we required a nontraditional method to estimate risks. We created a Relative Risk Model to rank and sum individual risks numerically within each subarea, from each source, and to each habitat. Application of this model involved division of Port Valdez into 11 subareas containing specific ecological and anthropogenic structures and activities. Within each subarea, the stressor sources were analyzed to estimate exposure of receptors within habitats leading to effects relevant to the chosen assessment endpoints. The subareas were analyzed and compared to form a Port-wide perspective of ecological risk. Available chemical concentrations from sediment and mussels collected from the Port were compared to various toxicological benchmarks as a partial confirmation of the risk analysis. An estimation of the risk of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) to marine invertebrates indicated low risk. The municipal boat harbor had the highest estimate, which reflected our relative risk rankings. The Relative Risk Model approach appears robust and has potential for use in situations where multiple stressors are of concern and for assessments covering broad geographic areas. In the Port Valdez assessment the approach provided relative risk rankings for chemical and physical stressors from various sources. But data were available for confirmation of risk estimates only for the chemical stressors. The rankings are relative, and extrapolation beyond the scenario in which they were developed is not warranted. Uncertainty is large, and the numerical scores collapse a multidimensional space into a single value. Use of just the numerical score out of context is more valid than with other indexes. The value of the approach lies in the relative rankings and the accounting of the components of the relative risk score.