Comparative Risk Ranking

The Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership integrated a comparative risk assessment into its management plan development to help assess potential actions. A comparative risk assessment asks citizens and technical experts to rank a list of problems based on their threat to public health, ecological health and quality of life. It offers insight into what science and the general public understand about the risk of a defined list of problems.

21 Problems
Criteria for Risk Ranking
Ranking Results
Using the Rankings
Selecting Actions

The comparative risk ranking helped focus attention on the most significant problems on the basis of risk, identify where resources can best be placed, and determine where educational efforts are most needed. It also provided other valuable benefits that will continue throughout implementation of the Management Plan:

• It required participants to think about how the problems compare with one another, rather than thinking in terms of all problems being equally important.
• It introduced the discussion of risk into the thought process. This brings factual, scientific information to the forefront.
• It brought the public's values and concerns into the discussion. The comparative risk ranking provided a specific public involvement tool that actively engaged the public.

How do we do the rankings?

• Technical ranking - completed by Estuary Partnership’s 31 member Management Committee with the help of the program's science and technical work group experts.
• Focus group ranking - completed by the people the Management Committee represents. Management Committee members hosted 28 focus group meetings with their respective constituents between October 20 and December 10, 1997. A total of 269 people attended the meetings. The groups represented: agriculture, forestry, pulp, paper and aluminum industries; recreational users; environmental interests; local, state and federal governments; commercial fishing interests; ports; labor; regions; and the general public.
• Public ranking - completed by citizens at two public meetings and through a newspaper advertisement ranking exercise. The exercise ran in 14 study area newspapers. More than 1,100 citizens faxed, mailed or e-mailed their rankings and another 20 attended meetings in Astoria and Vancouver.

What problems were ranked? 21 Problems
In selecting the problems to rank, the Management Committee started with seven priority issues.

• toxic contaminants
• habitat loss and modification
• conventional pollutants
• biological integrity
• land use and development practices
• public awareness and stewardship
• institutional constraints

These issues are based on Management Committee discussions as well as technical findings from the Bi-State Water Quality program. Using the seven priority issues, the Management Committee identified 21 problems. Participants in the various rankings were asked to rank these problems against one another according to their perceived risk to public health, ecological health, and quality of life. The Management Committee developed a set of criteria to help the focus groups and technical group guide their ranking.

1. Lack of knowledge about the river & its systems
2. Inadequate coordination of governments and government agencies
3. Declines and losses of species and inability of species to recover
4. Increase of non-indigenous species
5. Leaks and spills of petroleum and other hazardous materials
6. Contaminated fish and other organisms
7. Contaminated sediment
8. Altered stream flow
9. Loss of wetlands and other habitat
10. Loss of riparian vegetation
11. Stormwater runoff (impervious surfaces, pesticides)
12. Agricultural activities (pesticides, grazing, soil loss, habitat loss or modification)
13. Forestry activities (soil loss, vegetation loss)
14. Construction activities (sediment, fill, building on steep slopes and shorelines)
15. Bacteria
16. Changes in water temperature
17. Increased dissolved gases
18. Nearshore and instream navigation activities
19. Radio activity
20. Discharge from municipal wastewater facilities
21. Discharge from industrial facilities

Criteria for Risk Ranking
Human and Ecosystem Health
Extent of the Problem: How widespread is the problem?

Consequences of Delay: What happens if we do not address the problem? Will the cost to repair the problem escalate? Will we reach a point of irreparable harm? Will we affect disproportionately the health of future generations?

Nature of the Impact or Effect: What is it and how bad is it?

Permanence: How permanent is the impact? Is it recoverable; if so, how long to recover?

Likelihood of Occurrence: How likely is an environmental event to occur?

Trends: Is the situation worsening, stable, improving, or unknown?

Uncertainties: Do we have ample data, and how good are the data we have? How secure are we in the assumptions underlying the assessment-i.e., the continuance of regulations or programs which may be controlling the risk?

Relationship to Other Issue Areas: Is this a fundamental or underlying issue-i.e., one that is the cause of other problems (issues) on the list? Are there synergistic effects?

Quality of Life

Economic Well Being: Are there lost jobs, increased health care costs, or lowered incomes?

Fairness: Are the costs and benefits unequally distributed?

Future Generations: Have the costs of today's activities been shifted to people unable to vote or not yet born?

Peace of Mind: Do we feel individually threatened by the impacts of this environmental problem or do we feel that we have done less than we should to address it?

Recreation: Are recreational opportunities and enjoyment reduced because of lack of access to recreational lands or a loss in aesthetic values?

Sense of Place: Does the problem result in a loss of heritage, or will the heritage of the place remain intact? Is the continuity of place and history evident? Is the rate of change affecting the sense of place? Does the problem result in a loss of mutual respect, cooperation, or the ability or willingness to solve problems together? Is there a reduced feeling of connection, belonging, or responsibility to a specific geographic area?

Ranking Results
The results of the public ranking and the technical ranking varied significantly. This is not surprising given the mix of knowledge, experience and emotion that drive opinions. However, it is notable that "loss of wetlands and other habitat" ranked as the top problem on all three rankings. Every group ranked "loss of wetland and habitat" as the number-one problem, posing the greatest threat to human health, ecosystem health, and quality of life.

Lack of public knowledge and inadequate government coordination ranked near the top for the technical and the constituent focus groups. This was consistent with input received from the public in more general meetings; they have consistently said that education is one of the primary keys to improving environmental protection. Decline and loss of species, impacts from agricultural practices, and stormwater runoff were also ranked high by these two groups. The focus groups and the technical rankings were most similar, suggesting that more information is helpful in understanding the problems. The greatest disparity was between the public and the two other rankings.

That the results of the public ranking and the technical ranking varied significantly, was not surprising given the mix of knowledge, experience and emotion that drive opinions. However, it is notable that "loss of wetlands and other habitat" ranked as the top problem on all three rankings.

Using the Rankings
The Management Committee used the results of the rankings in three ways. First, the rankings helped identify actions to address the priority issues. The Management Committee used the rankings to develop a set of actions that will include corrective efforts to help change practices that pollute and degrade the environment. Second, the committee used the risk ranking to help define the role of the Estuary Program in implementing actions. Third, the risk rankings were used to design objectives and components of the Estuary Program's education efforts. In addition to the rankings, the Management Committee reviewed other factors, such as technical feasibility, economic cost, and environmental impact, to identify actions for implementation.

Selecting Actions
Using the results of the rankings, the Management Committee used a three-step process to determine which actions to include in the Management Plan and how they will be implemented. At various points they worked with the public and constituent groups to work through these steps.

Step 1: Determining "Smart" Actions
The Management Committee screened a list of 125 actions to determine which actions are SMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Responsive, and Trackable. This included a review of the Bi-State Program's technical findings and recommendations.

Step 2: Refining the List of Actions
Those actions determined to be SMART were screened further. Committee members discussed how the action might accomplish Estuary Partnership visions; whether the action would effect change; was it technically rooted; did it address a high-risk problem; was it within the scope of the National Estuary Program; what were the action's social impacts and impact on quality of life; will the action help protect or restore the lower Columbia River and estuary? As a result, the list of actions was refined from 125 to 92.

Step 3: Developing an Implementation Plan for Each Action
The last step was to develop an implementation plan to specify who will implement each action, how much it will cost, and how it will be funded. This step included applying a final set of criteria to each action: Is the action addressing a high-risk problem; is the action technically feasible; what are the action's political implications; does the action require regulation/legislation; what is the action's probability of success; what are the action's economic and environmental impacts; what resources are available to implement the action; is there a party who will be responsible for implementing the action; is the action within the authority of an existing active body; what are the legal implications; are others working on the action; what is the timeframe for implementation of the action; when would results be realized; will the action have immediate success; is the action "bold" and action-oriented?
The step 3 process reduced the number of actions to 43. The final 43 actions are detailed in the Management Plan. They are the heart of the Management Plan which forms the mission and objectives for the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership.