vxEPA
United States Office of Research and
Environmental Protection Development
Agency Washington, DC 20460
Office of Policy, EPA/600/R-94/183
Planning and Evaluation September 1994
Washington, DC 20460
Managing Ecological
Risks at EPA
**•
-------
-------
EPA/600/R-94/183
September 1994
Managing Ecological Risks at EPA:
Issues and Recommendations
for Progress
Michael E. Troyer
Office of Research and Development
and
Michael S. Brody
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Center for Environmental Research Information
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Notice
This document has been reviewed in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
peer and administrative review policies and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
Contents
Page
Figures • • vi
Tables - • • vii
Acknowledgements viii
Executive Summary 1
Chapter 1 Introduction - 5
1.1 Brief Historical Background of Ecological Protection at EPA ..... 5
1.2 Organization of This Report 7
Chapter 2 Ecological Concerns Historically Used In EPA Decisions 9
2.1 Introduction '. : • 9
2.2 Range of Ecological Concerns Used in Agency Decisions 11
Chapter 3 Comments Received on Improving Ecological Considerations at EPA:
Perspectives on Regional and Headquarter Needs 13
3.1 Overview 13
3.2 Issues and Suggestions for Improving Ecological Considerations at EPA 13
Chapter 4 Recommendations: Next Steps To Consider .. 17
4.1 Ensure an Appropriate Balance Between Ecological, Human Welfare,
and Human Health Concerns in Agency Regulations and Policy 17
4.2 Develop Common Agency-Wide Ecological Protection Concerns 17
4.3 Encourage an Open Process for Developing Ecological Concerns
and Assessment Endpoints 18
4.4 Specify Rationales and Establish Precedents for Ecological Protection 19
4.5 Set Up Formal Processes To Ensure That Risk Managers and Assessors Interact
Effectively in Ecological Risk Assessments — 19
4.6 Develop Ecological Risk Management Guidance and Training, and Recruit
Additional Staff With Ecological Expertise 20
4.7 Improve Ecological Risk Communication 20
4.8 Explore, Develop, and Apply New Scientific Tools for Ecological Risk
Assessment, and Economic Tools for Ecological Risk Management 20
References
23
-------
Contents (continued)
Page
Appendix A Methods 25
Appendix B Interview Questions 27
Appendix C EPA Program Areas Interviewed 29
Appendix D Ecological Concerns Identified by the Survey 31
Appendix E Additional Comments From Office Interviews 67
Appendix F Individual Office Summaries 69
Acid Rain Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs
Office of Air and Radiation 70
Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards
Office of Air and Radiation 71
Stratosphere Protection Division, Analysis and Review Branch
Office of Air and Radiation 73
Region 5 Air Toxics and Radiation Branch, Air Division 74
Great Lakes National Program Office 75
Office of Federal Activities 76
Region 3 NEPA, Environmental Services Division 78
Region 5 NEPA, Planning Assessment Branch 80
Region 9 NEPA, Office of External Affairs 81
Office of Pesticide Programs 83
Region 5 Pesticides and Toxic Substances Branch 86
Region 10 Pesticides and Toxic Substances Branch 87
Office of Solid Waste 88
Region 3 RCRA Program: Corrective Action and Enforcement Sections 91
Region 5 RCRA Program: Permitting and Enforcement Sections 93
Region 10 RCRA Program: RCRA Risk Assessment Coordination 95
Region 9, San Francisco Bay Estuary Project 97
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 98
Region 3 Superfund Office 100
Region 5 Superfund Office 102
Region 9 Superfund Office 104
Region 10 Superfund Office 106
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics—New Chemicals 108
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics—Existing Chemicals 110
IV
-------
Contents (continued)
Page
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water 111
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds 113
Office of Water (Ocean Discharges) 114
Region 9 Wetlands Permits and Enforcement Section
Wetlands, Oceans and Estuaries [Branch
Water Management Division Water 116
Region 9 Water Quality Branch 118
Sludge Risk Assessment Branch
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water 119
Region 10 Surface Water Branch, Water Division 120
Wetlands Division
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds 121
Region 9 Policy, Wetlands and Coastal Planning Section 123
Region 10 Wetlands Team 124
-------
Figures
Figure
3-1 Regional and Headquarter perspectives on improving considerations
of ecological risk at EPA
4-1 Important areas of interaction between risk managers and risk assessors
in ecological risk assessment
Page
14
18
VI
-------
Tables
Table
Page
2-1 Examples of Ecological Concerns Used in EPA Decisions 10
D-1 EPA's Ecological Concerns Organized by Program Area 32
D-2 Levels of Biological Organization Considered by EPA 37
D-3 Types of Stressors Considered by EPA 39
D-4 Aquatic, Wetland, and Terrestrial Habitat/Ecosystem Considerations by EPA 40
D-5 General Types of Organisms Considered by EPA 41
D-6 EPA Offices That Consider Endangered Species 43
D-7 All Ecological Concerns Identified by the Survey 44
F-1 Examples of OAQPS Decisions That Considered Adverse Ecological Effects 72
F-2 Examples of OFA Decisions Based on Ecological Risk 77
F-3 Examples of Region 3 NEPA Decisions Based on Ecological Risk 79
F-4 Examples of Region 5 NEPA Decisions Based on Ecological Concerns 80
F-5 Examples of Region 9 NEPA Decisions Based on Ecological Risk 82
F-6 Examples of OPP Decisions Based on Ecological Risk 84
F-7 Examples of Cases in Which the Region 9 Technical
Support Section is Considering Ecological Concerns 105
F-8 Examples of Ecological Assessment Endpoints According to the Field
Sampling Plan for the Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine Superfund Site, Clear Lake, California 105
VII
-------
Acknowledgments
First and foremost we wish to thank the numerous U.S. Environmental Protection Agency staff
members at Headquarters in Washington, DC, and at the Regional offices in Philadelphia, Chicago,
San Francisco, and Seattle who assisted in this project. Their time and effort in participating in the
interviews, providing documentation, and reviewing summaries are greatly appreciated. We also
thank Larry Barnthouse, Don Barnes, Fred Chanania, Pat Cirone, Rick Kutz, Sue Norton, Paul
Ringold, Ed Russell, John Schneider, Ingrid Sunzenauer, Glenn Suter, Bill van der Schalie, and
Molly Whitworth for their comments on key parts of preliminary drafts, and Angela Nugent, Elaine
Francis, Jay Benforado, Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, and Dorothy Patton for their reviews, manage-
ment support, and guidance. Funding for this project was provided by the Office of Science, Planning
and Regulatory Evaluation within the Office of Research and Development; the Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation; and the Risk Assessment Forum.
viii
-------
Executive Summary
Introduction
Since its inception in 1970, the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) has focused more consistently on
protecting human health than ecosystems. In recent
years, however, the Agency has worked to address this
imbalance. For example, EPA has set priorities that
emphasize the value of ecosystems as well as human
health and welfare, and has made an increasing number
of regulatory decisions that incorporate ecological con-
cerns. Nevertheless, limited consensus exists within
EPA on objectives for ecological protection. A consistent
focus on ecosystem protection requires clear Agency-
wide guidance on what ecosystems and ecosystem
components should be protected and to what degree,
and what regulatory endpoints should be used in eco-
logical risk assessment and risk management decisions.
This report is intended to assist in the development of
that guidance by presenting ecological concerns already
considered in several of EPA's program areas.
Background
This report stems from issues identified during the de-
velopment of EPA's Framework for Ecological Risk As-
sessment (U.S. EPA, 1992a), the Agency's initial
guidance for conducting ecological risk assessment. In
May 1991, during a scientific peer review of the Frame-
work, several scientists from academia, government,
and industry reached a consensus opinion that:
... policy and risk management issues must play
an important part in guiding the ecological risk
assessment process to ensure that relevant socie-
tal concerns are adequately addressed (U.S. EPA,
1992D).
Afterwards, senior managers and scientists having risk
assessment responsibilities within the Agency agreed
that EPA had not yet established management guidance
or standard policies for conducting ecological risk as-
sessments, and that the success of ecological risk as-
sessment depended on such guidance.
To provide this needed policy guidance for ecological
risk assessments, EPA conducted a survey between
August 1992 and March 1993 to document the Agency's
current and historical ecological concerns as expressed
by Agency decisions. This report summarizes the results
of that survey. The goals of the report are to:
• Summarize the ecological concerns historically used
in EPA decision-making.
• Provide background information for future guidance
on risk management and on establishing guiding prin-
ciples for developing, describing, and using ecologi-
cal risk assessments at EPA.
• Provide a set of recommendations to improve eco-
logical considerations in EPA decision-making.
This report may also be useful for other ecological ef-
forts currently under way in the Agency. Examples in-
clude efforts to advance the concept of ecosystem or
"place-based" management (U.S. EPA, 1994a), to re-
spond to the ecological recommendations of the Vice
President's National Performance Review (U.S. EPA,
1993b), to set national goals for environmental protec-
tion (U.S. EPA, 1994d), and to strengthen EPA's com-
mitment to protecting endangered species (U.S. EPA,
1993d, 1994b).
Major Findings
Ecological Concerns Used in Past Agency
Decisions
EPA program offices use a variety of ecological con-
cerns in their decisions. The survey revealed the follow-
ing about EPA's ecological concerns:
• Acute mortality appears to be one of the most fre-
quently and widely used ecological effects of concern
in EPA program decisions.
• Available toxicity data (such as LD50 and LC50 labo-
ratory test results) appear to strongly influence what
is of ecological concern at EPA.
• In general, animals (e.g., birds and fish) are more
frequently assessed as a value of ecological concern
than plants.
• All program areas consider chemical stressors and
impacts.
• Biological stressors considered tend to be exotic or
non-native species (e.g., zebra mussels).
• Physical stressors have been considered with re-
spect to dredge-and-fill activities and the review of
environmental impact statements for large federal
projects.
• No office has set a quantitative threshold repre-
senting an unacceptable risk to nonhuman organisms
-------
(e.g., analogous to a 1 x 10"6 cancer risk for human
health).
• Except for endangered species, no case was found
where an individual nonhuman organism, or even a
small number of individuals, was protected by a regu-
latory decision.
• EPA typically does not consider dynamic parameters
such as birth, death, immigration, and emigration
rates in nonhuman populations. When population is
considered, the focus is usually on the possible decline
or extinction of a local population at a particular site.
• Some programs consider effects to multiple species
(e.g., as implicit in the use of Ambient Water Quality
Criteria). Typically, however, EPA does not consider
interactions among species (e.g., predator-prey rela-
tionships). Many EPA offices generally assume that
protecting individual species will protect a population
or community. This assumption is a subject of scien-
tific debate.
• EPA pays considerable attention to protecting wet-
lands, estuaries, and large natural resources such as
the Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, and the Gulf
of Mexico. Generally, however, when evaluating risks
to ecosystems, the Agency does not consider inter-
actions occurring among animal and plant communi-
ties and their physical environment.
Issues, Needs, and Suggestions for
Improving Ecological Considerations at EPA
Responses to questions about needs and suggestions
for improving considerations of ecological risk fell into
seven categories:
Policy Guidance
More than three-fourths of the programs interviewed
expressed the need for clear ecological policy guidance
within EPA. Respondents identified the following types
of guidance needed for effective risk assessments: guid-
ance on the relative value EPA should place on different
types of ecosystems or ecosystem components; guid-
ance on whether to focus on chemical, physical, and/or
biological stressors and whether to protect individuals,
populations, communities, and/or entire ecosystems or
landscapes; and guidance on how to make tradeoffs
between ecological risks and human health/welfare risks.
Technical Guidance and Support
More than half the offices interviewed stressed the need
for technical support and guidance for conducting eco-
logical risk assessments. Many programs appear to favor
step-by-step, program-specific guidance on methods
and tools useful for assessing ecological risks.
Ecological Expertise
More than half the programs interviewed urged EPA to
acquire more ecological expertise. Several programs
noted the disproportionate number of ecologists with
training in aquatic as opposed to terrestrial systems, and
recommended that EPA develop more expertise in ter-
restrial (e.g., forest and wildlife) biology and ecology.
Information and Data
More than half of ail the programs interviewed, and
nearly three-fourths of the Headquarters offices inter-
viewed, stated that ecological risk management deci-
sions are limited by a lack of ecological data. Issues
raised included inconsistencies in the amount and type
of ecological data required at the management level for
decision-making; limited access to ecological informa-
tion; dependence on other federal agencies for informa-
tion used in making EPA decisions; lack of quality
assurance/quality control, a high level of uncertainty, or
difficulty in interpreting data; and a lack of ecological risk
criteria.
Agency Culture
More than a third of the programs interviewed stated that
office or Agency culture (i.e., EPA's tradition of protecting
human health) limits ecological considerations at EPA.
Authorities and Roles
Some of those interviewed—one-third of the Regional
programs and one-fifth of the Headquarters programs—
asserted that EPA needs to define its role in protecting
ecological resources. Several programs recommended
that EPA clearly define its role in relation to other Federal
agencies (e.g., public land management agencies in the
Departments of Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and
Defense).
Fiscal Resources
One-tenth of the Regional programs and one-third of the
Headquarters programs interviewed expressed the
need for additional fiscal resources to improve ecologi-
cal considerations at EPA.
Recommendations
This report offers eight recommendations for improving
ecological considerations in EPA decision-making. The
authors formulated these recommendations through
analysis and interpretation of their interviews with the
EPA Headquarters and Regional program offices. It is
anticipated that these recommendations will be further
developed and refined as they are reviewed and dis-
cussed within and outside the Agency.
-------
Recommendation 1: Ensure an appropriate
balance between ecological, human welfare,
and human health concerns in Agency
regulations and policy.
The Agency should take advantage of the opportunities
presented by many of its current activities to give appro-
priate attention to ecological and human welfare/natural
resource concerns. Some examples include regulation
of pollution by the program offices; decision-making
about dredge-and-fill activities and large federal pro-
jects; and priority setting through the Agency's new Tier-
ing Process for Regulatory and Policy Development.
Recommendation 2: Develop common
Agency-wide ecological concerns.
EPA needs to establish an initial, overall set of ecological
concerns to be considered in all Agency activities, in-
cluding the development of regulations, policies, and
assessment endpoints for ecological risk assessments.
These concerns can take the form of Agency-wide prin-
ciples or objectives and can also support other ecosys-
tem management and nonregulatory efforts being
undertaken by the Agency.
Recommendation 3: Encourage an open
process for developing Agency-wide
ecological concerns.
Several EPA programs and projects have successfully
adopted an open process that involves the public, natu-
ral resource trustees, or other stakeholders in identifying
concerns and establishing goals for environmental pro-
tection. Examples include the Superfund program, the
Office of Water's "Watershed Protection Approach," and
the National Goals Project. These open processes ap-
pear to promote cross-media efforts within EPA and
enhance public support for reducing ecological risks.
Recommendation 4: Specify rationales and
establish precedents for ecological protection
decisions.
EPA has less precedent for protecting ecological re-
sources than for protecting human health. The Agency.
should therefore consider documenting its ecological
decisions, including the rationales for those decisions,
on an ongoing basis. Where the Agency finds strong
scientific and societal justification for an ecological de-
cision, it can consider using that decision as a precedent
for similar future decisions (but should not be constrained
by the past in developing sound, new approaches for
making better ecological decisions).
Recommendation 5: Set up formal processes
to ensure effective interaction between risk
managers and assessors during the process
of ecological risk assessment.
Participation by EPA's risk managers in the risk assess-
ment process, particularly during the scoping phase, is
essential to producing scientifically sound assessments
relevant to management decisions and public concerns.
Recommendation 6: Develop ecological risk
management guidance and training; recruit
additional staff with ecological expertise.
Guidance and training for EPA risk managers, asses-
sors, and other staff are essential to support the
Agency's sharpening focus on ecological risk assess-
ment. This guidance and training will need to meet
several different goals: ensuring that ecological risk as-
sessments provide optimum information for making risk
management decisions, promoting consistency in eco-
logical risk assessment across EPA programs, and fos-
tering successful dialogue between risk managers and
risk assessors. EPA should also consider recruiting ad-
ditional trained ecologists, biologists, ecotoxicologists,
and other scientists to strengthen EPA's base of ecologi-
cal expertise.
Recommendation 7: Improve ecological risk
communication.
Another key Agency need is better communication
within and outside EPA about ecological risks and deci-
sions. Training, recruitment, and project planning are
needed to improve EPA's ability to communicate eco-
logical risk information to the Agency decision-makers and
the outside world.
Recommendation 8: Explore, develop, and
apply new scientific tools for ecological risk
assessment and new economic tools for
making ecological risk management
decisions.
Also key to the success of EPA's evolving emphasis on
ecological risk assessment are advances in scientific
and economic methods and data. EPA program manag-
ers and scientists alike should help plan for the next
generation of technological advances required for better
assessment of ecological risks.
3
-------
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
This report is intended to assist efforts to identify clearer,
Agency-wide objectives for ecological protection by pre-
senting baseline information about historical concerns
considered in EPA's program areas (e.g., concerns
about specific ecosystems and ecosystem components
such as wetlands and wildlife species). This report is
also intended to help risk managers and assessors
develop ecological assessment endpoints during the
problem formulation stage of ecological risk assessment
(see Chapter 2). In addition, the report may complement
new ecological initiatives at EPA, including efforts to
advance the concept of ecosystem or "place-based"
management (U.S. EPA, 1994a), respond to the ecologi-
cal recommendations of the Vice President's National
Performance Review (U.S. EPA, 1993b), set national
goals for environmental protection (U.S. EPA, 1994d), and
strengthen EPA's commitment to protecting endangered
species (U.S. EPA, 1993d, 1994b).
The report places particular emphasis on ecological
concerns that have been used in at least one program
decision (e.g., as evidenced in Federal Register notices
of proposed or final rules, policy statements, guidance
documents, strategic plans, memoranda, testing proto-
cols, standard operating procedures, or economic
analyses).1 It identifies common ecological concerns
used across EPA's program areas as well as those
unique to specific programs. The report also provides
suggestions from program areas and recommendations
for improving ecological considerations within the
Agency. This information on ecological concerns and
program needs was gathered during a series of inter-
views conducted with staff representing more than 40
different program areas thought to consider ecological
risk in their activities. Appendix A describes the methods
used to obtain and analyze this information.
This report is not intended to be an all-encompassing or
definitive survey of EPA's ecological activities or con-
cerns. The authors did, however, strive to capture as
1 Ecological "concerns" or "considerations," as defined by this study,
include valued ecosystems or ecosystem components that formed
a partial or whole basis for a regulatory decision or a decision to
pursue some other programmatic objective or activity (e.g., a coop-
erative, nonregulatory effort to protect or reduce risks to a particular
species or ecosystem).
many ecological concerns expressed by Headquarters
and Regional programs as possible. The remainder of
this chapter includes a brief historical perspective of how
ecological protection has evolved at EPA (Section 1.1)
and describes how the rest of the report is organized
(Section 1.2).
1.1 Brief Historical Background of
Ecological Protection at EPA
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, environmental con-
cerns about unhealthy air conditions, rivers in flames,
massive oil spills, and persistent pesticides contributed
to the first Earth Day and the creation of the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) (U.S. EPA, 1988a;
Russell, 1994). Since that time, Congress has charged
EPA to interpret and implement language found in sev-
eral major statutes designed, for example, to protect and
enhance the quality of the nation's air resources (Clean
Air Act); restore and maintain the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the nation's waters (Clean
Water Act); prevent unreasonable adverse effects from
the use of pesticides (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act); regulate the manufacture and use
of chemicals (Toxic Substances Control Act); regulate
solid and hazardous waste (Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act); clean up releases of hazardous sub-
stances to the environment (CERCLA or "Superfund");
and assess the environmental impact of major federal
projects (National Environmental Policy Act) (McClain,
1991).
Most of these statutes have a common theme of "pro-
tecting human health and the environment." The
Agency, however, has focused more consistently on
protecting human health than other environmental prob-
lems, such as risks to ecosystems and human welfare.
Although EPA has done much to clean up gross pollution
in the environment (U.S. EPA, 1988a), the Agency's
focus on human health has not always protected eco-
systems and natural resources which humans and other
species depend on for their continued survival.
Looking back over EPA's first two decades, some feel
that the Agency made a clear choice to define environ-
mental protection early on as protecting human health
-------
(e.g., Landy et al., 1990). Within EPA, others feel that
the Agency's focus on human health rather than ecologi-
cal concerns was not so much a conscious choice as it
was an application of Agency resources to areas that
appeared to be most important at the time to Congress,
the courts, and the public. In this view, where specific
ecological problems were evident (e.g., with pesticides
such as kepone, mirex, and DDT), action was taken, and
that the traditional focus on human health is more of an
imbalance rather than a disregard for ecological issues.
Another view is that EPA shifted its focus from environ-
mental to human health ills in the early 1970s in large
part because methods (such as cancer risk assessment
guidelines) had evolved that made it possible to win
health-based cases in court.
Not until the late 1980s did ecological concerns begin to
figure more prominently in EPA's interpretation of "pro-
tectfjng].. .the environment." This new course was evi-
denced by two efforts, one by EPA and the other by the
Agency's external Science Advisory Board (SAB), which
comparatively ranked various environmental problems
facing the nation. In short, EPA's Unfinished Business
report (U.S. EPA, 1987) led to a series of SAB reports,
beginning with Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and
Strategies for Environmental Protection (U.S. EPA,
1990a). in two of these reports (U.S. EPA, 1990a, b),
the SAB stressed the following:
• Human health and welfare ultimately rely on the life
support systems and natural resources provided by
healthy ecosystems.
• The value of natural ecosystems is not limited to their
immediate utility to humans. They have an intrinsic,
moral value that must be measured in its own terms
and protected for its own sake.
• EPA should communicate to the general public a clear
message that the Agency considers ecological risks
to be as serious as human health and welfare risks.
• EPA should set Agency risk-based priorities with an
appropriate balance between ecological, human
health, and welfare concerns.
Since that time, ecological concerns have increasingly
appeared in new mission-type statements for the
Agency; for example:
• [EPA endeavors] to preserve and improve the quality
of the environment, protect human health, and safe-
guard the productivity of natural resources on which
all humans depend (U.S. EPA, 1991).
• EPA is charged by Congress to protect the nation's
land, air, and water systems ... [and] formulate and
implement actions which lead to a compatible bal-
ance between human activities and the ability of
natural systems to support and nurture life (U.S.
EPA, 1993d).
• [EPA] will improve the overall ecological health of the
environment by protecting the physical, chemical,
and biological components and processes of ecosys-
tems ..., maintaining] and restoring] representative
examples of ecosystems, habitat types and ... connec-
tions across landscapes, and biological communities,
and ensuring] viable populations of native plants and
animals, well distributed throughout their range, and
the genetic variability within those populations (U.S.
EPA, 1994d).
Program offices have also made advances in incorpo-
rating ecological concerns in regulatory decisions. Ex-
amples include the following two policy statements
about activities regulated by EPA's Office of Pesticide
Programs and Office of Water:
• [A]bsent some countervailing benefit of continued
[pesticide] use, as a matter of policy an unnecessary
risk of regularly repeated bird kills will not be tolerated
(Former Administrator William Reilly's Decision Can-
celing Certain Uses of Diazinon, July 13, 1990).
• A mitigation sequence of avoiding, minimizing, and
as a last resort, compensating wetland losses will be
applied to the review of Section 404 permit projects.
(Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and the
Department of the Army Concerning the Determina-
tion of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines, February 6, 1990).
Most of the above statements reflect a growing aware-
ness that solely protecting human health does not nec-
essarily protect ecosystem resources or public welfare.
Nonetheless, they are quite general, and risk assessors
and managers typically require more specific informa-
tion to apply in Agency risk assessments and decisions
(e.g., What types of birds or wetlands should be pro-
tected? What types of adverse effects should be of
concern?). They also provide insufficient direction to the
program areas for setting criteria and standards to pro-
tect environmental quality.
At present, it appears that EPA will continue to develop
capabilities in ecological protection, as evidenced by the
current Administration's stated priorities and recommen-
dations for change in the Agency (U.S. EPA, 1993a).
Examples include initiatives to bring EPA's media-spe-
cific programs "together in a coordinated ecosystem
protection manner" (U.S. EPA, 1993c), to develop "a
proactive approach to ensuring a sustainable economy
and sustainable environment through ecosystem man-
agement" (U.S. EPA, 1993b), to "protect not only endan-
gered species but the ecosystems on which these
species depend" (U.S. EPA, 1993d), and to ensure that
"issues threatening the sustainability of ecosystems ...
drive the Agency's agenda" (U.S. EPA, 1994a). Other
than endangered species, however, no effort in the
Agency is known to determine specific ecosystems or
-------
ecosystem components that EPA should protect on a
consistent basis and to what degree.
1.2 Organization of This Report
The remainder of this report presents the ecological
concerns historically used in EPA decisions (Chapter 2),
summarizes comments received from program areas on
improving ecological considerations within the Agency
(Chapter 3), and recommends next steps for improving
ecological risk management at EPA (Chapter 4).
Appendices are also included that provide the following
information: methods (Appendix A) and interview ques-
tions (Appendix B) used in the survey, a list of partici-
pating Regional and Headquarters program areas
(Appendix C), detailed discussion and tables of ecologi-
cal concerns identified by the survey (Appendix D),
additional comments from the analysis summarized in
Chapter 3 (Appendix E), and summaries of each inter-
view, including a description of program decisions,
statutory authorities, and ecological concerns used in
decisions (Appendix F).
-------
-------
Chapter 2
Ecological Concerns Historically Used in EPA Decisions
2.1 Introduction
In general, EPA's ecological concerns derive from statu-
tory mandates, EPA's interpretations of these mandates
(e.g., regulations), judicial interpretations, and the exer-
cise of judgment and choices made by EPA's decision-
makers over the years. The Agency concerns identified
by this survey (Table 2-1) have largely been shaped
within an atmosphere of limited consensus on what is
ecologically significant (i.e., in a sociopolitical context)
and on what constitutes an intolerable adverse ecologi-
cal effect (i.e., an effect that may require regulatory
consideration or action). Most of the concerns identified
in Table 2-1 also derive from EPA's:
• Frequent need for rapid, screening-level types of
analyses.
• Use of single-species laboratory toxicology data on
chemicals rather than other ecological data in deter-
mining ecological effects and levels of concern.
• Tendency to generate ecological risk assessments
from a single, media-specific program office inde-
pendent from others. (EPA's program offices infre-
quently collaborate with each other on regulatory
assessments and actions.)
• Focus on either a local or, at the other extreme,
national scale (although watershed and regional ap-
proaches are becoming more popular).
The alphabetized range of valued ecological systems
and components have been documented by this report
as being considered in at least one EPA decision. The
associated adverse effect(s) of concern is also stated if
it is known. Parentheses following several of the valued
ecological systems and components listed in the table
provide adjectives or other descriptive terms that sum-
marize, in more detail, a range of related concerns also
documented as being used in an EPA decision.
The ecological concerns compiled in Table 2-1 were
collected from across the entire Agency. The table is
intended to show a range of ecological concerns used in
past Agency decisions. Additional information is provided
in Section 2.2 and Appendix D (Tables D-1 and D-7).
One way in which this list of concerns can benefit EPA
is as a starting point for developing "assessment end-
points" for ecological risk assessments. Very few Re-
gional or program offices have identified assessment
endpoints as defined by the Framework for Ecological
Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1992a). The Framework
defines assessment endpoints as "explicit expressions]
of the environmental value that is to be protected."
Many of those in the field of ecological risk assessment
recommend that defining an assessment endpoint (i.e.,
an "explicit expression ...") involves two steps, as sug-
gested by Suter (1989):
Step 1 Identifying the valued attributes of the en-
vironment that are considered to be at risk
[e.g., migratory birds or game fish potentially
exposed to a pesticide, toxic chemical, or solid
or hazardous waste].
Step 2 Defining these [valued] attributes in opera-
tional terms [e.g., Does the proportion of mi-
gratory birds killed within the polluted region
exceed that of other similar, but less polluted
regions (i.e., reference areas)? Is it likely that
a 10-percent or more reduction in game fish
production will occur?].
Many of the ecological concerns identified in this study
satisfy the first step in defining an assessment endpoint.
Some 'Valued attributes of the environment" (Suter, 1989)
or "environmental value[s].. .to be protected" (U.S. EPA,
1992a) can be found in or derived from EPA's environ-
mental statutes. Many of EPA's statutes, however, do
not provide specific language about ecological concerns
to incorporate in EPA decisions. For example, nonspecific
language such as "protect the environment1 (found in most
of EPA's statutes) and "protect the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the nation's waters" (in the Clean
Water Act) provides little specific guidance on what EPA
should value and consider from an ecological standpoint
in its analyses and decisions. Nevertheless, it is impor-
tant to note that EPA is limited only by its own creativity
in interpreting its broadly defined statutes more specifi-
cally for purposes of ecological protection (Environmental
Law Institute, 1991). Several reports are available that
describe legislative authorities for protecting habitats,
-------
Table 2-1. Examples of Ecological Concerns Used in EPA Decisions
# Valued Ecological System or Component Concern(s)
1 Algae
Acute and chronic effects; expected exceedance of an aquatic
"concentration of concern"
2 Amphibians or reptiles ("of special interest")
Not specified
3 Benthlc communities, invertebrates, and organisms
Acute and chronic effects; sediment contamination
4 Biological diversity (terrestrial and aquatic; preservation of)
Not specified
5 Birds (migratory birds, waterfowl, nesting habitat, flyways)
Acute mortality (recurring incidents of bird kills); chronic and
potential adverse effects
6 Coastal barriers
Not specified
7 Communities (aquatic; use of Ambient Water Quality Criteria)
Acute and chronic effects
8 Deltas (restoration of)
Acute and chronic effects
9 Ecosystems (aquatic, rare, and terrestrial)
Acute and chronic effects
10 Endangered and threatened species (also their habitats and
populations)
Acute effects; secondary toxicity; cumulative, reproductive, or
chronic effects; effects on habitat or food supply
11 Environments (terrestrial and aquatic)
"Potential for significant environmental degradation"; "severity,
duration, or geographic scope of impacts"; "violation of a national
environmental standard"
12 Estuaries
Chronic effects; toxic sediment accumulation; reduction of
pollutant loadings to estuary
13 Fish (health of commercial fishery populations; sportfish; juvenile
salmonids and other anadromous fish)
Acute and chronic effects; sublethal effects; adverse water
temperature and flow; adverse hydrologic conditions; expected
exceedance of an aquatic "concentration of concern"
14 Food chain/food web (aquatic and terrestrial)
Acute and chronic effects; bioaccumulation
15 Habitats (more specific references to breeding areas for large or
dense aggregations of terrestrial animals; migratory bird flyways,
critical spawning/feeding areas [e.g., juvenile salmon nurseries,
eel grass beds]; Intertidal, subtidal, and upland areas)
Acute and chronic effects; sublethal effects; loss of habitat; land
development; expected exceedance of an aquatic "concentration
of concern"
16 Habitats (general references to natural, rare, remote, sensitive,
special, or unique aquatic and terrestrial habitats)
Acute and chronic effects; sublethal effects; loss of habitat; land
development; expected exceedance of an aquatic "concentration
of concern"
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Invertebrates (aquatic; daphnia)
Life (aquatic)
Mammals (terrestrial)
Marine sanctuaries
Mollusks (aquatic; nontarget and commercial)
National and State Wildlife Refuges
National Estuaries
National Forests
National Parks
Native species (terrestrial)
Populations (balanced indigenous)
Resources (natural, sensitive, terrestrial, and aquatic)
Acute and chronic effects; sublethal effects
Acute and chronic effects
Not specified
Not specified
Acute and chronic effects
Not specified
Not specified
Acute and chronic effects
Not specified
Replacement by invasive species; brown-headed cowbird
Acute and chronic effects
Acute and chronic effects; adverse effects in general; "threats to
national environmental resources . . ."
10
-------
Table 2-1. Examples of Ecological Concerns Used in EPA Decisions (continued)
# Valued Ecological System or Component Concern(s)
29 Riparian habitat (aquatic and terrestrial aspects of)
Acute effects; loss of riparian areas
30 Species (aquatic and terrestrial; commercially important)
Acute and chronic effects; effects in general
31 Vegetation (agricultural crops, aquatic plants [e.g., deep pendent
grass, a food source for waterfowl]; terrestrial plants not targeted
for pesticide control; sensitive plants)
Acute and chronic effects; potential damage; phytotoxicity; water
channel characteristics
32 Water (e.g., rivers; sloughs and streams, surface water, open
water)
Acute and chronic effects; avoid/offset adverse impacts of
dredging, flood control, development, etc.; reduce level of toxic
substances in the Great Lakes and surrounding habitat; potential
damage
33 Water quality
Acute and chronic effects; potential impacts; water chemistry; use
of water quality standards
34 Water supply (quantity)
Chronic effects; potential impacts
35 Wetlands (variety, functions, organisms, and values; increase,
maintain, protect, and restore)
Acute and chronic effects; loss of wetlands, acreage, unique or
scarce types; adverse hydrologic impacts; potential impacts
36 Wild and Scenic Rivers (designated by state and federal Not specified
legislatures)
37 Wilderness Areas (i.e., Congressionally protected areas within Not specified
National Forests)
38 Wildlife (terrestrial and aquatic; endangered wildlife; use of no
observed adverse effect levels [NOAELs] and lowest observed
adverse effect levels [LOAELs])
Not specified
endangered species, and biological diversity (e.g., the
two Environmental Law Institute reports cited in the
References section).
EPA's statutes do not generally contain operational defi-
nitions for assessment endpoints (step two of Suter's
[1989] definition); therefore, operational definitions, too,
are left to interpretation by EPA. Little effort has gone
toward this critical step in defining assessment end-
points; yet without operational definitions to provide di-
rection for testing and modeling, the results of risk
assessment tend to be ambiguous (Suter, 1989). Some
operational definitions for ecological concerns do exist
at EPA, but they tend to focus more on whether in-
creases or decreases occur in toxicological rather than
ecological parameters. Although most of the ecological
concerns identified in this study are not defined in op-
erational terms, they can be used by risk managers and
assessors as a starting point to define assessment end-
points useful for ecological risk assessments (as well as
for broader ecosystem management and nonregulatory
efforts under way at EPA).
2.2 Range of Ecological Concerns
Used in Agency Decisions
The tables and survey summaries found in Appendices
D and E were used to draw more detailed conclusions
about ecological concerns used in past EPA decisions.
Overall, EPA program decision-makers have used a
variety of ecological concerns, but the survey shows an
emphasis on animals (particularly aquatic species),
acute mortality, and chemical stressors. It is interesting
to note that several concerns clearly imply direct bene-
fits to humans (e.g., commercial fisheries and wetlands),
and some have statutory authorities that justify their
protection or managed use (e.g., animals listed under
the Endangered Species Act and public lands). The
following sections summarize some of the more impor-
tant and obvious findings of this analysis.
2.2.1 Acute, Chronic, and Sublethal Effects
The term "acute and chronic effects" in Tables 2-1, D-1,
and D-7 almost always refer to the use of information
from single-species laboratory toxicity tests. Acute tests
generally measure mortality over a short period, while
chronic tests measure mortality as well as sublethal
effects on growth and reproduction over a longer period.
Overall, acute mortality appears to be the most fre-
quently and widely used ecological effect of concern at
EPA. Perhaps one reason is that regulatory determina-
tions of cause and effect are generally easier to substan-
tiate when there is obvious acute stress and associated
mortality. Chemical spills and resultant fish or bird kills
are also more easily communicated to and recognized
as an immediate concern by the public, which influences
government action.
11
-------
Another possible reason for the emphasis on acute
mortality is the preponderance of laboratory toxicity test
results on acute mortality. Available laboratory toxicity
data appear to heavily influence what is of ecological
concern at EPA. For example, acute mortality to birds
and fish is important in several programs because LD50
and LCso test results are available to predict these effects
(e.g., LCsoS on daphnia and rainbow trout, and LD50s on
earthworms, shrews, mallards, starlings and bobwhite
quail). In only a few cases was regulatory action taken
solely based on long-term effects to habitats or sublethal
effects to wildlife. No cases were found where regulatory
action was based on sublethal effects to plants.
2,2.2 Chemical, Biological, and Physical
Stressors
As expected, all program areas consider chemical stres-
sors and impacts. Concerns about biological stressors
tend to focus on exotic or non-native species (e.g.,
invasions of zebra mussels and brown-headed cow-
birds). Many of the physical stressors identified (e.g.,
habitat loss and hydrologic changes) are considered
within the context of various permitting sections of the
Clean Water Act that protect coastal, riparian, and wet-
land areas through the use of existing regulations on
dredge-and-fill activities in navigable waters of the
United States. Physical stressors also have been con-
sidered by the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) program (in review of large federal projects such
as the construction of highways, bridges, and dams).
Table D-3 in Appendix D summarizes the types of stres-
sors considered by ERA programs.
2.2.3 Types of Organisms Assessed
This survey found that EPA tends to give more consid-
eration to animals (i.e., birds, fish, mammals) than plants
(i.e., native flowers, shrubs, trees). Protection for some
animals, however, such as amphibians and reptiles,
commonly has been neglected. Table D-5 in Appendix
D provides additional detail about the types of organ-
isms that EPA programs assess.
2,2.4 Concerns at Various Levels of
Biological Organization
The four findings below focus on survey results with
respect to Agency considerations at various levels of
biological organization: groups of individuals, popula-
tions, multiple species, and habitats/ecosystems (see
also Table D-2 in Appendix D).
2.2.4.1 Individuals
This survey indicates that EPA does emphasize con-
cerns about groups of individuals, such as the total
number of fish killed by a chemical stressor. Less em-
phasis and consideration is given to the number of
individuals of a particular species, or the number of
species (range of taxonomies) adversely affected by
anthropogenic stressors. Aside from endangered spe-
cies, the Agency does not appear to have regulated
against any adverse effects occurring to an individual
nonhuman organism. No quantitative threshold exists at
EPA for an unreasonable or intolerable number of ad-
versely affected nonhuman organisms (i.e., something
akin to the 1 x 10"6 cancer risk for human health).
2.2.4.2 Populations
When nonhuman populations are considered in an as-
sessment, EPA typically mentions existing information
about the decline or extinction of a local population at a
specific site, and describes whether the stressor in
question may or may not be a potential concern. EPA
does not typically consider dynamic population parame-
ters such as birth, death, emigration, and immigration
rates. Apparently this is partly because the availability of
population data is limited, and because efforts required
to characterize causal and temporal trends between
environmental stressors and populations are complex,
expensive, and time-consuming. Some programs may
assess population changes through inference from labo-
ratory toxicity tests on mortality, growth, and reproduction.
2.2.4.3 Multiple Species
Some program areas consider the effects of stressors
on multiple species. Perhaps the best example of mul-
tiple species concerns at EPA is the use of Ambient
Water Quality Criteria (AWQC). The use of AWQC im-
plies a concern for the protection of more than one
aquatic species (U.S. EPA, 1988b). However, EPA does
not typically consider interactions among different spe-
cies (such as predator-prey relationships), a critical as-
pect of determining the nature and range of actual or
potential impacts throughout a community of living or-
ganisms. A widespread assumption exists at EPA that
protecting individual species will protect a community;
however, the validity of this assumption is still a subject
of scientific debate.
2.2.4.4 Habitats and Ecosystems
EPA appears to emphasize the protection of wetlands,
estuaries, and large geographic areas such as the
Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, and San Francisco
Bay. Generally, however, the Agency does not evaluate
stressors within the context of interactions occurring
among animal and plant communities and their abiotic
environment (the classic definition of an ecosystem).
12
-------
Chapter 3
Comments Received on Improving Ecological Considerations at EPA:
Perspectives on Regional and Headquarters Needs
3.1 Overview
Most of the program areas interviewed (22 in the Re-
gions and 16 in Headquarters) provided comments for
improving considerations of ecological risk at EPA. Re-
sponses came mainly from the questions asked under
the "Management and Guidance Issues" section of the
informal survey (see Appendix B).
After reviewing all the comments, general categories of
needs for improving ecological risk decisions at EPA
began to emerge. These general needs, in descending
order of the number of times encountered, include the
following:
• Policy guidance (i.e., management direction for eco-
logical protection).
• Technical guidance and support (e.g., the need for
ecological risk assessment tools, methods, ap-
proaches).
• Ecological expertise (e.g., the need for more ecolo-
gists and ecological training).
• Access to quality information and data (e.g., informa-
tion on stressors adversely affecting important eco-
logical resources).
• Changing Agency culture or tradition (i.e., expanding
programs beyond EPA's predominant focus on pro-
tecting human health).
• Defining EPA's authorities and roles for ecological
protection (e.g., reinterpreting EPA's statutory authorities,
defining the respective ecosystem protection roles of
EPA and other public- and private-sector partners).
• Fiscal resources.
Figure 3-1 shows the relative frequency with which
these needs were expressed by Regional and Head-
quarters programs. This figure does not represent a
statistical analysis; many of the categories are not mu-
tually exclusive. (See Appendix A for additional informa-
tion about survey methods.)
In the Regions, most of the program areas interviewed
state that policy guidance for ecological risk assessment
is the most important need. A majority of the Headquar-
ters programs agree. More Headquarters than Regional
programs, however, state that providing technical guid-
ance and support and access to quality information and
data are more important. Half the Regional programs
state that technical guidance and support and more
ecological personnel and training are the next most
important needs, followed by access to quality informa-
tion and data. From a Headquarters perspective, addi-
tional ecological personnel and training are also a major
concern (mentioned by well over half the program areas
interviewed).
Other important but less common responses included
the need to address cultural influences that limit ecologi-
cal considerations within EPA (mentioned by over one-
third of the program areas in both the Regions and
Headquarters). Some program areas expressed con-
cerns about whether EPA has a clear role or statutory
authority for protecting ecological resources (an issue
that appeared to be more important to the Regions than
Headquarters). Limited monetary resources were a con-
cern to only five Headquarters and two Regional pro-
gram areas.
3.2 Issues and Suggestions for
Improving Ecological Considerations
at EPA
The following subsections highlight some of the more
common issues and suggestions that Regional and
Headquarters staff raised for improving ecological con-
siderations at EPA. Issues and suggestions for improve-
ment are discussed under the following headings: policy
guidance, technical guidance and support, ecological
expertise, information and data, Agency culture, and
authorities and roles. Additional comments are provided
in Appendix E.
3.2.1 Policy Guidance
Over three-fourths of the programs interviewed support
the need for ecological policy guidance within EPA.
Most agree that clear policy statements are necessary
for effective ecological risk assessments, but few
13
-------
Regions
Headquarters
Policy Technical Ecological Information Cultural
Guidance Guidance Expertise and Data Change
Define
Authorities
and Role
Resources
General Categories of Needs
Figure 3-1. Regional and Headquarters perspectives on improving considerations of ecological risk at EPA.
unambiguous assessment endpoints (i.e., ecological
values to protect) exist at EPA. Many feel that existing
policies, such as avoiding "widespread and repeated
kills" or achieving "no net loss of wetlands," require
further definition to be useful as guidance. For example,
risk assessors typically like to know how many chemical
spills, miles of impacted stream, or fish mortalities are
required to meet the "widespread and repeated kill"
policy. As aptly summarized by one Headquarters pro-
gram, the result of not articulating clear assessment
endpoints or ecological concerns is that all types of data
are compiled and reviewed with no sense of what con-
stitutes "sufficient data" for a decision.
Many of those interviewed in this survey seek guidance
on the relative value that EPA should place on different
types of ecosystems or ecosystem components (e.g.,
old-growth forests versus timber forests, domestic or
commercial species versus wild species, native versus
non-native [exotic] species, game versus nongame spe-
cies, and natural resources such as ground water and
minerals versus biological resources such as living or-
ganisms). Others want guidance on whether they should
focus on chemical, physical, and/or biological stressors.
They also want guidance on whether to focus on protec-
tion of individuals, populations, communities, and/or en-
tire ecosystems or landscapes (e.g., Should programs
focus on reducing risks to individual birds, populations
of birds, and/or habitats of birds?). Many also seek
guidance on how to make tradeoffs between ecological
risks versus human health or human welfare risks.
Many individuals suggest establishing definitions or
checklists of important ecological resources to protect.
One individual suggested developing a listing of pre-
vious EPA decisions (based on ecological concerns)
that can be referenced when setting or enforcing eco-
logical protection requirements for the regulated com-
munity. Another suggested that EPA play more of a role
in assisting the public and private sector to make
ecologically and economically sound decisions regard-
ing tradeoffs (e.g., timber harvests versus old-growth
forests). One individual suggested that natural resource
trustees (e.g., the Bureau of Land Management, Forest
Service, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice), not EPA, should define the ecological values that
should be protected. [Authors' note: The Superfund pro-
gram has experience in working with natural resource
trustees in selecting endpoints for risk assessment.]
3.2.2 Technical Guidance and Support
Well over half of the Headquarters and Regional pro-
grams interviewed stress the need for technical guidance
or support for conducting ecological risk assessments.
Several programs interviewed were either unaware or
vaguely familiar with Agency-wide guidance on ecologi-
cal risk assessment (i.e., the Framework for Ecological
Risk Assessment [U.S. EPA, 1992]). Many individuals
favor more tailored or step-by-step guidance, or case
studies on how to apply the Frameworkor other ecologi-
cal risk approaches or techniques to their specific activi-
ties. To a certain extent, such guidance is already being
provided by the Risk Assessment Forum (see U.S. EPA,
1993e). One program area states that available ecologi-
cal guidance is too complex for managers and yet too
simple (or of little use) for trained ecologists. Another
states that Regional comparative risk assessments are
"too anecdotal."
Many suggestions were made for improving the way
EPA technically assesses ecological risk. For example,
14
-------
one program area recommends that the entire Agency
needs to use more of an ecosystem-level approach and
to embrace concepts not traditionally emphasized such
as island biogeography, fragmentation, landscape ecol-
ogy, and cumulative impacts. Another program area
suggests that EPA use an iterative approach to ecologi-
cal risk assessment (i.e., EPA should initially scope out
a particular area of interest to determine, for example,
whether any endangered species and sensitive habitats
are present and, if so, to identify any additional data that
are needed to reach a decision on assessing these or
other valued ecological resources). Others suggest that
standard protocols be developed for assessing the gen-
eral environmental values of a site. For example, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Habitat Evaluation Pro-
cedure (a technical, quantitative method) could be used
to determine the value of a particular habitat for a par-
ticular organism. Some individuals also recommend
that technical guidance be short like Superfund's ECO-
Update Newsletter series, not long like the Risk Assess-
ment Forum's Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment,
and they state that EPA may need to establish technical
rules among the Regions on how to assess ecological
risks. [Authors' note: It is unclear whether or not the
recommendation to establish technical rules entailed
establishing a minimum technical standard among the
Regions.]
3.2.3 Ecological Expertise
Over half the programs interviewed urge EPA to acquire
more ecological expertise and training. In particular,
several individuals recommend that EPA hire more ter-
restrial (e.g., forest and wildlife) biologists or ecologists.
One Regional program area emphasizes that field biolo-
gists are needed. These comments agree with the
authors' previously held notions that in some Regions
and programs, there are few trained ecologists, and that
a disproportionate number have training in aquatic
rather than terrestrial systems.
Many individuals would like more ecological training.
There are those with limited backgrounds in the biologi-
cal sciences (e.g., program managers) who would bene-
fit from some "basic training" in ecological principles,
and others, such as biologists and environmental scien-
tists, who seek additional training on how to apply eco-
logical risk principles and methods in Agency risk
assessments. Many offices say that they are limited in
the range and volume of ecological activities they can
conduct due to a lack of staff with ecological expertise
or a lack of access to other sources of ecological support
(expertise in other EPA program areas or contractors).
In the Regions, some individuals say that they lack a
mechanism and funding to access appropriate exper-
tise. Others feel that there is too much reliance on
outside contractors, and that, in many cases, contrac-
tors also lack ecological expertise or do not perform
ecological assessments adequately.
3.2.4 Information and Data
Over half the programs interviewed state that ecological
risk management decisions are limited by a lack of
ecological data. More Headquarters programs, how-
ever, mentioned this issue than Regional programs.
(This is perhaps because the Regions are more likely to
be aware of local information and data sources than
personnel stationed in Washington, DC.)
Many issues exist regarding the use or lack of informa-
tion within EPA. Two program areas mention that at the
management level, inconsistencies often occur regard-
ing the amounts and types of ecological data necessary
for making decisions. Others report that they have lim-
ited access to ecological information or must depend on
other federal agencies for information used in making
EPA decisions. Others state that some types of eco-
logical information collected by or for EPA lack quality
assurance/quality control, have a high level of uncer-
tainty associated with them, or are difficult to interpret
(i.e., data come in different forms, so analyzing it is like
comparing "apples and oranges"). Several individuals
state that few ecological risk criteria are available (i.e.,
quantitative regulatory "benchmarks" or thresholds of
concern such as AWQC).
Individuals suggest that more information-sharing be-
tween EPA and the states should take place (e.g., shar-
ing risk assessment results and plans for protecting
endangered species), and that management should
support the attainment and use of up-to-date, "real life"
data for assessments and decisions (e.g., ecological
incident data and information on chemical use by busi-
nesses and the public).
3.2.5 Agency Culture
Over one-third of both the Headquarters and Regional
programs assert that office or Agency culture limits eco-
logical considerations at EPA. As one individual notes,
a lack of management interest can severely limit eco-
logical protection activities. Although it is difficult to say
how much management resistance or acceptance exists
for incorporating ecological concerns at EPA, it is evi-
dent from many of those interviewed that program man-
agers often find themselves in unfamiliar territory when
it comes to decisions involving ecological protection.
Several Regional and Headquarters program areas
state that ecological concerns are of low priority be-
cause of EPA's long tradition of human health protection.
According to them, this legacy still predominates in most
office cultures today and limits efforts to establish eco-
logical levels of concern, implement existing ecological
standards throughout EPA (e.g., AWQC), and plan for
15
-------
improving considerations of ecological risk in the future.
Overall, office attitudes about incorporating ecological
concerns in decisions ranged from 'There is no need to
address ecological concerns" to "[The program area]
focuses on aquatic concerns" (a common, but limited,
concern within the broader context of ecological protec-
tion).
Some Regional program areas state that ecological risk
management opportunities are limited to some extent
because ultimate decisions are made by Headquarters.
One program area states that "unwritten instructions"
from Headquarters direct that decisions at the Regional
level can be partially, but not solely, based on ecological
risks. One Regional individual feels that accountability
measures of "effectiveness" tend to be more administra-
tive than environmental; for example, there tends to be
a greater focus on the number of permits issued than on
accountability measures showing whether the environ-
mental quality of aquatic or terrestrial habitats is actually
improving.
3.2.6 Authorities and Roles
More Regional than Headquarters program areas state
that EPA needs to define its role in protecting ecological
resources. Several individuals recommend that EPA
clearly define its role in ecological protection in relation
to other federal agencies (e.g., public land management
agencies in the Departments of Interior, Agriculture,
Commerce, and Defense). One Regional individual
suggests that EPA's focus is currently too narrow and
that the Agency should strive to attain a broader federal
role in environmental protection. Other EPA staff, how-
ever, state that previous relationships between EPA and
natural resource trustees have not been trouble-free.
Problems have occurred because of overlapping juris-
dictions (e.g., controversies over who has the lead or
who makes the final call on a particular issue) or be-
cause of fragmented, uncoordinated activities.
One individual states that a clear Agency role is neces-
sary for effective risk assessment. One Regional pro-
gram suggests that precedents for EPA's evolving role
could be established sooner if a catalog of ecological
decisions was developed to assist programs in working
with public and private institutions outside EPA, and if
the techniques for success in EPA's ecological protec-
tion efforts could also be recorded and emphasized for
use in other EPA activities (e.g., create an informal
electronic bulletin board). Activities like this could assist
programs such as one Regional program area surveyed
that believes it has no statutory authority to take regula-
tory action based on ecological concerns.
3.2.7 Fiscal Resources
A few program areas interviewed state that insufficient
budgets or funding reductions limit ecological considera-
tions at EPA. One Headquarters group asserts that
some Regions do not want to incur the extra costs of
ecological assessment.
16
-------
Chapter4
Recommendations: Next Steps To Consider
During the development of this report, a number of key
recommendations emerged for improving ecological
considerations in program decisions. The following rec-
ommendations represent the authors' analysis and in-
terpretation of the survey responses from EPA Regional
and Headquarters programs. The recommendations are
offered as a point of departure for future discussions
among EPA managers and staff, as well as external
parties, to define in more specific terms what EPA
should strive to protect or manage from an ecological
perspective.
1. Ensure an appropriate balance between ecological,
human welfare, and human health concerns in
Agency regulations and policy.
2. Develop common Agency-wide ecological protection
concerns.
3. Encourage an open process for developing ecologi-
cal concerns and assessment endpoints.
4. Specify rationales and establish precedents for eco-
logical protection.
5. Set up formal processes to ensure that risk managers
and assessors interact effectively in ecological risk
assessments.
6. Develop ecological risk management guidance and
training, and recruit additional staff with ecological
expertise.
7. Improve ecological risk communication.
8. Explore, develop, and apply new scientific tools for
ecological risk assessment and new economic tools
for ecological risk management.
Each of these recommendations is discussed in more
detail below.
4.1 Ensure an Appropriate Balance
Between Ecological, Human Welfare,
and Human Health Concerns in
Agency Regulations and Policy
There remains within EPA an artificial conceptual divi-
sion between ecological and human concerns and a
strong legacy of emphasizing human health protection,
despite the fact that human health and welfare are
inextricably linked to and dependent on the long-term
health of ecosystems (U.S. EPA, 1990a, b). As dis-
cussed in Chapter 1, the SAB has recommended that
EPA set Agency risk-based priorities with an appropriate
balance between ecological, human health, and human
welfare concerns. The Agency's new Tiering Process for
Regulatory and Policy Development, where priorities for
regulation, policy development, and cross-media inter-
action are determined, is one good example of where
the Agency could strive to achieve this balance.
Throughout this process, program offices should keep
in mind that one of ERA'S primary roles in protecting
ecological systems and components (and their benefits
to human health and welfare) is to regulate pollution (a
form of habitat degradation and stress to native plant
and animal species). For example, EPA can regulate air
and water pollutants, pesticides, toxics, and wastes that
harm ecosystems. ERA can also prevent physical habitat
destruction in its decisions about dredge-and-fill activi-
ties, federal projects, and the siting of various treatment
facilities.
4.2 Develop Common Agency-Wide
Ecological Protection Concerns
At present, the public and ERA'S partners in environ-
mental protection (e.g., federal and state land manage-
ment and environmental quality agencies) are unaware
of EPA's specific ecological protection concerns. Within
EPA, ecological decision-making is not guided by an
agreed-upon set of specific ecological protection con-
cerns, particularly concerns pertaining to the entire
Agency (e.g., cross-cutting values or concerns). Many
of the ecological concerns identified by this report per-
tain only to one Regional or Headquarters program office,
require further clarification (i.e., are not readily applica-
ble for use in risk assessments or management deci-
sions), or are used in an inconsistent or ad hoc manner.
EPA needs to establish an initial set of ecological con-
cerns (i.e., descriptive principles or objectives, not nec-
essarily numerical standards) that will be considered in
all Agency activities, such as the development of eco-
logical risk assessments, regulations, and policies.
17
-------
(Arrow 1 in Figure 4-1 shows where such principles or
objectives could benefit ecological risk assessments.)
For example, EPA has made the protection of endan-
gered and threatened species an Agency-wide concern
(U.S. EPA, 1993d, 1994b,c). Examples of other potential
Agency-wide concerns include reducing risks to migra-
tory birds; wetlands; commercial fisheries; Congression-
aliy designated Wilderness Areas and Wild and Scenic
Rivers; public lands such as National Parks, Wildlife
Refuges, Forests, Grasslands, and Estuaries; and im-
portant privately owned lands such as Nature Conser-
vancy Preserves and National Audubon Society
Sanctuaries.
Once Agency-wide concerns are known and a baseline
is established, EPA program areas can define these
concerns in more specific or operational terms to suit
their needs (e.g., as assessment endpoints useful for
ecological risk assessment). Other ecosystem manage-
ment and nonregulatory initiatives at EPA can also make
use of these Agency-wide concerns. Not everyone will
agree with EPA's initial set of Agency-wide concerns, but
scientific and policy advancements in EPA's ecological
protection efforts cannot occur unless everyone knows
what the ecological concerns underlying EPA's deci-
sions really are.
A workgroup process should occur to determine selec-
tion criteria for developing the initial set of Agency-wide
ecological concerns (e.g., Is the ecological system or
component amenable to economic analysis? Is it pro-
tected by statute? Does it require legislation or rulemak-
ing to provide it with legal protection?). Once selection
criteria are established, a list of proposed ecological
protection concerns can be developed, with input from
both internal and external sources, and forwarded to
EPA's senior management for final resolution. When
ecological concerns have been established, EPA should
develop a strategic plan describing specific actions,
timelines, and budget and staffing needs to foster and
guide the application of these Agency-wide ecological
concerns in the program areas. A process for peri-
odically reviewing and amending these Agency-wide
concerns should also be considered.
4.3 Encourage an Open Process for
Developing Ecological Concerns and
Assessment Endpoints
Selecting ecological concerns and assessment end-
points of interest to EPA has traditionally been a closed
process within the Agency. Congress, the courts, the
media, and interest groups have played an influencing
but outside role in these internal decisions. In some
programs, however, ecological concerns and assess-
Ecological Risk Assessment
Figure 4.1. Important areas of interaction between risk manag-
ers and risk assessors in ecological risk assess-
ment (modified from U.S. EPA, 1992a).
ment endpoints are now being selected in a more open
process in which groups outside EPA are approached in
the beginning stages of a project to identify objectives
for ecological protection.
Such a process has occurred, for example, in the Su-
perfund program, which recognizes that ecological con-
cerns at listed hazardous waste sites (e.g., migratory
waterfowl, wetlands, anadromous fish) frequently are of
interest to trustees of natural resources such as federal,
state, or tribal entities. Other examples include the "Wa-
tershed Protection Approach" being developed within
the Office of Water and EPA's National Goals Project. In
the Watershed Protection Approach, stakeholders (i.e.,
people or institutions most likely to be concerned or
most able to take action within a watershed) are involved
in identifying primary concerns about threats to human
and ecosystem health or goals for ecological protection
(U.S. EPA, 1993f). In EPA's National Goals Project,
18
-------
stakeholders (i.e., the public) are being asked to com-
ment on thirteen proposed goals for the Agency, one of
which is ecological protection (U.S. EPA, 1994d). These
more open processes appear to have the effect of both
promoting cross-media efforts within the Agency and
developing public support for reducing ecological risks.
EPA should consider an open process, consisting of two
parts, for developing Agency-wide ecological concerns
or assessment endpoints useful for ecological risk as-
sessment. First, EPA should enlist a spectrum of experts
for an open discussion of the scientific and technical
issues involved. Once the scientific issues have been
aired, a broader public discussion should take place,
focusing on the wider social issues associated with
establishing consistent ecological concerns and end-
points (i.e., establishing what is important to protect from
a societal viewpoint).
4.4 Specify Rationales and Establish
Precedents for Ecological Protection
Compared with human health concerns, the Agency has
less precedent for protecting ecological resources.
Therefore, EPA should consider documenting its eco-
logical decisions, including the rationales for those de-
cisions, in an ongoing way. Where the Agency finds
strong scientific and societal justification for a decision,
it can consider using that decision as a precedent for
similar decisions in the future. EPA should not, however,
be constrained by past precedents in developing sound
approaches to ecological decision-making.
EPA should also consider making information about eco-
logical protection decisions available to EPA staff and
the public. An ecological risk management decision da-
tabase would allow EPA staff to share and develop risk
management information useful to all the media pro-
grams, promote the use of consistent ecological assess-
ment endpoints, and facilitate cross-program risk
assessments. Information contained in the database
could include the following:
• Description of decision by program area and type of
decision (e.g., Superfund/Record of Decision).
• Date of decision.
• Documentation or reference.
• Contact person.
• Assessment endpoints (as defined by the Framework
and by Suter [1989]).
• Measurement endpoints (as defined by the Frame-
work).
• Stressors (as defined by the Framework).
• Geographic location.
• Economic costs associated with ecological protection
(e.g., regulatory impact analyses and other refer-
enced analyses).
4.5 Set Up Formal Processes To Ensure
That Risk Managers and Assessors
Interact Effectively in Ecological Risk
Assessments
Risk assessors cannot be expected to determine soci-
ety's ecological concerns in isolation. EPA's risk manag-
ers, responsible for interpreting what is and is not in the
public interest, must be involved as well. Specifically,
vital interactions between risk managers and risk asses-
sors need to occur at several times during the ecological
risk assessment process, including the "problem formu-
lation" and "discussion of results" phases (see arrows 2
and 3, respectively, in Figure 4-1). Problem formulation is:
... the first phase of ecological risk assessment
and establishes the goals, breadth, and focus of
the assessment. [Establishing a two-way dia-
logue between risk assessors and risk managers
during the problem formulation phase [is] a construc-
tive means of achieving both scientific and societal
goals ... risk managers charged with protecting
societal values can ensure that the risk assess-
ment will provide relevant information to making
decisions,... [and by] bringing scientific knowledge
to the discussion the ecological risk assessor en-
sures that the assessment addresses all important
ecological concerns. Both perspectives are nec-
essary to appropriately utilize resources to pro-
duce scientifically sound risk assessments that
are relevant to management decisions and public
concerns (U.S. EPA, 1992a).
Problem formulation can benefit from involvement by
the public and is the phase where operational assess-
ment endpoints are defined (see Sections 2.1 and 4.3).
The "Discussion of Results" phase is where the results
of the ecological risk assessment serve as input (along
with other requirements defined in EPA's statutory
authorities) to identify and evaluate optional risk man-
agement decisions. The purpose of this discussion "is
to ensure that the results of the risk assessment are
clearly and fully presented and to provide an opportunity
for the risk manager to ask for any necessary clarifica-
tion" (U.S. EPA, 1992a).
EPA should consider requiring that the results of "prob-
lem formulation" and "discussion of results" meetings be
described in new risk assessment/rulemaking pack-
ages. In addition, an in-house facilitator or a designated
office could be established to offer third-party assistance
during these discussions.
19
-------
4.6 Develop Ecological Risk
Management Guidance and Training,
and Recruit Additional Staff With
Ecological Expertise
Many ecological risk assessments being performed in
the Agency do not provide optimum information for
making risk management decisions. Guidance and
training are needed to overcome this problem and build
a successful dialogue between risk managers and as-
sessors. Some EPA programs are developing training
that will help to meet some of these needs. For example,
the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (OPPE) is
developing an ecological risk and decision-making
workshop that addresses risk management as well as
assessment. The Superfund program has developed a
technical course relevant to hazardous waste ecological
assessments.
In addition to providing guidance and training for eco-
logical risk management and risk assessment, the
Agency should also consider recruiting additional ecolo-
gists, biologists, and ecotoxicologists. These scientists
would strengthen the Agency's base of ecological exper-
tise, thereby helping to ensure scientifically sound eco-
logical decision-making.
4.7 Improve Ecological Risk
Communication
Another key Agency need is better communication
within and outside EPA about ecological risks and deci-
sions. Very few people at EPA have combined qualifica-
tions or training in both ecology and public affairs (e.g.,
communication, outreach, or facilitation). Combine this
with the lack of a specific message about EPA's ecologi-
cal concerns and the result is simply poor communica-
tion. Training, recruitment, and project planning need to
occur to improve EPA's communication of ecological risk
information to Agency decision-makers and the outside
world.
4.8 Explore, Develop, and Apply New
Scientific Tools for Ecological Risk
Assessment and Economic Tools
for Ecological Risk Management
4.8.1 Scientific Tools
Program managers should help plan for the next gen-
eration of technological advances in risk assessment
and not remain forever bound by existing methods and
data. Program offices need to clearly express and plan
for improvement of their ecological risk decisions. They
should specify the particular ecological effects, stres-
sors, or routes of exposure that are of interest to them,
and should generate ideas for potential regulatory appli-
cations for emerging scientific methods, techniques, in-
formation, and data sets. EPA scientists within the pro-
gram areas and the Office of Research and Develop-
ment also should be continually challenged to develop and
improve the scientific tools needed to assess ecological
risks.
Many scientific advancements already exist that, for
various reasons, are not applied in Agency decisions.
Examples include population and ecosystem models
that can project the number of individuals of a species
present in a given area over time, and models that can
predict the succession of habitat types across a water-
shed over time. These models, when used with appro-
priate data, can produce more meaningful results than
the "risk quotients" that EPA is accustomed to using (i.e.,
ratios of predicted environmental concentrations versus
reference concentrations known to be lethal or other-
wise toxic to various laboratory species). The results of
such models can be useful for implementing a policy of
ecosystem management and protection. In addition,
compared with risk quotients, model results can be eas-
ier to explain to the public and typically produce better
information for economic analyses. In certain situations
(e.g., in regulatory decision-making), limited resources,
information, or time might preclude the use of such
models, but EPA should consider making greater use of
them in ecological risk assessment when such use is
practical and scientifically justified.
Geographic applications for visualizing and addressing
environmental problems (e.g., combining chemical,
physical, and biological data in a spatial way) are also
of keen interest. This interest is due in part to the devel-
opment of new technology (e.g., geographic information
systems) and the emerging emphasis on moving "from
programs to places" (i.e., bringing EPA's programs to-
gether in an integrated fashion to protect specific places
with valued ecosystems or natural resources). Some
also feel that EPA should seek the authority to set stand-
ards on a geographic basis (e.g., establish a more strin-
gent NOX standard for the Chesapeake Bay estuary
without affecting the national standard set for the rest of
the country). Several EPA programs are developing ex-
pertise in the use of geographic information systems, but
need technical and policy guidance to make these and
other geographic applications more useful for ecosys-
tem management decisions.
Interesting technical suggestions provided by program
areas in this survey were to continue support for the
ECOTOX database and to consider the next step of
setting up a process of deriving Agency-wide ecological
reference doses or concentrations modeled after EPA's
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). The end re-
sult could be an "ECO-IRIS," which would save time and
resources by providing scientifically credible, consen-
sus-based, quantitative toxicity benchmarks for use in
ecological risk assessments.
20
-------
4.8.2 Economic Tools
Many of EPA's risk decisions require some form of bal-
ancing between risk reduction and economic costs.
Therefore, it can be important in some programs to
place monetary values on damages to ecological re-
sources. When this is the case, it is important to plan for
the economic analyses while designing the ecological
risk assessment.
Thus, risk assessors and managers should work with
economists to include assessment endpoints that will
also be useful for the valuation of ecological resources.
This will facilitate the use of established methodologies,
such as contingent valuation, for considering ecological
resources in economic terms. Program managers should
also support activities that lead to better economic meth-
ods of valuating ecological services that benefit human
health and welfare.
21
-------
-------
References
Environmental Law Institute. 1991. Biological diversity
and environmental protection: Authorities to reduce
risk. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Office of Research and Development, Office
of Environmental Processes and Effects Research,
under EPA Assistance Agreement CR-817553-01.
Environmental Law Institute. No Date. Using pollution
control authorities to protect threatened and endan-
gered species and reduce ecological risk. Prepared
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under
EPA Assistance Agreement CR-820539-01 (9220-
02).
Landy, M.K., M.J. Roberts, and S.R. Thomas. 1990.
The Environmental Protection Agency: Asking the
wrong questions. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
McClain, W.E., Jr., ed. 1991. U.S. environmental laws:
1991 edition. ISBN 0-87179-656-2. Washington, DC:
Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
Russell, E.T. 1994. Lost among the parts per billion:
Ecological protection at the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, 1970 to 1993. 1993 AAAS-EPA Sci-
ence and Engineering Fellow Study. Washington, DC.
Suter G.W., II. 1989. Ecological endpoints. In: U.S.
EPA. Ecological assessments of hazardous waste
sites: A field and laboratory reference document.
Warren-Hicks, W., B.R. Parkhurst, S.S. Baker, Jr.,
eds. EPA 600/3-89/013. (March).
U.S. EPA. 1994a. Ecosystem protection. Memorandum
from Robert Perciasepe, David Gardiner, and
Jonathan Cannon to Carol Browner (March).
U.S. EPA. 1994b. EPA's role in the protection of endan-
gered species. Memorandum from Carol Browner to
Assistant Administrators, Regional Administrators,
and Office Directors (March).
U.S. EPA. 1994c. EPA's endangered species protection
strategy. Memorandum from Robert Sussman to As-
sistant Administrators, Regional Administrators, Gen-
eral Counsels, Regional Counsels, and Office
Directors (June 10).
U.S. EPA. 1994d. Setting national goals for environ-
mental protection. Goals in development—For public
review and discussion. Washington, DC (April 4).
U.S. EPA. 1993a. Carol Browner on EPA's priorities.
EPA Journal 19(2):4.
U.S. EPA. 1993b. Creating a U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency that works better and costs less.
Phase I report. National Performance Review Report.
Report of the Ecosystems Team. (December).
U.S. EPA. 1993c. EPA Journal, 19(1).
U.S. EPA. 1993d. EPA roles and responsibilities under
the Endangered Species Act. Memorandum from
Carol Browner to Assistant Administrators and Re-
gional Administrators. (October 29).
U.S. EPA. 1993e. A review of ecological assessment
case studies from a risk assessment perspective.
EPA/630/R-92/005. Washington, DC: Risk Assess-
ment Forum.
U.S. EPA. 1993f. The Watershed protection approach:
Annual report 1992. EPA 840/S-93/001. Washington,
DC: Office of Water. (January).
U.S. EPA. 1992a. Framework for ecological risk assess-
ment. EPA/630/R-92/001. Washington, DC: Risk
Assessment Forum (February)
U.S. EPA. 1992b. Peer review workshop report on a
framework for ecological risk assessment. EPA/625/
3-91/022. Risk Assessment Forum. Washington, DC.
(February).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Strategic directions for the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency: Preserving our future
today. Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1990a. Reducing risk: Setting priorities and
strategies for environmental protection. EPA SAB-EC-
90-021. Washington, DC: Science Advisory Board.
U.S. EPA. 1990b. The report of the Ecology and Wel-
fare Subcommittee, Relative Risk Reduction Project.
Appendix A. Reducing risk. EPA SAB-EC-90-021A.
Washington, DC: Science Advisory Board.
23
-------
U.S. EPA. 1988a. Environmental progress and chal-
lenges: EPA's update. EPA/230/07-88/033. Washing-
ton, DC: Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation.
U.S. EPA. 1988b. Review of ecological risk assessment
methods. EPA/230/10-88/041. Washington, DC. Of-
fice of Policy Analysis, Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation.
U.S. EPA. 1987. Unfinished business: A comparative
assessment of environmental problems, Vol. 1. Over-
view report. Washington, DC: Office of Policy Analy-
sis, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
24
-------
Appendix A
Methods
Most of the information in this report is from a series of
interviews conducted between August 1992 and March
1993 with staff representing over 40 different EPA Head-
quarters and Regional program areas thought to con-
sider ecological risks in their activities (see Appendix C).
Appendix C also contains the EPA program office abbre-
viations used in the tables throughout this report. The
interviews are based on a standard set of questions
found in Appendix B. A summary of each interview is
found in Appendix F. Each summary describes specific
decisions made by the program offices and the statutory
and regulatory authorities upon which they are based.
The summary also includes a more in-depth description
of ecological concerns, along with references to the
source information.
During all interviews, each question was asked and
answered in written order. The interview participants
were selected by the program managers and/or authors
based on their knowledge of particular programs and
staff activities. The interviews covered most of the major
program offices at EPA Headquarters that have consid-
ered ecological issues at some point in their history.
Interviews were also carried out in four of EPA's Re-
gional offices: Philadelphia (Region 3), Chicago (Region
5), San Francisco (Region 9), and Seattle (Region 10).
The four regions selected provided an extensive geo-
graphic range, as well as a range of experience in
dealing with ecological concerns. Some EPA programs,
Superfund being a good example, were very decentral-
ized in their analysis and decision-making, and the
authors lacked the time and resources to survey all ten
regional offices. Other programs, however, were found
to be very centralized in their analysis and decision-
making (e.g., the pesticides program), and thus rela-
tively few regional interviews were required to satisfy the
information needs for this report.
As part of the documentation process, written materials
were requested to support statements made during the
interviews. This may have included Federal Register
notices, records of decision, policy documents, program
guidance, or even internal memoranda. Of particular
interest were ecological concerns used as the basis of
an Agency decision or action. No attempt was made to
inventory nor quantitatively assess every decision ever
made by EPA on the basis of ecological concerns. A
completely exhaustive inventory of this type is, for all
practical purposes, impossible to do because no readily
accessible repositories of such information exist. Recent
decisions during and after the course of the survey may
have been missed and not included in this report. The
use of a uniformly applied process of interviews and
followup activities, however, allowed as many examples
of ecologically based decisions as possible to be iden-
tified and collected, given the time and resource con-
straints for this report. It is also important to note that
information was not collected for the purpose of judging
the technical adequacy of any ecological assessments.
Brief written summaries of each interview were prepared
based on written notes and all documents collected.
Each summary includes a general description of the
Regional or Headquarters program decision area, the
ecological concerns used, and any quantitative, regula-
tory levels of ecological concern. Each individual was
given the opportunity to review and comment on the
interview summary before it appeared in this report.
Responses to survey questions about office needs and
suggestions for improving considerations of ecological
risk were also compiled and are presented in Chapter 3
of this report. During the initial review of these com-
ments, general categories of needs for improving eco-
logical risk decisions at EPA began to emerge. These
categories are found in Figure 3-1 and discussed in
detail in Chapter 3. After the initial review, all the com-
ments were analyzed again to count the number of
Headquarters and Regional offices that made com-
ments falling into the general categories. Normalized
Regional and Headquarters percentages for each gen-
eral category were calculated based on the 22 Regional
and 16 Headquarters programs commenting. The re-
sults in Figure 3-1 are all based on this procedure to
provide the reader with more of an Agency-wide per-
spective of these issues. The results describe the per-
centage of program areas with similar categories of
needs. In particular, one can see the relative importance
of a given category to Headquarters and Regional pro-
gram areas, and then compare the relative importance
of different categories to both Headquarters and Regions.
25
-------
-------
Appendix B
Interview Questions
Management Guidance for Ecological Risk Assessment:
A Survey
We are interested in identifying program decisions that
include ecological information. We are particularly inter-
ested in identifying any ecological values or concerns
that drive Agency decisions or actions. Several of the
risk terms used here are defined at the end of the survey
and are from the recently published Framework for Eco-
logical Risk Assessment.
A. identification of Ecological
Decisions/Background information
1. Summarize the regulatory, strategic planning, and
other internal program decisions made by your
office that incorporate ecological information.
2. Please indicate the specific sections of statutory
and regulatory authorities that pertain to these
decisions.
3. At what level of management are these decisions
finally made (e.g., AA, RA, Office Director, Divi-
sion Director, Branch Chief)?
B. Use of Ecological Information
4. Do you know of any regulatory decisions or ac-
tions that have been justified by citing ecological
risks alone, or instances where ecological risks
were a dominant or driving concern for an
Agency decision or action? Please specify the
ecological concern(s) and help us locate where
statements of these concerns can be found in
Agency memoranda, Federal Register notices, or
other EPA documents.
5. Are ecological risk management decisions docu-
mented and tracked over time? If so, please de-
scribe.
6. Identify the ecological concern or value used to
justify decisions made by your office. In other
words, what are you trying to protect? For exam-
ple, does your office address concerns about:
• Nonhuman species in general?
• Endangered or threatened species?
• Aquatic or terrestrial populations?
• Natural habitats (e.g., wetlands, National Wild-
life Refuges)?
• Other natural communities, ecosystems, or land-
scapes?
Does your office focus on chemical, physical,
biological, and/or radiological stresses to nonhu-
man receptors? Does your office focus on acute,
subacute, and/or chronic stresses (i.e., short- or
long-term stresses); single or cumulative stresses;
or lethal or nonlethal effects?
7. Environmental measurements (e.g., toxicity test re-
sults, acres of wetland lost) are typically used to
quantitatively assess whether a particular ecologi-
cal value is protected. If a quantitative threshold
level of unreasonable ecological risk has been es-
tablished by your office, please inform us what it is.
8. Has any case law shaped how you think about
or define ecological risk concerns? Please cite.
9. Are the results of ecological risk assessments
used in any economic analyses (i.e., cost/benefit,
cost effectiveness, risk/benefit, or valuation analy-
ses)? If so, how?
C. Management and Guidance Issues
10. Does anything limit ecological risk management
decisions within your office (e.g., limitations in
data or staff expertise, office culture)? Identify
the areas of greatest controversy both within
your office and with outside groups about the
27
-------
ecological scope of your program. What is your
best idea for improving risk management deci-
sions in your program?
11. Does your program plan to implement the con-
cepts found in the Framework for Ecological Risk
Assessment? If so, how?
12. Identify any major ecological risk management
issues in your office that would benefit from
guidance.
13. Describe any formal and informal guidance (i.e.,
established policies and procedures) that your
office uses to incorporate ecological concerns
into decisions. Where may we obtain copies of
such guidance?
14. Do you think any of your formal or informal guid-
ance (e.g., standard operating procedures, ad
hoc approaches, or unwritten policies and proce-
dures) could be helpful or more broadly applied
as guidance to other offices within the Agency?
If so, please suggest which ones.
28
-------
Appendix C
EPA Program Areas Interviewed
Acronym
Office, Division, Branch, and/or Staff
AIR (ACID DEP)
AIR (OAQPS)
AIR (STRAT)
AIR (TOXICS, R5)
GLNPO (R5)
NEPA (OFA)
NEPA (R3)
NEPA (R5)
NEPA (R9)
PESTICIDES (HQ)
PESTICIDES (R5)
PESTICIDES (R10)
RCRA (HQ)
RCRA (R3)
RCRA (R5)
RCRA(R10)
SF ESTUARY (R9)
SUPERFUND (HQ)
SUPERFUND (R3)
SUPERFUND (R5)
SUPERFUND (R9)
SUPERFUND (R10)
TOXICS (BIOTECH)
Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Acid Rain Division,
Headquarters.
Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards,
Headquarters.
Office of Air and Radiation, Stratosphere Protection Division, Analysis and
Review Branch, Headquarters.
Air and Radiation Division, Region 5.
Great Lakes National Program Office, Region 5.
Office of Federal Activities, Headquarters.
Environmental Services Division, Environmental Assessment Branch, Region 3.
Planning and Management Division, Planning Assessment Branch, Region 5.
Office of [External Affairs, Region 9.
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Head-
quarters.
Environmental Services Division, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Branch,
Region 5.
Environmental Services Division, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Branch,
Region 10.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Headquarters.
RCRA Program (Corrective Action and Enforcement Sections), Region 3.
Waste Management Division, Region 5.
Region 10.
San Francisco Bay Estuary Project, Region 9.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (Superfund), Headquarters.
Hazardous Waste Management Division, Region 3.
Waste Management Division, Region 5.
Technical Support Section, Region 9.
Hazardous Waste Division, Region 10.
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Health and Environmental Review Division, Environ-
mental Effects Branch, Biotechnology Review Staff, Headquarters.
29
-------
TOXICS (ECAD)
TOXICS (PMN)
WATER (CRITERIA)
WATER (NONPOINT)
WATER (OCN DSCHRG)
WATER (PERMITS, R9)
WATER (QUALITY, R9)
WATER (SLUDGE)
WATER (SURFACE, R10)
WATER (WETLANDS)
WATER (WETLANDS, R9)
WATER (WETLANDS, R10)
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Health and Environmental Review Division, Environ-
mental Effects Branch, Headquarters. (This survey is about existing chemi-
cals and the Dioxin/Sludge Assessment.)
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Health and Environmental Review Division, Environ-
mental Effects Branch, Headquarters. (This survey focuses on the premanu-
facture notification process.)
Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological
Criteria Division, Headquarters.
Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Assessment
and Watershed Protection Division, Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Head-
quarters.
Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Oceans and
Coastal Protection Division, Marine Pollution Control Branch, Headquarters.
Water Management Division, Permits and Compliance Branch, Region 9.
Water Management Division, Water Quality Branch, Region 9.
Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological
Criteria Division, Sludge Risk Assessment Branch, Headquarters.
Water Division, Surface Water Branch, Region 9.
Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Headquarters.
Policy, Wetlands and Coastal Planning Section, Region 9.
Wetlands Team, Region 10.
30
-------
Appendix D
Ecological Concerns Identified by the Survey
This Appendix analyzes EPA's ecological concerns (i.e.,
those documented as being used in Agency decisions)
to see whether specific EPA programs consider:
1. Different levels of biological organization
2. Chemical, physical, and/or biological stressors
3. Aquatic, wetland, or terrestrial habitat/ecosystem
concerns
4. General types of organisms
5. Endangered and threatened species
The sections below discuss these five considerations in
more detail. Table D-1 lists, by program area, the data
subset used for these analyses. Table D-7 presents all
ecological concerns identified by the survey (those with
and without documentation of being used in an Agency
decision).
D.1 Classification by Levels of
Biological Organization
In Table D-2, an attempt is made to classify EPA's eco-
logical concerns by level of biological organization. This
classification is more of a reflection of the regulatory
environment in which these endpoints have been de-
rived and does not use scientific designations of the
"levels of biological organization" (e.g., cell -» organ -»
individual -» population -» community -» ecosystem -»
landscape -» biome). Plants and animals listed under the
Endangered Species Act are excluded from Table D-2
and are treated separately in Section D-5 and Table D-6
later in this Appendix.
EPA's ecological concerns can be classified as relating to:
• Category 1: Groups of individuals
• Category 2: Local populations
• Category 3: Multiple species
• Category 4: Habitats/ecosystems
The first category recognizes that, aside from endan-
gered species, the Agency does not regulate for adverse
effects on the health of or for the death of an individual
nonhuman organism. No case was found where an
individual organism or even a small number of individuals
(regardless of their species type) were protected by regu-
latory activity. Thus, rather than calling this level the "or-
ganism or individual" level (to better match the scientific
understanding of these terms), it seems most appropriate
to use the expression "groups of individuals." Concerns
listed here are generally about the magnitude and extent
of an effect (e.g., number of animals killed) without regard
to the types or numbers of species being affected.
Human health risk assessment is concerned with both
the health and mortality of an individual person (albeit
EPA does allow cancer risks on the order of one individ-
ual in a million in the general population and one indi-
vidual in ten thousand in worker populations). In
ecological risk assessment, however, EPA is rarely, if
ever, truly concerned with the health or mortality of an
individual organism.
There are notable occasions, however, when society
expresses an avid desire to protect individual animals.
An example occurred in 1988, when massive efforts were
undertaken to free a group of three gray whales trapped
by ice in the Arctic Ocean. In the regulatory environment,
the closest that EPA comes to protecting individual or-
ganisms occurs in cases involving endangered species.
This is a direct result of society's intentions to prevent
species extinctions through the Endangered Species Act.
Thus, EPA's concern appears not to be the health or
mortality of individuals per se but only of those individuals
that are necessary for the survival of a species.
The survey indicates that acute mortality appears to be
the most often and widely used concern within EPA.
Perhaps one reason for this is the preponderance of
laboratory toxicity test data on acute mortality. Another
may be that mortality is a more obvious and easily
documented sign of environmental stress than chronic
or sublethal effects. For example, in a much publicized
decision under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the pesticide diazinon was
restricted in its use on golf courses and sod farms. This
occurred after documentation of "widespread and
repeated" incidents of bird mortality after ingestion of the
pesticide. These incidents were not evidence of long-
term changes in bird population levels. Neither was the
31
-------
T»b!» D-1. EPA's
Program Area
AIR (ACID DEP)
AIR (ACID DEP)
AIR (ACID DEP)
AIR (ACID DEP)
AIR (ACID DEP)
AIR (ACID DEP)
AIR (OAQPS)
AIR (OAQPS)
GLNPO(RS)
GLNPO (R5)
NEPA (OFA)
NEPA (OFA)
NEPA (OFA)
NEPA (OFA)
NEPA (OFA)
NEPA (OFA)
NEPA (OFA)
NEPA (OFA)
NEPA (OFA)
NEPA (OFA)
NEPA (R3)
NEPA (R3)
NEPA (R3)
NEPA (R3)
NEPA (R3)
NEPA (R3)
NEPA (R3)
NEPA (R3)
NEPA (R3)
Ecological Concerns Organized by Program Area
Valued Ecological System or Component
Biological diversity (i.e., aquatic species diversity)
Fish (sportfish)
Resources (aquatic)
Species (aquatic)
Water quality
Wilderness Areas (i.e., Congressionally protected areas
within National Forests)
Life (aquatic)
Vegetation (sensitive, terrestrial)
Habitats (vital for the support of healthy and diverse
communities of plants, fish, and wildlife; emphasis on
wetlands)
Water
Environments (terrestrial and aquatic)
Environments (terrestrial and aquatic)
Environments (terrestrial and aquatic)
Environments (terrestrial and aquatic)
Habitat (aquatic)
Habitat (remote aquatic and terrestrial habitats)
Resources (terrestrial and aquatic)
Water (surface waters)
Water quality
Wildlife (especially aquatic and terrestrial endangered
species)
Bird habitat ("excellent habitat for waterfowl")
, ,,in
Ecosystems (aquatic)
Habitat (sensitive terrestrial and aquatic areas)
National Forests
Resources (natural; terrestrial and aquatic)
Resources (sensitive terrestrial and aquatic)
Riparian habitats
Streams
Water supply
Concern(s)
Not specified
Not specified
Adverse effects in general
Adverse effects in general
Adverse water chemistry conditions
Not specified
Not specified
Acute and chronic effects
Not specified
Reduction of level of toxic
substances in the Great Lakes and
surrounding habitat
"Potential for significant
environmental degradation"
"Severity, duration, or geographic
scope of impacts"
Violation of a "national
environmental standard"
"Significant environmental impacts"
Loss of habitat
Acute and chronic effects
'Threat to national environmental
resources..."
Potential for damage
Potential impacts
Not specified
Acute and chronic effects
Acute and chronic effects
Federal projects that promote
development in sensitive areas
Acute and chronic effects
Acute and chronic effects
Avoidance of adverse effects
Acute effects; loss of riparian areas
Acute and chronic effects
Chronic effects; potential impacts
32
-------
Table D-1. EPA's Ecological Concerns Organized by Program Area (continued)
Program Area
NEPA (R3)
NEPA (R3)
NEPA (R5)
NEPA (R5)
NEPA (R5)
NEPA (R9)
NEPA (R9)
NEPA (R9)
NEPA (R9)
NEPA (R9)
NEPA (R9)
NEPA (R9)
NEPA (R9)
NEPA (R9)
NEPA (R9)
NEPA (R9)
NEPA (R9)
PESTICIDES (HQ)
PESTICIDES (HQ)
PESTICIDES (HQ)
PESTICIDES (R5)
PESTICIDES (R5)
RCRA (R3)
SUPERFUND (HQ)
SUPERFUND (HQ)
SUPERFUND (HQ)
SUPERFUND (HQ)
SUPERFUND (HQ)
SUPERFUND (HQ)
Valued Ecological System or Component
Wetlands
Wetlands
Biological diversity (terrestrial)
Ecosystems (rare, terrestrial)
Habitats (high-quality terrestrial habitats)
Biological diversity (terrestrial and aquatic; preservation of)
Ecosystems (aquatic)
Endangered and threatened species
Fish (surface waters, juvenile salmonids)
Habitats (special rare aquatic and terrestrial habitats,
e.g., coastal sage-scrub)
Native species (terrestrial)
Refuges (state and federal)
Riparian habitat (aquatic and terrestrial aspects of)
Water (e.g., rivers, sloughs, and streams)
Water quality
Wetlands
Wildlife (terrestrial and aquatic)
Birds
Mollusks (aquatic; nontarget and commercial)
Endangered and threaitened species
Birds (migratory birds)
Vegetation (nontarget terrestrial plants)
Communities (aquatic; use of AWQC)
Coastal barriers
Endangered species critical habitat
Habitat (breeding areas for large or dense aggregations of
terrestrial animals)
Habitat (critical spawning and feeding areas, e.g., fish,
shellfish, and anadromous fish)
Habitat (unique communities)
Marine sanctuaries
Concern(s)
Acute effects; loss of wetlands
Chronic effects; potential impacts
Acute and chronic effects; potential
reduction in species diversity
Acute and chronic effects
Acute and chronic effects
Not specified
Acute and chronic effects; discharge
of high loads of selenium
Not specified
Adverse hydrologic
Not specified
Invasive species and exotic species
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Acute and chronic effects; use of
water quality standards
Adverse hydrologic
"Unacceptable hazards"
Acute mortality (recurring incidents
of bird kills)
Acute and chronic effects
Acute effects; secondary toxicity;
cumulative, reproductive, or chronic
effects; effects on habitat or food
supply
Acute mortality
Not specified
Acute and chronic effects
Not specified
Acute and chronic effects
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
33
-------
Table D-1. EPA's Ecological
Program Area
SUPERFUND (HQ)
SUPERFUND (HQ)
SUPERFUND (HQ)
SUPERFUND (HQ)
SUPERFUND (R3)
SUPERFUND (R3)
SUPERFUND (R3)
SUPERFUND (R3)
SUPERFUND (R5)
SUPERFUND (R5)
SUPERFUND (R10)
SUPERFUND (R10)
SUPERFUND (R10)
TOXICS (PMN)
Concerns Organized by Program Area (continued)
Valued Ecological System or Component
National and state wildlife refuges
National estuaries
National parks
Wild and scenic rivers
Birds (migratory waterfowl)
Endangered and threatened species
Species (aquatic and terrestrial)
Wetland (restoration)
Benthic organisms
Wildlife (terrestrial and aquatic; use of NOAELs and LOAELs)
Benthic communities (surrogates for exposed and valued
aquatic ecosystems)
Fish (health of fishery populations)
Food chain/food web (wildlife)
Algae
Concern(s)
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Potential adverse effects
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Sediment contamination
Acute and chronic effects
Acute and chronic effects; use of
AET for benthic invertebrate
communities
Chronic effects
Bioaccumulation
Acute or chronic effects; expected
exceedance of an aquatic
"concentration of concern"
TOXICS (PMN)
Fish
Acute or chronic effects; expected
exceedance of an aquatic
"concentration of concern"
TOXICS (PMN)
Invertebrates (aquatic; daphnia)
Acute or chronic effects; expected
exceedance of an aquatic
"concentration of concern"
WATER (CRITERIA)
WATER (CRITERIA)
WATER (CRITERIA)
WATER (CRITERIA)
WATER (CRITERIA)
WATER (CRITERIA)
WATER (OCN DSCHRG)
WATER (OCN DSCHRG)
WATER (OCN DSCHRG)
WATER (OCN DSCHRG)
WATER (OCN DSCHRG)
WATER (OCN DSCHRG)
WATER (PERMITS, R9)
WATER (PERMITS, R9)
Community (aquatic)
Endangered species
Fish
Invertebrates (aquatic)
Species (commercially important, including salmonids)
Vegetation (aquatic plants)
Benthic organisms
Endangered and threatened species
Food chain/food web
Habitats (aquatic; natural, special, or sensitive)
Populations (balanced indigenous)
Species (water column)
Amphibians or reptiles ("herps of special interest")
Benthic organisms
Acute and chronic effects
Acute and chronic effects
Acute and chronic effects; sublethal
Acute and chronic effects; sublethal
Acute and chronic effects
Acute and chronic effects
Acute and chronic effects
Acute and chronic effects
Acute and chronic effects
Acute and chronic effects
Acute and chronic effects
Acute and chronic effects
Not specified
Not specified
34
-------
Table D-1. EPA's Ecological Concerns Organized by Program Area (continued)
Program Area
WATER (PERMITS, R9)
WATER (PERMITS, R9)
WATER (PERMITS, R9)
WATER (PERMITS, R9)
WATER (PERMITS, R9)
WATER (PERMITS, R9)
WATER (PERMITS, R9)
WATER (PERMITS, R9)
WATER (PERMITS, R9)
WATER (PERMITS, R9)
WATER (PERMITS, R9)
WATER (PERMITS, R9)
WATER (QUALITY, R9)
WATER (QUALITY, R9)
WATER (QUALITY, R9)
WATER (SF ESTUARY, R9)
WATER (SF ESTUARY, R9)
WATER (SF ESTUARY, R9)
WATER (SF ESTUARY, R9)
WATER (SF ESTUARY, R9)
WATER (SF ESTUARY, R9)
WATER (SLUDGE)
WATER (WETLANDS)
WATER (WETLANDS)
WATER (WETLANDS)
WATER (WETLANDS)
WATER (WETLANDS)
WATER (WETLANDS)
WATER (WETLANDS, R9)
WATER (WETLANDS, R9)
Valued Ecological System or Component
Birds ("of special interest")
Endangered species
Fish
Habitat (upland, terrestrial)
Habitats (intertidal)
Habitats (subtidal)
Mammals (terrestrial)
-Riparian habitat
Vegetation (aquatic; water channel characteristics)
Vegetation (terrestrial and aquatic)
Water (open water) -
Wetlands (as habitat)
Benthic invertebrates (aquatic) ,
Fish
Life (aquatic)
Estuary
Estuary
Food chain/food web (terrestrial and aquatic)
Water
Water
Wetlands (as habitat; protection, restoration, and increase in)
Vegetation (crops)
Birds (wading bird rookeries)
Endangered species
Fish (high-quality trout streams)
Wetlands (type)
Wetlands (wetland functions)
Wetlands (wetland organisms)
Endangered and threatened species
Fish
. Concern(s)
Not specified
Not specified
Water temperature and flow on
Chinook population sizes
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Acute and chronic effects
Not specified
Not specified
Chronic effects
Not specified
Acute and chronic effects
Chronic effects; toxic sediment
accumulation
Reduction of pollutant loadings to
estuary
Bioaccumulation
Unnecessary dredging activities
Avoid/offset adverse impacts of
dredging, flood control, and
development
Not specified
Phytotoxicity
Acute and chronic effects
Acute and chronic effects
Acute and chronic effects
Loss of unique or scarce wetland
types
Acute and chronic effects
Acute and chronic effects
Acute and chronic effects
Acute and chronic effects
35
-------
Table D-1. EPA's Ecological
Program Area
Concerns Organized by Program Area (continued)
Valued Ecological System or Component
Concern(s)
WATER (WETLANDS, R9)
Wetlands (maintenance and increase in wetland functions
and values)
Acute and chronic effects
WATER (WETLANDS, R10)
Birds (nesting habitat for tundra swans and other migratory Not specified
waterfowl)
WATER (WETLANDS, R10)
Birds (tundra swans)
Not specified
WATER (WETLANDS, R10)
Deltas (restoration of)
Acute and chronic effects
WATER (WETLANDS, R10)
Endangered and threatened species
Not specified
WATER (WETLANDS, R10)
Endangered and threatened species (protect current
habitats of)
Acute and chronic effects
WATER (WETLANDS, R10)
Endangered and threatened species (protect current
populations of)
Acute and chronic effects
WATER (WETLANDS, R10)
Habitats (aquatic; e.g., juvenile salmon nurseries, eel
grass beds)
Acute and chronic effects
WATER (WETLANDS, R10)
Habitats (migratory bird flyways)
Acute and chronic effects
WATER (WETLANDS, R10)
Vegetation (i.e., deep pendent grass, a food source for Potential damage
waterfowl)
WATER (WETLANDS, R10)
Wetlands
Acute and chronic effects; loss of
acreage
WATER (WETLANDS, R10)
Wetlands (protect a variety of)
Acute and chronic effects
WATER (WETLANDS, R10)
Wetlands (protection of an interconnected system of
wetlands within a sustainable, ecologically sound system)
Acute and chronic effects
decision to cancel these uses of diazinon based on a
concern for individual birds, nor for particular species of
birds, nor small numbers of birds. These incidents in-
cluded large numbers of dead birds of various species.
Furthermore, the restrictions were based on uses of
diazinon where the benefits of its use were not deemed
to be particularly valuable.
Many ecologists feel that looking at chronic and
sublethal effects is essential, and in fact many EPA
offices have historically considered both acute and
chronic, lethal and sublethal chemical effects. There
were, however, only a few cases documented in this
report where regulatory action was taken solely based
on chronic or sublethal effects occurring to wildlife or
habitats. Examples involved a wetland (Office of Federal
Activities), benthic invertebrates and an estuary (Office
of Water), and a fishery population (Superfund). No
cases were found where regulatory action was based on
chronic or sublethal effects to plants. The Office of Pes-
ticides Programs (OPP) has made a few regulatory
decisions, in part based on chronic or sublethal effects
to birds (e.g., DDT and mirex) (see the PESTICIDES
[HQ] summary in Appendix F).
The second category is a population category. When
considered, EPA typically focuses on declines or
extinctions of a local population at a particular site. One
example would include acid deposition leading to extinc-
tions of entire populations of nontolerant fish in a north-
eastern lake. Examples in the local population category
in Table D-2 uncovered by the survey include declines
in commercial and sportfish/shellfish. No terrestrial ex-
amples were found. It is important to note that most
ecological risk assessments at EPA technically fall short
of considering population level effects.
"Multiple species" in Table D-2 simply means considera-
tions protective of more than one species of birds, fish,
other animal taxa, plants, or any combination thereof.
This term was carefully chosen instead of the classical
scientific definition of "community." The term was se-
lected because most multiple species analyses at EPA
used in regulatory analysis do not consider interactions
among different species (i.e., a critical aspect in the
science of community ecology).
Perhaps the best example of multiple species concerns
at EPA is the use of AWQC. AWQC are designed to
establish chemical concentrations which, if not exceeded
more than once in 3 years, should be protective of 95
percent of aquatic species in most aquatic systems.
Toxicity information on a chemical's effect on a range of
taxonomic orders and families is used to calculate an
36
-------
Table D-2. Levels of Biological Organization Considered by EPA*
Groups of
Program Area Individuals Local Population
Multiple Species Habitat/Ecosystem
AIR (ACID DEP)
AIR (OAQPS)
AIR (StRAT)
AIR (TOXICS, R5)
NEPA (OFA)
NEPA (R3)
NEPA(R5)
NEPA (R9)
PESTICIDES (HQ)
PESTICIDES (R5)
PESTICIDES (R10)
TOXICS (BIOTECH)
TOXICS (ECAD)
TOXICS (PMN)
RCRA (HQ)
RCRA(R3)
RCRA (R5)
RCRA (R10)
SUPERFUND (HQ)
SUPERFUND (R3)
SUPERFUND (R5)
SUPERFUND (R9)
SUPERFUND (R10)
WATER (CRITERIA)
WATER (NONPOINT)
WATER (OCN DSCHRG)
WATER (PERMITS, R9)
WATER (QUALITY, R9)
WATER (SF ESTUARY, R9)
WATER (SLUDGE)
WATER (WETLANDS)
WATER (WETLANDS, R9)
WATER (WETLANDS, R10)
GLNPO (R5)
Regularly used
Occasionally used
One known example
Not considered/
No documented example
Scores were assigned through the best professional judgment of the authors.
37
-------
AWQC. These criteria are not concerned with commu-
nity or ecosystem effects if an AWQC is reached or
exceeded. Instead, the acute criterion, for example, is
simply a prediction of a chemical concentration in water
above which acute toxicity to some species may occur.
(Implicit here is the assumption that protecting a group
of individual species will protect the community. This
assumption is widespread at EPA and elsewhere, although
its validity is the subject of considerable debate.) Nev-
ertheless, AWQC are easy and practical to use, and the
use of AWQC implies a concern for the protection of more
than one aquatic species (U.S. EPA, 1988).
Finally, the habitat/ecosystem level represents concerns
about entire systems and their values, rather than being
species-oriented. Generally, habitat/ecosystem level
regulatory analyses at EPA do not consider interactions
among animal and plant communities and their abiotic
environment (the classic ecological definition of an eco-
system). EPA, however, does pay considerable attention
to protecting wetlands, estuaries, and large natural re-
sources such as the Great Lakes and San Francisco Bay.
D.2 Classification by Chemical,
Physical, and/or Biological Stressors
Those interviewed were asked whether they considered
chemical, physical, or biological stressors to ecological
receptors (see Table D-3). In general (as expected), all
offices uniformly consider chemical stressors and im-
pacts. The biological stressor category tends to include
concerns about exotic or non-native species (e.g., inva-
sions of zebra mussels and brown-headed cowbirds).
Many of the physical stressors considered are generally
within the context of various permitting sections of the
Clean Water Act (i.e., protecting wetlands and coastal
and riparian areas through the use of existing regula-
tions on dredge-and-fill activities in navigable waters of
the United States). Physical stressors appear to be
considered consistently only within the National Envi-
ronmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Water programs.
D.3 Classification by Aquatic, Wetland,
or Terrestrial Habitat/Ecosystem
Concerns
Much of ERA'S concerns with habitats and ecosystems
can be seen in two major programs. One of these is the
NEPA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) review
function within the Office of Federal Activities and sev-
eral Regional offices (see Table D-4). This function is
primarily advisory in nature and pertains to other federal
agencies and their large-scale projects. Water programs
also exhibit habitat/ecosystem level concerns, as evi-
denced by geographic initiatives such as the San Fran-
cisco Estuary and other program areas that regulate
wetlands and ocean discharges.
D.4 Classification by General Types of
Organism
Table D-5 suggests that animals are more frequently
assessed as a value of ecological concern than plants.
It also suggests that aquatic species are assessed more
frequently than terrestrial ones. This is in agreement
with Table D-4, which included the habitat/ecosystem
endpoints. In the interviews, it was observed that, more
often than not, the animal species considered are not
endangered or threatened species. General sorts of
references to biological diversity or unspecified aquatic
or terrestrial habitats or ecosystems are not included in
this table. General references to "wildlife" are included.
D.5 Classification by Endangered and
Threatened Species
Table D-6 identifies program offices that provided docu-
mentation to support that they consider species listed
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). They include
the Office of Federal Activities, the Office of External
Affairs (Region 9), and offices within the Pesticides,
Superfund, and Water programs. Populations and/or
critical habitats of federally listed endangered species
are also a concern for some program offices. More
details about historical or proposed program office ac-
tivities in protecting endangered species can be found
in U.S. EPA (1993).
Table D-7 presents all ecological concerns identified by
the survey (organized by program area), including con-
cerns used in Agency decisions/actions; concerns used
in ongoing assessments; ecological systems or compo-
nents identified as possible future endpoints; and concerns
mentioned by EPA staff without supporting documenta-
tion on their actual use.* For each ecological concern
listed, the general source of information is identified.
Specific citations are found in the interview summaries
in Appendix F.
D.6 References
U.S. EPA. 1988. Review of ecological risk assessment
methods. EPA/230/10-88/041. Washington DC: Office
of Policy Analysis, Office of Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Endangered species background pa-
per. Memorandum from Howard Corcoran, Associate
Counsel, Grants and Intergovernmental Division, to
Michael P. Vandenbergh, Senior Policy Advisor, Office
of the Administrator, and Jonathan C. Fox, Special
Assistant, Office of the Administrator. Washington,
DC (June 30).
38
-------
Table D-3. Types of Stressors Considered by EPA
Types of Stressors
Program Area
Chemical
Physical
Biological
AIR (ACID DEP)
AIR (OAQPS)
AIR(STRAT)
AIR (TOXICS, R5)
NEPA (OFA)
NEPA (R3)
NEPA (R5)
NEPA (R9)
PESTICIDES (HQ)
PESTICIDES (R5)
PESTICIDES (R10)
TOXICS (BIOTECH)
TOXICS (ECAD)
TOXICS (PMN)
RCRA (HQ)
RCRA (R3)
RCRA (R5)
RCRA (R10)
SUPERFUND(HQ)
SUPERFUND (R3)
SUPERFUND (R5)
SUPERFUND (R9)
SUPERFUND (R10)
WATER (CRITERIA)
WATER (NONPOINT)
WATER (OCN DSCHRG)
WATER (PERMITS, R9)
WATER (QUALITY, R9)
WATER (SF ESTUARY, R9)
WATER (SLUDGE)
WATER (WETLANDS)
WATER (WETLANDS, R9)
WATER (WETLANDS, R10)
GLNPO (R5)
Considered at least once
Not considered/No documented example
39
-------
Table D-4. Aquatic, Wetland and Terrestrial Habitat/Ecosystem Considerations by EPA
Types of Habitats/Ecosystems
Program Area
Aquatic
Wetland
Terrestrial
AIR (ACID DEP)
AIR (OAQPS)
AIR (STRAT)
AIR (TOXICS, R5)
NEPA (OFA)
NEPA (R3)
NEPA (R5)
NEPA (R9)
PESTICIDES (HQ)
PESTICIDES (R5)
PESTICIDES (R10)
TOXICS (BIOTECH)
TOXICS (ECAD)
TOXICS (PMN)
RCRA (HQ)
RCRA (R3)
RCRA (R5)
RCRA(R10)
SUPERFUND (HQ)
SUPERFUND (R3)
SUPERFUND (R5)
SUPERFUND (R9)
SUPERFUND (R10)
WATER (CRITERIA)
WATER (NONPOINT)
WATER (OCN DSCHRG)
WATER (PERMITS, R9)
WATER (QUALITY, R9)
WATER (SF ESTUARY, R9)
WATER (SLUDGE)
WATER (WETLANDS)
WATER (WETLANDS, R9)
WATER (WETLANDS, R10)
GLNPO (R5)
Considered at least once
Not considered/No documented example
40
-------
I
CO
6
"5
in
s.
u>
d
2
en
s
a
o_
in
a
g
I
a:
<
S?
DC,
co
a.
Q
DC
& g
DC X
I— O
CO. H,
a: DC
U- CO
O or
in o>
a: a:
LU LU LU UJ
CO
LU
g
g
fe
LU
a.
co co
LU LU
g g
o o
o ^
(5 § I
en LU a.
O co to
X EC DC
-
DC DC
O co" u? T-
E- £ £ £
< < < <
DC DC - DC DC
2 S g g g 0000
Q_Q_ i-t-|_ ccccara:
a a a
z z z
—) -> -}
u. u. Q.
DC DC DC
LU LU LU
D. Q. CL
Q Q
z z
SI
LU 111
a. a.
co co co co co
I
T3
I
CO
T3
a> .2
m J2 O
S OQ.
Ox
ZS
41
-------
t
I
o
"5
$
I
I
2
a.
CCCCDCCCCCCCCCCCCCO
LULUUJLLILLILIJUJIULLID-
at
•a
2
•§
55555
5 5 5 5 CD
I
T3
O
1
£
-------
Table D-6. EPA Offices That Consider Endangered Species
Program Area
AIR (ACID DEP)
AIR (OAQPS)
AIR (STRAT)
AIR (TOXICS, R5)
NEPA (OFA)
NEPA (R3)
NEPA (R5)
NEPA (R9)
PESTICIDES (HQ)
PESTICIDES (R5)
PESTICIDES (R10)
TOXICS (BIOTECH)
TOXICS (ECAD)
TOXICS (PMN)
RCRA (HQ)
RCRA (R3)
RCRA(R5) '
RCRA (R10)
SUPERFUND (HQ)
SUPERFUND (R3)
SUPERFUND (R5)
SUPERFUND (R9)
SUPERFUND (R10)
WATER (CRITERIA)
WATER (NONPOINT)
WATER (OCN DSCHRG)
WATER (PERMITS, R9)
WATER (QUALITY, R9)
WATER (SF ESTUARY, R9)
WATER (SLUDGE)
WATER (WETLANDS)
WATER (WETLANDS, R9)
WATER (WETLANDS, R10)
GLNPO (R5)
Considered at least once
Not considered/No documented
example
43
-------
1
Source
^1
'p "**
!
73
F*
o
Biological diversity (I.e.,
aquatic species diversity)
ST
LU
a
a
^
or
T-
O-
I
1
til
Interview
CO
1
!
75
"JP
O
Fish (sportfish)
ST
c
c
or
CM
C
1
JO QJ
w 1.
Interview
CO
2
0
1
"c
6
_,.
43
8
a=
CD
22
0) m
> C
•g ©
< D)
I
I
or
ST
UJ
Q
g
^
or
co
reduction
CO
C t-
g E
.2 a>
E 2
UJ a.
1
IE:
CO
>
!
.§
c
CD
O
C
j2
CD
CD
[0 75
II
Species (aquatic)
67
Q
^
or
*
Interview
«
2
|
"g
*c
S
c
o
42 £•
S .<"
1= E
CD o
a>-S
2 2
>!
5g
75
cr
1
CL"
UJ
Q
Q
a
or
in
Guidance
CO
f
|
"g
*c
o
Wilderness areas
(i.e., Congressionally
protected areas within
National Forests)
0-
LU
Q
Q
^
or
CO
..
g
1
•Sg
"O .^
'S8
co o.
Decision
S
2
|
S
^
6
I
I
.2
LJ
V)
a.
0
or
^
CO
c
o
'%
ozone
PSD/emii
•a co
§ .9
CO o
Decision
0)
f
75
.9
E
CD
6
I
I
_CD
cn
Q_
o
g
or
CD
•o!
Ill
1 c" E
- E CD
CO CD Q.
Decision
&
¥
t
1
S
'E
o
§
.9
o
•g
"O
ll
< o
Vegetation (sensitive,
terrestrial)
o?
a
g
or
O5
§s
Q. CO
S 0
81
y *C
•2 ^
3 *c
CO 3
Decision
73
'•E
|
1
£
6
CD"
CO
Q- CD
Vegetation (terrestrial)
0)
a.
0
I
or
o
Deci
75
t
1
cc
ure
oint
o
CD
6
or
44
-------
(0
*
3
O
CO
*!
o .2
« o
<
i
i
•8
"3T
¥
CO
ontinued)
Concern(s)
fr *
S> g,
Identified by the Su
Valued Ecological
System or Compo
w
c
1
o
0
n
O Q)
8 <
ui E
1 §
i a
JD
"§
* ^
1
|i
S 0)
o
z
s
X
S
1
o
6
Chronic effects;
expected -
exceedance of a
pesticide aquatic
"concentration of
concern"
%
LL
I
EC
**
co
^
CD
E_^
I'i.
S c
S '
jfr
Q
"a
6
Reduction of level
of toxic substances
in the Great Lakes
and surrounding
habitat
S
1
C?
EC
2
z
_l
o
CO
i~
a.
E
1
E
1 g>
UJ ^
Guidance
%
£
1
i§
11
Q-'5>
o o
It
S^
"Potential for
significant
environmental
degradation"
a
Environments (terre
and aquatic)
&
O,
<
D.
LU
0)
I
Q.
E
1
CD
O _.
LU ^
Guidance
0
^
CO
— • en
Q-'lo
o o
11
J= .2
"Severity, duration,
or geographic
scope of impacts"
.2
•ffi
Environments (terre
and aquatic)
SE
o.
<
o.
LU
Z
o
CM
Guidance
tn
¥
T3
§
-=f CO
g 0
a-'to
"cB "as
.e.y
E ^^
x: ~o
OS
Violation of a
"national
environmental
standard"
-s
1
Environments (terre
and aquatic)
£
g.
<
3:
111
^
CJ
45
-------
a
os
§
£
111
If
CD S
§)LU
CO *-T
it
§
13
1
Q
1
•^
S
"55
0)
§
•*-*
s
1
"o
To
t
1
1
£
LU
Z
x"
t_
-i
'g
o
.i
i°
CO +"
73 2
<"LU
^
8
1
^
g
1 c5
'co !2
> .£
iS ?
8
ro
"O
'3
0
1
T)
g
"§0
^" CD
^to
t"
0°
JI O
OS
73
_o
"Threat to nat
environmental
TJ
g
CO
W
£
t
3 +3
CC of
L?
o
g:
UJ
Z
DOA APHIS grasshopper
control project, EU rating?
c
o
To
8
Q
CO
CD
>
[5
2
75
"E
CD
s
Potential for
damage
"2
CD
1
1
CD
I
_^^_
2.
UJ
z
CO
CM
TVA barge terminals
project, EU rating
c
o
"co
8
>
|o
£
1
'c:
6
Potential impacts
13
3
cr
i
^^
2.
LU
Z
c\i
DOA APHIS grasshopper
control project, EIS rating
c
g
8
Q
>
1
8
3
'g
o
6
8 1 &
Wildlife (e
aquatic at
endangeri
f~+.
s.
LU
Z
00
CM
Woodrow Wilson Bridge
improvement project,
EC rating
c
'(0
8
Q
CO
^
•o
g
1 o
•g.l
0)
co co
E'g>
^75
OS
0
g
o
•a
||
1^
=P 3
Q) O
|-2
^s
El
m .c
S?
CC,
UJ
z
a>
CM
Appalachian Corridor H,
proposed highway, WV;
EU rating
c.
"co
8
Q
CO
*"
T3
g
g" g
11
CO
75 78
E ^
•= !°
o
"c
g
E
CO
s "p
i
-2-
I
§.
LU
Z
g
Southeastern
Expressway, VA;
EU rating
c
o
Q
•a
i
1 1
J-J
CO
75 75
o o
E'g>
CD .2
J= 0
O ia
Federal projects
which promote
development in
sensitive areas
0
To
CD 0-
rl
S CD CO
CC,
UJ
Z
CO
Appalachian Corridor H,
proposed highway, WV;
EU rating
c
o
'ut
8
>
^
a
752
Q g
ll
11
E ^
CD -2
Si
o
'§
13
T3
1
National F
CC,
UJ
z
8
Appalachian Corridor H,
proposed highway, WV;
EU rating
c
0
73
'8
Q
CO
>
TD
g
g"g
g-i
w
t"
_
ii
0
*
•o
g^
•HJ o
•3.
1 1
T3
(0 *
Resource
terrestrial
co
CC,
UJ
z
CO
Lackawanna Valley
industrial highway project,
LO rating
c
o
'to
8
Q
CO
>
T3
C
CO
75' 2
o o
11
w
11
E °0>
CD Si
s: o
O5
Avoidance of
adverse effects
o -B
••§ §
'co g-
C CO
ti
Resource
terrestrial
co
tr.
LU
Z
s
46
-------
CO
i
I
•5.2
0 .»
'•5 °
^
j
1
6
§<»
1 1
*= e3
11
< "S
Riparian habitats
p?
OC,
^
z
8
ll
__ D)
C •—
"eS 2 2
Q. d.
< Q.UJ
Decision
to
>
TJ
s
75 2
I|
O O
It
s: o
OS
.g
1
•5
SI
Streams
CO
or.
<
Ou
LU
8
..
Southeastern
Expressway,
EU rating
c
1
Q
$
>
TJ
ci
S~i
tf
co as
-°. .9
§ 2
§1
Chronic effects;
potential impacts
Q.
n.
CD
1
I
^
LU
£5
1
if
•og1
CO 0.
SCS Delman
improvement
EU rating
c
1
Q
8
£
1
"c5
.9
CD
6
tj CO
CD CO
Wetlands
I
^
LU
S
£•
llo,
111
com LU
Decision
ra
>
v
CO
CO £r
'!»
•&S
11
S° 75
S
li
Wetlands
«•
£
^
LU
g
73
§
73 „
1-i
Sunken Cam
(Chequamegi
Forest); EO r
Decision
CO
*"
TJ
i
Tcf 2
||
S" 2
"It
.C O
OS
Acute and chronic
effects; potential
reduction in
species diversity
Biological diversity
(terrestrial)
u?
OC.
^
LU
§
II
.nZ
.0) .
Protection of
remnant prair
review
Decision
8
>
TJ
§
TS 2
0 0
11
°:«
75 75
o o
F "5>
|-§
.9.
|
£2
O
TJ
o ;tr
< CD
Ecosystems (rare,
terrestrial)
uf
CC,
-
Spirit Mounta
Mohave Valle
NEPA review
8
c
CD
TJ
C
O
8-
S
£
^
CO
*8
11
11
OS
.0
•t^
Biological diversity
(terrestrial and aqu,
preservation of)
of
CC,
^,
LU
Z
9
t Drainage
PA review
•ELU
.» £
c °*
co 6t
8
c
CD
TJ
C
a
to
£
5
o
S
¥
TJ
1 i
l|
o o
E O)
5 75
OS
Acute and chronic
effects; dishcarge
of high loads of
selenium
"5"
Ecosystems (aquati
IT,
^
LU
5
S
LU
Z
Interview
CO
2
TJ
i
75" g
If
75 75
O 0
If
S:§
Endangered and
threatened species
DC,
^
LU
$
II
1000 Springs
Plant, NEPA i
CD
CD
g.
1
O
O
CO
>
a
75' 2
o o
il
11
if
J= 0
OS
Adverse hydrologic
effects
co"
1«
5§
cd co
t CO
8»
J= g
CO >
LL .2,
ST
CC.
^*
LU
^
47
-------
M
1
8
3
CO
Is
c
e
•5
s
i
Jj
CO
I 1
t 1
n i?i
1 1
1
1
o
o> m
JQ o
^o JS?
o ^
til c
s 2
1
r^ Q.
6
1 *
NEPA review
3
CD
~~
O
I
, physical,
stressors
11
SH
<-.
Habitat corridors
(terrestrial and aqual
&?
DC.
LU
IJ
Coastal sage-scrub,
NEPA review
.2
CD
t:
1
I
IL!
"3 15
If
jc o
OS
m "«3 *T3
Habitats (special ran
aquatic and terrestrii
habitats, e.g., coasta
sage-scrub)
oT
DC.
I
2!
$
l
Brown-headed cowbi
NEPA review
1
S
£
1
-a
CO
, physical,
stressors
11
E °>
<§!
8
(0 '7J
,JP QJ
§. ""
CD €
"(g CD
Native species
(terrestrial)
o?"
DC^
LU
Z
5
NEPA review
1
3
^
1
1
, physical,
stressors
ss
§5
S 0
OS
13
g
S=c?
^ CD
CD **3
DC S
S"
DC
SE
LU
Z
S
SE
LU
CO
Q
CO
"5
§'l
0 2
1
'£
S
^
1
T3
§
, physical,
stressors
CO CO
.£2."
E ^^
^: "o
O S
1^2
||
S "*
=il
£ 0)
c 2
to ^
r> T3
DC ctf
ST
DC,
LU
•z.
•t—
to
NEPA review
CD
S
^
1
C
05
•—" t/)
S 0
•g.8
i* d>
"t5 15
o o
£ O)
J:"o
OS
^ ^
co t°
D) «
CD t^>
•*-* 13
CO Q
o?
DC.
LU
Z
w
O g
CO cf
^ 2
CO CL
1
S
_c
CO
^
«
II
oj "(3
o o
*6>
2.
51
.£2
c
2 *+~
•5°^-
Acute and
effects; USE
water quali
standards
is
cr
i
oT
DC.
LU
Z
CO
1000 Springs Power
Plant, NEPA review
c
CD
T3
R
CO
2
o
O
CO
•o
II
11
.c o
OS
g
o
o
•a
Adverse h>
effects
Wetlands
oT
tr
LU
z
3
NEPA review
CD
'e
1
73
CO
, physical,
stressors
E °>
CD ^
j: o
O3
Wetlands
of
DC,
LU
z
S
0 £
•- E
i 2
CO Q_
O
o
CD
1
0
O
1
T3
C
CO
, physical,
stressors
CO CO
o o
.c "5
O J3
CD
-9
"Unaccepte
hazards"
?
Wildlife (terrestrial ai
aquatic)
oS*
DC
LU
Z
S
1
'8
a
1
•C
|
.a
5
I
. _ ,2
tQ ^g
CD -M
tr-oS-
co
2
.&
1
CD
O
c
CD
fi. u
:== "o
•c — ^
col's
:3 o In
O CD ^_
03
5"
co
LU
Q
g
LU
Q.
O)
to
1
Carbofuran special r
3
S ^^
CD CO
si
Q. ffl
W^i
1
f
CO
CD
O
'c
CD
•S*I2
^ C ^-x
its
^3 O .Q
i
in
O
X,
CO
LU
Q
o
te
LU
OL
O
CD
48
-------
,1
•|
t
J*
(O
1
j5-
^
1
o
2
aj
o
c
cS
s
D)
1
&
<
^
O
1
U)
1
8
i
o *"
II
c
g
0
•8
lo'
¥
(0
h.
55
Concern(s
•*-•
C
1|
J?o
1"
&o
•o E
J«
$3>
<
_
m
O)
O
a
^
CD
•B-D
.2 8
II
Ti£
fel
Q.E
g
1
'•g
D. ,
^>
!g
S
CO
E
JZ
O
42
m CD
Chronic effi
reproductiv
f
in
J
UJ
Q
O
LU
a.
T3 -S t
8
£
42
1
.C
0
g
42" J2
Acute effec
secondary
cumulative,
$
•n -rr
Endangered am
threatened spec
5"
CO
LU
Q
O
5
LU
Q.
S
..s
qj f~ fy
Igg
C 0 0
l^r
O CD O
Tributyltin (TBT),
restricted use
c
o
!§3
s
Q
CO
3
1
£
.C .
O
.0
c
2
o
1
*
o 42
•B o
11
Mollusks (aquatic;
nontarget and
commercial)
0
X,
co
m
Q
o
H-
co
LU
Q.
3
__
c
o
ll-
Mirex final deterrr
restrictions on ae
spraying
c
'
||
May use in the fu
but no causal rel;
has been proven
0
'g
42
o
•z.
I
0
^
CD
6
f'
.
o
42
1
LL
\S
EC,
&
Q
O
F
CO
UJ
0.
S
«2 g>
O .O £
"Command" herbi
drifting to adjacer
or forests, label c
CD
J-ffl1
8 ™
w
I
1
o
1
Vegetation (nontar
terrestrial plants)
U)
DC,
CO
UJ
0
o
F
co
UJ
Q.
8
3
'g
42
o
f
s
g
.n
0
%
-------
1
§
d
c
8
C
o
"g"
$
£
to
mtinuad)
Con corn (s)
^
>» 1r
1 1
srns Identified by the Su
Valued Ecological
System or Compo
I
c,
O 4)
1 |
J 1
| „
c
1
o
Inferred from
measurement
3
I
I
f~
r-
O
Chronic effects
Invertebrates
(bumblebees)
o"
E
co
LU
Q
O
S
LU
Q.
£
endpoints
Inferred from
measurement
3
1
i
|
1
c
J:
O
Chronic effects
"of
c
& ,o
Vegetation (distribu
and abundance of 1
o"
E,
co
LU
Q
O
LU
O.
IS
endpoints
Inferred from
measurement
5
I
|
"5
*H
J:
O
Chronic effects
co 3
Vegetation (hydros!
pressure in terrestri
plants)
o"
E
CO
LU
Q
O
g
LU
a.
co
1
'1
o
j
"co
'E
o
.E
O
o
Acute and chroni
effects;
reproductive and
sublethal effects
o
Vegetation (nontarc
terrestrial plants)
o"
T-
co
LU
O
o
LU
a.
fc
endpoints
Inferred from
measurement
3
o
0
1
E
o
JZ
O
Chronic effects
1=
CO
Vegetation (seed vi
in terrestrial plants)
o"
E.
co
LU
0
o
1
a.
s
.O
"c
o
'x
Q
"§
^
JZ
0
Chronic effects
CD
s
o
CO ^
Vegetation (terrestr
plant community sti
and function)
S"
E,
to
LU
Q
O
•g
LU
a.
S
.Ll
1
5
&
• 5
13
8
SCO
CO
to
™
CO CO
o o
f'
U J3
o
1
m
O
or
g.
00
c
£?.-§
*n ^*
Waterfowl Ian
open cyanide
0
S
I
TJ
~ CO
CO *-*
c3 O
S.8
tf
CO CO
.a .2
5 •§
OS
o
1
1
in
O
£
or
Si
§§
in
l-sf
Carbamate pr
may be listed
based on eco
endpoints.
3
o
1
I
•o
i
. r t/)
H
~a "co
E ^*
.c "o
OS
1
i
1
m
O
or
s
O)
c
§
a.
o
a.
c
p
o
1
g
'E
o
J=
O
a
^ "o
0 0)
IS
III
<>
Community (aquatii
X.
i
S
£?CO
!§-§T3
i}lo
^3 O"o" co
E 1— 1— co
co or oro
SCO
CO
to
CO
o
i
s
E
o
f
o
.9
lo
•o co
< 0) <
'jy-
I
£,
|
g
50
-------
ID
1
§
g
(O
41
c
u
•5
1?
¥
£
53
1 '
•Si.
J If
1 fl
5- &o
1 "S 1
™ 3 "Si
i £"
i
i
0> (0
1 |
* f
_O
£ *=
•°'53 ^ «
« iS -2 g c
ill
8 is-gE-o
ip'l^r
=>E 1 «>•§
•c5
15 "5
o o
il
¥S =
Chronic effec
suppressed f
populations ii
streams
.c
&
O
or
g
fe
eleased during
erations
"- Q.
0 0
1 C
S 'c
O E
Interview
o
I
g
o
8
£.
o
i
_r-
&
g
of
g
s
1
a
i
CD
5
Report to
Congress
O
•o
i
«" S2
c5 O
£,«
!".£
a^
•5-3
o o
'c '&
5£
OS
c
S-^.
11
x:
I
5"
of
g
§
.1
i
o
O
Report to
Congress
o
t
x
S
o
^
o
'•§
^
in
(3
I
S
(0 d)
211
2-1 i §>§
'S|*l3.
T3^ 0 g g §
§1-2^11
of"8 1 is
*- ® « -^ O ±i
Q.S « 5O rt
o
o
I
CD
i
1
1
CD
s
0
1
m
^_^
"8 ^
lc
1^
0 ^
"o ^-
i£l.
|
8.
•5 ' .
5
6
Report to
Congress
O
„
i
II
^•'io
11
II-
*J m 3
o-g o
«= 0 ra
CD ** -D
0 «> £
* O) TO *^
¥
s
s
•g
C8
g
of
g
SJ
1
CD
5
"C i_
a. c
CD O
CEO
i
^
CD
•^f m
0 0
f~ w
o
^i?
flj Co
^ "5
OS
£.,
1
i
i
^•~-
§s
E o
SI
C?
CC
g
s
gram is setting
for protection
ment
RCRA pro
standards
of environi
Interview
O
^
a
~~> t/t
°- 'co
11
§1
^>
|
O ^s
c
o
1
1
c
81?
— 'S
o-|
CO o
^
I
s
5
8
CD
TO
g
6
Report to
Congress
2
TJ
i
1|
Q-'S
A (0
O O
g-2
s: o
OS
0
IdTg
f^ 0) ^
o sS c 1
^ CD 53 o>
c
o
I
CD
I
0
DC
O
oc
s
tandards RIA
Location S
T3
Considere
*
f
o
i
CD
5
£
CD
U
'c
6
•s
e.
"c
.
1'
I
1
CD
&
51
-------
10
1
1
•si
o .!£
c
§
•§
•§
•f!
W
s
1.
!»% %2
sms Identified by the Strove;
Valued Ecological
System or Ccmponer
8
§
1 1
1 £
J 1
1
I
C
jJ:
|1
S ifcC
2
o
°
•s
6
Chronic adverse
effects on growth,
reproduction,
development, or
survival
Wildlife (terrestrial and
aquatic)
g
§
&
8
CD
o
I
•a
"c
6
Benthic communities
(aquatic macro-
invertebrates; biotic
indices of)
ST
cr
I
o
DC
8
1
CD
o
f
13
*P
Qj
§
Chronic effects
S
Biological diversity
(aquatic; as compared
a reference area)
c?
£
|
en
o>
|1
i*
1|
|ii.
CD LL D
Ib"1
5li
1
^
^
1
0
"£
6
o
g
€
O %:
Communities (aquatic;
use of AWQC)
I
cc
I
8
CD
o
i
8
"p
5
c
"5
I
15
Food chain/food web
(aquatic)
I
1
T-
o
•f—
8
72
CD
1
|
i
6
Chronic effects on
predator-prey ratio
Predator-prey (aquatic
£
DC
g
§
8
1
CD
o
f
0
*c
§
Chronic effects
Riparian condition
CO
£
q
i
8
"5
CD
o
I
1
"c
6
Chronic effects;
observable stress
Species (aquatic
vertebrates)
CO
£
§
S
CD
•o
•g
CD
*
f
3
6
Chronic effects;
vegetative stress
Vegetation (aquatic)
£
DC
in
o
8
CO
"5
o
o
i
.§
cz
CD
Chronic effects;
disease
Vegetation (aquatic;
resilience to disease)
CO
cc
§
S
8
1
CD
5
f
.0
£
6
Chronic effects
Vegetation succession
(aquatic)
£
cc
o
DC
fe
o
^
_Q
•0
S
1 ^
0:8
O:DC
5
0>
'£
O
i
a
cz
CD
6
Acute and chronic
effects
i_
'<3
Water quality (state w
quality standards)
£
DC
CO
O
8
1
CD
o
2
1
E
6
Chronic effects;
disease
Wildlife (aquatic;
resilience to disease)
CO"
£
§
C"
«
£
i
o
&
1
Q.
£
JC
o
1
i
£
CD
6
.0
1
•u
II
Communities (aquatic
use of AWQC)
pc.
cc
£
o
52
-------
in
%
o
1
«
*
ll
U
c
8
§
0
•8
"3T
"C"
M
W
«
mtinued)
Concern(s)
lentified by the Survey (cc
Valued Ecological
System or Component
2
1
S
°> CO
O Q)
i i
< §,
^ £
cb
3
|2 =«=
5
1
o
CD
j£
1
*
O
co
'5 •
CD
o
|
s
75
,o
'£
O
s:
O
Acute and chronic
effects
Community health and
structure (as compared
with reference conditions;
e.g., benthic and wetland
communities)
|
CC
s-
T- •
^
|i
>, CD
| a
•° S
II
£ i
8
S
"O
'3
CD
o
f
S
75
.S
E
CD
s:
O
Endangered and
threatened species
(habitat)
u?
DC,
DC
CM
8
S
2
CD
o
f
2
75
.9
E
CD
O
1
%
LL
25"
DC,
DC
O
DC
CO
o
t
I
75
.0
E
O
Acute mortality
(i.e., evidence of
excess mortality)
LL
u?
DC.
DC
^.
^ ,
CO
c:
'c
•Stz
"O Q_
0
m
—
O
f
2
75
'g
CD
O
Chronic
contamination
Food chains (terrestrial
and aquatic)
LO"
DC,
DC
o
DC
in
CD
3
CD
o
'5
'x
75
tO
*£
CD
6
Acute and chronic
effects; mortality,
growth, and
reproductive
impairments
Individuals (terrestrial and
aquatic)
to"
DC,
DC
s
CO
8
c
CO
•o
•3
O
o
t
X
S
75
o
1
CD
o
Acute and chronic
effects; mortality,
growth, and
reproductive
impairments
Populations (terrestrial
and aquatic)
D?
§
^
-^
8
i
T3
'3
C5
-
"x
~ca
o
'E
CD
.C
O
Acute and chronic
effects; absent or
stressed vegetation
Vegetation (terrestrial)
£
2
8
00
T—
£
(/) CO _
||1
tw s
•— ^-^
.Mof
NCD-.S
8
*o
'3
o
i
CO
i
CO
75
,o
Q
^
O
CD
Chronic effects of
introduced species
CD
1
of
DC,
DC
O
DC '
O)
1
o
o
CO
"1
DL
£
CD
£'
—
0
2
X
75
.0
'cz
O
.0
1
€
!«
0 !§
Water quality (state water
quality standards)
to"
|
o
CVJ
o>
c
fe
If*= 1
cd c" p
a: .2 £
c JS "o
III
O O CD
20 5
.2
c
0
0
'x
0
75
'g
O
Chronic effects
Wetland community
structure
in
DC,
DC
o
DC
,_
CM
53
-------
«
S
3
w
41
ll
<(§
U
•5
•jj-
1"
n
QJ
5
S
f 1
1 "
Q.
If!
i n
JO] >>
^ W
n
0
1
I I
o ^
' D)
s *
5
(2 %
CD
ffl
2
3
o
o
1
s
1
*H
g
c f)
:S ^3 ^*
B w o S
CD ** 1^ -
S Sp q>
LLJ S 5 -S-
1
m
o"
T~
£
or
g
CM
?!
8
*o
'±3
a
o
1
0
"ffl
CI
0
j?
S
I
i
°m
o"
E.
or
o
or
CO
CM
§
2
3
C3
o
!|
2
'co
.a
6
o
V- c
l»-l
.c o t;
0 (j, ffl
s
III!
•7?
Community (aquatii
o"
EC.
or
^.
CM
T-
m
1
2
3
o
i
"g
'x
0
•ffl
.a
E
CD
O
Endangered and
threatened species
(critical habitats of)
o"
or.
or
g
co
CM
8
T3
°3
C5
o
ig
s
1
£
o
&
o
3
•g
C
o1
CC.
or
g
N
Si
8
T3
°3
CD
O
^o
3
1
E
O
O
c co
s — S"
•i H 2 o>
ai CD 'i-£-
•g
u.
o"
DC.
or
CO
?i
8
c
ffl
'5
0
o
1
S
'cfl
.0
E
CD
O
15
.a
lei
IQ
CM
.
£-3
o
E
CD
CO
to
CD
1
ifc*
JjJ
o
5
s
CD
m
O
z
"x
S
«
o
E
CD
.C
O
I
c
o
I
•g
iZ
o"
E
£
11
o
CO
CD
if
«
c3
3
Q
Kg"
U_ ffl
ffl ^
cow
S
CD
m
O
H
a-
'o
x
"ffl
1
CD
.c
0
c
o
Bioaccumulat
Food chain/food web
(terrestrial and aquatic
organisms)
o"
E.
^
o
or
T-
CO
•
8
c
CO
•o
o
z
•s
Q
IB
'£
£
o
9>>,,_
Evidence of
reductions in
nutrient cyclin
e.g., unusuall
thick leaf littel
Nutrient recycling
(terrestrial)
o"
E
or
01
CM
2
8
s
3
0
o
z
•55
S
'ca
'E
.c
O
Species (any "importanf
biological organisms;
terrestrial and aquatic)
o"
E
|
1
CO
CO
b
c
p
!•£
ffl CD
c'cD
CL Q.
"CD c
> ffl
CD CD
Q o
CD
"O
3
0
Z
'><
S
"a
'E
o
j=
O
c
C5 i_ O
c o'-g
S-SiS
Acute and ch
effects; abser
stressed veg«
Vegetation (terrestrial)
S"
E
|
ai
^
54
-------
to
0
z
Source
•s.1
o ,S2
11
E
0)
o
g
0
•5
'<«'
CO
^^
42.
E
s>
V 0
§ g
•j O
c o
•tS
1; ^
Identified by the Sui
Valued Ecological
System or Compoi
in
E
0)
o
o
0
1
O) m
-7. AIIEcolo
Program Are<
D
_o
(2 *
Guidance
O
.£•
:|
£
15
.9
E
o
^
O
0 z-
*C = (0
2 o § ® c
is Is l=r ° ^ '•§
T3 3 CD "« In 8
Si * ^5 "2 13 to
of > ctf ci to
"3 iu lo ^ '« "§ "®
^-"'ss-
S"
§
I'
15
cr
.2
o"
E
1
T-
Guidance
§
o
j>,
•|
2
15
.y
E
o
f—
0
_ CO
-5
S||
§ to1 -2
12 o *o
dj o 'i
1
RCRA (R10)
to
CO
HRS "sensitive
environmenf
1
^.
•§
2
.9
E
5
1
i
1
0
SUPERFUND
^
« c
till
^§-i<
88il
OC LU < CO
HRS "sensitive
environmenf
to
£.
0
X
0
I
E
ID
6
o
'c
o
•g
T3
C
*o
"x
1
S
'E
,
:§
s
1
CD
6
to
£
.0
§
CO
T3
0
SUPERFUND
§
55
-------
I
o
1
ri
u
"o
"w"
¥
w
is
to
f
=. g
§ £
1 "
>» •£
g n
f I|
1 ^3
^ |s
lit
1 >w
1
1
fCQ
&
•<
e
s s
g
^ £
di
Jl
S 1C
8
CC
UJ
Q
I
g
*B5
M
cl
1
*o
"x
0
73
.H
6
2
1
73
CD U
?*=
0- CD
•c
&
Birds (migratory wa
c
2
f
£
1
E
CD
6
§
co" J2
11
o o
si
i
u
Populations (aquati
terrestrial)
co
cc.
Q
UPERFUN
CO
^_
in
6,5
Q
o
CC
lif
Q
:="
]|
J3
to
-8
5
c
O
"(O
1
0
1
f
£
75
1
CD
6
•a
Species (aquatic an
terrestrial)
CO"
CC,
Q
z
u_
CC
UJ
Q.
ID
CO
CM
in
£
i
0
1
3
0
'£
CD
O
CO
8
=§
.9
c
O
L_
Wetlands (and othe;
natural habitats,
communities, and
ecosystems)
co
cc.
Q
z
o
Li-
CC
UI
Q_
:D
CO
CO
in
o
O '75 75
~ g —
^^ O. n>
CD ™ E
BSs.
^"•o
75 .c c co
||||
- ° °"8
5
.2
J:
CO
f
s
11
1
CD
6
§
„ 75
_E co
CD o
CO o
Benthic organisms
I
Q
Z
u_
cc
UJ
o.
o
CO
s
8
T3
0
i
1
£
1
'£
6
o
'c
2
•g
1^
jD "p
^cS
CD
CO
3
Community (aquatic
of AWQC)
in
Q
z
3
Li-
CC
UJ
OL
13
CO
1
O
O
g
2
CD
o
t
X
2
75
j=
6
g
o
Q
3
s:
CO
1C
in"
D
Z
U.
CC
UJ
0.
rs
CO
s
8
s
CD
o
f
S
13
'E
CD
6
^,
75
|f
"3 CD
75
Vegetation (terrestri
£
Q
Z
LL
cc
UJ
Q.
3
CO
fe
8
2
CD
0
f
2
I
E
s
0
2
•8
1^
-2 "S
•^75
0
i
Water quality (state
quality standards)
1
Q
Z
1
UJ
o_
3
CO
CO
in
^
CD
=
0
•O
0
CO
•£
"o
a.
"i
UJ
z
1
1
.a c
ili
> CO Ct
In
CC,
Q
Z
2
CC
UJ
CL
r)
CO
S
56
-------
3
0
8
O
O
to
*
o !<2
11
c
8
§
o
•5
•jy
"s"
w
£
CO
¥
=3- 8
1 I
8
entitled by the Survey i
Valued Ecological
System or Component
2
CO
c
1
8
^_
8
° i
LU C
«— m
< s.
s
N: CL
di
o
1 *
1
i
Q.
g
S
C.
O
£•
2
s
£
.c
o
o
c
2
CO
Benthic community
structure
^^
o>
C£
Q
Z
o
oc
LU
CL
CO
o
CO
J
0)
'£
S
—
O
I
s
s
£Z
5
O
o
c
2
Acute and ch
effects
CO
S
m
^~^
o>
D£
Q
Z
3
DC
LU
CL
CO
CO
5
CD
'£
—
0
£p
:x
s
I
x:
0
o
'c
2
Acute and ch
effects
Endangered species
_^
o>
EC.
Q
Z
O
DC
LU
CL
ID
CO
1
^
(D
°£
5
—
0
!a
£
15
.a
.C
0
o
'c
o
•5
•g
CO
II
Fisheries
^_
c»
DC.
Q
Z
ID
EC
LU
CL
CO
CO
CO
§
a.
^
CD
°£
S
C
I
jo
s
"c5
0
^
_o
"5
m
Food chain/food web
(aquatic and terrestrial)
_^
CD
D£
Q
Z
Z)
EC
LU
CL
CO
CO
5
o
t"
—
i
*x
3
a
.a
j=
0
o
'c
o
€
•g
11
< 0)
Riparian habitat
ff-^_
D£
Q
Z
3
DC
LU
CL
CO
CO
.^
CD
J'
—
i
"o
'x
2
15
.a
E
0)
.c
0
o
'c
g
1
i!
ye
< CD
cS
o>
1
£
i
^^
en
DC.
Q
Z
ZD
DC
LU
CL
CO
CO
CO
„
2-si
S & ^
1 !-£•
ffl 5J •&" §
oO S |
OEC.E 8
c
o
'w
8
Q
1
]o
3
"e5
.a
J:
0
o jj
2 *-
Pill
IPfl
^=§£.18
Benthic communities
(surrogates for exposed
and valued aquatic
ecosystems)
o"
E,
Q
z
13
DC
LU
CL
CO
fe
^
o
'£
S
—
I
"o
*x
s.
CO
o
E
CD
6
•a
Birds (migratory birds an
waterfowl)
o"
E.
Q
z
LL.
EC
LU
CL
CO
00
CO
Q
s
I
c
1
i
E
1
c
o
'
CD
0
8
m
0)
§
§
E
8
c
o
i!2
8
Q
CO
'o
'x
s
1
E
o
6
c
Bioaccumulat
Food chain/food web
(wildlife)
o"
E,
Q
z
LL
EC
U!
CL
CO
O
^
CD
"£
S
—
o
|
2
_o
0
Species (self-sustaining
commercially important
species, e.g., waterfowl,
salmon, trout, shellfish,
herring)
o"
E.
o
z
LL
DC
LU
CL
CO
f-
1
'£
S
—
o
1.
S
s
'£
CD
6
Wetland acreage (for
habitat value)
o"
E.
Q
z
LL
DC
LU
CL
CO
t
^
.92
';>
S
—
o
•5
•x
3
To
o
"E
CD
.C
0
*1\
Wetland acreage (for USE
in filtering or binding
pollutants)
o"
E.
Q
z
LL.
DC
LU
CL
CO
CO
57
-------
I
*
n
I
«
1
1
o
•5
&
i
I
E
O ^~
N 2
ES
.0.
0 „
1 1
0 3
so
1
1
CO
GL
f
"S
1
CD
6
Acute and chronic
effects;
"unreasonable
significant effects"
CO
I
1
I?
LU
I
CO,
CO
o
1
K
It
S to
o
E 2
.CL
c E
CO 3
50
Interview
15
CL
s
S
15
6
Acute and chronic
effects;
"unreasonable
significant effects"
3"
I
.£
1
I
CO,
CO
o
1
CO
f-
„
•— $
CC co
o
s
2
15
6
.9
€
s:
CO
iT
LU
8
I
F;
•r-
I
il
o
:§
2
1
CD
6
.0
§
•g
"O
15
3
JT
•S-
m
g
1
UJ^
8
1
S
„
E co
1
S
0
1
6
.9
o
•6
T3
§3
||
§
•g
I
S
g
UJ,
8
1
S
„
m
Risk
assessrru
Z
'o
*x
2
1
6
Chronic effects
o
|l|
|.| ">
£ E.|
^> O O
s
g
LU_
8
1
o
CO
1:
m
Risk
assessm<
0
'x
1
<5
o
°c
Q
•a
i«
13 Q)
O te
< ©
iT
"•£
CD
S
.2
§
I
8
i
5
z
CL
15
S
c
of
g «
t5 .9
.2 .52
CO -a
1
1
"x
"E
CD
O
Acute or chronic
effects; expected
exceedance of an
aquatic
"concentration of
concern"
CD
.21
OL.
8
1
CM
CO
Z
0.
15
•£
r~
(jy
H W
cd '55
= '8
co-o
0
i
1
~S
S
15
o
'E
CD
6
Acute or chronic
effects; expected
exceedance of
an aquatic
"concentration of
.E
CO
U.
DL,
«
1
8
58
-------
(0
z
£
3
O
CO
ll
••§8
• c
Identified by the Surve
Valued Ecological
System or Compone
m
O Q)
1 1
3 |
|2 *
z
Q.
13
•£
^
C (0
(0 c
"o .2
"§ 8
CO T3
£
1
1
!
0
p_
CD
6
Acute or chronic
effects; expected
exceedance of an
aquatic
"concentration of
concern"
Invertebrates (aquatic;
daphnia)
^
^
1.
CO
o
1
i
.g
s
CO
«
s
=£
o
•g E
'S <5
co -D
3
"g
•§
£
LL
f
1
£
6
Acute and chronic
effects; sublethal
effects
Benthic organisms
(sediment criteria)
^
or
LU
1 —
o.
EC
LU
1
it)
00
O
>
<
"o
^£
CD
Q.
CD
Z
'£
f
£
if
£
1
^
6
o
1
•s
T3
SI
Birds (fish-eating)
^
EC
LU
t—
EC
O.
WATER
CO
co
CD
Q.
o
§8
li
^^
i"l
c"
< "o
CD
'£
1
1
f
S
15
«
E .
CD
6
o
.E
O
3
Community (aquatic)
^
EC
LU
H-
EC
0
WATER
?
o
g
<
•5
"c
CD
Q
S
CD
'£
1
£
!
1
0
£1
CD
6
1
€
C
OS
II
Community (aquatic;
bioiogicaj integrity of;
^
EC
LL!
&~
EC
0
WATER
§
0
|>
<
"o
*C
1
t
o
Q
|
'£
1
1
1
1
6
Acute and chronic
effects
Endangered species
^
EC
LU
1 —
g
WATER
05
00
O
|>
<
"5
§*"*
Q.
CD
CO
"g
f
1
I
1
6
Acute and chronic
effects; sublethal
effects
;§•
I
J5
1
^
EC
LU
h~
g
WATER
o
o>
O
5
<
"o
y
.92
1
£
if
1
15
.0
E
CD
6
o
1
o
•a
il
Mammals (terrestrial,
fish-eating)
^
or
LU
1—
EC
O.
WATER
Z
0
3
<
-s
*c
o
f
>
Q
'g
1
1
i
s
c
CD
6
O
£
O
T3
I*
II
Species (commercially
important, including
salmonids)
^
EC
h-
'EC
0
WATER
S
o
§
<
"S
^s
E
t
(D
S
Q
'=»
f
1
!
s
6
Acute and chronic
effects
Vegetation (aquatic pic
^
E
i —
g
EC
I
i
O
§
5
"S
E
Q.
>
CD
£
i
£
LL
i
s
"c
6
.^
e
-5
CJ !§
Wildlife (terrestrial)
^
S
h~
g
WATER
o>
S
CO
0 ™
S:"5-
j(j *^ tn
13 | §
^ CD D)
& § §
< E a
8
ca
O
1
-a
i
Si_
o
11
E c?
£ "5
O5
Not improving
trends in chemical,
biological, and
physical integrity of
i
P
z
o
Q.
Z
o
or
LU
1
in
CO
59
-------
Z
8
ll
•5 "o
^1
c
0
B
O
•8
^T*
Stressor(!
*~»*
&
C
1 1
,<>_
r i
s Identified by the Sur
Valued Ecological
System or Compoi
!
I .
O S
1 1
J !
i
r~ 4^
CD
3
w
Approve/disapprove i
management plans,
award grants
Guidance
15
•^
8.
§
H
£t* u)
6s
"o
CO
"S $ so
CO Ci
"§E §
111
CD
1
1
Q.
I
fy
UJ
1
1
o
1o
Approve/disapprove i
management plans,
award grants
Guidance
1
o_
73
g
ll
1.8
^ CD
CL-fe
Chemical,
biological
CO
C CO
^ s
5 s
ll
i
p
o
a.
i
DC
1
fe
CD
1
Approve/disapprove :
management plans,
award grants
Guidance
_
^-*
S.
73
CO
«" S
•— 8
Q- (/)
Chemical,
biological
„
"cc
"o S
i^1
Ez zi
•i?
ft
Water (high-quality
waters)
|
z
o
oc
LU
1
§
"5 CD
CD ^
•p "5
£ <3>
CO
15
o
1
Q.
TJ
CO
Chemical
stressors
.0
c
0
•5
•o
O !t=
< O
Benthic organisms
1
O
3
•z.
8
DC
LU
1
1
Interview/
guidance
CO
£
is
Q.
E
ca
Chemical
stressors
.a
c
2
•S
E
ca
if
Endangered and
threatened species
1
O
CO
Q
_
CC
i
o
o
CM
CD §
'E «
ll
.£ D)
0)
2
1
1
a.
E
CO
Chemical
stressors
o
'c
g
.c
o
-a
< CD
.0
Food chain/food we
1
Q
"Z.
g.
DC
LU
O
CM
Interview/
guidance
CO
9-
is
a.
73
CO
Chemical
stressors
.a
2
€
73
O !fc
< O
f
^^
Habitats (aquatic; n
special, or sensitive
i
§
z
o
o
DC
LU
1
CM
CM
^ CD
CD 32
I §>
05
*
1
73
C
CO
Chemical
stressors
0
0
€
•o
C
<0
13 0)
1
Populations (balanc
indigenous)
1
O
CO
Q
•z.
8
oc
LU
1
CO
CM
Interview/
guidance
CO
15
o
f
a.
73
c
ca
Chemical
stressors
«
c
2
•8
E
CO
Si
"c
Species (water colu
1
o
&
z
8
cc
I
s
OJ
±i
|.|
III
Decision
CO
£
,,
i
li
1-8
(0
Chemical,
biological
S
Amphibians or repti
("herps of special
interest")
0?
t
DC
LU
DC
I
in
o
CM
Docking facility in
Humboldt County
permit review
Decision
CO
73
i
if
OT
Chemical,
biological
»
"c
CD
m
a>
cc
1
DC
LU
DC
LU
1
8
CM
EC-
CD P
-S.
CO 'O1 CD
|N
lit
III
Decision
CO
f
-a
C
(0
II
CO
15 15
£.
CD
15
o
8.
CO
p
i
m
oc
£
•s.
DC
LU
DC
LU
1
£
CM
E £•
Pamo Dam and
Reservoir project pe
review (vetoed perm
Decision
CO
£
,,
i
11
CO
Chemical,
biological
CO
Endangered specie
ST
a:
i
DC
LU
OC
111
1
00
q
CM
60
-------
1
z
o
3
Q
(0
*
-s.!
o.<2
^B O
c
0>
o
§
O
•5
S
o
55
co
=5* s
s c
1 5
^,
>> c
i 1
s 1|
1 f t5
^ | o
III
S gfr
T>
CO
C
1
3
J? 8
8 <
UJ c:
^™ ffl
3 2
< 0)
* I
d
o
*o
|2 ^
Docking facility in
Humboldt County
permit review
c
o
8
Q
1
i
t- 2
o
CD
^io
CO CO
c o>
53 ^
.c o
OS
•s
E
o>
a:
^
or
UJ
^— ^
DC
1
o>
o
CM
3
^
8 *• —
sit
1
8
°
CO
2
o
CO
CD
i
Q.
^
•§ | o.|
^ S c
*o ^ o o
. 2 E»
£2 CD o-S
o a. " 3
slsa
*
u.
ST
or
1
DC
LU
0-,
DC
LU
1
o
CM
s
.2
CD
TJ
O „ CO
£-| c
LU B ^
8§.<
c
o
1
Q
1
TJ
C
CO
i-l
D-'lo
To" 75
o .0
E -cn
j= 75
O J3
l"
1
.2
•a"
Habitat (upl
cT
a:
CO
^j
or
LU
*•- *"
DC
111
1
^_
CM
Docking facility in
Humboldt County
permit review
o
8
Q
1
«
75" 2
Q-'co
If
6S
75
1
^0,
1
3T
or
^
or
ui
*—^
or
1
CM
CM
A2
Pamo Dam and
Reservoir project perr
review (vetoed permit
§
;<§
g
D
c/>
I:
TJ
i'i
11
c5-7o
cr 'o)
dj J2
OS
^.^
75
I
Ci)
is
Mammals (
ciT
DC
g
DC
LU
*"-^
DC
1
CO
CM
S
CD
TJ ^~
C
.0
s
Q
CO
XD
T3
i
-31 CO
^f
f «
i|2
CO CD
o c3
If
j: o
OS
S
Id
1
CO
a.
if
S^
a:
CO
^j
DC
LU
**— '
DC
1
i(j-
CM
5
.2
CD
-TJ
O S3
0 Q.S
c
o
w
8
Q
CO
TJ
i
S^-
o
li
°-ln
75" 75
O O
"£="5)
c§l
0
1
in
Vegetation
water cham
characterisi
a>
or
§
oc
LU
^-^
or
1
in
CM
•'= ^
1.1
litf
CO O CD
i£!
lit
CLOT 1
c
o
»
8
Q
1
CO
75 2
o o
Q-'to
75 75
o o
'c 'o>
0 °
J= 0
OS
.|
o
TJ
C
OS
§f
< CD
TJ
§
1
t
C
O
a>
or
§'
in
Q_
"•— •*
DC
LU
1
CO
CM
5
.2
2
l|cf
p|
O Q.S.
c
o
f'
Q
1
v
a
75" 2
Q-'lo
s"g
||
o s
I
1
c
CD
Q.
.0.
CD
I
5T
or
^
DC
LU
"^•^
or
LU
1
1 —
CM
3
.2
TJ *~
5= jj^UJ
CO r> ^
ill
UJ S J2
8i.<
§
.w
S
0
CO
TJ
CO
CO £r
°-ta
CO CO
o o
j= 75
OS
y^.
To
8
Wetlands (i
ST
or
P
^
DC
UJ
•+**'
or
UJ
1
co
c\i
5
'£
•i
C
CO
t
•R
S
75
.Q
6
CD
75
0
c
6
CO
o
2
.Q
CD
Benthic inv
(aquatic)
^^
or
£
a
"*-^
or
1
en
CM
CO
75
San Francisco Bay D
i-
£
__
O
1
3
75
.0
6
CO
cfl a.
Endangerei
threatened
^_^
DC
Er""
a
*— ^
DC
LU
1
0
Si
61
-------
§
i
8
I
|
y
c
co
"o
•«•
Stressorl
I
^
g
rt
$
1
g
%
1
i
8
^
||
S CD
O :=•
CO
E
ST
or
a
WATER 1
Y—
Si
s
J:
S
^
CO £^
11
Physical !
chemical
„
^
Acute and chr
effects
t
a)
if
S5"
or
g
g
or
LU
I
CM
Si
1
1
0
Z
v
CO
, physical,
stressors
Chemical
biological
1
C
CO
•c
CO
Q.
ir
a?
or
§
or
LU
1
CO
CM
CM
.CD
i
o
2
1
Chemical
'c
CO
3?
or
g
o
or
I
^
CM
1
1
o
Z
B
15
.a
CD
6
C
O [< CD
Attainment of
water quality r
worse than 19
CWA Amendrr
1
cr
i
Sf
£
_j
i.
or
1
in
Si
CD
1
15
Is
°-
f
CD
O
o CD CD
Attainment of
water quality f
designated usi
fish and wildlif
1
cr
o
I
a>
or
£
_i
i.
or
1
co
CM
CM
of
O
°o
c
CO
LL
CO
8
CO
&
O
o
cd
15" 2
|?I
Chemical,
biological
0
£•
in "5*
Endangered and
threatened specie!
(survival and reco'
~
or
ESTUARY,
LL
CO
WATER (
N
Si
s-
m
g
"Q
C.
CO
LL
C
CO
CO
s
§
2
O
o
TJ
C
CO
, physical,
stressors
Chemical,
biological
1
rti *— %
Estuarine biota (hi
and abundance of
a>
or
ESTUARY,
LL
CO
WATER (
CO
Si
m
8
CO
*o
c
Of
u_
i
8
0
o
T3
cB
, physical,
stressors
Chemical,
biological
Estuarine habitats
(health of)
a>
or
ESTUARY,
LL
CO
or
1
O5
CO
0
CO
^
0
1
Chemical
Chronic effects
toxic sediment
accumulation
m
a?
or
ESTUARY,
LL
or
I
0
CM
8
CO
•53
O
CO
^
CO
f §
f* (D
Chemical,
biological
CO
CO
Reduction of
pollutant loadit
to estuary
3
1
LU
0)
or
ESTUARY,
LL
en
WATER (
CO
CM
8
a
o
c
CO
•="
or
ESTUARY,
LL
or
I
CM
1
0
z
TO
physical,
stressors
Chemical,
biological
.S
Q "JUT*
Fish (natural prodt
of anadromous fisi
£.
or
ESTUARY,
LL
CO,
or
I
CO
CO
CM
1
ci
CO
*•
CO
physical,
stressors
Chemical,
biological
c
Bioaccumulatic
p1
Food chain/food w
(terrestrial and aqi
ay~
or
ESTUARY,
LL
CO,
ffi
1
CJ
-------
z
i
il
sc "o
0)
u
J
•5
•§•
o
2
CO
!
Q) f^
C °
f 1
3 -™ O
to 8 9-
1^1
o> :> to
c
1
S
f i
8 <
111 C
C
== E
< §"
|C 0.
(ft
o
1
§r
m
8
'o
§
LL.
C
co
co
Guidance
O
1
CO
-5 CO
CD ^~
o o
00
F 'o>
""§
gi
T3 CD
T3 ^15 ®
Species (survival i
recovery of terrest
aquatic species in
85"
DC
: ESTUARY,
LL.
CO,
DC
LU
1
U)
CO
CM
Guidance
1
•i
CO
physical,
stressors
SS
E -D>
Si
CO
.CD
:^
CD °"
m C3>
il
3TJ
i
CJ?
DC
: ESTUARY,
LL.
OT.
tr
LU
i
CO
CO
CM
Guidance
1
1
CO
-f CO
So
'§,"
^* <1)
7573
II
§i
o ^
o ~o ®
ojo ^_r
*- 9-5 C
*5 E CD
ll-hf
"o ^ "g c Sj
DC
ESTUARY,
LL
CO
DC
1
CO
CM
Decision
_„
CO
Q.
1
.0
6
0 c
"c o
2 eo -i
*%$<„
| i 2 §
< CD CO CD
Soil organisms
LU
CO
Q
3
CO
DC
1
CO
CM
•5
CO
"CD
E" ^
Is
O N
.C TJ
O C
,_. CO
0.0"
Q.^
0 0
07=
Decision
CO
i
s
6
.&
0
|
1
Vegetation (crops)
LU
CD
Q
CO,
DC
LU
1
5
CM
Decision
_
I
2?
I
s
a
6
.a
J
TJ
§<0
SI
f
£
Wildlife (terrestrial
predators, e.g., sh
07
CD
a
CO,
DC
LU
i
5
CM
1
0)
1
E
3
1
S
75
2
Decision
1
1
3-
1
CD
O
.9
2
"§
TJ
ss
TJ
i
m
Wildlife (terrestrial;
plant-eating wildlife
domestic animals)
nr
1
CO,
DC
LU
1
—
1
"c
75
CO
Decision
75
1
B
1
CD
O
"I
0
o
O H—
< CD
TJ
§
Wildlife (terrestrial;
sludge-eating wildl
domestic animals)
U?
1
CO,
DC
1
CO
•**
CM
Interview/
guidance
1
CO
physical,
stressors
7575
.0 o
I o*
.E 0
O J3
O
-
•§
•g
s»
CD -K
= 8
Z%
•s
i
JO *«"
ll
1
5
DC
1
^:
CM
CO r^
'> C8
ss
£ o>
1
lw
11
"573
0 J"
5i
.9
2
^
o
?
ct)
0 -^
*-* o
3 CD
O ^—
^C CD
SS
Endangered specil
1
5
WATER
Uj>
CM
Interview/
guidance
1
TJ
g
physical,
stressors
s"s
E"g>
x: o
OS
o
"cz
2
TJ
II
1
Fish (high-quality t
streams)
to"
Q
g
DC
LU
1
CO
^-
Si
Interview/
guidance
CO
TJ
75" "
i|
ft!&
D)
CD -2
^ 0
OS
O
CD "a
3 C
cr CB
11
O CD
5 S ^
Wetlands (type)
55"
Q
g
CC
LU
1
§
CM
63
-------
I
s
3
ll
C
o
cS
"o
"if
I
W
f
A
W C
S3
1" 1
Identifted by the Sun
Valued Ecological
System or Compon
E
§
0
1
.H
c? i
"§ <
LU F
C
5 i)
r-j CL
*
r»
J~ 3£
"5 05
.§8
£ to
— ^
^
TJ
c3
physical,
stressors
f~1
O)
si
g
g
-§
•0
y a=
< <5
Wetlands (wetland
functions)
en
Q
T3
c3
"ctf 2
s"l
^ O)
61
•§
&
.c
o
•o
Wetlands (wetland
organisms)
£
DC
1
^
fc
DC
1
CM
Grant awarded
1
2
—
o
z
•o
c
CO
physical,
stressors
CO CO
.Q."
o!
0
c
o
-g
E
CO
H "^
<0,
I
i
CO
"LI-
DC
£
Z
3
fc
DC
LU
i
.,_
in
CM
Grants awarded
0
OJ
JC
o
z
c
CO
•Jo" 2
o o
* CO
53°
61
0
c:
o
•g
1
o *2
g M
_c
CO
>
•o
CO
11
"co 75
o o
li o"
jc 75
OS
o
'c
Q
JC
u
E
CO
3m
^C CD
CD ^^
O C ^^
Wetlands (maintenar
and increase in wetli
functions and values
5T
DC
co"
a
z
3
s.
DC
LU
1
CO
CM
Nesting habitat of tundra
swans and other
migratory waterfowl,
proposed determination
to withdraw Kuparik River
Unit from use as disposal
site
c
o
3
8
°
x
^
CO
CO >—
o o
•»sg
j= £
11
0 °"
j= 75
OS
•^ CD
•*-" *~
Birds (nesting habita
tundra swans and ot
migratory waterfowl)
c?
E
co"
Q
2^
fj
LU
§.
DC
LU
1
^~
CM
Tundra swans, proposed
determination to withdraw
Kuparik River Unit from
use as disposal site
c
o
8
Q
•o
CtJ
IS
o o
It
51
Birds (tundra swans)
0~
E
co"
Q
2
fj
LU
5.
DC
LU
1
in
in
CM
Skokomish River Delta
Project, aiding states/
local governments/tribes
in developing wetland
protection projects
§
"55
'8
a
JD
•a
CO
I|
11
1 °"
JC O
OS
.9
1
€
E
CO
CD ft
0 !§
G-
0
1
CD
a
o"
DC
co"
Q
~7
5
£
^
DC
LU
1
CO
in
CM
1
DC
1
8
Q
CO
^
^
CO
, physical,
stressors
CO CO
O o
If
£ 0
OS
Endangered and
threatened species
o"
E
co"
o
~7
5
LU
§
cc
i
N.
in
CM
West Eugene Wetlands
Study Area, aiding states/
local governments/tribes
in developing wetland
protection projects
1
s
Q
CO
4>
^
CO
§1
(0 CO
O c5
EC?
jc ~3
OS
.9
o
-g
E
CO
CD ft
g ,g
Endangered and
threatened species
(protect current
habitats of)
o"
E
Q"
tn
DC
I
CO
in
CM
64
-------
1
0)
!
g
w
*
v 'S
O 0)
•a
%
g"o
||
15 15
.9.9
£ CD
.c 'o
OS
o
'c
S
"O
Z3 CD
$1
Endangered and
threatened species
(protect current
populations of)
o
E
1
3
i
i
CO
in
CM
~St
West Eugene Wetlands
Study Area, aiding state:
local governments/tribes
in developing wetland
protection projects
c
•g
8
a
8
£
•o
i
f~ 1
°J
s"s
'c 'co
o S
.c o
OS
o
'c
o
•g
T3
<£t<5
Habitats (aquatic; e.g.,
juvenile salmon
nurseries, eel grass beds)
^_^
o
E
1
3
1
DC
1
CM
•St
West Eugene Wetlands
Study Area, aiding state;
local governments/tribes
in developing wetland
protection projects
c.
p
8
Q
8
^
a
8 0
1,8
i* CD
O O
§D>
O
Si
.
„
a
||
s"l
If
Si
4O
s
o
T>
•S'S
Wetlands (protect a
variety of)
-
o"
E '
1
5
i
DC
1
CO
CM
"ft
West Eugene Wetlands
Study Area, aiding state:
local governments/tribes
in developing wetland
protection projects
:!
8
D
1
^
c5
"75* ^
8 o
11
cd co
c5 o
If
Si
.0
s
o
T3
is
Wetlands (protection of
an interconnected system
of wetlands within a
sustainable, ecologically
sound system)
o"
E
£
•z.
i
DC
I
in
CO
CM
: c
g
?i
§ i
\j \j
.52 o>
p c.
CD '•&
-D OS
n "p
UJ 0
|s|
8 — >,
O CD 15 fc-
Dnsidered in an EPA decisior
locumented as being considi
m health or welfare were ac
may be considered in the fu
2 w *- E "S
CJ 05 o 3 <~
^ cd c .c "^^
ic^ai
lllll
o o S « °
1 "5 o 1
I'lllf
.S ^ "5 CD 8
O Q) « ^5 C
^C /i% ® o co
o=S|:.l!. "
8 co " '£ 3
•a ^ o * jS
o
«
65
-------
-------
Appendix E
Additional Comments From Office Interviews
E.I Policy Guidance
Other individuals within EPA also seek policy guidance
on a wide array of subjects, including:
• Protecting terrestrial ecosystems, habitats, biodiver-
sity, and important ecological values and functions.
• Defining national-level goals, public community-level
goals, EPA's role versus that of other agencies in-
volved in ecological protection, and the Regions' role
in protecting ecological resources.
• Sharing information with states and nongovernment
organizations (NGOs), applying information not de-
veloped by EPA, and linking up with ecosystem con-
cepts used by other agencies or NGOs.
• Assessing cumulative impacts, evaluating ecosystem-
level aspects of environmental problems, incorporat-
ing public input in setting pollution limits or criteria,
and quantifying the values or benefits of ecological
resources.
• Incorporating concepts such as forest fragmentation
and acid deposition in Agency assessments.
At present, senior management does not have a system
to compare various ecological effects, and no standard
national methodology exists to define "an effect of eco-
logical concern." One program area did state, however,
that its managers tend to rank risks to fish higher than
invertebrates, and invertebrates higher than algae, al-
though, from an ecological point of view, algae (primary
energy producers) and invertebrates (a vital food source
for fish) may be more important to the maintenance of
the aquatic system. This program area also stated that
direct effects (e.g., mortality caused by exposure to toxic
chemicals) are considered rather than indirect effects
(e.g., mortality caused by starvation as a result of a
contaminated food source) because they are easier to
document.
Some individuals commented that the significance of
exceeding an ecological criterion was unclear. Others
stated that the Agency-wide significance of ecological
decisions remain vague (i.e., Can ecological protection
statements made by the Administrator for one program
office pertain to other program offices as well?).
Some individuals state that the significance of ecological
impacts needs to be more clearly articulated and em-
phasized in EPA decisions. One program area stated
that the public often does not perceive undeveloped
habitats, such as a wetland, as valuable, and it is difficult
to convince the public otherwise. Some individuals ex-
pressed the view that economic and environmental
goals are still perceived widely by the general public as
incompatible concepts, and that the stringency of
cleanup levels for ecological concerns often receives
challenges from the regulated community. Others stated
that challenges also come from the public, especially
when a regulatory action may have an adverse eco-
nomic impact, such as a loss of jobs or reduced property
rights. Another individual noted that economic studies
that consider ecological resources are often controver-
sial; for example, one ongoing debate involves how to
value endangered species in economic terms.
E.2 Technical Guidance and Support
Program areas comment that guidance is needed on how
to carry out habitat restoration and mitigation, determine
habitat "replacement ratios," and delineate wetland
boundaries. Individuals also recommend that a credible
scientific link between toxicity tests (which typically evalu-
ate individual lethalities) and risks to higher levels of
biological organization (i.e., populations, communities, and
ecosystems) be established. Another program area states
it does not know how to predict population level effects
and will not ask for guidance until it is clear whether the
program needs to predict or demonstrate population
level effects before making a regulatory decision.
Several programs express difficulty in quantifying con-
centrations of and responses to chemicals actually
taken up by plants and animals. Another difficulty is
determining the relative contributions of all stressors
(e.g., chemical, physical, and biological) when deciding
on project areas. Other unresolved technical issues in-
clude choosing reference areas (e.g., an area with de-
sired environmental quality conditions for use in
regulatory comparisons with other similar, but contami-
nated areas); providing scientific justifications for assess-
ment endpoints used in risk assessments; relying on
quantitative analysis (e.g., attempting to explain dynamic
67
-------
events using simplistic, quantitative expressions); and
addressing incremental risks, contaminant mixtures, and
residue effects.1
Other recommendations for technical guidance and
support:
• Site-specific protocols that can be used and compared
among different types of sites.
• More research on the ecological effects of air pollution.
• Peer-reviewed standard models for conducting eco-
logical risk assessments.
• Standardized indicators (measurement endpoints) of
ecological risk.
• More terrestrial toxicity test methods.
• Good chronic bioassay tests for benthic organisms.
• Economic methods that consider the sustainability of
ecological resources.
• Better exposure models.
• Ecological risk assessment procedures for analyzing
stratospheric ozone depletion, global climate change,
losses in biodiversity, and cumulative impacts.
1 For example, the effects of a chemical residue in the tissues of an
organism (such as a Chinook salmon) on one of its predators (such
as a black bear or bald eagle).
E.3 information and Data
Various program areas report that more information is
needed on stressors, terrestrial risks, the effects of
certain chemicals or mixtures on plants and animals,
actual incidents of ecological harm, the descriptive and
quantitative aspects of wetlands, and data useful for
projects such as present and future geographic initia-
tives (e.g., Great Lakes and San Francisco Bay initia-
tives). One individual states that appropriate data are
not generally available for understanding the fate and
transport of ground-water contaminants that may dis-
charge to the surface and pose a risk to ecological
resources. Issues about access to existing ecological
databases, their usefulness to programs, and how they
should be maintained were not brought up by the pro-
gram areas interviewed. The survey failed to pick up
these important issues, which in the authors' opinion
should also be addressed by EPA. Many existing EPA
sources of ecological information (some of which are
already used by program offices) are described in the
Information Systems Inventory (U.S. EPA, 1994).
E.4 References
U.S. EPA. 1994. Information Systems Inventory (ISI).
EPA/220/B-94/001 (NTIS PB 94-107711). Washing-
ton, DC: Office of Administration and Resources Man-
agement. (January).
68
-------
Appendix F
Individual Office Summaries
69
-------
Acid Rain Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs
Office of Air and Radiation
AIR (ACID DEP)
Background
Decisions
The Acid Rain Program was established to reduce emis-
sions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The program
is driven by environmental concerns and employs inno-
vative, market-based approaches, as well as traditional
strategies (U.S. EPA, 1992).
Statutory Authority
Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA)
addresses requirements concerning the reduction of
sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions. Section 812
of the amendments mandates the evaluation of CAA
control program costs, benefits, and effectiveness, in-
cluding provisions in Title IV. Title IX requires data col-
lection, monitoring, analysis, and modeling to more fully
understand and track environmental indicators.
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
Section 401(a)(1) of Title IV of the CAA states: The
presence of acidic compounds and their precursors in
the atmosphere and in deposition from the atmosphere
represents a threat to natural resources, ecosystems
materials, visibility and public health."
Section 404 requires that the Administrator report to
Congress on the feasibility and effectiveness of an acid
deposition standard or standards to protect sensitive
and critically sensitive aquatic and terrestrial resources.
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
Research has shown unequivocally that adverse effects
on U.S. aquatic ecosystems have resulted from acid
deposition (Helme and Neme, 1991). Although studies
on forest damage do not show widespread adverse
effects, damage to high-elevation stands has been dem-
onstrated (Helme and Neme, 1991) as have such effects
on soils as nutrient depletion. Acid deposition also has
been shown to cause visibility degradation. Although the
Add Rain Program has given particular emphasis to
environmental impacts including effects on aquatic sys-
tems and visibility endpoints, high-elevation forests and
forest soils also are considered. Specific aquatic con-
cerns include:
• Effects on water chemistry
• Effects on species diversity
• Effects on sportfish
• Effects on aquatic species in general
• Effects on aquatic resources in general
Air quality-related values are protected in Class I areas—
where acid deposition might have a role—and often are
ecological in nature. These values are very specific to the
Class I area. A few examples of ecological concerns
include (Fox et al., 1989):
• High-quality waters that support a highly diverse
fishery.
• Bird populations.
• Natural diversity.
• "Coniferous and mixed coniferous forests that provide
the critical habitat for one of the last remaining and
viable eastern timber wolf populations in the conti-
nental United States."
References and Other Sources of
Information
Claussen, E. 1991. Acid rain: The strategy. EPA Journal
Fox, D.G., A.M. Bartuska, J.G. Byrne, E. Cowling, R.
Fisher, G.E. Likens, S.E. Lindberg, R.A. Linthurst, J.
Messer, and D.S. Nichols. 1989. A screening proce-
dure to evaluate air pollution effects on Class I Wil-
derness Areas. General Technical Report RM-168.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Helme, N., and C. Neme. 1991. Acid rain: The problem.
EPA Journal 17(1): 18-20.
U.S. EPA. 1992. Acid rain program: Overview. EPA/430/
F-92/01 9. Office of Air and Radiation.
70
-------
Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
AIR (OAQPS)
Background
Decisions
Decisions made by this Office involve identifying air
pollutants and issuing emissions standards and ambient
air quality criteria and standards. Although public health
is the primary concern, public welfare, which includes
aspects of environmental quality, is a secondary con-
cern. Specific decisions that the Office of Air Quality and
Planning Standards (OAQPS) can base on ecological
risk include those regarding:
• Listing and regulation of hazardous air pollutants or
other pollutants that endanger public welfare.
• Permits for new emissions sources (such decisions
can be delegated to the states and subject to OAQPS
review and petition control).
• Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), including consideration of ecosystem effects.
Statutory Authority
Sections 108 and 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) require
that EPA set primary air quality standards to protect
public health and secondary air quality standards to protect
public welfare. Section 111 provides for regulation of
stationary sources for noncriteria pollutants and pollut-
ants not regulated under other provisions; Section 112
requires the listing of hazardous air pollutants based on
both human health and adverse environmental effects.
Part C of the act charges federal land managers with the
responsibility of protecting the air-quality-related values
(e.g., bird populations, forest health) of Class I areas
(i.e., National Parks existing as of August 7, 1977, that
are larger than 6,000 acres, or other areas that have
been designated by states as Class I areas).
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
The CAA requires EPA to:
• "Protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air
resources so as to promote the public health and
welfare" (§101[b][1]).
• Regulate hazardous air pollutants that present "ad-
verse environmental effects" (§112).
• "Preserve, protect, and enhance the air quality in
national parks, national wilderness areas, national
monuments, national seashores, and other areas of
special national or regional natural, recreational, sce-
nic, or historic value" (§160[2]) and "prevent signifi-
cant deterioration of air quality in each" (§161).
• Welfare includes "effects on soils, water, crops, vege-
tation, animals, wildlife" (§302[h]).
Under the CAA, the "Administrator may assess the risks
to ecosystems from exposure to criteria air pollutants"
(§108[g]), and then set secondary ambient air quality
standards at levels that "protect the public welfare from
any known or anticipated adverse effects associated
with the presence of such air pollutant in the ambient air"
(§109[b][2]).
Also under the CAA, the Administrator is charged with a
number of specific responsibilities related to ecological
values:
• The Administrator must add to the list of hazardous
air pollutants those that "present, or may present...ad-
verse environmental effects whether through ambient
concentrations, bioaccumulation, deposition, or oth-
erwise..." (§112[b][2]). Adverse environmental effects
are defined as "any significant and widespread ad-
verse effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to
wildlife, aquatic life, or other natural resources, including
adverse impacts on populations of endangered or
threatened species or significant degradation of en-
vironmental quality over broad areas" (§112[a][7J).
• 'The Administrator, in cooperation with the Under
Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere,
shall conduct a program to identify and assess the
extent of atmospheric deposition of hazardous air pol-
lutants (and in the discretion of the Administrator, other
air pollutants) to the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay,
Lake Champlain and coastal waters" (§112[mJ).
• The Administrator must add to the list of Class I
substances any chemicals that cause or contribute "sig-
nificantly to harmful effects on the stratospheric ozone
layer" (i.e., chemicals for which "ozone-depletion
potential" is greater than 0.2), and must publish the
71
-------
"global warming potential" of each listed Class I sub-
stance (§603).
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
Ecological endpoints have been considered to varying
degrees in OAQPS decisions (Table F-1). Historically,
ecological concerns alone have not always provided a
sufficient basis for decisions. Notably, in 1971 EPA
promulgated a secondary annual standard for sulfur
dioxide due to its effects on white pines, aspen, and
crops. The standard was remanded and, with insufficient
information to overcome the court's concerns, the stand-
ard was revoked. In contrast, permitting decisions for
new emission sources based solely on ecological con-
cerns have held firm.
References and Other Sources of
Information
Clean Air Act. 1963. 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.
National Park Service (NPS). 1990. Technical support
document regarding adverse impact determination
for Shenandoah National Park (September).
Table F-1. Examples of OAQPS Decisions That Considered Adverse Ecological
Pollutant Was Decision Based on Ecological Risk?
Effects
Ecological Effects Considered During
Decision-Making Process
Aluminum reduction plant
emissions
Partially (both welfare and ecological values
considered)
Fluorosis effects (including effects on both cattle
and vegetation)
Sulfuric acid production unit Partially (both welfare and ecological values
emissions considered)
Physical damage to plants (e.g., foliar damage, tree
yields); forest ecosystem health (inferred from lichen
chronic exposure as measurement endpoint used to
set annual sulfur dioxide standard)
Sulfur dioxide
Secondary annual standard set in 1971, but later,
3-hour standard retained.
Effects on vegetation; white pines, aspen, and crops
Sulfur, nitrogen, and ozone
emissions
Yes, prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
decision; changed emission levels (authority was
delegated to states, but EPA had review and
petition control)
Ecological effects at Shenandoah National Park
(including hastening "the acidification of sensitive
streams within the park with resulting effects on
aquatic life" and threatening "sensitive park
vegetation") (NPS, 1990)
Sulfuric add deposition
Yes, PSD decision; permit for Half Moon Power
Plant in New York initially denied; later approved
with offsets required for new sources
Effects on aquatic ecoystems in New Hampshire
and Virginia
72
-------
Stratosphere Protection Division, Analysis and Review Branch
Office of Air and Radiation
AIR(STRAT)
Background
Decisions
The Analysis and Review Branch (ARE) is currently
developing a program for evaluating substitutes for ozone-
depleting substances as part of the Significant New
Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program. Decisions are cur-
rently proposed for approximately 300 substitutes. Al-
though when deciding on which substitutes represent
the best alternatives ARB considers ecological risk, it is
not considered a major issue (U.S. EPA, 1992b). Eco-
logical risk assessments play a minor role in ARB deci-
sions because (1) there is currently a lack of established
ecological risk assessment methods with respect to sub-
stitutes analysis; and (2) ARB is limited by the time
constraint imposed by the phaseout dates, leaving little
time to develop such methods (U.S. EPA, 1992b). In the
future, ARB hopes to incorporate more ecological analy-
sis into its decision-making process (U.S. EPA, i992b).
In their view, the ability to do so depends in large part
on the progress of joint Office of Research and Devel-
opment work studying the fate and transport of ozone-
depleting substances.
Statutory Authority
The overall policy of the SNAP Program is defined in the
Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990: To the
maximum extent practicable, class I and class II [ozone-
depleting] substances shall be replaced by chemicals,
product substitutes, or alternative manufacturing proc-
esses that reduce overall risks to human health and the
environment" (§612[aj). EPA js also charged with the
responsibility of promulgating rules (within 2 years of the
enactment of the Act of 1990) "providing that it shall be
unlawful to replace any class I or class II substance with
any substitute substance which the Administrator deter-
mines may present adverse effects to human health or
the environment" (§612[c]).
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
The safe alternatives policy is a very general statement,
the goal of which is to "reduce overall risks to...the
environment" (CAAA §612[a]). This clause is broadly
interpreted by EPA to include ecological risks (U.S. EPA,
1992b).
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
ARB studies various alternatives to determine which
ones are the safest in the environment. Specifically, ARB
has conducted aquatic toxicity and exposure analysis in
its evaluation of substitutes for aqueous and semi-aque-
ous cleaners (U.S. EPA, 1992b). Thus, one ecological
assessment endpoint that can be inferred is the protec-
tion of aquatic life by using concentrations of concern
derived by the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT) (U.S. EPA, 1992c).
References and Other Sources of
Information
U.S. EPA. 1992a. Briefing on EPA's Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program. Prepared for the Inter-
national CFC and Halon Alternatives Conference
(notice). Fed. Reg.
U.S. EPA. 1992b. Report on characterization of risk
from the use of substitutes for Class I ozone-deplet-
ing substances: Solvent cleaning (draft).
U.S. EPA. 1992c. Transcript of ecological risk manage-
ment survey: 1992 interview with Substitutes Analysis
and Review Branch, Stratospheric Ozone Protection
Division, Office of Air and Radiation.
73
-------
Region 5
Air Toxics and Radiation Branch, Air Division
AIR TOXICS (R5)
Background
Decisions
Region 5 Air Toxics and Radiation Branch (Air Toxics,
Region 5) is involved in the following activities and
studies that involve the incorporation of ecological infor-
mation:
• The Great Waters Study (Report to Congress).
• Ecological assessments of the impact of RCRA-per-
mitted incinerators on bald eagles.
• Outreach/education campaigns on phaseout of ozone-
depleting substances (ODSs) and labeling measures
(ecological effects are a very minor consideration in
this area).
• Identification of sources and categories of critical pol-
lutants.
• Water Quality Initiative (involves the determination of
the extent of air deposition; includes a mass balance
study).
Many of these activities play an important role in regu-
latory development.
Statutory Authority
Air Toxics, Region 5, has statutory authority relating to
Section 112 of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
(CAAA) for air toxics, and Title VI of the CAAAfor ozone
regulations. Under CAAA Section 112, the first Great
Waters Report to Congress was due in 1993; in 1995,
additional regulations will be established on ecological
grounds based on the first report. Although Air Toxics,
Region 5, has a global warming program, its statutory
and regulatory basis has not yet been established.
At present, Air Toxics, Region 5, believes it lacks the
statutory authority to take regulatory action based on
ecological concerns because criteria pollutant regula-
tions are human health-oriented.
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
While Title VI of the CAAA protects human health and
the environment, another goal of Air Toxics, Region 5,
is to protect aquatic systems from impacts of air depo-
sition. (See "Ecological Values To Be Protected" in the
Headquarters Office of Air Quality Planning and Stand-
ards summary.)
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
Ecological concerns that can be inferred from the Great
Lakes Regional Air Toxics Emission Inventory include
(U.S. EPA, 1992):
• Toxicity to aquatic life
• Bioaccumulative potential
Emission inventories are of fundamental importance for
the success of a regulatory program that seeks to pro-
tect the Great Lakes ecosystem (U.S. EPA, 1992).
The Great Waters Study evaluates several ecological
endpoints:
• Bioaccumulation in the food web.
• Effects of persistent toxic substances on fish, birds,
mammals, and Great Waters ecosystems.
• Reproductive effects.
• Eutrophication.
An ecological endpoint evaluated in the ODS phaseout
outreach program was the effects of air toxics on marine
phytoplankton.
References and Other Sources of
Information
U.S. EPA. 1992. States' air regulatory agencies efforts
for Great Lakes protection (May).
74
-------
Great Lakes National Program Office
GLNPO (R5)
Background
Decisions
The main responsibilities of the Great Lakes National
Program Office (GLNPO) include data collection, re-
search and monitoring, surveillance, habitat restoration,
sediment assessment, nonremedial action plans,
lakewide management plans (LaMPs), and nonregula-
tory programs. Ecological concerns are important con-
siderations in regard to these responsibilities.
Statutory Authority
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA)
and the Critical Programs Act provide statutory authority
for GLNPO.
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
The GLWQA establishes the following overall goal: "re-
storing the chemical, physical and biological integrity of
the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem" to
"achieve healthy populations of plant, fish, and wildlife
populations" (COE et al., 1991).
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
Ecological concerns include (COE et al., 1991):
• Reduction of "the level of toxic substances in the Great
Lakes and surrounding habitat, with an emphasis on
persistent toxic substances, so that all organisms are
adequately protected and, over time, these sub-
stances will be virtually eliminated from the Great
Lakes Ecosystem."
• Protection and restoration of "habitats vital for the
support of healthy and diverse communities of plants,
fish, and wildlife, with an emphasis on wetland habi-
tats and those habitats needed by endangered and
threatened species."
• Restoration and maintenance of "stable, diverse, and
self-sustaining populations of fish, other aquatic life,
wildlife and plants, to the Great Lakes Basin Ecosys-
tem."
The lakewide management planning process for Lake
Michigan is "designed to reduce loadings of toxic pollut-
ants...to levels where the living resources of Lake Michi-
gan are no longer imperiled" (U.S. EPA, 1992). GLNPO
provides funding for habitat restoration projects.
References and Other Sources of
Information
Habitat restoration project abstracts.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), U.S. Coast
Guard, U.S. EPA, et al. 1991. Protecting the Great
Lakes: Our environmental goals and how we plan to
achieve them.
U.S. EPA. 1992. Lake Michigan lakewide management
plan (draft) (January 1).
75
-------
Office of Federal Activities
NEPA (OFA)
Background
Decisions
The Office of Federal Activities (OFA) works closely
with other federal agencies when they make decisions
that might affect the environment. Within EPA, OFA is
responsible generally for reviewing the environmental
impacts of major federal initiatives, including Agency-
proposed legislation, regulations, and major actions
(e.g., those requiring environmental impact statements
[EISs] under the National Environmental Policy Act
[NEPA]), OFA reviews and rates EISs in terms of envi-
ronmental acceptability and adequacy of documenta-
tion. More generally, OFA decisions involve:
• Deciding what to review.
• Rating each reviewed document.
• Determining the content of a comment letter.
• Deciding whether to refer unacceptable documents
to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
OFA also has responsibility for overseeing EPA's own
compliance with NEPA and related statutes (e.g., the
Endangered Species Act), and provides expertise on
international issues concerning environmental impact
assessment.
Statutory Authority
EPA has general statutory authority under NEPA and the
CEQ regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). The pur-
poses of NEPA include: To declare a national policy
which will encourage.. .harmony between man and his
environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or
eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere...;
[and] to enrich the understanding of the ecological sys-
tems and natural resources important to the Nation"
(NEPA §2). EPA has specific authority and responsibility
under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act to conduct re-
views and to comment in writing on proposed federal
legislation and regulations, as well as on newly author-
ized major actions.
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
NEPA (§101 [b]) states that it is the goal of the Nation to:
• Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trus-
tee of the environment for succeeding generations.
• Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive,
and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.
• Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the envi-
ronment without degradation, risk to health or safety,
or other undesirable and unintended consequences.
• Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural as-
pects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever
possible, an environment which supports diversity,
and variety of individual choice.
• Achieve a balance between population and resource
use which will permit high standards of living and a
wide sharing of life's amenities.
• Enhance the quality of renewable resources and ap-
proach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable
resources.
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
Reviews performed by OFA are largely qualitative in
nature. While OFA has not established its own thresh-
olds, it uses those of other program offices and federal
agencies on a case-by-case basis. OFA uses best judg-
ment in considering the size, value, and uniqueness of
impacted areas; total loss; proportional loss; and con-
siderations of loss relative to what is available. OFA has
more specific measures for decisions regarding terres-
trial biota, including productivity, connectivity, and over-
all importance to other wildlife.
OFA considers the following ecological risk endpoints
when rating the environmental impact of an action (U.S.
EPA, 1984):
• Violation of "a national environmental standard."
• The "potential for significant environmental degradation."
• The "significant environmental impacts."
• The "severity, duration, or geographical scope of the
impacts."
• A "threat to national environmental resources or to
environmental policies."
76
-------
Examples of specific ecological concerns that have
been used in OFA decisions are provided in Table F-2.
References and Other Sources of
Information
Sanderson, RE. 1988. EPA and NERA: Cases in point.
EPA Journal. January/February: 25-30.
U.S. EPA. 1991. Perspective on environmental risk:
Nexus between EPA and Science Advisory Board's
recommendations on reducing risk. Office of Enforce-
ment, Office of Federal Activities.
U.S. EPA. 1984. Policy and procedures for the review
of federal actions impacting the environment. Office
of External Affairs, Office of Federal Activities.
Table F-2. Examples of OFA Decisions Based on Ecological Risk
Project Review Date; Decision Type
Assessment Endpoints Considered in
Decision
Department of Agriculture (DOA) Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) grasshopper control project
(spraying with 3 pesticides)
1986; environmentally unsatisfactory (EU)
(1) Potential for damaging surface waters;
(2) threatening wildlife (especially endangered
species); and (3) contaminating cattle meat
(Sanderson, 1988)
Soil Conservation Service, DOA Delmarva 1987; EU (Region 3)
drainage improvement project
Losses to riparian habitats and wetlands
associated with Chesapeake Bay tributaries
(Sanderson, 1988)
Tennessee Valley Authority barge
terminals project
1992; EU/2 environmentally unsatisfactory,
insufficient information (Region 4)
(1) Potential water quality and wetland
impacts; (2) loss of habitat and biodiversity;
and (3) cumulative impacts
Appalachian Corridor H
1993; EU2 (Region 3)
Impacts to remote habitats, wetlands, and
streams
77
-------
Region 3 NEPA, Environmental Services Division
NEPA (R3)
Background
Decisions
Like the Office of Federal Activities, the Region 3 Environ-
mental Services Division performs National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) reviews on environmental impact
statements (EISs). The Division also participates in stra-
tegic planning, in an environmental indicators develop-
ment project, and in a terrestrial ecosystem initiative.
Statutory Authority
EPA has general statutory authority under NEPA and the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40
CFR Parts 1,500-1,508). The purposes of NEPA include:
To declare a national policy which will encourage...
harmony between man and his environment; to promote
efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the
environment and biosphere. ..; [and] to enrich the un-
derstanding of the ecological systems and natural re-
sources important to the Nation" [NEPA §2].
EPA also has authority under the Pollution Prevention
Act (PPA) "to promote the use of source reduction tech-
niques by businesses" (e.g., by giving grants to states)
(PPA §6605[a]).
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
The Region 3 Environmental Services Division protects
natural resources and the environment in general. Spe-
cific ecological values are presented in the Headquar-
ters Office of Federal Activities summary.
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
The following ecological concerns are considered in
rating the environmental impact of an action:
• Violation of "a national environmental standard"
(U.S. EPA, 1984).
• "Potential for significant environmental degradation"
(U.S. EPA, 1984).
• "Significant environmental impacts" (U.S. EPA, 1984).
• 'The severity, duration, or geographical scope of the
impacts" (U.S. EPA, 1984).
• A "threat to national environmental resources or to
environmental policies" (U.S. EPA, 1984).
• "Potential impacts to valued natural resources."
EPA tends to focus on water and air quality concerns
and pollution prevention concerns. The Fish and Wildlife
Service is responsible for protecting endangered and
threatened species and the National Park Service pro-
tects cultural sites. Historically, protection of air and
water quality and wetlands has been the driving concern
in Region 3. More recent concerns include protection of
terrestrial ecosystems and neotropical migratory birds.
Examples of specific ecological assessment endpoints
that have been used in Region 3 EIS rating decisions
are given in Table F-3.
References and Other Sources of
Information
Erickson, E.B. 1990. Letter from the Regional Adminis-
trator, U.S. EPA Region 3, on the Southeastern Ex-
pressway, Chesapeake/Virginia Beach.
Esher, D. 1991. Letter from the Chief, Environmental
Planning and Assessment Section, U.S. EPA, on the
Woodrow Wilson Bridge Improvement Study, Draft
Environmental Impact Statement.
Laskowski, S.L. 1993. Letter from the Acting Regional
Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 3, on the Appala-
chian Corridor H Highway Project.
Pepino, R.V. 1992. Letter from the Chief, Environ-
mental Assessment Branch, U.S. EPA, on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement/Section 404 Permit
Application, Lackawanna Valley Industrial Highway,
Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania.
Sanderson, R.E. 1988. EPA and NEPA: Cases in point.
EPA Journal. January/February:25-30.
U.S. EPA. 1992. Transcript of ecological risk manage-
ment survey: Interview with personnel from Region 3
Environmental Services Division (March 10).
U.S. EPA. 1984. Policy and procedures for the review
of federal actions impacting the environment. Office
of External Affairs, Office of Federal Activities.
78
-------
Table F-3. Examples of Region 3 NEPA Decisions Based on Ecological Risk
Project
Decision Type
Ecological Concerns or Assessment Endpoints
Considered in Decision
Southeastern Expressway, Virginia
Environmentally unsatisfactory
(EU)
Potential impacts to wetlands and water supply, and
secondary impacts such as promoting development in a
sensitive area (Erickson, 1990)
Appalachian Corridor H: proposed
110-mile highway, West Virginia
EU
Potential impacts to streams, National Forests, and other
natural resources (Laskowski, 1993)
Lackawanna Valley industrial highway
project
Lack of objections (LO)
Extensive information and data were provided on
environmental features, allowing for avoidance of sensitive
resources (Pepino, 1992)
Woodrow Wilson Bridge improvement
project
Environmental objections (EO);
environmental concerns (EC)
Adverse impacts to aquatic ecosystems; potential impacts to
wetlands, air quality, and ground water; impacts to "excellent
habitat for ducks and other waterfowr (Esher, 1991)
Soil Conservation Service,
Department of Agriculture, Delmarva
drainage improvement project
1987, EU (Region 3)
Losses to riparian habitats and wetlands associated with
Chesapeake Bay tributaries (Sanderson, 1988)
Appalachian Corridor H
1993, EU-2 (Region 3)
Impacts to remote habitats, wetlands, and streams
79
-------
Region 5 NEPA, Planning Assessment Branch
NEPA (R5)
Background
Decisions
The Region 5 Planning Assessment Branch incorpo-
rates ecological concerns in National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) reviews, strategic planning, Indian
programs, and comparative risk analyses.
Statutory Authority
EPA has general statutory authority under NEPA and the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40
CFR Parts 1500-1508). The purposes of NEPA include:
To declare a national policy which will encourage. . .
harmony between man and his environment; to promote
efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the
environment and biosphere...; [and] to enrich the un-
derstanding of the ecological systems and natural re-
sources important to the Nation" (NEPA §2). EPA has
specific authority and responsibility under Section 309
of the Clean Air Act to conduct reviews and to comment
in writing on newly authorized major actions.
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
The Region 5 NEPA program protects natural resources
and the environment in general. Specific ecological
values are presented in the Headquarters Office of Fed-
eral Activities summary.
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
Saving rare ecosystems and "[h]igh quality habitats"
(Schneider, 1992) are ecological endpoints of the Re-
gion 5 NEPA program. Examples of specific ecological
assessment endpoints that have been used in Region 5
NEPA decisions are provided in Table F-4.
References and Other Sources of
Information
Franz, W.D. 1990a. November 30, 1990, letter from
the Chief, Environmental Review Branch, U.S. EPA, to
Duane D. Dick regarding the Sunken Camp Area of
the Chequamegon National Forest.
Franz, W.D. 1990b. October 2, 1990, letter from the
Chief, Environmental Review Branch, Planning and
Management Division, U.S. EPA, to Dan Pritchard re-
garding the DEIS for the proposed improvement of Wis-
consin State Highway 54.
Schneider, J.P. 1992. High quality habitat protection
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Proposal.
Geographic Information Systems Management Office.
Table F-4. Examples of Region 5 NEPA Decisions Based on Ecological Concerns
Project Ecological Concerns Considered in Decision
Changed proposed highway route in
Wisconsin
Protection of a high-quality remnant prairie with valuable plants (habitat of the state-classified
"watch" species, the Kamer Blue butterfly) (Franz, 1990b)
Army set aside 4,000 to 8,000 acres Protection of high-quality oak and savannah pine barrens
In Wisconsin
Suit against operators of underground Protection of warbler habitat
injection wells in Michigan
Agency helped get timber industry to
abide by management plans in
northwest Wisconsin
Protection of songbirds in northern hardwoods and pines
EIS rating of environmental objections
(EOs) on management plan for
Sunken Camp Area of Chequamegon
National Forest
Potential reduction in species diversity (Franz, 1990a)
80
-------
Region 9 NEPA, Office of External Affairs
NEPA(R9)
Background
Decisions
Like the Office of Federal Activities, the Region 9 Office
of External Affairs (OEA) performs NEPA reviews on
Environmental Impact Statements (EISs).
Statutory Authority
EPA has general statutory authority under Section 309
of the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), and the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) regulations (40 CFR Parts 1,500-1,508). The
purposes of NEPA include: To declare a national policy
which will encourage... harmony between man and his
environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or
eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere ...;
[and] to enrich the understanding of the ecological sys-
tems and natural resources important to the Nation"
(NEPA §2). NEPA also requires disclosure and compli-
ance under other appropriate laws and regulations.
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
The Region 9 OEA protects natural resources and the
environment in general. Specific ecological values are
presented in the Headquarters Office of Federal Activi-
ties summary.
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
Ecological assessment endpoints considered by the Re-
gion 9 OEA include the following:
• Protection of wetlands, sloughs, streams, rivers, and
state and federal refuges.
• Protection of special rare habitats (e.g., coastal sage-
scrub).
• Water quality standards (but in some cases these are
not sufficiently protective, e.g., selenium).
• Effects on surface water and wetlands hydrology
(e.g., 1000 Springs Power Plant) (U.S. EPA, 1990;
Wieman, 1992b).
• Preservation of biodiversity (U.S. EPA, 1990, 1991).
• Discharge of high total loads of selenium into aquatic
systems (Seraydarian, 1992; Wieman, 1992a).
• Unacceptable hazards to wildlife (Wieman, 1992a).
• Protection of threatened and endangered species.
• Protection from invasive species (e.g., the brown-
headed cowbird) and exotic species.
• Protection of habitat corridors.
• Protection of riparian habitat (e.g., Glen Canyon
Dam).
Examples of specific ecological assessment endpoints
that have been used in Region 9 EIS rating decisions
are given in Table F-5.
References and Other Sources of
Information
Seraydarian, H. 1992. Correspondence from the Direc-
tor, Water Management Division, U.S. EPA Region 9,
regarding the Farmington Canal (June 12).
U.S. EPA. 1991. December 1991 Region 9 comments
on Mohave Valley Resort DEIS.
U.S. EPA. 1990. October 1990 Region 9 comments on
Spirit Mountain DEIS.
Wieman, D.M. 1992a. Correspondence from the Direc-
tor Office of External Affairs, U.S. EPA Region 9,
regarding comments on the DEIS for San Luis Drain-
age Program, Central Valley Project (April 17).
Wieman, D.M. 1992b. Correspondence from the Direc-
tor Office of External Affairs, U.S. EPA Region 9,
regarding the Farmington Canal (July 16).
81
-------
Table F-S. Examples of Region 9 NEPA Decisions Based on Ecological Risk
Project Ecological Concerns Considered In Decision
National Forest spotted owl
management plan
Protection of threatened species
Spirit Mountain Lake
Preservation of biodiversity (U.S. EPA, 1990)
Mohave valley Resort
Preservation of biodiversity (U.S. EPA, 1991)
San Luis Unit Drainage Program
(1) Discharge of high total loads of selenium into the San Joaquin River, (2) unacceptable
hazards to wildlife (Wieman, 1992a)
Farmington Canal
Effects on hydrology (flow) (that may ultimately adversely affect juvenile salmonids)
(Seraydarian, 1992; Wieman, 1992b)
82
-------
Office of Pesticide Programs
PESTICIDES (HQ)
Background
Decisions
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) decisions involve
weighing the risks associated with the pesticide under
consideration against the benefits of use and against the
relative risks of alternative control methods. Ecological
risks alone can provide sufficient grounds for OPP to
prohibit the use of a particular pesticide. More fre-
quently, however, ecological risks are weighed along
with human health risks, which help to tip the balance.
Various types of decisions at OPP make use of ecologi-
cal information, including decisions involving:
• Special review.
• Registration (e.g., existing uses, new uses, new
chemicals, full registration).
• Reregistration.
• Experimental use permits.
• Emergency exemptions ("section 18s").
• Special local needs (minor additional uses).
Statutory Authority
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) requires that before a product can be registered
unconditionally, it must be shown that it can be used
without "unreasonable adverse effects on the environ-
ment" (FIFRA §§3[c][5] and 3[c][6]); that is, without caus-
ing "any unreasonable risk to man or the environment,
taking into account the economic, social and environ-
mental costs, and benefits of the use of the pesticide"
(FIFRA §2[bb]).
Pesticide regulation also comes under the authority of
other legislation. The Endangered Species Act (ESA),
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) prohibit unpermit-
ted kills of individual members of endangered or threat-
ened species, migratory birds, or bald or golden eagles.
ESA requires that EPA use its authority to conserve
listed species (ESA §7[a][1]) and ensure that any action
it authorizes, funds, or carries out will not be likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or
to result in the destruction or adverse modification of the
critical habitat of a listed species. This duty extends to
licensing activities, such as the registration of pesti-
cides. Another act of Congress, the Organotin Antifoul-
ing Paint Control Act (OAPCA), aims to protect aquatic
life by limiting the use of tributyltin (TBT) compounds.
OPP can initiate a special review of a pesticide if the
Administrator determines, "based on a validated test or
other significant evidence," that the use of the pesticide
may (1) "result in residues in the environment in nontar-
get organisms at levels which equal or exceed concen-
trations acutely or chronically toxic to such organisms,
or at levels which produce adverse reproductive effects
in such organisms, as determined from tests conducted
on representative species or from other appropriate
data" or (2) pose a risk to the environment that is "of
sufficient magnitude to merit a determination whether
the use of the pesticide product offers offsetting social,
economic, and environmental benefits that justify initial
or continued registration." Other criteria for initiating a
special review include considerations regarding endan-
gered species and habitat destruction (Criteria for Initia-
tion of Special Review, 40 CFR 154.7, 1990).
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
Broad ecological values protected under the authority of
OPP include:
• The environment.
• Nontarget terrestrial organisms.
o Nontarget aquatic organisms.
• Threatened and endangered species and their critical
habitats.
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
Ecological considerations by OPP occur on a case-by-
case basis (Table F-6). Such concerns have included:
• Recurring bird kills.
• Lethal, sublethal, and reproductive effects on birds
and mammals.
* Lethal, sublethal, and reproductive effects on aquatic
organisms.
83
-------
Table F-6. Examples of OPP Decisions Based on Ecological Risk
Pesticide Type and Date of Final Decision
Ecological Concerns or Assessment Endpoints
Considered in Decision
Carbofuran Special review; phased out most uses of granular
(granular) carbofuran (PD4,12/11/91)
Acute risk to birds (regularly repeated bird kills)
DDT Administrative inquiry; canceled all uses for crop
production and nonhealth purposes
(1) "Avian hazard"
(2) Protection of bird populations
(3) Potential for biomagnification
(4) Human carcinogenicity
Diazlnon Special review; prohibited at golf courses and sod farms
(PD4, 10/1/86; 6/19/90 press release announced remand
decision)
Acute risk to birds (regularly repeated bird kills)
Mirex
Restrictions on aerial spraying (final determination 12/29/76)
(1) Carcinogenicity
(2) Bioaccumulation
(3) Hazard to wildlife and other chronic effects
Tributyttin Restricted use (PD4,10/4/88); use limited to certain types
(TBT) and sizes of vessels, restriction on leaching rate
Adverse effects on nontarget organisms, including commercial
species such as mollusks
Birds
OPP can prohibit pesticide uses based solely on recur-
ring bird kills without demonstrating population effects
or evaluating a threshold level of risk. For example, in
Ciba-Gelgyv. EPA (U.S. EPA, 1988d), a case regarding
diazinon, it was ruled that "FIFRA gives the Administra-
tor sufficient discretion to determine that recurring bird
kills, even if they do not significantly reduce bird popu-
lations, are themselves an unreasonable environmental
effect." EPA does not limit its concern to long-term
adverse effects on populations, and does not tolerate
unnecessary risks of regularly repeated bird kills (55
Federal Register31133, Final Decision, July 31, 1990).
Bird kills have served as the assessment endpoint in the
decision-making process regarding a number of other
pesticides, including granular carbofuran (see Table F-6).
Aquatic Organisms
OPP used field information from Europe and known
effects on U.S. commercial aquatic species in its deci-
sion to conduct its special review of TBT. Evidence of
sublethal and reproductive effects on aquatic animals
were considered in the special review final decision. The
focus for aquatic organisms has been on mitigation
(e.g., keeping pesticides out of water through the use of
filters, buffer strips, conservative tillage practices).
Although no thresholds have been developed for "un-
reasonable adverse effects," draft concern thresholds
based on a quotient method have been used to decide
whether further evaluation is necessary. For acute
aquatic criteria, the quotient is the measured aquatic
concentration divided by the acute ecological bench-
mark protective of aquatic life. For chronic criteria, the
measured concentration divided by the lowest observed
effect level (LOEL) is used as the quotient.
References and Other Sources of
Information
U.S. EPA. 1991. Granular carbofuran: Conclusion of
special review; notice of final determination. Fed.
Reg. December 11.
U.S. EPA. 1990. Remand decision relating to diazinon
in the matter of Ciba-Geigy Corporation et al. FIFRA
Docket Nos. 562 et seq. (July 16).
U.S. EPA. 1988a. Captafol: Decision to terminate a
special review for pesticide products containing Cap-
tafol (proposed decision). Fed. Reg. July 22.
U.S. EPA. 1988b. Captafol: Decision to terminate spe-
cial review for pesticide products containing Captafol
(final decision). Fed. Reg. August 31.
U.S. EPA. 1988c. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act. EPA/540/09-89/012.
U.S. EPA. 1988d. Special review final decision relating
to diazinon in the matter of Ciba-Geigy Corporation
et al. FIFRA Docket Nos. 562 et seq. (March 29).
U.S. EPA. 1988e. Tributyltin antifoulants: Notice of in-
tent to cancel; denial of applications for registration;
partial conclusion of special review. Fed. Reg. Octo-
ber 4.
U.S. EPA. 1987a. Amendment to notice of intent to
cancel registrations and denial of applications for reg-
istration of products containing diazinon (notice). Fed.
Reg. February 25.
U.S. EPA. 1987b. EPN: Decision not to initiate a special
review (notice). Fed. Reg. December 23.
U.S. EPA. 1987c. EPN: Proposed decision not to initiate
a special review (notice). Fed. Reg. July 21.
84
-------
U.S. EPA. 1987d. Strychnine: Intent to cancel; partial
withdrawal of prior cancellation notice. Fed. Reg.
March 4.
U.S. EPA. 1986. Dicofol: Intent to cancel registrations
of pesticide products containing Dicofol; denial of ap-
plications for registration of pesticide products con-
taining Dicofol; conclusion of special review; notice
of final determination. Fed. Reg. May 29.
U.S. EPA. 1985. Intent to cancel registration of certain
pesticide products containing sodium fluoroacetate
("1080"); availability of position document 4; final
notice of determination concluding the special review/
rebuttable presumption against registration review of
sodium fluoroacetate. Fed. Reg. July 31.
U.S. EPA. 1983. Pesticides: Intent to cancel or restrict
registrations of products containing EPN; denial of
applications for registration of products containing
EPN; determination concluding the rebuttable pre-
sumption against registration; availability of decision
document (notice). Fed. Reg. August 31.
U.S. EPA. 1982. Toxaphene: Intent to cancel or restrict
registrations of pesticide products containing toxa-
phene; denial of applications for registration of pes-
ticide products containing toxaphene; determination
concluding the rebuttable presumption against reg-
istration; availability of decision document. Fed. Reg.
November 29.
U.S. EPA. 1981. Rotenone: Completion of pre-RPAR
review (notice). Fed. Reg. July 15.
U.S. EPA. 1979. Endrin: Intent to cancel registrations
and denial of applications for registration of pesticide
products containing endrin, and statement of rea-
sons. Fed. Reg. July 25.
U.S. EPA. 1978. Velsicol Chemical Co. et al.: Consoli-
dated heptachlor/chlordane cancellation proceedings
(final order). Fed. Reg. March 24.
U.S. EPA. 1976. Cancellation of registration of pesticide
products containing mirex. Fed. Reg. December 19.
U.S. EPA. 1974. Shell Chemical Co. et al.: Consolidated
aldrin/dieldrin hearing; notice of intention to suspend
and findings as to an imminent hazard; opinion and
order of Administrator; recommended decision is-
sued by chief administrative law judge. Fed. Reg.
October 18.
U.S. EPA. 1972. Consolidated DDT hearings: Opinion
and order of the Administrator. Fed. Reg. July 7.
U.S. EPA. 1971. O,O-Diethyl S-(2-Chloro-1 -Phthalimi-
doethyl) Phosphorodithioate: Notice of establishment
of temporary tolerance. Fed. Reg. March 18.
85
-------
Region 5 Pesticides and Toxic Substances Branch
PESTICIDES (R5)
Background
Decisions
The Region 5 Pesticides and Toxic Substances Branch
(PTSB) uses ecological information when making deci-
sions regarding geographic initiatives and when review-
ing state management plans to protect ground water
from pesticides. Registration actions and label changes
have been motivated by concerns about ecological risk.
Region 5 also has participated in audits of laboratories
that conduct testing in support of pesticide registrations.
Statutory Authority
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) is the primary legislation providing statutory
authority (particularly Sections 3,4,18, and 24) for such
decision-making. Other legislation that provides author-
ity includes the Endangered Species Act and the Migra-
tory Bird Treaty Act (see the Pesticides, HQ, summary.)
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
Broad ecological values protected by PTSB are the same
as those protected by the Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP) (see Pesticides, HQ, summary).
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
After PTSB assessed the effects of Command herbicide
on nontarget plants when it drifted to fields or forests
adjacent to treated areas, OPP Headquarters required
a label change concerning use of the pesticide. In an
Indiana case, a diazinon user held responsible for the
death of 47 mallards was fined $1,000 per duck under
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Effects on endangered
freshwater mussels also have been considered in Re-
gion 5 through interactions with the Endangered Spe-
cies Protection Program at OPP.
Although fish kills occur annually in some Region 5 lakes
right after spring pesticide applications, a causal rela-
tionship has not been proven. Thus, no decisions have
considered these fish kills as an assessment endpoint.
Office staff interviewed referred to examples of regula-
tory decisions that incorporated ecological information,
including decisions involving the Great Lakes Initiative,
"clean sweep" projects in several watersheds, the Great
Lakes Management Plan, and four chemicals (DDT,
aldrin, dieldrin, and heptachlor); however, no supporting
documentation or description of assessment endpoints
was provided.
86
-------
Region 10 Pesticides and Toxic Substances Branch
PESTICIDES (R10)
Background
Decisions
The Region 10 Pesticides and Toxic Substances Branch
(PTSB) has two main responsibilities: (1) allocating
grant money to states for enforcement of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA);
and (2) enforcing FIFRA directly. PTSB believes ecologi-
cal information should be used to make decisions with
respect to urban initiatives, biomonitoring, special uses
(SUs), strategies concerning pesticides in ground water,
threatened and endangered species, and review of en-
vironmental impact statements regarding pesticide use
on federal lands.
Statutory Authority
See the Headquarters Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP) summary for specific language in FIFRA and for
information on other legislation that provide additional
authority.
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
The broad ecological values to be protected by the
Region 10 PTSB are the same as those protected under
OPP (see OPP Headquarters summary).
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
Ecological concerns that have been proposed for deci-
sion-making in PTSB Region 10 include:
• Effects on nontarget plants, including reproductive,
sublethal, and nonviable seed effects.
• Effects on plant community structure and function
(considered secondary or indirect effects).
• Protection of residential bird populations (urban initia-
tives).
« Acute bird mortality (suburban areas).
• Aquatic community structure and function (e.g., index
of biotic integrity and rapid bioassessment protocols).
• Aquatic biodiversity.
PTSB Region 10 emphasizes monitoring over preregu-
latory programs. Because many of these monitoring
programs are new, however, there is no case history
showing how monitoring results have been used in ac-
tual decisions.
Ecological concerns under consideration for use, but
which have not yet been used, in Region 10 include:
• Hydrostatic pressure in plants
• Chemical residues in bumblebees
• Distribution and abundance of lichens
• Seed viability
As yet it is unclear what would constitute thresholds for
adverse effects for these endpoints.
References and Other Sources of
Information
U.S. EPA. 1990. Pesticides in natural systems: How
can their effects be monitored? Proceedings of the
Conference, Corvallis, OR (December 11 and 12).
87
-------
Office of Solid Waste
RCRA (HQ)
Background
Decisions
The Office of Solid Waste (OSW) is responsible for both
site-specific and national-level regulatory decisions con-
cerning hazardous and nonhazardous solid wastes. De-
cisions pertain to:
• Regulatory development and program review.
• Hazardous waste definition and determinations.
• Subtitle C hazardous waste facility permitting.
• Corrective action under Subpart F1.
• Corrective action under proposed Subpart S, which
Is similar to the Superfund remedial process (U.S.
EPA, 1989c) for all environmental media2.
The proposed process includes Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Assessments (RFAs),
RCRA Facility Investigations (RFIs), and Corrective
Measure Studies (CMSs). Site-specific decisions (typi-
cally made at the regional level) include reviewing per-
mits and setting facility-specific standards (e.g., emissions
limits, ground-water constituent action levels) for treat-
ment, storage, and disposal; identifying needs for correc-
tive actions; and identifying cleanup goals for facilities.
OSW also is responsible for planning RCRA implemen-
tation by regions and authorized states, which includes
environmental priorities that drive permitting and clean-
ups. For special waste decisions (i.e., those excluded
from Subtitles C and D by the Bevill Amendment), eco-
logical impacts are considered in determining whether
to regulate the special waste category.
Statutory Authority
RCRA (i.e., the Solid Waste Disposal Act including the
1976 and subsequent amendments) is the primary
statutory authority for most of the decisions made by
OSW. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments,
enacted in 1984, significantly expanded the scope and
1 Under Subtitle C, Subpart F indicates that if hazardous constituents
In ground water at the unit boundary exceed background concen-
trations or maximum contaminant level (MCL), corrective action
required.
2 Under Subtitle C, Subpart S has been proposed as part of the Part
264 regulations to address past releases at RCRA interim status or
permitted facilities
requirements of RCRA, which is codified in Title 40 of
the CFR Parts 240 to 280. RCRA includes four major
programs: Subtitle D regulations cover the solid waste
program, Subtitle C covers hazardous wastes, Subtitle I
covers underground storage tanks, and Subtitle J covers
medical wastes. For special wastes (Bevill Amendment
wastes), Section 8002 applies. The Bevill Amendment
excluded several high-volume, low-toxicity wastes (e.g.,
wastes from mineral processing, mining, oil and gas
production, electric utilities [coal], and cement kilns)
from Subtitles C and D. The statute required EPA to
consider ecological impacts in Reports to Congress
(RTCs) and in the Regulatory Determinations for these
special wastes. Under Executive Order 12291, OSW is
responsible for conducting regulatory impact analyses
(RIAs)3 for new major regulations (e.g., the Location
Standards and the Hazardous Waste Identification
Rule). For the Hazardous Waste Identification Program,
EPA is considering incorporating ecological endpoints in
the next set of hazardous waste rulemakings.
Also, in the Toxicity Characteristic Final Rule, EPA states
that "when sufficient information concerning...ecological
risks [relating to RCRA hazardous wastes] is available,
the Agency will compare the ecological-risk-based levels
to the [current Toxicity Characteristic] regulatory levels to
determine whether further revisions to those levels,
based on ecological risk, are necessary" (U.S. EPA, 1990a).
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
The goals of RCRA include protecting human health
and "the environment," reducing waste, and conserving
energy and natural resources. OSW regulations and
permitting decisions pursuant to RCRA must comply
with other federal statutes and regulations (e.g., the
Endangered Species Act, the Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Act).
3 RIAs are used to evaluate the benefits, costs, and economic impacts
of regulatory alternatives. EPA develops RIAs under Office of Man-
agement and Budget (OMB) guidelines.
88
-------
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
OSW has not yet issued detailed guidance on how to
consider ecological risks in the context of either site-
specific or national-level regulatory decisions.
The RCRA program uses some ecological concerns or
assessment endpoints developed by other offices. Most
frequently, exceedance of Ambient Water Quality Crite-
ria (AWQC) for the protection of aquatic life constitutes
an ecological assessment endpoint used for making
decisions throughout the RCRA program. EPA AWQC
were used in the Smelting and Refining RTC, Mining
Wastes RTC, and Oil and Gas RTC (U.S. EPA, 1989a).
Exceedance of EPA AWQC has been considered in
some RIAs for national regulations (e.g., Corrective Ac-
tion RIA in progress and the RIA for Listing Certain
Wood-Preserving Wastes). To date, however, ecological
risk assessment has provided part of the rationale for
waste management regulations only in the proposed
facility Location Standards; AWQC were used for the
RIA for floodplains (U.S. EPA, 1989). In the wood-pre-
serving rule for the identification and listing of hazardous
wastes, EPA included ecological factors as criteria for
listing toxic substances. For example, in listing pen-
tachlorophenol (PCP), EPA considered soil erosion of
wastes containing PCP from wood-preserving plants as
a concern due to its potentially adverse effects on
aquatic life in nearby streams (U.S. EPA, 1990b). EPA
used AWQC for the protection of aquatic life to assess
these risks. Exceedance of AWQC also is considered in
prioritizing sites for permitting and in setting waste man-
agement standards in permits for individual facilities.
Additional ecological criteria for surface waters, sedi-
ments, and soils are being developed under the pro-
posed Subpart S media protection standards.
The protection of wetlands and wetland values serve as
a primary assessment endpoint for the unpublished Lo-
cation Standards RIA for wetlands. Benefits were meas-
ured in terms of reductions in the area of wetlands
destroyed, wetland restoration costs, and areal extent of
contamination (U.S. EPA, 1989a). A threshold level of
contamination that would impair wetland functions has
not been identified, however.
Although potential bioaccumulation of contaminants also
appears to be both a human health and ecological con-
cern in the RCRA program, no examples were identified
where this endpoint has formed the basis of a regulatory
decision. Proposed Subpart S identifies bioaccumula-
tion as one of the factors to be considered when evalu-
ating corrective action alternatives (§264.525[b][2][iv]).
Bioaccumulation of toxic substances in oysters was one
of several ecological and other concerns used in the Oil
and Gas RTC (U.S. EPA, 1989b).
Proximity of facilities to habitats used by threatened and
endangered species has served as a screening-level
assessment endpoint for RIAs (e.g., Coal Utilities RIA) (U.S.
EPA, 1989a) and RTCs (Oil and Gas RTC, Mining Wastes
RTC) (U.S. EPA, 1989c). Again, however, no specific regu-
latory decisions can be attributed to this endpoint.
Adverse effects on growth, reproduction, development,
or survival in wildlife species are serving as assessment
endpoints for "eco-RfDs." OSW is developing a data-
base for wildlife equivalents of human reference doses
(RfDs) that will be shared with the Superfund program.
How the RCRA program intends to use these values has
yet to be determined (e.g., Would exceedance of an RfD
for a species of concern be sufficient to justify a decision?).
Damage case studies included in special waste RTCs
have included many additional ecological assessment
endpoints. For example, the Oil and Gas Waste RTC
included documented cases of many types of adverse
ecological effects (U.S. EPA, 1989b):
• "Lethal effect on trout streams and damage to timber
and habitat for deer, bear, and grouse."
• Suppressed fish populations in all streams of the
Allegheny Forest.
• Vegetation kills and suppressed growth.
• Bird and small mammal kills (trapped in oily deposits).
• Reduced fertility and growth in fish (North Slope of
Alaska).
The Coal Utility Waste RTC documented fish kills and
reduced abundance of benthic organisms for tens of
miles of a river following a catastrophic release from one
facility (U.S. EPA, 1989b). Apparently, however, ecologi-
cal assessment endpoints have not been key in any
special waste regulatory determinations.
To date, no hazardous waste listings have been based
solely on ecological threats. In the future, wastes from
carbamate production may be listed based on adverse
ecological effects (e.g., acute toxicity in birds). Ecologi-
cal concerns or assessment endpoints that may be
considered in the near future include:
• Fish kills (e.g., from cyanide released during mining
operations).
• Bird kills (e.g., from waterfowl landing in open cya-
nide pits).
• Soil contamination criteria (i.e., the RCRA program is
establishing soil contaminant level standards for pro-
tection of the environment).
89
-------
References and Other Sources of
information
U.S. EPA. 1990a. Hazardous waste management sys-
tem; identification and listing of hazardous waste;
toxicity characteristics revisions (final rule). Fed. Reg.
March 29.
U.S. EPA. 1990b. Identification and listing of hazardous
waste; wood preserving (final rule). Fed. Reg. De-
cember 6.
U.S. EPA. 1989a. Ecological risk management in the
Superfund and RCRA programs. EPA/230/03-89/045.
Washington, DC: Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation.
U.S. EPA. 1989b. The nature and extent of ecological
risks at Superfund sites and RCRA facilities.
EPA/230/03-89/043. Washington, DC: Office of Pol-
icy, Planning and Evaluation.
U.S. EPA. 1989c. A review and evaluation of past prac-
tices in the Superfund and RCRA programs. EPA/
230/03-89/044. Washington, DC: Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation.
90
-------
Region 3 RCRA Program
Corrective Action and Enforcement Sections
RCRA (R3)
Background
Decisions
In Region 3, the Corrective Action and Enforcement
Sections are responsible for:
• Developing Corrective Action Orders on interim
status facilities.
• Deciding which remediations to use in Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facility
cleanups.
• Determining cleanup levels.
Corrective Action Orders (i.e., RCRA Section 3008H
orders) require facility property owners to conduct
RCRA Facility Investigations (RFIs). EPA Headquarters
provides property owners with guidance on how to con-
duct such an investigation (e.g., U.S. EPA no date).
Later, the facility owner must conduct a Corrective
Measures Study (CMS) to assess alternatives for reme-
diation, which must be submitted to EPA Region 3 staff
for review.
Statutory Authority
Statutory authority is provided by RCRA Sections 3008A
(base program) and 3008H (enforcement/corrective
action).
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
The goals of RCRA include protecting human health and
"the environment," and the Region 3 RFI/CMS Ecologi-
cal Assessment Guidance Document indicates that
sensitive, protected, or special status habitats and
threatened and endangered species are ecological re-
ceptors of concern (U.S. EPA, no date). Also of concern
are the ecological functioning of freshwater and marine
wetlands, including hydrologic benefits (e.g., flood at-
tenuation), benefits of filtering pollutants, mitigating ef-
fects on climate, water-quality benefits (e.g., removal of
sediments and nutrients), and wildlife benefits (e.g.,
providing habitats and food sources for fish, shellfish,
waterfowl and other birds, mammals, and wildlife)
(U.S. EPA, no date).
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
At facilities for which surface waters are of concern,
assessment endpoints can be state or other local water
quality standards for designated uses or EPA acute and
chronic Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) for the
protection of aquatic life. For example, at the Allied Balti-
more Harbor site, the RFI indicated concerns for "the
ecological health of the harbor" because of ex-
ceedances of EPA AWQC for the protection of aquatic
life.
For other types of endpoints, Region 3 follows Super-
fund guidance and approaches to site-specific eco-
logical assessments. The ecological risk assessment
procedures described in the Region 3 RFI/CMS Eco-
logical Assessment Guidance Document are similar to
those described in the guidance documents developed
for the Superfund program (U.S. EPA, no date) (see
Superfund interview summaries). Existing adverse ef-
fects in receptors of concern (e.g., special status habi-
tats) are determined by comparison to a reference
site(s) that is not impacted by the facility. The potential
for adverse effects also serves as a broad concern
within the program. More specific assessment endpoints
identified in the guidance document include (U.S. EPA,
no date):
• Benthic macroinvertebrate communities (using biotic
index systems; serves as indicator of general water
quality).
• Species diversity (compared with reference area).
• Stressed vegetation and vegetative succession.
• Riparian vegetation condition.
• Bioaccumulation of chemicals.
• Flora and fauna species abundance and diversity.
• Normal predator-prey ratio.
• Flora and fauna disease and resilience.
• Observable stress to vertebrate species (including
fish, amphibians, and birds).
Examples of actual use of any of these concerns as
assessment endpoints were not available.
91
-------
Other facilities for which ecological concerns are or will
be included in an RFI include Beazer East (Kopper's)
on the Ohio River (RFI workplan approved); the Naval
Air Station OCEANA, Virginia Beach; Sparrow's Point;
and DuPont Glasgow, Delaware (U.S. EPA, no date).
Ecological assessment endpoints being used for these
sites were not identified.
References and Other Sources of
Information
U.S. EPA. (No date.) RCRA facility investigation/correc-
tive measures study: Ecological assessment guidance
document (first edition). Office of RCRA Programs.
92
-------
Region 5 RCRA Program
Permitting and Enforcement Sections
RCRA (R5)
Background
Decisions
In Region 5, under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) program there are two primary
activities that utilize ecological information: enforcement
actions, and corrective actions for releases of hazard-
ous wastes or hazardous constituents into the environ-
ment. Corrective actions and/or ecological assessments
may be required by a permit. Permits are required for
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Also under
RCRA, Region 5 reviews facility closure plans to
cleanup or contain contamination from each hazardous
waste management unit. Ecological language has been
added to the Model Corrective Action Plans (CAPs) of
both the permitting and the enforcement portions of the
Region 5 RCRA program. The purpose of this new
language is to make the CAPs reflect the Agency's
greater emphasis on ecological risks.
Statutory Authority
Statutory authority is provided by RCRA of 1976, as
amended, under Sections 3008(a) (enforcement), 3008(h)
(corrective action through enforcement), and 3004(u)(v)
(corrective action through permitting). Other federal stat-
utes applicable to many sites include Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (wetlands protection), and the Endan-
gered Species Act.
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
The goals of RCRA include protecting human health and
the environment. Wetlands, other surface waters, and
endangered and threatened species and their critical
habitats are among the ecological values to be protected
under the "environment" portion of the RCRA goal. Eco-
logical restoration has been accomplished in Region 5
through the penalty adjustment process
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
The Region 5 RCRA program uses Superfund guidance
documents and the Risk Assessment Forum's Framework
for Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1992) on a
site-specific basis to select and evaluate endpoints for
ecological assessments. These assessment endpoints
are based on protection of the integrity, functionality,
and/or survival of significant ecological features. These
features can be at the population or community levels of
the biological hierarchy.
At facilities where surface waters are of concern, state
or other local water quality standards for designated
uses or EPA acute and chronic ambient water quality
criteria (AWQC) for the protection of aquatic life serve
as assessment endpoints. Some ecological assessment
endpoints are considered "obvious impacts":
• Absent or stressed vegetation
• Evidence of excess mortality (e.g., fish kills)
Additional assessment endpoints include existing or po-
tential impacts on individuals, populations, communi-
ties, and ecosystems:
• At the individual and population levels, "mortality,
growth and reproductive impairments."
• Health and structure of communities (e.g., benthic
communities, wetland communities) compared with
reference conditions (as inferred from recommended
use of EPA's [1989] Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinver-
tebrates and Fish at the Ansul Fire Protection Company
facility [Smith, 1992] and recommended measures of
species richness, relative abundance, and absolute
dominance to monitor recovery of wetlands following
a ground-water pump-and-treat remediation at Mod-
ern Plating Corporation [Wolf, 1992]).
• Contamination of food chains (e.g., Joliet Army Mu-
nitions Plant).
• Protecting ecosystems against spread of introduced
species (e.g., zebra mussel example from the Great
Lakes National Program Office).
• Protecting habitats of endangered or threatened spe-
cies (e.g., Karner butterfly's habitat at a steel mill in
Indiana).
An important assumption behind using individual- and
population-level effects is that "lower order effects
93
-------
[i.e., effects at lower levels of biological organization]
translate into higher order effects."
References and Other Sources of
Information
Smith, R.D. 1992. Letter to Mr. George Rogers regard-
ing Ecological assessment comments, Ansul Fire
Protection, corrective action order on Consent Vn-W-
90-R-30.
U.S. EPA. 1992. Framework for ecological risk assess-
ment. EPA/625/3-91/022. Washington, DC: Risk As-
sessment Forum.
U.S. EPA. 1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use
in streams and rivers, benthic macroinvertebrates,
and fish. EPA/444/4-89/001. Washington, DC: Office
of Water.
Wolf, J. 1992. Letter from the RCRA MI/WI Technical
Enforcement Section on the Current status of wet-
land issues at Modern Plating Corporation, Freeport,
Illinois.
94
-------
Region 10 RCRA Program
RCRA Risk Assessment Coordination
RCRA (R10)
Background
Decisions
In Region 10, ecological risk assessments are incorpo-
rated in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) program through decisions concerning correc-
tive action and facility permitting. (See Region 3 RCRA
interview summary for a description of EPA's role in the
corrective action process.) Region 10 also ranks all sites.
Then, for low-ranking sites, EPA encourages voluntary
action by facility property owners; for high-ranking sites,
EPA typically requires interim corrective measures, a
RCRA facility investigation, and a Corrective Measures
Study (CMS) prior to determination and implementation
of final corrective measures. For clean closures, it must
be demonstrated that the cleanup levels are protective
of human health and the environment or that they do not
exceed background levels (U.S. EPA, 1992). The Waste
Management Branch Chief of the Hazardous, Waste
Division determines whether contaminated soils media
need to be handled as a hazardous waste based on
site-specific circumstances (e.g., sent to a regulated
hazardous waste facility).
Statutory Authority
Statutory authority for corrective actions is provided
by RCRA (1984 amendments) Sections 3004U and V,
3008H, 3013, 7002, and 7003. Corrective action under
RCRA permits is described in 50 CFR Part 264.
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
The goals of RCRA include protecting human health
and "the environment," and actions must be in line with
any existing state requirements or standards. State-
designated uses of surface waters identify more specific
values to be protected for aquatic ecosystems (e.g., propa-
gation of fish, shellfish, other aquatic life, and wildlife
such as waterfowl and furbearers). Facilities at which
releases have occurred are evaluated for any biological
evidence of "environmental degradation" and the po-
tential to expose endangered or threatened species
(U.S. EPA, 1992).
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
In the RCRA program, "action levels" (i.e., concentra-
tions of contaminants in environmental media estimated
to be protective of human health and the environment)
serve as key assessment endpoints at most facilities.
States can promulgate their own cleanup standards;
otherwise, EPA criteria must be followed. At facilities for
which surface waters are of concern, action levels may
be (1) state or other local water quality standards for
designated uses, or (2) ERA Ambient Water Quality
Criteria (AWQC) for the protection of aquatic life (fresh
water or marine for acute or chronic exposures) (U.S.
EPA, 1990, 1992). Some states also have action levels
that serve as cleanup criteria for sediments or soils.
Washington state, for instance, has developed its own
sediment quality criteria for Puget Sound to protect ben-
thic communities (U.S. EPA, 1992). For several combi-
nations of hazardous substances and environmental
media for which state standards or EPA criteria are
unavailable, the RCRA program has developed action
levels; however, these are based on human health con-
cerns (i.e., Appendix A of proposed Subpart S).
In the absence of specified action levels (or in the case
of multiple contaminant or multiple pathway exposures),
site-specific assessment endpoints are used (U.S. EPA,
1992). Region 10 guidelines for developing action or
cleanup levels for site-specific endpoints are intended to
be consistent with the Superfund program. "Where
RCRA guidelines and proposed rules do not specify
procedures, Superfund guidance is used" (U.S. EPA,
1992). The Region 10 RCRA guidelines specify assess-
ment endpoints indicative of existing "environmental
degradation" (U.S. EPA, 1992), such as:
• Absent or stressed vegetation (e.g., as indicated by
barren soils, discolored vegetation).
• Evidence of reduced nutrient recycling (i.e., reduced
bacterial decomposition as evidenced by unusually
thick leaf litter).
• Evidence of excess mortality or incidence of disease in
wildlife populations (e.g., reports of fish or bird kills).
95
-------
The same guidance (U.S. EPA, 1992) also specifies
assessment endpoints indicative of potential threats to
ecological values to be protected:
• Contamination of critical habitats (necessary for
breeding, feeding, nesting, and sustaining life) for
endangered or threatened species.
• Biomagnification in food chains.
• "Indirect biological effects" (e.g., contaminant lowers
pH or oxygen level in surface waters, which in turn
causes excess fish mortality).
• Threats of adverse effects in any "important" biologi-
cal receptors.
Assessment endpoints that have been key for RCRA
corrective action decisions in Region 10 include:
• Adverse effects on salmon runs (e.g., Wyckoff in
West Seattle, Pendleton Woolen Mills in Washougal,
Washington).
• Bioaccumulation of contaminants in fish, shellfish,
and food chains in general (some more from a human
health perspective) (e.g., Sea Fab on Harbor Island;
Duwamish River).
The Region 10 Facility Environmental Priority Ranking
Criteria indicate that the presence of nearby "sensitive
bio-receptors or endangered species" serves as an as-
sessment endpoint for prioritizing risks at facilities (U.S.
EPA 1990, Appendix 1).
References and Other Sources of
Information
U.S. EPA. 1992. Guidelines for developing ecologically
and health-based cleanup levels at RCRA sites in
Region 10 (interim final). EPA/910/9-92/019. Seattle,
WA: Hazardous Waste Division.
U.S. EPA. 1990. Northwest RCRA corrective action
strategy. EPA/910/9-90/016. Seattle, WA: Hazardous
Waste Division.
96
-------
Region 9 San Francisco Bay Estuary Project
SF ESTUARY (R9)
Background
Decisions
The decision to add the San Francisco Bay Estuary
Project to national environmental efforts was based on
loss of ecological resources. Decisions made under the
program include those made with respect to charac-
terizing the problems facing the estuary, development of
the management plan, funding for pilot projects, data
gaps/research analysis, educational activities, and dem-
onstrations of watershed activities including geographi-
cal and restoration projects. Estuary, plans are consensus
based and are not legally enforceable.
Statutory Authority
Section 320 of the 1987 amendments to the Clean
Water Act (CWA) established the estuary program and
funding for developing a management plan; funding for
implementation is supposed to come from other sources
(state, local, Section 319, Title VI).
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
The overall objective of the CWA is "to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of the Nation's waters" (CWA §101). Specific ecological
values of the San Francisco Estuary Project include
restoration and maintenance of "water quality" and "a
balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and
wildlife" of the Bay and Delta (CWA§320[b][4]). Another
specific goal is to ensure protection of "the designated
uses of the estuary" (CWA §320[b][4]).
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
Specific examples include (U.S. EPA, 1992):
• A halt and reversal to "the decline in the health and
abundance of estuarine biota (indigenous and desir-
able non-indigenous), with an emphasis on natural
production."
• A halt and reversal to the decline of "habitats on which
they [i.e., estuarine plants and animals] depend."
1 Restoration of "healthy estuarine habitat conditions
to the Bay-Delta, taking into consideration all benefi-
cial uses of Bay-Delta resources."
"[SJurvival and recovery of listed and candidate
threatened and endangered species, as well as other
species in decline."
Doubling the natural production of anadromous fish.
Protection of "existing wetlands" and restoration and
enhancement of "the ecological productivity and habi-
tat values of wetlands."
A "significant increase in the quantity and quality of
wetlands."
Prevention, control, and reduction of "pollutants en-
tering the Estuary."
"Clean up of toxic pollutants throughout the Estuary."
Protection "against toxic effects, including bioaccu-
mulation and toxic sediment accumulation."
Avoidance or offsetting of "the adverse impacts of
dredging, flood control, channelization, and shoreline
development and protection projects."
Elimination of "unnecessary dredging activities" and
conduction of "dredging activities in an environmen-
tally sound fashion."
Establishment and implementation of "land use and
transportation patterns and practices that protect, en-
hance, and restore the Estuary's open waters, adja-
cent wetlands, adjacent essential uplands habitat,
and tributary waterways."
Adoption and utilization of "land use policies that pro-
vide incentives for more active participation by the
private sector in cooperative efforts that protect and
improve the Estuary."
References and Other Sources of
Information
U.S. EPA. 1992. San Francisco estuary project. Com-
prehensive Conservation and Management Plan for
the Bay and Delta (draft).
97
-------
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
SUPERFUND (HQ)
Background
Decisions
Site Assessment Phase
The first stage of assessing hazardous waste sites for
potential listing on the National Priorities (Superfund)
List (NPL) is scoring a site using the Hazard Ranking
System (HRS). Actual site inspections and HRS scoring
are performed at the Regional offices. Using the HRS
scores, the Assistant Administrator decides which sites
must be placed on the NPL. Although HRS scores in-
cluded some ecological components before March 14,
1991, human health factors dominated the scores; site
scores could not exceed the NPL cutoff score based
only on ecological factors. The revised HRS rule (U.S.
EPA, 1990a), which includes more ecological factors
and sensitive environments, can result in sites being
placed on the NPL solely because of ecological risks.
Remedial Action Phase
Ecological information also is incorporated into the
baseline risk assessment of the Remedial Investiga-
tion/Feasibility Study process. Based on the investiga-
tion, the Region decides whether to take remedial action
or not, and what kind of remedial action to take; this
Information is presented in the Record of Decision
(ROD). Information from the baseline ecological assess-
ment can be used to assist in developing cleanup goals
and preferred remedial action alternatives.
Statutory A uthority
Site Assessment Phase
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) of 1986 required that EPA revise the HRS to
give additional emphasis to potential damage to ecosys-
tems (U.S. EPA, 1991b). A crucial criterion in the HRS
is the evaluation of risks to various "sensitive environ-
ments" that are protected under other statutes or regu-
lations (U.S. EPA, 1990a).
Remedial Action Phase
As part of the remedial investigation, the National Con-
tingency Plan (NCP) (U.S. EPA, 1990b) directs EPA to
conduct a baseline risk assessment that "characterize^]
the current and potential threats to human health and
the environment that may be posed by contaminants
migrating to ground water or surface water, releasing to
air, leaching through soil, remaining in the soil, and
bioaccumulating in the food chain" (NCP §300.430[d][4]).
Section 104(a)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Resonse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
gives EPA the authority to utilize any remedial action
necessary to protect public health or welfare or the
environment, and Section 106 grants EPA the authority
to require potentially responsible parties to perform re-
moval or remedial actions "when...there may be an im-
minent and substantial endangerment to the public
health or welfare or the environment."
In reaching its decision concerning the remedial action
program, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) also must comply with applicable
or relevant and appropriate regulations (ARARs), such
as the Endangered Species Act (Clay, 1991), the Clean
Water Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Additionally, the Office of Waste Programs Enforce-
ment works with Natural Resource Trustees (e.g., the
Department of the Interior, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration). Natural resource damage
assessments, which are a major ecological activity un-
der CERCLA, however, are carried out primarily by the
trustee agencies.
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
Site Assessment Phase
The broad ecological values to be protected under the
site assessment phase of the Superfund program are
the aquatic and terrestrial "sensitive environments" that,
as defined in the HRS, include habitats protected by
state or federal statute, and uniquely important local
areas (e.g., spawning areas).
98
-------
Remedial Action Phase
The broad ecological values to be protected under the
remedial action phase of the Superfund program are
partly defined by the ARARs, but can include other
values as well. Further information concerning ecologi-
cal values and ARARs for the Superfund program is
provided in interview summaries from EPA Regions.
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
Site Assessment Phase
Assessment endpoints in this phase are the specific
sensitive environments evaluated in the HRS. Examples
include (U.S. EPA, 1990a):
• Aquatic or terrestrial critical (or used) habitats for
federal designated endangered or threatened spe-
cies, marine sanctuaries, wetlands, National Parks,
and coastal barriers.
• National or State Wildlife Refuges.
• Sensitive areas identified under the National Estuary
Program or the Near Coastal Waters Program.
• Spawning areas critical for the maintenance of
fish/shellfish species within river, lake, or coastal tidal
waters.
• Migratory pathways and feeding areas critical for the
maintenance of anadromous fish species.
• Terrestrial areas utilized for breeding by large or
dense aggregations of animals.
• Federal or State Scenic or Wild Rivers.
• Particular areas, relatively small in size, important to
maintenance of unique biotic communities.
Both actual and potential contamination of these envi-
ronments are considered, but actual contamination is
more heavily weighted (U.S. EPA, 1990a).
Remedial Action Phase
Out of 70 remedial investigations completed in 1991,47
included ecological risk assessments. Site-specific eco-
logical assessment endpoints are included in the ROD.
These include (1) protection of aquatic and terrestrial
habitats, and (2) protection of rare, threatened, or en-
dangered species. Ecological field studies provide evi-
dence of a direct link between such contamination and
ecological effects (U.S. EPA, 1991 a). Such evidence
could include:
• Reduction in the population size of a species.
• Absence of species normally occurring in the habitat.
• Presence of species associated primarily with stressed
habitats.
• Changes in community diversity or trophic structure.
• Incidence of lesions, tumors, or other pathologies
(U.S. EPA, I991a).
The Superfund site at New Bedford Harbor is an exam-
ple in which the cleanup and shutdown of an operation
was driven largely by ecological risks.
Although primarily outside of ERA'S use, assessment
endpoints from natural resource damage assessments
have included damage to wildlife habitat as well as
contamination of federally or state-protected environ-
ments (e.g., Wildlife Refuges, wetlands) or contamina-
tion of environments critical to federally or
state-protected species.
References and Other Sources of
information
Clay, D.R. 1991. Memorandum from Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response on the role of the
baseline risk assessment in Superfund remedy se-
lection decisions. OSWER Directive 9355.0-30.
U.S. EPA. 1991 a. ECO update: Ecological assessment
of Superfund sites: An overview. Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response. Publication 9345.0-05I.
U.S. EPA. 1991b. The Superfund program: Ten years
of progress. EPA/540/8-91/003. Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.
U.S. EPA. 1990a. Hazard ranking system (final rule).
Fed. Reg. December 14.
U.S. EPA. 1990b. National contingency plan. Fed. Reg.
March 8.
U.S. EPA. 1989. Risk assessment guidance for Super-
fund, Vol. II: Environmental evaluation manual. EPA/
540/1-89/001.
99
-------
Region 3 Superfund Office
SUPERFUND (R3)
Background
Decisions
In the Region 3 Superfund Office, as in other regional
Superfund offices, ecological information may be used
(1) to assist in establishing environmental cleanup lev-
els, and (2) to select preferred remedial activities at
Superfund sites, although there are few sites at which
this has occurred. During the Remedial Investigation
(Rl), a baseline risk assessment for a site usually in-
cludes an assessment of ecological risks. These risks
are considered during the Feasibility Study (FS), which
evaluates options for site cleanup. The selected cleanup
levels and remedial activities (for a Superfund site) are
documented in Records of Decision (RODs).
Statutory Authority
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-
pensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA), requires that EPA protect the environment from
releases or potential releases of hazardous substances
from National Priority List (NPL) sites. Section 121 (d)(2)(A)
of CERCLA requires that Superfund remedial action
meet federal and state standards, requirements, criteria,
or limitations that are applicable or relevant and appro-
priate requirements (ARARs), including Clean Water Act
(CWA) Section 404 regulations, and regulations in the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), Migratory Bird Treaty
Act, Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act,
Toxic Substances Control Act, Clean Air Act, Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act,
Coastal Zone Management Act, Fish and Wildlife Im-
provement Act of 1978, and Fish and Wildlife Act of
1956, as well as stipulations in Executive Orders related
to Floodplains (11988) and Wetlands (11990).
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
The ARARs for the Superfund program include several
broad ecological concerns: self-sustaining populations
of federally protected species, integrity of wetlands, eco-
systems valued in state-designated uses of surface wa-
ters, and other federally or state-protected ecosystems
or area uses (see Region 10 Superfund Office interview
summary). In addition, as inferred from assessment
endpoints identified by Office staff, the Region 3 Super-
fund program is concerned with bioaccumulation of haz-
ardous substances in aquatic and terrestrial food chains
and aquatic community structure.
Specific Ecological Concerns orAssessr
Endpoints
Site-specific assessment endpoints that can serve as
surrogates for the broader ecological values covered by
the program are used to help establish site-specific
cleanup goals and remedial activities. These may be
selected in cooperation with Natural Resource Trustees
(e.g., Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS], National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration). The Region 3 Super-
fund Office identified several assessment endpoints that
are used routinely:
• Any site-specific federal ARARs.
• Endangered and threatened species.
• Chronic effects on growth, reproduction, and survi-
vorship of aquatic and terrestrial populations.
• Effects on natural habitats, communities, and ecosys-
tems, particularly wetlands.
Given that Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (U.S. EPA,
1989a) are often used, one may infer that aquatic com-
munity structure (e.g., species richness, presence of
"intolerant" taxa) and health of aquatic organisms (e.g.,
incidence of physical anomalies) also must be utilized
as assessment endpoints for some Superfund sites in
Region 3.
For the Wildcat Landfill in Delaware, the primary assess-
ment endpoints identified in the ROD for the pond oper-
able unit were effects on the biota of the pond and
possible effects on migratory waterfowl that might use
the pond (U.S. EPA, 1989b). The FWS documented
physiological effects in turtles using the pond, possibly
as a result of lead uptake from the site (U.S. EPA,
1989b). EPA reported that the pond water was acutely
toxic to aquatic organisms. Contaminant levels were
measured in mummichogs (a small fish), turtles, and
white-footed mice (DDNREC, 1988). The site threat-
ened to contaminate the surrounding tidal wetlands and
a nearby river.
100
-------
The remedial action objectives stated in the ROD (U.S.
EPA, 1989b) for the pond were:
• Minimize or eliminate the impact of contaminants
upon biota in the pond.
• Stabilize the area of the pond to minimize or eliminate
the exposure of biological organisms to contaminants
from the landfill.
At the Saltville site (RI/FS stage), assessment end-
points include mercury contamination of endangered
mussels and general "clean stream" values. The Dor-
ney Road Case, which was settled out of court, set
the precedent for EPA Superfund Offices to conduct
wetland restorations (SARA 517 and §404[b] of the
CWA).
References and Other Sources of
Information
DDNREC. 1988. Wildcat Landfill, Dover, Delaware:
Remedial investigation report, Vol. I: State of Dela-
ware Department of Natural Resources and Environ-
mental Control, Dover, Delaware. Prepared by CHaM
Hill for U.S. EPA. Document no. WDR347/054.
U.S. EPA. 1989a. Rapid bioassessment protocols for
use in streams and rivers, benthic macroinverte-
brates and fish. EPA/444/4-89/001. Washington, DC:
Office of Water.
U.S. EPA. 1989b. Superfund record of decision, Wildcat
Landfill, Delaware (second remedial action). Wash-
ington, DC.
101
-------
Region 5 Superfund Office
SUPERFUND (R5)
Background
Decisions
In the Region 5 Superfund Office, as in other regional
Superfund offices, ecological information may be used
to assist in:
• Establishing environmental cleanup levels
• Identifying areas requiring remediation
• Wetlands mitigation from remedies
• Responding to spill emergencies
• Prioritizing sites for cleanup funding
For remedial sites (i.e., National Priority List [NPL] sites),
a baseline risk assessment for a site usually includes an
assessment of ecological risks. These risks are consid-
ered when performing the Remedial Investigation (Rl)
and Feasibility Study (FS), which evaluate options for
site cleanup. The selected cleanup levels and remedial
activities (for a Superfund site) are documented in Re-
cords of Decision (RODs).
Statutory Authority
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-
pensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA), requires EPA to protect the environment from
releases or potential releases of hazardous substances
from NPL sites. Section 121(d)(2)(A) of CERCLA re-
quires that Superfund remedial action meet federal and
state standards, requirements, criteria, or limitations that
are applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs), including Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404
regulations, Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations,
and others (see Region 3 Superfund Office interview
summary).
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
The ARARs for the Superfund program include several
broad ecological concerns: self-sustaining populations
of federally protected species, integrity of wetlands, eco-
systems of value in state-designated uses of surface
waters, and other federally or state-protected ecosystems
or areas (see Region 10 Superfund Office interview
summary). In addition, as inferred from assessment
endpoints identified by Office staff, the Region 5 Super-
fund program is concerned with contamination of
aquatic environments and food chains. Ecological as-
sessment has also been very important in decision-mak-
ing at Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model Sites.
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
Site-specific assessment endpoints that can serve as
surrogates for the broader ecological values covered by
the program are used to help establish site-specific
cleanup goals and remedial activities. These may be
selected in cooperation with Natural Resource Trustees
(e.g., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS]). The
Region 5 Superfund Office identified several assess-
ment endpoints that are used routinely:
• Sediment contamination and toxicity to benthic or-
ganisms.
• Food chain contamination.
• No observed effect levels and lowest observed effect
levels for reproductive effects and acute lethality in
wildlife species (e.g., robins, muskrats, mink).
Additional assessment endpoints are identified in Re-
gion 5's Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Eco-
logical Assessments, although examples of their use
were not provided during interviews (U.S. EPA, no date):
• Fish kills
• Vegetation die-offs
• Fish/wildlife consumption advisories
• EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria
• State water quality standards
The Regional Guidance for Conducting Ecological As-
sessments indicates that ecological risk assessment for
Superfund sites is an iterative process. The first step is
to conduct a screening analysis. For this stage, Region
5 recommends using conservative assumptions. For
example:
• Endpoints should be sensitive to the site contami-
nants and receive high contaminant exposure relative
to other receptors.
102
-------
• Effects of contaminants with similar (broadly defined)
modes of toxicological action should be treated as at
least additive.
The guidance indicates that ecological assessment end-
points must be clearly defined for the assessment and
that often they are selected with the assistance of the
regional ecologists and the Biological Technical Advi-
sory Group (BTAG).
References and Other Sources of
Information
U.S. EPA. (No date) Regional guidance for conducting
ecological assessments.
103
-------
Region 9 Superfund Office
SUPERFUND (R9)
Background
Decisions
The Technical Support Section (TSS) provides technical
assistance for other program office activities, mainly for
Superfund activities. TSS has begun incorporating eco-
logical risk into the decision-making process only re-
cently. Thus, no completed Records of Decision (RODs)
have been based on ecological risk. Some of the new
RODs, however, will be based on ecological risk.
Statutory Authority
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-
pensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA), requires that EPA protect the environment from
releases or potential releases of hazardous substances
from National Priority Ust (NPL) sites. Section 121 (d)(2)(A)
of CERCLA requires that Superfund remedial action
meet federal and state standards, requirements, criteria,
or limitations that are applicable or relevant and ap-
propriate requirements (ARARs), which include Clean
Water Act (CWA) Section 404 regulations, Endangered
Species Act (ESA) regulations, and other applicable
regulations.
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
The ecological values to be protected are the same as
those listed in the Headquarters and Regional Super-
fund interview summaries.
Specific Ecological Concerns orAssessme
Endpoints
Assessment points that are currently being considered
in Region 9 include protection of:
• Riparian habitats
• Fisheries
• Birds
• Marine mammals
• Endangered species
• Endangered winter runs for Chinook salmon
• Wetlands
Table F-7 provides specific examples of cases in which
ecological assessment endpoints are being considered.
Although Region 9 looks at chemical stressors, both
acute (e.g., spills from mines) and chronic (e.g., metals,
DDT), thresholds for the program have not yet been
established. Toxicity testing will be conducted in Pearl
Harbor and Camp Pendleton.
Table F-8 summarizes assessment endpoints and their
associated measurement endpoints for the ecological
assessment planned for the Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine
site (Suchanek, 1992).
References and Other Sources of
Information
Suchanek, T.H. 1992. Ecological assessment: Sulphur
Bank Mercury Mine Superfund site, Clear Lake, Cali-
fornia. Final field sampling plan for preliminary lake
study.
104
-------
Table F-7. Examples of
Location
Cases in Which the Region 9 Technical Support Section Is Considering Ecological Concerns
Problem Ecological Assessment Endpoints Considered
River Bank Army
Depot, CA (ROD)
Montrose, CA
Iron Mountain Mine
Sulphur Bank Mercury
Mine, Clear Lake, CA
(see Table 2)
United Heckathome
Zinc contamination from salt ponds
DDT-contaminated waterways to Los
Angeles Harbor
Heavy metals, acid contamination in
Sacramento River
Tailings in lake
DDT repackaging in San Francisco Bay
Riparian habitat
Fisheries, endangered
birds, and marine mammals
Endangered winter runs for Chinook salmon
Fishery
Loss of birds
Fort Ord and Monterey
Marine Sanctuary
Lead from ammunition, paints, and
solvents
Endangered plants on sand dunes, marine mammals
Camp Pendleton-Santa
Margarita River
Paints, solvents, oil pits, and burnpits
containing dioxins
Endangered plants and birds, marine mammals
Peart Harbor, HI Complex problems including ground-water
issues; all the coral reefs are already gone
Two wildlife refuges, four endangered species (Hawaiian duck,
mudhen, blacknecked stilt, and one other bird), wetlands, Bay
fishery (commercial bait for tuna); habitats as a whole are not
being considered
Table F-8. Examples of Ecological Assessment Endpoints According to the Field Sampling Plan for the Sulphur Bank Mercury
Mine Superfund Site, Clear Lake, California (Suchanek, 1992)
Assessment Endpoint Measures
Aquatic food chain contamination/exceedance of
FDA action levels for human consumption of fish
California Department of Fish and Game restrictions on human consumption of fish
from Clear Lake because contaminant exceeds FDA action levels
Tissue residue levels in fish: surface planktivores (silversides), midwater omnivores
(blackfish), benthic omnivores (catfish), and midwater predators (largemouth bass)
Residue levels in plankton (base of food chain)
Benthic community structure
Comparing benthic invertebrate distribution and abundance with reference area
Sediment bioassays
Benthic community contribution to food chain
contamination
Tissues residue levels in macroinvertebrates (base of food chain)
Bioaccumulation in piscivorous wildlife (e.g.,
grebes, osprey, bald eagles, mink, raccoons)
Tissue residue levels in grebes
Bioconcentration in herbivorous wildlife
Tissue residue levels in coots
105
-------
Region W Superfund Office
SUPERFUND (R10)
Background
Decisions
In the Region 10 Superfund Office, as in other regional
Superfund offices, ecological information may be used
(1) to assist in establishing environmental cleanup levels
and (2) to select preferred remedial activities at Super-
fund sites, although there are few sites at which this has
occurred. During the Remedial Investigation (Rl), a
baseline risk assessment for a site usually includes an
assessment of ecological risks. These risks are consid-
ered during the evaluation of options for site cleanup.
The selected cleanup levels are documented in Records
of Decision (RODs) for each Superfund site. The ROD
should indicate if and how ecological information was
used to make cleanup decisions for a site.
Statutory Authority
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-
pensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA), requires that EPA protect the environment with
respect to releases or potential releases of hazardous
substances from National Priority List (NPL) sites. Sec-
tion 121(d)(2)(A) of CERCLA requires that Superfund
remedial action meet federal and state standards, re-
quirements, criteria, or limitations that are applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), includ-
ing Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 regulations,
Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations, and other
applicable regulations. Water quality and sediment qual-
ity criteria and standards play a particularly important
rote.
Ecological Assessment Endpoints
Ecological Values To Be Protected
The ARARs for the Superfund program include several
broad ecological concerns: self-sustaining populations
of federally protected species (e.g., see Endangered
Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Marine Mammals
Protection Act), integrity of wetlands (CWA Section 404),
ecosystems valued in state-designated uses of surface
waters (e.g., coldwater fisheries habitat), and other fed-
erally or state-protected ecosystems or areas (e.g., State
or National Wildlife Refuges, sensitive areas designated
under the National Estuary Program). In addition, as
inferred from assessment endpoints identified by Office
staff, the Region 10 Superfund program is concerned
with commercially important species, the biological in-
tegrity of important ecosystems, and bioaccumulation of
hazardous substances in aquatic and terrestrial food
chains.
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
Site-specific assessment endpoints that can serve as
surrogates for the broader ecological values covered by
the program are used to help establish site-specific clean-
up goals and remedial activities. These may be selected
in cooperation with Natural Resource Trustees (e.g., the
Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration). Examples inferred from Office staff
and from RIs conducted in Region 10 include:
• Self-sustaining federally protected species (e.g., endan-
gered snails, sturgeon, migratory birds, and waterfowl,
and particularly, bald eagles).
• Wetland acreage (some protected for habitat value,
other areas protected because of site-specific func-
tioning, such as filtering or binding pollution sources).
• Surrogates for exposed and valued ecosystems (e.g.,
benthic macroinvertebrate communities and bottom-
dwelling fish in fresh and marine surface water) (U.S.
EPA, 1989).
• Self-sustaining commercially important species (e.g.,
waterfowl, salmon, trout, shellfish, Dungeness crabs,
herring).
• Species at the top of various food chains (e.g., hawks,
falcons, eagles, osprey, great blue heron).
Commencement Bay Case Study
To date, Commencement Bay is the only Region 10
Superfund site to reach a final cleanup decision (ROD)
based on ecological concerns. Element P-2 of the plan
required the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE)
to adopt standards for identifying and designating sedi-
ments that have observable acute or chronic adverse
effects (U.S. EPA, 1989). In a cooperative agreement,
EPA and WDOE established the apparent effects thresh-
old (AET) measure of sediment toxicity to establish
106
-------
sediment cleanup objectives for the Bay (U.S. EPA,
1989). The AET, which serves as an assessment end-
point, consists of three measurement categories: (1)
sediment contamination levels; (2) benthic species
acute toxicity tests; and (3) benthic community in situ
structure (i.e., relative species abundances) compared
with a reference site.
An implicit goal of EPA's remedial investigation was to
maintain "the biological integrity of Commencement
Bay" (an ecosystem-level endpoint) (U.S. EPA, 1989).
Operationally, the Region focused on the "integrity of the
benthic community" of Commencement Bay as a surro-
gate for this ecosystem value for several reasons: the
benthic community was most exposed (through con-
taminated sediments), it contributes to the base of the
food chain for the Bay, and it helps promote nutrient
regeneration in the sediments (U.S. EPA, 1989). At
Commencement Bay, the AET provided a measurement
endpoint for the integrity of the benthic community, and
by implication, for the biological integrity of the Bay.
Additional assessment endpoints used in the Com-
mencement Bay RIs included the health of fishery popu-
lations (as evidenced by measuring the incidence of
lesions among bottom-dwelling fish) and bioaccumula-
tion of toxic substances in wildlife (as evidenced by
measures of chemical residue levels in food chain or-
ganisms and in consumer organisms) (U.S. EPA, 1989).
CWA Section 404 requirements also play a key role in
the selected remedy. Since the overall goal of the project
is to enhance and protect the Commencement Bay
environment for a broader range of uses, cleanup activi-
ties involving the excavation, transport, and disposal of
dredge material required compensatory mitigation for
any impact to habitat.
Wyckoff Eagle Harbor Case Study
This site also includes contaminated marine sediments
in Puget Sound. The proposed plan identifies cleanup
objectives based on the AET sediment quality approach
(now Washington state standards). The cleanup objec-
tives are aimed at Bay-wide ecosystem protection,
based on protecting the benthic community. Habitat miti-
gation due to sediment remedial activities will be impor-
tant. An ROD for one portion of the site has now been
published.
Similar approaches are being used in other Superfund
sites bordering Puget Sound, including the Asarco Ta-
coma Smelter, Harbor Island, and Tulalip Landfill.
References and Other Sources of
Information
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA). 1988.
1989 Puget Sound water quality management plan
(final report). Seattle, WA: Monitoring Management
Committee.
U.S. EPA. 1989. Commencement Bay nearshore/tide-
flats record of decision. Region 10, Seattle, WA.
107
-------
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics—New Chemicals
TOXICS (PMN) and TOXICS (BIOTECH)
Background
Decisions
The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)
makes decisions based on the health and environmental
risks of new and existing chemicals and bioengineered
microorganisms. Major decisions that incorporate eco-
logical Information relate to sediment strategy plans and
to premanufacture notifications (PMNs). The Office pro-
vides a toxic and ecological risk assessment for PMNs
(Toxic Substances Control Act [TSCA] §5) and must
either approve the new chemicals (or new bioengi-
neered organisms) or decide that a risk exists and that
additional review is required. OPPT also makes deci-
sions on consent orders, voluntary testing, 5(E) signifi-
cant new uses rule (SNURs), non-5(E) SNURs, forced
withdrawals, denials or exemptions, and conditional
grants.
Statutory Authority
TSCA mandates that "adequate data be developed with
respect to the effect of chemical substances and mix-
tures on health and the environmenf and gives EPA the
authority to regulate "chemical substances and mixtures
which present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environmenf (TSCA §2[b][1] and [2]). TSCA re-
quires the producer of a new chemical to submit a PMN,
including "all existing data concerning the environmental
and health effects of such substance or mixture" (TSCA
§8[a][2][E]).
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
OPPT is charged with protecting "the environmenf from
"an unreasonable risk of injury" (TSCA §2[b][1] and [2]).
The term 'environment' includes water, air, and land and
the interrelationship which exists among and between
water, air, and land and all living things" (TSCA§3[5]).
"Protecting the aquatic environmenf was the ecological
value most often cited by Office staff. This value also
can be inferred from the use of subchronic (e.g., 21 to 28
day exposure) tests on aquatic organisms (e.g., fish,
daphnla, algae) as measurement endpoints. Site-specific
analyses are considered occasionally, and endpoints
can include endangered species or habitat concerns.
Clements (1983) lists three principle ways in which a
chemical can cause undesirable environmental effects:
• By causing a change in the structure of biotic popu-
lations through alterations in mortality, natality, and
growth.
• By bioconcentrating in an organism to concentrations
that are hazardous to other organisms through inges-
tion, including humans.
• By causing a deterioration of an abiotic resource.
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
The assessment endpoint on which the Office bases
initial PMN chemical decisions is the expected ex-
ceedance of an aquatic concentration of concern for
more than 20 days out of the year (note: the 20 days
need not be consecutive). This might be considered the
Office's operational assessment endpoint and threshold
for assuming a risk to aquatic ecosystems. The aquatic
concentrations of concern are determined from any
available acute or chronic toxicity tests on fish, daphnia,
or algae. Thus, the assessment endpoint is essentially
equivalent to the available measurement endpoint. Al-
though each of the three types of aquatic life is of equal
concern, in practice the fish toxicity value often drives
the determination of risk.
Only 4.8 percent of all PMNs received (either the original
notice or a later supplement), however, included acute
or other data for at least one fish species. Evaluation of
all other PMNs requires an analysis of structure-activity
relationships (SAR) for fish toxicity.
If a risk is presumed to exist, then the Office negotiates
with the manufacturer that submitted the PMN so that
changes/modifications can be made to one or more
components of the PMN chemical's life cycle to reduce
the environmental risk to acceptable levels.
OPPT has made decisions based on ecological rather
than human health concerns for five classes of chemi-
cals: polycationic polymers, polyanionic polymers, poly-
anionic monomers, surfactants, and cationic dyes.
108
-------
Notably few PMN reviews of biotechnology products
have been performed. Nonetheless, ecological con-
cerns for biotechnology product reviews have been es-
tablished and include:
• Unreasonable significant effects on endangered spe-
cies.
• Unreasonable significant effects on wildlife.
No biotechnology cases have been decided yet based
exclusively on ecological risk.
References and Other Sources of
Information
Clements, R.G. 1983. Environmental effects of regula-
tory concern under TSCA: A position paper. U.S. EPA
Health and Environmental Review Division, Environ-
mental Effects Branch.
Nabholz, J.V. 1991. Environmental hazard and risk as-
sessment under the United States Toxic Substances
Control Act. The Science of the Total Environment.
109/110:649-665.
109
-------
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics—Existing Chemicals
TOXICS (ECAD)
Background
Decisions
The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics' (OPPT's)
decisions concern the regulation of existing chemicals.
Major decisions that incorporate ecological information
include deciding whether to test existing chemicals, and
deciding whether to prohibit or limit the use of existing
chemicals or to require specific practices (e.g., labeling
requirements).
Statutory Authority
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) mandates
that "adequate data be developed with respect to the
effect of chemical substances and mixtures on health
and the environment." TSCAalso gives EPA the author-
ity to regulate "chemical substances and mixtures which
present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environmenf (TSCA§2[b][1] and [2]). Section 4 of TSCA
requires that testing be conducted for existing chemicals
(1) that "may present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environmenf and (2) that require testing to
provide sufficient data to determine whether unreason-
able risk exists (TSCA §4[a][1][A]). Under Section 6 of
TSCA, existing chemicals may be prohibited, limited, or
otherwise regulated (TSCA §6[a]).
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
OPPT is charged with protecting "the environmenf from
"unreasonable risk of injury" (TSCA §2[b][1] and [2]).
'The term 'environment' includes water, air, and land and
the interrelationship which exists among and between
water, air, and land and all living things" (TSCA §3[5j).
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
The following ecological concerns can be inferred from
Rabert's (1991) ecological risk assessment of dioxins in
sludge:
• Effects on terrestrial wildlife.
• Effects on aquatic invertebrates and fish.
• Effects on wildlife feeding on benthic organisms or
fish.
• Effects on aquatic fowl.
• Effects on aquatic mammals.
The results from this assessment are being used to
negotiate for more data, but not for use in a regulation
at this point.
References and Other Sources of
Information
Rabert, W.S. 1991. Environmental risk assessment for
TCDD- and TCDF-contaminated pulp sludges on ter-
restrial and aquatic wildlife. U.S. EPA Office of Toxic
Substances, Health and Environmental Review Divi-
sion, Environmental Effects Branch.
U.S. EPA. 1990. Remand decision relating to diazinon
in the matter of Ciba-Geigy Corporation et al. FIFRA
Docket Nos. 562 et seq. (July 16).
110
-------
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water
WATER (CRITERIA)
Background
Decisions
The Health and Ecological Criteria Division develops
aquatic life, sediment, biological, and wildlife criteria.
Ecological information is used in developing methodolo-
gies and approaches for establishing criteria for limiting
environmental concentrations of substances in water.
The Division also is responsible for prioritizing chemi-
cals for criteria development, developing guidance
documents on how to apply criteria at various locations,
and establishing methods for testing.
Statutory Authority
Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) provides
for the protection of aquatic life and wildlife through the
establishment of physical, chemical, and biological
standards. The Division is charged with developing cri-
teria for water quality that accurately reflects the latest
scientific knowledge (1) "on the kind and extent of all
identifiable effects on health and welfare including, but
not limited to, plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, plant life,
shorelines, beaches, esthetics, and recreations which
may be expected from the presence of pollutants in any
body of water including ground water," and (2) "on the
effects of pollutants on biological community diversity,
productivity, and stability, including information on the
factors affecting rates of eutrophication and rates of
organic and inorganic sedimentation for varying types of
receiving waters" (CWA §304[a]).
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
The CWA provides for the protection of:
• The aquatic community as a whole
• The benthic community
• Plankton (CWA §304[a])
• Fish and shellfish (CWA §304[a])
• Plant life (CWA §304[a])
• Wildlife (CWA §304[a])
• Shorelines and beaches (CWA §304[a])
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
Once specific numerical criteria are established (e.g.,
acute or chronic Ambient Water Quality Criteria [AWQC]
for chemical X), exceedance of a criterion represents
both a measurement and assessment endpoint. EPA has
developed national AWQC to protect aquatic communi-
ties (exclusive of benthos) for many of the CWA priority
pollutants (almost all metals and many of the important
pesticides). Water quality criteria for the protection of
piscivorous wildlife are being developed at a national
level as well as specifically for the Great Lakes region
(and eventually other regions). For the Great Lakes,
criteria have been established for four substances:
PCBs, dioxin, DDT, and mercury. Draft sediment quality
criteria have been developed for several pesticides. Bio-
logical criteria are still under development.
When developing an AWQC for the protection of aquatic
life, the Division assesses protection based fairly equally
on chronic and acute—and on lethal and sublethal—ef-
fects on organisms. Specific assessment endpoints for
the development of these criteria include:
• Sublethal effects (chronic or acute) on benthic (infau-
nal and epifaunal) organisms.
• Sublethal effects (chronic or acute) or lethal effects
on fish or aquatic invertebrates.
• Effects on terrestrial wildlife (limited).
• Effects on plants.
• Effects on endangered species.
• Effects on commercially important species, including
salmonids.
• Biological integrity of the aquatic community.
To ensure protection of the majority of an aquatic com-
munity, toxicity tests from a minimum of eight specified
taxonomic groups are required (U.S. EPA, 1985). The
criterion is set to be protective of 95 percent of species
in an aquatic community (U.S. EPA, 1985). The Division
111
-------
assumes that aquatic community structure and function
will be preserved if 95 percent of the species are pro-
tected and if a broad range of taxonomic groups are
represented (Stephan, 1985).
Specific ecological concerns for the development of a
water quality criterion for the protection of wildlife that
feed primarily on aquatic organisms include:
• Effects on birds
• Effects on mammals
Adverse effects on wildlife can include impacts on repro-
duction, development, growth, or mortality—all end-
points that can affect the survival of a population. It is
not necessary, however, to demonstrate population-
level impacts (e.g., with use of population models).
In developing regional criteria, piscivorous wildlife likely
to be found in the region are selected for evaluation. In
the case of the Great Lakes criteria, three bird species
and two mammalian species were selected. A criterion
is developed separately for birds and mammals using
the geometric mean of the species-specific criteria de-
veloped in each group. The lower of the bird or mam-
malian value becomes the wildlife criterion. Thus, the
criterion will not be protective of the most sensitive (i.e.,
to the toxic substance) and vulnerable (i.e., exposed)
species considered.
References and Other Sources of
Information
U.S. EPA. 1985. Guidelines for deriving numerical na-
tional water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic
organisms and their uses (NTIS No. PB85-227049).
Duluth, MN: Environmental Research Laboratory.
Stephan, C.E. 1985. Are the guidelines for deriving nu-
merical national water quality criteria for the protection
of aquatic life and its uses based on sound judgments?
In: Cardwell, R.D., R. Purdy, and R.C. Bahner, eds.
Aquatic toxicology and hazard assessment: Seventh
symposium. ASTM STP 854. Philadelphia, PA: ASTM.
pp. 515-526.
112
-------
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
WATER (NONPOINT)
Background
Decisions
The nonpoint source (NPS) program was established to
control nonpoint sources of water pollution nationwide.
By controlling nonpoint source pollution, the program
protects and enhances wildlife habitat (wildlife and rec-
reation are the water uses most affected by nonpoint
pollution). Decisions under Section 319 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA) include (1) approving or disapproving
state NPS assessments and management programs
and (2) determining annual grant award amounts and
funded activities. These decisions are made in the EPA
Regional offices, rather than at Headquarters. Other
decisions under Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Man-
agement Act (CZMA) include co-deciding with the Na-
tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (MOAA)
on approval or disapproval of state coastal nonpoint pollu-
tion control programs.
Statutory Authority
Section 319 of the CWA established the NPS grant
program in 1987. Section 6217 of CZMA established the
coastal nonpoint pollution control program in 1990.
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
The NPS program was established to control nonpoint
pollution to all impaired or threatened surface water
bodies (including rivers, lakes, estuaries, coastal wa-
ters, and wetlands). The focus is on the health of the
community as a whole rather than on particular species.
Specific ecological values include:
• Protection of water bodies for designated uses (e.g.,
wildlife, shellfishery, finfishery, recreation).
• Protection of wetlands and riparian areas, which have
unique value as wildlife and fish habitat, flood control,
water quality maintenance, and corridors between
habitats.
• Protection of "particularly sensitive and ecologically
significant waters, such as wetlands, estuaries and
other coastal waters, wild and scenic rivers, and ex-
ceptional fisheries" (U.S. EPA, 1991).
• Promotion of "comprehensive watershed manage-
ment, including the establishment and maintenance
of protective corridors such as greenways, filter strips
and wetlands along streams, lakes, and estuaries
and the use of conservation easements and other
land conservancy measures" (U.S. EPA, 1991).
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
Ecological concerns vary from state to state, and depend
on the designated uses of the water bodies involved in
each program. A watershed approach generally is used.
Concerns include:
• Attainment of designated uses.
• Prevention of impairment of high-quality waters and
waters currently meeting water quality standards.
• Reduced pollutant loading.
• Improving trend in the chemical, biological, and
physical integrity of waters as measured by specific
chemical, biological, physical, and habitat parame-
ters.
References and Other Sources of
Information
U.S. EPA. 1991. Guidance on the award and manage-
ment of nonpoint source program implementation
grants under Section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act.
113
-------
Office of Water (Ocean Discharges)
WATER (OCN DSCHRG)
Background
Decisions
The Office of Water (OW) makes ocean dumping deci-
sions regarding site designation and permit issuance. The
majority of these decisions are based on ecological risk.
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
of 1972 (MPRSA) provides that ocean dumping permits
may be issued upon a determination that the proposed
dumping will not "unreasonably degrade or endanger"
human health or the marine environment (MPRSA
§§102[a], 103[a]). The act directs EPA to issue criteria
for the review of permit applications, and provides that
in developing such criteria EPA shall consider such fac-
tors as the effects of dumping on marine ecosystems,
the need for ocean dumping, alternatives to ocean
dumping, and the effect of the proposed action on aes-
thetic, recreational, and economic values, and on other
uses of the ocean such as scientific study and living
resource exploitation (MPRSA §102[a]).
Under Section 403 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), EPA
is charged with issuing guidance for determining "the
degradation of the waters of the territorial seas, the
contiguous zone, and the oceans" (CWA §403[c][1]).
Section 403 further directs that no National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for dis-
charges to such marine waters may be issued unless
the discharges are in compliance with the Ocean Dis-
charge Guidelines.
Section 301 (h) of the CWA allows publicly owned treat-
ment works (POTWs) discharging to ocean or saline
estuarine waters to apply to EPA for a waiver of secon-
dary treatment requirements concerning biological oxy-
gen demand (BOD), suspended solids (SS), and pH.
Statutory Authority
OW draws its statutory authority from MPRSA and from
Sections 301 (h) and 403 of the amended CWA (PL.
100-4).
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
Under MPRSA, it is EPA's determination that the dis-
posal will present:
• No unacceptable adverse effects on human health
and no significant damage to the resources of the
marine environment.
• No unacceptable adverse effect on the marine eco-
system.
• No unacceptable adverse persistent or permanent
effects due to the dumping of the particular volumes
or concentrations of these materials.
• No unacceptable adverse effect on the ocean for
other uses as a result of direct environmental impact
(40 CFR §227.4).
The CWA Section 403 guidelines are used to assess
"significant adverse changes in ecosystem diversity,
productivity, and stability of the biological community
within the area of the discharge and surrounding biologi-
cal communities" (40 CFR §125.121 [e]).
To obtain a waiver under Section 301 (h), applicants must
show that their less-than-secondary discharge will allow
for the "protection and propagation of a balanced indige-
nous population of fish, shellfish, and wildlife" (40 CFR
§125.57[a][2]).
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
Although different in regulatory requirements, both Sec-
tions 403 and 301 (h) are ecologically based assessment
programs. These programs monitor and assess water
column and sediment effects, and are intended to pro-
tect unique, sensitive, or ecologically critical species, as
well as most other aquatic species.
Ecological concerns for both programs would include:
• Potential for bioaccumulation
• Effects on benthic organisms
• Effects on water column organisms
• Effects on endangered or threatened species
• Impacts to natural, special aquatic, or sensitive habitats
114
-------
References and Other Sources of
Information
40 CFR 125.56-125.67. Subpart G: Criteria for modify-
ing the secondary treatment requirements under Sec-
tion 301 (h) of the Clean Water Act.
40 CFR 125.120-125.124. Subpart M: Ocean discharge
criteria.
40 CFR Parts 220-229.
Ocean Dumping Program ecological decision making:
A summary. 2 pages.
U.S. EPA. 1993a. Amended Section 301 (h) technical
support document (draft). Office of Water, Oceans
and Coastal Protection Division.
U.S. EPA. 1993b. Clean Water Act Section 403: Interim
procedural and monitoring guidance (draft). Office of
Water, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division.
U.S. EPA. 1992a. Four-page document summarizing
301 (h) technical support and guidance documents.
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Ocean
Coastal Protection Division.
U.S. EPA. 1992b. Transcript of ecological risk manage-
ment survey. Interview with personnel from Office of
Water (August 18).
U.S. EPA. 1991 a. Evaluation of dredged material pro-
posed for ocean disposal—testing manual. Office of
Water and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
U.S. EPA. 1991b. Guidance for water quality-based de-
cisions: The TMDL process. EPA/440/4-91-001. Office
of Water, Assessment and Watershed Protection
Division.
U.S. EPA. 1991c. Modification of secondary treatment
requirements for discharges into marine waters (pro-
posed Rule). 40 CFR Part 125. Fed. Reg. January 24.
U.S. EPA. 1983. Ecological impacts of sewage dis-
charges on coral reef communities. Office of Water.
115
-------
Region 9 Wetlands Permits and Enforcement Section
Wetlands, Oceans and Estuaries Branch
Water Management Division
WATER (PERMITS, R9)
Background
Decisions
The regulatory function of the Region 9 Wetlands Per-
mits and Enforcement Section includes review of permits,
regulation of unauthorized discharges, and enforcement
of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Approxi-
mately 25 percent of these permits include monitoring
for future impacts. Other Region 9 activities that incor-
porate ecological factors are strategic planning, water-
shed approach planning, and National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) reviews.
Statutory Authority
The Region 9 Permits Section has statutory authority
pertaining to CWA §404 and NEPA (i.e., review and
regulation of environmental impact statements).
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
General ecological values that the Office seeks to pro-
tect are the same as for the Headquarters Office of
Federal Activities and Office of Water (see Headquarters
Office interview summaries). The following ecological
values can be inferred from concerns described in vari-
ous permit and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
reviews:
• Protection of aquatic ecosystems and their associ-
ated functions and values, including vegetation and
wildlife (e.g., birds, amphibians, reptiles, mammals).
• Protection of sensitive habitats, particularly aquatic
ones (e.g, wetlands).
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
Ecological concerns used by Region 9 are described in
permit and EIS reviews. For example, dredging permit
cases in San Luis Rey, California, have involved several
assessment endpoints: birds, fish, habitats, endangered
species, and special aquatic sites that include wetlands.
In a review of a 404 permit for the Ocean Development
Company to build a luxury hotel in the Republic of Palau
(an island Trust Territory of the United States in the
Western Pacific), Region 9 evaluated the potential dam-
age (from filling) to 139 acres of mangrove swamps,
agricultural wetlands, seagrass beds, and reef flats and
decided that the construction would likely cause signifi-
cant adverse effects (Seraydarian, 1991).
Another 404 permit review (for a docking facility in Hum-
boldt County, California) included the following ecologi-
cal concerns (Seraydarian, 1988):
• Intertidal and subtidal habitats and the rich diversity
of benthic organisms and other fish they support.
• Vegetated shallows and eel grass habitats.
• Sandbar and mudflat habitats.
In its 404 permit proceedings regarding the Pamo Dam
and Reservoir Project, Region 9 evaluated the following
ecological concerns in Pamo Valley in order to veto the
permit (U.S. EPA, 1987):
• Vegetation, such as wetlands, forest and understory,
emergent wetlands, and riparian woodland (the pro-
ject would "inundate" nine vegetation types).
• "Birds of special interesf because of sensitivity, rarity,
or limited habitat (the reservoir project would cause
permanent loss of their habitats and displacement of
their populations).
• Amphibians and reptiles "of special interest."
• Mammals.
• Endangered species (e.g., the least Bell's vireo).
In its review of an EIS on an Army Corp of Engineers
(COE) project to provide flood protection with a dry dam
near Auburn, California, Region 9 evaluated the follow-
ing ecological concerns (Wieman, 1992):
• Potential impacts to wetlands and upland habitat.
• Effects of water temperature increases and reduced
flows on Chinook salmon population sizes and chi-
nook spawning and rearing.
• Open water/marsh and riparian habitat.
116
-------
• Vegetation/channel characteristics.
In general, endangered species have carried more
weight than the other ecological concerns. Terrestrial
impacts (other than those involving endangered spe-
cies) have received the least attention.
References and Other Sources of
Information
Seraydarian, H. 1991. Memorandum from the Director,
Water Management Division, U.S. EPA, on Public
Notice No. PODCO 2186 (June 5). Palau Resort
Development, Ngesaol, Koror State, Palau.
Seraydarian, H. 1988. Memorandum from the Director,
Water Management Division, U.S. EPA, Public Notice
No. 17492N21 (June 30). Humboldt County, CA: Al-
len and Finn Inc.
U.S. EPA. 1987. Pamo Dam and reservoir project. An
analysis pursuant to Section 404(q) of the Clean
Water Act. Public Notice No. 85-021-GL.
Wieman, D.M. 1992. Letter from the Director, Office of
External Affairs, U.S. EPA, on comments on the EIS
for American river watershed investigation.
117
-------
Region 9 Water Quality Branch
WATER (QUALITY, R9)
Background
Decisions
The Region 9 Water Quality Branch (WQB) is divided
into two teams, the agriculture team and the San Fran-
cisco Bay Delta team. The agriculture team conducts a
nonregulatory program involving the use and impacts of
pesticides; the focus of the program is pollution preven-
tion. The WQB is involved in the development of water
quality standards for states.
Statutory Authority
At the regional level, the WQB has statutory authority
relating to the following regulations: the Clean Water Act
(specifically §404 and §319), the National Environmental
Policy Act, and the Pollution Prevention Act. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture/EPA Memorandum of Under-
standing on pollution prevention also provides authority.
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
The following ecological values are protected by the
WQB:
• Fish and wildlife (protected through the Region's
promulgation of water quality standards).
• Clean water in all water bodies in the Region (through
pollution prevention).
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
In its water quality program, Region 9 considers the
protection of the following ecological concerns:
• Attainment of water quality for state-designated uses,
for which protection of fish and wildlife dominate.
• Attainment of water quality no worse than 1975 (CWA
amendments).
• Threatened and endangered species.
• Pesticide toxicity effects in fish.
• Meeting water quality standards (current emphasis
on selenium).
• Loss of fisheries.
• Salinity.
• Riparian habitats.
• Ecological success of salmon and striped bass.
• Benthic invertebrates.
• Acute, chronic, and sublethal effects on aquatic
organisms.
• Impacts of altered flow regimes (e.g., to migratory fish).
• Fish populations and habitat conditions in the San
Francisco Bay Delta.
Apriority concern for the San Francisco Bay Delta team
has been endangered species. Due to water scarcity,
however, providing protection for certain endangered
runs of threatened salmonids can sometimes be carried
out only at the expense of nonendangered runs that are
the basis of viable fisheries.
118
-------
Sludge Risk Assessment Branch
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water
WATER (SLUDGE)
Background
Decisions
The Sludge Risk Assessment Branch considers ecologi-
cal risk when it:
• Identifies pollutants in sludge to be considered for
regulation.
• Proposes regulations specifying acceptable manage-
ment practices for sludge containing the identified
toxic pollutants.
• Establishes numerical limits for the pollutants for vari-
ous uses of the sludge.
Statutory Authority
Section 405(d)(2)(A)(i) of the Clean Water Act of 1977
required the development of sludge regulations by 1978.
The Water Quality Act (WQA) of 1987 amends that act as
follows: "the Administrator shall identify those toxic pol-
lutants which, on the basis of available information on
their toxicity, persistence, concentration, mobility, or po-
tential for exposure, may be present in sewage sludge
in concentrations which may adversely affect public
health or the environment, and propose regulations
specifying acceptable management practices for sew-
age sludge containing each such toxic pollutant and
establishing numerical limitations for each such pollut-
ant for each use identified under paragraph (1)(A)."
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
The WQA is designed to protect "the environment" from
adverse effects.
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
Effects on sentinel species is an important ecological
endpoint used to protect the terrestrial environment. The
sludge risk assessment was based on existing data on
species; endpoints were not selected on the basis of an
a priori concern. These include effects on:
• Soil users (e.g., earthworms)
• Predators (e.g., shrews)
• Browsers (e.g., deer)
To protect the aquatic environment, Ambient Water Quality
Criteria (AWQC) for aquatic life are used as assessment
endpoints. AWQC are not necessarily protective of pis-
civorous birds and mammals, however.
EPA has set limits for the concentrations of metals in
sewage sludge. For six metals (i.e., copper, chromium,
nickel, zinc, selenium, and molybdenum), limits were set
based primarily on ecological risk (Southworth, 1993).
Assessment endpoints included:
• Phytotoxicity
• Effects on crop-eating and sludge-eating animals
Phytotoxicity was the effect of concern for copper, chro-
mium, nickel, and zinc (Southworth, 1993). Molybdenum
levels were set based on effects on crop-eating animals,
including both domestic animals and wildlife (South-
worth, 1993). Selenium levels were based on effects on
sludge-eating animals, including both domestic animals
and wildlife.
References and Other Sources of
Information
Southworth, R.M. 1993. Telephone conversation between
Elizabeth Ebersole, ICF, and Robert Southworth,
Sludge Risk Assessment Branch, Health and Ecologi-
cal Criteria Division, U.S. EPA (April 7).
119
-------
Region 10 Surface Water Branch, Water Division
WATER (SURFACE, RIO)
Background
Decisions
The Region 10 Surface Water Branch (SWB) incorpo-
rates ecological risk into the following:
• Actions relating to Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA).
• Regulation of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs).
• Regulation of dredging/ocean discharges.
• Enforcement of water quality standards.
• Development of sediment standards.
• Prevention of nonpoint source pollution and related
remedial activities.
These decisions often focus specifically on water col-
umn, sediment, and riparian habitat effects. Ecological
effects information is incorporated into state riparian
habitat restoration projects (e.g., Oregon).
Statutory Authority
At the regional level, the SWB administers statutes and
regulations pertaining to the CWA and the Coastal Zone
Management Reauthorization Act of 1990.
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
The Region 10 SWB protects the following general eco-
logical values:
• Biological integrity of surface water ecosystems
• Watersheds
• Clean lakes
• Water column
• Sediments
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
In its watershed protection program, Region 10 consid-
ers the protection of the following:
• Lethal and chronic effects in benthic communities (the
apparent effects threshold [AET] triad of measure-
ment endpoints; used as Washington state sediment
quality standards; applicable or relevant and appro-
priate requirements [ARARs] for Superfund cleanup
and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
[NPDES] and dredge spoil permits).
• Riparian habitat loss and effects (e.g., increased
water temperature) (proposed Columbia Basin resto-
ration project).
• Stream habitats (Palouse Creek habitat restoration
project).
• Spawning habitats.
• Nonanadramous fish (salmon and other native fish
are considered).
• Wildlife (e.g., eagles and waterfowl).
• Aquatic biotic integrity (e.g., index of biotic integrity
in limited context).
120
-------
Wetlands Division
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
WATER (WETLANDS)
Background
Decisions
The Wetlands Division's role is to develop policy for
aquatic resource protection and restoration through a
variety of regulatory and cooperative efforts. Ecological
assessment information used by the Division includes
information on the functions and values of wetland and
aquatic ecosystems. That information is incorporated
into decisions relating to development of regulations,
guidance, and policy on such issues as:
• Wetlands categorization.
• Wetlands mitigation.
• Advance identification of wetlands.
• The relationship between wetlands and the effects
and management of stormwater, nonpoint source pol-
lution, and hazardous wastes.
• Setting directions for wetlands research.
• Development of biological criteria for water quality
standards.
The Division also develops and implements strategies
to assist state, tribal, and local governments in protect-
ing wetlands. These programs are designed to protect
the ecological values and functions of aquatic resources,
and they include wetland conservation planning.
Statutory Authority
The Wetlands Division has authority under Section
404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to develop
environmental guidance and criteria regulating dis-
charges of dredged and fill material into wetlands. EPA
also has the ultimate responsibility for determining the
geographic scope of jurisdiction for the Section 404
program and applicability of Section 404(f) exemptions.
The Agency also shares Section 404 enforcement
authority with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
Additionally, the Administrator "is authorized to prohibit
the specification...of any defined area as a disposal
site...whenever [she] determines, after notice and op-
portunity for public hearings, that the discharge of such
materials into such area will have an unacceptable
adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish
beds, and fishery areas (including spawning and breed-
ing areas), wildlife, or recreational areas" (CWA
§404[c]). The Division also develops policies and guid-
ance for implementation of state certification responsi-
bilities under Section 401 of the CWA and Section 303
water quality standards, as those authorities apply to
protection of wetland systems. Finally, the Division also
develops regulations for state assumption of the Section
404 regulatory program.
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
With respect to wetlands protection, EPA recognizes the
values and functions of wetland ecosystems as a whole
(U.S. EPA, 1992) as well as individual values and func-
tions that wetlands provide, including:
• Aquatic diversity/abundance and wildlife diversity/abun-
dance, including fish and wildlife habitat, habitat for
endangered species, and habitat for commercially
and recreationally important species, and production
export.
• Recreation and aesthetics, including hiking, bird
watching, fishing, and boating.
• Water quality enhancement and protection through
nutrient transformation and removal, sediment reten-
tion, and stabilization.
• Ground-water recharge and discharge.
• Floodflow attenuation.
Section 404 of the CWA requires EPA to develop the
substantive criteria used in evaluating discharges of
dredged and fill material into waters of the United States,
including wetlands. The Section 404(b)(1) guidelines
are used by COE in reviewing permit applications under
Section 404. In general, the guidelines address potential
impacts to the physical, chemical, and biological char-
acteristics of the aquatic ecosystem, as well as impacts
to special aquatic sites such as wetlands, mud flats,
coral reefs, and riffle and pool complexes. Some exam-
ples of specific ecological values that the guidelines
reflect include:
121
-------
• Threatened and endangered species (40 CFR §230.30).
• Fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and other aquatic organ-
isms in the food web (40 CFR §230.31).
• Other wildlife, including "resident and transient mam-
mals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians" and their "breed-
ing and nesting areas, escape cover, travel corridors,
and preferred food sources" (40 CFR §230.32).
• State and federal sanctuaries and refuges (40 CFR
§230.40).
• Wetlands and their biological productivity (40 CFR
§230.41).
• Mud flats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs, and riffle
and poo! complexes (40 CFR §§230.42,230.43,240.4,
and 240.45).
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
Due to the multidimensional and multifunctional nature
of aquatic resources, the Division's policy is to use a
holistic approach, rather than to assess simply the rela-
tionship between a stressor (e.g., discharge of fill mate-
rial) and a single component (e.g., a particular wetland
function) of the aquatic ecosystem. In practice, the Divi-
sion does evaluate a wetland's ecosystem as a whole
and does not merely rely on one or two components or
values. Thus, all of the functions, values, and stressors
are treated as assessment endpoints and are used to
value the entire community.
Examples of specific endpoints that may be used in
various combinations to evaluate effects on the aquatic
system as a whole include (U.S. EPA, 1992):
• Effects on wetland organisms
• Effects on wetlands function
• State heritage ranking values
Some assessment endpoints are treated as special val-
ues, generally because they cannot easily be moved or
replaced. Examples include:
• Endangered species
• Wading bird rookeries
• High-quality trout streams
References and Other Sources of
Information
Prothro, M.G., and D.G. Davis. 1990. Memorandum to
regional nonpoint source and wetland program direc-
tors on the subject of "National guidance: Wetlands
and nonpoint source control programs" (June 18).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and
Watersheds: Responsibilities and functions.
EPA/840/K-92/001.
U.S. EPA. 1990. Guidelines for specification of disposal
sites for dredged or fill material. 40 CFR Part 230.
Fed. Reg. December 24.
122
-------
Region 9 Policy, Wetlands and Coastal Planning Section
WATER (WETLANDS, R9)
Background
Decisions
The Wetlands and Coastal Planning Section (WCPS)
was created to address issues related to the protection
and restoration of coastal areas, wetlands, and other
aquatic resources. WCPS considers ecological con-
cerns in making decisions regarding the following activi-
ties:
• Geographic targeting
• Strategic planning
• Comparative risk
• Dredging permits
• Watershed protection
The WCPS often initiates projects that require coordina-
tion with other Region 9 sections (U.S. EPA, 1992).
Statutory Authority
Statutory authority for WCPS comes from several
sources, including the Clean Water Act (CWA) (§§104[b]
and 404), the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which pro-
vides authority for comparative risk work.
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
The Section's goals are "to maximize opportunities to
improve the quality and increase the quantity of the
Region's aquatic resources" (U.S. EPA, no date). Eco-
logical values are the same as those described in the
Headquarters Office summaries.
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
Region 9 WCPS ecological assessment endpoints
noted by Section staff or that can be inferred from pro-
jects for which Region 9 has awarded grants include:
• Protection of salmon runs and protection of fish in
general.
• Effects on threatened and endangered species
(e.g., the Santa Margarita case).
• Protection of natural habitats (especially uncommon
habitats), including undammed coastal streams, vernal
pools, wetlands, and riparian areas (U.S. EPA, 1992).
• Maintenance and increase in wetlands functions and
values, including:
- fish and wildlife habitat
- water quality and quantity
- flood loss reduction
- recreation (U.S. EPA, 1992)
References and Other Sources of
Information
U.S. EPA. 1992. Wetlands and Coastal Planning Sec-
tion, quarterly project summaries list (July 15).
U.S. EPA. (No date) Wetlands and Coastal Planning
Section (W-7-4) operating plan for FY93.
123
-------
Region 10 Wetlands Team
WATER (WETLANDS, RW)
Background
Decisions
The Region 10 Wetlands Team incorporates ecological
risk into its regulatory functions involving wetlands pro-
tection. Such functions include:
• Permit review as mandated by Section 404(c) of the
Clean Water Act (CWA).
• Minimizing adverse impacts of all 404 permits.
• Enforcement of restrictions on wetlands disposal.
• Regional mitigation (U.S. EPA, 1992).
Other actions of Region 10 include funding to states'
wetlands programs, local planning efforts under the
Coastal Zone Management Act, developing CWA404(b)
guidelines, restoration of wetlands, and involvement in the
President's Wetland Protection Plan (U.S. EPA, 1992).
Statutory Authority
Under the CWA, the Wetlands Team of Region 10 ad-
ministers effluent limitations (CWA §301) through its
authority for inspections, monitoring, and entry (CWA
§308) and federal enforcement actions (CWA §309).
The Wetlands Team also enforces the Section 404(b)(1)
guidelines: "Fundamental to these Guidelines is the pre-
cept that dredged or fill material should not be dis-
charged into the aquatic ecosystem, unless it can be
demonstrated that such a discharge will not have an
adverse impact [on] the ecosystems of concern" (40
CFR §230[1][c]); "No discharge-shall be permitted if
it—jeopardizes the continued existence of species listed
as endangered or threatened, or results in likelihood
destruction or adverse modification of a habitat which is
determined...to be a critical habitat" (40 CFR §230.10[b]).
In enforcing its Section 404 mitigation policy, Region 10
adopts the following definition of mitigation given in the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40
CFR §1508.20): "(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by
not taking a certain action...; (c) Rectifying the impact by
repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected envi-
ronment; (d) Reducing—the impact...by preservation
and maintenance operations; (e) Compensation for the
impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or
environments."
Ecological Considerations
Ecological Values To Be Protected
Region 10 protects wetland ecosystems and the ecologi-
cal values that they provide. These values are presented in
the Headquarters Wetlands Division summary.
Specific Ecological Concerns or Assessment
Endpoints
Ecological concerns can be inferred from various wet-
lands protection actions Region 10 has taken. One such
action was the regional administrator's proposed deter-
mination to withdraw the specification of the Kuparuk
River Unit for use as a disposal site. Assessment end-
points used in this decision included: (1) potential dam-
age to vegetation at the site, specifically the deep
pendent grass, which is an important food source for
many waterfowl species; (2) adverse impacts on wildlife
and their habitats (e.g., on nesting habitat of tundra
swans and other migratory waterfowl); and (3) effects on
endangered or threatened species (U.S. EPA, no date).
Other Region 10 actions include the aiding of states,
local governments, and Indian tribes in the development
of wetland protection projects. In the Skokomish River
Delta Project, the main assessment endpoints were to
protect against loss of wetlands acreage and to restore
the delta. Other assessment endpoints included the pro-
tection offish, shellfish, and wildlife habitats. Specifically
these included the protection of (1) juvenile salmon in
their estuarine habitat, (2) eel grass bed habitats, (3)
flyways for ducks, geese, swans, and shorebirds, and
(4) threatened bald eagle habitat (Skokomish, no date).
An example of a local wetlands protection project that
EPA helped to develop was the West Eugene Wetlands
Special Area Study in Oregon. Assessment endpoints
in this project included: (1) the protection of a variety of
wetland types and a diversity of habitats, specifically
the protection of high-quality examples of each impor-
tant type of wetland plant community existing in West
Eugene (native Willamette prairie grassland, ash forest,
cattail marsh, scrub/shrub, and open water); (2) the
protection of current populations and habitats of rare,
endangered, and threatened plants and animals in
West Eugene; (3) the protection of an interconnected
system of wetlands within a sustainable, ecologically
sound system; and (4) the creation of a "mitigation
124
-------
bank", (i.e., a system of restored and enhanced wet-
lands) (Lane Council of Governments, 1991).
Other assessment endpoints include the scarcity of the
ecological system, restorability, and the economic im-
portance of species (U.S. EPA, 1992).
References and Other Sources of
Information
Lane Council of Governments. 1991. West Eugene
wetlands special area study. Oregon: Lane Council
of Governments.
Skokomish. (No date) Skokomish River Delta Project.
U.S. EPA. 1992. Interview with Gary Voerman, Region
10 Wetlands Team Leader, Regulatory Enforcement
Coordinator.
U.S. EPA. (No date) Proposed determination to withdraw
or restrict the specification of an area for use as a
disposal site. Alaska: Kuparuk River Unit, North Slope
Borough.
125
-------
------- |