United States . Office of EPA/600/S-97/002
Environmental Protection Research and Development January 1997
Agency Washington, DC 20460 Discussion Document
oEPA Priorities for Ecological
Protection: An Initial List and
Discussion Document for EPA
-------
EPA/600/S-97/002
January 1997
Discussion Document
Priorities for Ecological Protection:
An Initial List and Discussion
Document for EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency policy and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
1/23/97 ii DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
CONTENTS
AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS, AND REVIEWERS v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. BACKGROUND 1
1.2. AUDIENCE 1
1.3. APPROACH 2
1.4. LIMITATIONS 3
2. VALUES AND TRENDS 4
2.1. LAWS 4
2.1.1. EPALaws 4
2.1.2. Historic Review of Federal Laws 5
2.2. CURRENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES AT EPA 7
2.2.1. Past Review of EPA Programs 7
2.2.2. Trends 8
2.2.2.1. Water Quality Criteria 8
2.2.2.2. Region I 9
2.2.3. Other Policies and Practices 9
2.2.3.1. Scientific Advisory Board Recommendations 9
2.2.3.2. EPA Goals and Milestones for the Year 2005 9
2.2.3.3. Community-Based Environmental Protection 9
2.3. CURRENT PRACTICES AT OTHER AGENCIES 10
2.4. COMMUNITY- AND PLACE-BASED PROJECTS 10
2.5. OTHER INDICATIONS 11
2.5.1. The Interagency Ecosystem Approach 11
2.5.2. Public Opinion Research 11
2.6. CONCLUSIONS: SOME COMMON AREAS OF CONSIDERATION 11
2.6.1. Ecological Entities 11
2.6.2. Trends 12
3. ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY 13
1/23/97 iii DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
3.1. ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY 13
3.2. SUSTATNABILITY 14
3.3. RESILIENCY 14
3.4. BIODIVERSITY 15
3.5. ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND INTERACTIONS 15
3.6. HOW TO INCORPORATE ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY INTO
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 16
1/23/97 iv DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
4. ECOLOGICAL ENTITIES TO BE PROTECTED 17
4.1. SOME CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIZING ECOLOGICAL PROTECTION 17
4.2. SOME COMMONLY VALUED ECOLOGICAL ENTITIES 17
4.2.1. Animals, Plants, and Their Habitats 18
Entity 1: Aquatic Communities in Lakes, Streams, and Estuaries 18
Entity 2: Regional Populations of Native Species and Their Habitats—Terrestrial
and Aquatic 21
Entity 3: Native or Migratory Species Exposed to Severe or
Acute Threat 22
4.2.2. Whole Ecosystems 22
Entity 4: Ecosystem Functions and Services 23
Entity 5: Wetlands and Stream Corridors 23
4.2.3. Special Places and Species 24
Entity 6: Endangered Ecosystems 25
Entity 7: Endangered Species and Their Habitats 25
Entity 8: Other Places of High Ecological or Societal Value, as Appropriate . 26
5. PRACTICAL ADVICE 27
5.1. ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT 27
5.2. APPLICATION TO NATIONAL PROGRAMS' RISK-BASED DECISIONS 28
5.2.1. Some Examples 31
5.3. CBEP PROJECTS 31
5.4. WAQUOIT BAY 35
6. NEXT STEPS 38
GLOSSARY 40
BIBLIOGRAPHY 42
APPENDICES A-l
Appendix A: Ecosystem Concepts A-2
Appendix B: EPA Past Consideration of Concerns by
1/23/97 v DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Concern Category and Major EPA Office A-3
Appendix C: Recent Policies of Federal Resource
Management Agencies A-8
Appendix D: Some Community Projects A-l 1
Appendix E: Lists of Special Places A-14
Appendix F: Statutory Provisions That Authorize EPA
to Consider Specific Concerns A-15
References for Appendices A-26
1/23/97 vi DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS, AND REVIEWERS
This document was prepared by:
Anne Barton, Office of Research and Development
(on detail from the Office of Pesticide Programs)
Cory Berish, EPA Region 4
Bernie Daniel, Office of Research and Development
Stephen Ells, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Tom Marshall, Office of General Counsel
Jay Messer, Office of Research and Development
Mary Powell, Office of Pesticide Programs
Margaret Rice, Office of Pesticide Programs
Anne Sergeant, Office of Research and Development
Victor Serveiss, Office of Research and Development
Ingrid Sunzenauer, Office of Pesticide Programs
Molly Whitworth, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
1/23/97 vii DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2
3 EPA's mission, and the environmental laws that underlie policy and regulations, require the
4 Agency to "protect human health and the environment." Although we may debate the degree of
5 acceptable risk, there is general agreement on the human health endpoints of concern; there is far
6 less agreement on the corresponding endpoints for protecting the environment. Decision makers
7 in EPA have sought guidance on specifically what resources to protect and how they and the
8 public can become more involved in the ecological risk assessment and decision-making process.
9 One purpose of this document is to stimulate Agencywide discussion on which ecological
10 entities should be considered priorities for protection by all Agency programs. (Ecological
11 entities are the valued resources to be protected and can be species, ecosystem functions or
12 characteristics, or specific places and habitats.) Another purpose is to propose a process by which
13 decision makers can set specific ecological objectives to guide both assessment and action.
14 As a first step in framing this discussion, our work group reviewed past and current trends
15 in ecological protection as revealed in Federal statutes, EPA actions, policies of natural resource
16 management agencies, community-based projects, and other management actions involving the
17 public to see what has been valued and whether there is evidence of consistent directions.
18 The results of this review show that there is a trend in environmental legislation. The early
19 statutes tended to be concerned with short-term narrow utilitarian objectives (e.g., use of
20 commercially valuable natural resources). In later statutes, there is much more evidence of longer
21 term broader utilitarian objectives (e.g., protecting natural areas such as National Parks and
22 Scenic Rivers for the enjoyment of present and future generations). This trend has culminated in
23 legislation that protects individual species and whole ecosystems for posterity.
24 There is also a trend in the complexity and the time and space scales of ecological
25 protection objectives. Environmental legislation has a long history of protecting certain groups of
26 animals such as fish, shellfish, migratory songbirds and waterfowl, and large mammalian game
27 species. More recently, legislation has sought to protect entire ecosystems and to ensure their
28 "integrity" for the foreseeable future. Integrity can be defined as "the interaction of the physical,
29 chemical, and biological elements of an ecosystem in a manner that ensures the long-term health
30 and sustainability of the ecosystems" (U.S. EPA, 1994b). It incorporates the concepts of
31 sustainability, or the ability of an ecosystem to support itself over a long time; resiliency, or the
32 ability of an ecosystem to recover from a stress; and biodiversity, or the variety of life at the
33 genetic, individual, and ecosystem levels.
34 This trend has resulted in a shift in focus from simply protecting single species on a
35 chemical-by-chemical basis to more complex approaches involving basinwide watershed
36 management and consideration of both direct and indirect effects of multiple stressors. There is
1/23/97 viii DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 evidence that a broad segment of the public holds beliefs that tend to support these trends. These
2 trends suggest that decision makers should increasingly focus on long-term goals in addition to
3 short-term objectives; to articulate these goals to encompass sustainability, resiliency, and
4 appropriate biodiversity; and to consider how foreseeable changes in the environment resulting
5 from natural and human-induced changes may modify current risks and risk-reduction strategies.
6 Because it is usually not possible to protect everything at once, it is important to be able to
7 prioritize for the ecological entities that may be most worthy of concern and protection. Such
8 entities include individual species and their immediate habitats, whole ecosystems containing many
9 species and the processes that link them, and "special" places that are of unique or particular
10 ecological or societal value. Some criteria for ranking risks to these entities include statutory
11 mandates, valued or unvalued utility to society, the threat of irreversible harm (e.g., extinction),
12 and the importance of the entity to the survival of other entities (e.g., species or ecosystems).
13 Our review of current practice suggests eight ecological entities that are of widespread
14 concern: (1) aquatic communities in lakes, streams, and estuaries; (2) regional populations of
15 native species and their habitats; (3) severe episodic threats (such as massive bird or fish kills); (4)
16 important ecosystems functions and services; (5) wetlands; (6) endangered ecosystems; (7)
17 endangered species and their habitats; and (8) other special places. These categories are not listed
18 in order of priority, nor are they mutually exclusive. They are presented as a reasonable and
19 useful set of entities for setting ecological objectives.
20 Ecological objectives are needed in a variety of regulatory and nonregulatory applications
21 at EPA. Two of these applications are when national program managers make risk-based
22 decisions and in Community-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP) projects.
23 Risk-based decisions use ecological risk assessment, which has taken a large step forward
24 with EPA's publication of a new Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1992a)
25 and the Proposed Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1996c). The critical
26 role of the risk manager in this process is to (1) identify the problem and the appropriate legal
27 mandates and restrictions; (2) review the applicable entities potentially at risk; (3) meet early with
28 the technical risk assessors and the attentive public; (4) define the societal objectives associated
29 with risk to a particular entity; and in working with the risk assessors, (5) identify the assessment
30 endpoints; (6) review and understand the conceptual model underlying the risk assessment; and
31 (7) establish quantitative measures of effect.
32 The CBEP projects use a similar set of steps: (1) identify the problem and sources of
33 information; (2) form partnerships and bring in the public; (3) establish boundaries; (4) inventory
34 the resources of the area; (5) list the local values; (6) establish specific objectives; and (7) plan the
35 analysis, either by the risk assessment paradigm or some other process.
1/23/97 ix DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 The order of the steps is somewhat flexible for both processes and may require iteration.
2 The Waquoit Bay Problem Formulation provides a good example to illustrate both processes and
3 is discussed in chapter 5.
4 Our work group believes that EPA risk managers will be increasingly called upon to
5 consider ecological risks, in addition to those that directly affect human health. As people become
6 more educated about the complexity of ecosystems and their importance to the quality of life, risk
7 managers will be required to increase the scope and complexity of ecological risk assessments.
8 We hope that the review of past practice, of the ecological entities that have been of most concern
9 in past and current statutes and regulations, and of the ecological basis for concepts such as
10 sustainability, resilience, and biodiversity prove helpful for risk managers who lack extensive
11 training or experience in these areas.
12 We hope that the recommendations in this report will lead to agreement on the entities that
13 should be considered in all Agency activities and on other principles of ecological protection. We
14 believe that a common list of entities and ecological principles for the entire Agency can provide
15 many advantages: It can promote consistency among our programs, make our actions more
16 understandable to the public, provide structure for those programs than do not yet have much
17 experience with ecological risk, aid in research planning, and focus risk-communication efforts.
18 Even before the Agency agrees on the common ecological entities, we believe the information and
19 suggestions in this document can be of immediate use to Agency decision makers. The list given
20 in chapter 4 can serve as a convenient checklist to help turn the general goals provided by EPA
21 laws into concrete, specific objectives that can guide assessments and actions.
22 Above all, we hope that Agency decision makers will use these suggestions and
23 recommendations and share their experiences with other offices, including the Office of Research
24 and Development and the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. Only by learning from
25 actual experience can we develop the processes and principles that will provide a sound and useful
26 EPA approach to protection of valued ecological entities.
1/23/97 x DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 1. INTRODUCTION
2
3 1.1. BACKGROUND
4 EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment. Initially EPA emphasized
5 protection of human health (U.S. EPA, 1990c; Russell, 1995), and although ecological impacts
6 are now considered to a greater extent, the focus on human health remains. As a result, many risk
7 managers have had more experience in incorporating human-health concerns than ecological
8 concerns into the decision-making process. Also, the degree to which different statutes consider
9 ecological risk varies.
10 Some risk managers in EPA have indicated that they would like to consider ecological risk
11 to a greater extent, but they need something more specific than the "protect human health and the
12 environment" found in many laws. They want further guidance, including advice on what
13 resources should be protected.
14 The 1994 report Managing Ecological Risks at EPA (U.S. EPA, 1994a) reviewed the
15 ecological concerns already considered in many EPA program areas. The report concluded with a
16 set of recommendations, one of which was that EPA develop common ecological concerns to be
17 considered in all Agency activities. The report states: "these concerns can take the form of
18 Agencywide principles or objectives and can also support other ecosystem management and
19 nonregulatory efforts being undertaken by the Agency."
20 Although Managing Ecological Risks did not precisely define "concerns," some examples
21 of potential Agencywide concerns cited were risks to migratory birds, wetlands, commercial
22 fisheries, congressionally designated wilderness areas and Wild and Scenic Rivers, public lands,
23 and important privately owned lands such as Nature Conservancy preserves and National
24 Audubon Society sanctuaries (U.S. EPA, 1994a, p. 18).
25 In this document, we modify this notion slightly and define an entity (or ecological entity,
26 or valued ecological entity) as the valued resource to be protected. With this, we hope to launch
27 a discussion, within and outside of the Agency, to achieve consensus on what valued ecological
28 entities should be considered routinely in all Agency programs for which they might be relevant.
29
30 1.2. AUDIENCE
31 Our primary audience is EPA decision makers who determine what aspects of the
32 environment are to be protected or restored, their priority, and the extent to which they are
33 protected or restored. They could be developing regulations, criteria (e.g., water quality criteria),
34 policy, or guidance, or they could be making decisions about pesticides, toxic chemicals, or
35 cleanup of Superfund sites. We also include those who work with partners to reduce ecological
36 risk.
1/23/97 1 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 This document may also be of interest
2 to those who support these activities with
3 technical information, risk assessments,
4 monitoring programs, research, grant or
5 budget activities, and community outreach; it
6 may also be of interest to those who
7 implement decisions (by permit reviews or
8 enforcement activities).
9 This audience includes people with a
10 wide range of experience in managing
11 ecological risk. It has been challenging to
12 write for the entire audience; consequently,
13 the reader may find some parts of the
14 document more relevant than others.
15 Furthermore, the extent to which particular
16 entities are already considered varies greatly
17 among programs; any list of potential
18 Agencywide concerns will probably seem new
19 to some readers and routine to others.
20
21 1.3. APPROACH
22 The approach taken here is based on a
23 view of government as both responding to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
24 public values and providing information and
25 leadership. Thus, it is important for the Agency to understand the societal value attached to
26 various ecological entities. On the other hand, EPA must also help the public understand the
27 relationship between (1) those resources and services that are widely valued and (2) those whose
28 value may not be widely recognized but are necessary to support other attributes that are valued.
29 Ecological principles and processes must be considered when determining priorities for
30 ecological concerns. To accomplish this, we combine an initial list of valued ecological entities
31 (i.e., ecosystems and their components) with the goal of maintaining long-term ecosystem
32 integrity. It does this by:
33
34 • Making some inferences about the value placed on particular ecosystems and
35 ecosystem components and how these values change over time as shown in Federal
Advantages of a Common
List of Entities
A list of valued ecological entities to be
considered in all EPA activities has several
advantages.
Consistency: A general list of entities can
promote consistency within the Agency.
Understandability: A list of specific entities
can make it easier for the public to understand
what we do.
Structure: A list of valued entities can help
decision makers set specific, measurable
objectives.
Research Planning: The experience of
attempting to use common entities in varied
areas can identify where we lack knowledge
and help focus research.
Communication: The entities discussed in
this document can help focus risk-
communication efforts around valued
resources.
1/23/97
DISCUSSION DOCUMENT
-------
1 laws, Federal agency actions, and local (community-based) environmental protection
2 (chapter 2)
3
4 • Introducing the idea of ecosystem integrity as an environmental protection goal
5 (chapter 3)
6
7 • Proposing a set of criteria for setting priorities as to what should be protected (chapter
8 4)
9
10 • Proposing a set of ecological concerns for consideration as a common Agencywide list
11 to be used in all EPA activities for which they might be appropriate (chapter 4)
12
13 • Showing how concerns can be used in two major risk-management approaches
14 (chapters).
15
16 1.4. LIMITATIONS
17 We do not intend our recommendations to prescribe how much any particular entity should
18 be protected. This depends on many factors, including discussions between the risk manager, the
19 attentive public, and the risk assessor, and will differ from case to case. This document is
20 intended to facilitate those discussions and help ensure that all appropriate ecological entities are
21 given due consideration. In addition, the document deals only with entities that contain some
22 important nonhuman biological component. Human health and abiotic issues such as groundwater
23 contamination are related to these issues but are not addressed directly.
24 We also want to recognize that some entities are not readily amenable to sound scientific
25 assessment and that some ecological risks may not be amenable to reduction or prevention under
26 existing statutory authority. Nevertheless, decision makers should not be deterred from
27 considering them or from including them when documenting Agency decisions.
1/23/97 3 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 2. VALUES AND TRENDS
2
3 This chapter examines Federal laws and current environmental practices that reflect widely
4 held values. It describes the ecosystems and ecosystem components favored by the public,
5 including the way this has changed over time, and delineates a baseline from which to consider the
6 need for change. The appendices contain additional information on environmental laws and
7 practices.
8 Ecological concerns—as evidenced by current laws, government and private action, and
9 expressed values and philosophies—extend across a broad spectrum from immediate human utility
10 to values independent of humans. At one end of the spectrum are highly utilitarian concerns such
11 as the protection and availability of natural or manmade resources for economic use and direct
12 human consumption. As one moves across the spectrum, concerns of this type grade into
13 recreational and aesthetic uses and human-derived preservation values. At the other end are those
14 associated with moral, religious, and spiritual values.
15 We do not intend to make any choice for the Agency or the public along this continuum.
16 Rather, we present values as inferred from legislation and environmental action and describe the
17 ways in which these values have changed over time. This approach examines historical actions at
18 a national level. In setting priorities and goals, risk managers should keep in mind that values
19 change over time and may vary in different geographical areas.
20
21 2.1. LAWS
22 In a democratic society, the values represented in Federal law are often good indicators of
23 widely held values. Frequently, they have gone through an extended process of public debate and
24 examination. As an executive agency, EPA must implement laws. But beyond this mandate, laws
25 can provide insights into the ecosystem components, services, and whole ecosystems that are
26 particularly widely valued. These inferences, although not limiting what the Agency can do, can
27 help the Agency interpret those laws that state the ecological goals in general terms.
28
29 2.1.1. EPA Laws
30 Existing laws direct EPA to consider a variety of general and specific ecological concerns
31 (see table F-l in appendix F). At the most general level, most of the laws administered by EPA
32 focus the Agency on ecological concerns through mandates to protect "the environment."
33 Although Congress' use of the term environment does not help identify specific ecological
34 entities, its plain meaning indicates that EPA may reasonably consider a broad range of ecological
35 entities in its programs. Statutory definitions of environment in the Federal Insecticide,
36 Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), for
1/23/97 4 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 example, explicitly include water, air, land, living things (including humans), and the
2 interrelationships among them.
3 A number of statutory provisions in existing law also direct EPA's attention to more
4 specific ecological concerns:
5
6 • Ecosystem Components: The Clean Water Act repeatedly mentions fish, shellfish,
7 and wildlife in many places and contexts. The Clean Air Act refers to wildlife
8 protection.
9
10 • Ecosystems: The Clean Water Act has many references to specific types of aquatic
11 ecosystems, including rivers, lakes, and estuaries. The Clean Air Act mentions
12 "regionally representative" and "critical" ecosystems.
13
14 • Special Places: Both the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts mention the Chesapeake
15 Bay, the Great Lakes, and Lake Champlain. In addition, the Clean Air Act makes
16 special provisions for national parks and wilderness areas, and the Clean Water Act
17 lists specific types of waters as "Outstanding Natural Resource Waters" for enhanced
18 protection.
19
20 2.1.2. Historic Review of Federal Laws
21 In the late 1970s, the then-Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) prepared Federal Laws,
22 Treaties and Conventions Pertaining to the Environment as a basis for determining the
23 environmental effects of regulatory concern under TSCA (U.S. EPA, 1983). The appendix to the
24 OTS report listed environmental legislation chronologically from 1785 to 1978 (U.S. EPA, 1983).
25 This section reviews this chronology to consider both the trends in the way laws consider
26 ecological entities and the entities that have been targeted for protection.
27
28 • 1785 to 1899: The earliest legislation dealt with the use and disposal of public land
29 for homesteading and mining (e.g., the Mining Act of 1866) and similar uses. Such
30 laws seem to have been motivated primarily by a narrow view of the utility of natural
31 resources. However, Yellowstone Park was also set aside "for the pleasure of the
32 people" during this era (1872), thus including a broader utilitarian view.
33
34 • 1900 to 1925: Laws specifically protecting fish, birds, and wildlife appeared early in
35 this period, with the Lacey Act established to protect endangered game and wild birds
36 in 1900. This was in response to an alarming rate of extinction of wild animals and the
37 commerce in game birds for plumage during the last decades of the 19th century. The
38 first national wildlife refuges for the protection of game animals, birds, and fish were
39 also established during this period. The Fish and Game Sanctuary Act, which
40 authorized the executive branch to establish such refuges, was passed in 1916. The
41 Migratory Bird Treaty Act, a major step toward protecting birds, was passed in 1918
42 to implement a 1916 treaty with Canada. Among other provisions, the Act specifically
1/23/97 5 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 prohibited the hunting of insectivorous birds, thus clearly going beyond the protection
2 of game species. The National Park Service Act of 1916 created the National Park
3 Service, with authority to make such rules and regulations necessary for the proper use
4 and management of National Parks for various purposes. The law specified that
5 grazing can be allowed when not detrimental to the primary purpose for which a
6 particular park was established. This demonstrated support for the "broadly
7 utilitarian" use of natural areas. Concerns for more narrowly utilitarian uses also
8 continued through this period. Examples are the Kinkaid Homestead Act of 1904 and
9 the Amended Mineral Leasing Act of 1920.
10
11 • 1926 to 1947: In general, this era showed a growing awareness of the need to
12 conserve natural resources, both abiotic and biotic. Examples are the Wildlife
13 Restoration Act of 1937, which authorized the use of firearms tax revenues for wildlife
14 conservation, and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, which authorized the
15 acquisition of migratory bird reservations. Notable during this period are the laws
16 combining conservation projects with depression relief such as the Tennessee Valley
17 Authority Act. There was also continuing activity on land use issues, especially
18 grazing, during the period.
19
20 • 1948 to 1978: The late 1940s and the 1950s saw the early versions of the major EPA
21 antipollution acts (the Air Pollution Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act).
22 These were amended at various times, notably in the 1970s. In addition, other
23 antipollution laws (e.g., the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976) and laws
24 encouraging recycling of wastes (the Resource Conservation and Recovery Acts of
25 1970 and 1976) were passed during the period.
26
27 Numerous laws and treaties (one or more per year) were enacted for the protection offish,
28 birds, and other wildlife. One example is the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, which established a
29 comprehensive national fish and wildlife program. Among other things, this program was to
30 develop measures for maximum sustainable production offish. Another example is the National
31 Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. This provided guidelines and directives for
32 managing wildlife refuges, areas for protection of endangered fish and wildlife, waterfowl
33 production areas, and similar refuges.
34 Ecosystem types specifically protected by laws during this period include wetlands (e.g.,
35 the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance as Waterfowl Habitats of 1972). These
36 acts were primarily concerned with wetlands as waterfowl habitat. Coastal areas were the focus
37 of acts in 1968, 1972, and 1976, which were designed to protect, preserve, develop, and restore
38 the resources of the coastal zone.
39 Concern for recreational and historically important areas continued throughout the period,
40 with the Wild and Scenic River Act of 1968 to preserve sections of selected river to protect their
41 scenic value, the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 to provide for the acquisition and
1/23/97 6 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 management of areas with scenic and recreation value, and the Endangered American Wilderness
2 Act of 1978 to preserve wild areas with outstanding natural characteristics, and various other acts
3 concerning national parks and forests. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
4 provided authority to manage Federal lands according to multiple use and sustained yield
5 principles.
6 A new concept was introduced by the 1974 law establishing Big Cypress National Preserve
7 in Florida. This law created a new category for preservation and protection of areas that are
8 unique mainly for their flora and fauna, for the benefit of future generations. This represents a
9 departure from the previous emphasis on scenic or recreational importance. Several other laws
10 show a broader view of the value of natural resources:
11
12 • The National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (along with some
13 endangered species treaties) showed a concern for global environmental issues.
14
15 • The Endangered Species Act (1973 and 1978) went beyond the concern for fish,
16 birds, and other wildlife to encompass all plants and animals that are listed as
17 threatened or endangered. It articulated a concern for species diversity rather than
18 particular categories of species.
19
20 • The National Environmental Policy Act (1969) explicitly stated a policy of
21 preserving the quality-of-life benefits of natural areas and resources for future
22 generations. The regulations implementing this Act require that Federal agencies
23 analyze the effects of their significant actions on components, structures, and
24 functioning of affected ecosystems.
25
26 2.2. CURRENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES AT EPA
27 2.2.1. Past Review of EPA Programs
28 The 1994 report Managing Ecological Risks at EPA (U. S. EPA, 1994a) reviewed past
29 Agency actions and summarized the ecological concerns historically considered in EPA decision
30 making. Among the major findings:
31
32 • Animals (e.g., birds and fish) are more frequently assessed than plants. An exception
33 to this rule is the Air Program.
34
35 • Except for endangered species, no case was found in which an individual nonhuman
36 organism, or even a small number of individuals, was protected by a regulatory
37 decision. However, effects somewhere between the individual and population levels,
38 such as widespread mortality in fish or birds, were used as the basis for decisions.
39
1/23/97 7 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 • EPA pays considerable attention to protecting wetlands, estuaries, and large natural
2 resources such as the Chesapeake Bay. However, only a few programs consider
3 interactions occurring among animal and plant communities and their physical
4 environment.
5
6 A summary table and more detail is provided in appendix B. Additional details may be
7 found in the 1994 report.
8
9 2.2.2. Trends
10 Managing Ecological Risks at EPA was a snapshot of the whole Agency. Individual
11 programs, however, are in very different stages of development in managing ecological risk. The
12 two sections below look at the history of a program and a region to show how the management of
13 ecological risks may change over time.
14
15 2.2.2.1. Water Quality Criteria
16 The Clean Water Act provides for the protection of aquatic life through the establishment
17 of physical, chemical, and biological criteria.
18 For about 10 years after EPA was created, the Agency based its criteria on the same
19 methodology that was used by the Department of the Interior. This approach focused on the
20 direct, immediate effects of single chemicals, which meant, among other things, that the criteria
21 were based on acute risk (mainly lethality) to various aquatic species (U.S. EPA, 1976).
22 In 1980, the Office of Water published new methods for setting criteria, including a
23 provision for considering chronic effects (U.S. EPA, 1980). This approach takes a longer term
24 view.
25 More recently, the Office of Water has expanded beyond these chemical-specific criteria to
26 include whole-effluent testing (U.S. EPA, 1995c) and biological testing. Whole-effluent testing,
27 for point sources, considers the combined effects of many chemicals that may be present.
28 Biological Criteria directly measure attributes of the aquatic community and compare these
29 measures to those of unimpaired waters (U.S. EPA, 1990b). Biological Criteria integrate the
30 effects of multiple stressors of various types and their interaction. Both of these changes take a
31 more holistic view of impacts on the aquatic community and allow consideration of complex
32 interactions. Together they represent a large step toward an ecosystem approach.
33 The watershed protection approach (U.S. EPA, 1991b) goes even further: It uses an
34 integrated and holistic strategy that focuses on a watershed rather than on specific sources or
35 pollutants. As such, it encourages the consideration of cumulative chemical, physical, and
36 biological effects throughout the watershed.
1/23/97 8 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 2.2.2.2. Region I
2 Some regions have also moved toward more holistic approaches for protecting the natural
3 resources in their areas. The Resource Protection Project (Ueland et al, 1995) is a good
4 example. Region I, in cooperation with State environmental agencies and the New England
5 Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, initiated this project in 1993 to help target the
6 most important natural resources in each State and to promote an ecosystem approach to
7 environmental protection. This is not a new regulatory program but an approach that uses
8 existing regulatory programs to effectively protect valuable natural resources.
9
10 2.2.3. Other Policies and Practices
11 2.2.3.1. Scientific Advisory Board Recommendations
12 The 1990 report from EPA's Scientific Advisory Board, Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities
13 and Strategies for Environmental Protection (U.S. EPA, 1990c), listed habitat alteration and loss
14 of biological diversity among the high-risk problems. Although this report ranked risk rather than
15 valued entities, this ranking does reflect a high value placed on habitat and biodiversity by the
16 Scientific Advisory Board.
17
18 2.2.3.2. EPA Goals and Milestones for the Year 2005
19 The Proposed Environmental Goals for America With Milestones for 2005 ("Goals
20 Report," U.S. EPA, 1996b) has been developed to encourage innovation in improving the
21 effectiveness and reducing the costs of environmental protection and to help EPA and other
22 Federal agencies be more accountable for protecting the environment.
23 The quantitative benchmarks of the Goals Report go beyond the scope of this document.
24 However, there is a connection to this document in the ecological resources that are targeted by
25 these benchmarks. The Goals Report specifically mentions aquatic communities, regional
26 populations of native species and their habitats, wetlands, ecosystem functions, endangered
27 species, and endangered ecosystems such as old-growth forests and natural prairies. The
28 proposed list of common entities in chapter 4 is consistent with the list of ecological resources
29 targeted in the Goals Report.
30
31 2.2.3.3. Community-Based Environmental Protection
32 Recent EPA policies have called for holistic ecosystem protection in partnership with local
33 communities and other agencies. The CBEP policy promotes an inclusive process to advance
34 environmental results, with a clear emphasis on the protection of whole ecosystems (U.S. EPA,
35 1994b). EPA has adopted this new approach as a more effective way of protecting ecosystems
36 than more fragmented media- or stressor-oriented approaches.
1/23/97 9 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 2.3. CURRENT PRACTICES AT OTHER AGENCIES
2 Appendix C reviews the current policies of Federal land and natural resource management
3 agencies. The focus of concern for each of these agencies is obvious from their names. For
4 example, the mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is "to conserve, protect and
5 enhance the Nation's fish and wildlife and their habitat for the continuing benefit of the American
6 people."
7 The agencies described in appendix C have modified their processes over the last 10 years
8 to include greater stakeholder involvement and to consider a wider range of risks to resources
9 along with sound watershed and habitat management practices. This process is generally known
10 as ecosystem management.
11 An example of ecosystem management at the U.S. Forest Service is the Service's Northern
12 Goshawk Guidelines. These guidelines will be used to develop national forest plans in the
13 Service's southwestern region that will sustain goshawk populations and also benefit forest health,
14 soil productivity, and the habitats of other old-growth-dependent plants and animals (CEQ, 1993,
15 p. 19).
16 Another example of ecosystem management can be found in several agencies'
17 implementation of the Endangered Species Act. The FWS and National Marine Fisheries Service
18 (NMFS) have adopted a formal policy that incorporates ecosystem considerations into a variety of
19 activities under the Endangered Species Act. For example, where appropriate, group listings are
20 made on an ecosystem basis, recovery plans are developed for entire ecosystems inhabited by
21 multiple-listed species, and consultation is carried out on an ecosystem basis (Interagency
22 Ecosystem Management Task Force, 1995, Vol. II).
23 All of the agencies reviewed combine the concept of ecosystem integrity or sustainability
24 with the mission of maintaining valued resources for human use. They recognize that real
25 protection of the resources over the long run can be accomplished effectively and efficiently only
26 by protecting the ecosystems on which these resources depend.
27
28 2.4. COMMUNITY-AND PLACE-BASED PROJECTS
29 Locally based projects are important sources of information both on the current status of
30 ecological protection and, by inference, on what is valued.
31 The value offish and wildlife is as obvious in these projects as elsewhere. For example, the
32 EPA Ecosystem Protection Inventory (U.S. EPA, 1995b) shows that fish and fisheries figure in at
33 least one project in each of EPA's 10 regions and figure in five or more projects in most regions.
34 Comparative-risk projects tend to mention fish and wildlife and their habitats under both
35 ecological and quality-of-life categories (U.S. EPA, 1993).
1/23/97 10 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 Aquatic ecosystems, and especially wetlands, tend to be frequent concerns. Endangered
2 species or other biodiversity issues (such as the range of native species) are also frequent. Both
3 the Wisconsin Tribes project (U.S. EPA, 1992b) and the Kahalu'u O'ahu, Hawai'i, project
4 (University of Hawai'i at Manoa, 1992) include "respect for the land" or "respect for the earth"
5 among their human welfare values.
6 Community-based projects are more likely than national projects to include specific
7 religious or spiritual values. For example, the Wisconsin Tribes project values eagles for religious
8 reasons.
9
10 2.5. OTHER INDICATIONS
11 2.5.1. The Interagency Ecosystem Approach
12 The Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force was established in August 1993 to
13 implement the mandate to adopt an ecosystem management approach throughout the Federal
14 Government. The findings of this task force are presented in the three-volume report The
15 Ecosystem Approach: Healthy Ecosystems and Sustainable Economies (Interagency Ecosystem
16 Management Task Force, 1995). Although much of this report deals with the process of acting
17 through partnerships, it also stresses the need to work on an ecosystem scale and sustain natural
18 resources for future populations.
19
20 2.5.2. Public Opinion Research
21 There is some recent research (Kempton et al, 1996) to indicate that the American public
22 understands that there are complex interrelationships between natural entities within ecosystems
23 and that, consequently, stress to the environment can have unexpected and disastrous results.
24 This same study shows wide support for preservation of species for reasons other than human
25 utility.
26
27 2.6. CONCLUSIONS: SOME COMMON AREAS OF CONSIDERATION
28 2.6.1. Ecological Entities
29 Some inferences can be made about ecological entities that are clearly considered to be
30 valuable from the discussion of laws and ecological protection efforts.
31
32 • Fish, Birds, Other Wildlife, and Associated Ecosystems: These entities are the
33 subject of many Federal laws. They are routinely considered by both EPA and local
34 projects. The associated ecosystems are given prominent attention in the new
35 approaches recently adopted by the natural resource agencies.
36
1/23/97 11 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 • Ecosystem Types and Services: Many types of ecosystems are considered. The
2 value of wetlands, for example, has become widely recognized in the last 20 years, and
3 wetlands are considered by a number of Agency programs. In local projects, wetlands,
4 stream corridors, forests, and other ecosystem types are frequently mentioned as
5 important resources.
6
7 • Special Places and Species: Many of these are designated by Federal law. The
8 Federal and State natural resource agencies have missions that usually involve the care
9 of specific places, such as national parks. Local areas tend to focus on locally
10 important places that may be important for ecological, recreational, aesthetic, or
11 cultural reasons. EPA, other Federal agencies, and communities all focus on
12 endangered species, which is a congressionally mandated concern.
13
14 2.6.2. Trends
15 The laws and examples of ecological protection also show some trends over time.
16
17 • Toward a Larger Geographic Scale: There is a clear trend toward looking at the
18 larger geographic picture, including recent use of watershed and regional-scale
19 assessments and the global effects of climate change.
20
21 • Toward Taking a Longer Term View: The chronology of Federal laws show a clear
22 trend toward a longer term view. Early U.S. policies appeared to start out with little
23 or no concern beyond immediate exploitation of natural resources. Many laws show
24 that we have moved away from this view. No longer do we view our resources as
25 unlimited. The desire to be able to pass on our natural heritage to future generations
26 has increasingly formed the basis for environmental legislation. It is especially evident
27 in the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
28
29 In a slightly different sense, EPA programs have taken a longer term view by moving
30 from immediate, urgent, and highly visible problems to those that are less visible right
31 now but may have as large or even larger impact in the future. Water quality criteria
32 illustrate this trend.
33
34 • Toward an Ecosystem Approach: Perhaps the clearest trend, especially in the last
35 few years, is toward consideration of entire ecosystems, including cumulative effects
36 of multiple stressors and complex interactions between individual components. This is
37 mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act, shown in the latest actions of the
38 Office of Water, and embodied in the policies of EPA and other Federal agencies and
39 in the Interagency Task Force on Ecosystem Management. At least one recent study
40 of public opinion shows that much of the public supports this trend (Kempton et al,
41 1996).
42
1/23/97 12 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 3. ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
2
3 As scientific and public understanding of ecological principles evolves, so, too, must the
4 focus of ecological assessment and management. EPA is moving toward consideration of risk on
5 larger scales of both geography and time than in the past. These trends show a consideration for
6 ecological integrity and related ideas such as sustainability and resiliency. This approach puts
7 specific organisms and resources in the context of what they need to survive in the long run. It
8 also links valued components, services, special places, and what is needed to support them in the
9 context of ecological protection. So maintaining ecosystem integrity is not an endpoint but a way
10 to achieve environmental protection. It is the focus of many of our laws and how they are
11 implemented. In this document, we approach the concept as a way to identify the
12 interconnections between a particular component, service, or special place and its associated
13 ecosystem.
14 We also encourage managers to adopt a long-term strategy and provide information that
15 enables them to develop decisions that work not just until the next review or sampling round but
16 for generations. Certain widely valued components, services, or other defined characteristics help
17 focus ecological risk-management decisions. Yet if ecosystem integrity is not considered as a part
18 of the goal, any protection offered may be only momentary or may require a drain on future
19 resources in order to maintain it. Thus, decisions designed for long-term success are likely to be
20 more cost-effective than those that provide immediate results but must be reevaluated and
21 possibly reengineered every few years. Better long-term decisions are made when the concepts of
22 ecological integrity, sustainability, resiliency, and biodiversity (described below) are considered.
23
24 3.1. ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY1
25 Why consider ecological integrity? There is not much point in protecting, say, a particular
26 animal without also protecting its food supply, shelter, and the area in which it searches for a
27 mate: An animal deprived of food will starve, and one deprived of shelter will succumb to the
28 elements or predation. Some animals can move to other areas, but they may face increased
29 competition or have to survive with inferior resources. Plants, too, have individual requirements.
30 Some have circumvented the issue of finding a mate by way of asexual reproduction, but they all
31 live within specific nutrient, moisture, and sunlight constraints.
32 The goal of maintaining ecological integrity requires definition and measurement. Here we
33 draw upon the Edgewater Consensus (U.S. EPA, 1994b), which defines ecological integrity as
chapter assumes some familiarity of ecological concepts and terms such as ecosystem
structure. Several ecosystem concepts are defined in Appendix A.
1/23/97 13 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 "the interaction of the physical, chemical, and biological elements of an ecosystem in a manner
2 that ensures the long-term health and sustainability of the ecosystem." It goes on to say that
3 integrity can be evaluated by measuring organism health, species and community diversity, and
4 ecosystem functions. The term health may not apply very well to ecosystems, but we have
5 chosen this definition as one that was developed and adopted by consensus within the Agency for
6 purposes of our discussion document.
7 Ecological integrity includes the system's ability to recover from stress and retain its
8 distinctive characteristics. Forest regeneration after a fire is an example of recovery from a stress,
9 but a clearcut replanted with a monoculture is not; even though the vegetation is replaced and soil
10 erosion is checked, a single tree species cannot fulfill all of the functions of the variety of plants in
11 the original forest. There are times when such a management decision is appropriate: The system
12 may be more conveniently managed and yield more valuable timber. However, the ecosystem
13 cannot function as it once did: its processes are simplified; "fail-safe" redundancies are
14 eliminated; and many associated species are missing, with their roles in the ecosystem left unfilled.
15 The monoculture probably will be more vulnerable to storm damage, fire, disease, and pest
16 infestation than the original forest.
17
18 3.2. SUSTAINABILITY
19 Sustainability^ a related ecological concept, is the ability of an ecosystem to support itself
20 despite a continued harvest, removal, or loss of some sort. In managed forests, the harvest is
21 balanced with tree growth in an effort to maintain continued wood or pulp production over time.
22 NMFS uses fish reproduction, growth, and recruitment to determine allowable fish harvests. At a
23 Superfund site, some inhibition offish reproduction might be balanced against reductions in the
24 fish populations that would otherwise occur due to competition for food. Pesticides are evaluated
25 in terms of the benefits they provide as well as the risks they pose to the environments. Such an
26 approach (risk-benefit balancing) could take into account the long-term effects of pesticide use on
27 the sustainability of agricultural systems. So in general, the preferred goal would be something
28 like "a self-sustaining fish population for the next 100 years" rather than "the fishery yield we
29 want right now." It is not always possible to take such a long-term approach, but the most
30 successful decisions will use it at least to some extent.
31
32 3.3. RESILIENCY
33 Another related ecological concept is resiliency, or the ability of an ecosystem to adapt to
34 change (or stress). The change or stressed may be natural (e.g., flood, forest fire, pest infestation)
35 or anthropogenic (e.g., commercial fishing, timber harvest, chemical releases). Note, however,
36 that an altered system will not return exactly to its original prestress state. Resiliency also reflects
1/23/97 14 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 the system's adaptability in the face of changing conditions such as drought, temperature, and
2 various organisms' population cycles. All organisms have adapted to stress from other species
3 (such as feeding) and abiotic factors (such as storms or fire). But human activities tend to go
4 beyond the range of natural stress and overcome ecosystem resilience. For example, although a
5 forest may easily recover from patchy storm damage, it may take much longer to recover from a
6 clear-cut timber harvest because the disturbed area has a very different microclimate and is too
7 large to be effectively buffered by the remaining trees. Similarly, small fires leave mature trees
8 blackened but not actually burned (and even encourage cones of certain species to open and
9 release their seeds), while fire suppression efforts can result in a large accumulation of debris on
10 the forest floor. This accumulation can fuel a large crown fire that consumes all trees as well as
11 the soil's organic matter, leaving sterile soil without seeds or seed sources.
12
13 3.4. BIODIVERSITY
14 Norse (1990) describes biodiversity as "the variety of life on all levels of organization,
15 represented by the number and relative frequencies of items (genes, organisms, and ecosystems)."
16 He points out that biodiversity is not just a question of numbers but also of maintaining the
17 integrity of the genetic mixture within populations, the richness of species within ecosystems, and
18 a mix of ecosystems.
19 Biodiversity is also related to sustainability and resiliency in that an ecosystem with varied
20 genetic makeup (e.g., one that contains more species and varied individuals within a species) may
21 be better able to recover from disturbance than one with less genetic variation. Internal structural
22 and functional redundancies mean that, although some individuals or species may be wiped out,
23 others with somewhat different characteristics may be able to survive the shock and carry on the
24 functions of the ecosystem.
25 Management decisions are most likely to succeed when they look beyond the entity and
26 stressor of concern and consider potential impacts in a larger context. By considering ecosystem
27 integrity, the manager can factor sustainability, resiliency, and biodiversity into the decision and
28 ensure that it is not only practical but provides effective, comprehensive environmental protection
29 over the long term.
30
31 3.5. ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND INTERACTIONS
32 There are a number of interactions and ecological processes that influence ecosystem
33 integrity. Recognizing these ecological links by consulting with ecologists, or, better yet,
34 performing ecological risk assessments according to a plan developed by the process described in
35 chapter 5 will enable the manager to make a decision that better protects against unanticipated
36 indirect effects. The following are a few examples.
1/23/97 15 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 • Effects on the population of one species may have drastic or detrimental effects on its
2 predator or prey species. In addition, the impact on the first species or its associated
3 predator or prey species could have a cascading effect on a number of other species in
4 an ecosystem.
5
6 • Effects on environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, moisture, light) may exceed
7 the tolerance range of species in the ecosystem.
8
9 • Disturbance of preserves or corridors between preserves could eliminate the areal
10 extent and intermingling of reproductive individuals necessary for species to survive.
11
12 • The carrying capacity (number of individuals of one species that an area can support)
13 of a habitat may be decreased by some indirect pathway—for example, by disruptions
14 of soil quality caused by increased runoff due to an increase in impervious surfaces in a
15 neighboring area.
16
17 3.6. HOW TO INCORPORATE ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY INTO GOALS AND
18 OBJECTIVES
19 How does all this apply to the role of decision makers in setting goals and objectives? The
20 following three principles summarize much of what is stated above and provide a good start in
21 making ecological integrity a part of the goal.
22
23 1. Take a longer viewpoint in setting goals—several generations rather than several
24 years.
25
26 2. If possible, put the goal in terms of sustainability rather than immediate use. That is,
27 make the goal "self-sustaining fish population for the next 100 years" rather than "the
28 fishery yield we want right now."
29
30 3. Consult scientists about indirect effects and how the particular ecosystem or resource
31 of concern relates to other ecosystems. Consider whether the goals ought to be
32 modified in this light.
33
34 The next chapter discusses choosing the ecological entities to which these principles might
35 apply.
1/23/97 16 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 4. ECOLOGICAL ENTITIES TO BE PROTECTED
2
3 In this chapter, we propose some general criteria for prioritizing valued entities and we
4 apply these criteria to a proposed set of initial common entities to be considered in all Agency
5 activities. These recommendations are intended to improve the Agency's consideration of
6 ecological issues by helping EPA decision makers focus on valued ecological entities that are
7 appropriate for their particular program or project.
8
9 4.1. SOME CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIZING ECOLOGICAL PROTECTION
10 Based on what we found in chapters 2 and 3, we propose four criteria. These criteria are
11 then used to justify the eight entities proposed later in this chapter.
12
13 • Mandated Protection: We are required by law to protect entities such as endangered
14 species. The section on EPA laws in chapter 2 describes some of these.
15
16 • Other Societal Value: Society values organisms, places, ecosystems, and their
17 functions for commercial, recreational, spiritual, and other reasons. Previous sections
18 on laws, current practice in EPA and Federal natural resource agencies, and
19 community projects all provide examples of concerns that are highly valued.
20
21 • Rare or Under Threat: Some species of animals and plants, as well as some entire
22 ecosystems, appear to be declining or are already so rare that it would not take much
23 to eliminate them entirely. Alternatively, they may be threatened by some trend or
24 development (not necessarily anything EPA controls). They need not appear on any
25 official list to meet this criterion. An example is neotropical migrant birds: Although
26 few of them are on the endangered species list, their populations appear to be
27 diminishing and their habitats in both hemispheres are declining.
28
29 • Ecological Significance: This criterion includes organisms that help sustain the
30 ecosystem. Plants and animals are considered ecologically important when they
31 provide a significant food base, provide shelter for other species, promote regeneration
32 of critical resources, or serve another important function of an ecosystem. Certain
33 major categories of organisms and ecosystem processes are generally considered
34 important to the ecosystem. They are often referred to as "keystone" species or
35 functions.
36
37 4.2. SOME COMMONLY VALUED ECOLOGICAL ENTITIES
38 One of the recommendations of Managing Ecological Risk is that the Agency identify an
39 initial common list of ecological concerns, or entities, to be considered in every EPA decision
40 where relevant. Reaching consensus on such a list will require discussion within the Agency and
41 some dialogue with partners and interested groups outside the Agency. As a start, however, we
1/23/97 17 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 propose eight ecological entities for this list. They are organized in broad categories to help
2 decision makers go beyond the particular entities listed. Table 4-1 presents the categories,
3 entities, and criteria by which the entities are valued.
4 Neither the individual entities nor the categories are mutually exclusive. For example,
5 wetlands as habitat for waterfowl might be included in (2) regional populations of native species,
6 (4) ecosystem functions and services, or (5) wetlands and stream corridors. Any specific local
7 ecosystem could be considered as a habitat for some group of plants or animals, as a whole
8 ecosystem or provider of services, or as a special place. The program or project goals determine
9 which category is most appropriate.
10 We describe these entities broadly enough to cover a great deal. They do not, however,
11 include everything worthy of protection. For example, local populations might be of concern for
12 some programs or projects. Some EPA programs routinely include entities not on this list in their
13 decisions; we expect this practice to continue whatever the final list. The common list should not
14 inhibit any program or project from going beyond it.
15 The remainder of this chapter discusses each of the entities.
16
17 4.2.1. Animals, Plants, and Their Habitats
18 Chapter 2 demonstrated that many plants and animal are widely valued. In particular,
19 native fish and wildlife and some plants are valued for reasons that range from the narrowly
20 utilitarian to a belief that they have rights of their own.
21 However, much of EPA does not give the same consideration to habitats. To protect
22 species at the population or community level, one must consider the integrity of the ecosystems
23 that support them as well as direct threats to the plants or animals themselves. Otherwise, any
24 gains made in protecting them from direct threat may be very short-lived.
25
26 Entity 1: Aquatic Communities in Lakes, Streams, and Estuaries
27 This entity focuses on aquatic plants and animals and the surface water habitats that
28 support them. Depending on the nature of the program or project, the goal for protection could
29 include the entire range of species (e.g., "protect 95 percent of the species"), one or more species
30 that have particular social and ecological value (e.g., "maintain lake trout as the top predator"), or
31 the community as a whole (e.g., "maintain a balance of species typical of an oligotrophic lake").
32 Attributes depend on the goals; table 4-1 provides two examples.
1/23/97 18 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
to
VO
Table 4-1. Proposed List of Ecological Entities
Category
Animals, plants,
and their habitats
Whole ecosystems
Ecological entity
1. Aquatic
communities in
lakes, streams, and
estuaries
2. Regional
populations of
native species and
their
habitats — terrestrial
and aquatic
3. Groups of
native or migratory
species exposed to
severe or acute
threat
4. Ecosystem
functions and
services
5. Wetlands and
stream corridors
Examples of
attributes
Survival,
development,
reproduction of
aquatic species;
habitat extent for
key species
Survival and
recruitment; habitat
extent
Survival without
visible damage
Nutrient recycling,
ability to filter
pollutants, habitat
extent for diversity
of species
Extent
Examples of
objectives"
Protect 95 percent
of aquatic species,
or maintain
population of a key
species
Maintain viable
regional population
of native species;
maintain or restore
habitat for native
species
Avoid widespread
and recurring or
massive die-offs
Maintain or restore
function or service
to some standard
Maintain extent of
wetland
Criteria
Mandated
Some (CWA)
Some in CAA,
CWA
Some (e.g.,
Migratory Bird
Treaty Act)
Some general
authority
Yes
Societal
value
High for fish
and shellfish
High for some
Usually high
Not always
recognized
High for many
Rare, under
threat
Some
Some
Not usually
A few
Some
Ecological
significance
Relatively high
High for some
Varies, often
unknown
Very high
High
-------
to
VO
Table 4-1. Proposed List of Ecological Entities (Continued)
Category
Special places and
species
Ecological entity
6. Endangered
ecosystems (e.g.,
old-growth forests,
tall-grass prairies)
7. Endangered
species and their
habitats
8. Other places'1
with high
ecological or
societal value, as
appropriate
Examples of
attributes
Extent
Survival,
development,
reproduction, and
recruitment
Species diversity;
nutrient levels, etc.,
appropriate to the
type of ecosystem;
landscape measures
Examples of
objectives"
Maintain extent of
endangered
ecosystem types
Maintain and
restore populations
Restore
biodiversity,
maintain as
oligotrophic0 lake,
maintain extent of
certain habitat
Criteria
Mandated
Some
Yes
Some (e.g., Great
Waters by CAA)
Societal
value
High for some
Potential for some
High for many
Rare, under
threat
All
High
Some
Ecological
significance
Important for
biodiversity
Usually low
High for many
to
o
"In this document, the term objective is used to refer to a specific objective for an ecological entity. See glossary.
bSpecial places do not necessarily fit the definition of entity used in theProposed Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1996c). See glossary.
GAn oligotrophic lake is one with low nutrient and high oxygen levels.
Note: CAA = Clean Air Act; CWA = Clean Water Act.
-------
1 This entity ranks high on most of the criteria. The Clean Water Act mandates water quality
2 that supports a "balanced indigenous population offish, shellfish, and wildlife." Because other
3 parts of the aquatic community are needed to support fish and shellfish, this in effect mandates the
4 protection of aquatic communities.
5 Chapter 2 points out that many aquatic species are highly valued. Many fish and shellfish
6 have commercial as well as recreational value. Fish are considered by virtually every EPA
7 program and by many community environmental protection projects. Although it is not clear that
8 the entire aquatic community is always considered, protecting the community must be a part of
9 the action if it is to be effective in protecting fish populations.
10 Some aquatic habitats are rare or under threat. Although pollution from point sources has
11 been greatly reduced since EPA was established, nonpoint sources still pose a problem. States
12 have reported that only about half the assessed miles of river were found to have healthy
13 communities (U.S. EPA, 1996V).
14 This entity also ranks very high in ecological importance. Because it includes all members
15 of the aquatic community, it necessarily includes those that are most important to the ecosystem.
16
17 Entity 2: Regional Populations of Native Species and Their Habitats—Terrestrial and
18 Aquatic
19 This entity targets native plants and animals at the regional population level, together with
20 the habitats necessary to support them. At least some of the species or their habitats rank high on
21 each of the four criteria.
22 Many Federal laws were promulgated to protect populations of native species, especially
23 wildlife, and their habitats. Among the laws governing EPA actions, the Clean Air Act and Clean
24 Water Act have provisions that focus on wildlife or aquatic species and their habitats.
25 This targeting of native species indicates their high societal value. In addition, many laws
26 focus on natural areas as habitat. EPA and other Federal agencies already protect populations of
27 native species, as do local community projects. In the case of EPA actions, it is not always clear
28 that the efforts extended to habitats; however, as with the aquatic species in entity 1, protection of
29 the habitat is essential to protection of the population.
30 Many of these species and their habitats are declining or under threat, in addition to those
31 designated as endangered (see entity 7). Two examples are many bird species, especially among
32 the warblers and waterfowl, and most amphibians. Habitat examples are large forests, grasslands,
33 and wetlands.
34 Some of the species considered here are, by themselves, important to the ecosystem by
35 virtue of their role as prey or predator, for example. Because this entity includes not only the
1/23/97 21 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 particular species but also its habitat with all its biotic and abiotic components, this entity is
2 critical to the ecosystem.
3
4 Entity 3: Native or Migratory Species Exposed to Severe or Acute Threat
5 The purpose of targeting this entity is to avoid large acute incidents to fish, wildlife, or
6 plants, such as massive fish or bird kills. It may be focused below the population or community
7 level. However, except in the case of endangered species (see entity 7), it does not protect single
8 individuals but rather large numbers of individuals.
9 There are mandates for some members of this group. For example, the Migratory Bird
10 Treaty Act, the Bald Eagle Act, and others prohibit the killing of many bird species except under
11 permit for specified reasons.
12 Most of the animals and plants likely to be covered here are highly valued. These species
13 are also protected by other Federal agencies and community projects. These species and the
14 avoidance of large-scale incidents have been the focus of past EPA actions.
15 The pesticide diazinon provides legal precedent for this entity. The U.S. Court of Appeals
16 Fifth Circuit upheld EPA's finding that recurring bird kills are an unreasonable environmental risk,
17 regardless of any population effect. Following this finding, the Administrator's final decision to
18 cancel diazinon determined that "as a matter of policy an unnecessary risk of regularly repeated
19 bird kills will not be tolerated" (U.S. EPA, 1990d).
20 Some of the species in this category are rare and under threat, although for obvious reasons
21 one would not expect a rare species to appear in large numbers in a major incident. The examples
22 of rare or declining species given for entity 2 also fit this category.
23 Because these incidents are usually evaluated on an individual basis, the actual degree of
24 ecosystem impact may not be known. However, in at least some cases, it seems likely that a
25 stressor causing such devastating effects on large plants or animals will also have some wider
26 ecosystem effects.
27 This entity targets regional populations for Agencywide consideration, similar to the
28 National Goals Project (U.S. EPA, 1996b), which also mentions regional populations of native
29 species. However, specific programs and projects may go beyond this.
30
31 4.2.2. Whole Ecosystems
32 This category includes ecosystems as a whole. Associated goals are to maintain their
33 geographic extent or special character or to preserve their value for providing certain services to
34 humans or other ecosystems. The goals focus on the movement of energy and matter through the
35 ecosystem, in processes such as nutrient cycling, rather than on specific components.
36
1/23/97 22 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 Entity 4: Ecosystem Functions and Services
2 Ecosystem functions result from ecosystem processes (see appendix A). Ecosystem
3 services are those ecosystem functions perceived as beneficial to society. Both are included in this
4 category because some functions that are not immediately perceived as beneficial may turn out to
5 be of great ecological value and, ultimately, of indirect societal value, as well.
6 Services and functions of wetlands are discussed in the next section. Services and
7 functions of other ecosystems to consider are nutrient cycling (all ecosystems), maintenance of air
8 quality by absorbing and breaking down pollutants (many ecosystems), climate control (forests
9 and others), flood control (stream corridors), generation and maintenance of soils (many heavily
10 vegetated terrestrial ecosystems), pest and disease control (prairies), pollination (prairies), and
11 provision of biodiversity (many ecosystems, and also diversity in ecosystem types).
12 Although few specific functions are mentioned in the laws reviewed in chapter 2, many
13 laws mention types of ecosystems and/or the interactions of ecosystem components.
14 The value of entities in this category may not always be appreciated. However, the value
15 of services is increasingly being recognized by the public, as illustrated by the new understanding
16 of wetlands. In addition to wetlands, ecosystems such as forests, stream corridors, and many
17 aquatic ecosystems are targeted for protection by law or by Federal and local protection projects.
18 The service most often mentioned in these projects is biodiversity, but others such as flood
19 control are also mentioned.
20 Some ecosystems are rare or disappearing. Those considered endangered are included in
21 entity 6.
22 Many functions of ecosystems have great ecological value. By, for example, helping to
23 provide clean air and water, they benefit other ecosystems, as well as benefiting humans directly.
24 Ultimately, the continued existence of all valued components depends on the continuation of
25 critical functions. Their benefit to human welfare is greater than is yet commonly recognized. As
26 Westman (1977) described these benefits, ecosystem services "maintain clean air, pure water, a
27 green earth, and a balance of creatures: the functions that enable humans to obtain the food, fiber,
28 energy, and other material needs for survival."
29
30 Entity 5: Wetlands and Stream Corridors
31 This entity includes the protection of wetland and stream corridor extent and functions.
32 Some functions to consider (U.S. EPA, 1990b) are:
33 • Water-supply services
34 • Floodwater regulation
35 • Shoreline anchoring and erosion control
36 • Water purification
1/23/97 23 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 • Habitat provision for biodiversity.
2 Most of the discussion below is about wetlands. Stream corridors are included with
3 wetlands because many of their functions are similar (e.g., flood and erosion control) and because
4 they are similarly located in many cases.
5 Protection of wetlands is mandated by the Clean Water Act and other laws, as discussed in
6 chapter 2.
7 The societal value of wetlands has been increasingly recognized over the past couple of
8 decades. No longer are they thought of as mosquito-ridden swamps; instead, they are valued for
9 the various functions and services they provide. As pointed out in chapter 2, wetlands are
10 considered by many Agency programs and local environmental protection projects.
11 Wetlands are under threat in that they have been declining for many years. An estimated 53
12 percent of wetlands in the continental United States have been lost since colonial times (U.S.
13 EPA, 1996b).
14 Wetlands have high ecological value, for many of the same reasons cited in the previous
15 section on ecosystem functions and services. In particular, wetlands help maintain biodiversity.
16 Almost 35 percent of all rare and endangered animal species are either located in wetland areas or
17 depend on them, even though wetlands constitute only about 5 percent of the Nation's lands
18 (Conservation Foundation, 1988).
19
20 4.2.3. Special Places and Species
21 One category specifically mentioned in Managing Ecological Risks at EPA (U.S. EPA,
22 1994a) is specific geographic places of special interest because of their unique character or
23 contribution to America's natural resources. Their importance is reflected both in the laws, which
24 set aside many of these places to be maintained as important natural areas, and in many local or
25 community-based projects, which target rare or unique natural areas for special consideration in
26 environmental protection efforts.
27 There are at least two ways in which risk managers can afford special treatment to certain
28 places. First, they can be given high priority for ecosystem protection. Second, they can be
29 considered for a higher degree of protection than other places or species.
30 The special character of the place needs to be carefully and explicitly defined so that it is
31 clear just what is being protected. Many places are considered special because they provide
32 habitat for rare species or for biological diversity (e.g., National Wildlife Refuges). Others are
33 noted for characteristics of the ecosystem as a whole (endangered ecosystems). Still others are
34 valued for their aesthetic qualities or because they are among the few relatively pristine
35 ecosystems of a particular type (e.g., National Wilderness Areas).
1/23/97 24 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 Similarly, certain species may be considered special for different reasons. Endangered
2 species are the best-known example, but others may be singled out for religious or cultural
3 reasons or because of their ecological importance.
4
5 Entity 6: Endangered Ecosystems
6 Endangered ecosystems are among those places most urgently in need of special
7 protection. They include ecosystems listed by the National Biological Survey (NBS) as critically
8 endangered, endangered, or threatened (Noss et al, 1995). Some of these listings are fairly
9 generic (old-growth and other virgin forests in the United States, except Alaska); others are
10 geographically very specific (Hempstead Plains grasslands on Long Island, New York). The list
11 includes 30 critically endangered, 58 endangered, and more than 38 threatened ecosystems.
12 Many portions of these ecosystems are protected under the Endangered Species Act as
13 habitat for listed species. For example, the NBS report listed more than 100 candidate, proposed,
14 or listed species associated with just one of the listed ecosystems (long-leaf pine or wiregrass
15 communities in the southern coastal plain).
16 There is little question about the rarity of these ecosystems. The NBS report estimates that
17 from 70 percent to 99.9 percent of the listed ecosystems have been lost since European
18 settlement. Many are now represented only in very small areas. These areas are ecologically
19 important for the contribution to biodiversity. They support not only endangered species, but also
20 those that are rare, declining, and unlikely to survive without the specific types of ecosystems
21 upon which they depend.
22 Federal laws and past actions at both the Federal and community levels show that a high
23 value is placed on protecting rare natural areas for future generations. Protecting ecosystems is
24 also an efficient way of preserving highly valued species.
25
26 Entity 7: Endangered Species and Their Habitats
27 Included in this entity are all species that are federally listed as endangered or threatened
28 and their habitats. Protection of these species is mandated under the Endangered Species Act.
29 Endangered species have been the focus of many Federal and local environmental
30 protection efforts. This is one of the entities that nearly every EPA program already includes in
31 its activities. From this and its inclusion in Federal law, it can be inferred to be of high societal
32 value. Every species listed here is both rare and under threat; this is the qualification for inclusion.
33 By the time a species has made the Federal endangered or threatened list, the population is
34 so small that its role in the ecosystem may have been largely lost. However, biodiversity, which is
35 the goal of endangered species protection, has great ecological importance.
36
1/23/97 25 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 Entity 8: Other Places of High Ecological or Societal Value, as Appropriate
2 Many places that are not considered endangered or threatened are of special importance
3 nonetheless. These should be considered by decision makers as appropriate to the program or
4 project being considered. They may be particularly important for CBEP initiatives. Although we
5 do not here propose a definitive list of places for Agencywide use, there are examples to consider.
6 A nationwide list of special places has already been compiled in Targeting Priority Natural
7 Resource Areas: A Review of National Lists (U.S. EPA, 199 la). A summary of this list is
8 provided in the appendix E.
9 Some programs provide special consideration for special places. For example, Superfund
10 has regulations assigning point values, used for prioritization, to certain sensitive environments,
11 such as marine sanctuaries and national parks. Both of these are included in the Review of
12 National Lists (U.S. EPA, 1991a). Another example comes from EPA's Office of Air: The Great
13 Waters Program conducts special monitoring and evaluation for the Great Lakes, Chesapeake
14 Bay, and other bodies of water designated by Congress.
15 Some of these nonendangered special places are mandated for special consideration in EPA
16 legislation, such as the Great Waters mentioned above. Many others have been set aside by
17 Congress, such as national parks and national wildlife refuges. Some EPA programs, such as the
18 Air Office and Superfund mentioned above, already give special consideration to specific places,
19 and they are considered by many local projects. This attention indicates the high societal value of
20 these places.
21 Although most of these places are not considered endangered or threatened ecosystems,
22 many are considered rare and under some threat from development or pollution. The Nature
23 Conservancy's "Last Great Places" provides examples of these. They are listed in the Review of
24 National Lists (U.S. EPA, 1991a).
25 Many places are considered to have great ecological importance. Ecological importance
26 was the basis for the Review of National Lists (U.S. EPA, 1991 a).
27 To direct assessment and action for a program or project, these entities should lead to
28 specific objectives. The next chapter provides some advice on how to go about setting these
29 objectives.
1/23/97 26 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 5. PRACTICAL ADVICE
2
3 This chapter describes how the ecological entities and criteria recommended in the last
4 chapter can be used in conjunction with ecological risk assessment, risk-based national program
5 decisions, and CBEP. In either case, decisions makers have the important task of setting specific
6 measurable objectives. The processes outlined in this chapter are focused on that task. A detailed
7 example is provided to illustrate the processes.
8
9 5.1. ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
10 This section explores the relationship between risk assessment and the entities to be
11 protected. We use definitions from EPA's Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment
12 (Framework, U.S. EPA, 1992a) and the Proposed Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment
13 (Guidelines, U.S. EPA, 1996c). Terms in the Guidelines and Framework are defined, and
14 examples are given to illustrate the terms.
15 Ecological risk assessment is a process that evaluates the likelihood that adverse ecological
16 effects may occur or are occurring as a result of exposure to one or more stressors. The risk may
17 be expressed in a variety of ways, both quantitative and qualitative. The Framework sets out the
18 basic structure and principles of ecological risk assessment at EPA.
19 Ecological risk assessment can evaluate risk to a single species, as well as to natural
20 communities and whole ecosystems. Stressors can be single or multiple chemicals, biological
21 agents, or physical disturbance. A risk assessment may be initiated because of a particular
22 stressor (e.g., a chemical or biological pesticide) or source of stressors (e.g., a toxic waste site),
23 by some observed ecological effects (e.g., large bird or fish die-offs), or by a valued resource that
24 seems to be in danger of deteriorating.
25 Although ecological risk assessment is not always required for decision making, it can help
26 identify environmental problems, establish priorities, and provide a scientific basis for decisions.
27 The process can identify existing risks or forecast the risk of stressors not yet present in the
28 environment.
29 Risk management evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of a particular action in the
30 context of such factors as risk assessment information, regulatory setting, practicality, political
31 climate, resource constraints, and the manager's own experience. Both the Framework and
32 Guidelines stress the involvement of managers to ensure that the manager understands the intent
33 of the analysis and that the final assessment provides information that truly supports the decision
34 to be made. Risk managers can get the most out of risk assessment and forge a good working
35 relationship with risk assessors by actively participating in the planning stages.
36
1/23/97 27 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 At EPA, ecological risk assessments may support management decisions by, for example,
2 predicting the risks of a new chemical intended for use in manufacturing, evaluating the risks
3 associated with pesticides that are intentionally released into the environment, weighing the risks
4 of multiple stressors in watersheds, evaluating the need for air quality standards, or determining
5 risks of chemicals at hazardous waste sites. Because some people define "risk assessment" more
6 narrowly than we do here, it is possible that some Agency decision makers use risk assessment in
7 some form as a part of their decision making without recognizing it as such. For example, a
8 qualitative evaluation of the likely effects of an exotic species or continued residential
9 development on a lake ecosystem can be a risk assessment even though it is neither quantitative
10 nor dealing with a specific chemical.
11 The potential complexities of an ecological risk assessment demand careful planning for its
12 design. Many of the complexities differ from those of human-health assessments and include
13 deciding what species, populations, ecosystems, or functions are most relevant; species
14 interactions and indirect effects; and the significance of nonchemical stressors.
15 The risk assessment process outlined in the Framework provides a way to develop a
16 logical, sequential approach to solving this complex problem.
17 The parts of the process most relevant to this discussion document are planning and
18 problem formulation, which are the first phases of ecological risk assessment and establish the
19 goals, objectives, breadth, and focus of the assessment. They are systematic planning steps that
20 identify the major factors to be considered in a particular assessment, and they are linked to the
21 regulatory and policy context of the assessment.
22 The most important part of the risk manager's job at these stages is to set specific
23 objectives for the program. The next section provides some concrete steps to accomplish this by
24 using the entities listed in the previous chapter.
25
26 5.2. APPLICATION TO NATIONAL PROGRAMS' RISK-BASED DECISIONS
27 Most EPA programs make at least some risk management decisions at a national level.
28 These decisions focus on criteria, licensing, cleanup, or other regulatory decisions made by EPA,
29 although they may include partnerships or community involvement. Regardless of the focus, the
30 process for these programs is generally laid out in the Framework.
31 Planning and problem formulation can be done on a case-by-case basis, but it is usually
32 more practical for national programs to plan generically and develop standardized procedures and
33 methods for dealing with individual cases. The national program needs to consider both what is
34 appropriate to the program's functions (e.g., clean up Superfund sites, set water quality criteria)
35 and their ecological goals and objectives. There is usually no question about the program's
1/23/97 28 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 function, but objectives more specific than "protect the environment" usually require considerable
2 thought. Valued ecological entities are considered during this problem formulation phase.
3 The following steps detail one way to plan and formulate the problem of a risk assessment
4 of national scope.
5
6 1. Identify the Problem: Basically, this means stating why you are doing this assessment. Is it
7 based on a stressor (e.g., for a pesticide registration), a source (e.g., a Superfund site), or a
8 resource (e.g., the Great Waters Program of the Air Office)? Under what mandates or restrictions
9 do you operate?
10
11 2. Review the Categories and Particular Ecological Entities: These are listed in chapter 4
12 What entities on this proposed list of common entities, or other entities suggested by the
13 categories, are susceptible to your stressor or otherwise relevant to your problem? This step
14 needs to be done with the help of the risk assessors, who can provide information on susceptibility
15 to the stressor. At the conclusion of this step, you will have a list of ecological entities that are
16 relevant to your problem.
17
18 3. Meet With the Risk Assessors and the Public: The purpose of this step is to determine the
19 societal value and ecological relevance of each of the entities you identified in step 2. The risk
20 assessors are responsible for determining the ecological relevance and you (and the public or your
21 partners, as appropriate) are responsible for determining the societal value. Although you can
22 meet separately with the public and the risk assessors, it is beneficial to meet with them together
23 so that the connection between societal value and ecological relevance can be discussed. For
24 example, in the Waquoit Bay watershed assessment (discussed later in this chapter), it was clear
25 that scallops and fish had high societal value. Eel grass was not initially perceived to be of such
26 great value, but its importance to the development of the scallops and fish led to its being included
27 in the risk assessment. A meeting with risk managers, assessors, and the interested public
28 facilitates discussion of such connections.
29
30 4. Set Environmental Protection Goals and Objectives: Using the information from the first
31 three steps, set your environmental goals and objectives for the assessment. As illustrated in
32 tables 4-1 and 5-1, these objectives should include what you are doing (e.g., protecting,
33 maintaining, restoring), the resource or entity under consideration (general or specific animals,
34 plants, or ecosystems), and the desired state for that entity (e.g., maintain a population at its
35 current level, restore a function to a specific past state, no unreasonable risk). Although the
1/23/97 29 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 "desired state" implies a level of protection, the examples show that this need not be quantitative
2 or even based on risk to ecological entities alone. The pesticide example of avoiding
3 unreasonable risk (discussed below) is one that is based on balancing the risk against the benefits
4 that pesticide use provides to agriculture. While you are setting objectives, consider how to
5 incorporate ecosystem integrity. Can you take a longer view? Be more geographically
6 expansive? Specifically include sustainability? It is important to write the objective as explicitly
7 as possible, even if you believe your program has been working toward this objective for many
8 years. Sometimes things are not as clear as they seem; for example, is the program really
9 concerned with the entire aquatic community? Or are fish really the concerns and the other
10 measures important because they affect fish? If the objectives are specific enough, the remaining
11 steps can be completed by the risk assessors without the close involvement of risk managers.
12 However, it is useful for all concerned, including risk managers, to review and understand each of
13 the steps listed below.
14
15 5. Set Assessment Endpoints: As defined in the glossary, an assessment endpoint is some
16 particular attribute of the ecological entity that will be the focus of the protection effort.
17 Assessment endpoints should be susceptible to the stressor, have societal value, and have
18 ecological relevance (U.S. EPA, 1992a). These three criteria were explicitly considered in steps
19 1-3. If the objectives are specific, they will contain enough guidance on societal value so that the
20 risk assessors can complete this step without further guidance from risk managers.
21
22 6. Review and Understand the Conceptual Model: Work through the conceptual model (see
23 glossary for definition) for the assessment with the risk assessors. Make sure that there is general
24 understanding about the relationship between the objectives, the assessment endpoints, and the
25 measures of effect. Do some changes need to be made to ensure that the objectives are
26 addressed? This is also a good time to explicitly identify all of the regulatory questions, the
27 degree of certainty required, and other issues important to the assessment (see U.S. EPA, 1996c,
28 for more on this step).
29
30 7. Document the Analysis Plan: The analysis plan delineates the assessment design. This
31 includes identifying gaps and limitations. Are there aspects (entities, sources, or stressors)
32 important to the goal that are impossible to address properly for scientific or other reasons? If so,
33 these barriers should be explicitly discussed in all documentation of the process and a plan for
34 overcoming them should be implemented. The documentation should include explicit
35 relationships between the overall goal, the objectives, the assessment endpoints, the conceptual
36 model, and the analysis plan.
1/23/97 30 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 5.2.1. Some Examples
2 Table 5-1 provides some brief
3 examples. One of these (Waquoit Bay) is
4 described in more detail in section 5.4.
5 In table 5-1, the first column simply
6 identifies the source of the example, a national
7 or international program in some cases, a
8 special local or regional project in others.
9 The second column identifies the ecological
10 entity to be protected in this example. Each
11 of these entities is included in one or more of
12 the eight entities listed in chapter 4, but most
13 of the entities in the table are more specific
14 than the listings in chapter 4. The entity listed
15 may be only one of many entities for a given
16 program or project. These examples are for
17 illustration only; no attempt is made to
18 describe any program in its entirety. The next
19 column is a short summary of the objective ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^m
20 for that particular entity, as implied or stated
21 by the program or project. The assessment endpoints describe the particular attributes of the
22 entity that is to be protected (see glossary), and are based on the objective. Finally, the measures
23 of effect are the measures used to evaluate the condition or response of the assessment endpoint.
24 All of the just-mentioned terms are defined in the glossary.
25
26 5.3. CBEP PROJECTS
27 The CBEP approach is introduced in chapter 2. CBEP projects are usually driven not by a
28 particular stressor or medium, but by the valued resources in a particular area. These projects
29 involve working in partnership with local and State organizations and working closely with the
30 public.
31 The following steps detail one way to plan a CBEP risk assessment.
32
33 1. Identify the Problem: This includes clearly identifying the sources of information (e.g.,
34 citizen complaints, ambient monitoring results) that make the Agency aware of the potential
35 problem.
Iteration of Steps
The steps listed for both national
programs and CBEP are suggestions.
Although some steps clearly need to come
before others, there is much flexibility in their
order.
In addition, some iteration is usually
necessary. For example, in the national
program case, risk assessors must have at
least a general conceptual model in mind
before they can say which entities may be
susceptible to a stressor in step 2.
Later, in step 6, they work out the
model more explicitly. At this point, they may
discover something that was not considered in
step 2 and need to revisit that step. In CBEP,
the interested public may change during the
course of the planning stage, requiring an
early step to be revisited.
1/23/97
DISCUSSION DOCUMENT
-------
Table 5-1. Some Examples of Ecological Entities and Assessment Endpoints
Source of example
Water Quality
Criteria
(U.S. EPA, 1996c)
U.S. pesticide
registration3
EPA wetlands
program
Superfund (one of
several entities)
Great Lakes
initiative (Ryder and
Edwards, 1985)
Lake Washington
(Edmundson, 1991)
Waquoit Bay
watershed3
(U.S. EPA, 1996d)
Ecological entity
Aquatic
communities
North American
native and migratory
birds
Wetlands and their
services
Fish populations
Lake Superior,
oligotrophicb lake,
lake trout
Clarity and
appearance of Lake
Washington
Scallops and their
estuarine ecosystems
Objective
for entity
Protect 95 percent of
aquatic species
No unreasonable
effects on bird
survival or
maintenance of bird
populations
No net loss of
wetlands
Minimize
ecologically
significant impacts
on fish
Maintain as
oligotrophic lake
with lake trout as top
predator
Restore, maintain
water clarity
Reestablish a self-
sustaining scallop
population that can
support a viable
fishery
Assessment
endpoints
Survival,
development, and
reproduction offish,
aquatic
invertebrates, and
plants
Survival,
development, and
reproduction of
birds
Extent of wetland
Survival and
reproduction offish
Lake trout
abundance
Depth of visibility
Abundance and
distribution of eel
grass habitat;
diversity,
abundance, and
distribution of
benthic invertebrates
Measures of effect
Lab data on
mortality and
reproduction
Lab data on
mortality and
reproduction; field
observations of bird
kills
Extent of wetland
plants and soil
Lab data on
mortality growth and
reproduction
(partial list) Average
age and size;
percentage of fishing
harvest
Depth a white disc
can be seen
Eel grass (percent
cover and
distribution); benthic
index
1/23/97
32
DISCUSSION DOCUMENT
-------
Table 5-1. Some Examples of Ecological Entities and Assessment Endpoints (Continued)
Source of example
U.S. Forest Service
northern goshawk
guidelines (CEQ,
1993)
European Pesticide
Registration (one of
several entities)
Hubbard Brook
National
Experimental Forest
(N.Y. Times, 1996)
Ecological entity
Northern goshawk
and its old- growth
habitat
Soil communities
Forest plants
Objective
for entity
Sustain goshawk
population and
benefit old-growth
habitat
Protect soil
community to
maintain soil fertility
Maintain plant
abundance
Assessment
endpoints
Goshawk abundance
and several habitat
attributes
Survival and
reproduction of soil
invertebrates and
plants
Plant abundance,
soil nutrients
Measures of effect
Measures of
abundance and
habitat for goshawks
and prey
Lab data on
mortality and
reproduction
Total plant biomass,
soil calcium level
aThe entity described is only one of several entities targeted by the program.
bAn oligotrophic lake is one with low nutrient and high oxygen levels.
1/23/97
33
DISCUSSION DOCUMENT
-------
1 2. Form Partnerships; Bring in the Public: First, contact State and local agencies and involve
2 them in the next decision-making step. Then, identify and contact all stakeholders who may
3 become a part of the CBEP effort. Finally, convene a meeting for all to explain and discuss the
4 problem and the CBEP process.
5
6 3. Establish the Boundaries: What are the geographic limits for the project? These may be
7 political or natural boundaries. They need to be broad enough to encompass all influential factors
8 but narrow enough to retain the focus of the effort.
9
10 4. Inventory the Resources: What are the ecosystems within the area? What makes them
11 unique? What is the connection between organisms? Where is the energy flow? This results in a
12 list of potential entities. The proposed list in chapter 4 can be useful in making sure that
13 everything is considered, but the list for the individual project must include the resources in the
14 area concerned and may go well beyond what is listed in chapter 4.
15
16 5. List the Local Values: The values and criteria that are most important to a community-based
17 project are those of the people in the area. However, the organizers should help the public
18 consider the variety of resources that might be important to them, as well as understand the
19 connections between the resources they value and others that may not be publicly recognized
20 (e.g., the eel grass in the Waquoit Bay project).
21
22 6. Establish Goals and Objectives: Goals and objectives should be based on the information
23 gathered in steps 4 and 5 and should reflect the societal values of the partners and public.
24 Objectives should be explicit enough so that it will be possible to devise measures of them that
25 retain the societal values.
26
27 7. Plan Analysis: This can follow the risk paradigm as listed in steps 5-7 for national programs
28 or some other process. In either case, the relationship between the goals and objectives and the
29 results of the analyses must be clear, unambiguous, and explicitly documented. More detailed
30 guidance for conducting these projects is available from the comparative-risk projects (U.S. EPA,
31 1993). Soon there will also be guidance available from watershed case studies, regional
32 initiatives, and the CBEP Handbook being prepared by the Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and
33 Communities in the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation.
34
1/23/97 34 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 5.4. WAQUOITBAY
2 The Waquoit Bay Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment Case Study is one of five
3 watershed case studies sponsored jointly by the Office of Water and the Office of Research and
4 Development. These case studies are designed to demonstrate the ecological risk assessment
5 process in a community setting; therefore, the Waquoit Bay experience combines many features of
6 both the risk-based national-program approach and CBEP. A brief summary of Waquoit Bay
7 planning and problem formulation is given here. More detail is available in the case-study report
8 (U.S. EPA, 1996d).
9
10 1. The Problem (corresponds to step 1 for both the national programs and CBEP): Waquoit
11 Bay, on Cape Cod, has long been prized for its natural beauty and recreational value and as a
12 habitat for a diversity of plant and animal life. Lately it has been under heavy pressure from
13 residential development and recreational industries. Fish kills are occurring; scallops no longer
14 inhabit the bay; the groundwater aquifer underlying the watershed is contaminated. There is a
15 high level of public concern. Several Federal and State government agencies are studying or
16 working in the area.
17
18 2. Relevant Ecological Entities (corresponds to step 2 for national programs and steps 2-4 for
19 CBEP): A State-Federal group, including EPA's Region I, called the Waquoit Bay National
20 Estuarine Research Reserve initiated the study and established risk management and risk
21 assessment teams of individuals from many interested organizations. The boundaries of the
22 watershed and the inventory of potentially threatened ecological resources were summarized from
23 existing information. The summary emphasizes the diversity of species that are or have been
24 supported by the watershed's varied surface water systems.
25
26 3. Goals and Objectives Based on Societal Values (covers steps 3 and 4 for national programs
27 and steps 5 and 6 for CBEP): The first step in establishing a goal was a public meeting at which
28 people were asked for their input on what was valuable to the public about the Waquoit Bay
29 watershed. A wide range of amenities were suggested, including scenic views, recreation, and
30 open space. Among those that would be considered ecological (i.e., they include some nonhuman
31 biological component), aquatic and wildlife habitats were the most frequently mentioned.
32 Examples were indigenous wildlife, flyway integrity, and fish and shellfish.
33 The following overall goal was based on the results of this meeting:
34
35 "Reestablish and maintain water quality and habitat conditions in Waquoit Bay and
36 associated wetlands, freshwater rivers, and ponds to (1) support diverse, self-sustaining
1/23/97 35 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 commercial, recreational, and native fish and shellfish populations and (2) reverse ongoing
2 degradation of ecological resources in the watershed." (U.S. EPA, 1996d)
3
4 Note that this goal explicitly includes sustainability.
5 Because this goal by itself was considered too general to serve as a basis for setting
6 assessment endpoints, 10 more specific objectives were also established. These were based on the
7 goals of 14 organizations working in the area. Four of these objectives dealt with estuarine areas,
8 three with freshwater areas, and three with both. Most of the objectives targeted entities that
9 would be included in common ecological entity 1 from chapter 4, "Aquatic Communities in Lakes,
10 Streams, and Estuaries." An example is one of those concerning estuarine areas: "Reestablish a
11 self-sustaining scallop population that can support a viable fishery."
12 The entities that form the focus of these objectives are evidently based on concern for
13 particular groups of plants and animals, but the objectives do not focus on these alone. Most
14 types of aquatic ecosystems are included in the objectives, as are wetlands (for the water-
15 dependent wildlife). Special places are represented by the endangered species habitat and, indeed,
16 by the bay itself.
17 The risk assessment team developed these more specific objectives, which were then
18 reviewed and approved by the risk managers.
19
20 4. Assessment Endpoints (corresponds to step 5 for national programs and step 7 for CBEP):
21 Eight assessment endpoints were selected based on three criteria: how well they represent the
22 management goal and objectives (societal value), how well they represent ecological integrity in
23 the ecosystem (ecological relevance), and how likely they are to be exposed to and adversely
24 affected by known stressors (susceptibility).
25 The risk assessment team for Waquoit Bay selected assessment endpoints using the 10
26 specific objectives discussed above to guide them on what was of societal value; therefore, the
27 risk management team did not need to be so closely involved with this step as with previous steps.
28 Ecological relevance and susceptibility were evaluated based on available information on the
29 ecosystems and known and predicted stressors. The Waquoit Bay problem formulation report
30 provides a complete justification of each of the eight assessment endpoints in terms of these three
31 criteria.
32 The assessment endpoints can be illustrated by the two that relate most directly to the
33 "reestablish scallops" objective stated above. They are the abundance and distribution of eel grass
34 habitat and the diversity, abundance, and distribution of clams and other benthic invertebrates.
35 Although scallops are the focus, they were not explicitly made an assessment endpoint. Their
1/23/97 36 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 numbers fluctuate so widely in nature that their absence cannot be interpreted to mean that their
2 environmental requirements are not being met.
3
4 5. Conceptual Model (corresponds to step 6 for national programs and step 8 for CBEP): The
5 conceptual model for Waquoit Bay describes the relationship of various sources and stressors to
6 each of the eight assessment endpoints. It also indicates what measures of effect will be used for
7 each assessment endpoint.
8 For example, the abundance and distribution of eel grass can be affected by toxic
9 chemicals, disease, nutrients, suspended sediments, and physical alteration of its habitat. These
10 stressors in turn can come from various sources. For example, toxic chemicals are released from
11 industrial, agricultural, and residential sources.
12 The Waquoit Bay problem formulation diagrams and discusses the overall relationship of
13 sources, stressors, assessment endpoints, and measures. It also provides detailed diagrams and
14 discussions for some of the assessment endpoints; others are under development (U.S. EPA,
15 1996d).
16
17 6. Analysis Plan, Including Limitations (corresponds to step 7 for national programs and step
18 9 for CBEP): The Waquoit Bay risk assessment will not be able to assess most of the risk paths
19 laid out in the conceptual model because the resources for the analysis are extremely limited. The
20 analysis will concentrate on nutrient loading, which is thought to be the most important stressor
21 for most of the assessment endpoints.
22 The Waquoit Bay problem formulation provides a thorough justification of this choice. It
23 also gives considerable detail about the stressors and risk hypotheses. These will not be included
24 in the analysis plan but should be completed at some time.
1/23/97 37 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 6. NEXT STEPS
2
3 Since it was formed after the first Earth Day in 1970, EPA has made a great deal of
4 progress in addressing environmental concerns. As we have discussed, EPA initially focused most
5 of its efforts on protecting human health, but we are expanding our efforts to protect ecological
6 concerns. Many EPA decision makers have made an effort to consider ecological concerns in the
7 decision-making process and would like to expand their efforts. Others have not considered
8 ecological concerns in the past, but are interested in expanding their decision making. We support
9 the efforts of all of these risk managers and hope that this document will not only initiate
10 discussion on the topic, but encourage more managers to consider ecological issues.
11 In this discussion document, we have reviewed Federal laws and environmental protection
12 actions to determine common values and trends, encouraged consideration of ecosystem integrity,
13 made recommendations for decisions makers who are setting ecological objectives for their
14 programs or projects, and proposed processes for setting those objectives. We hope that the
15 recommendations will lead to agreement on the entities that should be considered in all Agency
16 activities and on other principles of ecological protection.
17 A common list of entities and ecological principles for the entire Agency can provide many
18 advantages: It can promote consistency among our programs, make our actions more
19 understandable to the public, provide structure for those programs that do not yet have much
20 experience with ecological risk, aid in research planning, and focus risk-communication efforts.
21 A workshop held in July 1996 concluded that one of the most important barriers to
22 including ecological endpoints in decisions is the lack of a common set of Agency ecological goals
23 and objectives. The Agency decision makers who participated in this workshop proposed that the
24 Agency develop a set of specific ecological objectives including not only the entities to be
25 protected, but also the aspects of those entities and the degree of protection desired (U.S. EPA,
26 1996e).
27 Even before the Agency agrees on the common ecological objectives, we believe the
28 information and suggestions in this document can be of immediate use to Agency decision makers.
29 In particular, we urge that Agency decision makers set specific objectives for each program or
30 project by:
31 • Following processes similar to those suggested in chapter 5
32 • Using the common entities in chapter 4 as a checklist
33 • Incorporating ecological integrity as suggested at the end of chapter 3
34 Above all, we hope that Agency decision makers will use these suggestions and
35 recommendations and share their experiences with other offices, including the Office of Research
36 and Development and the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. Only by learning from
1/23/97 38 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 actual experience can we develop the processes and principles that will provide a sound and useful
2 EPA approach for the protection of valued ecological entities.
1/23/97 39 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 GLOSSARY
2
3 Assessment Endpoint: The Framework (U.S. EPA, 1992a) defines an assessment endpoint as
4 "an explicit expression of the environmental value to be protected." Thus, assessment endpoints
5 are those attributes of entities that are the focus of protection. They are the parameters by which
6 success is measured. They should be theoretically measurable, although it may not be practical to
7 measure them directly. Examples of assessment endpoints are shown in table 5-1.
8
9 Community: This term has two meanings at EPA, and it is used both ways in this document.
10 First, it is used to mean the human community, as in community-based environmental protection.
11 In this context, it means all the people who live in, work in, or visit an area. Second, it is used to
12 mean an ecological community, that is, "an assemblage of populations of different species within
13 a specified location." The second definition is from U.S. EPA (1996a).
14
15 Conceptual Model: In problem formulation, a conceptual model is a written description and
16 visual representation of predicted responses by ecological components to stressors to which they
17 are exposed. It includes ecosystem processes that influence these responses. Conceptual models
18 developed for ecological risk assessments require three basic elements: stressor, exposure, and
19 predicted effect on an ecological entity. Depending on why a risk assessment is initiated, one or
20 more of these three elements is known at the outset; the unknown elements must be identified and
21 characterized (based on discussion in U.S. EPA, 1996c).
22
23 Entity (also ecological entity or valued ecological entity): This is the valued resource to be
24 protected. It can be a species, a group of species, an ecosystem function or characteristic, or a
25 specific place or habitat.2 Entity is a more general concept than the assessment endpoint (see
26 above) in that it only specifies the valued resource, not particular attributes of the valued
27 resource. Thus, native fish are an ecological entity, and their survival and reproduction may be
28 assessment endpoints. Examples of entities are shown in tables 4-1 and 5-1.
29
30 Measures: There are three categories of measures. Measures of effect evaluate the response of
31 the assessment endpoint when exposed to a stressor (formerly measurement endpoints).
32 Measures of exposure describe how exposure may be occurring, including how a stressor moves
2This definition is based on the definition provided in the Guidelines (U.S. EPA, 1996c) but differs from it slightly. The
definition given here includes places as entities, whereas that given in the Guidelines would not describe a place such as a national
park as an entity in itself, but as containing entities. This difference is mentioned here to avoid confusion among risk assessors who
use both documents; it is not likely to make any difference to other readers.
1/23/97 40 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 through the environment and how it may co-occur with the assessment endpoint. Measures of
2 ecosystem and receptor characteristics portray the behavior and location of assessment
3 endpoints, the distribution of a stressor, or the response of an assessment endpoint to the stressor.
4 Two examples are water temperature and the age distribution of a population offish (U.S. EPA,
5 1996c). Some measures are shown in table 5-1.
6
7 Objective: In this document, the term objective means an explicit statement of the desired state
8 for the valued ecological entity (e.g., a viable fishery population). Thus, an objective is a specific
9 statement about what we would like to see happen with respect to the entity. The related term
10 goal is reserved here for more general aims, such as those expressed by most environmental
11 legislation (definition is based on and consistent with the discussion in U.S. EPA, 1996c).
12 Objectives need to be defined well enough so that it is possible to measure progress toward them.
13 However, they do not have to be quantitative or based only on the risk to the valued resource.
14 For example, the Office of Pesticide Programs must weigh the risks of pesticides to human health
15 or entities against their benefits to agriculture and other use sectors. The term no unreasonable
16 risk refers to any pesticidal risk that is not balanced or outweighed by the benefits of the pesticide
17 use. Examples of objectives are shown in tables 4-1 and 5-1.
1/23/97 41 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 BIBLIOGRAPHY
2
3 Ad Hoc Committee on Ecosystem Management. (1995) The scientific basis for ecosystem management. Washington,
4 DC: Ecological Society of America.
5
6 Cairns, J. (1995) The case for ecosystem services as toxicological endpoints. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 1(3): 171-174.
7
8 Conservation Foundation. (1988) Protecting America's wetlands—an action agenda: The final report of the national
9 wetlands policy forum. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation.
10
11 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). (1993) Incorporating biodiversity considerations into environmental impact
12 analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality.
13
14 Edmundson, WT. (1991) The uses of ecology: Lake Washington and beyond. Seattle, WA: University of Washington
15 Press.
16
17 Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (1995) Toward ecosystem management. Tallahassee, FL.
18
19 Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force. (1995) The ecosystem approach: Healthy ecosystems and sustainable
20 economies: Vol I. Overview; Vol II. Implementation issues. NTIS PB95-265583 and PB95-265591.
21
22 Kempton, W; Boster, JS; Hartley, JA. (1996) Environmental values in American culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23
24 Levin, SA; Kimball, KD. (1984) New perspectives in ecotoxicology. Environ Manag 8(5):375-442.
25
26 New York Times News Service. (1996) Effects of acid rain on a New Hampshire forest. New York Times News
27 Service, April 15, 1996.
28
29 Norse, E. (1990) Threats to biological diversity in U.S. Report prepared for EPA by Industrial Economics. Contract
30 No. 68-W8-0038, Work Assignment 115.
31
32 Noss, RP; LaRoe, ET; Scott, JM. (1995) Endangered ecosystems of the United States: A preliminary assessment of
33 loss and degradation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service.
34
35 Russell, EP. (1995) Lost among the parts per billion: Ecological protection at the United States Environmental
36 Protection Agency 1971-1993. Prepared for Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection
37 Agency. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia.
38
39 Ryder, RA; Edwards, CJ. (1985) A conceptual approach for the application of biological indicators of ecosystem
40 quality in the Great Lakes Basin. Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
41
42 Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program. (1992) Framework for action. Sarasota, FL.
43
44 Ueland, KM; Monahan, R; Zimmerman, J; Hsu, A. (1995) The New Hampshire Resource Protection Project. U.S.
45 Environmental Protection Agency, Region I.
46
47 U.S. Department of the Interior. (1994) Ecosystem management in the National Park Service: Discussion draft. U.S.
48 Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
49
50 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1976) Quality criteria for water. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
51 Protection Agency. NTIS PB-263943.
52
53 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1980) Water quality criteria. Federal Register 45:79318.
54
1/23/97 42 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1983) Compilation of Federal laws, treaties, and conventions pertaining to the
2 environment: 1785-1978. Prepared by RG Clements for Office of Toxic Substances, Health and Environmental Review
3 Division, Ecological Effects Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
4
5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990a) Ecosystem services and their valuation. Prepared by RCG/Hagler,
6 Bailly, Inc., for Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
7
8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990b) Biological criteria: National program guidance for surface waters.
9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/440/5-90/004.
10
11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990c) Reducing risk: Setting priorities and strategies for environmental
12 protection. Report of Science Advisory Board's Relative Risk Reduction Strategies Committee to William K. Reilly,
13 Administrator.
14
15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990d) Remand decision relating to diazinon in the matter of Ciba-Geigy
16 Corporation et al. FIFRA Docket Nos. 562 et esq. (July 16).
17
18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1991a) Targeting priority natural resource areas: A review of national lists.
19 Prepared by Dynamac Corporation for Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection
20 Agency, Washington, DC.
21
22 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1991b) The watershed protection approach framework document. Office of
23 Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
24
25 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1992a) Framework for ecological risk assessment. Risk Assessment Forum,
26 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/630/R-92/001.
27
28 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1992b) Tribes at risk: The Wisconsin Tribes Comparative Risk Project.
29 EPA/230/R-92/017.
30
31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1993) A guidebook to comparing risks and setting environmental priorities.
32 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/230/b-93/003.
33
34 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1994a) Managing ecological risks at EPA: Issues and recommendations for
35 progress. Prepared by ME Troyer and MS Brody, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/600/R-94/183.
36
37 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1994b) Toward a place-driven approach: The Edgewater consensus on an
38 EPA strategy for ecosystem protection. Ecosystem Protection Workgroup, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
39 Washington, DC, March 15, 1994 (draft).
40
41 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1995a) Ecological risk: A primer for risk managers. Prepared by Agency
42 Ecological Risk Communication Group, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/734/R-95/001.
43
44 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1995b) A phase I inventory of current EPA efforts to protect ecosystems.
45 Prepared by D Norton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/841/S-95/001.
46
47 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1995c) Whole effluent toxicity: Guidelines establishing test procedures for the
48 analysis of pollution. Federal Register 60:53529.
49
50 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1996a) Community-based environmental protection: A citizen's handbook for
51 protecting ecosystems and communities. Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities, U.S. Environmental
52 Protection Agency (in preparation).
53
54 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1996b) Proposed environmental goals for America with milestones for 2005:
55 Review draft. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
1/23/97 43 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1996c) Proposed guidelines for ecological risk assessment (September 1996
2 public review draft). Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
3
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1996d) Waquoit Bay watershed ecological risk assessment problem
5 formulation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (review draft).
6
7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1996e) Workshop on ecological priorities for EPA decision makers.
8 Workshop report prepared by Friday System Services for National Center for Environmental Assessment, U.S.
9 Environmental Protection Agency.
10
11 University of Hawai'i at Manoa. (1992) A community-based environmental risk ranking: rural and Hawai'ian quality
12 of life: Kahalu'u O'ahu. University of Hawai'i at Manoa, Department of Urban and Regional Planning.
13
14 Westman, WE. (1977) How much are nature's services worth? Science 1977:960-964.
1/23/97 44 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
APPENDICES
1/23/97 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 APPENDIX A
2 ECOSYSTEM CONCEPTS
3
4 This appendix attempts to introduce a few basic ecosystem concepts in straightforward
5 nontechnical language. It does not repeat definitions provided in the main document.
6 Definitions are from appendix A of Ecosystem Management in the National Park Service:
7 Discussion Draft (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1994).
8 Ecosystems refer to a system formed by the interaction of a group of organisms and their
9 environment. An ecosystem may be a pond or the entire globe. It can be natural or artificial. All
10 ecosystems are composed of components, structure, and processes. Components are plants,
11 animals, soil, air, and water. Structure refers to spatial and temporal distribution of those
12 components. For example, the location and extent of typical wetland plant species is an aspect of
13 the structure of a wetland. Processes are the flow or cycling of energy, materials, and nutrients
14 through space and time. For example, plants use water, elementary nutrients, and sunlight to
15 produce material that, in turn, provides food for other species.
16 All components, structures, and processes have various functions that can change over
17 time and space, from one ecosystem to another, as well as within ecosystems.
18 Ecosystems occur in geographic arrangements. Smaller ecosystems exist within larger
19 ones. The scale selected and the boundaries used to define an ecosystem depend on the problem
20 or question to be addressed. Spatial scales range from microbial activity to the entire biosphere.
1/23/97 A-2 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 APPENDIX B
2 EPA PAST CONSIDERATION OF CONCERNS BY CONCERN
3 CATEGORY AND MAJOR EPA OFFICE
4
5 This section provides background information for section 2.2.1 (Past Review of EPA
6 Programs) in the main document. It is adapted from table D-7 of'Managing Ecological Risk at
7 EPA (U.S. EPA, 1994a).
1/23/97 A-3 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
to
^5
Table B-l. Category I: Animals, Plants, and Their Habitats
Concern
Fish
Birds
Mammals
Amphibians
and reptiles
Wildlife
(unspecified)
Aquatic
invertebrates
Terrestrial
invertebrates
Plants
Unspecified
biota
Habitat
Wetlands
Comments/Specifics
"Individual" (avoid kills), populations, or species; sport, anadromous,
salmon, juvenile
"Individual" (avoid kills), population, or species; migratory or
resident; waterfowl, wading; suburban, special interest
"Individual" (avoid kills), population, or species; small or large;
predatory, plant-eating, fish-eating; terrestrial, aquatic; deer, bear
"Of special interest"
"Individual" (avoid kills), population, species; aquatic or terrestrial;
plant-eating, predatory
Populations, species, water column, benthic organisms or community
or community structure, commercial species
Bumblebees, honeybees, soil organisms
Aquatic, terrestrial; distribution and abundance; vegetative
succession, algae, crops
Aquatic, terrestrial species, or organisms or life, community structure,
community health, important organisms, commercially important
species, estuarine biota
Aquatic, terrestrial, remote, high quality, habitat corridors, breeding
areas, critical spawning area, habitat for unique communities, bird
habitat, fisheries, fish habitat
Maintain size, hydrology, habitat value, filtering and binding of
pollutants, wetland functions, special types, interconnected wetlands
A
A
A
A
A
N
N
N
N
N
N
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
W
w
W
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
>
U
HH
O
—
§
O
O
O
-------
to
Table B-l. Category I: Animals, Plants, and Their Habitats (Continued)
Concern
Other
ecosystem
types
Rare or
threatened
ecosystems
Ecosystem
functions
Comments/Specifics
Riparian habitat, streams, coastal barriers, subtidal habitats, upland
habitats, aquatic ecosystems, deltas, estuaries
Terrestrial, aquatic, sensitive, rare, exposed and valued, sage scrub
Function of aquatic or terrestrial community, function of plant
community, nutrient recycling
A
N
N
N
P
P
R
R
R
S
S
S
T
W
w
W
>
o
HH
O
Key to major office areas and legislation: A: Air; N: NEPA; P: Pesticides; R: RCRA; S: Superfund; T: Toxics; W: Water.
o
o
o
-------
Table B-2. Category II: Ecosystems, Their Functions and Services
Concern
Wetlands
Other
ecosystem
types
Rare or
threatened
ecosystems
Ecosystem
functions
Comments/Specifics
Maintain size, hydrology, habitat value, filtering
and binding of pollutants, wetland functions,
special types, interconnected wetlands
Riparian habitats, streams, coastal barriers, subtidal
habitats, upland habitats, aquatic ecosystems,
deltas, estuaries
Terrestrial, aquatic, sensitive, rare, exposed and
valued, sage scrub
Function of aquatic or terrestrial community,
function of plant community, nutrient recycling
A
N
N
N
N
P
P
R
r
r
r
S
s
S
S
T
W
W
W
W
Key to major office areas and legislation: A: Air; N: NEPA; P: Pesticides; R: RCRA; S: Superfund; T: Toxics; W:
Water.
Note: Uppercase letters refer to concerns that have been used (or in a few cases were about to be used) at the time of the
interview in a documented decision. Lowercase letters indicate concerns that were reported as of interest in an interview or
were inferred from measures used in the assessment but not contained in a documented decision.
1/23/97
A-6
DISCUSSION DOCUMENT
-------
Table B-3. Category III: Special Places and Species
Concern
Special
places
Special
species
Comments/Specifics
Wilderness Areas, National Forests, State
or Federal Refuges, National Estuaries,
National Parks, Wild and Scenic Rivers,
Wildlife Refuges, Great Lakes Vital
Habitats, Marine Sanctuaries
Endangered or threatened species, their
habitat or food
A
A
N
N
N
P
P
R
R
S
S
S
T
T
W
w
Key to major office areas and legislation: A: Air; N: NEPA; P: Pesticides; R: RCRA; S: Superfund; T: Toxics; W:
Water.
1/23/97
A-7
DISCUSSION DOCUMENT
-------
1 APPENDIX C
2 RECENT POLICIES OF FEDERAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCIES
3
4 This section provides more detail for the summary provided in section 2.3 of the main
5 document.
6 As the individual descriptions show, many agencies have modified their processes to
7 include greater stakeholder involvement and consider multimedia and multipathway pollution
8 exposures simultaneously with sound watershed and habitat management practices. This, of
9 course, is very similar to the community-based environmental protection approach of EPA.
10 Although the process and multistressor aspects are beyond the scope of this document, there are
11 also implications for environmental goals and assessment endpoints. In addition to greater
12 concern with global issues (climate change, biodiversity, health of oceans), there is an overall
13 trend toward ecosystem sustainability to provide for longer term protection of valued resources.
14
15 C.I. FOREST SERVICE
16 The Forest Service has moved toward managing for sustainable ecosystems. According to
17 a 1995 Federal Register Notice: "[the] agency would retain the discretion to determine for each
18 plan area which conditions are indicative of sustainable ecosystems and how the plan area could
19 be managed to promote those conditions." This indicates that the actual management goals are
20 established on a case-by-case basis for each area. However, the definition of "sustainable
21 ecosystem" gives some indication of the kinds of goals they will consider: "the ability to sustain
22 diversity, productivity, resilience to stress, health, renewability and or yields or desired values,
23 resource uses, products or services, from an ecosystem while maintaining the integrity of the
24 ecosystem over time." This combines concepts related to sustainability (diversity, resilience to
25 stress) with those related to human utility (yields, desired values, resource uses, products or
26 services).
27 The Forest Service also adopts a two-stage (course filter/fine filter) process that first
28 considers the ecosystem as a whole and then an additional consideration of species that may not
29 be protected by the general ecosystem protection.
30
31 C.2. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM)
32 BLM has also moved toward an ecosystem approach. Like the Forest Service, BLM sets
33 specific management goals on an area basis. Some of the BLM principles and definitions show
34 that, also like the Forest Service, ecosystem integrity and utility to humans are to be combined in
35 their goals:
36
1/23/97 A-8 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 • Sustain the productivity and diversity of ecosystems and provide for human values,
2 products, and services
3
4 • Determine desired future landscape functions based on historic, ecological,
5 economic, and social considerations
6
7 • Sustainable development: the use of land and water to sustain production
8 indefinitely without environmental deterioration, ideally without loss of native
9 biodiversity
10
11 • Sustainable ecosystem: management of ecosystems so that the desired mix of
12 values and resources are tempered to ensure that their capabilities and suitabilities
13 are not compromised for future generations.
14
15 C.3. SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE (NOW THE NATURAL RESOURCE
16 CONSERVATION SERVICE)
17 This Agency has also moved toward ecosystem management that provides for human
18 utility. It considers integrated resource, or ecosystem, management, a concept based on the self-
19 healing ability of viable ecosystems. Ecosystem management is also a means to establish or
20 maintain living systems that improve rather than degrade over time.
21
22 C.4. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (FWS)
23 The FWS mission is "to conserve, protect and enhance the nation's fish and wildlife and
24 their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people."
25 This clearly includes human use and also points to ecosystem protection.
26 More explicitly: "An ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife conservation means
27 protecting or restoring the function, structure and species composition of an ecosystem while
28 providing for its sustainable socioeconomic use."
29 The FWS defines 52 geographically defined ecosystem units, closely corresponding to
30 watersheds in most cases. Specific goals are established for particular watershed units. However,
31 the FWS also prioritizes units based in part on the "significance of the resources present in the
32 ecosystem." Highest priority is given to those ecosystem units most important to FWS's trust
33 resources (listed species, migratory birds, etc.). Other considerations beyond the scope of this
34 document (such as the ability of the service to address the resource need) are also considered.
35
1/23/97 A-9 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 C.5. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (NFS) ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
2 The NFS is charged with managing specific places that are highly valued as natural
3 resources. In NFS' words, these are "the Nation's most precious natural and cultural resources,
4 which are important symbols of our rich and diverse heritage" (U.S. Department of the Interior,
5 1994).
6 The overall vision emphasizes ecosystem integrity: "NFS to lead by example through
7 continuous improvement and excellence in direct stewardship efforts while actively assisting and
8 educating other stakeholders to help them better manage resources for the goal of greater
9 ecosystem integrity" (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1994).
10 Specific goals are established separately for each park. However, the principles indicate a
11 focus on biodiversity and resources valued for heritage reasons: ". . . It is imperative that the
12 NFS work to restore and/or maintain biological diversity (species, genetic, and ecosystem) and
13 the ecological patterns and processes that maintain that diversity. Viable populations of native
14 species and natural-disturbance regimes should be maintained. The overall objective is to
15 maintain ecosystems that are resilient to short-term stresses and receptive to long-term
16 evolutionary and ecological influences of change" (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1994).
17 "Preserving and maintaining significant resources and advocating or assisting others to
18 protect important archeological, historical, and ethnographic resources in their historic context"
19 (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1994).
1/23/97 A-10 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
APPENDIX D
SOME COMMUNITY PROJECTS
Section 2.4 of the main text discusses some community-based projects. This section
provides information on the projects and sources referred to in that section and adds brief
summaries of a few more projects.
D.I. EPA SUMMARY OF ECOSYSTEM PROJECTS
In January 1995, EPA's Office of Water published^ Phase I Inventory of Current EPA
Efforts to Protect Ecosystems (U.S. EPA, 1995b). This included summaries of projects involving
EPA and its partners in place-based management and ecosystem protection. Although the
inventory did not specifically list the entities protected for each project, many summaries provided
information on this point. The following table summarizes the entities protected by projects in
this inventory, to the extent this information was provided.
Table D-l. Ecosystem Protection Inventory: Entities Protected by Region
(Number of Projects)
Region
Fish, fisheries
Shellfish
Birds
Wildlife
Aquatic life
Endangered or
native species
Biodiversity
Habitat or ecosystem
Aquatic habitat
(unspecified)
Estuaries
Lakes
1
5
2
1
2
1
4
2
1
2
10
2
4
5
1
O
5
3
7
3
2
1
1
2
1
5
1
1
4
7
3
1
2
O
1
3
5
5
3
3
3
1
1
O
O
2
6
1
3
1
1
O
1
7
8
1
1
2
2
7
4
2
8
4
1
2
1
9
1
1
1
3
5
1
10
8
2
1
5
La
3
2
3
5
4
O
3
Mb
6
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1/23/97
A-ll
DISCUSSION DOCUMENT
-------
Table D-l. Ecosystem Protection Inventory: Entities Protected by Region
(Number of Projects) (Continued)
Region
Streams
Wetlands
Terrestrial habitat
Unique habitat
Soil
1
1
2
2
3
5
1
4
1
12
4
5
1
1
6
6
1
2
1
7
1
5
4
1
8
2
2
O
9
5
2
2
1
1
10
7
4
7
1
La
5
10
4
5
O
Mb
1
6
aLarge-scale projects.
bMultiregion projects.
D.2. OTHER COMMUNITY-BASED PROJECTS
This section summarizes projects from various sources, many from the Office of Policy,
Planning, and Evaluation (OPPE) Comparative Risk Project (U.S. EPA, 1993).
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1. The Wisconsin Tribes Comparative Risk Project (U.S. EPA, 1992) ranked several
natural resource issues as "high" under the ecological or quality-of-life categories.
These included:
• The effects on fish from nonpoint source discharges to lakes and rivers
• Loss of wild rice habitat, fish spawning, cover habitat, and aesthetic value from
physical degradation of water and wetland habitats
Acid rain impacts on fish, birds, and mammals
Abandoned hazardous waste sites (regarded as an insult to the Tribes' respect
for the earth).
2. The Community-Based Environmental Risk, Ranking: Rural andHawai 'ion Quality of
Life: Kahalu 'u O 'ahu (University of Hawai'i at Manoa, 1992) listed access to natural
resources as one of the most important values of this community; respect for the land
and for nature was also ranked high.
3. Issues rated high under Vermont's quality-of-life comparative risk assessment include
alteration of Vermont's ecosystems, the effects of acid rain on native species, and
pollution of lakes, ponds, and streams (U.S. EPA, 1993, section 2.4).
1/23/97
A-12
DISCUSSION DOCUMENT
-------
1 4. Louisiana listed various stressors of aquatic ecosystems and especially marine
2 ecosystems as high in their comparative risk project; wetlands were also listed as high
3 (U.S. EPA, 1993, section 2.4).
4
5 5. Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program (Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program,
6 1992) adopted a vision for a brighter future for the Sarasota Bay; this vision
7 specifically mentions fish for recreational and commercial fishing and wetlands.
8
9 6. Six ecosystem projects are used by the State of Florida as examples of its ecosystem
10 management approach (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 1995). All
11 six are valued as habitat for a wide variety of species. Native species of amphibians,
12 reptiles, fish, aquatic invertebrates, migratory and resident birds, and other wildlife are
13 mentioned for one or more of the areas; endangered, rare, or threatened species are
14 mentioned for nearly all of the six; and commercially important fish and shellfish are
15 mentioned for most. The project areas contain important rivers, estuaries, and
16 wetlands. One has been designated a Wild and Scenic River. Ecosystem functions and
17 services such as aquifer recharge, flood water storage, and prevention of saltwater
18 intrusion are also mentioned as deserving protection.
1/23/97 A-13 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
1 APPENDIX E
2 LISTS OF SPECIAL PLACES
3
4 Many activities within Federal and State natural resource agencies and private
5 environmental organizations focus on identifying and ranking the most important natural
6 resources deserving special protection and management. These institutions have produced lists of
7 specific areas characterized by their uniqueness, ecological significance or rarity, recreational
8 importance, or other special designation. A 1991 report (U.S. EPA, 1991) described many of
9 these lists, and the results are summarized below.
Table E-l. Proposed Master Lists for EPA Use in Targeting Natural Resource Priorities
List
Sites with multiple designations from
different lists
Biosphere reserves
TNC last great places
Wetlands of international importance
World heritage sites
Areas of critical environmental concern
Experimental ecological reserves
National natural landmarks
Research natural areas
National conservation areas
National park system
National wilderness areas
National wildlife refuges
Total
Number of sites
43
46
8
10
10
448
96
587
375
7
152
488
492
2,762
Area
(xlOOO acres)
18,682
42,565
16,339
1,129
15,757
6,699
2,709
8,692
3,733
13,833
75,181
90,960
88273
384,552
U.S. coverage
(percentage)
0.82
1.86
0.71
0.05
0.69
0.29
0.12
0.38
0.16
0.60
3.28
3.97
3.85
16.79
Source: U.S. EPA, 1991.
1/23/97
A-14
DISCUSSION DOCUMENT
-------
1 APPENDIX F
2 STATUTORY PROVISIONS THAT AUTHORIZE EPA TO
3 CONSIDER SPECIFIC CONCERNS
4
5 Existing laws direct EPA to consider a variety of general and specific ecological concerns.
6 The following table summarizes some of the more specific provisions of the major laws governing
7 EPA. Provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and National Environmental Policy Act
8 (NEPA) are also included because ESA and NEPA address all Federal agencies and because their
9 requirements may be triggered by certain EPA activities. The table is not comprehensive, and
10 provisions of the laws are paraphrased or excerpted.
1/23/97 A-15 DISCUS SIGN DOCUMENT
-------
to
VO
Table F-l. Specific Provisions of Major Laws Governing EPA
Law
Clean Air Act
(CAA) §103
CAA§108
CAA §109
CAA §111
CAA§112(a)(l)
CAA§112(b)(l)
Provision
Authorizes collection and dissemination of data on "chemical, physical, and biological effects of varying
air quality." Mandates interagency research on "ecosystems damage" from air pollutants, including
identification of "regionally representative and critical ecosystems" for research; evaluation of "risks to
ecosystems"; assessments of the "short-term and long-term ecological effects" of atmospheric
deposition on surface water and groundwater, and air pollution effects on "forests, . . . biological
diversity, soils, and other terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems"; and "associated economic costs of
ecological damage." Establishes biennial reporting requirements on "the status of ecosystems (including
forests and surface waters)" affected by acid deposition and "the occurrence and effects of episodic
acidification, particularly with respect to high elevation watersheds. ..."
Authorizes EPA to "assess the risks to ecosystems from exposure to criteria air pollutants. . . ."
Requires EPA to establish national ambient air quality standards for the protection of public health and
welfare. (Welfare is defined in CAA §302 to include effects on "soils, water, crops, vegetation, . . .
animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate.")
Incorporates consideration of, among other things, "non-air quality . . . environmental impact" into
performance standard definition.
Authorizes EPA to designate sources emitting lesser quantity of hazardous air pollutants as "major" based
on the potential for bioaccumulation, among other factors.
Provides an initial list of hazardous air pollutants that may be revised by EPA; the criteria to add or delete
from the list include adverse environmental effects, defined as "any significant and widespread adverse
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 environmental quality over broad areas "
O
HH
O
O
O
O
-------
to
VO
Table F-l. Specific Provisions of Major Laws Governing EPA (Continued)
Law
Provision
CAA§112(m)
Requires EPA, in cooperation with NOAA, to conduct a hazardous air pollutant assessment program for
the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, Lake Champlain, and coastal waters, including "sampling] for
such pollutants in biota, fish and wildlife," and investigating "the sources of air pollutants deposited in
the [Chesapeake Bay and Lake Champlain] watersheds. . . ."
CAA§160
Establishes as one of the purposes behind preventing deterioration of air quality "to . . . enhance the air
quality in national parks, wildernesses, national monuments, national seashores, and other areas of
special national or regional natural, recreational, scenic, or historic value
CAA§162
Designates international parks, national wilderness areas exceeding 5,000 acres in size, national
memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres in size, and national parks exceeding 6,000 acres as of 1977
for permanent special air quality protection.
CAA§164
Authorizes special protection through State action for national monuments, primitive areas, preserves,
recreational areas, wild and scenic rivers, wildlife refuges, lakeshores, and seashores. Authorizes
special protection for national parks and wilderness areas exceeding 10,000 acres established after
1977. Authorizes similar action by federally recognized Indian tribes. Directs Federal land managers to
review all national monuments, primitive areas, and national preserves and recommend appropriate
areas for special protection.
O
HH
O
O
O
O
CAA§165(d)
Places responsibility on Federal land managers to "protect the air quality related values (including
visibility)" in certain protected areas. Requires an analysis of "ambient air quality, climate and
meteorology, terrain, soils and vegetation," among other things, as part of the consideration of possible
adverse impacts of proposed major emitting facilities on protected areas.
CAA§173(a)(5)
Under the nonattainment New Source Review program, a State permitting authority may only issue a
permit if it determines that an analysis of alternatives "demonstrates that benefits of the proposed source
significantly outweigh the environmental [and other] costs imposed as a result of its location,
construction, or modification."
CAA §302
Defines welfare to include effects on "soils, water, crops, vegetation,... animals, wildlife, weather,
visibility, and climate," among other things.
-------
to
VO
Table F-l. Specific Provisions of Major Laws Governing EPA (Continued)
Law
Provision
CAA §309
Directs EPA to review and comment on other Federal agency actions and, "[i]n the event the
Administrator determines that any such legislation, action, or regulation is unsatisfactory from the
standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality, ... the matter shall be referred to the
Council on Environmental Quality."
CAA §401
Congressional finding that acid deposition "represents a threat to natural resources [and] ecosystems,"
among other things.
CAA §401 note
Directed EPA to submit a report to Congress on the feasibility and effectiveness of acid deposition
standards "to protect sensitive and critically sensitive aquatic and terrestrial resources." The report
was to include identification of sensitive and critically sensitive aquatic and terrestrial resources in Canada
that may be affected by acid deposition.
oo
Clean Water Act
(CWA) §101
"The objective of the [CWA] is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
the Nation's waters." Established national (interim) goal of "water quality which provides for [among
other things] the protection and propagation offish, shellfish, and wildlife. . . ."
CWA §102
Authorizes, upon State request, grants to planning agencies for comprehensive water quality control plans
for "a basin or portion thereof," defined to include "rivers and their tributaries, streams, coastal waters,
sounds, estuaries, bays, lakes, and portions thereof as well as the lands drained thereby."
O
HH
O
O
O
O
CWA §104
Authorizes, among other things, grants for "basic research into the structure and function of freshwater
aquatic ecosystems, and to improve understanding of the characteristics necessary to the maintenance of
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of freshwater aquatic ecosystems" and "interdisciplinary
studies on the nature of river systems, including hydrology, biology, ecology, economics, and the
effects of development within river basins on river systems and on the value of water resources and water
related activities."
CWA §117
Continues the Chesapeake Bay Program to, among other things, address water quality impairment and
"determine the impact of natural and man-induced environmental changes on the living resources of the
Bay and the relationships among such changes, . . . with special attention given to the impact of such
changes on striped bass."
-------
to
VO
Table F-l. Specific Provisions of Major Laws Governing EPA (Continued)
Law
Provision
CWA§118
Establishes programs for the Great Lakes; directs or authorizes development of Lakewide Management
Plans and Remedial Action Plans, defined as "systematic and comprehensive ecosystem approaches] to
restoring and protecting the beneficial uses" of the Great Lakes' open waters and "areas of concern,"
respectively, in accordance with the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement; required EPA to develop
water quality guidance, including specific protection for aquatic life and wildlife, to promote consistency
in controlling water pollution in Great Lakes States.
CWA§119
Continues Long Island Sound environmental restoration efforts and promotes implementation of its
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan.
CWA§120
Establishes Lake Champlain management efforts to address sources of pollution necessary "to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of water quality, [and] a balanced, indigenous
population of shellfish, fish and wildlife," among other things.
CWA §302
Authorizes EPA to establish effluent limitations on discharges from point sources as necessary for the
protection and propagation of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, among other things.
CWA §303©
Authorizes States and EPA to establish and review, on a triennial basis, water quality standards to, among
other things, "enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the Act."
O
HH
O
O
O
O
CWA §304(a)
Gives EPA broad authority to develop and publish scientific information related to, among other things,
restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of navigable waters, ground
waters, and waters of the contiguous zones.
CWA §307(a)
Authorizes EPA to establish a national effluent standard for toxic pollutants applicable to certain point
sources that takes into account the effects of the pollutants on "affected organisms in any waters [and]
the importance of the affected organisms," among other things
CWA §311
Establishes mechanisms to prevent or minimize effects of oil and hazardous substance discharges on,
among other things, "fish, shellfish, and wildlife,... shorelines, beaches, habitat, and other living
and non-living resources." Establishes contingency planning that includes procedures for protecting
"sensitive environmental areas, and ... fisheries and wildlife," and describes "areas of special...
environmental importance."
-------
to
VO
Table F-l. Specific Provisions of Major Laws Governing EPA (Continued)
Law
Provision
CWA§314
Establishes programs to address lake water quality issues, including a demonstration program. Specifies
priority lakes for demonstration projects.
CWA §320
Authorizes establishment of management conferences to develop comprehensive conservation and
management plans "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
estuary, including restoration and maintenance of water quality, [and] a balanced indigenous population
of shellfish, fish and wildlife," among other things. States are to develop implementation programs on a
watershed-by-watershed basis, to the maximum extent practicable. Creates research programs, including a
long-term program of monitoring to measure variations in, among other things, "marine ecology";
"ecosystem assessment"; and the impact of nutrients, sediments, and pollutants on "water quality [and] the
ecosystem" of estuarine zones, among other things. Defines estuarine zone to include "associated
aquatic ecosystems and those portions of tributaries draining into the estuary up to the historic
height of migration of anadromous fish or the historic head of tidal influence, whichever is higher."
to
o
CWA §402
Establishes permitting process for States and EPA to control discharges of pollutants from point sources in
an effort to achieve water quality standards.
CWA §404
Authorizes EPA to "veto" Corps or State authorization of a discharge of dredged or fill material into
waters of the United States where EPA finds that it will have an unacceptable adverse effect on "municipal
water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (including spawning and breeding areas), wildlife, or
recreation areas "
o
HH
O
o
o
o
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation, and
Liability Act
(CERCLA) §101
Defines "environment" as the navigable waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, certain ocean
waters, and any other surface water, ground water, drinking water supply, land surface or
subsurface strata, or ambient air under U.S. jurisdiction. Defines "natural resources" as "land, fish,
wildlife, biota, air, ground water, drinking water supplies, and other such resources. . . ."
CERCLA §102
Directs EPA to promulgate regulations designating as hazardous substances "substances which, when
released into the environment may present substantial danger to the public health or welfare or the
environment."
-------
to
VO
Table F-l. Specific Provisions of Major Laws Governing EPA (Continued)
Law
CERCLA§107
CERCLA§121
CERCLA §301
Endangered Species
Act (ESA) §2
ESA§3(16)
ESA §7(a)(l)
ESA §7(a)(2)
ESA §9
Provision
Establishes liability for damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources from releases of
hazardous substances from facilities at which such substances were disposed of or treated. Establishes
trustees to assess natural resource damages for purposes of CERCLA and §311 of the CWA.
Specifies that remedial action for the treatment of hazardous substance shall be "protective of human health
and the environment."
Directs the President to promulgate natural resource damages assessment regulations that take into
consideration "factors including replacement value, use value, and ability of the ecosystem or
resource to recover ."
Congressional finding that at-risk species of fish, wildlife, and plants "are of aesthetic, ecological,
educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people ." Establishes
among the purposes of the Act "to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered
species and threatened species depend may be conserved ." Establishes as congressional policy that
Federal agencies "shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their
authorities in furtherance of the purposes of [the Act]."
Defines "species" as including "any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plant, and any distinct population
segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature."
Directs all Federal agencies, with the assistance of FWS and NMFS, to utilize their authorities in
furtherance of the purposes of the ESA "by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered
and threatened species
Directs all Federal agencies, in consultation with FWS/NMFS, to insure that "any action authorized,
funded, or carried out" by them is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or
threatened species or result in the adverse modification of the designated critical habitat of such
species unless the agency has been granted an exemption from the Endangered Species Committee.
Prohibits any person (including EPA) from "taking" listed endangered species of fish or wildlife
without a permit." "Take" is defined to include "harm" or "kill" in ESA §3(19) Protects
endangered species of plants on areas under Federal jurisdiction or covered by State law.
>
O
HH
O
O
O
O
-------
to
VO
Table F-l. Specific Provisions of Major Laws Governing EPA (Continued)
Law
Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) §2G)
FIFRA §2(bb)
FIFRA §3(c)(5)
FIFRA §4
FIFRA §10
FIFRA §20
Marine Protection,
Research, and
Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA) §2
Provision
"The term 'environment' includes water, air, land, and all plants and man and other animals living
therein, and the interrelationships which exist among these."
"The term 'unreasonable adverse effect on the environment' means any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of
any pesticide."
Authorizes registration of a pesticide product only if it performs its intended pesticidal function without
causing "unreasonable adverse effects on the environment."
For purposes of the reregistration process, directs EPA to give priority to active ingredients that, among
other things, "may result in residues of potential toxicological concern in potable groundwater, edible fish,
or shellfish "
Requires public availability of certain information concerning a pesticide's effects on "any organism or the
behavior of such pesticide in the environment, including, but not limited to, data on safety to fish and
wildlife, humans and other mammals, plants, animals, and soil, and studies on persistence,
translocation, and fate in the environment, and metabolism. ..."
Directs EPA to "undertake such monitoring activities, including, but not limited to monitoring in air, soil,
water, man, plants, and animals
Establishes as national policy the regulation of ocean dumping and to prevent or strictly limit ocean
dumping of any material "which would adversely affect human health, welfare, or amenities, or the
marine environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities."
to
to
O
HH
O
O
O
O
-------
to
VO
Table F-l. Specific Provisions of Major Laws Governing EPA (Continued)
Law
Provision
MPRSA §102(a)
Authorizes EPA to issue permits for the transportation of material for ocean dumping if such dumping will
not unreasonably degrade or endanger, among other things, "the marine environment [and] ecological
systems." Directs EPA to establish permit application criteria that consider, among other things, "the
effect of such dumping on fisheries resources, plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, shore lines and
beaches ... [and] marine ecosystems, particularly with respect to ... potential changes in marine
ecosystem diversity, productivity, and stability, and ... species and community population
dynamics"
MPRSA §102©
Authorizes EPA to designate sites and times within which certain materials may not be dumped if "[the
Administrator] finds it necessary to protect critical areas."
to
MPRSA §103
Authorizes waivers "unless the Administrator finds that the dumping of the material will result in an
unacceptably adverse impact on shell-fish beds, wildlife, fisheries (including spawning and
breeding areas), or recreational areas "
National
Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA)
§2
States that the Act's purpose includes declaring a national policy to, among other things, "promote efforts
which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere ... [and] enrich the
understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation. . . ."
NEPA §101
Sets forth congressional recognition of, among other things, "the profound impact of man's activity on the
interrelations of all components of the natural environment. . . ." Provides that it is the continuing
responsibility of the Federal government to improve Federal programs "to the end that the Nation may
fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations. . .
-------
to
VO
Table F-l. Specific Provisions of Major Laws Governing EPA (Continued)
Law
Provision
NEPA§102
Congress "authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent possible: (1) the policies, regulations, and
public laws of the United States shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set
forth in [NEPA], and (2) all agencies of the Federal Government shall. . . develop methods and procedures
. . . which will [e]nsure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given
appropriate consideration in decision making . . . [and] include in every recommendation or report on
proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions . . . [an environmental impact statement] . . . [and]
recognize the worldwide and long-range character of environmental problems . . . [and] initiate and utilize
ecological information in the planning and development of resource-oriented projects . . . ."
to
NEPA §201
Directs the President to transmit to Congress an annual report on "the status and condition of the major
natural, manmade, or altered environmental classes of the Nation, including, but not limited to, the
air, the aquatic, including marine, estuarine, and fresh water, and the terrestrial environment,
including, but not limited to, the forest, dryland, wetland, range, urban, suburban, and rural
environment; ... [and] the adequacy of available natural resources for fulfilling human and
economic requirements of the Nation in light of expected population pressures. . . ."
NEPA §204
Establishes among the duties of the President's Council on Environmental Quality "to conduct
investigations, studies, surveys, research, and analyses relating to ecological systems and environmental
quality. . . ." This duty was delegated to EPA in Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970.
O
HH
O
O
O
O
Solid Waste
Disposal Act
(SWDA) §1003
Establishes as one of the Act's objectives "promoting . . . solid waste management, resource recovery, and
resource conservation systems which preserve and enhance the quality of air, water, and land resources."
Declares a national policy that any waste generated "should be treated, stored, or disposed of so as to
minimize the present and future threat to human health and the environment."
SWDA §3002
Directs EPA to promulgate standards applicable to generators of listed hazardous wastes "as may be
necessary to protect human health and the environment."
SWDA §3003
Directs EPA to promulgate standards applicable to transporters of listed hazardous wastes "as may be
necessary to protect human health and the environment."
-------
to
VO
Table F-l. Specific Provisions of Major Laws Governing EPA (Continued)
Law
Provision
SWDA §3004
Directs EPA to promulgate performance standards applicable to owners and operators of facilities for the
treatment, storage, or disposal of listed hazardous wastes "as may be necessary to protect human health
and the environment."
SWDA §9003
Directs EPA to promulgate release detection, prevention, and correction regulations applicable to all
owners and operators of underground storage tanks, "as may be necessary to protect human health and the
environment."
Toxic Substances
Control Act
(TSCA) §3
"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 §4
Authorizes the Agency to require testing of chemical substances or mixtures that may present an
unreasonable risk of injury to "health or the environment."
to
TSCA §6
Authorizes action by EPA to protect against chemical substances or mixtures that present or will present
an unreasonable risk of injury to "health or the environment." Requirements imposed may be limited to
"specified geographic areas."
O
HH
O
TSCA §8
Authorizes the Agency to require, among other things, submission of "health and safety data," defined as
"any study of any effect of a chemical substance or mixture on health or the environment or both, including
ecological studies."
O
O
O
-------
1 REFERENCES FOR APPENDICES
2
3 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (1995). Toward ecosystem management. Tallahassee, FL.
4
5 Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program (1992). Framework for action. Sarasota, FL.
6
7 U.S. Department of the Interior (1994). Ecosystem management in the National Park Service: Discussion draft. U.S.
8 Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
9
10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1983). Compilation of Federal laws, treaties, and conventions pertaining to the
11 environment: 1785-1978. Prepared by RG Clements for Office of Toxic Substances, Health and Environmental Review
12 Division, Ecological Effects Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
13
14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1991). Targeting priority natural resource areas: A review of national lists.
15 Prepared by Dynamac Corporation for Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. U.S. Environmental Protection
16 Agency, Washington, DC.
17
18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1992). Tribes at risk: The Wisconsin Tribes Comparative Risk Project. U.S.
19 Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/230/R-92/017.
20
21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1993). A guidebook to comparing risks and setting environmental priorities.
22 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/230/B-93/003.
23
24 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1994) Managing ecological risks at EPA: Issues and recommendations for
25 progress. Prepared by ME Troyer and MS Brody, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/600/R-94/183.
26
27 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1995). A phase I inventory of current EPA efforts to protect ecosystems.
28 Prepared by D Norton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/841/S-95/001.
29
30 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1996). Waquoit Bay watershed ecological risk assessment problem formulation.
31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (review draft).
32
33 University of Hawai'i at Manoa (1992). A community-based environmental risk ranking: Rural and Hawai'ian quality
34 of life: Kahalu'u O'ahu. University of Hawai'i at Manoa, Department of Urban and Regional Planning.
1/23/97 A-26 DRAFT-DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
------- |