Participant Manual
Ecological Risk
and
Decision Making Workshop
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities
December 12, 1995 Edition
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This training manual was developed by the Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and
Communities. The following individuals deserve special recognition for their substantial
contributions in developing the course:
Office of Policy. Planning and Evaluation
Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities
Michael Brody
James Cole
Jerry Filbin
Laura Gabanski
Angela Nugent
Bill Painter
Office of Regulatory Management and Information
James Cole
Office of Pesticide Programs
Ev Byington
Betsy Grim
Ingrid Sunzenauer
Office of Water
Mimi Dannel
Tom Kelsch
Office of Research and Development
Ron Landy
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Barbara Mandula
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
John Miller
Regions
Brenda Jones, R.5
Chuck Maurice, R.5
DanPhalen,R.10
Doug Steele, R.9
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Schedule
Course Evaluation
1. Introduction Unit
2. Ecology and Ecological Effects Unit
3. Risk Management and Decision Making Unit
4. Ecological Risk Assessment Unit
5. Communicating with the Public on Ecological Issues
6. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment Unit
7. WormFree Pesticide Special Review Group Exercise
8. Zap-A-Bug Warehouse Superfund Site Group Exercise
9. Watershed Group Exercise
10. Summary Unit
11. Key Definitions
12. Appendices
A. Endangered Species Policies
B. Ecological Risk: A Primer for Risk Managers
C. Communicating with the Public on Ecological Issues: Clark University
Study
D. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment
E. EPA Risk Characterization Program
F. Managing Ecological Risks at EPA: Issues and Recommendations for
Progress
-------
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop
Schedule
Day 1
8:30 - 8:45 Introductions & Logistics
8:45 - 9:30 Introduction Unit
9:30 -10:30 Ecology and Ecological Effects Unit
10:30-10:45 BREAK
10:45 - 12:00 Ecology and Ecological Effects Unit
12:00-1:00 LUNCH
1:00 - 2:00 Ecological Risk Management and Decision Making Unit
2:00 - 2:45 Ecological Risk Assessment Unit
2:45 - 3:00 BREAK
3:00 - 4:00 Communicating with the Public on Ecological Issues
4:00 - 5:00 Guest Speaker, Video, Field Trip, or What-lf Bug Exercise
Day 2
8:30 - 9:30 Ecological Risk Assessment Framework Overview Unit
9:30 -10:30 Group Exercise (choices include: Superfund Site or Pesticide
Review) - Problem Formulation Phase
10:30-10:45 BREAK
10:45 -12:00 Group Exercise - Problem Formulation Phase
12:00-1:00 LUNCH
1:00 - 3:00 Group Exercise - Analysis Phase
3:00-3:15 BREAK
3:15 - 5:00 Group Exercise - Risk Characterization Phase
Day 3
8:30 -10:30 Group Exercise - Decision Making
10:30-10:45 BREAK
10:45 -11:15 Group Exercise - Final Report-Out
11:15 -12:00 Workshop Summary & Evaluation
-------
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop
Participant Evaluation Form
1. Introduction
Name (optional):
Office:
Title:
Please mark the appropriate box.
Overall
How would you rate the this unit? D Excellent DGood DFair DPoor
Comments [Please comment on such aspects as the manual; visual aids; instructor's presentation; pacing;
amount of detail (too much, too little, just right); usefulness]
Participant Evaluation Form e-1
-------
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop
Participant Evaluation Form
2. Ecology and Ecological Effects
Name (optional):
Office: __^^_
Title:
Please mark the appropriate box.
Overall
How would you rate the this unit? D Excellent DGood DFair DPoor
Comment [Please comment on such aspects as the manual; visual aids; instructor's presentation; pacing; amount
of detail (too much, too little, just right); usefulness]
Participant Evaluation Form e-2
-------
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop
Participant Evaluation Form
3. Risk Management and Decision Making
Name (optional):
Office:
Title:
Please mark the appropriate box.
Overall
How would you rate the this unit? D Excellent DGood DFair DPoor
Comments [Please comment on such aspects as the manual; visual aids; instructor's presentation; pacing;
amount of detail (too much, too little, just right); usefulness]
Participant Evaluation Form e-3
-------
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop
Participant Evaluation Form
4. Ecological Risk Assessment
Name (optional):
Office:
Title:
Please mark the appropriate box.
Overall
How would you rate the this unit? D Excellent DGood DFair DPoor
Comments [Please comment on such aspects as the manual; visual aids; instructor's presentation; pacing;
amount of detail (too much, too little, just right); usefulness]
Participant Evaluation Form e-4
-------
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop
Participant Evaluation Form
5. Communicating with the Public on Ecological Issues
Name (optional):
Office:
Title:
Please mark the appropriate box.
Overall
How would you rate the this unit? D Excellent a Good DFair DPoor
Comments [Please comment on such aspects as the manual; visual aids; instructor's presentation; pacing;
amount of detail (too much, too little, just right); usefulness]
Participant Evaluation Form e-5
-------
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop
Participant Evaluation Form
6. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment
Name (optional):
Office:
Title:
Please mark the appropriate box.
Overall
How would you rate the this unit? D Excellent DGood DFair DPoor
Comments [Please comment on such aspects as the manual; visual aids; instructor's presentation; pacing;
amount of detail (too much, too little, just right); usefulness]
Participant Evaluation Form e-6
-------
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop
Participant Evaluation Form
Overall Course
Name (optional):
Office:
Title:
Please mark the appropriate box.
Overall
How would you rate the overall workshop?
Workshop Sessions
How would you rate the six main units?
Introduction
Ecology and Ecological Effects
Risk Management and Decision Making
Ecological Risk Assessment
Communicating with the Public on
Ecological Issues
Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment
D Excellent DGood DFair DPoor
D Excellent
D Excellent
D Excellent
D Excellent
DGood
DGood
DGood
DGood
DFair DPoor
D Fair D Poor
DFair DPoor
DFair DPoor
D Excellent DGood DFair DPoor
D Excellent DGood DFair DPoor
Comments.
Group Exercises
In which group exercise did you participate?
Did the group exercise reinforce what you learned in the six main units? What is your opinion of the group
exercise in which you participated? (How informative/educational was it?) Use the space below for comments.
D Excellent DGood DFair DPoor
Comments
Participant Evaluation Form
-------
Please rate the following:
Visual Aids D Excellent DGood DFair DPoor
Workshop Manual D Excellent DGood DFair DPoor
Which aspects of the workshop were most beneficial and why?.
Were any parts of the course or course materials confusing or difficult to understand?.
After participating in this workshop, do you feel you have a better understanding of ecology and the ecological risk
assessment and the decision making process? DYes ONo
Do you have any suggestions on how information could be presented more effectively?
Are there aspects of the workshop that you think need more/less emphasis?
Participant Evaluation Form
-------
Did the workshop meet your expectations? DYes DNo
Please provide any other comments or suggestions in the space below.
Thank you for your assistance!
Participant Evaluation Form
-------
1. Introduction
-------
1. INTRODUCTION UNIT
Contents
Summaiy of Introduction Unit 1
Purpose of Workshop 3
Overview of Introduction Unit 4
Why Ecological Protection? 5
Definition of Ecological Risk Assessment 11
Why Ecological Risk Assessment? 12
Ecological Risk Assessment and Community-Based Environmental Protection 14
Key Concepts 17
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12,1995 P-i
-------
Introduction Unit
[This page intentionally left blank.]
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Wbrtehop /Participant Manual/December 12,1995
-------
Introduction Unit
Summary of Introduction Unit
Time Allotted
Approximately 45 minutes allowed for discussion and lecture.
Summary of the Unit
The Introduction Unit establishes the purpose of the course. It defines ecological risk assessment, and places
ecological risk in the context of human health risk and the ecosystem protection place-based approach. The
bases for ecological protection and risk assessment at EPA are also reviewed.
Key Concepts
* People hold a wide range of values concerning ecological protection.
» Ecological protection and risk are firmly based in the EPA's statutes and mission.
> Ecological risk assessment is "a process that evaluates the likelihood that adverse effects may occur or are
occurring as a result of exposure to one or more stressors."
> Ecological risk is increasingly a consideration in decision making at EPA.
» Ecological risk assessment is a methodology that can be used to develop strategies for protecting
ecosystems.
References
USEPA. 1992. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-92/001. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.
USEPA Science Advisory Board. 1990. Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental
Protection. SAB-EC-90-021. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12. 1995 P-1
-------
3BA Introduction Unit
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-2 Ecotogfca/ Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12,1995
-------
Introduction Unit
Purpose of Workshop
To provide a fundamental understanding of
terms, concepts, and issues associated with
ecology, ecological risk assessment,
communicating about ecological issues to
the public, and risk-based decision making.
To raise the level of awareness, interest and
knowledge about ecological protection.
To improve the use of ecological risk
assessment in the decision making process.
This workshop was developed to provide a basic understanding of the terms, concepts, and issues associated
with ecology, ecological risk assessment, communicating about ecological issues to die public, and risk-based
decision making at EPA.
It is based on the Frameworkfor Ecological Risk Assessment developed by EPA's Risk Assessment Forum. The
1983 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) risk assessment paradigm was used as the foundation for the
Framework. However, significant modifications to the NAS paradigm were made to adapt it to ecological
situations.
It is also provided to fill EPA's need for increased information to help address ecological issues in the analyses
and decisions made by the agency.
The goal is to raise the level of awareness about ecological protection and improve the use of ecological risk
assessment in the decision making process at EPA.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
P-3
-------
Introduction Unit
OVERVIEW OF
INTRODUCTION UNIT
This introduction to the course will:
* Examine the wide range of views people hold with regard to ecological protection;
> Provide an overview of the statutory and regulatory basis for ecological protection at EPA;
»• Define ecological risk assessment;
* Discuss the basis for an ecological risk assessment approach; and
» Show the relationship of ecological risk assessment to community-based environmental protection.
P-4
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
Introduction Unit
Why Are We Concerned About
Ecological Protection?
We are concerned about ecological protection because it is firmly established in our environmental laws.
Consideration of ecological protection issues in environmental decision making is necessary to maintain the
health of our natural world for the use and enjoyment and sustainability of future generations. EPA is the
primary Federal agency responsible for implementing the nation's environmental laws. As different
environmental problems have been identified over the years, new environmental laws were passed to address
each new problem. EPA's internal programmatic structure mirrors the environmental legislation that it is
required to implement The ecological protection language in the major environmental laws for which EPA is
responsible is summarized below.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
NEPA recast the government's role; formerly the conservator of wilderness, with NEPA it became the protector
of earth, land, air, and water. Its passage paved the way for the establishment of the EPA.
"The purposes of NEPA are: To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable
harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the
environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the
ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation..."'
NEPA requires Federal agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with major actions that are
federally funded, supported, permitted, licensed, or implemented. Federal agencies are required to prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS) for any Federal action which significantly affects the environment.
1 Quotations for NEPA, C WA, and RCRA were taken from Selected Environmental Law Statutes, West
Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN, 1984.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12,1995 P-5
-------
Introduction Unit
Why Are We Concerned About Ecological Protection? (Continued)
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA1 of 1969 (Continued)
EPA's primary role in NEPA involves reviewing EISs. EPA reviews determine whether or not the EIS
adequately and completely considers the environmental aspects of the proposed action including reasonable
alternatives and comments on the environmental acceptability of the proposed project.
Clean Water Act (CWA1
The objective of the CWA...:
» "is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters."
f "it is the national goal that whenever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the
protection and propagation offish, shellfish, and wildlife..."
» "it is the national policy that the discharges of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited..."
Section 316 (a) of the Act states: "...the administrator may impose an effluent limitation., .with respect to the
thermal component of such discharge...that will assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous
population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on that body of water."
The MPRSA allows EPA to permit ocean dumping where it "determines that such dumping will not
unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological
systems, or economic potentialities."2 Further, before issuing a permit, EPA must consider such effects of
discharges as "potential changes in marine ecosystem diversity, productivity, and stability, and species and
community population dynamics."3
Endangered Species Act (ESAi
EPA is required to comply with the Endangered Species Act by consulting with the Department of Interior or
Commerce (for marine species) on any action which is authorized, funded, or carried out by the Agency which
may jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitats. (The Appendix of this Manual has policy papers on endangered
species.)
2 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1412.
3 34U.S.C.Sec. 1412.
P-6 Ecological Risk and Decision Matting Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
Introduction Unit
Why Are We Concerned About Ecological Protection? (Continued)
Endangered Species Act (Continued)
Section 2(c) also states: "Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered and threatened
species, and shall cooperate with State and local agencies to resolve water resource issues in concert with
conservation of endangered species."
Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
Several sections of CERCLA, commonly known as Superfiind, make reference to protection of health and the
environment as parts of a whole.
+ Section 1 05(a)(2) calls for methods to evaluate and remedy "any releases or threats of releases...which pose
substantial danger to the public health or to the environment."
*• Section 121(b)(l) requires selection of remedial actions that are "protective of human health and the
environment."
» Section 121(c) calls for "assurance that human health and the environment continue to be protected."
» Section 121(d) directs EPA to attain a degree of cleanup "which assures protection of human health and the
environment." (CERCLA information from EPA's Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume II:
Environmental Evaluation Manual, EPA/540/1-89/001, 1989.)
Environment is defined in CERCLA as "the navigable waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, and the ocean
waters of which the natural resources are under the exclusive management authority of the United States under
the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and any other surface water, ground water, drinking
water supply, land surface or subsurface strata, or ambient air within the United States or under the jurisdiction
of the United States."
The National Contingency Plan (NCP) allows for the "efficient, coordinated, and effective response to
discharges of oil and releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants in accordance with the
authorities of CERCLA and the CWA."4 As part of the NCP, the Agency must identify at least 400 of the
highest priority hazardous waste facilities in the U.S. needing investigation or remedial attention.5 The statute
requires the NCP to develop criteria that take into account "the potential for destruction of sensitive
ecosystems..."6 A revised Hazard Ranking System rule (1990), which includes more ecological factors and
4 40CFR300.3(a)(l)(b)(1985NCP).
5 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9605(a)(8)(B).
6 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9605.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual /December 12,1995 P-7
-------
Introduction Unit
Why Are We Concerned About Ecological Protection? (Continued)
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
(Continued)
sensitive environments, can now result in sites being placed on the National Priority List solely because of
ecological risks. Remedial action decisions must comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate regulations
(ARAs), such as the Endangered Species Act, CWA, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
CERCLA as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 establishes liability for
damages to natural resources resulting from the release of hazardous materials.7 Only the Natural Resource
trustees, e.g., the Department of Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, may sue
to recover damages to natural resources. The EPA is not a trustee; however, it does play a critical role in
promoting natural resource damage assessments by gathering information on damages, notifying trustees, and
assigning duties to trustees.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
"The objectives of RCRA are to promote the protection of health and the environment...by prohibiting future
open dumping on the land and requiring the conversion of existing open dumps to facilities which do not pose
a danger to the environment or to health; regulating the treatment, storage, transportation, and disposal of
hazardous wastes which have adverse effects on health and the environment..."
The 1 984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments significantly expanded the scope and requirements of RCRA
to include the consideration of ecological impacts and incorporate ecological endpoints. The statute required
EPA to consider ecological impacts in Reports to Congress and in the Regulatory Determinations for special
wastes (e.g., high-volume, low-toxicity wastes).
Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
FIFRA requires that before a product can be registered unconditionally, it must be shown that it can be used
without "unreasonable adverse effect on the environment" [FIFRA section 3(c)(6)]; that is, without causing "any
unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social and environmental costs,
and benefits of the use of the pesticide" [FIFRA section 2(bb)]. FIFRA defines the environment to include
"water, air, land, and all plants and man and other animals living therein, and the interrelationships which exist
among these."8
7 42 U.S.C. Sec 9607(f).
8 7U.S.C.Sec. 136(J).
P-8 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual /December 12,1995
-------
Introduction Unit
Why Are We Concerned About Ecological Protection? (Continued)
Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (Continued)
EPA can initiate a special review of a pesticide if the Administrator determines, "based on a validated test or
other significant evidence," that the use of the pesticide may:
> "result in residues in the environment in nontarget organisms at levels which equal or exceed concentrations
acutely or chronically toxic to such organisms, or at levels which produce adverse reproductive effects in
such organisms, as determined from tests conducted on representative species or from other appropriate
data;" or
* pose a risk to the environment that is "of sufficient magnitude to merit a determination whether the use of
the pesticide product offers offsetting social, economic, and environmental benefits that justify initial or
continued registration."
Other criteria for initiating special review include considerations regarding endangered species and habitat
destruction. (Criteria for Initiation of Special Review, 40 CFR 1 154.7, 1990.)
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
TSCA mandates that "adequate data be developed with respect to the effect of chemical substances and mixtures
on health and the environment," and gives EPA the authority to regulate "chemical substances and mixtures
which present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment" [TSCA section 2(b)(l)
and (2)]. The statute defines environment to include "water, air, and land and the interrelationship which exists
among and between water, air, and land and all living things."9
TSCA requires the producer of a new chemical to submit a premanufacturing notification (PMN), including "all
existing data concerning the environmental and health effects of such substance or mixture" [TSCA Section
Section 4 of TSCA requires that testing be conducted for existing chemicals that:
» May present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment; and
» Require testing to provide sufficient data to determine whether unreasonable risk exists [TSCA Section
9 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2602(5).
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12. 1995 P-9
-------
Introduction Unit
Why Are We Concerned About Ecological Protection? (Continued)
Clean Air Act (CAA)
The CAA requires EPA to:
> "Protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare"
[CAA Section 101(b)(l)];
> Regulate hazardous air pollutants that present "adverse environmental effects" (CAA Section 112); and
> "Preserve, protect, and enhance the air quality in national parks, national wilderness areas, national
monuments, national seashores, and other areas of special national or regional natural, recreation, scenic,
or historic value" [CAA Section 160(2)] and "prevent significant deterioration of air quality in each " [CAA
Section 302(h)].
Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards must be adequate to protect public welfare from any known
or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of a listed ambient air pollutant. Public welfare is
defined in CAA Section 302(h) as "...includes, but is not limited to, effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation,
manmade materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate..."
Section 401(a)(l) of Title IV of the CAA states: "The presence of acidic compounds and their precursors in the
atmosphere and in deposition from the atmosphere represents a threat to natural resources, ecosystems materials,
visibility and public health." Section 404 requires that the Administrator report to Congress on the feasibility
and effectiveness of an acid deposition standard or standards to protect sensitive and critically sensitive aquatic
and terrestrial resources.
Global warming is addressed in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, stating "To the maximum extent
practicable, Class I and Class II [ozone-depleting] substances shall be replaced by chemicals, product substitutes,
or alternative manufacturing processes that reduce overall risks to human health and the environment."
P-10 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual /December 12,1995
-------
Introduction Unit
ECOLOGICAL RISK
ASSESSMENT- A Tool for Ecological Protection
Definition:
"A process that evaluates the likelihood that
adverse ecological effects may occur or are
occurring as a result of exposure to one or more
stressors."
Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment
USEPA Risk Assessment Formn
Ecological risk assessment is a tool for ecological protection. There are a number of ways of doing an
ecological risk assessment (see Ecological Risk Assessment Unit). This workshop uses the definition of
ecological risk assessment developed by EPA's Risk Assessment Forum (RAF), a standing committee of EPA
scientists charged with developing Agency-wide risk assessment guidelines. The Framework for Ecological
Risk Assessment was the initial product of the RAF's efforts. (The Framework is included in the Appendix of
this Manual.)
Ecological means pertaining to ecology, or the natural environment, which includes physical features and all
the plants and animals in an area.
Risk assessment refers to an appraisal or estimate of the likelihood of adverse effects.
A stressor is any physical, chemical, or biological entity that can induce an adverse effect.
Stressors can take many forms. Some examples are:
*• Chemical: Acidic precipitation decreasing the pH of streams and ponds, making them less suitable, or even
unsuitable, for aquatic life.
> Physical: Highway construction activities that remove or alter habitat.
> Biological: The introduction of a non-native (exotic) plant which, lacking natural checks and balances,
competes against and replaces native species.
More information on stressors will be presented in the Framework Unit.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 P-11
-------
Introduction Unit
Why An Ecological Risk
Assessment Approach?
» Statutory requirements
* EPA Science Advisory Board Report
» Tool to set priorities
»• Tool to communicate clearly to the
public
Environmental Statutes and Ecological Risk Assessment
Clearly, ecological protection is an important component of the major environmental statutes administered by
EPA. However, those statutes do not describe how to assess adverse ecological effects. All the statutes allow,
and some appear to encourage ecological risk assessments. Some statutes have specific ecological risk
language:
CWA. Section 301(g)(2)(c): To obtain a modification (to effluent limitations for certain nonconventional
pollutants), there must be no interference with the attainment or maintenance of water quality which assures
protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife: the modification must
not pose an unacceptable risk to the environment because of bioaccumulation, persistency in the
environment, acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, or synergistic propensities.
CERCLA 10S(aX8)(A1: The statute states that criteria to determine priorities among releases are to be based
upon relative risk or danger to public health or welfare or the environment, considering the potential for
destruction of sensitive ecosystems, the damage to natural resources which may affect the human food chain,
the contamination or potential contamination of the ambient air, and other factors.
The National Contingency Plan states that, "Using the data developed under paragraphs (d)(l) and (2) of this
section [remedial investigation], the lead agency shall conduct a site-specific baseline risk assessment to
characterize the current and potential threats to human health and the environment... The results of the
baseline risk assessment will help establish acceptable exposure levels for use in developing remedial
alternatives in the FS [feasibility study]..."
P-12
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12,1995
-------
Introduction Unit
Why An Ecological Risk Assessment Approach? (Continued)
Environmental Statutes and Ecological Risk Assessment (Continued)
FIFRA Section 2 (bb) & 3 (c}(6): Before a product can be registered unconditionally, it must be shown that
it can be used without "unreasonable adverse effect on the environment..." That is, without causing "any
unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social and environmental
costs, and benefits of the use of the pesticide."
TSCA Section 2 fb)(l) and (2\. TSCA mandates and gives EPA the authority to regulate "chemical
substances and mixtures which present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment."
CAA Amendments of 1990: "To the maximum extent practicable, class I and class II [ozone-depleting]
substances shall be replaced by chemicals, product substitutes, or alternative manufacturing processes that
reduce overall risks to human health and the environment."
Science Advisory Board Report
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) of EPA issued a report, entitled Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities And
Strategies for Environmental Protection (1990), which recommended that "EPA should attach as much
importance to reducing ecological risk as it does to reducing human health risk."
The SAB recognized the very close linkages between human health and ecological health. It recognized that
natural resources have an intrinsic moral value that must be measured on its own terms and protected for its own
sake.
The report also stated "...the Agency should communicate to the general public a clear message that it considers
ecological risks to be just as serious as human health and welfare risks..."
Tools to Set Priorities
Ecological risk assessments can be used to set priorities. For example, in a watershed risk assessment, problems
impairing the watershed are identified and assessed, and management actions such as mitigation, research,
monitoring, and regulatory actions are prioritized. This entire process involves stakeholders and risk managers.
Tools to Communicate Clearly with the Public
Risk assessment can be used as a public communication tool to describe, in plain language, the resources being
threatened. This allows the public and decision makers an opportunity to understand and discuss the issues.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 P-13
-------
Introduction Unit
Ecological Risk Assessment
and
Community - Based
Environmental Protection
EPA's Community-Based Environmental Protection Approach
Community-based environmental protection (CBEP) is a place-based approach, developed under the direction
of EPA Administrator Carol Browner, and is one of the new ecological initiatives in the Agency. In the past,
EPA has concentrated on issuing permits, establishing pollutant limits, and setting national standards. We are
now recognizing that even perfect compliance with all of EPA's authorities would not ensure the reversal of
disturbing environmental trends such as the decline of the salmon population in the Pacific Northwest and the
oyster stock in the Chesapeake Bay, the decline in migratory bird populations, and degraded coral reef systems.
In short, until recently EPA has been program-driven rather than ecosystem- or "place-" driven. This new
"place-based approach" advocates a change from individual programs to building on and integrating these
programs to provide a more holistic treatment of key environmental problems. Ecosystem protection will rely
on stakeholders to define problems, set priorities, and to help with solutions. It will include protection of human
health and welfare, as well as protection of natural systems within the context of EPA's statutory mandates. It
is important to note, however, that the ecosystem protection approach came from the scientific community; EPA
did not originate this approach.
The Edgewater Consensus
On March 5,1994, EPA convened a meeting which resulted in the Edgewater Consensus. This agreement took
its name from the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in Edgewater, MD, where the meeting was
conducted. The attendees consisted of senior EPA leaders from both Headquarters and the Regions, to discuss
how EPA could respond to the growing mandate to address human health and ecological concerns within an
economic, social and geographic context.
P-14
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12.1995
-------
Introduction Unit
EPA's Community-Based Environmental Protection Approach (Continued)
The Edgewater Consensus (Continued)
The result was a call for a fundamental reorientation of EPA to strategically address priorities in different places.
This included the idea that ecosystem protection is place-based environmental management, driven by
the environmental problems in each ecosystem. EPA would establish a process to determine site-specific
environmental problems and integrate the solutions with the goal of long-term ecosystem health and stability.
This process would include:
» Establishing a process for identifying places and steps to implement ecosystem protection in each place
based on local considerations;
» Coordinating both within the Agency and with states, tribes, local governments, and key stakeholders; and
» Identifying tools that could be provided at a national level in support of these local efforts.
CBEP Project Example: Lake Champlain Basin Program
The Lake Champlain watershed includes portions of Vermont, northeastern New York and the
Province of Quebec, Canada. The Lake is 110 miles long and 12 miles wide at its widest. The total area
of the watershed is 8,200 square miles. The major environmental problems in the watershed include
nutrient enrichment, particularly phosphorus from point and non-point sources, toxic substances in
localized areas, mercury and PCB contaminated fish, non-native nuisance aquatic vegetation and fauna
(e.g., zebra mussels), and habitat loss.
The Lake Champlain Management Conference (LCMC) was established to develop pollution
prevention and control and a restoration plan for Lake Champlain and its watershed. The LCMC is
comprised of 31 representatives from Vermont and New York including Federal, state and local
governments; local interest groups; citizens; academics; business representatives; legislators; farmers;
and environmental groups. The LCMC has collaboratively developed goals for each of 11 action areas
and jointly decided on activities the program will undertake to address these goals. Funding has been
used for research, education and demonstrations of aspects of ecosystem management, including a study
of food web dynamics and lake hydrodynamics, developing wetland acquisition strategies, and
undertaking fish consumption surveys. The business representatives on the LCMC and local business
community are interested in developing a plan which works with and supports the local economy (mostly
tourism). The LCMC had undertaken economic impact studies and local community case studies to
understand the relationship of the plan to the economy.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 P-15
-------
Introduction Unit
Role of Ecological Risk Assessment
Ecological risk assessment is a methodology that can be used to develop strategies for protecting ecosystems.
With stakeholder participation, it involves developing management goals for an ecosystem based on the
condition of the ecosystem, societal values, and a number of possible stressors to the ecosystem. Management
goals may include achieving acceptable ecosystem functions or preserving and protecting the ecosystem from
future stressors.
The analysis examines the response (current and future) of the ecosystem to multiple stressors. The results of
the risk assessment lead to proposed management actions (e.g., mitigation, research and monitoring). The entire
process is iterative, i.e., as more information is obtained, the risk assessment can be refined.
P-16 Ecological Risk and Dedsion Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12,1995
-------
Introduction Unit
Key Concepts
People hold a wide range of values
concerning ecological protection.
Ecological protection and risk are
firmly based in EPA's statutes and
mission.
Ecological risk assessment is "a
process that evaluates the
likelihood that adverse effects may
occur or are occurring as a result of
exposure to one or more
stressors."
Key Concepts (Continued)
Ecological risk is increasingly a
consideration in decision making in
EPA programs.
Ecological risk assessment is a
methodology that can be used to
develop strategies for protecting
ecosystems.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12,1995
P-17
-------
2. Ecology and Ecological
Effects
-------
2. ECOLOGY AND ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS UNIT
Contents
Summary of Ecology Unit 1
Basic Concepts in Ecology 4
Ecology Definition 5
Species 7
Populations 8
Habitat 9
Community 10
Niche 11
Succession 12
Evolution 14
Food Web 16
Ecosystem 18
Abiotic Factors 20
Photosynthesis 21
Decomposition 22
Nutrients and Biogeochemical Cycles 24
Carbon Cycle 26
Major Types of Ecosystems 28
Ecological Effects of Stressors 29
Stressor Types 30
Ecological Exposure to Chemical Stressors 32
The Nature of Chemical Stressors 34
Bioconcentration, Bioaccumulation, Biomagnification 35
The Nature of Physical Stressors 37
The Nature of Biological Stressors 39
Kinds of Effects Caused by Chemical Stressors 40
Eutrophication 44
Acid Deposition 45
Kinds of Effects Caused By Physical Stressors 46
Habitat Fragmentation 47
Kinds of Effects Caused By Biological Stressors 48
Ecological Significance of Effects 49
Natural Versus Human Stressors and Recovery 50
Key Concepts 51
Optional Exercise: A Simulation Model for the Hypothetical What-If Bug Population 52
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 P-i
-------
Ecology Unit
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-ii Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
-------
Ecology Unit
Summary of Ecology Unit:
Time Allotted
Approximately 2 hours are allowed for discussion and lecture.
Summary of the Unit
This unit presents a general overview of ecology to provide participants with the basic concepts and terminology
underlying ecological risk assessments. The information includes a discussion of the types of stressors and
related ecological effects.
Key Concepts
*• Ecosystems are complex and dynamic, composed of interacting networks of biotic and abiotic compon-
ents.
> Principal ecological components are individuals, populations, communities, and ecosystems.
» Critical to the function of an ecosystem is the flow of energy and nutrients through the system's producers
and consumers.
» Stressors can affect individual organisms, population growth, community structure and function, and
ecosystem processes.
*• Interactions among individuals in a population, and among populations in a community influence the
significance of a stressor's ecological effects.
*• The combination of stressor, environmental, and biological characteristics dictates the nature, extent, and
magnitude of ecological effects.
References
Cockerham, L.G., and B.S. Shane, eds. 1994. Basic Environmental Toxicology. CRC Press, Ann Arbor, MI.
Crowder, L.B., J. J. Magnuson, and SJ). Brant. 1 98 1 . Complementarity in the Use of Food and Thermal Habitat
by Lake Michigan Fishes. Can. J. Fish. Aquatic Sci. 38:662-668.
Dasmann, R.F. 1964. Wildlife Biology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Howell, D.J. 1994. Ecology for Environmental Professionals. Quorum Books, Westport, CT.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 P-1
-------
Ecoloav Unit
References (Continued)
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing Biological Integrity
in Running Waters: A Method end Its Rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey spec. publ. 5, Champaign,
IL.
Krebs, C.J. 1972. Ecology: The Experimental Analysis of Distribution and Abundance. Harper and Rowe,
Publishers, New York.
Moriarty.F. 1983. Ecotoxicology: The Study of Pollutants in Ecosystems. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, FL.
Odum, E.P. 1993. Ecology and Our Endangered Life-Support Systems. Sinauer Associates, Inc.,
Sunderland, MA.
Smith, R.L. 1990. Ecology and Field Biology. Harper Collins Publishers, New York.
Suter, G.W., II. 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.
Terres,J.K. 1980. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of 'North American Birds. Alfred Knopf, New York.
USEPA. 1993. A Review of Ecological Assessment Case Studies From a Risk Assessment Perspective.
EPA/630/R-92/005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.
P-2 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1395
-------
Ecology Unit
SB*
ECOLOGY AND
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
UNIT
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
P-3
-------
Ecology Unit
ECOLOGY AND ECOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
»• Basic Concepts in Ecology
» Ecological Effects of Stressors
There are certain concepts that are important to understand to improve appreciation of ecological risk
assessments. This unit will provide a brief review of ecological concepts, and the ecological effects of man-
made activities and natural Stressors.
P-4
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12,1995
-------
Ecology Unit
Basic Concepts in Ecology
Ecology — oikos ("house") togos
("governing rules")
Focus — the primary levels of
ecological organization: species,
populations, communities, and
ecosystems.
Basic Concepts in Ecology
The term "ecology" comes from the Greek phrase oikos ("house") logos ("governing rules"), literally "the rules
of the house." The "rules" refer to the array of relationships and interconnections through which organisms
interact with their environments.
Organisms do not live in isolation but occur in systems that exhibit a certain structure and function, such that
the behavior of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts and therefore, very difficult to predict.
* Just as the cell and the entire individual organism represent levels of a system, so do populations of
individuals of the same species and communities of populations characterizing ecosystems (Howell, 1994).
> Ecology is the study of systems in which there are interactions among living organisms, and between those
organisms and the landscapes they inhabit. These relationships and interactions can generally be
characterized in the following manner:
• Among individuals within a population;
- Social interactions among members of a wolf pack, or breeding behavior among stoneflies in a
mountain stream.
• Between individuals of different populations;
- Predator-prey interactions between wolves and moose, or the importance of spottail shiners in the diet
of green herons.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12,1995
P-5
-------
Ecology Unit
Basic Concepts in Ecology (Continued)
• Between organisms and their physical surroundings;
- The relationship between gopher holes and soil microorganisms, or the influence of river water levels
and muskrat populations.
This unit focuses on four primary levels of ecological systems:
» Species;
» Population;
»• Community; and
»• Ecosystem.
In doing so, the materials introduce and define some of the ideas and terms commonly used in ecology.
p-6 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12,1995
-------
Ecology Unit
SPECIES
A group of actually or potentially interbreeding
organisms that are reproductively isolated from
other organisms.
Two animals of the same species will not necessarily look exactly alike. Widely distributed species often have
different physical or behavioral characteristics. As a familiar example, consider the species homo sapiens.
Humans exhibit considerable variety in skin, hair and eye color, size, etc. This same type of variety also occurs
in plant and animal species.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
P-7
-------
Ecology Unit
POPULATIONS
Populations are groups of organisms of the
same species occupying a particular space
over a given interval of time.
Populations are the next step up the systems hierarchy from the individual organism.
Population structure is the relative proportion of individuals within each stage, e.g., eggs, larva, juveniles, and
adults, or category, e.g., male or female.
A maximum population size can be reached for a limited area and time frame, given specific and limited
amounts of food, shelter, living space, and other resources. This carrying capacity varies from month to month
or even day to day with the seasons and other environmental circumstances.
Population density primarily is a function of three factors: birth rate, death rate, and distribution over time and
space.
Each organism occupies only areas that meet its requirements for life. As a result, a population generally has
a patchy distribution.
P-8
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12,1995
-------
Ecology Unit
HABITAT-WHERE AN
ORGANISM LIVES
Habitat provides factors necessary for survival,
such as:
- Hiding places
- Nesting and birthing sites
» Shelter from ambient weather conditions
» Cover for the growth and survival of shade-
tolerant species of vegetation
» Structural features needed for song perches
» Food source
In a general sense, a habitat can be thought of as the "address" of an organism.
Habitat structure provides much of what is needed to sustain life. Habitats also need to be a particular size and
often, of a particular configuration to meet the living requirements of a particular species. Habitat size and shape
will vary depending on the quality of the habitat and die requirements of the species.
> For example, species that live at the edge of forests (transitional belts between the interior forest and a
different adjacent landscape) require a much different habitat type than interior forest species.
»• For forest interior plants, the minimum area depends on the size at which moisture and light conditions
become sufficient enough to support shade-tolerant species.
Terrestrial habitats are often described in terms of vegetational type, such as a pine forest or a grassland.
Freshwater habitats are broadly classified as standing water or running water.
Literally standing between freshwater and marine habitats, and heavily influenced by both, are estuarine
habitats.
Marine habitats are generally classified as coastal and open ocean.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
P-9
-------
Ecology Unit
COMMUNITIES
Populations of different species live and interact
with one another in complex associations called
communities.
A community is an organized assemblage or association of populations in a prescribed area or a specific
habitat (Howell, 1994). No species in nature exists in isolation from all others. Communities, more specifically
biotic communities, are associations of interacting populations and are often defined by the nature of their
interactions or by their location.
Communities can be considered on both large- and small-scale levels. Since most species are distributed
independently according to environmental gradients (e.g., moisture or light levels, temperature, etc.), no clear-
cut boundaries delineate communities. A community could be identified as existing within an entire forest or
as existing within a hollow tree. Other examples of small-scale communities could be a decaying log, a pile of
dead leaves, or the gut of a deer. The adaptations of populations to their habitats, and the interactions between
and among populations determine the nature of a community.
Each community is composed of certain organisms that are characteristic of particular habitats. For example:
*• Egrets in salt marsh habitats in eastern North America;
> Saguaro cactus in desert habitats in the southwestern United States; or
»• Cattails in freshwater marshes.
Although the species within a community are, to some extent, replaceable by others over space and time, their
functions in the community are relatively fixed.
P-10
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual / December 12,1995
-------
Ecology Unit
NICHE
A niche is the role or function of
a species in a community.
Ecological niche is the role or function of a species in its community. The niche is the expression of the
relationship of an individual organism or population to the rest of the community.
An organism's ecological niche is expressed as its "job" in its give-and-take with its environment. More
specifically, an animal's activity pattern, its feeding location, and its place in a food web—what it eats and what
eats it—contribute to a description of its niche. For example:
> Red-eyed vireos hunt for food in trees; ovenbirds hunt on the ground.
» Red-tailed hawks are active by day; screech owls are active at night.
Some birds of related species within the same family occupy separate niches in parts of the same kind of tree.
» Bay-breasted, blackburnian, black-throated green, cape may, and yellow-rumpled warblers each live in a
different zone or part of a spruce tree. Each species nests in a different part of the tree and at a different
height above the ground. Each species gathers insects in a different part of the tree. These birds sometimes
overlap in the physical space they occupy in or about the tree, but their niches do not (Terres, 1980).
This example points out the importance of the diversity of species. Each species performs a particular function,
and the loss of a species will disrupt the community. This becomes especially important when endangered
species are at risk, because there is little or no reserve capacity for those species to fill vacated niches and
maintain community function.
Plants may form niches according to light levels. For example, in a tropical rain forest different plants live at
different heights—canopy (tall trees), understory trees, shrub layer, and ground layer of vegetation. Plants living
in each layer of the forest have adapted to different light levels.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
P-11
-------
Ecology Unit
SUCCESSION
The gradual replacement of one community
by another as environmental conditions
change.
Communities exist in a continual state of flux. Organisms die and others are bom to take their place. When a
habitat is disturbed—for example, by clear cutting, fire, or hurricane—the community slowly rebuilds. The
sequence of changes initiated by disturbance is called succession. The creation of any new habitat—a plowed
field, a temporary pond left by heavy rains—invites a host of species particularly adapted to be good pioneers,
or to colonize the newly disturbed sites.
Succession is the process whereby the pioneering species adapted to the disturbed habitat are progressively
replaced by other species, and so on, until the community reaches its former structure and composition. For
example, consider die following sequence of events:
An oak-hickory community is burned.
Annual and perennial herbs (pioneers) invade that area.
Pine seeds blow in.
The pines and herbs compete for resources.
Within 30 years, the burned area has become a stand of pines.
The forest floor (under the pines) shows many oak and hickory seedlings (pine seedlings grow poorly in
shade while competing for nutrients).
A well-developed oak-hickory understory exists within 50 years.
Oaks and hickories replace the pines as they die.
Within 200 years, the burned area once again becomes an oak-hickory forest.
This example illustrates that the microenvironment beneath a plant community differs significantly from that
in the open. Temperature, humidity, soil moisture, and light are all affected by the canopy.
» A stable community consists of species whose seedlings can survive in its unique microenvironment while
seedlings of other species cannot.
P-12
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12.1995
-------
Ecology Unit
Succession (Continued)
> If the stable community is removed by some disturbance, leaving the soil exposed to full sunlight, the first
species that colonize the site are not those of the old community; rather, they are seedlings of species
adapted to grow in full light intensity.
Succession has been classified into two types (primary, secondary) according to its origin. The terminal
community is known as the climax, although subtle changes in species composition continue after reaching the
climax growth form. Primary succession is the establishment and development of plant communities in newly
formed habitats previously without plants. Secondary succession is the return of an area to its natural
vegetation following a major disturbance. The characteristics of the dominant species change during succession:
*• Early-stage species are opportunistic, and capitalize on their high dispersal ability to colonize newly created
or disturbed habitats rapidly. These species, which include dandelions and milkweed, typically have small
wind-dispersed seeds. The seeds can remain dormant in soils of forested or shrub-covered areas for years
until fire or treefalls create the bare soil conditions they need for germination and growth of the early-stage
species.
» Climax species disperse and grow more slowly. Their shade tolerance as seedlings, and large size as mature
plants give them a competitive edge over early successional species.
It should be noted that communities do not always return to the climax state following a disturbance, especially
if there is an increasing impact of humans on the environment. In some cases, humans might have modified an
area so extensively that the natural disturbance and succession regimes can no longer exist.
An example can be seen in some of the southwestern portions of the United States, as well as the many other
arid or semi-arid regions of the world. In these areas, where local climates would normally allow grassland to
maintain itself, the influence of disturbances, such as overgrazing by livestock, have led to the long-term
conversion of productive, arable grassland to desert. The same community in a region with a true desert climate
would be a natural condition; however, in "desertified" regions it can be seen as a "disclimax" — a disturbance-
caused climax community.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 P-13
-------
Ecology Unit
PRINCIPLES OF EVOLUTION
»• No two individuals are exactly alike
» There is competition for survival
» Some individuals have traits better suited for
survival in a particular environment
Evolution consists of changes in the genetic makeup of a population over time. This process occurs because
of several facts:
* All organisms show variation—no two individuals are exactly alike.
> All organisms produce more offspring than can survive to adulthood.
> There is competition for survival within and among species or populations for energy, sunlight, food,
nutrients, water, space, and mates.
* Under given conditions, individuals with certain characteristics have a better chance of survival and
reproduction than others because they can use the environment to better advantage.
*• Some of those characteristics are inheritable over long time spans—geologic time or less.
The result is natural selection. The commonly used phrase to describe natural selection is "survival of the
fittest." However, this refers to genetic lines and not individuals. Fighting for survival is only a small part of
competition in natural selection.
» Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands of the Pacific developed a great variety of bill shapes, behaviors,
and other features to facilitate feeding on different types of food (bugs, seeds, flowers, etc.). These
characteristics were developed to adapt to various environmental conditions, such as temperature, moisture,
chemistry, light, etc.
P-14
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12,1995
-------
Ecology Unit
Principles of Evolution (Continued)
Artificial selection is the intentional breeding of a species such as livestock, pets, plants, etc. It may also be
the unintentional spread of a species or characteristics, such as resistance of insects to pesticides, or bacteria to
antibiotics. This results in very complex, self-sustaining communities finely adapted to the environment in
which they live. When it is that finely tuned, disturbances to the environment can have a tremendous impact,
from which they may or may not recover.
For most of its history, the human species was subject to the forces of natural selection. This has changed for
several reasons:
»• A cultural evolution led to technology, freeing humans to a great extent from the effects of natural selection.
» Humans are still part of ecosystems, but we are now almost always the dominant factor, subjecting other
species to an array of stresses to which they are not adapted.
*• For many species, even communities, the rate of introduction of new human stressors (physical, chemical
or biological) far outstrips the rate with which they can evolve adaptations.
» A shift is occurring on the planet from self-sustaining communities that have evolved over very, very long
periods of time, to very recently created communities that require artificial inputs of energy and materials,
e.g., agriculture.
If long-term or unprecedented environmental changes occur, the response by a species or population will be:
» Extinction;
» Survival unchanged; or
» Evolution or adaptation.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 P-15
-------
Ecology Unit
FOOD WEB
Food Web
A food chain is the transfer of energy from one species to another. However, no organism lives wholly on
another, and many organisms share several different food sources. Consequently, food chains interlink and form
food webs (see diagram).
The term food web more accurately describes the complex, interrelated system of pathways through which
the flow of energy takes place in nature. A food web is the total set of feeding relationships among and between
species.
P-16
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
Ecology Unit
Food Web (Continued)
The food web hierarchy is described by feeding, or trophic, levels:
» Producers — Producers, primarily green plants, are the trophic level that supports all others.
> Consumers — Consumers rely on producers as an energy source. Most consumers belong to one of three
groups:
• Herbivores, which consume plants.
• Carnivores, which consume meat.
• Omnivores, which consume both meat and plants.
Many species are omnivores, living on mixed diets of plant and animal material. For example, black bears feed
on berries, nuts, insects, rodents, and other plant and animal material.
Many species change their feeding habits seasonally or have different food requirements at different life
stages. For example, seeds, nuts, and acorns are staple food items for turkeys during most of the year, but in
summer, turkeys eat grasshoppers, other insects, frogs, toads, snakes, and other animals.
Trophic Levels and Energy Level
Consumers can be categorized into trophic levels. All organisms that share the same general source of nutrition
are said to be at the same trophic level. Consumers belonging to more than one trophic level are called
omnivores.
Energy decreases as trophic levels increase — at each step in the food chain, energy is lost in respiration, and less
energy is available for the next level up. Caloric energy stored by plants is passed through the community
through successive transfers between plants and herbivores, and prey and predators. At each step in the food
chain, a considerable portion of the potential energy transferred in the food is lost as heat. The longer the food
chain, the more restricted the amount of energy that will reach the terminal members. As a result, we rarely find
food chains of more than four or five steps in natural situations. Furthermore, the number of organisms involved
in the populations through which this energy passes becomes smaller with each new link.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 P-17
-------
Ecology Unit
ECOSYSTEM
Generalized ecosystem diagram illustrating the systematic nature of
ecosystems and major components of the system
Radiant enfrgy..
_ • ^r/
Nutrient!
An ecosystem includes the physical environment and its component plant and animal populations. In the
simplest of terms, all ecosystems consist of three basic components: the producers, the consumers, and abiotic
(or nonliving) matter (Smith, 1990).
>• Producers and consumers make up the biotic (or living) components of an ecosystem and include plants,
algae, bacteria, and animals. As covered previously, populations of these organisms grouped into
recognizable aggregations are known as communities.
* Producers are the energy-capturing base of the system. Producers are largely green plants that are able
to fix (or transform) the energy of the sun and manufacture food from simple inorganic and organic
substances.
P-18
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
-------
Ecology Unit &EPA
Ecosystem (Continued)
»• Consumers use (eat) the food stored by the producers, rearrange it (through digestion), and finally
decompose the complex materials into simple, inorganic substances (assimilation into body tissues).
The structural elements of an ecosystem are the species, population, community, habitat, and food chain. The
functional elements include niche and the flow of energy through the system's producers and consumers.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual / December 12,1995 P-19
-------
Ecology Unit
ABIOTIC FACTORS
Soils, sediment water, solar
radiation, nutrients, and minerals.
Ecosystems are not closed systems, existing within neatly defined boundaries. For example, picture a stream
flowing through a deciduous forest, then a grassland, then, gradually, a salt marsh, ultimately emptying into a
bay. Obvious gradations exist along this kind of continuum, yet the ecosystems are identifiable by general
landscape characteristics.
The elements that differentiate ecosystems are abiotic components that make up the physical environment,
such as soils, sediment, water (moisture, salinity), solar radiation, and nutrients. These elements determine the
types of organisms that can inhabit a particular ecosystem.
P-20
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
-------
Ecology Unit
SB*
PHOTOSYNTHESIS
The process by which plants
convert light energy into chemical
energy, which is stored as glucose.
Ecosystems operate because light energy from the sun is absorbed by photosynthetic organisms (plants, algae,
and photosynthetic bacteria) and transformed into chemical energy in the form of glucose.
> Glucose is a sugar and an organic compound. Compounds that contain carbon and hydrogen are called
organic compounds. The glucose is used to synthesize (or produce) carbohydrates, amino acids, proteins,
fatty acids, fats, vitamins, pigments, etc.
Non-photosynthetic organisms (i.e., animals) get energy by eating this sugar or other substances, such as
carbohydrates, that the plants make from it.
»• When an animal eats a plant, the animal gets energy and the carbon-compound that is storing the energy.
The animal uses the compound as a source of carbon to synthesize the substances it needs. In other words,
photosynthesis is important for generating both energy and essential substances in an ecosystem.
Photosynthetic organisms are producers, and non-photosynthetic organisms are consumers (because they must
consume producers to obtain energy).
In summary, organisms need energy to survive, and they need a source of carbon in order to synthesize carbon-
containing substances, such as proteins and fats.
»• Photosynthesis supplies both needs by converting light energy into chemical energy, and by combining
carbon dioxide (COJ gas and water to form glucose, an organic compound. Glucose, then, is a source of
energy and organic carbon for making all the other substances organisms need for survival.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
P-21
-------
Ecology Unit
DECOMPOSITION
P-22
Ecological Risk and Decision Making tVorfcs/TOp /Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
-------
Ecology Unit
Decomposition
Organisms living in any ecosystem require a continual supply of energy and nutrients in order to survive.
Photosynthesis provides the energy, and decomposition provides the nutrients.
Decomposition of organic matter, such as what occurs to fallen leaves and logs, or roadkilled possums, consists
of breaking down organic compounds and returning basic chemical elements, such as carbon, to the soil. The
organisms most commonly associated with decomposition are bacteria and fungi. These microorganisms secrete
enzymes into plant and animal matter, causing them to decompose.
> Bacteria are the major decomposers of animal matter.
*• Fungi are the major decomposers of plant material.
Once one group has exploited the material to its capabilities, another group of bacteria and fungi able to use the
remaining material move in. In this way, a succession of microorganisms acts on the organic material until it
is finally reduced to inorganic nutrients. Detritivores are invertebrates that aid decomposition by fragmenting
leaf litter, etc. Examples of detritivores, from smallest to largest size, are as follows:
> Protozoans;
> Mites, springtails, potworms;
»• Nematodes, caddisfly larvae, mayfly nymphs; and
*• Snails, earthworms, millipedes.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 P-23
-------
Ecology Unit
NUTRIENTS AND
BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES
Nutrients are essential to plants and
animals and are used over and over
again, cycling between organisms and
the environment
For an ecosystem to function, nutrients must be available to plants, and must be present in a consumer's diet.
Of the many elements required, these eight are the most important:
» Carbon:
* Hydrogen:
+ Oxygen:
>• Nitrogen:
» Phosphorus:
•• Sulfur:
> Calcium:
A basic part of all organic compounds, such as glucose. In the ecosystem, it exists as
carbon dioxide, carbonates, and fossil fuel, and as a part of living tissue.
Also a basic part of organic compounds and an important component of water.
A by-product of photosynthesis. It is used by microbes in the decomposition process, and
is used by animals in cellular respiration. Three major sources of oxygen are carbon
dioxide, water, and molecular oxygen.
An essential element of protein and DNA. It makes up about 79% of the atmosphere as
molecular nitrogen, but most plants can use it in a changed form, such as nitrates or
nitrites.
An element involved in photosynthesis. It plays a major role in energy transfer in plants
and animals.
Like nitrogen, a basic constituent of protein.
Element necessary for proper acid-base relationships, blood clotting, contraction and
relaxation of the heart muscle, etc.
Magnesium: Element that helps certain enzymes function and is crucial to protein synthesis in plants.
P-24
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Wortshop / Participant Manual / December 12,1995
-------
Ecology Unit
Nutrients and Biogeochemical Cycles (Continued)
These chemical elements are not destroyed upon the death of an organism. They can be used over and over
again, being transferred from organisms to the environment and back to the organisms, in more or less circular
paths, called cycles. Each element that is a nutrient follows its own unique pathway, called a biogeochemical
cycle or nutrient cycle, through the abiotic and biotic components of an ecosystem.
In contrast to energy, which is in constant supply from the sun, nutrients exist on earth in fixed amounts. Life
evolved the means to use mineral nutrients, release them to the abiotic environment, and then use them again.
Although energy eventually leaves the earth as heat, and nutrients remain on earth to be recycled, the pathways
of both are closely tied together. For some nutrients, going back and forth between the physical environmental
and living organisms entails changing from an inorganic element or compound to an organic compound.
The nitrogen cycle is one specific example of the many biogeochemical cycles. Gaseous nitrogen is converted
into ammonia, nitrates and nitrites by specific microorganisms. Plants convert these nutrients into proteins,
DNA, and other organic compounds. Animals obtain these nutrients by eating plants or other animals. When
plants and animals die, certain decomposer bacteria convert the nitrogen-containing organic compounds back
into ammonia, nitrates, nitrites, and gaseous nitrogen beginning the cycle over again.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12,1995 P-25
-------
ABR*
Ecology Unit
CARBON CYCLE
Orav
Otov
P-26
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/ December 12, 1995
-------
Ecology Unit
Carbon Cycle
The carbon cycle is another critical biogeochemical cycle. The recycling of carbon between the abiotic and
biotic elements of an ecosystem is linked inseparably to the flow of energy through photosynthesis and
respiration. The abiotic part of the carbon cycle involves carbon dioxide, a gas that makes up a small percentage
of the atmosphere (0.03 percent) and is dissolved in the waters of the earth.
» Producers convert solar energy into chemical energy, which they use to convert the carbon in carbon dioxide
into glucose.
* As plants respire (at night), they convert some of the carbon in organic compounds back to carbon dioxide,
which is released into the environment.
> The rest of the converted carbon is stored in new plant tissue, which is transferred along a food chain.
> At each link in the food chain, more of the carbon convened by the producer is released by a consumer as
carbon dioxide.
> The release of converted carbon by respiration replaces much of the carbon incorporated into glucose during
photosynthesis.
*• In breaking down organic waste and dead organisms, detritivores and bacteria return carbon to the physical
environment in the form of carbon dioxide.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 P-27
-------
Ecology Unit
MAJOR TYPES OF ECOSYSTEMS
Terrestrial: Grasslands, deserts, coniferous forests,
deciduous forests, alpine, tundra,
rainforest
Aquatic: Lakes and ponds, streams and rivers,
wetlands, estuaries, open sea
There are two major types of ecosystems: terrestrial and aquatic.
Examples of terrestrial ecosystems include:
Rainforest
Deserts
Grasslands
Deciduous Forests
Coniferous Forests
Alpine
Tundra
Amazon, northeastern Australia
Mojave and Sahara
Serengeti, Great Plains of the U.S.
New England maples, Colorado aspens
Rocky Mountains, Mt. St. Helens
Swiss Alps
Greenland, Siberia
Aquatic ecosystems—freshwater and saltwater—include the following:
Lakes and Ponds
Streams and Rivers
Wetlands
Estuaries
Open Sea
Coral Reefs
Great Lakes, Walden Pond
Ohio River
Florida Everglades
Chesapeake Bay
Pacific Ocean
Australian Great Barrier Reef
P-28
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/ December 12,1995
-------
Ecology Unit
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
ofSTRESSORS
Stressor Types
Kinds of Ecological Effects
Factors Influencing Ecological Effects
Ecological Effects of Stressors
We just concluded a discussion of a few basic terms and concepts necessary to develop a cursory understanding
of the fundamentals of ecology. This section continues in the same manner by providing an overview of the
characteristics of man-made or anthropogenic stressors and their ecological effects.
A definition and description of the types of stressors that commonly are addressed during an ecological risk
assessment will be provided. Such stressors are those we (humans) have control over.
Next, we will discuss some stressor characteristics, followed by examples of the kinds of ecological effects
caused by stressors.
The section concludes with a brief discussion of the ecological significance of the effects caused by
anthropogenic stressors.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12,1995
P-29
-------
Ecology Unit
STRESSOR TYPES
Chemical Strassore
Physical Stressora
Industrial chemicals, pesticides,
fsrtlllzefs, 311109, auto exhaust^
radlonuclldes, etc.
Logging, dredging/filling
wetlands, road constnictlon, etc.
Biological Stressors Introdu
irganlsms and
microorganisms such as
starlings, gypsy moths,
multHlora rose, genetically
engineered microorganisms, etc.
Ecological risk assessments evaluate the effects caused by three general types (or categories) of
stressors-chemical, physical, and biological.
Chemical Stressors include hazardous waste, industrial chemicals, pesticides, and fertilizers. These Stressors
are by far the most frequently investigated during ecological risk assessments. This is evident in the focus of
most of the major pieces of environmental legislation and the EPA programs developed to enforce such
legislation. For example,
» CERCLA—Uncontrolled hazardous waste (Superfund).
» RCRA—Controlled hazardous waste.
* FIFRA—Pesticide registration.
*• TSCA—Manufacture and use of toxic substances.
»• CWA—Discharge from municipal wastewater treatment plants and industrial facilities.
Physical Stressors are activities that directly remove or alter habitat. Ranging from tilling soil to logging, road
construction, and the building of shopping malls, these Stressors often are the most destructive because they can
result in total habitat loss as soils are compacted and organisms are lost.
EPA's regulatory authority with regard to physical Stressors pertains to filling waters of the U.S. including
wetlands (Section 404 of CWA), e.g., placing fill in water for constructing a bulkhead to shore-up waterfront
property.
Biological Stressors are organisms or microorganisms that are introduced, or released, (intentionally or
accidentally) to habitats in which they did not evolve naturally. These organisms often are called "exotics."
Biological Stressors become a concern when they compete against native species, replace them, and become
pests.
P-30
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12,1995
-------
Ecology Unit
Stressor Types (Continued)
With regard to ecological concerns, EPA's jurisdiction over biological stressors is limited essentially to the
regulation of genetically engineered microorganisms under the auspices of FIFRA and TSCA (for use in
commerce). The federal agencies primarily responsible for regulating exotics are the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 P-31
-------
Ecology Unit
Contaminant
Source
ECOLOGICAL EXPOSURE TO
CHEMICAL STRESSORS
Contaminated
Medium.
Bioavailable
Contaminant
Contact with
Organism
Exposure is the route and extent of contact between a chemical stressor and the ecological component.
Exposure includes three aspects:
» The chemical must reach the organism. This means that some medium must be contaminated, such as air,
water, soil, sediment, or other organisms.
+ The chemical must be in a form that can cause effects. This is known as bioavailability.
» The chemical must reach a site on or in the organism where the chemical can cause effects. This means that
the organism must breathe, eat, drink, touch, or be touched by the contaminated medium.
Depending on the physical and chemical properties of contaminants, they are incorporated into the cycles of the
atmosphere, soil, and/or water, where ecological components become exposed. Once in the environment,
chemicals can undergo changes and/or move from one medium to another. This is called fate and transport.
Chemical stressors can be altered by physical and chemical processes. For example:
*• Light energy can alter a substance through a process called photolysis.
» Some substances react with water in a process known as hydrolysis. To illustrate, acetic anhydride, which
is corrosive and causes bums, is hydrolyzed to acetic acid (vinegar), a food substance.
P-32
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12,1995
-------
Ecology Unit
Exposure (Continued)
»• Contaminants can react with other chemicals in the environment to produce new compounds. For example,
under the right conditions lead will bond with sulfide ions in sediment to form an insoluble, nontoxic
mineral, lead sulfide (galena).
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 P-33
-------
Ecology Unit
THE NATURE OF CHEMICAL
STRESSORS
Bioavailable chemicals exist in a
form that organisms can take up.
No bioavailability equals no uptake
and therefore no effect
Before a chemical stressor can induce an effect in an organism or become incorporated into its tissues, the
chemical stressor must be bioavaitable. That is to say, it must exist in a form that the organism will absorb.
The total amount of a substance detected in contaminated media is not necessarily bioavailable. A portion
of the chemical stressor might be sorted (or adhered) to soil or sediment particles, or to particles suspended in
the water column or atmosphere. Some or all of the chemical might be chemically bound as an insoluble salt
or other biologically unavailable compound.
» Only the bioavailable portion of the total amount of contaminant in the environment is relevant to an
ecotoxicity evaluation. No bioavailability equals no uptake and therefore no effect.
* The bioavailability of a substance can change with changes in environmental conditions. For example,
an increase in the acidity of water or soil can increase the bioavailability of metals.
Biologically unavailable chemical stressors in ingested soil, sediment, or water may become bioavailable
during the digestive process. For example, a squirrel might inadvertently ingest lead-contaminated soil in the
process of opening an acom. If the lead in the soil is not bioavailable (i.e., is strongly sorbed to the soil particle),
it can become bioavailable when the acid in the squirrel's stomach causes the lead to dissociate (or desorb) from
the soil particles. The lead is now available for uptake into the animal's bloodstream.
P-34
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12,1995
-------
Ecology Unit
B1OCONCENTRAT1ON
BIOACCUMULATION
BIOMAGNIRCATION
When evaluating the potential for toxic effects from chemical stressors, we have to consider bioconcentration,
bioaccumulation, and biomagnification as factors. Note that these are factors, not effects. Even if a chemical
stressor is present at low concentrations in the environment, it might still pose a threat to ecological components
if it bioconcentrates or bioaccumulates, and especially if it biomagnifies.
Bioconcentration - The absorption of a chemical by an organism to levels greater than the surrounding
environment.
Bioaccumulation - Uptake and retention of a chemical by an organism through feeding and bioconcentration.
Biomagnification - Increased concentration as a contaminant passes up the food chain.
A classic case of biomagnification is DDT. During the years of its use, the pesticide DDT caused eggshell
thinning in numerous birds of prey, including hawks and eagles. DDT occurred at low concentrations in water
as a result of runoff from agricultural fields. Because DDT is very persistent and because it accumulates in fat
tissue, it biomagnified in the food chain, beginning with aquatic plants and invertebrates, through fish, to fish-
eating birds. The lower concentrations occurring at the bottom of the food chain produced no adverse effects,
but the high concentrations in the birds caused eggshell thinning and reduced reproductive success.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
P-35
-------
Ecology Unit
Bioconcentration, Bioaccumulation, Biomagnification (Continued)
A bioconcentration factor (BCF) is the concentration of the chemical in the organism, divided by the exposure
concentration. It is often used in ecological risk assessments to help characterize exposure.
BCFs for Daphnia magna (Water Flea)
Substance
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Manganese chloride
BCF
12762
5200
911
Bioconcentration varies among chemicals. Bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification depend
on both the chemical and the species exposed to the chemical. As shown in the above table, bioconcentration
in one species varies with the chemical. Also, bioconcentration of the same chemical varies with the species.
Environmental conditions also affect bioconcentration and bioaccumulation, so in site-specific risk assessments,
we may sometimes want to calculate site-specific bioconcentration factors.
p-36 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12,1995
-------
Ecology Unit
offA
THE NATURE OF PHYSICAL
STRESSORS
The severity of the impact of a physical
stressor depends primarily upon:
» The size of the affected area.
» The frequency of the disturbance.
» The intensity, or physical force, of the
distributing event
All ecosystems are dynamic and possess some degree of resilience to recover from a disturbance. Natural
disturbance is a normal part of ecosystem functioning. Occasional disturbances that cause fluctuations in
community structure and function are as much a part of natural processes as is the cycling of nutrients.
However, the addition of human-caused physical stressors often pushes a system's resilience to its limits because
they tend to be more frequent, more intense, and tend to impact larger areas than do natural disturbances. In
other words, they represent new types of disturbances to which the system has not evolved adaptations.
The extent to which this combination is overwhelming depends on the size of the affected area, the frequency
of disturbance, and the intensity of the disturbing event. Generally speaking, larger and more frequent
physical stressors result in more extensive and longer-lasting effects. Massive and intensive disturbances can
sometimes take centuries to recover. Sometimes recovery is apparent within years, a relatively short period of
time.
» Whether a two-lane country road or a superhighway, road construction means habitat loss. Often wetlands
are filled, hilltops are removed, and other changes are made. The movement of heavy machinery results
in the compaction of soil. During construction, rain washes exposed soil into streams and other bodies of
water. Also, use of the road will introduce some chemical stressors, such as oil and gas residues, and road
salt in northern climates.
» Surface mining removes habitat and increases erosion. Removing topsoil often exposes iron- and sulfur-
bearing strata to rain, resulting in highly acidic runoff that renders nearby water bodies lifeless. Surface
mining also exposes water tables, adding to the volume of runoff.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
P-37
-------
Ecology Unit
The Nature of Physical Stressors (Continued)
» Clear-cutting, a common form of timber harvesting, removes large blocks of forested habitat The erosion
associated with logging occurs both from the newly exposed forest floor and from improperly constructed
logging roads.
* Clearing and plowing fields for agriculture disturbs the structure of the soil, exposing it to erosion by water
and wind. Water erosion often carries soil, fertilizers, and pesticides to nearby streams and rivers.
P-38 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual /December 12,1995
-------
Ecology Unit
THE NATURE OF BIOLOGICAL
STRESSORS
Biological stressore are living organisms (Including
microorganisms) accidentally or Intentionally
Introduced to an ecosystem.
Unlike chemical and physical strassors, biological
stressors can reproduce, adapt, and spread, adding
new dimensions to the ecological assessment
process*
Biological stressors are known as "exotics" because they have not evolved along with the organisms that make
up a particular biotic community.
These stressors add another dimension to the ecological risk assessment process because they are living and
reproducing organisms that require the consideration of active biological and mechanical transport, passive
transport, or both.
» Microorganisms, some invertebrates, and some seeds have nearly the same capability for transport; they are
carried in the guts of animals, by wind, and by water.
» Mechanical transport (e.g., ships, trucks, airplanes) is as effective as biological transport in moving
organisms over long distances. Upon arrival in a suitable habitat, biological stressors use nutrient and
energy sources to grow and reproduce.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12,1995
P-39
-------
Ecology Unit
KINDS OF EFFECTS CAUSED BY
CHEMICAL STRESSORS
Organism Level—Mortality, behavioral
changes, physiological Impairment (o.g.,
growth, reproduction).
Population Level—Decreased birth rates,
Increased mortality rates, Increased
dispersion, local extinction.
Community/Ecosystem Level—Structural
changes (e.g., population loss), functional
changes (e.g., niche loss), habitat destruction.
Effects are measured and evaluated in terms of organisms, populations, communities, and ecosystems. For the
most part, community-level effects translate into ecosystem effects, because communities make up the biological
portion of an ecosystem.
Organism Level. Chemical stressors matter because of their effects on populations, and, indirectly, on
communities, but chemical stressors act by their immediate effects on individual organisms (Moriarty, 1983).
Effects on individuals range from rapid death through sublethal effects to no observable effects. These effects
may be indirect, occurring as a result of elimination of prey base or habitat alteration. In the case of threatened
and endangered species, effects influencing a few individuals are likely to be significant because they are at or
near to the point of no return.
Population Level. Usually, effects become ecologically significant when they affect the survival, productivity,
or function of a significant number of individuals such that population size is reduced, population structure
is altered, or total function is impaired (Cockerham and Shane, 1994).
» Population size can be reduced if stressors reduce mating success or egg production; reduce survival of
offspring or reproductive-age adults; increase susceptibility to predation, parasitism, and disease; affect
recruitment through altered immigration or emigration rates; or reduce development or maturation rates.
*• Population structure can be altered if stressors differentially affect one age group or developmental stage,
reduce development or maturation rates, or differentially affect one sex.
» Ecological function can be reduced if stressors impair photosynthesis, reduce organisms' efficiency in
converting food into energy, or cause organisms to slow or stop performing activities such as decomposition
of leaf litter or fixation of nitrogen.
P-40
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12,1995
-------
Ecology Unit
Kinds of Effects Caused by Chemical Stressors (Continued)
Community/Ecosystem Level. Community/ecosystem-level effects are often the direct result of stressors
affecting the ability of populations to interact with one another.
Two examples of a stressor affecting a population's ability to interact with other populations are an impaired
ability to avoid predators and a decreased ability to prey on lower trophic levels.
A population can suffer from indirect effects due to a stressor altering the dynamics of populations with which
it interacts, such as reduction in the abundance of a predator due to toxic effects on prey.
Stressors can result in changes in structural properties of a community, such as the number of species or
trophic levels, or changes in the functional properties of an ecosystem, such as photosynthesis.
Lethal and Sublethal Effects
Adverse effects on living organisms can be either lethal or sublethal.
» Lethal — Mortality of individuals due to exposure to chemical stressors.
> Sublethal — Other adverse effects. These include reproductive impairment, disruption of certain functions
such as growth or photosynthesis, and induction of behavioral abnormalities such as hyper- or hypo-activity.
Frequently, the type of sublethal effect is characteristic of the chemical stressor of concern. For instance, lead
and mercury are associated with behavioral abnormalities in mammals.
Toxicity varies among chemicals. Toxicologists measure the lethal effects of a chemical by exposing test
animals to various concentrations or doses of the chemical and counting how many organisms die in a specified
period of time.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 P-41
-------
Ecology Unit
Kinds of Effects Caused by Chemical Stressors (Continued)
Lethality is usually expressed as the median lethal concentration or dose (LCJO or LIJ, ) which is the
concentration or dose at which 50 percent of an exposed population dies. Notice that the lower the LCX or LDjg,
the more toxic is the chemical. It takes less to kill SO percent of the population. As the table shows, lethal
concentrations vary among chemicals for a particular species.
Lethal effects are measured by Median Lethal Concentration (LCjo) and Median Lethal Dose (LDW).
LCjoS for Daphnia magna
Substance
Aroclor 1248
Cadmium chloride
Carbon disulfide
Sodium arsenite
LCSO
2.6
65
2100
5278
As with lethal effects, ecotoxicologists test for sublethal effects by exposing organisms to different
concentrations or doses of a chemical, and counting how many exhibit the adverse effect. Sublethal effects are
frequently reported as follows:
> Median effects concentrations or doses (EC^s or ED^s) indicate the exposure at which 50 percent of
exposed organisms exhibited the effect being evaluated by the investigation.
» Lowest Observed Adverse Effects Level or Concentrations (LOAELs or LOAECs) indicate the lowest
exposure at which adverse effects were initially observed.
» No Observed Adverse Effect Levels or Concentrations (NOAELs or NOAECs) indicate the highest
exposure at which effects were not observed.
Sometimes the word "adverse" is left out, making these acronyms LOEL or LOEC and NOEL or NOEC. The
following tables show how sublethal effects vary according to the chemical, the species, and the effect.
P-42 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
-------
Ecology Unit •SEFA
Kinds of Effects Caused by Chemical Stressors (Continued)
LOAECs for Phenanthrene
Species/Effects
Daphnia /w/ex/reproduction
Daphnia pulex/grovrth
Selenastrum capricornutum (alga)/population
growth
LOAEC (in fig/1)
110
360
800,000
LOAECs for Di-n-octyl phthalate in Fathead Minnows
Effect LOAEC (in pg/1)
Reduced Growth 8300
Reduced Hatching 1760
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12,1995 P-43
-------
Ecology Unit
CHEMICAL STRESSORS:
AN EXAMPLE
Nutrient Loading (Eutrophication)
The biological overproduction in aquatic
ecosystems primarily as a result of increased
nitrogen and phosphorus from agricultural
drainage, partially treated sewage and other
wastes, etc.
Images of hazardous waste come to mind first when considering chemical stressors. However, there are other
kinds of chemical stressors that are widespread and more damaging in terms of ecological impacts. One
example is nutrient loading or eutrophication, which is the biological overproduction in aquatic ecosystems.
Treated sewage, drainage from agricultural lands, river basin development, runoff from urban areas, and
other factors, commonly increase the rate of nitrogen and phosphorus loading to aquatic ecosystems, and are
the major causes of biological overproduction, or eutrophication.
Nitrogen and phosphorus are required in limited amounts by algae and aquatic plants. However, excess
amounts of these nutrients act as fertilizers and cause photosynthetic rates to increase dramatically. The
corresponding growth forms dense algal populations, increases turbidity and sedimentation, reduces the lighted
region where photosynthesis occurs, and prevents the growth of submerged aquatic vegetation.
Increased sedimentation reduces growth rates or resistance to disease, prevents successful development of eggs
and larvae, modifies natural movement or migration patterns, reduces the natural availability of food, and results
in more oxygen being consumed in the lower reaches of the water column and the sediments during the
decomposition of organic matter. The result often is a depletion or almost complete absence of dissolved
oxygen in the lower reaches of the water column.
P-44
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12,1995
-------
Ecology Unit
CHEMICAL STRESSORS:
ANOTHER EXAMPLE
Acid Deposition
The release of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide to
the atmosphere (primarily as a result of fossil fuel
combustion), where they form suKuric and nitric
acid, which then falls back to earth in all forms of
precipitation.
The major industrial sources of acid deposition are internal combustion engine, utility plants, etc. These
industrial sources produce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides which are the precursors of acid deposition.
These substances readily react in aerosols to generate sulfiiric and nitric acid, respectively. These acids and their
precursors are picked up and transported from one locale to others by the prevailing winds. Deposition then
occurs in precipitation in all its forms.
Eighty percent of sulfur dioxide released into the atmosphere is attributed to human activity—100 percent in
some regions. Of that, 85 percent is attributed to fossil fuel combustion. Nitrogen oxides also come from
combustion, the most notable source being motor vehicles.
For terrestrial ecosystems, the effects of acid deposition have been implicated in declines and die-back in
forests. In aquatic systems, changes in pH, or the acidity or alkalinity of a solution, can affect communities
of bacteria, algae, invertebrates, and fish, altering species composition and productivity, reducing numbers,
and impairing reproduction and decomposition. Acidic conditions can mobilize metals from a bound form in
which they are largely non-toxic to a free form in which they are toxic and readily available to organisms.
Acid deposition is thought to be the major cause of the destruction of populations offish and other aquatic
organisms in many lakes, particularly in the northeastern United States (Cockerham and Shane, 1994).
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual /December 12, 1995
P-45
-------
Ecology Unit
KINDS OF EFFECTS CAUSED BY
PHYSICAL STRESSORS
Erosion Removal and transport of soil material
by water and wind.
Siltation Soil that Is removed by erosion makes
its way to streams and rivers.
Increased Vegetation removal results in higher
Light soil and water temperature and
Intensity lower soil moisture and relative
humidity.
Disturbances create conditions for erosion by destroying plants, their roots, and soil organic matter. Arid and
semiarid climates are especially prone to wind erosion. The soil in such areas has little moisture to hold it
together, and the small quantity of vegetation that grows in such areas does not provide stems and leaves
extensive enough to block the wind, or roots extensive enough to hold soil in place.
Examples of natural causes:
Examples of man-made causes:
Water flow (rivers and streams), heavy rains, flooding, drought followed
by rain storms or strong winds.
Agricultural practices (such as irrigation, plowing, clearing of land,
grazing), removal of vegetation (timber harvesting), construction of roads,
buildings, etc.
One of the major ecological problems associated with erosion is siltation. Siltation results in the deposition of
excess soil where stream and river currents are slow, smothering plants and bottom-dwelling organisms, and
covering important fish habitat Some fish, such as salmon, require clean gravel streambeds in which to spawn.
For them, the effects of siltation could result in the loss of critical breeding habitat. Salmon lay their eggs in
the small spaces between rocks on streambeds. Water circulating around the eggs supplies them with oxygen,
which is dissolved in the water. If the spaces become filled with silt, water circulation around the eggs will
decrease and the young will fail to develop.
When the vegetation along a stream or other water body is removed (e.g., by clear-cutting, house construction,
etc.), the amount of sunlight reaching the water increases. As a result, water temperatures can increase
significantly, possibly having lethal effects on some of the resident aquatic organisms.
P-46
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
Ecology Unit
*»•*•«»
%J>LJM
HABITAT FRAGMENTATION
Physical stressors, such as road construction,
logging, dredging wetlands, etc., break larger areas
of habitat into smaller patches, or fragments.
Habitat fragments can ultimately become so
isolated that they function much like islands.
Wildlife corridors are "natural highways" that link
habitat fragments, thereby allowing certain species
to survive a partial loss of habitat
In addition to disturbing or destroying the immediate habitat(s), activities such as road construction, logging,
dredging wetlands, and agriculture, whittle away piecemeal at larger, relatively intact areas. This results in
habitat fragmentation, the breaking up of larger areas into smaller patches or fragments of habitat.
When habitat patches become isolated from similar habitat by different, relatively inhospitable terrain, they
essentially become islands.
If fragmentation continues, the remaining area is reduced to a critical size below which the habitat will not
provide the requirements of many of the original species, and a number of them will disappear.
Many species of terrestrial wildlife can live in fragmented habitats only if corridors link enough fragments to
provide both habitat requirements and interactions with others of the same species to perpetuate viable
populations.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
P-47
-------
Ecology Unit
KINDS OF EFFECTS CAUSED BY
BIOLOGICAL STRESSORS
Introduced organisms act as biological
stressors through predation, parasitism,
pathogenesis, and competition for resources.
Exotic organisms include domestic species, accidentally introduced species, non-native game and fish species,
biocontrol agents, and, quite recently, species modified by bioengineering. Through competition, predation,
and pathogenesis (disease), exotic organisms have extinguished native species or reduced them, and have
drastically changed the character of the invaded communities (Suter, 1993).
> Outbreaks of insects, such as the introduced gypsy moth and spruce budworm, defoliate large areas of forest,
which results in the death or reduced growth of affected trees. The degree of gypsy moth mortality can
range from 10 to 30 percent in hardwood forests to 100 percent in spruce and fir stands.
» When two introduced species of plankton-feeding fish, the alewife and rainbow smelt, proliferated in Lake
Michigan, seven native species offish with similar food habits declined drastically (Crowder et al., 1981).
> Japanese honeysuckle, a garden escapee, and multiflora rose, widely planted in the past for soi 1 conservation
purposes, have invaded old fields and forest edges, crowding out native plants and affecting the structure
and composition of animal life.
> Virulent tree diseases have markedly changed the composition of North American forests. The chestnut
blight, introduced into North America from Europe, nearly exterminated the American chestnut and
removed it as a major component of the forests of eastern North America. With its demise, oaks and birch
increased (Smith, 1990).
P-48
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
Ecology Unit
ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
Nature and magnitude of effects
Spatial and temporal patterns of effects
Recovery potential
Ecological significance of effects or the types and extent of effects is an important consideration in assessing
ecological risk.
Nature and Magnitude of Effects
The nature of effects relates to the relative significance of effects especially when the effects of stressors on
several ecosystems within an area were assesssed. It is important to characterize the types of effects associated
with each ecosystem and where the greatest impact is likely to occur.
Magnitude of effect will depend on the ecological context, e.g., life history characteristics. Long-lived
vertebrates such as large mammals, predatory birds, and whales are more sensitive to mortality imposed on
adults that are short-lived, highly fecund (fertile) organisms such as quail and anchovies (Cockerham and Shane,
1994).
Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Effects
Spatial and temporal patterns of effects consider whether effects occur on large scales (e.g., acid rain) or will
be localized, and whether effects are short-term or long-term. Some effects take decades to manifest themselves
(e.g., ozone depletion effects on marine ecosystems).
Recovery Potential
Recovery relates to how easy it is to adapt to changes. For example, rainforests which are complex, highly
evolved ecosystems may take longer to adapt to perturbations than a pine forest, which can recover relatively
quickly from disturbances by rapidly re-seeding.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
P-49
-------
Ecology Unit
NATURAL VS. HUMAN STRESSORS
AND RECOVERY
It is important to remember that natural disturbances bring about diversity of the landscape. Wind, moving
water, drought, fire, and animal activity yield variation in habitats. These natural disturbances also cause
changes in the availability of open space for species to colonize. Ecosystems are adapted to disturbances that
have occurred with some frequency over the evolutionary history of the ecosystem and will usually eventually
recover and return to their original state.
Humans may introduce stressors to which the ecosystem has not been exposed during its evolutionary history
(synthetic chemicals, exotic species). Human-caused disturbances are usually more frequent, more intense and
impact larger areas. These larger-scale disturbances can have subtle as well as dramatic impacts on a habitat.
They often result in a situation that is overwhelming from which the ecosystem never recovers. Recovery is
sometimes apparent within years. However, a massive and intense disturbance can cause an ecosystem to take
centuries to recover. Even then, the original or "natural" ecosystem may never recur.
P-50
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
Ecology Unit
Key Concepts
Ecosystems are complex and dynamic,
composed of interacting networks of
biotic and abiotic components.
Principal ecological components are
species, populations, communities, and
ecosystems.
Critical to the function of an ecosystem
is the flow of energy and nutrients
through the systems's producers and
consumers.
Key Concepts (Continued)
Stressors can affect individual
organisms, population growth,
community structure and function, and
ecosystem processes.
Interactions among individuals in a
population, and among populations in a
community influence the significance of
a stressor's ecological effects.
The combination of stressor,
environmental, and biological
characteristics dictates the nature,
extent, and magnitude of ecological
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
P-S1
-------
Ecology Unit
Optional Exercise:
The following exercise illustrates how stressors affect a population.
A SIMPLE SIMULATION MODEL
Hypothetical What-lf Population
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Adults
Initial
Number
300
200
100
Maturation
Time
1 mo.
1 mo.
Percent
Survival
50
50
50 per mo.
Percent
Females
50
Eggs/
Female/Month
10
To illustrate the effects of stressors on populations, we will use a very simple simulation model. We'll call our
organism Hypothetical what-if, or the What-lf Bug.
The What-lf Bug has three stages: an egg, a larva, and an adult. The eggs and larva each take one month to
complete their development, and 50 percent survive to the next developmental stage (egg to larva, larva to
adult). Adult survival is 50 percent per month. In other words, of the original 100 adults in our example, 50
will be alive at the end of 1 month, 25 at the end of 2 months, and so on. One lucky individual will live to the
ripe old age of 7 months. The What-lf Bug has a sex ratio of 0.5; that is, 50 percent of the adult population is
female. Every month, each female lays 10 eggs.
Our simulations start out with 300 eggs, 200 larvae, and 100 adults. We then run the simulation for 25 "months,"
first with the parameters shown here, then changing one parameter to see the effect of reduced survival of a life
stage, reduced egg production, or changes in the sex ratio. The next four figures show the effects of hypothetical
stressors on our hypothetical population.
» In the first figure, we reduce egg survival from 50 percent to 45,40, and 35 percent.
> In the second figure, we reduce adult survival in the same manner.
* In the third figure, we reduce eggs per female from 10 to 9.7 and 5 eggs per female.
» In the fourth figure, we vary two parameters simultaneously. Both adult survival and the percent of the
population that is female are reduced from 50 percent to 45,40, and 35 percent.
Let's look at the results. You will note that the top curve in each graph represents the initial conditions that we
presented earlier. All the curves represent the total population (eggs, larvae, and adults) over the 25- month
period.
P-52
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12.1995
-------
Ecology Unit
Optional Exercise (Continued)
Egg Survival
Assume that the What-If Bug lays its eggs in soil contaminated with a chemical that is slightly toxic. Suppose
that the toxic effects of the contaminant only reduce egg survival from its normal 50 percent to 45 percent. The
graph in Figure 1 shows that the population at the end of 25 months is about half what it would be with no
additional egg mortality, down from about 2400 to about 1200. If the contaminant causes egg survival to
decrease to 40 percent, the population does not grow at all, and if egg survival drops to 35 percent, the
population declines.
EGG SURVIVAL
2SO
12
MONTH
50%
Figure 1. Number of eggs OI~ Wha£^ Bug surviving over 25 months
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
P-53
-------
Ecology Unit
Optional Exercise (Continued)
Adult Survival
The adult What-If Bug feeds on flowers that grow along pesticide-treated vegetable fields. Drift from the
pesticide spraying lands on the flowers, killing some What-If Bugs (Figure 2).
» The population fails to grow at all when adult survival declines just to 45 percent
> Reductions in survival to 40 and 35 percent result in significant decline in the population.
ADULT SURVIVAL
2CCQ
1SCO
1CCQ
SXJ'
12
MONTH
50% —— 4£% -*- 40% -s- 35
Figure 2. Number of adult What-ff Bugs sin-riving over 25 months
P-54
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
-------
Ecology Unit
Optional Exercise (Continued)
Eggs per Female
Along the roadway, another flower serves as a food source for adult What-If bugs. The soil is so compacted at
this site that the plants provide less nutrition and the female bugs produce fewer eggs.
>• Figure 3 shows that a reduction to nine eggs per female causes the population to grow at about half the rate
if egg production remains at 10 per female.
*• At five eggs per female, the population is heading for extinction.
EGGS PER FEMALE
25CO
2COQ
15CO
1CGQ
12
MONTH
10 —- 9 -•*-- 7 -s-5
Figure 3. Number of eggs per female What-If Bug aver 25 months
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
P-55
-------
Ecology Unit
Optional Exercise (Continued)
Adult Survival and Percent Females
The What-If bug survives best in partially shaded environments where the temperature is moderate in summer.
Females are more susceptible than males to high temperatures, but both suffer some additional mortality. In
Figure 4 both adult survival and the percent of the population that is female were reduced. To keep things
simple, we used the same numbers for each: 50,45,40, and 35 percent.
* As seen in Figure 4, with just a 5 percentage point decline in the two parameters, the population declines.
At 40 and 35 percent, the population is quickly becoming extinct
ADULT SURVIVAL/% FEMALE
25CO
2CCQ
15CO-
1COO
12
MONTH
SJ% —— 45% -•*- 4C% -s-
Figure 4. Survival of adult What-If Bug* when percent females change over 25 months
P-56
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
-------
Ecology Unit
Optional Exercise (Continued)
The figures show that small differences in survival, reproductive rates, and sex ratios can produce large
differences in population size over the long term.
*• You may have noticed that in some of the curves the population increased at first, then declined. How far
into the future can/should we consider when looking at effects?
» In several instances, the population increased, but not as much as with the original parameters. Should a
population actually decrease before the effects are considered significant? How much is too much?
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12,1995 P-57
-------
3. Ecological Risk Mgmt.
and Decision Making
-------
3. ECOLOGICAL RISK MANAGEMENT AND
DECISION MAKING UNIT
Contents
Summary of Ecological Risk Management Unit 1
Ecological Risk Management and Decision Making 3
Range of Ecological Concerns Used in EPA Programs 4
Primary Ecological Statutes and Programs 5
Examples of Ecologically-Based Decisions at EPA 6
Examples of Non-Regulatory Ecologically-Based Decisions at EPA 10
Other Risk Management Factors 12
Recommendations to Improve Ecological Risk Management 14
Key Concepts 16
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 P-i
-------
Management Unit
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-» Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
-------
Management Unit
Summary of Ecological Risk Management and Decision Making Unit
Time Allotted
Approximately 60 minutes allowed for discussion and lecture.
Summary of the Unit
The Ecological Risk Management and Decision Making Unit provides an overview of ecological concerns
within Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) programs, the statutory basis of these concerns, examples of
ecologically-based decisions, and other risk management factors. Also, recommendations to improve ecological
risk management are provided.
Key Concepts
*• A range of ecological concerns have been used as the basis for EPA regulatory and non-regulatory
programs. EPA has generally based ecological decisions on acute mortality caused by chemical stressors
in test animals, especially aquatic test species.
» Statutes which form the basis for most EPA ecological policy are the Clean Water Act, National
Environmental Policy Act, and Endangered Species Act. Most ecologically-based decisions have been
made in the Office of Water and Office of Federal Activities, with a few in other programs.
*• Precedents for ecologically-based decisions exist for all EPA programs.
*• Other risk management factors include economics, the political process, statutory and legal considerations,
and public concerns.
*• Many ecological values are hard to measure, and traditional economic methods for monetization are not
applicable.
> In order to manage ecological risk better, the ecological risk assessment and decision making process must
improve by developing tools such as training, guidance, and better ecological and economic methodologies,
and by recruiting of staff with ecological expertise.
References
USEPA. 1995. Ecological Risk: A Primer for Risk Managers. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Prepared for The Agency Ecological Risk Management Communication Group by the Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances; Office of Water; Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation; Office of
Research and Development; and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1994. Managing Ecological Risks at EPA: Issues and Recommendations for Progress. U.S. EPA
Office of Research and Development and Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. EPA/600/12-94/183.
Washington, DC.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual /December 12, 1995 P-1
-------
Management Unit
P-2 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual/December 12,1995
-------
Management Unit
offA
MANAGEMENT UNIT
Ecological Risk Management
and
Decision Making
This unit will cover the following topics:
» Ecological concerns that form the basis of EPA programs;
» The statutory basis for most of EPA's ecological policy;
> Examples of ecologically-based decisions in EPA program offices;
» Other risk management factors; and
»• Recommendations to improve ecological risk management.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /'Participant Manual /December 12, 1995
P-3
-------
5EBV
Management Unit
MANAG EM,
Range of Ecological Concerns
Used in EPA Programs
Algae
Aquatic communities
Fish
Habitats
Mammals
National forests
Vegetation
Water quality
Wildlife
Source: Managing Ecological Risks at EPA:
Issues and Recommendations for Progress (EPA, 1994a)
A survey was conducted of all EPA Headquarters program offices and four Regional offices (Regions 3,5,9,
and 10). This survey documented historical and current ecological concerns on which those offices made
decisions.
The survey report, Managing Ecological Risks at EPA: Issues and Recommendations for Progress (USEPA,
1994a), was compiled to assist in developing future guidance on risk management and ecological risk
assessments, as well as to provide a set of recommendations to improve ecological considerations in EPA
decision making. A copy of this report is in your course materials.
The survey revealed that a variety of ecological concerns have been used within the Agency either partially or
completely as the basis of regulatory decisions or decisions to pursue some other programmatic objective or
activity, such as a cooperative non-regulatory effort to protect or reduce risks to a particular species or
ecosystem (USEPA, 1994a).
Examples of ecological concerns used in various EPA programs include: algae, fish, mammals, vegetation, and
water quality. Several concerns have direct benefit to humans, such as commercial fisheries and wetlands.
Others have statutory authorities that justify their protection (e.g., listed species, biological integrity). Pages 10
and 11 and Appendix D of the report contain additional information on concerns used in past EPA actions. In
summary, EPA has generally based ecological decisions on acute mortality caused by chemical stressors in test
animals, especially aquatic test species.
P-4
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
-------
Management Unit t»EB\
MANAGEMENT UNIT
Primary Ecological
Statutes and Programs
*>Statutes from which most EPA ecological policy
developed:
• CWA
• NEPA
• ESA
+• Most ecologically-based decisions found in the
Office of Water and the Office of Federal
Activities.
Most of the ecological policy at EPA was developed by implementing the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). It is not surprising that most
ecological decisions are made in the Office of Water and the Office of Federal Activities. However,
ecologically-based decisions have been made in all the program offices and can serve as precedents for future
decisions. Refer to Appendix F of the report, Managing Ecological Risks at EPA: Issues and Recommendations
for Progress (USEPA, 1994a), for further information on these decisions.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 P-5
-------
Management Unit
MANAGEMENT UNIT
Examples of
Ecologically-Based Decisions
»FIFRA: Diazinon Special Review
»»Superfund: Commencement Bay, WA
^NEPA Review: Southeastern Expressway, VA
»>CWA Section 404 Review: Ocean Develop-
ment Company
»-TSCA PMN: Neutral Organic Compound
*»RCRA: Hamilton Standard, Windsor, CT
-CAA: Half Moon Power Plant, NY
Although most ecologically-based decisions have occurred in the Office of Water and the Office of Federal
Activities, there are examples of decisions in other programs which demonstrate it can be done. More emphasis
on ecological decisions in these programs is needed to provide a balance between ecological and human health
concerns in Agency decisions. Provided below are examples of ecologically-based decisions representing all
the programs.
FIFRA: Diazinon Special Review
EPA is responsible for regulating use of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA). In 1985, the Office of Pesticide Programs reviewed the use of diazinon, a liquid/granular broad
spectrum insecticide used in agriculture (40%), homes (20%), and golf courses and sod farms (40%). This was
in response to reports of approximately 80 bird kills involving a few to a thousand individuals that were
attributed to diazinon. The Special Review focused on golf courses and sod farms, since many of the bird kills
were associated with grassy sites.
The ecological risk to grazing waterfowl and seed-eating birds known to forage on grassy sites was evaluated
by examining acute toxicity studies; estimating residues on grass and seed, and dose levels consumed by birds
(from grass and seed); and reviewing field studies, bird kills, and a local population reduction of Atlantic Brant
Geese. The risk assessment found that:
» Estimated residue levels and consumption levels for grass and seed exceeded the LDSO level for mallard
ducks;
P-6 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
Management Unit 6ER&
Examples of Ecologically-Based Decisions (Continued)
» Granular diazinon was hazardous to birds at ail labeled application rates, with ingestion of a few granules
killing smaller birds;
> Carcass analyses of dead birds confirmed diazinon as the cause; and
> A significant reduction occurred in a local population of Atlantic Brant Geese.
Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that certain endangered and threatened species could
be seriously affected by the use of diazinon on golf courses and sod farms. Results of the benefits assessment
indicated that increased costs to golf course and sod farm industries associated with alternative pesticides would
not be significant.
The decision was to restrict the use of diazinon on golf courses and sod farms because the ecological risks
outweighed the benefits. This decision was challenged and the Administrative Law Court found that recurring
bird kills were sufficient evidence of unreasonable adverse effects, and neither reductions in populations nor
effects on endangered or threatened species were required evidence.
Superfund: Commencement Bay. WA
The Commencement Bay (Puget Sound, WA) Superfund site represents one of the increasing examples of a
Superfund Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) based upon ecological concerns. In 1985, an
ecological risk assessment was conducted to characterize the impacts on aquatic organisms of exposure to
contaminated sediments. Measures of exposure and effects included sediment chemistry, sediment toxicity
(bioassays), benthic (living on the bottom) macroinvertebrate abundances, concentrations of contaminants in
English sole and crab, and prevalence of liver lesions in English sole. The risk assessment found that:
* Average concentrations of several organic compounds exceeded all Puget Sound reference conditions;
» Concentrations of selected metals, sediment toxicity bioassays, and chemicals indicative of
bioaccumulation were significantly above reference stations;
* Benthic macroinvertebrate abundances were depressed at the Superfund site; and
» English sole liver lesions were statistically significant at most of the Superfund site sampling stations.
The RI/FS concluded that actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not corrected
by response actions, present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, and the
environment. In 1989, a Record of Decision was signed that presented remediation actions for the site.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12.1995 P-7
-------
Management Unit
Examples of Ecologically-Based Decisions (Continued)
NEPA Review: Southeastern Expressway. VA
EPA is responsible for reviewing environmental impacts of major Federal actions including proposed legislation,
regulations, and major actions requiring Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA reviews are conducted by the Office of Federal Activities and the
Regions. In 1990, Region 3 reviewed a Virginia Department of Transportation and Federal Highway
Administration EIS for the Southeastern Expressway proposed for the Cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach,
VA. Information and analysis of impacts from the proposed expressway and provisions for their avoidance or
reduction were presented in the EIS. The EIS showed that all the alternatives (except no action) had adverse
impacts and proposed mitigation of these impacts was minimal. The Region 3 review found that the
Southeastern Expressway proposal was environmentally unsatisfactory due to potential impacts to wetlands
(300-500 acres) and water supply, and secondary impacts such as promoting development in a sensitive area.
This resulted in further negotiations over the route of the expressway.
CWA Section 404 Review: Ocean Development Company
EPA has responsibility for permit review and enforcement under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
which pertains to discharges of dredged and fill material into aquatic ecosystems. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers is responsible for granting CWA Section 404 permits and Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors
Appropriation Act of 1 899) permits for dredging in waters of the U.S. Region 9 reviewed a permit application
by Ocean Development Corporation Company to build a luxury hotel in a wetland area in the Republic of Palau
(former Trust Territory of the U.S. in the Western Pacific). Region 9 found that the proposed filling of 139 acres
of mangrove swamps, agricultural wetlands, seagrass beds, and reef flats would likely cause significant adverse
effects. The EPA worked with the developer to reduce the fill to the reefs and seagrasses. The decision by the
Corps was to approve a scaled-down version of the project without mitigation.
TSCA PMN: Neutral Organic Compound
Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires manufacturers and importers of new chemicals
to submit a premanufacture notice (PMN) to EPA before they intend to begin manufacturing or importing. EPA
determines whether the substance will present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the
environment. The approach used in the ecological risk assessment is to compare estimated future exposure
concentrations with ecological effect concentrations. Most assessments are paper exercises due to the 90-day
requirement to make a decision on risk. The following example is an exception to that rule because the initial
screening indicated risk.
The new chemical that was evaluated is known as a neutral organic compound (the chemical name is not known
due to the confidential business information protection afforded by TSCA). Processing, use, and disposal sites
for this chemical were proposed to be located adjacent to rivers and streams.
The ecological risk assessment examined risk to populations and communities of organisms living in the water
column and on the bottom. Exposure analysis consisted of a tiered approach starting with the worst case
scenario using simple stream flow dilution models and moving on to more sophisticated models. The exposure
P-8 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
-------
Management Unit ;SHj>%
Examples of Ecologically-Based Decisions (Continued)
model data and the effects analysis was comprised of a quantitative structure-activity relationship (an estimation
of toxicity based upon the chemical characteristics of the compound) and tests of mortality, growth and
development, and reproduction. Effects data indicated little risk to benthic organisms at the identified sites of
product use and disposal. The final decision was to restrict use of the new chemical to the identified sites.
RCRA: Hamilton Standard. Windsor. CT
The Hamilton Standard corrective action facility represents one of the few examples of interim corrective
measures based to a large degree on potential threats to ecological receptors. The Hamilton Standard facility
is involved in the manufacture of aerospace products and is hydrogeologically upgradient of wetlands and a
reservoir which is the site of a state salmon restoration project. A groundwater plume containing hexavalent
chromium and halogenated solvents extends from the facility to the wetlands area. In 1993, EPA-New England,
in lieu of Hamilton Standard, conducted chemical and toxicity analyses of wetland waters and sediments. Based
on the demonstrated toxicity to laboratory organisms, the exceedence of state and Federal ambient water quality
criteria, and the importance of the fisheries resource, EPA-New England concluded that the conditions may
present an imminent and substantial endangerment under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Section 7003. Hamilton Standard agreed to enter a consent agreement under RCRA Section 3008(h) to
undertake actions to mitigate plume impacts to the wetlands, including collection of contaminated waters at off-
site seeps and a groundwater plume capture system at the facility boundary. The consent agreement also
provides for long-term wetlands habitat monitoring to gauge any impacts from potential hydrologic alterations
due to the groundwater capture system.
CAA: Half Moon Power Plant. NY
EPA has responsibility for issuing air permits in states without delegated authority. Under the Clean Air Act
(CAA), ecological risk assessments are conducted by federal land managers for Class I areas (national parks,
forests, etc.). EPA reviewed an air permit application for the proposed Half Moon Power Plant under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, which is designed to ensure that geographical areas do
not exceed the national air quality standards. The U.S. Forest Service evaluated the ecological risks associated
with the proposed emissions and found that sulfuric acid deposition would compromise the buffering capacity
of sensitive lakes in the Lye Brook Wilderness, VT, Class I area. The EPA eventually approved the permit after
mediating a solution to the problem between the Forest Service and the applicant, which involved developing
appropriate offsets for new sources of air pollution to prevent ecological impacts.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12,1995 P-9
-------
Management Unit
Non-Regulatory Ecologically-Based Decisions
MOU Between EPA and The Nature Conservancy
Great Lakes National Program Office Habitat Restoration Grants
National Estuary Program
Examples of non-regulatory ecologically-based decisions include funding and working together with other
organizations to address high priority ecological risk issues (e.g., habitat loss, biodiversity, eutrophication, toxic
contamination, etc.).
MOU Between EPA and The Nature Conservancy
In 1992, the Office of Water signed an MOU with The Nature Conservancy to provide a framework for cooperation
and coordination in a wide range of activities of mutual interest in the U.S. and internationally. These issues relate
to protection of water quality and habitat; conservation of biodiversity, ecosystems, landscapes at the watershed level;
and to the threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants and animals that they contain. The MOU led to cooperative
efforts between TNC and other program offices and the regions, e.g., Clinch River (Virginia) sustainable
development project, Mackinaw River (Illinois) watershed project, and Creating Sustainable Ecosystems, Economies,
and Communities: Lessons Learned handbook project (OPPE).
Great Lakes National Program Office Habitat Restoration Grants
Restoration of the full functioning of the Great lakes ecosystem requires toxics reduction, restoration of habitat and
control of exotic species. In achieving this goal, the EPA Great Lakes National Program Office established grants
for habitat restoration which emphasize on-the-ground actions. Examples of projects include TNC synthesis of the
state natural heritage data for the Great Lakes Basin, restoration of naturally reproducing lake trout population, and
revegetation of slag with native species in NW Indiana.
National Estuary Program
The NEP provides grants to states, regional and interstate agencies, other public or non-profit private organizations
and individuals to prepare Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs) to ensure ecological
integrity of nationally significant estuaries threatened by pollution, development, or overuse. A management
conference of stakeholders in convened to characterize the estuary, define the estuary's problems, and then develop
a CCMP. In addition to the grants, EPA provides technical assistance to the states throughout the process.
P-10 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12,1995
-------
Manaaement Unit
MANAGEMENT UNIT
Other Risk Management Factors
•-Human Health
^Economics
^Political Process
*• Statutory and Legal Considerations
** Public Concerns
Some other general risk management concerns that factor into an ecological risk decision include:
» Human Health: Human health concerns sometimes factor into ecological risk decisions. For example,
contamination of fish tissue may be of concern at an aquatic superfund site. When assessing a pesticide,
alternative pesticides would be examined and human health effects of the pesticides might be compared as part
of the analysis.
»• Economics: Some statutes require consideration of benefit/cost and other economic effects of decision
alternatives. Although tools are available to express the value of ecological resources monetarily, in most cases,
the value must be expressed qualitatively. This will be discussed in more detail in the following slide.
> Political Process: Political issues may also become bvolved in ecological risk management decisions. This
is evident when laws are amended, when Executive Orders are issued, or when regulations or new guidance are
developed.
» Statutory and Legal Considerations: The implementation of a law takes into consideration the legislative
history of the law, precedent both scientific as well as legal, compliance with any statutory deadlines, and
compliance and enforcement associated with a regulatory action. This may sometimes require that decisions
be made without the most thorough investigation of all issues, and that issues under consideration be prioritized.
Regulatory action or remediation may be segmented to meet the greatest need, and other issues dealt with later.
Finally, consideration should be given to the ability of the regulated parties to comply with the decision and the
agency to enforce the decision.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
P-11
-------
Management Unit
Other Risk Management Factors (Continued)
*• Public Concerns: The public may express its concerns regarding a pending ecological risk management
decision in many ways. A national environmental group or trade association may send a letter or petition to
EPA or elected representatives, or even file a lawsuit in some instances. Local citizen groups may participate
in the regulatory processes or make their opinions known through the news media. For non-regulatory decisions
(e.g, National Estuary Program), public concerns are heard through participation on committees and activities
and through public meetings, computer bulletin boards, etc.
The following discussion will focus on economics, specifically how we value ecological resources.
P-12 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12,1995
-------
Management Unit
MANAGEMENT UNIT
Valuing Ecological Resources
Value Easy to
Measure, Monetize
| Commercial
Fisheries,
! Timber
Recreational Fishing,
Bird watch ing. Hiking
Value Difficult to
Measure, Monetize
Ecosystem Functions & Services
Habitat
Biodiversity
Oxygen Production
Nutrient Cycling
Flood Control
Cultural
Spiritual
Religious
Ethics
The following discussion will focus on economics, specifically, how we value ecological resources.
Ecological values that are easy to measure and monetize tend to be those that derive from human use, e.g.,
commercial fishing and timber harvesting. Some human uses (birdwatching, recreational fishing) may be more
difficult to measure and monetize as they are not directly traded in markets.
Many ecological values (habitat, biodiversity, oxygen production, etc.) are hard to measure and traditional economic
methods for monetization are not applicable. Therefore, these life support values or ecosystem functions and services
must be expressed in qualitative terms.
Other concerns related to valuing ecological resources include spiritual, religious, and ethical concerns. Different
cultures may value ecological resources differently. For example, the Native Americans of the Pacific Northwest
Tribes impart a cultural and religious significance to the migratory salmon of the Columbia River Basin. These tribes
place a level of importance to the salmon's survival beyond the commercial and aesthetic values that most people
living in the region ascribe to these resources. Finally, die value of ecological resources to future generations is an
ethical consideration.
Consideration must be given to short- and long-term effects of stressors on these values and whether effects are
reversible or irreversible. Given the uncertainty in characterizing ecological values, it may be prudent to err on the
side of precaution.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
P-13
-------
Management Unit
MANAGEMENT UNIT
Recommendations to Improve
Ecological Risk Management
J1. Ensure an appropriate balance between ecological, human
welfare and human health concerns in EPA regulations and
policies.
|2. Develop common Agency-wide ecological protection
concerns.
J3. Encourage an open process for developing ecological
concerns and assessment endpoints.
|4. Specify rationale and establish precedents for ecological
protection.
Ecological Risks at EPA: Issues anil Recommendations for Progress
The first four of eight recommendations listed in the report, Managing Ecological Risks at EPA: Issues and
Recommendations for Progress (USEPA, 1994a), focus on changing Agency policy and attitudes toward ecological
concerns.
Although protection of human health is still emphasized at the Agency, many current activities offer opportunities
to examine ecological and human welfare with respect to natural resource concerns (e.g., regulating pollution and
dredge-and-fill operations). Another opportunity to balance human health with ecological concerns is the Agency's
new Tiering Process for Regulatory and Policy Development, where priorities for regulation, policy development,
and cross-media interaction are determined.
Agency-wide principles or objectives can be developed to establish an initial, overall set of ecological concerns
for use in developing regulations and policies, and for ecological risk assessments. The public, natural resource
trustees, and other stakeholders should be consulted to help identify concerns and establish goals for environmental
protection. This open process will assist in promoting cross-media efforts within EPA and enhance public support
for reducing ecological risks.
Ecological decisions and their rationales should be documented. Such decisions, particularly those based on
strong scientific and societal justification, could then be used as precedents for similar future decisions. However
the report noted that the development of new approaches to making better ecological decisions should not be
constrained by such precedents.
P-14
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12,1995
-------
Management Unit
MANAGEMENT UNIT
Recommendations (Continued)
5. Set up formal processes to ensure effective
interaction between risk managers and assessors.
6. Develop ecological risk management guidance and
training, and recruit additional staff with ecological
expertise.
7. Improve ecological risk communication.
8. Explore, develop, and apply new scientific tools for
ecological risk assessment, and economic tools for
ecological risk management.
The other recommendations include changes in procedures to improve the ecological risk assessment and decision
making process.
Although the Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (USEPA, 1992) stressed that interactions between
ecological risk assessors and managers were critical, the report suggested that formal processes could be
established to ensure this occurs, particularly during the scoping, problem formulation phase of the assessment.
Additional guidance and training in management and communication of ecological risks were also identified in the
report as critical to support the policy changes within the Agency. The recruitment of more experts in ecology,
biology, and ecotoxicology should strengthen EPA's ability to develop ecological risk assessments, which will
improve credibility.
Agency guidance on ecological risk management entitled, Ecological Risk: A Primer for Risk Managers
(USEPA, 1995), was recently developed by the Agency's Ecological Risk Management Communication
Group. This group is comprised of Division Directors and Deputy Office Directors from the Agency's
ecological offices. Its goal is to establish ecological protection as a principal objective in Agency risk
management decisions and implementation strategies. (A copy of the Primer is in the Appendix of the
Participant's Manual.)
The report also suggested that the continued success of EPA's evolving emphasis on ecological concerns will depend
on the development of new scientific and economic tools to collect and analyze ecological data and predict ecological
risks.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12,1995
P-15
-------
Management Unit
NAGEMENT UNIT
Key Concepts
»A range of ecological concerns have been used
as the basis for EPA regulatory and
non-regulatory programs. EPA has generally
based ecological decisions on acute mortality
caused by chemical stressors in test animals,
especially aquatic test species.
MANAGEMENT UNIT
Key Concepts (Continued)
+ Statutes which form the basis for most EPA
ecological policy are the Clean Water Act, the
National Environmental Policy Act, and the
Endangered Species Act. Most ecologically-
based decisions have been made in the Office
of Water and the Office of Federal Activities,
with a few in other programs.
» Precedents for ecologically-based decisions
exist for all EPA programs.
P-16
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
Management Unit
MANAGEMENT UNIT
Key Concepts (Continued)
Other risk management factors include
economics, the political process, statutory and
legal considerations, and public concerns.
Many ecological values are hard to measure,
and traditional economic methods for
monetization are not applicable.
MANAGEMENT UNIT
Key Concepts (Continued)
Nn order to manage ecological risk better, the
ecological risk assessment and decision
making process must improve by developing
tools such as training, guidance, and better
ecological and economic methodologies, and by
recruiting staff with ecological expertise.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual /December 12, 1995
P-17
-------
Management Unit
P-18 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Woritshop/Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
-------
4. Ecological Risk
Assessment
-------
4. ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT UNIT
Contents
Summary of Ecological Risk Assessment Unit 1
Examples of EPA Ecological Risk-Related Tools 4
Examples of EPA Ecological Assessments 6
Ecological Assessments Conducted Outside of EPA 8
Classification of Ecological Risk-Related Tools and Risk Assessments 11
Key Concepts 12
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 P-i
-------
Risk Assessment Unit
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-ii Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
Risk Assessment Unit
Summary of Ecological Risk Assessment Unit
Time Allotted
Approximately 45 minutes for lecture and discussion.
Summary of the Unit
This unit presents the different kinds of ecological risk assessments conducted inside and outside the
EPA.
Key Concepts
> The Agency conducts or reviews a variety of ecological risk assessments.
»• There are other types of ecological assessments.
* In assessments, one size does not fit all.
References
Stephan, C.E. 1985. Are the Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for
the Protection of Aquatic Life and its Uses Based on Sound Judgments? In: Cardwell, R.D., R.
Purdy, and R.C. Banner, eds. Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: Seventh Symposium.
.ASTMSTP854. Philadelphia, PA: ASTM. pp.5 15-526.
U.S. EPA. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers, Benthic
Macroimertebrates and Fish. Office of Water (4503F). EPA/444/4-89/001 .
U.S. EPA. 1985. Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. NTIS No. PB85-227049. Duluth, MM:
Environmental Research Laboratory.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/ December 12,1995 P-1
-------
ot»\ Risk Assessment Unit
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-2 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
Risk Assessment Unit
Ecological Risk Assessment
It is important that we first understand what an ecological risk assessment is, and that there are a
variety of types of ecological risk assessments in addition to those employing the "Framework for
Ecological Risk Assessment." Though this course will not go into the details of how various
assessments are used, it is important to know that there are many types of risk assessment methods,
and that each is tailored for specific purposes.
This unit will cover the following topics:
*• Various types of ecological risk assessments and tools; and
> A classification scheme for these assessments and tools.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12,1995
P-3
-------
Risk Assessment Unit
Examples of EPA Ecological
Risk-Related Tools
» Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria, Sediment
Quality Criteria, Wildlife Criteria
» Wastewater and Ambient Toxicity Testing
» Quotient Method (Pesticides, Toxics, Superfund,
RCRA)
» Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
» Vegetation Surveys, Earthworm Toxicity, Food
Chain Modeling, Bioaccumulation Tests
Examples of Ecological Risk-Related Tools
Ecological risk tools are used in ecological risk assessments to analyze impacts to ecological
components. Some examples include the following:
» Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria are chemical-specific national tools designed to protect
aquatic organisms from chemicals in surface water. Risk to aquatic organisms is assessed by
examining acute and chronic toxicity to a minimum of eight taxonomic groups offish and aquatic
invertebrates and one or two plant species. The criterion is set to be protective of 95 percent of
species in an aquatic community. It is assumed that aquatic community structure and function will
be preserved if 95 percent of the species are protected and if a broad range of taxonomic groups are
represented. National Ambient Water Quality Criteria have been established for many of the CWA
priority pollutants including almost all metals and many of the important pesticides.
» Sediment Quality Criteria (SQC) predict concentrations of individual chemicals present in
sediments that are protective of benthic organisms (i.e., those living on or in the sediments on the
bottom of the water body). Toxic contaminants in sediments have the potential for adverse
ecological effects even when the overlying waters are in compliance with water quality criteria.
The Agency developed a draft proposal of SQC for five priority pollutant chemicals.
»• Wastewater and Ambient Toxicity Testing is aimed at detecting additive, synergistic, or
antagonistic effects in mixtures of pollutants. To supplement chemical-by-chemical analysis, EPA
and many state water programs require some form of toxicity testing, in which test organisms,
usually fish and/or aquatic invertebrates, are exposed to various dilutions of effluent or ambient
water. If toxicity is detected, follow-up studies may be undertaken in an attempt to determine which
fraction of the pollutant matrix, or even which particular pollutants, are the key sources of toxicity.
P-4
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
-------
Risk Assessment Unit 6ERIV
Examples of Ecological Risk-Related Tools (Continued)
*• Wildlife Criteria estimate concentrations of individual pollutants in the water column that should
not result in buildup through the aquatic food chain to levels that would cause mortality, or
developmental or reproductive impacts to mammals or birds whose diets are comprised largely of
fish and other aquatic life. EPA has recently issued its first set of ambient water quality criteria
aimed at protecting mammals and birds (otters, eagles, etc.) in the Great Lakes from the effects of
consuming fish contaminated with highly bioaccumulative pollutants, including mercury. For each
taxonomic class, key data used in calculating these criteria are exposure information for selected
species representative of those most likely to be exposed to bioaccumulative contaminants through
the aquatic food web and a NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effect Level) or LOAEL (Lowest
Observed Adverse Effect Level) from a study assessing the effects of a given contaminant on an
acceptable endpoint.
> The Quotient Method calculates a numerical estimate of the likelihood that an ecotoxicological
effect of concern might occur by dividing the estimated environmental concentration by the
toxicological level of concern. This method is used in screening chemicals and risk assessments
in the Superfund, RCRA, Pesticides, and Toxics programs.
> Rapid Bioassessment Protocols evaluate community-level effects of various water quality
impairments (e.g., toxic loadings from groundwater recharge, industrial effluents, surface water
runoff, physical alterations to habitat, and introductions of exotic species). The protocols can be
used to:
• Determine if a stream is supporting or not supporting a designated aquatic life use;
• Characterize the severity of use impairment;
• Help identify sources and causes of use impairment;
• Evaluate effectiveness of control actions; and
• Characterize regional biotic components.
The analysis consists of comparing habitat (physical structure, flow regime) and biological
measures (e.g., abundance of macroinvertebrates, fish assemblages) of a site to reference conditions.
Once the relationship between habitat and biological potential of a reference site is understood,
water quality, physical alteration, and exotic species impacts can be ascertained. Protocols have
been developed for fish and benthic macroinvertebrates in certain types of aquatic environments.
» Terrestrial Ecology Tools include qualitative and quantitative vegetation surveys, earthworm
toxicity (Superfund site assessments), food chain modeling, and bioaccumulation tests.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual f December 12, 1995 P-5
-------
Risk Assessment Unit
Examples of EPA Ecological
Risk Assessments
Superfund Ecological Risk Assessments
Ecological Risk Assessment for Watersheds
Global Climate Change Assessments
Environmental Futures Project
Examples of EPA Ecological Risk Assessments
»• Superfuud Ecological Risk Assessments estimate the likelihood that adverse effects will or have
occurred as a result of exposure following release of hazardous substances. Proposed guidelines
for these ERAs were developed based on the Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment.
* Ecological Risk Assessment for Watersheds: Developing Guidance and Methods for
Implementation. The Office of Water Office of Science and Technology (OST) is developing
guidance to evaluate risk at an ecosystem level that is derived from the Framework for Ecological
Risk Assessment methodology and expanded through its application in watershed ecosystems.
Regulatory programs alone cannot achieve the goal of ecosystem protection. A combination of
targeted regulatory programs that are well integrated with non-regulatory and voluntary programs
are most likely to achieve success. To make this effort work, an understanding of the adverse
effects of particular stressors, and the combined effect of multiple stressors is essential if the best
combination of management options is to be generated and resources targeted within a watershed.
OST is developing a watershed risk assessment process that evaluates risk hypotheses about why
observed changes in valued resources have occurred, and predicts what changes are likely to occur
from future human impacts and management efforts. By identifying likely causes of ecological
degradation, ecological risk assessment provides a scientific basis for targeting regulatory efforts,
voluntary work, and limited resources toward management that controls those causes most likely
to impair valued resources. Five case studies are being developed to support the technical guidance
for watershed ecological risk assessment: Big Darby Creek (OH), Clinch River (VA), Middle Platte
River Wetlands (NE), Snake River (ID), and Waquoit Bay Estuary (MA).
P-6
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
-------
Risk Assessment Unit
Examples of EPA Ecological Risk Assessments (Continued)
> Global Climate Change Assessments predict the effects of increased carbon dioxide, methane, and
nitrous oxide (greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere, on the climate, and the resulting climatic effects
on ecosystems. The assessments have included effects on coastal and marine resources (e.g.,
seagrasses, corals, marshes, and mangroves) and forests.
»• Environmental Futures Project. (Science Advisory Board Report). The Ecological Processes
and Effects Committee (EPEC) of the Science Advisory Board examined the ecological
consequences of energy development and consumption in the United States as its contribution to
the EPA Environmental Futures Project. One of EPEC's conclusions in its report, "Futures
Methods and Issues," A Technical Annex to Beyond the Horizon: Protecting the Future with
Foresight, was that the Agency should consider using the Framework for Ecological Risk
Assessment for assessing future environmental problems. This formalized approach (the
Framework) revealed possible ecological consequences that otherwise probably would not have
been determined.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12,1995 P-7
-------
Risk Assessment Unit
Examples of Ecological Risk Assessments
Conducted Outside EPA
» State Natural Heritage Programs
» Environmental Impact Statements
> USFWS Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP)
» Endangered Ecosystems of the United
States: A Preliminary Assessment of Loss
and Degradation
» Forest Ecosystem Management: An
Ecological, Economic and Social
Assessment
Other Types of Ecological Risk Assessments
State Natural Heritage Programs
These programs are established under cooperative agreements with the Nature Conservancy (a private,
non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation of natural diversity). They identify the state's
most significant natural areas through inventories of natural heritage resources, such as rare plants and
animals, geological landmarks, natural communities, and other natural features. These areas are
ranked by considering the following:
* Global abundance - A = < 1,000 individuals; < 2,000 acres; <10 miles of stream
D = > 10,000 individuals; > 50,000 acres; > 250 miles of stream;
»• Global range - A = Narrow endemic (< 100 sq. mi.)
D = Widespread (> 1,000,000 sq. mi.);
» Global trends - A = Declining rapidly
D = Increasing;
»• Proportion of habitats/populations that are protected -
A = None protected
D = Many protected;
P-8
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12. 1995
-------
Risk Assessment Unit oB¥V
Other Types of Ecological Risk Assessments (Continued)
> Degree of threat - A = Very threatened range-wide; species or community directly exploited or
threatened by natural or man-made forces.
D = Unthreatened on a range-wide basis; may be threatened in minor portions
ofrange;
» Fragility (how susceptible an element is to degradation from external forces, such as pollution or
climate change) - A = Extremely fragile
D = Tough; and
» Other considerations (e.g., unexplained population fluctuations).
The state sets priorities for conservation based on anthropogenic threats. Conservation tools include
land acquisition, conservation easements, and private landowner voluntary protection programs. This
approach starts with the ecological resources and works back to the sources of stress.
*• Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) predict the environmental impact of the proposed action
and alternatives. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to
prepare EISs for all major Federal actions significantly affecting the environment. The probability
of both adverse and beneficial impacts is assessed.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP)
HEP assesses the quality and quantity of available habitat for selected wildlife species. It also provides
for two different types of wildlife habitat comparisons for use in assessing the impact of a proposed
activity:
*• The relative value of different areas at the same point in time; and
»• The relative value of the same area at points in the future.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12,1995 P-9
-------
Risk Assessment Unit
Other Types of Ecological Risk Assessments (Continued)
Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment of Loss and
Degradation (U.S. Department of Interior National Biological Service)
This assessment estimated the declines of natural ecosystems in the United States through a literature
review and survey of conservation agencies and professionals. The assessment found significant losses
of biodiversity at the ecosystem level. Specifically, more than 30 ecosystems were critically
endangered (greater than 98% decline); 58 ecosystems were endangered (85-98% decline); and more
than 38 ecosystems were threatened (70-84% decline). Of the critically endangered ecosystems, the
greatest losses were among grassland, savanna, and barrens communities. The most pronounced losses
were found in the South, Northeast, Midwest, and in California. A recommendation resulting from this
assessment was that integrated conservation plans for all ecosystems be developed in each ecoregion
of the United States starting with the types and regions that have sustained the greatest loss and are at
risk of further loss.
Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment (Forest
Ecosystem Management Assessment Team)
The assessment is one of the results of the Forest Conference convened in Portland, Oregon, in 1993
to address the spotted owl issue. The assessment comprises an ecosystem approach to forest
management addressing:
» Maintenance and restoration of biological diversity, particularly that of the late-successional and
old growth forest ecosystems and current and predicted condition of the owl population under
different management scenarios;
» Maintenance of long-term site productivity of forest ecosystems;
» Maintenance of sustainable levels of renewable resources, including timber, various forest products,
and other facets of forest values; and
» Maintenance of rural economies.
Various management options will result from the assessment and be implemented through adaptive
management.
P-10 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12. 1995
-------
Risk Assessment Unit
Classification of Ecological Risk-Related
Tools and Assessments
Local to Global
Retrospective to Prospective
Chemical-Specific to Multi-Stressor
Classification of Ecological Tools and Assessments
Ecological risk assessments range from local to global, retrospective to prospective, and chemical-
specific to multi-stressor.
Local to Global
Local: Superfund Site
Regional: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP)
National: Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria (ALWQC)
Global: Global Climate Change Assessments
Retrospective to Prospective
Retrospective: Rapid Bioassessment Protocols, EMAP
Prospective: EISs, Sediment Quality Criteria, ALWQC
Chemical-Specific to Multi-Stressor
Chemical-Specific: ALWQC, Quotient Method
Multi-Stressor: EMAP, Superfund
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
P-11
-------
Risk Assessment Unit
Key Concepts
> EPA conducts or reviews a variety of
ecological risk assessments
» There are many other types of ecological
risk assessments
» In assessments - one size does not fit all
P-12
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
5. Communicating with
the Public
-------
5. COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC
ON ECOLOGICAL ISSUES
Contents
Summary of Communication Unit 1
Human Health Risk Communication Experience 4
Risk Perception Factors: Differences between Human Health Risk and Ecological Risk 5
Ecological Risk Communication Examples 7
Recommendations for Improved Communication 9
Available Resources 10
Key Concepts 11
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 P-i
-------
Communication Unit
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-ii Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
Communication Unit
Summary of Communication Unit
Time Allotted
Approximately 60 minutes allowed for discussion and lecture.
Summary of the Unit
This unit provides an understanding of the value of dialogue with the public and the differences between
communicating about human health and ecological risks.
Key Concepts
*• Communicating with the public occurs throughout the process ranging from informal to formal
communication.
> The Agency has significant experience communicating human health risk to the public, and less experience
in communicating ecological risk.
> The major differences between communicating about human health and ecological issues relate to values,
ecoliteracy, and technical issues.
» There is a need to generate more knowledge and interest about ecological issues through education and
public outreach programs.
> It is important to involve the public and other stakeholders in the process. The public is often an important
source of information.
*• It is helpful to relate ecological resources at risk to human benefits.
> A variety of resources are available to form an expert team to assist in ecological risk communication.
References
Dover, M.J., E. McNamara, R. Krueger. 1995. Communication with the Public on Ecological Issues: Insights
from Related Literature. Report under EPA Cooperative Agreement No. CX 8235 1 9-01-0.
Dover, M.J., and D. Golding. 1995. Communicating with the Public on Ecological Issues: Workshop Report.
Report under EPA Cooperative Agreement No. CX 823519-01-0.
Golding, D., M.J. Dover. 1995. Communicating with the Public on Ecological Issues: A Survey of EPA Staff.
Report under EPA Cooperative Agreement No. CX 823519-01-0.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12,1995 P-1
-------
Communication Unit
[This page intentionally left blank.]
p-2 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12,1995
-------
Communication Unit
COMMUNICATING WITH
THE PUBLIC ON
ECOLOGICAL ISSUES
An important element in the ecological risk assessment and decision making process is effective communication
with the public. Public involvement is usually required under environmental statutes. The public can often
prove to be a valuable source of information on ecosystems such as population changes (e.g., birds) or other
visible characteristics which have changed. This information can assist the Agency in defining risk assessment
goals and focusing the best use of time and resources. Through early and ongoing dialogue with the public one
can learn the concerns they have, their priorities and values, and consider that information in planning so final
decisions address concerns of all stakeholders.
This unit will cover the following topics:
» EPA's experience with communicating human health risk;
» Differences in communicating ecological and human health risk to the public;
> Ecological risk communication examples: What can we learn?;
» Recommendations on how to better communicate ecological issues; and
» Resources available to communicate ecological risk to the public.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
P-3
-------
Communication Unit
HUMAN HEALTH RISK
COMMUNICATION
» Body of Knowledge
» Tools
» Training
Significant experience communicating human health risk to the public has led the EPA and others to develop
a large body of knowledge in the risk communication field. This experience and research has produced an
understanding of the factors that cause fear and outrage about human health risks. We have become familiar
with the seven cardinal rules of risk communication, such as listening with respect to the public's concerns. We
also have learned how important it is that the communication be multi-way, and that you know your audience
as well as your own strengths and biases. We have also developed experience with many different
communication tools (e.g., public meetings, community workshops, newsletters, television, public service
announcements, etc.). These concepts, tools, and lessons learned should be applied to ecological risk
communication.
To supplement this experience and research, the EPA has developed communication training courses. For
training on communication techniques, EPA sponsors a Risk Communication and Public Involvement training
course which covers general risk communication tools and practices. During this session, however, we will
focus on the differences in communicating human health and ecological risks and concerns, and review some
examples to learn how to better communicate ecological issues.
P-4
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/Decemberl 2,1995
-------
Communication Unit
DIFFERENCES IN COMMUNICATING
WITH THE PUBLIC:
Human Health vs. Ecological Issues
Values
A major difference between human health and ecological concerns is values. There is general consensus that
the public values its health. However, there is less of a consensus among the public about ecological values and
what to protect. Opinions range from protecting ecosystems because of their intrinsic value on one hand, to the
view that ecosystems exist to provide resources to humans.
When communicating with the public, often it is helpful to relate ecological resources at risk to a range of
human values, such as human health, economic development, aesthetics, future unknown uses or benefits to
humans (such as cancer cures) morals, ethics, religion, and quality of life. However, it is also important to point
out that there has been public agreement on certain ecological values to be protected, which have resulted in
laws such as the Clean Water Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty, and the
Endangered Species Act.
Ecological Literacy
Another reason why communicating with the public on ecological issues differs from human health concerns
is that the public may not be as familiar with or aware of ecological issues. The public is likely to have received
more information and be better educated on human health issues.
Technical Issues
These issues relate to ecological significance or the types and extent of anticipated effects. Ecological
significance pertains to the nature and magnitude of effects, spatial and temporal patterns of effects, and
recovery potential. The nature of effects relates to the relative significance of effects especially when the effects
of stressors on several ecosystems within an area are assessed. It is important to characterize the types of effects
associated with each ecosystem and where the greatest impact is likely to occur.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
P-S
-------
Communication Unit
Differences in Communicating with the Public (Continued)
Magnitude of effects will depend on the ecological context. For example, a reduction in reproductive capability
of a population would have greater effects on a whale population than on plankton (microscopic organisms
living in the ocean) because whales take much longer to mature and produce fewer young over longer periods
of time.
Spatial and temporal patterns of effects consider whether effects occur on large scales, (e.g., acid rain), or will
be localized, and whether effects are short-term or long-term. Some effects take decades to manifest themselves,
(e.g., ozone depletion effects on marine ecosystems).
Recovery relates to how easy it is to adapt to changes. For example, rainforests which are complex, highly
evolved ecosystems may take longer to adapt to perturbations than a pine forest, which can recover relatively
quickly from disturbances by rapidly re-seeding.
In conclusion, due to differing values, different levels ofecoliteracy. and various technical issues, there is a need
for doing a better job in promoting the message of protecting our environment, and to educate children and the
public.
P-6 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual/December 12.1995
-------
Communication Unit
Communicating Ecological Risk
Example: Superfund Cleanup
A Superfund cleanup was proposed for a man-made canal and wetlands in a state known for its concern for the
environment and wildlife. The wetlands and canal feed into a naturally-occurring lake which is used for a great
variety of industries and for recreation. The canal and wetlands are within the city while the lake is on the
outskirts. The human health risks were borderline, not unacceptable. A cleanup was proposed in which half
of the costs were to contain the groundwater contamination, thereby reducing the human health risk well below
any level of concern. The other half of the costs were to protect the aquatic animals associated with the
wetlands, which are at a significant risk. (Frogs and worms were used as indicators of the ecological risks of
the area.)
The public response was overwhelmingly against the cleanup because it was perceived that so many dollars were
being spent on frogs and worms. The public stated that if one could show how the canal and wetlands were
affecting the fisheries in the lake, or other use the lake was providing, then they would be supportive.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop I Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
P-7
-------
Communication Unit
Communicating Ecological Risk
Example: Spotted Owl in the Northwest
The spotted owl controversy in the northwestern United States is an issue which began as jobs versus owls, or
protection of endangered species.
The Forest Conference, held in 1993, brought stakeholders together, with the result that they shared information
each had about the ecological changes which may or may. not impact the spotted owl. It was then discovered
that those same changes were presenting a significant impact on other species, especially salmon. Once it was
known that the salmon, a species of cultural and economic importance, was severely threatened, they realized
that something had to be done on forest management in the region, river flow obstructions, etc. Points or values
the stakeholders shared included:
> Familiarity of species;
» Cultural significance;
» Economic importance;
*• Visible benefits;
» Controls which could be exerted, corporate or individual; and
» Benefits or losses to many parties, and not just a few (loss equally applicable to all parties).
P-8
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
Communication Unit
Recommendations on How to
Better Communicate
Ecological Issues
Recently, a study of communicating with the public on ecological issues was completed by Clark University's
Center for Technology, Environment, and Development under a cooperative agreement with EPA's Office of
Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. The study included a literature review, survey of EPA personnel, and expert
workshop (see Appendix C for workshop report and literature survey). Several recommendations for improving
communication with the public resulted from this study.
Recommendations include:
» Avoid using poorly defined terminology (e.g., risk, ecosystem health or integrity) and jargon. Develop a
common language accommodating scientific knowledge, lay understanding, and values.
»• Do not automatically label an ecological issue as a problem.
» Since health issues are often of more concern to the public, it is helpful to draw the connection between
ecological 'health' and human health to generate public interest and concern.
» Communicate local implications of ecological issues. Focus on particular places where possible, both to
help publics personalize the issue and to convey the "systems" aspects of ecology.
» Frame discussions as much as possible in terms of the natural history of specific ecological components,
rather than general principles or theories.
*- Identify familiar themes that members of the public and scientists can relate to even though they stem from
different conceptual frameworks (e.g., preservation of land for future generations and preservation of
habitat).
> Because issues of concern and values differ among groups, tailor communication efforts (both content and
approach) to meet the needs and concerns of different groups.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
P-9
-------
Communication Unit
Available Resources to
Better Communicate
Ecological Issues
> Communications Training
» Wildlife and Conservation Groups
«• Agency Outreach Offices
»Case Studies
What resources are available to communicate ecological issues and risks?
There are many resources to assist in effectively communicating ecological risk to the public. Information,
guidance, and training can be provided from various sources, including EPA Headquarters and Regions, and
academic institutions. Valuable information can be obtained from citizen groups and private parties. Lessons
can be learned from communication practitioners and from case studies. Results from the Clark University
survey of EPA personnel included a table listing Agency case studies and contacts for successful examples of
communication (see Appendix C).
P-10
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12,1995
-------
Communication Unit
SB*
Key Concepts
Communicating with the public occurs
throughout the process, ranging from
informal to formal communication.
The Agency has significant experience
communicating human health risk to the
public.
The major differences between
communicating about human health and
ecological issues relate to values,
ecoliteracy, and technical issues.
Key Concepts (Continued)
» There is a need to generate more knowl-
edge and interest about ecological
issues through education and public
outreach programs.
» It is important to involve the public and
stakeholders in the process. The public
is often an important source of
information.
» It is helpful to relate ecological
resources at risk to human benefits.
» A variety of resources are available to
assist in ecological risk communication.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
P-11
-------
6. Framework
-------
6. FRAMEWORK FOR ECOLOGICAL RISK
ASSESSMENT UNIT
Contents
Summary of Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment Unit 1
Historical Perspective 4
What Is the Framework? 5
Problem Formulation 7
Analysis 10
Risk Characterization 12
Discussion Between Risk Assessor and Risk Manager 13
Application of the Framework at the Ecosystem-Level 14
Key Concepts 17
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12,1995 P-i
-------
Framework Unit
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-// Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12. 19S5
-------
Framework Unit
Summary of Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment Unit
Time Allotted
Approximately 1 hour allowed for discussion and lecture.
Summary of the Unit
This unit presents an overview of the EPA Risk Assessment Forum's Framework for Ecological Risk
Assessment. It provides a perspective on the Framework's history, objectives, and major concepts. The
importance of communication between the Risk Assessor and Risk Manager is emphasized.
Key Concepts
> The Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment provides a rigorous and systematic structure for performing
these assessments — a common framework allows for comparable approaches and comparable results across
media.
» To be useful as one tool in decision making, risk assessments must be relevant to regulatory needs and public
concerns and have scientific validity.
* Communication between the Risk Assessor and Risk Manager is critical to the success of the risk assessment.
References
USEPA. 1992. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-92/001. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual/December 12,1995 P-1
-------
Framework Unit
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-2 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12,1995
-------
Framework Unit
Framework for Ecological
Risk Assessment Unit
This unit will provide:
» An historical perspective of the Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment;
> An overview of the major concepts contained within the Framework;
* Insights on the roles of risk assessors and risk managers in the process; and
»• Application of the framework at the ecosystem level.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12,1995
P-3
-------
Framework Unit
Why was the Ecological Risk
Assessment Framework
developed?
Beginning in the early 1980s, the Agency realized an increasing need to set priorities among complex
environmental problems and saw risk as one way to help. As the Agency adopted a risk-based approach, it
looked for a clear, consistent mechanism for addressing ecological risk.
In 1988, the EPA began developing ecological risk assessment guidelines as a parallel effort to the human health
risk assessment guidelines under the direction of the Risk Assessment Council. The Agency, working with the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), determined that the 1983 NAS risk assessment paradigm approach, with
significant modifications, could work for ecological risk.
During a review of this effort by the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and the Risk Assessment Forum (RAF),
it became clear that a common structure and terminology for ecological risk assessments was needed before
detailed guidelines could be developed. The recommendation of both the SAB and the RAF was to develop a
background document on what the overall process should look like, including an attempt at standard
terminology. The result was the Framework document.
Currently, the RAF is developing detailed ecological risk assessment guidelines which will address issues
associated with the use of the framework, such as, how to deal with the relative risk of multiple stressors and
how to deal with uncertainty.
P-4 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12.1995
-------
Framework Unit
Discussion Between the
Risk Assessor and Rbk Manager
(Results)
What Is the Framework?
The Framework was developed by EPA's Risk Assessment Forum, a standing committee of EPA scientists
charged with developing risk assessment guidance for Agency-wide use. It is a simple, flexible structure for
conducting and evaluating ecological risk assessments within EPA. It is not a procedural guide or a regulatory
requirement.
As a broad outline of the assessment process, the Framework offers a basic structure and starting principles
around which program-specific guidelines for ecological risk assessment can be organized. With this in mind,
the Framework does not provide substantive guidance on factors that are integral to the risk assessment
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
P-5
-------
Framework Unit
What Is the Framework? (Continued)
process, such as analytical methods, techniques for analyzing and interpreting data, or guidance on factors
influencing policy.
> The process described by the Framework provides wide latitude for planning and conducting individual
risk assessments in many diverse situations, each based on the common principles discussed in the
Framework.
» The process will help: (1) foster a consistent EPA approach for conducting and evaluating ecological risk
assessments, (2) identify key issues, and (3) provide operational definitions for terms used in ecological
risk assessments.
» The process also provides a systematic structure for the risk manager and risk assessor to discuss ecological
risks using common terms.
The Framework consists of three major phases:
Phase 1-Problem Formulation. A planning phase and scoping process that establishes the goals, breadth, and
focus of the risk assessment.
Phase 2-Anarysis. Develops profiles of environmental exposure and the effects of the stressor.
Phase 3-Risk Characterization. Integrates the exposure and effects profiles to evaluate the likelihood of
adverse ecological effects associated with exposure to a stressor.
P-6 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
Framework Unit
Problem Formulation
Planning phase that establishes
goals, breadth, and focus for the
assessment.
Regulatory and policy
considerations are determined.
Communications between Risk
Assessor and Risk Manager
are important
Public involvement is essential.
Problem Formulation
Introduction
Ecological risk assessment provides a methodology to help assess the risk from an action (or inaction) to some
specified components) of the ecosystem. The first phase of ecological risk assessment— the problem
formulation phase—is a structured process that allows the Risk Manager to identify what the ecological
problems or concerns might be, and how those problems might have been created (or how they might be
avoided). The Risk Manager might learn about ecological problems through:
> Discussion with the Risk Assessors;
» Calls from the public reporting an environmental incident or accident such as an oil slick, tastes or odors
from groundwater, or a chemical spill;
» Reports in the media about an environmental incident such as a fish or bird kill, damaged wetland, or killed
vegetation; and
» Public meetings.
Ecological Effects and Stressors
The problem formulation phase is the step where the Risk Assessor and Risk Manager will work to "put two and
two together" to develop theories about the possible relationships between undesirable ecological effects and
observable Stressors.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
P-7
-------
Framework Unit
Problem Formulation (Continued)
Stressors
A stressor is any physical, chemical, or biological entity that can induce an adverse effect. Examples of
physical Stressors include dredging and filling which results in the loss of physical habitat for a species or
group of species. Chemical Stressors include toxic chemicals, nutrients, or organic materials that may induce
high biological oxygen demand. Examples of biological Stressors include microbiological pathogens or
introduced species that compete with or prey upon indigenous species.
Ecological Effects
Ecological effects can be lethal and sublethal (reproductive effects, changes in growth rates, behavioral changes,
etc.). While some ecological effects may be so obvious that they are readily observable, some subtle ecological
effects (e.g., contamination in a food chain, loss of non-charismatic but ecologically important species, periodic
or subtle sublethal changes in the chemical or physical habitat) can result in a slower and less dramatic decline
in key species and ultimately to loss of an ecosystem's structure and function.
The Risk Manager will most often have to rely on the Risk Assessor to help develop an understanding of the
significance of a stressor or a series of Stressors on individual species or on ecosystems.
Developing a Conceptual Model
A conceptual model is useful to identify ecological concerns to be assessed. The conceptual model allows you
to relate Stressors to all the possible effects by tracing possible exposure pathways in the ecosystem. These
models may take the form of sketches of the ecosystem at risk (cross-section or plan view), with arrows
illustrating routes of exposure, or they may be abstract in form, with ecosystem components and Stressors in
boxes with arrows showing relationships between them.
Public Involvement
The Risk Manager must ensure that the risk assessment is relevant to societal as well as regulatory needs.
Therefore, it is important for the Risk Manager to include input from tbe community in the problem
formulation phase. This enables the decision maker to obtain the local scientific expertise or knowledge of the
ecosystem at risk, and identify community ecological and economic concerns.
A dialogue that includes the public stakeholders and the Risk Assessor provides the opportunity for public input
and public education. The Risk Assessor has an essential role in translating the community ecological values
into factors that could be and should be assessed. For example, the public may often interpret charismatic
species (bald eagles, herons) as important without fully including the ecological links that sustain them. On the
other hand, the public may overlook non-charismatic rare and endangered species that must be protected because
of the requirements of the law, such as the Endangered Species Act. The Risk Assessor helps the public
understand the ecological interdependence of obviously valued resources with less obvious but equally important
species.
p-8 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
-------
Framework Unit
Problem Formulation (Continued)
What to Assess?
Together, the Risk Assessor and Risk Manager identify one or more ecological concerns that are to be assessed.
Criteria include:
»• Presence of or sensitivity to stressors of concern;
»• Ecological relevance;
* Policy goals; and
» Societal values.
Examples of these ecological concerns to be assessed could include sustainably reproducing populations of trout
species, maintenance of reproductively successful songbird populations, or maintenance of aquatic vegetation
populations that are supportive offish and invertebrates.
How Do We Measure These Concerns?
The Risk Assessor usually will determine how to measure the ecological concerns. The measurements will
relate a response to a stressor (effects), and characterize the stressor distribution (e.g., concentration of a
chemical in water or in an organism's tissue). For the self-sustained freshwater fishery, we may use models to
measure the population effects of the particular stressor in relation to any existing stressors or pressures on the
fishery (natural or man-made). Other types of measurements include toxicity, bioaccumulation, abundances and
diversity of organisms, mortalities, production, and acres of habitat.
Ecological Risk ami Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 P-9
-------
Framework Unit
Analysis
Analysis consists of evaluation of
exposure and effects.
Risk Managers need to understand
the analysis to make better
decisions and be able to explain
them to the public.
Risk Analysis
The risk analysis consists of an evaluation of potential or past exposures and their association with predictable
or observable ecological effects. This analysis is based upon the conceptual model developed in Problem
Formulation. It is unlikely that a Risk Manager will ever have to conduct a risk analysis since it usually is the
work of the Risk Assessor or risk assessment team. It is useful, however, for the Risk Manager to have an
understanding of all that is required for the analysis for the following reasons:
* Understanding the requirements and steps of the analysis will help the Risk Manager to better judge the
resources needed for its completion.
" Understanding the basics about risk analysis is helpful in understanding the risk assessment results and how
they may be used in decision making.
»• Understanding the basics about risk analysis will help the Risk Manager to understand the significance of
uncertainties and assumptions in the assessment, as well as the role of professional judgment by the Risk
Assessors.
* An understanding of the analytical process will help the Risk Manager explain to the public the results of
the risk analysis and how they were used in decision making.
P-10
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Wbitehop / Participant Manual /December 12,1995
-------
Framework Unit
Risk Analysis (Continued)
Risk analysis includes:
» A characterization of the likelihood of exposure to the organism(s) of concern, including a consideration of
the spatial and temporal distribution of the stressors. For example, a migratory species may not be present
when a chemical spill occurs or a stressor may affect several ecosystems, e.g., acid rain.
•• A characterization of ecological effects to assess the likely range of effects resulting from the expected
exposures. This involves integration of available information about the organisms or ecosystems of concern
with applicable data on responses from literature, laboratory, or field studies (e.g., data on mortality, such
as fish kills, bird kills), and reproductive failures (e.g., loss of certain or most recent age classes, deformities,
egg shell thinning, etc.). This may result in identification of the relationship between the level of exposure
and effect, and may establish the presence of a cause-effect relationship, or at least a preponderance of
evidence that associates the presence of the stressor with the occurrence of the ecological effect.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12,1995 P-11
-------
Framework Unit
Risk Characterization
» Estimates risk incorporating
uncertainty.
» Risk Managers need an under-
standing of uncertainty to make and
communicate a decision.
» Risk is described in terms of
ecological significance.
Risk Characterization
Risk characterization is the final phase of risk assessment. It evaluates the likelihood of adverse effects
occurring as a result of exposure to one of more stressor(s). It provides an integration of the exposure profile
and the ecological effects profile from the analysis phase. It estimates the effects of uncertainties on the analysis
results and summarizes them for consideration in the risk management process.
A key process in the characterization of risk is the development of an uncertainty analysis—to provide at least
a qualitative, but better yet, a quantitative estimate of how uncertainty in the analysis or underlying assumptions
can effect the assessment of risk.
The Risk Manager needs to understand the uncertainties in the assessment to consider the weight that must be
given to the assessment in decision making.
The Risk Manager also needs to explain the uncertainties of risk assessment results to a public that often views
scientific information in black and white rather than in probabilistic terms.
For the public to understand how risk assessment information is used in decision making, they need to
understand that uncertainties themselves do not necessarily invalidate assessment results. Knowing what is
uncertain or unknown can be just as useful as known data.
Risk is described in terms of its ecological significance. For example, how significant is the loss of 5 acres of
wetland in a particular ecosystem? Are the magnitude of effects (i.e., over space and time) significant to the
species, population, or ecosystem? Can the ecosystem recover? Ecological significance is determined by
environmental statutes and policy as well as knowledge of the ecosystem.
P-12
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
-------
Framework Unit
Communicating Risk Assessment
Results: Discussions Between the
Risk Assessor and the Risk Manager
Understanding of spatial and temporal
extent of risk and recovery potential.
Understanding of strengths,
limitations, certainties, uncertainties,
and assumptions encountered during
the analysis.
Providing information necessary for
effective communication to the public.
Discussion Between the Risk Assessor and Risk Manager
The discussion between the Risk Manager and Risk Assessor about the results of the risk assessment is important
for many reasons:
» The Risk Manager is given a clear understanding of the spatial and temporal extent of the stressors, their
sources and the effects and, whenever possible, recovery potential.
» It creates a clear understanding of the strengths, limitations, certainties, uncertainties, and assumptions
encountered during the analysis.
» It provides the Risk Manager with information necessary to perform effective communication—to explain
issues relating to ecological significance and how they were used to strengthen the assessment or rationale
for the decision.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
P-13
-------
Framework Unit
Middle Snake River Watershed: An
Ecosystem Risk Assessment
An Application of the Framework at the Ecosystem Level
Ecological risk assessment can be applied toward the assessment of single stressors (e.g., pesticide registration)
or multiple stressors (e.g., superfund site, watershed or ecosystem assessment). The watershed or ecosystem
assessment focuses on protecting the ecological structure and function of an area by managing existing and
future stresses or human uses, thus, making it a useful tool for community-based ecosystem protection.
Background
A watershed ecological risk assessment was applied in the Middle Snake River in south-central Idaho.
Historically, the Snake River (a tributary of the Columbia River) was a swift flowing cold water stream that
began in the mountains of western Montana and Wyoming and eastern Idaho. As it crossed the arid grasslands
of Idaho, in many places it lay deep within a gorge, where its pools and swift flowing water were kept cool. The
river and its tributaries were exceptional habitat for migratory Pacific salmon and sturgeon as well as a number
of cold-water species that depended on its cold swift-water habitats.
In the last 80 years, however, with the advent of human development in south-central Idaho or what is known
as the Magic Valley, the area has changed:
> Over a dozen dams in the middle reaches of the river generate hydropower and divert river water for
irrigation (e.g., at American Falls, ID the entire flow of the river is often diverted for these uses). Fish
migrations are blocked and habitat destroyed by the creation of impoundments and loss of rapids area within
the stream flow.
P-14
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12. 1995
-------
Framework Unit
Application of the Framework at the Ecosystem Level (Continued)
Background (Continued)
* Hundreds of fish fanning (aquaculture) operations divert cool, nutrient-poor spring water through rearing
tanks and discharge warmed, nutrient-rich, high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) water into the river.
> Large areas of the watershed have been converted to irrigated, tilled agriculture. Water returning from
irrigation channels and runoff from the land contain sediments, nutrients, and pesticides.
> The development of cities and towns and associated industries added municipal sanitary and industrial
discharges to the river.
The result of these changes has been the loss of all migratory salmon species; the reduction of other cold-water
aquatic species, including rare and endangered benthic invertebrate species; and the rising dominance of
pollution-tolerant and exotic species within the mid-Snake River region.
Problem Formulation: Public Involvement. Regulatory Concerns, and
Management Goals
Even as pressure continued for further development on the river (e.g., the impoundment of the last segment of
river with swift water and cold, well oxygenated pools), there was a great interest by the people in the
surrounding area to 1) protect and restore a healthy cold-water fishery for at least non-migratory species because
of its recreational resource value; 2) preserve some of the traditional linkages between people and the ecology
that were important historically; 3) preserve the natural beauty of this great western river and 4) identify levels
and types of economic activity that were sustainable within those environmental goals.
To address these issues, the State of Idaho, through its state agencies, began to prepare a nutrient management
plan. The plan would be designed to address the EPA requirement for the establishment of discharge permitting
based upon a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) estimate for nutrients, sediments, and BOD to re-attain the
designated use (fishable, swimmable) of this stream segment As part of this process, the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) held hearings in south-central Idaho to identify the citizens' goals for
environmental protection. The citizen-stakeholders had great concern for the economic well-being of the area
but recognized the important role that the ecology of the area plays in the well-being, quality of life, and
economy of the valley. There was also a concern by many stakeholders about the impacts on the way business-
as-usual is done, since improvements to support the ecology of a cold water stream would very likely affect the
many prevailing uses of die stream.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual /December 12,1995 P-15
-------
SERA Framework Unit
Application of the Framework at the Ecosystem Level (Continued)
Problem Formulation: Public Involvement Regulatory Concerns, and Management Goals
(Continued)
The management goals that were identified represented a combination of concerns:
» Societal Values - including the perceived aesthetic and economic value of the ecosystem;
» Statutory mandates - re-compliance with water quality standards, protection of endangered species, and;
» Ecological Relevance - restoration and protection of important habitat for an ecosystem dominated by a cold
water fishery.
Analysis
The Idaho DEQ, with assistance from EPA Region 10, the University of Idaho, and Idaho State University
conducted an assessment of the current state of the ecosystem focusing on the conditions within the stream
relevant to the species of concern. EPA Region 10, along with the I-DEQ, then began a characterization of
conditions that would be required to support the cold water fishery as well as the endangered invertebrate
species. The analysis focused on identification of current conditions and the thresholds that would be necessary
to restore and protect the conditions necessary for those species to survive and reproduce. Environmental
measurements included water temperature and chemistry, a characterization of sediment and rates of
sedimentation under varying flow conditions, and other aspects of desirable habitat such as the amount of hard
bottom habitat lost to sedimentation and nuisance aquatic plant and algal growth, and dissolved nutrient regimes
that support those nuisance growths.
Risk Characterization
Risk characterization will focus on identification of the thresholds of flow, sedimentation, and nutrient addition
that would provide favorable conditions for the cold water fishery (trout species) and endangered cold-water
benthic invertebrates.
Risk Management and Decision Making
Ultimately, management strategies based upon the risk characterizations would also have to recognize that these
three stressors are related under most conditions in the river. An optimum management strategy would be one
that achieved the risk thresholds with the least cost of implementation and fewest negative economic (or perhaps
greatest positive) impacts.
P-16 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12,1995
-------
Framework Unit
Key Concepts
The Framework is a systematic
structure to perform ecological risk
assessments, and provides for
comparable approaches and results
across media.
Risk assessments must be relevant to
regulatory needs and public concerns
while maintaining their scientific
validity.
Communication between the Risk
Assessor and Risk Manager is critical to
the success of the risk assessment
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
P-17
-------
7. Pesticide
-------
7. PESTICIDE SPECIAL REVIEW
GROUP EXERCISE
WormFree Granules
Contents
Overview of the Group Exercise P-l
Background on Case Study P-5
Problem Formulation P-l 1
Analysis P-19
Risk Characterization P-25
Decision Making P-31
Case Study Background and Information Sheets
Problem Formulation Phase
Analysis Phase
Application Information
Number of Exposed WormFree Granules After Band Application
Representative Bird Species Likely to Be Exposed to WormFree Based on Field Observations
Summary of Reported Bird Kill Incidents Associated with Application of WormFree
to Com Fields (1972-1987)
Summary of Bird Kill Incidents Due to Secondary Poisoning From
WormFree Granules (1983-1986)
Laboratory Acute Oral Toxicity (LDJO) Values of WormFree
Field Study of Bird Kills After Application of Granular WormFree to Com
Risk Characterization Phase
The Quotient Method
Hazard Quotient Ratios for WormFree
FWS Consultation Under ESA
Ecological Significance
Decision Making Phase
Pesticide Regulation
Benefit and Alternative Methods and Chemical Analyses
Public Concerns
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual /December 12,1995 P-i
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Overview
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-ii Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise I Overview
Guiding Principles,
Objectives, & Policies
PROBLEM FORMULATION
Federal, State,
Local Agencies
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Cormnunication of Results
Regulatory Concerns
>==c:
Ftiffical Factors
Risk Management
Decisions
^ Economics J)
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
P-iii
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Overview
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-iv Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12,1995
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Overview
OVERVIEW OF THE GROUP EXERCISES
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 P-1
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise I Overview
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-2 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual/December 12,1995
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise f Overview
Overview of the Group Exercise
Summary of Group Exercise
In this exercise, you will conduct an ecological risk assessment for the granular formulation of WormFree. At
the conclusion of the exercise, you will have four options to consider with regard to the registration of granular
formulations of WormFree: (a) cancellation, (b) suspension, (c) modification of the terms and conditions of
registration, and (d) continuation without modification.
Phases of the Group Exercise
The exercise will be conducted in four separate phases, with a report-out at the conclusion of each phase. These
phases will focus on:
1. Problem Formulation
2. Analysis
3. Risk Characterization
4. Decision Making
Materials in This Package
> Work Sheets. Work Sheets will guide you through the exercise. Each Work Sheet includes questions or
problems for group discussion. Your group should proceed through the Work Sheets in the order they are
presented.
> Information Sheets. Information Sheets present information on the case study needed for the exercise. This
information includes the basic case study background as well as additional case information that will be
needed for each of the sessions.
Group Exercise Process
> The Facilitator will gather participants into groups. Each group will choose a leader, a recorder and one
person to report out the group's recommendations and conclusions.
> Your group is to assume two roles. For the first 3 phases, your group will complete a risk assessment and
communicate results to the decision maker. For the last phase, Decision Making, your group will change
roles and integrate results of the risk assessment with other information needed to reach a management
decision.
> Group members will collaborate to develop answers to questions presented on the Work Sheets. You will
present your findings to the rest of the workshop participants during the discussion sessions.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12,1995 P-3
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise I Overview
Overview of the Group Exercise (Continued)
References
Suter, G.W., II. 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan.
USEPA. 1992. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-92/001. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.
P-4 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Overview
BACKGROUND ON CASE STUDY
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 P-5
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise I Overview
Background on Case Study
Time Allotted
Approximately 30 minutes to read.
Purpose of Case Study
The purpose of the case study is to determine future use of a pesticide used on corn. The first steps will be to
establish the likelihood of adverse ecological effects. The final decision making will consider other relevant
factors.
Location
WormFree is a granular worm control compound applied to approximately 5 million acres of com, primarily
in the Great Plains Midwestern States, but also in other places throughout the United States. It is generally
applied during the spring planting season.
Com is associated with a variety of habitats. These habitats often are transitional, occupying the edges around
cultivated land, and are composed of several layers of vegetation which supply food and shelter for a variety
of animal species.
Nature of the Problem
WormFree is a broad-spectrum pesticide registered for corn. EPA noted at the time of the original registration
in the early 1970s that WormFree was highly toxic to wildlife, especially birds, based on available laboratory
data. Despite this information, EPA registered the pesticide for use on corn.
Since registration of WormFree, incidents involving dead and dying birds following the application of
WormFree granules began to be reported in the early 1970s. As this trend continued, some farmers in Indiana
reported these findings to their state agricultural agency. After a while, concerned citizens and State personnel
became aware of these incidents, and the number of reports multiplied.
The number of reported bird kills associated with the application of WormFree granules finally reached a
threshold and led EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) to conduct a risk assessment. Your team is tasked
with designing and conducting this risk assessment, then changing roles to decide whether the registration status
should be changed.
P-6 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant ManualI'December12,1995
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Overview 6EBV
Background on Case Study (Continued)
OPP received documentation of more than 40 incidents of WormFree-related bird kills involving nearly 30
species of birds. The number of birds involved in any single incident ranged from 1 to more than 2,000, with
all but two kills attributed to use of the chemical according to label instructions. Based on these incident reports,
the Agency required field studies in which the mortality of birds after WormFree application was investigated
on a systematic basis.
Stressor Characteristics
Chemical Characteristic
» WormFree is somewhat water soluble.
Application Method
» WormFree is generally applied when seeds are planted at the beginning of the spring growing season to
prevent pest damage that may occur after germination.
> Small granules, approximately the size of sugar grains, are applied with ground equipment that results in
some granules remaining exposed on the soil surface.
Effects
» WormFree is an acute toxicant that affects the nervous system. It can cause human symptoms of headaches,
salivation, abdominal pain, drowsiness, dizziness, anxiety and vomiting.
» There have been no reported cases of adverse human health effects after consumption of com treated with
WormFree.
> Experimental studies show that WormFree inhibits acetylcholinesterase, a neurotransmitter.
» Field evidence indicates that WormFree may cause bird mortality up to 60 days after first application.
Environmental Fate and Transport
* WormFree is a highly mobile pesticide, and has the potential to leach because it is somewhat water soluble.
»• Residues of WormFree have been found in earthworms and fish after the chemical has been applied to crops
nearby.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 P-7
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise I Overview
Background on Case Study (Continued)
Pertinent EPA Program Office
»• Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)
Statutory Requirements Under FIFRA
A pesticide product may be sold or distributed in the United States only if it is registered or exempt from
registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended. Before a
product can be registered unconditionally, it must be shown that it can be used without causing "any
unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs,
and benefits of the use of the pesticide." Thus the health and environmental risks are balanced against the
economic benefits gained from using the pesticide.
EPA can review the status of a registered pesticide if there is evidence that use of the pesticide may raise an
"unreasonable risk" as defined above. The options open to EPA include:
»• Suspend registration. If EPA determines that any continued use poses an imminent hazard to health or
the environment, it can suspend the registration and call in all existing stocks for disposal.
» Cancel registration. Cancellation means that EPA will no longer allow the pesticide to be used for the
specified purpose. However, existing stocks of the pesticide can be used up. The trigger for cancellation
is when use of the pesticide according to its labeling "generally causes unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment."
*• Modify the terms and conditions of registration. Modification of the terms and conditions entails
changing the amount applied, the timing, or method of application allowed, or restricting use to specially
trained personnel known as "certified applicators." Such changes would be used to reduce the risks
associated with the pesticide while retaining the benefits of its use.
* Continue registration without modification.
Endangered Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), a branch of the Department of Interior, is the Federal agency
responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1 973. EPA must consult, either formally
or informally, with the FWS if EPA determines that its action may effect a threatened or endangered (listed)
species or its designated critical habitat. These EPA actions could include registration of a pesticide and any
other decision authorized, funded or implemented by EPA. Also, EPA must confer with the FWS if its action
could affect a species or critical habitat that may be proposed for listing. If EPA determines that there will be
no effect, consultation is not necessary.
P-8 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Overview
Background on Case Study (Continued)
Public Involvement
EPA typically publishes a summary of its assessment of the risks and benefits of a pesticide in the Federal
Register and allows a 90 day public comment period. Press advisories, Fact sheets, and Questions and Answers
are also developed and sent to all those on the extensive mailing list. A communications strategy is developed
to ensure that other offices within EPA and groups with interest in the specific compound or issue are contacted,
and frequently constituent briefings and news conferences are held. EPA regions and State pesticide authorities
are always advised of proposed pesticide decisions, usually through monthly conference calls. A final notice
responding to public comments and detailing the Agency's final decision is also published in the Federal
Register.
Decision Options
At the conclusion of this exercise, your team will decide among the following options:
+ Continue registration without modification;
»• Modify the terms and conditions of registration;
*• Suspend registration; or
> Cancel registration of the granular formulation of WormFree.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 P-9
-------
6ERA Pesticide Group Exercise/Overview
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-10 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Problem Formulation
PROBLEM FORMULATION
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 P-11
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Problem Formulation
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-12 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12.1995
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Problem Formulation oH¥V
Problem Formulation
Contents
Summary of Problem Formulation Exercise 15
Problem Formulation Phase 16
Work Sheets (WS)
WS #1: Scoping and Selecting Exposure Pathways and Ecological Components by
Developing a Conceptual Model
WS #2: Identifying and Selecting Assessment Endpoints
WS #3: Identifying and Selecting Measurement Endpoints
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 P-13
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise /Problem Formulation
[This page intentionally left blank]
P-14 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Problem Formulation
Problem Formulation Exercise
Time Allotted
Approximately 2 hours.
Key Concepts
> Problem formulation establishes the objectives and scope of the ecological risk assessment.
*• The Risk Assessor should work with the Risk Manager to identify the objectives and scope of the risk
assessment and the assessment endpoints. The Risk Assessor should be aware of the kinds of information
needed by the Risk Manager to make a decision.
» An assessment endpoint is a formal expression of the environmental value to be protected and should be
ecologically relevant, reflect policy goals and societal values, and be susceptible to the stressor.
* A measurement endpoint is a measurable response to a stressor that is related to the assessment endpoint.
»• The public should be involved in selecting assessment endpoints and contributing information.
> The selection of assessment endpoints must be focused to meet the needs of the investigation while
reflecting the availability of resources (personnel, financial, time).
Activities
> Identify and select ecological concerns.
> Develop a simple conceptual model.
» Identify and select assessment and measurement endpoints.
Task Overview
> Complete the Work Sheets in numerical order. Refer to the Information Sheets as needed.
» Choose a leader and spokesperson to make notes on the flip chart and present a summary of the group
discussion. This can be two people or one person can fill both roles.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 P-15
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise/Problem Formulation
Problem Formulation Phase
The Problem Formulation Phase is where the planning for an ecological risk assessment takes place. The goals,
breadth, and focus for the assessment are established in this phase, taking into account regulatory, policy, and
public concerns. The Risk Manager and Risk Assessor work together to identify the ecological concerns or
effects that are expected or have resulted from a particular activity or pollutant regulated by EPA (e.g.,
Superfund clean-up, RCRA corrective action, pesticide use, new chemical registration, filling wetlands, or
discharging pollutants into waterways).
Public input at this stage is important because, the public often has concerns and knowledge that will improve
the assessment Also, public input is often required by law. In addition to determining what to assess, decisions
are made as to how to assess (i.e., literature search for information, measurements in the laboratory or field, etc.).
Factors such as time, cost, and cooperation from other parties are considered when determining how to assess
the problem.
Following are some concepts, terminology and tools useful in planning an ecological risk assessment.
Stressors Stressors are the pollutants or activities that cause the ecological concern or
effect.
Generally, the Framework classifies Stressors as being chemical, physical, or
biological. Examples include:
* Chemical—toxics, nutrients (nitrates in water);
> Physical—dredging or filling in waterways or wetlands, diverting water flow
in a river by constructing a diversion or dam; and
» Biological—introducing exotic organisms.
Exposure Routes It is important to trace exposure routes or pathways of a stressor to deter-
or Pathways mine all the possible components of the ecosystem that may be affected.
Considerations include:
> Mobility of a stressor;
> Uptake of a chemical by plants and animals;
p-16 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12. 1995
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise /Problem Formulation
Problem Formulation Phase (Continued)
Exposure Routes
or Pathways
(Continued)
Ecological Effects
Conceptual Models
Assessment
Endpoints
> Transformation (chemicals may degrade in the environmental from exposure
to light or react with water or other chemicals to form substances that are
non-toxic, less toxic, or more toxic than the original chemical); and
» Competition (biological stressors).
For physical stressors, the exposure may be immediately obvious (i.e., removing
or destroying ecosystems by building a structure, dredging, or removing water
for agriculture or drinking water supplies). The effects of physical stressors may
be far-ranging, e.g., removal or diversion of water alters habitats downstream
(bays become saltier, adversely affecting bay fish nurseries which require a
mixture of fresh and salt water).
Ecological effects are the harmful responses of the ecosystem and its
components to exposure to stressors. Some examples include death,
reproductive failure, decline in growth rate, habitat loss, etc.
Conceptual models are helpful in fully characterizing the ecological effects
associated with stressors. These models may take the form of sketches of the
ecosystem at risk (cross-section or plan view) with arrows illustrating routes of
exposure, or they may be abstract in form with ecosystem components and
stressors in boxes with arrows showing relationships between them.
The Framework uses the term assessment endpoint to identify the ecological
concern(s) that will be the focus of the assessment. Criteria used to select
assessment endpoints include:
» Sensitivity to stressors of concern;
» Ecological relevance; and
» Relevance to policy goals and societal values.
The assessment endpoint needs to be both affected by and sensitive to the
stressor(s). Ecological relevance means that the assessment endpoint is
important to the function of the ecosystem. For example, lake trout play an
important role in maintaining the balance of aquatic ecosystems. However, the
introduction of carp has disrupted the balance of aquatic ecosystems.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
P-17
-------
SEBV
Pesticide Group Exercise /Problem Formulation
Problem Formulation Phase (Continued)
Assessment
Endpoints
(Continued)
Measurement
Endpoint
Assessment endpoints also should reflect policy goals (e.g., protect endangered
species and no net loss of wetlands). Societal values helped form the basis
for these policies when environmental laws were enacted. However, policy or
management goals (e.g., protect endangered species, maintain recreational
fisheries) are not assessment endpoints.
Assessment endpoints must be measureable. Examples of assessment endpoints
include: sustainably reproducing populations of trout species; maintenance of
populations of aquatic vegetation that are supportive offish and invertebrates;
maintenance of reproductive ly successful songbird populations, etc. The more
specific the assessment endpoint the better (e.g., loss of no endangered bats).
Measurement endpoint is another term used in the Framework referring to how
we determine exposure and effects to an assessment endpoint. Examples of
what to measure include concentration of a chemical in water and animal tissue,
number of offspring, deformities, mortality, acres of wetlands removed,
modeled impacts to a specific population, etc.
P-18
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual I December 12, 1995
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Problem Formulation
PROBLEM FORMULATION WORK SHEET #1
Scoping and Selecting Exposure Pathways and Ecological Components
By Developing a Conceptual Model
1. Based on your knowledge of the stressor (WormFree), its use, and the nature of the problem, prepare a list
of ecological components (individuals, populations, communities, etc.) that might be affected by the
application of WormFree granules by sketching the relationships among the stressor, exposure route, and
ecological components in the diagram below. Bear in mind the concepts covered during the Ecology Unit
and the background material on stressor characteristics as you discuss and list the possibilities.
Here are some ideas to help focus your thinking:
> The most direct way that an animal might be exposed to WormFree granules would be through ingesting
them. What kinds of animals might do that and why?
* What environmental media (air, soil, surface water, ground water, sediment) are likely to contain
concentrations of WormFree and why? What kinds of organisms might come into contact with
contaminated media?
»• What happens to organisms that have been killed or made ill by WormFree? What animals eat them?
> What impact would exposures have on endangered species or their habitat?
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
WS-1
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise/Problem Formulation
PROBLEM FORMULATION WORK SHEET #2
Identifying and Selecting Assessment Endpoints
1. With the list of ecological components on Problem Formulation Work Sheet # 1, and develop 3-4 assessment
endpoints.
Ecological Components
Assessment Endpoints
PUBLIC INPUT
EPA spoke to State environmental and
conservation officials to begin to identify
available sources of information. One State
had files with information from local citizens
reporting bird kills and local knowledge of
that habitat State personnel confirmed the
presence of endangered species, including
the Bald Eagle and the Indiana Bat Other
information provided by the citizens has not
been investigated.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
WS-2
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise I Problem Formulation
PROBLEM FORMULATION WORK SHEET #3
Identifying and Selecting Measurement Endpoints
1 . Prepare a list of measurement endpoints for the 3-4 assessment endpoints.
Assessment Endpoints Measurement Endpoints
2. What types of activities would be required to obtain data about the selected measurement endpoints? What
are the real world constraints on an ecological risk assessment, and how could these constraints affect your
ability to carry out these activities?
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual /December 12, 1995 WS-3
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise /Analysis
ANALYSIS
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12,1995 P-19
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise/Analysis
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-20 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise /Analysis
Analysis
Contents
Summary of Analysis Exercise [[[ 23
Analysis Phase [[[ 24
Work Sheets (WS)
WS#1: Analysis of Exposure
WS #2: Analysis of Ecological Effects
Information Sheets (IS)
IS # 1 : Application Information
IS #2: Number of Exposed WormFree Granules After Band Application
IS #3: Representative Bird Species Likely to Be Exposed to WormFree
Based on Field Observations
IS #4: Summary of Reported Bird Kill Incidents Associated with Application of
WormFree to Corn Fields (1972-1987)
IS #5: Summary of Bird Kill Incidents Due to Secondary Poisoning From
WormFree Granules on Corn (1983-1986)
IS #6: Laboratory Acute Oral Toxicity (LDJO) Values of WormFree
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise/Analysis
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-22 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise /Analysis
Summary of Analysis Exercise
Time Allotted
Approximately 1 hour, 30 minutes.
Key Concepts
> The major components of the Analysis Phase are characterization of exposure and characterization of
ecological effects.
» Exposure analysis requires knowledge of: (1) stressor characteristics (physical, chemical, and biological)
in environmental media, (2) the probability that ecological components come into direct or indirect contact
with the stressor, and (3) the timing of exposure to a stressor in relation to biological cycles.
» Both direct and indirect ecological effects should be addressed.
» Measurement endpoints must be related to assessment endpoints, and this often involves extrapolation from
measured individual effects to estimated population and community level effects.
»• Risk assessment requires varying degrees of professional judgment in dealing with uncertainties.
Activities
> Analyze exposure routes and pathways, consider stressor characteristics, and identify ecological components
of concern.
» Analyze direct and indirect ecological effects.
> Identify uncertainties associated with the analysis phase.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12.1995 P-23
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise /Analysis
Analysis Phase
The Analysis Phase is where both the exposure and effects of stressor(s) on the assessment endpoints are
determined. This phase involves collecting and analyzing data in the literature, actual measurements in the
laboratory or field, and modeling. As with any analytical work, there are uncertainties in the data and
interpretation of the data. These uncertainties should be documented, carried through the assessment, and
presented as part of the results to the Risk Manager. Professional judgement is often a component of ecological
assessments, and should be clearly identified when the results are presented to the Risk Manager. Similarly, any
extrapolations (e.g., from individual to population to community, from laboratory to the field, or from one place
to another) should be identified as part of the uncertainties.
Exposure Analysis
It is important to know how stressors behave in the environment, i.e., how solar radiation, water, sediments, soil,
and air and the living components affect the movement and form stressors take in the environment. For
example, non-affected organisms may metabolize toxic chemicals to non-toxic compounds. Both direct and
indirect exposure should be analyzed. An organism may become exposed to a toxic chemical by eating a
contaminated organism rather than by direct exposure (consider predator species). Temporal and spatial
distribution of a stressor is important The stressor might affect a certain life stage or the entire life cycle of an
organism. The extent of exposure to a stressor could be localized or affect an entire region or large ecosystem.
Effects Analysis
Both direct and indirect effects should be analyzed. Often, indirect effects are difficult to ascertain. Examples
of indirect effects are when organisms affected by a stressor are prone to disease, easier targets of prey species,
and less competitive.
P-24 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Analysis
ANALYSIS WORK SHEET #1
Analysis of Exposure
Read Analysis Information Sheets #1 - #3 before answering the following:
1 . Which media should be considered during exposure analysis? Why? How does the information you have
now supplement, reinforce, or change the view you developed with your conceptual model?
2. What is the exposure route (i.e., the way the chemical enters the organism)?
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual /December 12, 1995 WS-4
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise /Analysis
ANALYSIS WORK SHEET #1 (Continued)
Analysis of Exposure
3. How could timing of the pesticide application relate to exposure?
4. Are there uncertainties associated with your answers to the questions above, given the data available? What
are they?
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12,1995 WS-5
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Analysis -SERA
ANALYSIS WORK SHEET #2
Analysis of Ecological Effects
Information you will need for this work sheet is contained in:
Information Sheet #4 Summary of Reported Bird Kill Incidents Associated with
Application of WormFree to Com (1972-1987)
Information Sheet #5 Summary of Bird Kill Incidents Due to Secondary Poisoning from
WormFree Granules (1983-1986)
Information Sheet #6 Acute Oral Toxicity (LD^) Values of WormFree
Information Sheet #7 Field Study of Bird Kills After Application of Granular WormFree to
Com
1. What do we learn about the effects of WormFree from each of the different kinds of information provided
(incident reports, lab studies, and field studies)?
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 WS-6
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise /Analysis
S-ffA
ANALYSIS WORK SHEET #2 (Continued)
Analysis of Ecological Effects
LD.JO = Median lethal dose. A concentration or dose at
which 50 per cent of test organisms die within a given
period of time.
2. What are the advantages, limitations, and uncertainties of each kind of information?
3. What other information would you like to have to understand the effects of WormFree?
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual t'December 12, 1995
WS-7
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise/Analysis
ANALYSIS INFORMATION SHEET #1
APPLICATION INFORMATION
GRANULE
Small piece of clay, sand, or other carrier impregnated with a
chemical. Granules fell within a specified size range, and vary
in color and shape. A granule is slightly more coarse than
granulated sugar.
Application Method
WormFree granules are applied as a 7-inch band to the soil surface and then incorporated into the top inch by
an incorporation device or by dragging a chain.
Timing of Application
Usually at the beginning of the growing season, in April and May.
Efficiency of Application
Granules may be left on the soil surface after application. Granules also may be left on the soil surface when
machinery is being loaded, when planter shoes are lifted out of furrows to permit turning, and when planter
shoes rise out of the soils of irregularly contoured fields.
Several investigators confirmed that band application of WormFree or other granular pesticides using
conventional application equipment results in exposed granules on the soil surface. One study reported that 5.8
to 40.2 percent of granules remain unincorporated after band application.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
IS-l
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise /Analysis
ANALYSIS INFORMATION SHEET #2
Number of Exposed Worm Free Granules After Band Application
Application Rate
(Ib Al/acre) Granules Exposed/ft2 mgAI/ft2
1 11 5.5
AI = Active Ingredient
Assumes 0.5 mg AI per granule
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 IS-2
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Analysis
ANALYSIS INFORMATION SHEET #3
Representative Bird Species Likely to Be Exposed to Worm Free
Based on Field Observations1
Wading Birds
Great Blue Heron
Snowy Egret
Little Blue Heron
Cattle Egret
Waterfowl
Ducks
Brant
Canada Goose
Teals
Northern Pintail
Northern Shoveler
Gadwall
American Wigeon
Canvasback
Raptors
Vultures
Mississippi Kite
Bald Eagle
Northern Harrier
Hawks
Golden Eagle
American Kestrel
Falcons
Rails and Allies
Black Rail
Sora
Purple Gallinule
American Coot
Cranes
Shore Birds
Semipalmated Plover
Killdeer
Sandpipers
Laughing Gull
Game Birds
Ring-Necked Pheasant
Greater Prairie-Chicken
Northern Bobwhite
Quail
Wild Turkey
Doves
Common Snipe
American Woodcock
Owls
Woodpeckers
Songbirds
Eastern Kingbird
Homed Lark
Blue Jay
American Crow
Raven
Tufted Titmouse
White-Breasted Nuthatch
Eastern Bluebird
American Robin
Brown Thrasher
Northern Mockingbird
Shrike
European Starling
Northern Cardinal
Pyrrhuloxia
Grosbeak
Bunting
Rufous-Sided Towhee
Sparrows
Lapland Longspur
Bobolink
Blackbirds
Meadowlark
Crackle
Brown-Headed Cowbird
American Goldfinch
1 Information derived from a review of reports from state wildlife agencies on some of the birds associated
with com crops.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
IS-3
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise/Analysis
ANALYSIS INFORMATION SHEET #4
Summary of Reported Bird Kill Incidents Associated with Application of
WormFree to Com Fields (1972-1987)1
Occurrence
1972
1973
1974
November-December 1974
May 1979
May and June 1983
August 1983
February 1984
May 1984
June 1986
June 1986
1987
Location
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Indiana
Canada
Iowa
Iowa
Indiana
Illinois
Canada
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Species
Songbird
Songbird
American Robin
Eastern Bluebird
Widgeon
Pintail
Robin
Waterfowl
Blue Jay
Crackle
Killdeer
Waterfowl
Canada Goose
Lapland Longspur
Songbird
Passerines
Robin
Number
of Birds
11
3
22
1
80
54
10
25
10
2
6
200
Not Known
>2000
12
20
3
Reports from state agencies, provincial government (Canada), Audubon Societies, and the public.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
IS-4
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise /Analysis
ANALYSIS INFORMATION SHEET #5
Summary of Bird Kill Incidents Due to Secondary Poisoning From
WormFree Granules on Corn (1983-1986)
Location
Iowa
Iowa and
Illinois
Indiana
Date
1983
1984
1986
Species
Raven
Red-Shouldered Hawk
Bald Eagle
Description
• Two contained residues in the crop up to 8.1 ppm and 38 granules in
the stomach
• Another exhibited signs of poisoning but did not die
• Female found intoxicated after feeding on small mammals and birds;
bird was sacrificed; gut contained 47 ug and gastrointestinal tissue
49.6 ug WormFree
• One adult male dead at base of active nest with 59% brain
acetylcholinesterase inhibition1; gastrointestinal tract contained 0.64
ppm WormFree
• One dead eaglet in nest along with pigeon and grackle remains
Note that the species in this table are predators or carrion eaters, not insect or seed eaters.
1 Acetylcholinesterase inhibition = Decrease in levels of an enzyme that activates acetylcholine, a compound
which acts in transmission of nerve impulses to various organ systems. Acetylcholine accumulation increases
nerve impulse transmission and leads to nerve exhaustion and ultimately failure of the nervous system.
Uncertainties:
No systematic or reliable mechanism exists for accurate monitoring and reporting of wildlife kills. OPP relies
heavily on incident monitoring by states, and state efforts tend to be highly variable. Only a few states have
trained and equipped personnel to respond to kill reports and to conduct the thorough investigation necessary
to determine the pesticide and application rate used and whether label directions were followed. In addition,
few states regularly report bird kills to EPA.
Even if dead birds are found, the observers may not attribute the deaths to a pesticide application. Field
evidence indicates that WormFree may cause bird mortality up to 60 days after the first application. Thus, a
farmer or other observer not familiar with the site history may not attribute the death to WormFree application.
If a person does suspect that a bird may have been poisoned, the individual may not know to whom to report
or may believe they may have some liability associated with reporting. Finally, problems associated with the
reporting of bird kills are greater for small, less conspicuous songbirds. Many small birds do not form large
flocks, and small carcasses disappear more quickly than large ones. As a result, small dead birds are less likely
to be noticed than large dead birds, such as waterfowl.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
IS-5
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise /Analysis SERA
ANALYSIS INFORMATION SHEET #6
Laboratory Acute Oral Toxicity (LDSO) Values of WormFree
Species
Mallard (waterfowl)
Northern Bobwhite (game bird)
American Goldfinch (song bird)
LDM
(mg Al/kg of
body weight)
2.1
5.04
6.02
so = Median lethal dose. A dose at which SO per cent of test organisms die within a given period of time.
AI = Active Ingredient
These levels are considered "very highly toxic" because the LDSO values are less than 10.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 IS-6
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Analysis
ANALYSIS INFORMATION SHEET #7
Field Study of Bird Kills After Application of Granular WormFree to Corn
Application Rate
(Ibs. AI/Acre)
4
1
1
1
-
1
0.5
Acres Searched
254
92
34
171
307
214
NR"
Number of Dead Birds*
87
10
23
92
32
58
5
Dead Birds/Acre
0.3
0.1
0.7
0.5
0.1
0.3
-
AI = Active Ingredient
* Deaths include, but are not limited to, homed larks, mourning doves, many different species of waterfowl,
short-eared owl, savannah and other species of sparrows, ring-necked pheasants, Northern harrier, red-
shouldered hawks, American robins.
NRd = Not Reported; therefore, deaths/acre could not be calculated.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
IS-7
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Risk Characterization
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual /December 12,1995 P-25
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise/Risk Characterization
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-26 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
-------
Pesticide Grou Exercise / Risk Characterization
Risk Characterization
Contents
Summary of Risk Characterization Exercise ................................................. 29
Risk Characterization Phase [[[ 30
Work Sheets (WS)
WS#1: Risk Characterization
Information Sheets (IS)
IS#1: The Quotient Method
IS #2: Hazard Quotient Ratios for WormFree
IS #3: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Consultation Under ESA
IS #4: Ecological Significance
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Risk Characterization
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-28 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Risk Characterization SERA
Risk Characterization Phase
Time Allotted
Approximately 1 hour, 30 minutes.
Key Concepts
*• Risk characterization is composed of two parts: risk estimation and risk description.
* Risk estimation involves the integration of the analysis of exposure and effects along with associated
uncertainties. Professional judgment may be required in dealing with uncertainties.
*• Risk description is a summary of risk estimation and the interpretation of the ecological significance of the
estimated risks. Ecological significance considers the nature and magnitude of the effects, spatial and
temporal patterns and effects, and potential for recovery.
Activities
> Estimate risk, evaluating effects and exposure data from the Analysis.
> Analyze and summarize risk, describing uncertainties and the ecological significance of the risk.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 P-29
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise I Risk Characterization
Risk Characterization Phase
The Risk Characterization Phase is where risk is estimated and described. In risk estimation, the exposure and
effects analyses are integrated and an evaluation of risk is made (i.e., the likelihood that exposure to a stressor
has resulted or will result in adverse effects). After risk estimation, the assessor determines the ecological
significance of the risk. This includes the nature and magnitude of effects, spatial and temporal extent of effects,
and potential for recovery. Finally, the risk is described with all assumptions and uncertainties clearly stated.
EPA has issued guidance on Risk Characterization that applies to ecological risk assessment as well as human
health risk assessment. This guidance (Appendix E) calls on EPA to "disclose the scientific analyses,
uncertainties, assumptions, and science policies which underlie our decisions as they are made throughout the
risk assessment and risk management process." Risk Assessors play a fundamental role in this process.
P-30 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual I December 12,1995
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Risk Characterization
RISK CHARACTERIZATION WORK SHEET #1
Information you will need for this work sheet is contained in:
Analysis IS#2 Number of Exposed WormFree Granules After Band Application
Analysis IS#3 Representative Bird Species Likely to be Exposed to WormFree Based on Field
Observations
Analysis IS#4 Summary of Bird Kill Incidents Due to Poisoning by Direct Consumption of
WormFree Granules on Com (1972-1987)
Analysis IS#5 Summary of Bird Kill Incidents Due to Secondary Poisoning From WormFree
Granules on Com (1983-1986)
Analysis IS#6 Laboratory Acute Oral Toxicity (LDg,) Values of WormFree
Analysis IS#7 Field Study of Bird Kills After Application of Granular WormFree to Com
Risk Characterization IS#1 The Quotient Method
Risk Characterization IS#2 LD^/Ft2 for Com
Risk Characterization IS#3 FWS Consultation Under ESA
Risk Characterization IS#4 Ecological Significance
1. Assume the major pathway for exposure is ingestion of WormFree granules. Read Risk Characterization
Information Sheet #1 on the Quotient Method, and evaluate the Hazard Quotient Ratios calculated for the
birds specified in Risk Characterization Sheet #2.
2. Is your conclusion consistent with the other information you considered in your exposure and effects
analysis?
3. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the different data showing that WormFree causes bird deaths?
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
WS-8
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Risk Characterization
RISK CHARACTERIZATION WORK SHEET #1 (Continued)
Risk Characterization
4. What ecological effects, other than bird deaths, would you expect from application of WormFree (other
effects in birds, effects in other organisms)? What data do you have that supports those expectations?
5. Are the estimated risks ecologically significant? Consider your answers to the previous questions and Risk
Characterization Information Sheets #3 and #4.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12,1995 WS-9
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Risk Characterization
RISK CHARACTERIZATION WORK SHEET #1 (Continued)
Risk Characterization
6. Assume you are presenting this information to a Risk Manager. Write a brief paragraph on your findings.
How do you document your conclusions, including your uncertainties?
7. Does your paragraph meet the values of transparency, clarity, consistency and reasonableness as outlined
in Carol Browner's risk characterization memo (See Appendix E)?
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 WS-10
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Risk Characterization -&ERA
RISK CHARACTERIZATION INFORMATION SHEET #1
The Quotient Method
A quotient method is used to calculate a numerical estimate of the likelihood that an ecotoxicological effect of
concern might occur.
In general, the quotient method involves three steps:
1. Determine the toxicological level of concern (TLC) for the most sensitive species under investigation. This
becomes the denominator in the calculation (e.g., LD50, NOEC, LOEC).
2. Determine the Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) for the chemical. This becomes the numerator
in the quotient calculation.
3. Calculate the Hazard Quotient ratio = Estimated Environmental Concentration fEEO
Toxicological Level of Concern
Quotients equal to or greater than one represent a strong likelihood that an ecotoxicological effect of concern
will occur.
Quotients considerably less than one represent a strong likelihood that an ecotoxicological effect of concern will
not occur.
Quotients approaching one represent an uncertain risk. Usually additional data are needed to further characterize
the risk.
The quotient method is simple and straightforward, is easy to comprehend and implement, and has relatively
simple data needs. On the other hand, the quotient method has several limitations:
> It does not adequately account for effects of incremental dosages, indirect effects (e.g., food chain
interactions), or other ecosystem effects (e.g., predator-prey relationships, community metabolism).
»• It cannot compensate for differences between laboratory tests and field populations.
» It cannot quantify uncertainties or provide a known level of reliability.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 IS-8
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise/Risk Characterization
RISK CHARACTERIZATION INFORMATION SHEET #2
Hazard Quotient Ratios For WormFree
Animal
American Goldfinch (Song bird)
Northern Bobwhite (Game bird)
Mallard (Waterfowl}
Application Rate
(IbAI/Acre)
1
1
1
Hazard Quotient
Ratio*
0.9
1.1
2.6
Some of the factors involved in the Hazard Quotient Ratio are: the LDSO, body weight of bird, and ratio
of Active Ingredient (AI) per granule.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
IS-9
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Risk Characterization &ERA
RISK CHARACTERIZATION INFORMATION SHEET #3
FWS Consultation Under ESA
Because an endangered species, the Bald Eagle, was found dead, EPA requested a consultation from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on the registration of WormFree. Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) EPA may request such assistance.
The FWS reviewed information from EPA, the pesticide manufacturers and formulators, and wildlife groups,
as well as its own files. The FWS issued an opinion that the Bald Eagle is an "adversely affected species". This
means that the species is likely to be impacted by use of the pesticide but their continued existence is not
jeopardized beyond recovery.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 IS-lO
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Risk Characterization
RISK CHARACTERIZATION INFORMATION SHEET #4
Ecological Significance
Ecological significance pertains to the nature and magnitude of effects, spatial and temporal patterns of effects,
and recovery potential.
The nature of effects relates to the relative significance of effects especially when the effects of stressors on
several ecosystems within an area are assessed. It is important to characterize the types of effects associated
with each ecosystem and where the greatest impact is likely to occur.
Magnitude of effects will depend on the ecological context. For example, a reduction in reproductive capability
of a population would have greater effects on a whale population than on plankton (microscopic organisms
living in the ocean) because whales take much longer to mature and produce fewer young over longer periods
of time. Effects are of a significant magnitude if they cause interruption, alteration, or disturbance of major
ecosystem processes such as primary production, consumption, or decomposition. Furthermore, effects may
be significant if higher levels of biological organization are affected: 1) A physiological change becomes
biologically significant if it affects a characteristic of the whole organism, such as survival or the ability to
reproduce; 2) A change in the ability to reproduce among individuals becomes ecologically significant if it
affects the size, productivity, or other characteristic of the population; and 3) A change in the size of a
population becomes ecologically significant when it affects some characgteristic of the community or
ecosystem.
Spatial and temporal patterns of effects consider whether effects occur on large scales, (e.g., acid rain), or will
be localized, and whether effects are short-term or long-term. Some effects take decades to manifest themselves,
(e.g., ozone depletion effects on marine ecosystems).
Recovery relates to how easy it is to adapt to changes. For example, rainforests which are complex, highly
evolved ecosystems may take longer to adapt to perturbations than a pine forest, which can recover relatively
quickly from disturbances by rapidly re-seeding.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 IS-ll
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Decision Making
DECISION MAKING
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 P-31
-------
Pesticide Croup Exercise / Decision Making
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-32 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual/December 12,1995
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Decision Making
Decision Making
Contents
Summary of Decision Making Exercise [[[ 35
Decision Making Phase [[[ 36
Work Sheets (WS)
WS #1 : Decision Considerations
WS#2: Decision
Information Sheets (IS)
IS #1 : Pesticide Regulation
IS #2: Benefit and Alternative Methods and Chemical Analyses
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Decision Making
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-34 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12,1995
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise /Decision Making
Summary of Decision Making Phase
Time Allotted
Approximately 1 hour, 30 minutes.
Key Concepts
» Making an informed management decision requires an understanding of the results of risk characterization,
economic and socio-political considerations, and alternatives.
> Decisions involve factoring in uncertainty, trade-offs, and risks of alternatives.
» Enforceabiliry and evaluation of decisions are issues that need to be addressed in decision making.
» Ecological risk decisions need to be documented to help make future decisions.
Activity
> Consider management options, followed by selection of a well documented final management decision.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12. 1995 P-35
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Decision Making
Decision Making Phase
A number of factors are considered in decision making, including:
* The results of the risk assessment or risk characterization;
» Economic analyses;
*• Socio-political concerns;
*• Legal considerations (e.g., enforceability); and
»• Options.
Usually, some of these factors play a larger role than others. Whichever decision is made there should be some
documentation so that precedents can be established. Also, consideration should be given to monitoring the
effectiveness of the decision so that better decisions can be made in the future.
P-36 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12,1995
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Decision Making
DECISION MAKING WORK SHEET #1
Decision Considerations
Read Information Sheets #2 and #3, then discuss the four decision options associated with this scenario by
completing the table below. Also, discuss the alternatives (substituting pesticides, crop rotation, scouting,
education and any others). Table may be completed by using "+" and "-";"+" = supports options,"-" does not
support option.
WORMFREE ANALYSIS
DECISION FACTORS
ECOLOGICAL IMPACT
- SPECIES AFFECTED
- POPULATION
IMPACTS
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
- CROP VALUE
- COSTS OF USE OR
PRODUCTION
SOCIOPOLITICAL IMPACTS
- PUBLIC COMMENT
- CONGRESSIONAL
COMMENT
- MEDIA
DECISION OPTIONS
CANCEL
REGISTRATION
RELY ON NOWORM
SUBSTITUTE
SUSPEND
REGISTRATION
RELY ON NOWORM
SUBSTITUTE
MODIFY
TERMS &
CONDITIONS
CONTINUE
WITHOUT
MODIFICATIONS
NON-REGULATORS
OPTIONS
A
B
C
D
A = Crop Rotation
B = Scouting
C = Education
D = Other
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
WS-11
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Decision Making
DECISION MAKING WORK SHEET #2
DECISION
You have analyzed exposure and ecological effects and have derived an estimate of the ecological risk associated with the
application of WormFree granules. Now, wearing your Risk Manager's hat, it is time to make a decision with regard to the
registration of this pesticide and present it to the Assistant Administrator. Do you cancel registration, suspend registration,
modify the terms and conditions of the registration, or continue registration without modification? Why?
Decision Made:
Justification:
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 WS-12
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Decision Making
DECISION MAKING INFORMATION SHEET #1
Pesticide Regulation
There are four primary methods used by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs to manage pesticides:
> Registration
» Suspension
» Cancellation
»• Modification
Registration — designated specific use on a specific site; primary enforcement is the pesticide label.
If at any time EPA determines that the risk/benefit ratio is unacceptable, EPA may suspend, cancel, or modify
the terms and conditions of registration.
Suspension — the use of all products containing the active ingredient are no longer allowed because it presents
an imminent hazard to health or the environment. All remaining stocks are called in for disposal.
Cancellation — it can no longer be used for the specified purpose; existing stocks can be used.
Modification — changes are made to the specific use of the product; may include restricting use to certified
applicators. These changes appear on product labels.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 IS-12
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Decision Making
DECISION MAKING INFORMATION SHEET #2
Benefit and Alternative Methods and Chemical Analyses
Under FIFRA, EPA must weigh the risks of continued use of a pesticide against the benefits of that use. For
agricultural uses, this usually involves estimating the economic costs associated with canceling the use — costs
from any increased crop losses due to pest damage or from switching to more expensive alternatives. This
Information Sheet contains a summary of some of the benefits of granular WormFree on com.
Benefit Analysis for Granular WormFree Use on Field Corn
1. Major Pests Controlled
Corn rootworms: Larvae feed on roots, which decreases yield.
2. Extent of Usage
Usage of granular WormFree represents an estimated 60 to 70 percent of the field corn insecticide market.
An alternative to WormFree, Noworm accounts for about 30 to 40 percent of the insecticide use on field
corn.
3. Economic Impact of Cancellation
EPA estimates that cancellation of granular WormFree on corn would have a short-run economic impact
on farmers. It is estimated that the corn market would see a cost increase between $4.3 and $5.2 million
per year, if the price of noworm is not affected. This is less than O.OS percent of the average annual total
value of field com production ($15 billion). These estimated cost increases amount to $1 .09-1 .34 per acre
of com currently being treated with WormFree. This represents less than 1 percent of total per-acre cash
expenses ($146-170/acre) of com production.
If the price of No Worm increases 1 to 5 percent in response to cancellation of granular WormFree, cost
impacts would be $7.3-23.2 million per year. No data are available to predict the likelihood of such price
increases. No significant effects on com yield or com prices are expected.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 IS-13
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise I Decision Making -SHVX
DECISION MAKING INFORMATION SHEET #2 (Continued)
Benefit and Alternative Methods and Chemical Analyses
4. Alternative Methods
State and Federal extension service personnel recommend crop rotation and scouting as part of an integrated
pest management strategy. These methods are not factored into quantitative estimates because of
insufficient usage data.
Crop rotation
Crop rotation is the successive planting of different crops in the same field. Com is often followed the next
year by soybeans, alfalfa or small grains.
Benefits
»• Less use of WormFree;
»• Delays development of resistance to pests;
»• More efficient control of weeds, insects, and diseases resulting in increased yields;
» Less soil erosion and more nitrogen fixation (therefore less use of fertilizers); and
» Fewer human health and ecological effects.
Scouting
Scouting is the inspection of a field for pests. It is used to determine whether pest populations have reached
levels that warrant control and to help determine the appropriate method of control.
Benefits
Cost
Efficient use of WormFree; and
Potentially fewer human health and ecological effects.
Labor costs higher because monitoring; however, may be offset by potentially less use of
WormFree.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 1S-14
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Decision Making
DECISION MAKING INFORMATION SHEET #2 (Continued):
COMPARISON TO ALTERNATIVE CHEMICAL
Pesticide
Description
Ecological Effects
Cost
NoWorm
granular
as effective as
WormFree
highly mobile
may leach
persistent in the
environment
- slightly less toxic to avian species than WormFree
- very toxic to freshwater invertebrates
- 6 incident reports on a number of aquatic species;
90,000 in one incident; incidents were after
application and rainfall
- studies showed effects on mallard eggs laid and
set, viable embryos, and number of hatchlings;
morphological changes in reproductive organs
were observed
- at lower doses mallard weight gain began to
decrease
- bobwhite quail studies at similar exposure levels
produced no reproductive effects
- no field studies on terrestrial organism toxicity
(Note: doses used in these studies are at and slightly
higher than exposure levels in the field)
$.70/acre more than
WormFree
WormFree
highly mobile
potential to leach
persistent in the
environment
- (your analysis here)
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
IS-15
-------
Pesticide Group Exercise / Decision Making
DECISION MAKING INFORMATION SHEET #3
Public Concerns
There are many different viewpoints regarding the ecological risk of WormFree.
+ Producers and blenders of WormFree have been conducting a media campaign to develop support for the
continued use of the pesticide. Some of the information given to the media is misleading. It has raised
concern among the general public regarding price increases and the safety of the food grown without
WormFree. Representatives of the industry have been meeting with key Congressional members about this
issue, stating they have proposals for major amendments to FIFRA.
*• Environmental groups believe there is strong evidence to cancel the use of WormFree altogether and
immediately. They have also been talking to appropriate Congressional committees to make their viewpoint
known.
» The national media has run a few stories on this pesticide, especially in the central United States, where
most com is grown. The coverage has been sporadic, and inconclusive in most cases.
» The media coverage of this story in Congressman McDonald's district has been supportive of the continued
use of the pesticide. One of the largest producers of the pesticide is located in that district, and the
Congressman has spoken publicly and with the EPA Administrator in favor of continued use.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 IS-16
-------
8. Supertund
-------
8. SUPERFUND SITE
GROUP EXERCISE
Zap-A-Bug Old Warehouse Site
Contents
Overview of the Group Exercise P-l
Background on Case Study P-5
Problem Formulation P-17
Analysis P-25
Risk Characterization P-31
Decision Making P-37
Case Study Background and Information Sheets
Problem Formulation Phase
Ecological Details from the Preliminary Site Assessment
Details from the Preliminary Site Assessment: General Information on the Chemical Detected
Case Study Update
Analysis Phase
Determining Dose for Herons
Results of Dose Estimates and Toxicity Reference Value for Herons
Information on Reference Site and Fiasco River Near the Superfund Site
Risk Characterization Phase
Ecological Significance
Decision Making Phase
Remediation Options
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 P-i
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Overview
[This page intentionally left blank.]
p-jj Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
Suoerfund Group Exercise / Overview
Guiding Principles,
Objectives, & Policies
PROBLEM FORMULATION
Federal, State,
Local Agencies
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Communication of Results
Regulatory Concerns
> =<
Political Factors
Risk Assessments
Risk Managemsnt
Decisions
Stakeholder & PUblic
x^~^ . -x-
( Econorncs )
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
P-iii
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Overview
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-iv Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12,1995
-------
Superfund Group Exercise I Overview oB¥V
OVERVIEW OF THE GROUP EXERCISES
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 P-1
-------
-SERA Superfund Group Exercise / Overview
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-2 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12,1995
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Overview
Overview of the Group Exercise
Summary of Group Exercise
In this exercise, you will conduct an ecological risk assessment on a fictitious site under the Superfund Program.
At the conclusion of the exercise, you will have three options to consider with regard to remediation of the site:
no action, limited action (cleaning up or removing the contaminated "hot spot" from the site), or extensive
remediation. Your group will make a final decision and communicate it.
Phases of the Group Exercise
The exercise will be conducted in four separate sessions, with a report-out at the conclusion of each phase.
These phases will focus on:
1. Problem Formulation
2. Analysis
3. Risk Characterization
4. Decision Making
Materials in This Package
*• Work Sheets. Work Sheets will guide you through the exercise. Each Work Sheet includes questions or
problems for group discussion. Your group should proceed through the Work Sheets in the order they are
presented.
*• Information Sheets. Information Sheets present information on the case study needed for the exercise. This
information includes the basic case study background as well as additional case information that will be
needed for each of the sessions.
Group Exercise Process
> The Facilitator will gather participants into groups. Each group will choose a leader, a recorder, and one
person to report-out the group's recommendations and conclusions.
*• Your group is to assume two roles. For the first three phases, your group will complete a risk assessment
and communicate results to the decision maker. For the last phase, Decision Making, your group will
change roles and integrate the results of the risk assessment with other information needed to reach a
management decision.
>• Group members will collaborate to develop answers to questions presented on the Work Sheets. You will
present your findings to the rest of the workshop participants during the discussion sessions.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual /December 12, 1995 P-3
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Overview
Overview of the Group Exercise (Continued)
References
Maughan, J.T. 1993. Ecological Assessment of Hazardous Waste Sites. (Maughan 1993). Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
Suter, G.W., II. 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan.
USEPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume II, Environmental Evaluation Manual.
EPA/540/1-89/001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1992. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-92/001. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1992. A Review of Ecological Assessment Case Studies from a Risk Assessment Perspective.
EPA/630/R-92/005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.
p-4 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12,1995
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Overview
BACKGROUND ON CASE STUDY
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 P-5
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Overview
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-e Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual / December 12,1995
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Overview oER>V
Background on Case Study
Time Allotted
Approximately 30 minutes.
Location and Site Description
The Zap-A-Bug Pesticide Manufacturing Plant is located on the Lower Fiasco River, in a rural area 10 miles
upstream of Robin City in County A (please refer to the Fiasco Valley Watershed Map, Figure 1). As shown
in Figure 2, approximately two miles upstream of the plant is a closed area (i.e., Old Warehouse site) designated
as a Superfund site.
The site and its vicinity include the following features:
> There is a Bald Eagle nest on a woody knoll north of the Superfund site.
X
> The former warehouse site is currently surrounded by a chain-link fence and has been capped with clean
surface soil.
*• The vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the site consists of low grasslands with little rise in elevation.
> The former warehouse site is located on a downward slope of a hill, downgradient of Lake Snafu. To the
north of the plant, below the hydroelectric dam, there are several corn fields and tobacco fields.
> Groundwater flows south toward the Fiasco River with some eastern flow components.
> Upstream of the site are farms and a campground using private wells. The river is important for recreational
and subsistence fishing.
*• An undisturbed area with a wetlands is found across the river, upstream of the Superfund site, below the
hydroelectric dam.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 P-7
-------
Cuckoo MounUin*
Proposed
Mill »nJ
Subdlvlilon
Figure 1. Fiasco Valley Watershed
i
-------
Farmland
o
I
ff*
Map of Zap-A-Bug
Superfund Site
A Surftct WiltrJSedloical Simple
• Gro««dM«lcr Simple
• Surhct/Siibiurfitc Soil Simple
Figure 2. Zap-A-Bug Superfund Site
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Overview
Background on Case Study (Continued)
Nature of the Problem
Chronology for Zap-A-Bug Old Warehouse Site
Date
1970-1975
1975
1982
1985
1986
Present
Item
Warehouse is used to store waste products from Zap-A-Bug Pesticide Manufacturing Plant
Warehouse demolished and wastes buried in drums under site of warehouse
Site discovery — state senator alerts EPA
Preliminary Assessment, Site Inspection, Hazard Ranking
Site placed on National Priority List
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Record of Decision
Remedial Design/Remedial Action
In 1982, a state senator who owned property approximately 5 miles from the former warehouse site brought the
site to the attention of EPA. In 1985, the State conducted a Preliminary Assessment (PA). Based on the results
of the PA and the potential for adverse impacts to the environment due to releases from the buried drums, the
State requested that a Site Inspection (SI) be conducted with further sampling. Sampling included:
» Monitoring of groundwater in wells installed at the former warehouse site;
» Samples taken from surface water and sediment from the river, which have shown increased levels of
contaminants used in pesticide manufacturing. Presumably, leaching of contaminants from the hazardous
waste storage at the site to groundwater has occurred, and groundwater is a source to the surface water and
sediment of the river; and
»• Additional ecological information was collected from the State Department of Conservation.
The site has been included on the National Priority List based on its Hazard Ranking System score. An
extensive Remedial Investigation (RI) is now in progress, which includes the baseline risk assessment report.
The field investigation, laboratory analysis, and validation of surface water, sediment, soil, and groundwater data
have been completed for the RI.
Several sensitive aquatic species may be adversely affected by the increased levels of certain contaminants. A
description of known and potential wildlife habitats adapted from the Preliminary Site Assessment is included
in an Information Sheet in the Problem Formulation section of this exercise. The site was also of
P-10 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12,1995
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Overview
Background on Case Study (Continued)
concern to human health because of possible fish contamination. However, results from the SI demonstrated
that levels of contaminants were below fish advisory levels for human consumption. The groundwater
monitoring data showed that the groundwater was not contaminating the drinking water, which met EPA
standards.
Stressor Characteristics
As part of the Remedial Investigation at the closed warehouse area of the Zap-A-Bug Plant, one chemical known
to be toxic was detected at elevated levels in various media. Information Sheet #2, in the Problem Formulation
Section, describes the chemical, toxicological information and its concentration in the Fiasco River and its
sediments.
Pertinent EPA Program Offices and Other Agencies
The following government offices will play a role in the ecological assessment:
» EPA Headquarter's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER);
> EPA Region 13;
> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
» State Department of Environmental Regulation; and
*• State Department of Conservation.
Statutory Requirements
The CERCLA program is under EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and, specifically, the
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (Superfund). CERCLA requires:
> Remediation of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites to protect both human health and the environment,
meeting nine specific criteria for choosing remedies. (See Decision Making Information Sheet #1.)
> Ecological risk assessments to evaluate actual or potential effects of a hazardous waste site on ecological
components. (It also requires human health risk assessments.)
» Project oversight by the Remedial Project Manager (RPM), including the ecological risk assessment.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 P-11
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Overview
Background on Case Study (Continued)
» Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate regulations (ARARs). The remedy must comply
with laws such as the Clean Water Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and the Endangered Species
Act, as well as state regulations on water quality standards and listed threatened or endangered species.
» Consultation with Natural Resource Trustees, which are those designated Federal and State agencies with
responsibility for implementation of laws to manage and protect various natural resources. A Natural
Resource Damage Assessment may be conducted simultaneously with the ecological risk assessment
process.
NATURAL RESOURCE TRUSTEES
The Natural Resource Trustees are representatives of designated Federal and State agencies and Indian tribes who
have duties relevant to the rehabilitation, restoration or replacement of natural resources injured or lost as a result
of a release of oil or hazardous substances or wastes. This includes the Departments of Commerce (marine areas);
Interior (minerals, migratory birds, endangered species, some water resources); and other land managers such
as Agriculture, Energy, and Defense. States designate a trustee and cooperative lines among state agencies.
Tribal chairmen act on behalf of land owned by each tribe.
The lead agency must notify the appropriate Trustee upon discovery of potential injury or loss, and consult with
the Trustee in negotiations, investigations, decisions, or remediation. The Trustee may take the following actions
upon learning there may be injury to or loss of a natural resource:
» Conduct a preliminary survey to determine jurisdiction;
» Cooperate in investigations;
» Conduct damage assessments following approved protocols; and
» Develop and implement plans to rehabilitate, restore, replace or acquire equivalent resources.
P-12 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12,1995
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Overview
Definition and Purpose of the
Superfund Ecological Risk Assessment
In the Superfund Program, an ecological risk assessment is defined as a process for estimating the
likelihood that adverse ecological effects (e.g., mortality, reductions in populations, or reproductive
failure) will occur as a result of exposure to a hazardous substance released at a Superfund site.
The purposes of conducting the assessment are as follows:
» Identify and characterize the current and potential threats to the environment from a hazardous
substance release under the no-action alternative as part of the Remedial Investigation (Rl).
» Evaluate the ecological impacts of alternative remediation strategies in support of the Feasibility
Study (FS).
» Establish clean-up levels for the selected remedy that will protect those natural resources at risk
as part of the FS and support the Record of Decision (ROD).
The steps of the ecological risk assessment process presented in this workshop are based on the Framework for
Ecological Risk Assessment. The Framework steps are compared below to the Ecological Assessment
Process/Management Decision Points proposed by the Superfund program.
Comparison of Ecological Risk Assessments
Framework Process
__
Problem Formulation
Problem Formulation
Analysis
Analysis
Risk Characterization
Decision Making
Superfund Ecological Assessment Process
1. Preliminary Site Assessment
2. Preliminary Risk Calculation
3. Problem Formulation
4. Conceptual Model
5. Site Assessment
6. Site Investigation
7. Risk Calculation
8. Risk Management
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
P-13
-------
Superfund Group Exercise I Overview
Background on Case Study (Continued)
Endangered Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), a branch of the Department of Interior, is the Federal agency
responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 for most species. EPA must consult,
either formally or informally, with the FWS if EPA determines that its action may affect a threatened or
endangered (listed) species or its designated critical habitat. These EPA actions could include registration of
a pesticide and any other decision authorized, funded, or implemented by EPA. Also, EPA must confer with
the FWS if its action could affect a species or critical habitat that may be proposed for listing. If EPA
determines that there will be no effect, consultation is not necessary.
Community Relations Requirements
Citizen interest was critical to the development of the CERCLA and continues to be a key element in the
implementation of the law and the site study process. Regulations require a minimum level of community
relations activities and encourage additional opportunities for citizen input and information as interest dictates.
At designated points in the study process, certain activities must occur such as public meetings, fact sheets, and
display ads in newspapers of local distribution. A local administrative record and information repository must
also be made available early in the study process. These communications activities are established in a
community relations plan for each site. This plan is based on interviews of citizens in the area of a site and are
coordinated with the technical study plan. A spokesperson is designated by the lead agency, whether Federal
or State, to serve as point of contact for all inquiries and to manage the community relations program for that
site and that community.
When a preferred remedial option is designated by the lead agency, a proposed plan is issued in the form of an
executive summary or fact sheet, ads are placed in local newspapers, a formal public comment period is held,
and a public meeting is conducted to solicit input on the remedial options evaluated. A final Record of Decision
(ROD) is issued with a Responsiveness Summary which documents the comments received and how the lead
agency considered them in the final decision.
During the engineering design a number of communications activities may be conducted. However, an
opportunity for a public meeting must be offered and a fact sheet on the engineering design must be issued
before the design is completed. Again, during the actual implementation of the cleanup plan the community
relations activities may vary depending on the level of interest and the specific issues which affect the
community. This may include disruption of traffic patterns, dust control, emergency response preparation,
evacuation plans, etc.
P-14 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12. 1995
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Overview
Background on Case Study (Continued)
Decision Options
At the conclusion of this exercise your team will decide among the following options:
> Take no remedial action;
> Limited remedial action, e.g., source removal (drums) and limited dredging of highly contaminated sediment
in the recharge zone (the area in which the contaminated groundwater enters the river); or
*• Extensive remedial action, e.g., extensive dredging of contaminated sediment downstream of the plant (e.g.,
recharge zone to 300 feet downstream of the recharge zone), source removal activities on-site,
groundwater control measures (pump and treat) and long-term monitoring.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 P-1S
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Overview
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-16 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
Superfund Group Exercise/Problem Formulation
PROBLEM FORMULATION
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 P-17
-------
6BM Superfund Group Exercise/Problem Formulation
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-18 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Problem Formulation
Problem Formulation
Contents
Summary of Problem Formulation Exercise ................................................. 21
Problem Formulation Phase [[[ 22
Work Sheets (WS)
WS #1 : Scoping and Selecting Exposure Pathways and Ecological Components by
Developing a Conceptual Model
WS #2: Identifying and Selecting Assessment Endpoints and Public Involvement
WS #3: Identifying and Selecting Measurement Endpoints
Information Sheets (IS)
IS #1 : Ecological Details from the Preliminary Site Assessment
IS #2: Details from the Preliminary Site Assessment: General Information
on the Chemical Detected
IS #3: Case Study Update
-------
-------
Superfund Group Exercise /Problem Formulation
Summary of Problem Formulation Exercise
Time Allotted
Approximately 2 hours.
Key Concepts
* Problem formulation establishes the objectives and scope of the ecological risk assessment.
» The Risk Assessor should work with the Risk Manager to identify the objectives and scope of the risk
assessment and the assessment endpoints. The Risk Assessor should be aware of the kinds of information
needed by the Risk Manager to make a decision.
» An assessment endpoint is a formal expression of the environmental value to be protected and should be
ecologically relevant, reflect policy goals and societal values, and be susceptible to the stressor.
> A measurement endpoint is a measurable response to a stressor that is related to the assessment endpoint.
> The public should be involved in selecting assessment endpoints and contributing information.
»• The selection of assessment endpoints must be focused to meet the needs of the investigation while reflecting
the availability of resources (personnel, financial, time).
Activities
> Identify and select ecological concerns.
*• Develop a simple conceptual model.
* Identify and select assessment and measurement endpoints.
Task Overview
> Complete the Work Sheets in numerical order. Refer to the Information Sheets provided as needed.
» Choose a leader and spokesperson to make notes on the flip chart and present a summary of the group
discussion. This may be two people or one person may conduct both tasks.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 P-21
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Problem Formulation
Problem Formulation Phase
The Problem Formulation Phase is where the planning for an ecological risk assessment takes place. The goals,
breadth, and focus for the assessment are established in this phase, taking into account regulatory, policy, and
public concerns. The Risk Manager and Risk Assessor work together to identify the ecological concerns or
effects that are expected or have resulted from a particular activity or pollutant regulated by EPA (e.g.,
Superfund clean-up, RCRA corrective action, pesticide use, new chemical registration, filling wetlands, or
discharging pollutants into waterways).
Public input at this stage is important because the public often has concerns and knowledge that will improve
the assessment. Also, public input is often required by law. In addition to determining what to assess, decisions
are made as to how to assess (i.e., literature search for information, measurements in the laboratory or field, etc.).
Factors such as time, cost, and cooperation from other parties are considered when determining how to assess
the problem.
Following are some concepts, terms, and tools useful in planning an ecological risk assessment:
Stressors Stressors are the pollutants or activities that cause the ecological concern or
effect.
Generally, the Framework classifies Stressors as being chemical, physical, or
biological. Examples include:
» Chemical-toxics, nutrients (nitrates in water);
f Physical-dredging or filling in waterways or wetlands, diverting water flow
in a river by constructing a diversion or dam; and
» Biological-introducing exotic organisms.
Exposure Routes It is important to trace exposure routes or pathways of a stressor to deter-
or Pathways mine all the possible components of the ecosystem that may be affected. Con-
siderations include:
» Mobility of a stressor;
» Uptake of a chemical by plants and animals;
p-22 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
Superfund Group Exercise /Problem Formulation
Problem Formulation Phase (Continued)
Exposure Routes
or Pathways (Continued)
Ecological Effects
Conceptual Models
Assessment Endpoints
•• Transformation (chemicals may degrade in the environment from ex-
posure to light, or react with water or other chemicals to form substances that
are non-toxic, less toxic, or more toxic than the original chemical); and
» Competition (biological stressors).
For physical stressors, the exposure may be immediately obvious (i.e., removing
or destroying ecosystems by building a structure, dredging, or removing water
for agriculture or drinking water supplies). The effects of physical stressors may
be far-ranging, e.g., removal or diversion of water alters habitats downstream
(bays become saltier, adversely affecting bay fish nurseries which require a
mixture of fresh and salt water).
Ecological effects are the harmful responses of the ecosystem and its
components to the exposure to stressors. Some examples include death,
reproductive failure, decline in growth rate, habitat loss, etc.
Conceptual models are helpful in fully characterizing the ecological effects
associated with stressors. These models may take the form of sketches of the
ecosystem at risk (cross-section or plan view) with arrows illustrating routes of
exposure, or they may be abstract in form with ecosystem components and
stressors in boxes with arrows showing relationships between them.
The Framework uses the term assessment endpoint to identify the ecological
concern(s) that will be the focus of the assessment. Criteria used to select
assessment endpoints include:
»• Sensitivity to stressors of concern;
*• Ecological relevance; and
»• Relevance to policy goals and societal values.
The assessment endpoint needs to be both affected by and sensitive to the
stressor(s). Ecological relevance means that the assessment endpoint is
important to the function of the ecosystem. For example, lake trout play an
important role in maintaining the balance of aquatic ecosystems. However, the
introduction of carp has disrupted the balance of aquatic ecosystems.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
P-23
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Problem Formulation
Problem Formulation Phase (Continued)
Assessment Endpoints
(Continued)
Assessment endpoints also should reflect policy goals (e.g., protect endangered
species and no net loss of wetlands). Societal values helped form the basis for
these policies when environmental laws were enacted. However, policy or
management goals (e.g., protect endangered species, maintain recreational
fisheries) are not assessment endpoints. Assessment endpoints must be
measurable.
Measurement Endpoint
Examples of assessment endpoints include: sustainably reproducing populations
of trout species; maintenance of populations of aquatic vegetation that are
supportive offish and invertebrates; maintenance of reproductively successful
songbird populations, etc. The more specific the assessment endpoint the better,
(e.g., loss of no endangered bats).
Measurement endpoint is another term used in the Framework referring to how
we determine exposure and effects to an assessment endpoint. Examples of
what to measure include concentration of a chemical in water and animal tissue,
number of offspring, deformities, mortality, acres of wetlands removed,
modeling impacts to a population, etc.
P-24
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12,1995
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Problem Formulation
PROBLEM FORMULATION WORK SHEET #1
Scoping and Selecting Exposure Pathways and Ecological Components
By Developing A Conceptual Model
Data from the site inspection (monitoring of surface soil, subsurface soil, groundwater, surface water, and
sediment) show elevated levels of the contaminant in groundwater, surface water, and sediment (Information
Sheet #2).
Based on the Case Study Information Sheets on wildlife, their habitats and feeding characteristics, and the
chemical detected (Information Sheet # 1 and # 2), what are the ecological components potentially affected by
the Superfund site? Use the diagram below to answer this question by sketching the relationships among the
stressor, exposure routes, and ecological components.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
WS-1
-------
Superfund Group Exercise I Problem Formulation &ERA
PROBLEM FORMULATION WORK SHEET #2
Identifying and Selecting Assessment Endpoints
and Public Involvement
1. With the ecological components on Work Sheet #1 develop 3-4 assessment endpoints.
Ecological Components Assessment Endpoints
2. How can public input contribute to selection of assessment endpoints? See Problem Formulation Information
Sheet #3.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 WS-2
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Problem Formulation
PROBLEM FORMULATION WORK SHEET #3
Identifying and Selecting Measurement Endpoints
1. Prepare a list of measurement endpoints for the 3-4 assessment endpoints.
Assessment Endpoints Measurement Endpoints
2. What types of activities would be required to obtain the selected measurement endpoints? What are the real
world constraints on an ecological risk assessment, and how could these constraints affect your ability to carry
out these activities?
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 WS-3
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Problem Formulation
SB*
PROBLEM FORMULATION INFORMATION SHEET #1
Ecological Details from the Preliminary Site Assessment
Field surveys of the site indicated a variety of wildlife species present in the vicinity of the site
Habitat and Feeding Characteristics
» The Bald Eagle feeds primarily on fish; it is at the top of the food chain. It is a year-round resident.
» The Great Blue Heron nests in rookeries in marsh/upland areas. It feeds on fish, crab, clams, frogs,
snakes and insects.
» The Great Blue Heron feeds more locally than does the Bald Eagle
Songbirds migrate thousands of miles each year.
Avion Species
» Bald Eagle'
> Great Blue Heron
» Green-backed Heron
» Other wading birds
» Kingfishers
» Passerines (songbirds)
Reptiles and Amphibians
» Cottonmouth snake
» Various frogs
» Various salamanders
Aqui
cute Species
Rockfish
Trout
Perch
Catfish
Insects
Crabs
Clams
Mammalian Species
» River otters
Vegetation
* Pond Weed
» Widgeon Grass
» The snake eats fish and mice
This is an important spawning area for rockfish They consume a variety of fish and invertebrates
Feed on small fish and invertebrates
Feed on small fish and invertebrates.
Bottom dwellers feeding on dead and decaying organisms.
Feed on algae (microscopic plants) and decomposing organic material
Bottom dwellers feeding on small fish and shellfish and on dead or decaying organisms
Bottom dwellers feeding on material suspended in the water.
Otters consume bird eggs, fish, bottom-dwelling (benthic) invertebrates and small mammals They live
in burrowed-out logs in upland areas or in grassy dens.
Both plants serve as valuable habitat for fish and as food for birds.
1 The Bald Eagle is federally listed as a threatened species, it remains a state-listed endangered species
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
IS-1
-------
Superfund Group Exercise I Problem Formulation
PROBLEM FORMULATION INFORMATION SHEET #2
Details from the Preliminary Site Assessment:
General Information on the Chemical Detected
OrganiX is the compound found to be the chemical of concern, or a toxic chemical likely to cause ecological
problems. It is a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compound which is persistent (not breaking down into its
elements readily).
During the Site Inspection elevated levels of OrganiX were found in surface water and sediments. The maximum
amount found at a sampling point was 0.0100 mg/L in surface water and 14.0 mg/kg in sediments. These levels
were higher than the State criteria: 0.0019 mg/L for ambient water quality and 7.0 mg/kg for sediments.
A literature search has revealed that:
> Data are available from a study of a recent accidental spill of OrganiX. Residues of OrganiX were discovered
in the liver, blood, intestinal tract, and reproductive organ tissue of dead birds at the spill site. Neural
transmitter chemicals were found at reduced levels and sex organs are of decreased size. This chemical
is believed to cause shell thinning, reducing hatching success.
» The same study found submerged aquatic vegetation uptakes OrganiX readily. Also, chronic exposure to
OrganiX has led to decreased aquatic vegetation productivity. This has resulted in a loss of habitat for fish
at the spill site.
•• Several aquatic species are sensitive to chronic levels of OrganiX, including rainbow trout which show adverse
early life cycle effects (such as poor gill/fin development, stunted growth, poor development of the
reproductive system) in laboratory tests at 0.22 ug/L.
» Laboratory studies have shown that amphipod (benthic invertebrate*) mortality occurs at 9.7 to 186 mg/kg
OrganiX in sediment.
* Benthic Invertebrate = Animals such as worms, clams, insects, lacking a backbone or spinal column, living
in or on the bottom of aquatic environments.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual /December 12, 1995 is-2
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Problem Formulation
PROBLEM FORMULATION INFORMATION SHEET #3
Case Study Update
Citizens' Groups Involved
Citizen interviews were conducted to identify the issues and level of interest held by groups or individuals in the
community surrounding the Zap-A-Bug Warehouse sites. A summary of the results of the interviews appears
below.
»• The Zap-A-Bug Plant employs a significant number of workers from the area who could face losing their jobs
if the plant (designated as the Potentially Responsible Party (PRP)) is required to put huge sums into
remediation of the site.
•• Other parties are interested in the tourism business including recreational fishing and boating. They would
like to see the river kept clean, but want low-profile decisions made to avoid frightening potential tourists.
»• Fanners are also concerned about the site and want assurance that their land and water supply are free from
contamination.
» Landowners and homeowners in the area are concerned about the potential for a decrease in property value
in the vicinity of the site.
»• An environmental organization called Fix the Fiasco sees the Zap-A-Bug Plant as a major threat to wildlife
in the area and to the river itself. They are actively speaking to the media about these issues and are often at
odds with the local farming industry.
» A bird count conducted by the local Audubon chapter provided data on avian species found in the area as well
as how the numbers have fluctuated over the years.
» A professor at the State College — Robin City has been conducting various wildlife studies in the area over the
last 25 years, before the drums were placed on the site. He has provided information on species and habitat
changes. He has also identified an invertebrate which is key to the food chain in the wetland/river area near
the site. This invertebrate is a primary food source for fish which have important recreational and commercial
value. Populations of this invertebrate have been decreasing over the years.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 IS-3
-------
Superfund Group Exercise/Analysis
ANALYSIS
Ecological Risk and Decision Malting Workshop /Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 P-25
-------
Superfund Group Exercise /Analysis
[This page intentionally left blank.]
p-26 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
Superfund Group Exercise /Analysis
Analysis
Contents
Summary of Analysis Exercise 29
Analysis Phase 30
Work Sheets (WS)
WS #1: Analysis of Exposure
WS#2: Analysis of Ecological Effects
Information Sheets (IS)
IS #1: Determining Dose for Herons
IS #2: Results of Dose Estimates and Toxicity Reference Value for Herons
IS #3: Information on Reference Site and Fiasco River Near the Superfund Site
Ecotog^ Risk and Dec&on Mating Woitefw/Partc^t Manual/December 12,1995 P-27
-------
Superfund Group Exercise /Analysis
[This page intentionally left blank.]
p-28 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
Superfund Group Exercise /Analysis
Summary of Analysis Exercise
Time Allotted
Approximately 1 hour, 30 minutes.
Key Concepts
* The major components of the Analysis Phase are characterization of exposure and characterization of
ecological effects.
» Exposure analysis requires knowledge of: (1) stressor characteristics (physical, chemical and biological) in
environmental media, (2) the probability that ecological components come into direct or indirect contact with
the stressor, and (3) the timing of exposure to a stressor in relation to biological cycles.
» Both direct and indirect ecological effects should be addressed.
* Measurement endpoints must be related to assessment endpoints, and this often involves extrapolation from
measured individual effects to estimated population and community level effects.
» Risk assessment requires varying degrees of professional judgment in dealing with uncertainties.
Activities
» Analyze exposure routes and pathways, consider stressor characteristics, and identify ecological components
of concern.
» Analyze direct and indirect ecological effects.
» Identify uncertainties associated with the analysis phase.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12,1995 P-29
-------
Superfund Group Exercise /Analysis
Analysis Phase
The Analysis Phase is where both the exposure and effects of stressor(s) on the assessment endpoints are
determined. This phase involves collecting and analyzing data in the literature, actual measurements in the
laboratory or field, and modeling. As with any analytical work, there are uncertainties in the data and in
interpreting data. These uncertainties should be documented, carried through the assessment, and presented as
part of the results to the Risk Manager. Professional judgement is often a component of ecological assessments,
and should be clearly identified when the results are presented to the Risk Manager. Similarly, any
extrapolations (e.g., from individual to population to community, from laboratory to the field, or from one place
to another) should be identified as one of the uncertainties.
Exposure Analysis
It is important to know how stressors behave in the environment, i.e., how solar radiation, water, sediments, soil,
air, and the living components affect the movement and form stressors take in the environment. For example,
non-affected organisms may metabolize toxic chemicals to non-toxic compounds. Both direct and indirect
exposure should be analyzed. An organism may become exposed to a toxic chemical by eating a contaminated
organism rather than by direct exposure (consider predator species). Temporal and spatial distribution of a
stressor is important The stressor might affect a certain life stage or the entire life cycle of an organism. The
extent of exposure to a stressor could be localized or affect an entire region or large ecosystem.
Effects Analysis
Both direct and indirect effects should be analyzed. Examples of indirect effects are when organisms affected
by a stressor are prone to disease, easier targets of prey species, and less competitive.
P-30 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12. 1995
-------
Superfund Group Exercise /Analysis
ANALYSIS WORK SHEET #1
Analysis of Exposure
HERON CHOSEN AS SURROGATE SPECIES
There is great concern about the welfare of the Bald Eagle as a threatened/endangered species.
However, because it is rare it may be a violation of the Endangered Species Act to experiment or
manipulate or harass it in an ecological assessment. After consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the State Department of Conservation, the Great Blue Heron was chosen as a surrogate
species for the ecological risk assessment for the Zap-A-Bug Warehouse Superfund site.
The Great Blue Heron is at a similar place in the food chain as the Bald Eagle and is more abundant.
It feeds on more local resources, having a smaller geographic range than the Bald Eagle. Both the Great
Blue Heron and Bald Eagle eat fish. Using the Great Blue Heron as an indicator species leaves
undisturbed the few Bald Eagles in the area while still obtaining information critical to assessing and
improving their habitat.
1. To which media are herons exposed? Why? Refer to Problem Formulation Information Sheet #1 and your
conceptual model from the Problem Formulation Exercise.
2. What is the exposure pathway for herons (i.e., the way the chemical enters the organism)?
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 WS-4
-------
Superfund Group Exercise /Analysis oERIV
ANALYSIS WORK SHEET #1 (Continued)
Analysis of Exposure
3. What factors should be considered in determining the dose of a contaminant to which a heron is exposed?
Refer to Analysis Information Sheet #1, "Determining Dose" to answer this question. What are some of the
uncertainties and assumptions inherent in each approach?
Factors to Determine Dose:
Uncertainties and Assumptions:
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 WS-5
-------
Superfund Group Exercise /Analysis
&EPA
ANALYSIS WORK SHEET #2
Analysis of Ecological Effects
TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
To evaluate the measured or calculated dose of
contaminants to herons at the site, you need to know a
"safe" dose for herons (using either NOEL or LOEL) to
which to compare your heron dose. These "safe" level
estimates are called toxicity reference values.
1. What are some of the uncertainties associated with the Toxicity Reference Value for herons presented in the
Analysis Information Sheet #2?
2. Based on the information provided on the Reference site, and on the Fiasco River near the Superfund site in
Analysis Information Sheet #3, what can one conclude about the ecological effects of the Superfund site?
What other information would be helpful in this analysis? How does this assist in characterizing the risk from
the site?
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop I Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
WS-6
-------
Superfund Group Exercise /Analysis &ERA
ANALYSIS INFORMATION SHEET #1
Determining Dose for Herons
The following approaches to determining a dose of a chemical consider the exposure of herons to surface water
contamination via ingestion of potentially contaminated fish at the Zap-A-Bug Superfund site. For purposes of this exercise,
the pathway of "surface water—to fish—to herons" will be the focus of discussion.
A dose equation would be used to model exposures to herons in Approaches 1 and 2. A typical dose equation would
consider 1) the concentration of OrganiX in surface water; 2) a bioconcentration factor or BCF; 3) average body weight of
the heron; 4) amount of fish consumed per day; and 5) a factor for the percent of contaminated fish the heron consumes
per day.
(1) Modeling exposures to herons using laboratory derived fish BCFs
Laboratory fish BCFs would be derived by exposing fish to OrganiX in tanks with either free flowing or static water
conditions over a period of time.
(2) Modeling exposures to herons using fish BCFs derived from field data
For this site, you must decide which fish species to sample and how many samples to collect The cost is $3,000 per
sample. Consider also the time and season for the sampling. Fish tissue data is available through literature searches
and from the professor at the State College - Robin City.
Some of the assumptions associated with Approaches (1) & (2) inlcude the following:
- average body weight estimated from the literature;
- amount of fish consumed per day for average body weight heron estimated form literature; and
- factor for percent contaminated fish consumed per day would include estimated feeding range for herons.
(3) Measuring exposures to herons using residue analysis.
A direct approach to assessing impacts on herons would be: (a) to collect birds from the field for blood samples or
tissue residue analysis to determine whether site chemicals are bioaccumulating and/or (b) to analyze eggshells of
nesting birds. Either approach will cost $5,000 per sample. This option would rarely be used for a Superfund
ecological risk assessment because of time and budget constraints as well as US. Fish and Wildlife and state agency
regulations.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop I Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 IS-4
-------
Superfund Group Exercise /Analysis
ANALYSIS INFORMATION SHEET #2
Results of Dose Estimates For Herons
Chemical
OrganiX
Estimated Dose
Using Fish BCF
from Lab Data
(mg/kg/day)
2.0
Estimated Dose
Using Fish BCF
from Field Data
(mg/kg/day)
1.0
Estimated Dose
Using Residue
in Heron Tissue
(mg/kg/day)
0.2
Bioconcentration Factor (BCF) = A unitless value equal to the concentration of chemical in the tissues of an
organism divided by the concentration of that chemical in the medium to which it was exposed.
Toxicity Reference Value for Herons
0.02 mg/kg/day
Toxicity Reference Value (TRY) = TRY is either a No-Observed-Effect-Level (NOEL), or Lowest-Observed-
Effect-Level (LOEL), and is derived from laboratory studies.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop I Participant Manual I December 12, 1995
IS-5
-------
Superfund Group Exercise /Analysis
ANALYSIS INFORMATION SHEET #3
Information on Reference Site and
Fiasco River Near the Superfund Site
Reference Site
Just below the hydroelectric dam, along the west bank of the river in County A, lies a natural area which had been
undisturbed for decades. It was decided that this area would serve as a good reference site, providing information
on background conditions for the birds, fish, vegetation, invertebrates and sediments to compare with the
Superfund site. This area is included in the ongoing studies by the professor at State College — Robin City and
Audubon Society.
The Professor has studied the area along the river south of the natural area to the bay. Also, the State Departments
of Environmental Regulation and Conservation and the Audubon Society have collected data in the same area.
Reference Site Data:
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)
SAV is comprised of pond weed and widgeon grass. The professor conducted extensive studies of SAV in the
Fiasco river area and published several papers based upon these studies. Grass beds were found to be highly
productive based upon oxygen production, carbon-14 uptake, and growth measurement data. Similarly, plant
biomass per square meter was considered to be very high compared to other locations in the region. The SAV
beds are very dense and lush occupying expansive areas.
Fish Populations
The State Department of Conservation monitors fish populations at fixed stations on the river from just below
the dam in the reference site area to the mouth of the Fiasco Bay. Species for which there is an abundance of data
include rockfish, trout, perch, catfish, and eel. It is difficult to attribute any changes in fish populations to the
superfund site due to the mobility of the fish. However, there are overall trends in the data including, 1) rockfish
populations are rebounding from a decline over the last 10 years due to fishing restrictions, 2) trout and perch
populations have declined slightly over the last 4 years due to fishing pressure, 3) catfish populations have
increased over the last 3 years, and 4) eel populations have been fairly stable over the last 10 years.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 15-6
-------
Superfund Group Exercise /Analysis &ERA
Analysis Information Sheet #3 (Continued)
Bird Populations
The Audubon Society regularly collects data on bird populations along the river corridor. Audubon data show
that populations of the great blue heron, green-backed heron, and kingfishers resident in the natural area were
fairly stable (based upon bird counts and number of eggs produced) over the last several years.
Wildlife Populations
Over the last 20 years, the State Department of Conservation collected data on river otters inhabiting the Fiasco
River. The river otter population resident at the natural area has been thriving with recent increases in numbers
of adults.
River Data:
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)
SAY distribution near the superfund site is patchy with evidence of dying widgeon grass blades. Productivity
levels are lower than similar SAV beds in the reference site area. These data are from the professor's study sites.
Invertebrate Populations
The professor is an expert in the study of amphipods, or small crustaceans living on the bottom. Amphipods are
an important food source for fish. The professor has extensive data over the years for amphipods inhabiting the
Fiasco River. Recently, he has been concerned about a sharp decrease in the amphipod population near the
superfund site. To date, he has not discovered the reason for this decline.
Bird Populations
The Audubon society monitors the bald eagle nest site and also collects data on herons and kingfishers along the
river near the superfund site. Their data show that over the last few years the bald eagles produced some eggs
with thinner shells which resulted in lower offspring survival. Audubon data indicate slight decreases in the
resident great blue and green-backed heron populations and declining kingfisher populations.
Wildlife Populations
The State Department of Conservation noticed a sharp decrease in the river otter population near the superfund
site over the last few years. In addition, last year two dead otters were found along the shore just down river of
the superfund site. The cause of death was inconclusive because the animals were too decomposed when they
were found.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual /December 12, 1995 1S-7
-------
Superfund Group Exercise /Analysis -SERA
Analysis Information Sheet #3 (Continued)
Sediment Quality. Fish Pathology, and Fish Tissue Survey
Recent concerns over contamination in the lower Fiasco River and Bay led the State Department of Regulation
to institute a monitoring program. Monitoring stations extend from just below the dam to the mouth of the bay.
The stations below the dam and above the superfund site were not considered to be contaminated, but were
included as reference sites. The five-year data set shows that for the stations near the superfund site there are
incidences of lesions on catfish, levels of OrganiX in sediment exceeding the state standard, and fish tissue levels
below the state advisory level. The stations upriver of the superfund site showed levels of OrganiX in sediments
well below the state standard, no evidence of fish lesions, and fish tissue levels below the state advisory level.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 1S-8
-------
Superfund Group Exercise I Risk Characterization
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 P-31
-------
Superfund Group Exercise/Risk Characterization
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-32 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual/December 12,1995
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Risk Characterization
Risk Characterization
Contents
Summary of Risk Characterization Exercise ................................................. 35
Risk Characterization Phase [[[ 36
Work Sheets (WS)
WS#1: Risk Characterization
Information Sheets (IS)
IS #1 : Ecological Significance
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Risk Characterization
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-34 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
-------
Superfund Group Exercise/Risk Characterization
Summary of Risk Characterization Exercise
Time Allotted
Approximately 1 hour, 30 minutes.
Key Concepts
*• Risk characterization is composed of two parts: risk estimation and risk description.
»• Risk estimation involves the integration of the analysis of the exposure and effects along with associated
uncertainties. Professional judgment may be required in dealing with uncertainties.
» Risk description is a summary of risk estimation and the interpretation of the ecological significance of the
estimated risks. Ecological significance considers the nature and magnitude of the effects, spatial and
temporal patterns and the effects and potential for recovery.
Activities
*• Estimate risk, evaluating effects and exposure data from the analysis.
*• Analyze and summarize risk, describing uncertainties and the ecological significance of the risk.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12,1995 P-35
-------
Superfund Group Exercise /Risk Characterization
Risk Characterization Phase
The Risk Characterization Phase is where risk is estimated and described. In risk estimation, the exposure and
effects analyses are integrated, and an evaluation of risk is made (i.e., the likelihood that exposure to a stressor
has resulted or will result in adverse effects). After risk estimation, the assessor determines the ecological
significance of the risk. This includes the nature and magnitude of effects, spatial and temporal extent of
effects, and potential for recovery. Finally, the risk is described with all assumptions and uncertainties clearly
stated.
EPA has issued guidance on risk characterization that applies to ecological risk assessment as well as human
health risk assessment. This guidance, found in Appendix E under the title "Risk Policies", calls on EPA to
"disclose the scientific analyses, uncertainties, assumptions, and science policies which underlie our decisions
as they are made throughout the risk assessment and risk management process." Risk assessors play a
fundamental role in this process.
P-36 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Risk Characterization 6ERA
RISK CHARACTERIZATION WORK SHEET #1
Risk Characterization
The Quotient Method
The Quotient Method is a quantitative predictive approach to evaluate risk based on a comparison between an
expected environmental concentration (EEC) or dose, and a toxicological benchmark (such as LC,,, LOEL, etc.).
It determines whether there is a high probability of concern with a particular chemical concentration. It is a tool
for ranking a series of contaminant sources by their potential for producing adverse environmental effects.
The Quotient Method calculates a ratio using the Toxicological Level of Concern as the denominator. The
numerator is the Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) or dose for the chemical. A number equal to or
greater than one represents a strong likelihood that an ecotoxicological effect of concern will occur. If the number
approaches one, the risk is uncertain and additional data are needed to further characterize the risk. A number
considerably less than one represents a strong likelihood that an ecotoxicological effect of concern will not occur.
The Quotient Method has several limitations, including:
- It does not adequately account for effects of incremental dosages, indirect effects (e.g., food chain interactions),
or other ecosystem effects (e.g., predator-prey relationships).
» It cannot compensate for differences between laboratory tests and field populations.
» It does not account for multiple chemical exposures.
» It cannot quantify uncertainties or provide a known level of reliability.
1. Make a risk estimate for OrganiX.
To prepare this estimate calculate a ratio of the dose to the toxicity reference value from Analysis Information
Sheet #2, "Results of Dose Estimates Compared with Toxicity Reference Value for Herons." Use the dose
derived from heron tissue.
Exposed Dose:
Toxicity Reference Value:
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 WS-7
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Risk Characterization
RISK CHARACTERIZATION WORK SHEET #1 (Continued)
Risk Characterization
2. Why is risk indicated?
3. Describe the uncertainties.
4. Compare the Superfund site to the reference site (Analysis Information Sheet #3). Is risk still indicated?
How does looking at all the available data (including the FWS consultation) affect the assessment of risk
above and beyond the mathematical ratio obtained from the Quotient Method?
FWS CONSULTATION UNDER ESA
Bald Eagles inhabit the area and could be potentially exposed to chemicals from the Superfund
site. Therefore, EPA requested a consultation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on
the impacts of the Superfund site to listed species.
The FWS reviewed information from EPA, the State, the potentially responsible party, and local
wildlife groups, as well as Its own files. The FWS issued an opinion that the Bald Eagle is an
"adversely affected species". This means that the species is likely to be impacted by chemicals
from the Superfund site, but their continued existence is not jeopardized beyond recovery.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual f December 12, 1995 WS-8
-------
Superfund Group Exercise I Risk Characterization 6ERA
RISK CHARACTERIZATION WORK SHEET #1 (Continued)
Risk Characterization
5. Are the risks ecologically significant? Refer to Risk Characterization Information Sheet #1—Ecological
Significance.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 WS-9
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Risk Characterization &EIW
RISK CHARACTERIZATION WORK SHEET #1 (Continued)
Risk Characterization
6. Assume you are presenting this information to a Risk Manager. Write a brief paragraph on your findings.
How do you document your conclusions including your uncertainties? Be sure that your paragraph is
consistent with the values of clarity, consistency, and reasonableness as outlined in Carol Browner's risk
characterization memo (Appendix E).
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 WS-10
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Risk Characterization
RISK CHARACTERIZATION INFORMATION SHEET #1
Ecological Significance
Ecological significance pertains to the nature and magnitude of effects, spatial and temporal patterns of effects,
and recovery potential.
The nature of effects relates to the relative significance of effects especially when the effects of stressors on
several ecosystems within an area are assessed. It is important to characterize the types of effects associated with
each ecosystem and where the greatest impact is likely to occur.
Magnitude of effects will depend on the ecological context For example, a reduction in reproductive capability
of a population would have greater effects on a whale population than on plankton (microscopic organisms living
in the ocean) because whales take much longer to mature and produce fewer young over longer periods of time.
Effects of a significant magnitude if they cause interruption, alteration, or disturbance of major ecosystem
processes such as primary production, consumption, or decomposition. Furthermore, effects may be significant
if higher levels of biological organization are affected: 1) A physiological change becomes biologically significant
if it affects a characteristic of the whole organism, such as survival or the ability to reproduce; 2) A change in the
ability to reproduce among individuals becomes ecologically significant if it affects the size, productivity, or other
characteristic of the population; and 3) A change in the size of a population becomes ecologically significant
when it affects some characteristic of the community or ecosystem.
Spatial and temporal patterns of effects consider whether effects occur on large scales, (e.g., acid rain), or will
be localized, and whether effects are short-term or long-term. Some effects take decades to manifest themselves,
(e.g., ozone depletion effects on marine ecosystems).
Recovery relates to how easy it is to adapt to changes. For example, rainforests which are complex, highly
evolved ecosystems may take longer to adapt to perturbations than a pine forest, which can recover relatively
quickly from disturbances by rapidly re-seeding.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 IS-9
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Decision Making oERIV
DECISION MAKING
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 P-37
-------
Superfund Group Exercise/Decision Making
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-38 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12,1995
-------
Superfund Group Exercise/Decision Making
Decision Making
Contents
Summary of Decision Making Exercise 41
Decision Making Phase 42
Work Sheets (WS)
WS#1: Option Selection
Information Sheets (IS)
IS #1: Remediation Options
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/December 12, 1995 P-39
-------
Superfund Group Exercise/Decision Making
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-40 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
Superfund Group Exercise I Decision Making
Summary of Decision Making Exercise
Time Allotted
Approximately 1 hour, 30 minutes.
Key Concepts
> Making an informed management decision requires an understanding of the results of the risk
characterization, economic and socio-political considerations, and enforceability.
> Decisions involve factoring in uncertainty, tradeoffs, and risks of alternatives.
> Enforceability and evaluation of decisions are issues that need to be addressed in decision making.
*• Ecological risk decisions need to be documented to help make future decisions.
Activity
» Consider management options, followed by selection of a well documented final management decision.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 P-41
-------
Superfund Group Exercise /Decision Making
Decision Making Phase
A number of factors are considered in decision making, including:
» The results of the risk assessment or risk characterization;
» Economic analyses;
> Socio-political concerns;
»• Legal considerations (e.g., enforceabilfty); and
»• Options.
Usually, some of these factors play a larger role than others. Whichever decision is made there should be some
documentation so that knowledge can be gained from these decisions. Also, consideration should be given to
monitoring the effectiveness of the decision so that better decisions can be made in the future.
P-42 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Decision Making &EFA
DECISION MAKING WORK SHEET #1
Option Selection
You have analyzed exposure and ecological effects and have derived an estimate of the ecological risk associated
with the Zap-A-Bug Old Warehouse Superfund site. Now, wearing your Risk Manager's hat, it is time to make
a decision with regard to remediation of the site and present it to the Regional Administrator before signature of
the Record of Decision. Which of the three options do you choose? Why? Be sure to include how your decision
addresses the Nine Criteria, public concerns and the ecological risk uncertainties in your presentation.
Decision Made:
Justification:
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995 WS-11
-------
Superfund Group Exercise / Decision Making
oEFA
DECISION MAKING INFORMATION SHEET #1
Remediation Options
For this exercise, use the information in the chart below to evaluate three possible remediation options.
Criteria1
Overall protection of human
health and the environment
Compliance with ARARs
Long-term effectiveness
Reduction of toxicity, mobility,
or volume through treatment
Short-term effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
State acceptance
Community acceptance
Options
No Action
•No activity
Hazards to several wildlife
species expected; including
rockfish, avian predators, and
benthic macromvertebrates
Violation of State Water
Quality Standards
Over time, surface water/
sediments may become more
contaminated from the
groundwater source — or may
lessen or dilute
No treatment
No change
No change
SO
Not acceptable
Supported by some Zap-A-
Bug employees The
environmental group Fix the
Fiasco, finds this option
totally unacceptable.
Limited Action
•Drum removal
•Limited dredging
Low-level impacts expected
for aquatic species; modeled
residual exposures to bald
eagles may be of concern
• May be in violation of State
Water Quality Standards,
depending on cleanup
levels
• US Army Corps of
Engineers permit needed
for dredqmq
Over time, surface water/
sediment contamination may
decrease
Yes, somewhat
Ecosystem would require
some recovery time
Possible, but difficult and
involved
$2 5 million
Does not fully meet State
backqround levels
Some disapprove as not
extensive enough to protect
wildlife and ensure
permanent solution
Extensive Action
•Drum removal
•Dredging to down-
stream of re-charge zone
•Pump and treat groundwater
and monitor for up to 30
years
Virtually no expected hazards to
wildlife resulting from site
contaminants
• In compliance with State
Water Quality Standards
• US Army Corps of Engineers
Permit needed for dredging
Expected to remove majority of
contamination; site would not be
of long-term concern
Majority of source removed
Ecosystem would require some
recovery time
Possible, but high level of
difficulty and long-term
involvement required
$25 million
Meets state background levels
Some disapprove as too costly in
dollars and time; community
economic losses possible
1 CFR 300.121 mandates that these "Nine Criteria' be addressed in each Superfund Record of Decision.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12, 1995
IS-JO
-------
9. Watershed
-------
9. WATERSHED
GROUP EXERCISE
Dan River Watershed
Contents
Overview of die Group Exercise P-l
Background on Case Study P-5
Problem Formulation P-15
Analysis P-24
Risk Characterization P-30
Decision Making P-36
Case Study Background and Information Sheets
Problem Formulation Phase
Analysis Phase
Risk Characterization Phase
Decision Making Phase
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996 P-i
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Overview
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-ii Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Overview
offA
Guiding Principles,
Objectives, & Policies
PROBLEM FORMULATION
Federal, State,
Local Agencies
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Cormunication of Results
RagulatOTy Concerns
>= <
Political Factors
Risk Management
Dedsions
(" Econonics J)
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual /1996
P-iii
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Overview
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-iv Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996
-------
Watershed Group Exercise/Overview
OVERVIEW OF THE GROUP EXERCISES
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/1996 P-1
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Overview
{This page intentionally left blank.]
P-2 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual /1996
-------
Watershed Group Exercise /Overview
Overview of the Group Exercise
Summary of Group Exercise
In this exercise, you will conduct an ecological risk assessment on a fictitious watershed. At the conclusion of
the exercise, you will have three options to consider. Your group will make and communicate a final decision.
Phases of the Group Exercise
The exercise will be conducted in four separate sessions, with a report-out at the conclusion of each phase.
These phases will focus on:
1. Problem Formulation
2. Analysis
3. Risk Characterization
4. Decision Making
Materials in This Package
> Work Sheets. Work Sheets will guide you through the exercise. Each Work Sheet includes questions or
problems for group discussion. Your group should proceed through the Work Sheets in the order they are
presented.
•> Information Sheets. Information Sheets present information on the case study needed for the exercise. This
information includes the basic case study background as well as additional case information that will be
needed for each of the sessions.
Group Exercise Process
*• The Facilitator will gather participants into groups. Each group will choose a leader, a recorder, and one
person to report-out the group's recommendations and conclusions.
*• Your group is to assume two roles. For the first three phases, your group will complete a risk assessment
and communicate results to the decision maker. For the last phase, Decision Making, your group will
change roles and integrate the results of the risk assessment with other information needed to reach a
management decision.
»• Group members will collaborate to develop answers to questions presented on the Work Sheets. You will
present your findings to the rest of the workshop participants during the discussion sessions.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996 P-3
-------
6EB
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Background
BACKGROUND ON CASE STUDY
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual /1996 P-5
-------
Watershed Group Exercise /Background
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-6 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/1996
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Background
Background on Case Study
Time Allotted
Approximately 30 minutes
Location and Watershed Description
The Dan River lies in the piedmont region of the southeastern United States. The watershed and its
tributaries cover about 500 mi2 of varying terrain characterized by mountain ridges interspersed with
broad floodplain valleys with rich soils. The Dan River is part of the headwater system of the Mattapan
River that flows to the Atlantic (see map 1). Average preciptation in the Dan River watershed is about
35 inches annually, falling mostly as rain- since snow is infrequent, except in the highest elevations.
The Dan River watershed is comprised of a mosaic of forested lands, agricultural croplands, and grazing
lands. The forests are owned privately, and by the state and Federal governments and are dominated by
eastern white pine monoculture plantations as well as ridgeline and bottomland hardwoods. Dan's
Mountain National Forest, with its granite outcroppings, is highly valued by hikers and birdwatchers.
The most accessible and economically valuable timber still remains along the extensive private timber
holdings associated with the riparian corridors along the most downstream sections of the Dan River.
The watershed has two medium sized towns (each -25,000 people). These towns, East Bend and Little
Falls are the sites of local commerce and employment as well as the location of the area's two biggest
manufacturing plants. The H&T Paper Company has been making paper at Little Falls since 1 890 and
the Statesman Furniture Company has been milling wood for furniture and hardwood floors since 1855.
Both companies derive all their wood from forests within the watershed. They are the major sites of
non-agricultural employment in the region.
Crop agriculture is second only to timber and pulp industry in economic importance to the area.
Agricultural production in the area focuses on soy bean, lima bean, sweet potato and tobacco. There is
a small but growing wine-grape industry in the area. The dairy industry that is made up primarily of
small family-farms is now shrinking because of competition from "agro-conglomerates" from outside
of the state.
Historically, coal has been extracted from the watershed bedrock using shaft mines and metal ores have
been removed using open pit mines. Mining activities in the area ceased 25 years ago.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/1996 P-7
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Background
Background on Case Study (Continued)
Drinking water for the municipalities is from groundwater. Each municipality operates a water
treatment facility for treatment of waste water. Treated waste water is discharged into the river at each
facility. In addition, each of the two manufacturing operations discharge effluent to the river.
The Ecological Setting
• Much of the bottomland and urban centers have been intensively managed or developed for over
200 years but ridgeline forests and steep slopes in the mountainous areas remain isolated and
provide habitat and connecting corridors for wildlife.
• The ridgeline is habitat for several endemic (native) plant species and one species of squirrel that
is listed as endangered.
• Nesting perigrine falcons depend on both the ridgelines and rock outcroppings for nest sites and
upon the availability of songbirds in the bottomland hardwood forests as prey.
• The riparian corridors along the river provide important nesting and staging habitat (bottomland
hardwoods) for several threatened songbird species. The bottomland forest contains rare flowering
plants endemic to the area.
• The Dan River below the dam contains refugia for remnants of white and yellow perch, and striped
bass populations. The upper segments of the river and its tributaries above the dam support several
coldwater fish species, including brown trout, that are important recreationally as well as serving
as prey for resident osprey.
Nature of the Issues
Industrial, agricultural, forest products development, and the activities of the human population have
had a major effect on the ecology of the Dan River Valley over the last 200 years. Clearing of the land
for tillable agriculture, monoculture forest products, dwellings, and other buildings have altered habitat
excluding many species or significantly reducing their range and population size. Manufacturing of
natural products have historically and continue to produce air and water effluents.
P-8 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996
-------
Watershed Group Exercise I Background
Background on Case Study (Continued)
In each of the two communites within the watershed, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) also
discharge effluents to the river. In some instances, habitat for aquatic species has been altered physically
as well — a mill dam at the pulp and paper plant constructed in 1890 blocked the stream as a migration
route for anadromous white and yellow perch, and striped bass. The same dam obliterated downstream
riffles, rapids, and cold water pools that were important to these species and other non-migratory cold
water fish. The re-establishment of these important recreational species is a priority of the State Fish and
Game Office.
Runoff from tilled land and clear-cut forest has been a significant source of sediment loading to the
stream and clearing of the riparian vegatation as part of agricultural practice has resulted in the loss of
shading to the river and its tributaries. The result has been a wanner, slower, more sediment and
nutrient-laden stream that is no longer able to support much of the historical flora and fauna. The
species that depended on clear, cold, well-oxygenated waters have been replaced to varying extents by
species more tolerent of the anthropogenic stresses.
Some Stressor and Source Characteristics
• Many abandoned mines dot the mountainsides resulting in chronic low-level discharges of acidic
drainage. Additional atmospheric deposition of metals, including crypton, may be attributable to an
incinerator located in another state outside the watershed.
• The prevailing winds carry Nox and So, into the watershed from power plants outside the watershed.
• Effluent from the pulp and paper mill contains the heavy metals crypton, xenic, and gesium.
• Effluents from the furniture mill include both air and water emissions. The air emissions include
dust and particulates from furniture sanding and milling as well as volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) that evaporate from staining and finishing tanks. Water discharges are limited to releases
from staining and washing tank operations. These compounds include organic materials from stains
and wood sealers. There is some evidence that spills or leakage may have occurred from storage
tanks out in the mill yard. These tanks contain solvents such as turpentine, stains, and finishes such
as polyurathane.
• Continued logging of both private bottomland hardwoods as well as federally held ridgtop forests
would have significant effects on remaining migratory and resident species as well as riparian
corridors for species that nest elsewhere.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996 P-9
-------
Watershed Group Exercise I Background
Background on Case Study (Continued)
• Dairy cattle use of riparian corridors along the Dan River and several of its tributaries contributes
to the sediment, nutrient and fecal coliform loading to the river and ambient water temperature
elevation.
Current Regulatory Activities
* An EPA Region 12 official is reviewing EPA-issued water quality permits associated with two
facilities located in the Dan River Watershed; she must also consider whether consultation with the
US Fish and Wildlife Service is necessary due to potential impacts to threatened and endangered
species from the effluent permitted.
* The amount of effluent allowed under the pulp and paper and the furniture mill permits will
determine the plants' production capacities and associated forest product demand by the
mills.
* Statesman Furniture requested to increase its production, and therefore effluent, by 50%.
* The permits must be written and signed within 6 months to comply with a court order; the
court order was the result of a suit filed by the state which cited delays in EPA processing
of effluent permits - EPA admits to backlogs due to staff shortages.
* The State Department of the Environment is reviewing an air quality permit for the Statesmen
Furniture Company.
* The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license for the dam at H&T Paper is up for
renewal in two years. Currently, the Dam is used by the mill to generate a small amount of
electricity.
P-10 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996
-------
I
i
(O
Privately-Owned Timber -
s A £ White Pine Monoculture
>t*--^ * * *-**
DAN RIVER
f
Figure 1: Dan River Watershed
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Background
Stakeholders and Their Interests
* EPA Region 12 Division of Water
(See Current Regulatory Activities)
* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Dan River Field Office
The USFWS is interested in protecting the endangered southern squirrel and is considering
listing several species of songbirds which nest in the bottomland forest along the Dan River. They
are also concerned about the recent decline of perigrine falcons.
* State Fish and Game Little Falls Field Office
The State Fish and Game is interested in maintaining the recreational fisheries in the Dan River
below the dam including white and yellow perch, catfish, and striped bass populations. Increases
in temperature, sedimentation, and pollution from air and water emissions have all adversely
effected the fisheries.
* State Department of the Environment
(See Current Regulatory Activities)
The Natural Heritage Office within the Department of Environment is developing protection
programs for rare, endangered, threatened, and other endemic plant species. They are in the process
of acquiring riparian land containing bottomland hardwoods to designate as State Preserves.
* U.S. Department of Agriculture Extension Office
The Extension Office is working with fanners to decrease non-point sources of pollution:
* U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service
The Forest Service is interested in protecting the Dan's Mountain National Forest ecosystem and
is considering developing an ecosystem management plan for the forest.
* Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission
(See Current Regulatory Activities)
* Save Dan's Mountain Coalition
The mission of the coalition is to provide for nonconsumptive wildlife viewing, hiking, and
research in the Dan's Mountain area. They are concerned about the recent declines in perigrine
falcon populations.
* H&T Paper Company
H&T Paper Co. is interested in a continued supply of wood from the forests in the watershed and
in the re-issuance of its water discharge permit without any expenditures in new equipment to
reduce discharges of metals.
P-12 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/1996
-------
Watershed Group Exercise I Background
* University of the Southeast, Department of Biology
The USE Department of Biology has been studying the ecology of both the terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems for years.
* Dan River County Commissioners
The commissioners are interested in addressing problems with the changing economy of the
area.
The Commission is comprised of the president of the Dan's River Chapter of Ducks Unlimited;
plant manager of H & T Paper; Charles Griffen of Griffen Logging; a dairy farmer; a developer
from East Bend; and a retired city worker from Little Falls.
* Charles Griffen, owner, Griffen Logging
Mr. Griffen owns much of the private land in the Dan's Mountain National Forest and would
like to continue logging in these areas.
* Statesman Furniture Company
Statesman is very concerned about the renewal of their air emission and water discharge permits
and is considering ways of reducing pollution that do not involve high costs.
* State Timber and Forestry Office
The State Timber and Forestry Office is interested in maintaining the flow of revenue from
logging leases but, is under pressure by local groups to work with other agencies to address the
natural resource problems of the area.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop f Participant Manual /1996 P-13
-------
Watershed Group Exercise I Background
Background on Case Study (Continued)
Statutory Requirements or Agreements
* The Region 12 water permitting program and non-point source grants are administered by EPA
under authority of the Clean Water Act; the watershed is located in a non-delegated state, meaning
that EPA is responsible directly for all permit writing.
* The Air permits associated with the off-watershed incinerator are issued by a delegated state in the
Region.
* The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), a branch of the Department of Interior, is the Federal
agency responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act (SEA) of 1973 for most species.
EPA must consult, either formally or informally, with the FWS if EPA determines that its action
may affect a threatened or endangered (listed) species or its designated critical habitat. These EPA
actions could include registration of a pesticide and any other decision authorized, funded, or
implemented by EPA. Also, EPA must confer with the FWS if its action could affect a species or
critical habitat that may be proposed for listing. If EPA determines that there will be no effect,
consultation is not necessary.
* The Migratory Bird Act, protecting migratory species, and administered by the USFWS
* The FERC has authority to issue permits for dams
* The Dan River County Development Plan: stresses the continued stable economy supported by the
widest range of economic inputs (e.g. farming, mining, forestry, ) while accommodating a long-term
vision of quality public use and recreation on county lands
* The U.S. Forest Management Act, which specifies timber management on federal forest lands and
requires the maintenance of viable populations of native flora and fauna, while allowing for
managed timber production. The Federal forest lands are managed by the U.S. Forest Service.
* State Timber and Forestry Office - permits and regulates logging, sales and shipment of timber
harvested from private forest land leases.
Decision Options
Propose plan to protect and manage the important ecological resources of the watershed which will
include both regulatory and non-regulatory options.
P-14 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Problem Fbrniu/afion
PROBLEM FORMULATION
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996 P-15
-------
Watershed Group Exercise I Problem Formulation
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-16 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996
-------
Watershed Group Exercise I Problem Formulation
Problem Formulation
Contents
Summary of Problem Formulation Exercise ......................................... P-19
Problem Formulation Phase [[[ P-21
Work Sheets (WS)
WS #1 : Sources of Stressors and Stressors
WS #2: Selecting Ecological Components Affected by Stressors and Exposure Pathways Using the
Conceptual Model
WS#3: Management Goals
WS#4: Assessment Endpoints
WS#5: Measurement Endpoints
Information Sheets (IS)
IS #1 : Condition of Dan River Watershed Ecosystems
IS #2: Results of Public Meetings Regarding Water and Air Quality Permits
IS #3: Dan River Watershed Management Committee Concerns
-------
Watershed Group Exercise/Problem Formulation
[This page intentionally left blank.]
P-18 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/1996
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Problem Formulation
Summary of Problem Formulation Exercise
Time Allotted
Approximately 2 hours.
Key Concepts
»• Problem formulation establishes the objectives and scope of the ecological risk assessment.
» Watershed ecological risk assessments consider both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and may
involve multiple environmental issues, regulatory authorities, management goals, and political
jurisdictions.
»• The Risk Assessor works with the Risk Managers) typically within a forum like an organized group
or committee, to identify the objectives and scope of the risk assessment and the assessment
endpoints. This includes developing clearly stated goals which are specific enough to develop
assessment endpoints.
» An assessment endpoint is a formal expression of the environmental value to be protected and should
be ecologically relevant, reflect policy goals and societal values, and be susceptible to the stressor.
» A measurement endpoint is a measurable response to a stressor that is related to the assessment
endpoint.
> The public plays an important role in identifying ecological concerns and contributing information.
» The selection of assessment endpoints must be focused to meet the needs of the investigation while
reflecting the availability of resources (personnel, financial, time).
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/1996 P-19
-------
Watershed Group Exorcise I Problem Formulation
Activities
»• Identify sources of stressors and stressors.
> Select ecological components affected by stressors and exposure pathways.
» Develop management goals for ecological components.
» Develop assessment and measurement endpoints.
Task Overview
»• Complete the Work Sheets referring to the Information Sheets and Background Material.
•• Choose a leader and spokesperson to make notes on the flip chart and present a summary of the group
discussion. This may be two people or one person may conduct both tasks.
P-20 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996
-------
Watershed Group Exercise I Problem Formulation
Problem Formulation Phase
The Problem Formulation Phase is where the planning for an ecological risk assessment takes place.
The goals, breadth, and focus for the assessment are established in this phase, taking into account
regulatory, policy, and public concerns. The Risk Manager and Risk Assessor work together, often
within a watershed group or committee, to identify the ecological concerns or effects that are expected
or have resulted from human activities. For watershed risk assessments, risk managers may be decision
officials in Federal, state, or local governments having jurisdiction over the resources in question, the
general public, special constituency groups, or other interested parties. The Risk Manager's role is to
ensure societal values are protected and that the risk assessment provides relevant information to make
decisions. The Risk Assessor provides information on the scientific characterization of the targeted
ecological resources and values or the condition of the ecosystem.
Together, the Risk Manager and Risk Assessor develop agreed-upon management goals after several
meetings. The goals should be as specific as possible to ensure that the intent of the goal is met in the
risk assessment. This may involve developing sub-goals.
After determining what to assess, decisions are made as to how to assess (i.e., literature search for
information, measurements in the laboratory or field, etc.). Factors such as time, cost, and cooperation
from other parties are considered when determining how to assess the problem.
Following are some concepts, terms, and tools useful in planning an ecological risk assessment:
Stressors Stressors are the pollutants or activities that cause the ecological
concern or effect.
Generally, the Framework classifies Stressors as being chemical,
physical, or biological. Examples include:
» Chemical-toxics, nutrients (nitrates in water);
»• Physical-dredging or filling in waterways or wetlands, diverting
water flow in a river by constructing a diversion or dam; and
*• Biological-introducing exotic organisms.
Sources of Stressors Sources of Stressors include emissions from factories, fanning activities,
mining, logging, residential and commercial development, and
atmospheric deposition.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996 P-21
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Problem Formulation
SB*
Exposure Routes
or Pathways
Problem Formulation Phase (Continued)
It is important to trace exposure routes or pathways of a stressor to de-
termine all the possible components of the ecosystem that may be
affected. Considerations include:
Ecological Effects
Conceptual Models
Assessment Endpoints
» Mobility of a stressor;
» Uptake of a chemical by plants and animals;
» Transformation (chemicals may degrade in the environment from
ex-exposure to light, or react with water or other chemicals to form
substances that are non-toxic, less toxic, or more toxic than the
original chemical); and
» Competition (biological stressors).
For physical stressors, the exposure may be immediately obvious (i.e.,
removing or destroying ecosystems by building a structure, dredging,
or removing water for agriculture or drinking water supplies). The
effects of physical stressors may be far-ranging, e.g., removal or
diversion of water alters habitats downstream (bays become saltier,
adversely affecting bay fish nurseries which require a mixture of fresh
and salt water).
Ecological effects are the harmful responses of the ecosystem and its
components to the exposure to stressors. Some examples include
death, reproductive failure, decline in growth rate, habitat loss, etc.
Conceptual models are helpful in fully characterizing the ecological
effects associated with stressors. These models may take the form of
sketches of the ecosystem at risk (cross-section or plan view) with
arrows illustrating routes of exposure, or they may be abstract in form
with ecosystem components and stressors in boxes with arrows
showing relationships between them.
The Framework uses the term assessment endpoint to identify the
ecological concern(s) that will be the focus of the assessment. Criteria
used to select assessment endpoints include:
•• Sensitivity to stressors of concern;
» Ecological relevance; and
» Relevance to policy goals and societal/stakeholder values.
P-22
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Problem Formulation
Problem Formulation Phase (Continued)
Assessment Endpoints
Measurement Endpoint
The assessment endpoint needs to be both affected by and sensitive to
the stressor(s). Ecological relevance means that the assessment
endpoint is important to the function of the ecosystem. For example,
lake trout play an important role in maintaining the balance of aquatic
ecosystems. However, the introduction of carp has disrupted the
balance of aquatic ecosystems.
Assessment endpoints also should reflect policy goals (e.g., protect
endangered species and no net loss of wetlands). Societal values helped
form the basis for these policies when environmental laws were enacted.
However, policy or management goals (e.g., protect endangered species,
maintain recreational fisheries) are not assessment endpoints.
Assessment endpoints must be measurable.
Examples of assessment endpoints include: sustainably reproducing
populations of trout species; maintenance of populations of aquatic
vegetation that are supportive offish and invertebrates; maintenance of
reproductively successful songbird populations, etc. The more specific
the assessment endpoint the better, (e.g., loss of no endangered bats).
Measurement endpoint is another term used in the Framework referring
to how we determine exposure and effects to an assessment endpoint.
Examples of what to measure include concentration of a chemical in
water and animal tissue, number of offspring, deformities, mortality,
acres of wetlands removed, modeling impacts to a population, status of
an indicator species, etc.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996
P-23
-------
[This page intentionally left blank]
-------
oB¥V Watershed Group Exercise I Problem Formulation
PROBLEM FORMULATION WORK SHEET #1
Sources of Stressors and Stressors
What are the sources of Stressors and Stressors in the watershed? Use information in the background
section including the map of the watershed.
Sources of Stressors Stressors
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996 WS-1
-------
SERA Watershed Group Exercise I Problem Formulation
PROBLEM FORMULATION WORK SHEET #2
Selecting Ecological Components Affected by Stressors and
Exposure Pathways Using the Conceptual Model
What are the ecological components that are being or may be affected by the stressors and what are the
exposure pathways? Use the conceptual model or map of the watershed to identify ecological
components of concern and to draw arrows representing exposure pathways. Refer to Background
Section and Information Sheet #1.
Ecological Component Exposure Pathways
WS-2 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996
-------
CD
&
s
I
I
<0
0>
Pnvately-Owned Timber
White Pine Monoculture
DAN RIVE
f f
Statesman
Furniture
Company
Bottomland
Hardwood
Forest
Figure 1: Dan River Watershed
Conceptual Model
i
5"
I
0)
a
O
i
0)
3
31
cu
I
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Problem Formulation
PROBLEM FORMULATION WORK SHEET #3
Management Goals
Taking on the role of the Dan River Watershed Management Committee (see Information Sheets 1,2 &
3), develop management goals for the ecological components or resources of concern in the Dan River
Watershed.
Ecological Component Management Goal
WS-4 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual /1996
-------
»ERA Watershed Group Exercise / Problem Formulation
PROBLEM FORMULATION WORK SHEET #4
Assessment Endpoints
Using the ecological components on the previous work sheet and the corresponding management goals,
develop assessment endpoints for the 4 most important ecological resources of concern.
1. Ecological Component
Assessment Endpoint
2. Ecological Component
Assessment Endpoint
3. Ecological Component
Assessment Endpoint
4. Ecological Component
Assessment Endpoint
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual /1996 WS-5
-------
Watershed Group Exercise I Problem Formulation
PROBLEM FORMULATION WORK SHEET #5
Measurement Endpoints
1 . Prepare a list of measurement endpoints for the 4 assessment endpoints.
Assessment Endpoint Measurement Endpoints
2. What types of activities would be required to obtain the selected measurement endpoints? What are
the real world constraints on an ecological risk assessment and how could these constraints affect
your ability to cany-out these activities?
WS-6 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual /1996
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Problem Formulation
PROBLEM FORMULATION INFORMATION SHEET # 1
Condition of Dan River Watershed Ecosystems
Terrestrial Ecosystems & Components
Bottomland hardwood forests:
As in much of the South, low-lying or bottomland hardwood forests have been cleared along many
stretches of the riparian zone due to the high quality of wood and to the desire to plant crops in the fertile
soils typical of these riparian areas. Only 40% of the Dan River is currently forested as a result.
White pine forest:
Within Dan's Mountain National Forest, adjacent to the National Forest, and extending outside the
watershed are extensive, but fragmented, sections of southern white pine forest. These forests consist of
occasional virgin tree stands interspersed with 50-100 year old trees regenerating from large clear cuts at the
tum-of the -century. Increased fragmentation within the National Forest is expected to occur as a result of
private inholdings decisions to clearcut.
The State Park and Forests contain a mixture of hardwood and softwood species and are lower in the
watershed than the National forests; they are heavily used by hikers and campers and provide only minimal
habitat for the species of interest in the watershed. Also, they are heavily managed and are cnss-crossed
with roads; some hunting occurs for white-tailed deer and quail.
Native plant species:
Within the mature hardwood and white pine forest of Dan's Mountain National Forest and in the
remaining bottomland hardwood forest are several rare plant species which are found no where else within
the watershed. Several are flowering plants of great interest to botanists at the University; one is the State
Flower. Both ridgetop and bottomland endemic species are imperilled, some have been recently listed on
the State endangered and threatened list. Several of these endemic species, including some which are not
rare, are excellent indicators of mature forest type.
Endangered squirrel:
This squirrel species was widely distributed across ridgetop and valley forests well into the twentieth
century. Although extensive deforestation in the late 1800's devastated squirrel populations in this
watershed, vast refugia existed over a wide extent of the southern mountain systems so that by the 1920's
immigration of squirrels resulted in a refurbishment of the local populations. The Dan's Mountain
population is one of the only melanized (black) populations of this species. For this reason, the USFWS
listed the squirrel in the 1980's as endangered after a reopening of the forests to clearcutting threatened their
remaining habitat.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996 IS-1
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Problem Formulation
Problem Formulation Information Sheet # 1 (continued)
The squirrel requires a complex forest matrix (mix of tree and shrub types) in order to complete its life
cycle. Nesting and foraging occur in different segments of the forest and the species is especially vulnerable
to predation when crossing openings in the forest canopy due to its dark coloration. The oldest trees, and those
with the most mature understory serve as important refugia for nesting squirrels; offspring are able to move into
the less desirable younger stands, but cannot migrate over clearcuts. Some of the squirrel population are located
in the ecotone between the white pine monoculture plantation and the mature forested areas, but are vulnerable
to owl predation as they attempt to move into the more mature forested areas.
Peregrine falcons, ospreys, and songbirds:
Five pairs of nesting falcons frequent the Dan's Mountain ridgetop, extending beyond the watershed
boundary; three reside within the watershed. Peregrines feed primarily on songbirds inhabiting the bottomland
hardwood area. The peregrine falcon population has declined recently from eight to five nesting pairs.
Disturbance of nest sites along the ridgetop by recreationalists and decline of songbirds are thought to be the
cause.
At least seven nesting pairs of osprey frequent the shorelines of the Dan River hunting for fish and
nesting along the Dan in and around telephone poles and industrial facilities. Osprey were at one time more
numerous, before the establishment of the paper and furniture manufacturing facilities. It is thought that
pollutants from these facilities have effected the osprey population both directly through the food chain and
indirectly through reduced numbers of prey fish, also thought to be the result of pollutants and riparian land use.
Songbird populations increase during the migration season and provide a relatively stable source of prey
for peregrines during the spring nesting season. Several populations of songbirds are on the decline. It is
uncertain how much of the decline is the result of decreased survival overwinter in South America, or how much
is the result of avoidance of the area due to human disturbance along the Dan River bottomland hardwood forest.
Agro-ecosystems:
Nonpoint source runoff of pesticides used on the crop agricultural is a concern. Best management
practices for preventing cattle trampling of the streambank are voluntary and only a few farms limit access to
the Dan River and its tributaries. As a result, vegetative cover is lacking on many stretches of the stream and
corresponding rises in water temperature are affecting osprey use of the streams for foraging. A recent increase
of vineyard development is considered a positive trend but it is unknown what effects will result from fertilizer
and pesticide use associated with this new industry.
/S-2 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996
-------
Watershed Group Exercise I Problem Formulation
Problem Formulation Information Sheet # 1 (continued)
Aquatic Ecosystems and Components
River Ecosystems:
Upstream of the Dam:
Upriver of the dam and small reservoir (125 acres), the Dan River is a medium-small sized river
that flows year-round, even in the lowest rainfall years. It's average width is 18 feet, its average depth
is 4.5 ft and average discharge rate is 13 cubic feet per second (cfs) (range = 6 - 13,750 cfs). The Dan
River as a year- round stream extends 3 1 miles above the dam. At least 200 small streams drain into
the Dan between the dam and its headwaters. This segment of the Dan has been designated as a fishable,
swimmable water and meets the state water quality criteria in all areas except suspended solids and
mineral nutrients. The river has a mix of riffles, rapids and pools. Because of the mineral nutrients
inputs from neighboring farmlands, and sediment inputs from farmland and clear-cut forest, this segment
of river is starting to experiencing an increase in algae and aquatic weed growth. The tributary streams
are also experiencing these changes, although with lower flow, they are sometimes experiencing higher
temperatures, low dissolved oxygen and build up of sediments along the bottom. Populations of trout
are lower than 50 years ago and their decline appear to be associated with loss of preferred habitat and
poor water quality in the tributary streams.
Downstream from the Dam:
Below the dam, although the river is still designated as fishable and swimmable, there are many
times during the year that the stream does not meet state water quality standards for that use. In the river
along Little Falls, there are noticeable problems with nutrients, oxygen levels and temperature and the
rocks and river bottom are covered with algae and aquatic weeds for much of the year; the growth has
hit nuisance levels. This stretch of river, has noticeable problems with odor and color as well. During
the dry summer months, flow can be reduced below 3 cfs and much of the river bottom in this area can
be exposed and partially dried. Sediments in the area immediately below the dam have elevated levels
of the heavy metal, crypton. Species that are very tolerant of warm, poorly oxygenated waters are found
in this segment of the river, including carp, catfish, and an exotic subtropical species - the southern
canal fish.
Several miles downstream of Little Falls, below the confluence of other tributaries but above
East Bend, there are populations of Perch and Striped Bass. A hundred years ago, those species were
so abundant that they were fished commercially in this reach of the river. However, today they form
the basis of a small recreational fishery.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996 IS-3
-------
Watershed Group Exercise I Problem Formulation
Problem Formulation Information # 1 (continued)
The Wetlands:
Over the last 50 years about 90% of the wetlands in the watershed have been drained or filled for
agricultural or urban development. There has been a significant (better than 85% ) loss of waterfowl during that
period. The period of loss of wetlands corresponds with the development of many sedimentation problems in
the tributary streams and with the reduction in fish populations in the tributaries and upstream, as well.
The Riparian Lands:
Many of the local farmers had cleared their land right to the edge of the water in earlier years, although
some are now allowing the brush and trees to grow back - as pan of voluntary best management practices
program in the area. The new riparian vegetation is still relatively immature and is not necessarily the same land
of vegetation that occupied the riparian zones in earlier years. Cattle continue to walk through regrowth areas
and cleared river bank into the streams on several farms however. The problem is about the same on the
tributary creeks that drain the farmland.
IS-4 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Problem Formulation
PROBLEM FORMULATION INFORMATION SHEET #2
Results of Public Meetings Regarding Water and Air Quality Permits
Under the auspices of the Dan River County Commission, hearings were held on the water quality and
air quality permits. The following summarizes the concerns of the public expressed in those meetings:
• A citizen from Little Falls expressed a concern that re-issuing the pulp and paper mill
permit would affect the recreational opportunities in the reservoir above the dam;
• Citizens expressed fears about the organic contaminants in the water from the Statesman
Furniture Company discharge and possible effects on the health of swimmers;
• A professor in the Department of Biology at the University of the Southeast reported
that he has analyzed the catfish and found elevated levels of crypton in their
reproductive organs and livers. The professor also noted that sediments taken from
below the dam also contained elevated levels of crypton;
• Several citizens said that the odor coming from the water near the paper mill made them
feel as if they didn't want to go near the water;
• The state Fish and Game Agency Little Falls Field Office reported two incidents of fish
kills over the last three years - one down stream from the POTW in Little Falls and the
other adjacent to the Statesman Furniture Company. They believe the fish kills were
caused by unusually high discharges from H&T Paper and the Statesman Furniture
Company. They further report that the population of striped bass returning to the stream
is markedly diminished over the last IS years;
• The U.S. Forest Service commented that some trees in the bottomland hardwood forest
within a three-mile radius of the Statesman Furniture mill show signs of leaf damage
(e.g., bleaching, mottling, stippling);
• The United Brotherhood of Paper Makers, local 1399, commented that they were
concerned about the potential loss of jobs at H&T paper if stricter environmental
controls were put into place
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996 IS-5
-------
&ERIV Watershed Group Exercise I Problem Formulation
PROBLEM FORMULATION INFORMATION SHEET #3
Dan River Watershed Management Committee Concerns
A group of agencies, local organizations, and individuals concerned about the condition of various
resources in the area and the local economy have organized and held several meetings over the past few years.
This group, called the Dan River Watershed Management Committee, hopes to develop a management plan for
the watershed which addresses its concerns. The Committee is in the process of developing management goals
for the watershed based on its concerns. The following are the major concerns of members of the Committee:
• decline in water quality of the Dan River below the dam;
• decline in sport fishery;
• lack of good swimming areas on the Dan River below the dam;
• loss of natural recreational areas from logging;
• decline of songbird population;
• decline of peregrine falcon population;
• adverse habitat effects of increased birdwatching;
• protect endangered southern squirrel and native plants;
• loss of dairy processing jobs;
• economic effects of possible reduced logging on loggers, H&T Paper, and Statesman
Furniture;
• additional costs to fanners to implement any new best management practices; and
• effects of overall changing economy from fanning to tourism and the service industry.
/S-6 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996
-------
Watershed Group Exercise /Analysis
ANALYSIS
P-24 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/1996
-------
Watershed Group Exercise /Analysis
[This page intentionally left blank.]
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual/1996 P-25
-------
Watershed Group Exercise /Analysis
Analysis
Contents
Summary of Analysis Exercise [[[ P-28
Analysis Phase [[[ P-29
Work Sheets (WS)
WS #1 : Analysis of Exposure - Upland Forest Community
WS #2: Analysis of Exposure - Recreational Fish Populations
WS #3: Analysis of Effects - Upland Forest Community
WS #4: Analysis of Effects - Recreational Fish Populations
Information Sheets (IS)
IS #1 : What is a Geographic Information System?
IS #2: GIS Data Layers and Sources: Anthropogenic Features and Canopy Cover and Type
IS #3: Southern Squirrel Population Characteristics
IS #4: Chemical Exposure Information
IS #5: Physical Stressor Exposure Information
IS #6: Study of Leaf Damage in Dan's Mountain National Forest
IS #7: Minimal Habitat Requirements of Endangered Southern Squirrel
IS #8: Results of Toxicity f ests of Effluent Chemicals
-------
Watershed Group Exercise /Analysis oER>\
[This page intentionally left blank.]
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/1996 P-27
-------
Watershed Group Exercise /Analysis
Summary of Analysis Exercise
Time Allotted
Approximately 1 hour, 30 minutes.
Key Concepts
* The major components of the Analysis Phase are characterization of exposure and characterization
of ecological effects.
* Exposure analysis requires knowledge of: (1) stressor characteristics (physical, chemical and
biological) in environmental media, (2) the probability that ecological components come into direct
or indirect contact with the stressor, and (3) the riming of exposure to a stressor in relation to
biological cycles.
» Both direct and indirect ecological effects should be addressed. In watershed risk assessments, it is
especially important to describe secondary and/or indirect effects within and across media and
ecological components.
»• Measurement endpoints must be related to assessment endpoints, and this often involves
extrapolation from measured uuuvidual effects to estimated population and community level effects.
> Risk assessment requires varying degrees of professional judgment in dealing with uncertainties.
Activities
» Analyze exposure routes and pathways, consider stressor characteristics, and identify ecological
components of concern.
» Analyze direct and indirect ecological effects.
» Identify uncertainties associated with the analysis phase.
P-28 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual /1996
-------
Watershed Group Exercise /Analysis
Analysis Phase
The Analysis Phase is where both the exposure and effects of stressor(s) on the assessment endpoints
are determined. This phase involves collecting and analyzing data in the literature, actual measurements
in the laboratory or field, and modeling. As with any analytical work, there are uncertainties in the data
and in interpreting data. These uncertainties should be documented, carried through the assessment, and
presented as part of the results to the Risk Manager. Professional judgement is often a component of
ecological assessments, and should be clearly identified when the results are presented to the Risk
Manager. Similarly, any extrapolations (e.g., from individual to population to community, from
laboratory to the field, or from one place to another) should be identified as one of the uncertainties.
Exposure Analysis
It is important to know how stressors behave in the environment, i.e., how solar radiation, water,
sediments, soil, air, and the living components affect the movement and form stressors take in the
environment. For example, non-affected organisms may metabolize toxic chemicals to non-toxic
compounds. Both direct and indirect exposure should be analyzed. An organism may become exposed
to a toxic chemical by eating a contaminated organism rather than by direct exposure (consider predator
species). Temporal and spatial distribution of a stressor is important. The stressor might affect a certain
life stage or the entire life cycle of an organism. The extent of exposure to a stressor could be localized
or affect an entire region or large ecosystem.
Effects Analysis
Both direct and indirect effects should be analyzed. Examples of indirect effects are when organisms
affected by a stressor are prone to disease, easier targets of prey species, and less competitive.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop I Participant Manual/1996 P-29
-------
Watershed Group Exercise I Analysis
ANALYSIS WORK SHEET # 1
Analysis of Exposure - Upland Forest Community
1. What are the primary stressors affecting the upland forest community?
2. What is GIS? How is GIS useful in determining exposure of the Forest Community to physical
stressors? (see IS # 1 - GIS)
3. How would you characterize the exposure of the upland forest community to logging activities and
roads? What are the uncertainties in the data? (see IS # 2 - GIS data layers and source of data)
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996 WS-7
-------
<8>ER& Watershed Group Exercise /Analysis
ANALYSIS WORK SHEET # 1 (continued)
Southern Squirrel Chosen as Indicator Species
The endangered southern squirrel was chosen as good indicator species of upland forest
community health. It requires a dense mature forest matrix.
4. How would you characterize the population of endangered southern squirrel in Dan's Mountain
National Forest? What is the population distribution? Where are most of the nests found? What
are some of the uncertainties in the data? (See IS# 3)
WS-8 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996
-------
Watershed Group Exercise /Analysis &SA
ANALYSIS WORK SHEET #2
Analysis of Exposure - Recreational Fish Populations
1. What are the primary stressors affecting recreational fish populations?
2. What is the exposure of fish populations to these stressors? What are the uncertainties in the
chemical exposure data? (see IS #4 & #5)
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual /1996 WS-9
-------
Watershed Group Exercise /Analysis
ANALYSIS WORK SHEET # 3
Analysis of Effects - Upland Forest Community
1 . What are the effects of chemical pollutants? (see IS # 6 )
2. What are the minimal habitat requirements of the endangered southern squirrel? What are some of
the uncertainties in the data? (see IS #7)
WS-10 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996
-------
Watershed Group Exercise /Analysis
ANALYSIS WORK SHEET # 4
Analysis of Effects - Recreational Fish Populations
1 . What are the effects of chemicals on the fish populations? (see IS# 8 - Results of Toxicity Tests and
Sublethal Tests)
2. What are the habitat requirements of the recreational fish populations? ( see IS # 9)
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual /1996 WS-11
-------
Watershed Group Exercise /Analysis
ANALYSIS INFORMATION SHEET #1
What is a Geographic Information System?
A Geographic Information System (CIS) is a computer-based system used to store and analyze sets of
geographic information, referred to as layers, and to generate two- and three-dimensional maps
illustrating the relationships among the layers.
A CIS can use one or more layers to display relationships among physical, socio-economic, ecological,
or other spatially-defined data on a map. For example, one layer might contain information on the
location of rivers and streams in a watershed, another layer might have information on potential sources
of pollution to the system, and a third might contain information on the location and range of important
or threatened plant and animal species. A GIS can put some or all of this information onto one map,
showing how the data relate to each other.
While displaying information on a map is very important to help the user understand the interactions
among critical features in a given area, a GIS is more than a mapping presentation program. It contains
the ability to manipulate and analyze data thus leading to new information. These new data then can
be exported and analyzed in other electronic databases. For example, the analyst can have the GIS use
different data layers to determine the distance between known or suspected sources of pollution and the
habitats of important plant or animal species. This information can then be used in an ecosystem
analysis.
A GIS can help an analyst identify potential stressors to an ecosystem and the relationship among the
various stressors. For example, the system can display the location and concentrations of species of
concern or other ecosystem attributes and degree of overlap with potential stressors including point
sources, roads, and other non-point sources of pollution. This information can be very valuable in
identifying the relative impact of different stressors and developing management plans to respond to
them.
While requiring a lot of computer memory to perform multiple and complex operations, GIS software
is available to run on personal computers. Most contain baseline data and maps for major metropolitan
areas. For most specific, place-based analyses, obtaining and digitizing (converting lines on maps to
digital data) relevant data for use in a GIS remains a large task.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual /1996 IS-7
-------
Watershed Group Exercise /Analysis
ANALYSIS INFORMATION SHEET # 3
Southern Squirrel Population Characteristics
The USFWS conducted the most extensive studies to date of the endangered southern squirrel within
the Dan's Mountain National Forest and contiguous white pine monoculture areas. 80% of the dense mature
forest, 60% of the re-growth areas, and 50% of the white pine monoculture were surveyed.
The USFWS found the population to be at an historic low. Only 236 squirrels (55 adult males, 45 adult
females, and 141 juveniles) were found within the Dan's Mountain National Forest and contiguous white pine
monoculture areas.
90% of the squirrel population was found in the dense mature forest, 8% was found in the re-growth area
(mostly juveniles and some adult males), and 2% was found in the white pine monoculture. Almost all of the
adult females were found in the dense mature forest. Female squirrels are more sedentary and are more sensitive
to habitat changes that affect availability of food and nesting sites. All but 3 nesting sites were found in the
dense mature forest areas.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / 7996 /S-8
-------
Watershed Group Exercise /Analysis
ANALYSIS INFORMATION SHEET # 4
Chemical Exposure Information
The chemical exposure data come from a survey conducted by EPA and state Department of the
Environment to determine the amount and effects of effluents discharged from H&T Paper and Statesman
Furniture as part of the permit review process. The data were collected at fixed stations in the river over a
week's period during the summer. Samples were taken from the water (mid-depth for H&T Paper samples only),
sediments (grab sample), and adult fish (liver samples from catfish & perch). The sampling stations for H&T
Paper and Statesman Furniture were located 100 yards down river from each mill. Samples taken downstream
of H&T Paper were analyzed for xenic, gesium, and crypton. Samples taken downstream of Statesman
Furniture were analyzed for various organic chemicals contained in the stains and wood sealers.
The results of the samples taken downstream of H&T Paper indicate high levels of crypton in the water,
sediments, and fish tissue (see below). Xenic was found at high levels in sediments and fish. Gesium was
found at natural background levels.
Results of Samples Taken Downstream of H&T Paper*
Station Crypton Xenic
Water Sediment Fish** Sediment Fish**
100yds 3ug/l 120ug/kg 3 ug/kg 400 ug/kg 14ug/kg
* Above natural background data presented
**Catfish samples
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual /1996 IS-9
-------
Watershed Group Exercise /Analysis <»ER>V
ANALYSIS INFORMATION SHEET # 4 (continued)
The results of samples taken downstream of Statesman Furniture indicate concentrations of only one
organic chemical, organostain, well above background levels for fish and sediments (see below).
Results of Samples Taken Downstream of Statesman Furniture*
Station Organostain
Sediments Perch Striped Bass
100 yards 124ug/kg 48ug/kg
* Above background data presented
—no data available; however, life history and feeding habits are similar to perch
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996 IS-10
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Analysis
SB*
ANALYSIS INFORMATION SHEET # 5
Physical Stressor Exposure Information
The state Fish and Game Little Falls Field Office has been collecting data on recreational fish habitat
quality and harvest levels for the last 10 and 40 years, respectively. Habitat quality data include water
temperature, flow rates, and dissolved oxygen. Sampling sites are at fixed stations along the mainstem every
5 miles above and below the dam. The harvest data is comprised of surveys of recreational anglers at the major
boat landings along the river. Harvest data were collected for trout, catfish, perch, and striped bass.
The results averaged over the last summer months (June-August) indicate that the habitat quality
measurements are much poorer below the dam versus above the dam (see below).
Station*
1
8
Habitat Quality Data
Temp Flow Rate**
69F llcfs
69 F 12 cfs
68 F 9 cfs
66 F 7 cfs
79 F 3 cfs
77 F 4 cfs
78 F 6 cfs
76 F 8 cfs
Dissolved Oxygen
7ppm
6ppm
6.5 ppm
4.5 ppm
3 ppm
4 ppm
5 ppm
6 ppm
""Stations 1-4 above dam (Station 4 is in reservoir), Stations 5-8 (Station 5
is 5 miles below H&T paper and Station 8 is 5 miles below Statesman
Furniture) below dam; all samples collected at mid-depth
**cfs=cubic feet per second
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996
IS-11
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Analysis
ANALYSIS INFORMATION SHEET # 5 (continued)
The state Fish and Game surveyed the number of recreational anglers and catch for trout, catfish, perch,
and striped bass at the major boat landings over the last 40 years. Their data indicate that fishing pressure has
remained about the same, i.e., the number of anglers was fairly stable over the last 40 years. However, the catch
has declined for all four species, particularly in the last 20 years.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996 IS-12
-------
Watershed Group Exercise /Analysis
ANALYSIS INFORMATION SHEET # 6
Study of Leaf Damage in Dan's Mountain National Forest
The Biology Department of the University of the Southeast received a grant from the U.S. Forest Service
to conduct a comprehensive study of the effects of acid precipitation on forest vegetation. The Service suspected
that NOX and SOX emissions from the power plants in another state outside the watershed were the source of
acid precipitation in Dan's Mountain National Forest.
The University surveyed the forest for evidence of leaf damage characteristic of acid precipitation, e.g.,
defoliation, bleaching, mottling, & stippling. Although they found some evidence of leaf damage caused by acid
precipitation, most of the forest hardwood trees and shrubs showed no evidence of damage. They concluded
that precipitation leaf damage to the forest is very minor but, that follow-up studies should be conducted in the
future to monitor leaf damage in case there is an increase in emissions.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996 IS-13
-------
Watershed Group Exercise /Analysis
ANALYSIS INFORMATION SHEET # 7
Minimal Habitat Requirements of Endangered Southern Squirrel*
Minimum Habitat Area
Minimum habitat area is defined as the minimum amount of contiguous habitat (non-fragmented) that
is required before an area will be occupied by a species. For the southern squirrel, the habitat must consist of
a dense mature forest matrix. The southern squirrel's average home range is 50 acres in Dan's Mountain
National Forest.
Reproduction
The southern squirrel requires forest vegetation comprised of at least 80% large dense mature stands
of trees and a minimum tract size of 5 acres for adequate nest sites.
Food
At least 60% canopy cover is required to produce sufficient supplies nuts to support southern squirrel
populations.
* Information derived from a University of the Southeast graduate student (Masters thesis) study funded by the
USFWS.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996 IS-14
-------
Watershed Group Exercise /Analysis
ANALYSIS INFORMATION SHEET # 8
Results of Toxicity Tests of Effluent Chemicals
Toxicity tests were conducted by the EPA and state Department of the Environment on the 3 chemicals
found at above background levels - crypton, xenic, and organostain. Both acute and chronic tests were
conducted including LD50 and long-term exposures assessing effects on growth, reproduction, and morphology.
The results indicate the levels at which crypton, xenic, and organostain exhibit toxicity and sublethal
effects (growth reduction, reproductive effects, and deformities) in catfish, perch and striped bass (see tables
below).
LD50 Results
Crypton Xenic Organostain
Catfish 2ug/l 16ug/l —*
Perch --** — 42ug/l
Striped Bass —** — 53 ug/1
"Catfish do not occur in exposed area and, therefore, were not tested
*'"Perch and striped bass do not occur in exposed area and, therefore, were not tested
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996 IS-15
-------
Watershed Group Exercise /Analysis
ANALYSIS INFORMATION SHEET # 8 (continued)
Sublethal Test Results
Chemical
Crypton
Crypton
Crypton
Xenic
Organostain
Organostain
Organostain
Organostain
Organostain
Organostain
Exposure
Concentration
1.2ug/I
0.9ug/l
3.4ug/l
54ug/l
38ug/l
Slug/1
83ug/l
59ug/l
47ug/l
71ug/l
Sublethal
Effects
Growth rates were significantly reduced in juvenile
catfish
Significantly lower egg production in adult female
catfish
Fin deformities in juvenile catfish
Growth rates significantly reduced in juvenile
catfish
Juvenile perch exhibited a small but, significant
reduction in growth rates
Adult female perch exhibited significant reduction
in egg production
Skeletal anomalies in juvenile perch were observed
Growth rates were significantly reduced in juvenile
striped bass
Significant reductions in egg production in adult
female striped bass
Fin rot was observed in adult striped bass
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop I Participant Manual/1996
IS-16
-------
Watershed Grouo Exercise /Analysts
ANALYSIS INFORMATION SHEET* 9
Habitat Requirements of Recreational Fish Populations
Brown Trout*
Catfish'
Fetch
Temperature
The maximum temperature that brown trout can tolerate is 72F. Spawning cannot occur above 60F.
Brown trout spawn throughout the year.
Dissolved Oxygen
Brown trout require at least 6ppm dissolved oxygen.
Turbidity
Studies have shown that sedimentation causes egg nests to be buried and, under extreme conditions, gills
to be clogged.
**
Temperature
Catfish can tolerate fairly high temperatures (80F) before physiological functions are affected.
Dissolved Oxygen
Catfish will tolerate dissolved oxygen levels of
-------
Watershed Group Exercise /Analysis
ANALYSIS INFORMATION SHEET # 9 (continued)
Striped Bass**
Temperature
Striped bass adults can tolerate temperatures up to 75F. Spawning cannot occur above 56F. Striped
bass spawn in the spring.
Dissolved Oxygen
6ppm dissolved oxygen is required for spawning and a flow rate of above 9cfs. Adults generally require
highly oxygenated waters.
Turbidity
Striped bass eggs are very sensitive to turbidity and generally will not hatch in turbid waters.
*Information from USFWS species profile
**Information from studies in the literature
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual /1996 IS-18
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Risk Characterization
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
P-30 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual /1996
-------
Watershed Group Exercise /Risk Characterization 6HW
(This page intentionally left blank.]
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual /1996 P-31
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Risk Characterization
Risk Characterization
Contents
Summary of Risk Characterization Exercise ......................................... P-34
Risk Characterization Phase [[[ P-35
Work Sheets (WS)
WS#1: Upland Forest Community
WS #2: Recreational Fish Populations
WS#3: Risk Characterization
Information Sheets (IS)
IS # 1 : Hazard Quotient Ratios for Chemicals
IS #2: Ecological Significance
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Risk Characterization
[This page intentionally left blank.]
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/1996 P-33
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Risk Characterization
Summary of Risk Characterization Exercise
Time Allotted
Approximately 1 hour, 30 minutes.
Key Concepts
»• Risk characterization is composed of two parts: risk estimation and risk description.
» Risk estimation involves the integration of the analysis of the exposure and effects along with
associated uncertainties. Professional judgment may be required in dealing with uncertainties.
> Risk description is a summary of risk estimation and the interpretation of the ecological significance
of the estimated risks. Ecological significance considers the nature and magnitude of the effects,
spatial and temporal patterns and the effects and potential for recovery.
Activities
*• Estimate risk, evaluating effects and exposure data from the analysis.
»• Analyze and summarize risk, describing uncertainties and the ecological significance of the risk.
p~34 Ecological Risk anrf Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Risk Characterization 6ERA
Risk Characterization Phase
The Risk Characterization Phase is where risk is estimated and described. In risk estimation, the
exposure and effects analyses are integrated, and an evaluation of risk is made (i.e., the likelihood that
exposure to a stressor has resulted or will result in adverse effects). After risk estimation, the assessor
determines the ecological significance of the risk. This includes the nature and magnitude of effects,
spatial and temporal extent of effects, and potential for recovery. Finally, the risk is described with all
assumptions and uncertainties clearly stated.
EPA has issued guidance on risk characterization which state principles that apply to ecological risk
assessments including watershed risk assessments. This guidance, found in Appendix E under the tide
"Risk Policies", calls on EPA to "disclose the scientific analyses, uncertainties, assumptions, and science
policies which underlie our decisions as they are made throughout the risk assessment and risk
management process." Risk assessors play a fundamental role in this process.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996 P-35
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Risk Characterization
RISK CHARACTERIZATION WORK SHEET #1
Upland Forest Community
1 . Compare the exposure (GIS data layers and squirrel population characteristics - Analysis IS # 1, 2, & 3) and
effects information (leaf damage and squirrel habitat requirements - Analysis IS # 6 & 7). Make an estimate
of risks to the upland forest community based on this comparison. Also, consider risks of future activities
(e.g., logging) to the upland forest community.
2. Describe the uncertainties associated with the risk estimate(s).
3. Are the risks ecologically significant? Refer to Risk Characterization Information Sheet #2 - Ecological
Significance.
WS-12 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Risk Characterization
RISK CHARACTERIZATION WORK SHEET #2
Recreational Fish Populations
The Quotient Method
The Quotient Method is a quantitative predictive approach to evaluate nsk based on a comparison between an expected
environmental concentration (EEC) or dose, and a lexicological benchmark (such as LCM, LOEL, etc.)- It determines
whether there is a high probability of concern with a particular chemical concentration. It is a tool for ranking a series of
contaminant sources by their potential for producing adverse environmental effects.
The Quotient method calculates a ratio using the Toxicological Level of Concern as the denominator. The numerator is
the Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC). A number equal to or greater than one represents a strong likelihood
that an ecotoxicological effect of concern will occur. If the number approaches one, the nsk is uncertain and additional
data are needed to further characterize the risk. A number considerably less than one represents a strong likelihood that
an ecotoxicological effect of concern will not occur.
The Quotient Method has several limitations, including:
» It does not adequately account for effects of incremental dosages, indirect effects (e.g, food chain intersections), or
other ecosystem effects (e.g., predator-prey relationships)
» It cannot compensate for differences between laboratory tests and field populations.
» It does not account for multiple chemical exposures.
» It cannot quantify uncertainties or provide a known level of reliability.
1. What is the risk to recreational fish populations from crypton, xenic, and organostain?
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996 WS-13
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Risk Characterization
RISK CHARACTERIZATION WORK SHEET #2 (Continued)
Recreational Fish Populations
2. Describe the uncertainties.
3. What are the risks to the recreational fish populations from physical stressors? (Refer to Analysis IS #5 -
Physical Stressor Exposure Information and Analysis IS #9 - Habitat Requirements of Recreational Fish
Populations).
WS-14 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual /1996
-------
Watershed Group Exercise I Risk Characterization
RISK CHARACTERIZATION WORK SHEET #2 (Continued)
Recreational Fish Populations
4. Describe the uncertainties.
5. Are the risks to recreational fish ecologically significant? Refer to Risk Characterization
Information Sheet #2 - Ecological Significance.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996 WS-15
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Risk Characterization
RISK CHARACTERIZATION WORK SHEET #3
Risk Characterization
Assume you are presenting this information to Risk Managers on the Dan River Watershed Management
Committee. Write a brief paragraph on your findings. How do you document your conclusions
including your uncertainties? Be sure that your paragraph is consistent with the values of clarity,
consistency, and reasonableness as outlined in Carol Browner's risk characterization memo (Appendix
E).
WS-16 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual /1996
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Risk Characterization
RISK CHARACTERIZATION INFORMATION SHEET #1
Hazard Quotient Ratios for Chemicals
Crypton - Catfish
Lethal
1.5
Xenic - Catfish
Lethal
0.88
Organostain
Lethal
Perch
1.1
Sublethal
Perch
1.5
Sublethal*
3.3
Sublethal
__**
Striped Bass***
0.91
Striped Bass
1.0
**
***
Sublethal effects concentrations for egg production in adult females used as the toxicological level of
concern.
No data on Sublethal effects in adults
Organostain concentrations in Perch liver samples used for body burden. _
Sample calculation:
Body burden (chemical concentration in fish livers)
Toxicological Level of Concern
(LD 50 or sublethal effect concentration)
Organostain, Perch
48ug/kg
=11
42 ug/1 (LD50)
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996
IS-I9
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Risk Characterization
RISK CHARACTERIZATION INFORMATION SHEET #2
Ecological Significance
Ecological significance pertains to the nature and magnitude of effects, spatial and temporal patterns of effects,
and recovery potential.
The nature of effects relates to the relative significance of effects especially when the effects of stressors on
several ecosystems within an area are assessed. It is important to characterize the types of effects associated
with each ecosystem and where the greatest impact is likely to occur.
Magnitude of effects will depend on the ecological context. For example, a reduction in reproductive capability
of a population would have greater effects on a whale population than on plankton (microscopic organisms
living in the ocean) because whales take- much longer to mature and produce fewer young over longer periods
of time. Effects of a significant magnitude if they cause interruption, alteration, or disturbance of major
ecosystem processes such as primary production, consumption, or decomposition. Furthermore, effects may
be significant if higher levels of biological organization are affected: 1) A physiological change becomes
biologically significant if it affects a characteristic of the whole organism, such as survival or the ability to
reproduce; 2) A change in the ability to reproduce among individuals becomes ecologically significant if it
affects the size, productivity, or other characteristic of the population; and 3) A change in the size of a
population becomes ecologically significant when it affects some characteristic of the community or ecosystem.
Spatial and temporal patterns of effects consider whether effects occur on large scales, (e.g., acid rain), or will
be localized, and whether effects are short-term or long-term. Some effects take decades to manifest themselves,
(e.g., ozone depletion effects on marine ecosystems).
Recovery relates to how easy it is to adapt to changes. For example, rainforests which are complex, highly
evolved ecosystems may take longer to adapt to perturbations than a pine forest, which can recover relatively
quickly from disturbances by rapidly re-seeding.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual /1996 IS-20
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Decision Making
DECISION MAKING
P-36 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/1996
-------
Watershed Group Exercise/Decision Making
[This page intentionally left blank.]
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual /1996 P-37
-------
Watershed Group Exercise /Decision Making
Decision Making
Contents
Summary of Decision Making Exercise P-40
Decision Making Phase P-41
Work Sheets (WS)
WS #1: Upland Forest Community Management Plan
WS #2: Recreational Fish Populations Management Plan
P-38 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/1996
-------
Watershed Group Exercise I Decision Making
[This page intentionally left blank.]
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual /1996 P-39
-------
Watershed Group Exercise / Decision Making
Summary of Decision Making Exercise
Time Allotted
Approximately 1 hour, 30 minutes.
Key Concepts
* Making an informed management decision requires an understanding of the results of the risk
characterization; economic, socio-political, regulatory and non-regulatory considerations; and
enforceability.
» Mangement at the watershed level requires a multi-party, cross-program approach.
» Decisions involve factoring in uncertainty, tradeoffs, and risks of alternatives.
» Enforceability and evaluation of decisions are issues that need to be addressed in decision making.
» The rationale for ecological risk decisions need to be well documented to help make future decisions.
Activity
> Identify and develop management options, followed by selection of a well documented final
management decision.
P-40 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual /1996
-------
Watershed Group Exercise I Decision Making offlft
Decision Making Phase
A number of factors are considered in decision making, including:
» The results of the risk characterization and associated uncertainties;
»• Economic analyses, where appropriate, and associated uncertainties;
> Socio-political concerns (the context within which the decision is being made) and associated
uncertainties;
* Legal constraints or mandates (e.g., endangered species protection) and considerations (e.g.,
enforceabilify); and
> Regulatory and non-regulatory options.
Usually, some of these factors play a larger role than others. Whichever decision is made there should
be good documentation so that knowledge can be gained from these decisions. Also, consideration
should be given to monitoring the effectiveness of the decision so that better decisions can be made in
the future.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual /1996 P-41
-------
Watershed Group Exercise I Decision Making
DECISION MAKING WORK SHEET #1
Upland Forest Community Management Plan
You have characterized the risks to the upland forest community. Now as risk managers on the Dan River
Watershed Management Committee you must develop a management plan for the upland forest community
in Dan's Mountain National Forest. Your plan should consider regulatory actions, non-regulatory options,
and any new information that would be useful.
Refer to the Background Section on Current Regulatory Activities, Stakeholders and Their Interests, and
Statutory Requirements and Agreements. Take into consideration the results of the public meetings and
review the concerns of the Dan River Watershed Management Committee (Problem Formulation
Information Sheets #2 and #3).
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /Participant Manual/1996 WS-17
-------
Watershed Group Exercise I Decision Making
DECISION MAKING WORK SHEET #2
Recreational Fish Populations Management Plan
You have characterized the risks to recreational fish populations. Now as risk managers on the Dan River
Watershed Management Committee you must develop a management plan for recreational fish populations.
Your plan should consider regulatory actions, non-regulatory options, and any new information that would
be useful.
Refer to the Background Section on Nature of the Issues, Current Regulatory Activities, Stakeholders and
Their Interests, and Statutory Requirements or Agreements. Also refer to Problem Formulation Information
Sheets #1, #2, and #3.
WS-18 Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual 11996
-------
10. Summary Unit
-------
10. SUMMARY UNIT
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop/Participant Manual/December 12, 1995
-------
[This page intentionally left blank]
-------
Summary Unit
SUMMARY
This workshop is only one course in EPA's ecological curriculum. The participant should consider taking other
courses to learn about different ecosystem protection approaches and appreciate the breadth of this field.
Ecosystem protection is becoming more important at EPA and the limitations and advantages of one tool,
ecological risk assessment, were explored. In this course, we provided you with a sampling of a number of
ecological risk-related topics: ecology, ecological risk management and decision making, ecological risk
assessment, and public communication issues. You should have learned that 1) people hold a wide range of
values regarding nature which makes our job more difficult, 2) ecological systems are complex and we do not
know everything about natural systems particularly at the ecosystem level, 3) ecological science is evolving and
Agency guidance is slowly developing, and 4) public communication and involvement is vitally important to
advancing ecological protection.
In conclusion, we hope that this workshop builds a culture of ecological protection in the Agency. We can then
more fully factor ecological concerns into our day-to-day activities, including developing regulations, strategic
planning, implementing ecosystem management in places, or implementing our national programs.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop / Participant Manual / December 12,1995 P-2
-------
[This page intentionally left blank]
-------
11. Key Definitions
-------
11. KEY DEFINITIONS
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /December 12.1995
-------
[This page intentionally left blank]
-------
Key Definitions
Stressor: A material, activity, or organism that alters the habitat or environment into which it is introduced.
Chemical Stressor: Chemical leaked into the environment, including hazardous waste, industrial
chemicals, pesticides, and fertilizers. These stressors are by far the most
frequently investigated during ecological risk assessments.
Physical Stressor:
An activity that directly removes or alters habitat, ranging from tilling soil to
logging, road construction, and the building of shopping malls. These stressors
are often the most destructive because they can result in total habitat loss as soils
are compacted and organisms are lost.
Biological Stressor: An organism or microorganism that is introduced or released (intentionally or
accidentally) to habitats in which it did not evolve naturally. Such organisms
are often called "exotics," and become a concern when they compete against
native species, replace them, and become pests.
Primary (Direct) Exposure:
Secondary (Indirect) Exposure:
Direct Effect:
Indirect Effect:
Assessment Endpoint:
Measurement Endpoint:
The exposure of an organism to a Stressor through direct means, e.g.,
ingestion of a hazardous chemical through fish gills.
The exposure of an organism to a Stressor through indirect means, e.g.,
consumption of contaminated prey.
The response of the ecosystem and its components to exposure to
stressors. Direct effects include death, reproductive failure, and decline
in growth rate.
Indirect effects occur when organisms become prone to disease, easier
targets of prey species, or less competitive as a result of exposure to a
Stressor.
The ecological concern that is the focus of the assessment. The
endpoint must be both affected by and sensitive to the stressors(s). It
should also be ecologically relevant and reflective of policy goals.
The data from which we determine exposure and effects to an
assessment endpoint, e.g., concentration of a chemical in water or
animal tissue, number of offspring, and mortality.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /December 12,1995
-------
Key Definitions-
Ecological Significance:
Bioconcentration Factor:
The nature and magnitude of ecological effects, spatial and temporal
patterns of effects, and recovery potential.
The nature of effects relates to the relative significance of effects
especially when the effects of stressors on several ecosystems within an
area are stressed. It is important to characterize the types of effects
associated with each ecosystem and where the greatest impact is likely
to occur.
Magnitude of effects will depend on the ecological context. For
example, a reduction in reproductive capability of a population would
have greater effects on a whale population than on plankton
(microscopic organisms living in the ocean) because whales take much
longer to mature and produce fewer young over longer periods of time.
Spatial and temporal patterns of effects consider whether effects occur
on large scales, (e.g., acid rain), or will be localized, and whether effects
are short-term or long-term. Some effects take decades to manifest
themselves, (e.g., ozone depletion effects on marine ecosystems).
Recovery relates to how easy it is to adapt to changes. For example,
rainforests which are complex, highly evolved ecosystems may take
longer to adapt to perturbations than a pine forest, which can recover
relatively quickly from disturbances by rapidly re-seeding.
The concentration of a chemical in an organism, divided by the
exposure concentration. It is often used in ecological risk assessments
to help characterize exposure.
Ecological Risk and Decision Making Workshop /December 12, 1995
-------
12. Appendices
-------
Appendix A
ENDANGERED SPECIES POLICIES
-------
OCI 23 Ob.
MEMORANDUM
Subject: EPA Roles and Responsibilities under the Endangered
Species Act
To: Assistant Administrators
Regional Administrators
The Environmental Protection Agency has a vital role to play
.in protecting ecosystems and biological diversity. I have made
ecosystem protection one of my highest priorities for EPA. The
Endangered Species Act (SSA) is an important tool in achieving
this goal because it is designed to protect not only endangered
species but the ecosystems upon which these species depend.
Based on the endangered species background paper submitted to my
office, EPA has a significant role to play in the preservation of
endangered and threatened species, but we must take concrete
steps to ensure that our ESA obligations are consistently
implemented.
In order to strengthen EPA's commitment to protecting
endangered species, I have asked the Endangered Species
coordinating Committee (ESCC) under the direction of Deputy
Administrator, Bob Sussman, to assist EPA in developing a.process
to more efficiently and effectively undertake our ESA
responsibilities. We are expanding the Committee to include
representatives from Region 9, the lead region for this effort,
and the program offices. The Committee's task will be to improve
the consistency and effectiveness of EPA's efforts to implement
its ESA obligations. A focus of this improvement will be to
increase endangered species protection without overburdening the
resources of the Agency.
As a first step, we are asking the Assistant Administrators
and Region 9 to appoint a person to the Committee who is
knowledgeable about your ESA implementation activities and is
able to represent your office in this effort. In addition, we
-------
-2-
request that rnanageaent for all offices participate in a workshop
organized by the Deputy Administrator's Office that will take
place in early January. Office Directors from each Headquarters
Program and at least one Division Director in each Region should
plan to attend. The intent of the workshop will be to clarify
the ESA Section 7 consultation, affirmative conservation and
Section 9 provisions, to exchange information and experiences to
date, and to outline steps to be taken to improve our management
of ESA obligations.
These steps could involve the development of guidance on the
consultation process, negotiation of additional program-specific
MOU's with the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service, and agreements with the Services to streamline
the consultation process. They could also include steps that EPA
could take to implement the ESA's affirmative conservation
provision.
Please forward the names and phone numbers of your ESCC
representative and workshop attendees by November 10, 1993 to Jim
Serfis, Office of Federal Activities (mail code 2253, (202) 260-
7072) .
Carol M. Browner
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, DC. 20460
_
2 JS9J
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: EPA 'a Role in the Protection of Endangered Species
TO: Assistant Administrators
Regional Administrators
Office Directors
The protection of endangered and threatened species is
integral to the mission of the Environmental Protection Agency.
With predictions of 20 percent of animal and plant species
becoming extinct within the next 30 years, the maintenance of
biodiversity has never been mora urgent. Resources protected by
the EPA are of critical value to the survival of endangered
species, and I believe we must combine efforts to conserve
biodiversity with our traditional focus on enhancing the quality
of the natural environment.
As you know, I initiated an effort to strengthen our
commitment to protecting endangered species on October 29, 1993.
This effort is being carried out by the Endangered Species
Coordinating Committee (ESCCJ under the direction of the Deputy
Administrator. One of our first steps was a workshop held on
January 12th and 13th, 1994, to clarify the mandates of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) , to exchange experiences dealing
with endangered species issues to date, and to outline steps to
be taken to better meet our responsibilities under the Act.
Bob Sussman has reported to me that the workshop wag a great
success; the discussion was very candid and many important issues
were raised. I would like to restate some principles and
suggested actions from the workshop and then describe the next
steps.
Endangered Specieg Principles
EPA has a strong commitment to the protection and
conservation of biodiversity and endangered species and their
habitats. The scope of our authorities and responsibilities
affords us an opportunity to play a major role in this regard.
EPA can protect biodiversity through its regulatory authority,
its emerging focus on ecosystem protection, its responsibility to
RicyclidftocydaW*
PtiMM oiUi SOT Cara* uin on ftgf IMI
camun* ft IWB
-------
monitor environmental indicators, and its research programs.
Several suggestions were made at the workshop that could support
our commitment. It was 3uggested_^aJLJnpre._traigin£_and research
be done so that we better understand the steps" needed to protect
endangered species. Several other excellent recommendations
resulting from the workshop were using endangered species as an
environmental indicator, considering these species as we set
environmental standards, and targeting our enforcement actions
based on biodiversity concerns.
As the world's leading environmental regulator, EPA should
take its legal responsibilities under the Act: seriously. For
this .reason, EPA Regions and programs must become better informed
about the legal requirements of the Act. While fulfilling our
legal responsibilities under the Act, we must also devise
innovative approaches that make our compliance more substantive
and efficient. In this regard, workshop attendees suggested that
we identify the priority areas needing improvement in the
consultation process. It was also suggested that a process be
developed to elevate and resolve issues between our Agency and
the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries
Service (Services) . Another component mentioned was the
possibility of counterpart regulations which would allow the
Agency to tailor the consultation process to reflect the
requirements of EPA programs. All of these suggestions have
merit and should be considered.
No single Agency is capable of protecting biodiversity nor
is there one single law to achieve those ends. Rather, we must
work with other federal agencies to develop a comprehensive
approach. For this reason, fostering a productive relationship
with the Services is a high priority. To accomplish this
objective, it was suggested that we establish working contacts
with the Services at many different levels. One particularly
good recommendation was to hold a joint retreat to explain how
each of our programs operate, share the problems associated with
consultation, and discuss how to improve how we work together.
I know that we are facing difficult choices as the Agency
simultaneously copes with streamlining, budget constraints, and
other uncertainties. We will need to find innovative techniques
for maximizing protection of endangered species wisely using our
limited resources.
Next Steps
I have instructed the BSCC, under the direction of the
Deputy Administrator, to continue to develop an Agency-wide
strategy to implement our responsibilities under the ESA using
ideas from the workshop. The broad goals of the strategy are to
better meet our obligations under the Act, to improve the
efficiency of meeting those obligations, to afford better
-------
protection to endangered species, and ultimately, to protect the
ecosystems upon which endangered species depend.
An important component of the strategy- is the development of
regional- and program-specific plans. Bob Sussman will be
sending a memorandum to you and your endangered species
coordinator in the next several weeks that will give more details
regarding the content, construction, and timing of these plans.
Emphasizing innovative approaches, the plans are to be
constructed to fit the needs of the individual program and
regional offices, while retaining conaiscency with general Agency
policy on endangered species. The Office of General Counsel has
stepped forward to assist program and regional offices in
developing plans to meet our responsibilities under the Act and
to use the legal mechanisms available to improve management of
these obligations.
The strategy will also contain many other necessary
elements, including an action plan for improving relations with
the Services, the development of model approaches to consultation
that focus on ecosystems, and educational programs.. As we
develop the strategy, we should also be thinking about how our
Agency can go from relying on the BSA as a safety net to using
our authorities to protect biodiversity, and eventually whole
ecosystems. I look forward to workingVwith you on this effort.
Carol M. Browner
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
JUN I 0 1994
OFFICE OF
THE ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: EPA's Endangered Species Protection Strategy
FROM: Robert Sussman, Deputy Administrate
TO: Assistant Administrators
Regional Administrators
General Counsel
Regional Counsels
Office Directors
The attached Strategy has been prepared as a part of our
effort to strengthen EPA's commitment to protecting endangered
species. I want to emphasize the importance of this Strategy in
meeting our obligations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
and in finding innovative and effective ways to enhance the
conservation of threatened and endangered species. By taking the
actions described in the Strategy, we will develop an Agency-wide
endangered species program that can offer significant
environmental benefits.
A great deal of effort has been put into devising a flexible
approach that reflects the needs of the programs and regions.
The steps described in the Strategy include review, planning and
actions to be taken that address how we will construct a
comprehensive EPA endangered species program. Timelines and
assignments are given in the Strategy.
With your support we will be able to take fuller advantage
of opportunities to use EPA's authorities to conserve biological
diversity, protect ecosystems, and meet our legal
responsibilities under the ESA. A copy of the Strategy is also
being forwarded to each program and regional office
representative on the Endangered Species Coordinating Committee.
Any questions should be directed to Jim Serfis in the Office of
Federal Activities at 202-260-7072.
Attachment
Pnnted on Recycled Paper
-------
EPA's Endangered Species Protection Strategy
Introduction
The following Agency-wide strategy has been developed to
increase EPA's contribution to the conservation of federally
listed endangered and threatened species (endangered species).
This will occur by using EPA programs to protect endangered
species and the ecosystems on which they depend and by
implementing EPA's responsibilities under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA).
The Strategy is based on the recognition that EPA's
authorities and responsibilities afford many opportunities to
play an active role in endangered species conservation. EPA will
protect endangered species by using its regulatory authority, its
non-regulatory programs, its responsibility to monitor
environmental indicators, and its research programs. The Agency-
wide strategy will, where appropriate, strengthen our commitment
to endangered species conservation within the broader context of
SPA's emerging focus on ecosystem protection.
Development of an Aaencv Endangered Species Program
The broad goals of this Strategy are to insure that actions
authorized, funded, or carried out by EPA are not likely to
jeopardize listed species or adversely affect designated critical
habitat; to utilize EPA programs to promote the recovery of
listed species and avoid future listings by protecting candidate
species; to increase the efficiency with which EPA meets its ESA
obligations; to conserve endangered species in ways that are
sensitive to resource constraints; to maintain native biological
diversity; and to protect the ecosystems upon which endangered
species depend.
The Strategy includes review, planning, and actions to be
taken by program and regional offices; tasks to be undertaken by
the Office of Federal Activities (OFA), the Office of Policy,
Planning, and Evaluation (OPPE), and the Office of General
Counsel (OGC) in support of these efforts; and cooperative
endeavors with the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine
Fisheries Service (Services). Additional support will be given
by the Endangered Species Coordinating Committee (ESCC). The
ESCC is composed of representatives from each program and
regional office. The role of the ESCC is to act as a source of
expertise and a sounding board during the development and
implementation of the strategy, as a network for program and
regional input to decisions being made, and as a vehicle to share
information. Logistical and planning support for the ESCC will
be given by a core group made up of OFA, OPPE, and OGC.
-------
The following actions will support the development and
implementation of an Agency-wide strategy. Responsibility for
each action is given, where appropriate, to program and regional
offices or the Endangered Species Coordinating .Committee (ESCC).
Actions to be Taken
1) Development of regional- and program-specific plans.
Each regional and program office will develop a draft plan
to layout the actions, processes, and procedures to fully
implement EPA's responsibilities under the ESA and to further the
conservation of endangered species. These plans are to be
constructed to fit the needs of the individual program and
regional offices, while being consistent with protecting
endangered species. The plans will be reviewed and updated, if
necessary, on a annual basis.
Since regional plans will be based on program plans, the
program offices will submit their plans first, which will be used
by the regions to develop their own plans. Regional plans, in
addition to including the information below, should stress taking
a, more ecosystem oriented approach to protecting endangered
species.
The draft plans will be reviewed by the ESCC to ensure that
the best ideas from each are shared and that there is appropriate
consistency in the approaches. Program office draft plans are to
be submitted to the ESCC bv October l. 1994. The draft regional
plans will be due six months after the completion of the draft
program plans and a short review by the ESCC. Final program
plans will be submitted by August 1, 1995 and final regional
plans three months after their completion and review. Please
send submissions to Jim Serfis, Office of Federal Activities
(mailcode, 2252). The ESCC will take responsibility for
delivering the program submissions to one contact in each region.
Draft plans should be process-oriented and as specific as
possible. The following information should be contained in each
draft plan:
A. a listing of the types of actions that are currently
consulted on, types of actions that will be consulted on in
the future, and types of actions that need further review to
determine whether they require consultation
B. a description of current or proposed written policy/
guidance, MOUs or other mechanism used to address ESA
requirements (copies should be attached)
C. current or proposed liaison functions with the Services
regarding ESA requirements and ecosystem protection efforts
D. suggestions on how your office or region will use an
-------
ecosystem approach for protecting endangered species, where
appropriate
E. internal procedures that would be followed to meet ESA
Section 7(a) (2) and Section 9 requirements. For example,
establishing a process for reviewing actions to determine
whether they affect endangered species and identifying how
the Services will be contacted for purposes of informal and
formal consultation.
F. a process to integrate endangered species considerations
into planning and budgeting
G. a listing of opportunities within your programs for
promoting the recovery of listed species, for protecting
candidate species, and for protecting the ecosystems upon
which listed species depend
H. a description of the information and data needs for
considering endangered species in EPA decisions
I. an approach on how your program or region will consider
endangered species in both current and new state assumed
programs
J. a schedule as to when specific actions described in the
plans will be undertaken
2) Support for taking an ecosystem approach to protecting
endangered species.
The ESCC will coordinate with the Agency's Ecosystem
Protection Taskforce. The Taskforce is to implement an Agency-
wide ecosystem protection plan. One possible way of coordinating
this effort is to emphasize an endangered species component in
the demonstration projects that evaluate the principles of
ecosystem management.
To assist in the development of plans, the ESCC will come up
with examples of ecosystem approaches that could apply to using
EPA programs to protect endangered species and to increasing the
efficiency of the consultation process. For instance, cross-
media actions could be taken in targeted ecosystems to protect a
number of endangered species at one time. Another example
includes the possibility of consulating on multiple actions that
occur in a geographic area rather than on individual actions.
3) Improving cooperation and resolving issues between the
Services and EPA.
Several resource and management issues of interest to EPA
will be resolved through discussions with the Services. The goal
of meetings between EPA and the Services will be to identify
-------
specific measures to streamline the consultation process and ways
to use EPA programs to protect threatened and endangered species.
This effort will begin with high level meetings to develop a
process for expeditious resolution of these and other issues.
The forums and mechanisms identified in the high level meetings
will then be implemented by the appropriate parties. One example
of a possible mechanism would be the development of counterpart
regulations to fine tune the general consultation regulations in
appropriate EPA program responsibilities while retaining their
overall degree of protection.
At the same time, a series of workshops will be held to
bring Service and EPA staff together to discuss ESA issues. Each
day-long workshop will focus on the activities of each program
office. The workshops will involve a description of each EPA
program, the Service's identification of potential endangered
species conflicts, suggestions for avoiding and dealing with the
conflicts, and fine tuning the plans developed in action number
one. The core group of the ESCC will sponsor the workshops and
each AAship will provide adequate technical staff and managers to
support each session.
4) Legal Responsibilities and Obligations
OGC will work closely with program and regional offices to
resolve legal issues for EPA programs and describe the
obligations of the Endangered Species Act relevant to EPA
activities together with available mechanisms to improve
management of these obligations. This guidance would include,
but not be limited to, the following:
- key procedural and substantive obligations under the ESA
relevant to EPA, including Section 7 conference
requirements, consultation, no jeopardy provisions,
affirmative conservation provisions, and Section 9
prohibitions on "take"
- review of common legal issues under the ESA relevant to
EPA, including how the ESA may apply to certain types of EPA
activities (i.e., permitting, rule making, EPA approval and
oversight of state programs, etc.,).
5) Using EPA Programs to Protect Endangered Species
The ESCC, with assistance from program and regional offices,
will begin to identify additional opportunities to use EPA
programs to promote the conservation of endangered species under
7(a)l of the ESA. These considerations should be included in the
regional and program plans and discussed in meetings and
workshops. In addition, several other forums will be used to
generate opportunities, including brainstorming sessions with
program staff, solicitation of suggestions from the Services and
outside experts, and workshops.
-------
6) Educational Programs
Educational programs will be undertaken to train EPA and the
Services regarding EPA responsibilities and opportunities under
the Act. Discussions with the Services will be initiated to
consider support for training and to tap into existing training.
Initially, this effort would start with short courses followed by
the establishment of more long-term training programs.
7) Development of Information and Tools
The Office of Research and Development will, in cooperation
with the Services, work with program offices to identify and
develop information and tools needed to make credible scientific
decisions regarding the protection of ESA species.
8) Accessing Needed Information
The Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM)
will provide core, common-use information such as data bases of
listed and candidate species, occurrence locations, and critical
habitat locations. OARM will also provide supporting information
technologies, such as geographic information system analytical
tools and base data coverage, and access via the Internet
computer network to other entities' information holdings.
9) Centralized Agency-wide Functions
Options will be developed for centralized Agency-wide
functions that would be administered by the Office of Federal
Activities. Such options could include core staffing with
regional counterparts to serve as a source of expertise and
clearinghouse for information; database management, in
coordination with OARM, to benefit all programs and regions;
liaison function with the Services; and coordination of
counterpart regulations or guidance between agencies. The ESCC
will develop options for structuring these functions within the
next three months.
10) Management Planning and Actions
Management plans and actions will be adjusted to include
endangered species activities into program planning. This
includes amending work load models, SPINs, and budget planning.
These adjustments are to be considered in the regional and
program plans. Further suggestions would be made as the plans
are implemented.
-------
EPA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT RESPONSIBILITIES:
RELATIONSHIPS TO RISK ASSESSMENT AND ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
BACKGROUND
In October, 1993, Administrator Browner issued a Directive to
all EPA management regarding our responsibilities under the federal
Endangered Species Act (ESA). This directive ended several years
of confusion as to the extent of our responsibilities under this
law. At the tine of the Directive's issuance, there were at least
11 legal actions challenging EPA's failure to consult under Section
7(a)(2) of the ESA. In particular, the Directive clearly states
that EPA will comply with law's requirement that federal agencies
consult on any action which is authorized, funded or carried out by
EPA, including approvals or disapprovals of state delegated actions
which may affect species listed under the ESA.
The Administrator established as policy EPA's full compliance
with the letter and spirit of the ESA. In addition, the
Administrator expanded the Endangered Species Coordinating
Committee to include all media offices, as well as OPPE, OFA and
OGC. A January 1994 two-day management workshop was chaired by
Deputy Administrator Sussman and attended by over 70 EPA managers.
Follow-up instructions to Regions and Programs to develop ESA
implementation plans are in progress.
It is widely recognized that the ESA will not alone be
successful in slowing the rate of listings and extinctions, nor
recovering listed species unless federal partners such as EPA bring
their considerable authorities to bear on the conservation of
endangered species and their habitats, as well as biodiversity in
general. The ESA was originally written with this in mind and
assumed that other federal environmental mandates would provide the
mechanisms necessary to protect our nation's biodiversity.
Unfortunately, this has not been the case and the ESA "safety net"
against extinction has become the primary mechanism to assure
adequate protections for our living resources.
-------
EPA RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE ESA
o REQUIREMENT TO CONSULT (Section 7(a)(2)
* All federal agencies required to consult with the
Services on any actions funded, authorized, or
carried out by the agency which affect T&E species
* Courts have taken the consistent position that the
ESA takes precedent over other federal mandates
* Responsibility of "action" agency to identify
potential "nay affect" actions and to initiate
consultations
0 FORMAL AND INFORMAL CONSULTATION
* Informal consultations can be initiated by letter
or phone call; if a "no adverse" effect
determination is made in consultation with the
Service, consultation is terminated and the agency
can go forward with action
* Important to keep a thorough administrative record
of decisions
* Formal consultation is initiated if the action is
thought by the agencies to have an adverse affect
on T&E species
O AFFIRMATIVE CONSERVATION (Section 7(a)(l)
o PROHIBITION AGAINST "TAKE11 (Section 9)
IMPORTANCE OF EPA MEETING ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER TEE ESA
* Resources protected by EPA statutes are of critical
importance to listed species:
85% of all listed species utilise wetlands and
aquatic habitats
52% of 920 listed and proposed species are
affected by pollution
* The ESA is a fundamental environmental law and has
been interpreted by the courts as superseding other
federal legal mandates
* Currently 11 legal actions against EPA for failure
-------
to consult under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA; EPA
forced to settle out of court on Mudd vs Re illy
(Alabama)
* Over 800 species are currently listed; 400 more
will be soon; more that 6000 await listing
O CONSISTENT WITH EPA MANDATES
o OPPORTUNITIES UNDER EPA'S NEW ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT POLICY
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT AMD THE ESA
The ESA requires EPA to assure that no "harm" (widely defined
as harassment, disturbance, etc.) come to individuals of a species
listed under the Act. Section 9 of the Act prohibits "take" which
includes harm as well as killing a listed species. There are
criminal liabilities for such action against a listed species. The
law also prohibits "jeopardy" to a species; such determination is
made by the Services and includes species, population, and genetic
standards to assure the continued existence of a species; although
the benchmark for jeopardy varies with species and circumstance,
Service standards of roughly less than 5-10% population loss
frequently constitute jeopardy to a species. The most thorough
"risk assessment" conducted on a listed species is found in the
Interagency Scientific Committee's Conservation Strategy for the
Northern Spotted Owl.
EPA approaches to ecological risk assessment which focus on
populations and communities of organisms without considering
effects to individuals organisms are generally not useful in
supporting EPA management actions regarding T&E species, widely
used water quality criteria, for example, are formulated based on
assumptions that 85% of all aquatic species would be protected by
those criteria. As EPA begins to increase dramatically its
response to T&E species needs, and increases consultations with the
Services, traditional risk assessment approaches will need to be
modified to assist in determining risks to listed species. The
office of Pesticides Programs, in conjunction with the FWS
Environmental Contaminants experts, are charting the course in
making toxicity-based risk assessments relevant to ESA assessments.
New efforts in modifying water quality criteria may also be of help
in supporting EPA's responsibilities to protect listed species.
Scientists involved in the Agency's risk assessment process
can assist by developing appropriate extrapolations methodologies
for inter-species toxicity determinations, determining appropriate
uses for safety factors, etc. Although the biological
determination of "harm" and "jeopardy" will most often be the
province of the Services, EPA will be better placed to take the
necessary protective measures for listed species if we advance our
knowledge and capabilities in these areas.
-------
BENEFITS TO ESA FROM ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
There are two major responsibilities under the ESA which the
Ecosystem Management Initiative can facilitate: 1) the affirmative
action responsibilities under Section 7(a)(l); and 2) the federal
consultation requirements of Section 7(a}(2). Section 7(a)(l)
requires that EPA utilize its authorities to further the goals of
the ESA. These goals include the protection, conservation and
recovery of threatened and endangered species (T&E species), and
protections for species which have been proposed for listing - the
"candidate" species group - currently over 6,000 species.
Section 7(a)(l) is EPA's best opportunity to use ecosystem
management planning to further the goals of the ESA. Two obvious
opportunities are to: (1) build in protections to rare, sensitive
and candidate species before they are listed, assisting in pre-
listing recovery by instituting species conservation actions into
ecosystem plans; and (2) incorporating measures to protect and
recover listed species; this might include participation in Habitat
Conservation Plans (HCP"s) under Section 10 of the ESA (private and
state equivalent to consultation under Section 7(a)(2)], or
commitments to institute actions necessary for recovery of species.
The federal consultation requirement of the ESA, Section
7(a)(2), may, in some cases, lend itself to broader, ecosystem
approaches. Although "ecosystem " consultation has not been tried
before by the Services, recent attempts to consult at a
"programmatic" level are being considered in the Great Lakes
Initiative. Presumably, after consulting on a large plan, such as
the GLI, individual consultations at the species level would be
facilitated.
At this time, it is not likely that the Services (U.S Fish and
wildlife service and National Marine Fisheries Service) would agree
to consultation on the effects of a particular ecosystem plan on
T&E species without additional consultations on specific actions
like permit issuance; the reasons for this are numerous, and
include issues of accountability for actions necessary to avoid
risks to species, as well as legal requirements to consider risks
to species individually. However, this idea has wide support at
EPA for both efficiency and effectiveness reasons, and a
demonstration ecosystem management plan might be an appropriate
testing ground for this approach.
-------
Appendix B
ECOLOGICAL RISK: A PRIMER FOR
RISK MANAGERS
-------
Appendix C
COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC
ON ECOLOGICAL ISSUES:
CLARK UNIVERSITY STUDY
-------
COMMUNICATION WITH THE PUBLIC ON ECOLOGICAL ISSUES:
INSIGHTS FROM RELATED LITERATURE
Michael J. Dover
Research Associate Professor
Ed McNamara
Rob Krueger
Research Assistants
The George Perkins Marsh Institute
Clark University
950 Main Street
Worcester, MA 01610-1477
Prepared for:
Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Cooperative Agreement No. 823519-01-0
FINAL DRAFT
September 25,1995
-------
Contents
I. Introduction L
n. Applicability of principles from human health risk communication 2
A. Basic concepts 2
B. Knowledge needed for decisions about health and ecological risks 3
1. Hazards/stressors of concern 4
2. Exposure and sensitivity 5
C. Perception and understanding of risk 6
D. Summary 10
EQ. Attitudes toward nature and natural resources 11
A. Categorization of views of nature 12
B. Social and demographic factors influencing views of nature 15
C. Other factors 18
D. Temporal trends in public attitudes toward nature 18
IV. Insights from related fields: Environmental education and alternative environmental
dispute resolution 19
A. Environmental education 19
B. Alternative environmental dispute resolution 22
1. What is ADR? 22
2. Criteria for ADR success 23
3. Two examples of alternative dispute resolution 24
4. Implications for communication on ecological issues 28
V. Next steps for enhancing communication on ecological issues 29
References 30
-------
Communication with the Public on Ecological Issues:
Insights from Related Literature
Michael J. Dover
Ed McNamara
Rob Krueger
Clark University
Worcester, MA
I. Introduction
This paper examines findings and concepts relevant to effective communication on
ecological issues, particularly as it applies to communication between government agencies
and the public. Ecological issues are those that involve primarily nature and natural
resources, especially the potential adverse effects of human activities on natural systems. The
literature reviewed here is from a diverse set of disciplines, such as social and behavioral
science, education, philosophy, and law. In particular, we examine writings on risk
communication (focused primarily on human health and safety), public attitudes toward
nature, environmental education, and alternative dispute resolution, to provide some insight as
to how communication on ecological issues can most effectively develop as a field of practice
and research.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has in recent years focused
increased attention on its role in assessing and managing ecological risks—the actual or
potential harm to plants, animals, and other components of natural systems caused pollution,
physical alteration of the environment, and other anthropogenic stressors. While protection of
human health remains a high priority, policy makers and the public are becoming more aware
of:
• The economic, recreational, aesthetic, and other values placed on ecosystems
and natural resources; and
• The link between the well-being of the human population and the effective
functioning of the natural world (SAB 1990).
More recently, EPA has also begun exploring possible roles in ecosystem
management, working to maintain natural systems and human interactions with those systems
in a sustainable fashion. As part of its responsibility to make decisions and undertake other
activities for protection of natural resources, EPA has long understood the importance of
effective communications between the Agency and other stakeholders in the debates that take
place. As EPA's interest and involvement in ecological issues expand, so too will its need to
communicate effectively about those issues.
-------
Eco/. Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25, ^995 Page 2
While a considerable body of literature and experience exists concerning
communication, on human health and safety, ecological issues can pose different challenges to
communicators. Just as ecological risk assessment differs in fundamental ways from human
health risk assessment, so too does communication about ecological issues need to be
developed taking such differences into account. To take one simple example, debates over
human health risk agree on what species should be studied and protected, whereas this may
be one of the first items of discussion in an ecological controversy. The purpose of this
review is to examine some of these similarities and differences and to summarize findings or
perspectives from a variety of disciplines, which may help to define how communication
strategies concerning ecological issues can be developed in the future. By its nature, such a
review cannot be comprehensive; rather, its intent is to identify, where possible, seminal or
review publications that contain relevant ideas and experience from their respective
disciplines.
This review covers four principal topics. Section D discusses the applicability of
insights from the risk communication field, which has focused on human health and safety, to
ecological risk. Section m examines public views of nature as a factor in understanding the
process of communicating on ecological issues. Section IV briefly reviews two areas,
environmental education and alternative environmental dispute resolution, which can cast
some light on the communication process. Finally, Section V concludes with suggestions on
next steps to take in developing the field of ecological-issues communication.
II. Applicability of principles from human health risk communication
A. Basic concepts
Early research in risk communication reflected government agencies' efforts to bring
the public's perceptions of health and safety risks into greater agreement with scientists' and
regulators' views of those risks. The focus was primarily on the "risk message"—how to
present information on "real" risks to offset "perceived" (i.e., misperceived) risks. By the late
1980s, however, understanding of risk communication had evolved considerably, so that the
National Research Council (NRC) report on the subject (NRC 1989) focused on the process
rather than the message:
Risk communication is an interactive process of exchange of information and opinion
among individuals, groups, and institutions. It involves multiple messages about the
nature of risk and other messages, not strictly about risk, that express concerns,
opinions, or reactions to risk messages or to legal and institutional arrangements for
risk management.
-------
Ecoi. Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25, 1995 Page 3
This focus on process rather than product leads also to a broader notion of the purpose
of risk communication. In the view of the NRG, success is no longer defined in terms of
changing people's minds or obtaining agreement with the communicator's (e.g., a regulatory
agency's) position or decision. In keeping with the larger goal of supporting "democratic
decision making and well-informed, goal-directed individual choice," the NRC asserts that:
. . . risk communication is successful to the extent that it raises the level of
understanding of relevant issues or actions and satisfies those involved that they are
adequately informed within the limits of available knowledge.
Denving from this definition of success are three key points:
• Successful risk communication does not always lead to better decisions because
risk communication is only part of risk management.
• Successful risk communication need not result in consensus about controversial
issues or in uniform personal behavior.
• Messages about expert knowledge are necessary to the risk communication
process; they are not sufficient, however, for the process to be successful.
(NRC 1989)
These definitions and principles, although focusing on human health and safety, speak
more broadly to the subject of communication and decision making on technical/scientific
issues within a democratic society. As such, they serve as a foundation for communication
on ecological issues without amendment. Differences between the two types of
communication begin to emerge when examining the knowledge needed for risk decisions,
and the public's perceptions and understanding of health and ecological issues.
B. Knowledge needed for decisions about health and ecological risks
Risk assessment depends on knowledge about the sources and nature of potential harm
(commonly called hazards in health risk assessment and stressors in ecological risk
assessment), the likely exposure and its distribution, the sensitivities of exposed individuals
and groups, and interaction with exposure to other possible sources of harm. Risk
management requires the results of that analysts, combined with information on alternative
actions, uncertainties associated with the risk and alternatives estimates, and managerial
constraints and dictates concerning the risk decision (NRC 1989). Differences between health
and ecological risk with respect to risk assessment and management, and some implications
foi communication, are discussed below.
-------
Ecol. Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25, 1995 Page 4
1. Hazards/stressors of concern
Evaluation of hazards or stressors includes identification of who or what might be
harmed and the nature of the potential harm. It also includes evaluation of the seriousness of
the harm and the potential for reversibility.
An essential difference between health and ecological risk assessment occurs at the
beginning of this process: there is no automatic consensus in ecological risk assessment as to
what (one or more) species is or should be the focus of concern when evaluating possible
stressors. (Given a particular environment, ecologists and others may quickly come to
agreement as to what should be studied and why, but it does need to be discussed. Standard
test organisms and protocols have been agreed upon for evaluating such stressors as pesticides
and wastewater, but their interpretation with regard to other species in the environment can be
the subject of debate.) Other controversies certainly occur in health risk assessment (e.g.,
effects of age, sex, socioeconomic status, etc. on the analysis), but there is no disagreement
that the only species of concern is Homo sapiens. Communicators dealing with ecological
issues may need to take this difference into account. Participants in a communication may
not agree on what species, stressor, or effect is important with regard to a particular issue.
A second major difference at this stage concerns level of organization. Ecologists do
not usually focus on individual organisms when determining risk (except in cases of rare or
endangered species). Often, concern is for effects on populations or subpopulations of a
species, which parallels the level of organization most common to health risk assessment. In
many instances, however, investigators turn their attention to communities and ecosystems in
order to understand the full implications of a potential for harm. Such terms as "biotic
integrity" and "ecosystem health" express scientists' interest in protecting and managing these
higher levels of organization. Appropriately, the EPA Risk Assessment Forum chooses to use
the generic term "ecological component" to capture the range of organizational levels that
might be involved in an ecological risk assessment (RAF 1992). {The term also reflects the
fact that ecological effects of stressors are both direct and indirect (see the discussion below),
and therefore replaces the lexicological term "receptor."] Some members of the public may
have an incomplete understanding or significant misunderstanding of such concepts as
populations, communities, and ecosystems (Munson 1994), which could pose a challenge to
communicators trying to explain agency judgments (e.g., design or results of studies, rationale
for a management decision) or seeking public input concerning an ecological issue.
Whereas health risk assessments typically examine only the direct effects (e.g., cancer,
birth defects) of a potentially harmful agent or activity, ecological risk assessments also may
consider indirect as well as direct effects in the identification and evaluation of stressors (and,
concomitantly, of potentially affected ecological components). Indirect effects include loss of
food sources, nesting or breeding sites, or some other resource needed for survival. They
could also include behavioral changes that affect organisms' ability to avoid predators, obtain
-------
Eco/. Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25, 1995 Page 5
food, find mates, or rear young. Indirect effects also play an important role in evaluating
potential hazards to communities and ecosystems, where interactions among populations
determine the structure and functioning of these organizational levels. For certain ecological
issues, it may be important for communicators to ensure that audiences understand the
significance of indirect effects with respect to an assessment or management decision.
Reversibility in health and ecological risk can have considerably different meanings.
Ecological risk assessors may ask whether a population, community, or ecosystem can recover
from a disturbance (e.g., chemical contamination) and, if so, how long recovery might take.
Such recovery might take years, spanning several generations of affected species. In health
risk assessment, reversibility over more than one generation would rarely be considered
acceptable. In debates concerning ecological effects of stressors, communicators may need to
be aware of differences among interested parties about what constitutes acceptable recovery
and recovery times.
Evaluation of ecological stressors includes a broader array of possible sources of harm
than are typically found in health risk assessments. Although the term "risk" is often
associated in the public and regulatory arena with potentially toxic chemicals, organisms in
the natural environment are subject to numerous anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic
stressors. Physical disturbance of habitat can cause direct mortality to resident organisms
(e.g., siltation that buries bottom-dwelling aquatic organisms), or can make the environment
less habitable (e.g., the same siltation might also increase the turbidity of the water, allowing
less light to penetrate and thus limiting the ability of aquatic plants to grow). The most
extreme of physical stressors is complete loss of habitat through development or other
alteration, which can render the area unusable by its original inhabitants. Indeed, habitat loss
is seen by many experts to pose the greatest ecological risk of all (SAB 1990). Biological
stressors such as accidentally (or intentionally) imported species can wreak havoc in local or
regional ecosystems by competing with or preying on indigenous species. Responding to
such adverse ecological effects as these can require sophisticated understanding of complex
interactions among physical, chemical, and biotic components of the environment.
Communication about such stressors and their effects may require providing considerable
information about ecological structure and function in a way that non-technical audiences can
understand and relate to the issue.
2. Exposure and sensitivity
Evaluation of exposure considers a broad array of factors to determine who or what is
exposed to a hazard, how many people or organisms (or, more generally, ecological
components) are exposed for how long, how exposure is distributed among different groups
(subpopulations of people, populations or subpopulations of species, community or ecosystem
types), and how exposures to the hazard(s) or stressor(s) of concern interact with exposures to
-------
Ecol. Issues Communication Lit, Review September 25, 1995 Page 6
other hazards/stressors (NRC 1989). Although the term "exposure" is commonly used in the
context of toxicological studies, the EPA Risk Assessment Forum applies the term broadly to
include contact with other stressors (RAF 1992).
Differential sensitivities to potentially harmful agents among human subpopulations
can lead to important considerations of equity and fairness in risk management and nsk
communication. Ecological risk assessment must evaluate a much larger and more diverse
assortment of possible responses (in terms of both the nature and magnitude of response)
among potentially exposed species. For example, some synthetic pyrethroid insecticides have
relatively low mammalian toxicity, but can be quite harmful to fish. Ecologists recognize
numerous pollution-tolerant species that often serve as indicators of a disturbed condition at a
site, but which also illustrate the different sensitivities that occur in nature. Even closely
related species can differ significantly in their susceptibility to potential toxins (Calabrese and
Baldwin 1993).
Both exposure and sensitivity may be difficult concepts to communicate with respect
to potential ecological harm. On one hand, some people may assume that if a pollutant is
present it will cause harm. On the other hand, laypersons may not distinguish between
tolerant and sensitive species and so may not recognize that a problem exists.
Communicators may need to work with fairly complex information to explain scientific
evaluations of exposure and sensitivity to such •audiences.
C. Perception and understanding of risk
Among the key contributions of research in risk communication has been a greater
understanding of how risk is perceived by laypersons and others. This research is significant
because it helps explain the apparent differences between what experts and the public
consider important risks, and how those differences affect the risk-communication process.
Virtually all of the research in this area concerns people's perception of risk to
themselves or other human beings, but some observations may be applicable to ecological
risk. The table on the following pages lists various factors (from Covello et al. 1988) that
influence public concern about the risks that they encounter. The table also comments on the
applicability of each factor to considerations of ecological risk, including questions that might
be asked in a research program to understand better the ways in which various publics
perceive ecological issues.
McDamels et al. (1995) conducted a study to evaluate respondents' perception of a
wide variety of ecological risks and of human activities that might affect those risks. They
examined five factors in relation to perceived overall risk to nature. The first, which they
labeled impact on species included concern for loss of species and suffering by animals or
-------
Ecol. Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25, 1995 Page 7
plants. A second factor, impact on humans implied that ecological risks and health/safety
risks are perceived as related, while a third, human benefits, appeared to offset ecological
concerns. A weak correlation was found between a factor called knowledge of impacts and
risk to nature, suggesting that risk is perceived to be higher the more we are able to observe,
predict, and understand ecological effects. Finally, in contrast to studies of risks to human
health and safety, no correlation was found between risk to nature and a factor called
avoidability/ controllability, which encompassed such issues as current levels of regulation
and resources spent on "preparing for, and responding to, the consequences of the events."
Among their other results, McDaniels et al. found less concern for ecological effects of
natural disasters than for impacts of human activity, and an apparent lack of understanding
about the relationship between ecological consequences and their human causes (e.g., ozone
depletion and refrigeration using CFCs).
Perception of risk is not only a matter of individual judgments about personal risks but
also an expression of societal values, such as fairness and democratic due process (NRC
1989). Such values as economic worth, aesthetics, utility, and morality may enter into how
stakeholders perceive ecological issues, including risk. For example, Suter (1993) argues that
the choice of species and effects to be studied in an ecological risk assessment (and,
presumably, protected in subsequent risk-management actions) is determined in part by their
"social relevance," although he appears to leave the decision to individual assessors and
managers as to what is socially relevant. That decision may be difficult. Section m of this
review discusses some of the disparate views of nature that may affect public perception of
what is or is not important in ecological management. The current political debate over
whether to reduce the authority of the Endangered Species Act suggests that ecological issues
compete more with other values such as economics and private property rights than do health
issues. As another example of the importance of such competing values, valuation of human
lives in dollar terms as part of risk management remains controversial, whereas the monetary
value of ecological resources (the word "resource" itself connotes assigning of some economic
value) is commonly considered in risk-management decisions. (The controversy over placing
a value on ecological resources usually lies more with how such a value will be determined
than with whether it should be determined.)
-------
Ecol. Issues Communication Lit. Review
September 25, 1995
Page 8
Qualitative factors affecting risk perception and evaluation
1
Factor
Catastrophic potential
Familiarity
Controllability
(personal)
Voluntariness of
exposure
Effects on children
Effects manifestation
Effects on future
generations
Victim identity
Dread
Trust in institutions
2
Conditions associated
with increased public
concern
Fatalities and injuries
grouped in time and
space
Unfamiliar
Uncontrollable
Involuntary
Children specifically at
risk
Delayed effects
Risk to future
generations
Identifiable victims
Effects dreaded
Lack of trust in respon-
sible institutions
3
Conditions associated
with decreased public
concern
Fatalities and injuries
scattered and random
Familiar
Controllable
Voluntary
Children not specifically
at risk
Immediate effects
No risk to future
generations
Statistical victims
Effects not dreaded
Trust in responsible insti-
tutions
4
Applicability to ecological risk
Does the public pay more attention
to highly visible events (e.g., fish
kills, oiled birds) than to gradual
or subtle effects?
What types of ecological risks are
familiar or unfamiliar (e.g., devel-
opment vs. chemical contamina-
tion)?
What is the perceived connection
between ecological nsk and per-
sonal risk?
Are ecological risks perceived as
subject to personal control?
All ecological exposure is involun-
tary. How does that affect public
perception?
Not applicable
Possibly the opposite for ecologi-
cal effects (see catastrophic poten-
tial, above).
Do ecological issues include inter-
generaiional concerns? Thai is, do
members of the public consider
questions of the "legacy" to future
generations when evaluating the
importance of an issue?
Do "charismatic" species receive
more attention from the public
than "ordinary" species?
Not applicable
Trust issues may also include con-
cerns over economic loss due to
risk-management decision (e.g ,
spotted owl).
-------
Ecol. Issues Communication Lit. Review
September 25, 1995
Page 9
Qualitative factors affecting risk perception and evaluation (cont'd.)
1
Factor
Media attention
Accident history
Equity
Benefits
Reversibility
Ongin
2
Conditions associated
with increased public
concern
Much media attention
Major and sometimes
minor accidents
Inequitable distribution
of risks and benefits
Unclear benefits
Effects irreversible
Caused by human
actions or failures
3
Conditions associated
with decreased public
concern
Little media attention
No major or minor acci-
dents
Equitable distribution of
risks and benefits
Clear benefits
Effects reversible
Caused by acts of nature
or God
4
Applicability to ecological risk
Directly applicable
Applicability not clear
How do various publics perceive
equity issues between humans and
non-humans?
Directly applicable. McDaniels et
al. (1995) found negative correla-
tion between perceived benefits to
humans and perceived risk to
nature.
How well do various publics
understand ecological recovery?
How much or how little recovery
is acceptable? What recovery
times are acceptable?
McDaniels et al. (1995), found less
concern for ecological effects of
natural disasters than for impacts
of human activity.
Source (Columns 1-3): Covello et al. 1988.
-------
Ecol. Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25, 1995 Page 10
As with human health and safety, disagreement and debate among experts can lead to
misunderstanding on the part of the public. Disagreement and knowledge gaps are
commonplace in science, but the public may not always discern the difference between honest
scientific debate and confusion among experts (NRC 1989, Fischoff 1989). Debates on
ecological risk may suffer not only from the current uncertainties in ecological risk
assessment, but also from the apparent lack of knowledge about basic ecological concepts
among the general public, [f high-school students are any indication, there is little
understanding of such concepts (Munson 1994; see Section IV, below). Kellert (1995) found
little difference among age groups in their level of knowledge about nature. On specific
issues, however, interested parties may show considerable knowledge (e.g., Reading et al.
1994), which parallels experience with human health risk issues. (See Section ffl, below, for
further discussion of these studies.)
Communication of ecological risk-management options and decisions may face
problems associated with lack of public knowledge about ecologically relevant laws and
regulations or about the technical underpinnings of these requirements. For instance, the
Clean Water Act has the goal of "fishable, swimmable waters," but not everyone may
understand the relevance of toxicity testing with invertebrates to the achievement of that goal.
And because economic value plays an important role in ecological risk management,
differences of opinion about valuation of resources or priorities among competing resource-
management approaches can lead to conflicts unlike those found in health-centered debates.
While some data exist indicating what the public knows or does not know about
ecology, studies are needed concerning what information the public needs in order to
participate effectively in debates over ecological issues. On one hand, it may be more
important for concerned citizens to know about the detailed biology of a particular area or
species that is the subject of a debate than to understand basic ecological theories. On the
other hand, participants in larger-scale (regional, national, global) discussions about such
issues as biodiversity might benefit from a general background in ecological principles to
avoid being overwhelmed by the complexity of the myriad species and ecosystems at issue.
D. Summary
Communication about ecological issues differs in significant ways from
communication about human health and safety, but the nearly two decades of research and
practice in risk communication provides both the basic principles and the outline of research
for ecological-issue communication to follow.
To begin with, communicators on ecological issues operate within the same social,
political, and ethical framework as other communicators. Hence, the NRC definition of risk
communication as "an interactive process of exchange of information and opinion" involving
-------
Ecoi Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25, 1995 Page II
"multiple messages about the nature of risk and other messages, not strictly about risk, that
express concerns, opinions, or reactions" applies equally well to communication about
ecological issues. So too does the NRC's definition of success in terms of raising "the level
of understanding of relevant issues or actions" and satisfying "those involved that they are
adequately informed within the limits of available knowledge."
Differences emerge in the knowledge needed to make decisions on ecological issues
and in the public perception of ecological issues compared to their perception of health/safety
issues. A key difference, and a potential source of public debate, lies in the fact that
ecological issues do not necessarily begin with agreement on what species or natural system
is to be discussed. Ecological issues may also involve discussions concerning the appropriate
level of organization (e.g., individual, population, community, ecosystem), types of effects
(e.g., direct or indirect), and kinds of stressors (e.g., physical, chemical, biological) for study
or management. Communicators may face the task of educating audiences about these and
other technical matters, such as exposure and sensitivity, as a necessary first step in ensuring
an informed debate.
Research in risk communication and perception offers some insight into how various
concerned publics may evaluate information about ecological issues. That research also
points to additional questions that could be pursued to understand more fully how the public
perceives ecological issues. Following the lead of researchers studying perception of health
and safety risks, such questions could be structured around the qualitative factors affecting
public perception of ecological risks, including catastrophic potential, familiarity, reversibility,
controllability, effects manifestation, and others. In a preliminary study of this type,
McDaniels et al. (1995) constructed a similar taxonomy of factors applied to a measure of
"risk to nature." Additional studies may reveal other aspects of public perception that expand
upon or revise these categories.
Finally, although some research has been done concerning what people know about
ecology, communicators could benefit from studies that elucidate what people need to know
in order to participate fully in debates on ecological issues.
m. Attitudes toward nature and natural resources
Section n sought to show where communication on ecological issues may differ from
health-related communication, based in part on differences in the risk assessment and
management processes. Many of these differences derive from divergences of value, opinion,
and perception among policy makers, managers, and the public with regard to ecological
issues. Ujihara et al. (1991) assert that "[w]hile health risk communicators can take the
public's health concerns for granted, ecological risk communicators cannot assume that the
public will be as concerned about ecological threats." Some members of the public may be
-------
Ecol. Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25, 1995 Page 12
actively involved in debates over ecological issues and take a wide variety of positions, while
others may indicate little concern. Differences in viewpoints may arise from perceptions of
economic or other self-interest, focus of concern on personal health or safety risk, or attitudes
toward nature and natural resources.
Western society has produced numerous philosophical systems that characterize the
relationship between humanity and nature. These range from wholly anthropocentric notions
of dominion over nature (e.g., White 1967, Worster 1993), to an "enlightened"
anthropocentrism that recognizes resource limits and emphasizes conservation and
management of natural resources (e.g., Ehrlich 1988), to holistic ("biocentric" or "ecocentric")
views that see humanity as an integral part of nature, even subservient to it (e.g. Leopold
1949, Devall and Sessions 1985). This chapter examines a variety of world views with
respect to nature and wildlife as expressed in public opinion studies.
A. Categorization of views of nature
Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) first created the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP)
Scale as an attempt to measure the acceptance of broad environmental issues such as limits to
growth, balance of nature, and anti-anthropocentrism. The NEP was a counterpoint to Pirages
and Ehrlich's (1974) description of society's Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP). Part of the
rationale for the NEP was that "implicit within environmentalism was a challenge to our
fundamental views about nature and humans' relationship to it." (Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978)
Bengston (1993) describes the DSP as "emphasizing economic growth, control of
nature, faith in science and technology, ample reserves of natural resources, the
substitutability of resources, and a dominant role for experts in decision making" while the
NEP is characterized by "sustainable development, harmony with nature, skepticism toward
scientific and technological fixes, finite natural resources, limits to substitution, and a strong
emphasis on public involvement in decision making."
In the initial study using this scale, Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) noted "a remarkable
degree of acceptance of the NEP—not only among environmentalists, which was expected,
but among the general public as well." In the years since then, Dunlap and his colleagues
have found that the perspective represented by the NEP has expanded to include a broader
ecological world view. This is reflected in a recent study by Dunlap et al. (1992) that sought
to measure "possible changes in public endorsement of key elements of an ecological- world
view over time." These include:
• Reality of limits to growth,
-------
Ecol. Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25, 7995 Page 13
• Anti-anthropocentrism,
• The fragility of nature's balance, and
• The possibility of an eco-crisis or ecological catastrophe.
Dunlap et al. conclude that "the overall pattern of increasing endorsement of the NEP . . .
provides modest support for the view . . . that an ecological world view is gaining adherents."
Another approach to characterizing public opinion is to identify various categories of
views with regard to specific subjects. Kellert (1993, 1995) has devised an attitudinal scale to
measure attitudes toward wildlife and natural resources. The categories that emerge from his
studies are as follows:
Naturalistic Primary focus on an interest and affection for wildlife and the outdoors
Ecologistic Primary concern for the environment as a system, for interrelationships
between wildlife species and natural habitats
Humanistic Primary interest and strong affection for individual animals such as pets
or large wild animals with strong anthropomorphic association
Moralistic Primary concern for the right and wrong treatment of animals, with
strong opposition to presumed overexploitation and/or cruelty towards
animals
Scientific Primary interest in the physical attributes and biological functioning of
animals
Aesthetic Primary interest in the physical attractiveness and symbolic appeal of
animals
Utilitarian Primary interest in the practical value of animals, or in the
subordination of animals for the practical benefit of people
Dominionistic Primary interest in the mastery and control of animals
Negativistic Primary orientation on avoidance of animals due to indifference, dislike,
or fear
(Although Kellert specifically examined attitudes toward animals, the categories clearly apply
more generally to views of nature.)
-------
Eco/. Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25, 1995 Page 14
Findings from Kellert's studies generally concur with the conclusions of Dunlap et al.
(1992). Kellert (1995) indicates his work suggests that "American attitudes toward natural
resources and wildlife have become less utilitarian, negativistic, and dominionistic during the
past twenty years and, more generally, during the course of this century." He cautions,
however, "that these values (utilitarian and negativistic), as well as humanistic and moralistic
perspectives, are [still] the most frequently encountered values of wildlife and natural
resources in contemporary American society."
The implications of Dunlap's and Kellert's studies for communication on ecological
issues deserve greater study. The findings of both suggest that a significant segment of the
public is receptive to hearing about and discussing ecological issues. Kellert's work also
indicates, however, that another important segment may be considerably less receptive.
Additionally, receptiveness does not necessarily translate into knowledge and understanding.
People holding a generally supportive ecological world view may still need considerable
amounts of background information before they can deal effectively with specific ecological
issues. Conversely, as the studies discussed below indicate, increased knowledge does not
necessarily correlate with greater support for an ecological world view.
Steel et al. (1994) examined "the degree to which the public embraces differing values
about federal forests nationally and regionally" by identifying the underlying philosophical
values of both the national and Oregon publics. The authors define two orientations:
biocentric, which "does not deny that human desires and human values are important but it
places them in a larger, natural, or ecological context"; and anthropocentric. in which humans
have "no ethical duties toward nature." They conclude that "both the national and Oregon
publics tend to be more biocentric in orientation than anthropocentric." The national public
was found to be more biocentric than the Oregon public. The likely reason for this finding is
that the public of Oregon are more likely to depend on resource extraction for their
livelihood. "Given the decline in timber industry employment and the stronger biocentric
views of younger cohorts (and possibly future generations, given likely trends), we would
expect the national and Oregon publics to become even more biocentric toward federal forests
in the future."
Reading et al. (1994) studied regional attitudes toward nature, focusing on the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) within which "knowledge and attitudes toward the GYE were
explored." An attitudinal scale was established to determine support for ecosystem
management.
Ecosystem management: Strong support for ecosystem management of the greater
Yellowstone region and for the protection of wildlife and
natural resources within the area.
-------
Ecol. Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25, 1995 Page 15
Utilitarian: Strong support for the direct utilization of natural
resources with the GYE for human use.
Libertarian: Strong support for individual rights and freedoms within
the'GYE.
The study found that the people surveyed were knowledgeable about nature and the
importance of ecosystem management to protect the GYE. The level of knowledge, however,
was not associated with strong support for ecosystem management. Rather, the study found
widespread belief that greater ecosystem management would infringe on the individual rights
of property owners as well as states' rights. The authors suggest that the region's historical
association with resource exploitation accounts for these findings. This result is important for
planning ecological risk communication programs: knowledge of ecology and nature does not
automatically translate into support for protective action. As with health risk communication,
many factors are weighed by members of the public when considering a public policy
decision. In both the Oregon and GYE studies, economic concerns and a history of resource
use played important roles in determining people's attitudes.
The categories used by different researchers are less important to communications
practitioners than the fact that the populations studied were found to hold a wide range of
world views concerning nature and natural resources. These findings support the idea of
using the plural word "publics" when thinking about participants in discussions about
ecological issues, rather than the unified word "public." When planning a communications
approach, clearly the adage "Know your audience" continues to apply. Understanding that
such a range of world views may exist within a single audience (or among several audiences)
can lead to a communications strategy ensuring that all concerned participants feel that their
voices are heard. Such understanding may also help communicators to identify types of
information needed by different groups and to be prepared for differences in the way audience
members may interpret information.
B. Social and demographic factors influencing views of nature
Many of the same authors who have categorized public opinion have also examined
the various social and demographic factors that may account for their observations. Age,
gender, race, social class, religion, ethnicity, and political beliefs are among the factors
considered in these studies.
Van Liere and Dunlap (1980) found age to be an important determinant in measuring
concern about environmental quality and incorporation of the ideals of the NEP. Numerous
studies have indicated that younger people are more likely to be environmentally aware. One
possible reason for this finding is that the young are less integrated into the DSP and
-------
Ecol. Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25, 1995 Page 16
therefore more ready to reject it. Steel et al. (1994) suggest that younger people have been
more exposed to environmental education and at a younger age, thus allowing them to
incorporate that education more readily into their world view. However, Kellert (1995)
concludes from his studies of natural resource and wildlife issues that there is no significant
differences among age groups in their knowledge of these issues. Kellert also questions
whether this age effect is in fact an indication of "historic shifts in American society." It
could, he argues, simply reflect "changes associated with progress through the normal life
cycle." In other words, it may be that young people tend to be more idealistic but become
more pragmatic as they age and assume more responsibilities that require compromise with
ideals.
Gender appears to play some role in attitudes toward nature, but the relationship is
complex. Van Liere and Dunlap (1980) report that "sex is not substantially associated with
environmental concern. This conclusion should be viewed as tentative, however, as it is
based on limited evidence." Steel et al. (1994) explain their finding that women have been
found to have more biocentric attitudes than men as due to "socialization processes and the
perception of moral dilemmas in terms of interpersonal relationships." In his studies, Kellert
(1995) has observed that women have "stronger humanistic and moralistic concerns" for
animals and nature while men "support utilization and dominance of nature." Males have
"substantially greater knowledge of nature and ecologistic values . . . express stronger
naturalistic values [and] tend to be less fearful of nature and wildlife."
Opinions differ as to how race affects environmental concern. Kellert (1995) finds
that "African Americans generally express significantly less naturalistic, ecologistic, and
moralistic environmental values than do European-Americans," while expressing "significantly
greater support for the practical utilization and mastery of nature and wildlife." Caron (1989)
disputes this view. Although "[b]lacks [have] often been characterized as unsupportive of
environmental interests," Caron applied the NEP scale and "found moderate acceptance of a
pro-environment perspective" among African Americans. Caron suggests that the reason for
this discrepancy in results may lie in methodology as well as cultural issues:
First, while most prior studies focused on specific issues such as air pollution, ours
examined blacks' endorsement of a broad environmental orientation termed the new
environmental paradigm. Second, it is likely that blacks evaluate specific
environmental problems such as air pollution relative to other problems faced by racial
minorities, such as discrimination and poverty.
Van Liere and Dunlap (1980) indicate that "environmental concern is positively
associated with social class as indicated by education, income, and occupational prestige."
They hypothesize that this might be explained by psychologist Abraham Maslow's theory of a
hierarchy of needs: that environmental quality is a luxury that can be indulged only after
more basic material needs are met. Steel et al. (1994) found that higher levels of formal
-------
Eco/. Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25, 1995 Page 17
education are associated with more biocentric values, suggesting that complex environmental
issues are more easily understood with higher levels of formal education.
Typically, urban residents are found to be more environmentally concerned than rural
residents. This could be because urban residents are exposed to more environmental
deterioration while rural residents are more likely to have a utilitarian/extractive relationship
with the land or share a culture with those that do (Van Liere and Dunlap 1980). Steel et al.
(1994) suggest that the difference could be found in the increased information and educational
opportunities that are found in urban areas. Kellert (1995) warns against this urban-rural
distinction:
Suburbanization of the American countryside, fostered by extensive transportation and
communications technology, has converted many once insular rural communities into
areas inhabited by many people pursuing an urban life style. As a consequence,
dependence on land and natural resources for deriving a living has been found to be a
better predictor of environmental values than simply the population of one's town of
residence.
The factors of religion and ethnicity have been less extensively studied. Kellert (1995)
has found that "[f]requent participation in formal religious activities is often associated with
strong utilitarian and dominionistic values, supporting the right of humans to dominate and
exploit natural resources and being less inclined to endorse wildlife protection."
Not surprisingly, political orientation is an important factor in opinions about the
environment, with liberals expressing more environmental concern than conservatives. Van
Liere and Dunlap (1980) present three arguments for this finding: "1) environmental reforms
counter interests of business and economics; 2) environmental regulations entail extension of
government; and 3) environmental reform requires innovative action." Steel et al. (1994)
have also argued that environmental issues "cut across traditional ideological cleavages."
They suggest that a better distinction is between post-materialists and materialist values with
the post-materialist concerned "less with economic growth and security issues than it is with
[Maslow's] 'higher order* values such as love for the aesthetic qualities of the environment."
The practical implications of these analyses for communicators are likely to be quite
limited, given the tentative nature of most conclusions. It would be premature at best to
assume that younger audiences, for example, are more likely to be interested and involved in
ecological issues, or that men are less concerned about the environment than women. Until
more definitive information is available, communicators will do best by evaluating the
information needs and attitudes of the particular publics that they are trying to reach.
-------
Ecol Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25, 1995 Page IS
C. Other factors
An important determinant in environmental concern is what ecological component is at
issue. According to Reading et al. (1994), "People ranked species with direct, consumptive
benefits to humans, higher than other species. Of these other species, relatively well-known
and attractive species were preferred over less charismatic species." Kellert (199S) has found
that individual animals evoke more concern than plants; and plants more so than concepts
such as ecosystems. Positive and negative biases toward, and familiarity with, certain
organisms and environments affect decisions about what to study and what to protect. A
recent (unpublished) analysis of Superfund ecological risk assessments showed that site
reports cited aquatic environments more often than terrestrial ones, animals more often than
plants, vertebrates more often than invertebrates.
D. Temporal trends in public attitudes toward nature
The studies cited indicate that a significant shift in attitudes, in favor of stronger
support for environmental issues, has occurred over the last 25 years. This trend, however, in
not uniform throughout the country, but is influenced by the regionality and heterogeneity of
the United States. Social and demographic factors such as age, education, and type of job all
play a role in determining the extent of this attitude shift.
Debate continues as to what degree environmental concern has permeated American
society. A major factor in this uncertainty is methodological. Kellert has primarily
measured attitudes toward wildlife, Dunlap and his colleagues have tried to assess overall
environmental world views, and Steel et al. focused on a biocentric-anthropocentric
dichotomy. Although these typologies are reasonably representative of approaches to this
subject, they are by no means the only ones. Generalizing from all of these different research
aims and methodologies into one definitive trend is risky at best.
If there has been an increase in support for environmental issues, this concern does not
necessarily translate to increasing support for specific actions of ecological risk management.
The research on opinion and attitudes shows varying degrees of concern for the environment
depending on the issue and numerous other factors, as discussed above, and suggests
relatively less support for ecological issues that do not directly relate to human welfare.
Ecological issues are likely to continue competing with a broad array of other issues
for the attention of most members of the public. Even among those who appear to be
committed to support for the environment, this concern may be focused primarily on
protection of human health and safety. For others, interest in ecological issues may be
localized to nearby natural resources or global in scope to include such matters as climate
change and tropical deforestation. Whether any of these interests or concerns effectively
-------
Ecoi Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25, 1995 Page 19
carries over into meaningful participation in a particular ecological issue will most likely
depend on the communicator's understanding of individuals' and groups' specific needs and
attitudes, and the communicator's ability to both provide information and hear others' ideas.
IV. Insights from related fields: Environmental education and alternative
environmental dispute resolution
Unlike risk communication, focused on human health and safety, the subject of
communication on ecological issues has not been recognized as a specific field of study as
such. Rather, researchers and practitioners are addressing relevant topics in a variety of
disciplines and organizational environments. This section briefly examines two such fields,
environmental education and alternative environmental dispute resolution, for information that
may be pertinent to understanding the process of communicating on ecological issues. In
both cases, relevant scholarly literature is extremely limited, but review of these few sources
may suggest areas of further study.
A. Environmental education
For this review, an extensive search was conducted for journal articles and books
concerning education of the public on ecology and related topics. Most of the literature was
found to focus on classroom education; little appears to be published concerning education of
the public about these same issues. This may be due to a traditional focus on school systems
for educational research, including the availability of government funding for such studies.
The National Environmental Education Act of 1990 addresses the needs of elementary,
secondary, and post-secondary students while not mentioning the need for educating the
general public. The focus of the Act is on developing environmental professionals. Public
education efforts outside the schools, such as those conducted by conservation and
environmental organizations, appear less likely to be discussed in the scholarly literature,
perhaps because funds and personnel are not available to do the necessary evaluations or
other studies appropriate for publication in such journals.
No literature was found concerning the general public's understanding of ecological
concepts. However, Munson's (1994) study of high school students suggests that such
concepts are poorly understood. Students did not understand the basics of what an ecosystem
is and how it functions. In particular, they did not realize the connections between organisms
other than direct connections (e.g., food chains). This lack of knowledge could increase the
difficulty of communicating about indirect effects of stressors and related issues. However,
Munson found not simply lack of understanding but significant misunderstanding of
ecological concepts. He suggests that education is needed to address misconceptions that
people already have of ecological ideas rather than "simply filling the apparent void of
-------
Ecoi Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25, 1995 Page 20
knowledge for the individual student." In his view, educators will need to present students
with "experiences that encourage them to abandon their misconceptions in favor of
scientifically acceptable conceptions." Munson goes on to state the importance of
understanding students' prior knowledge and how this will affect "their interpretation of the
world and development of additional knowledge."
Two papers focus on the need for education for reasons that go beyond increasing the
public's knowledge. Fox (199S) urges scientists to engage in public environmental education
to develop an "ecologically oriented world view." He believes that social change must come
from a "bottom-up" approach (education) rather than "top-down" (e.g., legislation). Public
education, in Fox's view, is in keeping with "the spirit of democratic institutions." The goal
of education, then, is to allow legislation to express environmental values of the people, rather
than impose them on the people. Gomez Pompa and Kaus (1992) see a need for education as
a means for addressing environmental inequities. In particular, they feel that "the
perspectives of the rural populations are missing in our concept of conservation. Many
environmental education programs are strongly biased by elitist urban perceptions of the
environment and issues of the urban world." They advocate an emphasis on local
communities as sources of information on particular ecosystems and on the effects of
conservation activities.
Two papers were found that describe efforts to educate certain segments of the public
on ecological issues. Mullins and Neuhauser (1991) are concerned with involving
communities in biosphere reserves. Westphal and Halverson (1986) seek to assess the long-
term effects of environmental education.
Mullins and Neuhauser propose a strategy "based on the premise that public education
(the right of the public to know) and public participation (the right of the public to be
involved) support social cohesion and economic well-being within any community." Their
approach includes identifying issues (e.g. threats to the reserves), identifying stakeholders, and
building an environmental ethic. This third point echoes Fox's argument for an "ecological
world view." The authors emphasize the need to "encourage biosphere-reserve communities
to establish clear education objectives that are culturally, environmentally, and economically
appropriate" la order to accomplish this, they assert, an ethic must be developed that deals
with the cultural norms and economic reality of a population and how environmental ideals
can be rooted in this pre-existing combination.
Westphal and Halverson studied the effects of a workshop program focusing on
environmental education. Their results indicated that there was partial success in "greater
citizen awareness and public participation." Specifically, the public became more involved in
public decision making processes that involved water quality of Lake Michigan. Westphal
and Halverson also suggested criteria for analyzing effectiveness. "Providing goals and
objectives that can be quantitatively assessed throughout a program is the first step toward
-------
Ecol Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25, 1995 Page 21
improving the content of environmental education programs designed to encourage citizen
participation." Educational programs must be set up in such a way that they can be
effectively assessed to see if the audience is comprehending and incorporating the messages
that are being relayed.
The limited information available in the scholarly literature offers little in the way of
specifics for communication practitioners concerning ecological issues. If Munson's
observations of high school students hold true for the general public, communicators should
be prepared to provide considerable background material on basic ecological terminology and
concepts to prospective audiences if appropriate to the issue at hand. On the other hand, it
may be more important for participants in an ecological debate to be informed about the
detailed biology of the ecosystem(s), species, or effect(s) that are the subject of the
communication. Fox's emphasis on education as a means of reinforcing democratic
institutions is in keeping with the spirit of the NRC's discussion of risk communication as part
of the democratic process.
Westphal and Halverson's suggestions about evaluation point to the need for more
studies of public education programs. Various non-school-based education programs,
including those conducted by non-profit organizations and state or federal natural resource
agencies, should be examined and evaluated for their effectiveness. Specific educational
strategies and techniques should be reviewed to determine what works well and what does not
and why. In the absence of quantitative data, a case-study approach could elucidate examples
of different types of educational efforts and produce qualitative assessments of their value for
other educational and communications programs.
In conducting such case studies, it will be important to distinguish between the goals
that the educators themselves might have had and those that an agency communicator might
have. For example, an educator at a wildlife refuge might develop a program to inform
visitors about the animals and plants in the refuge, so that they understand and appreciate
what they are seeing when they visit. An agency communicator, on the other hand, might
design a program to obtain greater and more informed public participation in a decision on
how to manage the preserve. Strategies and specific methods in these two efforts could differ
considerably, as might the specific audiences that the two programs were designed to reach.
Nonetheless, the agency communicator could benefit from the experience of the educator,
since some of the same information might need to be communicated, and audiences who had
been exposed to material from the education program might be more receptive to
communications concerning public participation. These kinds of linkages need to be made
explicit when evaluating education approaches for their applicability to communication
programs.
-------
Ecoi Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25, 1995 Page 22
B. Alternative environmental dispute resolution
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) describes a part of the environmental decision-
making process that grew out of dissatisfaction with traditional, more adversarial approaches
of litigation, administrative procedure, and the political process. According to its proponents,
ADR approaches—such as mediated negotiation, joint problem solving and policy dialogue
groups—provide a means for the various stakeholders to meet and reach mutually acceptable
resolutions to the issues in dispute. The purpose of this brief review is to indicate possible
areas where communicators on ecological issues might learn from the experience of ADR
practitioners.
It is important to emphasize that ADR and communication have different, albeit
related, objectives. ADR is a decision-making process whose goal is consensus among
participants. Communication is a process of sharing information on facts, opinions, values,
and feelings, with the goal of increasing understanding of the issues under discussion. No
consensus or general agreement is necessary for a communication to be judged a success, nor
is a decision a necessary outcome. However, the means by which ADR achieves consensus
may provide some useful insight into certain aspects of the communication process.
ADR originated from an amalgam of approaches that had been previously used in
several professions (Bingham 1986). Lawyers practice a form of ADR in settlement
processes; rather than go to court, attorneys often negotiate a settlement between would-be
litigants. Planners also utilize ADR techniques through the solicitation and facilitation of
public participation into local planning decisions. Perhaps the best known ADR method is
mediation, which for decades has been used to resolve labor/management disputes. In the
1960s, mediators began adapting their techniques to community disputes (Bingham 1986).
This new application brought with it new problems, such as unequal power among
participants, many parties to the dispute instead of the traditional two (e.g., labor vs.
management), and professional experts vs. laypersons. Such problems are common to risk
communication as well (NRC 1989, Fischoff 1989).
1. What is ADR?
Drawing on years of dispute resolution research and experimentation, the literature
describing and proposing ADR approaches to decision making offers advice to interested
parties who wish to resolve, disputes by means of negotiated consensus rather than the
traditional adversarial forms of dispute resolution (Lake 1980, Bacow and Wheeler 1984,
Susskind and Cruikshank 1987).
A general definition of an ADR process is one in which various stakeholders
voluntarily come together to engage in a dialogue that may lead toward consensus in
-------
Ecol. Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25, 1995 Page 23
resolving a problem situation (Lake 1980, Bacow and Wheeler 1984, Bingham 1986, Amy
1987, Susskind and Cruikshank 1987). Another critical aspect of ADR is that it is intended
to be non-adversarial. According to Amy (1987), the non-adversarial, participatory nature of
environmental mediation accounts for its large success. Additionally, ADR is seen as a
relatively short and inexpensive process, compared with traditional forms of dispute
resolution. ADR approaches may or may not require professional mediators.
Bingham (1986) cites many types of environmental disputes as appropriate for ADR,
including land use (e.g., hazardous waste facility siting, industrial site development, historic
preservation, and wetland protection), natural resource management and use, and water issues.
These are also the kinds of disputes that often involve ecological issues.
Crowfoot and Wondolleck (1990) point out that the ADR approach "requires the
parties (sometimes with the help of a skilled and neutral [mediator]) to develop and agree
upon a process for discussion and decision making." For example, participants must agree at
the outset on what their roles and objectives are; how information, will be exchanged; and
how they will communicate the results of the process to their constituencies, regulators, and
others. Participants must also agree on norms and rules for communication and behavior
early in the process. Will experts have a role in the process? If all participants do not have
the technical knowledge required to understand the discussion fully, how shall they be
educated? Finally, participants must articulate how, if an agreement is made, they will be
bound to comply.
2. Criteria for ADR success
Traditional methods of dispute resolution (and risk communication) sometimes
encounter opposition that challenges the legitimacy of the decision. ADR attempts to address
this problem by directly involving all of the stakeholders in the process. Participation by
itself does not necessarily provide legitimacy, as in the notice-and-comment process provided
federal law. The decision-making process itself must be perceived as legitimate. In addition
to legitimacy, Susskind and Cruikshank (1987) suggest four benefits of ADR, which can also
be seen as criteria for success. Three of these benefits, or criteria, that appear to be relevant
to communication on ecological issues are fairness, wisdom, and stability. A fourth,
efficiency, seems less appropriate to the communication process, and will not be discussed
here.
Susskind and Cruikshank assert that "What counts most in evaluating fairness is the
perceptions of the participants." They also advocate "plasticity," where the process goes
wherever the participants take it. Rigid processes, they argue, are perceived more as forcing
an outcome. To evaluating the fairness of an ADR process, they pose several questions:
-------
Ecol. Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25, 1995 Page 24
• Was the process open to public scrutiny?
• Was everybody who wished to participate given the opportunity?
• Were all parties given access to technical information?
• Was everyone given the opportunity to express their views?
• Were the people involved accountable to constituencies they ostensibly
represented?
• Were the means available whereby a due-process complaint could be heard at
the conclusion of the negotiations?
All but the last of these questions could profitably be adapted to evaluating a communication
effort.
Susskind and Cruikshank define a "wise settlement" as one that "contains the most
relevant information." They assert that this is accomplished by ensuring the participation of
all sides so as to minimize the risk of being wrong. Presence in an ADR setting is not
enough; participants must engage in dialogue. This is also the goal of a successful
communication.
A third benefit of ADR is the stability of the decision that is made. Even if the
process is perceived as fair, efficient, and wise, it is not useful if results of the agreement
cannot be sustained. For Susskind and Cruikshank, feasibility is key to the stability of an
agreement. The feasibility criterion provides a "reality check" as to what can be
accomplished in negotiation. Communicators concerned with ecological issues also must be
sure that the communication process, while allowing all reasonable views to be heard, remains
grounded in the biological and other realities: what species or habitats are affected, what
realistic options are available, what the consequences of proposed actions (or no action) are,
etc.
3. Two examples of alternative dispute resolution
ADR encompasses a broad array of methods, including (among others) arbitration,
mediated negotiation, information exchange/joint problem solving, and policy dialogue groups.
The latter two approaches appear most relevant to communicators on ecological issues. This
section describes both methods through the use of brief case studies.
-------
Eco/. Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25, 1995 Page 25
Information exchanges and joint problem solving dialogues began in the mid-
1970s. ACCORD Associates, a public policy research institute, led the way by serving as
facilitator in several applications of this approach, intended to bring "individuals and groups
together early in a planning or decision making process to exchange information and improve
their ability to anticipate and resolve potential conflicts before a polarized dispute occurred."
(Bingham 1986) The Delta County Quality of Life Project (Bingham 1986) offers an
example of a successful joint problem solving effort.
In the mid-1970s, Delta County in Colorado was experiencing rapid economic and
population growth. The county, with a population of 19,000, did not have a professional
administrative or planning staff, but it did have a voluntary planning commission. In January
1977, the Delta County Chapter of the League of Women Voters contacted ACCORD for
guidance on preparing a county development plan. The League's primary concerns were that
development appeared to be causing increased polarization in the county, and that this might
stand in the way of planning.
After preliminary meetings with community leaders, ACCORD and the Delta County
League of Women Voters decided to co-sponsor a one-day workshop to encourage a dialogue
on the issues and to develop a joint vision of the county's future. To design the workshop,
ACCORD and the League established a steering committee, open to all county residents.
Twenty people showed up to the first steering committee meeting to lay the foundation for
what became known as the "Quality of Life" Workshop.
Over the next year, the steering committee worked to gain sponsorship for the project.
Failure to rapidly obtain widespread support and sponsorship demonstrated to the committee
that a lack of trust already existed among the county's residents. Nevertheless, the committee
eventually received endorsements from 29 organizations and the Delta County
Commissioners. As this support grew, such other organizations as banks, the Chamber of
Commerce, and various service clubs also contributed to the project
On March 8, 1978 the workshop was held. Support for it had expanded throughout
the county. From the 270 workshop attendees a wide variety of ideas emerged regarding the
county's future. When the workshop concluded, three ideas emerged to address the problems
associated with rapid growth:
• Begin a county planning process,
• Improve education in the county, and
• Increase citizen involvement in decision making.
-------
Eco/. Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25, 1995 Page 26
Over the next year the committee reconvened to implement the suggestions from the
workshop. During that period the committee worked with the school board to acquire
community input and support for a bond issue that had previously failed. The committee also
developed a policy, with community input, on a county-wide land-use plan.
Bingham (1986) recounts the genesis of policy dialogue groups in Washington D.C.
in the 1970s. The purpose of these groups was to bring together business leaders and
environmental leaders for constructive dialogue on issues that appeared to divide them. Later,
in an expansion of the concept, industries with opposing viewpoints on policy issues where
brought together in dialogue groups to discuss their differences. Participants in most early
policy dialogues served not as representatives of a particular corporate interest, but as
respected individuals representing key points of view.
Another version of policy dialogue groups is regulatory negotiation. In these
negotiations stakeholders (environmental groups, industry, and government) engage in
dialogues focusing on each party's interest with regard to a specific proposed regulation. If
agreement can be reached on the proposed regulation through this process, the likelihood of
litigation is reduced.
In practice, policy dialogue groups work similarly to mediation. Participants may or
may not choose a third-party mediator. An effort is made to invite all stakeholders, although
in early policy dialogue groups regulators were not invited to the table in the hope that
environmental leaders and industry representatives would speak more freely. Nelson (1990)
cites the Common Ground Consensus Project as an example of such a group.
The Common Ground Consensus Project was originally the idea of the Illinois
Environmental Council (EC). For years the DEC had battled with the state's agricultural
interests on the legislative front. Legislation repeatedly had been defeated doe to lack of
agreement between these two groups. In 1982 an IEC board member proposed the Common
Ground Consensus Project (CGCP), which was intended to bring fanners and
environmentalists together to iron out differences, foster an environment of trust, and (they
hoped) achieve agreement on some points.
After receiving a foundation grant to cover some of the costs, the CGCP organized a
task force that included representatives from environmental and agricultural organizations.
Together these representatives identified issues that could be supported by both interests. The
task force decided to meet every other month and invited a wide range of interests to
participate. All organizations chosen were politically active in both agricultural and
environmental issues and had no association with the state government. Every organization
contacted agreed to send a representative to the CGCP task force.
-------
Ecol. Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25, 1995 Page 27
A neutral, professional mediator was chosen to facilitate the task force meetings.
During the first meeting, the mediator described his role as an independent voice who does
not become involved in substantive issues, but may provide problem-solving tools. At the
outset the facilitator encouraged the group to develop procedures to facilitate decision making
and task completion. Other procedural details helped to foster group cooperation and develop
a sense of trust among members.
Next the group worked to identify an agenda. The facilitator guided the group through
brainstorming exercises, interest identification, issue clarification, and discussion using a
collaborative group problem-solving methodology. In the first meeting, with the assistance of
the facilitator, 36 issues were identified and grouped into six major topics.
During the second meeting the group developed problem definitions and an issue-
selection procedure. Together the group decided to choose a single issue. This issue was to
fit three criteria agreed upon by the group:
• Areas where the group can have the greatest impact,
• Areas where a dialogue can be constructed and action can be operationalized,
• Areas where the task force can reach agreement and have something concrete
in time for the upcoming legislative session.
The task force chose to work on soil erosion and maintenance of soil productivity.
Participants spent most of one session defining the prcb'em, why it existed and identifying
the key issues. A. point of contention between environmentalists and fanners was mandatory
regulations vs. voluntary compliance. After this exercise, it was evident that each side
suffered from ignorance and misconceptions about what the other side thought. Despite this,
the group rejected a proposal to develop separate position statements, preferring instead to
continue with a consensus process.
Based on input provided by task force members, the staff research team developed soil
erosion summary statements for the full task force to review. Of the twelve statements, four
were agreed upon, four placed for revision, one was dropped and three were remanded to a
subcommittee for clarification. The following meeting the problem definitions were agreed
upon. For the next few months the task force worked on joint action plans. Despite
occasional deadlocks, the group eventually agreed on four recommendations and three
priorities for the legislature, which by the end of the session had passed two of the three
proposals. Passage of the third in the next session was believed likely.
The Project continued for another year before disbanding. Summarizing, Nelson
(1990) writes:
-------
EcoL Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25, 1995 Page 28
Participants felt that consensus-based problem-solving builds trust because people can
question assumptions; it avoids dominance by one organization; and it results in
collaborative work that produces more sophisticated solutions than the "hall lobbying"
of the legislative process. Two disadvantages participants mentioned were the
slowness of the process and the difficult transition from a collaborative process to a
competitive political process. . . . Common Ground did not produce action plans for
the more adversarial legislature.
4. Implications for communication on ecological issues
As stated at the beginning of this section, ADR and communication have different
objectives. ADR is focused as much on the outcome as on the process, while communication
may be considered successful based on process alone. ADR is a collection of procedures for
decision making; communication is an essential element in any decision-making process.
Despite these differences, the experience with ADR can offer some useful ideas to
researchers and practitioners concerned with communication about ecological issues.
Adapting criteria for success of ADR to evaluating communication efforts has already been
discussed. Communicators might also learn new strategies from ADR for identifying
stakeholders, building trust among participants, bridging gaps between technical experts and
laypersons, and ensuring that all viewpoints are heard. Because many ADR cases involve
issues around land and water use, facility siting, and natural resource management and
utilization, there should be ample opportunity for relating ADR experience specifically to the
kinds of questions that communicators on ecological issues are likely to ask.
Beyond the specific experience represented in ADR case studies, it may be useful to
look on certain ADR scenarios as models for the communication process. If communication
is seen as a multi-party exchange of information, a negotiation or consensus-building model
might be helpful in reflecting the interactions that occur during such an exchange. In this
model, stakeholders are seen as sources as well as recipients of information—an the detailed
biology of a site or species, on the local or regional impact of management options, on the
attitudes and values underlying positions concerning management options, etc. As both
sources and recipients, stakeholders can "negotiate" what information they will share with
others and what information they will accept as part of the debate. The communication
process may become one of developing consensus among participants as to what information
is needed, what (and whose) information is valid, and how information will be used in the
decision-making process. If this model seems useful to communication researchers and
practitioners, case studies from the ADR literature might shed some light on how disparate
stakeholders come to agreement on the terms and conditions of a discussion.
-------
Ecol. Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25, 1995 Page 29
V. Next steps for enhancing communication on ecological issues
This report has attempted to summarize a broad array of information, experience, and
opinion from several disparate fields of study and practice as they pertain to communication
about ecological issues. Given the historical (and current) emphasis in EPA on risk
assessment and management, an examination of the linkages to risk communication (much of
it developed by or for EPA) was a logical starting point. The general principles and
philosophy underlying risk communication appear to hold for communication on ecological
issues, and the approaches taken in risk-communication research suggest ways in which
similar questions might be addressed with respect to ecological issues (e.g., McDaniels et al.,
1995). Studies of public opinion and attitudes toward nature and natural resources provide
valuable information for understanding the various publics that communicators face when
addressing ecological concerns. The experience of practitioners in environmental education
and alternative environmental dispute resolution could serve as useful case studies for
understanding such processes as transmitting and receiving information, identifying
stakeholders and their needs, and building consensus among participants.
Although insights from all of these fields are useful, there is also a large body of
knowledge among communication practitioners who deal with ecological issues on a regular
basis. Public discussions are replete with ecological subjects, from local zoning to global
treaties. Many organizations have been communicating with the public about ecological
issues for decades, including state and federal natural resource agencies, nonprofit
environmental and conservation organizations, schools, print and broadcast media, and private
industry. EPA itself has a wide range of experience with ecological issues (and
communicating with the public about them), from setting standards and criteria to regulating
pesticides, from remediating hazardous waste sites to protecting wetlands against
development. As a first step toward understanding the particular strategies and methods
needed for effective communication on ecological issues, researchers should identify and
analyze a broad array of case studies, encompassing a significant number of organizational,
process, and substantive types. These cases should be analyzed and evaluated for their
similarities and differences, the principles that they may represent, and the types of
controversies and approaches to resolution that occur. Researchers can use this information to
formulate questions for further study, and practitioners can use the analysis to refine their
own approaches to similar situations. It is important that the case studies be examined using
standard bases of comparison, so that a systematic knowledge foundation can begin to be
constructed.
The formal study of communication about ecological issues will evolve as case studies
and other information begin to accumulate, and as researchers and practitioners share their
knowledge and experience with each other to formulate new questions and approaches. This
report could serve as a starting point for the development of a research agenda for this field
of inquiry.
-------
Ecol. Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25, 1995 Page 30
References
Amy, D. 1987. The Politics of Environmental Mediation. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Bacow, L. and M. Wheeler. 1984. Environmental Dispute Resolution. New York: Plenum.
Bengston, D.B. 1993. Changing Forest Values and Ecosystem Management. Society and
Natural Resources, 7: 515-533.
Bingham, G. 1986. Resolving Environmental Disputes: A Decade of Experience.
Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation.
Calabrese, E. and L. Baldwin. 1993. Performing Ecological Risk Assessments. Boca Raton,
FL: Lewis Publishers.
Caron, J.A. 1989. Environmental Perspectives of Blacks: Acceptance of the "New
Environmental Paradigm." Journal of Environmental Education 20:21-26.
Covello, V.T., P.M. Sandman, and P. Slovic. 1988. Risk Communication, Risk Statistics, and
Risk Comparisons: A Manual for Plant Managers. Washington, DC: Chemical
Manufacturers Association.
Crowfoot, J. and J. Wondolleck, eds. 1990. Environmental Disputes: Community
Involvement in Conflict Resolution. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Devall, W. and G. Sessions. 1985. Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered. Salt Lake
City, UT: Peregrin Smith Books.
Dunlap, R.E., K.D. Van Liere, A.G. Mertig, W.R. Catton, and R.E. Howell. 1992.
Measuring Endorsement of an Ecological Worldview: A Revised NEP Scale.
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, The Pennsylvania
State University, State College, PA, August, 1992, and at the Sixth Meeting of the
Society for Human Ecology at Snowbird, Utah, October, 1992.
Dunlap, R.E. and K.D. Van Liere. 1978. The "New Environmental Paradigm": A Proposed
Measuring Instrument and Preliminary Results. Journal of Environmental Education
9:10-19.
Ehrlich, P.R. 1988. The Loss of Diversity: Causes and Consequences. In E.O. Wilson ed.,
Biodiversity. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press; pp: 21-27.
-------
Ecol. Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25, 1995 Page 31
Fischoff, B. 1989. Risk: A Guide to Controversy. In National Research Council, Improving
Risk Communication. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press; pp: 211-319.
Fox, W. 1995. Education, the Interpretive Agenda of Science, and the Obligation of
Scientists to Promote this Agenda. Environmental Values 4:109-114
Gomez Pompa, A. and A. Kaus. 1992. Taming the Wilderness Myth. BioScience 42(4):271-
279.
Kellert, S.R. 1995. Trends in Attitudes Toward Natural Resources and Wildlife, and its
Implications for the U.S. Department of Defense. Unpublished report.
Kellert, S.R. 1993. Attitudes, Knowledge, and Behavior Toward Wildlife Among the
Industrial Superpowers: United States, Japan, and Germany. Journal of Social Issues
49(l):53-69.
Lake, Laura. 1980. Environmental Mediation: The Search for Consensus. Boulder. West view
Press.
Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. New York.:
Oxford University Press.
McDaniels, T., LJ. Axelrod, and P. Slovic. 1995. Characterizing Perception of Ecological
Risk. Risk Analysis. In Press.
Muliins, G.W. and H. Neuhauser. 1991. Public Education for Protecting Coastal Barriers.
BioScience 41(5):326-330.
Munson, B.H. 1994. Ecological Misconceptions. Journal of Environmental Education
25(4):30-34.
National Research Council (NRC), Improving Risk Communication. Washington D.C.:
National Academy Press.
Nelson, K. 1990. Case Study 3: Common Ground Consensus Project. In J. Crowfoot and J.
Wondotleck, eds., Environmental Disputes: Community Involvement in Conflict
Resolution (Washington, D.C.: Island Press), pp. 98-120.
Pirages, D.C. and P.R. Ehrlich. 1974. Ark II: Social Response to Environmental Imperatives.
San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.
-------
Eco/. Issues Communication Lit. Review September 25. 1995 Page 32
Risk Assessment Forum (RAF), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Framework
for Ecological Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Pub. No. EPA/630/R-92/001.
Reading, R.P., T.W. Clark, and S.R. Kellert. 1994. Attitudes and Knowledge of People
Living in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Society and Natural Resources 7:349-
365.
Science Advisory Board (SAB), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Reducing
Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection. Pub. No. SAB-
EC-90-021.
Steel, B.S., P. List, and B. Shindler. 1994. Conflicting Values About Federal Forests: A
Comparison of National and Oregon Publics. Society and Natural Resources 7:137-
153.
Susskind, L. and J. Cruikshank. 1987. Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to
Resolving Public Disputes. New York: Basic Books.
Suter, G.W. II. 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.
Ujihara, A., E. Silverman, and G. Campbell. 1991. Perception and Communication of
Ecological Risks. Unpublished report. Washington, DC: Center for Risk
Management, Resources for the Future.
Van Lierc, K.D. and R.E. Dunlap. 1980. The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: A
Review of Hypotheses, Explanations and Empirical Evidence. Public Opinion
Quarterly 44:181-197.
Westphal, J.M. and W.F. Halverson. 1986. Assessing die Long-Term Effects of an
Environmental Education Program: A Pragmatic Approach. Journal of Environmental
Education 17(2):26-30.
White, L. Jr. 1967. The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis. Science 155:1203-1207.
Worster, D. 1993. The Wealth of Nature: Environmental History and the Ecological
Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.
-------
Table 2: Summary of Case Studies
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Case (Respondent)
Potelinlal impacts of oil and gas
development on Lechuquilla Cave. NM
(Yvonne Valletta, Region 6. 214-665-7446)
RCRA. site in NW Indiana with
endangered species
(Carol Alexander, Region 5,
3124864244)
Partnership with Nature Conservancy to
demonstrate value of grassland
ecosystem
(Anonymous)
Massive fish Mils resulting from use of
azinphos. LA
(Anne Barton, HQ, 703-305-7695)
Environmental assessment for Southern
Appalachia
(Corey Berish, Region 4,
404447-710»€670)
Planning in environmentally sensitive
areas (wetlands). GA
(Jennifer Derby. Region 4.
404-347-355&3781)
LA Times series on farming and
problems with environmental
regulations
(Virginia Donohue, Region 9,
415-744-1585)
Production of wetlands awareness
poster
(Kathleen Drake. Region 2, 212-637-3817)
Delaware Estuary Program's public
outreach efforts
(Deborah Freeman, Region 2,
212-6373795)
Audience
stakeholders (spelunkers,
oil and gas developers.
environmental groups,
public)
general public and media
agencies and public
stakeholders (media.
sugar cane growers,
sports and environmental
groups)
stakeholders (local)
stakeholders (local
agencies, planners,
developers, property
owners, environmental
groups)
media
public / educators
public
Purpose
solicit information on
environmental and economic
interests
education (managing species)
education (grasslands
important)
eco communication
eco communication
education (environmentally
sensitive planning)
education and explanation
education (wetlands)
education (recreational and
other opportunities of estuary)
Approach/Process
part of EIS process
fact sheet and press
conference
focus groups to solicit feedback
and used Governor's Assoc. to
impart info
meetings with stakeholders
part of EIS process
local government workshops
meetings, (act sheet
poster
fact sheets, newsletters, maps,
etc.
Definition of Success
• increased agency knowledge
• established process for
protection
• increased public understanding.
• accurate media coverage.
• feedback shaping policy
• people could relate to problem
• took action to address risk
?
• got message to decision makers
• fair, more balanced article
subsequently
• high volume of requests
• requests for information
• enhanced relations with related
groups
• increased attendance at public
meetings
-------
Table 2 (continued)
«
10
11
12
13
14
to
16
17
18
19
'£>
Case (Respondent)
Production of pamphlet "Protecting the
environment, whose job is it anyway?'
(Joan Goods, Region 3, 215-597-9343)
Explaining to land management
agencies the importance of EPA's
regulatory authority
(Gene Kersey. Region 8. 303-293-1693]
Proecting Louisiana pine savannah
through 404 Program
(Bill Kirchner, Region 6. 214-665-8332)
Conference on the adverse effects of
pesticides, Corvalis, OR
(Mike Marsh. Region 10. 206-553-2876)
Explaining ecological significance of
NPDES aquatic toxcrty testing to
municipal water distncts, Dallas, TX
(Mana Martinez, Region 6. 214-665-2230)
Explaining ecological assessment for
Willow Run, Ipsilanti, Ml
(Mike McAteer, Region 5. 312-886-4663)
Public opposition to wetland
development, CO
(Paul Mclver, Region 8, 303-293-1552)
Long Island sewage treatment and fish
kills
(Rosemary Monahan, Region 1,
617-5653518)
Watershed conference, Belleview, WA
(Dan Phaten, Region 10, 206-5534638)
Forest Plan for Pacific Northwest,
WA/OR/CA
(Dave Powers, Region 10, 503-3264271)
Measuring the effects of xenobiolics in
Chesapeake Bay
(Donald Rodier. HO)
Audience
public
land management
agencies
COE.F4W, Nature
Conservancy
scientists and agency
biologists
local government
stakeholders (PRPs.
media, town officials,
public)
stakeholders (developer,
health department,
USFWS, USCOE, public)
stakeholders (local)
stakeholders (farmers,
loggers, fishers, scientists,
agencies, developers)
stakeholders (local and
national)
stakeholders (public, local
officials, media)
Purpose
education (self-help ideas)
education (EPA's regulatory
programs)
establish agreement between
agencies under 404 Program
eco communication (scientists
and policy makers)
education (significance of
testing to protect ecosystem)
eco nsk communication
(especially need for pnonties)
EPA requested COE revoke
developer's permit
eco communication
education (watershed
management/sustainable
development)
education (forest management
and sustainable development)
eco risk communication (eco
risk assessments must be
focussed)
Approach/Process
pamphlet
day-to-day open
communication
interagency networking
initiated by state agency
conference
variety of outreach (letters,
conversations, meetings, etc.)
ecological risk assessment
site visits, public meetings, etc.
citizen advisory committee.
public meetings, etc.
conference with diverse
audience
public meetings, info materials,
etc.
workshop
Definition of Success
• wide distribution
• increasing inclusion of EPA in
ecosystem management
• first national wetlands mitigation
bank
• networking
• conveyed significance
• public accepted and did not
challenge results and decisions
• wildlife refuge created
• fish kills mobilized public concern
and action
• 950 attendees, networking, etc.
• enormous public input
• public agreed reasonable
approach
-------
Table 2 (continued)
#
21
22
23
24
25
26
•a
28
29
Case (Respondent)
Protecting shellfish beds from septic
systems and cogeneration plant, Casco
Bay
(Ann Rodney, Region 1 , 617-565-4424)
Reliability of sediment coring as
barometer of PCB damage and
ecological health of Hudson River
(Ann Rychlenski, Region 2, 212-637-3672)
Creating cranberry bogs without permits,
MA
(Matt Scheisberg, Region 1,
617-5654431)
Leavenworth Prison dtesel spill, Missouri
River
(Jeff Weaaathertord, Region 7,
913-551-7155)
WatesherJ monitoring partnership
between Region II and public,
Philadelphia
(Peter Weber, Region 3, 215-597-4283)
Uncapped SF landfill SF as feeding
ground for wildlife, Springettsbury, PA
(Tern White, Region 3, 215-597-6925)
Destruction of Kamer Blue butterfly
habitat with siting of landfill by National
Steel Corp., Indiana
(Carol Witt-Smith, Region 5,
312-886*146)
Roofing shingles near wetlands at SF
site, Tampa, FL
(Mendeth Anderson, Region 4,
404347-35554561)
Ground contamination from battery
recycling facility al Cal West SF site, NM
(Gerald Carney, Region 6, 214-665-6523)
Audience
stakeholders (public,
homeowners, OEP)
stakeholders (media, local
public, officials. PRP,
environmental groups)
stakeholders (industry,
town officials, agricultural
community, media)
stakeholders (public, local
officials, media)
students, teachers,
conservationists, water
company, officials, fishers
stakeholders (public, local
officials, media)
stakeholders (public,
media, facility, special
interest groups)
local officials
Air force base managers
Purpose
eco communication
education (reliability of
sediment coring)
eco communication (necessity
of regulations and permits)
eco communication
(assurance of proper prompt
cleanup)
education (public involvement
in monitoring)
eco communication
eco communication
eco/hh risk communication
eco and health risk
communication
Approach/Process
fact sheets and various
outreach activities
m-lield demonstration, press
release
initiated enforcement actions
while maintaining open lines of
communication
during mobilization and
cleanup
citizens recruited and trained
public meeting
public meetings under RCRA
meetings between EPA lawyers
and town officials
part of ecological and health
risk assessment
Definition of Success
• community committed to
protecting shellfish
• public can do something to help
• public observation
• industry came into compliance
and improved management
• cleanup accomplished, people
sensitized to oil spill problems
• community involvement
• public salisfied and no longer
concerned about issues
• public happy to be informed and
trusted EPA
• shingles moved from wetland
• managers understood issues
• insightful questions and
suggestions
-------
Table 2 (continued)
«
30
31
32
Case (Respondent)
Water and sediment contamination (not
dioxin) are major ecological concerns at
Sitka pulp mill
(Bruce Duncan. Region 10. 206-553-8086)
SF nver cleanup, Region 8
(Holly Fliniau. Region 8. 303-293-1822)
Methyl mercury contamination at
ALCOA/Lavala Bay SF site, Point
Comfort and Point Lavala, TX
(Jon Rauscher, Region 6. 214-665-8513)
Audience
stakeholders (pulp mill
employees, mayor and
city council, public)
community
stakeholders (fishers,
industry, officials, public,
media, environmental
groups, )
Purpose
eco and health risk
communication
participatory eco and health
risk communication
eco communication
Approach/Process
information materials
(including video) and public
meetings
SF community relations,
workshops, etc.
SF community
relations/outreach
Definition of Success
• two-way communication
able to get message across
• pending
• public concern and buy in
-------
COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC ON ECOLOGICAL ISSUES:
WORKSHOP REPORT
Principal Authors:
Michael J. Dover
Dominic Golding
Center for Technology, Environment and Development
The George Perkins Marsh Institute
Clark University
Worcester, MA 01610
Contributing Authors:
C. Richard Cothern
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Roger E. Kasperson
Clark University
Charles A. Menzie
Menzie Cura Associates
Lawrence B. Slobodkin
State University of New York at Stony Brook
Graduate Assistants:
Rob Krueger
Ed McNamara
Clark University
Prepared for:
Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Cooperative Agreement No. CX 823519-01-0
October 10, 1995
-------
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
in
I. WORKSHOP SUMMARY [
A. Introduction I
B. Background I
C. "Risk" vs. "issues" '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 2
D. Workshop participants 3
E. Structure of the workshop 4
F. Major themes 6
1. Policy 6
2. Risk assessment and communication processes 7
3. Terminology 8
4. Regulatory decision making and implementation 9
5. Conveying technical aspects of ecological issues 10
G. Research priorities II
H. Conclusions 12
n. GROUP REPORTS 14
A. Ethics and values (Group 1) 14
1. Terminology concerns 14
2. Case study: Chesapeake Bay non-point source discharge
contamination 15
3. Values of different stakeholders: Perceptions and characteristics ... 17
4. New communication model for communicating ecological issues . . 18
5. Questions to aid the communication process 21
6. Recommendations 22
B. Scientists' and the public's perception of ecological issues (Group 2) 22
1. Initial thoughts 22
2. Differences in thinking about ecological issues 23
3. Communication challenges 24
4. Key points EPA should consider in training and providing guidance to
Agency communicators 25
5. Research needs 27
C. Organizational aspects (Group 3) 28
D. Characteristics of ecological issues affecting the communication process (Group
4) 34
1. Ecologists and communicating ecology: Seven themes 34
2. Research questions 40
m. CONCLUSION , 42
-------
APPENDIX A. WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS 43
APPENDIX B. AGENDA 46
FIGURE
Suggested Revised Assessment Model 20
TABLES
1. Necessary Organizational Improvements 29
2. Seven Themes on Communication about Ecology 35
11
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many individuals contributed to this report and, most importantly, the ideas behind it.
The workshop was funded through a Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE). We would like
especially to thank Michelle McClendon, EPA Project Officer, for her support and hard work
in making this workshop a success. Angela Nugent, Lynn Desautels, and Bill Paynter of
OPPE also made major contributions to the planning of the workshop.
Special thanks go to Roger Kasperson, who agreed at the last minute to chair a
breakout group when Caron Chess of Rutgers was unable to attend due to an emergency. We
also would like to thank Caron for her review comments on the first draft of this report. Our
other breakout group chairs—Rick Cothern, Charlie Menzie, and Larry Slobodkin—also
deserve our deep gratitude for their work in facilitating group discussions and summarizing
the results in draft reports. Thanks, too, to Rob Krueger and Ed McNamara, Clark graduate
assistants, who provided invaluable assistance before, during, and after the workshop.
Our initial plenary session successfully set the stage for the discussions that followed.
We wish to thank all of the speakers for their stimulating presentations: Gloria Bergquist, Bill
Cooper, Branden Johnson, Larry Kapustka, Tony Maciorowski, Tim McDaniels, Naomi Paiss,
and Jim Proctor. Thanks too to Lynn Desautels and Matt Sobel for their wrap-up comments
at the end of the workshop.
Finally, we acknowledge with gratitude everyone who attended the workshop.
Defining a field of inquiry is never an easy task, and this subject required that professionals
from a wide variety of backgrounds listen to and understand each other's language and
concepts. Over a period of only two days, a remarkable degree of cross-fertilization of ideas
took place, which could not have happened without the openness and good will that everyone
displayed at the meeting.
Michael Dover
Dominic Golding
Clark University
October 10, 1995
111
-------
COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC ON ECOLOGICAL ISSUES:
WORKSHOP REPORT
I. WORKSHOP SUMMARY
A. Introduction
On May 24 and 25, 1995, Clark University convened a workshop in Washington,
D.C., to discuss the process of communication between government agencies and the public
about ecological issues. Ecological issues are those that involve primarily nature and natural
resources, especially the potential adverse effects of human activities on natural systems.
Communication is a multi-directional process, involving many different stakeholders, often
representing a wide range of values, perceptions, educational backgrounds, and economic
resources. Stakeholders can be information sources, receivers, and transmitters. The goal of
the workshop was to provide recommendations for agency guidance, training, and research, so
as to ensure that the debate on ecological issues is informed, reasoned, and equitable.
The workshop is part of a project conducted by the Center for Technology,
Environment and Development (CENTED) of the George Perkins Marsh Institute at Clark,
and funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Policy, Planning
and Evaluation (OPPE), Office of Sustainable Communities and Ecosystems.
B. Background
EPA has in recent years focused increased attention on its role in assessing and
managing ecological risks. While protection of human health remains a high priority,
recognition is growing that natural resources also are threatened by pollution and physical
alteration of the environment. Policy makers and the public are becoming more aware of (1)
the value of natural resources and (2) the link between the well-being of the human
population and the health of the natural world.
As part of its responsibility to make decisions and undertake other activities for
protection of natural resources, EPA understands the importance of effective communications
between the Agency and other stakeholders in the debates that take place. In the realm of
human health and safety, a body of research and practice under the name of risk
communication has developed over the last two decades, which has many insights that can
inform the communication process on ecological issues. There are also, however, significant
differences in the way human health and ecological issues are perceived, assessed, and
managed that point to different approaches in communication. To help ensure that EPA
communication practice reflects these differences and similarities, this workshop brought
together experts from such fields as communications, ecology, social and behavioral sciences,
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 2
public policy, and environmental ethics to discuss what is known about the subject, what
should be included in training and guidance, and what research is needed.
C. "Risk" vs. "issues"
The original title of this project was "Research Priorities for Ecological Risk
Communication," a specific reference to (1) the growing interest in, and development of, the
practice of ecological risk assessment; and (2) the existing and evolving field of risk
communication as it has grown up in the area of human health and safety. EPA and
CENTED have since sought to broaden the reach of the project by using the term "ecological
issues" rather than "ecological risk" in describing the subject matter of this workshop and of a
related survey of EPA personnel. There are three main reasons for this shift in terminology:
• Within EPA, "risk" has become identified in many people's minds as being
associated with the potentially harmful effects of toxic chemicals in the
environment. Although EPA's Risk Assessment Forum has gone to
considerable pains to demonstrate that risk has a broader meaning, the
perception persists.
• There are activities both within EPA and elsewhere, such as various ecosystem
management programs, that do not fit the standard risk assessment/risk
management paradigm as exemplified by the EPA Framework for Ecological
Risk Assessment. While the argument might be made that some form of risk
evaluation still occurs in the decision-making process of such programs, the
term and the framework are not necessarily accepted in those contexts.
• Federal and state agencies responsible for managing natural resources often
have considerable expertise and experience in communicating with various
publics about their activities and the reasons for taking certain management
actions. These agencies either do not use the terms "risk," "risk assessment,"
and "risk communication," or may use them in different ways.
Hence, to cast the widest net for information and insight, the project (and the
workshop) has been retitled "Communicating with the Public on Ecological Issues."
Nonetheless, the reader will notice many references to "risk" and "risk assessment" in
this report. These references in part have to do with the experience of the participants, many
of whom have studied and practiced risk assessment or risk communication in a regulatory
setting for many years. They also reflect the fact that, despite the existence of other
programs, EPA's mandates remain largely risk-driven, and risk assessment and risk
communication will continue to be important parts of the Agency's activities for a long time
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 3
to come. Finally, as EPA's Risk Assessment Forum attempted to show in the Framework for
Ecological Risk Assessment, "risk" really is a broad term, not at all limited to toxicological
investigation. The Forum adopted language such as "stressor" and "ecological component,"
rather than "chemical" and "receptor" to indicate the breadth of meaning that is possible
within their framework. The reader is thus encouraged to give the widest interpretation
possible to the terminology used in this report, and to accept that our intent at all times is to
be inclusive.
D. Workshop participants
More than 40 people attended the two-day workshop. The group of participants was
both multi-disciplinary and multi-sector in its composition. Disciplines represented included:
• Ecology, ecotoxicology, and ecological risk assessment;
• Communications, public affairs, and risk communication;
• Decision science and public policy;
• Geography, anthropology, and other social sciences; and
• Philosophy and ethics.
Institutions represented at the workshop included:
• EPA (OPPE, Office of Pesticide Programs, Office of Water, and Office of
Research and Development);
• The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA Forest Service and Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service);
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
• The National Science Foundation;
• The U.S. Department of Energy;
• State environmental and natural resource agencies (New Jersey, New York, and
Pennsylvania);
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 4
Environmental groups (Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife
Federation, and World Wildlife Fund);
• Regulated entities (Water Environment Federation, American Forest and Paper
Association, and Monsanto Corporation);
• Two environmental consulting companies; and
• Ten universities and one National Laboratory.
Appendix A lists the workshop participants and their affiliations.
E. Structure of the workshop
The workshop consisted of two plenary sessions, separated by meetings of four
breakout groups. (See Agenda, Appendix B.) The initial plenary session, designed to set the
tone of the workshop, began with a keynote address by Dr. William Cooper of Michigan
State University and a member of the EPA Science Advisory Board. Participants then heard
three background papers:
• "Ethics and Values in Ecological Controversies: The Case of Biodiversity
Conservation in the Pacific Northwest," presented by James Proctor of the
Department of Geography, University of California at Santa Barbara
• "Characterizing Perceptions of Ecological Risk," presented by Timothy
McDaniels of the School of Planning, University of British Columbia
• "Survey of EPA Staff re: Communicating on Ecological Issues," presented by
Dominic Golding of Clark University, Co-Investigator of this project
Following these presentations, a panel discussion took place, focusing on the needs
and experiences of practitioners regarding communication. The panel included a risk
communication researcher in a state environmental agency, public affairs directors for an
industry association and an environmental organization, an ecological risk assessor from an
environmental consulting firm, and an EPA scientist/manager. The panel consisted of:
• Gloria Bergquist, American Forest and Paper Association
• Branden Johnson, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
• Larry Kapustka, ecological planning & toxicology, inc.
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 5
• Tony Maciorowski, EPA Office of Pesticide Programs
• Naomi Paiss, National Wildlife Federation
The breakout groups formed the core of the workshop. Participants were divided
approximately equally into four groups based on their expressed interest in the topic area.
The topics for the groups are listed below, along with the group chair.
• Group 1: Ethics and values; C. Richard Cothern, OPPE
• Group 2: Scientists' and the public's perception of ecological issues; Charles
Menzie, Menzie Cura Associates
• Group 3: Organizational aspects of the communication process; Roger
Kasperson, Clark University
• Group 4: Characteristics of ecological issues affecting the communication
process; Lawrence Slobodkin, State University of New York at Stony Brook
Under the direction of the breakout group chairs, each group was asked to:
• Summarize what is known about the topic, either from research or practical
experience;
• Indicate key points about the topic that EFA should emphasize in training and
providing guidance to Agency communicators; and
• Recommend priorities for research in the topic area to improve or enhance
communication of ecological issues
Groups met the afternoon of May 24 and the morning of May 25. Some group chairs
and other participants also held meetings and writing sessions on the evening of May 24. On
the afternoon of May 25, the plenary session resumed with reports from each breakout group,
along with discussion from the audience. The meeting concluded with wrap-up comments
from Lynn Desautels of OPPE and Matthew Sobel, Dean of the Harriman School for
Management and Policy at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Group chairs
met with Clark and EPA staff on the morning of May 26 to discuss common themes and the
approach to reporting on the workshop.
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 6
F. Major themes
The workshop was not designed or intended to develop consensus among all
participants and arrive at a common set of recommendations. Rather, each breakout group
presented its findings and recommendations in plenary session, and participants raised
questions and commented on the group reports. Nonetheless, several ideas common to two or
more groups became apparent as the recommendations from each group were reviewed.
These are grouped under five major themes: (1) policy; (2) risk assessment and
communication processes; (3) terminology; (4) regulatory decision making and
implementation; and (5) conveying technical aspects of ecological issues.
1. Policy
Two groups expressed a need for clear policy direction from the highest levels in
EPA, which would emphasize the importance of ecological concerns in meeting the Agency's
responsibilities. The Organizational group felt that EPA needs to state clearly that ecological
issues are high priority for the Agency. This suggestion is similar to, although less far-
reaching than, the EPA Science Advisory Board's recommendation in Reducing Risk that the
Agency (1) specifically declare that EPA considers ecological risks as important as human
health risks and (2) communicate to the public the importance of natural systems and their
link to human health and welfare. At the same time, the Ethics and Values group pointed up
the need to recognize the role of values in decisions related to ecological issues.
In her summary remarks, Lynn Desautels picked up on this latter point, suggesting that
the role of values appears more important, complex, and challenging with ecological issues
than with human health issues. With human health, she said, there is considerable agreement
on what society values, but the relative importance of particular ecological outcomes, and of
the species or systems to be protected, are likely to differ among various stakeholders in
ecological controversies. In addition, as Bryan Norton pointed out, the values underlying
particular stakeholder positions may be "under rocks"—partially or wholly unconscious rather
than clearly understood.
The workshop groups made the following recommendations:
• Develop a specific policy establishing a high priority for ecological issues in
EPA's organizational mission, and incorporating concern for ecological issues
into broader policy making. (Group 3)
• Develop a policy statement regarding consideration of values and value
judgments in ecologically related decision making. (Group 1)
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 7
2. Risk assessment and communication processes
Many participants in the group discussions felt that risk assessment and
communication processes cannot and should not be separated from each other. Implicit in
several comments and recommendations is that EPA's risk assessment paradigm and the
Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment do not pay sufficient attention to communication
as an integral part of the assessment process. The Framework does emphasize
communication between risk assessors and risk managers, particularly at the Problem
Formulation stage of the process, to ensure that the ecological risk assessment provides
information relevant to the decisions that risk managers need to make. However, there is
insufficient recognition in the Framework that defining the problem or issue to be studied is
itself a public policy decision, which should include interaction and communication with a
variety of interested parties.
Group 1 proposed a modified framework, with specific reference to eliciting
information on values held by stakeholders, and with feedback loops incorporating
information on changing conditions and changing values. In somewhat the same vein, Group
3 recognized that ecological issues often entail a much wider array of information sources
than do health and safety issues. For example, individuals and local organizations often have
more detailed information about specific sites and the species present than do government
scientists or other officials. Equally important, the local and regional significance of
particular natural systems can be a critical piece of information when designing studies and
evaluating management options. Such information, which is inseparable from values, can best
be obtained through dialogue with stakeholders. Finally, as the research in risk
communication has found, stakeholders and the public perceive potential health and safety
hazards according to a wide variety of factors, such as voluntariness, familiarity, dread, and
equity, when determining the importance of those hazards. In his presentation to the
workshop, Tim McDaniels described how respondents in his study perceive ecological risks
and identified several factors that influence those perceptions. Understanding how individuals
and groups perceive ecological issues, as well as how they receive and share information,
could add a valuable perspective to problem formulation and study design, and could play an
important role in formulating management options.
Recommendations in this category included the following:
• Revise/enlarge the Framework to show communication with stakeholders (not
just risk managers) occurring throughout (not just after the risk assessment is
completed). (Group 2)
• Change the risk assessment model to include values and ethics at the beginning
of the process. (Group 1)
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 8
Train scientists and communicators to think of communication as two-way and
multi-way. (Group 2)
Train communicators to include values, value judgments, and ethics in all
aspects of describing and facilitating decision making. (Group I)
Adopt a wider view of information sources. (Group 3)
3. Terminology
As the discussion of "risk" and related terms in Section 2 above indicates, use of
particular terminologies can provoke considerable controversy. Group 1 felt that "risk" should
not be used in decision-making processes unless and until the values behind the word were
clearly understood. Scientists in Group 4, on the other hand, were comfortable with a broad
application of "risk," but were uncomfortable with terms such as "ecosystem health" and
"integrity." Others, such as Lynn Desautels and Bryan Norton, believed that the latter terms
are useful in a communications and policy context.
What emerges from these comments and conflicts is a need for care, clarity, and
consistency in the use of language. Words do not, as Humpty Dumpty would have liked,
mean whatever we wish them to mean. As the risk communication and perception literature
has shown, scientists and statisticians may see "risk" in the very plain and (to them) simple
terms of the probability of harm, but other citizens imbue the word with layers of other
meanings, incorporating such matters as who is harmed (e.g., children or adults), whether the
hazard is voluntarily or involuntarily encountered, etc. Tim McDaniels' presentation showed
how the public perception of ecological risks can also be studied and characterized. Such
differences in perception are also opportunities for communication. For example, ecologists
do not necessarily see every change in nature as a problem or every problem as major. (See,
for instance, the priorities identified by the Ecology group in Reducing Risk.) Conveying the
idea that a particular issue may not be a cause for concern could be a challenge for
communicators, especially if trust in the communicating institution is not strong.
Words used in communicating about ecological issues must work for all those
involved. Terminology must not only be intellectually appealing and intuitively understood
by decision maters and the public, but it must also be capable of being turned into something
that is observable or measurable in the real world of birds, bugs, and bushes. If science is to
inform public decisions, scientists must be able to conduct replicable studies or, if that is not
possible, to develop testable models. If decision makers and the public are to make use of
information from scientists, the concepts behind the studies must be accessible to a reasonable
intelligence, however non-scientific and non-mathematical its training.
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 9
The discussions and recommendations in this area point to a larger, overarching need
to develop methods for achieving agreement on terminology among diverse groups of
stakeholders. Other recommendations in this category include the following:
Avoid using poorly defined terminology (e.g., risk, ecosystem health, integrity)
and jargon. (Groups 1, 3, and 4)
• Do not automatically label an ecological issue as a problem. (Group 4)
• Develop a common language accommodating scientific knowledge, lay
understanding, and values. (Group 2)
4. Regulatory decision making and Implementation
Just as communication is not fully separable from risk assessment, so too is it closely
linked to the processes of making and implementing decisions. Communication is intended to
support decision making, by explaining Agency options and decisions, obtaining information
and viewpoints from affected parties, and ensuring that citizens' rights and concerns are
honored. If the decision-making process itself constrains communication, no amount of
communication skill or expertise can be expected to meet those objectives.
Discussion and recommendations from the groups focused on the need for greater
flexibility in regulatory decision making, to reflect the characteristics of specific ecological
issues. Management of ecological systems often involves tailoring intervention strategies to
local circumstances and responding quickly to changes in physical and biological conditions.
Not only can these conditions change, but the values and attitudes of stakeholders can also
change. Such change could occur because of shifts in the economic situation, or as a result
of communication or educational efforts, or other factors. Adaptive approaches to regulatory
decision making would allow management to respond to these changes in creative and
constructive ways.
Among the recommendations in this category are the following:
• Increase flexibility with respect to temporal and spatial scales of decision
naking, based on the most appropriate scales for each ecological issue. (Group
3}
• Establish deadlines that allow for consideration of values in decision making
and implementation. (Group 1)
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 10
Seek innovative forms of cooperation and partnerships in solving ecological
problems. (Group 3)
5. Conveying technical aspects of ecological issues
As with many other technical fields, the science of ecology can appear enormously
complex to a lay audience, or it can be oversimplified, possibly leading to erroneous
conclusions about an issue. An additional challenge in communicating about ecological issues
is to reach audiences who are used to personalizing concerns as a way of understanding them
and setting priorities among the many issues that compete for public attention. Such
personalization may lead to a focus on individual organisms or charismatic species, possibly
at the expense of seeing the larger picture (e.g., the need to preserve habitat).
It is also important for ecologists, like other scientists, to be clear about the limits of
their knowledge and their ability to predict outcomes of events (e.g., disturbances or
management efforts.) Although ecological theories and general models provide valuable
insight into the workings of natural systems, describing particular systems and their responses
to disturbance or management requires a firm grounding in natural history—the detailed
biology of each individual species and habitat under consideration.
The principles and findings of ecology are amenable to effective communication
between ecologists and others, without losing sight of the science that led to those findings.
Ecologists and communicators need to work together to find ways of conveying this
information so that interested parties can participate fully in discussions about ecological
issues. Key recommendations in this category are as follows:
• Communicate local implications of ecological issues. Focus on particular
places where possible, both to help publics personalize the issue and to convey
the "systems" aspects of ecology. (Group 4)
• Identify familiar themes that members of the public and scientists can relate to
even though they stem from different conceptual frameworks (e.g., preservation
of land for future generations and preservation of habitat). (Group 2)
• Frame discussions as much as possible in terms of the natural history of
specific ecological components (species, habitats, etc.), rather than in terms of
general principles or theories. (Group 4)
• Include relevant information on basic scientific principles and processes that
may not be familiar to public, so that they can more readily understand the
specific ecological issue. (Group 2)
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 11
G. Research priorities
A wide array of suggestions for future research emerged from the group discussions
and final group reports. The topics listed below point to several concerns that occurred in a
variety of contexts during the workshop. Public understanding of ecological concepts and
the scientific method concerned many participants, especially (but not exclusively) scientists.
The questions under this heading point up the need to know how the public perceives
ecological issues before designing communication efforts so that information (including
opinions, attitudes, beliefs, and values) is actively exchanged among participants. Examples
of suggested research in this area include the following:
• How do people conceptualize and value ecological systems and their
components? How do such conceptualization and valuing differ by gender,
geographic region, cultural background, etc.?
• What is the nature and extent of public literacy on basic ecological concepts of
importance to environmental protection?
• What does it mean to the lay public to have the weight of evidence suggest
something? How can that perception be modified if it is not consistent with
the scientific approach?
• On what geographic scales do people relate to ecological issues? How do
attitudes toward particular species (e.g., "charismatic vs. "disgusting") affect
how people relate to ecological issues?
• What mental models do members of the public use in thinking about specific
issues and overarching issues?
Several research topics concerned institutional knowledge and institutional change.
Questions focused on how well ecological information moves to, from, and within EPA, and
how institutions such as EPA can shift (or add) focus toward ecological issues, especially in
an environment of diminishing resources. Specific research topics included the following:
• What is the nature and extent of ecological knowledge among non-ecologists in
EPA?
• How do EPA and ecologists outside EPA communicate?
What are the various mental models used by environmental scientists and
Agency personnel concerning opinions, beliefs, knowledge, and values?
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 12
• How does fundamental change occur in complex organizations? How do
substantive institutional changes take place during downsizing?
• How, does the culture of the organization (agency vs. corporation vs. NGO,
command-and-control vs. participatory, hierarchical vs. egalitarian, etc.) affect
the framing of and attention given to ecological issues?
Finally, a variety of questions suggested the need for case studies, historical analyses,
surveys, and other studies to understand what knowledge is already present in the form of
practical experience with communication, conflict management, and other related areas.
Examination of these sources could lead to important insights for future communication
efforts around ecological issues. Questions under this heading included the following:
• What do people learn from different kinds of communication approaches,
messages, information, etc.?
• What can be learned from past ecological communication efforts in various
institutions? What does and does not work in different contexts?
• How have different communities dealt with similar ecological problems?
• Does/should survey methodology (for studying public opinions and attitudes)
differ for ecological issues compared to other environmental issues? If so, how
should the methodology be changed to fit better?
The research topics listed above should not be taken as a definitive set of questions.
The discussions about research at the workshop represent two days of effort at defining a new
field of inquiry and, as such, need to be seen as a first step in an evolving process. As
experience and knowledge accumulate from initial studies, new directions are certain to
emerge that were not apparent during this workshop. It is important, too, to recognize that
the suggestions put forward here reflect the collective experience of a limited number of
people. Although considerable effort went into gaining representation from a wide variety of
disciplines, organizations, and geographic areas, gaps inevitably occurred. As this report
circulates, the authors expect and welcome discussion and debate over the workshop's
findings and recommendations. Only through such a process can definitive research agendas
develop and change.
H. Conclusions
Participants at the workshop generally agreed that the subject of communicating about
ecological issues is both important and in need of study. From the discussions and
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 13
recommendations, it-is clear that practitioners in this area can benefit from much of the
experience gained in risk communication concerning human health and safety, in applied
environmental ethics, in organizational and public-policy studies, and in environmental
education. The challenge is to identify those aspects that are directly applicable to ecological
issues and those that do not apply. This clarification should lead in turn to new areas of
research and training to ensure that the public is informed and participating in debates
concerning nature and natural resources to the fullest extent possible.
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 14
II. GROUP REPORTS1
A. Ethics and values (Group 1)
1. Terminology concerns
Defining terms like "ethics" and "values" is both important and complex. Although
there may be general agreement about what these two terms mean, it is not possible in this
brief report to do provide thorough definitions. It is important to note, however, that the two
concepts are neither mutually exclusive nor interchangeable.
Values can be defined as attitudes, concerns, and preferences, and ethics as
systematized values. Ethics and values may further be categorized as cultural or situational.
Cultural (or core) ethics and values can be thought of as those passed down by generations
or generally held within a society; examples related to environmental issues include notions of
justice, freedom, sanctity of life, and responsibility to future generations. Situational ethics
and values may be considered those that change over a more finite time or that a particular
segment of society embraces. In environmental debates, these could include such concepts as
quality of life, rights pertaining to different groups (or species), monetary value, private
property rights, local control, central authority, and legitimacy. Assigning any given value to
one category or another can itself be controversial, since some may see the value as deeply
rooted in history while others see it as more changeable.
Underlying value systems influence the definition of other terms in environmental
debate. The terms "risk" and "communication" can each convey several meanings, which
were the subject of considerable discussion within the group. Some group members disliked
using the word "risk" because they felt that the term is too tied to public-health-related
meanings that are not applicable to ecological issues. The term is also closely associated with
1 These sections are based on the reports given by the group chairs during the plenary
session, supplemented with notes made by the chairs and recorders during the sessions, and
subsequently edited by the group chairs and the authors of this report. Workshop participants
(and several individuals who were unable to attend) were then given the opportunity to
comment on the draft report. Their suggestions for revision have been incorporated in this
final report at the discretion of the principal authors. As such, the analyses and
recommendations reflect primarily the views of the members of each group, modified by the
additional comments and thoughts of the reviewers and final edits by the principal authors.
Occasionally, individuals are mentioned by name in the text to give credit for specific ideas
offered during the workshop.
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 15
threats from chemical contamination; physical and biological sources of harm to natural
systems might not be recognized as "risks." Thus, these individuals argued, focusing on
"risk" could constrain the scope of ecological controversies.
The definition of "communication" (and, more specifically, "risk communication") in
environmental affairs has evolved considerably. Some of that historical variation was still
evident within the group. Some participants focused on communication as a unilateral
conveying of "risk messages." Others saw it as an educational process, while still others felt
it should be an open dialogue among equals. In discussions, the group agreed that there is a
difference between communication (which is multidirectional) and education (which may be
more unidirectional). Both are important and need to be considered in the communication of
ecological issues. The primary focus in designing a program for ecological communication
should be on process rather than product and on how both communication and education
affect the various publics involved.
Finally, the group recognized that specific issues and controversies will raise questions
of definition that might seem technical but reflect the values of particular stakeholders. For
example, if the desire is to return to "pristine" conditions, which "ago" is appropriate? Are
conditions last year, a decade ago, a century ago, a millennium ago the appropriate ones to
use as a benchmark?
2. Case study: Chesapeake Bay non-point source discharge contamination
In an effort to clarify the ethical and value issues involved in ecological controversies,
the group chose to explore a specific case. Through examination of the particulars of a
complex ecological question, the group sought to demonstrate how a taxonomy of values
could be developed in a manner that would be meaningful to a regulatory agency such as
EPA. The group selected the issue of contamination of Chesapeake Bay from non-point
source discharges because it (1) concerned a problem occurring at a sufficiently large
geographical scale, (2) involved numerous technical disciplines and consideration of several
cultural groups, and (3) was both complex and controversial.
Due to fertilizer runoff from area farms, elevated levels of phosphorous and nitrogen
are present in the Chesapeake Bay. Because of these elevated levels, algal blooms persist.
These blooms then diminish the Bay's dissolved oxygen content. This lack of oxygen affects
the flora and fauna that inhabit the Bay. By current standards, discharges from both point
and non-point sources are well within the limits allowed by the Clean Water Act. According
to experts, a voluntary reduction in the application of these chemicals is the best management
strategy. Thus, the issue has arisen because ecological damage is occurring from discharges
that are within regulatory limits to protect public health, and thus considered legal to
discharge into the Bay.
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 16
As an agency with regulatory jurisdiction over the Chesapeake, several questions arise
for EPA. What are the issues that could arise? Especially if the discharges are considered
legal, what is the EPA's role? Is this education, communication, or advocacy? How should
the Agency communicate these ecological concerns to the public? Should the communicator
convince the public of ecological damage? Should she/he attempt to illustrate to the public
the sources of the damage? Should the stakeholders make the choice? How should EPA
identify or define who is (and who isn't) a stakeholder?
The group began by developing a partial list of categories of value (both cultural and
situational) that could influence the communication process. These include:
Tradeoffs
• Organizational structure of the community
• Recreation
• Economics
• Aesthetics
• Private property issues
• Subsistence (fanning and fishing)
• Legitimacy of EPA's involvement
Issues of "right" and "wrong"
• Differing, possibly opposing sets of assumptions among involved communities
• Distributional equity
• Responsibility
• Stewardship
• Costs vs. benefits
• Certainty in terms of efficacy
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 17
Such categories help to illustrate the possible breadth of values among the stakeholder
groups involved in an ecological communication process. Awareness of the values underlying
a debate or controversy is essential to maintaining a dynamic and continuous communication
process. In this example, by taking stakeholders' values into consideration, a communicator
might decide to:
• Tailor educational material to achieve greater understanding;
• Promote dialogue among contending groups;
• Identify "allies," change agents within the community, and areas of potential
agreement or compromise; and
• Inform Agency personnel about the historical, cultural, or other bases for
stakeholders' positions.
Understanding these values might also aid the decision-making process. For instance,
understanding a community's values could help identify criteria that community members use
in determining the acceptability of management options.
After completing this exercise, the group developed three statements of principle
relating to ethics and values in ecological controversies:
• Ecological risk can usefully be defined as the potential for a reduction in value
(where the specific values at issue may differ among stakeholders).
• A broad array of values is always possible, and various segments of the public
may take "risk" to mean decline in different kinds of values.
• Means and ends are both important from the standpoint of ethics. Thus, while
agencies must work toward management outcomes that are protective of the
environment, communication strategies should emphasize process more than
outcome to ensure that all concerned parties have an opportunity to be heard.
3. Values of different stakeholders: Perceptions and characteristics
Conflicts concerning ecological issues may arise when distinctions are made between
objects of management and objects of values. Scientists, for example, may value particular
species in certain ways while hunting, fishing, or hiking (e.g., what resource economists
would characterize as "use values"—the recreational or food value of the species). When
those same scientists are working as researchers or teachers or risk assessors, the species take
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 18
on a different set of values (perhaps another form of use value—i.e., for use in understanding
the natural world—or "intrinsic" or "existence" value—simply appreciating the fact that the
species is part of nature). Placing a value on an ecological component (e.g., a species) may
become more complicated when more than one community or social group is involved. Each
group may regard the component based on a different set of values. Which one of these
value systems should prevail? How should decision makers address such conflicts of values?
As another example, consider the question of scale. Ecological issues and impacts
often present a variety of temporal (e.g., short-term, long-term, continuing) and spatial (e.g.,
local, regional, national) options for thinking about potential problems and solutions.
Tradeoffs are necessary when choosing time and geographic scales for assessment and
management, and the choices among these scales involves decisions based on values. Thus,
while effects of environmental change occur at particular places, judgments about who should
respond to such effects and in what manner could dictate the scale at which management
takes place. Ecological assessors and communicators should be aware of what tradeoffs (and
their associated values) are at issue at specific sites. Who makes these choices? What value
systems are used to make the choices? When decisions need to be made, how can we be
open to changing situations and to changing values and value systems?
One problem is to determine what the term "public" means. There are numerous
publics and they have a variety of values and make different value judgments. The challenge
is to provide real opportunities for opinion and information to be heard from the full range of
affected parties representing differing value systems. Who defines which stakeholders and
publics are the important ones? This process clearly is political, and needs to be debated and
considered in an open forum.
4. New communication model for communicating ecological issues
A communication process should provide a forum where participants can explain and
develop their values freely, and where no one group's values or interests dominate or control
the exchange of information and ideas.
In most models describing the process of risk assessment, including the National
Research Council's Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process
(1983) and EPA's Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (1992), communicating about
risk or ecological issues is a kind of afterthought at the end of the process. The idea seems
to be that agency scientists and others first analyze and characterize risks and then inform the
public of the results. The group felt that this approach was backwards, and proposed instead
a revised model that allows stakeholders' values to inform the process. The first step in this
approach is to identify (1) the problem, (2) the perception of the problem, and (3) the
dimensions of values and ethics involved in characterizing the problem, to determine what
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 19
endpoints are important and why (see figure). In this step, stakeholders would be consulted
as part of identifying the problem, to characterize such subjects as:
• Public perceptions and concerns,
• Scientists' perceptions,
• Legislation and administrative policy, and
• Environmental groups' and industry positions.
These inputs would be considered first before the risk is characterized. This step, in
the revised model, would be followed by analysis (effects assessment and exposure
assessment) and risk characterization. Value and ethical issues should be considered at every
stage (as they are involved at every stage) and integrated into a risk management plan.
Societal input needs to be included at every stage, thus including communication at every
stage. Hence, communicating about ecological issues is a process that includes the analysis
of ecological issues (rather than beginning after the analysis is complete) and is involved in
every stage of assessment and management.
The revised model suggests to assessors and managers a process that is open to, and
can incorporate, a diversity of opinions and values. A concern for fairness is central to such
a process; the interchange among competing value systems should be an iterative process
allowing the assessment and management to account for and adapt to the multitude of values
and their changing nature. This process is consistent with current public-policy interest in
local and community values. Following this model, agency officials should allow ample
opportunity for community members to articulate their values in a constructive context. The
model also exemplifies a broad view of ecological issues that includes perceptions, opinions,
and values, along with the traditional technical definitions of risk and risk assessment.
This new perspective on the standard risk assessment model has several consequences.
First and most important, the process begins with the determination of the interests and values
involved. Second, information useful to the process includes both physical/biological data
and information on values. Third, the model emphasizes both the initial status of such
information and continual monitoring of changes in the situation (both physical/biological
conditions and stakeholder values). Fourth, input to assessment is continuous and feeds back
to all stages. Finally, this continual feedback of changing values and attitudes cannot
continue forever in the assessment phase; it requires agencies to make explicit the criteria for
deciding when there is sufficient agreement to select and implement management options.
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report
Page 20
Suggested Revised Assessment Model
Changing
Values
Problem Formulation
(Interaction with various publics to
determine the values involved)
V
-V-
Effects Assessment
Exposure Assessment
Risk Characterization
Risk Management
Changing
Situations
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 21
5. Questions to aid the communication process
The foregoing discussion suggests ways of thinking about ecological issues, but not
specific communication methods or techniques. The group identified several generic
questions that may serve to clarify potential issues in an ecological controversy. These
include the following:
• What is the objective of the program?
• How simple or complex is the ecological situation?
• Is the situation volatile, either socially or ecologically?
• What is/are the (temporal and spatial) scale(s) of interest?
• Is there a conflict or disagreement, either among experts or the public?
• What technical disciplines are involved?
• What are the cultural implications of the ecological issue?
• How do people's (individual or group) values inform the potential tradeoffs in
management decisions? Who is involved in deciding what tradeoffs are to be
made and what the basis for such tradeoffs should be?
* Do stakeholders view the issue in terms of voluntariness/involuntariness? How
should such concerns be included in assessment and management decisions?
• How might values be understood and not assumed? Can community values be
identified and characterized? Can stakeholder groups and their values be
identified clearly?
• What kind of communication should take place and with whom?
Asking these questions in the context of a specific issue and with the proposed model
of iteratively incorporating values and attitudes into assessment and management should allow
communicators, assessors, and managers to identify and implement effective communication
strategies that encourage full public participation.
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 22
6. Recommendations
The group made five recommendations:
(1) Change the risk assessment model used by EPA so that values and ethics are
included at the beginning of the assessment process.
(2) Loosen deadlines for assessments to allow identification and inclusion of value
and ethical issues in decisions.
(3) Do not use the word "risk" in assessment and management until the values
involved (and their possible reductions) are identified.
(4) Train communicators to include values, value judgments, and ethical
considerations in all aspects of describing and facilitating decision making.
(5) Develop an EPA policy statement regarding consideration of values and value
judgments in ecologically related decision making, such as the following:
Values and value judgments are an integral pan of environmental decision
making and should be explicitly included for major regulations and decisions.
Although part of everyday decisions, they become especially important when
there is uncertainty in scientific and technical data and information.
B. Scientists' and the public's perception of ecological issues (Group 2)
In debates on ecological issues, as with other controversies involving the use and
interpretation of scientific information, difficulties can arise from differences in how scientists
and non-scientists approach such information. The group felt that communicators should seek
to (1) understand the sources of disagreement and misunderstanding between scientists and
non-scientists, and (2) create a process that tries to give fair weight to all viewpoints. (It is
important to recognize that, in the end, the fairness of a communication effort can only be
judged by those affected by the issue, not by the initiators of the communication.)
1. Initial thoughts
Although the above statement is appropriate, it is also important to note that the terms
"scientists" and "non-scientists" do not represent single, homogeneous groups. Instead, terms
such as "public" and "experts" represent very bumpy gradients of expertise, value systems,
and other factors affecting how participants in a debate perceive the issues under discussion.
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 23
Given that communication on ecological issues occurs within a politics of expertise, it is
important to recognize those gradients and develop an appreciation for legitimate differences
in perceptions. While the group members felt that defining a common ground is critical, they
recognized that doing so may not be easy (or even possible) because different people in a
controversy are facing different decisions. For instance, an agency scientist might be
determining whether available data support regulatory action on a particular product, while a
citizen might be trying to decide whether to continue using the product.
From this initial consideration of perceptions, the group noted two elements of an
effective communication that relate particularly to the question of differing perspectives.
Personal relevance offers a limited role for science but can be a powerful influence on
individuals' decisions regarding environmental issues (as in the example above concerning
whether to use a certain product). Efficacy is the term the group used to describe the sense
that people involved in the debate have a role in the decision-making process and can actually
affect the outcome. Understanding these elements and how they affect other perceptions can
be especially useful in defining a process or philosophy for communicating about ecological
issues.
2. Differences in thinking about ecological issues
The group sought to describe in general terms how environmental scientists and the
public differ in their thinking as to what is important in ecological issues. Discussing
scientists' views was relatively straightforward, given the backgrounds of the participants.
Ecologists are concerned about the structure and function of populations, communities, and
ecosystems. Some may focus on keystone species as an important aspect of community
structure and function.2 Ecological processes, such as cycling of nutrients and material flow,
are important considerations. Habitats and their preservation are key concerns, as are
landscapes containing a variety of habitats. Scientists also think in terms of temporal and
spatial scales that are appropriate to ecological components. The effects of exotic species on
endemic ecological components, and other issues relating to biodiversity were also mentioned.
Scientists recognize that their perceptions of a system may change as new information is
developed.
The group believed that an understanding of what the general public sees as important
is both highly variable and poorly known. Members of the group were able to relate their
2 A keystone species is one on which much of the community's structure (number and
distribution of species) depends. Removal or disturbance of such species is believed to cause
a breakdown of the community. Not all ecologists subscribe to the concept of keystone
species.
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 24
personal experiences with this question, but cautioned against generalizing from this limited
perspective. They saw public perceptions of ecological issues as anthropocentric and
situational (i.e., how people feel directly affected, or how an issue affects people's way of
life). The group agreed that a host of influences could affect public perceptions, including
cultural, recreational, aesthetic, and economic values, interests, and backgrounds. It also felt
that public views are strongly affected by news media and headlines. Thus, what the public
thinks is important can vary considerably over time.
The foregoing should not be taken to mean that the public does not care about
ecological issues. The personal experiences of group participants suggest that members of the
public care about and are educated about certain issues, especially those of local importance.
With regard to ecological components of concern to the public, the group felt that
"charismatic" species get the most attention. Additionally, it appears that the public may be
more interested in individuals than in populations, although it may also care about local
populations of favored species. The group saw the public as personalizing its relationship to
a particular ecological component, as "my" population, "my" landscape, etc. Participants also
felt, however, that the public is increasingly familiar with habitats and habitat function,
although again they saw this trend as varying widely. They believed that there is a strong
appreciation for such aesthetic qualities as vistas and clarity of water.
3. Communication challenges
The group identified what it called communication challenges encountered by
scientists as they attempt to communicate effectively with the public. This information is
anecdotal; the group knew of no studies validating any of these observations and experiences.
An important concern has to do with the nature of scientific debate. Scientists view
disagreements among themselves differently from the way the public views such controversy.
Scientists understand that they have different points of view, different levels and types of
knowledge, and different amounts of faith they want to put into a set of data; they readily
accept such differences as inherent to the process of scientific investigation. They expect that
new information may resolve some differences or may lead to more differences. Scientists
tend to recognize where the weight of evidence sits at any time and are able to balance the
information to form a judgment about the item under study.
But these disagreements are heard differently by the public and may lead to some
confusion, especially when amplified in the media. In some cases scientific expertise appears
to cancel itself out; this may be seen by the public as a failure of science.
Variability and uncertainty are part of the scientific process but can pose difficulties in
communication. One of the challenges is to simplify scientific detail so that the information
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 25
can be understood by others. Scientific studies often involve large amounts of data, may
include the use of complex models, and usually depend on an extensive knowledge base that
underlies the immediate findings. If communication is to be effective, scientists provide
information that simultaneously (1) can be understood by the lay public, (2) is perceived by
concerned parties to be fair and balanced, and (3) does not leave out any elements that they
consider essential.
The group felt that scientific agreement and decisions based on a sound technical
footing do not receive the same coverage as the "hot" issues. As a result, the group believed
that the role and value of science is under-appreciated. Members of the group indicated that
a large number of environmental decisions occur based on sound science but do not receive
media attention. They felt that scientific disagreement makes news, so the large amount of
agreement is not reported.
Another aspect of the role of scientific debate is that scientists vary in their personal
willingness to present their opinions based on how they perceive the strength of available
data. In other words, some people are more willing to generalize than others. That
willingness or unwillingness becomes a factor hi determining how information is
communicated and received.
Finally, scientists often pride themselves on their "objectivity" as they pursue their
inquiries. Whether they are in fact objective is, of course, open to debate. But acting out of
a belief in one's objectivity may create additional communication challenges, since lay
audiences may interpret that behavior as distant and non-empathetic.
4. Key points EPA should consider in training and providing guidance to
Agency communicators
The group believed that EPA needs to familiarize environmental scientists with the
process of Problem Formulation in ecological risk assessment. In particular, they felt that
training should emphasize the need for communication and dialogue with risk managers and
stakeholders during this process to ensure that information needs are clearly understood.
Training and guidance should convey certain essential elements of communication specifically
aimed at transcending barriers of background and knowledge:
• Identify familiar themes that members of the public and scientists can relate to,
even though the themes stem from different conceptual frameworks (e.g.,
preservation of land for future generations and preservation of habitat)
• Take into account the different levels of understanding and language among
audiences when communicating broad messages.
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 26
• Try to develop and use a common language or working dialogue in situations
where environmental scientists and stakeholders/managers are interacting. This
language could be a mix of scientific and public terminology developed on a
case-by-case basis.
• Discuss complicated environmental phenomena (e.g., nutrient cycles) in terms
of things that are relevant to people and the decision.
• Take care to include background information on basic scientific principles and
processes that relate to the issue under discussion. Scientists may consider
such information to be common knowledge, but the public may not be familiar
with it. Providing such background may help members of the public better
understand the information related specifically to the issue at hand.
Training and guidance materials should also stress ways of achieving two-way or
multi-way discourse. The group offered the following pointers as suggestions for inclusion in
such materials:
• Allow initial meetings to take place without an agenda so that others feel free
to set aspects of the eventual agenda, in a spirit of participatory democracy.
• Allow time for the formulation of the questions and problem to develop; do not
try to fit the up-front process into an overly restrictive time schedule.
• Involve stakeholders, risk managers, and risk assessors early in the
assessment/management process.
• Look for ways that stakeholders can be substantively involved in decisions
(within the constraints of legal mandates), so that the communication process is
seen as more than an opportunity to talk.
• Maintain communications throughout the process. Avoid communicating only
during crisis situations.
• Be as inclusive as possible with regard to involving in a communication effort
those individuals and groups who are likely to be affected by a decision.
Consider especially the practical problems of reaching particular subcultures.
The group believed that training and guidance for environmental scientists is especially
important. In the group's view, scientists should be encouraged and taught to:
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 27
Initially be listeners at the Problem Formulation stage, to (1) understand better
how the issues are framed from the standpoints of risk managers and various
stakeholders, and (2) see how their own perspectives as scientists fit into a
larger context of public discussion and decision making.
Refrain from directing the flow of conversation at the early period of Problem
Formulation, or viewing themselves as the ones with "the answers."
Be aware of the big picture through internal communications with risk
managers and others involved in the decision-making process.
Be aware of the context and forum within which they are presenting
information.
Look for positive ways to help participants in a dialogue recognize
misperceptions or misstatements of scientific information, such as identifying
those parts of a statement or argument that are in keeping with scientific
understanding and those that are not.
Experience their own "blind spots" by discussing controversial personal
experiences in which they have acted as lay persons.
Be prepared for the presentation: know the audience, rehearse, understand the
broader picture between scientist and manager.
5. Research needs
The group suggested that EPA develop a set of risk communication tips which, though
not a research topic in itself, could involve analysis of case studies and other information to
arrive at valid recommendations. While there are significant differences between risk
communication for human health and communication about ecological issues, sufficient
overlap exists to warrant codifying those elements that are demonstrably relevant. Other
research recommendations include the following:
Define the various mental models used by environmental scientists, agency-
personnel, and the public at large concerning opinions, beliefs, knowledge, and
values related to ecological issues.
Develop a better understanding of the factors that affect the public's perception
of ecological issues using mental model methodology both for specific and
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 28
overarching issues. Explore values, sense of stewardship of ecosystem,
concepts of scale, variability.
Explore how knowledge and values drive discussions related to ecological
issues.
C. Organizational aspects (Group 3)
The group began by trying to identify the major issues that face any organization as it
tries to grapple with the problem of communicating with various audiences about ecological
issues. While the members of the group represented a diversity of organizations and offered
illustrative examples from their own and other organizations, the focus of the conversation
kept returning to EPA. Thus, the central question for the group became: As an organization,
what does EPA have to do to strengthen its capability to communicate on ecological issues?
In answer, the group identified a list of needed improvements in the internal structure of EPA,
its external relations with other organizations and society in general, and its ecological
communication and decision-making process. These improvements are listed in Table 1 and
are explained in the remainder of this section.
Of course, many of these suggested improvements would apply to any organization
(e.g., other government agencies, corporations, non-profit environmental groups, etc.), but
they are aimed especially at EPA. If EPA is to communicate effectively about ecological
issues, the group felt that it was absolutely essential that EPA develop a clear policy on
ecological issues and accord ecological issues a clear and high priority in its organizational
mission. Without this commitment the public will continue to doubt EPA's motives, and
EPA staff and managers will feel like they are sailing a ship without a rudder. The Agency
must strive to maintain consistency within and among sub-units and programs, including a
consistent commitment to its mission.
The group felt that there is often a mismatch between the temporal and spatial scales
of the problem at hand and the usual focus of the Agency. Often members of the public and
environmental groups express concerns about issues that they consider predominantly local or
regional. EPA needs to do a better job of "moving" among the various scales of the different
problems and using local and regional resources and solutions as appropriate.
As an extension of this point the group felt that to be successful in this arena, any
organization needs to be aware of its own strengths and limitations. For example, EPA has a
good network of local and regional contacts through the regional offices, but communication
between headquarters and the regional offices is often less than optimal. Similarly, EPA
needs to recognize the limitations of the command-and-control approach to solving ecological
problems and reach out to embrace new approaches in collaboration with non-profits and
corporations.
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 29
Table 1. Necessary Organizational Improvements
'nternal Structure
• Establish a high priority for ecological issues in organizational mission.
• Maintain consistency within and among sub-units and programs, to the extent
allowed under legal mandates.
• Ensure agreement between temporal and spatial scales of organization and
issues at hand.
• Be aware of internal organizational strengths and limitations.
• Develop a broad-based interdisciplinary (especially social science) capability.
• Integrate technical, social science, and communication elements of
organization.
External Relations
• Do everything necessary to bolster and avoid losing public trust and
organizational credibility.
• Move away from previous command-and-control regulatory regimes; seek
novel forms of cooperation and partnerships.
• Be willing and open to sharing power with other organizations and the
public, to the extent allowed by law.
• Be smart about the prevailing social climate.
Communication and Decision-Making Process
• Use limited resources strategically.
• Adopt a wider world view and set of information sources to allow
identification of pertinent facts, attitudes, and values related to ecological
issues.
• Develop- good institutional listening and learning skills.
• Incorporate concern for ecological issues into broader policy making.
• Make ongoing and periodic evaluation of programs and activities an integral
part of the decision-making process.
• Know your audiences, constituencies, and allies.
• Avoid jargon.
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 30
Given the complex nature of ecological communication, the group felt there was an
urgent need for EPA to develop a much stronger interdisciplinary capability with a particular
emphasis on the social sciences. Social scientists can serve an important function in the
Agency, collecting and analyzing information on (1) other agencies and organizations with
whom EPA must cooperate, and (2) the knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of members of the
different audiences with whom EPA must communicate. They can also play a crucial role in
evaluating the successes and failures of past communications efforts.
Absent these data-gathering, analytical, and evaluative functions, future
communications efforts are Likely to fail, resulting in wasted resources and the further erosion
of trust and credibility that may hamper other future efforts. All too often, communication
programs are designed and implemented by technical and public-relations experts. The group
believed that it was vital to integrate some significant social science expertise into this
process to ensure that communication efforts are placed in the appropriate social context.
Institutional credibility and public trust are prerequisites for effective communication.
Losing trust and credibility is easy, but regaining them once they are lost is extremely
difficult. Unfortunately, there are no simple solutions. The message, therefore, is do
everything possible to avoid losing trust and credibility in the first place and build on what
levels of trust and credibility you already have. Adopting a clear agency mission and many
of the other suggestions in Table 1 will help, but are no guarantee. Being smart about the
social climate covers a lot of territory from being cognizant of very local issues and concerns
to being savvy about larger trends in societal opinions and attitudes. Pushing for strong
regulatory control over a problem that few people and organizations feel is important is a sure
way to lose support, as has been amply demonstrated again and again (e.g., the Consumer
Products Safety Commission's early efforts to regulate swimming pool slides). In the present
anti-government and anti-regulation mood, it behooves EPA to move away from rigid
command-and-control approaches of strict regulations toward novel ways to reach the same
ends. These ways may involve greater cooperation and partnerships among past adversaries
(regulators, environmental groups, and corporations).
Several members of the group felt that by lobbying so strongly to protect the spotted
owl in the Pacific Northwest and appearing to ignore the plight of the loggers,
environmentalists lost substantial local and national support. In the future, they felt it was
necessary to look for new approaches that better balance competing interests and demands.
On another front, increasingly the public is demanding greater participation in the
communication and decision-making processes. Consequently, EPA will need to learn to be
more open and more willing to share power where possible.
With reference to the communication and decision-making processes, the group felt
that the Agency needs to make better strategic use of limited resources, going after the
problems that are both important and most amenable to solutions. It is necessary to
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 31
incorporate concern for ecological problems into broader policy making at all agencies, but at
EPA in particular, because of its historic emphasis on protecting human health.. There is
much to be done by social scientists and communications experts. The Agency needs to
adopt a broader world view that is more sensitive to current social concerns, and this
perspective should be informed by a broader set of informational sources.
As previous work on risk communication indicates, the Agency needs to avoid jargon
and alienating technical or bureaucratic language, and get to know its audiences,
constituencies, and allies better. To improve its communication most effectively, EPA needs
to develop good institutional listening and learning skills.
After a vigorous and lengthy discussion of the broad range of issues, the group
returned to a more detailed examination of some of the more fundamental problem areas or
cross-cutting "meta-questions." The group began by trying to address the question: How
does an organization select ecological issues for attention and take action on them?
Unfortunately, the group was somewhat skeptical and less than optimistic about this process.
In general, organizations like to work on issues where there is consensus within the
organization about the nature and scope of the problem and possible.solutions. Often, though
certainly not always, organizations have to be goaded by outside events and "agitators" to
move on particular issues—what the group called the "cattle prod hypothesis." While there
has been some work previously on what kinds of events and agitation will move agencies,
especially in die area of human health, the nature of the pressures and how such pressures
operate in the case of ecological issues remains unclear. In general, regulatory agencies
prefer to act on issues that offer the possibility of cost-effective solutions, and this trend is
likely to become more pronounced over the next few years with the current emphasis on costs
and benefits of regulations—an ominous note for the ecology community. Similarly,
regulatory agencies tend to avoid problem areas that are not already identified in their
mandates and budgets. In sum, the outlook is not good: it is going to be difficult to move the
EPA, other government agencies, and corporations to deal with ecological issues that are
viewed as new, risky ventures in which the payoffs are seen as long-term and somewhat
nebulous.
The group examined the second "meta-question," How do organizational factors
affect effectiveness in communications with publics? and concluded that in large part the
answer comes down to values and commitment. To communicate effectively, EPA must
clearly understand its constituencies and the target audiences—how they see the problem and
what they see as an acceptable set of solutions. At the same time, as noted above, the
Agency must understand candidly its own strengths and limitations in order to know what it
can and cannot do and when it needs to seek the assistance of and collaboration with other
groups. While the information-gathering and analysis functions noted above are important for
understanding how stakeholders perceive particular ecological issues, good communication
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 32
within the organization is needed so that all of this information is used effectively when the
Agency needs to communicate its messages clearly and unambiguously to the public.
The overarching concern among group members, however, was the need for a strong
Agency commitment to a mission encompassing ecological protection, with a clear strategy
outlining how to achieve it. The mission should drive priorities and behavior, which means
each sub-unit or program should be committed to the mission and moving toward a common
goal, and ecological communication activities should reflect the core values embedded in the
mission. If programs and communication activities drift too far from the mission then the
Agency's constituencies, allies, and audiences will become disaffected and the staff persons
will feel rudderless. Maintaining a strong, consistent commitment to a mission can be
extremely difficult, especially since it is not easy to maintain a long-term perspective when
much daily activity focuses on short-term "fire-fighting." An appreciation of these difficulties
can only serve to emphasize the need to (1) develop a mission that is consistent with the core
values of the Agency and not merely window dressing, and (2) embed short-term goals and
activities within a long-term perspective and strategy. It also underscores the need for
continual monitoring and evaluation to ensure programmatic activities and responses are
consistent and stay within appropriate bounds or that the goals and objectives are reviewed
and revised in a dynamic process reflecting feedback. Unfortunately, few organizations,
whether agencies or corporations, are nimble enough to learn and adapt in this fashion.
Finally, there is a pervasive issue of what the real commitment of the institution is. Is
it about looking good or is it about getting things done? How do you keep the organization
focused on substantive goals, while the organization is trying to maintain its political and
economic survival?
Reflecting on the list of issues and the two "meta-questions" above, the group asked:
How will the change to a greater ecological focus occur, especially given the particularly
difficult institutional and social context? For the foreseeable future, Congress appears
hostile to regulation in general and environmental or ecological protection in particular. The
public is often ignorant about ecological issues and ambivalent about ecological protection,
but apparently in favor of a more limited role for government. Having dealt with some of the
most severe, dramatic environmental problems (mass fish kills, rivers catching fire, etc.),
makes dealing with the more pervasive but less dramatic problems (e.g.. pesticide runoff,
wetlands destruction, etc.) more difficult. Responsibility for dealing with ecological issues is
extraordinarily fragmented among various agencies, corporations, and NGOs at a variety of
spatial and temporal scales. Finally, with regard to EPA in particular, the group asked, where
is the "champion" of this issue who will lead the sea change in the way that William
Ruckelshaus led the charge for risk assessment and William Reilly promoted comparative risk
assessment? Can change succeed in the absence of an EPA champion, given the many
constraints?
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 33
The group identified a set of issues rather than answers in response to this question
and the group's rather sober assessment of the problem setting. Rather than expecting this
sea change to occur through a rational unfolding of the public policy process, it may be more
helpful to look to the "garbage can" models of decision making. According to these models,
problems come in to an organization and queue up for attention. Relative position in the
queue, the nature of previous decisions, and the extant social, political, and legal context and
will determine which problems are addressed when and how. Unfortunately, the position of
ecological issues in the queue does not look promising and the group concluded that a top-
down approach may not work at EPA or other federal agencies with responsibilities for these
problems. Rewards and incentives clearly are going to have to play a major role in achieving
the necessary changes in institutional culture. Such changes are difficult at the best of times,
but they are especially difficult at a time of institutional downsizing and they are compounded
by growing levels of resentment and distrust among career and political appointees. There is
also considerable cynicism about the latest fads (e.g., the recent emphasis on Total Quality
Management) and attempts to redirect the Agency to address issues of sustainable
development and ecological protection could be viewed in the same light, especially given
downsizing efforts and the general anti-regulatory and anti-government climate.
Before moving on to identify a communication strategy for EPA, the group identified
two more conundrums that make dealing with ecological issues all the more difficult.
Firstly, many ecological problems (e.g.. loss of wetlands, habitat destruction) are intimately
related to local land use, but there has never been any federal land-use policy. Immediately,
therefore, there is a disjunctive among federal, state, and local agencies and their respective
jurisdictions. Second, unlike health risk problems, there is seldom a single, identifiable villain
in causing ecological damage—rather, we all appear to be the villains, if the issue is extended
back to first causes such as consumption patterns. Obviously, communicating to the public
about such complex matters will be a tough job for EPA. The Agency will have to build
constituencies where they do not currently exist and develop a greater public awareness of
and commitment to ecological protection. One way to help this process may be to link
ecological and health concerns, since it appears to be easier to arouse public support on the
latter than the former. EPA is going to have to seek strategic alliances with other agencies,
corporations, and NGOs, since the solutions are beyond the capabilities of any one
organization. Internally, the Agency will need to create greater linkages among the different
programs and build much better capability for internal coordination and communications. In
particular, EPA will have to reach out to other organizations that operate at local, state, and
regional scales, and this effort may require substantial internal restructuring of the Agency so
that it is better able to work with and serve local constituencies.
The group moved on to propose a set of research recommendations. These include
the need for a set of case studies that examine how fundamental change occurs in complex
organizations (corporations, NGOs, and government agencies). These case studies should be
designed and conducted by several well-known organizational sociologists. Second, it would
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 34
be helpful to examine the special problems of creating institutional changes during
downsizing. Third, how does the culture of the organization (agency vs. corporation vs.
NGO; command-and-control; hierarchical vs. egalitarian; etc.) affect the framing of and
attention given to ecological issues? Fourth, there is a great need to examine past ecological
communication efforts in various institutions to learn what does and does not work in
different contexts, and understanding how those institutions define and judge success. Finally,
it would be valuable to have a set of comparative studies of how different communities have
dealt with similar ecological problems.
Finally, the group developed a set of recommendations on guidance and training.
EPA needs to develop, strengthen and empower a cadre of integrative thinkers to examine
more broadly than usual the organizational and other issues that arise in addressing ecological
problems. The Agency needs to develop an authentic ecological and social science capability
through appropriate hiring and the interdisciplinary training of managers and staff in ecology
and social science. The lack of interdisciplinary capabilities stems in part from the lack of
interdisciplinary training at universities, which need to pay greater attention to and give credit
for interdisciplinary teaching and research. Training courses on ecological communication
need to be developed, building on the existing courses on risk assessment and risk
communication. Finally, a task force on ecological communications would seem to be a very
worthwhile next step, and the task force might begin with a thorough cross-institutional study
of current activities and programs to get a better sense of what other agencies are doing in
this area.
D. Characteristics of ecological issues affecting th<» communication process (Group 4)
1. Ecologists and communicating ecology: Seven themes
This group shifted the emphasis from one of considering inherent characteristics of
ecological issues to that of thinking about what ecologists know and how they convey what
they know to non-ecologists. In that context, the group formulated seven "themes" (here
grouped together in three major categories) that could form the basis for talking to ecologists
about communication and to communicators about ecology. These themes are listed in Table
2 and explained in the text.
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 35
Table 2. Seven Themes on Communication about Ecology
Characterization of ecological issues
1. If you don't understand a term (e.g., ecosystem health, integrity, complexity),
don't teach it to others! Corollary: If it is neither interesting nor useful,
forget it!
2. It is important that ecological issues are not automatically defined as
problems.
I Extent and limitations of ecological knowledge and understanding
3. There is no one scale inherently most important in dealing with ecological
issues. The scales at which each issue is best addressed need to be identified
on a case-by-case basis.
4. Ecologists can predict changes in the likelihood of an event, even if the
initial situation is known only within broad limits. Not all questions can be
answered with equal accuracy. The relative degree of certainty needs to be
clearly stated.
5. Ecologists understand that the systems they study are complex. Even so.
they should be able to communicate what needs to be known clearly and
simply, including what is well understood and what is not understood. If the
information submitted by scientists does not pass this test, it should be
redone.
6. On most technical issues, experts are likely to hold legitimate differences of
opinion. Weight-of-evidence arguments guide decisions and should be used
to evaluate individual inconsistencies or uncertainty.
Effective communication of ecological information
7. Often, humans relate best to ecological and related issues on a local scale.
Thus, local implications need to be communicated in order for many
messages about ecological issues to be effective. It is often relatively easy
to communicate ecological issues in terms of particular places as a way of
personalizing those issues.
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 36
Theme 1: If you don't understand a term (e.g., ecosystem health, integrity,
complexity), don't teach it to others! Corollary: If it is neither
interesting nor useful, forget it!
Many words easily convey positive or negative feelings, so it is tempting (and
sometimes useful) to try to use such words when deschbing the current or predicted state of
an ecological component. If the goal of a proposed action or program can be described as
protecting, restoring, or improving the "health" or "integrity" of an ecosystem, perhaps by
preserving or enhancing its "complexity" or "diversity," the action or program will give the
illusion of being both good and comprehensible to an audience that might not fully
understand the technical details. Similarly, if the ecosystem is described as (or predicted to
be) "degraded," "damaged," or "impaired" in the absence of protective or corrective action,
such words communicate the need to take such action.
The difficulty with using words such as those in quotation marks above is that, while
the values represented by such words are clear, the precise meanings often are not. This
problem does not mean that such terms should never be used. It does mean that scientists
who use them should be careful to define exactly what a term means and why it is being
used.
John Denne reported that, in his experience, the Forest Service had not encountered
significant opposition to the term "forest health." However, another group member indicated
that, in arguments with forestry officials, it was impossible to agree on a definition of
"ecosystem health": proposed definitions included net primary productivity, species diversity,
resemblance to forests before Europeans arrived here, etc. Two members expressed the
opinion that ecosystem health is not a scientific concept subject to examination by traditional
scientific methods.
Despite these concerns, Lynn Desautels, in her wrap-up comments for the plenary,
voiced the hope that terms such as ecosystem health could be retained because of their
communication value. She emphasized the need to include a precise contextual definition
when using such terms, and to be aware of conflicting definitions and the values underlying
alternative definitions.
Clearly, use of these terms carries a considerable risk of conflict along with the
potential benefit of communicating certain values. One group member commented that
ecotogists should, in general, state ecological issues as much as possible in terms of natural
history—the detailed biology of each individual species and habitat under consideration. If
larger, overarching terms such as "health" are then also kept close to the natural history of a
species or location of concern, the likelihood of misunderstanding or conflict may be reduced.
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 37
Theme 2: It is important that ecological issues are not automatically defined as
problems.
This statement seems self-evident, but in practice it may be difficult to implement.
Seeing the difference between problems and non-problems, and communicating it, are not
always easy. Ecologists do not necessarily see every change in nature as a problem or every
problem as major. Conveying the idea that a particular issue may not be a cause for concern
could be a challenge for communicators, especially if trust in the communicating institution is
not strong.
Factors such as natural variability and natural recovery might lead a knowledgeable
person to conclude either that no adverse effect has occurred, or that no corrective action is
needed. If the geographic area affected by a stressor is small, a site manager might conclude
that the costs of protection or restoration are not justified by the benefits. In these cases and
others, however, the decision might be the opposite if the cumulative effects of "small" events
were determined to have larger consequences.
EPA's statutory authority often determines what constitutes a "problem" for the
Agency to address, irrespective of the issue's relative importance to ecological protection.
Ecosystem approaches to environmental protection, such as EPA's watershed ecological risk
assessment initiative, are welcome attempts to identify realistic priorities among numerous
competing concerns.
Theme 3: There is no one scale inherently most important in dealing with
ecological issues. The scales at which each issue is best addressed
need to be identified on a case-by-case basis.
The term "scale" should be taken broadly in the context of this statement to include
the spatial dimension (e.g., the size of a contaminated area), the magnitude of the event (e.g.,
the percentage mortality in a population), the time frame involved (e.g., how long for a
habitat to recover from a pollution event), and the ecological level of organization (individual
organism, population, community, ecosystem) at issue.
In our discussions, one member suggested that there is generally an inverse
relationship between spatial scale and immediacy. That is, the smaller the scale the more •
immediate the consequences of a disturbance. Conversely, larger geographic scales are
generally associated with longer delays in observing effects of a stressor. This person
proposed a general statement that small-scale events are obvious but not urgent, while large-
scale changes are urgent but not locally obvious.
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 38
Although the above sounds like conventional wisdom, it was not difficult to think of
exceptions, such as ozone depletion and the incidence of skin cancer (albeit a health
example). Another important reason to avoid uncritically relying on this generalization is that
it runs the risk of failing to recognize cumulative effects of small-scale events. It was also in
this context that the importance of communicating local implications was first discussed.
Hence, the statement emphasizes the need to evaluate each ecological issue's scale(s) on the
basis of detailed knowledge about potentially affected species and habitats.
Theme 4. Ecoiogists can predict changes in the likelihood of an event, even if the
initial situation is known only within broad limits. Not all questions
can be answered with equal accuracy. The relative degree of certainty
needs to be clearly stated.
For communication on ecological issues to be useful, participants need to understand
both the capabilities and limitations of ecology to answer questions that might arise. In
general, ecologists understand that they are trying to describe or predict events in complex,
integrated systems of which they have incomplete knowledge. Nonetheless, basic
understanding of how such systems work should allow us to say whether the probability of an
adverse (or positive) effect's occurrence will increase or decrease as a result of some stressor
or action. We may not be able to say anything about the magnitude of the event, or its
duration, or what will happen next The second point in the above statement serves to remind
us that not only is our knowledge of natural systems incomplete, it is also unevenly
distributed. This limitation applies both within and among particular environments. Thus, for
example, much more information is available about the toxic effects of chemicals on aquatic
species than on terrestrial species, but considerable variation exists in the quantity and quality
of information on aquatic species. As usual, the farther we move from our base of
knowledge, the more speculative our answers must become. It is important that ecologists
acknowledge this fact when they offer expert judgments and predictions.
Theme 5: Ecologists understand that the systems they study are complex. Even
so, they should be able to communicate what needs to be known clearly
and simply, including what is well understood and what is not
understood. If the information submitted by scientists does not pass this
test, it should be redone.
This statement is the complement to Theme 4, which focused on limitations of
knowledge. In Theme 5, we emphasize that what is known is amenable to clear
communication. Non-ecologists should not accept assertions that an issue or system is too
complex to explain in terms that they can grasp. Ecologists should not assume that lay
audiences cannot understand important facts about ecological systems. A key phrase in the
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 39
above statement is "what needs to be known," which can only be defined in the context of the
decision that must be made, the values of stakeholders, and the legal and resource constraints
under which information can be collected and disseminated. Ecologists, managers, and
communicators need to be as clear as possible with each other about what information is
needed for a decision or a communication. If that is done, communicating such information
in a form that non-ecologists can understand and use should always be possible.
Theme 6. On most technical issues, experts are likely to hold legitimate
differences of opinion. Weight-of-evidence arguments guide decisions
and should be used to evaluate individual inconsistencies or uncertainty.
There was considerable debate in the group over this theme, particularly concerning
scientific consensus. Some members felt that, for many issues, the scientific community is in
general agreement, and that outlying opinions could in effect be discounted. Others objected
to the term "consensus" because it connotes unanimity and because the history of science is
replete with examples of outlying theories or opinions that later became widely accepted.
The group also recognized, however, that decisions need to be made based on generally
accepted norms for evaluating conflicting scientific views. Terms such as "general
agreement" and "scientists' collective judgment" were offered, but none completely captured
the concept. This theme was motivated in part by the concern on the part of some group
members that any opposing view, however isolated it might be from the "mainstream"
scientific community, might be given equal credence and thus hamper effective
communication or decision making. In short, there is a general principle (which, like all such
principles, is not absolutely valid all the tune) that an outlandish opinion is best ignored when
making serious decisions.
Theme 7: Often, humans relate best to ecological and related issues on a local
scale. Thus, local implications need to be communicated in order for
many messages about ecological issues to be effective. It is often
relatively easy to communicate ecological issues in terms of particular
places as a way of personalizing those issues.
As mentioned, this arose first in the discussion about scale. In the presentation to the
plenary, the first two sentences of this theme were stated as part of the theme on scale
(Theme 3 in this report). The matter of "localism" as a communication question surfaced
many times in the workshop, including the report on the survey of EPA staff.
The discussions in Group 4 focused not only on geographic scale but also on the
question of public identification with an ecological issue. The group recognized the problems
that can arise from identification of an issue with individual organisms, especially members of
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 40
"charismatic" species. Such identification often fails to convey the importance of systems in
ecology.
Steve Hamburg suggested that a focus on "place" offers a useful alternative to
identification with individuals or particular species. Place refers not to local jurisdictions but
to specific environments (which may cross political boundaries), such as forests, wetland,
watersheds, etc. He pointed out that at the same time that national environmental groups are
struggling to maintain membership, local land trust organizations are burgeoning. Focusing
on place provides opportunities to convey system concepts and the need to maintain
ecosystem structure and function. It allows for dissolving distinctions between charismatic
and "disgusting" organisms, since often the emphasis in solving a particular problem must be
on how the system works as a whole rather than the preservation of favored parts.
"Disgusting" organisms are often of great ecological importance. For example, worms and
molds are vital to the persistence of most terrestrial ecological characteristics.
2. Research questions
Group members individually prepared suggestions for research on topics related to the
themes described above. The group briefly discussed these topics but did not develop a
single set of priorities. Below are listed some of the questions raised by Group 4 members.
• How do people conceptualize and value ecological systems and their
components? How do such conceptualization and valuing differ by gender,
geographic region, cultural background, etc.?
• What is the nature and extent of public literacy on basic ecological concepts of
importance to environmental protection?
• What does it mean to the lay public to have the weight of evidence suggest
something? How can that perception be modified if it is not consistent with
the scientific approach?
• On what geographic scales do people relate to ecological issues? How do
attitudes toward particular species (e.g., "charismatic vs. "disgusting") affect
how people relate to ecological issues?
• What is the nature and extent of ecological knowledge among non-ecologists in
EPA?
• How do EPA and ecologists outside EPA communicate?
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 41
Does/should survey methodology (for studying public opinions and attitudes)
differ for ecological issues compared to other environmental issues? If so, how
should the methodology be changed to fit better?
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report Page 42
ra. CONCLUSION
This workshop was part of a three-element project that Clark conducted for EPA to
define the questions that should be addressed in developing a field of study and practice
concerning communication on ecological issues. A review of literature on related fields
showed that many basic principles from risk communication, historically focused on human
health and safety, are applicable to communication about ecological issues. So too are
findings on public opinions and attitudes about nature and natural resources. A survey of
EPA personnel, primarily in the regional offices, demonstrated that the Agency already carries
out a variety of communication efforts concerning ecological issues, and that many
individuals have considerable experience with and insight on the subject. Many of the
recommendations put forward in this workshop parallel the ideas identified in these other two
parts of the project.
All three components of the project also pointed up important differences between
human health and ecological issues. Where health and safety issues often lead to
personalization of risk information (even when it may not be appropriate), ecological issues
may suffer from inattention due to a lack of personalization. Ecological effects of stressors
may be harder to understand than health effects, especially if the effects are indirect and
delayed. And different groups of people may use very different sets of values to determine
the importance of ecological issues in comparison to health issues. Public attention to
ecological issues, public and agency understanding of ecological systems, and policy-level
support for addressing ecological concerns were among the subjects that appear most
important to enhancing communication on ecological issues.
One theme that occurred often in individuals' and groups' suggestion was to conduct
case studies on communication about ecological issues. Many participants recognized that a
rich history of experience resides in federal and state natural resource agencies, nonprofit
conservation and educational organizations, and in parts of EPA itself. Organized and
analyzed systematically, these case studies could be used to help develop training and
guidance materials and to identify questions for future research. Studies should include a
representative set of cases from the full array of organizations that have undertaken activities
related to ecological research, education, and management. Pending available funding, Clark
hopes to carry out a first round of case studies in the near future.
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report
Page 43
APPENDIX A. WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
Kay Austin
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program
EPA Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC
Anne Barton
Environmental Fate and Effects Division
EPA Office of Pesticide Programs
Washington, DC
Gloria Bergquist
American Forest and Paper Association
Washington, DC
Ann Bostrom
School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA
Judy Braus
World Wildlife Fund
Washington, DC
Gordon Brown
Division of Refuges
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Arlington, VA
William Cooper
Institute for Environmental Toxicology
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
C. Richard Cothern
EPA Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation
Washington, DC
Lynn Desautels
Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and
Communities
EPA Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation
Washington, DC
John Denne
Public Affairs Office
USDA Forest Service
Washington, DC
Michael Dover
George Perkins Marsh Institute
Clark University
Worcester, MA
Ann Fisher
Department of Agricultural Economics and
Rural Sociology
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA
Adrian Gardner
Office of Environment, Safety and Health
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, DC
Dominic Golding
George Perkins Marsh Institute
Clark University
Worcester, MA
Steven Hamburg
Center for Environmental Studies
Brown University
Providence, RI
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report
Page 44
Rachelle Hollander
Ethics and Values Program
National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA
Anne Hoover
Ecosystem Management Staff
USDA Forest Service
Washington, DC
Branden Johnson
Division of Science and Research
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
Trenton, NJ
Larry Kapustka
ecological planning & toxicology, inc.
Corvallis, OR
Roger Kasperson
Clark University
Worcester, MA
Rob Krueger
Clark University
Worcester, MA
Ron Landy
EPA Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC
Lorraine Loken
Water Environment Federation
Alexandria, VA
Tony Maciorowski
Ecological Effects Branch
Environmental Fate and Effects Division
EPA Office of Pesticide Programs
Washington, DC
Douglas MacLean
Department of Philosophy
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
CatonsviUe, MD
Pam Matthes
Division of Environmental Contaminants
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Arlington, VA
Sally L. McCammon
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Washington, DC
Michelle McClendon
Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and
Communities
EPA Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation
Washington, DC
Tim McDaniels
School of Planning
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia
Michael McKee
Monsanto Corporation
St. Louis, MO
Ed McNamara
Clark University
Worcester, MA
Charles Menzie
Menzie-Cura & Associates, Inc.
Chelmsford, MA
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report
Page 45
Bryan Norton
School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA
Angela Nugent
Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and
Communities
EPA Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation
Washington, DC
Gabriel Paal
Ecological Society of America
Washington, DC
Naomi Paiss
National Wildlife Federation
Washington, DC
James Proctor
Department of Geography
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA
Anne Robertson
EPA Office of Water
Washington, DC
Willis Sibley
Cleveland State University (retired)
Shady Side, MD
Daniel Siraberloff
Department of Biological Science
Florida State University
Tallahassee, PL
Lawrence Slobodkin
Department of Ecology and
Evolution
State University of New York
Stony Brook, NY
Matthew Sobel
W. Averell Harriman School for
Management and Policy
State University of New York
Stony Brook, NY
William Van der Schalie
EPA Office of Research and Development
Washington. DC
Amy Wolfe
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Leroy Young
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission
Bellefonte, PA
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report
Page 46
APPENDIX B. AGENDA
8:00-8:30
8:30-8:40
8:40-9:00
9:00-9:20
9:20-9:40
May 24:
9:40-10:00
Coffee and registration
Welcome
Welcome
Keynote address
Background paper: Ethics and
Values in Ecological Controver-
sies: The Case of Biodiversity
Conservation in the Pacific North-
west
Background paper Characterizing
Perceptions of Ecological Risk
Michael Dover,
Clark University
Angela Nugent, EPA/OPPE
Bill Cooper, Michigan State
University
Jim Proctor, University
of California, Santa Barbara
Tim McDaniels, University of
British Columbia
10:00-10:20
10:20-10:50
10:50-12:00
Background paper: Survey of EPA
Staff re: Communicating on
Ecological Issues
Break
Panel discussion with audience
participation
Dominic Golding,
Clark University
Michael Dover, moderator
Gloria Bergquist, American
Forest & Paper Association
Branden Johnson, NJ Dept
of Environmental Protection
Larry Kapustka, ecological
planning & toxicology, inc.
Tony Maciorowski, EPA
Office of Pesticide Programs
Naomi Paiss. National
Wildlife Federation
12:00-1:30
Lunch
-------
Communicating on Ecological Issues—Workshop Report
Page 47
1:30-2:15
2:30-5:00
May 25:
8:00-10:00
10:00-10:30
10:30-12:15
12:15-1:30
1:30-3:00
3.00-3:15
3U5-4:30
4:30-5:00
Introduction of topics for breakout
groups
Breakout group meetings
Breakout group meetings
Break
Breakout group meetings
Lunch
Breakout group reports
Break
Plenary discussion
Wrap-up
5:00 Adjourn
May 26:
8:00-12:00 Discussion of report format and
Michael Dover, moderator
Rick Cothern, EPA
Roger Kasperson, Clark Univ.
Charles Menzie, Menzie-Cura
Associates
Larry Slobodkin, SUNY at
Stony Brook
(with break)
content
Dominic Golding, moderator
Michael Dover, moderator
Lynn Desautels, EPA/OPPE
Matt Sobel, SUNY at
Stony Brook
Workshop conveners, breakout
chairs, recorders, others
-------
Appendix D
FRAMEWORK FOR ECOLOGICAL RISK
ASSESSMENT
-------
Appendix E
EPA RISK CHARACTERIZATION
PROGRAM
-------
APPENDIX E
i
"i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON DC 20450
MAR 2 1 1S35
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: EPA Risk Characterization Program
TO: Assistant Administrators
Associate Administrators
Regional Administrators
General Counsel
Inspector General
EPA has achieved significant pollution reduction over the past 20-yean, but the challenges
we face now are very different from those of the past Many more people are aware of
environmental issues today than in the past and their levd of sophistication and interest in
understanding these issues continues to increase. We now work with a populace which is not
only interested in knowing what EPA thinks about a p*****"'**1 issue, but also how we come to
our conclusions.
More MMJ more key stakeholders in environmental *mift want ***'"'Rb information to
allow them to independently assess and make j^tp"^*** about the •»flr*rvii» of environmental
risks and the reasonableness of our risk reduction actions. If we are to succeed and build our
credibility and stature as a leader in environmental protection for the next century, EPA must be
responsive and resolve to more openly and fluty communicate to the pubfic the complexities and
challenges of ffnj'rfl"Mi*ntM* 4ffi!pQ«"ii**"fift in the face of scientific uncertainty.
As the issues we face become more complex, people both inside and outside of EPA must
better understand the h*«»* for our decisions, as wed as our confidence in the ^^ti. the science
policy judgments we have made, and the uncertainty in the information base. In order to achieve
this better un
-------
-2-
so that we may begin the process of changing the way in which we interact with each other, the
public, and key stakeholders on environmental risk issues. I need your help to ensure that these
values are embraced and that we change the way we do business.
First, we must adopt as values transparency in our decisionmaking process and clarity in
communication with each other and the public regarding environmental risk *"4 the uncertainties
associated with our assessments of environmental risk. This means that we must fully, openly,
and clearly characterize risks. In doing so, we will disclose the scientific analyses, uncertainties,
assumptions, and science policies which underlie our decisions as they are made throughout the
risk assessment and risk management processes. I want to be sure that key science policy issues
are identified as such during the risk assessment process, that policymakers are fully aware and
engaged in the selection of science policy options, and that their choices and the rationale for
those choices are clearly articulated and visible in our communications about environmental risk.
I understand *^a* some may be concerned about additional c^illfrflCT *n4 disputes. I
expect that we will see more challenges, particularly at first However, I strongly believe that
making this change to a more open decisionmaking process wifl lead to more meaningful public
participation, better information for decisionmaking, improved decisions, and more public support
and respect for EPA positions and decisions. There is value in sharing with others the
complexities and challenges we face in making decisions in the face of uncertainty. I view making
this change as essential to the long term success of this Agency.
Clarity in communication also means that we will strive to help the public put
environmental risk in the proper perspective when we take risk management actions. We must
meet this challenge and find legitimate ways to help the public better comprehend the relative
significance of environmental risks.
Second, because transparency in decisionmaking and clarity in communication will likely
lead to more outside questioning of our assumptions and science policies, we must be more
vigilant about maur^e that our core assumptions and science policies are consistent and
comparable across programs, well grounded in science, and that they fall within a "zone of
reasonableness."
-------
-3-
While I believe that the American public expects us to err on the side of protection in the face of
scientific uncertainty, I do not want our assessments to be unrealistically conservative. We cannot
lead the fight for environmental protection into the next century unless we use common sense in
all we do.
These core values of transparency, clanty, consistency, and reasonableness need to guide
each of us in our day-to-day work; from the lexicologist reviewing the individual cancer study, to
the exposure and risk assessors, to the risk manager, and through to the ultimate decisionmaker. I
recognize that issuing this memo will not by itself result in any change. You need to believe in the
importance of this change and convey your belied to your managers and staff through your words
and actions in order for the change to occur. You also need to play an integral role in developing
the implementing policies and procedures for your programs.
I am issuing the attached EPA Risk Characterization Policy and Guidance today. I view
these documents as building blocks for the development of your program-specific policies and
procedures. The Science Policy Council (SPC) plans to adopt the same basic approach to
implementation as was used for Peer Review. That is, the Council will form an Advisory Group
that will work with a broad Implementation Team made up of representatives from every Program
Office and Region. Each Program Office and each Region win be asked by the Advisory Group
to develop program and region-specific policies and procedures for risk characterization
consistent with the values of transparency, clarity, consistency, and reasonableness and
consistent with the attached policy and guidance.
I recognJTE that as you develop your Program-specific policies and procedures you are
likely to need additional tools to fully implement this policy. I want you to identify these needed
tools and work cooperatively with the Science Policy Council in their development. I want your
draft program and region-specific policies, procedures, and implementation plans to be developed
and submitted to the Advisory Group for review by no later than May 30,1995. You will be
contacted shortly by the SPC Steering Committee to obtain the names of your nominees to the
Implementation Team.
Browner
Attachments
-------
March 1995
POLICY FOR RISK CHARACTERIZATION
at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
INTRODUCTION
Many EPA policy decisions are based in part on the results of risk assessment, an
analysis of scientific information on existing and projected risks to human health
and the environment. As practiced at EPA, risk assessment makes use of many
different kinds of scientific concepts and data (e.g., exposure, toxicity, epidemiology,
ecology), all of which are used to "characterize" the expected risk associated with a
particular agent or action in a particular environmental context. Informed use of
reliable scientific information from many different sources is a central feature of the
risk assessment process.
Reliable information may or may not be available for many aspects of a risk
assessment. Scientific uncertainty is a fact of life for the risk assessment process, and
agency managers almost always must make decisions using assessments that are not
as definitive in all important areas as would be desirable. They therefore need to
understand the strengths and the limitations of each assessment, and to
communicate this information to all participants and the public.
This policy reaffirms the principles and guidance found in the Agency's 1992 policy
(Guidance on Risk Characterization for Risk Managers and Risk Assessors, February
26,1992). That guidance was based on EPA's risk assessment guidelines, which are
products of peer review and public comment. The 1994 National Research Council
(NRC) report, "Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment/' addressed the Agency's
approach to risk assessment including me 1992 risk characterization policy. The
NRC statement accompanying the report stated, "... EPA's overall approach to
assessing risks is fundamentally sound despite often-heard criticisms, but the
Agency must more dearly establish the scientific and policy basis for risk estimates
and better describe the uncertainties in its estimates of risk."
This policy statement and associated guidance for risk characterization is designed to
ensure that critical information from each stage of a risk assessment is used in
forming conclusions about risk and that this information is communicated from
risk assessors to risk managers (policy makers), from middle to upper management,
and from the Agency to the public. Additionally, the policy will provide a basis for
greater clarity, transparency, reasonableness, and consistency in risk assessments
across Agency programs. While most of the discussion and examples in this policy
are drawn from health risk assessment, these values also apply to ecological risk
assessment. A parallel effort by the Risk Assessment Forum to develop EPA
ecological risk assessment guidelines will include guidance specific to ecological risk
characterization.
-------
Policy Statement
Each risk assessment prepared in support of decision-making at EPA should
include a risk characterization that follows the principles and reflects the values
outlined in this policy. A risk characterization should be prepared in a manner :hat
is clear, transparent, reasonable and consistent with other risk characterizations of
similar scope prepared across programs in the Agency. Further, discussion of risk in
all EPA reports, presentations, decision packages, and other documents should be
substantively consistent with the risk characterization. The nature of the risk
characterization will depend upon the information available, the regulatory
application of the risk information, and the resources (including time) available. In
all cases, however, the assessment should identify and discuss all the major issues
associated with determining the nature and extent of the risk and provide
commentary on any constraints limiting fuller exposition.
Kev Aspects of Risk Characterisation
Bridging risk assessment and risk management As the interface between risk
assessment and risk management, risk characterizations should be dearly presented,
and separate from any risk management considerations. Risk management options
should be developed using the risk characterization and should be based on
consideration of all relevant factors, scientific and nonsdentific.
Discussing confidence and uncertainties. Key scientific concepts, data and
methods (e.g., use of animal or human data for extrapolating from high to low
doses, use of pharmacokinetics data, exposure pathways, sampling methods,
availability of chemical-specific information, quality of data) should be discussed.
To ensure transparency, risk characterizations should include a statement of
confidence in the assessment that identifies all major uncertainties along with
comment on their influence on the assessment, consistent with the Guidance on
Risk Characterization (attached).
Presenting several types of risk information. Information should be
presented on the range of exposures derived from exposure scenarios and on the use
of multiple risk descriptors (e.g., central tendency, high end of individual risk,
population risk, important subgroups, if known) consistent with terminology in the
Guidance on Risk Characterization, Agency risk assessment guidelines, and
program-specific guidance. In decision-making, risk managers should use risk
information appropriate to their program legislation.
EPA conducts many types of risk assessments, indudmg screening-level
assessments of new chemicals, in-depth assessments of pollutants such as dioxin
-------
and environmental tobacco smoke, and site-specific assessments for hazardous
waste sites. An iterative approach to risk assessment, beginning with screening
techniques, may be used to determine if a more comprehensive assessment is
necessary. The degree to which confidence and uncertainty are addressed in a risk
characterization depends largely on the scope of the assessment. In general, the
scope of the risk characterization should reflect the information presented in the
risk assessment and program-specific guidance. When special circumstances (e.g.,
lack of data, extremely complex situations, resource limitations, statutory deadlines)
preclude a full assessment, such circumstances should be explained and their impact
on the risk assessment discussed.
Risk Characterization in Context
Risk assessment is based on a series of questions that the assessor asks about
scientific information that is relevant to human and/or environmental risk. Each
question calls for analysis and interpretation of the available studies, selection of the
concepts and data that are most scientifically reliable and most relevant to the
problem at hand, and scientific conclusions regarding the question presented. For
example, health risk assessments involve the following questions:
Hazard Identification — What is known about the capacity of an environmental
agent for causing cancer or other adverse health effects in humans, laboratory
animals, or wildlife species? What are the related uncertainties and science
policy choices?
Dose-Response Assessment — What is known about the biological mechanisms
and dose-response relationships underlying any effects observed in the laboratory
or epidemiology studies providing data for the assessment? What are the
related uncertainties and science policy choices?
Exposure Assessment - What is known about the principal paths, patterns, and
magnitudes of human or wildlife exposure and numbers of persons or wildlife
species likely to be exposed? What are the related uncertainties and science
policy choices?
Corresponding principles and questions for ecological risk assessment are being
discussed as part of the effort to develop ecological risk guidelines.
Risk characterization is the summarizing step of risk assessment The risk
characterization integrates information from the preceding components of the risk
assessment and synthesizes an overall conclusion about risk that is complete,
informative and useful for detisionrnakers.
-------
Risk characterizations should clearly highlight both the confidence and the
uncertainty associated with the risk assessment. For example, numerical risk
estimates should always be accompanied by descriptive information carefully
selected to ensure an objective and balanced characterization of risk in risk
assessment reports and regulatory documents. In essence, a risk characterization
conveys the assessor's judgment as to the nature and existence of (or lack of) human
health or ecological risks. Even though a risk characterization describes limitations
in an assessment, a balanced discussion of reasonable conclusions and related
uncertainties enhances, rather than detracts, from the overall credibility of each
assessment.
"Risk characterizatipn" is not synonymous with "risk communication." This
risk characterization policy addresses the interface between risk assessment and risk
management. Risk communication, in contrast, emphasizes the process of
exchanging information and opinion with the public - including individuals,
groups, and other institutions. The development of a risk assessment may involve
risk communication. For example, in the case of site-specific assessments for
hazardous waste sites, discussions with the public may influence the exposure
pathways included in the risk assessment While the final risk assessment
document (including the risk characterization) is available to the public, the risk
communication process may be better served by separate risk information
documents designed for particular audiences.
Promoting Clarity. Comparability and CoMJateiKY
There are several reasons that the Agency should strive for greater clarity,
consistency and comparability in risk assessments. One reason is to minimize
confusion. For example, many people have not understood that a risk estimate of
one in a million for an "average" individual is not comparable to another one in a
million risk estimate for the "most exposed individual." Use of such apparently
similar estimates without further explanation leads to misunderstandings about the
relative significance of risks and the protectiveness of risk reduction actions.
EPA's Exposure Assessment Guidelines provide standard descriptors of
exposure and risk. Use of these terms in all Agency risk assessments will promote
consistency and comparability. Use of several descriptors, rafter than a single
descriptor, will enable EPA to present a fuller picture of risk that corresponds to the
range of different exposure conditions encountered by various individuals and
populations exposed to most environmental chemicals.
-------
Legal Effect
This policy statement and associated guidance on risk characterization do not
establish or affect legal rights or obligations. Rather, they confirm the importance of
risk characterization as a component of risk assessment, outline relevant principles,
and identify factors Agency staff should consider in implementing the policy.
The policy and associated guidance do not stand alone; nor do they establish a
binding norm that is finally determinative of the issues addressed. Except where
otherwise provided by law, the Agency's decision on conducting a risk assessment in
any particular case is within the Agency's discretion. Variations in the application
of the policy and associated guidance, therefore, are not a legitimate basis for
delaying or complicating action on Agency decisions.
Applicability
Except where otherwise provided by law and subject to the limitations on the
policy's legal effect discussed above, this policy applies to risk assessments prepared
by EPA and to risk assessments prepared by others that are used in support of EPA
decisions.
EPA will consider the principles in this policy in evaluating assessments
submitted to EPA to complement or challenge Agency assessments. Adherence to
this Agency-wide policy will improve understanding of Agency risk assessments,
lead to more informed decisions, and heighten the credibility of both assessments
and decisions.
Implementation
Assistant Administrators and Regional Administrators are responsible for
implementation of this policy within their organizational units. The Science Policy.
Council (SPG) is organizing Agency-wide implementation activities. Its
responsibilities include promoting consistent interpretation, assessing Agency-wide
progress, working with external groups on risk characterization issues and methods,
and developing recommendations for revisions pf the policy and guidance, as
necessary.
Each Program and Regional office will develop office-specific policies and
procedures for risk characterization that 'are consistent with this policy and the
associated guidance. Each Program and Reigional office will designate a nsk
manager or risk assessor as the office representative to the Agency-wide Implementa-
-------
hon Team, which will coordinate development of office-specific policies and
procedures and other implementation activities. The 5PC will also designate a
small cross-Agency Advisory Group that will serve as the liaison between the SPC
and the Implementation Team.
In ensuring coordination and consistency among EPA offices, the
Implementation Team will take into account statutory and court deadlines, resource
implications, and existing Agency and program-specific guidance on risk
assessment. The group will work closely with staff throughout Headquarters and
Regional offices to promote development of risk characterizations that present a full
and complete picture of risk that meets the needs of the risk managers.
APPROVED:
DATE:
MAR 2 1 19S5
Carol M. Browm
tiator
-------
ELEMENTS TO CONSIDER WHEN DRAFTING EPA RISK
CHARACTERIZATIONS
March 1995
Background — Risk Characterization Principles
There are a number of principles which form the basis for a risk characterization:
• Risk assessments should be transparent, in that the conclusions drawn from the
science are identified separately from policy judgements, and the use of default
values or methods and the use of assumptions in the risk assessment are clearly
articulated.
• Risk characterizations should include a summary of the key issues and
conclusions of each of the other components of the risk assessment as well as
describe the likelihood of harm. The summary should include a description of
the overall strengths and the limitations (including uncertainties) of the
assessment and conclusions.
• Risk characterizations should be consistent in general format, but recognize the
unique characteristics of each specific situation.
• Risk characterizations should include, at least in a qualitative sense, a discussion
of how a specific risk and its context compares with other similar risks. Tiis may
be accomplished by comparisons with other chemicals or situations in which the
Agency has decided to act, or with other situations which the public may be
familiar with. The discussion should highlight the limitations of such
comparisons.
• Risk characterization is a key component of risk communication, which is an
interactive process involving exchange of information and export opinion
among individuals, groups and institutions.
The following outline is a guide and formatting aid for developing risk
characterizations for chemical risk assessments. Similar outlines will be developed
for other types of risk characterizations, including site-specific assessments and
ecological risk assessments. A common format will assist risk managers in
evaluating and using risk characterization.
The outline has two parts. The first part tracks the risk assessment to bring forward
its major conclusions. The second part draws all of the information together to
characterize risk. The outline represents the expected findings for a typical complete
chemical assessment for a single chemical. However, exceptions for the
-------
circumstances of individual assessments exist and should be explained as part of the
risk characterization. For example, particular statutory requirements, court-ordered
deadlines, resource limitations, and other specific factors may be described to explain
why certain elements are incomplete.
This outline does not establish or affect legal rights or obligations. Rather, it
confirms the importance of risk characterization, outlines relevant principles, and
identifies factors Agency staff should consider in implementing the policy. On a
continuing basis, Agency management is expected to evaluate the policy as well as
the results of its application throughout the Agency and undertake revisions as
necessary. Therefore, the policy does not stand alone; nor does it establish a binding
norm that is finally determinative of the issues addressed. Minor variations in its
application from one instance to another are appropriate and expected; they thus are
not a legitimate basis for delaying or complicating action on otherwise satisfactory
scientific, technical, and regulatory products.
PART ONE
SUMMARIZING MAJOR CONCLUSIONS IN RISK CHARACTERIZATION
L Characterization of Hazard Identification
A. What is the key toxkological study (or studies) that provides the basis for
health concerns?
- How good is the key study?
- Are the data from laboratory or field studies? In single species or
multiple species?
- If the hazard is carcinogenic, comment on issues such as: observation of
single or multiple tumor sites; occurrence of benign or malignant
rumors; certain rumor types not linked to carcinogenicity; use of the
maximum tolerated dose (MTD).
- If the hazard is other than carcinogenic, what endpoints were observed,
and what is the basis for the critical effect?
- Describe other studies that support this finding.
- Discuss any valid studies which conflict with this finding.
B. Besides the health effect observed in the key study, are there other health
endpoints of concern?
- What are the significant data gaps?
C Discuss available epidemiological or clinical data. For epidemiological
studies:
- What types of studies were used, i.e., ecologic, case-control, cohort?
-------
- Describe the degree to which exposures were adequately described.
- Describe the degree to which confounding factors were adequately
accounted for.
- Describe the degree to which other causal factors were excluded.
D. How much is known about how (through what biological mechanism) the
chemical produces adverse effects?
- Discuss relevant studies of mechanisms of action or metabolism.
- Does this information aid in the interpretation of the toxicity data?
- What are the implications for potential health effects?
£. Comment on any non-positive data in animals or people, and whether
these data were considered in the hazard identification.
F. If adverse health affects have been observed in wildlife species, characterize
such effects by discussing the relevant issues as in A through E above.
G. Summarize the hazard identification and discuss the significance of each of
he following:
- confidence in conclusions;
-. alternative conclusions that are also supported by the data;
- significant data gaps; and
- highlights of major assumptions.
EL Characterization of Dose-Response
A. What data were used to develop the dose-response curve? Would the
result have been significantly different if b^sed on a different data set?
- If animal data were used:
— which species were used? most sensitive, average of all species, or
other?
- were any studies excluded? why?
- If epidemiological data were used:
- Which studies were used? only positive studies, all studies, or
some other combination?
- Were any studies excluded? why?
— Was a meta-analysis performed to combine the epidemiological
studies? what approach was used? were studies excluded? why?
B. What model was used to develop the dose-response curve? What rationale
supports this choice? Is chemical-specific information available to support
this approach?
- For non-carcinogenic hazards:
- How was the, RfD/RfC (or the acceptable range) calculated?
-------
- What assumptions or uncertainty factors were used?
- What is the confidence in the estimates?
- For carcinogenic hazards:
- What dose-response model was used? LMS or other linear-at-low-
dose model, a biologically-based model based on metabolism data,
or data about possible mechanisms of action?
- What is the basis for the selection of the particular dose-response
model used? Are there other models that could have been used
with equal plausibility and scientific validity? What is the basis for
selection of the model used in this instance?
C. Discuss the route and level of exposure observed, as compared to expected
human exposures.
- Are the available data from the same route of exposure as the expected
human exposures? If not, are pharmacokinetic data available to
extrapolate across route of exposure?
- How far does one need to extrapolate from the observed data to
environmental exposures (one to two orders of magnitude? multiple
orders of magnitude)? What is the impact of such an extrapolation?
D. If adverse health affects have been observed in wildlife species, characterize
dose-response information using the process outlined in A-C.
EEL Characterization of Exposure
A. What are the most significant sources of environmental exposure?
- Are there data on sources of exposure from different media? What is the
relative contribution of different sources of exposure?
- What are the most significant environmental pathways for exposure?
B. Describe the populations that were assessed, including as the general
population, highly exposed groups, and highly susceptible groups.
C Describe the basis for the exposure assessment, including any monitoring,
modeling, or other analyses of exposure distributions such as Monte-Carlo
or krieging.
D. What are the key descriptors of exposure?
- Describe the (range of) exposures to: "average" individuals, "high end"
individuals, general population, high exposure group(s), children,
susceptible populations.
- How was the central tendency estimate developed? What factors and /or
methods were used in developing this estimate?
- How was the high-end estimate developed?
-------
- Is there information on highly-exposed subgroups? Who are they?
What are their levels of exposure? How are they accounted for in the
assessment?
E. Is there reason to be concerned about cumulative or multiple exposures
because of ethnic, racial, or socioeconomic reasons?
F. If adverse health affects have been observed in wildlife species, characterize
wildlife exposure by discussing the relevant issues as in A through E above.
G. Summarize exposure conclusions and discuss the following:
- results of different approaches, i.e. modeling, monitoring, probability
distributions;
- limitations of each, and the range of most reasonable values; and
- confidence in the results obtained, and the limitations to the results.
PART TWO
RISK CONCLUSIONS AND COMPARISONS
IV. Risk Conclusions
A. What is the overall picture of risk, based on the hazard identification, dose-
response and exposure characterizations?
B. What are the major conclusions and strengths of the assessment in each of
the three main analyses (i.e., hazard identification, dose-response, and
exposure assessment)?
C What are the major limitations and uncertainties in the three main
analyses?
D. What are' the science policy options in each of the three major analyses?
- What are the alternative approaches evaluated?
- What are the reasons for the choices made?
V. Risk Context
A. What are the qualitative characteristics of the hazard (e.g., voluntary vs.
involuntary, technological vs. natural, etc.)? Comment on findings, if any,
from studies of risk perception that relate to this hazard or similar hazards.
B. What are the alternatives to this hazard? How do the risks compare?
-------
C. How does this risk compare to other risks?
1. How does this risk compare to other risks in this regulatory program, or
other similar risks that the EPA has made decisions about?
2. Where appropriate, can this risk be compared with past Agency
decisions, decisions by other federal or state agencies, or common risks
with which people may be familiar?
3. Describe the limitations of making these comparisons.
D. Comment on significant community concerns which influence public
perception of risk?
VI. Existing Risk Information
Comment on other risk assessments that have been done en this chemical by
EPA, other federal agencies, or other organizations. Are there significantly
different conclusions that merit discussion?
VII. Other Information
Is there other information that would be useful to the risk manager or the
public in this situation that has not been described above?
-------
f
i
\
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
FOR
THE EPA POLICY ON RISK CHARACTERIZATION
PRCfl
Introduction
The EPA Science Policy Council (SPC) is implementing the Administrator's policy on
risk characterization through a year-long program of activities that will involve
risk assessors and risk managers in the practice of fully characterizing risk. This
interactive approach calls for inter- and intra-office activities to gain experience
with the fundamentals of the policy and to resolve issues that were identified during
Agency-wide review of early drafts. Implementation will include program-specific
guidance development; case study development; and risk characterization workshops
and rountables for risk assessors and managers.
A SPC-sponsored "advisory group" will plan and execute these implementation
activities. This advisory group will organize an "implementation team" composed of
representatives from the program offices, regions and ORD laboratories and centers.
This team will work closely with the advisory group to coordinate implementation
activities within their offices.
Program Guidance Development
Risk characterizations often differ
according to the type of assessment
involved. The aim is to work closely with
the Program Offices and Regions to
identify and address their specific risk
characterization needs and, where
appropriate, to develop assessment-
specific guidance.
This program updates and implements the
risk characterization guidance issued in
early 1992. The policy features a paper
entitled "Elements to Consider When
Drafting EPA Risk Characterizations."
This paper outlines generic elements for
characterizing risk, and provides a
prototype for assessment-specific
guidance. Program and Regional
offices will use this paper to identify
and address risk characterization issues
associated with specific assessment
types that differ from the general
prototype (e.g.. site-specific and
ecological risk assessments). Lessons
learned from the case studies,
roundtables and workshops (discussed
below) will also contribute to program-
specific guidance development.
Case Studies
Today, when asked to provide an
example of a "good" risk
characterization, few people can
identify good examples, let alone
examples that others would agree are
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Proaram-swcmc Guidance n.Teloomeat
Mar • Apr May ijuaa j July Aag-S«p Oct Noi
^ ff . ^..••^*» • »••• »•»*.•_.
. i s : :
. JT-l --- .••••••»•—< !•••—•*•
~« ..... .............
••(!•• »<•
-------
of high quality. As a First step, a selected
number of risk characterization case
studies will be developed for use as
teaching tools. A "case study" will be an
exercise to improve an -existing risk
characterization, using the information
available in an existing risk assessment.
While based on actual risk assessments,
identifying information (e.g., site
identification information) will be
removed to avoid any implied judgement
Roundtables and Workshops
as to the adequacy of the original risk
assessment and risk characterization.
Examples of case studies may include a
chemical assessment, a site-specific
assessment, and a screening-level
assessment. The case studies will be
developed by the risk characterization
advisory group, working in consultation
with the implementation team, and will
be used for discussion at the first risk
characterization workshop.
EPA decision-makers will be invited to participate in roundtable discussions on risk
characterization. In addition, a minimum of two workshops are planned for EPA risk
assessors and risk managers.
0 Risk Decision-maker Rountables on Risk Characterization - The goal will
be to determine the types of risk characterization information needed by managers
for effective risk-based decision-making.
8 Risk Characterization Workshop I - Will focus on identifying the qualities of
"good" risk characterizations, program-specific plans and guidance development,
and case studies.
8 Risk Characterization Workshop II • Risk assessors and risk managers will
meet to wrap-up program-specific plans and guidance, and discuss any necessary
updates to the agency-wide risk characterization guidance.
I , I
b**4T****V**********'&******^^
-------
GUIDANCE
FOR
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Science Policy Council
February, 1995
-------
CONTENTS
I. The Risk Assessment-Risk Management Interface
II. Risk Assessment and Risk Characterization
III. Exposure and Risk Descriptors
-------
PREFACE
This guidance contains principles for developing and describing EPA risk
assessments, with a particular emphasis on risk characterization. The current
document is an update of the guidance issued with the Agency's 1992 policy
{Guidance on Risk Characterization for Risk Managers and Risk Assessors, February
26,1992). The guidance has not been substantially revised, but includes some
clarifications and changes to give more prominence to certain issues, such as the
need to explain the use of default assumptions.
As in the 1992 policy, some aspects of this guidance focus on cancer risk
assessment, but the guidance applies generally to human health effects (e.g.,
neurotoxicity, developmental toxicity) and, with appropriate modifications, should
be used in all health risk assessments. This document has not been revised to
specifically address ecological risk assessment, however, initial guidance for
ecological risk characterization is included in EPA's Framework for Ecological Risk
Assessments (EPA/630/R-92/001). Neither does this guidance address in detail the
use. of risk assessment information (e.g., information from the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS)) to generate site- or media-specific risk assessments.
Additional program-specific guidance will be developed to enable implementation
of EPA's Risk Characterization Policy. Development of such guidance will be
overseen by the Science Policy Council and will involve risk assessors and risk
managers from across the Agency.
-------
L THE RISK ASSESSMENT-RISK MANAGEMENT INTERFACE
Recognizing that for many people the term risk assessment has wide meaning, the
National Research Council's 1983 report on risk assessment in the federal
government distinguished between risk assessment and risk management.
"Broader uses of the term [risk assessment] than ours also embrace analysis of
perceived risks, comparisons of risks associated with different regulatory
strategies, and occasionally analysis of the economic and social implications of
regulatory decisions — functions that we assign to risk management
(emphasis added). (1)
In 1984, EPA endorsed these distinctions between risk assessment and risk
management for Agency use (2), and later relied on them in developing risk
assessment guidelines (3). In 1994, the NRC reviewed the Agency's approach to and
use of risk assessment and issued an extensive report on their findings (4). This
distinction suggests mat EPA participants in the process can be grouped into two
main categories, each with somewhat different responsibilities, based on their roles
with respect to risk assessment and risk management
A. Roles of Risk Assessors and Risk Managers
Within the Risk Assessment category there is a group that develops chemical-
specific risk assessments by collecting, analyzing, and synthesizing scientific data to
produce the hazard identification, dose-response, and exposure assessment portion
of the risk assessment and to characterize risk. This group relies in part on Agency
risk assessment guidelines to address science policy issues and scientific
uncertainties. Generally/ this group includes scientists and statisticians in the Office
of Research and Development; the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxics and
other program offices; the Carcinogen Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor
(CRAVE); and the Reference Dose (RfD) and Reference Concentration (RfC)
Workgroups.
Another group generates site- or media-specific risk assessments for use in
regulation development or site-specific decision-making. These assessors rely on
existing databases (e.g., IRIS, ORD Health Assessment Documents, CRAVE and
RfD/RfC Workgroup documents, and program-specific toxicity information) and
media- or site-specific exposure information in developing risk assessments. This
group also relies in part on Agency risk assessment guidelines and program-specific
guidance to address science policy issues and scientific uncertainties. Generally, this
group includes scientists and analysts in program offices, regional offices, and the
Office of Research and Development.
-------
Risk managers, as a separate category, integrate the risk characterization with other
considerations specified in applicable statutes to make and justify regulatory
decisions. Generally, this group includes Agency managers and decision-makers.
Risk managers also play a role in determining the scope of risk assessments. The
risk assessment process involves regular interaction between risk assessors and risk
managers, with overlapping responsibilities at various stages in the overall process.
Shared responsibilities include initial decisions regarding the planning and conduct
of an assessment, discussions as the assessment develops, decisions regarding new
data needed to complete an assessment and to address significant uncertainties. At
critical junctures in the assessment, such consultations shape the nature of, and
schedule for, the assessment. External experts and members of the public may also
play a role in determining the scope of the assessment; for example, the public is
often concerned about certain chemicals or exposure pathways in the development
of site-specific risk assessments.
B. Guiding Principles
The following guidance outlines principles for those who generate, review, use, and
integrate risk assessments for decision-making.
1. Risk assessors and risk managers should be sensitive to distinctions between
risk assessment and risk management
The major participants in the risk assessment process have many shared
responsibilities. Where responsibilities differ, it is important that participants
confine themselves to tasks in their areas of responsibility and not inadvertently
obscure differences between risk assessment and risk management.
For the generators of the assessment, distinguishing between risk assessment and
risk management means that scientific information is selected, evaluated, and
presented without considering issues such as cost, feasibility,, or how the scientific
analysis might influence the regulatory or site-specific decision. Assessors are
charged with (1) generating a credible, objective, realistic, and scientifically balanced
analysis; (2) presenting information on hazard, dose-response, exposure and risk;
and (3) explaining confidence in each assessment by clearly delineating strengths,
uncertainties and assumptions, along with the impacts of these factors (e.g.,
confidence limits, use of conservative/non-conservative assumptions) on the
overall assessment. They do not make decisions on the acceptability of any risk
level for protecting public health or selecting procedures for reducing risks.
For users of the assessment and for decision-makers who integrate these
assessments into regulatory or site-specific decisions, the distinction between risk
assessment and risk management means refraining from influencing the risk
-------
description through consideration of other factors - e.g., the regulatory outcome -
and from attempting to shape the risk assessment to avoid statutory constraints,
meet regulatory objectives, or serve political purposes. Such management
considerations are often legitimate considerations for the overall regulatory decision
(see next principle), but they have no role in estimating or describing risk.
However, decision-makers and risk assessors participate in an Agency process that
establishes policy directions that determine the overall nature and tone of Agency
risk assessments and, as appropriate, provide policy guidance on difficult and
controversial risk assessment issues. Matters such as risk assessment priorities,
degree of conservatism, and acceptability of particular risk levels are reserved for
decision-makers who are charged with making decisions regarding protection of
public health.
2. The risk assessment product, that is, the risk characterization, is only one of
several kinds of information used for regulatory decision-making.
Risk characterization, the last step in risk assessment, is the starting point for risk
management considerations and the foundation for regulatory decision-making, but
it is only one of several important components in such decisions. As the last step in
risk assessment, the risk characterization identifies and highlights the noteworthy
risk conclusions and related uncertainties. Each of the environmental laws
administered by EPA calls for consideration of other factors at various stages in the
regulatory process. As authorized by different statutes, decision-makers evaluate
technical feasibility (e.g., treatability, detection limits), economic, social, political, and
legal factors as part of the analysis of whether or not to regulate and, if so, to what
extent. Thus, regulatory decisions are usually based on a combination of the
technical analysis used to develop the risk assessment and information from other
fields.
For this reason, risk assessors and managers should understand that the regulatory
decision is usually not determined solely by the outcome of the risk assessment. For
example, a regulatory decision on the use of a particular pesticide considers not only
the risk level to affected populations, but also the agricultural benefits of its use that
may be important for the nation's food supply. Similarly, assessment efforts may
produce an RfD for a particular chemical, but other considerations may result in a
regulatory level that is more or less protective than the RfD itself.
For decision-makers, this means that societal considerations (e.g., costs and benefits)
that, along with the risk assessment, shape the regulatory decision should be
described as fully as the scientific information set forth in the risk characterization.
Information on data sources and analyses, their strengths and limitations,
confidence in the assessment, uncertainties, and alternative analyses are as
important here as they are for the scientific components of the regulatory decision.
Decision-makers should be able to expect, for example, the same level of rigor from
the economic analysis as they receive from the risk analysis. Risk management
decisions involve numerous assumptions and uncertainties regarding technology,
economics and social factors, which need to be explicitly identified for the
decision-makers and the public.
-------
0. RISK CHARACTERIZATION
A. Defining Risk Characterization in the Context of Risk Assessment
EPA risk assessment principles and practices draw on many sources. Obvious
sources include the environmental laws administered by EPA, the National
Research Council's 1983 report on risk assessment (1), the Agency's Risk Assessment
Guidelines (3), and various program specific guidance (e.g., the Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund). Twenty years of EPA experience in developing,
defending, and enforcing risk assessment-based regulation is another. Together
these various sources stress the importance of a clear explanation of Agency
processes for evaluating hazard, dose-response, exposure, and other data that
provide the scientific foundation for characterizing risk.
This section focuses on two requirements for full characterization of risk. First, the
characterization should address qualitative and quantitative features of the
assessment. Second, it should identify the important strengths and uncertainties in
the assessment as part of a discussion of the confidence in the assessment. This
emphasis on a full description of all elements of the assessment draws attention to
the importance of the qualitative, as well as the quantitative, dimensions of the
assessment. The 1983 NRC report carefully distinguished qualitative risk
assessment from quantitative assessments, preferring risk statements that are not
strictly numerical.
The term risk assessment is often given narrower and broader meanings
than we have adopted here. For some observers, the term is synonymous
with quantitative risk assessment and emphasizes reliance on numerical
results. Our broader definition includes quantification, but also includes
qualitative expressions of risk. Quantitative estimates of risk are not always
feasible, and they may be eschewed by agencies for policy reasons. (1)
EPA's Exposure Assessment Guidelines define risk characterization as the final step
in the risk assessment process that
• Integrates the individual characterizations from the hazard identification, dose-
response, and exposure assessments;
• Provides an evaluation of the overall quality of the assessment and the degree
of confidence the authors have in the estimates of risk and conclusions drawn;
• Describes risks to individuals and populations in terms of extent and severity of
probable harm; and
• Communicates results of the risk assessment to the risk manager. (5)
Particularly critical to full characterization of risk is a frank and open discussion of
the uncertainty in the overall assessment and in each of its components. The
uncertainty discussion is important for several reasons.
-------
1. Information from different sources carries different kinds of uncertainty and
knowledge of these differences is important when uncertainties are combined
for characterizing risk.
2. The risk assessment process, with' management input, involves decisions
regarding the collection of additional data (versus living with uncertainty); in
the risk characterization, a discussion of the uncertainties will help to identify
where additional information could contribute significantly to reducing
uncertainties in risk assessment.
3. A clear and explicit statement of the strengths and limitations of a risk
assessment requires a clear and explicit statement of related uncertainties.
A discussion of uncertainty requires comment on such issues as the quality and
quantity of available data, gaps in the data base for specific chemicals, quality of the
measured data, use of default assumptions, incomplete understanding of general
biological phenomena, and scientific judgments or science policy positions that were
employed to bridge information gaps.
In short, broad agreement exists on the importance of a full picture of risk,
particularly including a statement of confidence in the assessment and the
associated uncertainties. This section discusses information content and uncertainty
aspects of risk characterization, while Section m discusses various descriptors used
in risk characterization.
B. Guiding Principles
1. The risk characterization integrates the information from the hazard
identification, dose-response, and exposure assessments, using a combination of
qualitative information, quantitative information, and information regarding
uncertainties.
Risk assessment is based on a series of questions that the assessor asks about the data
and the implications of the data for human risk. Each question calls for analysis and
interpretation of the available studies, selection of the data that are most
scientifically reliable and most relevant to the problem at hand, and scientific
conclusions regarding the question presented. As suggested below, because the
questions and analyses are complex, a complete characterization includes several
different kinds of .information, carefully selected for reliability and relevance.
a. Hazard Identification — What is known about the capacity of an environmental
agent for causing cancer (or other adverse effects) in humans and laboratory
animals?
-------
Hazard identification is a qualitative description based on factors such as the kind
and quality of data on humans or laboratory animals, the availability of ancillary
information (e.g., structure-activity analysis, genetic toxicity, phannacokinetics)
from other studies, and the weight-of-the-evidence from all of these data sources.
For example, to develop this description, the issues addressed include:
1) the nature, reliability, and consistency of the particular studies in humans and
in Laboratory animals;
2) the available information on the mechanistic basis for activity; and
3) experimental animal responses and their relevance to human outcomes.
These issues make clear that the task of hazard identification is characterized by
describing the full range of available information and the implications of that
information for human health.
b. Dose-Response Assessment - What is known about the biological mechanisms
and dose-response relationships underlying any effects observed in the
laboratory or epidemiology studies providing data for the assessment?
The dose-response assessment examines quantitative relationships between
exposure (or dose) and effects in the studies used to identify and define effects of
concern. This information is later used along with "real world" exposure
information (see below) to develop estimates of the likelihood of adverse effects in
populations potentially at risk. It should be noted that, in practice, hazard
identification for developmental toxicity and other non-cancer health effects is
usually done in conjunction with an evaluation of dose-response relationships,
since the determination of whether there is a hazard is often dependent on whether
a dose response relationship is present. (6) Also, the framework developed by EPA
for ecological risk assessment does not distinguish between hazard identification
and dose-response assessment, but rather calls for a "characterization of ecological
effects." (7)
Methods for establishing dose-response relationships often depend on various
assumptions used in lieu of a complete data base, and the method chosen can
strongly influence the overall assessment The Agency's risk assessment guidelines
often identify so-called "default assumptions" for use in the absence of other
information. The risk assessment should pay careful attention to the choice of a
high-to-low dose extrapolation procedure. As a result, an assessor who is
characterizing a dose-response relationship considers several key issues:
1) the relationship between extrapolation models selected and available
information on biological mechanisms;
-------
2) how appropriate data sets were selected from those that show the range of
possible potencies both in laboratory animals and humans;
3) the basis for selecting interspecies dose scaling factors to account for scaling
doses from experimental animals to humans;
4) the correspondence between the expected route(s) of exposure and the exposure
route(s) utilized in the studies forming the basis of the dose-response
assessment, as well as the interrelationships of potential effects from different
exposure routes;
5) the correspondence between the expected duration of exposure and the
exposure durations in the studies used in forming the basis of the dose-response
assessment, e.g., chronic studies would be used to assess long-term, cumulative
exposure concentrations, while acute studies would be used in assessing peak
levels of exposure; and
6) the potential for differing susceptibilities among population subgroups.
The Agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a repository for such
information for EPA. EPA program offices also maintain program-specific
databases, such as the OSWER Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST).
IRIS includes data summaries representing Agency consensus on specific chemicals,
based on a careful review of the scientific issues listed above. For specific risk
assessments based on data from any source, risk assessors should carefully review
the information presented, emphasizing confidence in the data and uncertainties
(see subsection 2 below). Specifically, when IRIS data are used, the IRIS statement of
confidence should be included as an explicit part of '•he risk characterization for
hazard and dose-response information.
c. Exposure Assessment - What is known about the principal paths, patterns, and
magnitudes of human exposure and numbers of persons who may be exposed?
The exposure assessment examines a wide range of exposure parameters pertaining
to the environmental scenarios of people who may be exposed to the agent under
study. The information considered for the exposure assessment includes
monitoring studies of chemical concentrations in environmental media, food, and
other materials; modeling of environmental fate and transport of contaminants;
and information on different activity patterns of different population subgroups.
An assessor who characterizes exposure should address several issues:
1) The basis for the values and input parameters used for each exposure scenario.
If the values are based on data, there should be a discussion of the quality,
purpose, and representativeness of the database. For monitoring data, there
should be a discussion of the data quality objectives as they are relevant to risk
-------
assessment, including the appropriateness of the analytical detection limits. If
models are applied, the appropriateness of the models and information on their
validation should be presented. When assumptions are made, the source and
general logic used to develop the assumptions (e.g., program guidance, analogy,
professional judgment) should be described.
2) The confidence in the assumptions made about human behavior and the
relative likelihood of the different exposure scenarios.
3) The major factor or factors (e.g., concentration, body uptake, duration/frequency
of exposure) thought to account for the greatest uncertainty in the exposure
estimate, due either to sensitivity or lack of data.
4) The link between the exposure information and the risk descriptors discussed
in Section in of this Appendix. Specifically, the risk assessor needs to discuss
the connection between the conservatism or non-conservatism of the
data/assumptions used in the scenarios and the choice of descriptors.
5) Other information that may be important for the particular risk assessment.
For example, for many assessments, other sources and background levels in the
environment may contribute significantly to population exposures and should
be discussed.
2) The risk characterization includes a discussion of uncertainty and variability.
In the risk characterization, conclusions about hazard and dose response are
integrated with those from the exposure assessment. In addition, confidence about
these conclusions, including information about the uncertainties associated with
each aspect of the assessment in the final risk summary, is highlighted. In the
previous assessment steps and in the risk characterization, the risk assessor must
distinguish between variability and uncertainty.
Variability arises from true heterogeneity in characteristics such as dose-response
differences within a population, or differences in contaminant levels in the
environment. The values of some variables used in an assessment change with
time and space, or across the population whose exposure is being estimated.
Assessments should address die resulting variability in doses received by members
of the target population. Individual exposure, dose, and risk can vary widely in a
large population. The central tendency and high end individual risk descriptors
(discussed in Section HI below) are intended to capture the variability in exposure,
lifestyles, and other factors that lead to a distribution of risk across a population.
Uncertainty, on the other hand, represents lack of knowledge about factors such as
adverse effects or contaminant levels which may be reduced with additional study.
Generally, risk assessments carry several categories of uncertainty, and each merits
8
-------
consideration. Measurement uncertainty refers to the usual error that accompanies
scientific measurements-standard statistical techniques can often be used to express
measurement uncertainty. A substantial amount of uncertainty is often inherent in
environmental sampling, and assessments should address these uncertainties.
There are likewise uncertainties associated with the use of scientific models, e.g.,
dose-response models,.models of environmental fate and transport. Evaluation of
model uncertainty would consider the scientific basis for the model and available
empirical validation.
A different kind of uncertainty steins from data gaps - that is, estimates or
assumptions used in the assessment. Often, the data gap is broad, such as the
absence of information on the effects of exposure to a chemical on humans or on
the biological mechanism of action of an agent. The risk assessor should include a
statement of confidence that reflects the degree to which the risk assessor believes
that the estimates or assumptions adequately fill the data gap. For some common
and important data gaps, Agency or program-specific risk assessment guidance
provides default assumptions or values. Risk assessors should carefully consider all
available data before deciding to rely on default assumptions. If defaults are used,
the risk assessment should reference the Agency guidance that explains the default
assumptions or values.
Often risk assessors and managers simplify discussion of risk issues by speaking only
of the numerical components of an assessment. That is, they refer to the alpha-
numeric weight-of-the-evidence classification, unit risk, the risk-specific dose or the
qi* for cancer risk, and the RfD/RfC for health effects other than cancer, to the
exclusion of other information bearing on the risk case. However, since every
assessment carries uncertainties, a simplified numerical presentation of risk is
always incomplete and often misleading. For this reason, the NRC (1) and EPA risk
assessment guidelines (2) call for "characterizing" risk to include qualitative
information, a related numerical risk estimate and a discussion of uncertainties,
limitations, and assumptions—default and otherwise.
Qualitative information on methodology, alternative interpretations, and working
assumptions (including defaults) is an important component of risk
characterization. For example, specifying that animal studies rather than human
studies were used in an assessment tells others that the risk estimate is based on
assumptions about human response to a particular chemical rather than human
data. Information that human exposure estimates are based on the subjects'
presence in the vicinity of a chemical accident rather than tissue measurements
defines known and unknown aspects of the exposure component of the study.
Qualitative descriptions of this kind provide crucial information that augments
understanding of numerical risk estimates. Uncertainties such as these are expected
in scientific studies and in any risk assessment based on these studies. Such
-------
uncertainties do not reduce the validity of the assessment. Rather, they should be
highlighted along with other important risk assessment conclusions to inform
others fully on the results of the assessment.
In many cases, assessors must choose among available data, models, or assumptions
in estimating risks. Examining the impact of selected, plausible alternatives on the
conclusions of the assessment is an important part of the uncertainty discussion.
The key words are "selected" and "plausible;" listing all alternatives to a particular
assumption, regardless of their merits would be superfluous. Generators of the
assessment, using best professional judgment, should outline the strengths and
weaknesses of the plausible alternative approaches.1
An adequate description of the process of alternatives selection involves several
aspects.
a. A rationale for the choice.
b. Discussion of the effects of alternatives selected on the assessment
c. Comparison with other plausible alternatives, where appropriate.
The degree to which variability and uncertainty are addressed depends largely on
the scope of the assessment and the resources available. For example, the Agency
does not expect an assessment to evaluate and assess every conceivable exposure
scenario for every possible pollutant, to examine all susceptible populations
potentially at risk, or to characterize every possible environmental scenario to
estimate the cause and effect relationships between exposure to pollutants and
adverse health effects. Rather, the discussion of uncertainty and variability should
reflect the type and complexity of the risk assessment, with the level of effort for
analysis and discussion of uncertainty corresponding to the level of effort for the
assessment.
3. Well-balanced risk characterizations present risk conclusions and information
regarding the strengths and limitations of the assessment for other risk
assessors, EPA decision-makers, and the public.
The risk assessment process calls for identifying and highlighting significant risk
conclusions and related uncertainties partly to assure full communication among
risk assessors and partly to assure that decision-makers are fully informed. Issues
are identified by acknowledging noteworthy qualitative and quantitative factors that
make a difference in the overall assessment of hazard and risk, and hence in the
ultimate regulatory decision. The key word is "noteworthy." Information that
*In cases where risk assessments within an Agency program routinely address similar sets of
alternatives, program guidance may be developed to streamline and simplify the discussion of these
alternatives.
10
-------
significantly influences the analysis is explicitly noted - in all future presentations
of the risk assessment and in the related decision. Uncertainties and assumptions
that strongly influence confidence in the risk estimate also require special attention.
Numerical estimates should not be separated from the descriptive information that
is integral to risk characterization. Documents and presentations supporting
regulatory or site-specific decisions should include both the numerical estimate and
descriptive information; in short reports, this information can be abbreviated. Fully
visible information assures that important features of the assessment are
immediately available at each level of review for evaluating whether risks are
acceptable or unreasonable.
11
-------
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT AND RISK DESCRIPTORS
A. Presentation of Risk Descriptors
The results of a risk assessment are usually communicated to the risk manager in
the risk characterization portion of the assessment. This communication is often
accomplished through risk descriptors which convey information and answer
questions about risk, each descriptor providing different information and insights.
Exposure assessment plays a key role in developing these risk descriptors since each
descriptor is based in part on the exposure distribution within the population of
interest.
The following guidance outlines the different descriptors in a convenient order that
should not be construed as a hierarchy of importance. These descriptors should be
used to describe risk in a variety of ways for a given assessment, consistent with the
assessment's purpose, the data available, and the information the risk manager
needs. Use of a range of descriptors instead of a single descriptor enables Agency
programs to present a picture of risk that corresponds to the range of different
exposure conditions encountered for most environmental chemicals. This analysis,
in turn, allows risk managers to identify populations at greater and lesser risk and to
shape regulatory solutions accordingly.
Agency risk assessments will be expected to address or provide descriptions of (1)
individual risk that include the central tendency and high end portions of the risk
distribution, (2) population risk, and (3) important subgroups of the population,
such as highly exposed or highly susceptible groups. Assessors may also use
additional descriptors of risk as needed when these add to the clarity of the
presentation. With the exception of assessments where particular descriptors clearly
do not apply, some form of these three types of descriptors should be routinely
developed and presented for Agency risk assessments*. In other cases, where a
descriptor would be relevant, but the program lades the data or methods to develop
it, the program office should design and implement a plan, in coordination with
other EPA offices, to meet these assessment needs. While gaps continue to exist,
risk assessors should make their best efforts to address each risk descriptor, and at a
minimum, should briefly discuss the lack of data or methods. Finally, presenters of
risk assessment information should be prepared to routinely answer questions by
risk managers concerning these descriptors.
It is essential that presenters not only communicate the results of the assessment by
addressing each of the descriptors where appropriate, but that they also
ZProgram-specific guidance will need to address these situations. For example, for site-spean'c
assessments, the utility and appropriateness of population risk estimates will be determined based on
the available data and program guidartee.
12
-------
communicate their confidence that these results portray a reasonable picture of the
actual or projected exposures. This task will usually be accomplished by frankly
commenting on the key assumptions and parameters that have the greatest impact
on the results, the basis or rationale for choosing these assumptions/parameters,
and the consequences of choosing other assumptions.
B. Relationship Between Exposure Descriptors and Risk Descriptors
In the risk assessment process, risk is estimated as a function of exposure, with the
risk of adverse affects increasing as exposure increases. Information on the levels of
exposure experienced by different members of the population is key to
understanding the range of risks that may occur.. Risk assessors and risk managers
should keep in mind, however, that exposure is not synonymous with risk.
Differences among individuals in absorption rates, susceptibility, or other factors
mean that individuals, with the same level of exposure may be at different levels of
risk. In most cases, the state of the science is not yet adequate to define distributions
of factors such as population susceptibility. The guidance principles below discuss a
variety of risk descriptors that primarily reflect differences in estimated exposure. If
a full description of the range of susceptibility in the population cannot be
presented, an effort should be made to identify subgroups that, for various reasons,
may be particularly susceptible.
C Guiding Principles
1. Information about the distribution of individual exposures is important to
communicating the results of a risk assessment
The risk manager is generally interested in answers to questions such as the
following:
• Who are the people at the highest risk?
• What risk levels are they subjected to?
• What are they doing, where do they live, etc., that might be putting them at this
higher risk?
• What is the average risk for individuals in the population of interest?
Individual exposure and risk descriptors are intended to provide answers to these
questions so as to illuminate the risk management decisions that need to be made.
In order to describe the range of risks, both high end and central tendency
13
-------
descriptors are used to convey the variability in risk levels experienced by different
individuals in the population.
a. High end descriptor
For the Agency's purposes, high end risk descriptors are plausible estimates of the
individual risk for those persons at the upper end of the risk distribution. Given
limitations in current understanding of variability in individuals' sensitivity to
toxins, high end descriptors will usually address high end exposure or dose (herein
referred to as exposure for brevity). The intent of these descriptors is to convey
estimates of exposure in the upper range of the distribution, but to avoid estimates
which are beyond the true distribution. Conceptually, high end exposure means
exposure above about the 90th percentile of the population distribution, but not
higher than the individual in the population who has the highest exposure. When
large populations are assessed, a large number of individuals may be included
within the "high end" (e.g., above 90th or 95th percentile) and information on the
range of exposures received by these individuals should be presented.
High end descriptors are intended to estimate the exposures that are expected to
occur in small, but definable, "high end" segments of the subject population.3 The
individuals with these exposures may be members of a special population segment
or individuals in the general population who are highly exposed because of the
inherent stochastic nature of the factors which give rise to exposure. Where
differences in sensitivity can be identified within the population, high end estimates
addressing sensitive individuals or subgroups can be developed.
In those few cases in which the complete data on the population distributions of
exposures and doses are available, high end exposure or dose estimates can be
represented by reporting exposures or doses at a set of selected, percentiles of the
distributions, such as the 90th, 95th, and 98th percentile. High end exposures or
doses, as appropriate, can then be used to calculate high end risk estimates.
In the majority of cases where the complete distributions are not available, several
methods help estimate a high end exposure or dose. If sufficient information about
the variability in chemical concentrations, activity patterns, or other factors are
available, the distribution may be estimated through the use of appropriate
modeling (e.g., Monte Carlo simulation or parametric statistical methods). The
3High end estimates focus on estimates of exposure in the exposed populations. Bounding
estimates, on the other hand, an constructed to be equal to or greater than the highest actual risk in
the population (or the highest risk that could be expected in a future scenario). A "worst case scenario"
refers to a combination of events and conditions such that, taken together, produces the highest
conceivable risk. Although it is possible that such an exposure, dose, or sensitivity combination might
occur in a given population of interest, the probability of an individual receiving this combination of
events and conditions is usually small, and often so small that such a combination will not occur in a
particular, actual population.
14
-------
determination of whether available information is sufficient to support the use of
probabilistic estimation methods requires careful review and documentation by the
risk assessor. If the input distributions are based on limited data, the resulting
distribution should be evaluated carefully to determine whether it is an
improvement over more traditional estimation techniques. If a distribution is
developed, it should be" described with a series of percentiles or population
frequency estimates, particularly in the high end range. The assessor and risk
manager should be aware, however, that unless a great deal is known about
exposures and doses at the high end of the distribution, these estimates will involve
considerable uncertainty which the exposure assessor will need to describe. Note
that in this context, the probabilistic analysis addresses variability of exposure in the
population. Probabilistic techniques may also be applied to evaluate uncertainty in
estimates (see section 5, below). However, it is generally inappropriate to combine
distributions reflecting both uncertainty and variability to get a single overall
distribution. Such a result is not readily interpretable for the concerns of
environmental decision-making.
If only limited information on the distribution of the exposure or dose factors is
available, the assessor should approach estimating the high end by identifying the
most sensitive variables and using high end values for a subset of these variables,
leaving others at their central values.* In doing this, the assessor needs to avoid
combinations of parameter values that are inconsistent (e.g., low body weight used
in combination with high dietary intake rates), and must keep in mind the ultimate
objective of being within the distribution of actual expected exposures and doses,
and not beyond it.
If very little data are available on the ranges for the various variables, it will be
difficult to estimate exposures or doses and associated risks in the high end with
much confidence. One method that has been used in such cases is to start with a
bounding estimate and "back off1 the limits used until the combination of
parameter values is, in the judgment of the assessor, within the distribution of
expected exposure, and still lies within the upper 10% of persons exposed.
Obviously, this method results in a large uncertainty and requires explanation.
b. Central tendency descriptor
Central tendency descriptors generally reflect central estimates of exposure or dose.
The descriptor addressing central tendency may be based on either the arithmetic
mean exposure (average estimate) or the median exposure (median estimate), either
4Maximizing ail variables will in virtually all cases result in an estimate that is above the
actual values seen in the population. When the principal parameters of the dose equation, e.g.,
concentration (appropriately integrated over time), intake rate, and duration, are broken out into sub-
components, it may be necessary to use maximum values for more than two of these sub-component
parameters, depending on a sensitivity analysis.
-------
of which should be clearly labeled. The average estimate, used to approximate the
arithmetic mean, can often be derived by using average values for all the exposure
factors.5 It does not necessarily represent a particular individual on the distribution.
Because of the skewness of typical exposure profiles, the arithmetic mean may differ
substantially from the median estimate (i.e., 50th percentile estimate, which is equal
to the geometric mean for a log normal distribution). The selection of which
descriptor(s) to present in the risk characterization will depend on the available data
and the goals of the assessment. When data are limited, it may not be possible to
construct true median or mean estimates, but it is still possible to construct
estimates of central tendency. The discussion of the use of probabilistic techniques
in Section l(a) above also applies to estimates of central tendency.
2. Information about population exposure leads to another important way to
describe risk.
Population risk refers to an assessment of the extent of harm for the population as a
whole. In theory, it can be calculated by summing the individual risks for all
individuals within the subject population. This task, of course, requires a great deal
more information than is normally, if ever, available.
The kinds of questions addressed by descriptors of population risk include the
following:
• How many cases of a particular health effect might be probabilistically estimated
in this population for a specific time period?
• For non-carcinogens, what portion of the population is within a specified range
of some reference level; e.g., exceedance of the RfD (a dose), the RfC (a
concentration), or other health concern level?
• For carcinogens, what portion of the population is above a certain risk level,
such as 10-«?
These questions can lead to two different descriptors of population risk.
a. Probabilistic number of cases
The first descriptor is the probabilistic number of health effect cases estimated in the
population of interest over a specified time period. This descriptor can be obtained
either by (a) summing the individual risks over all the individuals in the
population, e.g. using an estimated distribution of risk in the population, when
SThis holds true when variables are added (e.g., exposures by different routes) or when
independent variables are multiplied (e-g., concentration x intake). However, it would be incorrect for
products of correlated variables, variables used as divisors, or for formulas involving exponents.
16
-------
such information is available, or (b) through the use of a risk model that assumes a
linear non-threshold response to exposure, such as many carcinogenic models. In
these calculations, data will typically be available to address variability in individual
exposures. If risk varies linearly with exposure, multiplying the mean risk by the
population size produces an estimate of the number of cases.6 At the present time,
most cancer potency values represent plausible upper bounds on risk. When such a
value is used to estimate numbers of cancer cases, it is important to understand that
the result is also an upper bound. As with other risk descriptors, this approach may
not adequately address sensitive subgroups for which different dose-response curve
or exposure estimates might be needed.
Obviously, the more information one has, the more certain the estimate of this risk
descriptor, but inherent uncertainties in risk assessment methodology place
limitations on the accuracy of the estimate. The discussion of uncertainty involved
in estimating the number of cases should indicate that this descriptor is not to be
confused with an actuarial prediction of cases in the population (which is a
statistical prediction based on a great deal of empirical data).
In general, it should be recognized that when small populations are exposed,
population risk estimates may be very small. For example, if 100 people are exposed
to an individual lifetime cancer risk of 10-*, the expected number of cases is 0.01. In
such situations, individual risk estimates will usually be a more meaningful
parameter for decision-makers.
b. Estimated percentage of population with risk greater than some level
For non-cancer effects, we generally have not developed the risk assessment
techniques to the point of knowing how to add risk probabilities, so a second
descriptor is usually more appropriate: An estimate of the percentage of the
population, or the number of persons, above a specified level of risk or within a
specified range of some reference level, e.g., exceed ance of the RfD or the RfC,
LOAEL, or other specific level of interest. This descriptor must be obtained through
measuring or simulating the population distribution.
3. 'Information about the distribution of exposure and risk for different subgroups
of the population are important components of a risk assessment
A risk manager might also ask questions about the distribution of the risk burden
among various segments of the subject population such as the following: How do
exposure and risk impact various subgroups?; and, what is the population risk of a
^However, certain important cautions apply (see EPA's Exposure Assessment Guidelines). Abo,
this is not appropriate for non-carcinogenic effects or for other types of cancer models. For non-linear
cancer models, an estimate of population risk must be calculated using the distribution of individual
risks.
17
-------
particular subgroup? Questions about the distribution of exposure and risk among
such population segments require additional risk descriptors.
a. Highly exposed
Highly exposed subgroups can be identified, and where possible, characterized and
the magnitude of risk quantified. This descriptor is useful when there is (or is
expected to be) a subgroup experiencing significantly different exposures or doses
from that of the larger population. These sub-populations may be identified by age,
sex, lifestyle, economic factors, or other demographic variables. For example,.
toddlers who play in contaminated soil and high fish consumers represent sub-
populations that may have greater exposures to certain agents.
b. Highly susceptible
Highly susceptible subgroups can also be identified, and if possible, characterized and
the magnitude of risk quantified. This descriptor is useful when the sensitivity or
susceptibility to the effect for specific subgroups is (or is expected to be) significantly
different from that of the larger population. In order to calculate risk for these
subgroups, it will sometimes be necessary to use a different dose-response
relationship; e.g., upon exposure to a chemical, pregnant women, elderly people,
children, and people with certain illnesses may each be more sensitive than the
population as a whole. For example, children are thought to be both highly exposed
and highly susceptible to the effects of environmental lead. A model has been
developed that uses data on lead concentrations in different environmental media
to predict the resulting blood lead levels in children. Federal agencies are working
together to develop specific guidance on blood lead levels that present risks to
children.
It is important to note, however, that the Agency's current methodologies for
developing reference doses and reference concentrations (RfDs and RfCs) are
designed to protect sensitive populations. If data on sensitive human populations.
are available (and there is confidence in the quality of the data), then the RfD is set at
the dose level at which no adverse effects are observed in the sensitive population
(e.g., RfDs for fluoride and nitrate). If no such data are available (for example, if. the
RfD is developed using data from humans of average or unknown sensitivity) then
an additional 10-fold factor is used to account for variability between the average
human response and the response of more sensitive individuals.
Generally, selection of the population segments is a matter of either a priori interest
in the subgroup (e.g., environmental justice considerations)/ in which case the risk
assessor and risk manager can jointly agree on which subgroups to highlight, or a
matter of discovery of a sensitive or highly exposed subgroup during the assessment
18
-------
process. In either case, once identified, the subgroup can be treated as a population
in itself, and characterized in the same way as the larger population using the
descriptors for population and individual risk.
4. Situation-specific information adds perspective on possible future events or
regulatory options-.
"What if...?" questions can be used to examine candidate risk management options.
For example, consider the following:
• What if a pesticide applicator applies this pesticide without using protective
equipment?
• What if this site becomes residential in the future?
• What risk level will occur if we set the standard at 100 ppb?
Answering these "What if...?" questions involves a calculation of risk based on
specific combinations of factors postulated within the assessment7. The answers to
these "What if...?" questions do not, by themselves, give information about how
likely the combination of values might be in the actual population or about how
many (if any) persons might be subjected to the potential future risk. However,
information on the likelihood of the postulated scenario would also be desirable to
include in the assessment.
When addressing projected changes for a population (either expected future
developments or consideration of different regulatory options)/ it is usually
appropriate to calculate and consider all the risk descriptors discussed above. When
central tendency or high end estimates are developed for a future scenario, these
descriptors should reflect reasonable expectations about future activities. For
example, in site-specific risk assessments, future scenarios should be evaluated
when they are supported by realistic forecasts of future land use, and the risk
descriptors should be developed within that context
5. An evaluation of the uncertainty in the risk descriptors is an important
component of the uncertainty discussion in the assessment
Risk descriptors are intended to address variability of risk within the population and
the overall adverse impact on the population. In particular, differences between
high end and central tendency estimates reflect variability in the population, but not
the scientific uncertainty inherent in the risk estimates. As discussed above, there
7Some programs routinely develop future scenarios as part of developing a risk assessment.
Program-specific guidance may address future scenarios in more detail than they are described here.
19
-------
will be uncertainty in all estimates of risk. These uncertainties can include
measurement uncertainties, modeling uncertainties, and assumptions to fill data
gaps. Risk assessors should address the impact of each of these factors on the
confidence in the estimated risk values.
Both qualitative and quantitative evaluations of uncertainty provide useful
information to users of the assessment. The techniques of quantitative uncertainty
analysis are evolving rapidly and both the SAB (8) and the NRC (4) have urged the
Agency to incorporate these techniques into its risk analyses. However, it should be
noted that a probabilistic assessment that uses only the assessor's best estimates for
distributions of population variables addresses variability, but not uncertainty.
Uncertainties in the estimated risk distribution need to be separately evaluated.
20
-------
REFERENCES
1. National Research Council. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government:
Management the Process. 1983.
2. U.S. EPA. Risk Assessment and Management: Framework for Decision Making.
1984.
3. U.S. EPA. "Risk Assessment Guidelines." 51 Federal Register, 33992-34054,
September 24,1986.
4. National Research Council. Science and Judgement in Risk Assessment. 1994.
5. U.S. EPA "Guidelines for Exposure Assessment." 57 Federal Register, 22888-
22938, May 29,1992.
6. U.S. EPA. "Guidelines for Developmental Toxicity Risk Assessment." 56 Federal
Register, 67398-63826, December 5,1991.
7. U.S. EPA. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. 1992.
8. Loehr, R.A., and Matanoski, G.M., Letter to Carol M. Browner, EPA
Administrator, Re: Quantitative Uncertainty Analysis for Radiological
Assessments. EPA Science Advisory Board, July 23,1993 (EPA-SAB-RAC-COM-
9.3-006).
21
-------
Appendix F
MANAGING ECOLOGICAL RISKS AT
EPA; ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR PROGRESS
-------
ANALYSIS INFORMATION SHEET #2
(continued)
GIS - Vegetative Cover and Type
Upland Forest Community
< 5 acres
< 5 acres
Dense Mature Forest > 75% Canopy Cover
RegrowA Area < 55% Canopy cover
White Fine Monoodhve
(dashed border)
= DeMMfcd Area
< 5 acres
rock
outcropping
-------
ANALYSIS INFORMATION SHEET #2
- Anthropogenic Disturbances
Upland Forest Community
-------
ANALYSIS INFORMATION SHEET #2
(continued)
GIS - Source of Data for Vegetative Cover and Type
Privatety-Owrai Tuber
White Pine Monoculture
_/•
— X
A - 20 year old aerial photography
B - 12 year old aerial photography
C - Survey of vegetable communities of eastern half of DON'S Mt. National Forest - 2 year old aerial photography of entire eastern half of forest and
extensive verification through ground surveys.
D = Survey of trees in private white pine monoculture - five year otd aerial photography
------- |