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

-------