IF ?

k^i' Sl

OOOQ078

Ecological Risk:

A Primer for Risk Managers

Prepared for

The Agency Ecological Risk ManagementCommunication Group

This document was prepared by:

Office of Prevention. Pesticides and Toxic Substances

Ingrid Sunzenauer, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of PesticidePrograms

Mary Powell, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs

Candy Brassard, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of PesticidePrograms

Don Rodier, Risk Analysis Branch, Chemical Screening and Risk AssessmentDivision, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Lynne Blake-Hedges, Regulatory Impacts Branch, Economics, Exposure andTechnology Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Special thanks to Elizabeth Resek, Environmental Fate and Effects Division,Office of Pesticide Programs, for her time and effort in creating the front cover.

Office of Water

Suzanne Marcy, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Office of Science andTechnology

Office of Policy. Planning and Evaluation

Michael Brody, Science Policy Staff, Office of Regulatory Management andEvaluation

Office of Research and Development

Anne Sergeant, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Jeff Langholz, Toxics Integration Branch, Hazardous Site Evaluation Division, Officeof Emergency and Remedial Response (Superfund)

We travel together, passengers on a little spaceship, dependent on its vulnerablesupplies of air and soil; all committed for our safety to its security and peace,preserved from annihilation only by the care, the work, and I will say, the lovewe give our fragile craft.

Adlai E. Stevensonformer U.N. Ambassador

Table of Contents

1. An Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2. Why We Value Ecological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3. The Risk Manager's Role in Risk Assessment:Where Do You Fit In? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10The Need For Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10The Basic Elements of Problem Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Taking The First Step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

4. What to Protect: How Do You SelectAssessment Endpoints? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Selecting What To Protect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Past and Future Assessment Endpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5. How To Measure Value: Let's Talk Dollars and Sense . . . . . . . . . . 21

6. Risk Decision-making: How Do You Make Up Your Mind? . . . . . . 24

7. Communicating Risk: How Do You ExplainA Risk Management Decision to Others? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Tailor Risk Communication to Your Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Describe the Ecological Resources at Risk and

Communicate Their Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Describe the Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Discuss Options for Reducing Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Work With the Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

8. Conclusions: Where Do We Go From Here? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Suggested Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

The Agency Ecological Risk Management Communication Group . . . . . . 36

Ecological Risk: A Primer for Risk Managers

Chapter 1

An Introduction

The integrity of ecological resources is directly linked to humanwelfare. Over the last two decades, many have increasingly come to recognizethis link. As the Science Advisory Board stated (U.S. EPA, 1990), "Humanhealth and welfare ultimately rely upon the life support systems and naturalresources provided by healthy ecosystems."

Concern about the rapid changes and degradation of ecosystems led tothe first Earth Day in 1970 and formation of the EPA. This was followed bysignificant environmental legislation including the Endangered Species Act(ESA), Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Toxic Substances Control Act.

Initially, EPA focused most of its efforts on protecting human health(U.S. EPA, 1990). Although ecological impacts are now considered to agreater extent, human health remains a major focus. As a result of thishistorical emphasis, many risk managers have had more experience inincorporating human health concerns than ecological concerns into the riskdecision-making process. Also, different environmental statutes requiredifferent degrees of consideration of ecological risk.

Some risk managers in EPA have indicated that they would like toconsider ecological risk to a greater extent, but they do not understand the riskassessments they receive. They also indicated that the assessments can becomplicated and confusing. In contrast, others understand the assessments, buthave indicated that they do not always provide the information needed to makea decision (U.S. EPA, 1993a).

Specific questions that have been raised by risk managers throughoutEPA include:

• How are ecological resources valuable from an ecological, socialand economic point of view?

• What resources should be protected, and how should effects tothese resources be measured?

• How can risk managers and the public be more involved in therisk assessment process?

The answers to these questions add to an already complex decision-making process, in which a great deal of information and its associateduncertainties and limitations must be considered. Economic, political andsocial considerations often must be addressed, as well. Also, the EPA focus isshifting to a more holistic, ecosystem approach to ecological risk management(U.S. EPA, 1993b, 1993c, 1994a). All of these issues underscore the need forcomprehensive risk assessments to address the needs of the decision-makersmore definitively.

This document intends to help EPA risk managers use ecological riskassessments more effectively by providing some insights into the threequestions outlined above. The document is meant to be easy to read and toprovide a general context for ecological risk decision-making. It is not meantto replace the many other documents that are already available or underdevelopment, such as more technical and detailed risk-assessment guidance(see References and More Suggested Readings). Nor does the Primer addressplace-based management of risk to ecosystems; that may be the topic of afuture document.

Although this is an introductory document that contains a great deal ofbasic information, we hope that those with more experience in ecological riskmanagement will still gain from some of the ideas and suggestions that follow.This document will cover how to:

• consider the values of ecological resources (see chapters 2 and5);

• understand risk managers' involvement in the risk assessmentprocess and determine what resources should be protected (seechapters 3 and 4); and

• use a risk assessment for risk decision-making, communicatethat risk to others, and listen to the public to understand theirviews (see chapters 6 and 7).

Chapter 2

Why We Value Ecological Resources

On May 7, 1984, 700 brant geese were found dead on a golf course onLong Island, New York. They had been poisoned by a pesticide known asdiazinon.

EPA began investigating other wildlife kills attributed to diazinon.Through the efforts of the New York Department of EnvironmentalConservation, the agency received 51 more reports of bird kills on turf in 15states and one Canadian province. The numbers of dead birds in the reportsranged from one goose to about 800 to 1,000 wigeons. Twenty of theincidents occurred mainly or entirely on golf courses; the remainder occurredmainly or entirely on other turf sites.

Following investigations, EPA concluded that the risk to birds fromdiazinon use outweighed its benefits to golf courses and sod farms. In March1988, EPA canceled the use of diazinon on those two sites.

The agency's decision on diazinon marks a victory for preserving theintrinsic value of an ecological resource — the various species of birds.Indeed, the U.S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit determined in its decision thatthe agency "had discretion to find recurring bird kills to be unreasonableenvironmental risk" (Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. U.S. EPA, 1989).

Although it is often taken for granted, or sometimes not even thoughtabout at all, our lives depend on a healthy, functioning environment. Yetmany of the resources humans depend on for a healthy life have been, or arebeing, contaminated. For instance, many food sources today, such as fish,have become so laden with contaminants that advisories against theirconsumption are commonplace, where they once were rare.

These effects of chemicals on wildlife may serve as a harbinger ofpotential human health problems. Consider DOT: This and otherenvironmental estrogens act by interfering with estrogen production andfunction, and recent evidence indicates that environmental estrogens can causeadverse effects that may vary among species and chemical (Colborn et al.,1993; Fox, 1992; Guillette and Gross, 1994). Possible adverse effects onhumans from environmental estrogens mirror those found in other species, andinclude decreased male fertility and increased female reproductiveabnormalities (Hileman, 1994).

A balanced ecosystem is a diverse environment, yet the biodiversity onearth is rapidly decreasing. Humanity co-evolved with the rest of life, so it isimprudent to suppose that biodiversity can be diminished indefinitely withoutthreatening humanity itself. No one can fail to appreciate the contributions ofvarious plants and animals to such human necessities as medicine andagriculture. We derive more than 120 prescription medicines from plants, andmore than a third of these come from rain forests (Harms, 1994). Most of our"miracle drugs," like antibiotics, originated from plants and fungi. Forexample, Taxol, derived from the Pacific yew tree, has cancer-fightingqualities. Modern agriculture still depends on native plants for geneticmaterial to maintain and improve food supplies. For instance, a perennial wildrelative of maize can be bred with agricultural hybrids to instill diseaseresistance and climate tolerance (Wilson, 1992). Yet in spite of tremendousstrides in knowledge about ecosystem function and structure, much remains tobe learned, such as the role of various species, both prominent andnondescript, on the planet.

Population biologists Paul and Anne Erlich liken the need to maintainbiodiversity to the rivets on an airplane: Each rivet plays a small butsignificant role in the workings of the entire plane. "The loss of each rivetweakens the plane by a small but noticeable amount until it loses airworthinessand crashes" (Erlich, 1981).

In addition to humans'physiological dependence ona healthy environment, thereis an appreciation of theplanet's ecological resourcesthat is evinced by recreationalvalues including fishing,hunting, bird watching,nature study, hiking andswimming. These activitiesboth enhance the quality ofhuman life and promote astrong economy throughtourism and recreation.More and more vacations are planned around natural areas such as parks andwaterside properties. Ecotourism to our national parks and other uniqueecological habitats, such as visiting the Galapagos Islands to observe manyspecies not found in other parts of the world, has grown significantly over thelast decade. One way in which EPA improved the aesthetic quality of ournatural resources was by requiring the installation of scrubbers in the NavajoGenerating Station, Arizona, to improve visibility at the Grand Canyon.

Gauging the Valuesof Ecological Resources

In managing ecological risk, considerthe effects of actions on:

biodiversityecosystemsrecreation or cultureaestheticshuman life support

In recent decades, environmental concerns have driven decisions andpolicies that led to notable successes in addressing ecological risks. Whereonce there was rote spraying of pesticides, there now is increased publicawareness of their hazards. The use of integrated pest management, includingincreased reliance on non-chemical pest control strategies, is increasing.Where once there was unabated pollution of rivers, technology and regulationshave begun to ameliorate past mistakes. Tremendous strides have been made,but the trend needs to be continued. Chapter 3 examines your role, as an EPAdecision-maker, in that continuation.

Chapter 3

The Risk Manager's Role in Risk Assessment: Where Do You Fit In?

To obtain the answers you need from a risk assessment, you have totake part in its design. Although risk management and risk assessment usuallyare considered separate and distinct activities, they were never intended to bemutually exclusive activities devoid of any interaction or communicationwhatsoever (National Research Council, 1983). The two activities wereseparated to prevent political and special-interest pressures from interferingwith EPA's scientific analyses and conclusions.

The need for interaction between risk assessors and risk managersbecame even more apparent when peer reviewers for the agency's FrameworkFor Ecological Risk Assessment repeatedly stressed the importance of an activedialogue between risk assessors and risk managers (U.S. EPA, 1992a), as wellas the public. The result was the creation of a formal step in the ecologicalrisk assessment process known as problem formulation. Problem formulationis a systematic planning exercise that involves the risk assessor and riskmanager. It precedes the analysis and risk characterization phases, whichgenerally are the responsibility of the risk assessor.

A. The Need For Planning

The potential complexities of an ecological risk assessment demandcareful planning for its design. Many of the complexities differ from those ofhuman health assessments, and include deciding what species, ecosystems orfunctions to protect; species interactions and indirect effects; the significanceof non-chemical stressors; and legal considerations.

Ecological risk assessments often evaluate effects to more than onespecies and level of ecological organization. Often a given stressor, such as achemical, may affect a species not only directly (for example, by mortality),but may affect it in subtle ways, such as reducing its food supply or alteringits habitat. For example, large-scale mortality of earthworms induced bypesticides can devastate birds that depend on those earthworms for food. Thetiming of those kills (such as during the bird breeding season) is also critical.These indirect effects often are far more insidious and important than directeffects, but neither direct nor indirect effects are easily quantifiable.

Risk assessments in EPA have largely been concerned with chemicalstressors. Especially as the agency's focus changes toward ecosystemmanagement, there is a growing awareness that more attention has to be paidto non-chemical stressors such as habitat alteration, global climate change, and

10

bioengineered and introduced organisms. Assessing non-chemical stressorsmay require a different approach than the traditional risk paradigm used forchemical stressors. The temporal and spatial scales may also differtremendously from those for chemical stressors. In addition, chemical andnon-chemical stressors may act in concert when both are present.

Legal considerations vary among EPA programs and must be addressedin risk management questions. Both the qualitative and quantitative values ofour ecological resources are reflected in the myriad statutes and executiveorders that require EPA to protect those resources. Some of thoserequirements are more stringent than others. For instance, in many cases,water-quality criteria to protect aquatic life are more stringent than drinkingwater standards designed to protect human health. Some statutes, such as theESA, mandate direct responsibilities to EPA, even though we are not theprimary agency for implementing the statutes.

All of this brings us back to the need for careful planning. Problemformulation provides a means for developing a logical and sequential approachto solving a complex problem. It is the time for you, the risk assessor and thepublic to identify the issues that are germane to a particular stressor anddevelop a plan to assess its risk. Problem formulation also is the time foridentifying the appropriate methodologies for assessing the identified concerns.

B. The Basic Elements of Problem Formulation

Problem formulation includes several critical steps. One of the mostimportant is identifying and selecting assessment endpoints and measurementendpoints (see chapter 4). Suter (1993) defined effective assessment endpointsas those that identify "the valued attributes of the environment that areconsidered to be at risk." Although discussions continue about the appropriatemeaning of "value" in this definition, it is interpreted to mean that the focus ofa risk assessment should be on ecological resources that are valuable becausethey are protected by law; because they provide critical resources; or becausetheir alteration has impaired, or would significantly impair, ecosystemfunction. The measurement endpoint is a measurable ecological characteristicor some response that is related to, and lets you learn about, the assessmentendpoint (U.S. EPA, 1992b). Ideally, these endpoints are the same; but often,adverse effects on assessment endpoints cannot be measured directly. Forexample, if the value of concern is maintaining a sport fish population within20 percent of a 20-year average, the assessment endpoint may be estimatedwhen the fish population can be measured directly and changes in populationmay be directly related to the stressor of concern. However, it may be verydifficult to measure fish populations (such as anadromous fish) directly. Whenthis is the case, individual response to a stressor may serve as the

11

measurement endpoint. Population effects may then be inferred using a modelor expert judgment.

In addition to identifying assessment and measurement endpoints,problem formulation allows you and the risk assessor to develop a plan on howto assess the ecological risks of a certain stressor. Important components ofthe plan include identifying methods for the analysis phase and determininghow to conduct the risk characterization. Another important component isestablishing the need for public involvement in the risk assessment process.Public involvement is the key to ensuring that the risks assessed areunderstood and valued by the community and that effective risk communicationoccurs between the agency and the public (see chapter 7).

C. Taking The First Step

As interactive partners in problem formulation, you, the risk assessorand the public should:

Understand what to protect and what to protect it from. Theultimate goal of ecological risk management is to protect a resource. Youneed to agree on assessment endpoints, and understand the relationshipbetween these and the measurement endpoints. Be familiar with relevantprogram statutes and policies, and be able to ascertain if the assessmentendpoints are compatible with them. If indirect effects (for example, effectson food, habitat or interacting organisms) are to be assessed, make sure youunderstand the implications of both those effects and the methods that will beused to evaluate them.

Agree on the scope of the assessment. Risk assessments can vary incomplexity from simple, screening-level, short-term ones to complex, long-term ones. The process can identify existing risks or forecast the risks ofstressors not yet present in the environment. An example of a simpleassessment is the quotient-type assessment done for 1,800 new chemicalsubmissions a year in EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and ToxicSubstances (OPPTS). In those, the ecological risk assessment of a chemicalconsists of comparing its predicted concentrations in an aquatic environmentwith its predicted toxicity values in that environment. A resulting quotient of1 or more may trigger some regulatory decision, such as requiring further testsor imposing use restrictions to reduce or eliminate exposure. An example of acomplex assessment is EPA's nine-year effort to evaluate the risks ofcontamination in Commencement Bay, Washington. That assessment entailedextensive monitoring of the affected areas and biota, and analysis of thefeasibility of clean-up options. The risk assessment involved other federalagencies and state and local governments.

12

Even with screening-level analyses, the riskassessment process is ofteniterative; that is, a risk maybe identified using minimaldata and perhaps conservativeassumptions. This level ofanalysis may prompt the needfor additional data andanother risk assessment.Depending on the quality andquantity of informationavailable, additional iterationsmay be necessary. But first,you and the risk assessormust agree on the initialscope of the assessment,recognizing that additionalanalyses may be necessary.

Consider thelimitations of the riskassessment. Despite theconsiderable uncertaintyinherent in them, cancer riskassessments are oftenpresented as being veryprecise and may have set aninappropriate precedent.Although ecological riskassessments can be highlyquantitative, the relationshipof measurement endpoints toassessment endpoints may notbe. Regulatory action mayhave to be based onmeasurement endpoints, noton assessment endpoints.The risk assessor should clearly articulate the limitations and uncertainties of aparticular assessment. This is true regardless of the simplicity or complexityof the proposed assessment.

At a minimum, you should receive from the risk assessor the followinginformation about a particular methodology: past regulatory use; assumptions

Some Questions All EPARisk Managers Should Ask

Has anyone previously examinedthis or a related issue?

What parts of the ecosystem maybe vulnerable^ •:": i:: •.;.:' • - j;;'; '• ? <;^ m f;:;';: 10

: What are the assessment andmeasurement ctulpoints, and how

' are they related?\'•; f-'• :::-f H:I;|:|ii|fI

How long will the assessmenttake?

What scientific disciplines, EPAoffices or other federal agenciesneed to be involved?

Is there a need for publicinvolvement?

What are the uncertainties in theassessment?

What is the significance of thepredicted effects to ecosystems,populations or humans?

Will the risk assessment supportthe comparison of risk mitigationoptions?

Is there a need for monitoring?

13

that will be used, such as those about natural mortality and birth rates whenactual data are not available; other data gaps; the peer review status of themethodology; and its hardware, software and personnel requirements.

Plan to have the risk assessment be compatible with the risk/benefitor risk mitigation analyses. Traditionally, risk/benefit analyses have weighedthe risks of a particular stressor against its benefits to some portion of society.As discussed in chapter 2, there is an increasing awareness of the importanceof ecological resources that may be affected by stressors. In most EPAprograms, economic analyses can play an important role in weighing the risksand benefits of stressors on a given resource; therefore, economic analysesshould be compatible with the assessment and measurement endpoints.Likewise, an evaluation of risk mitigation options may require that themeasurement endpoints, or even the format of the risk assessment report, becompatible with the yardsticks that would be used to evaluate risk mitigationoptions. The risk assessor must understand the problem and ascertain how theresults of anticipated economic or risk mitigation analyses will complement theecological risk assessments about to be conducted.

Recognize the connection between human health and ecologicalissues. For expediency, EPA programs typically have been organized to focuson human health or ecological assessment. Keep in mind that the relationshipbetween the well-being of humans and the environment is a closely knit one.The well-documented incidence of methyl mercury poisoning of biota andhumans in Minamata Bay, Japan is an example. In the early 1950s, fish killsand neurotoxic effects were observed in birds and cats before symptoms ofmethyl mercury poisoning appeared in the human residents of Minamata.

No single program in EPA can provide complete protection from allstressors. However, our legislative mandates require consideration of bothhuman and environmental health; therefore, you must give appropriate weightand attention to both. Consult with the human-health risk assessors. Manytimes there is significant overlap between data needs, and a little up-frontplanning can ensure that the data collected are suitable for assessing risk toboth the environment and human health.

Now, how do you determine what to protect in a risk assessment?

14

Chapter 4

What to Protect: How Do You Select Assessment Endpoints?

As a risk manager, one of your principal decisions in an ecological riskassessment concerns which ecological resources to protect. Often, in seekingto protect ecosystems, the focus must become a particularly vulnerablecomponent of that system, say, an endangered species or a body of water.The choice of components is vast, and may be different in each riskassessment. This choice can make deciding what to protect difficult, but it iscritical for effective use of ecological risk assessments in risk managementdecision-making. During problem formulation, your input in selecting what toprotect is essential.

A. Selecting What To Protect

The ecological resources you select to protect become the assessmentendpoints that drive ecological risk assessments. EPA (1992b) identified threeprincipal criteria to consider when selecting assessment endpoints:

• ecological relevance,

• susceptibility to the stressor, and

• societal values and policy goals.

Assessment endpoints that meet all three criteria provide the best foundationfor an effective risk assessment (see the box on salmon and hydropower).

Ecological relevance. Ecological relevance refers to whether resourceshelp sustain the natural structure and function of an ecological system. Speciesare considered ecologically relevant when they provide a significant food base,maintain community structure, provide shelter for other species, promoteregeneration of critical resources, or serve some other important function inthe ecosystem. Species that clearly influence these ecological characteristicsare good assessment endpoints.

Ecological relevance becomes most important when risk assessors areidentifying the potential cascade of adverse effects that could result from theloss or reduction of one or more species. A strong understanding of theecosystem potentially at risk is therefore essential and must influenceassessment endpoint selection.

15

Salmon and HydropowenSelecting Endpoints that Work

oceans; due in part to a loss of spawningareas; in freshwater streams and rivers

Susceptibility to thestressor. Ecological riskassessment requires a broadinterpretation ofsusceptibility. Ecologicalresources are only consideredsusceptible to a human-induced stressor when theyare sensitive to a stressor towhich they, or some of theirresources, are exposed.

Sensitivity refers tothe likelihood that oneindividual or species may bemore or less affected by aparticular stressor thananother. The hazardidentification processrepresents measures ofsensitivity to toxic chemicals.Sensitivity includes endpointssuch as mortality or adversereproductive effects fromexposure to toxics. It canalso include behavioralabnormalities, avoidance ofsignificant food sources ornesting sites, or loss ofoffspring to predation becauseof the proximity of stressorssuch as noise, habitatalteration or loss, communitystructural changes, or other factors

Exposure is the other major variable in susceptibility. The proximityof an ecological resource to the stressor and the frequency and duration ofexposure must be considered. If a species is unlikely to be exposed to thestressor of concern, that species is not an appropriate assessment endpoint.

Proximity in space can mean co-occurrence, contact, or the absence ofcontact, depending on the stressor and assessment endpoint. For example, ahighway through a wetland may be enough to drive off roosting birds becausethe birds are disturbed by traffic noise and headlights. Direct contact with the

hydroelectric dam to be built on a rivercontaining salmon spawning areas,salmon r^iijtfi:^^appropriate asses^entlndjk^it meets the three principal criteria forselecting" effective assessment endpoints. Young and adult salrton re()reis<jnt ; - 1 •; :; ' \important food sources for a multitudeof aquatic anil ' jSr^l^(ecological relevance). |sensitive to changes mand substrate pebble size and havedifficulty climbing fisji iijl^jj^^l-y^Hydroelectric dams representsignificant, and normally fatal, obstaclesto breeding salmon (susceptibility).Finally, salmon support a J |lcommercial fishery, some species areendangered, and they have ceremonialimportance and are key food sources forNative Americans (societal value),

16

Tlie Mussel-Fish Connection

Freshwater raussdsendangered in many streams.^j^^^'""'''"''"''^-'-———maintainin;

are

due to stressori to wIf

of now we managerswiU be lost from this

highway is not required; thus,co-occurrence is sufficient tocause adverse effects. Thepresence of degraded habitatscan also be translated intoexposure to unsuitablefeeding, resting or breedinghabitat. The spatial extent ofthese conditions is key tounderstanding the potentialrisk of habitat changes toassessment endpoints.

Finally, susceptibilitymay increase or decrease as aresult of an interactionbetween sensitivity andexposure. For example, onelife stage of an organism maybe more sensitive to astressor than others:Exposure to a stressor duringegg development or adultreproduction may increaseadverse effects becausesensitivity is greater in theselife stages. These interactions can become more complex when both directand indirect effects are considered. For example, a sensitive life stage of atarget species can be adversely affected by the loss of or change in anotherspecies that is susceptible to a particular stressor (see The Mussel-FishConnection).

Societal values and polky goals. Risk managers generally hesitate toprotect organisms that people do not understand or care about, especially sinceprotection often comes at a cost to society. Therefore, risk assessments aremore likely to support risk management decisions if assessment endpointsreflect public concerns. Such assessment endpoints might include the loss ofan endangered species; reproductive potential of a species important forcommerce or recreation; functional attributes that support food sources orflood control, such as wetlands; and aesthetic values, such as clear air innational parks, the existence of charismatic species like eagles or whales, orrare examples of ecosystem types such as national parks, wilderness orremnants of habitat types.

17

Resources of ecological relevance often are not considered valuablebecause humans are indifferent to them or find them annoying. Midges, forexample, are considered pests, but can represent the base of a complex foodweb mat supports a popular sports fishery. In this case, it would be better tochoose the fishery as the basis for a risk assessment (assessment endpoint) andselect midges as a critical ecological component to measure (measurementendpoint).

Once you haveselected an assessmentendpoint, it must be clearlydefined. Assessmentendpoints can be too broad,vague or narrow, or can beinappropriate for theecosystem requiringprotection (see box).

You can take anumber of steps to includethese goals and values inselecting your assessmentendpoints. Work closelywith the risk assessors duringproblem formulation.Determine what protection ofecological resources isrequired by federal law, andstate and local regulations.Evaluate and select endpointsyou can defend in support ofyour decisions. Whereappropriate, this is also thetime to consider incorporating public concerns. Evaluate the socio-economicstatus of the local people, determine their interests in the ecological resources,and examine their economic interests. Public meetings during this initial phasecan be very useful in getting the public involved, elucidating local concerns,and gaining support for the risk assessment process.

B. Past and Future Assessment Endpoints

EPA has used a variety of endpoints to make risk managementdecisions in the past and is now considering others that reflect new mandatesand program emphases. To determine the range of currently accepted

Common Attributes of InappropriateAssessment Endpoints

• Endpoint is too vague (e.g.,ecosystem integrity)

• Ecological resource is better as ameasurement endpoint (fcgv,midges) V ; : : : : ' " ; - ; . : V . ' J : : ! : - : : - - - ' " : '

• Ecological resource is notexposed to the stressor

• Ecological resource is irrelevant,or not directly related, to theassessment (e.g., effects on othergame fish in an at-risk salmonstream)

Life history requirementsinsufficiently considered Smussel-fish connection)

18

assessment endpoints, the agency reviewed those it has used in riskmanagement decisions (U.S. EPA, 1994b). Categories of endpoints that wereidentified include groups of individuals, local populations, multiple species andhabitats/ecosystems. Threatened and endangered species encompass a specialcategory not considered here because of the clear legal mandate for protection.

Groups of individuals. EPA has not regulated against adverse effectsto individual non-human organisms, except for threatened and endangeredspecies, and no quantitative threshold for an unreasonable number of adverselyaffected individuals has been used in EPA. However, EPA has used adverseeffects on groups of individuals exposed to chemical stressors (such as bird orfish kills). One well-documented case in EPA's Office of Pesticide Programsis the cancellation of the use of diazinon discussed in chapter 2.

Local populations. To date, when population analyses are used atEPA, they focus on declines or extinctions of local aquatic populations atparticular sites, rather than on formal population-effect modeling. EPAtypically has not considered dynamic population parameters such as birth,death, and emigration or immigration rates in evaluating risk. Because of thelimited available information, the effort required to characterize causal andtemporal trends among stressors and populations has been expensive and time-consuming.

Multiple species. Some EPA programs consider adverse effects onmultiple species. The most common such endpoints are aquatic life waterquality criteria (AWQC). These are developed by testing the sensitivity of anarray of different species to a specific chemical. The use of AWQC impliesthat 95 percent of the species in a natural community would be protected ifambient waters meet an acute criterion. The assessment endpoint is theintegrity of the aquatic community, and the AWQC are threshold values basedon toxicity testing. Species interactions are not considered in these criteria.In addition, the validity of an assumption that protecting the most sensitivespecies will protect a community or ecosystem is the subject of scientificdebate.

Habitats/ecosystems. This category of assessment endpoints representsconcerns about an entire ecosystem and its values, rather than a particularspecies. EPA generally has not considered interactions among animal andplant communities and their abiotic environment (ecosystems); however, EPAhas focused on protecting specific habitats such as wetlands, riparian areas,estuaries and large geographic areas such as the Chesapeake Bay and GreatLakes.

19

Assessment endpoints that reflect the dynamic nature of populations,communities and ecosystems would add greater depth and insight to ecologicalrisk assessments in EPA. These assessment endpoints are not widely usednow because analyses of population and ecosystem dynamics requireinformation about natural systems. Such analyses can be resource-intensiveand difficult to model. However, these assessment endpoints better representrisks to the ecological resources you are trying to protect and should beincorporated more into future risk assessments.

Endpoint selection is based, in part, on the societal value of theecological resources of concern. It may help to determine the economic valueof those resources. The following chapter describes some methods forcharacterizing the economic value of assessment endpoints.

20

Chapter 5

How To Measure Value: Let's Talk Dollars and Sense

Some statutes require consideration of the economic effects ofecological risk decision-making, and dollars offer a convenient unit in which tomeasure the value of the resources involved. Although various statutesconsider money in different ways, this chapter looks at some ways to measurethe value of ecological resources affected by a risk management decision.

Just as the limitations of a risk assessment must be considered in a risk-management decision, so must the limitations of an associated economicanalysis. Although numerous tools are available to express the value of certainecological resources monetarily, it is likely that, for a given case, a largeportion of the value may be represented only qualitatively. In such cases, itdoes not mean the values are any less relevant or significant than those thathave been monetized (assigned a dollar value). It could be that techniques ordata simply are not available that allow monetization.

A proposal by EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics to bancertain kinds of fishing sinkers demonstrates a qualitative analysis of thebenefits of risk reduction. Water birds ingest such sinkers and die from leadand zinc poisoning. The population impacts of such poisonings are not wellcharacterized, so the benefit analysis described the numbers of birds potentiallyaffected and the number of fishing sinkers potentially available in theenvironment. Because each sinker represents a potential death, the analysisalso compared risk management options for their ability to remove sinkers(potential deaths) from the environment. The analysis also provided evidenceof the monetary value of potentially affected birds, based on previouseconomic studies.

The most obvious way to measure the value of ecological resources indollars is by observing sales in the marketplace — quantities sold and prices,such as the cost per pound of commercially harvested shellfish. However, notall ecological resources are traded in markets, so other approaches tomeasuring their value are necessary. Occasionally, the replacement cost ofresources is used as a proxy for its market value. Two other approaches are:

• Indirect market approaches. These evaluate markets related tothe resource. For example, the travel cost method relates themonetary value of ecological resources (such as good waterquality and a healthy sport fishery) to the amount of moneypeople spend using that resource (such as traveling to a fishingsite, buying bait and paying boat fees). Another indirect market

21

approach, hedonics, uses information embedded in propertyvalues to determine the value of environmental attributes. Thismethod assumes that perceived differences in ecologicalattributes are factored into property prices.

• Constructed market approaches, such as contingent valuation.These approaches calculate monetary value by using hypotheticalmarket scenarios and asking people how much they would bewilling to pay for ecological resources.

These and other techniques for monetizing ecological resourcesgenerally have some anthropocentric focus. From this perspective, values areoften categorized as those that derive from human use, such as fishing andbird-watching, and those that are independent from whether the resource isused by humans, but still appreciated by them.

Values more difficult to associate with dollars include the value ofbiodiversity, which generally has less direct or obvious linkages to humanactivity than other types of values. Also, traditional economic methods formonetizing values generally do not effectively address ethical considerations,such as whether resources are worth more to future generations, and whetherdamage to ecological resources is long-term or irreversible. These issues andvalues of ecological resources that cannot be related to some human activityare often presented qualitatively. Some of the ways in which values can bemonetized follow.

Life support values of an ecosystem may be reflected in functions orservices that are difficult to measure directly in dollars. As indicated inChapter 2, these values might come from maintenance of habitats or geneticdiversity. If you can link these values to services that are readily acquaintedwith human activity, they may be more easily monetized. For example,damage to a fish nursery may ultimately show up in a decrement to sportfishing or commercial fisheries. In this case, travel cost techniques could beused to measure the monetary value of damages to the sport fishery. Changesin productivity of the commercial fishery could be measured in decreases inthe dollar value of the harvest. These measurements would not necessarilyrepresent the entire value of damages to the life support function of theecosystem, but they do capture a portion of it. The enjoyment of suchrecreational opportunities and the commercial harvest of fish depend onmaintaining the integrity of the ecosystem, but do not necessarily represent theentire value of preserving that ecosystem.

Monetizing the recreational, cultural and aesthetic values of ecologicalresources may all require different approaches. For instance, EPA identified

22

dioxin contamination of salmon as a contributor to the loss of spiritual healthin some Native American tribes that no longer could use the fish in religiousceremonies. To determine the monetary value of the cultural benefitsassociated with reducing dioxin contamination, EPA evaluated the monetaryvalue of previously negotiated packages used to compensate Native Americansfor limitations on tribal fishing rights. These values formed the basis for anestimate of monetized cultural values resulting from regulation.

Likewise, the Grand Canyon example mentioned in chapter 2exemplifies the measurement of the monetary value of aesthetics throughcontingent valuation. The use of scrubbers was expected to improve visibilityat the Grand Canyon. The worth of improved visibility was measured byasking people about their willingness to pay for it. Such surveys allowed thedirect comparison of the environmental benefits of installing scrubbers to thecost of the requirement.

To develop reasonable estimates for the value of ecological resources,ensure that where possible, risk assessments provide information that can beused in the development of economic analyses. This is necessary regardless ofthe approach taken in considering values. As noted in chapter 3, whenselecting endpoints for an ecological risk assessment, one characteristic toconsider is whether the endpoints assist in developing all phases of theassessment. An important aspect of this characteristic, but not the drivingfactor in endpoint selection, is the clarity with which the value of a resourcecan be described in the economic analysis (either qualitatively orquantitatively). If carefully designed, an economic analysis can provideinformation to help you interpret the likely economic effects of a riskmanagement decision. Regardless of whether a cost/benefit analysis isrequired, assessing the costs and benefits of options helps inform decision-makers and the public about one aspect of the effects of a risk managementdecision.

After all attempts to monetize values associated with endpoints aremade, the risk assessor should then describe qualitatively or with examples thetypes of additional values associated with those endpoints. Then, when allrelevant factors have been considered, it's time to make that risk managementdecision.

23

Chapter 6

Risk Decision-making: How Do You Make Up Your Mind?

This chapter is not so much about what to do. It is more about what toconsider in making ecological risk management decisions.

No risk assessment will ever be perfect or provide total certainty.Rather, your job is to weigh alternatives and exercise judgment in selecting thebest risk management option. This may include balancing many conflictingdemands, such as timeliness vs. certainty, short-term cost vs. ultimateeffectiveness, immediate response to satisfy the public vs. long-term cost orbenefit, and possibly some fear about making the wrong decision or aboutwhich business or environmental group may attack your decision.

Here are some things to keep in mind as you ponder the information atyour disposal.

Focus on endpoints. When interpreting a risk assessment, focus onthe assessment endpoints and their values. They are the foundation on whichdecisions are built.

Assessment endpoints should be supported by a clear explanation oftheir relationship to the site or situation being evaluated. Measurementendpoints should be clearly linked to assessment endpoints. If possible, thislinkage should be characterized quantitatively, although available data oftenpermit only a qualitative description. For example, in a case where game fishand fish-eating birds are the assessment endpoints and toxicity to aquaticinvertebrates is the measurement endpoint, the ecological risk assessmentshould carefully describe the invertebrates' role and importance in the foodweb. Their functions probably will not be obvious to most people.

Consider uncertainty. Understand the limitations of the assessmentand EPA's overall level of confidence in it. For example, what kinds ofinformation are missing, and how important are they to the estimates of risk?Of the existing data gaps, which ones are likely to receive attention fromgroups outside EPA? Add the essential human element to the decision:Weigh the numbers against agency policy and your professional judgment.Data are not a substitute for knowledge, and computer-generated figures arenot beyond questioning. And judgment cannot completely replace data - ifyou're not comfortable making your decision with existing data, ask forclarification or more information on the areas you feel are lacking.

24

Understand the risk, its magnitude and how much risk you arewilling to accept. You also should understand the seventy of the riskinvolved, and put it into proper perspective. What is its extent: Is it a certainand substantial threat, or borderline? Is it a short- or long-term risk? Forexample, a 20 percent reduction of fish in a commercial fishery may not seemcritical at first glance. Yet considering the levels of fish needed to maintainhealthy populations in the long run, 20 percent may actually represent all ofthe harvestable fish.

An individual's perception of a risk will depend on whether he or shebenefits from the risk or bears its burden and cost. Sometimes people come toregard a risk as acceptable simply because they are familiar with it. The term"acceptable" conjures up a variety of images. Some regard it as "everything'sOK,H while others think "things are mostly OK, and we're willing put up withthe things that aren't," and still others refuse to use the term at all, claimingthat there is no acceptable risk.

EPA sometimes permits activities that produce substantial risks, but itis critical to remember that these decisions are the result of tradeoffs betweenrisks and benefits, or between multiple risks. Although theoretically possible,it is usually impractical to reduce risks to truly negligible levels. Thus, a riskassociated with a particular action should never be considered negligible justbecause the agency permits that action.

EPA policy sometimes defines limits for assessing risks to humanhealth, such as a one-in-a-million risk of cancer. The "acceptable risks" ofecological risk assessment are not so obvious. One example of this blurredview is the assessment factors ranging over several orders of magnitude thatOPPTS applies to set "concern levels" for new chemicals. These levels applyto groups of organisms and are based on available data. If OPPTS predictsthat these concern levels would be equaled or exceeded, then adverse effectsare expected. However, there is no guarantee that adverse effects will notoccur below these concern levels.

Consider the ecological risks of the alternatives. Syntheticpyrethroids, used in growing cotton, provide one example of a tradeoffbetween risks. This class of pesticides is toxic to aquatic life, and inconcentrations expected under field conditions, is particularly toxic to aquaticinvertebrates. But the other pesticides that could be used in growing cottonare not only more toxic to aquatic life, but toxic to birds and mammals aswell. In this case, EPA chose to allow the use of pyrethroids, but requiredbuffer zones between cotton fields and water bodies to minimize the effects ofthe compounds on fish. The buffer zones are designed to reduce waterconcentrations below levels acutely toxic to fish, although fish probably suffer

25

indirect effects from the acute toxicity to aquatic invertebrates. The muchlower use levels required to protect invertebrates would have destroyed theusefulness of the pyrethroids to farmers. Therefore, EPA decided that therisks to invertebrates were acceptable, given the economic benefits of thesepesticides to cotton growers.

Consider, too, a contaminated wetland at a Superfund site. If theremedy is to re-engineer drainage patterns, excavate the wetland, and replaceit elsewhere, the changes may solve the immediate problem of contamination.However, this "solution" may come at great cost to resident wildlife, becausethe success rate for replicating wetland structure and function is quite low.Rather than completely destroying valuable habitat, it may be better to toleratesome short-term effects to wildlife and rely on natural processes such asbiodegradation, erosion and sedimentation to mitigate the contamination.

Consider the balance between human health and ecologicalconcerns. At present, techniques for human-health risk assessment arereasonably well-accepted, and public-health organizations track the incidenceof health effects such as cancer. Unfortunately, since EPA regulates on thebasis of small risks, the data to support and validate these assessments mayleave something to be desired. For example, embryo malformations oftenresult in miscarriage before a mother notices she is pregnant, and it is difficultto detect a one-in-a-million excess cancer risk in a population of 100,000. Inaddition, wide-scale monitoring is seldom practical, and some effects do notmanifest themselves immediately. The result may be a precise, but notaccurate, risk estimate.

Many of the methods for ecological risk assessment are still underdevelopment. On the other hand, field data are more often available, andtoxicity data are usually available for the organism of concern or a closelyrelated species. Sometimes adverse effects can be observed and evenassociated with a specific site, activity or chemical (such as a fish killfollowing a chemical spill). In this case, assessments may produce accurate,but not very precise, risk estimates. Thus, while a human-health assessmentmay appear to be more quantitative or certain than an ecological assessment,this is not necessarily the case. And, as with human-health assessments, ourinability to detect a predicted effect does not mean that it does not occur.

We view risks to plants and animals differently than risks to humans.We require more evidence that ecological resources are being adverselyaffected before we take action, and we generally evaluate individual risks tohumans and population risks to other organisms. For example, if an actionwere predicted to cause 200 excess human cancers, we would not allow thataction to occur. But if the action caused the same number of excess cancers in

26

birds or fish, we would ask whether the cancer would decrease the populationor reduce the economic or aesthetic value of the resource. At Superfund sites,we remediate for cancer risks lower than we can detect in the local humanpopulation. AWQC take a similar approach, with the intent of protecting theaquatic community based on test data from a group of organisms rather thanon observed effects.

Key Issues in MakingRisk Management Decisions

Adverse effects, exposure andriskConfidence in the data andassumptionsDegree of consensusRisk management optionsLegal considerationsEconomic concerns, if applicable

Finally, evaluate youroptions. You should beprovided with a range ofoptions for addressing risk.The possible tradeoffs ofcosts and benefits involvedwith each should be clearlyarticulated. Evaluate the keyaspects of each option (seebox), and acknowledge eachone's relation to the strengthsand limitations of the riskassessment. Don't forget the"no action" alternative,especially when EPA's "cure" might be worse than the "disease."

After you've made your risk management decision, it's time to tellpeople about it. Start in your own agency by documenting your results.Justify your decision and describe how you reached it. Explain which datawere most important and how affected parties' concerns were factored into thedecision. This information will provide institutional memory and help forfuture risk managers in your program. As the agency records more decisionsand precedents, perhaps it will become easier to make risk managementdecisions in the future.

Then it's time to tell the public - those who will be affected the mostby the decision.

27

Chapter 7

Communicating Risk: How Do You ExplainA Risk Management Decision to Others?

One of the most challenging aspects you may face as a risk manager isjustifying risk management decisions. Risk assessors, senior managers,environmental groups, industry and the public alike may question yourdecision. Involving them in earlier phases of your decision-making processhelps avoid problems at this stage and facilitates effective communication ofyour decisions.

The particular style ofrisk communication youchoose depends on thecomplexity of the informationand the focus andsophistication of youraudience. Therecommendations below, aswell as EPA's "SevenCardinal Rules of RiskCommunication" (see box),should help you organize andimprove your communication.These principles apply whentalking with anyone, at anylevel, and the term "public"is used here to represent allgroups.

A. Tailor RiskCommunicationto YourAudience

EPA's Seven Cardinal Rulesof Risk Communication

Plan carefully and evaluate thesuccess of your efforts.

Coordinate and collaborate withother credible sources.

Accept and involve the public asa legitimate partner.

Listen to the public's specificconcerns.

Be honest, frank and open.

Speak clearly and withcompassion.

Meet the needs of the media.

As a risk communicator, you are responsible for increasing publicknowledge about ecological risks (education) and increasing public interest inecological issues (promotion). Before trying to communicate risk, understandthe perceptions, biases and knowledge of your audience. Knowing how peopleview the problems confronting them will help you develop an effectivemessage.

28

Norton (1989) identified three human perspectives, or paradigms, onthe environment in the United States: exploitation, conservation andpreservation. Exploitationists are the most anthropocentric. They view thenatural world as consumable resources to be used to achieve human pursuits.The value of resources is normally measured economically. Conservationistsalso are anthropocentric, but they acknowledge the less tangible benefits ofecological resources, such as non-consumptive uses like recreation andaesthetic values. Conservationism incorporates long-term planning andmanagement of ecological resources to ensure that these values are maintained.Preservationists want to protect the natural world because of its intrinsic value.They feel that preserving ecological resources is important for reasons otherthan benefits to humans.

It helps to determine which paradigm dominates the group with whichyou are communicating. Normally, though, all three perspectives can beaddressed for any environmental issue. Your audience often will includeindividuals that represent all three paradigms, and one individual can operateunder different paradigms, depending on the nature of the risks you describe.In any case, it is important to include all three paradigms in your riskcommunication plan so you can emphasize those issues most appropriate toyour audience. For example, when communicating the risk of cutting downtropical rain forests, you might emphasize to exploitationists the expectedeconomic losses from excess erosion, damaged equipment and foreigngovernment intervention; to conservationists, the loss of current and futuremedicinal benefits from undiscovered or depleted tropical plants; and topreservationists, the loss of biodiversity.

B. Describe the Ecological Resources at Risk andCommunicate Their Value

In contrast to human health issues, documenting risk to ecologicalsystems may be difficult and uninteresting to many of the public. Ecologicalresources at risk, whether individuals, species, populations, communities,ecosystems or biospheres, can be difficult to define. The type andcharacteristics of ecological resources at risk will dictate the legal mandates,regulatory options and approach most appropriate to your communication.

Legal mandates provide the most straightforward means of definingecological risk. The ESA is among the strongest laws available, but is limitedto species on the edge of extinction. However, the ESA may also be used toargue effectively for protecting communities of organisms upon which thethreatened or endangered species depends. Other legal mandates provide thebasis for protecting communities or ecosystems. For instance, the Clean

29

Water Act requires protecting the "chemical, physical and biological integrityof the Nation's waters."

You often must incorporate the values of the particular resource thatcontribute to human health, economic development and quality of life. Forexample, the values of maintaining viable communities of macroinvertebratesmay best be explained to sport fishermen by emphasizing themacroinvertebrate community's importance to a sport fishery.

Whatever the value of an ecological resource and how it is described, itis important that you explain both the costs of protecting, as well as the costsof failing to protect, the resource. Depending on the nature of the stressor,you may have to discuss short- and long-term benefits.

D. Describe the Risk

The public is concerned about risk. Sometimes their concern is highestwhere risk is lowest. Likewise, they may have little concern about risks youbelieve are significant. Much of this perception problem stems from poor riskcommunication. To improve it, discuss issues concerning the sources andcauses of risk, the ecological resources at risk, and the seriousness of potentialeffects.

When describing the sources and causes of risk from a human activityor stressor, include the type of stressor and the characteristics that make thestressor cause adverse ecological effects. Discuss how effects and exposureoccur, the amount of exposure occurring, and how the stressor moves throughand persists in the environment. If there are multiple sources of the stressor,describe what they are and their relative contributions. Finally, include adescription of possible forces contributing to the problem (social, cultural,economic, natural).

Place the ecological resources at risk within the broader context of theecosystem. Discussions that focus narrowly on specific risk assessmentendpoints may not clearly represent all important issues or ecological resourcesat risk. Broaden the discussion to explain the relationships among organismsin ecosystems that must be protected to ensure protection of the endpoint ofconcern.

Most public attention will be directed toward the seriousness ofpotential effects. Your descriptions should include the extent (local, regional,national, international) and seriousness of adverse effects. Include the durationof the effects and the persistence of the stressor. Describe when the effectsmay occur, or how they are occurring, and who will be most affected. Keep

30

in mind, too, that risk is relative. A local risk, such as a naturally confinedSuperfund site, may appear insignificant from a national perspective, butwould be the primary concern of local residents. Yet global warming,considered a serious environmental risk, may engender little concern at thelocal level.

Your risk management decisions are based to a significant degree onhow the risk has been characterized. Lay out for the public the same rationaleused to make your decision. Describe the uncertainties that make the decisiondifficult. Address the likelihood that adverse effects will happen.

E. Discuss Options for Reducing Risks

Public involvement and commitment are critical in determining optionsfor reducing ecological risk. Discuss the different methods that may be usedto control risks, such as combinations of "command-and-control" and market-based incentives, and voluntary compliance through education and outreach.Acknowledge that environmental risks can come from many sources, soplacing responsibility for all risk on one contributor will not necessarily resultin effective risk-reduction strategies. Defining the source of particularstressors will help to define which entities should take primary responsibilityfor reducing risk, and all should participate in generating workable plans.Responsibility for risk reduction must be shared by federal, state and localgovernments; by industry and business; and by the public.

F. Work With the Media

The media are the most widely used sources of environmentalinformation. Open communication with the media, by interview, press releaseor during public meetings, can be an effective avenue for communicating withthe public. If used well, the media can facilitate risk communication.

Select "sound bites" before meetings that convey your decisions inshort, understandable messages. Be open to media coverage, but time thosearrangements carefully so you will not be caught unprepared. Think againabout the three environmental paradigms discussed earlier, and try to framemeaningful and understandable messages for the public that address somethingof value within each paradigm.

31

Chapter 8

Conclusions: Where Do We Go From Here?

The evolution of ecological risk assessment at EPA demands more thanever that risk managers, risk assessors and the public work closely to makebetter and more informed risk management decisions. At the same time, manyareas in ecological risk decision-making need more research: Opencommunication between risk assessors and risk managers will help pinpointand prioritize those areas.

Risk decisions are difficult and we have much to consider in makingthem. Ecological resources can be lost when they are contaminated, wasted,misused and overused. Humans have the potential to destroy their own lifesupport system or to facilitate a sustainable, healthy environment. Ourdecisions will help determine which path we follow.

The purpose of this document was to provide basic information andtools to help make more informed decisions involving ecological risk. Formore information, a list of suggested readings follows the references.

As we at EPA record and learn from our decisions, risk assessmentsand risk management will improve. We can help establish a body ofknowledge about risk decisions in EPA by documenting our decisions,including rationale and evidence, so they can be incorporated into an agency-wide data base. We can ensure that appropriate assessments and monitoringare used to determine whether we accomplished what we set out to do, in themanner in which we intended. After all,

We don't inherit the earth from our ancestors.We borrow it from our children.

Anonymous

32

References

Ciba-Geigy Corp. vs. U.S. EPA. 1989. U.S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. No.88-4361. June 2, 1989.

Colborn, T., F.S. vom Saal and A.M. Soto. 1993. Developmental Effects ofEndocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in Wildlife and Humans. In EnvironmentalHealth Perspectives. Journal of the National Institute of Environmental HealthSciences. Vol. 101, No. 5. Pp. 359-458. October 1993.

Erlich, Paul and Anne. 1981. Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of theDisappearance of Species. Random House, New York.

Fox, G. 1992. Epidemiological and pathological evidence of contaminant-inducedalterations in sexual development in free-living wildlife. In: Chemicallyinduced alterations in sexual and functional development: the wildlife/humanconnection. T. Colborn and C. Clement, eds. Princeton Scientific Publishing,Princeton, NJ. Pp. 147-158.

Guillette, L.J. and T.S. Gross. 1994. Pesticide induction of developmentalabnormalities of the reproductive system of alligators (Alligatormississippiensis) and turtles (Trachemys scripta). Abstract from Estrogens inthe Environment III: Global Health Implications. National Institute ofEnvironmental Health Sciences, Washington, DC. Jan. 9, 1994.

Harms, Valeric. 1994. The National Audubon Society Almanac of the Environment -The Ecology of Everyday Life. G.P Putnam's Sons, New York.

Hileman, Bette. 1994. Environmental Estrogens Linked to ReproductiveAbnormalities, Cancer. Chemical and Engineering News. Jan. 31, 1994. Pp.19-23.

Johnson, K.N., J.F. Franklin, J.W. Thomas, J. Gordon. 1991. Alternatives forManagement of Late Successional Forests of the Pacific Northwest. A reportto the U.S. House of Representatives. Oct. 8, 1991.

National Research Council. 1983. Risk Assessment In the Federal Government:Managing the Process. National Research Council, National Academy Press,Washington, DC.

Norton, Bryan G. 1989. Intergenerational Equity and Environmental Decisions: AModel Using Rawls' Veil of Ignorance. Ecological Economics. Vol. 1, pp.137-159.

33

Raloff, Janet. 1994. "The Gender Benders." Science News. Jan. 8, 1994. Vol.145, pp. 24-27.

Suter II, Glenn W., ed. 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers.Chelsea, MI. 538 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities andStrategies for Environmental Protection. The Report of The Science AdvisoryBoard's Relative Risk Reduction Strategies Committee to William K. Reilly,Administrator, p. 9.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992a. Peer Review Workshop Report on aFramework for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-92/002, RiskAssessment Forum, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992b. Framework for Ecological RiskAssessment. EPA/630/R-92/001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993a. OPP's Ecological Risk ManagerSurvey. Conducted by Anne Barton and Ingrid Sunzenauer, EnvironmentalFate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Aug. 3, 1993.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993b. Protecting Habitats and Ecosystems:An EPA Strategy. Draft report by the Habitat Cluster. Jan. 14, 1993.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993c. Ecosystem Protection. Draft reportfor the U.S. EPA's National Performance Review. Aug. 6, 1993.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994a. Toward a Place-driven Approach:The Edgewater Consensus on an EPA Strategy for Ecosystem Protection.Draft report from Robert Perciasepe, David Gardiner and Jonathan Cannon toCarol Browner. March 16, 1994.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994b. Managing Ecological Risks at EPA:Issues and Recommendations for Progress. By Michael Troyer and MichaelBrody. EPA/600/R-94/183.

Wilson, Edward O. 1992. The Diversity of Life. W.W. Norton and Co., Inc., NewYork.

34

Suggested Readings

Abbey, Edward. 1968. Desert Solitaire. Random House, New York.A season in desert wilderness.

Carson, Rachel. 1962. Silent Spring. Fawcett Crest, New York.DDT and its effects on other organisms. Some people think this is thebook that got it all started.

Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press.The origin of thinking like a mountain.

Maki, A.W. and M.W. Slimak. 1990. The Role of Ecological Risk Assessment inDecision Making. In Ecological Risks -- Perspectives from Poland and theU.S. W. Gradzinski, E.B. Cowling and A.I. Breymeyer, eds. NationalAcademy of Science, Washington, DC. Pp. 77-87.

Real, Leslie A. and James H. Brown, eds. 1991. Foundations of Ecology: ClassicPapers with Commentaries. University of Chicago Press.

A variety of seminal technical readings in ecology.

Suter n, Glenn W. 1990. Endpoints for Regional Ecological Risk Assessments.Environ. Manage. 14:9-23.

Travis, C.C. and B.P. Blaylock. 1992. Setting Priorities for Environmental Policy.Environ. Sci. Technol 26(2):215.

Wilson, Edward O., ed., and Frances M. Peter, assoc. ed. 1988. Biodiversity.National Academy Press, Washington.

A varied and accessible collection of short essays on biodiversity. Acompanion video is also available.

35

The Agency Ecological Risk Management Communication Group

Anne Barton, Director, EnvironmentalFate and Effects Division, OPP/OPPTS

Anthony Maciorowski,OPP/OPPTSIngrid Sunzenauer, OPP/OPPTSMary Powell, OPP/OPPTSCandy Brassard, OPP/OPPTS

Margaret Stasikowski, Director, Healthand Ecological Criteria Division, OST/OW

Suzanne Marcy, OST/OW

Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Deputy Director,Office of Regulatory Management andEvaluation, OPPE

Angela Nugent, ORME/OPPEMichael Brody, ORME/OPPE

David Davies, Deputy Director, Office ofWetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, OW

Jay Benforado, Deputy Director, Office ofScience, Planning, and RegulatoryEvaluation, ORD

Anne Sergeant, OHEA/ORDSue Norton, OHEA/ORDMichael Troyer, ORD

Dorothy Patton, Director, Risk AssessmentForum, ORD

Bill van der Shalie, RAF/ORD

Joe Cotruvo, Director, Chemical Screeningand Risk Assessment Division,OPPT/OPPTS

Don Rodier, OPPT/OPPTSLynne Blake-Hedges,OPPT/OPPTS

Larry Reed, Director, Hazardous SiteEvaluation Division, OERR/OSWER

Jeff Langholz, OERR/HSEDSandra Lee, OERR

John Bachman, Associate Director,Science/Policy and New ProgramInitiatives, OAQPS/OAR

Joe Merenda, Director, EnvironmentalHealth and Review Division,OPPT/OPPTS

Mike Slimak, Deputy Director, Office ofEnvironmental Processes and EffectsResearch, ORD

Pat Cirone, Region X

36