EPA/600/S-97/002

January 1997

Discussion Document

Priorities for Ecological Protection:

 An Initial List and Discussion

Document for EPA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC 20460
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT ii

DISCLAIMER

This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency policy and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products

does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT iii

CONTENTS

AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS, AND REVIEWERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................1

1.1. BACKGROUND .....................................................1

1.2. AUDIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.3. APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.4. LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. VALUES AND TRENDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.1. LAWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.1.1. EPA Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.1.2. Historic Review of Federal Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.2. CURRENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES AT EPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.2.1. Past Review of EPA Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.2.2. Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.2.2.1. Water Quality Criteria ....................................8

2.2.2.2. Region I ...............................................9

2.2.3. Other Policies and Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.2.3.1. Scientific Advisory Board Recommendations ....................9

2.2.3.2. EPA Goals and Milestones for the Year 2005 ...................9

2.2.3.3. Community-Based Environmental Protection ...................9

2.3. CURRENT PRACTICES AT OTHER AGENCIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.4. COMMUNITY- AND PLACE-BASED PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.5. OTHER INDICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.5.1. The Interagency Ecosystem Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.5.2. Public Opinion Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.6. CONCLUSIONS: SOME COMMON AREAS OF CONSIDERATION . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.6.1. Ecological Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.6.2. Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3. ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT iv

3.1. ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.2. SUSTAINABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.3. RESILIENCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.4. BIODIVERSITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.5. ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND INTERACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.6. HOW TO INCORPORATE ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY INTO 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
CONTENTS (Continued)

1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT v

4. ECOLOGICAL ENTITIES TO BE PROTECTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4.1. SOME CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIZING ECOLOGICAL PROTECTION . . . . . . . . . 17

4.2. SOME COMMONLY VALUED ECOLOGICAL ENTITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4.2.1. Animals, Plants, and Their Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Entity 1: Aquatic Communities in Lakes, Streams, and Estuaries . . . . . . . . . . 18

Entity 2: Regional Populations of Native Species and Their Habitats—Terrestrial

and Aquatic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Entity 3: Native or Migratory Species Exposed to Severe or 

Acute Threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4.2.2. Whole Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Entity 4: Ecosystem Functions and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Entity 5: Wetlands and Stream Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4.2.3. Special Places and Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Entity 6: Endangered Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Entity 7: Endangered Species and Their Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Entity 8: Other Places of High Ecological or Societal Value, as Appropriate . 26

5. PRACTICAL ADVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

5.1. ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

5.2. APPLICATION TO NATIONAL PROGRAMS’ RISK-BASED DECISIONS . . . . . . 28

5.2.1. Some Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

5.3. CBEP PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

5.4. WAQUOIT BAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

6. NEXT STEPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Appendix A: Ecosystem Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2

Appendix B: EPA Past Consideration of Concerns by
CONTENTS (Continued)

1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT vi

Concern Category and Major EPA Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3

Appendix C: Recent Policies of Federal Resource

Management Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-8

Appendix D: Some Community Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-11

Appendix E: Lists of Special Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-14

Appendix F: Statutory Provisions That Authorize EPA

to Consider Specific Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-15

References for Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-26
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT vii

AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS, AND REVIEWERS

This document was prepared by:

Anne Barton, Office of Research and Development

 (on detail from the Office of Pesticide Programs)

Cory Berish, EPA Region 4

Bernie Daniel, Office of Research and Development

Stephen Ells, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Tom Marshall, Office of General Counsel

Jay Messer, Office of Research and Development

Mary Powell, Office of Pesticide Programs

Margaret Rice, Office of Pesticide Programs

Anne Sergeant, Office of Research and Development

Victor Serveiss, Office of Research and Development

Ingrid Sunzenauer, Office of Pesticide Programs

Molly Whitworth, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT viii

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2

3 EPA’s mission, and the environmental laws that underlie policy and regulations, require the

4 Agency to “protect human health and the environment.” Although we may debate the degree of

5 acceptable risk, there is general agreement on the human health endpoints of concern; there is far

6 less agreement on the corresponding endpoints for protecting the environment. Decision makers

7 in EPA have sought guidance on specifically what resources to protect and how they and the

8 public can become more involved in the ecological risk assessment and decision-making process. 

9 One purpose of this document is to stimulate Agencywide discussion on which ecological

10 entities should be considered priorities for protection by all Agency programs. (Ecological

11 entities are the valued resources to be protected and can be species, ecosystem functions or

12 characteristics, or specific places and habitats.) Another purpose is to propose a process by which

13 decision makers can set specific ecological objectives to guide both assessment and action.

14 As a first step in framing this discussion, our work group reviewed past and current trends

15 in ecological protection as revealed in Federal statutes, EPA actions, policies of natural resource

16 management agencies, community-based projects, and other management actions involving the

17 public to see what has been valued and whether there is evidence of consistent directions.

18 The results of this review show that there is a trend in environmental legislation. The early

19 statutes tended to be concerned with short-term narrow utilitarian objectives (e.g., use of

20 commercially valuable natural resources). In later statutes, there is much more evidence of longer

21 term broader utilitarian objectives (e.g., protecting natural areas such as National Parks and

22 Scenic Rivers for the enjoyment of present and future generations). This trend has culminated in

23 legislation that protects individual species and whole ecosystems for posterity.

24 There is also a trend in the complexity and the time and space scales of ecological

25 protection objectives. Environmental legislation has a long history of protecting certain groups of

26 animals such as fish, shellfish, migratory songbirds and waterfowl, and large mammalian game

27 species. More recently, legislation has sought to protect entire ecosystems and to ensure their

28 “integrity” for the foreseeable future. Integrity can be defined as “the interaction of the physical,

29 chemical, and biological elements of an ecosystem in a manner that ensures the long-term health

30 and sustainability of the ecosystems” (U.S. EPA, 1994b). It incorporates the concepts of

31 sustainability, or the ability of an ecosystem to support itself over a long time; resiliency, or the

32 ability of an ecosystem to recover from a stress; and biodiversity, or the variety of life at the

33 genetic, individual, and ecosystem levels.

34 This trend has resulted in a shift in focus from simply protecting single species on a

35 chemical-by-chemical basis to more complex approaches involving basinwide watershed

36 management and consideration of both direct and indirect effects of multiple stressors. There is
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT ix

1 evidence that a broad segment of the public holds beliefs that tend to support these trends. These

2 trends suggest that decision makers should increasingly focus on long-term goals in addition to

3 short-term objectives; to articulate these goals to encompass sustainability, resiliency, and

4 appropriate biodiversity; and to consider how foreseeable changes in the environment resulting

5 from natural and human-induced changes may modify current risks and risk-reduction strategies.

6 Because it is usually not possible to protect everything at once, it is important to be able to

7 prioritize for the ecological entities that may be most worthy of concern and protection. Such

8 entities include individual species and their immediate habitats, whole ecosystems containing many

9 species and the processes that link them, and “special” places that are of unique or particular

10 ecological or societal value. Some criteria for ranking risks to these entities include statutory

11 mandates, valued or unvalued utility to society, the threat of irreversible harm (e.g., extinction),

12 and the importance of the entity to the survival of other entities (e.g., species or ecosystems).

13 Our review of current practice suggests eight ecological entities that are of widespread

14 concern: (1) aquatic communities in lakes, streams, and estuaries; (2) regional populations of

15 native species and their habitats; (3) severe episodic threats (such as massive bird or fish kills); (4)

16 important ecosystems functions and services; (5) wetlands; (6) endangered ecosystems; (7)

17 endangered species and their habitats; and (8) other special places. These categories are not listed

18 in order of priority, nor are they mutually exclusive. They are presented as a reasonable and

19 useful set of entities for setting ecological objectives.

20 Ecological objectives are needed in a variety of regulatory and nonregulatory applications

21 at EPA. Two of these applications are when national program managers make risk-based

22 decisions and in Community-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP) projects.

23 Risk-based decisions use ecological risk assessment, which has taken a large step forward

24 with EPA’s publication of a new Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1992a)

25 and the Proposed Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1996c). The critical

26 role of the risk manager in this process is to (1) identify the problem and the appropriate legal

27 mandates and restrictions; (2) review the applicable entities potentially at risk; (3) meet early with

28 the technical risk assessors and the attentive public; (4) define the societal objectives associated

29 with risk to a particular entity; and in working with the risk assessors, (5) identify the assessment

30 endpoints; (6) review and understand the conceptual model underlying the risk assessment; and

31 (7) establish quantitative measures of effect.

32 The CBEP projects use a similar set of steps: (1) identify the problem and sources of

33 information; (2) form partnerships and bring in the public; (3) establish boundaries; (4) inventory

34 the resources of the area; (5) list the local values; (6) establish specific objectives; and (7) plan the

35 analysis, either by the risk assessment paradigm or some other process.
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT x

1 The order of the steps is somewhat flexible for both processes and may require iteration. 

2 The Waquoit Bay Problem Formulation provides a good example to illustrate both processes and

3 is discussed in chapter 5.

4 Our work group believes that EPA risk managers will be increasingly called upon to

5 consider ecological risks, in addition to those that directly affect human health. As people become

6 more educated about the complexity of ecosystems and their importance to the quality of life, risk

7 managers will be required to increase the scope and complexity of ecological risk assessments. 

8 We hope that the review of past practice, of the ecological entities that have been of most concern

9 in past and current statutes and regulations, and of the ecological basis for concepts such as

10 sustainability, resilience, and biodiversity prove helpful for risk managers who lack extensive

11 training or experience in these areas. 

12 We hope that the recommendations in this report will lead to agreement on the entities that

13 should be considered in all Agency activities and on other principles of ecological protection. We

14 believe that a common list of entities and ecological principles for the entire Agency can provide

15 many advantages: It can promote consistency among our programs, make our actions more

16 understandable to the public, provide structure for those programs than do not yet have much

17 experience with ecological risk, aid in research planning, and focus risk-communication efforts. 

18 Even before the Agency agrees on the common ecological entities, we believe the information and

19 suggestions in this document can be of immediate use to Agency decision makers. The list given

20 in chapter 4 can serve as a convenient checklist to help turn the general goals provided by EPA

21 laws into concrete, specific objectives that can guide assessments and actions.

22 Above all, we hope that Agency decision makers will use these suggestions and

23 recommendations and share their experiences with other offices, including the Office of Research

24 and Development and the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. Only by learning from

25 actual experience can we develop the processes and principles that will provide a sound and useful

26 EPA approach to protection of valued ecological entities.
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 1

1 1. INTRODUCTION 

2

3 1.1. BACKGROUND 

4 EPA’s mission is to protect human health and the environment. Initially EPA emphasized

5 protection of human health (U.S. EPA, 1990c; Russell, 1995), and although ecological impacts

6 are now considered to a greater extent, the focus on human health remains. As a result, many risk

7 managers have had more experience in incorporating human-health concerns than ecological

8 concerns into the decision-making process. Also, the degree to which different statutes consider

9 ecological risk varies.

10 Some risk managers in EPA have indicated that they would like to consider ecological risk

11 to a greater extent, but they need something more specific than the “protect human health and the

12 environment” found in many laws. They want further guidance, including advice on what

13 resources should be protected.

14 The 1994 report Managing Ecological Risks at EPA (U.S. EPA, 1994a) reviewed the

15 ecological concerns already considered in many EPA program areas. The report concluded with a

16 set of recommendations, one of which was that EPA develop common ecological concerns to be

17 considered in all Agency activities. The report states: “these concerns can take the form of

18 Agencywide principles or objectives and can also support other ecosystem management and

19 nonregulatory efforts being undertaken by the Agency.”

20 Although Managing Ecological Risks did not precisely define “concerns,” some examples

21 of potential Agencywide concerns cited were risks to migratory birds, wetlands, commercial

22 fisheries, congressionally designated wilderness areas and Wild and Scenic Rivers, public lands,

23 and important privately owned lands such as Nature Conservancy preserves and National

24 Audubon Society sanctuaries (U.S. EPA, 1994a, p. 18).

25 In this document, we modify this notion slightly and define an entity (or ecological entity,

26 or valued ecological entity) as the valued resource to be protected. With this, we hope to launch

27 a discussion, within and outside of the Agency, to achieve consensus on what valued ecological

28 entities should be considered routinely in all Agency programs for which they might be relevant.

29

30 1.2. AUDIENCE

31 Our primary audience is EPA decision makers who determine what aspects of the

32 environment are to be protected or restored, their priority, and the extent to which they are

33 protected or restored. They could be developing regulations, criteria (e.g., water quality criteria),

34 policy, or guidance, or they could be making decisions about pesticides, toxic chemicals, or

35 cleanup of Superfund sites. We also include those who work with partners to reduce ecological

36 risk.
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 2

Advantages of a Common 

List of Entities

A list of valued ecological entities to be

considered in all EPA activities has several

advantages.

Consistency: A general list of entities can

promote consistency within the Agency.

Understandability: A list of specific entities

can make it easier for the public to understand

what we do.

Structure: A list of valued entities can help

decision makers set specific, measurable

objectives.

Research Planning: The experience of

attempting to use common entities in varied

areas can identify where we lack knowledge

and help focus research.

Communication: The entities discussed in

this document can help focus riskcommunication efforts around valued

resources.

1 This document may also be of interest

2 to those who support these activities with

3 technical information, risk assessments,

4 monitoring programs, research, grant or

5 budget activities, and community outreach; it

6 may also be of interest to those who

7 implement decisions (by permit reviews or

8 enforcement activities).

9 This audience includes people with a

10 wide range of experience in managing

11 ecological risk. It has been challenging to

12 write for the entire audience; consequently,

13 the reader may find some parts of the

14 document more relevant than others. 

15 Furthermore, the extent to which particular

16 entities are already considered varies greatly

17 among programs; any list of potential

18 Agencywide concerns will probably seem new

19 to some readers and routine to others.

20

21 1.3. APPROACH 

22 The approach taken here is based on a

23 view of government as both responding to

24 public values and providing information and

25 leadership. Thus, it is important for the Agency to understand the societal value attached to

26 various ecological entities. On the other hand, EPA must also help the public understand the

27 relationship between (1) those resources and services that are widely valued and (2) those whose

28 value may not be widely recognized but are necessary to support other attributes that are valued.

29 Ecological principles and processes must be considered when determining priorities for

30 ecological concerns. To accomplish this, we combine an initial list of valued ecological entities

31 (i.e., ecosystems and their components) with the goal of maintaining long-term ecosystem

32 integrity. It does this by:

33

34 & Making some inferences about the value placed on particular ecosystems and

35 ecosystem components and how these values change over time as shown in Federal
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 3

1 laws, Federal agency actions, and local (community-based) environmental protection

2 (chapter 2)

3

4 & Introducing the idea of ecosystem integrity as an environmental protection goal

5 (chapter 3)

6

7 & Proposing a set of criteria for setting priorities as to what should be protected (chapter

8 4)

9

10 & Proposing a set of ecological concerns for consideration as a common Agencywide list

11 to be used in all EPA activities for which they might be appropriate (chapter 4)

12

13 & Showing how concerns can be used in two major risk-management approaches

14 (chapter 5).

15

16 1.4. LIMITATIONS 

17 We do not intend our recommendations to prescribe how much any particular entity should

18 be protected. This depends on many factors, including discussions between the risk manager, the

19 attentive public, and the risk assessor, and will differ from case to case. This document is

20 intended to facilitate those discussions and help ensure that all appropriate ecological entities are

21 given due consideration. In addition, the document deals only with entities that contain some

22 important nonhuman biological component. Human health and abiotic issues such as groundwater

23 contamination are related to these issues but are not addressed directly.

24 We also want to recognize that some entities are not readily amenable to sound scientific

25 assessment and that some ecological risks may not be amenable to reduction or prevention under

26 existing statutory authority. Nevertheless, decision makers should not be deterred from

27 considering them or from including them when documenting Agency decisions.
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 4

1 2. VALUES AND TRENDS 

2

3 This chapter examines Federal laws and current environmental practices that reflect widely

4 held values. It describes the ecosystems and ecosystem components favored by the public,

5 including the way this has changed over time, and delineates a baseline from which to consider the

6 need for change. The appendices contain additional information on environmental laws and

7 practices.

8 Ecological concerns—as evidenced by current laws, government and private action, and

9 expressed values and philosophies—extend across a broad spectrum from immediate human utility

10 to values independent of humans. At one end of the spectrum are highly utilitarian concerns such

11 as the protection and availability of natural or manmade resources for economic use and direct

12 human consumption. As one moves across the spectrum, concerns of this type grade into

13 recreational and aesthetic uses and human-derived preservation values. At the other end are those

14 associated with moral, religious, and spiritual values.

15 We do not intend to make any choice for the Agency or the public along this continuum. 

16 Rather, we present values as inferred from legislation and environmental action and describe the

17 ways in which these values have changed over time. This approach examines historical actions at

18 a national level. In setting priorities and goals, risk managers should keep in mind that values

19 change over time and may vary in different geographical areas.

20

21 2.1. LAWS

22 In a democratic society, the values represented in Federal law are often good indicators of

23 widely held values. Frequently, they have gone through an extended process of public debate and

24 examination. As an executive agency, EPA must implement laws. But beyond this mandate, laws

25 can provide insights into the ecosystem components, services, and whole ecosystems that are

26 particularly widely valued. These inferences, although not limiting what the Agency can do, can

27 help the Agency interpret those laws that state the ecological goals in general terms.

28

29 2.1.1. EPA Laws

30 Existing laws direct EPA to consider a variety of general and specific ecological concerns

31 (see table F-1 in appendix F). At the most general level, most of the laws administered by EPA

32 focus the Agency on ecological concerns through mandates to protect “the environment.” 

33 Although Congress’ use of the term environment does not help identify specific ecological

34 entities, its plain meaning indicates that EPA may reasonably consider a broad range of ecological

35 entities in its programs. Statutory definitions of environment in the Federal Insecticide,

36 Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), for
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 5

1 example, explicitly include water, air, land, living things (including humans), and the

2 interrelationships among them.

3 A number of statutory provisions in existing law also direct EPA’s attention to more

4 specific ecological concerns:

5

6 & Ecosystem Components: The Clean Water Act repeatedly mentions fish, shellfish,

7 and wildlife in many places and contexts. The Clean Air Act refers to wildlife

8 protection.

9

10 & Ecosystems: The Clean Water Act has many references to specific types of aquatic

11 ecosystems, including rivers, lakes, and estuaries. The Clean Air Act mentions

12 “regionally representative” and “critical” ecosystems.

13

14 & Special Places: Both the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts mention the Chesapeake

15 Bay, the Great Lakes, and Lake Champlain. In addition, the Clean Air Act makes

16 special provisions for national parks and wilderness areas, and the Clean Water Act

17 lists specific types of waters as “Outstanding Natural Resource Waters” for enhanced

18 protection.

19

20 2.1.2. Historic Review of Federal Laws

21 In the late 1970s, the then-Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) prepared Federal Laws,

22 Treaties and Conventions Pertaining to the Environment as a basis for determining the

23 environmental effects of regulatory concern under TSCA (U.S. EPA, 1983). The appendix to the

24 OTS report listed environmental legislation chronologically from 1785 to 1978 (U.S. EPA, 1983). 

25 This section reviews this chronology to consider both the trends in the way laws consider

26 ecological entities and the entities that have been targeted for protection.

27

28 & 1785 to 1899: The earliest legislation dealt with the use and disposal of public land

29 for homesteading and mining (e.g., the Mining Act of 1866) and similar uses. Such

30 laws seem to have been motivated primarily by a narrow view of the utility of natural

31 resources. However, Yellowstone Park was also set aside “for the pleasure of the

32 people” during this era (1872), thus including a broader utilitarian view.

33

34 & 1900 to 1925: Laws specifically protecting fish, birds, and wildlife appeared early in

35 this period, with the Lacey Act established to protect endangered game and wild birds

36 in 1900. This was in response to an alarming rate of extinction of wild animals and the

37 commerce in game birds for plumage during the last decades of the 19th century. The

38 first national wildlife refuges for the protection of game animals, birds, and fish were

39 also established during this period. The Fish and Game Sanctuary Act, which

40 authorized the executive branch to establish such refuges, was passed in 1916. The

41 Migratory Bird Treaty Act, a major step toward protecting birds, was passed in 1918

42 to implement a 1916 treaty with Canada. Among other provisions, the Act specifically
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 6

1 prohibited the hunting of insectivorous birds, thus clearly going beyond the protection

2 of game species. The National Park Service Act of 1916 created the National Park

3 Service, with authority to make such rules and regulations necessary for the proper use

4 and management of National Parks for various purposes. The law specified that

5 grazing can be allowed when not detrimental to the primary purpose for which a

6 particular park was established. This demonstrated support for the “broadly

7 utilitarian” use of natural areas. Concerns for more narrowly utilitarian uses also

8 continued through this period. Examples are the Kinkaid Homestead Act of 1904 and

9 the Amended Mineral Leasing Act of 1920.

10

11 & 1926 to 1947: In general, this era showed a growing awareness of the need to

12 conserve natural resources, both abiotic and biotic. Examples are the Wildlife

13 Restoration Act of 1937, which authorized the use of firearms tax revenues for wildlife

14 conservation, and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, which authorized the

15 acquisition of migratory bird reservations. Notable during this period are the laws

16 combining conservation projects with depression relief such as the Tennessee Valley

17 Authority Act. There was also continuing activity on land use issues, especially

18 grazing, during the period.

19

20 & 1948 to 1978: The late 1940s and the 1950s saw the early versions of the major EPA

21 antipollution acts (the Air Pollution Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act). 

22 These were amended at various times, notably in the 1970s. In addition, other

23 antipollution laws (e.g., the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976) and laws

24 encouraging recycling of wastes (the Resource Conservation and Recovery Acts of

25 1970 and 1976) were passed during the period.

26

27 Numerous laws and treaties (one or more per year) were enacted for the protection of fish,

28 birds, and other wildlife. One example is the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, which established a

29 comprehensive national fish and wildlife program. Among other things, this program was to

30 develop measures for maximum sustainable production of fish. Another example is the National

31 Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. This provided guidelines and directives for

32 managing wildlife refuges, areas for protection of endangered fish and wildlife, waterfowl

33 production areas, and similar refuges.

34 Ecosystem types specifically protected by laws during this period include wetlands (e.g.,

35 the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance as Waterfowl Habitats of 1972). These

36 acts were primarily concerned with wetlands as waterfowl habitat. Coastal areas were the focus

37 of acts in 1968, 1972, and 1976, which were designed to protect, preserve, develop, and restore

38 the resources of the coastal zone.

39 Concern for recreational and historically important areas continued throughout the period,

40 with the Wild and Scenic River Act of 1968 to preserve sections of selected river to protect their

41 scenic value, the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 to provide for the acquisition and
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 7

1 management of areas with scenic and recreation value, and the Endangered American Wilderness

2 Act of 1978 to preserve wild areas with outstanding natural characteristics, and various other acts

3 concerning national parks and forests. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

4 provided authority to manage Federal lands according to multiple use and sustained yield

5 principles.

6 A new concept was introduced by the 1974 law establishing Big Cypress National Preserve

7 in Florida. This law created a new category for preservation and protection of areas that are

8 unique mainly for their flora and fauna, for the benefit of future generations. This represents a

9 departure from the previous emphasis on scenic or recreational importance. Several other laws

10 show a broader view of the value of natural resources:

11

12 & The National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (along with some

13 endangered species treaties) showed a concern for global environmental issues.

14

15 & The Endangered Species Act (1973 and 1978) went beyond the concern for fish,

16 birds, and other wildlife to encompass all plants and animals that are listed as

17 threatened or endangered. It articulated a concern for species diversity rather than

18 particular categories of species.

19

20 & The National Environmental Policy Act (1969) explicitly stated a policy of

21 preserving the quality-of-life benefits of natural areas and resources for future

22 generations. The regulations implementing this Act require that Federal agencies

23 analyze the effects of their significant actions on components, structures, and

24 functioning of affected ecosystems.

25

26 2.2. CURRENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES AT EPA

27 2.2.1. Past Review of EPA Programs

28 The 1994 report Managing Ecological Risks at EPA (U.S. EPA, 1994a) reviewed past

29 Agency actions and summarized the ecological concerns historically considered in EPA decision

30 making. Among the major findings:

31

32 & Animals (e.g., birds and fish) are more frequently assessed than plants. An exception

33 to this rule is the Air Program.

34

35 & Except for endangered species, no case was found in which an individual nonhuman

36 organism, or even a small number of individuals, was protected by a regulatory

37 decision. However, effects somewhere between the individual and population levels,

38 such as widespread mortality in fish or birds, were used as the basis for decisions.

39
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 8

1 & EPA pays considerable attention to protecting wetlands, estuaries, and large natural

2 resources such as the Chesapeake Bay. However, only a few programs consider

3 interactions occurring among animal and plant communities and their physical

4 environment.

5

6 A summary table and more detail is provided in appendix B. Additional details may be

7 found in the 1994 report.

8

9 2.2.2. Trends

10 Managing Ecological Risks at EPA was a snapshot of the whole Agency. Individual

11 programs, however, are in very different stages of development in managing ecological risk. The

12 two sections below look at the history of a program and a region to show how the management of

13 ecological risks may change over time.

14

15 2.2.2.1. Water Quality Criteria

16 The Clean Water Act provides for the protection of aquatic life through the establishment

17 of physical, chemical, and biological criteria.

18 For about 10 years after EPA was created, the Agency based its criteria on the same

19 methodology that was used by the Department of the Interior. This approach focused on the

20 direct, immediate effects of single chemicals, which meant, among other things, that the criteria

21 were based on acute risk (mainly lethality) to various aquatic species (U.S. EPA, 1976).

22 In 1980, the Office of Water published new methods for setting criteria, including a

23 provision for considering chronic effects (U.S. EPA, 1980). This approach takes a longer term

24 view.

25 More recently, the Office of Water has expanded beyond these chemical-specific criteria to

26 include whole-effluent testing (U.S. EPA, 1995c) and biological testing. Whole-effluent testing,

27 for point sources, considers the combined effects of many chemicals that may be present. 

28 Biological Criteria directly measure attributes of the aquatic community and compare these

29 measures to those of unimpaired waters (U.S. EPA, 1990b). Biological Criteria integrate the

30 effects of multiple stressors of various types and their interaction. Both of these changes take a

31 more holistic view of impacts on the aquatic community and allow consideration of complex

32 interactions. Together they represent a large step toward an ecosystem approach.

33 The watershed protection approach (U.S. EPA, 1991b) goes even further: It uses an

34 integrated and holistic strategy that focuses on a watershed rather than on specific sources or

35 pollutants. As such, it encourages the consideration of cumulative chemical, physical, and

36 biological effects throughout the watershed.
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 9

1 2.2.2.2. Region I

2 Some regions have also moved toward more holistic approaches for protecting the natural

3 resources in their areas. The Resource Protection Project (Ueland et al., 1995) is a good

4 example. Region I, in cooperation with State environmental agencies and the New England

5 Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, initiated this project in 1993 to help target the

6 most important natural resources in each State and to promote an ecosystem approach to

7 environmental protection. This is not a new regulatory program but an approach that uses

8 existing regulatory programs to effectively protect valuable natural resources.

9

10 2.2.3. Other Policies and Practices

11 2.2.3.1. Scientific Advisory Board Recommendations

12 The 1990 report from EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board, Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities

13 and Strategies for Environmental Protection (U.S. EPA, 1990c), listed habitat alteration and loss

14 of biological diversity among the high-risk problems. Although this report ranked risk rather than

15 valued entities, this ranking does reflect a high value placed on habitat and biodiversity by the

16 Scientific Advisory Board.

17

18 2.2.3.2. EPA Goals and Milestones for the Year 2005

19 The Proposed Environmental Goals for America With Milestones for 2005 (“Goals

20 Report,” U.S. EPA, 1996b) has been developed to encourage innovation in improving the

21 effectiveness and reducing the costs of environmental protection and to help EPA and other

22 Federal agencies be more accountable for protecting the environment.

23 The quantitative benchmarks of the Goals Report go beyond the scope of this document. 

24 However, there is a connection to this document in the ecological resources that are targeted by

25 these benchmarks. The Goals Report specifically mentions aquatic communities, regional

26 populations of native species and their habitats, wetlands, ecosystem functions, endangered

27 species, and endangered ecosystems such as old-growth forests and natural prairies. The

28 proposed list of common entities in chapter 4 is consistent with the list of ecological resources

29 targeted in the Goals Report.

30

31 2.2.3.3. Community-Based Environmental Protection

32 Recent EPA policies have called for holistic ecosystem protection in partnership with local

33 communities and other agencies. The CBEP policy promotes an inclusive process to advance

34 environmental results, with a clear emphasis on the protection of whole ecosystems (U.S. EPA,

35 1994b). EPA has adopted this new approach as a more effective way of protecting ecosystems

36 than more fragmented media- or stressor-oriented approaches.
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 10

1 2.3. CURRENT PRACTICES AT OTHER AGENCIES

2 Appendix C reviews the current policies of Federal land and natural resource management

3 agencies. The focus of concern for each of these agencies is obvious from their names. For

4 example, the mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is “to conserve, protect and

5 enhance the Nation’s fish and wildlife and their habitat for the continuing benefit of the American

6 people.”

7 The agencies described in appendix C have modified their processes over the last 10 years

8 to include greater stakeholder involvement and to consider a wider range of risks to resources

9 along with sound watershed and habitat management practices. This process is generally known

10 as ecosystem management.

11 An example of ecosystem management at the U.S. Forest Service is the Service’s Northern

12 Goshawk Guidelines. These guidelines will be used to develop national forest plans in the

13 Service’s southwestern region that will sustain goshawk populations and also benefit forest health,

14 soil productivity, and the habitats of other old-growth-dependent plants and animals (CEQ, 1993,

15 p. 19).

16 Another example of ecosystem management can be found in several agencies’

17 implementation of the Endangered Species Act. The FWS and National Marine Fisheries Service

18 (NMFS) have adopted a formal policy that incorporates ecosystem considerations into a variety of

19 activities under the Endangered Species Act. For example, where appropriate, group listings are

20 made on an ecosystem basis, recovery plans are developed for entire ecosystems inhabited by

21 multiple-listed species, and consultation is carried out on an ecosystem basis (Interagency

22 Ecosystem Management Task Force, 1995, Vol. II).

23 All of the agencies reviewed combine the concept of ecosystem integrity or sustainability

24 with the mission of maintaining valued resources for human use. They recognize that real

25 protection of the resources over the long run can be accomplished effectively and efficiently only

26 by protecting the ecosystems on which these resources depend.

27

28 2.4. COMMUNITY- AND PLACE-BASED PROJECTS

29 Locally based projects are important sources of information both on the current status of

30 ecological protection and, by inference, on what is valued.

31 The value of fish and wildlife is as obvious in these projects as elsewhere. For example, the

32 EPA Ecosystem Protection Inventory (U.S. EPA, 1995b) shows that fish and fisheries figure in at

33 least one project in each of EPA’s 10 regions and figure in five or more projects in most regions. 

34 Comparative-risk projects tend to mention fish and wildlife and their habitats under both

35 ecological and quality-of-life categories (U.S. EPA, 1993).
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 11

1 Aquatic ecosystems, and especially wetlands, tend to be frequent concerns. Endangered

2 species or other biodiversity issues (such as the range of native species) are also frequent. Both

3 the Wisconsin Tribes project (U.S. EPA, 1992b) and the Kahalu’u O’ahu, Hawai’i, project

4 (University of Hawai’i at Manoa, 1992) include “respect for the land” or “respect for the earth”

5 among their human welfare values.

6 Community-based projects are more likely than national projects to include specific

7 religious or spiritual values. For example, the Wisconsin Tribes project values eagles for religious

8 reasons.

9

10 2.5. OTHER INDICATIONS 

11 2.5.1. The Interagency Ecosystem Approach

12 The Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force was established in August 1993 to

13 implement the mandate to adopt an ecosystem management approach throughout the Federal

14 Government. The findings of this task force are presented in the three-volume report The

15 Ecosystem Approach: Healthy Ecosystems and Sustainable Economies (Interagency Ecosystem

16 Management Task Force, 1995). Although much of this report deals with the process of acting

17 through partnerships, it also stresses the need to work on an ecosystem scale and sustain natural

18 resources for future populations.

19

20 2.5.2. Public Opinion Research

21 There is some recent research (Kempton et al., 1996) to indicate that the American public

22 understands that there are complex interrelationships between natural entities within ecosystems

23 and that, consequently, stress to the environment can have unexpected and disastrous results. 

24 This same study shows wide support for preservation of species for reasons other than human

25 utility.

26

27 2.6. CONCLUSIONS: SOME COMMON AREAS OF CONSIDERATION

28 2.6.1. Ecological Entities

29 Some inferences can be made about ecological entities that are clearly considered to be

30 valuable from the discussion of laws and ecological protection efforts.

31

32 & Fish, Birds, Other Wildlife, and Associated Ecosystems: These entities are the

33 subject of many Federal laws. They are routinely considered by both EPA and local

34 projects. The associated ecosystems are given prominent attention in the new

35 approaches recently adopted by the natural resource agencies.

36
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 12

1 & Ecosystem Types and Services: Many types of ecosystems are considered. The

2 value of wetlands, for example, has become widely recognized in the last 20 years, and

3 wetlands are considered by a number of Agency programs. In local projects, wetlands,

4 stream corridors, forests, and other ecosystem types are frequently mentioned as

5 important resources.

6

7 & Special Places and Species: Many of these are designated by Federal law. The

8 Federal and State natural resource agencies have missions that usually involve the care

9 of specific places, such as national parks. Local areas tend to focus on locally

10 important places that may be important for ecological, recreational, aesthetic, or

11 cultural reasons. EPA, other Federal agencies, and communities all focus on

12 endangered species, which is a congressionally mandated concern.

13

14 2.6.2. Trends

15 The laws and examples of ecological protection also show some trends over time.

16

17 & Toward a Larger Geographic Scale: There is a clear trend toward looking at the

18 larger geographic picture, including recent use of watershed and regional-scale

19 assessments and the global effects of climate change.

20

21 & Toward Taking a Longer Term View: The chronology of Federal laws show a clear

22 trend toward a longer term view. Early U.S. policies appeared to start out with little

23 or no concern beyond immediate exploitation of natural resources. Many laws show

24 that we have moved away from this view. No longer do we view our resources as

25 unlimited. The desire to be able to pass on our natural heritage to future generations

26 has increasingly formed the basis for environmental legislation. It is especially evident

27 in the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. 

28

29 In a slightly different sense, EPA programs have taken a longer term view by moving

30 from immediate, urgent, and highly visible problems to those that are less visible right

31 now but may have as large or even larger impact in the future. Water quality criteria

32 illustrate this trend.

33

34 & Toward an Ecosystem Approach: Perhaps the clearest trend, especially in the last

35 few years, is toward consideration of entire ecosystems, including cumulative effects

36 of multiple stressors and complex interactions between individual components. This is

37 mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act, shown in the latest actions of the

38 Office of Water, and embodied in the policies of EPA and other Federal agencies and

39 in the Interagency Task Force on Ecosystem Management. At least one recent study

40 of public opinion shows that much of the public supports this trend (Kempton et al.,

41 1996).

42
This chapter assumes some familiarity of ecological concepts and terms such as ecosystem 1

structure. Several ecosystem concepts are defined in Appendix A.

1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 13

1 3. ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY

2

3 As scientific and public understanding of ecological principles evolves, so, too, must the

4 focus of ecological assessment and management. EPA is moving toward consideration of risk on

5 larger scales of both geography and time than in the past. These trends show a consideration for

6 ecological integrity and related ideas such as sustainability and resiliency. This approach puts

7 specific organisms and resources in the context of what they need to survive in the long run. It

8 also links valued components, services, special places, and what is needed to support them in the

9 context of ecological protection. So maintaining ecosystem integrity is not an endpoint but a way

10 to achieve environmental protection. It is the focus of many of our laws and how they are

11 implemented. In this document, we approach the concept as a way to identify the

12 interconnections between a particular component, service, or special place and its associated

13 ecosystem.

14 We also encourage managers to adopt a long-term strategy and provide information that

15 enables them to develop decisions that work not just until the next review or sampling round but

16 for generations. Certain widely valued components, services, or other defined characteristics help

17 focus ecological risk-management decisions. Yet if ecosystem integrity is not considered as a part

18 of the goal, any protection offered may be only momentary or may require a drain on future

19 resources in order to maintain it. Thus, decisions designed for long-term success are likely to be

20 more cost-effective than those that provide immediate results but must be reevaluated and

21 possibly reengineered every few years. Better long-term decisions are made when the concepts of

22 ecological integrity, sustainability, resiliency, and biodiversity (described below) are considered.

23

24 3.1. ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY 1

25 Why consider ecological integrity? There is not much point in protecting, say, a particular

26 animal without also protecting its food supply, shelter, and the area in which it searches for a

27 mate: An animal deprived of food will starve, and one deprived of shelter will succumb to the

28 elements or predation. Some animals can move to other areas, but they may face increased

29 competition or have to survive with inferior resources. Plants, too, have individual requirements. 

30 Some have circumvented the issue of finding a mate by way of asexual reproduction, but they all

31 live within specific nutrient, moisture, and sunlight constraints.

32 The goal of maintaining ecological integrity requires definition and measurement. Here we

33 draw upon the Edgewater Consensus (U.S. EPA, 1994b), which defines ecological integrity as
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 14

1 “the interaction of the physical, chemical, and biological elements of an ecosystem in a manner

2 that ensures the long-term health and sustainability of the ecosystem.” It goes on to say that

3 integrity can be evaluated by measuring organism health, species and community diversity, and

4 ecosystem functions. The term health may not apply very well to ecosystems, but we have

5 chosen this definition as one that was developed and adopted by consensus within the Agency for

6 purposes of our discussion document.

7 Ecological integrity includes the system’s ability to recover from stress and retain its

8 distinctive characteristics. Forest regeneration after a fire is an example of recovery from a stress,

9 but a clearcut replanted with a monoculture is not; even though the vegetation is replaced and soil

10 erosion is checked, a single tree species cannot fulfill all of the functions of the variety of plants in

11 the original forest. There are times when such a management decision is appropriate: The system

12 may be more conveniently managed and yield more valuable timber. However, the ecosystem

13 cannot function as it once did: its processes are simplified; “fail-safe” redundancies are

14 eliminated; and many associated species are missing, with their roles in the ecosystem left unfilled. 

15 The monoculture probably will be more vulnerable to storm damage, fire, disease, and pest

16 infestation than the original forest.

17

18 3.2. SUSTAINABILITY

19 Sustainability, a related ecological concept, is the ability of an ecosystem to support itself

20 despite a continued harvest, removal, or loss of some sort. In managed forests, the harvest is

21 balanced with tree growth in an effort to maintain continued wood or pulp production over time. 

22 NMFS uses fish reproduction, growth, and recruitment to determine allowable fish harvests. At a

23 Superfund site, some inhibition of fish reproduction might be balanced against reductions in the

24 fish populations that would otherwise occur due to competition for food. Pesticides are evaluated

25 in terms of the benefits they provide as well as the risks they pose to the environments. Such an

26 approach (risk-benefit balancing) could take into account the long-term effects of pesticide use on

27 the sustainability of agricultural systems. So in general, the preferred goal would be something

28 like “a self-sustaining fish population for the next 100 years” rather than “the fishery yield we

29 want right now.” It is not always possible to take such a long-term approach, but the most

30 successful decisions will use it at least to some extent.

31

32 3.3. RESILIENCY

33 Another related ecological concept is resiliency, or the ability of an ecosystem to adapt to

34 change (or stress). The change or stressed may be natural (e.g., flood, forest fire, pest infestation)

35 or anthropogenic (e.g., commercial fishing, timber harvest, chemical releases). Note, however,

36 that an altered system will not return exactly to its original prestress state. Resiliency also reflects
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 15

1 the system’s adaptability in the face of changing conditions such as drought, temperature, and

2 various organisms’ population cycles. All organisms have adapted to stress from other species

3 (such as feeding) and abiotic factors (such as storms or fire). But human activities tend to go

4 beyond the range of natural stress and overcome ecosystem resilience. For example, although a

5 forest may easily recover from patchy storm damage, it may take much longer to recover from a

6 clear-cut timber harvest because the disturbed area has a very different microclimate and is too

7 large to be effectively buffered by the remaining trees. Similarly, small fires leave mature trees

8 blackened but not actually burned (and even encourage cones of certain species to open and

9 release their seeds), while fire suppression efforts can result in a large accumulation of debris on

10 the forest floor. This accumulation can fuel a large crown fire that consumes all trees as well as

11 the soil’s organic matter, leaving sterile soil without seeds or seed sources.

12

13 3.4. BIODIVERSITY

14 Norse (1990) describes biodiversity as “the variety of life on all levels of organization,

15 represented by the number and relative frequencies of items (genes, organisms, and ecosystems).” 

16 He points out that biodiversity is not just a question of numbers but also of maintaining the

17 integrity of the genetic mixture within populations, the richness of species within ecosystems, and

18 a mix of ecosystems.

19 Biodiversity is also related to sustainability and resiliency in that an ecosystem with varied

20 genetic makeup (e.g., one that contains more species and varied individuals within a species) may

21 be better able to recover from disturbance than one with less genetic variation. Internal structural

22 and functional redundancies mean that, although some individuals or species may be wiped out,

23 others with somewhat different characteristics may be able to survive the shock and carry on the

24 functions of the ecosystem.

25 Management decisions are most likely to succeed when they look beyond the entity and

26 stressor of concern and consider potential impacts in a larger context. By considering ecosystem

27 integrity, the manager can factor sustainability, resiliency, and biodiversity into the decision and

28 ensure that it is not only practical but provides effective, comprehensive environmental protection

29 over the long term.

30

31 3.5. ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND INTERACTIONS

32 There are a number of interactions and ecological processes that influence ecosystem

33 integrity. Recognizing these ecological links by consulting with ecologists, or, better yet,

34 performing ecological risk assessments according to a plan developed by the process described in

35 chapter 5 will enable the manager to make a decision that better protects against unanticipated

36 indirect effects. The following are a few examples.
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 16

1 & Effects on the population of one species may have drastic or detrimental effects on its

2 predator or prey species. In addition, the impact on the first species or its associated

3 predator or prey species could have a cascading effect on a number of other species in

4 an ecosystem.

5

6 & Effects on environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, moisture, light) may exceed

7 the tolerance range of species in the ecosystem.

8

9 & Disturbance of preserves or corridors between preserves could eliminate the areal

10 extent and intermingling of reproductive individuals necessary for species to survive.

11

12 & The carrying capacity (number of individuals of one species that an area can support)

13 of a habitat may be decreased by some indirect pathway—for example, by disruptions

14 of soil quality caused by increased runoff due to an increase in impervious surfaces in a

15 neighboring area.

16

17 3.6. HOW TO INCORPORATE ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY INTO GOALS AND

18 OBJECTIVES

19 How does all this apply to the role of decision makers in setting goals and objectives? The

20 following three principles summarize much of what is stated above and provide a good start in

21 making ecological integrity a part of the goal.

22

23 1. Take a longer viewpoint in setting goals—several generations rather than several

24 years.

25

26 2. If possible, put the goal in terms of sustainability rather than immediate use. That is,

27 make the goal “self-sustaining fish population for the next 100 years” rather than “the

28 fishery yield we want right now.”

29

30 3. Consult scientists about indirect effects and how the particular ecosystem or resource

31 of concern relates to other ecosystems. Consider whether the goals ought to be

32 modified in this light.

33

34 The next chapter discusses choosing the ecological entities to which these principles might

35 apply.
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 17

1 4. ECOLOGICAL ENTITIES TO BE PROTECTED

2

3 In this chapter, we propose some general criteria for prioritizing valued entities and we

4 apply these criteria to a proposed set of initial common entities to be considered in all Agency

5 activities. These recommendations are intended to improve the Agency’s consideration of

6 ecological issues by helping EPA decision makers focus on valued ecological entities that are

7 appropriate for their particular program or project.

8

9 4.1. SOME CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIZING ECOLOGICAL PROTECTION

10 Based on what we found in chapters 2 and 3, we propose four criteria. These criteria are

11 then used to justify the eight entities proposed later in this chapter.

12

13 & Mandated Protection: We are required by law to protect entities such as endangered

14 species. The section on EPA laws in chapter 2 describes some of these.

15

16 & Other Societal Value: Society values organisms, places, ecosystems, and their

17 functions for commercial, recreational, spiritual, and other reasons. Previous sections

18 on laws, current practice in EPA and Federal natural resource agencies, and

19 community projects all provide examples of concerns that are highly valued.

20

21 & Rare or Under Threat: Some species of animals and plants, as well as some entire

22 ecosystems, appear to be declining or are already so rare that it would not take much

23 to eliminate them entirely. Alternatively, they may be threatened by some trend or

24 development (not necessarily anything EPA controls). They need not appear on any

25 official list to meet this criterion. An example is neotropical migrant birds: Although

26 few of them are on the endangered species list, their populations appear to be

27 diminishing and their habitats in both hemispheres are declining.

28

29 & Ecological Significance: This criterion includes organisms that help sustain the

30 ecosystem. Plants and animals are considered ecologically important when they

31 provide a significant food base, provide shelter for other species, promote regeneration

32 of critical resources, or serve another important function of an ecosystem. Certain

33 major categories of organisms and ecosystem processes are generally considered

34 important to the ecosystem. They are often referred to as “keystone” species or

35 functions.

36

37 4.2. SOME COMMONLY VALUED ECOLOGICAL ENTITIES

38 One of the recommendations of Managing Ecological Risk is that the Agency identify an

39 initial common list of ecological concerns, or entities, to be considered in every EPA decision

40 where relevant. Reaching consensus on such a list will require discussion within the Agency and

41 some dialogue with partners and interested groups outside the Agency. As a start, however, we
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 18

1 propose eight ecological entities for this list. They are organized in broad categories to help

2 decision makers go beyond the particular entities listed. Table 4-1 presents the categories,

3 entities, and criteria by which the entities are valued.

4 Neither the individual entities nor the categories are mutually exclusive. For example,

5 wetlands as habitat for waterfowl might be included in (2) regional populations of native species,

6 (4) ecosystem functions and services, or (5) wetlands and stream corridors. Any specific local

7 ecosystem could be considered as a habitat for some group of plants or animals, as a whole

8 ecosystem or provider of services, or as a special place. The program or project goals determine

9 which category is most appropriate.

10 We describe these entities broadly enough to cover a great deal. They do not, however,

11 include everything worthy of protection. For example, local populations might be of concern for

12 some programs or projects. Some EPA programs routinely include entities not on this list in their

13 decisions; we expect this practice to continue whatever the final list. The common list should not

14 inhibit any program or project from going beyond it.

15 The remainder of this chapter discusses each of the entities.

16

17 4.2.1. Animals, Plants, and Their Habitats

18 Chapter 2 demonstrated that many plants and animal are widely valued. In particular,

19 native fish and wildlife and some plants are valued for reasons that range from the narrowly

20 utilitarian to a belief that they have rights of their own.

21 However, much of EPA does not give the same consideration to habitats. To protect

22 species at the population or community level, one must consider the integrity of the ecosystems

23 that support them as well as direct threats to the plants or animals themselves. Otherwise, any

24 gains made in protecting them from direct threat may be very short-lived.

25

26 Entity 1: Aquatic Communities in Lakes, Streams, and Estuaries

27 This entity focuses on aquatic plants and animals and the surface water habitats that

28 support them. Depending on the nature of the program or project, the goal for protection could

29 include the entire range of species (e.g., “protect 95 percent of the species”), one or more species

30 that have particular social and ecological value (e.g., “maintain lake trout as the top predator”), or

31 the community as a whole (e.g., “maintain a balance of species typical of an oligotrophic lake”). 

32 Attributes depend on the goals; table 4-1 provides two examples.
1/23/97 19 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT Table 4-1. Proposed List of Ecological Entities Category Ecological entity attributes objectives Mandated value threat 

Examples of Examples of Societal Rare, und

a

Criteria

Animals, plants, 1. Aquatic Survival, Protect 95 percent Some (CWA) High for fish Some and their habitats communities in development, of aquatic species, and shellfish

lakes, streams, and reproduction of or maintainestuaries aquatic species; population of a key

habitat extent for specieskey species

2. Regional Survival and Maintain viable Some in CAA, High for some Some populations of recruitment; habitat regional population CWAnative species and extent of native species;their maintain or restorehabitats—terrestrial habitat for nativeand aquatic species3. Groups of Survival without Avoid widespread Some (e.g., Usually high Not usually native or migratory visible damage and recurring or Migratory Bird species exposed to massive die-offs Treaty Act)severe or acutethreat

Whole ecosystems 4. Ecosystem Nutrient recycling, Maintain or restore Some general Not always A few 

functions and ability to filter function or service authority recognizedservices pollutants, habitat to some standard

extent for diversityof species

5. Wetlands and Extent Maintain extent of Yes High for many Some stream corridors wetland
1/23/97 20 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT Table 4-1. Proposed List of Ecological Entities (Continued) Category Ecological entity attributes objectives Mandated value threat 

Examples of Examples of Societal Rare, und

a

Criteria

Special places and 6. Endangered Extent Maintain extent of Some High for some All species ecosystems (e.g., endangered 

old-growth forests, ecosystem typestall-grass prairies)7. Endangered Survival, Maintain and Yes Potential for some High species and their development, restore populationshabitats reproduction, and

recruitment

8. Other places Species diversity; Restore Some (e.g., Great High for many Some 

b

with high nutrient levels, etc., biodiversity, Waters by CAA)ecological or appropriate to the maintain associetal value, as type of ecosystem; oligotrophic lake,appropriate landscape measures maintain extent of

c

certain habitat

In this document, the term objective is used to refer to a specific objective for an ecological entity. See glossary. a

Special places do not necessarily fit the definition of entity used in the Proposed Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1996c). See glo

b

An oligotrophic lake is one with low nutrient and high oxygen levels.

cNote: CAA = Clean Air Act; CWA = Clean Water Act.
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 21

1 This entity ranks high on most of the criteria. The Clean Water Act mandates water quality

2 that supports a “balanced indigenous population of fish, shellfish, and wildlife.” Because other

3 parts of the aquatic community are needed to support fish and shellfish, this in effect mandates the

4 protection of aquatic communities.

5 Chapter 2 points out that many aquatic species are highly valued. Many fish and shellfish

6 have commercial as well as recreational value. Fish are considered by virtually every EPA

7 program and by many community environmental protection projects. Although it is not clear that

8 the entire aquatic community is always considered, protecting the community must be a part of

9 the action if it is to be effective in protecting fish populations.

10 Some aquatic habitats are rare or under threat. Although pollution from point sources has

11 been greatly reduced since EPA was established, nonpoint sources still pose a problem. States

12 have reported that only about half the assessed miles of river were found to have healthy

13 communities (U.S. EPA, 1996b).

14 This entity also ranks very high in ecological importance. Because it includes all members

15 of the aquatic community, it necessarily includes those that are most important to the ecosystem.

16

17 Entity 2: Regional Populations of Native Species and Their Habitats—Terrestrial and

18 Aquatic

19 This entity targets native plants and animals at the regional population level, together with

20 the habitats necessary to support them. At least some of the species or their habitats rank high on

21 each of the four criteria.

22 Many Federal laws were promulgated to protect populations of native species, especially

23 wildlife, and their habitats. Among the laws governing EPA actions, the Clean Air Act and Clean

24 Water Act have provisions that focus on wildlife or aquatic species and their habitats. 

25 This targeting of native species indicates their high societal value. In addition, many laws

26 focus on natural areas as habitat. EPA and other Federal agencies already protect populations of

27 native species, as do local community projects. In the case of EPA actions, it is not always clear

28 that the efforts extended to habitats; however, as with the aquatic species in entity 1, protection of

29 the habitat is essential to protection of the population.

30 Many of these species and their habitats are declining or under threat, in addition to those

31 designated as endangered (see entity 7). Two examples are many bird species, especially among

32 the warblers and waterfowl, and most amphibians. Habitat examples are large forests, grasslands,

33 and wetlands.

34 Some of the species considered here are, by themselves, important to the ecosystem by

35 virtue of their role as prey or predator, for example. Because this entity includes not only the
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 22

1 particular species but also its habitat with all its biotic and abiotic components, this entity is

2 critical to the ecosystem.

3

4 Entity 3: Native or Migratory Species Exposed to Severe or Acute Threat

5 The purpose of targeting this entity is to avoid large acute incidents to fish, wildlife, or

6 plants, such as massive fish or bird kills. It may be focused below the population or community

7 level. However, except in the case of endangered species (see entity 7), it does not protect single

8 individuals but rather large numbers of individuals.

9 There are mandates for some members of this group. For example, the Migratory Bird

10 Treaty Act, the Bald Eagle Act, and others prohibit the killing of many bird species except under

11 permit for specified reasons.

12 Most of the animals and plants likely to be covered here are highly valued. These species

13 are also protected by other Federal agencies and community projects. These species and the

14 avoidance of large-scale incidents have been the focus of past EPA actions.

15 The pesticide diazinon provides legal precedent for this entity. The U.S. Court of Appeals

16 Fifth Circuit upheld EPA’s finding that recurring bird kills are an unreasonable environmental risk,

17 regardless of any population effect. Following this finding, the Administrator’s final decision to

18 cancel diazinon determined that “as a matter of policy an unnecessary risk of regularly repeated

19 bird kills will not be tolerated” (U.S. EPA, 1990d).

20 Some of the species in this category are rare and under threat, although for obvious reasons

21 one would not expect a rare species to appear in large numbers in a major incident. The examples

22 of rare or declining species given for entity 2 also fit this category.

23 Because these incidents are usually evaluated on an individual basis, the actual degree of

24 ecosystem impact may not be known. However, in at least some cases, it seems likely that a

25 stressor causing such devastating effects on large plants or animals will also have some wider

26 ecosystem effects.

27 This entity targets regional populations for Agencywide consideration, similar to the

28 National Goals Project (U.S. EPA, 1996b), which also mentions regional populations of native

29 species. However, specific programs and projects may go beyond this.

30

31 4.2.2. Whole Ecosystems

32 This category includes ecosystems as a whole. Associated goals are to maintain their

33 geographic extent or special character or to preserve their value for providing certain services to

34 humans or other ecosystems. The goals focus on the movement of energy and matter through the

35 ecosystem, in processes such as nutrient cycling, rather than on specific components.

36
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 23

1 Entity 4: Ecosystem Functions and Services

2 Ecosystem functions result from ecosystem processes (see appendix A). Ecosystem

3 services are those ecosystem functions perceived as beneficial to society. Both are included in this

4 category because some functions that are not immediately perceived as beneficial may turn out to

5 be of great ecological value and, ultimately, of indirect societal value, as well.

6 Services and functions of wetlands are discussed in the next section. Services and

7 functions of other ecosystems to consider are nutrient cycling (all ecosystems), maintenance of air

8 quality by absorbing and breaking down pollutants (many ecosystems), climate control (forests

9 and others), flood control (stream corridors), generation and maintenance of soils (many heavily

10 vegetated terrestrial ecosystems), pest and disease control (prairies), pollination (prairies), and

11 provision of biodiversity (many ecosystems, and also diversity in ecosystem types).

12 Although few specific functions are mentioned in the laws reviewed in chapter 2, many

13 laws mention types of ecosystems and/or the interactions of ecosystem components.

14 The value of entities in this category may not always be appreciated. However, the value

15 of services is increasingly being recognized by the public, as illustrated by the new understanding

16 of wetlands. In addition to wetlands, ecosystems such as forests, stream corridors, and many

17 aquatic ecosystems are targeted for protection by law or by Federal and local protection projects. 

18 The service most often mentioned in these projects is biodiversity, but others such as flood

19 control are also mentioned.

20 Some ecosystems are rare or disappearing. Those considered endangered are included in

21 entity 6.

22 Many functions of ecosystems have great ecological value. By, for example, helping to

23 provide clean air and water, they benefit other ecosystems, as well as benefiting humans directly. 

24 Ultimately, the continued existence of all valued components depends on the continuation of

25 critical functions. Their benefit to human welfare is greater than is yet commonly recognized. As

26 Westman (1977) described these benefits, ecosystem services “maintain clean air, pure water, a

27 green earth, and a balance of creatures: the functions that enable humans to obtain the food, fiber,

28 energy, and other material needs for survival.”

29

30 Entity 5: Wetlands and Stream Corridors

31 This entity includes the protection of wetland and stream corridor extent and functions. 

32 Some functions to consider (U.S. EPA, 1990b) are:

33 & Water-supply services

34 & Floodwater regulation

35 & Shoreline anchoring and erosion control

36 & Water purification
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 24

1 & Habitat provision for biodiversity.

2 Most of the discussion below is about wetlands. Stream corridors are included with

3 wetlands because many of their functions are similar (e.g., flood and erosion control) and because

4 they are similarly located in many cases. 

5 Protection of wetlands is mandated by the Clean Water Act and other laws, as discussed in

6 chapter 2.

7 The societal value of wetlands has been increasingly recognized over the past couple of

8 decades. No longer are they thought of as mosquito-ridden swamps; instead, they are valued for

9 the various functions and services they provide. As pointed out in chapter 2, wetlands are

10 considered by many Agency programs and local environmental protection projects.

11 Wetlands are under threat in that they have been declining for many years. An estimated 53

12 percent of wetlands in the continental United States have been lost since colonial times (U.S.

13 EPA, 1996b).

14 Wetlands have high ecological value, for many of the same reasons cited in the previous

15 section on ecosystem functions and services. In particular, wetlands help maintain biodiversity. 

16 Almost 35 percent of all rare and endangered animal species are either located in wetland areas or

17 depend on them, even though wetlands constitute only about 5 percent of the Nation’s lands

18 (Conservation Foundation, 1988).

19

20 4.2.3. Special Places and Species

21 One category specifically mentioned in Managing Ecological Risks at EPA (U.S. EPA,

22 1994a) is specific geographic places of special interest because of their unique character or

23 contribution to America’s natural resources. Their importance is reflected both in the laws, which

24 set aside many of these places to be maintained as important natural areas, and in many local or

25 community-based projects, which target rare or unique natural areas for special consideration in

26 environmental protection efforts.

27 There are at least two ways in which risk managers can afford special treatment to certain

28 places. First, they can be given high priority for ecosystem protection. Second, they can be

29 considered for a higher degree of protection than other places or species. 

30 The special character of the place needs to be carefully and explicitly defined so that it is

31 clear just what is being protected. Many places are considered special because they provide

32 habitat for rare species or for biological diversity (e.g., National Wildlife Refuges). Others are

33 noted for characteristics of the ecosystem as a whole (endangered ecosystems). Still others are

34 valued for their aesthetic qualities or because they are among the few relatively pristine

35 ecosystems of a particular type (e.g., National Wilderness Areas).
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 25

1 Similarly, certain species may be considered special for different reasons. Endangered

2 species are the best-known example, but others may be singled out for religious or cultural

3 reasons or because of their ecological importance.

4

5 Entity 6: Endangered Ecosystems

6 Endangered ecosystems are among those places most urgently in need of special

7 protection. They include ecosystems listed by the National Biological Survey (NBS) as critically

8 endangered, endangered, or threatened (Noss et al., 1995). Some of these listings are fairly

9 generic (old-growth and other virgin forests in the United States, except Alaska); others are

10 geographically very specific (Hempstead Plains grasslands on Long Island, New York). The list

11 includes 30 critically endangered, 58 endangered, and more than 38 threatened ecosystems.

12 Many portions of these ecosystems are protected under the Endangered Species Act as

13 habitat for listed species. For example, the NBS report listed more than 100 candidate, proposed,

14 or listed species associated with just one of the listed ecosystems (long-leaf pine or wiregrass

15 communities in the southern coastal plain).

16 There is little question about the rarity of these ecosystems. The NBS report estimates that

17 from 70 percent to 99.9 percent of the listed ecosystems have been lost since European

18 settlement. Many are now represented only in very small areas. These areas are ecologically

19 important for the contribution to biodiversity. They support not only endangered species, but also

20 those that are rare, declining, and unlikely to survive without the specific types of ecosystems

21 upon which they depend.

22 Federal laws and past actions at both the Federal and community levels show that a high

23 value is placed on protecting rare natural areas for future generations. Protecting ecosystems is

24 also an efficient way of preserving highly valued species.

25

26 Entity 7: Endangered Species and Their Habitats

27 Included in this entity are all species that are federally listed as endangered or threatened

28 and their habitats. Protection of these species is mandated under the Endangered Species Act.

29 Endangered species have been the focus of many Federal and local environmental

30 protection efforts. This is one of the entities that nearly every EPA program already includes in

31 its activities. From this and its inclusion in Federal law, it can be inferred to be of high societal

32 value. Every species listed here is both rare and under threat; this is the qualification for inclusion.

33 By the time a species has made the Federal endangered or threatened list, the population is

34 so small that its role in the ecosystem may have been largely lost. However, biodiversity, which is

35 the goal of endangered species protection, has great ecological importance.

36
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 26

1 Entity 8: Other Places of High Ecological or Societal Value, as Appropriate

2 Many places that are not considered endangered or threatened are of special importance

3 nonetheless. These should be considered by decision makers as appropriate to the program or

4 project being considered. They may be particularly important for CBEP initiatives. Although we

5 do not here propose a definitive list of places for Agencywide use, there are examples to consider.

6 A nationwide list of special places has already been compiled in Targeting Priority Natural

7 Resource Areas: A Review of National Lists (U.S. EPA, 1991a). A summary of this list is

8 provided in the appendix E.

9 Some programs provide special consideration for special places. For example, Superfund

10 has regulations assigning point values, used for prioritization, to certain sensitive environments,

11 such as marine sanctuaries and national parks. Both of these are included in the Review of

12 National Lists (U.S. EPA, 1991a). Another example comes from EPA’s Office of Air: The Great

13 Waters Program conducts special monitoring and evaluation for the Great Lakes, Chesapeake

14 Bay, and other bodies of water designated by Congress.

15 Some of these nonendangered special places are mandated for special consideration in EPA

16 legislation, such as the Great Waters mentioned above. Many others have been set aside by

17 Congress, such as national parks and national wildlife refuges. Some EPA programs, such as the

18 Air Office and Superfund mentioned above, already give special consideration to specific places,

19 and they are considered by many local projects. This attention indicates the high societal value of

20 these places.

21 Although most of these places are not considered endangered or threatened ecosystems,

22 many are considered rare and under some threat from development or pollution. The Nature

23 Conservancy’s “Last Great Places” provides examples of these. They are listed in the Review of

24 National Lists (U.S. EPA, 1991a). 

25 Many places are considered to have great ecological importance. Ecological importance

26 was the basis for the Review of National Lists (U.S. EPA, 1991a).

27 To direct assessment and action for a program or project, these entities should lead to

28 specific objectives. The next chapter provides some advice on how to go about setting these

29 objectives.
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 27

1 5. PRACTICAL ADVICE

2

3 This chapter describes how the ecological entities and criteria recommended in the last

4 chapter can be used in conjunction with ecological risk assessment, risk-based national program

5 decisions, and CBEP. In either case, decisions makers have the important task of setting specific

6 measurable objectives. The processes outlined in this chapter are focused on that task. A detailed

7 example is provided to illustrate the processes.

8

9 5.1. ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT 

10 This section explores the relationship between risk assessment and the entities to be

11 protected. We use definitions from EPA’s Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment

12 (Framework, U.S. EPA, 1992a) and the Proposed Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment

13 (Guidelines, U.S. EPA, 1996c). Terms in the Guidelines and Framework are defined, and

14 examples are given to illustrate the terms.

15 Ecological risk assessment is a process that evaluates the likelihood that adverse ecological

16 effects may occur or are occurring as a result of exposure to one or more stressors. The risk may

17 be expressed in a variety of ways, both quantitative and qualitative. The Framework sets out the

18 basic structure and principles of ecological risk assessment at EPA.

19 Ecological risk assessment can evaluate risk to a single species, as well as to natural

20 communities and whole ecosystems. Stressors can be single or multiple chemicals, biological

21 agents, or physical disturbance. A risk assessment may be initiated because of a particular

22 stressor (e.g., a chemical or biological pesticide) or source of stressors (e.g., a toxic waste site),

23 by some observed ecological effects (e.g., large bird or fish die-offs), or by a valued resource that

24 seems to be in danger of deteriorating.

25 Although ecological risk assessment is not always required for decision making, it can help

26 identify environmental problems, establish priorities, and provide a scientific basis for decisions. 

27 The process can identify existing risks or forecast the risk of stressors not yet present in the

28 environment.

29 Risk management evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of a particular action in the

30 context of such factors as risk assessment information, regulatory setting, practicality, political

31 climate, resource constraints, and the manager’s own experience. Both the Framework and

32 Guidelines stress the involvement of managers to ensure that the manager understands the intent

33 of the analysis and that the final assessment provides information that truly supports the decision

34 to be made. Risk managers can get the most out of risk assessment and forge a good working

35 relationship with risk assessors by actively participating in the planning stages.

36
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 28

1 At EPA, ecological risk assessments may support management decisions by, for example,

2 predicting the risks of a new chemical intended for use in manufacturing, evaluating the risks

3 associated with pesticides that are intentionally released into the environment, weighing the risks

4 of multiple stressors in watersheds, evaluating the need for air quality standards, or determining

5 risks of chemicals at hazardous waste sites. Because some people define “risk assessment” more

6 narrowly than we do here, it is possible that some Agency decision makers use risk assessment in

7 some form as a part of their decision making without recognizing it as such. For example, a

8 qualitative evaluation of the likely effects of an exotic species or continued residential

9 development on a lake ecosystem can be a risk assessment even though it is neither quantitative

10 nor dealing with a specific chemical.

11 The potential complexities of an ecological risk assessment demand careful planning for its

12 design. Many of the complexities differ from those of human-health assessments and include

13 deciding what species, populations, ecosystems, or functions are most relevant; species

14 interactions and indirect effects; and the significance of nonchemical stressors. 

15 The risk assessment process outlined in the Framework provides a way to develop a

16 logical, sequential approach to solving this complex problem.

17 The parts of the process most relevant to this discussion document are planning and

18 problem formulation, which are the first phases of ecological risk assessment and establish the

19 goals, objectives, breadth, and focus of the assessment. They are systematic planning steps that

20 identify the major factors to be considered in a particular assessment, and they are linked to the

21 regulatory and policy context of the assessment.

22 The most important part of the risk manager’s job at these stages is to set specific

23 objectives for the program. The next section provides some concrete steps to accomplish this by

24 using the entities listed in the previous chapter.

25

26 5.2. APPLICATION TO NATIONAL PROGRAMS’ RISK-BASED DECISIONS

27 Most EPA programs make at least some risk management decisions at a national level. 

28 These decisions focus on criteria, licensing, cleanup, or other regulatory decisions made by EPA,

29 although they may include partnerships or community involvement. Regardless of the focus, the

30 process for these programs is generally laid out in the Framework.

31 Planning and problem formulation can be done on a case-by-case basis, but it is usually

32 more practical for national programs to plan generically and develop standardized procedures and

33 methods for dealing with individual cases. The national program needs to consider both what is

34 appropriate to the program’s functions (e.g., clean up Superfund sites, set water quality criteria)

35 and their ecological goals and objectives. There is usually no question about the program’s
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 29

1 function, but objectives more specific than “protect the environment” usually require considerable

2 thought. Valued ecological entities are considered during this problem formulation phase.

3 The following steps detail one way to plan and formulate the problem of a risk assessment

4 of national scope.

5

6 1. Identify the Problem: Basically, this means stating why you are doing this assessment. Is it

7 based on a stressor (e.g., for a pesticide registration), a source (e.g., a Superfund site), or a

8 resource (e.g., the Great Waters Program of the Air Office)? Under what mandates or restrictions

9 do you operate?

10

11 2. Review the Categories and Particular Ecological Entities: These are listed in chapter 4. 

12 What entities on this proposed list of common entities, or other entities suggested by the

13 categories, are susceptible to your stressor or otherwise relevant to your problem? This step

14 needs to be done with the help of the risk assessors, who can provide information on susceptibility

15 to the stressor. At the conclusion of this step, you will have a list of ecological entities that are

16 relevant to your problem.

17

18 3. Meet With the Risk Assessors and the Public: The purpose of this step is to determine the

19 societal value and ecological relevance of each of the entities you identified in step 2. The risk

20 assessors are responsible for determining the ecological relevance and you (and the public or your

21 partners, as appropriate) are responsible for determining the societal value. Although you can

22 meet separately with the public and the risk assessors, it is beneficial to meet with them together

23 so that the connection between societal value and ecological relevance can be discussed. For

24 example, in the Waquoit Bay watershed assessment (discussed later in this chapter), it was clear

25 that scallops and fish had high societal value. Eel grass was not initially perceived to be of such

26 great value, but its importance to the development of the scallops and fish led to its being included

27 in the risk assessment. A meeting with risk managers, assessors, and the interested public

28 facilitates discussion of such connections.

29

30 4. Set Environmental Protection Goals and Objectives: Using the information from the first

31 three steps, set your environmental goals and objectives for the assessment. As illustrated in

32 tables 4-1 and 5-1, these objectives should include what you are doing (e.g., protecting,

33 maintaining, restoring), the resource or entity under consideration (general or specific animals,

34 plants, or ecosystems), and the desired state for that entity (e.g., maintain a population at its

35 current level, restore a function to a specific past state, no unreasonable risk). Although the
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 30

1 “desired state” implies a level of protection, the examples show that this need not be quantitative

2 or even based on risk to ecological entities alone. The pesticide example of avoiding

3 unreasonable risk (discussed below) is one that is based on balancing the risk against the benefits

4 that pesticide use provides to agriculture. While you are setting objectives, consider how to

5 incorporate ecosystem integrity. Can you take a longer view? Be more geographically

6 expansive? Specifically include sustainability? It is important to write the objective as explicitly

7 as possible, even if you believe your program has been working toward this objective for many

8 years. Sometimes things are not as clear as they seem; for example, is the program really

9 concerned with the entire aquatic community? Or are fish really the concerns and the other

10 measures important because they affect fish? If the objectives are specific enough, the remaining

11 steps can be completed by the risk assessors without the close involvement of risk managers. 

12 However, it is useful for all concerned, including risk managers, to review and understand each of

13 the steps listed below.

14

15 5. Set Assessment Endpoints: As defined in the glossary, an assessment endpoint is some

16 particular attribute of the ecological entity that will be the focus of the protection effort. 

17 Assessment endpoints should be susceptible to the stressor, have societal value, and have

18 ecological relevance (U.S. EPA, 1992a). These three criteria were explicitly considered in steps

19 1-3. If the objectives are specific, they will contain enough guidance on societal value so that the

20 risk assessors can complete this step without further guidance from risk managers. 

21

22 6. Review and Understand the Conceptual Model: Work through the conceptual model (see

23 glossary for definition) for the assessment with the risk assessors. Make sure that there is general

24 understanding about the relationship between the objectives, the assessment endpoints, and the

25 measures of effect. Do some changes need to be made to ensure that the objectives are

26 addressed? This is also a good time to explicitly identify all of the regulatory questions, the

27 degree of certainty required, and other issues important to the assessment (see U.S. EPA, 1996c,

28 for more on this step).

29

30 7. Document the Analysis Plan: The analysis plan delineates the assessment design. This

31 includes identifying gaps and limitations. Are there aspects (entities, sources, or stressors)

32 important to the goal that are impossible to address properly for scientific or other reasons? If so,

33 these barriers should be explicitly discussed in all documentation of the process and a plan for

34 overcoming them should be implemented. The documentation should include explicit

35 relationships between the overall goal, the objectives, the assessment endpoints, the conceptual

36 model, and the analysis plan.
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 31

Iteration of Steps

The steps listed for both national

programs and CBEP are suggestions. 

Although some steps clearly need to come

before others, there is much flexibility in their

order.

In addition, some iteration is usually

necessary. For example, in the national

program case, risk assessors must have at

least a general conceptual model in mind

before they can say which entities may be

susceptible to a stressor in step 2.

Later, in step 6, they work out the

model more explicitly. At this point, they may

discover something that was not considered in

step 2 and need to revisit that step. In CBEP,

the interested public may change during the

course of the planning stage, requiring an

early step to be revisited.

1 5.2.1. Some Examples

2 Table 5-1 provides some brief

3 examples. One of these (Waquoit Bay) is

4 described in more detail in section 5.4.

5 In table 5-1, the first column simply

6 identifies the source of the example, a national

7 or international program in some cases, a

8 special local or regional project in others. 

9 The second column identifies the ecological

10 entity to be protected in this example. Each

11 of these entities is included in one or more of

12 the eight entities listed in chapter 4, but most

13 of the entities in the table are more specific

14 than the listings in chapter 4. The entity listed

15 may be only one of many entities for a given

16 program or project. These examples are for

17 illustration only; no attempt is made to

18 describe any program in its entirety. The next

19 column is a short summary of the objective

20 for that particular entity, as implied or stated

21 by the program or project. The assessment endpoints describe the particular attributes of the

22 entity that is to be protected (see glossary), and are based on the objective. Finally, the measures

23 of effect are the measures used to evaluate the condition or response of the assessment endpoint. 

24 All of the just-mentioned terms are defined in the glossary.

25

26 5.3. CBEP PROJECTS

27 The CBEP approach is introduced in chapter 2. CBEP projects are usually driven not by a

28 particular stressor or medium, but by the valued resources in a particular area. These projects

29 involve working in partnership with local and State organizations and working closely with the

30 public.

31 The following steps detail one way to plan a CBEP risk assessment.

32

33 1. Identify the Problem: This includes clearly identifying the sources of information (e.g.,

34 citizen complaints, ambient monitoring results) that make the Agency aware of the potential

35 problem.
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 32

Table 5-1. Some Examples of Ecological Entities and Assessment Endpoints

Source of example Ecological entity for entity endpoints Measures of effect

Objective Assessment 

Water Quality Aquatic Protect 95 percent of Survival, Lab data on

Criteria communities aquatic species development, and mortality and

(U.S. EPA, 1996c) reproduction of fish, reproduction

aquatic

invertebrates, and

plants

U.S. pesticide North American No unreasonable Survival, Lab data on

registration native and migratory effects on bird development, and mortality and a

birds survival or reproduction of reproduction; field

maintenance of bird birds observations of bird

populations kills

EPA wetlands Wetlands and their No net loss of Extent of wetland Extent of wetland

program services wetlands plants and soil

Superfund (one of Fish populations Minimize Survival and Lab data on

several entities) ecologically reproduction of fish mortality growth and

significant impacts reproduction

on fish

Great Lakes Lake Superior, Maintain as Lake trout (partial list) Average

initiative (Ryder and oligotrophic lake, oligotrophic lake abundance age and size;

Edwards, 1985) lake trout with lake trout as top percentage of fishing

b

predator harvest

Lake Washington Clarity and Restore, maintain Depth of visibility Depth a white disc

(Edmundson, 1991) appearance of Lake water clarity can be seen

Washington

Waquoit Bay Scallops and their Reestablish a self- Abundance and Eel grass (percent

watershed estuarine ecosystems sustaining scallop distribution of eel cover and a

(U.S. EPA, 1996d) population that can grass habitat; distribution); benthic

support a viable diversity, index

fishery abundance, and

distribution of

benthic invertebrates
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 33

Table 5-1. Some Examples of Ecological Entities and Assessment Endpoints (Continued)

Source of example Ecological entity for entity endpoints Measures of effect

Objective Assessment 

U.S. Forest Service Northern goshawk Sustain goshawk Goshawk abundance Measures of

northern goshawk and its old-growth population and and several habitat abundance and

guidelines (CEQ, habitat benefit old-growth attributes habitat for goshawks

1993) habitat and prey

European Pesticide Soil communities Protect soil Survival and Lab data on

Registration (one of community to reproduction of soil mortality and

several entities) maintain soil fertility invertebrates and reproduction

plants

Hubbard Brook Forest plants Maintain plant Plant abundance, Total plant biomass,

National abundance soil nutrients soil calcium level

Experimental Forest

(N.Y. Times, 1996)

The entity described is only one of several entities targeted by the program. a

An oligotrophic lake is one with low nutrient and high oxygen levels. b
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 34

1 2. Form Partnerships; Bring in the Public: First, contact State and local agencies and involve

2 them in the next decision-making step. Then, identify and contact all stakeholders who may

3 become a part of the CBEP effort. Finally, convene a meeting for all to explain and discuss the

4 problem and the CBEP process.

5

6 3. Establish the Boundaries: What are the geographic limits for the project? These may be

7 political or natural boundaries. They need to be broad enough to encompass all influential factors

8 but narrow enough to retain the focus of the effort.

9

10 4. Inventory the Resources: What are the ecosystems within the area? What makes them

11 unique? What is the connection between organisms? Where is the energy flow? This results in a

12 list of potential entities. The proposed list in chapter 4 can be useful in making sure that

13 everything is considered, but the list for the individual project must include the resources in the

14 area concerned and may go well beyond what is listed in chapter 4.

15

16 5. List the Local Values: The values and criteria that are most important to a community-based

17 project are those of the people in the area. However, the organizers should help the public

18 consider the variety of resources that might be important to them, as well as understand the

19 connections between the resources they value and others that may not be publicly recognized

20 (e.g., the eel grass in the Waquoit Bay project).

21

22 6. Establish Goals and Objectives: Goals and objectives should be based on the information

23 gathered in steps 4 and 5 and should reflect the societal values of the partners and public. 

24 Objectives should be explicit enough so that it will be possible to devise measures of them that

25 retain the societal values.

26

27 7. Plan Analysis: This can follow the risk paradigm as listed in steps 5-7 for national programs

28 or some other process. In either case, the relationship between the goals and objectives and the

29 results of the analyses must be clear, unambiguous, and explicitly documented. More detailed

30 guidance for conducting these projects is available from the comparative-risk projects (U.S. EPA,

31 1993). Soon there will also be guidance available from watershed case studies, regional

32 initiatives, and the CBEP Handbook being prepared by the Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and

33 Communities in the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation.

34
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 35

1 5.4. WAQUOIT BAY 

2 The Waquoit Bay Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment Case Study is one of five

3 watershed case studies sponsored jointly by the Office of Water and the Office of Research and

4 Development. These case studies are designed to demonstrate the ecological risk assessment

5 process in a community setting; therefore, the Waquoit Bay experience combines many features of

6 both the risk-based national-program approach and CBEP. A brief summary of Waquoit Bay

7 planning and problem formulation is given here. More detail is available in the case-study report

8 (U.S. EPA, 1996d).

9

10 1. The Problem (corresponds to step 1 for both the national programs and CBEP): Waquoit

11 Bay, on Cape Cod, has long been prized for its natural beauty and recreational value and as a

12 habitat for a diversity of plant and animal life. Lately it has been under heavy pressure from

13 residential development and recreational industries. Fish kills are occurring; scallops no longer

14 inhabit the bay; the groundwater aquifer underlying the watershed is contaminated. There is a

15 high level of public concern. Several Federal and State government agencies are studying or

16 working in the area.

17

18 2. Relevant Ecological Entities (corresponds to step 2 for national programs and steps 2-4 for

19 CBEP): A State-Federal group, including EPA’s Region I, called the Waquoit Bay National

20 Estuarine Research Reserve initiated the study and established risk management and risk

21 assessment teams of individuals from many interested organizations. The boundaries of the

22 watershed and the inventory of potentially threatened ecological resources were summarized from

23 existing information. The summary emphasizes the diversity of species that are or have been

24 supported by the watershed’s varied surface water systems.

25

26 3. Goals and Objectives Based on Societal Values (covers steps 3 and 4 for national programs

27 and steps 5 and 6 for CBEP): The first step in establishing a goal was a public meeting at which

28 people were asked for their input on what was valuable to the public about the Waquoit Bay

29 watershed. A wide range of amenities were suggested, including scenic views, recreation, and

30 open space. Among those that would be considered ecological (i.e., they include some nonhuman

31 biological component), aquatic and wildlife habitats were the most frequently mentioned. 

32 Examples were indigenous wildlife, flyway integrity, and fish and shellfish.

33 The following overall goal was based on the results of this meeting:

34

35 “Reestablish and maintain water quality and habitat conditions in Waquoit Bay and

36 associated wetlands, freshwater rivers, and ponds to (1) support diverse, self-sustaining
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 36

1 commercial, recreational, and native fish and shellfish populations and (2) reverse ongoing

2 degradation of ecological resources in the watershed.” (U.S. EPA, 1996d)

3

4 Note that this goal explicitly includes sustainability.

5 Because this goal by itself was considered too general to serve as a basis for setting

6 assessment endpoints, 10 more specific objectives were also established. These were based on the

7 goals of 14 organizations working in the area. Four of these objectives dealt with estuarine areas,

8 three with freshwater areas, and three with both. Most of the objectives targeted entities that

9 would be included in common ecological entity 1 from chapter 4, “Aquatic Communities in Lakes,

10 Streams, and Estuaries.” An example is one of those concerning estuarine areas: “Reestablish a

11 self-sustaining scallop population that can support a viable fishery.”

12 The entities that form the focus of these objectives are evidently based on concern for

13 particular groups of plants and animals, but the objectives do not focus on these alone. Most

14 types of aquatic ecosystems are included in the objectives, as are wetlands (for the water15 dependent wildlife). Special places are represented by the endangered species habitat and, indeed,

16 by the bay itself.

17 The risk assessment team developed these more specific objectives, which were then

18 reviewed and approved by the risk managers.

19

20 4. Assessment Endpoints (corresponds to step 5 for national programs and step 7 for CBEP): 

21 Eight assessment endpoints were selected based on three criteria: how well they represent the

22 management goal and objectives (societal value), how well they represent ecological integrity in

23 the ecosystem (ecological relevance), and how likely they are to be exposed to and adversely

24 affected by known stressors (susceptibility).

25 The risk assessment team for Waquoit Bay selected assessment endpoints using the 10

26 specific objectives discussed above to guide them on what was of societal value; therefore, the

27 risk management team did not need to be so closely involved with this step as with previous steps. 

28 Ecological relevance and susceptibility were evaluated based on available information on the

29 ecosystems and known and predicted stressors. The Waquoit Bay problem formulation report

30 provides a complete justification of each of the eight assessment endpoints in terms of these three

31 criteria.

32 The assessment endpoints can be illustrated by the two that relate most directly to the

33 “reestablish scallops” objective stated above. They are the abundance and distribution of eel grass

34 habitat and the diversity, abundance, and distribution of clams and other benthic invertebrates. 

35 Although scallops are the focus, they were not explicitly made an assessment endpoint. Their
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 37

1 numbers fluctuate so widely in nature that their absence cannot be interpreted to mean that their

2 environmental requirements are not being met.

3

4 5. Conceptual Model (corresponds to step 6 for national programs and step 8 for CBEP): The

5 conceptual model for Waquoit Bay describes the relationship of various sources and stressors to

6 each of the eight assessment endpoints. It also indicates what measures of effect will be used for

7 each assessment endpoint.

8 For example, the abundance and distribution of eel grass can be affected by toxic

9 chemicals, disease, nutrients, suspended sediments, and physical alteration of its habitat. These

10 stressors in turn can come from various sources. For example, toxic chemicals are released from

11 industrial, agricultural, and residential sources.

12 The Waquoit Bay problem formulation diagrams and discusses the overall relationship of

13 sources, stressors, assessment endpoints, and measures. It also provides detailed diagrams and

14 discussions for some of the assessment endpoints; others are under development (U.S. EPA,

15 1996d).

16

17 6. Analysis Plan, Including Limitations (corresponds to step 7 for national programs and step

18 9 for CBEP): The Waquoit Bay risk assessment will not be able to assess most of the risk paths

19 laid out in the conceptual model because the resources for the analysis are extremely limited. The

20 analysis will concentrate on nutrient loading, which is thought to be the most important stressor

21 for most of the assessment endpoints.

22 The Waquoit Bay problem formulation provides a thorough justification of this choice. It

23 also gives considerable detail about the stressors and risk hypotheses. These will not be included

24 in the analysis plan but should be completed at some time.
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 38

1 6. NEXT STEPS

2

3 Since it was formed after the first Earth Day in 1970, EPA has made a great deal of

4 progress in addressing environmental concerns. As we have discussed, EPA initially focused most

5 of its efforts on protecting human health, but we are expanding our efforts to protect ecological

6 concerns. Many EPA decision makers have made an effort to consider ecological concerns in the

7 decision-making process and would like to expand their efforts. Others have not considered

8 ecological concerns in the past, but are interested in expanding their decision making. We support

9 the efforts of all of these risk managers and hope that this document will not only initiate

10 discussion on the topic, but encourage more managers to consider ecological issues.

11 In this discussion document, we have reviewed Federal laws and environmental protection

12 actions to determine common values and trends, encouraged consideration of ecosystem integrity,

13 made recommendations for decisions makers who are setting ecological objectives for their

14 programs or projects, and proposed processes for setting those objectives. We hope that the

15 recommendations will lead to agreement on the entities that should be considered in all Agency

16 activities and on other principles of ecological protection.

17 A common list of entities and ecological principles for the entire Agency can provide many

18 advantages: It can promote consistency among our programs, make our actions more

19 understandable to the public, provide structure for those programs that do not yet have much

20 experience with ecological risk, aid in research planning, and focus risk-communication efforts.

21 A workshop held in July 1996 concluded that one of the most important barriers to

22 including ecological endpoints in decisions is the lack of a common set of Agency ecological goals

23 and objectives. The Agency decision makers who participated in this workshop proposed that the

24 Agency develop a set of specific ecological objectives including not only the entities to be

25 protected, but also the aspects of those entities and the degree of protection desired (U.S. EPA,

26 1996e).

27 Even before the Agency agrees on the common ecological objectives, we believe the

28 information and suggestions in this document can be of immediate use to Agency decision makers. 

29 In particular, we urge that Agency decision makers set specific objectives for each program or

30 project by:

31 & Following processes similar to those suggested in chapter 5

32 & Using the common entities in chapter 4 as a checklist

33 & Incorporating ecological integrity as suggested at the end of chapter 3

34 Above all, we hope that Agency decision makers will use these suggestions and

35 recommendations and share their experiences with other offices, including the Office of Research

36 and Development and the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. Only by learning from
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 39

1 actual experience can we develop the processes and principles that will provide a sound and useful

2 EPA approach for the protection of valued ecological entities.
 This definition is based on the definition provided in the Guidelines (U.S. EPA, 1996c) but differs from it slightly. The 2

definition given here includes places as entities, whereas that given in the Guidelines would not describe a place such as a national

park as an entity in itself, but as containing entities. This difference is mentioned here to avoid confusion among risk assessors who

use both documents; it is not likely to make any difference to other readers.

1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 40

1 GLOSSARY

2

3 Assessment Endpoint: The Framework (U.S. EPA, 1992a) defines an assessment endpoint as

4 “an explicit expression of the environmental value to be protected.” Thus, assessment endpoints

5 are those attributes of entities that are the focus of protection. They are the parameters by which

6 success is measured. They should be theoretically measurable, although it may not be practical to

7 measure them directly. Examples of assessment endpoints are shown in table 5-1.

8

9 Community: This term has two meanings at EPA, and it is used both ways in this document. 

10 First, it is used to mean the human community, as in community-based environmental protection. 

11 In this context, it means all the people who live in, work in, or visit an area. Second, it is used to

12 mean an ecological community, that is, “an assemblage of populations of different species within

13 a specified location.” The second definition is from U.S. EPA (1996a).

14

15 Conceptual Model: In problem formulation, a conceptual model is a written description and

16 visual representation of predicted responses by ecological components to stressors to which they

17 are exposed. It includes ecosystem processes that influence these responses. Conceptual models

18 developed for ecological risk assessments require three basic elements: stressor, exposure, and

19 predicted effect on an ecological entity. Depending on why a risk assessment is initiated, one or

20 more of these three elements is known at the outset; the unknown elements must be identified and

21 characterized (based on discussion in U.S. EPA, 1996c).

22

23 Entity (also ecological entity or valued ecological entity): This is the valued resource to be

24 protected. It can be a species, a group of species, an ecosystem function or characteristic, or a

25 specific place or habitat. Entity is a more general concept than the assessment endpoint (see 2

26 above) in that it only specifies the valued resource, not particular attributes of the valued

27 resource. Thus, native fish are an ecological entity, and their survival and reproduction may be

28 assessment endpoints. Examples of entities are shown in tables 4-1 and 5-1.

29

30 Measures: There are three categories of measures. Measures of effect evaluate the response of

31 the assessment endpoint when exposed to a stressor (formerly measurement endpoints). 

32 Measures of exposure describe how exposure may be occurring, including how a stressor moves
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 41

1 through the environment and how it may co-occur with the assessment endpoint. Measures of

2 ecosystem and receptor characteristics portray the behavior and location of assessment

3 endpoints, the distribution of a stressor, or the response of an assessment endpoint to the stressor. 

4 Two examples are water temperature and the age distribution of a population of fish (U.S. EPA,

5 1996c). Some measures are shown in table 5-1.

6

7 Objective: In this document, the term objective means an explicit statement of the desired state

8 for the valued ecological entity (e.g., a viable fishery population). Thus, an objective is a specific

9 statement about what we would like to see happen with respect to the entity. The related term

10 goal is reserved here for more general aims, such as those expressed by most environmental

11 legislation (definition is based on and consistent with the discussion in U.S. EPA, 1996c).

12 Objectives need to be defined well enough so that it is possible to measure progress toward them. 

13 However, they do not have to be quantitative or based only on the risk to the valued resource. 

14 For example, the Office of Pesticide Programs must weigh the risks of pesticides to human health

15 or entities against their benefits to agriculture and other use sectors. The term no unreasonable

16 risk refers to any pesticidal risk that is not balanced or outweighed by the benefits of the pesticide

17 use. Examples of objectives are shown in tables 4-1 and 5-1.
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 42

1 BIBLIOGRAPHY

2

3 Ad Hoc Committee on Ecosystem Management. (1995) The scientific basis for ecosystem management. Washington,

4 DC: Ecological Society of America.

5

6 Cairns, J. (1995) The case for ecosystem services as toxicological endpoints. Hum Ecol Risk Assess I(3):171-174.

7

8 Conservation Foundation. (1988) Protecting America’s wetlands--an action agenda: The final report of the national

9 wetlands policy forum. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation.

10

11 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). (1993) Incorporating biodiversity considerations into environmental impact

12 analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality.

13

14 Edmundson, WT. (1991) The uses of ecology: Lake Washington and beyond. Seattle, WA: University of Washington

15 Press.

16

17 Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (1995) Toward ecosystem management. Tallahassee, FL.

18

19 Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force. (1995) The ecosystem approach: Healthy ecosystems and sustainable

20 economies: Vol I. Overview; Vol II. Implementation issues. NTIS PB95-265583 and PB95-265591.

21

22 Kempton, W; Boster, JS; Hartley, JA. (1996) Environmental values in American culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

23

24 Levin, SA; Kimball, KD. (1984) New perspectives in ecotoxicology. Environ Manag 8(5):375-442.

25

26 New York Times News Service. (1996) Effects of acid rain on a New Hampshire forest. New York Times News

27 Service, April 15, 1996.

28

29 Norse, E. (1990) Threats to biological diversity in U.S. Report prepared for EPA by Industrial Economics. Contract

30 No. 68-W8-0038, Work Assignment 115.

31

32 Noss, RP; LaRoe, ET; Scott, JM. (1995) Endangered ecosystems of the United States: A preliminary assessment of

33 loss and degradation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service.

34

35 Russell, EP. (1995) Lost among the parts per billion: Ecological protection at the United States Environmental

36 Protection Agency 1971-1993. Prepared for Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection

37 Agency. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia.

38

39 Ryder, RA; Edwards, CJ. (1985) A conceptual approach for the application of biological indicators of ecosystem

40 quality in the Great Lakes Basin. Great Lakes Fishery Commission.

41

42 Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program. (1992) Framework for action. Sarasota, FL.

43

44 Ueland, KM; Monahan, R; Zimmerman, J; Hsu, A. (1995) The New Hampshire Resource Protection Project. U.S.

45 Environmental Protection Agency, Region I.

46

47 U.S. Department of the Interior. (1994) Ecosystem management in the National Park Service: Discussion draft. U.S.

48 Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

49

50 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1976) Quality criteria for water. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental

51 Protection Agency. NTIS PB-263943.

52

53 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1980) Water quality criteria. Federal Register 45:79318.

54
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 43

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1983) Compilation of Federal laws, treaties, and conventions pertaining to the

2 environment: 1785-1978. Prepared by RG Clements for Office of Toxic Substances, Health and Environmental Review

3 Division, Ecological Effects Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

4

5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990a) Ecosystem services and their valuation. Prepared by RCG/Hagler,

6 Bailly, Inc., for Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

7

8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990b) Biological criteria: National program guidance for surface waters. 

9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/440/5-90/004.

10

11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990c) Reducing risk: Setting priorities and strategies for environmental

12 protection. Report of Science Advisory Board’s Relative Risk Reduction Strategies Committee to William K. Reilly,

13 Administrator.

14

15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990d) Remand decision relating to diazinon in the matter of Ciba-Geigy

16 Corporation et al. FIFRA Docket Nos. 562 et esq. (July 16).

17

18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1991a) Targeting priority natural resource areas: A review of national lists. 

19 Prepared by Dynamac Corporation for Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection

20 Agency, Washington, DC.

21

22 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1991b) The watershed protection approach framework document. Office of

23 Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

24

25 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1992a) Framework for ecological risk assessment. Risk Assessment Forum,

26 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/630/R-92/001.

27

28 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1992b) Tribes at risk: The Wisconsin Tribes Comparative Risk Project. 

29 EPA/230/R-92/017.

30

31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1993) A guidebook to comparing risks and setting environmental priorities. 

32 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/230/b-93/003.

33

34 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1994a) Managing ecological risks at EPA: Issues and recommendations for

35 progress. Prepared by ME Troyer and MS Brody, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/600/R-94/183.

36

37 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1994b) Toward a place-driven approach: The Edgewater consensus on an

38 EPA strategy for ecosystem protection. Ecosystem Protection Workgroup, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

39 Washington, DC, March 15, 1994 (draft).

40

41 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1995a) Ecological risk: A primer for risk managers. Prepared by Agency

42 Ecological Risk Communication Group, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/734/R-95/001. 

43

44 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1995b) A phase I inventory of current EPA efforts to protect ecosystems. 

45 Prepared by D Norton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/841/S-95/001.

46

47 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1995c) Whole effluent toxicity: Guidelines establishing test procedures for the

48 analysis of pollution. Federal Register 60:53529.

49

50 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1996a) Community-based environmental protection: A citizen’s handbook for

51 protecting ecosystems and communities. Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities, U.S. Environmental

52 Protection Agency (in preparation).

53

54 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1996b) Proposed environmental goals for America with milestones for 2005:

55 Review draft. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 44

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1996c) Proposed guidelines for ecological risk assessment (September 1996

2 public review draft). Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

3

4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1996d) Waquoit Bay watershed ecological risk assessment problem

5 formulation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (review draft).

6

7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1996e) Workshop on ecological priorities for EPA decision makers.

8 Workshop report prepared by Friday System Services for National Center for Environmental Assessment, U.S.

9 Environmental Protection Agency.

10

11 University of Hawai’i at Manoa. (1992) A community-based environmental risk ranking: rural and Hawai’ian quality

12 of life: Kahalu’u O’ahu. University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Department of Urban and Regional Planning.

13

14 Westman, WE. (1977) How much are nature’s services worth? Science 1977:960-964.
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT

APPENDICES 
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT A-2

1 APPENDIX A

2 ECOSYSTEM CONCEPTS

3

4 This appendix attempts to introduce a few basic ecosystem concepts in straightforward

5 nontechnical language. It does not repeat definitions provided in the main document.

6 Definitions are from appendix A of Ecosystem Management in the National Park Service:

7 Discussion Draft (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1994).

8 Ecosystems refer to a system formed by the interaction of a group of organisms and their

9 environment. An ecosystem may be a pond or the entire globe. It can be natural or artificial. All

10 ecosystems are composed of components, structure, and processes. Components are plants,

11 animals, soil, air, and water. Structure refers to spatial and temporal distribution of those

12 components. For example, the location and extent of typical wetland plant species is an aspect of

13 the structure of a wetland. Processes are the flow or cycling of energy, materials, and nutrients

14 through space and time. For example, plants use water, elementary nutrients, and sunlight to

15 produce material that, in turn, provides food for other species.

16 All components, structures, and processes have various functions that can change over

17 time and space, from one ecosystem to another, as well as within ecosystems. 

18 Ecosystems occur in geographic arrangements. Smaller ecosystems exist within larger

19 ones. The scale selected and the boundaries used to define an ecosystem depend on the problem

20 or question to be addressed. Spatial scales range from microbial activity to the entire biosphere. 
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT A-3

1 APPENDIX B

2 EPA PAST CONSIDERATION OF CONCERNS BY CONCERN

3 CATEGORY AND MAJOR EPA OFFICE

4

5 This section provides background information for section 2.2.1 (Past Review of EPA

6 Programs) in the main document. It is adapted from table D-7 of Managing Ecological Risk at

7 EPA (U.S. EPA, 1994a).
1/23/97 A-4 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT Table B-1. Category I: Animals, Plants, and Their Habitats Concern Comments/Specifics A N P R S 

Fish “Individual” (avoid kills), populations, or species; sport, anadromous, A N P R S 

salmon, juvenile Birds “Individual” (avoid kills), population, or species; migratory or N P R S resident; waterfowl, wading; suburban, special interest Mammals “Individual” (avoid kills), population, or species; small or large; R S predatory, plant-eating, fish-eating; terrestrial, aquatic; deer, bear Amphibians “Of special interest”

and reptilesWildlife “Individual” (avoid kills), population, species; aquatic or terrestrial; N P R S (unspecified) plant-eating, predatoryAquatic Populations, species, water column, benthic organisms or community A invertebrates or community structure, commercial speciesTerrestrial Bumblebees, honeybees, soil organisms P invertebratesPlants Aquatic, terrestrial; distribution and abundance; vegetative A P R S 

succession, algae, crops

Unspecified Aquatic, terrestrial species, or organisms or life, community structure, A P R S biota community health, important organisms, commercially important

species, estuarine biota

Habitat Aquatic, terrestrial, remote, high quality, habitat corridors, breeding N R S

areas, critical spawning area, habitat for unique communities, birdhabitat, fisheries, fish habitat

Wetlands Maintain size, hydrology, habitat value, filtering and binding of N R S 

pollutants, wetland functions, special types, interconnected wetlands
1/23/97 A-5 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT Table B-1. Category I: Animals, Plants, and Their Habitats (Continued) Concern Comments/Specifics A N P R S 

Other Riparian habitat, streams, coastal barriers, subtidal habitats, upland N R S ecosystem habitats, aquatic ecosystems, deltas, estuaries types Rare or Terrestrial, aquatic, sensitive, rare, exposed and valued, sage scrub N S threatened ecosystems Ecosystem Function of aquatic or terrestrial community, function of plant P R functions community, nutrient recycling Key to major office areas and legislation: A: Air; N: NEPA; P: Pesticides; R: RCRA; S: Superfund; T: Toxics; W: Water.
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT A-6

Table B-2. Category II: Ecosystems, Their Functions and Services

Concern Comments/Specifics A N P R S T W

Wetlands Maintain size, hydrology, habitat value, filtering N r s W

and binding of pollutants, wetland functions,

special types, interconnected wetlands

Other Riparian habitats, streams, coastal barriers, subtidal N r S W

ecosystem habitats, upland habitats, aquatic ecosystems,

types deltas, estuaries

Rare or Terrestrial, aquatic, sensitive, rare, exposed and N S W

threatened valued, sage scrub

ecosystems

Ecosystem Function of aquatic or terrestrial community, P r

functions function of plant community, nutrient recycling

Key to major office areas and legislation: A: Air; N: NEPA; P: Pesticides; R: RCRA; S: Superfund; T: Toxics; W: 

Water.

Note: Uppercase letters refer to concerns that have been used (or in a few cases were about to be used) at the time of the

interview in a documented decision. Lowercase letters indicate concerns that were reported as of interest in an interview or

were inferred from measures used in the assessment but not contained in a documented decision.
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT A-7

Table B-3. Category III: Special Places and Species

Concern Comments/Specifics A N P R S T W

Special Wilderness Areas, National Forests, State A N S

places or Federal Refuges, National Estuaries,

National Parks, Wild and Scenic Rivers,

Wildlife Refuges, Great Lakes Vital

Habitats, Marine Sanctuaries

Special Endangered or threatened species, their N P R S T W

species habitat or food

Key to major office areas and legislation: A: Air; N: NEPA; P: Pesticides; R: RCRA; S: Superfund; T: Toxics; W: 

Water.
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT A-8

1 APPENDIX C

2 RECENT POLICIES OF FEDERAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCIES

3

4 This section provides more detail for the summary provided in section 2.3 of the main

5 document.

6 As the individual descriptions show, many agencies have modified their processes to

7 include greater stakeholder involvement and consider multimedia and multipathway pollution

8 exposures simultaneously with sound watershed and habitat management practices. This, of

9 course, is very similar to the community-based environmental protection approach of EPA. 

10 Although the process and multistressor aspects are beyond the scope of this document, there are

11 also implications for environmental goals and assessment endpoints. In addition to greater

12 concern with global issues (climate change, biodiversity, health of oceans), there is an overall

13 trend toward ecosystem sustainability to provide for longer term protection of valued resources.

14

15 C.1. FOREST SERVICE

16 The Forest Service has moved toward managing for sustainable ecosystems. According to

17 a 1995 Federal Register Notice: “[the] agency would retain the discretion to determine for each

18 plan area which conditions are indicative of sustainable ecosystems and how the plan area could

19 be managed to promote those conditions.” This indicates that the actual management goals are

20 established on a case-by-case basis for each area. However, the definition of “sustainable

21 ecosystem” gives some indication of the kinds of goals they will consider: “the ability to sustain

22 diversity, productivity, resilience to stress, health, renewability and or yields or desired values,

23 resource uses, products or services, from an ecosystem while maintaining the integrity of the

24 ecosystem over time.” This combines concepts related to sustainability (diversity, resilience to

25 stress) with those related to human utility (yields, desired values, resource uses, products or

26 services).

27 The Forest Service also adopts a two-stage (course filter/fine filter) process that first

28 considers the ecosystem as a whole and then an additional consideration of species that may not

29 be protected by the general ecosystem protection.

30

31 C.2. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM)

32 BLM has also moved toward an ecosystem approach. Like the Forest Service, BLM sets

33 specific management goals on an area basis. Some of the BLM principles and definitions show

34 that, also like the Forest Service, ecosystem integrity and utility to humans are to be combined in

35 their goals:

36
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT A-9

1 • Sustain the productivity and diversity of ecosystems and provide for human values,

2 products, and services

3

4 • Determine desired future landscape functions based on historic, ecological,

5 economic, and social considerations

6

7 • Sustainable development: the use of land and water to sustain production

8 indefinitely without environmental deterioration, ideally without loss of native

9 biodiversity

10

11 • Sustainable ecosystem: management of ecosystems so that the desired mix of

12 values and resources are tempered to ensure that their capabilities and suitabilities

13 are not compromised for future generations.

14

15 C.3. SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE (NOW THE NATURAL RESOURCE

16 CONSERVATION SERVICE)

17 This Agency has also moved toward ecosystem management that provides for human

18 utility. It considers integrated resource, or ecosystem, management, a concept based on the self19 healing ability of viable ecosystems. Ecosystem management is also a means to establish or

20 maintain living systems that improve rather than degrade over time. 

21

22 C.4. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (FWS)

23 The FWS mission is “to conserve, protect and enhance the nation’s fish and wildlife and

24 their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.”

25 This clearly includes human use and also points to ecosystem protection.

26 More explicitly: “An ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife conservation means

27 protecting or restoring the function, structure and species composition of an ecosystem while

28 providing for its sustainable socioeconomic use.”

29 The FWS defines 52 geographically defined ecosystem units, closely corresponding to

30 watersheds in most cases. Specific goals are established for particular watershed units. However,

31 the FWS also prioritizes units based in part on the “significance of the resources present in the

32 ecosystem.” Highest priority is given to those ecosystem units most important to FWS’s trust

33 resources (listed species, migratory birds, etc.). Other considerations beyond the scope of this

34 document (such as the ability of the service to address the resource need) are also considered.

35
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT A-10

1 C.5. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (NPS) ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT

2 The NPS is charged with managing specific places that are highly valued as natural

3 resources. In NPS’ words, these are “the Nation’s most precious natural and cultural resources,

4 which are important symbols of our rich and diverse heritage” (U.S. Department of the Interior,

5 1994).

6 The overall vision emphasizes ecosystem integrity: “NPS to lead by example through

7 continuous improvement and excellence in direct stewardship efforts while actively assisting and

8 educating other stakeholders to help them better manage resources for the goal of greater

9 ecosystem integrity” (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1994).

10 Specific goals are established separately for each park. However, the principles indicate a

11 focus on biodiversity and resources valued for heritage reasons: “. . . It is imperative that the

12 NPS work to restore and/or maintain biological diversity (species, genetic, and ecosystem) and

13 the ecological patterns and processes that maintain that diversity. Viable populations of native

14 species and natural-disturbance regimes should be maintained. The overall objective is to

15 maintain ecosystems that are resilient to short-term stresses and receptive to long-term

16 evolutionary and ecological influences of change” (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1994).

17 “Preserving and maintaining significant resources and advocating or assisting others to

18 protect important archeological, historical, and ethnographic resources in their historic context”

19 (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1994).
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT A-11

1 APPENDIX D

2 SOME COMMUNITY PROJECTS

3

4 Section 2.4 of the main text discusses some community-based projects. This section

5 provides information on the projects and sources referred to in that section and adds brief

6 summaries of a few more projects.

7

8 D.1. EPA SUMMARY OF ECOSYSTEM PROJECTS

9 In January 1995, EPA’s Office of Water published A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA

10 Efforts to Protect Ecosystems (U.S. EPA, 1995b). This included summaries of projects involving

11 EPA and its partners in place-based management and ecosystem protection. Although the

12 inventory did not specifically list the entities protected for each project, many summaries provided

13 information on this point. The following table summarizes the entities protected by projects in

14 this inventory, to the extent this information was provided.

Table D-1. Ecosystem Protection Inventory: Entities Protected by Region

(Number of Projects)

Region 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 L M a b

Fish, fisheries 5 10 2 7 5 1 8 4 1 8 3 6

Shellfish 2 2 1 3 3 1 2

Birds 1 4 3 1 2 1

Wildlife 5 3 1

Aquatic life 1 1 1 3 1

Endangered or 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 3 2

native species

Biodiversity 1 1 1 2 5 2

Habitat or ecosystem 1 3 5 3 3 3 7 2 5 1 4 2

Aquatic habitat 4 5 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 5 3

(unspecified)

Estuaries 2 3 3 3 1

Lakes 1 7 1 2 2 1
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT A-12

Table D-1. Ecosystem Protection Inventory: Entities Protected by Region

(Number of Projects) (Continued)

Region 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 L M a b

Streams 1 1 1 2 5 7 5 1

Wetlands 2 5 12 1 6 5 2 4 10 6

Terrestrial habitat 1 1 4 2 2 7 4

Unique habitat 4 2 1 1 5

Soil 1 1 3 1 1 3

Large-scale projects. a

Multiregion projects. b

1 D.2. OTHER COMMUNITY-BASED PROJECTS

2 This section summarizes projects from various sources, many from the Office of Policy,

3 Planning, and Evaluation (OPPE) Comparative Risk Project (U.S. EPA, 1993).

4

5 1. The Wisconsin Tribes Comparative Risk Project (U.S. EPA, 1992) ranked several

6 natural resource issues as “high” under the ecological or quality-of-life categories. 

7 These included: 

8

9 • The effects on fish from nonpoint source discharges to lakes and rivers

10

11 • Loss of wild rice habitat, fish spawning, cover habitat, and aesthetic value from

12 physical degradation of water and wetland habitats

13

14 • Acid rain impacts on fish, birds, and mammals

15

16 • Abandoned hazardous waste sites (regarded as an insult to the Tribes’ respect

17 for the earth).

18

19 2. The Community-Based Environmental Risk, Ranking: Rural and Hawai’ian Quality of

20 Life: Kahalu’u O’ahu (University of Hawai’i at Manoa, l992) listed access to natural

21 resources as one of the most important values of this community; respect for the land

22 and for nature was also ranked high.

23

24 3. Issues rated high under Vermont’s quality-of-life comparative risk assessment include

25 alteration of Vermont’s ecosystems, the effects of acid rain on native species, and

26 pollution of lakes, ponds, and streams (U.S. EPA, 1993, section 2.4).

27
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT A-13

1 4. Louisiana listed various stressors of aquatic ecosystems and especially marine 

2 ecosystems as high in their comparative risk project; wetlands were also listed as high

3 (U.S. EPA, 1993, section 2.4).

4

5 5. Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program (Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program,

6 1992) adopted a vision for a brighter future for the Sarasota Bay; this vision

7 specifically mentions fish for recreational and commercial fishing and wetlands.

8

9 6. Six ecosystem projects are used by the State of Florida as examples of its ecosystem

10 management approach (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 1995). All

11 six are valued as habitat for a wide variety of species. Native species of amphibians,

12 reptiles, fish, aquatic invertebrates, migratory and resident birds, and other wildlife are

13 mentioned for one or more of the areas; endangered, rare, or threatened species are

14 mentioned for nearly all of the six; and commercially important fish and shellfish are

15 mentioned for most. The project areas contain important rivers, estuaries, and

16 wetlands. One has been designated a Wild and Scenic River. Ecosystem functions and

17 services such as aquifer recharge, flood water storage, and prevention of saltwater

18 intrusion are also mentioned as deserving protection.
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT A-14

1 APPENDIX E

2 LISTS OF SPECIAL PLACES

3

4 Many activities within Federal and State natural resource agencies and private

5 environmental organizations focus on identifying and ranking the most important natural

6 resources deserving special protection and management. These institutions have produced lists of

7 specific areas characterized by their uniqueness, ecological significance or rarity, recreational

8 importance, or other special designation. A 1991 report (U.S. EPA, 1991) described many of

9 these lists, and the results are summarized below.

Table E-1. Proposed Master Lists for EPA Use in Targeting Natural Resource Priorities

List Number of sites (×1000 acres) (percentage)

Area U.S. coverage

Sites with multiple designations from

different lists 43 18,682 0.82

Biosphere reserves 46 42,565 1.86

TNC last great places 8 16,339 0.71

Wetlands of international importance 10 1,129 0.05

World heritage sites 10 15,757 0.69

Areas of critical environmental concern 448 6,699 0.29

Experimental ecological reserves 96 2,709 0.12

National natural landmarks 587 8,692 0.38

Research natural areas 375 3,733 0.16

National conservation areas 7 13,833 0.60

National park system 152 75,181 3.28

National wilderness areas 488 90,960 3.97

National wildlife refuges 492 88273 3.85

Total 2,762 384,552 16.79

Source: U.S. EPA, 1991.
1/23/97 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT A-15

1 APPENDIX F

2 STATUTORY PROVISIONS THAT AUTHORIZE EPA TO 

3 CONSIDER SPECIFIC CONCERNS

4

5 Existing laws direct EPA to consider a variety of general and specific ecological concerns. 

6 The following table summarizes some of the more specific provisions of the major laws governing

7 EPA. Provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and National Environmental Policy Act

8 (NEPA) are also included because ESA and NEPA address all Federal agencies and because their

9 requirements may be triggered by certain EPA activities. The table is not comprehensive, and

10 provisions of the laws are paraphrased or excerpted.
1/23/97 A-16 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT Table F-1. Specific Provisions of Major Laws Governing EPA Law Provision Clean Air Act (CAA) §103 Authorizes collection and dissemination of data on “chemical, physical, and biological 

air quality.” Mandates interagency research on “ecosystems damage” from air pollutan

identification of “regionally representative and critical ecosystems” for research; evalu

ecosystems”; assessments of the “short-term and long-term ecological effects” of atmdeposition on surface water and groundwater, and air pollution effects on “forests, . . . bdiversity, soils, and other terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems”; and “associated econoecological damage.” Establishes biennial reporting requirements on “the status of ecosyforests and surface waters)” affected by acid deposition and “the occurrence and effectacidification, particularly with respect to high elevation watersheds. . . .” CAA §108 Authorizes EPA to “assess the risks to ecosystems from exposure to criteria air pollutant

CAA §109 Requires EPA to establish national ambient air quality standards for the protection of pub

welfare. (Welfare is defined in CAA §302 to include effects on “soils, water, crops, veg

animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate.”) CAA §111 Incorporates consideration of, among other things, “non-air quality . . . environmental i

performance standard definition. CAA §112(a)(1) Authorizes EPA to designate sources emitting lesser quantity of hazardous air pollutants on the potential for bioaccumulation, among other factors. CAA §112(b)(1) Provides an initial list of hazardous air pollutants that may be revised by EPA; the criteria 

from the list include adverse environmental effects, defined as “any significant and wideffect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, or other naturincluding adverse impacts on populations of endangered or threatened species or sidegradation of environmental quality over broad areas.”
1/23/97 A-17 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT Table F-1. Specific Provisions of Major Laws Governing EPA (Continued) Law Provision CAA §112(m) Requires EPA, in cooperation with NOAA, to conduct a hazardous air pollutant assessm

the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, Lake Champlain, and coastal waters, including 

such pollutants in biota, fish and wildlife,” and investigating “the sources of air pollutanthe [Chesapeake Bay and Lake Champlain] watersheds. . . .” CAA §160 Establishes as one of the purposes behind preventing deterioration of air quality “to . . . e

quality in national parks, wildernesses, national monuments, national seashores, and special national or regional natural, recreational, scenic, or historic value. . . .” CAA §162 Designates international parks, national wilderness areas exceeding 5,000 acres in simemorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres in size, and national parks exceeding 6,000 afor permanent special air quality protection. CAA §164 Authorizes special protection through State action for national monuments, primitive 

recreational areas, wild and scenic rivers, wildlife refuges, lakeshores, and seashore

special protection for national parks and wilderness areas exceeding 10,000 acres est1977. Authorizes similar action by federally recognized Indian tribes. Directs Federal lanreview all national monuments, primitive areas, and national preserves and recommeareas for special protection. CAA §165(d) Places responsibility on Federal land managers to “protect the air quality related values visibility)” in certain protected areas. Requires an analysis of “ambient air quality, climmeteorology, terrain, soils and vegetation,” among other things, as part of the consideadverse impacts of proposed major emitting facilities on protected areas. CAA §173(a)(5) Under the nonattainment New Source Review program, a State permitting authority may permit if it determines that an analysis of alternatives “demonstrates that benefits of the psignificantly outweigh the environmental [and other] costs imposed as a result of its loc

construction, or modification.” CAA §302 Defines welfare to include effects on “soils, water, crops, vegetation, . . . animals, wildvisibility, and climate,” among other things.
1/23/97 A-18 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT Table F-1. Specific Provisions of Major Laws Governing EPA (Continued) Law Provision CAA §309 Directs EPA to review and comment on other Federal agency actions and, “[i]n the event 

Administrator determines that any such legislation, action, or regulation is unsatisfactory standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality, . . . the matter shall be 

Council on Environmental Quality.” CAA §401 Congressional finding that acid deposition “represents a threat to natural resources [and

among other things. CAA §401 note Directed EPA to submit a report to Congress on the feasibility and effectiveness of acid d

standards “to protect sensitive and critically sensitive aquatic and terrestrial resourc

was to include identification of sensitive and critically sensitive aquatic and terrestrial resthat may be affected by acid deposition. Clean Water Act “The objective of the [CWA] is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biolog

(CWA) §101 the Nation’s waters.” Established national (interim) goal of “water quality which provid

other things] the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. . . .” CWA §102 Authorizes, upon State request, grants to planning agencies for comprehensive water qua

for “a basin or portion thereof,” defined to include “rivers and their tributaries, streamsounds, estuaries, bays, lakes, and portions thereof as well as the lands drained ther

CWA §104 Authorizes, among other things, grants for “basic research into the structure and functi

aquatic ecosystems, and to improve understanding of the characteristics necessary to the the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of freshwater aquatic ecosystems” and “instudies on the nature of river systems, including hydrology, biology, ecology, economeffects of development within river basins on river systems and on the value of water resrelated activities.” CWA §117 Continues the Chesapeake Bay Program to, among other things, address water quality im

“determine the impact of natural and man-induced environmental changes on the living rBay and the relationships among such changes, . . . with special attention given to the imchanges on striped bass.” 
1/23/97 A-19 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT Table F-1. Specific Provisions of Major Laws Governing EPA (Continued) Law Provision CWA §118 Establishes programs for the Great Lakes; directs or authorizes development of Lakewid

Plans and Remedial Action Plans, defined as “systematic and comprehensive ecosystem arestoring and protecting the beneficial uses” of the Great Lakes’ open waters and “areas respectively, in accordance with the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement; required EPA water quality guidance, including specific protection for aquatic life and wildlife, to proin controlling water pollution in Great Lakes States. CWA §119 Continues Long Island Sound environmental restoration efforts and promotes implemen

Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. CWA §120 Establishes Lake Champlain management efforts to address sources of pollution necessmaintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of water quality, [and] a balanced

population of shellfish, fish and wildlife,” among other things. CWA §302 Authorizes EPA to establish effluent limitations on discharges from point sources as neceprotection and propagation of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, among other things. CWA §303© Authorizes States and EPA to establish and review, on a triennial basis, water quality stan

other things, “enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the Act.” CWA §304(a) Gives EPA broad authority to develop and publish scientific information related to, amonrestoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of navigable 

waters, and waters of the contiguous zones. CWA §307(a) Authorizes EPA to establish a national effluent standard for toxic pollutants applicable to 

sources that takes into account the effects of the pollutants on “affected organisms in a

the importance of the affected organisms,” among other things. CWA §311 Establishes mechanisms to prevent or minimize effects of oil and hazardous substance disamong other things, “fish, shellfish, and wildlife, . . . shorelines, beaches, habitat, anand non-living resources.” Establishes contingency planning that includes procedures f“sensitive environmental areas, and . . . fisheries and wildlife,” and describes “areas environmental importance.”
1/23/97 A-20 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT Table F-1. Specific Provisions of Major Laws Governing EPA (Continued) Law Provision CWA §314 Establishes programs to address lake water quality issues, including a demonstration prog

priority lakes for demonstration projects. CWA §320 Authorizes establishment of management conferences to develop comprehensive conservmanagement plans “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integ

estuary, including restoration and maintenance of water quality, [and] a balanced indige

of shellfish, fish and wildlife,” among other things. States are to develop implementatiowatershed-by-watershed basis, to the maximum extent practicable. Creates research proglong-term program of monitoring to measure variations in, among other things, “marine 

“ecosystem assessment”; and the impact of nutrients, sediments, and pollutants on “wate

ecosystem” of estuarine zones, among other things. Defines estuarine zone to include “

aquatic ecosystems and those portions of tributaries draining into the estuary up to height of migration of anadromous fish or the historic head of tidal influence, whic

CWA §402 Establishes permitting process for States and EPA to control discharges of pollutants fro

an effort to achieve water quality standards.

CWA §404 Authorizes EPA to “veto” Corps or State authorization of a discharge of dredged or fill m

waters of the United States where EPA finds that it will have an unacceptable adverse effwater supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (including spawning and breeding arrecreation areas.”

ComprehensiveEnvironmentalResponse,Compensation, andLiability Act(CERCLA) §101

Defines “environment” as the navigable waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, cewaters, and any other surface water, ground water, drinking water supply, land susubsurface strata, or ambient air under U.S. jurisdiction. Defines “natural resources” 

wildlife, biota, air, ground water, drinking water supplies, and other such resource

CERCLA §102 Directs EPA to promulgate regulations designating as hazardous substances “substances 

released into the environment may present substantial danger to the public health or welfenvironment.”
1/23/97 A-21 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT Table F-1. Specific Provisions of Major Laws Governing EPA (Continued) Law Provision CERCLA §107 Establishes liability for damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources 

hazardous substances from facilities at which such substances were disposed of or treatedtrustees to assess natural resource damages for purposes of CERCLA and §311 of the CW

CERCLA §121 Specifies that remedial action for the treatment of hazardous substance shall be “protecti

and the environment.” CERCLA §301 Directs the President to promulgate natural resource damages assessment regulations thaconsideration “factors including . . . replacement value, use value, and ability of the ecresource to recover.” Endangered Species Act (ESA) §2 Congressional finding that at-risk species of fish, wildlife, and plants “are of aesthetic, 

educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its peoplamong the purposes of the Act “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon whicspecies and threatened species depend may be conserved. . . .” Establishes as congreFederal agencies “shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and authorities in furtherance of the purposes of [the Act].” ESA §3(16) Defines “species” as including “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plant, and any dissegment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature

ESA §7(a)(1) Directs all Federal agencies, with the assistance of FWS and NMFS, to utilize their autho

furtherance of the purposes of the ESA “by carrying out programs for the conservation o

and threatened species. . . .” ESA §7(a)(2) Directs all Federal agencies, in consultation with FWS/NMFS, to insure that “any action 

funded, or carried out” by them is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 

threatened species or result in the adverse modification of the designated critical haspecies unless the agency has been granted an exemption from the Endangered Species C

ESA §9 Prohibits any person (including EPA) from “taking” listed endangered species of fish o

without a permit.” “Take” is defined to include “harm” or “kill” in ESA §3(19). Pendangered species of plants on areas under Federal jurisdiction or covered by State law.
1/23/97 A-22 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT Table F-1. Specific Provisions of Major Laws Governing EPA (Continued) Law Provision Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) §2(j) “The term ‘environment’ includes water, air, land, and all plants and man and other 

therein, and the interrelationships which exist among these.” FIFRA §2(bb) “The term ‘unreasonable adverse effect on the environment’ means any unreasonable risk 

environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and beneany pesticide.” FIFRA §3(c)(5) Authorizes registration of a pesticide product only if it performs its intended pesticidal fucausing “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” FIFRA §4 For purposes of the reregistration process, directs EPA to give priority to active ingredieother things, “may result in residues of potential toxicological concern in potable groundwor shellfish. . . .” FIFRA §10 Requires public availability of certain information concerning a pesticide’s effects on “any behavior of such pesticide in the environment, including, but not limited to, data on safet

wildlife, humans and other mammals, plants, animals, and soil, and studies on persistranslocation, and fate in the environment, and metabolism. . . .” FIFRA §20 Directs EPA to “undertake such monitoring activities, including, but not limited to monitwater, man, plants, and animals. . . .” Marine Protection, Establishes as national policy the regulation of ocean dumping and to prevent or strictly l

Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) §2 dumping of any material “which would adversely affect human health, welfare, or ameni

marine environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities.”
1/23/97 A-23 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT Table F-1. Specific Provisions of Major Laws Governing EPA (Continued) Law Provision MPRSA §102(a) Authorizes EPA to issue permits for the transportation of material for ocean dumping if s

not unreasonably degrade or endanger, among other things, “the marine environment [

systems.” Directs EPA to establish permit application criteria that consider, among otheeffect of such dumping on fisheries resources, plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, shore beaches . . . [and] marine ecosystems, particularly with respect to . . . potential chanecosystem diversity, productivity, and stability, and . . . species and community popdynamics.” MPRSA §102© Authorizes EPA to designate sites and times within which certain materials may not be duAdministrator] finds it necessary to protect critical areas.” MPRSA §103 Authorizes waivers “unless the Administrator finds that the dumping of the material will runacceptably adverse impact on . . . shell-fish beds, wildlife, fisheries (including spawbreeding areas), or recreational areas.” National States that the Act’s purpose includes declaring a national policy to, among other things, 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) §2 which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere . . . [and] en

understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nat

NEPA §101 Sets forth congressional recognition of, among other things, “the profound impact of man

interrelations of all components of the natural environment . . . .” Provides that it is 

responsibility of the Federal government to improve Federal programs “to the end that thfulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeedin

.”
1/23/97 A-24 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT Table F-1. Specific Provisions of Major Laws Governing EPA (Continued) Law Provision NEPA §102 Congress “authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent possible: (1) the policies, regu

public laws of the United States shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with forth in [NEPA], and (2) all agencies of the Federal Government shall . . . develop metho. . . which will [e]nsure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and valu

appropriate consideration in decision making . . . [and] include in every recommendation proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions . . . [an environmental impact strecognize the worldwide and long-range character of environmental problems . . . [and] iecological information in the planning and development of resource-oriented projects . 

NEPA §201 Directs the President to transmit to Congress an annual report on “the status and conditio

natural, manmade, or altered environmental classes of the Nation, including, but nair, the aquatic, including marine, estuarine, and fresh water, and the terrestrial enincluding, but not limited to, the forest, dryland, wetland, range, urban, suburban, environment; . . . [and] the adequacy of available natural resources for fulfilling hueconomic requirements of the Nation in light of expected population pressures. . . .” NEPA §204 Establishes among the duties of the President’s Council on Environmental Quality “to co

investigations, studies, surveys, research, and analyses relating to ecological systems and 

quality. . . .” This duty was delegated to EPA in Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970. Solid Waste Establishes as one of the Act’s objectives “promoting . . . solid waste management, resou

Disposal Act (SWDA) §1003 resource conservation systems which preserve and enhance the quality of air, water, and 

Declares a national policy that any waste generated “should be treated, stored, or disposeminimize the present and future threat to human health and the environment.” SWDA §3002 Directs EPA to promulgate standards applicable to generators of listed hazardous wastes necessary to protect human health and the environment.” SWDA §3003 Directs EPA to promulgate standards applicable to transporters of listed hazardous wastenecessary to protect human health and the environment.”
1/23/97 A-25 DISCUSSION DOCUMENT Table F-1. Specific Provisions of Major Laws Governing EPA (Continued) Law Provision SWDA §3004 Directs EPA to promulgate performance standards applicable to owners and operators of 

treatment, storage, or disposal of listed hazardous wastes “as may be necessary to protecand the environment.” SWDA §9003 Directs EPA to promulgate release detection, prevention, and correction regulations applowners and operators of underground storage tanks, “as may be necessary to protect humenvironment.” Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) §3 “The term ‘environment’ includes water, air, and land and the interrelationship whicand between water, air, and land and all living things.” TSCA §4 Authorizes the Agency to require testing of chemical substances or mixtures that may pre

unreasonable risk of injury to “health or the environment.” TSCA §6 Authorizes action by EPA to protect against chemical substances or mixtures that presenan unreasonable risk of injury to “health or the environment.” Requirements imposed ma“specified geographic areas.” TSCA §8 Authorizes the Agency to require, among other things, submission of “health and safety d“any study of any effect of a chemical substance or mixture on health or the environment . . . ecological studies.”
1/23/97 DRAFT--DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE A-26

1 REFERENCES FOR APPENDICES

2

3 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (1995). Toward ecosystem management. Tallahassee, FL.

4

5 Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program (1992). Framework for action. Sarasota, FL. 

6

7 U.S. Department of the Interior (1994). Ecosystem management in the National Park Service: Discussion draft. U.S.

8 Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

9

10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1983). Compilation of Federal laws, treaties, and conventions pertaining to the

11 environment: 1785-1978. Prepared by RG Clements for Office of Toxic Substances, Health and Environmental Review

12 Division, Ecological Effects Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

13

14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1991). Targeting priority natural resource areas: A review of national lists. 

15 Prepared by Dynamac Corporation for Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. U.S. Environmental Protection

16 Agency, Washington, DC.

17

18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1992). Tribes at risk: The Wisconsin Tribes Comparative Risk Project. U.S.

19 Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/230/R-92/017.

20

21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1993). A guidebook to comparing risks and setting environmental priorities.

22 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/230/B-93/003.

23

24 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1994) Managing ecological risks at EPA: Issues and recommendations for

25 progress. Prepared by ME Troyer and MS Brody, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/600/R-94/183.

26

27 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1995). A phase I inventory of current EPA efforts to protect ecosystems. 

28 Prepared by D Norton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/841/S-95/001.

29

30 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1996). Waquoit Bay watershed ecological risk assessment problem formulation. 

31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (review draft).

32

33 University of Hawai’i at Manoa (1992). A community-based environmental risk ranking: Rural and Hawai’ian quality

34 of life: Kahalu’u O’ahu. University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Department of Urban and Regional Planning.