From: Shine, Brenda <Shine.Brenda@epa.gov> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:55 PM To: Cortney Higgins Cc: Lassiter, Penny; Rimer, Kelly Subject: Petroleum Refinery RTR--- Interagency Comments under EO12866--- Supporting Information for Ecological Risk

Cortney, Here are two documents related to the ecological risk assessment. They are: 1)The environmental risk screen reference for Gener ic Ecological Risk Assessment Endpoints (GEAEs), and 2) New Appendix 11 to the risk report that includes the ecological benchmarks

<< GENERIC_ENDPOINTS_2003.pdf >> << Appendix 11.pdf >>EPA/630/P-02/004F October 2003



## Generic Ecological Assessment Endpoints (GEAEs) for Ecological Risk Assessment

Risk Assessm ent Forum U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency W a shington, DC 20460DISCLAIMER

This docum ent has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency policy. Mention of trade nam e s or com m e rcial products does not constitute endorsem e nt or recom m e ndation for use.

iiCONTENTS

P R E F A C E ...................................................................v AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS, AND REVIEW ERS

................................ v i

1. INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT ............................1 1.1. Definitions of Assessm ent Endpoints .......................................1 1.2. Potential Uses for Generic Assessm ent Endpoints .............................3 1.3. Criteria for GEAEs .....................................................5

2

. E P A ’ s I N I T I A L S E T O F G E A E s ..............................................7 2.1. Definitions of the GEAEs Organism s ......................................1 3 2.2. Assessm ent Populations and Com m unities .................................1 6

3

. H O W T O U S E T H E G E A E s .................................................1 9 3.1. Using GEAEs in Assessm ent Endpoint Selection ............................1 9 3.2. Making the Generic Endpoints Specific ....................................2 0 3.3. Other Ecological Assessm ent Endpoints ...................................2 1 3.4. Com p leting a List of Assessm ent Endpoints for a Specific Assessm ent ...........2 2

4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER PROGRESS ...........................2 3 4.1. Develop and Support a Continual, Open Process for Reviewing, Am ending,
a n d C r e a t i n g N e w G E A E s ..............................................2 3 4.2. Develop a Database to Docum e nt and Keep Track of New Rationales, Precedents, and Assessm ent Endpoints ....................................2 4 4.3. Potential GEAEs for Future Consideration .................................2 5

5

. C O N C L U S I O N ...........................................................2 7

A P P E N D I X A

. S U P P O R T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N ...................................2 8

APPENDIX B. TYPES OF VALUES ASSOCIATED W I TH ASSESSMENT E N D P O I N T S ..................................................5 2

R E F E R E N C E S ..............................................................5 4

iiiLIST OF TABLES

2-1. Generic ecological assessm ent endpoints .......................................8 2-2. Generic ecological assessm ent endpoints (GEAEs): sum m a ry of the policy support for their use and their practicality ................................................9 4

- 1

. P o t e n t i a l G E A E s .........................................................2 4

LIST OF FIGURES

1-1. Application of generic ecological assessm ent endpoints (GEAEs) in risk assessm ent ....2

ivPREFACE Ecological risk assessm ent is a process for evaluating the likelihood that adverse ecological effects m a y occur or are occurring as a result of exposure to one or m o re stressors. A critical early step in conducting an ecological risk assessm ent is deciding which aspects of the environm ent will be selected for evaluation. This step is often challenging because of the

rem a rkable diversity of species, ecological com m unities, and ecological f unctions f r om which to choose and because of statutory am biguity regarding what is to be protected. The purpose of this docum ent is to build on existing EPA guidance and experience to assist those who are involved in ecological risk assessm ents in carrying out this step, which in the parlance of ecological risk

assessm ent is term ed “selecting assessm ent endpoints.” The docum ent describes a set of endpoints, known as generic ecological assessm ent endpoints (GEAEs), that can be considered and adapted for specific ecological risk assessm ents. This docum ent was prepared by a Technical Panel under the auspices of EPA’s Risk Assessm ent Forum

. The Risk Assessm ent Forum was established to prom ote scientific consensus on risk assessm ent issues and to incorporate this consensus into appropriate risk

assessm ent guidance. To accom p lish this, the Forum assem b les experts from throughout EPA in a form al process to study and report on these issues from an Agency-wide perspective. The docum ent reflects the Forum ’ s long-standing com m itm ent to advancing ecological risk

assessm ent and is intended to supplem ent the use of the Forum ’ s Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1998a). Following the publication of the guidelines, the Forum surveyed ecological risk assessors from across the Agency to prioritize and select risk assessm ent topics for further developm ent. Additional guidance on assessm ent endpoints em erged as one of the highest-priority topics. A subsequent EPA coll oquium sponsored by the Forum to consider high priorities f r om the survey identif ied a need f o r Agency-wide generic ecological assessm ent endpoints and directly led to the developm ent of this docum ent. The prim ary goal of this docum ent is to enhance the application of ecological risk

assessm ent at EPA, thereby im proving the scientific basis for ecological risk m a nagem e nt decisions. However, the docum ent is not a regulation, nor is it intended to substitute for federal regulations. It describes general principles and is not prescriptive. Rather, it is intended to be a useful starting point that is flexible enough to be applied to m a ny different types of ecological risk assessm ents. Risk assessors and risk m a nagers at EPA are the prim ary audience; the docum ent also m a y be useful to others outside the Agency.

vAUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS, AND REVIEWERS This report was prepared by a Technical Panel of EPA scientists under the auspices of EPA’s Risk Assessm ent Forum

. Technical Panel

Glenn W

. Suter II (Chair) National Center for Environm ental Assessm ent Office of Research and Developm ent U.S. EPA Cincinnati, OH 45268

Thom as Gardner Office of Science and Technology Office of W a ter U.S. EPA W a shington, DC 20460

Donald J. Rodier Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances U.S. EPA W a shington, DC 20460 Michael E. Troyer National Center for Environm ental Assessm ent Office of Research and Developm ent U.S. EPA Cincinnati, OH 45268 Patti Lynne Tyler Office of Technical and Managem e nt Services Region 8 U.S. EPA Denver, CO 80202

Douglas J. Urban Office of Pesticide Program s Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances U.S. EPA W a shington, DC 20460 Marjorie C. W e llm an Office of Science and Technology Office of W a ter U.S. EPA W a shington, DC 20460

Steven W h arton Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance Region 8 U.S. EPA Denver, CO 80202

Jam e s W h ite Of f i ce of Air Quality Planning and Standards Office of Air and Radiation U.S. EPA Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Risk Assessm ent Forum Staff

Scott Schwenk National Center for Environm ental Assessm ent Office of Research and Developm ent U.S. EPA W a shington, DC 20460

viAUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS, AND REVIEWERS (continued)

EPA REVIEWERS
Jim Carleton Office of Pesticide Program s Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances U.S. EPA W a shington, DC 20460

Bruce Duncan Office of Environm ental Assessm ent Region 10 U.S. EPA Seattle, W A 98101
Anne Fairbrother W e stern Ecology Division National Health and Environm ental Effects Research Laboratory Office of Research and Developm ent U.S. EPA Corvallis, OR 97333

Gina Ferreira Division of Environm ental Planning and Protection Region 2 U.S. EPA New York, NY 10007-1866

Laura Gabanski Office of W e tlands, Oceans, and W a tersheds Office of W a ter U.S. EPA W a shington, DC 20460

Jim Goodyear Office of Pesticide Program s Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances U.S. EPA W a shington, DC 20460 Am uel Kennedy Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances U.S. EPA W a shington, DC 20460

W a yne Munns National Health and Environm ental Effects Research Laboratory Office of Research and Developm ent U.S. EPA Narragansett, RI 02882 Deirdre Murphy Of f i ce of Air Quality Planning and Standards Office of Air and Radiation U.S. EPA Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

J. Vincent Nabholz Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances U.S. EPA W a shington, DC 20460

Vicki Sandiford Of f i ce of Air Quality Planning and Standards Office of Air and Radiation U.S. EPA Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Mike Slim ak National Center for Environm ental Assessm ent Office of Research and Developm ent U.S. EPA W a shington, DC 20460

viiBarbara M. Sm ith Policy and Managem e nt Division Region 9 U.S. EPA San Francisco, CA 94105

Sharon Thom s W a ste Managem e nt Division Region 4 U.S. EPA Atlanta, GA 30303-8960

Am y Vasu Of f i ce of Air Quality Planning and Standards Office of Air and Radiation U.S. EPA Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

EXTERNAL PEER REVIEWERS

W illiam J. Adam s Rio Tinto HSE

Lawrence W

. Barnthouse LW B Environm ental Services, Inc. Peter M. Chapm a n EVS Environm ent Consultants

Peter L. deFur Center for Environm ental Studies Virginia Com m onwealth University

John H. Gentile Harwell Gentile & Associates, LC Bruce K. Hope Land Quality Division Oregon Departm e nt of Environm ental Quality Randall S. W e ntsel Office of Science Policy Office of Research and Developm ent U.S. EPA W a shington, DC 20460

Jordan M. W e st National Center for Environm ental Assessm ent Office of Research and Developm ent U.S. EPA W a shington, DC 20460 Molly R. W h itworth Office of Science Policy Office of Research and Developm ent U.S. EPA W a shington, DC 20460

Lawrence A. Kapustka
e cological p lanning and t oxicology, inc.

Charles A. Menzie Menzie-Cura & Associates, Inc.

Donald Norm an Norm an W ildlif e Consulting

Jam e s M. Polisini Departm e nt of Toxic Substances Control California EPA Ralph G. Stahl, Jr. DuPont Com p any
Kent. W

. Thornton FTN Associates, Ltd.

viii1. INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT

In the practice of ecological risk

assessm ent, assessm ent endpoints are the valued attributes of ecological entities upon which risk

m a nagem e nt actions are focused (U.S. EPA, 1998a). Because not all organism s or ecosystem features can be studied, regulatory agencies and other risk m a nagers m u st choose from am ong
m a ny candidate endpoints. A recom m e ndation for im proving ecological risk assessm ent and

m a nagem e nt within the U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency (EPA, or the Agency) has been to develop a set of generic assessm ent endpoints that are based on environm ental legislation and EPA’s policies and precedents and that cover EPA’s range of concerns for the protection of ecological entities and f unctions. In response to that recom m e ndation, this docum ent presents a set of generic ecological

assessm ent endpoints (GEAEs) that provides

exam ples of endpoints applicable to a wide variety of assessm ent scenarios. It also provides guidance for using these GEAEs to develop robust, assessm ent-specific endpoints. The role of assessm ent endpoints within the ecological risk assessm ent is shown in the text box. The application of GEAEs to the process of The role of assessment endpoints in EPA’s framew ork for ecological risk assessment Ecological risk assessm ents are preceded by a planning phase in which risk m a nagers, risk assessors, and, as appropriate, interested parties define the
m a nagem e nt goals. The goals are broad statem ents of desired conditions such as “restore the wetlands” or “sustain the trout population.” The planning phase is followed by the problem form ulation phase, in which the assessors define the assessm ent endpoints based on the m a nagem e nt goals. The assessm ent endpoints are specif i c entities and their attributes that are at risk and that are expressions of a
m a nagem e nt goal. The analysis and risk characterization phases of the risk assessm ent are devoted to estim ating the nature and likelihood of effects on those endpoints. Finally, risk com m unication involves conveying those results and associated uncertainties as well as explaining their im plications. These processes are explained in Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1998a).

generating and using assessm ent endpoints in ecological risk assessm ents is illustrated in Figure 1-1.

1.1. Definitions of Assessment Endpoints An assessm ent endpoint is defined in Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1998a) as “an explicit expression of the environm ental value to be protected, operationally def i ned as an ecological entity and its attributes.” An ecological entity f o r exam ple, m i ght be an

1Plan ning

Pr oblem For m ulation

Ana l ysis and Ris k Char acterization

Manage me nt Goals

As ses s ment

Endpoin t s

Ri sk Esti mates for

Eac h En dpoint GEAEs

Figure 1-1. Application of generic ecological assessment endpoints (GEAEs) in risk assessment. The process of generating and using ecological assessm ent endpoints and showing how GEAEs are used along with m a nagem e nt goals in the selection of assessm ent endpoints during problem form ulation. Rectangles represent assessm ent processes and hexagons represent the products of those processes.

im portant fish species, such as coho salm on, with its attributes being fecundity and recruitm ent. Effects on assessm ent endpoints are estim ated using m easures of effects (see text box). The guidelines provide three selection criteria: ecological relevance, susceptibility (exposure plus sensitivity), and relevance to m a nagem e nt goals. Selecting appropriate assessm ent endpoints is a critical step in ensuring that an assessm ent will be usef ul to risk m a nagers in m a king inf o rm ed

2and scientifically defensible environm ental decisions. GEAEs are assessm ent endpoints that are applicable to a wide range of ecological risk

assessm ents (ERAs) because they reflect the program m a tic goals of the Agency, they are applicable to a wide array of environm ental issues, and they m a y be estim ated using existing

assessm ent tools. GEAEs do not com p rise a

com p lete list of what is or, by exclusion, what is not protected by EPA. They are not specifically defined for every conceivable case, and som e ad hoc elaboration by users is expected (Section 3.3). Furtherm ore, they are not goals or objectives, but they should be related to goals or objectives when such are known. For exam ple, a generic endpoint could be created for endangered species, but the specific species of concern would be defined during problem form ulation, and attributes of the species could be selected to f u lf ill the goals of the Endangered Species Act, The relationship of measures of effects
w i th assessment endpoints Measures of effects (also known as
m easurem ent endpoints) are the results of tests or observational studies that are used to estim ate the effects on an assessm ent endpoint of exposure to a stressor. For
exam ple, a conventional m easure of effect f r om an acute lethality test is the m e dian lethal concentration (LC 50 ), which m i ght be used to estim ate the risk of a fish kill (an assessm ent endpoint) from exposure to a spill of the tested chem ical. Measures of effect and assessm ent endpoints m a y be expressed at the sam e level of organization (organism level in this case). However, the sam e m easure of effect m a y be used, with considerably greater uncertainty, to estim ate risks to a population-level assessm ent endpoint (abundance of a fish species) or a
com m unity-level endpoint (num ber of species).

the recovery plan for the species, and the objectives of the particular assessm ent. Published generic endpoints are available for regional assessm ents (Suter, 1990), population assessm ents (Suter and Donker, 1993), assessm ents of hazardous waste com bustors (U.S. EPA, 1999a), and assessm ents of contam inated sites in Alaska (Alaska Departm e nt of Environm ental Conservation, 2000). In addition, exam ples of ecological assessm ent endpoints evaluated within certain EPA program s have been highlighted in prior EPA docum ents (U.S. EPA, 1994, 1997a, c, 1998a). These exam ples are presented, as appropriate, in Appendix A.

1.2. Potential Uses for Generic Assessment Endpoints The set of generic assessm ent endpoints proposed in Section 2 of this docum ent should be useful for risk assessors and m a nagers i nvolved in planning and perform i ng ecological risk

assessm ents within various EPA program s and offices. In particular, this docum ent can be consulted during the problem form ulation stage of ecological risk assessm ents to assist in developing assessm ent endpoints that are useful in EPA’s decision-m a king process, practical to

m easure, and well defined. In addition, the specific environm ental laws, precedents, and other

3polices presented in Appendix A, which provide the supporting inform ation for this initial set of generic endpoints of this docum ent, should be equally useful in supporting assessm ent-specific endpoints. Individual program s m a y have specific uses for these generic endpoints beyond ecological risk assessm ents. For exam ple, water quality m a nagem e nt program s m a y want to consider using this inform ation during the process of refining designated aquatic life uses in state and tribal water quality standards, when re-evaluating or developing guidance f o r consistent and environm entally relevant m onitoring program s, and in interpreting and im plem enting narrative water quality standards. In particular, this set of generic endpoints m a y be useful within the context of a total m a xim u m daily load for a water body that has been listed for nonsupport of aquatic lif e, but where there are no num eric biocriteria in the state’s water quality standards. This set of generic endpoints could be used to a ssist in the selection of appropriate ecological response variables or to judge the effectiveness of the pollutant reductions. Ultim ately, generic assessm ent endpoints could have several other uses within the Agency, such as in

• G iving risk m a nagers a basis for action sim ilar to com m only em ployed hum an health endpoints;

• P roviding a threshold for prevention of environm ental degradation by ensuring that certain values are at least considered for assessm ent;

• C om plying with legal requirem e nts;

• I m p roving the consistency of ecological risk assessm ent and m a nagem e nt;

• S erving as m odels for site-, action-, or region-specific endpoints;

• P erform ing screening ecological risk assessm ents where endpoints m a y need to be developed rapidly with little input from risk m a nagers;

• P roviding clear direction for the developm ent of m e thods and m odels;

• F acilitating com m unication with stakeholders by creating a set of f

a m iliar and clear generic endpoints; and

• R educing the tim e and effort required to conduct assessm ents.
These uses are described m o re fully in Suter (2000). It is im portant to em phasize that the generic assessm ent endpoints are not m a ndatory or applicable to all assessm ents. These particular generic endpoints should be used only when and

4where they are relevant. In m a ny cases, it is likely that the endpoints derived from the generic

assessm ent endpoints will be supplem ented by other assessm ent endpoints that are relevant to the specif i c stressor or ecosystem

. Over tim e, EPA anticipates that this initial set of generic ecological assessm ent endpoints will be periodically reviewed, m odified, and supplem ented as experience is gained in applying and interpreting them in a variety of natural conditions and regulatory contexts (see Section 4).

1.3. Criteria for GEAEs Like assessm ent endpoints developed for specific risk assessm ents, the GEAEs presented in this report are intended to be useful in EPA decision m a king and to have a sound basis in ecological theory. The following criteria are used in this report for evaluating potential GEAEs; they are independent of specific assessm ent situations and in that way differ from the criteria that should be used in developing assessm ent-specific endpoints (see the text box in Chapter 3).

1. Generally useful in EPA’s decision-making process. Usefulness m a y be indicated by the language found in statutes, treaties, and regulations that the Agency im plem ents or with which it m u st com p ly. Judicial decisions also indicate how the values defined by statutes m a y be translated into generically useful endpoints. In addition, Agency guidance, guidelines, protocols, and official m e m o randa indicate poten tially useful endpoints. Finally, various actions of the Agency that were based on ecological protection (i.e., Agency precedents) provide evidence of general utility f o r GEAEs. These various sources of environm ental policy are

sum m a rized in U.S. EPA (1994, 1997a). Additional sources are referenced in Appendix A. Note that the reliance on available policy and precedent in this docum ent should not suggest a sim ilar restraint on risk assessors and m a nagers in practice. EPA has a broad m a ndate to protect the environm ent that can support the use of novel endpoints in individual assessm ents (see Sections 3 and 4).

2. Practical

. Methods used to estim ate risks to the endpoint entity and attribute should be available and reasonably practicable in various assessm ent contexts. This requires m e thods that directly m easure or observe the endpoint’s attributes or that estim ate them using a

com b ination of m easurem ents and m odels. However, this does not require that a GEAE be usef ul f o r all situations. Som e GEAEs will not be im plem entable f o r som e taxa or ecosystem s, but they should be practical in m a ny situations.

3. Well defined. At a m i nim u m , a GEAE m u st include an entity and an attribute of that entity (U.S. EPA, 1998a). The entity and attribute should be clearly explained, so that they are

5understandable by the public and decisionm akers without appearing am biguous to environm ental scientists. A definition should be supported by a clear explanation of the endpoint’s relationship with the Agency’s m a nagem e nt goals and program m a tic applications.

Support for the first two criteria (usefulness and practicality) is presented in Appendix A and sum m a rized in Table 2-2. The third criterion (that GEAEs be well defined) is supported by the definitions in Section 2.1 and supplem ented by the background in Appendix A.

62. EPA’s INITIAL SET OF GEAEs

This chapter presents EPA’s initial set of GEAEs to be considered f o r the uses described in Section 1.2. As stated, these GEAEs are not exhaustive or m a ndatory but rather are provided to assist EPA program s and researchers and d ecisionm akers who are involved in protecting the nation’s ecological resources, as described in Section 3. The entities and properties in the initial set of GEAEs are presented in Table 2-1. The specif i c taxa, com m unities, or ecosystem s f o r which policy or precedents were identified are listed in the last colum n of the table. The GEAEs are defined in Section 2.1, and the basis for the term s “assessm ent com m unity” and “assessm ent population,” which are used in the definitions, is explained in Section 2.2. Inform ation concerning laws, regulations, and precedents that support the selection and use of these GEAEs is presented in Appendix A and sum m a rized in Table 2-2. A general discussion of the values related to these GEAEs is presented in Appendix B. Other potential GEAEs that were prom ising but did not fully m eet the criteria in Section 1.3 are discussed in Section 4. These GEAEs are not always biologically distinct, but the apparent overlaps are justified in pragm a tic term s. For exam ple, the generic endpoint “population extirpation” is an extrem e case of the generic endpoint “population abundance.” However, the extirpation of a population is qualitatively different from a sim p le percentage loss of abundance. The im plications of reductions in fish abundance include a loss of fishing incom e , but extirpation Overlap of GEAEs GEAEs are not necessarily discrete
or m u tually exclusive; therefore, there
m a y be som e redundancy in a set of GEAEs. For exam ple, the condition of an ecological entity at one level of biological organization (e.g., organism )
m a y influence the condition of other entities at that level and interdependent entities at higher levels of organization (e.g., population or com m unity). Also, a large change in one attribute
m a y overlap with another attribute, as in the case of abundance and extirpation. Furtherm ore, GEAEs m a y relate to m o re than one environm ental value (see Appendix B), which m a y be reflected in
m

u ltiple statutes, regulations, public policies, or public perceptions (see Appendix A).

m eans an end to the fishery. In addition, it is typically m u ch easier to establish that extirpation has occurred (e.g., the fish are no longer caught) or will occur (e.g., the trout stream will be inundated by a reservoir, or the pH will be far beyond the lethal level) than to establish that som e percentage reduction in abundance has occurred or will occur. This difference in im plications for the assessm ent and decision-m a king processes justify treating extirpation and abundance as different endpoints.

7Sim ilarly, kills of organism s have shor t-term effects on population abundance but do not necessarily have a significant or long-term eff ect on abundance. The m e thods for determ ining

Table 2-1. Generic ecological assessment endpoints a

Entity Attribute I dentified EPA precedents Organism -level endpoints Organism s (in an assessm ent population or com m unity) Kills (m ass m o rtality, conspicuous
m o rtality) V e rtebrates

Gross anom alies V ertebrates Shellfish Plants Survival, fecundity, growth Endangered species Migratory birds Marine mammals Bald and golden eagles V e rtebrates Invertebrates Plants Population-level endpoints Assessm ent population E xtirpation V ertebrates Abundance V ertebrates Shellfish Production V ertebrates (gam e/resource species) Plants (harvested species)

A quatic com m unities Coral reefs A quatic com m unities P lant assem b lages Wetlands Coral reefs Endangered/rare ecosystem s Com m unity and ecosystem -level endp oints A ssessm ent com m unities,
assem b lages, and ecosystem s Taxa richness

Abundance Production Ar ea

Function Wetlands Physical structure A quatic ecosystem s Officially designated endpoints C r itical habitat for threatened or endangered species Ar ea Q u ality Special places Ecological properties that relate to the special or legally protected status e.g., National parks, national wildlife refuges, Great Lakes

a Generic ecological assessm ent endpoints for which EPA has identified existing policies and precedents, in particular the specific entities listed in the third colum n. B o ld indicates protection by federal statute. See Table 4-1 for additional endpoints that could be considered by EPA in the future.

8Table 2-2. Generic ecological assessment endpoints (GEAEs ): summary of the policy support for their use and their practicality a

GEAE # E ntity: Policy support Practicality Organism -level endpoints
1 O rganism s : (m ass m o rtality, conspicuous
m o rtality) Supported by m a ny EPA program s; e.g., EPA has restricted the use of pesticides (e.g., diazinon and carbofuran) due to incidents of bird
m o rtality. Likelihood of kills from chem ical pollutants can be estim ated from toxicity testing. a y be easy or difficult to observe, but when seen, they suggest a com m o n m echanism or stressor exerting a strong effect.
2 O rganism s : anom alies Gross anom alies in birds, fish, shellfish, and other organism s are a cause for public concern and have been the basis for EPA regulatory action and guidance (e.g., assessed at Superfund sites, incorporated into biocriteria for water program s). External gross anom alies are readily observed and are com m only included in survey protocols for fish and forests. toxicity tests of fish, birds, m a m m a ls, and plants.

3 O rganism s : fecundity, growth Many EPA program s rely on organism -level attributes of survival, fecundity, and growth in assessing ecological risks (e.g., water quality criteria, pesticide and toxic chem ical reviews, Superfund sites). -level species protection is m a ndated by the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mam m a l Protection Act, Bald Eagle Protection Act, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Results of toxicity tests of the survival, fecundity, and growth of organism s are abundant and often can be extrapolated to endangered species and other species of concern. Inform ation on the ranges of listed endangered species is available through state and federal governm e nts.

Population-level endpoints attribute(s)

kills
Incidents m

gross

They are also reported in

survival,

Organism

4 A ssessm ent population: extirpation EPA has taken action or provided guidance to prevent extirpation of local populations (e.g., assessm ent of likelihood of extirpation of fish populations due to acid rain). also the description for Assessm ent population: Extirpation can be predicted using population viability analysis. Dem onstrating extirpation m a y be easy or difficult, depending on the conspicuousness of a species. also the description for Assessm ent population: abundance. See
abundance. See

9Table 2-2. Generic ecological assessment endpoints (GEAEs): summary of the policy support for their use and their practicality a (continued)

GEAE # E ntity: Policy support Practicality
5 A ssessm ent population: abundance Major environm ental statutes
m a ndate protection of anim als, plants, aquatic life, and living things generally, which can be inferred to entail protection of populations. EPA policies for pesticides, toxic chem icals, hazardous wastes, and air and water pollutants are intended to protect assessm ent populations of organism s. m a ls, birds, fish, aquatic invertebrates, and plants are typically assessed. Changes in abundance m a y be predicted using conventional toxicity data with statistical extrapolation
m odels and population m odels. OPPT evaluated a population m odel to explore effects of chloroparaffins on fish populations. ent of abundance in the field m a y be easy or difficult, depending on the species.

6 A ssessm ent population: production See description for Assessm ent population: Additionally, a num ber of laws are intended to m a intain production of various econom ically valuable species. s (e.g., National Estuary Program ) and air program s (e.g., criteria pollutant standards) have involved protecting production of resource species populations. Changes in production m a y be predicted using conventional toxicity data as well as population-based approaches. such as tree or fish species, production changes m a y be
m easurable in the field but m a y require long periods of observation.

Com m unity and ecosystem -level endpoints
7 A ssessm ent
com m unities,
assem b lages, and ecosystem s: richness EPA water quality biocriteria frequently incorporate m easures of
com m unity taxa richness. Additionally, EPA testing for pesticides, toxic chem icals, and water pollutants is intended to assess im pacts to com m unities as well as populations and organism s. Fish, aquatic invertebrates, and aquatic plant assem b lages are often assessed. Changes in com m unities can be inferred or m odeled from conventional toxicity data. Measuring taxa richness and abundance of aquatic com m

unities, at least for fish and
m acroinvertebrate com m unities, is practical and well established. Ecosystem m odels that assess effects of toxicants on com m unity properties are available and can use data acquired from organism -level laboratory testing, but they have not been routinely applied to date.
8 A ssessm ent
com m unities,
assem b lages, and ecosystem s: abundance As in the case of taxa richness, water quality biocriteria incorporate
m easures of com m unity abundance, and EPA testing protocols are intended to assess im pacts to
com m unities. See description above for taxa richness within assessm ent
com m unities. attribute(s)

Mam Measurem

abundance.

EPA water program For resource species

taxa

10Table 2-2. Generic ecological assessment endpoints (GEAEs): summary of the policy support for their use and their practicality a (continued)

GEAE # E ntity: Policy support Practicality
9 A ssessm ent
com m unities,
assem b lages, and ecosystem s: production EPA water quality policies address overproduction of aquatic plants (and concom itant eutrophication) due to excess input of nutrients. EPA policies for pesticides, toxic chem icals, water pollutants, and air pollutants (as in the case of ozone and acid rain) also target decreases in production of forests or other plant com m unities. Methods for m easuring plant production are well developed for both terrestrial and aquatic
com m unities. predicting effects of nutrient addition are relatively well developed. Protocols for testing plant toxicity are available and include production
m e trics.

10 Assessm ent
com m unities,
assem b lages, and ecosystem s: Policy support exists for considering the area of wetlands, coral reefs, and endangered/rare ecosystem s. ong the supports for wetlands protection are the Clean W a ter Act, the National Environm ental Policy Act (NEPA), the Coastal Zone Managem e nt Act, Executive Order 11990, and the federal wetlands delineation
m a nual. b Policies for protection of coral reefs are established by Executive Order 13089; additional support m a y be found in the Coastal Zone Managem e nt Act and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. reefs are protected by state or federal governm e nt. precedents exist for endangered/ rare ecosystem s, but a variety of EPA program s have considered them , e.g., Superfund and NEPA. Assessing the area of comm unities is generally straightforward, although when clear boundaries between
com m unities are absent, defining
areas m a y be som e what difficult. Methods for delineating wetlands are well established, and changes in wetland area are therefore relatively easy to m easure and m onitor over tim e. relatively easy to determ ine. case of endangered and rare ecosystem types, a ready data source is NatureServe c , which m a intains data on all known U.S. ecological
com m unities, ranked from critically im periled to secure. Prediction of change from one com m unity or ecosystem type to another m a y be difficult. attribute(s)

plant Methods for

area Am

Many U.S. coral

Fewer EPA The area of coral reefs is also In the

11 Assessm ent
com m unities,
assem b lages, and ecosystem s: Policy support for ecosystem function is prim arily lim ited to wetlands. protection cited above for
com m unity/ecosystem area generally applies to wetland function as well. Loss of wetland function can be inferred from loss of wetland area. However, losses of function independent of area loss generally are not readily observable or predictable. function The support for wetland

11Table 2-2. Generic ecological assessment endpoints (GEAEs): summary of the policy support for their use and their practicality a (continued)

GEAE # E ntity: Policy support Practicality
12 Assessm ent
com m unities,
assem b lages, and ecosystem s: structure The prim ary policy support for this endpoint derives from the Clean W a ter Act, which applies to aquatic ecosystem s. m a intaining the physical integrity (along with the chem ical and biological integrity) of the nation' s waters is the prim ary goal of the Clean W a ter Act.
m onitoring guidance under the Act include m easures of physical structure. Protocols exist for m easuring m a ny of the physical characteristics of aquatic ecosystem s. pacts of
m a ny actions (e.g., channelization, dam construction) on the physical structure of water bodies can be readily predicted. (such as hydrology changes due to land use changes) are m o re difficult, but still possible, to m odel.

Officially designated endpoints
13 Critical habitat for threatened and endangered species:
area The Endangered Species Act specifically m a ndates the protection of critical habitat for endangered species in addition to the species them selves. available habitat is com m only used in assessing risks to these species. Inform ation on habitat used by listed species is available from state and federal agencies, although critical habitat has not been officially designated for m o st listed species. Generally it is practical to determ ine effects on habitat area.
14 Critical habitat for threatened and endangered species: quality Legal protection of critical habitat extends to the quality (suitability) of the habitat to endangered species, in addition to its extent. Assum i ng that critical habitat can be identified (even if not officially designated), it practical to determ ine whether it has been or will be adversely m odified.
15 Special places: ecological properties that m a ke them special or legally protected The Clean Air Act, NEPA, and other statutes require protection of special places such as national parks, wilderness areas, and wildlife refuges, and this is reflected in EPA policies. a ter Act gives EPA a role in designating national estuaries and outstanding national resource waters, which receive additional protection. Special places and their im portant ecological properties usually can be defined readily. The ability to predict or detect im pacts to these properties will depend on the nature of the properties and whether im pacts are direct or indirect. attribute(s)

physical Restoring and

EPA policies and The im

Other effects

The area (quantity) of

generally should be

The Clean W

a See Appendix A for details and references. b Environmental Laboratory (1987)

c NatureServe’s web address is <http://www. natureserve. org>.

12that a kill has occurred are m u ch sim p ler than the m e thods for determ ining that the abundance of a population has changed. In addition, the effects on the public of a kill (such as concerns over odor and disease) are not necessarily relate d to effects on the populations involved. For

exam ple, public response to a fish kill m a y not be related to the ability of the fish populations involved to recover rapidly. Therefore, kills are distinct from both population abundance and extirpation in term s of assessm ent approaches and m a nagem e nt im plications.

2.1. Definitions of the GEAEs Organisms Organism s are the m o st distinct units of ecology, and attributes of organism s have been the focus of EPA’s efforts to protect the environm ent. However, the use of organism s as endpoints does not necessarily im ply that each individual is protected. Rather, “organism s ” is a level of biological organization with certain a ttributes that m a y be the basis of m a nagem e nt decisions. Although organism s of any species m a y be chosen as assessm ent endpoint entities,

som e species are protected at the organism level by statute, including (a) endangered and threatened species (those listed by the U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service as in danger of extinction under the Endangered Species Act), (b) m a rine

m a m m a ls that are protected by the Marine Mam m a l Protection Act (whales and porpoises, seals, sea lions, and walruses, polar bears, sea otters, and m a natees), (c) bald eagles and golden eagles, which are protected by the Bald Eagle Protection Act, and (d) nearly all birds in the U.S., including their eggs and nests, which are pr otected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

1. Kills: an event or m u ltiple events involving num erous m o rtalities of organism s within an assessm ent population or com m unity. Kills m a y also be referred to as m a ss m o rtality or conspicuous m o rtality. These events m a y be repeated and wide-spread, as in bird kills due to pesticide applications; repeated at a location, as in fish kills due to repeated treatm e nt f a ilures; or a single event, as in a seabird kill due to an oil spill. They
m a y involve one or m o re species. Precedents for this GEAE have involved vertebrates.

2. Gross anomalies: def o rm ities, lesions, or tum o rs in anim als; death or necrosis of plant leaves; or other overt physical injuries of organism s within an assessm ent population or com m unity. The occurrence of these injuries m a y involve one or m o re species. Precedents for this GEAE have involved vertebrates, shellfish, and terrestrial plants.

3. Survival, fecundity, or grow th: survival (which m a y be reduced by direct lethality or by sublethal effects that dim i nish surv ival probabilities), fecundity (the production of viable young), and growth (increased m a ss or length) of som e proportion of the anim als or plants in an assessm ent population or com m unity are the basic attributes of concern for nonhum an organism s. In addition to the specific legal protections at the organism level

13for the groups discussed above, there are precedents for using these attributes for vertebrates, invertebrates and plants. Assessment population. An assessm ent population is a group of conspecific organism s occupying an area that has been defined as relevant to an ecological risk assessm ent.

4. Extirpation: depletion of an assessm ent population to the point that it is no longer a viable resource or is unlikely to fulfill its function in the ecosystem

. Precedents for this GEAE have involved vertebrates.

5. Abundance: num bers or density of individuals in an assessm ent population. Total abundance or abundances by age or size classes m a y be used. Precedents have involved vertebrates and shellf ish.

6. Production: the generation of biom ass or individuals in an assessm ent population due to survival, fecundity, or growth. Precedents have involved vertebrates (prim a rily gam e and resource species) and plants (prim a rily harvested species).

Assessment community, assemblage, or ecosystem

. A com m unity is a m u ltispecies group of organism s occupying an area that has been defined as relevant to an ecological risk

assessm ent. Groups that are lim ited to organism s in a taxon (a plant com m unity or bird

com m unity) or that are in certain size classes within a taxon (m acroinvertebrates or zooplankton) are term ed assem b lages. Ecosystem s are equivalent to com m unities but include the physical and chem ical features of the environm ent.

7. Taxa Richness: the num ber of native species or other taxa in an assessm ent
com m unity or assem b lage. Precedents have involved aquatic com m unities and policies protecting coral reefs.

8. Abundance: the num ber of individuals in an assessm ent com m unity or assem b lage. Total abundance or relative abundances of individual species, other taxa, trophic groups, or other ecologically defined groups m a y be used. Precedents have involved aquatic
com m unities.

9. Production: the generation of biom ass or individuals in an assessm ent com m unity or
assem b lage. Precedents for this GEAE have involved plant assem b lages. The
assem b lage m a y include all plants in an area or water body, in a taxon (e.g., flowering plants), or in another definition (e.g., phytoplankton or above-ground herbs).

10. Area: the area of an ecosystem m a y be defined as extent of a particular type (e.g., Atlantic white cedar bog) or a particular category (e.g., palustrine wetlands). Area is a protected attribute of wetlands and coral reefs. There are precedents for protecting the

14areal extent of endangered or rare ecosystem types, which are ecosystem s that are at high risk of extinction because they are rare or significantly declining due to destruction or transform a tion to another type. The ecosystem m a y be generic (e.g., old growth or virgin forests in the conterm i nous U.S.) or geographically specific (e.g., Hem p stead Plains grasslands on Long Island, NY). The National Biological Survey (Noss et al., 1995) and the Association for Biodiversity Inform ation, am ong others, have com p iled inform ation on rare and endangered ecosystem types.

11. Function: processes perform e d by ecosystem s that are services to hum ans or other ecological entities. Function is a protected attribute of wetlands. Functional attributes of wetlands m a y include water storage, m a intenance of high water tables, nutrient retention and cycling, sedim e nt retention, accum u lation of organic m a tter, and m a intenance of habitats for wetland-dependent plants and anim als.

12. Physical structure: precedents are lim ited to aquatic ecosystem s

. Physical structure encom p asses the physical attributes or characteristics of water bodies, including hydrological characteristics, bathym etry, ba nk form , sinuosity, pool and riffle structure, bank and channel vegetation, and substrate type and com position. This endpoint includes the aesthetic and other values of aquatic ecosystem structure, not sim p ly habitat quality for aquatic organism s. Critical habitat for threatened and endangered species. Critical habitat is the specif ic area within the geographical area occupied by an endangered or threatened species on which are found physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that m a y require special m a nagem e nt considerations and protections (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)). Critical habitats, legally defined and specified by the U.S. Secretary of Interior, are listed in 50 CFR, Ch. 1, Sections 17.94–76. However, habitats that are critical to a threatened or endangered species should be protected when identified even if they are not listed.

13. Area of critical habitat for threatened and endangered species: the land coverage or equivalent aquatic extent (e.g., stream kilom e ters) that potentially supports the endangered or threatened species.

14. Quality of critical habitat for threatened and endangered species: the suitability of the habitat to support the endangered or threatened species.

15. Properties of Special Places. Special places are public and private areas of ecological or cultural significance that are not necessarily endangered or threatened but whose unique character or natural heritage is im portant—as revealed by laws or other actions that set them aside. Exam ples include W o rld Heritage sites, national parks and natural landm arks, wilderness areas, national wildlife refuges, nationa l conservation areas, wild and scenic rivers, estuarine and m a rine sanctuaries, private nature preserves (e.g., Nature Conservancy preserves

15and National Audubon Society sanctuaries), and state and local parks. For a m o re
com p rehensive list, see U.S. EPA (1991a). The ecological properties to be protected are those that m a ke the place special, including those that are an im portant part of the historical or cultural heritage of a place (e.g., shortgrass prairie at Little Bighorn National Monum ent). Hence, this GEAE is relevant only to special places with eco logical properties that are im portant to their designation. W e would not, for exam ple, apply this GEAE to a renovation of Grant’s Tom b

.

2.2. Assessment Populations and Communities Because the conventional ecological m eaning of “populations” and “com m unities” presents problem s in practice, this docum ent introduces the term s “assessm ent population” and “assessm ent com m unity” (defined above). Although ecological assessm ent endpoints inevitably include population properties, such as abundance and production, and com m unity properties, such as species richness, it is difficult to delineate populations and com m unities in the field. Classically defined populations are discrete and interbreeding. Classically defined com m unities are discrete and their constituent species are relatively consistent and interact in predictable ways. Although these classical definitions have been im portant to the developm ent of genetics, evolution, and ecology (e.g., Hardy-W e inberg equilibrium and the com p etitive exclusion principle), they have always had m a nifest lim itations in practice. More recently, ecology has becom e m o re focused on tem poral dynam i cs, spatial patterns and processes, and stochasticity that belie th e notion of static, independent populations. One

exam ple of this is m e tapopulation analysis, which reveals that population dynam i cs are significantly determ ined by exchange of individuals am ong habitat patches or differential

m ovem e nt across a landscape that continuously varies in suitability (Hanski, 1999). Com m unities are subject to the sam e dynam i cs. For exam ple, the species diversity of Pacific coral reefs is apparently determ ined by the availa bility of recruits from other reefs within 600 km (Bellwood and Hughes, 2001). If the com position of coral reefs, which would appear to be classic discrete com m unities, is in fact determ ined by regional dynam i cs, there is little chance of delim iting discrete com m unities in general. Populations m a y be readily delim ited if they are physically isolated within a broader species range (e.g., a sunfish population in a farm pond) or if the species consists of only one spatially discrete population (e.g., the endangered Florida panther, whose current range is restricted alm o st exclusively to southwest Florida). Otherwise, population boundaries are difficult to define because they are typically structured on m u ltiple scales. Genetic analyses, which are needed to def i ne discontinuities in interbreeding f r equencies and thus to delim it populations, are not a practical option for m o st ecological risk assessm ents.

16The practical problem s are even greater for com m unities. Although the m e m b ers of a population consist of a single species, it is not always clear whether a particular group of organism s constitutes an instance of a particular com m unity type. This is because the species

com position of com m unities varies over space and tim e. To protect properties such as population production or com m unity species richness, it is necessary to develop a pragm a tic solution to these problem s. An exam ple of such a solution is the approach taken by the Nature Conservancy and NatureServe (form e rly the Association for Biodiversity Inform ation) to inventory and m a p biodiversity (Stein et al., 2000). Because it is not feasible to define discrete populations or com m unities, these organizations inventory and

m a p occurrences of conservation elem ents, which m a y be defined at various scales, depending on the elem ents and circum stances. For exam ple, a plant com m unity occurrence m a y be “a stand or patch, or a cluster of stands or patches.” However, an occurrence of a bird species would be defined quite differently. W e propose a sim ilar approach for GEAEs. For individual assessm ents, the population

or com m unity entities to be protected m u st be def i ned during the problem f

o rm ulation stage of risk assessm ent. These assessm ent populations and assessm ent com m unities should be defined in a way that is biologically reasonable, supportive of the decision, and pragm a tic with respect to policy and legal considerations. For exam ple, it would not be reasonable to define the belted kingfishers in a 20 m steam reach as an assessm ent population if that reach cannot fully support one belted kingfisher pair. On the other hand, even though the kingfisher’s range is effectively continuous, it would not be reasonable to define the entire species as the assessm ent population, given that it ranges across nearly all of North Am erica. Rather, it m a y be reasonable to define the kingfishers on a watershed or a lake as an assessm ent population. Assessm ent populations m a y be defined by nonbiological considerations as well. For

exam ple, for Superfund ecological risk assessm ents on the U.S. Departm e nt of Energy’s Oak Ridge Reservation, populations of large terrestrial vertebrates were delim ited by the borders of the reservation (Suter et al., 1994). This definition was reasonable not only because the Superfund site was defined as the entire reservation, but also because the reservation was large enough to sustain viable populations of deer, wild turkey, and bobcat, am ong others. Although the reservation is m o re forested than are the surrounding agricultural and residential lands, its borders are not im penetrable and are not ecologically distinct at all points. However, the pragm a tic definition proved useful and acceptable to the parties. For sim ilarly practical reasons,

one m i ght define an assessm ent com m unity of benthic invertebrates in the first fully m i xed reach of a stream receiving an effluent. The selection of a scale to define an assessm ent population or com m unity involves a tradeoff. If the area is large relative to the extent of the stressor, the effects of that stressor will

17be diluted. However, if the area is sm all, the assessm ent population or com m unity m a y be significantly affected but m a y seem too insignifi cant to prom pt stakeholder concern or action by the decisionm aker. Hence, appropriate spatial scales should be determ ined during the problem form ulation stage for individual risk assessm ents, taking into consideration both the ecological and policy aspects of the problem ; it m u st not be m a nipulated during the analysis to achieve a desired result.

183. HOW TO USE THE GEAEs

In a risk assessm ent for a specific site, effluent, stressor, or action, it will be necessary to determ ine whether any of the GEAEs are applicable to the assessm ent and sufficient for the case, and if so, how they can be m a de specific to the case. These activities are perf orm e d as part of the problem form ulation phase of risk assessm ent (U.S. EPA, 1998a).

3.1. Using GEAEs in Assessment Endpoint Selection The set of GEAEs is intended to be helpful for identifying and specifically defining

assessm ent endpoints for particular assessm ents. During problem form ulation, risk assessors, scientists, risk m a nagers, and any stakeholders identify endpoints that are relevant to the

assessm ent, that are of sufficient im portance to potentially influence the decision, and that reflect any goals that m a y have been set prior to the problem form ulation (U.S. EPA, 1998a). The

assessm ent-specific criteria for selecting

assessm ent endpoints from the guidelines for ERA are used in that process (see text box). The process of developing assessm ent Criteria for selection of assessment endpoints EPA has provided criteria for developing assessm ent-specific
assessm ent endpoints: ecological relevance, susceptibility, and relevance to m a nagem e nt goals (U.S. EPA, 1998a, Section 3.3.2). Ecological relevance pertains to the role of the endpoint entity in the ecosystem and therefore depends on the ecological context. Susceptibility pertains to the sensitivity of the endpoint to the stressor relative to its potential exposure and theref ore depends on the identity of the stressor and the m ode of exposure. Relevance to m a nagem e nt goals pertains to the goals set by the risk
m a nager and therefore depends on the societal, legal, and regulatory context of the risk m a nagem e nt decision as well as the preferences of the individual risk
m a nager and stakeholders. These situation-specific criteria should be applied whenever GEAEs are converted to assessm ent endpoints in individual assessm ents.

endpoints for an ecological risk assessm ent m a y be thought of as bringing together five types of inform ation and answering questions related to each, as shown below. Together, the questions address the criteria for ecological assessm ent endpoints. The GEAEs constitute one type of inform ation that answers one question. In addition, the table of GEAEs can be consulted while answering the other questions as a m eans of ensuring that com m only considered types of entities and attributes are considered.

1. Stressor characteristics. W h at is susceptible to the stressor? For well-understood stressors, this question is straightforward. Benthic invertebrates are susceptible to

19dredging, birds are susceptible to granular pesticides, wetlands are susceptible to filling, and so on.

2. Ecosystem and receptor characteristics. W h at is present and ecologically relevant? For site-specif i c assessm ents, this is the species, com m unities, or ecosystem s at the site. For other assessm ents, the scenario should define the types of species com m unities and ecosystem s that are likely to be exposed. For exam ple, an assessm ent of a new pesticide for corn would consider the species likely to be found in or adjacent to corn fields in the
m i dwestern U.S. In the absence of specific inform ation about the particular im portance of an entity, those that are present m a y be assum e d to be ecologically relevant.

3. Management goals. W h at is relevant to the m a nagem e nt goals? Statem ents of
m a nagem e nt goals should suggest the changes in attributes of ecological entities that would preclude achieving the goal.

4. Input by interested parties. W h at is of concern? If interested parties are consulted or
m a ke their preferences known, their concerns about particular ecological effects should be considered. Although societal values at a national scale are reflected in the GEAEs, values that are specific to a locale or resource are expressed by interested parties.

5. GEAEs and new policies or precedents. W h at is supported by policy or precedent? The GEAEs def i ned in this report provide a set of entities and attributes that m eet this criterion, which is an expression of national goals and values at the tim e of publication.

The answers to each of these questions woul d be a list of potential assessm ent-specific endpoints. None of the questions im ply absolute requirem e nts. For exam ple, susceptibility to a novel stressor m a y be unknown, and the concerns of interested parties are often unknown and often do not include im portant potential endpoints. No particular procedure is prescribed for this process of answering the questions or for using the GEAE set. If consistency with policy and precedent is particularly im portant, one

m i ght go through the GEAE set and ask the other four questions with respect to each generic endpoint. Alternatively, the questions m i ght each be answered and the lists then integrated. In that case, the endpoints for a specific assessm ent m a y sim p ly be those that are represented on

m o st of the lists.

3.2. Making the Generic Endpoints Specific To convert a GEAE into an assessm ent endpoint for a specific assessm ent, it is necessary to def i ne the specif i c entity and attribute and the spatial and tem poral context of the entity. This specificity is needed to m a ke the endpoint relevant to the assessm ent and to determ ine which

m easurem ents and m odels are needed to estim ate it.

20Consider the f i rst GEAE, kills of organism s, as an exam ple. The generic entity is organism s. For a specific assessm ent endpoint, we m u st specify whether the endpoint entity corresponds to m e m b ers of a specific taxon such as fish or birds, an assem b lage such as

m acroinvertebrates, or a specif i c species such as sea otters. The generic attribute is kills, which should be defined m o re specifically and in term s that are appropriate to the assessm ent. For

exam ple, the def i nition of a kill would dif f e r f o r a well-m onitored experim e ntal use of a pesticide versus public reports of m o rtalities, f o r oil spills versus lawn treatm e nts, and f o r
m odeling studies versus observational studies. Possible definitions could include the num ber of organism s that m u st die during an episode for it to be considered a kill, the proportion of organism s visiting a site that would be expected to die, or the frequency of public reports of dead organism s associated with the stressor. Finally, the spatial and tem poral contexts should be defined. For an effluent, the contexts m a y be the downstream reach within which m i xing occurs and the period of a perm it. For a pesticide, they m a y be the region within which the pesticide is used on a particular crop and the num ber of applications per year over the period of use. For an oil spill, they m a y ref e r to the area encom p assed by the plum e and the tim e until the plum e is dispersed or degraded to the point that it no longer oils m a rine birds or m a m m a ls. Hence, an

assessm ent endpoint derived from this GEAE m i ght be episodic m o rtality of at least 10 fish of any species occurring in the 1 km reach downstream of the effluent release point. The answers to the first four questions in Section 3.1 provide the basis for specific endpoint definitions; that is, they determ ine which specific organism s, populations, or ecosystem s are susceptible and potentially exposed and which are of concern, the spatial and tem poral scales that are relevant to m a nagem e nt goals, and other relevant considerations. More than one assessm ent endpoint m a y be derived from a GEAE for a particular

assessm ent. For exam ple, the GEAE population abundance m a y be used to generate assessm ent endpoints for each of several populations of concern, and the change in abundance and spatial context m a y be different for each. On the other hand, a site-specific concern m a y relate to m o re than one GEAE. In the example of the wetland discussed in the previous chapter, the sitespecific problem form ulation m u st determ ine whether the m a nagem e nt concern and the evidence of wetland susceptibility are related to the area of the wetland, a functional attribute of the wetland, such as nitrogen retention, or both.

3.3. Other Ecological Assessment Endpoints The GEAEs presented in this docum ent are those that are thought to be currently generically useful in EPA and do not preclude th e use of other endpoints. Other endpoints m a y be chosen because they reflect som e particular environm ental value associated with a site or held by a particular stakeholder or for som e other reason they are particularly appropriate for a

21particular assessm ent (see Section 3.1). In addition, som e endpoints that are not generically practical m a y be practical in a particular case because of peculiarities of the stressor or receptor, data availability, or availability of a m odel of the receiving system or because tim e and resources are available to assess a difficult endpoint. These additional assessm ent endpoints m u st m e et the criteria in the EPA’s guidelines.

3.4. Completing a List of Assessment Endpoints for a Specific Assessment W h en a list of potential assessm ent endpoints has been developed, it m a y be necessary to review the list and reduce it to those that are im portant to the decision. Because of the lim itations of tim e and resources, it is often advisable to lim it the list of assessm ent endpoints to those that are m o st relevant and susceptible. There is likely to be som e redundancy in the endpoints. Kills of organism s im ply im m e diate changes in population abundance that m a y influence com m unity abundances. If population or com m unity properties are im portant to the decisionm aker, they should be retained. However, if kills are sufficient to warrant action, the extrapolations to higher levels of biologi cal organization m a y be unnecessary and those endpoints m a y be dropped as unnecessarily redundant.

224. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER PROGRESS

The m a in purpose of this report is to im prove ecological considerations within EPA by developing an initial set of generically useful ecological assessm ent endpoints (see Table 2-1). However, these initial assessm ent endpoints are based on existing policy and practice rather than on an evaluation of all the potentially useful ecological assessm ent endpoints that m a y exist for the Agency now or in the future. Therefore, read ers of this report are encouraged to (1) develop and m a intain a continual, open process for reviewing, am ending, and creating new GEAEs and (2) establish a m eans of keeping track of the m a ny rationales and precedents used for m a king ecological risk-based decisions throughout EPA. In particular, as the GEAEs are applied to ecological risk assessm ents, the experiences should be docum ented and published as case studies. The rem a inder of this chapter provides m o re discussion about these two

recom m e ndations and concludes with a m e thod of how you, the reader, can contribute to EPA’s progress in this area by suggesting other useful assessm ent endpoints. Table 4-1 presents potential GEAEs for m o re im m e diate consideration by EPA.

4.1. Develop and Support a Continual, Open Process for Review ing, Amending, and Creating New GEAEs The initial GEAEs presented in this report include im portant ecological attributes to consider when conducting ecological assessm ents throughout EPA. However, the Agency should not rem a in static or constrain itself to th ese particular GEAEs. EPA should establish and

m a intain an adaptive and open process for reviewing and am ending ecological assessm ent endpoints over tim e, as science and Agency experience evolve. Care m u st be taken so that new GEAEs are consistent with this docum ent and the Agency’s ecological risk assessm ent guidelines. The process and frequency of thes e updates or reviews m u st be approved by Agency

m a nagem e nt. Both the technical panel and external peer reviewers of this docum ent suggested that regular reviews of EPA’s generic ecological a ssessm ent endpoints are important and that fiveyear intervals would be appropriate for updating them

. There is consensus that broad participation is also vital. Mem b ers of future review panels should represent as m a ny program m a tic, regional, and support offices of EPA as possible, and they should consider external input from other governm e nt agenci es, nongovernm e nt organizations, academ i a, the general public, and the private sector.

23Table 4-1. Potential GEAEs

Entity Attribute Organism -level endpoints Organism s (in an assessm ent population or com m unity) Physiological status (in addition to growth) Disease or debilitation (in additions to gross anom alies) Avoidance behavior Courtship behavior (e.g., birds) Migratory behavior (e.g., birds and salm onids) Nurturing and rearing behavior (e.g., nest abandonm ent) Population-level endpoints
Assessm ent population G enetic diversity
Com m unity and ecosystem -level endpoints
Assessm ent com m unities,
assem b lages, and ecosystem s Trophic structure Energy flow Nutrient cycling (ecosystem s in addition to wetlands) Nutrient retention Decom position rates Sedim e nt and m a terial transport Area or function of estuaries and riparian ecosystem s Resilience Vertical structure of plant com m unities Attributes that influence public health Landscape-level endpoints
Assessm ent landscapes (of m u ltiple populations, com m unities, assem b lages, and ecosystem s) Spatial pattern (random , clustered or uniform ; dom inance; contagion; contiguity or fragm entation; juxtaposition)

4.2. Develop a Database to Document and Keep Track of New Rationales, Precedents, and Assessment Endpoints A readily accessible and searchable database of existing and new ecological assessm ent endpoints should be established and supported on a c ontinual basis. This database could be for internal (and perhaps external) use and provide rationales and precedents (or histories) of how these ecological assessm ent endpoints have been used by EPA. For exam ple, when a program or regional office finds scientific or societal jus tification for an ecological assessm ent endpoint, that office should consider it again in future assessm ents and share this knowledge with other offices throughout the Agency. Useful inform ation could include how the ecological assessm ent endpoint affected decision m a king, whether som e endpoints carry m o re weight than others, or whether they were ignored or too difficult to interpret or use. The technical panel recom m e nds creating a centralized, web-based database f o r f acilitating this process.

244.3. Potential GEAEs for Future Consideration EPA is responsible for stating its m a ndates as clearly understood goals and assessm ent endpoints for ecological protection. As different stressors challenge our environm ent and our scientific understanding of ecosystem s im proves, new ecological assessm ent endpoints will need to be considered and incorporated into EPA’s m i ssion. In Table 2-1, the technical panel

recom m e nds assessm ent endpoints that have

som e existing precedent or legal or regulatory basis for use within EPA. Such precedents, as presented in Appendix A, include treaties, statutes, regulations, judicial decisions, official

m e m o randa, guidance or procedures, and other docum entation. However, the technical panel

rem a ins concerned about otherwise valid and im portant ecological assessm ent endpoints being excluded from Table 2-1 and encourages users of this guidance to continually strive for further progress and innovation within the Agency to advance new and im proved GEAEs. Therefore, on the basis of com m e nts received from peer reviewers of this report as well as suggestions found in recent Agency publications (e.g., U.S. EPA 2002a), the technical panel also

recom m e nds the potential GEAEs presented in Table 4-1 for consideration by EPA scientists and

m a nagers. Note that som e of these potential

assessm ent endpoints are not entirely new, but rather are extensions the of the GEAEs listed in Table 2-1, and som e m a y not yet satisfy the criterion of practicality, as defined in Section 1.3. W e encourage EPA’s program and regional offices to regularly consider the GEAEs in Tables 2-1 and 4-1 and other potentially relevant assessm ent endpoints for purpose of guiding EPA’s evolving ecological m i ssion. However, in order to keep GEAEs m eaningful, Developing new assessment endpoints One suggestion for developing new
assessm ent endpoints is to consider the following dim e nsions associated with ecological system s and whether they are addressed in Agency risk assessm ent activities: 1. Levels of biological organization (e.g., potentially ranging from DNA to biom es). 2. Spatial scale (e.g., ranging from local to global boundaries). 3. Tem poral scale (e.g., considerations of the tim ing, duration and/or f r equency of biological activities or events). 4. Magnitude (e.g., the total num ber of

ecological entities present, im pacted,
or rem a ining with respect to a known baseline or presum ption of what should be there). 5. Taxonom ic groups (i.e., beyond
m a m m a ls, fish, and birds to other taxa such as am phibians, reptiles, invertebrates, bacteria, fungi, and flowering and nonflowering plants. 6. Range of ecological properties (e.g., resiliency in ecosystem s). The initial GEAEs presented in Table 2-1 incorporate or touch upon
m a ny of these dim e nsions, yet m a ny other assessm ent endpoints could potentially be derived by increasing the range of just one of these dim e nsions or by integrating two or m o re of these dim e nsions in a new way.

25the Agency should consider m a intaining a conservative approach toward adding new ones. This can be done by consistently applying the criteria established in this guidance and by paying close attention to the distinction between assessm ent endpoints and m e asures of effect (i.e.,

m easurem ent endpoints).

265. CONCLUSION

The developm ent of this docum ent revealed that the laws, policies, and precedents for protecting attributes of ecological entities are num er ous and diverse. They provide a strong basis for defining assessm ent endpoints at the organism , population, and com m unity/ecosystem levels of organization. They are defined and organized in a consistent fashion in this report as GEAEs. GEAEs are widely applicable to various assessm ent scenarios and can provide a foundation for the developm ent of endpoints for specific assessm ents during problem form ulation. This set of GEAEs can be used by risk assessors and risk m a nagers with the confidence that they are supported by established policies and precedents and thus will im prove the scientific basis for ecological risk m a nagem e nt decisions. Risk assessors and risk m a nagers throughout the Agency are encouraged to track the rationales for m a king ecological risk-based deci sions, thereby providing a basis for reviewing and updating these GEAEs in the future.

27APPENDIX A. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

This appendix serves as a reference for those who need to know the basis for a particular GEAE defined in Section 2. The GEAEs have b een divided into three categories of biological organization—organism , population, and com m unity/assem b lage/ecosystem —and a fourth category containing endpoints (critical habitats and special places) that are m o st easily described separately. Each category is introduced by general inform ation about how the GEAEs in that category have been used by the Agency. Additional supporting inform ation divided into two sections, is then provided for each GEAE. The first section is Laws, Regulations, and Precedents, which discusses the authorities that support the use of each GEAE by EPA and gives

exam ples of Agency actions that provide a further basis for their use. The second section is Practicality, which discusses the availability of m e thods to estim ate risks to the endpoint and their applicability in various risk assessm ent contexts. Because assessm ent endpoints are defined as valued properties of the environm ent (U.S. EPA, 1998a), public values associated with the GEAEs are discussed in broad term s in Appendix B. It should be noted that the specific laws and other policies cited below are not the only support for ecological endpoints. The m a ny federal environm ental laws and their im plem enting regulations provide a general m a ndate for environm ental protection that goes far beyond the specific instances presented in this appendix. In particular, the National Environm ental Policy Act of 1970 creates a broad m a ndate for federal agencies to protect and prevent degradation of the environm ent. Although nearly all environm ental statutes refer to the environm ent as an entity to be protected, and m a ny ref e r to m o re specif i c ecological entities such as f i sh, wildlif e, and estuaries, few indicate an attribute to be protected or even the nature of the entity. In addition, term s are not necessarily used in a technical way. For exam ple, the Clean W a ter Act refers repeatedly to “a balanced indigenous population of fish, shellfish and invertebrates.” Clearly, the phrase does not refer to a biological population, which is form ed of m e m b ers of one species. Further, when referring to fish, does the act m ean fish at the level of organism , population, or assem b lage or as a taxon? Given these am biguities, the wording of the statutes

m

u st be interpreted to define endpoints. The prim ary source of support for the following interpretations is precedent. The precedents and other expressions of policy discussed below are a sam p le of those that have been used in assessm ents, guidance, protocols, and other Agency actions over the years. Although they are derived from particul ar laws and regulatory contexts, they m a y be interpreted as exam ples of what Congress and the Agency have m eant by protecting the environm ent. For exam ple, the Clean Air Act calls for specific protection of “national parks, national wilderness areas, national m onum ents, national seashores, and other areas of special

28national or regional natural, recreational, scenic, or historic value.” This requirem e nt can be interpreted as a m a ndate to the Agency to protect those special areas from pollution, not just from the threats from air pollution that were brought to the attention of Congress.

The following abbreviations and acronym s are used in this appendix:

CAA C lean Air Act CERCLA C om prehensive Environm ental Response, Com p ensation, and Liability Act CFR C ode of Federal Regulations CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species CW A C lean W a ter Act ESA E ndangered Species Act FIFRA F ederal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act FR Federal Register LC50 Median lethal concentration LD50 Median lethal dose NCP N ational Contingency Plan NEPA National Environm ental Policy Act OSW E R O ffice of Solid W a ste and Em ergency Response PCB P olychlorinated biphenyl RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act SSD Species sensitivity distribution TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

A.1. Organism-Level Endpoints Major EPA statutes such as the CAA, CW A, CERCLA, FIFRA, TSCA, and RCRA require that EPA consider and protect organism -l evel attributes or various taxa of organism s, including fish, birds, and plants and, m o re generally, anim als, wildlife, aquatic life, and living things. The toxicity inform ation that is available to EPA in adm i nistering these statutes is dom inated by organism -level attributes such as m o rtality. Organism -level attributes tend to be

m o re practical to m easure or predict than attribut es at higher levels of organization for m o st EPA

assessm ents. Consequently, EPA’s ecological assessm ents historically have focused on organism -level endpoints. Note that these endpoints do not norm a lly im ply protection of each individual organism , but rather the protection of these critical attributes of organism s within

assessm ent populations or com m unities. As will be described, however, certain special

29categories of organism s, such as endangered species and m a rine m a m m a ls, have been afforded protection on an individual basis. In ecological assessm ents, EPA considers organism -level effects in a variety of taxa. For

exam ple, tests required for pesticide regulation can include effects on survival, growth, and reproduction (GEAE #3) of aquatic invertebrates, fish, birds, m a m m a ls, and both terrestrial and aquatic plants. Effects on a sim ilar range of taxa are considered under TSCA (Lynch et al., 1994; Zeem an et al., 1999) and in deriving water quality criteria under the CW A. Less com m only, other taxa, such as earthworm s (e.g., at certain Superfund sites), honeybees (e.g., f o r certain pesticides), and reptiles and

am phibians are considered .

A.1.1. GEAE #1. Kills of Organisms Laws, Regulations, and Precedents: Kills The regulation of chem icals to prevent kills of organism s, in the absence of ef f ects on populations or com m unities, has been sustained by federal courts. For exam ple, the use of the pesticide diazinon on golf courses and sod farm s was prohibited after docum entation of widespread and repeated bird kills (U.S. EPA, 1988a). Subsequently, EPA cited continuing bird kills as a f actor in the agreem ent with pesticide m a nufacturers to phase out all outdoor residential uses of diazinon (U.S. EPA, 2001a). Bird kills were also the basis f o r phasing out

m o st uses of another pesticide, granular carbofuran (U.S. EPA, 1991b; Houseknecht, 1993). Kills of birds and other wildlife in oil pits are considered evidence of “im m i nent and Connections betw een organism and higher-level endpoints Not only are organism attributes potentially im portant in them selves, but they are also im portant because they are protective of higher-level attributes. That is, we com m only assum e that if we protect im portant attributes of organism s in a population or com m unity, the population and com m unity attributes will be protected as well. EPA’s principles for ecological risk assessm ent and risk
m a nagem e nt at Superfund sites (U.S. EPA, 1999b) illustrate a com m on usage of organism -level endpoints at EPA: “Except at a few very large sites, Superfund ERAs [ecological risk
assessm ents] typically do not address effects on entire ecosystem s, but rather
norm a lly gather effects data on individuals in order to predict or postulate potential ef f ects on local wildlif e, f i sh, invertebrate, and plant populations and
com m unities that occur or that could occur in specific habitats at sites.... Levels [of chem icals] that are expected to protect local populations and com m unities can be estim ated by extrapolating from effects on individuals and groups of individuals using a lines-of-evidence approach.”

W h en organism -level inform ation is not sufficient, it m a y be necessary to assess higher-level attributes directly, by
em ploying population or com m unity
m odels or m easurem ents.

substantial endangerm ent to the environm ent” under RCRA §7003 (U.S. EPA, 2003a). Fish kills

30have also been considered a concern by EPA; f o r exam ple, Region 5 considers f i sh kills and other excess m o rtality to be obvious im pacts under RCRA (U.S. EPA, 1994). Under FIFRA reporting requirem e nts for adverse effects of pesticides (40 CFR Part 159), EPA categorizes kills (and other adverse incidents) involving m u ltiple organism s as m o re severe events than single organism incidents and im poses additional reporting requirem e nts on pesticide registrants for such events. More severe wildlif e incidents are defined as those involving at least 1000 individuals of a schooling fish species or 50 individuals of a nonschooling species; 200 individuals of a flocking bird species, 50 individua ls of a songbird species, or 5 individuals of a predatory species; or, f o r m a m m a ls, reptiles, and am phibians, 50 individuals of a relatively

com m on or herding species or 5 individuals of a rare or solitary species. (Note that incidents involving num bers of organism s below these thresholds still m u st be reported, but the requirem e nts are different than those for m o re severe incidents. Also note that these criteria do not apply outside FIFRA.)

Practicality: Kills The likelihood of kills is relatively readily estim ated using the com m on acute lethality tests that generate LC50s and LD50s. The num ber of species involved in kills m a y be estim ated from SSDs of LC50s or LD50s, as in the calculation of the acute National Am bient W a ter Quality Criteria (U.S. EPA, 1985a; Posthum a et al., 2002). The occurrence of kills in the field

m a y be readily observed in the cases of conspicuous organism s and open habitats, but in other cases, such as with sm all birds in crops or fence rows, kills m a y be unobserved and difficult to docum ent. Recently, a m odel has been developed to predict the probability of bird kills for a particular use of a cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticide using SSDs of LD50s and field studies (Mineau, 2002).

A.1.2. GEAE #2. Gross Anomalies of Organisms Laws, Regulations, and Precedents: Gross Anomalies Gross anom alies in birds, fish, shellfish, and other organism s are cause for public concern and have been the basis f o r EPA regulatory action and guidance. For exam ple, crossed bills and other deform ities in piscivorous birds are a basis for the proposed rem e diation of the PCBcontam inated sedim e nts at the Fox River/Green Bay Superfund site (W isconsin Departm e nt of Natural Resources, 2001; U.S. EPA, 1998b) and were a basis for the designation of the system as an Area of Concern by the Great Lakes National Program Office (U.S. EPA, 2001b). EPA actions to restrict the use of tributyltin as an antifoulant on boats (U.S. EPA, 1988b), as well as the restrictions im posed by the Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act of 1988, were triggered by the observed induction of gross deform ities in m o llusks that threatened the m a rketability of

31oysters, reduced the fecundity of the deform ed organism s, and suggested the potential for other effects. Natural resource dam a ge regulations for CERCLA, the CW A, and the Oil Pollution Act include gross anom alies am ong the designated injuries (43 CFR §11.62(f)), and deform ities, erosion, lesions and tum o rs in fish (DELT anom alies) are used in the biocriteria of m a ny state water quality standards and in Agency guidance (Yoder and Rankin, 1995; U.S. EPA, 1996). Changes in developm ent, which can be m a nifested in physical anom alies, have been identified as an environm ental effect of regulatory concern under TSCA (U.S. EPA, 1983). Anom alies in plants and plant injuries have also been the basis for EPA action. For

exam ple, EPA established a secondary am bient air quality standard for ground-level ozone partly on the basis of visible foliar injury to com m e rcial crops and natural vegetation, stating that “foliar injury is occurring on native vegetation in national parks, forests, and wilderness areas, and m a y be degrading the aesthetic quality of the natural landscape, a resource im portant to public welfare” (U.S. EPA, 1997b). EPA has also used visible injury of plants as a basis for regulating air em issions of alum inum reduction plants and sulfuric acid production units (U.S. EPA, 1994).

Practicality: Gross Anomalies External gross anom alies are readily observed, as are som e internal anom alies with external m a nifestations such as severe scoliosis or large tum o rs. Gross anom alies are com m only included in biological survey protocols for fish and in forest health surveys. They are also included as endpoint responses in som e chronic tests of fish and birds.

A.1.3. GEAE #3. Survival, Fecundity, and Grow th of Organisms As discussed in Section A.1., EPA’s ecological assessm ents have considered effects on survival, fecundity, and growth in a variety of taxa. Although actions based on survival m a y be the m o st com m on, EPA has also m a de regulatory decisions on the basis of effects on fecundity and growth of organism s identified in ecological risk assessm ents. For exam ple, the pesticide chlorofenapyr was not approved by EPA on the basis of Agency concerns over reproductive risks to birds. Additionally, federal statutes and other precedents confer special status on particular kinds of organism s: endangered and threatened species, m a rine m a m m a ls, bald and golden eagles, and m i gratory birds. The rem a inder of this section concentrates on the basis for the special status of these organism s within the organism -level endpoints.

32Laws, Regulations, and Precedents: Survival, Fecundity, and Growth Endangered and threatened species. The ESA protects threatened or endangered species from taking, which is defined as “to harass, harm , pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attem p t to engage in any such conduct” (16 US Code, §1532, and 50 CFR, parts 14, 17, and 23). Under the act, the term “species” includes “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants and any distinct population segm ent of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when m a ture.” The ESA states that it is “to be the policy of Congress that all Federal departm e nts and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species” and that “Federal agencies shall cooperate with State and local agencies to resolve water resource issues in concert with conservation of endangered species” (16 US Code, §1531). Hence, the provisions of the ESA are applicable to EPA actions, and both the prohibition against harm ing individual m e m b ers of threatened or endangered species and the affirm ative obligation to conserve those species would seem to include toxic effects. Additionally, the CAA (§112) specifically requires EPA to prevent adverse effects to endangered species in regulating hazardous air pollutants. Like other federal agencies, EPA has published regulations and taken actions to protect endangered species. For exam ple, EPA has consulted with the U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to prevent jeopardy to endangered species, as required by the ESA, f o r actions such as setting water quality standards and regulating pesticides. In these consultations, the attributes of concern have generally been survival, fecundity, and growth, although other attributes m a y be im portant in specific cases. The NCP specifies that the ESA is a federal “applicable or relevant and appropriate requirem e nt” with which Superfund

rem e dial actions should com p ly under CERCLA §121(d)(2)(A), and exam ples of Superfund ecological risk assessm ents that used endangered species as endpoints include the Asarco Tacom a site (chinook salm on and bull trout) (Hillm an and Rochlin, 2001), the Metal Bank of Am erica site (shortnose sturgeon) (W entsel et al., 1999), and the Montrose, Iron Mountain Mine, Fort Ord and Monterey Marine Sanctuary, Cam p Pendleton-Santa Margarita River, and Pearl Harbor sites (U.S. EPA, 1994). Marine mammals. The Marine Mam m a l Protection Act protects m a rine m a m m a ls from taking, which is defined as

to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attem p t to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any m a rine
m a m m a l....The term ‘harassm ent’ m eans any act of pursuit, torm ent, or annoyance which (I) has the potential to injure a m a rine m a m m a l or m a rine m a m m a l stock in the wild; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a m a rine m a m m a l or m a rine m a m m a l stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not lim ited to, m i gration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. (US Code, §1362)

33Although the act does not specifically address toxic effects on m a rine m a m m a ls, the special protection afforded these species by the act implies a particular concern for their wellbeing. Also, the law clearly protects propertie s of m a rine m a m m a ls at the organism level. As with threatened and endangered species, the NCP specifies that the Marine Mam m a l Protection Act is a federal “applicable or relevant and appropriate requirem e nt” with which Superfund rem e dial actions should com p ly under CERCLA, §121(d)(2)(A), and it cites m a rine

m a m m a ls as exam ples of specific natural resources to be protected under CERCLA, Part 101, §16. Bald and golden eagles. Prohibited actions under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act include to “take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or im port, at any tim e or in any m a nner any bald eagle com m only known as the Am erican eagle or any golden eagle, alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof of the foregoing eagles...” (16 US Code, §668). To take, as de fined by regulation, includes “to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attem p t to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect” bald eagles or golden eagles, including any “part, nest, or egg of such bird[s]” (50 CFR §10.12). Deaths of bald eagles due to secondary poisoning were an endpoint in EPA’s assessm ent of granular carbofuran (U.S. EPA, 1991b), which led to the phaseout of m o st uses of this pesticide. Also, EPA’s ecological risk assessm ent for PCBs in the Hudson River included survival, growth, and reproduction of piscivorous birds as an assessm ent endpoint, with the bald eagle selected as one of the representative species of piscivorous birds (U.S. EPA, 2000). Birds. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 prohibits or regulates a num ber of activities, including pursuing, taking, hunting, capturing, killing, possessing, selling, transporting, or purchasing m i gratory birds, in cluding their eggs and nests (16 US Code, §703). This act, based originally on a treaty between the United States and Great Britain (including Canada), has since been extended by m i gratory bird conventions with Mexico, Japan, and the Soviet Union. Because nearly all species of birds native to the United States are protected by the act (U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service, 2001), the endpoint m a y be assum e d to apply to native birds in general. Although the Migratory Bird Treaty Act does not specifically address toxic effects on birds, the special protection afforded these species by the act im plies a particular concern for their well-being. Also, the law clearly protects bi rds at the organism level. Furtherm ore, by Executive Order 13186, all federal agencies are required to “support the conservation intent of the m i gratory birds conventions by integrating bird conservation principles, m e asures, and practices into agency activities and by avoiding or m i nim i zing, to the extent practicable, adverse im pacts on m i gratory bird resources when conducting agency actions” and to “prevent or abate

34the pollution or detrim ental alteration of the envi ronm ent for the benefit of m i gratory birds, as practicable” (Clinton, 2001). EPA policies and precedents affirm the use of survival, growth, and reproduction of birds in ecological assessm ents. The NCP specifies th at the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is a federal “applicable or relevant and appropriate requirem e nt” with which Superfund rem e dial actions should com p ly under CERCLA §121(d)(2)(A), and exam ples of Superfund ecological risk

assessm ents that used birds as endpoints include the Baird and McGuire site (survival and reproduction of songbirds) (Menzie et al., 1992) and the United Heckathorn site (reproductive effects on birds) (W entsel et al., 1999). EPA’ s ecological risk assessm ent for PCBs in the Hudson River included survival, growth, and reproduc tion of insectivorous birds, waterfowl, and piscivorous birds as assessm ent endpoints (U.S . EPA, 2000). EPA regulations authorize the Agency to require pesticide registrants to subm it tests on avian m o rtality and im paired avian reproduction caused by pesticides. Results from these tests, in conjunction with other available inform ation, are used by EPA in m a king pesticide registration decisions. Also, EPA’s involvem e nt in bird conservation initiatives such as Partners in Flight and the North Am erican Bird Conservation Initiative provides further support for using birds in assessm ent endpoints (U.S. EPA, 2002b).

Practicality: Survival, Fecundity, and Growth Because the vast m a jority of standard toxicity tests determ ine effects on the survival, fecundity, and growth of organism s, direct toxic effects on this endpoint are readily predicted. In addition, extrapolation m odels are available that can estim ate effects on this endpoint for particular organism s and exposure routes of concern on the basis of tests conducted on other species, life stages, or exposure durations or routes. It is rarely possible to obtain toxicity data for threatened and endangered species, but SSDs, intertaxa regressions, or other interspecies extrapolation m odels should serve to estim ate effects of these species (Suter, 1998; Posthum a et al., 2002). EPA research has confirm e d that endangered species are not inherently m o re sensitive than other species to toxic ef f e cts (Sappington et al., 2001), although, from a population standpoint, they m a y be at greater risk due to their low abundance. Effects on m a rine m a m m a ls are relatively difficult to observe in the field. However, die

offs of pinnipeds and cetaceans are readily observe d when their conspicuous carcasses appear on beaches. The toxicology of m a rine m a m m a ls is poorly known, and, for obvious reasons, m a rine

m a m m a ls are not included in routine toxicity testing. However, effects on all m a m m a ls are routinely estim ated from tests perform e d with rodents. Exposure of m a rine m a m m a ls is also

35poorly known and is not routinely estim ated, even though these m a m m a ls can accum u late high levels of persistent pollutants. Eagles are highly conspicuous, and dead or debilitated eagles are m o re likely to be reported by the public than are m o st birds. In addition, federal, state, and private organizations

m onitor eagles at various scales. Toxic effects on eagles m a y be predicted from standard avian toxicity tests or, m o re confidently, from tests with kestrels, with avian allom e tric m odels used to extrapolate toxicity results to eagles. In general, the biology of birds is well known, and well-developed m e thods exist for surveying bird populations and com m unities. Both acute and chronic test protocols for birds are available, and avian toxicity data are available for m o st pesticides and m a ny other chem icals. However, because birds are highly m obile, often m i gratory, and often territorial, it is usually difficult to dem onstrate chronic effects on these organism s in the field.

A.2. Population-Level Endpoints As described in Section A.1., m o st environm ental statutes authorizing EPA activities call for protection of a diverse array of organism s. Th ese statutes generally can be inferred to protect population-level endpoints in addition to organism -level endpoints, even if populations are not specifically cited by law. EPA’s principles for ecological risk assessm ent and risk m a nagem e nt at Superfund sites exem plify EPA’s concern about population-level endpoints: “Superfund’s goal is to reduce ecological risks to levels that will result in the recovery and m a intenance of healthy local populations and com m unities of biota” (U.S. EPA, 1999b). Predicting population-level im pacts generally is not as straightforward as estim ating organism -level effects and, as a result, explicit estim ates of population effects are less com m o n in EPA ecological assessm ents. Adverse effects on organism s are often inferred to indicate risk to populations and hence a cause for concern under certain EPA program s, such as Superfund. Sim ilar inferences are m a de for chem ical reviews under TSCA. In exam ining environm ental effects of concern under TSCA, an EPA position pa per reviewed a num ber of statutes spanning the period of 1785 to 1978 to determ ine society’s environm ental values (U.S. EPA, 1983). EPA concluded that such laws were passed to prevent any reduction, degradation, or loss in the quality, quantity, or utility of a resource that is valued by the public. It also concluded that chem icals could adversely affect these resources by causing an undesirable change in the population structure of a species by affecting ra tes of m o rtality, reproduction, or growth and developm ent. Thus, organism -level attributes such as m o rtality can be inf e rred to af f ect population-level attributes valued by society. Less com m only, EPA prepares quantitative estim ates of population effects based on orga nism -level effects or other inform ation.

36Population-level endpoints have been assessed at EPA for com m e rcially or recreationally valuable species such as fish, birds, and shellfish.

A.2.1. GEAE #4. Extirpation of an Assessment Population Extirpation can be viewed as an extrem e case of a change in abundance or production of

an assessm ent population, and thus its selection is supported by the factors cited in Section A.2.2. Additionally, extirpation of an assessm ent population m a y have qualitatively m o re significant im pacts on ecological function and environm ental values than just reduction in the size of the assessm ent population, as reflected in an alternative term for this population attribute: f unctional extinction.

Laws, Regulations, and Precedents: Extirpation Several EPA precedents exist for assessing population extirpation. For exam ple, EPA

exam ined the likelihood of extirpation of fish populations in northeastern lakes under the acid deposition program and vetoed a perm it for a dam and reservoir project under Section 404 of the CW A, in part on the basis of the projected extir pation of populations of birds of special interest (U.S. EPA, 1994). Absence of a species norm a lly occurring in the habitat has been used as evidence of ecological risk at Superfund sites. W h ere designated aquatic life uses have been specif i ed in state water quality standards, extirpation of a naturally occurring species m a y be considered as evidence that the waterbody is not attaining its designated uses.

Practicality: Extirpation Field observations to determ ine whether a species is present usually are not difficult to conduct, but ease of observation depends upon the species, and care m u st be taken in interpreting results. Failure to observe a species that is expected to occur in low num bers even in the absence of stressors, that is subject to substantial natural fluctuations in abundance, or that is inconspicuous m a y not be indicative of extirpation. Dem onstrating extirpation at a site also requires evidence that the species was form erly present. In som e cases, risk of extirpation can be inferred from toxicity data. Very high exposure in the field in com p arison to exposures where toxic effects have been observed in laboratory tests suggests a high likelihood of extirpation and, conversely, very low exposure im plies that extirpation is unlikely. Population m odeling (such as population viability analysis) or ecosystem

m odeling m a y be required to estim ate the likelihood of extirpation in cases where exposure is lethal to only a portion of individuals, where effects on reproduction are expected but lim ited, or where effects are indirect. Population m odeli ng typically requires species-specific data on param e ters not routinely available in ecological risk assessm ent, such as age-specific

37reproduction rates. However, population m odels are available and well developed and have been used to predict extirpation, particularly of fisheries (Barnthouse, 1993; Pastorok et al., 2002). See also Section A.2.2.

A.2.2. GEAE #5. Abundance of an Assessment Population Laws, Regulations, and Precedents: Abundance Abundance is the m o st com m on population-level endpoint considered by EPA. On occasion, EPA evaluated population m odels to explore effects on abundance by chem icals regulated under TSCA. For exam ple, EPA explored the risks of chloroparaffins to a rainbow trout population using a projection m a trix m odel (U.S. EPA, 1993a). Maintenance of populations of piscivorous birds and m a m m a ls was the ecological assessm ent endpoint for the Mercury Report to Congress (U.S. EPA, 1995). Additionally, m o re than 25 estuaries have been selected as national estuaries by EPA, as authorized by the CW A. Restoring or protecti ng populations and production of fish and shellfish for com m e rcial and recreational use typically is am ong the goals of individual national estuary program s. Sim ilarly, a goal of the Chesapeake Bay Program (a partnership am ong EPA and the states adjoining the bay) is restoring, protecti ng, and enhancing fish and shellfish, with m easures including populations of oysters and priority m i gratory fish species such as striped bass.

Practicality: Abundance Changes in population abundance m a y be predicted using conventional toxicity data with statistical extrapolation m odels and population m odels (Suter, 1993; Pastorok et al., 2002). This approach can produce reasonable results, and has been validated in controlled conditions. For

exam ple, Kuhn et al

. (2001) com p ared a m y sid shrim p population prediction from a stage-based projection m a trix m odel with a 55-day laborat ory population study involving shrim p exposed to p-nonylphenol. The population m odel was able to project within a few m i crogram s per liter the concentration where population-level effects would begin to occur (16 : g/L projected from the

m odel vs. 19 : g/L m easured from the assay). Although such projection m a trix m odels are practical, they require m o re effort than is norm a lly applied to routine ecological risk

assessm ents. Population abundance m a y also be estim ated using individual-based population m odels or, as discussed in Section A.3, ecosystem m odels. Measurem ent of population abundance in the field m a y be easy (e.g., for flowering plants) or difficult (e.g., for pelagic cetaceans). However, even when m easurem ent is easy, distinguishing changes in abundance m a y be quite difficult due to tem poral variance, and distinguishing differe nces from reference populations m a y be difficult due to dif f e rences in habitat quality as well as stochastic variance. The literature in ecology

38concerning the m easurem ent and m onitoring of various plant and anim al populations is volum inous.

A.2.3. GEAE #6. Production of an Assessment Population Laws, Regulations, and Precedents: Production Much of the support for GEAE #5, abundance of an assessm ent population, also applies to this endpoint. For exam ple, the CW A sets a national goal of “protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife,” which im plies both abundance and production, and efforts under the National Estuary and Chesapeake Bay program s to protect resource species involve both abundance and production. Additionally, num erous federal laws and treaties have the purpose of

m a intaining or increasing the production of gam e birds and m a m m a ls, com m e rcial fish, and tim ber species. Exam ples include the Migratory Bird Hunting Stam p Act (48 Stat. 451), W ildlife Restoration Act (50 Stat. 917), Fish Re storation and Managem e nt Act (64 Stat. 430), Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries (6 UST 2836) , and Fish and W ildlife Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 1119). Relevant provisions include requirem e nts to “develop m easures for m a xim u m sustainable production of fish” (70 Stat. 1119) and “m ake possible the m a xim u m sustained productivity of Great Lakes fisheries” (6 UST 2836). Prevention of adverse effects to public welfare, including (but not lim ited to) effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, anim als, and wildlife is m a ndated under Section 108 (§109) of the CAA (National Am bient Air Quality Standards). EPA has included production of an assessm ent population, am ong other endpoints, as an indicator of public welfare. For exam ple, EPA revised the secondary ozone standard to provide incr eased protection against ozone-induced effects on vegetation, such as agricultural crop loss and dam a ge to forests (U.S. EPA, 1997b). Also, EPA regulations authorize the Agency to require pesticide registrants to subm it tests on pesticide effects on plant m o rtality and plant growth inhibition. Results from these tests, in conjunction with other available inform ation, are used by EPA in m a king pesticide registration decisions. Changes in production of specific legum e species were endpoints in a TSCA assessm ent of release of recom b inant rhizobia (McClung and Sayer, 1994; Orr et al., 1999).

Practicality: Production Plant production is relatively easily and com m only m easured in the field. Production of anim als is m o re difficult to m easure in the field, but well-developed techniques exist and are

com m only em ployed for fisheries, gam e species, and pest insects. Toxic effects on production

m a y be estim ated from chronic tests that include survival, fecundity, and growth. The com b ined effects on population production of these organism al responses m a y be estim ated using population or ecosystem m odels.

39A.3. Community and Ecosystem-Level Endpoints Abundant statutory and regulatory support exists for environm ental protection at levels above the organism and population levels. This support stem s both from the recognition that

m a intaining particular organism s of concern involves their preserving surrounding environm ent and from appreciation for the ecosystem as a whole. In the case of direct

assessm ent of com m unity-level endpoints, taxa richness (GEAE #7) and abundance (GEAE #8) are the two m o st com m only addressed attributes. Production (GEAE #9) of plant com m unities (as with production of plant populations, GEAE #6) has also been considered by EPA in som e cases. Example of support of community/ ecosystem-level endpoints: Superfund EPA’s principles for ecological risk
assessm ent and risk m a nagem e nt at Superfund sites state that “Superfund’s goal is to reduce ecological risks to levels that will result in the recovery and
m a intenance of healthy local populations and com m unities of biota.” Com m unity effects can either be m easured directly (e.g., as in benthic species diversity) or estim ated indirectly (e.g., from toxicity tests on individual species) (U.S. EPA, 1999b).

Perhaps the sim p lest and m o st widely used ecosystem -level endpoint is the area (extent) of an ecosystem (GEAE #10). Physical structure (GEAE # 12) is also com m only used as an endpoint in assessing aquatic ecosystem s. The authors found little precedent at EPA for using attributes based on ecosystem function, such as prim ary production, energy flow, total biom ass, and nutrient cycling, except in the case of wetland ecosystem s (GEAE #11). Such endpoints

m a y have lim ited use to date, because they are som e what abstract and not as directly linked to

m a nagem e nt values as other endpoints. Several such endpoints are listed in Table 4-1 as potential GEAEs f o r f u ture EPA consideration. Further details about the support for com m unity- and ecosystem

- level endpoints are presented in this section in two ways. First, support spanning m u ltiple attributes of

com m unity/ecosystem -level GEAEs is described for four general categories of ecosystem s for which significant precedent exists: aquatic ecosystem s, wetlands, coral reefs, and endangered/rare ecosystem types. Next, supporting inform ation is presented for each of the six

com m unity/ecosystem -level GEAEs.

Aquatic Ecosystems To date, the m o st com m on application of com m unity- and assem b lage-level endpoints at EPA has been to aquatic com m unities, particularly f i sh and m acroinvertebrates. Section 101(a)(2) of the CW A calls for an interim goal of water quality that provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. Section 304(a) of the W a ter Quality Act of 1987 directs EPA to develop and publish water quality criteria and inf o rm ation on

40m e thods—including biological m onitoring and assessm ent m e thods—that assess the effects of pollutants on the aquatic com m unity. Aquatic com m unity com ponents and attributes addressed include “biological com m unity diversity” and “productivity.” Taxa richness (GEAE #7) and abundance (GEAE #8) of species or trophic groups of fish and m acroinvertebrate com m unities are used in the biocriteria of m a ny states and in Agency guidance (Yoder and Rankin, 1995; U.S. EPA, 1996, 1999c). Potential com m unity-level im pacts also have been inferred and considered a basis of concern by EPA program s, based on organism -level responses. The U.S. Am bient W a ter Quality Criteria f o r Protection of Aquatic Lif e are based on SSDs, with the criteria set at the f i f

t h percentile (U.S. EPA, 1985a); hence, they can be interpreted as protecting at least 95% of the species in a com m unity. The assessm ent com m unity is also com m only used in EPA program s under TSCA. The Quotient Method is typically applied to the m o st sensitive organism al response, as well as uncertainty factors, to infer effects on a com m unity. Organism s are chosen to represent a variety of taxonom ic groups. Ecosystem m odels are particularly useful for assessing secondary (indirect) effects of toxicants on com m unity properties (Bartell et al., 1992; Pastorok et al., 2002). Models have been used to explore com m unity-level effects, as in the case of evaluating the prim ary and secondary effects of chloroparaffins to top pr edator fish (Bartell, 1990; U.S. EPA, 1993a). Although there are relatively few exam ples of application of ecosystem m odels to the regulation of chem icals, generic m odels such as AQUATOX can serve to illustrate how direct and indirect effects propagate through ecosystem s (U.S. EPA, 2003b).

Wetlands The CW A form s the prim ary statutory basis for protection of wetlands and, thereby, the area (GEAE #10) and function (GEAE #11) of wetland com m unities/ecosystem s. In m e eting the CW A’s objective of restoring and m a intaining the integrity of the nation’s waters, under Section 404 of the act, wetlands are considered waters of the United States and are protected from discharge of dredged and fill m a terial through a perm it program jointly adm i nistered by the U.S. Arm y Corps of Engineers and EPA. W e tlands ar e defined for regulatory purposes as areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground wa ter at a frequency and duration sufficient to support—and that under norm a l circum stances do support—a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. W e tlands generally include swam ps, m a rshes, bogs, and sim ilar areas (33 CFR §328.3 [b]). The CW A provides authority for the Corps to require perm it applications to avoid and m i nim i ze wetlands im pacts and requires EPA to develop, in coordination with the Corps, the criteria used for Section 404 perm it decisions. W h en dam a ges

41to wetlands are unavoidable, the Corps can require perm itees to provide com p ensatory

m itigation. Additionally, Executive Order 11990, Protection of W e tlands, states that “Each agency shall provide leadership and shall take action to prevent the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the agency’s responsibilities” (Carter, 1977). As an extension of this order, President George H. W

. Bush in 1989 and succeeding presidents have adopted a national policy of no net loss of wetlands in recognition of the significance of wetland areas and their ecological functions. The 1972 Coastal Zone Managem e nt Act also calls for the protection of coastal wetlands. EPA has prepared various regulations and guidance docum ents supporting the wetlands protection goals of the CW A and Executive Order 11990. For exam ple, “Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material” (40 CFR, Part 230, Subpart E)

recom m e nds consideration of potential im pacts on special aquatic sites, including wetlands, referencing changes that result in loss of wetland status due to perm anent flooding or conversion to dry land as well as loss of functions of wa ter purification, water storage, and provision of wetland habitat. The large num ber of Superfund sites located in or adjacent to wetlands has lead EPA’s policy and em phasis toward a greater concern regarding the im pact of contam ination from these sites on the extent and ecological functions of wetlands. OSW E R highlights the im portance of wetlands protection in the directive, “Policy on Floodplain and W e tland Assessm ent for CERCLA Action” (U.S. EPA, 1985b). Under this policy, Superfund action should m e et the substantive requirem e nts of Executive Order 11990 as well as the those of the Floodplain Managem e nt Executive Order (E.O. 11988). Section 404 of the CW A is also considered a federal “applicable or relevant and appropriate requirem e nt” with which Superfund rem e dial actions should com p ly under CERCLA Section 121(d)(2)(A). Other Superfund policies that involve consideration or protection of wetlands include the Hazard Ranking System (U.S. EPA, 1990a, 1992a), the Superfund rem oval process guidance (U.S. EPA, 1992b), a Mem o randum of Agreem ent between EPA and the U.S. Departm e nt of Arm y (U.S. EPA, 1990b), and the OSW E R directive, “Controlling the Im pacts of Rem e diation Activities In or Around W e tlands” (U.S. EPA, 1993c). EPA’s “Procedures for Im plem enting the Requirem e nts of the Council on Environm ental Quality on the National Environm ental Policy Act” (40 CFR §6.108) singles out wetlands by stating that “if the proposed action m a y have significant adverse effects on wetlands” an environm ental im pact statem ent is required. EPA’s regulations for State and Local Assistance (40 CFR, Part 35, Appendix A to Subpart H) require that project proposals dem onstrate

com p liance with Executive Order 11990.

42Coral Reefs At present, coral reefs have not attained the sam e legal and regulatory stature under EPA program s as have wetlands, perhaps in part because few EPA actions involve coral reefs. However, support for their protection has been increasing in recent years. Taxa richness (GEAE #7) and area (GEAE #10) are the attributes of coral reef com m unities/ecosystem s m o st

com m only targeted for assessm ent and protection. Executive Order 13089 established special protection for coral reefs (Clinton, 1998). In particular, “All Federal agencies...shall...utilize their program s and authorities to protect and enhance the conditions of such ecosystem s.” This Executive Order nam e s the EPA Adm i nistrator as a m e m b er of the Coral Reef Task Force, which is responsible for im plem enting the order. An EPA m e m o randum to the field specifically applies the order to EPA’s responsibilities under Section 404 of the CW A, Sections 102 and 103 of the Marine Protection and Sanctuaries Act, and S ection 307 of the Coastal Zone Managem e nt Act (Fox and W e stphal, 1999). The order is also considered a federal “applicable or relevant and appropriate requirem e nt” with which Superfund rem e dial actions should com p ly under CERCLA Section 121(d)(2)(A). “Guidelines f o r Specif i cation of Disposal Sites f o r Dredged or Fill Material” (40 CFR, Part 230, Subpart E) recom m e nd consideration of potential im pacts on special aquatic sites, including coral reefs. The guidelines refer to loss of productive colonies and subsequent loss of coral-dependent species. Diversity is the only ecological attribute defined as a value of coral reefs in the National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs (U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, 2000). A practical operational definition of that attribute is taxa richness. This docum ent also m e ntions “shoreline protection, areas of natural beauty, recreation and tourism , and sources of food, pharm aceuticals, jobs, and revenues” as services of coral reefs. These services could be protected by preserving the area and taxa richness of coral reefs. CITES, to which the United States is a party, restricts international trade in corals and other reef organism s. All coral reefs in Florida are protected by either the U.S. or the state governm e nt. Other specifically protected reef com m unities are found in Puerto Rico, Hawaii, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam , Northern Marianas, and Am erican Sam o a.
Endangered or Rare Ecosystems Types Support for the protection of endangered and rare ecosystem s (particularly in the case of terrestrial ecosystem s) is less extensive and m o re indirect than it is for the classes of

com m unities/ecosystem s described above, but it can be identified in a variety of program s. Area (GEAE #10) is the prim ary attribute assessed for these ecosystem s. Additionally, note that inherent in the definition of the area of endangered and rare ecosystem s m a y be attributes such as

43taxa richness (GEAE #7) and abundance (GEAE #8), and, consequently, the loss of these attributes could constitute loss of area of the ecosystem type as it is converted to a different ecosystem type. Several lines of support for protecting endangered and rare ecosystem s are apparent in Superfund program s. The NCP specifies that, “evaluations shall be perform e d to assess threats to the environm ent, especially sensitive habitats ” (em phasis added) (U.S. EPA, 1989). The Hazard Ranking System for Superfund (U.S. EPA, 1990a) gives as an exam ple of “sensitive environm ents,” “particular areas, relatively sm all in size, im portant to m a intenance of unique biotic com m unities.” The Superfund rem oval process guidance (U.S. EPA, 1992b) recom m e nds that the On-Scene Coordinator undertake special considerations for actions that include sensitive ecosystem s, which m a y be interpreted as calling for protection of endangered or rare ecosystem types. Other EPA program s also consider endangered ecosystem s. For exam ple, the protocol for screening-level ecological risk assessm ent for hazardous waste com bustion facilities calls for special consideration of areas having unique a nd/or rare ecological receptors and natural resources (U.S. EPA, 1999a). EPA Regions 4, 5, 6 and the Great Lakes Program Office are developing approaches f o r identif ying high-quality areas (critical ecosystem s) f o r enhanced environm ental protection and restoration. EPA Region 4 has been involved in the developm ent of the Southeastern Ecological Fram ework as a decision support tool useful in integrating program resources for protecting and sustaining ecological processes. EPA Region 5 is also developing an appro ach f o r prioritizing and targeting high-quality areas in the Midwest (Mysz et al., 2000). Two of the criteria for identifying these areas, also called “critical ecosystem s,” are (1) the presence of an indigenous ecosystem and biological

com m unity types (used as an indicator of relative ecological diversity), and (2) the num bers and rarity of native species and natural features (used as indicators of surviving relict native ecosystem s). In addition, the EPA Great Lakes program , in collaboration with Environm ent Canada, has developed Biodiversity Investm e nt Areas as natural areas along the Great Lakes shoreline whose high ecological value warrant exceptional attention to protect them from degradation. EPA Region 6 is using a GIS screening tool to a ssist in prioritizing ecological areas of concern for program s such as NEPA (Osowski et al., 2001). In carrying out its responsibilities for reviewing environm ental im pact statem ents under NEPA, EPA has developed guidance that calls f o r special attention to hum an activities in im periled ecosystem s and identif ies m itigation m easures to reduce adverse im pacts (U.S. EPA, 1993b). Approxim a tely a dozen “principal habitats of concern” were identified within each of six m a jor U.S. habitat types. Ecological concerns raised by EPA to other federal agencies in

44review of NEPA docum ents have included im pacts to endangered or rare ecosystem s (U.S. EPA, 1994).

A.3.1. GEAE #7. Taxa Richness of Assessment Communities, Assemblages, and Ecosystems Laws, Regulations, and Precedents: Taxa Richness As described in Section A.3., the m o st extensive support for use of this endpoint at EPA

com e s f r om m easures to assess and protect the taxa richness of aquatic com m unities as part of water quality protection program s under the CW A. Use of taxa richness as an attribute can be inferred by program s under TSCA and other statutes to assess risks to a range of species across an aquatic com m unity. Aquatic com m unity com position is presented as an exam ple of an

assessm ent endpoint in Superfund ecological risk assessm ent guidance (U.S. EPA, 1997c), and

com m unity diversity or species richness is a generic endpoint for ecological risk assessm ents of hazardous waste com bustors (U.S. EPA, 1999a). Support for taxa richness of coral reef

com m unities/ecosystem s is also described in Section A.3.

EPA regional offices have considered the e ffects of federal projects on species diversity in decisions under NEPA, such as in an assessm ent of the im pacts of the loss of bottom l and hardwood forest on species com position of the wildlife com m unity due to levee construction (U.S. EPA, 1994).

Practicality: Taxa Richness Species or taxa richness is the sim p lest, least controversial, and m o st easily interpreted expression of com m unity diversity. Changes in taxa richness are readily observed in standard biological surveys. If it is assum e d that significant toxic effects are likely to result in local extirpation of a species, changes in taxa richness m a y be predicted using SSDs or regression

m odels that relate all species of a com m unity or assem b lage to a test species. If indirect effects are expected to result in the loss of species, ecosystem m odels m a y be used to predict species losses. In the case of coral reefs, the taxa richness of corals are relatively easily determ ined. The taxa richness of som e other assem b lages (e.g., fishes and sessile noncoral invertebrates) is also practical to determ ine. Methods for assessing the condition of coral reefs are discussed in Jam e son et al. (1998). Prediction of the effects of pollutants on coral reefs is difficult due to the paucity of toxicological inform ation for corals.

45A.3.2. GEAE #8. Abundance of Assessment Communities, Assemblages, and Ecosystems Laws, Regulations, and Precedents: Abundance This endpoint shares with GEAE #7 the support described in Section A.3 for aquatic

com m unities. Abundance of fish and m acroinvertebrate taxa and trophic groups in sam p led

com m unities is used in the water quality biocriteria of m a ny states and in Agency guidance. Com m unity abundance can be inferred to be an elem ent of am bient water quality standards and of chem ical evaluations under TSCA. Aquatic com m unity com position (including a m e tric describing abundance) is presented as an exam ple of an assessm ent endpoint in Superfund ecological risk assessm ent guidance (U.S. EPA, 1997c).

Practicality: Abundance Abundance of com m unities or assem b lages, as a whole or by species, taxon, or trophic group, is available from m o st routine biological surveys. Although one can readily infer from standard toxicity tests that som e changes in abundance are likely to occur, they are difficult to predict quantitatively. As discussed in Section A.3, com m unity properties m a y be estim ated from standard toxicity test data using ecosystem m odels.

A.3.3. GEAE #9. Production of Assessment Communities, Assemblages, and Ecosystems Laws, Regulations, and Precedents: Production This endpoint shares a basis in laws, regulations, and precedents with GEAE #6, production of plant populations, through FIFRA, TS CA, and CAA program s. For exam ple, the secondary ambient air quality standard established by EPA to protect public welfare for groundlevel ozone (U.S. EPA, 1997b) cites growth and yield reductions in tree seedlings and m a ture trees and im pacts on forest stands and com m unity structure due to these reductions. Superfund directives and guidance identify plant production, such as productivity of wetlands vegetation, as candidate assessm ent endpoints (Environm ental Response Team , 1994a, b, c, d). Com m unity productivity and, in particular, herbaceous plant productivity, is a generic endpoint for ecological risk assessm ents of hazardous waste com bustors (U.S. EPA, 1999a). EPA actions to control acid rain and its precursors have been based on concerns over the dam a ge to high-elevation forests—am ong other effects—attributed to acid rain. As stated in Section A.3., the CW A (§101(a)(2)) calls for an interim goal of water quality that provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. Section 304(a) of the act also lists effects of pollutants on plant life and on rates of eutrophication (excessive plant production due to nutrient pollution) as factors to consider in establishing pollutant lim its. Eutrophication has been the basis for m a ny fede ral and state regulatory actions and voluntary control program s, including the establishm ent of total m a xim u m daily loads (TMDLs) for

46nutrients (U.S. EPA, 1999d), controls on nutrient discharges from sources such as publicly owned treatm e nt works and confined anim al feeding operations, and restrictions on phosphorus in detergents.

Practicality: Production Eutrophication has long been a m a jor concern of environm ental m a nagers, particularly with respect to sewage outfalls, so the m odels for predicting effects of nutrient additions are relatively well developed. Sim ilarly, studies of f

e rtilizer addition to crops, pastures, and

com m e rcial forests are num erous and provide a good basis for predicting the effects of terrestrial nutrient additions on plant production. In add ition, m e thods for m easuring plant production are well developed f o r both terrestrial and aquatic com m unities. Protocols f o r testing toxic ef f ects on terrestrial and aquatic plants focus on various m easures of production. However, toxicity data are less abundant for plants than for anim als.

A.3.4. GEAE #10. Area of Assessment Communities, Assemblages, and Ecosystems Laws, Regulations, and Precedents: Area The m o st extensive support for use of com m unity/ecosystem area as a GEAE at EPA involves protection of wetlands. As discusse d in Section A.3, the CW A affords special protection to wetlands, and a num ber of EPA program s reflect this em phasis. W ithin the Superfund program , for exam ple, unavoidable im pacts to on-site and adjacent wetland resources from current or potential exposure to hazardous substances and from im plem entation of select response actions are addressed within the Record of Decision for that site. Records of Decision for the New London Subm arine Base in New London, Connecticut (U.S. EPA, 1998c), Loring Air Force Base in Lim e stone, Maine (U.S. EPA, 1997d), and Pease Air Force Base in Portsm outh/Newington, New Ham p shire (U.S. EPA, 1997e) include rem e dies involving

com p ensatory wetland m itigation. Mitigation actions are tracked by long-term m onitoring plans and restoration efforts are m onitored over a specified tim e period to ensure success. Efforts to assess and to control risks to coral reefs—and to rare/endangered ecosystem s generally—also serve as precedents for the use of area as a GEAE (see Section A.3), although these program s are not currently as extensive at EPA as are those for wetlands.

Practicality: Area W e tlands are classified and m a pped by the National W e tlands Inventory of the U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service, but determ ination of wetland boundaries at a given site m a y be difficult, particularly in areas of low topographic relief. The 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environm ental Laboratory, 1987) is the current federal delineation m a nual

47used in the CW A Section 404 regulatory program for the identification and delineation of wetlands. Most effects on wetland area are readily predicted or observed, because they occur due to processes such as dredging, filling, draining, or inundation. The area of coral reef is relatively easily determ ined. Methods for assessing the condition of coral reefs are discussed in Jam e s on et al. (1998). Prediction of the effects of pollutants on coral reefs is difficult due to the paucity of toxicological inform ation for corals. An endangered or rare ecosystem type m i ght be dim i nished by physical destruction, which is readily observed and quantified, or by phys ical conversion to another type of ecosystem (e.g., due to selective logging or grazing), which can also be readily observed and quantified if the type is clearly defined. The prediction of loss of an ecosystem type due to extirpation of

m a ny or m o st of the constituent organism s (e.g., due to an herbicide application or oil spill) is practical because it would involve severe toxicit y. However, loss of a type due to m o re subtle ef

f ects, such as changes in species com position due to dif f e rential susceptibility to a stressor, could be difficult to predict. Inform ation useful in identifying rare and endangered ecosystem types is available from NatureServe (http://www.natureserve.org), a nonprofit organization that works with natural heritage program s throughout the United States and elsewhere in the W e stern Hem i sphere. NatureServe m a intains databases on all known ecological com m unities in the United States, ranked from critically im periled to secure. According to NatureServe, the

com p leteness of inventory and classification wo rk varies widely am ong states, provinces, and regions.

A.3.5. GEAE #11. Function of Assessment Communities, Assemblages, and Ecosystems Laws, Regulations, and Precedents: Function Although the im portance of ecosystem function is widely recognized, precedent for its use as an independent endpoint at EPA is lim ited, except in the case of wetlands. Protection of functional attributes of wetlands is specifically targeted, for exam ple, in EPA’s “Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged and Fill Material” (40 CFR, Part 230), im plem enting Section 404(b)(1) of the CW A. Com m only recognized functions of wetlands include storage and f iltration of water and m a intenance of habitat f o r f i sh and wildlif e.
Practicality: Function Losses of wetland functions can be inferred from loss of wetlands area (see GEAE #10, A.3.4), but they are less readily observed or predicted if not accom p anied by the loss of wetland area. The hydrogeom orphic m e thod (Brinson, 1993) is one approach for assessing wetlands function. EPA, the Corps, and other federal agencies have agreed to form ally adopt this m e thod to im prove the assessm ent of wetlands function in support of the CW A Section 404 Program (62

48FR 33607, June 20, 1997). Toxic effects on wetland functions or on the type of wetland

com m unity are dif f i cult to predict.

A.3.6. GEAE #12. Physical Structure of Assessment Communities, Assemblages, and Ecosystems Laws, Regulations, and Precedents: Physical Structure Policy support for physical structure of ecosystem s as a GEAE stem s from the CW A’s goals of protecting aquatic ecosystem s. The CW A (§101(a)) states that, “The objective of this Act is to restore and m a intain the chem ical, physical [em phasis added], and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” The im portance of phys ical structure is reflected by EPA regulations im plem enting the CW A that note the following conditions of a water body that m a y preclude attainm e nt of desired beneficial uses (40 CFR §131.10 (g)):

• “ natural, ephem e ral, interm ittent or low flow conditions of water levels”

• “ dam s , diversions or other types of hydrologic m odifications”

• “ physical conditions related to the natural features of the water body, such as the lack of a proper substrate, cover, flow, depth, pool s, riffles, and the like, unrelated to water quality”

Protocol for Developing Sediment TMDLs (U.S. EPA, 1999e) lists channel m odification, pool filling, filling of substrate with fine sedim e nts, and other effects on physical structure as sedim e nt issues that can result in loss of designated uses. These changes in stream ecosystem s are them selves changes in the ecosystem attributes that result in the lost recreational/aesthetic or other uses, not sim p ly stressors that affect biological endpoints. Physical structure has been a factor in setting the designated use of stream s in state water quality standards. For exam ple, in Ohio, a designated use of Modif i ed W a rm water Habitat applies to stream s with extensive and irretrievable physical habitat m odifications.

Practicality: Physical Structure Physical characteristics often are readily observed or m easured at sites being assessed and are usually recorded in biological surveys. Protocols exist for m easuring m a ny aquatic habitat attributes (e.g., U.S. EPA, 1999c). In addition, m o st of the actions that m odify the physical structure of waterbodies (e.g., channe lization, dam construction and operation, water withdrawals, and culvert installation) have obvious effects on structure that are readily predicted.

49Other effects, such as changes in hydrology resulting from changes in land use, are m o re difficult—but still possible—to m odel.

A.4. Officially Designated Endpoints The GEAEs in this section do not fall neatly into the organism -population-com munityecosystem hierarchy used to organize the other GEAEs, but they are im portant to EPA nonetheless. Habitat for endangered species (GEAEs #13 and #14) is highlighted because of the specific protections it receives under the ESA. Habitat has not been chosen as a GEAE for other categories of organism s because it is the organism s that are valued directly, whereas by definition habitat is that which supports organism s and thus is valued indirectly. (Habitat here is distinguished from com m unities and ecosystem s, which m a y be valued in their own right, as discussed in Section A.3.) Ecological proper ties of special places (GEAE #15) can encom p ass attributes from all levels of biological organiza tion. Special places are identified because of the extensive legal and other support for their protection or because of their ecological im portance.

A.4.1. GEAEs #13 and #14. Area and Quality of Habitat for Threatened or Endangered Species Laws, Regulations, and Precedents: Area and Quality of Critical Habitat The obligation to protect endangered and threatened species under the ESA includes protection of the critical habitats on which they depend. Thus the legal and regulatory basis for protecting endangered species described under GEAE #3 generally also applies to this endpoint. For exam ple, the Superfund NCP specifies that, “evaluations shall be perform e d to assess threats to the environm ent, especially sensitive habitats and critical habitats of species protected under the Endangered Species Act ” (em phasis added) (U.S. EPA, 1989). EPA’s regulations for State and Local Assistance (40 CFR, Part 35, Appendix A to Subpart H) require that project proposals determ ine whether there would be significant adverse effects on critical habitat of endangered species.

Practicality: Area and Quality of Critical Habitat Designated critical habitat is readily identified, and it should be practical to determ ine whether it will be destroyed (reduced area) or adversely m odified (reduced quality). Although critical habitat has not been officially designated for m a ny endangered or threatened species, federal docum ents such as listing decisions and recovery plans typically discuss the distribution and ecological requirem e nts of listed species. Toxi c effects m a y be predicted if species or taxa that are com ponents of critical habitat are identified and their response to pollutants can be evaluated.

50A.4.2. GEAE #15. Ecological Properties of Special Places Laws, Regulations, and Precedents: Special Places The legislative acts establishing national parks and m onum ents, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, recreation areas, m a rine sanctuaries, and other special places establish their status and indicate the properties for which the protected status was provided. Several statutes either give EPA a role in designating special places or direct EPA to consider environm ental im pacts to such places in adm i nistering Agency program s. The CW A directs EPA to adm i nister the National Estuary Program and perm its states to designate waterbodies as Outstanding National Resource W a ters, which then receive increased protection in their water quality standards. The CAA also has several provisions for special places. Section 160 of the CAA establishes that a purpose of the act is “to preserve, protect, and enhance the air quality in national parks, national wilderness areas, national m onum ents, national seashores, and other areas of special national or regional natural, recr eational, scenic, or historic value.” Section 162 designates national (and international) parks, wilderness areas, and m e m o rial parks of a certain size as “class I” areas, which m e rit the highest level of protection from air pollution. Other special places cited in both the CAA and the CW A include the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, and Lake Cham plain. In the area of EPA regulations and guidance, the NCP cites special places such as national m a rine sanctuaries and estuarine research reserves as natural resources to be protected under CERCLA. Superfund rem oval process guidance (U.S. EPA, 1992b) recom m e nds that the On-Scene Coordinator to undertake special considerations for actions that include wild and scenic rivers. EPA procedures for im plem enting NEPA (40 CFR §6.108) require an environm ental im pact statem ent to be prepared if “the proposed action m a y have significant adverse effects on parklands, preserves, or areas of recognized scenic, recreational, archeological, or historic value.” “Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material” (40 CFR, Part 230, Subpart E) recom m e nd consideration of potential im pacts on special aquatic sites, including sanctuaries and refuges. The protocol for screening-level ecological risk assessm ent for hazardous waste com bustion facilities calls for special consideration of areas having legislativ ely conferred protection (U.S. EPA, 1999a).

Practicality: Special Places Special places and their im portant ecological properties usually can be defined readily. Given the diverse set of ecological properties at different places, it is not possible to m a ke overall statem ents about the practicality of this endpoint. Potentially, all of the surveying, testing, and m odeling m e thods discussed in the previous sections could be applicable.

51APPENDIX B. TYPES OF VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH ASSESSMENT ENDPOINTS

EPA’s ecological risk assessm ent guidelines (U.S. EPA, 1998a) define an assessm ent endpoint as “an explicit expression of the environmental value that is to be protected, operationally def i ned by an ecological entity and its attributes” [ e m phasis added]

. In the context of the guidelines, an environmental value refers to a com ponent of the environm ent (or an ecological entity) that society values, with som e exam ples being endangered species and

com m e rcially or recreationally im portant species. The literature on environm ental valuation covers a wide range of ecological system s and com ponents; for exam ple, bays (Kahn, 1985), wetlands (Barbier, 1993), riparian corridors (L ant and Tobin, 1989), deserts (Richer, 1995), recreation areas (Adam o wicz et al., 1994), and wilderness or “unspoiled” natural areas (Hanink, 1995; Kopp and Sm ith, 1993; Randall and Peterson, 1984). In m a ny of these studies, ecosystem s are conceptualized as having assets or structural com ponents such as energy
resources, m i nerals, or tim ber; services or natural functions benefitting society (e.g., groundwater recharge, flood control, the absorption or assim ilation of pollutants) and/or other attributes provided by the whole ecosystem , such as biological diversity, cultural uniqueness, or natural heritage (W estm an, 1977; Daily et al., 1997). Table B-1 presents one way of organizing environm ental values, drawing on Blom quist and W h itehead (1995), Daily (2000), Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1981), MacLean (1995), Prim ack (1993), and Freem an (1984, 1993). The table is not intended to represent a definitive or

com p rehensive list of environm ental values, rather it is intended to illustrate the breadth of values that m a y be cited in support of a GEAE. Each of the GEAEs presented in this docum ent relate to one or m o re of these environm ental values. For exam ple, an “assessm ent population” and its attributes m a y be used to represent a com m e rcially and recreationally valuable fish or wildlife population (consum ptive and recreational values). Such an assessm ent population could also represent a species population that is valued as a learning tool (educational value) and protected for cultural and aesthetic reasons (preservation value). Table B-1 provides further exam ples of how each of the GEAEs m a y correspond with these values.

52Table B-1. Some categories of environmental values

Value D efinition and examples of corresponding GEAEs Consumptive The value of com m odities produced by the environm ent such as food, energy, tim ber, fiber, and pharm aceutical and industrial products.
• A rea of ecosystem s: tim ber and fuel production by trees
• P roduction of an assessm ent population: com m e rcially valuable fisheries
• E xtirpation of an assessm ent population: com m e rcially valuable furbearers Informational The value of natural structures, chem icals, or processes as m odels for anthropogenic structures, chem icals, or processes (e .g., pharm aceuticals, synthetic com m odities, engineering designs). Also see Option value.
• E xtirpation of organism s: as sour ces of m odel adaptations to extrem e environm ents
• T axa richness of com m unities: highly diverse com m unities m a y be valuable sources of bioactive chem icals as m odels for pharm aceuticals Functional The value of ecological functions benef itting public health and welfare, such as pollen and seed dispersal, water retention and purification, detoxification of wastes, and m oderation of weather extrem es. In som e cases, ecosystem s are re-established to
m a ke use of their functional value for rem e diation.
• E cosystem function: water retention and purification by wetlands
• A bundance of an assessm ent com m unity: water and soil retention by forests
• A bundance of an assessm ent population: pollination by insects Recreational The value of recreational opportunities such as fishing, birding, boating, and hiking. In som e cases, this is a passive use of a re source, but in others (e.g., tourism ) it is an
econom ic activity.
• P hysical structure of an ecosystem : boating, fishing
• S urvival, fecundity, and growth of organism s (m igratory birds): birding, hunting
• P roperties of special places: cam ping, hiking, boating Educational The value of academ ic and nonacadem ic educational opportunities, including nature and scientific study.
• P roperties of special places: parks and refuges for nature study, research
• A rea of ecosystem s: environm ental education sites Option The value to future generations of preserving the option of using the environm ent at
som e future tim e. Option value also includes hum an welfare gains or net benefits associated with delaying a decision when there is uncertainty about the payoffs of certain alternatives, or when one of the choices involves an irreversible com m itm ent of resources.
• A rea and function of ecosystem s • P roperties of special places
• A bundance of assessm ent populations Existence Value ascribed to the existence of ecol ogical system s independent of any direct services or functions. Aesthetic, m o ral, cultural, religious, or spiritual grounds m a y be cited in support of this type of nonuse value.
• A rea and quality of critical habitat for endangered species
• G ross anom alies and kills of organism s • P roperties of special places

53REFERENCES

Adam owicz, W ., J. Louviere, and M. W illiam s . (1994) Co m b ining revealed and stated preference m e thods for valuing environm ental am enities. J Environmental Econ and Mgt 26: 271–292. Alaska Departm e nt of Environm ental Conservation. (2000) User’s Guide for Selection and Application of Default Assessm ent Endpoints and Indicator Species in Alaska Ecoregions. Available from : http://www.state.ak.us/local/ akpages/ENV.C ONSERV/dspar/csites/guidance/e_region.pdf. Barbier, E.B. (1993) Sustainable use of wetlands valu ing tropical wetland benefits: Econom ic m e thodologies and applications. Geogr Journ 159(1): 22–32. Barnthouse, L.W

. (1993) Population-level effects. In: Ecological Risk Assessment , G.W

. Suter II (ed.). Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 247–274. Bartell, S.M. (1990) Ecosystem c ontext for estim ating stress-induced reductions in fish populations. Am Fish Soc Symp 8: 167–182. Bartell, S.M., R.H. Gardne r, and R.V. O’Neill. (1992) Ecological Risk Estimation . Boca Raton, FLA: Lewis Publishers. Bellwood, D.R. and T.P. Hughes. (2001) Regional-scale assem b ly rules and biodiversity of coral reefs. Science 292: 1532–1534.
Blom quist, G.C. and J.C. W h itehead. (1995) Existence value, contingent valuation, and natural resources dam a ges assessm ent. Growth Chan 26: 573–589. Brinson, M.M. (1993) Hydrogeom orphic classification for we tlands. Final Report. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Arm y Corps of Engineers W a terways Experim e nt Station; Technical Report W R P-DE-4. 103 p. Available from : http://www.wes.arm y .m il/EL/wetlands/wlpubs.htm l. Carter, J. (1977) Protection of W e tlands, Executiv e Order 11990. The W h ite House, W a shington, DC. Clinton, W

. J. (1998) Coral Reef Protection, Executive Order 13089. The W h ite House, W a shington, DC. Available at http://www.archives.gov/federal_re gister/executive_orders/1998.htm l

. Clinton, W

. J. (2001) Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, Executive Order 13186. The W h ite House, W a shington, DC. Available at http://www.archives.gov/federal_regist er/executive_orders/2001_clinton.htm l

. Daily, G.C., S. Alexander, P.R. Ehrlich, L. Goulder, J. Lubchenco, P.A. Matson, H. A. Mooney, S. Postel, S.H. Schneider, D. Tilm an, and G.M. W oodwell. (1997) Ecosystem services: Benefits supplied to human societies by natural ecosystems . Ecological Society of Am erica. Issues in Ecology, Num b er 2, Spring 1997. Available at http://www.esa.org/daily.pdf Daily, G.C. (2000) Managem e nt objectives fo r the protection of ecosystem services. Environ Sci and Pol 3: 333–339. Ehrlich, P.R. and A.H. Ehrlich. (1981) Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species

. New York, NY: Random House, Inc.
Environm ental Laboratory. (1987) Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual . Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Arm y Engineer W a te rways Experim e nt Station. Available at http://www.wes.arm y .m il/el/wetlands/wlpubs.htm l.

54Environm ental Response Team . (1994a) Terrestrial plant community sampling . Edison, NJ: Environm ental Response Team . U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency. SOP#: 2037. Available from : http://www.ert.org/m e dia_resrcs/m edia_resrcs.asp.

Environm ental Response Team . (1994b) Chlorophyll determination . Edison, NJ: Environm ental Response Team

. U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency. SOP#: 2030. Available from : http://www.ert.org/m e dia_resrcs/m edia_resrcs.asp.

Environm ental Response Team . (1994c) Plant biomass determination . Edison, NJ: Environm ental Response Team

. U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency. SOP#: 2034. Available from : http://www.ert.org/m e dia_resrcs/m edia_resrcs.asp.

Environm ental Response Team . (1994d) Tree coring and interpretation . Edison, NJ: Environm ental Response Team

. U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency. SOP#: 2036. Available from : http://www.ert.org/m e dia_resrcs/m edia_resrcs.asp. Fox, J.C. and J.W

. W e stphal. (1999) Mem o randum to th e Field, Subject: Special em phasis given to coral reef protection under the Clean W a ter Act, Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, Rivers and Harbors Act, and Federal Project Authorities. U.S. E nvironm ental Protection Agency. Available from : http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/coral.htm l.

Freem an, A.M. (1984) The quasi-option va lue of irreversible developm ent. J Environmental Eco and Mgt 11: 292–295.

Freem an, A.M. (1993) Nonuse values in natural resour ce dam a ge assessm ent.. In Kopp, RJ and VK Sm ith, eds. Valuing natural assets: The economics of natural resource damage assessment . W a shington, DC: Resources for the Future. Hanink, D.M. (1995) Evaluation of wilderness in a spatial context. Growth Chan 26(3): 425–441. Hanski, I. (1999) Metapopulation Ecology . UK: Oxford University Press.

Hillm an, H. and K. Rochlin. (2001) ESA consultations at sediment cleanup sites - think ahead . Available from : http://response.restoration.noaa. gov/cpr/library/ESA_post1.htm l. Houseknecht, C.R. (1993) Ecological risk assessm ent case study: special review of the granular form ulations of carbofuran based on adverse effects on birds: pp. 3–1-- 3–25. A review of ecological assessment case studies from a risk assessment perspective . W a shington, DC: U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency. EPA/630/R92/005.

Jam e son, S.C., M.V. Erdm ann, G.R. Gibson Jr., and K.W

. Potts. (1998) Developm ent of biological criteria for coral reef ecosystem assessm ent. W a shington, DC. Available from : http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/coral/biocrit/biocrit.pdf. Kahn, J.R. (1985) Econom ic losses associated with the de gradation of an ecosystem : The case of subm erged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay. J Environmental Econ and Mgt 12(3): 246–263. Kopp, R.J. and V.K. Sm ith. (1993) Understanding dam a ge s to natural assets. In Kopp, RJ and VK Sm ith, eds. Valuing Natural Assets: The Economics of Natural Resource Damage Assessment . W a shington, DC: Resources for the Future. Kuhn, A., Munns, W

. R. Jr., Cham plin, D.C., McKinney, R., Tagliabue, M., Serbst, J., and T. Gleason. (2001) Evaluation of the efficacy of extrapolation population m odeling to predict the dynam i cs of Americamysis bahia populations in the laboratory. Environ Toxicol Chem 20(1): 213–221.

55Lant, C.L. and G.A. Tobin. (1989) The econom ic value of riparian corridors in cornbelt floodplains: A research fram e work. Prof Geogr 41(3): 337–349. Lynch, D.G., G.J. Macek, J. V. Nabholz, S.M. Sherlock , and R. W r ight. (1994) Ecological risk assessm ent case study: Assessing the ecological risks of a new chem ical under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Sec. 1 in A Review of Ecological Assessment Case Studies from a Risk Assessment Perspective, Volume II . W a shington, DC: U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency. EPA/630/R-94/003. MacLean D. (1995) Environm ental ethics and hum an values. In Cothern, CR, ed. Handbook for Environmental Risk Decision Making: Values, Perceptions, and Ethics . Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Inc., pp. 177–193. McClung, G. and P.G. Sayre. (1994) Ecological risk a ssessm ent case study: Risk assessm ent for the release of
recom b inant Rhizobia at a sm all-scale agricultural field site. Sec. 2 in, A Review of Ecological Assessment Case Studies from a Risk Assessment Perspective, Volume II . W a shington, DC: U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency. EPA/630/R-94/003. Menzie, C.A., D.E. Burm aster, D.S. Freshm an and C. Callahan. (1992) Assessm ent of m e thods for estim ating ecological risk in the terrestrial com ponent: A case st udy at the Baird and McGuire Superfund Site in Holbrook, Massachusetts. Environ Toxicol Chem 11:245–260. Mineau, P. (2002) Estim ating the probability of bird m o rta lity from pesticide sprays on the basis of the field study record. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:1497–1506. Mysz, A.T., C.G. Maurice; R.F. Beltran , K.A. Cipollini, J.P. Perrecone, K.M. Rodriguez, and M.L. W h ite. (2000) A targeting approach for ecosystem protection. Environ Sci Pol 3(6): 347–356. Noss, R.P., E.T. Laroe, and J.M. Scott. (1995) Endangered ecosystems of the United States: A preliminary assessment of loss and degradation . W a shington, DC: National Biological Service, U.S. Departm e nt of Interior. Orr, R., G. McClung, R. Peoples, J.D. W illiam s , and M. A. Meyer. (1999) Nonindigenous species, Sec. 4. In: Ecological risk assessment in the federal government . CENR/5-99/001. W a shington, DC: Com m ittee on Environm ental and Natural Resources. Availabl e from : http://www.nnic.noaa.gov/CENR/ecorisk.pdf. Osowksi, S.L; J.D. Swick Jr., G.R. Carney, H.B. Pena, J. E. Danielson, and D.A. Parri sh. (2001) A watershed-based
cum u lative risk im pact analysis: environm ental vulnerability and im pact criteria. Environ Mon and Assess 66:159–185. Pastorok, R.A., S.M. Bartell, S. Fe rson, L.R. Ginsberg (eds). (2002) Ecological Modeling in Risk Assessment: Chemical Effects on Populations, Ecosystems and Landscapes . Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

Posthum a, L., G.W

. Suter II and T.P. Traas (eds.). (2002) Species Sensitivity Distributions for Ecotoxicology . Boca Raton, FL: Lewis/CRC Press.

Prim ack, R.B. (1993) Essentials of Conservation Biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc. Randall, A. and G.L. Peterson. (1984) The valuation of wildland benefits: An overview. In Peterson, G.L. and A. Randall, eds. Valuation of Wildland Resource Benefits . Boulder, CO: W e stview Press. Richer, J. (1995) W illingness to pay for desert protection. Contemp Econ Pol 13(4): 93–104. Sappington, L.C., F.L. Mayer, F.J. Dwy er, D.R. Buckler, J.R. Jones, and M.R. Ellersieck. (2001) Contam inant sensitivity of threatened and endangered fishes com p ared with standard surrogate species. Environ Toxicol Chem 20(12): 2869–2876.

56Stein, B.A., L.S. Kutner and J.S. Adam s (eds). (2000) Precious Heritage: The Status of Biodiversity in the United States . U.K: Oxford University Press.
Suter, G.W ., II. (1990) Endpoints for regional ecological risk assessm ents. Environ Manage 14:9–23.
Suter, G.W ., II. (1993) Ecological Risk Assessment . Lewis Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Suter, G.W ., II. (1998) Ecotoxicological effects extrapol ation m odels. pp.167–186. IN M. Newm an and C. L. Strojan (eds.). Risk Assessment: Logic and Measurement . Ann Arbor Press, Ann Arbor, MI.
Suter, G.W ., II. (2000) Generic assessm ent endpoint s are needed for ecological risk assessm ent. Risk Anal 20:173–178.
Suter, G.W ., II and M.H. Donker. (1993) Param e ters for population effects of chem icals: proceedings of a workshop. Sci Total Environ Supp 1993: 1793–1797.
Suter, G.W ., II, B.E. Sam p le, D. S. Jones and T.L. Ashwood. (1994) Approach and strategy for performing ecological risk assessments for the Department of Energy' s Oak Ridge Reservation . Oak Ridge, TN: Environm ental Restoration Division, Oak Ri dge National Laboratory. ES/ER/TM-33/R1. U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. (2000) The National Action Plan to conserve coral reefs . W a shington, DC: United States Coral Reef Task Force. Av ailable from : http://coralreef.gov/. U.S. EPA (Environm ental Protection Agency). (1983) Environmental effects of regulatory concern: a position paper . Unpublished report dated Dec. 2, 1983. W a shington, DC: Environm ental Effects Branch, Health and Environm ental Review Division, Office of Toxic Substances. 20460-0001. U.S. EPA. (1985a) Guidelines for deriving numeric National Water Quality Criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms and their uses . W a shington, DC. PB85-227049. U.S. EPA. (1985b) Policy on floodplain and wetland assessment for CERCLA action . W a shington, DC: Office of Solid W a ste and Em ergency Response. OSW E R Directive 9280.0-02. U.S. EPA. (1988a) Special review final decision relating to diazinon in the m a tter of Ciba-Geigy Corporation et al. FIFRA Docket Nos. 562 et seq. (March 29). U.S. EPA. (1988b) Tributyltin antifoulants: notice of intent to cancel; denial of applications for registration; partial conclusion of special review. 53 FR 39022 (October 4, 1988). U.S. EPA. (1989) Risk assessment for Superfund, Volume II: Environmental evaluation manual . W a shington, DC: EPA/540-1-89/001. U.S. EPA. (1990a) Hazard Ranking System Final Rule. 55 FR 51532 U.S. EPA. (1990b) Mem o randum of Agreem ent between the U.S Environm ental Protection Agency and the Departm e nt of the Arm y for the determ ination of m itigation under the Clean W a ter Act Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines. U.S. EPA. (1991a) Targeting priority natural resource areas: A review of national lists . W a shington, DC: Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. Internal repor t subm itted by Dynam ac Corporation, Rockville, MD. U.S. EPA. (1991b) Granular carbofuran : conclusion of special review; notice of final determ ination. 56 FR 64621, Decem ber 11, 1991.

57U.S. EPA. (1992a) The Hazard Ranking System Guidance Manual; Interim Final . W a shington, DC: Office of Solid W a ste and Em ergency Response. EPA-540-R-92-026. U.S. EPA. (1992b) Superfund removal procedures: removal enforcement guidance for On-Scene Coordinators

. W a shington, DC: Office of Em ergency and Re m e dial Response, OSW E R Directive 9360.0-06. U.S. EPA. (1993a) Chlorinated paraffins ecological risk characterization. Novem b er 10, 1993. Adm i nistrative Record No. 063–66. EPA Docket Center. W a shington, DC. U.S. EPA. (1993b) Habitat evaluation: guidance for the review of environmental impact assessment documents

. W a shington, DC: Office of Federal Activities. U.S. EPA. (1993c) Controlling the impacts of remediation activities in or around wetlands . W a shington, DC: Office of Solid W a ste and Em ergency Response. EPA-530-F-93-0202. U.S. EPA. (1994) Managing ecological risks at EPA: issues and recommendations for progress . W a shington, DC. EPA/600/R-94/183. Available from : http://www.epa.gov/ORD/W e bPubs/ecorisk.pdf. U.S. EPA (1995) Mercury Study Report to Congress, Vol. V: An ecological assessment of anthropogenic mercury emissions in the United States . W a shington, DC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Office of Research and Developm ent. EPA-452/R-96-011e. Ava ilable from : http://www.epa.gov/oar/m e rcury.htm l

. U.S. EPA. (1996) Biological criteria: Technical guidance for streams and small rivers . W a shington, DC: Office of W a ter. EPA 822-B-96-001. Available from : http ://www.epa.gov/bioindicators/htm l/bioltech.htm l. U.S. EPA. (1997a) Priorities for ecological protection: An initial list and discussion document for EPA

. W a shington, DC. EPA/600/S-97/002. Available from : http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm / recordisplay.cfm ? d eid=12381. U.S. EPA. (1997b) National am bient air quality standa rds for ozone; final rule. 62 FR 38856–38896 (July 18, 1997). U.S. EPA. (1997c) Ecological risk assessment guidance for Superfund: process for designing and conducting ecological risk assessments. Interim Final. W a shington, DC: Office of Solid W a ste and Em ergency Response. EPA 540-R-97-006. Available from : http://www.epa.gov/ superfund/program s/risk/ecorisk/ecorisk.htm

. U.S. EPA. (1997d) Record of Decision: Loring Air For ce Base, Lim e stone, Maine. Operable Unit 13. EPA-541-R97-002-6-16-1997. U.S. EPA. (1997e) Record of Decision: Pease Air For ce Base, Portsm outh/Newington, New Ham p shire. Operable Unit 11. EPA-541-R-97-163-9-30-1997. U.S. EPA. (1998a) Guidelines for ecological risk assessment . W a shington, DC: Risk Assessm ent Forum

. EPA/630/R-95/002F. Available from : http://cfpub. epa.gov/ncea/cfm / recordisplay.cfm ? d eid=12460. U.S. EPA. (1998b) PCBs: Lower Fox River impacts . Chicago, IL: Region 5, U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency. U.S. EPA. (1998c) Record of Decision: New London Subm arine Base, New London, Connecticut. Operable Unit 3. EPA-541-R-98-003-3-31-1998. U.S. EPA. (1999a) Screening level ecological risk assessment pr otocol for hazardous waste combustion facilities, Vol. 1 ( P eer Review Draft) . EPA 530-D-99-001A. W a shington, DC: Office of Solid W a ste. Available from : http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/com bust/ecorisk.htm

. U.S. EPA. (1999b) Issuance of final guidance: ecological risk assessment and risk management principles for Superfund . W a shington, DC: Office of Solid W a ste and Em ergency Response. OSW E R Directive 9825.7-28P. Available from : http://www.epa.gov/superfund/program s/risk/ecorisk/final99.pdf.

58U.S. EPA. (1999c) Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in stre ams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish . W a shington, DC: Office of W a ter. EPA 841-B-99-002. Available from : http://www.epa.gov/owow/m onitoring/rbp/wp61pdf/rbp.pdf. U.S. EPA (1999d) Protocol for developing nutrient TMDLs . W a shington, DC: Office of W a ter. EPA 841-B-99-007. Available from : http://www.epa.gov/owow/tm dl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf. U.S. EPA. (1999e) Protocol for developing sediment TMDLs . W a shington, DC.: Office of W a ter, U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency. EPA 841-B-99-004. Available from : http://www.epa.gov/owow/tm dl/sedim ent/pdf/sedim ent.pdf. U.S. EPA. (2000) Volume 2E- revised baseline ecological risk assessment, Hudson River PCBs reassessment . E P A Region 2, New York, NY. Available from : h ttp://www.epa.gov/hudson/reports.htm #links2reports. U.S. EPA. (2001a) Diazinon revised risk assessm ent and ag reem ent with registrants. W a shington, DC: Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Available from : http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/op/diazinon/agreem ent.pdf U.S. EPA. (2001b) Lower Fox River and Green Bay Ar ea of Concern. Great Lakes National Program Office. Available from : http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/aoc/greenbay.htm l U.S. EPA. (2002a) A framework for assessing and reporting on ecological condition: an SAB report . W a shington, DC: Science Advisory Board. EPA-SAB-EPEC/02/009. Available from : http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/epec02009.pdf. U.S. EPA. (2002b) Bird conservation. W a shington, DC: Office of W e tlands, Oceans, and W a tersheds. Available from : http://www.epa.gov/owow/birds/ U.S. EPA. (2003a) Report of the United States Envi ronm ental Protection Agency Region 8 Oil and Gas Environm ental Assessm ent Effort, 1996–2002. Denver, CO. U.S. EPA. (2003b) AQUATOX for W i ndows, Release 1: A Modular Fate and Effects Model for Aquatic Ecosystem s . EPA-823-R-007. Available from : http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/m odels/aquatox
U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service. (2001) Revised list of m i gratory birds, Proposed Rule, 66 FR 52282-52300 (October 12, 2001).

W e ntsel, R., D. Charters, M. Sprenger, S. Ells, J. Ba scietto, N. Finley, A. Fritz, and M. Matta. (1999) CERCLA, Sec. 5 In: Ecological risk assessment in the federal government . CENR/5-99/001. W a shington, DC: Com m ittee on Environm ent and Natural Resources. Availabl e from : http://www.nnic.noaa.gov/CENR/ecorisk.pdf.

W e stm a n, W

. E. (1977) How m u ch are nature’s services worth? Science 197: 960–964.

W i sconsin Departm e nt of Natural Resources. (2001) Lowe r Fox River Rem e dial Investigation /Feasibility Study and Risk Assessm ent. Available from : http://www. dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm /lowerfox/rifs/. Yoder, C.O. and E.T. Rankin. (1995) Biological crite ria program developm ent and im plem entation: pp. 109–144. W

. S. Davis and T.P. Sim on (eds.), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making . Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.

Zeem an, M; Rodier, D; and Nabholz, JV. (1999) Ecological risks of a new industrial chem ical under TSCA. In: Ecological Risk Assessment in the Federal Government . CENR/5-99/001. W a shington, DC: Com m ittee on Environm ental and Natural Resources. Availabl e from : http://www.nnic.noaa.gov/CENR/ecorisk.pdf.

59

## A ppendix 11

– Environmental Risk ScreenTable 1

– PB

- HAP Benchmarks Included in the Environmental Risk Screen

EcoHAP Assessment Endpoint Benchmark Effects Level Benchmark Value Benchmark Source Tier 1 Eco Screening Threshold

(TPY) Cadmium Fish

- Avian Piscivores NOAEL (merganser) 0.7 (mg/kg BW/day) d 2.03E

- 01 Cadmium Fish

- Avian Piscivores LOAEL (merganser) 1 (mg/kg BW/day) d 2.90E

- 01 Cadmium Fish

- Mammalian Piscivores NOAEL (mink) 0.742 (mg/kg BW/day) e 4.06E

- 01 Cadmium Fish

- Mammalian Piscivores LOAEL (mink) 7.42 (mg/kg BW/day) e 4.06E+00 Cadmium Sediment Community No

- effect Level 0.6 (mg/kg dry wt) b 1.73E+00 Cadmium Sediment Community Threshold Level 1.2 (mg/kg dry wt) a 3.45E+00 Cadmium Sediment Community Probable

- effect Level 3.5 (mg/kg dry wt) b 1.01E+01 Cadmium Surface Soil

- Dist. 1

- 312 m Threshold

- Mammalian Insectivores (shrew) 0.36 (mg/kg dry wt) a 3.64E

- 01 Cadmium Surface Soil

- Dist. 1

- 312 m Threshold

- Avian Ground Insectivores (woodcock) 0.77 (mg/kg dry wt) a 7.79E

- 01 Cadmium Surface Soil

- Dist. 1

- 312 m Threshold Level

- Plant Community 32 (mg/kg dry wt) a 3.24E+01 Cadmium Surface Soil

- Dist. 1

- 312 m Threshold Level

- Invertebrate Community 140 (mg/kg dry wt) a 1.42E+02 Cadmium Surface Soil

- Dist. 2

- 850 m Threshold

- Mammalian Insectivores (shrew) 0.36 (mg/kg dry wt) a 5.21E

- 01 Cadmium Surface Soil

- Dist. 2

- 850 m Threshold

- Avian Ground Insectivores (woodcock) 0.77 (mg/kg dry wt) a 1.11E+00 Cadmium Surface Soil

- Dist. 2

- 850 m Threshold Level

- Plant Community 32 (mg/kg dry wt) a 4.63E+01 Cadmium Surface Soil

- Dist. 2

- 850 m Threshold Level

- Invertebrate Community 140 (mg/kg dry wt) a 2.03E+02 Cadmium Surface Soil

- Dist. 3

- 1,500 m Threshold

- Mammalian Insectivores (shrew) 0.36 (mg/kg dry wt) a 7.53E

- 01 Cadmium Surface Soil

- Dist. 3

- 1,500 m Threshold

- Avian Ground Insectivores (woodcock) 0.77 (mg/kg dry wt) a 1.61E+00 Cadmium Surface Soil

- Dist. 3

- 1,500 m Threshold Level

- Plant Community 32 (mg/kg dry wt) a 6.69E+01 Cadmium Surface Soil

- Dist. 3

- 1,500 m Threshold Level

- Invertebrate Community 140 (mg/kg dry wt) a 2.93E+02 Cadmium Surface Soil

- Dist. 4

- 3,500 m Threshold

- Mammalian Insectivores (shrew) 0.36 (mg/kg dry wt) a 1.05E+00 Cadmium Surface Soil

- Dist. 4

- 3,500 m Threshold

- Avian Ground Insectivores (woodcock) 0.77 (mg/kg dry wt) a 2.24E+00 Cadmium Surface Soil

- Dist. 4

- 3,500 m Threshold Level

- Plant Community 32 (mg/kg dry wt) a 9.32E+01 Cadmium Surface Soil

- Dist. 4

- 3,500 m Threshold Level

- Invertebrate Community 140 (mg/kg dry wt) a 4.08E+02 Cadmium Surface Soil

- Dist. 5

- 7,500 m Threshold

- Mammalian Insectivores (shrew) 0.36 (mg/kg dry wt) a 2.99E+00 Cadmium Surface Soil

- Dist. 5

- 7,500 m Threshold

- Avian Ground Insectivores (woodcock) 0.77 (mg/kg dry wt) a 6.40E+00 Cadmium Surface Soil

- Dist. 5

- 7,500 m Threshold Level

- Plant Community 32 (mg/kg dry wt) a 2.66E+02 Cadmium Surface Soil

- Dist. 5

- 7,500 m Threshold Level

- Invertebrate Community 140 (mg/kg dry wt) a 1.16E+03 C admium Water

- column Community Threshold Level 0.25 (ug/L) c 7.66E

- 01 Cadmium Water

- column Community Frank

- effect Level 2 (ug/L) c 6.12E+00Table 1

– PB

- HAP Benchmarks Included in the Environmental Risk Screen

Dioxin Fish

- Avian Piscivores NOAEL (merganser) 0.0000014 (mg/kg BW/day) f 3.17E

- 05 Dioxin Fish

- Avian Piscivores LOAEL (merganser) 0.000014 (mg/kg BW/day) f 3.17E

- 04 Dioxin Fish

- Mammalian Piscivores NOAEL (mink) 0.000000771 (mg/kg BW/day) f 4.12E

- 05 Dioxin Fish

- Mammalian Piscivores LOAEL (mink) 0.00000771 (mg/kg BW/day) f 4.12E

- 04 Dioxin Sediment Community Threshold Level 0.00000116 (mg/kg dry wt) g 3.10E

- 05 Dioxin Surface Soil

- Dist. 1

- 312 m Threshold

- Mammalian Insectivores (shrew) 0.0000002 (mg/kg dry wt) h 6.69E

- 07 Dioxin Surface Soil

- Dist. 2

- 850 m Threshold

- Mammalian Insectivores (shrew) 0.0000002 (mg/kg dry wt) h 9.48E

- 07 Dioxin Surface Soil

- Dist. 3

- 1,500 m Threshold

- Mammalian Insectivores (shrew) 0.0000002 (mg/kg dry wt) h 1.28E

- 06 Dioxin Surface Soil

- Dist. 4

- 3,500 m Threshold

- Mammalian Insectivores (shrew) 0.0000002 (mg/kg dry wt) h 2.08E

- 06 Dioxin Surface Soil

- Dist. 5

- 7,500 m Threshold

- Mammalian Insectivores (shrew) 0.0000002 (mg/kg dry wt) h 4.39E

- 06 Dioxin Water

- column Community Threshold Level 0.000012 (ug/L) i 3.84E

- 03 Dioxin Water

- column Community Frank

- effect Level 0.1 (ug/L) i 3.20E+01 Mercuric Chloride Sediment Community Threshold Level 0.15 (mg/kg dry wt) a 9.11E

- 03 Mercuric Chloride Sediment Community Probable

- effect Level 0.7 (mg/kg dry wt) j 4.25E

- 02 Mercuric Chloride Surface Soil

- Dist. 1

- 312 m Threshold Level

- Plant Community 0.3 (mg/kg dry wt) k 9.25E

- 03 Mercuric Chloride Surface Soil

- Dist. 1

- 312 m Threshold Level

- Invertebrate Community 0.1 (mg/kg dry wt) k 3.08E

- 03 Mercuric Chloride Surface Soil

- Dist. 2

- 850 m Threshold Level

- Plant Community 0.3 (mg/kg dry wt) k 1.35E

- 02 Mercuric Chloride Surface Soil

- Dist. 2

- 850 m Threshold Level

- Invertebrate Community 0.1 (mg/kg dry wt) k 4.50E

- 03 Mercuric Chloride Surface Soil

- Dist. 3

- 1,500 m Threshold Level

- Plant Community 0.3 (mg/kg dry wt) k 1.78E

- 02 Mercuric Chloride Surface Soil

- Dist. 3

- 1,500 m Threshold Level

- Invertebrate Community 0.1 (mg/kg dry wt) k 5.93E

- 03 Mercuric Chloride Surface Soil

- Dist. 4

- 3,500 m Threshold Level

- Plant Community 0.3 (mg/kg dry wt) k 2.70E

- 02 Mercuric Chloride Surface Soil

- Dist. 4

- 3,500 m Threshold Level

- Invertebrate Community 0.1 (mg/kg dry wt) k 8.99E

- 03 Mercuric Chloride Surface Soil

- Dist. 5

- 7,500 m Threshold Level

- Plant Community 0.3 (mg/kg dry wt) k 7.23E

- 02 Mercuric Chloride Surface Soil

- Dist. 5

- 7,500 m Threshold Level

- Invertebrate Community 0.1 (mg/kg dry wt) k 2.41E

- 02 Mercuric Chloride Water

- column Community Threshold Level 0.77 (ug/L) c 7.78E

- 01 Mercuric Chloride Water

- column Community Frank

- effect Level 1.4 (ug/L) c 1.42E+00 Mercury (methyl) Fish

- Avian Piscivores NOAEL (merganser) 0.013 (mg/kg BW/day) f 7.55E

- 03 Mercury (methyl) Fish

- Avian Piscivores LOAEL (merganser) 0.078 (mg/kg BW/day) f 4.53E

- 02 Mercury (methyl) Fish

- Mammalian Piscivores NOAEL (mink) 0.0247 (mg/kg BW/day) e 4.01E

- 02 Mercury (methyl) Fish

- Mammalian Piscivores LOAEL (mink) 0.123 (mg/kg BW/day) e 2.00E

- 01 Mercury (methyl) Sediment Community Threshold Level 0.2 (mg/kg dry wt) l 5.43E+00 Mercury (methyl) Sediment Community Probable

- effect Level 1 (mg/kg dry wt) l 2.72E+01 Mercury (methyl) Surface Soil

- Dist. 1

- 312 m Threshold Level

- Invertebrate Community 0.67 (mg/kg dry wt) I 1.25E+00Table 1

– PB

- HAP Benchmarks Included in the Environmental Risk Screen

References :
a. U.S. EPA OSWER b. Environment Canada c. U.S. EPA OW d. CA DTSC HERD (2009) e. Sample, et. al, 1996 f. U.S. EPA 1995 g. U.S. EPA Region 3, 4, and 5. h. U.S. EPA Region i. U.S. EPA Region 4 j. Florida DEP, NOAA k. ORNL and EPA R4, R6 l. MacDonald, et. al. 2000 m. U.S. EPA Region 6 n. NAAQS for Lead, Secondary S tandard Mercury (methyl) Surface Soil

- Dist. 2

- 850 m Threshold Level

- Invertebrate Community 0.67 (mg/kg dry wt) i 1.82E+00 Mercury (methyl) Surface Soil

- Dist. 3

- 1,500 m Threshold Level

- Invertebrate Community 0.67 (mg/kg dry wt) i 2.40E+00 Mercury (methyl) Surface Soil

- Dist. 4

- 3,500 m Threshold Level

- Invertebrate Community 0.67 (mg/kg dry wt) i 3.62E+00 Mercury (methyl) Surface Soil

- Dist. 5

- 7,500 m Threshold Level

- Invertebrate Community 0.67 (mg/kg dry wt) i 9.71E+00 Mercury (methyl) Water

- column Community Threshold Level 0.0028 (ug/L) c 3.30E

- 01 Mercury (methyl) Water

- column Community Frank

- effect Level 0.099 (ug/L) c 1.17E+01 PAH Fish

- Mammalian Piscivores NOAEL (mink) 0.417 (mg/kg BW/day) e 4.72E+02 PAH Fish

- Mammalian Piscivores LOAEL (mink) 4.17 (mg/kg BW/day) e 4.72E+03 PAH Sediment Community No

- effect Level 0.032 (mg/kg dry wt) b 4.73E+00 PAH Sediment Community Threshold Level 0.15 (mg/kg dry wt) l, h 2.22E+01 PAH Sediment Community Probable

- effect Level 1.45 (mg/kg dry wt) l 2.14E+02 PAH Surface Soil

- Dist. 1

- 312 m Threshold

- Mammalian Insectivores (shrew) 1.52 (mg/kg dry wt) h 3.45E+00 PAH Surface Soil

- Dist. 2

- 850 m Threshold

- Mammalian Insectivores (shrew) 1.52 (mg/kg dry wt) h 5.09E+00 PAH Surface Soil

- Dist. 3

- 1,500 m Threshold

- Mammalian Insectivores (shrew) 1.52 (mg/kg dry wt) h 8.22E+00 PAH Surface Soil

- Dist. 4

- 3,500 m Threshold

- Mammalian Insectivores (shrew) 1.52 (mg/kg dry wt) h 2.02E+01 PAH Surface Soil

- Dist. 5

- 7,500 m Threshold

- Mammalian Insectivores (shrew) 1.52 (mg/kg dry wt) h 5.06E+01 PAH Water

- column Community Threshold Level 0.014 (ug/L) a, h, m 1.84E+01 PAH Water

- column Community Frank

- effect Level 0.24 (ug/L) a 3.16E+02 Lead Ambient Air NAAQS Secondary Standard 0.15 ug/m 3 n NATable 2

– Acid Gas Benchmarks Included in the Environmental Risk Screen

a
- Note that the human health RfC is 20 μg/m3 , which is lower than the ecological benchmark. Acid Gas Chronic 90

- day Benchmark in μg/m3 Hydrochloric acid

- LOEL 50 a Hydrofluoric acid

– Plant Community LOEL 0.5 Hydrofluoric acid

– Plant Community LOEL 0.4