Wayne R. Munns

Issues in sediment toxicity and ecological risk assessment

This paper is based on a facilitated Workshop and Roundtable Discussion of key issues in sediment toxicology and ecological risk assessment (ERA) as applied to sediments that was held at the Conference on Dredged Material Management: Options and Environmental Considerations. The issues addressed included how toxicity is defined and perceived, how it is measured, and how it should be used within the context of ERA to support management decisions. The following conclusions were reached regarding scientific considerations of these issues. Toxicity is a measure of hazard and not a risk per se. Thus, toxicity testing is a means but not the end to understand risks of sediments. Toxicity testing cannot presently be replaced by chemical analyses to define hazard. Toxicity test organisms need to be appropriate to the problem being addressed, and the results put into context relative to both reference and baseline comparisons to understand hazard. Use of toxicity tests in sediment ERAs requires appropriate endpoints and risk hypotheses, considering ecological not just statistical significance, and recognizing that hazard does not equate to risk. Toxicity should be linked to population and community response to support decision-making, assessing possible genotypic adaptations that can influence risk estimates, and addressing uncertainty. Additionally, several key scientific issues were identified to improve future sediment ERAs, including the need to improve basic understanding of ecological mechanisms and processes, recognition of variability in the assessment process, and an improved focus and ability to assess risks to populations and communities.

Population-level ecological risk assessment

Introduction, L.W. Barnthouse, W.R. Munns, Jr., and M.T. Sorensen THE MANAGEMENT-SCIENCE INTERFACE Managing Risk to Ecologic Populations, G.R. Biddinger, P. Calow, P. Delorme, G. Harris, B. Hope, B.L. Lin, M. Sorensen, and P. van den Brink Population Protection Goals, C. Menzie, N. Bettinger, A. Fritz, L. Kapustka, H. Regan, V. Moller, and H. Noel SCIENTIFIC ISSUES IN POPULATION-LEVEL ECOLOGIC RISK ASSESSMENT Density Dependence in Ecologic Risk Assessment, S.J. Moe Genetic Variation in Population-Level Ecologic Risk Assessment, D. Nacci and A. Hoffman The Spatial Structure of Populations and Ecologic Risk Assessment, W.G. Landis, and A. Deines What Conservation Biology and Natural Resource Management Can Offer Population-Level Ecologic Risk Assessment, J.A. Gervais and H.M. Regan APPROACHES TO POPULATION-LEVEL ECOLOGIC RISK ASSESSMENT Empiric Approaches to Population-Level Ecologic Risk Assessment, T.M. Carlsen, P.F. Chapman, S. Brassfield, N. Elmegaard, A. Hoffman, W. Landis, S. J. Moe, D. Nacci, H.M. Noel, and J. Spromburg Modeling Approaches to Population-Level Ecologic Risk Assessment, W.R. Munns, Jr., J.A. Gervais, A.A. Hoffman, U. Hommen, D.E. Nacci, M. Nakamaru, R. Sibly, and C.J. Topping A Framework for Population-Level ERA, R. Wentsel, N. Beyer, V. Forbes, S. Maund, and R. Pastorok A PATH FORWARD Issues and Recommendations, W.R. Munns, Jr, L.W. Barnthouse, and M.T. Sorensen REFERENCES AND APPENDICES References Appendix 1 Decision Context Scenarios Appendix 2 Workshop Exercise: Application of 2 Modeling Techniques in a Theoretical Assessment for Agricultural Pesticide Registration Appendix 3 Supplemental Reading List

Ecosystem services as assessment endpoints for ecological risk assessment

Ecosystem services are defined as the outputs of ecological processes that contribute to human welfare or have the potential to do so in the future. Those outputs include food and drinking water, clean air and water, and pollinated crops. The need to protect the services provided by natural systems has been recognized previously, but ecosystem services have not been formally incorporated into ecological risk assessment practice in a general way in the United States. Endpoints used conventionally in ecological risk assessment, derived directly from the state of the ecosystem (e.g., biophysical structure and processes), and endpoints based on ecosystem services serve different purposes. Conventional endpoints are ecologically important and susceptible entities and attributes that are protected under US laws and regulations. Ecosystem service endpoints are a conceptual and analytical step beyond conventional endpoints and are intended to complement conventional endpoints by linking and extending endpoints to goods and services with more obvious benefit to humans. Conventional endpoints can be related to ecosystem services even when the latter are not considered explicitly during problem formulation. To advance the use of ecosystem service endpoints in ecological risk assessment, the US Environmental Protection Agencys Risk Assessment Forum has added generic endpoints based on ecosystem services (ES-GEAE) to the original 2003 set of generic ecological assessment endpoints (GEAEs). Like conventional GEAEs, ES-GEAEs are defined by an entity and an attribute. Also like conventional GEAEs, ES-GEAEs are broadly described and will need to be made specific when applied to individual assessments. Adoption of ecosystem services as a type of assessment endpoint is intended to improve the value of risk assessment to environmental decision making, linking ecological risk to human well-being, and providing an improved means of communicating those risks. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2016;12:522-528. Published 2015 SETAC. This article is a US Government work and, as such, is in the public domain in the USA.

Approaches for Integrated Risk Assessment

Recognizing the need to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of risk assessments globally, the World Health Organizations International Programme on Chemical Safety, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the European Commission, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development developed a collaborative partnership to foster integration of assessment approaches used to evaluate human health and ecological risks. The objectives of this effort included: improving understanding of the benefits of integration, identifying obstacles to the integration process, and engaging key agencies, organizations, and scientific societies to promote integration. A framework with supporting documentation was developed to describe an approach for integration. Four case studies were constructed to illustrate how integrated risk assessments might be conducted for chemical and nonchemical stressors. The concepts and approaches developed in the project were evaluated in an international workshop. The goal of this effort was international acceptance of guidance for integrated risk assessment.

Toward a standard lexicon for ecosystem services

The complex, widely dispersed, and cumulative environmental challenges currently facing society require holistic, transdisciplinary approaches to resolve. The concept of ecosystem services (ES) has become more widely accepted as a framework that fosters a broader systems perspective of sustainability and can make science more responsive to the needs of decision makers and the public. Successful transdisciplinary approaches require a common language and understanding of key concepts. Our primary objective is to encourage the ES research and policy communities to standardize terminology and definitions, to facilitate mutual understanding by multidisciplinary researchers and policy makers. As an important step toward standardization, we present a lexicon developed to inform ES research conducted by the US Environmental Protection Agency and its partners. We describe a straightforward conceptualization of the relationships among environmental decisions, their effects on ecological systems and the services they provide, and human well-being. This provides a framework for common understanding and use of ES terminology. We encourage challenges to these definitions and attempts to advance standardization of a lexicon in ways that might be more meaningful to our ultimate objective: informing environmental decisions in ways that promote the sustainability of the environment upon which we all depend.

Evolutionary and Ecological Effects of Multi-Generational Exposures to Anthropogenic Stressors

Biological and ecological responses to stress are dictated by duration and frequency, as well as instantaneous magnitude. Conditional compensatory responses at the physiological and behavioral levels, referred to as ‘acclimation’, may mitigate effects on individuals experiencing brief or infrequent periods of moderate stress. However, even modest stress over extended periods may reduce the fitness of some or all exposed individuals. In this way, specific stress that persists over multiple generations will increase probabilities for extinction of populations composed of sensitive individuals. For populations whose members demonstrate variance and heritability for stressor response, this selective loss of sensitive individuals may result in populations dominated by resistant individuals. The formation of these ‘adapted’ populations may be considered an ecological compensatory mechanism to multi-generational stress. Paradoxically, the biological costs to individuals of toxicity and physiological acclimation may result in obvious signs of stress in affected wildlife populations while the costs of genetic adaptation may be more covert. It is important to consider such costs because recent evidence suggests that anthropogenic stressors have acted as powerful selection agents that have modified the composition of wildlife populations subjected for successive generational exposures to specific stressors. This essay focuses on a case study where adaptation has been demonstrated in fish populations with a history of chronic exposure to persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic environmental contaminants. Because the magnitude, breadth and long-term outcomes of such changes are unknown, ecological risk assessments that are limited in focus to short-term exposures and consequences may seriously underestimate the ecological and evolutionary impacts of anthropogenic stressors.

A New Process for Organizing Assessments of Social, Economic, and Environmental Outcomes: Case Study of Wildland Fire Management in the USA

Ecological risk assessments typically are organized using the processes of planning (a discussion among managers, stakeholders, and analysts to clarify ecosystem management goals and assessment scope) and problem formulation (evaluation of existing information to generate hypotheses about adverse ecological effects, select assessment endpoints, and develop an analysis plan). These processes require modification to be applicable for integrated assessments that evaluate ecosystem management alternatives in terms of their ecological, economic, and social consequences.We present 8 questions that define the steps of a new process we term integrated problem formulation (IPF), and we illustrate the use of IPF through a retrospective case study comparing 2 recent phases of development of the Fire Program Analysis (FPA) system, a planning and budgeting system for the management of wildland fire throughout publicly managed lands in the United States. IPF extends traditional planning and problem formulation by including the explicit comparison of management alternatives, the valuation of ecological, economic and social endpoints, and the combination or integration of those endpoints. The phase 1, limited prototype FPA system used a set of assessment endpoints of common form (i.e., probabilities of given flame heights over acres of selected land-resource types), which were specified and assigned relative weights at the local level in relation to a uniform national standard. This approach was chosen to permit system-wide optimization of fire management budget allocations according to a cost-effectiveness criterion. Before full development, however, the agencies abandoned this approach in favor of a phase 2 system that examined locally specified (rather than system-optimized) allocation alternatives and was more permissive as to endpoint form. We demonstrate how the IPF process illuminates the nature, rationale, and consequences of these differences, and argue that its early use for the FPA system may have enabled a smoother development path.

Types of Integration in Risk Assessment and Management, And Why They Are Needed

Risk-based decision making requires that the decision makers and stakeholders are informed of all risks that are potentially significant and relevant to the decision. The International Programme on Chemical Safety of the World Health Organization has developed a framework for integrating the assessment of human health and ecological risks. However, other types of integration are needed to support particular environmental decisions. They are integration of exposure and effects, of multiple chemicals and other hazardous agents, of multiple routes of exposure, of multiple endpoints, multiple receptors, multiple spatial and temporal scales, a products life cycle, management alternatives, and socioeconomics with risk assessment. Inclusion of all these factors in an integrated assessment could lead to paralysis by analysis. Therefore, it is important that assessors be cognizant of the decision process and that decision makers and those who will influence the decision (stakeholders) be involved in planning the assessment to ensure that the degree of integration is necessary and sufficient.

Risk Assessment Workgroup Report

The Risk Assessment Work Group focused on six charge questions related to CHABS, cyanobacteria and their toxins. The charge questions covered the following topics: Research needed to reduce uncertainty in establishing health based guidelines. Research that minimize the cost and maximize the benefits of various regulatory approaches. Exposure pathways for receptors of concern. Data available to support the derivation of health-based guideline values for harmful cyanobacterial algal blooms. Ecological services that guidelines or regulations should protect? A framework for making risk management determinations that incorporates consideration of the characteristics of CHABs, the risk for human health, ecosystem viability, and the costs and benefits of CHABs detection and management? The Work Group concluded that there is a considerable amount of human case-study data and information from animal studies to demonstrate that cyanobacterial toxins pose a hazard to humans, domestic animals, wildlife, and the ecosystem. However, the data on dose-response are limited and confounded by a lack of sufficient pure toxin to conduct most of the toxicological studies that will be needed in order to answer remaining questions on risk, and to provide the data for quantitative dose-response analysis. The Work Group recommended that research on purification or synthesis of pure toxin must be accomplished before the large scale studies to establish dose-response relationships will be possible. As the necessary-pure toxins become available, the Work Group recommended that studies be prioritized by the impact that they will have on reducing the uncertainty in the risk assessment in order to minimize the research costs and maximize the risk assessment benefits. Use of quantitative structure activity relationships (QSAR) and toxicity equivalency factor studies are also recommended as approaches for filling dose-response data gaps. The Work Group recognized that CHABs rarely introduce single toxins into the water supply. Under CHAB conditions, affected water is likely to contain a variety of toxins in varying concentrations that may change over the duration of the bloom. Accordingly, research on cyanotoxin interactions is needed, along with the development of risk assessment approaches for CHAB mixtures. The development of simple, accurate analytical methods that can be utilized by most analytical laboratories or used in the field was recognized as a major data need for establishing exposure potential and monitoring bloom conditions. Most currently available methods are time-consuming and/or costly. Human exposure to cyanobacterial toxins can occur through ingestion of contaminated drinking water, plus dermal contact and/or inhalation of aerosols while bathing and showering in tap water. Treatment can reduce the concentrations of both the toxins and the bacteria in the treated water but there is still much to be learned about the effectiveness of most treatment technologies on cyanobacteria and toxin removal. Human exposure to cyanobacteria and their toxins also occurs through incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of aerosols during recreational use of surface waters, ingestion of contaminated fish and other foods of aquatic origin, and/or BGAS supplements. Establishing intakes and duration parameters for these exposure scenarios will facilitate the application of risk assessment approaches to these situations.

Integrated Risk Assessment - Results from an International Workshop.

The World Health Organizations International Programme on Chemical Safety and international partners have developed a framework for integrated assessment of human health and ecological risks and four case studies. An international workshop was convened to consider how ecological and health risk assessments might be integrated, the benefits of and obstacles to integration, and the research and mechanisms needed to facilitate implementation of integrated risk assessment. Using the case studies, workshop participants identified a number of opportunities to integrate the assessment process. Improved assessment quality, efficiency, and predictive capability were considered to be principal benefits of integration. Obstacles to acceptance and implementation of integrated risk assessment included the disciplinary and organizational barriers between ecological and health disciplines. A variety of mechanisms were offered to overcome these obstacles. Research recommendations included harmonization of exposure characterization and surveillance methods and models, development of common risk endpoints across taxa, improved understanding of mechanisms of effect at multiple scales of biological organization, and development of methods to facilitate comparison of risks among endpoints.