Enhancing the ecological risk assessment process

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 306-313

  Dale, Virginia H ^a   Biddinger, Gregory R ^b   Newman, Michael C ^c   Oris, James T ^d   Suter, Glenn W ^e   Thompson, Timothy ^f   Armitage, Thomas M ^e   Meyer, Judith L ^g   Allen King, Richelle M ^h   Burton, G Allen ⁱ   Chapman, Peter M ^j   Conquest, Loveday L ^k   Fernandez, Ivan J ^l   Landis, Wayne G ^m   Master, Lawrence L ⁿ   Mitsch, William J ^o   Mueller, Thomas C ^p   Rabeni, Charles F ^q   Rodewald, Amanda D ^o   Sanders, James G ^r   Van Heerden, Ivor L ^s   more..

^a OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

^b EXXONMOBIL UPSTREAM RESEARCH COMPANY   (United States)

^c VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE   (United States)

^d MIAMI UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

^f Medical Sciences   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

ⁱ WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^j GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD   (Canada)

^k UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^l UNIVERSITY OF MAINE   (United States)

^m WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

ⁿ Western Washington University ^*  (United States)

^o OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^p UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

^q UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^r SKIDAWAY INSTITUTE OF OCEANOGRAPHY   (United States)

^s LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Ecological risk assessment; Problem formulation; Uncertainty

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ECOLOGY; ORGANIZATION; RISK ASSESSMENT;

DECISION MAKING, ORGANIZATIONAL; ECOLOGY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 51849112637     PISSN: 15513793     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1897/IEAM_2007-066.1     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Barnthouse L. 2008. The strengths of the ecological risk assessment process: Linking science to decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manag 4:299-305.
2. Efroymson R, Nicolette JP, Suter II GW. 2004. A framework for net environmental benefit analysis for remediation or restoration of contaminated sites. Environ Manag 34:315-331.
3. Kapustka L. 2008. Limitations of ecological risk assessments. Integr Environ Assess Manag 4:290-298.
4. Raghua S, Dhileepan K, Scanlan JC. 2007. Predicting risk and benefit a priori in biological control of invasive plant species: A systems modelling approach. Ecol Model 208:247-262.
5. Serveiss VB, Butcher JB, Diamond J, Jones KC. 2005. Improving the TMDL process using watershed risk assessment principles. Environ Manag 36:143-151.
6. Suter II GW. 2008. Ecological risk assessment in the US Environmental Protection Agency: A historical overview. Integr Environ Assess Manag 4:285-289.
7. [NRC] National Research Council. 1994. Science and judgment in risk assessment. Washington DC: National Academies Press. 652 p.
8. [USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Risk assessment guidance for superfund, part A. Washington DC: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, USEPA. EPA/540/1-89/002.
9. [USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Framework for ecological risk assessment. Washington DC: Risk Assessment Forum, USEPA. EPA/600/R-92- 001.
10. [USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. Washington DC: Risk Assessment Forum, USEPA. EPA/630/R095//002F.
11. [USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2000a. Data quality objectives process for hazardous waste site investigations. EPA QA/G-4HW Final. Washington DC: Office of Environmental Information, USEPA. EPA/600/R- 00/007.
12. [USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2000b. Guidance for the data quality objectives process (EPA QA/G4). Washington DC: Office of Environmental Information, USEPA. EPA/600/R-96/055.
13. [USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Estimation Program Interface (EPI) suite. http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/pubs/episuite.htm/ Accessed 14 February 2007.
14. [USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2006a. Ecological benefits assessment strategic plan. Washington DC: USEPA. EPA-240-R-06-001.
15. [USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2006b. Guidance on systematic planning using the data quality objectives process. Washington DC: Office of Environmental Information, USEPA. EPA/240/B-06/001.
16. [USEPA SAB] US Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board. 2002. A framework for assessing and reporting on ecological condition: An SAB Report. Edited by Young TF and Sanzone S. Washington DC: USEPA. EPA-SABEPEC- 02-009.
17. [USEPA SAB] US Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board. 2006. Advisory on EPA's superfund benefits analysis. Washington DC: USEPA. EPASAB- ADV-06-002.