Ecological Risk Assessment Second Edition Glenn W. Suter Ii

Visit https://ebookfinal.com to download the full version and
explore more ebooks
Ecological Risk Assessment Second Edition Glenn
W. Suter Ii
_____ Click the link below to download _____
https://ebookfinal.com/download/ecological-risk-
assessment-second-edition-glenn-w-suter-ii/
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookfinal.com

Here are some suggested products you might be interested in.
Click the link to download
Environmental and Economic Sustainability Environmental
and Ecological Risk Assessment 1st Edition Paul E.
Hardisty
https://ebookfinal.com/download/environmental-and-economic-
sustainability-environmental-and-ecological-risk-assessment-1st-
edition-paul-e-hardisty/
Tolerance to Environmental Contaminants Environmental and
Ecological Risk Assessment 1st Edition Claude Amiard-
Triquet
https://ebookfinal.com/download/tolerance-to-environmental-
contaminants-environmental-and-ecological-risk-assessment-1st-edition-
claude-amiard-triquet/
The Security Risk Assessment Handbook A Complete Guide for
Performing Security Risk Assessments Second Edition
Douglas Landoll
https://ebookfinal.com/download/the-security-risk-assessment-handbook-
a-complete-guide-for-performing-security-risk-assessments-second-
edition-douglas-landoll/
Modelling the Harrier I and II Glenn Ashley
https://ebookfinal.com/download/modelling-the-harrier-i-and-ii-glenn-
ashley/

Forensic Assessment of Violence Risk A Guide for Risk
Assessment and Risk Management 1st Edition Mary Alice
Conroy
https://ebookfinal.com/download/forensic-assessment-of-violence-risk-
a-guide-for-risk-assessment-and-risk-management-1st-edition-mary-
alice-conroy/
Essentials of WIAT II and KTEA II Assessment Essentials of
Psychological Assessment 1st Edition Elizabeth O.
Lichtenberger
https://ebookfinal.com/download/essentials-of-wiat-ii-and-ktea-ii-
assessment-essentials-of-psychological-assessment-1st-edition-
elizabeth-o-lichtenberger/
Creating Your Own Monologue Second Edition Glenn Alterman
https://ebookfinal.com/download/creating-your-own-monologue-second-
edition-glenn-alterman/
Effective ecological monitoring Second Edition David
Lindenmayer
https://ebookfinal.com/download/effective-ecological-monitoring-
second-edition-david-lindenmayer/
Pesticide Risk Assessment for Pollinators 1st Edition
David Fischer
https://ebookfinal.com/download/pesticide-risk-assessment-for-
pollinators-1st-edition-david-fischer/

Ecological Risk Assessment Second Edition Glenn W.
Suter Ii Digital Instant Download
Author(s): Glenn W. Suter II
ISBN(s): 9781566706346, 1566706343
Edition: 2
File Details: PDF, 6.07 MB
Year: 2006
Language: english

Ecological
Risk Assessment
Second Edition
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page i 27.10.2006 8:21am

Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page ii 27.10.2006 8:21am

CRC Press is an imprint of the
Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
Boca Raton London New York
Ecological
Risk Assessment
Second Edition
Editor and Principal Author
Glenn W. Suter II
Contributing Authors
Lawrence W. Barnthouse
Steven M. Bartell
Susan M. Cormier
Donald Mackay
Neil Mackay
Susan B. Norton
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page iii 27.10.2006 8:21am

CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742
© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
No claim to original U.S. Government works
Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
International Standard Book Number-10: 1-56670-634-3 (Hardcover)
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-56670-634-6 (Hardcover)
This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reprinted material is quoted
with permission, and sources are indicated. A wide variety of references are listed. Reasonable efforts have been made to
publish reliable data and information, but the author and the publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of
all materials or for the consequences of their use.
No part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or
other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any informa-
tion storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers.
For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.com (http://
www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC) 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923,
978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For orga-
nizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Ecological risk assessment / edited by Glenn W. Suter II. -- 2nd ed.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 1-56670-634-3
1. Ecological risk assessment. I. Suter, Glenn W.
QH541.15.R57E25 2006
333.95’14--dc22 2006049394
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at
http://www.taylorandfrancis.com
and the CRC Press Web site at
http://www.crcpress.com
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page iv 27.10.2006 8:21am

Dedication
To my parents,
Glenn W. Suter and Kathleen T. Suter
We are products of our heredity and environment,
and parents provide all of one and most of the other.
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page v 27.10.2006 8:21am

Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page vi 27.10.2006 8:21am

Prefaceto the SecondEdition
The primary purpose of preparing this edition is to provide an update. In the 14 years since
the first edition was published, ecological risk assessment has gone from being a marginal
activity to being a relatively mature practice. There are now standard frameworks and
guidance documents in the United States and several other countries. Ecological risk assess-
ment is applied to the regulation of chemicals, the remediation of contaminated sites, the
importation of exotic organisms, the management of watersheds, and other environmental
management problems. Courses in ecological risk assessment have been taught at several
universities. As a result, there is a much larger literature to draw on, including many case
studies. This is reflected both in the citation of ecological risk assessments published in the
open literature and in the use of more figures drawn from real assessments. Hence, the reader
will notice a greater diversity in the graphical style, resulting from the many sources from
which figures have been drawn so as to give a flavor of the diverse practice of ecological risk
assessment.
The second edition also provides an opportunity for a new organization of the material
that is more logically consistent. In particular, whereas the first edition had separate chapters
for types of ecological risk assessments (i.e., predictive, retrospective, regional, surveillance,
and exotic organisms), this edition presents a unitary process of ecological risk assessment
that is applicable to various problems, scales, and mandates. All risk assessments are about
the future consequences of decisions. Those that were described in the first edition as
retrospective, following EPA terminology, are simply risk assessments that must begin with
an analysis of the current consequences of past actions in order to predict future consequences
(Chapter 1).
Since 1992, ecological risk assessment has become sufficiently important to acquire critics
and opponents. Some criticisms deal with aspects of the technical practice. Ecological
risk assessment is often criticized for being based on inadequate data and models, for not
addressing large-scale spatial dynamics, and for using conservatism to compensate for those
inadequacies (DeMott et al. 2004; Landis 2005; Tannenbaum 2005a). Other critics are
opposed to ecological risk assessment per se (Pagel and O’Brien 1996; Lackey 1997;
O’Brien 2000; Bella 2002). These criticisms arise from a misperception of the nature and
purpose of risk assessment. In particular, risk assessment is technical support for decision
making under uncertainty, but the critics hold risk assessment responsible for the
decision itself. If decision makers listen to fishermen, loggers, chemical manufacturers, or
utility companies more than to environmental advocates, critics say it is the fault of risk
assessment. If risk assessments are limited by regulatory context to considering only one
alternative, they say that also is the fault of risk assessment. If decisions are based on
balancing of costs and benefits, it is again the fault of risk assessment. If the best available
science does not address all of the important complexities of the system, they say that risk
assessors who use that science are to blame. Similarly, risk assessors are blamed when holistic
properties, endocrine disruptors, regional properties, or other favorite concerns are not
addressed. Some of this criticism arises from an opposition to technology, science, and even
rationality, but more generally it is based on anger that the environment is not being
adequately protected. One partial solution is to avoid the phrase ‘‘risk-based decision mak-
ing.’’ Environmental decisions are, at best, ‘‘risk-informed.’’ They are based on risk informa-
tion plus economic considerations, technical feasibility, public pressures, political pressures,
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page vii 27.10.2006 8:21am

and the personal biases of the decision makers. Another partial solution is to be fastidious in
quantifying, or at least describing, uncertainties and limitations of our assessments.
Some things have not changed since the first edition. The emphasis is still on providing
clear, scientifically sound, and unbiased technical advice to environmental decision makers.
Although other examples are included in this edition, the focus is still on risks from chemicals
or chemical mixtures, indicating that most ecological risk assessments are concerned with
these issues.
The text is still aimed at practitioners and advanced students with at least a basic know-
ledge of biology, chemistry, mathematics, and statistics. It does not assume any familiarity
with ecological risk assessment or risk assessment in general. A glossary is provided, because
terms from risk assessment, ecology, toxicology, and other disciplines are used.
As with the first edition, I have written most of the book myself in order to provide a
common voice and a common vision of the topic. This is a service to the reader as well as an
opportunity for me to share my particular vision of what ecological risk assessment is and
what it could be. However, for some major topics, the readers would be ill-served by my
meager expertise. Fortunately, Larry Barnthouse, Steve Bartell, and Don Mackay agreed to
participate in this edition as they did in the first. I believe they are the preeminent experts in
the application of population modeling, ecosystem modeling, and chemical transport and fate
modeling, for the assessment of ecotoxicological effects. Fortunately, they have similar
pragmatic approaches to mine.
The preface to the first edition described it as a manifesto. The program of that manifesto
was that ecological assessors must become more rigorous in their methods and practices in
order to be taken as seriously as human health and engineering risk assessors. That program
is no longer needed. Ecological risk assessments are at least as rigorous as human
health assessments and in some ways, particularly in the use of probabilistic analysis,
ecological assessments are more advanced. As a result, ecological risks are more often the
basis for environmental regulatory and management decisions. However, ecologically driven
decisions are still far less common than health-driven decisions. To a certain extent, this is
inevitable, because humans are making the decisions based on the concerns of other humans,
the public. However, we can make progress in protecting the nonhuman environment by
greater integration of ecological risk assessment with concerns for human health and welfare.
Hence, the greatest challenge in the coming years is to estimate and communicate ecological
risks in a way that makes people care.
Glenn Suter
Cincinnati, Ohio
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page viii 27.10.2006 8:21am

Acknowledgments
I gratefully acknowledge the innumerable environmental scientists who contributed to this
text. Those who are cited are thereby acknowledged, although you are probably not cited as
much as you deserve. Many of you who are not cited at all deserve citation but must settle for
this apologetic acknowledgment. I have heard your talks at meetings, exchanged ideas at your
posters or in the halls, and even read your papers, but have forgotten that you were the source
of those ideas. Even more sadly, many of you have done important work and produced
important ideas that should appear in this text but do not, because I am unaware of them.
There are forlorn piles of books, reports, and reprints on the table behind my back as I write
this that I really wanted to read before completing this book, but could not. So, if you feel
that I have not given your work the attention it deserves, you are probably right.
Parts of this book draw upon material inEcological Risk Assessment for Contaminated
Sites. Thanks to Rebecca Efroymson, Brad Sample, and Dan Jones who were coauthors of
that book.
My 7 years with the US Environmental Protection Agency have improved this book by
giving me a deeper understanding of the role of risk assessment in environmental regulation.
Thanks to all of my agency colleagues. Particular thanks to Susan Cormier and Susan Norton
who have been wonderful friends, inspiring collaborators, and guardians against sloppy
thinking.
Finally, deep thanks to Linda who, after decades of marriage, has learned to tolerate my
long hours in my study and even helped with the final rush to submit the manuscript.
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page ix 27.10.2006 8:21am

Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page x 27.10.2006 8:21am

Authors
Glenn W. Suter IIis science advisor in the US
Environmental Protection Agency’s National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincin-
nati, and was formerly a senior research staff
member in the Environmental Sciences Div-
ision, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, United
States. He has a PhD in ecology from the
University of California, Davis, and 30 years
of professional experience including 25 years in
ecological risk assessment. He is the principal
author of two texts in the field of ecological risk
assessment, editor of two other books, and
author of more than 100 open literature publi-
cations. He is associate editor for ecological
risk ofHuman and Ecological Risk Assessment,
and reviews editor for the Society for Environ-
mental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC).
He has served on the International Institute
of Applied Systems Analysis Task Force on
Risk and Policy Analysis, the Board of Directors of SETAC, an expert panel for the
Council on Environmental Quality, and the editorial boards ofEnvironmental Toxicology
and Chemistry,Environmental Health Perspectives, andEcological Indicators.Heis
the recipient of numerous awards and honors; most notably, he is an elected fellow of
the American Association for the Advancement of Science and he received SETAC’s
Global Founder’s Award, its highest award for career achievement, and the EPA’s Level 1
Scientific and Technical AchievementAward.
His research experience includes development
and application of methods for ecological risk
assessment and ecological epidemiology, de-
velopment of soil microcosm and fish toxicity
tests, and environmental monitoring. His
workis currently focused on the development
of methods for determining the causes of
biological impairments.
Susan M. Cormieris a senior science advisor in
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s
National Risk Management Research Labora-
tory. Dr. Cormier received her BA in Zoology
from the University of New Hampshire, her
MA in biology from the University of South
Florida, and her PhD in Biology from Clark
University.
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page xi 27.10.2006 8:21am

Donald Mackay(BSc, PhD (Glasgow)) is
director of the Canadian Environmental
Modelling Centre at Trent University, Peterbor-
ough, Ontario, Canada. He graduated in chem-
ical engineering from the university of Glasgow.
After working in the petrochemical industry he
joined the University of Toronto, where he is
now Professor Emeritus in the Department of
Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry.
He has been director of the Canadian Environ-
mental Modelling Centre of Trent University
Ontario since 1995. His primary research inter-
est is the development, application, validation,
and dissemination of mass-balance models de-
scribing the fate of chemicals in the environment
in general, and in a variety of specific environ-
ments. These models include descriptions of
bioaccumulation in a variety of organisms,
water-quality models of contaminant fate in lakes, rivers, sewage-treatment plants, and in
soils and vegetation. He has developed a series of multimedia mass-balance models employing
the fugacity concept that are widely used for assessment of chemical fate in national regions in
theglobalenvironment.Aparticularinterestisthe
transport of persistent organic chemicals to cold
climates such as the Canadian Arctic and their
accumulation and migration in arctic ecosystems.
Susan B. Nortonis a senior ecologist in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s National
Center for Environmental Assessment. Since
joining EPA in 1988, Dr. Norton has developed
methods and guidance to better use ecological
knowledge to inform environmental decisions.
She was an author of many agency guidance
documents including the2000 Stressor Identifi-
cation Guidancedocument, the1998 Guidelines
for Ecological Risk Assessment, the1993 Wild-
life Exposure Factors Handbook, and the 1992
Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. She
has published numerous articles on ecological
assessment and edited the bookEcological As-
sessment of Aquatic Resources: Linking Science to Decision-Making. She is currently enthusi-
astic about making methods and information for causal analysis more available via the World
Wide Web at www.epa.gov=caddis. Dr. Norton received her BS in plant science from Penn
State, her MS in natural resources from Cornell University, and her PhD in environmental
biology from George Mason University.
Neil Mackay(BSc (Waterloo), DPhil (York)) is a senior research scientist for environmental
modelling with DuPont (UK) Limited. As a member of the DuPont Crop Protection Global
Modelling Team he is active in strategic development and regulatory exposure and risk
assessment activities. Previous work experience includes employment as a consultant to
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page xii 27.10.2006 8:21am

both industry and government bodies, primarily
in Europe. He was a participant in the European
Commission Health and Consumer Protection
Directorate General and the FOCUS Risk As-
sessment Working Group and is a member of
the UK government expert advisory panel
on veterinary medicines. Particular interests in-
clude aquatic risk assessment and use of spatial
tools (GIS and remote sensing methods) to
evaluate risks at various scales (field, catchment
and regional scales) and assessment of long
range transport potential for persistent organic
pollutants (POPs).
Lawrence W. Barnthouseis the president of
LWB Environmental Services, Inc. and adjunct
associate professor of zoology at Miami Univer-
sity. He was formerly a senior research staff
member and group leader in the Environmental
Sciences Division at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory. In 1981 he became co-principal
investigator (with Glenn Suter) on EPA’s first
research project on ecological risk assessment.
Since that time, he has been active in the devel-
opment and application of ecological risk
assessment methods for EPA, other federal
agencies, state agencies, and private industry.
He has chaired workshops on ecological risk
assessment for the National Academy of Sci-
ences and the Society of Environmental Toxi-
cology and Chemistry, and served on the peer
review panels for the EPA’s Framework for
Ecological Risk Assessment and the Guidelines
for Ecological Risk Assessment. He continues
to support the development of improved
methods for ecological risk assessment as the
Hazard=Risk Assessment Editor ofEnvironmen-
tal Toxicology and Chemistryand a Founding
Editorial Board Member ofIntegrated Environ-
mental Assessment and Management.
Steven M. Bartellis a principal with E2 Consulting Engineers, Inc. He is also an adjunct
faculty member in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University
of Tennessee, Knoxville. His education includes a PhD in oceanography and limnology
(University of Wisconsin 1978), an MS in botany (University of Wisconsin 1973), and a BA
in biology (Lawrence University 1971). Dr. Bartell’s areas of expertise include systems
ecology, ecological modeling, ecological risk analysis, risk-based decision analysis, vulner-
ability analysis, numerical sensitivity and uncertainty analysis, environmental chemistry, and
environmental toxicology. He works with a variety of public and private sector clients
in diverse projects in ecological risk assessment, environmental analysis, and more recently
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page xiii 27.10.2006 8:21am

in ecological planning and restor-
ation in the context of adaptive en-
vironmental management and
ecological sustainability. Bartell
has authored more than 100 peer-
reviewed publications. He is a se-
nior contributing author on several
books includingEcological Model-
ing in Risk Assessment(2001),
Ecological Risk Assessment Deci-
sion-Support System: A Conceptual
Design(1998),Risk Assessment and
Management Handbook for Envir-
onmental, Health, and Safety Pro-
fessionals(1996), andEcological
Risk Estimation(1992). He cur-
rently serves on the editorial boards
ofAquatic ToxicologyandChemo-
spherehaving served previously on the editorial boards ofHuman and Ecological Risk
AssessmentandEcological Applications. Bartell served for 11 years on the USEPA Science
Advisory Board, mainly on the Environmental Processes and Effects Committee and review
committees.
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page xiv 27.10.2006 8:21am

Contributors
Lawrence W. Barnthouse
LWB Environmental Services, Inc.
Hamilton, Ohio
Steven M. Bartell
E2 Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Maryville, Tennessee
Susan M. Cormier
US Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnatti, Ohio
Donald Mackay
Canadian Environmental Modelling Centre
Trent University
Petersborough, Ontario, Canada
Neil Mackay
Cambridge Environmental Associates
Cambridge, United Kingdom
Susan B. Norton
US Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
Glenn W. Suter II
US Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page xv 27.10.2006 8:21am

Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page xvi 27.10.2006 8:21am

Table of Contents
Part I Introduction to Ecological Risk Assessment...............................................................1
Chapter 1 Defining the Field.................................................................................................3
1.1 Predictive vs. Retrospective Risk Assessment ..............................................................4
1.2 Risks, Benefits, and Costs............................................................................................5
1.3 Decisions to Be Supported...........................................................................................5
1.3.1 Prioritization of Hazards..................................................................................5
1.3.2 Comparison of Alternative Actions .................................................................6
1.3.3 Permitting Releases ..........................................................................................7
1.3.3.1 Chemicals ...........................................................................................7
1.3.3.2 Effluents and Wastes ..........................................................................8
1.3.3.3 New Organisms ..................................................................................8
1.3.3.4 Items in International Trade ..............................................................8
1.3.4 Limiting Loading .............................................................................................8
1.3.5 Remediation and Restoration ..........................................................................9
1.3.6 Permitting and Managing Land Uses ............................................................ 10
1.3.7 Species Management ......................................................................................10
1.3.8 Setting Damages............................................................................................. 10
1.4 Sociopolitical Purposes of Risk Assessment ..............................................................12
1.5 Cast of Characters......................................................................................................12
1.5.1 Assessors ........................................................................................................12
1.5.2 Risk Managers ............................................................................................... 12
1.5.3 Stakeholders ...................................................................................................13
Chapter 2 Other Types of Assessments...............................................................................15
2.1 Monitoring Status and Trends...................................................................................15
2.2 Setting Standards .......................................................................................................16
2.3 Life Cycle Assessment................................................................................................16
2.4 Prohibitions................................................................................................................16
2.5 Technology-Based Rules ............................................................................................17
2.6 Best Practices, Rules, or Guidance.............................................................................17
2.7 Precautionary Principle ..............................................................................................18
2.8 Adaptive Management...............................................................................................19
2.9 Analogy......................................................................................................................20
2.10 Ecosystem Management.............................................................................................20
2.11 Health Risk Assessment.............................................................................................21
2.12 Environmental Impact Assessment ............................................................................21
2.13 Summary ....................................................................................................................21
Chapter 3 Ecological Risk Assessment Frameworks...........................................................25
3.1 Basic US EPA Framework ..........................................................................................25
3.2 Alternative Frameworks ..............................................................................................27
3.2.1 WHO-Integrated Framework........................................................................... 28
3.2.2 Multiple Activities............................................................................................29
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page xvii 27.10.2006 8:21am

3.2.3 Ecological Epidemiology..................................................................................30
3.2.4 Causal Chain Framework ................................................................................31
3.3 Extended Frameworks .................................................................................................33
3.4 Iterative Assessment.....................................................................................................33
3.4.1 Screening vs. Definitive Assessments ...............................................................35
3.4.2 Baseline vs. Alternatives Assessments ..............................................................36
3.4.3 Iterative Assessment as Adaptive Management ...............................................36
3.5 Problem-Specific Frameworks .....................................................................................36
3.6 Conclusions..................................................................................................................37
Chapter 4 Ecological Epidemiology and Causal Analysis....................................................39
4.1 Biological Surveys........................................................................................................40
4.2 Biological Assessment ..................................................................................................42
4.3 Causal Analysis............................................................................................................44
4.3.1 Identifying Candidate Causes ..........................................................................47
4.3.1.1 What is a Cause? ................................................................................47
4.3.1.2 Developing the List ............................................................................49
4.3.1.3 Developing Maps and Conceptual Models ........................................49
4.3.2 Analyzing the Evidence....................................................................................50
4.3.2.1 Evidence of Co-occurrence.................................................................51
4.3.2.2 Evidence of Sufficiency ......................................................................52
4.3.2.3 Evidence of Temporality ....................................................................52
4.3.2.4 Evidence from Manipulation .............................................................53
4.3.2.5 Evidence of Coherence .......................................................................53
4.3.3 Characterizing Causes ......................................................................................54
4.3.3.1 Elimination.........................................................................................54
4.3.3.2 Diagnostic Protocols and Keys ..........................................................55
4.3.3.3 Koch’s Postulates ...............................................................................55
4.3.3.4 Strength-of-Evidence Analysis ...........................................................57
4.3.4 Iteration of Causal Analysis .............................................................................67
4.4 Identifying Sources and Management Alternatives .....................................................67
4.5 Risk Assessment in Ecoepidemiology ..........................................................................68
4.6 Summary......................................................................................................................68
Chapter 5 Variability, Uncertainty, and Probability...........................................................69
5.1 Sources of Unpredictability .........................................................................................69
5.1.1 Variability ........................................................................................................69
5.1.2 Uncertainty ......................................................................................................70
5.1.3 Variability Uncertainty Dichotomy .................................................................70
5.1.4 Combined Variability and Uncertainty............................................................71
5.1.5 Error ................................................................................................................71
5.1.6 Ignorance and Confusion.................................................................................72
5.1.7 Summary of Sources ........................................................................................72
5.2 What is Probability?.....................................................................................................72
5.2.1 Types of Probability: Frequency vs. Belief.......................................................73
5.2.1.1 Frequency...........................................................................................73
5.2.1.2 Belief ..................................................................................................73
5.2.2 Types of Probability: Categorical vs. Conditional ...........................................74
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page xviii 27.10.2006 8:21am

5.3 Ways to Analyze Probabilities .....................................................................................74
5.3.1 Frequentist Statistics ........................................................................................ 75
5.3.2 Bayesian Statistics ............................................................................................77
5.3.3 Resampling Statistics .......................................................................................78
5.3.4 Other Approaches ............................................................................................79
5.4 Why Use Probabilistic Analyses?.................................................................................79
5.4.1 Desire to Ensure Safety....................................................................................79
5.4.2 Desire to Avoid Excessive Conservatism .........................................................80
5.4.3 Desire to Acknowledge and Present Uncertainty............................................. 80
5.4.4 Need to Estimate a Probabilistic Endpoint......................................................80
5.4.5 Planning Sampling and Testing........................................................................81
5.4.6 Comparing Hypotheses and Associated Models..............................................81
5.4.7 Aiding Decision Making ..................................................................................82
5.4.8 Summary of Reasons .......................................................................................82
5.5 Techniques for Analysis of Variability and Uncertainty .............................................82
5.5.1 Uncertainty Factors .........................................................................................82
5.5.2 Confidence Intervals ........................................................................................ 83
5.5.3 Data Distributions ........................................................................................... 84
5.5.4 Statistical Modeling .........................................................................................85
5.5.5 Monte Carlo Analysis and Uncertainty Propagation ...................................... 86
5.5.6 Nested Monte Carlo Analysis ..........................................................................86
5.5.7 Sensitivity Analysis .......................................................................................... 88
5.5.8 Listing and Qualitative Evaluation ..................................................................89
5.6 Probability in the Risk Assessment Process.................................................................89
5.6.1 Defining Exposure Distributions .....................................................................90
5.6.2 Defining Effects Distributions..........................................................................91
5.6.3 Estimating Risk Distributions..........................................................................92
5.7 Parameters to Treat as Uncertain ................................................................................93
5.8 Summary......................................................................................................................94
Chapter 6 Dimensions, Scales, and Levels of Organization.................................................95
6.1 Levels of Organization.................................................................................................95
6.2 Spatial and Temporal Scales........................................................................................98
6.3 Regional Scale............................................................................................................100
6.4 Dimensions ................................................................................................................100
6.4.1 Abundance or Intensity of the Agent............................................................. 100
6.4.2 Temporal Duration ........................................................................................ 101
6.4.3 Space .............................................................................................................. 101
6.4.4 Proportion Affected ....................................................................................... 101
6.4.5 Severity of the Effects .................................................................................... 102
6.4.6 Type of Effect ................................................................................................ 102
6.4.7 What to do with Multiple Dimensions? ......................................................... 103
Chapter 7 Modes and Mechanisms of Action....................................................................105
7.1 Chemical Modes and Mechanisms.............................................................................105
7.2 Testing for Mechanisms.............................................................................................109
7.3 Nonchemical Modes and Mechanisms.......................................................................109
Chapter 8 Mixed and Multiple Agents..............................................................................111
8.1 Chemical Mixtures .....................................................................................................111
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page xix 27.10.2006 8:21am

8.1.1 Methods Based on Whole Mixtures............................................................... 112
8.1.2 Methods Based on Tests of Components....................................................... 115
8.1.2.1 Simple Similar Action and Concentration Addition ........................ 116
8.1.2.2 Independent Action and Response Addition ................................... 118
8.1.2.3 Interactive Action............................................................................. 121
8.1.2.4 Multiple Chemicals and Multiple Species ........................................ 121
8.1.3 Integration of Complex Chemical Mixtures................................................... 122
8.2 Multiple and Diverse Agents .....................................................................................123
8.2.1 Categorize and Combine Agents.................................................................... 125
8.2.2 Determine Spatial and Temporal Overlap ..................................................... 125
8.2.3 Define Effects and Mode of Action ............................................................... 125
8.2.4 Screen Effects ................................................................................................. 126
8.2.5 Simple Additive Effects.................................................................................. 127
8.2.6 Additive Exposures ........................................................................................ 127
8.2.7 Mechanistic Models of Combined Effects ..................................................... 128
8.2.8 Integration of Complex Sets of Agents and Activities ................................... 128
Chapter 9 Quality Assurance............................................................................................129
9.1 Data Quality ..............................................................................................................130
9.1.1 Primary Data ................................................................................................. 130
9.1.2 Secondary Data.............................................................................................. 132
9.1.3 Defaults and Assumptions ............................................................................. 134
9.1.4 Representing Data Quality............................................................................. 135
9.1.5 Data Management ......................................................................................... 135
9.2 Model Quality............................................................................................................136
9.3 Quality of Probabilistic Analyses...............................................................................139
9.4 Assessment Quality ....................................................................................................142
9.4.1 Process Quality............................................................................................... 142
9.4.2 Peer Review of the Assessment ...................................................................... 143
9.4.3 Replication of Assessments ............................................................................ 143
9.5 Summary....................................................................................................................144
Part II Planning and Problem Formulation......................................................................145
Chapter 10 Impetus and Mandate.....................................................................................147
Chapter 11 Goals and Objectives......................................................................................149
Chapter 12 Management Options.....................................................................................151
Chapter 13 Agents and Sources........................................................................................153
13.1 Emissions .................................................................................................................153
13.2 Activities and Programs ...........................................................................................154
13.3 Sources of Causes.....................................................................................................154
13.4 Properties of the Agent ............................................................................................154
13.5 Sources of Indirect Exposure and Effects ................................................................154
13.6 Screening Sources and Agents..................................................................................155
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page xx 27.10.2006 8:21am

Chapter 14 Environmental Description.............................................................................157
Chapter 15 Exposure Scenarios........................................................................................161
Chapter 16 Assessment Endpoints.....................................................................................163
16.1 Assessment Endpoints and Levels of Organization................................................166
16.2 Generic Assessment Endpoints ..............................................................................167
16.2.1 Generic Endpoints Based on Policy Judgments ....................................... 167
16.2.2 Functionally Defined Generic Endpoints ................................................. 168
16.2.3 Applying Generic Endpoints .................................................................... 170
16.3 Making Generic Assessment Endpoints Specific....................................................171
16.4 Endpoints Based on Objectives Hierarchies...........................................................174
Chapter 17 Conceptual Models.........................................................................................177
17.1 Uses of Conceptual Models ...................................................................................177
17.2 Forms of Conceptual Models.................................................................................180
17.3 Creating Conceptual Models..................................................................................181
17.4 Linkage to Other Conceptual Models....................................................................187
Chapter 18 Analysis Plans................................................................................................189
18.1 Choosing Measures of Exposure, Effects,
and Environmental Conditions ..............................................................................189
18.2 Reference Sites and Reference Information ...........................................................191
18.2.1 Information Concerning the Precontamination or
Predisturbance State ................................................................................. 191
18.2.2 Model-Derived Information ..................................................................... 192
18.2.3 Information Concerning Other Sites ........................................................ 192
18.2.4 Information Concerning a Regional Reference ........................................ 194
18.2.5 Gradients as Reference ............................................................................. 194
18.2.6 Positive Reference Information ................................................................ 195
18.2.7 Goals as an Alternative to Reference ....................................................... 195
Part III Analysis of Exposure...........................................................................................197
Chapter 19 Source Identification and Characterization.....................................................199
19.1 Sources and the Environment ................................................................................199
19.2 Unknown Sources ..................................................................................................200
19.3 Summary ................................................................................................................201
Chapter 20 Sampling, Analysis, and Assays...................................................................... 203
20.1 Sampling and Chemical Analysis of Media ...........................................................203
20.2 Sampling and Sample Preparation .........................................................................204
20.3 Encountered Data ..................................................................................................205
20.4 Screening Analyses .................................................................................................205
20.5 Analysis of Cofactors .............................................................................................205
20.6 Water......................................................................................................................208
20.7 Sediment.................................................................................................................208
20.8 Soil .........................................................................................................................209
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page xxi 27.10.2006 8:21am

20.9 Biota and Biomarkers ............................................................................................209
20.10 Bioassays ................................................................................................................212
20.11 Biosurveys ..............................................................................................................213
20.12 Sampling, Analysis, and Probabilities ....................................................................214
20.13 Conclusions ............................................................................................................215
Chapter 21 Mathematical Models of Chemical Transport and Fate..................................217
21.1 Objectives ...............................................................................................................217
21.2 Basic Modeling Concepts .......................................................................................217
21.2.1 Emissions or Loadings.............................................................................. 218
21.2.2 Point and Nonpoint Sources .................................................................... 219
21.2.3 Steady-State and Non-Steady-State Sources ............................................ 219
21.2.4 Importance of Scale.................................................................................. 219
21.3 Formulating Mass Balance Models........................................................................220
21.3.1 Defining Compartments ........................................................................... 220
21.3.2 Reaction Rates ......................................................................................... 220
21.3.3 Transport Rates........................................................................................ 222
21.3.4 Emissions.................................................................................................. 224
21.3.5 Solutions to the Mass Balance Equation.................................................. 224
21.3.6 Complexity, Validity, and Confidence Limits .......................................... 225
21.4 Illustration of a Simple Mass Balance Model ........................................................226
21.4.1 The System Being Modeled ...................................................................... 226
21.4.2 Concentration Calculation........................................................................ 227
21.4.2.1 Chemical Input Rate................................................................. 227
21.4.2.2 Partitioning between Water, Particles, and Fish....................... 227
21.4.2.3 Outflow in Water ...................................................................... 228
21.4.2.4 Outflow in Particles .................................................................. 228
21.4.2.5 Reaction.................................................................................... 228
21.4.2.6 Deposition to Sediment ............................................................ 228
21.4.2.7 Evaporation .............................................................................. 228
21.4.2.8 Combined Loss Processes ......................................................... 228
21.4.3 Fugacity Calculation ................................................................................ 229
21.4.4 Discussion................................................................................................. 231
21.5 Chemicals of Concern and Models Simulating their Behavior ..............................232
21.5.1 General Multimedia Models..................................................................... 232
21.5.1.1 Level I ....................................................................................... 233
21.5.1.2 Level II...................................................................................... 233
21.5.1.3 Level III .................................................................................... 233
21.5.1.4 Level IV .................................................................................... 233
21.5.1.5 Fugacity Models ....................................................................... 234
21.5.1.6 CalTOX Model......................................................................... 234
21.5.1.7 Simplebox Model...................................................................... 234
21.5.1.8 Regional, Continental, and Global-Scale Models..................... 234
21.5.2 Models Specific to Environmental Media ................................................ 234
21.5.2.1 Plume Models in General ......................................................... 235
21.5.2.2 Atmospheric Models................................................................. 235
21.5.2.3 Aquatic Models......................................................................... 235
21.5.2.4 Soil Models ............................................................................... 236
21.5.2.5 Fish Uptake and Food Chain Models...................................... 236
21.5.2.6 Miscellaneous Models............................................................... 237
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page xxii 27.10.2006 8:21am

21.5.3 Models Specific to Chemical Classes........................................................ 237
21.5.3.1 Agricultural Pesticides .............................................................. 237
21.5.3.2 Veterinary Medicines ................................................................ 239
21.5.3.3 Biocides..................................................................................... 240
21.5.3.4 Metals ....................................................................................... 240
21.6 Concluding Thoughts on Selecting and Applying Models.......................................241
Chapter 22 Exposure to Chemicals and Other Agents......................................................243
22.1 Exposure Models......................................................................................................245
22.2 Exposure to Chemicals in Surface Water................................................................. 245
22.3 Exposure to Chemicals in Sediment.........................................................................247
22.4 Exposure to Contaminants in Soil ...........................................................................250
22.4.1 Chemical Analyses to Estimate Exposure .................................................. 250
22.4.1.1 Partial Chemical Extraction and Normalization........................ 251
22.4.1.2 Input Form of the Chemical ...................................................... 252
24.4.1.3 Chemical Interactions ................................................................ 253
24.4.1.4 Nonaqueous Phase Liquids........................................................ 253
22.4.2 Soil Depth Profile ...................................................................................... 253
22.5 Exposure of Terrestrial Plants..................................................................................254
22.5.1 Rooting Depth............................................................................................ 254
22.5.2 Rhizosphere ................................................................................................ 254
22.5.3 Wetland Plant Exposures............................................................................ 255
22.5.4 Soil Properties and Exposure of Plants ...................................................... 255
22.5.5 Plant Interspecies Differences ..................................................................... 255
22.5.6 Plant Exposure in Air ................................................................................. 255
22.6 Exposure of Soil Invertebrates .................................................................................256
22.6.1 Depth of Exposure and Ingested Material.................................................. 256
22.6.2 Soil Properties and Chemical Interactions.................................................. 257
22.7 Exposure of Soil Microbial Communities................................................................257
22.8 Exposure of Wildlife ................................................................................................257
22.8.1 Exposure Models Based on External Measures.......................................... 258
22.8.1.1 Dermal Exposure........................................................................ 258
22.8.1.2 Inhalation Exposure ................................................................... 259
22.8.1.3 Oral Exposure............................................................................. 259
22.8.1.4 Spatial Issues in Wildlife Exposure............................................. 261
22.8.1.5 Temporal Issues in Wildlife Exposure ........................................ 262
22.8.1.6 Exposure Modifying Factors ...................................................... 263
22.8.2 Parameters for Estimation of Exposure...................................................... 263
22.8.2.1 Body Weight ............................................................................... 263
22.8.2.2 Food and Water Consumption Rates......................................... 263
22.8.2.3 Inhalation Rates ......................................................................... 265
22.8.2.4 Soil and Sediment Consumption ................................................ 266
22.8.2.5 Home Range and Territory Size................................................. 266
22.9 Uptake Models.........................................................................................................268
22.9.1 Aquatic Organism Uptake ......................................................................... 271
22.9.1.1 Neutral Organics......................................................................... 273
22.9.1.2 Ionizing Organic Chemicals........................................................ 275
22.9.1.3 Inorganic and Organometalic Chemicals.................................... 275
22.9.1.4 Aquatic Plants ............................................................................ 276
22.9.1.5 Aquatic Toxicokinetics ............................................................... 276
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page xxiii 27.10.2006 8:21am

22.9.2 Benthic Invertebrate Uptake .................................................................... 277
22.9.3 Terrestrial Plant Uptake........................................................................... 278
22.9.3.1 Soil Uptake............................................................................... 278
22.9.3.2 Empirical Models of Inorganic Chemicals ............................... 278
22.9.3.3 Empirical Models for Organic Chemicals................................. 281
22.9.3.4 Surface Contamination............................................................. 281
22.9.3.5 Plant Tissue Type ..................................................................... 283
22.9.3.6 Mechanistic Models.................................................................. 283
22.9.4 Earthworm Uptake................................................................................... 284
22.9.5 Terrestrial Arthropod Uptake .................................................................. 286
22.9.6 Terrestrial Vertebrate Uptake................................................................... 287
22.10 Exposure to Petroleum and other Chemical Mixtures ...........................................287
22.11 Exposure to Natural Extreme Events.....................................................................291
22.12 Exposure to Organisms ..........................................................................................291
22.13 Probability and Exposure Models..........................................................................291
22.14 Presenting the Exposure Characterization .............................................................294
Part IV Analysis of Effects...............................................................................................295
Chapter 23 Exposure–Response Relationships..................................................................297
23.1 Approaches to Exposure–Response .......................................................................301
23.1.1 Mechanistic Models.................................................................................. 301
23.1.2 Regression Models.................................................................................... 301
23.1.3 Statistical Significance .............................................................................. 302
23.1.4 Interpolation............................................................................................. 303
23.1.5 Effect Level and Confidence..................................................................... 303
23.2 Issues in Exposure–Response .................................................................................303
23.2.1 Thresholds and Benchmarks..................................................................... 303
23.2.2 Time as Exposure and Response .............................................................. 305
23.2.3 Combined Concentration and Duration................................................... 306
23.2.4 Nonmonotonic Relationships................................................................... 307
23.2.5 Categorical Variables................................................................................ 308
23.2.6 Exposure–Response from Field Data....................................................... 309
23.2.7 Residue–Response Relationships.............................................................. 313
23.3 Toxicodynamics—Mechanistic Internal Exposure–Response ................................317
23.3.1 Toxicodynamics of Metals on Gills.......................................................... 318
23.4 Indirect Effects .......................................................................................................319
Chapter 24 Testing...........................................................................................................321
24.1 Testing Issues .........................................................................................................321
24.2 Chemical or Material Tests ....................................................................................323
24.2.1 Aquatic Tests............................................................................................ 324
24.2.2 Sediment Tests.......................................................................................... 325
24.2.3 Soil Tests .................................................................................................. 326
24.2.4 Oral and Other Wildlife Exposures .......................................................... 327
24.3 Microcosms and Mesocosms..................................................................................328
24.4 Effluent Tests .........................................................................................................332
24.5 Media Tests ............................................................................................................333
24.5.1 Contaminated Water Tests ....................................................................... 337
24.5.2 Contaminated Sediment Tests .................................................................. 338
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page xxiv 27.10.2006 8:21am

24.5.3 Contaminated Soil Tests............................................................................. 339
24.5.4 Ambient Media Tests with Wildlife............................................................ 340
24.6 Field Tests................................................................................................................341
24.6.1 Aquatic Field Tests .................................................................................... 341
24.6.2 Field Tests of Plants and Soil Organisms................................................... 343
24.6.3 Wildlife Field Tests..................................................................................... 343
24.7 Testing Organisms....................................................................................................344
24.8 Testing Other Nonchemical Agents .........................................................................345
24.9 Summary of Testing.................................................................................................345
Chapter 25 Biological Surveys..........................................................................................347
25.1 Aquatic Biological Surveys ......................................................................................348
25.1.1 Periphyton .................................................................................................. 349
25.1.2 Plankton ..................................................................................................... 350
25.1.3 Fish............................................................................................................. 350
25.1.4 Benthic Invertebrates.................................................................................. 351
25.2 Terrestrial Biological Surveys...................................................................................353
25.2.1 Soil Biological Surveys ............................................................................... 353
25.2.2 Wildlife Surveys.......................................................................................... 354
25.2.3 Terrestrial Plant Surveys ............................................................................ 354
25.3 Physiological, Histological, and Morphological Effects...........................................355
25.4 Uncertainties in Biological Surveys..........................................................................356
25.5 Summary ..................................................................................................................356
Chapter 26 Organism-Level Extrapolation Models...........................................................357
26.1 Structure–Activity Relationships..............................................................................357
26.1.1 Chemical Domains for SARs ..................................................................... 358
26.1.2 Approaches for SARs................................................................................. 358
26.1.3 State of SARs ............................................................................................. 359
26.2 Effects Extrapolation Approaches ...........................................................................359
26.2.1 Classification and Selection........................................................................ 360
26.2.2 Factors........................................................................................................ 360
26.2.3 Species Sensitivity Distributions................................................................. 361
26.2.4 Regression Models ..................................................................................... 366
26.2.5 Temporal Extrapolation of Exposure–Response Models........................... 367
26.2.6 Factors Derived from Statistical Models.................................................... 368
26.2.7 Allometric Scaling ...................................................................................... 371
26.2.8 Toxicokinetic Modeling for Extrapolation................................................. 372
26.2.9 Multiple and Combined Approaches ......................................................... 373
26.3 Extrapolations for Particular Biotas ........................................................................373
26.3.1 Aquatic Biota ............................................................................................. 373
26.3.2 Benthic Invertebrates.................................................................................. 374
26.3.3 Wildlife ....................................................................................................... 375
26.3.4 Soil Invertebrates and Plants...................................................................... 376
26.3.5 Soil Processes.............................................................................................. 378
26.3.6 Water Chemistry ........................................................................................ 378
26.3.7 Soil Properties ............................................................................................ 379
26.3.8 Laboratory to Field.................................................................................... 379
26.4 Summary ..................................................................................................................381
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page xxv 27.10.2006 8:21am

Chapter 27 Population Modeling......................................................................................383
27.1 Basic Concepts and Definitions ...............................................................................385
27.1.1 Population-Level Assessment Endpoints.................................................... 385
27.1.2 Implications of Life History for Population-Level
Ecological Risk Assessment........................................................................ 385
27.1.3 Representation and Propagation of Uncertainty ....................................... 386
27.1.4 Density Dependence ................................................................................... 386
27.2 Approaches to Population Analysis.........................................................................387
27.2.1 Potential Population Growth Rate............................................................. 387
27.2.2 Projection Matrices .................................................................................... 389
27.2.3 Aggregated Models..................................................................................... 393
27.2.4 Metapopulation Models ............................................................................. 394
27.2.5 Individual-Based Models............................................................................ 395
27.3 Applications to Toxic Chemicals .............................................................................397
27.3.1 Quantifying Uncertainties in Individual-to-Population Extrapolations ..... 398
27.3.2 Life History–Based Ecological Risk Assessment........................................ 401
27.3.3 Quantifying Impacts of Chemical Exposures on Risk of Extinction.......... 403
27.3.4 Quantifying Impacts of Chemicals on Metapopulations............................ 406
27.3.5 Individual-Based Models............................................................................ 408
27.4 Future of Population Modeling in Ecological Risk Assessment..............................410
Chapter 28 Ecosystem Effects Modeling...........................................................................413
28.1 An Ecosystem Paradigm ..........................................................................................413
28.2 Ecosystem Risk Assessment .....................................................................................414
28.2.1 Ecosystem Assessment Endpoints .............................................................. 415
28.3 Ecosystem Simulation Modeling..............................................................................415
28.3.1 Physical Ecosystem Models........................................................................ 416
28.3.2 Ecosystem Network Analysis ..................................................................... 417
28.3.3 Compartment Models................................................................................. 420
28.3.4 Existing Ecosystem Risk Models................................................................ 421
28.3.4.1 AQUATOX................................................................................ 421
28.3.4.2 CASM ........................................................................................ 421
28.3.4.3 IFEM ......................................................................................... 422
28.4 Model Selection, Adaptation, and Development .....................................................422
28.4.1 Model Selection .......................................................................................... 422
28.4.2 Model Adaptation and Development......................................................... 423
28.4.2.1 Model Structure ......................................................................... 424
28.4.2.2 Governing Equations ................................................................. 424
28.4.2.3 Scaling........................................................................................ 424
28.4.2.4 Exposure–Response Functions................................................... 425
28.4.2.5 Data ........................................................................................... 426
28.5 Innovations in Ecosystem Modeling ........................................................................426
28.5.1 Structurally Dynamic Models .................................................................... 427
28.5.2 Interactive Modeling Platforms.................................................................. 427
28.5.3 Network-Enabled Ecosystem Models......................................................... 427
28.5.4 Ecosystem Animation................................................................................. 427
28.6 Ecosystem Models, Risk Assessment, and Decision making ...................................428
28.6.1 Model Results and NOECs ........................................................................ 428
28.6.2 Atrazine Levels of Concern ........................................................................ 429
28.7 Models or Modelers .................................................................................................431
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page xxvi 27.10.2006 8:21am

Part V Risk Characterization...........................................................................................433
Chapter 29 Criteria and Benchmarks................................................................................435
29.1 Criteria .....................................................................................................................435
29.2 Screening Benchmarks .............................................................................................437
29.2.1 Criteria as Screening Benchmarks ............................................................ 437
29.2.2 Tier II Values............................................................................................ 437
29.2.3 Benchmarks Based on Exposure–Response Models................................. 438
29.2.4 Thresholds for Statistical Significance...................................................... 438
29.2.5 Test Endpoints with Safety Factors.......................................................... 438
29.2.6 Distributions of Effects Levels ................................................................. 438
29.2.7 Equilibrium Partitioning Benchmarks ...................................................... 439
29.2.8 Averaged Values as Benchmarks .............................................................. 439
29.2.9 Ecoepidemiological Benchmarks .............................................................. 439
29.2.10 Summary of Screening Benchmarks ......................................................... 440
Chapter 30 Integrating Exposure and Exposure–Response...............................................441
30.1 Quotient Methods ....................................................................................................441
30.2 Exposure is Distributed and Response is Fixed....................................................... 442
30.3 Both Exposure and Response are Distributed .........................................................443
30.4 Integrated Simulation Models..................................................................................445
30.5 Integration of Sense and Nonsense ..........................................................................446
30.6 Integration in Space .................................................................................................448
30.7 Examples ..................................................................................................................450
30.7.1 Shrews on a Mercury-Contaminated Site................................................. 450
30.7.2 Egrets and Eagles in South Florida.......................................................... 450
30.7.3 Egrets and Herons in Hong Kong............................................................ 450
30.7.4 Bioaccumulative Contaminants in a Stream............................................. 451
30.7.5 Secondary Poisoning in Hawaii................................................................ 451
30.7.6 Atrazine .................................................................................................... 452
30.7.7 Warming Subalpine Forests ..................................................................... 452
30.8 Summary ..................................................................................................................453
Chapter 31 Screening Characterization.............................................................................455
31.1 Screening Chemicals and Other Agents ...................................................................455
31.1.1 Quotients .................................................................................................... 456
31.1.2 Scoring Systems.......................................................................................... 457
31.1.3 Screening for Properties ............................................................................. 457
31.1.4 Logical Criteria .......................................................................................... 457
31.2 Screening Sites..........................................................................................................457
31.2.1 Screening Chemicals at Sites ...................................................................... 458
31.2.1.1 Screening Against Background................................................... 459
31.2.1.2 Screening Against Detection Limits............................................ 461
31.2.1.3 Screening Against Waste Constituents ....................................... 462
31.2.1.4 Screening Against Physical–Chemical Properties ....................... 462
31.2.1.5 Screening Against Ecotoxicological Benchmarks ....................... 462
31.2.1.6 Screening Species Against Area .................................................. 464
31.2.2 Exposure Concentrations for Sites ............................................................. 464
31.2.3 Screening Media ......................................................................................... 465
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page xxvii 27.10.2006 8:21am

31.2.4 Screening Receptors ................................................................................... 465
31.2.5 Screening Sites............................................................................................ 465
31.2.6 Data Adequacy and Uncertainties ............................................................. 465
31.2.7 Presentation of a Site Screening Assessment .............................................. 466
31.3 Examples ..................................................................................................................467
Chapter 32 Definitive Risk Characterization by Weighing the Evidence...........................469
32.1 Weighing Evidence...................................................................................................469
32.2 Sediment Quality Triad: A Simple and
Clear Inference Method ...........................................................................................471
32.3 Inference to the Best Conclusion at Contaminated Sites .........................................473
32.3.1 Single-Chemical Toxicity............................................................................ 473
32.3.1.1 Aquatic Organisms..................................................................... 475
32.3.1.2 Benthic Invertebrates ................................................................. 476
32.3.1.3 Soil Exposure of Plants, Invertebrates, and
Microbial Communities ............................................................. 477
32.3.1.4 Multimedia Exposure of Wildlife............................................... 478
32.3.1.5 Body Burdens of Endpoint Organisms ...................................... 481
32.3.2 Ambient Media Toxicity Tests ................................................................... 482
32.3.3 Biological Surveys ...................................................................................... 487
32.3.4 Biomarkers and Pathologies....................................................................... 490
32.3.5 Weight of Evidence .................................................................................... 492
32.3.5.1 Weighting Considerations .......................................................... 494
32.3.6 Risk Estimation.......................................................................................... 498
32.3.7 Future Risks ............................................................................................... 499
32.4 Examples ..................................................................................................................500
32.4.1 Characterizing Contaminated Site Risks.................................................... 500
32.4.2 Characterizing Contaminated Sediment Risks ........................................... 502
32.4.3 Characterizing Wildlife Risks..................................................................... 503
32.4.4 Characterizing Pesticide Risks.................................................................... 504
32.4.5 Characterizing Effluent Risks..................................................................... 505
32.5 Interpretation ...........................................................................................................506
Chapter 33 Comparative Risk Characterization................................................................509
33.1 Methods of Comparative Risk Characterization .....................................................510
33.1.1 Risk Ranking.............................................................................................. 510
33.1.2 Risk Classification...................................................................................... 511
33.1.3 Relative Risk Scaling.................................................................................. 511
33.1.4 Relative Risk Estimation............................................................................ 511
33.1.5 Net Environmental Benefits Analysis......................................................... 511
33.1.6 Economic Units.......................................................................................... 513
33.1.7 Reporting Comparative Risk ..................................................................... 513
33.2 Comparison and Uncertainty...................................................................................513
33.3 Summary ..................................................................................................................513
Chapter 34 Characterizing Variability, Uncertainty, and Incomplete Knowledge..............515
34.1 Characterizing Variability ........................................................................................515
34.2 Characterizing Uncertainty ......................................................................................516
34.3 Uncertainty and Weight of Evidence .......................................................................517
34.4 Biases .......................................................................................................................518
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page xxviii 27.10.2006 8:21am

34.5 Limitations ...............................................................................................................518
34.6 Conclusions ..............................................................................................................519
Part VI Risk Management...............................................................................................521
Chapter 35 Reporting and Communicating Ecological Risks............................................523
35.1 Reporting Ecological Risks......................................................................................533
35.2 Communicating Ecological Risks ............................................................................525
Chapter 36 Decision Making and Ecological Risks...........................................................529
36.1 Preventing Exceedence of Standards........................................................................529
36.2 Preventing Adverse Effects.......................................................................................529
36.3 Minimizing Risks .....................................................................................................530
36.4 Assuring Environmental Benefits.............................................................................530
36.5 Maximizing Cost-Effectiveness ................................................................................530
36.6 Balancing Costs and Benefits...................................................................................530
36.7 Decision Analysis .....................................................................................................531
36.8 Miscellaneous and Ad Hoc Considerations .............................................................531
Chapter 37 Integration of Human Health Risk Assessment..............................................533
37.1 Wildlife as Sentinels .................................................................................................533
37.2 Integrated Analysis of Human and Ecological Risks...............................................534
37.2.1 Coherent Expression of Assessment Results ................................................ 534
37.2.2 Interdependence ........................................................................................... 535
37.2.3 Quality.......................................................................................................... 535
37.2.4 Efficiency...................................................................................................... 535
37.3 Environmental Condition and Human Welfare....................................................... 536
37.4 Summary ..................................................................................................................536
Chapter 38 Integration of Risk, Law, Ethics, Economics, and Preferences.......................537
38.1 Ecological Risk and Law .........................................................................................537
38.2 Ecological Risk and Economics ...............................................................................538
38.3 Ecological Risk and Ethics ......................................................................................541
38.4 Ecological Risk, Stakeholder Preferences,
and Public Opinion ..................................................................................................542
38.5 Conclusions ..............................................................................................................542
Chapter 39 Monitoring the Results of Risk Management.................................................543
Part VII The Future of Ecological Risk Assessment.........................................................547
Glossary..............................................................................................................................549
References...........................................................................................................................561
Index...................................................................................................................................625
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page xxix 27.10.2006 8:21am

Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C000 Final Proof page xxx 27.10.2006 8:21am

PartI
Introductionto Ecological
Risk Assessment
Risk analysis is the closest thing science has given us to a method for analyzing our existential
condition of uncertainty and doubt in the face of decisions.
Crawford-Brown (1999)
This book offers a number of processes for performing an ecological risk assessment. Part I
provides a definition of the field, describes its relationship to other environmental assessment
practices, and explains the framework that organizes it. It includes a chapter on ecological
epidemiology, which has been treated as a type of ecological risk assessment, but is now
recognized as a distinct practice. The last five chapters introduce important concepts that are
relevant to many points in the ecological risk assessment process.
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C001 Final Proof page 1 6.10.2006 7:53pm

Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C001 Final Proof page 2 6.10.2006 7:53pm

1
DefiningtheField
Risk assessment is the product of a shotgun wedding between science and the law.
William Ruckelshaus
‘‘Technical support for decision making under uncertainty’’ is the only definition of risk
assessment that describes its many uses. As Bernstein (1996) plausibly argues, the use of
rational methods for dealing with the uncertain future in place of prayers, prophecies,
traditions, auguries, and hunches is the hallmark of modern culture. Risk assessment began
with the need to calculate odds for gamblers, and subsequently, in seventeenth-century
England and the Netherlands, with the need to determine premiums on annuities and the
probability that a ship sent on a trading voyage would return successfully (Hacking 1975;
Bernstein 1996). Most risk assessors are still involved in finance and insurance (Melnikov
2003). Risk assessment has since spread to many spheres of human endeavor including
engineering, wildfire management, medicine, and environmental regulation. The general
definition indicates that two features are common to all of these enterprises: a decision to
be made and uncertainty concerning outcomes.
The conventional, objectivist definition of risk is: a combination of the severity (nature and
magnitude) and the probability of effects from a proposed action. Severity may be variously
described depending on the situation, e.g., the number of deaths, the reduction in abundance,
and the reduction in areal extent. Probability may be derived from an estimate of the frequency
of an effect among individuals in an exposed population or a hypothetical frequency of effects if
the same decisions were made multiple times. For example, a risk might be a 0.3 annual
frequency of mass mortalities in an exposed population, or a probability that an effluent will
reduce the number of fish species in a lake by as much as 15%. Alternatively, risk may be
defined subjectively as a state of mind of an individual making an uncertain decision or of those
exposed to the consequences of a decision. This subjective risk is an important issue when
assessing risks to humans, who are subject to anxiety and dread, but is less relevant to the topic
of this book. Note that subjective risk is fundamentally different from the Bayesian, subjective
interpretation of probability in estimates of objective risk (Chapter 5).
The terms ‘‘environmental risk’’ and ‘‘ecological risk’’ can cause confusion because of their
similarity. In the United States, the term environmental risk has been used to describe risks to
humans due to contaminants in the environment. Ecologists subsequently invented the term
ecological risk to refer to risks to nonhuman organisms, populations, and ecosystems (Barnt-
house and Suter 1986). However, the term environmental risk is commonly used in Europe in
the way that ecological risk is used in the United States.
The decision to be supported is too often neglected in risk assessment. ‘‘It is hard to imagine
risk analysis existing without the need for decisions, without the need for a systematic
approach to aiding those who make decisions’’ (Crawford-Brown 1999). Yet, the most influ-
ential guidance for environmental risk assessment (ERA) has stressed the need to isolate
risk assessors from the influence of decision makers in order to avoid bias (NRC 1983).
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C001 Final Proof page 3 6.10.2006 7:53pm
3

ERA practice has tended to emphasize the risk assessment process in the abstract without a
grounding in a decision-making process. For example, due to the peculiarities of Superfund
regulations, the guidance for baseline ERA at contaminated sites in the United States does not
address the consequences of remedial decisions (Sprenger and Charters 1997). This situation is
changing with the realization that the highest-quality assessment is worthless if it does not
address the needs of the decision maker (National Research Council 1994; The Presidential=
Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management 1997). Risk-based
environmental decisions generally fall into three categories: should we permitx(e.g., use of a
new chemical, release of an effluent, or increased harvest of a resource); what should we do
aboutx(e.g., remediate, treat, or restore); should we dox,y,orz(e.g., which pest management
method poses the least risk)?
Probability, the other core concept in ERA, has also been surprisingly neglected. The
probabilities that characterize risks may result from variability or uncertainty (Chapter 5).
Although quantitative methods for analyzing uncertainty and variability in terms of prob-
ability have existed for centuries, most ERAs treat them qualitatively or in nonprobabilistic
terms. This does not mean that uncertainty and variability are ignored or that, as some have
contended, most current risk assessments are not truly assessments of risk. Rather, they are
often dealt with by semiquantitative precautionary practices. That is, conservative assump-
tions and safety factors have been assumed to provide sufficient safety to avoid the need for
a formal probabilistic analysis. However, formal probabilistic analysis of uncertainty is
increasingly common. This is because the semiquantitative practices are subject to criticism
that they are insufficiently precautionary, excessively precautionary, or precautionary to an
undefined degree.
Risk assessment uses science, but is not science in the conventional sense, i.e., it does not
seek to develop new theories or general knowledge. It rather uses scientific knowledge and
tools to generate information that is useful for a specific purpose. In this sense, risk assessors
are like engineers, and in fact much of the practice of ERA has been developed by engineers
(see, e.g., Haimes 1998). However, contrary to some critics, risk assessment is based predom-
inantly on factual information and scientific theory, and is not simply a scientific smoke
screen for policy. Typically, risk assessments and their components are intensely and publicly
reviewed and are often challenged in court. As a result, the use of bad science to justify a
preordained decision is likely to be detected in contentious cases.
1.1 PREDICTIVE VS. RETROSPECTIVE RISK ASSESSMENT
The EPA’s framework and guidelines for ecological risk assessment and the previous edition of
this text distinguish retrospective from predictive risk assessment. This distinction has created
some confusion, because it is nonsensical to speak of risks of events in the past. This text
eliminates that distinction and focuses instead on the decision-supporting function of risk
assessment. Hence, when assessing risks from spills or other past events, we are assessing risks
associated with future consequences of those events. They include ongoing toxic effects, the
spread of toxic levels of contaminants to other areas, loss of habitat due to failed restoration, and
other sequela. Even when performing assessments to set monetary damages for past actions, we
are not assessing risks of past events. For example, during the Exxon Valdez oil spill, a certain
number of sea otters, bald eagles, and other wildlife were killed. The natural resource damage
assessment (Section 1.3.8) did not assess risks to those organisms. Rather, to the extent that the
uncertainties in the damage assessment could be interpreted as risks, they should be interpreted as
risks that the level of monetary damages assessed will be either insufficient or excessive with
respect to the cost of restoration of the populations of those species, making good lost services
of nature, and otherwise remediating ecological and economic injuries.
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C001 Final Proof page 4 6.10.2006 7:53pm
4 Ecological Risk Assessment

Although all risk assessments are in some sense predictive, it does not mean that informa-
tion concerning the past is irrelevant. Analyses of such data may be used to help formulate the
assessment problem, elucidate trends that may extend into the future, identify causal rela-
tionships between agents and injuries, and define a baseline for remediation and restoration.
By analogy to human health epidemiology, analyses of past ecological effects and their causes
are termed ecological epidemiology (Chapter 4). Hence, what the US Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (US EPA) terms retrospective assessments should be thought of as predictive
assessments of the future consequences of past actions.
1.2 RISKS, BENEFITS, AND COSTS
When assessing an action, it may be necessary to consider the risks associated with the action,
the potential benefits, and the costs of carrying out the action. For example, when considering
whether to apply a remedial technology to a contaminated site, it is important to consider
the risks of ecological injury from the contaminants and from the remedial action itself
(e.g., injuries to benthic communities due to dredging), the benefits of the action (e.g., reduced
contaminant risks to epibenthic fish), and the cost of carrying out the remediation. Which of
these dimensions is formally analyzed and how they are compared depends on the context.
Some laws require consideration of costs while others do not allow it. Further, there is
considerable variation in whose benefits, costs, and risks are considered. For example, the
registration of pesticides or biocontrol agents in the United States may consider costs and
benefits to farmers if there are no good alternatives to the pesticide in question, but not the
costs to the manufacturer. Although the primary focus of regulatory agencies is on the risks
from new chemicals, effluents, spills, and exotic organisms, the consideration of benefits and
costs as well as ethical concerns and public preferences can provide a more complete basis for
decision making (Chapter 36). Although costs to the regulated party can be readily identified
and relatively easily estimated, the benefits to the environment are always incompletely
identified and are difficult to quantify. Hence, cost–benefit analysis tends to be biased against
environmental protection.
1.3 DECISIONS TO BE SUPPORTED
The form and content of an ecological risk assessment is determined by the decision to be
supported. This is true not only because different decisions require different sorts of informa-
tion, but also because of the different formal and informal traditions and constraints that have
developed in the various decision-making cultures. For example, the assessments of new
industrial chemicals in the United States must be performed within 90 days and normally
cannot demand data generation. On the other hand, assessments of contaminated sites may
require years of effort involving expensive field surveys, sample collection, analysis, and testing.
1.3.1 PRIORITIZATION OFHAZARDS
In the United States and many other countries, priorities for environmental management
have been set in a highly inconsistent manner, based primarily on public pressures as
translated by legislators into laws and budgets. Because resources for environmental man-
agement are limited, it would be desirable to devote them to the highest priority hazards
rather than the ones that were given a strong mandate some decades ago. This concept of
using risk assessment to prioritize hazards is appealing (Grothe et al. 1996), but controversial
in practice (Finkel and Golding 1995).
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C001 Final Proof page 5 6.10.2006 7:54pm
Defining the Field 5

The US EPA and its Science Advisory Board have performed comparative risk assessments
for the purpose of prioritization (SAB 1990, 2000; MADEP 2002). The results have been
controversial and have not greatly influenced the EPA’s regulatory and management prac-
tices. However, they have led to the development of guidance for comparative assessment and
to the performance of such assessments in most states of the United States (Bobek et al. 1995;
EPA 1997a; Feldman et al. 1999). The performance of such assessments is difficult because of
the paucity of information and the difficulty of comparing risks to disparate entities and
processes over large ranges of spatial and temporal scales. As a result, expert judgment has
been used in the absence of data analysis, as in the case of Harwell et al. (1992), and even that
has been largely replaced as a means of prioritization by consensus of representatives of
stakeholders and the public (EPA 1997a). Consensus-based assessments have some potential
benefits beyond prioritization itself, such as better understanding of environmental issues and
promotion of coordinated action by the participants, but they have not been followed
and implemented by prioritized risk management programs (Feldman et al. 1999). Prioritiza-
tion based on actual estimation of risks must await further development of assessment
methods and a willingness to devote sufficient resources to the problem.
The need to replace expert judgment with technical approaches is illustrated by the
consideration of oil spills in the prioritization of environmental hazards by the US EPA’s
Science Advisory Board. They gave a low rank to oil spills because of the perception that
ecological effects of oil in the marine environment were short term (SAB 1990). However, that
perception seems to be a result of a lack of high-quality long-term monitoring. It has been
reported that some detectable effects of the Exxon Valdez spill persisted for at least a decade
(Peterson et al. 2003).
Beyond the technical difficulties, risk-based prioritization has had little influence in regu-
latory agencies, in part because it may be considered illegal or immoral. The potential
illegality arises because environmental laws in the United States and most other countries
require protection independent of other laws. For example, the US EPA cannot decide to stop
enforcing the Clean Air Act because resources would be more effectively spent enforcing the
Clean Water Act. In addition, prioritization may assign high priority to hazards for which no
legal authority for action exists. The accusations of immorality most commonly arise from the
accusation that technical analysis is used to minimize the legitimate subjective concerns of
citizens or to ignore risks to small groups with particular exposures (e.g., indigenous people
consuming traditional foods). On the other hand, consensus-based prioritization may also
provide unequal protection. When prioritization is based on a stakeholder process, there is a
potential for higher ranking of the risks that concern the most articulate and influential
segments of the population. Because of these issues, the potential benefits of a rational
prioritization process must await a mandate from the highest levels of government to
overcome the technical, social, and legal impediments (Davies 1996).
1.3.2 COMPARISON OFALTERNATIVEACTIONS
As discussed above, risk assessment is performed to inform decisions concerning alterna-
tive actions. Unfortunately, the range of alternatives is often small and the range of issues
considered is often narrow. For example, registration of a pesticide often does not include
consideration of the risks from the alternatives, existing pesticides that may be more persist-
ent or toxic, and nonpesticide pest control techniques that have their own potentially severe
ecological risks. Rather, the alternatives are typically restricted to registration, registration
with restrictions, or rejection of the new pesticide. It is clear that the decision-making process
can meet the legal mandate and be rational within its scope, but result in a less than optimum
decision for the environment.
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C001 Final Proof page 6 6.10.2006 7:54pm
6 Ecological Risk Assessment

Comparative risk assessment raises two complications. First, it is not adequate to estimate
risks; one must also estimate the benefits of the alternative actions. A relatively low-risk
alternative action may be undesirable, because it produces small benefits or even net decre-
ments. The comparison of risks and benefits (not just costs and benefits) is important in any
case, but is essential when comparing a set of alternatives. Second, comparison of risks often
involves the common units problem. That is, if the alternatives involve disparate risks and
benefits, they may not be directly compared by simply quantifying future ecological condi-
tions. The temporal integration of expected benefits and decrements of each action, expressed
in common units, is termed net environmental benefit analysis (Efroymson et al. 2004). If the
comparison must consider the costs of implementation, the net benefits must be monetized to
yield a cost–benefit analysis (Chapter 36).
Comparative risk assessment is a different way of looking at any of the decisions discussed
in this chapter. Although all risk-based decisions involve the comparison of at least two
alternatives (e.g., permit an action or not), a more comparative approach opens up the
process to a range of potentially desirable alternatives. However, it complicates the assess-
ment and decision-making process. Approaches to these issues are discussed in Chapter 34.
1.3.3 PERMITTINGRELEASES
Ecological risk assessments have been concerned primarily with two activities: determining
whether releases of chemicals or other agents should occur and determining how to deal
with the releases that have already occurred. Clearly, we should do a better job of the former
to reduce the need for the latter. Ecological risk assessments for permitting releases are
distinguished by the type of agent released (i.e., chemicals, effluents and other wastes, and
exotic organisms) and by whether the agents are novel or have been permitted before and are
being reconsidered.
1.3.3.1 Chemicals
In the United States, new chemicals are regulated as pesticides under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as industrial chemicals under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TOSCA) or under the Food, Drugs, and Cosmetics Act (under which ecological
concerns have received little attention). The difference in ERA under FIFRA and TOSCA
serves to illustrate the importance of legal constraints on assessment practices. Because
pesticides are designed to be toxic, FIFRA allows the government to require relatively
extensive characterization and testing of new chemicals by the manufacturer and allows the
government time to complete the assessment. TOSCA does not allow characterization and
testing requirements beyond basic descriptions of the compounds and allows only 90 days for
assessment and decision making. As a result, assessment of pesticides has been based on a
fairly elaborate tiered scheme and is moving to a system of probabilistic assessment (Urban
and Cook 1986; Ecological Committee on FIFRA Risk Assessment Methods 1999a,b). The
pesticide industry has responded with its own tiered and probabilistic ecological risk assess-
ments of products such as atrazine (Section 32.4.4). In contrast, ERA under TOSCA relies on
small data sets, quotient methods, and assessment factors of 10, 100, or 1000 (Zeeman 1995;
Nabholz et al. 1997). Assessments of new chemicals in the European Union and elsewhere
have their own testing requirements and schemes, but in general they rely on tiered testing
approaches and simple methods using factors and quotients (RIVM 1996; Royal Commission
on Environmental Pollution 2003). Similar assessment approaches have been developed by
responsible chemical manufacturers to assure that their products ‘‘are safe for the environ-
ment’’ (Cowan et al. 1995). Methods for ecological assessment of chemicals are rapidly
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C001 Final Proof page 7 6.10.2006 7:54pm
Defining the Field 7

developing because of advances in science such as computational toxicology and because of
renewed interest in existing chemicals, particularly the European Community’s REACH
regulations (Bradbury et al. 2004).
1.3.3.2 Effluents and Wastes
The release of aqueous and gaseous effluents and other waste streams is regulated in the United
States and most other countries through a permitting process. The most important of these
from an ecological perspective is the permitting of aqueous effluents, by a process known as
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) in the United States. This is
accomplished primarily by specifying that the effluent will not violate water quality standards.
Standards include concentrations, durations, and frequencies of exceedence that must not be
violated (Section 2.2). In most states, standards are based on National Ambient Water Quality
Criteria published by the EPA (1985). Equivalent criteria and standards are used in other
nations (Roux et al. 1996; CCME 1999; ANZECC 2000). Alternatively, permits may specify
that the toxicity of the effluent be tested using standard acute or subchronic tests (Section 24.2)
or that the receiving community achieve biological criteria (EPA 1996a; Ohio EPA 1998).
1.3.3.3 New Organisms
Organisms may be deliberately imported for horticultural use, biological control, pets, or
other purposes. Determining whether an importation should be permitted is conceptually
difficult because organisms are complex and can display unexpected properties or may evolve
new properties. Risk assessments in support of the regulation of importation of foreign
organisms may be based on structured expert judgment as in the United States (Orr 2003) or
more objective analyses. An example is the assessment of import of shrimp for aquaculture that
may carry a virus, which is pathogenic to native shrimp (Fairbrother et al. 1999). Genetically
engineered organisms are regulated in the United States as though they are chemicals. That is,
novel biocontrol agents are regulated by the pesticides office of the EPA, and other novel
organisms are regulated like industrial chemicals by the toxic substances office.
1.3.3.4 Items in International Trade
The World Trade Organization (WTO) 1995 Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures and some regional trade agreements require that a risk assessment
be performed if a nation excludes an item from importation due to risks that it poses to
human health, animals, or plants. The exclusion may be based on the determination that the
item may be toxic, a pathogen, a pest, or otherwise pose an unacceptable risk, or there is a
significant risk that an item may be a carrier of such a hazardous agent. Items that have been
excluded from import range from controversial genetically modified crops to wood and plant
products that may contain exotic pests. The WTO agreement is more demanding than most
legal bases for risk assessment, in that risks must be expressed in terms of probabilities or
likelihoods, not possibilities (Codex 1997; OIE 2001). New Zealand provides an excellent
guide for conducting probabilistic risk assessments for imports of animals, animal products,
and associated pathogens and pests (Murray 2002).
1.3.4 LIMITINGLOADING
The regulation of the uses of chemicals and their disposal in effluents or solid wastes fails to
be protective because of the effects of multiple releases from multiple sources. One solution is
to define the rate at which an ecosystem may receive a pollutant from all sources without
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C001 Final Proof page 8 6.10.2006 7:54pm
8 Ecological Risk Assessment

unacceptable effects. For atmospheric deposition, this is referred to as the critical load
(Hettelingh and Downing 1991; Holdren et al. 1993; Hunsaker et al. 1993; Strickland et al.
1993). The same term is applied to aqueous pollution (Vollenweider 1976), but for water
quality regulation in the United States, it is referred to as the total maximum daily load
(TMDL) (Houck 2002). Setting limits on loading requires defining the resources to be
protected (e.g., water quality, biotic communities, or human health) and the endpoints to
be measured for each (e.g, water quality criteria, benthic invertebrate species richness, and soil
pH). A mixture of field measurements and modeling is then used to determine whether a limit
is exceeded, whether a new source will cause exceedence, the relative contributions of existing
sources to an exceedence, or the likelihood that a remedial action will result in acceptable
loading. In some cases, this is relatively straightforward. For example, if a persistent and
soluble chemical is released at multiple points in a stream or watershed, simple transport and
fate modeling can be used to determine contributions to exceedence of a water quality
criterion at a downstream point. However, other cases are complex and difficult. For
example, NO
xdeposition in a watershed is difficult to trace back to point and nonpoint
sources in the atmosphere, and effects on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are difficult to
measure or predict because of the complexity of nitrogen cycling and acidification and
eutrophication processes.
1.3.5 REMEDIATION ANDRESTORATION
The predominant use of ecological risk assessment in the United States has been to support
the remediation of contaminated sites under Superfund (Suter et al. 2000). A full ecological
risk assessment for a contaminated site would consider the risks from the existing contamin-
ation (the no action alternative), from the remedial actions themselves, from residual con-
tamination, and from subsequent land uses. In addition, if ecological restoration activities
may be performed after remediation, risks associated with restoration must be considered.
In the United States, remedial assessments are performed in two stages: a baseline assess-
ment that determines whether the unremediated contamination poses a significant risk and an
assessment of remedial alternatives termed the feasibility study. Procedural and technical
guidance are available for baseline assessment (Sprenger and Charters 1997) (see also the
EPA’s Environmental Response Team and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
web sites), and these assessments are often well performed and based on ample data. Because
there is a contaminated site to be sampled, surveyed, and tested, the full range of assessment
techniques is available to the assessor (Suter et al. 2000). In contrast, there is little guidance for
the assessment of risks from dredging, soil removal, capping, construction of roads and other
support facilities, chemical or thermal treatment of media, spills of treatment chemicals, and
other remedial activities that pose obvious ecological hazards. Remedial decisions tend to focus
on the efficacy of technologies in reducing the contaminant risks and on their costs rather than
the risks from remediation. The ecological risks of remedial alternatives are usually given a
serious assessment only when, as in the polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination of the
Hudson River, New York, the remediation is particularly costly or controversial.
Restoration involves recreating to some extent the ecological structure and function of a
site disturbed by a remedial action or any other action. Hazards associated with restoration
include erosion and siltation, introduction of exotic species (e.g., as ground covers) with
undesirable properties, use of pesticides and fertilizers, and conversion to parks with associ-
ated mowing and trampling. In addition to these risks from restoration, planted trees may die,
instream structures may wash away, and for other reasons restoration activities may fail.
Therefore, it may be appropriate to adapt engineering risk assessment techniques to restor-
ation projects. As with other sorts of risk assessments, assessments of restoration should
Glenn Suter/Ecological Risk Assessment L1634_C001 Final Proof page 9 6.10.2006 7:54pm
Defining the Field 9

Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content

Ja nyt hän nousi istumasta kuin pappi sairaan vuoteen vierestä,
jolle hän oli antanut viimeisen lohdutuksen ja joka sen oli lapsen
tavalla vastaan ottanut. Hän jätti ladottavan painoon ja lähti
kauppiasklubin ravintolaan syömään päivällistä ja juomaan sen
ohessa — pullon sampanjaa. Tuollaiset ylimääräiset kekkerit hän
äskettäin päätti itselleen kustantaa, niin tarkka rahoista kuin hän
muuten olikin. Siitä se oli levinnyt rauha koko hänen olentoonsa ja
paistava helle oli nytmenettänyt tehonsa häneen. Nyt oli tyynnytetty
tuo sampanjakaiho, joka painajaisena oli paneutunut häntä
rasittamaan, kuivaamaan suuta jatyhjentämään aivotkin päästä.
Juhlallisena astui Lulle kauppiasyhdistyksen ravintolaan. Meni
tarjoiluhuoneeseen ja tilasi päivällisen samppanjan kanssa. Samalla
pyysi hän saada erityisen huoneen, sillä hän oli sanomattomasti
väsynyt ja tahtoi olla aivan häiritsemättä. Sivumennen hän
tarjoilijaneidille huokasi tehneensä jo kahden miehen työn, vaikka
olikin valvonut koko viime yön. Neiti lähetti häneen säälivän
silmäyksen, sillä itse asiassaLulle ei ollut mikään ruma mies.
Viereisestä huoneesta kuului lyhyt nauru ja sitte ulos poistuvat
askeleet. Mutta Lulle ei tullut sitä tarkanneeksi. Saatuaan sikaarin
meni hän kaikkein syrjäisimpään huoneeseen päivällistä
odottamaan, sillä sen hän oli saanut yksinomaisesti
käytettäväksensä. Se oliaivan rakennuksen kulmassa, toisessa
kerroksessa. Sen ikkunasta näkyi jalkain juuressa laaja kauppatori,
jonka kivet varmaan tässä helteessä olivat kuumat kuin saunan
kiukaassa. Joitakin toriämmiä siellä vasujensa ääressä istua kyykki
huivit hartioilla. Koiria makaili pitkin pituuttaan kieli ulkona suusta
niiden kupeella. Mutta muutenoli elämä siltä kuin pois pyyhkäisty ja
ympärillä olevien rakennustenasuinhuoneitten ikkunat olivat liidulla
sivellyt. Joka suinkin pääsi, pakeni metsään tai järveen tätä

helvetillistä kuumuutta. Torin laidoilta lähti puistoteitä ja niiden
vehreät istutukset olivat ainoa ilahduttava näkö tässä väräjävässä
poltteessa.
Lulle katseli torille ja huokasi sanomalehtimiehen kesäistä
kataluutta.
Ole vain työssä ja toimessa, vaikka siihen paikkaan palaisit!
— Nuo koirat tuolla, jotka saavat loikoa kieli ulkona suusta, ovat
meikäläistä onnellisemmat! puhkui Lulle.
Mutta samassa hän muisti, mitä varten hän täällä oli ja hän tyyntyi.
Riisui takkinsa ja venähti varjoon pitkälleen sohvalle odottamaan
päivällistä. Siinä oli hyvä olla. Hän potkasi kengät jaloistaan,
paneutui koko pituudeltaan selälleen sohvalle ja huokui siinä.
Lopultakin se päivällinen valmistui ja sampanja tuotiin sisälle
jäiden keskellä. Nyt alkoi Lulle nautintonsa. Hän söi erinomaisella
ruokahalulla vitkaan, mutta runsaasti. Hän tahtoi päivällisestä totta
totisesti nauttia, sillä se maksoi niin paljon, että se täksi kerraksi
tyhjensi hänen kukkaronsa. Sentähdenpä sitä pitikin syödä ja
makustella ja syödä. Nyt kumasi hän suuhunsa ensimäisen
helmeilevän sampanjalasin, kun ovi avattiin ja neiti tuli ilmoittamaan,
että joku pyytää Lullea telefooniin. Lullea harmitti, ettei koskaan saa
olla rauhassa ja että kuka se nyt täältäkin osaa häntä hakea. Hän
lähti taivaltamaan nuo monet välihuoneet tarjoiluhuoneeseen, niissä
telefooni oli, tarttui äkäsenä kuulostimeen ja kovasti äänsi nimensä
puhelutorveen.
— Nyt viimeinkin sinut tavotan. Olen soittanut joka ravintolasta,
sillä arvasin sinun eilisen juhlan jälestä olevan niissä
virvottelemassa,kuului puhe telefoonista.

— Kuka se on? kysyi Lulle ärtyisesti.
— Lurjus! Etkö Lasse Silfveniä tunne äänestä? Ja terveisiä nyt.
Tulin aamupäivällä kaupunkiin. Tule kohta Sentraalihotelliin, sillä
täälläolen sisällä!
— Vai sinä Lasse! Onpa sinulla ääni vähän kähennyt vai liekö se
telefoonin vaikutusta. Terve mieheen, mutta en minä voisi tulla kuin
noin parin tunnin takaa.
Lulle laski, että siihen asti hän kerkiää herkutella syötäviensä ja
juotaviensa kanssa, sillä Lasse jos tarjoaakin, tarjoaa vain
mielijuomaansa äytelää punssia.
— Kehtaatko kieltäytyä! Ole nyt toki ritari ja tule pitämään seuraa
entiselle ystävällesi hänen yksinäisyydessään.
Tämä koski jo Lullen tunteisiin ja hän lupasi tulla puolen tunnin
takaa, vaikka katkerasti tunsikin menettäneensä koko päivällisen
makeuden.
Päästyään takaisin piti kiiruhtaa syömistä. Sampanjaa kaatoi hän
ruokasuuhunsa, jotta se oli tulla ulos. Ja kaikki maku meni siten pois.
Raha meni hukkaan nyt, jotta teki mieli kirota kesken syömistään.
Taas avattiin ovi ja tarjoiluneiti tuli käskemään Lullea telefooniin.
— Tämähän on merkillistä! huokasi Lulle ja kulki taas nuo monet
huoneettelefoonin ääreen.
— Onko se Lulle?
— On.

— Oleppa hyvä ja tule tänään nyt kohta luokseni! Vietän
nimipäivääni jahaluaisin nähdä nuorempiakin ystäviäni luonani. Lasi
totia ja vistiä — siinähän ne tosin ovat vanhan pojan nimipäivät,
mutta noudata nytkutsua!
— Onko se setä Tujulin?
— On.
— Onnea. Mutta minun on pakko kieltäytyä, sillä äsken juuri
lupauduin menemään vanhan toverini, vankilantirehtööri Lasse
Silfvenin luo, jokaon käymässä kaupungissa. Kiitos vain kutsusta!
— Mitä? Etkö aio tulla?
— Setä suo anteeksi, mutta minun on mahdoton tulla, rukoili Lulle.
— Minulla on sopiva ehdotus. Tule yhdessä herra Silfvenin
kanssa! Kaikessa tapauksessa et jääne pois, sillä ilman sinua ei
vististä tulemitään.
— Minä tulen yhdessä hänen kanssaan, myöntyi jo Lulle.
Hän palasi takaisin ateriansa ääreen, söi nyt sitä kuin
arkipäiväisintä rokkaa ja ryyppäsi sampanjaa kuin olisi se ollut
hapanta maitoa.
Taas tultiin hakemaan telefooniin. Lulle kieltäytyi menemästä.
Mutta kun pyyntö uudistettiin, lähti hän. Se oli päätoimittaja, joka
käski hänen tulla heti toimistoon, sillä siellä oli erityistä tehtävää.
Tämä viimeinen se katkerinta oli. Ennen toimistoon menoaan päätti
Lulle kuitenkin pikimiltään käydä Lassen luona edes tervehtimässä.
Ruoka jäikesken syömättä ja sampanjan ajoi hän sellaisella kiireellä

sisäänsä, jotta kartanolla hänen mennessään se tuli ulos. — Hyi p—
le, sylki Lulle ja oli läkähtyä. Hän tuli Sentraalihotelliin, kysyi
ovenvartijalta Lassea, mutta sai jyrkän kiellon. Ei se asunut siellä.
Lulle väitti vastaan ja lähti varmuudekseen etsimään. Mutta turhaan.
Ei näkynytLassea eikä palvelusväki hänestä mitään tiennyt.
Ehkä se oli kohta mennyt vähän kaupungille. Ja Lulle lähti
riipomaan toimistoon. Ja taas helle tuntui ja kuumuus korvensi.
Toimistossa ei ollut ketään. Lulle meni päätoimittajan asuntoon.
Siellä sai hänkuulla, että lepäämässä on vielä mies.
Lulle kummaili tätä sotkua ja alkoi jo epäillä. Nyt riensi hän
suutuksissaan asessori Tujulinin luo pelaamaan vistiä, mutta tapasi
"sedän" sängystä reumatismissa voivottelemassa. Jo uskoi Lulle
tulleensa petetyksi ja raivostuneena painalsi hän hovioikeuden
puiston uimahuoneeseen, sillä hän vaahtoi hiessä kuin läpiajettu ori.
Saatuaan hopusti vaatteet päältään syöksyi hän suin päin veteen,
jotta uimahuoneen vartiamatammi säikähtyneenä juoksi katsomaan.
Mutta siellä vedessä Lulle pulikoi kauvan kuin sorsa
ruohorantaisessa lammessa. Hän oli vedessä selällään, päällään ja
jos jonkin puolin. Lopultakin hän oli päässyt oikeaan nautintoon. Ja
tämä nautinto olisi ollut jo äskensaatavana, ilman suuria kulunkeja!
Mutta sopi sitä nyt katua.
Seuraavana päivänä kysyi Abba Lullelta toimistossa, onko hän
tavannut Lasse Silfveniä ja oliko hän eilen setä Tujulinilla
nimipäivillä. Ja kysyessään koko mies oli niin pirullisen näköinen,
jotta Lulle kohta arvasi, kuka se eilinen vehkeilijä oli ollut. Lulle
tulistui, hänen kasvonsa muuttivat väriä ja hän karkasi Abbaa kohti.
Samassa tuli päätoimittaja. Abba päästi suuren naurun, mutta Lulle
istahti takaisin tuoliinsa. Abba kertoi päätoimittajalle koko jutun,

miten hän kauppiasklubissa oli kuullut Lullen aikomukset herkutella,
miten hän oli mennyt rakennukseen toisella puolella porttia japannut
telefoonissa äänensä muuttamalla toimeen koko narripelin
hauskuudekseen. Päätoimittaja nauroi, jotta oli katketa, mutta Lulle
nousi juhlallisesti ja pyysi eroa toimestaan. Ei hän ole koko
maailman narri, sanoi hän. Nyt päätoimittaja huomasi asian vakavan
puolen jarupesi lepyttämään Lullea. Ja lopulta asia sovittiin siten,
että Lulle antaa Aballe anteeksi, ja Abba sopivassa tilaisuudessa
tarjoaa Lullellepullon sampanjaa.
Saiturin alku.
Säännöllisesti kuin kello, joka vedetään joka aamu kului Antti
Kasurin elämä. Hän oli lääninhallituksen reistraattori, siis alimpia
nappuloita virkakoneiston suurissa rattaissa. Mutta ei
kuvernöörilläkään ollut suurempaa virkavelvollisuuden tuntoa kuin
Antti Kasurilla, eikä voinut olla, sillä jos sitä olisi ollut enemmän, olisi
se tehnyt miehensä suoraan hulluksi. Pieni oli mies kooltaan, mutta
jokainen ruumiin osa ilmaisi tiukkaa luonnetta. Siitä kertoi luja,
ohuthuulinen suu, pieni, mutta hiukan ulospäin koukkeneva nenä,
tummat silmät ja suuret viikset, mutta ennen kaikkea luinen alaleuka,
jossa parran kasvu jokoulun alaluokilla oli havaittavissa. Tämä
parran kasvu oli sitte jälestäpäin ihmeteltävän runsas ja toi
mieliharmia Antti Kasurille, kun hänen täytyi kulkea niin usein
parturissa ja viskata sille rahojaan kuin kaivoon. Säästäväisyys oli
ollut aina Antin huomattavimpia puolia ja hänestä vielä tulisi — niin
luultiin — voipa herra, jolla onsäästöpankissa tuhansia.

Esimerkkinä tästä meidän päivinämme harvinaisesta
säästäväisyydestä mainittakoon, että Antti ylioppilaana ollessaan ei
kävellyt pääkaupungin katusilla muuta kuin mitä välttämätön tarve
vaati, silläkengät olisivat tarpeettomasti kuluneet. Mutta muutamana
iltana hän oliollut halukas lähtemään vain huvikseen kiertämään
Töölön lahden ympäri, vaikka oli syksyinen huono siivo. Sitä
ihmeteltiin, mutta jälestäpäin saatiinkin tietää, että Antilla silloin oli
lainakengät, asuintoverinsa kengät, kun omat olivat korjauksilla.
Koulussa ollessaan hän kerran hullautui ostamaan narikasta
viidentoista pennin prenikan, mutta joutui sitte katumapäälle ja kuletti
sen takaisin, koska siinä muka olihometta, vaikka oikeastaan hänen
säästäväisyytensä oli syynä makeisentakaisin vientiin.
Ei tarvinnut Antille pikku poikanakaan selittää rahan arvoa. Ja
vanhempana oli raha Antin taskussa yhtä varmassa turvassa kuin
timantti jonkun juvelikauppiaan kirstussa. Viisi penniäkin on rahaa,
selitti hän aina vakuuttavasti, kun joku kiusasi häntä ostamaan
papirossia. Itseei Antti polttanut kuin silloin, kun oli tarjona muiden
tupakoita eikä hän eläissään ollut ostanut olutlasiakaan. Useampia
vuosia kulki Antti varsin huonoissa vaatteissakin, vaikka hänellä kyllä
olisi ollut varoja laitattaa itselleen silkkirinnuksiset nutut. Oli oikein
paha nähdä hänen maleksivan likaisissa kaulustoissa, takin
samettinen kaulus rikki ja housun lahkeet resusina. Vaatteita hän ei
uusinut moneen vuoteen. Ja jos tahtoi innostuttaa Anttia
puhelutuulelle, ei tarvinnut muuta kuin mainita Helsingin räätälien ja
lääkärien kalleudesta, niin jo mies lämpeni puhumaan. Edellisistä oli
yksi ottanut häneltä talvipalttoosta sata markkaa, ja jälkimmäisistä
taas eräs kolmekymmentä silmien hoidosta. Heitä ei voinut Antti
koskaan unhottaa ja vaikka hän ei juuri mielellään kironnut, ei hän
säälinyt singottaa näiden muistolle väkevääkiroussanaa.

Kun Antti oli suorittanut kameraalitutkinnon, kirjoitettiin hän
kanslistiksi lääninhallitukseen. Kolme vuotta hän siellä tuhersi
palkatta ylimääräisenä, puhtaaksi kirjoitellen uloshakemuspäätöksiä,
jotka aina vain vakaannuttivat häntä säästäväisyydessään, kunnes
kunreistraattorinvirat perustettiin, hänestä tehtiin sellainen virkamies
puolentoista sadan markan kuukauspalkalla. Kyllä se olikin ollut
katkeraa tuo palkatta palveleminen, mutta sivutöillä, joita hän teki
myöhäisiin öihin asti, oli hän silti pysytellyt velkautumatta.
Epätoivoisena oli hän supistanut ravintonsa kahdeksi ateriaksi
päivässä ja heittänyt pois kahvin juonnin. Yhtenään oli hänellä ollut
kynnet kirjoitusmusteessa, eikä ainoastaan kynnet, vaan myös
toinen puolitukkaa. Hän kun oli sellainen ujo pieni mies, ei hän kohta
pullahtanut esiin huomatuksi kuplaksi viraston tyynessä suvannossa,
vaan pursuili kuin savisilmäke syrjässä koko maailmalta. Ei hänellä
ollut yhtään ystävää eikä yhtään vihamiestä. Molempia itselleen
luomaan oli hänenpersoonansa liian tehoton.
Mutta itselleen sopivampaa virastoa kuin lääninhallitus ei hän olisi
voinut valita, jos hänestä kerran piti tulla virkamies. Sillä mitään
kykyä ei tässä virastossa vaadita sellaisilta alemmilta kuin
reistraattorit ovat. Ja kykyä ei, taivas paratkoon, Antissa ollut
hitustakaan. Työjuhta hän oli, kone, joka kävi, kun pantiin käyntiin,
mutta ei mitään muuta.
Hän viihtyi erinomaisen hyvin tuolla suuressa salissa pienen
pöytänsä ääressä. Ei hän puhunut kenenkään kanssa muuta kuin
mitä välttämätöntä oli, piti mallikelpoisessa järjestyksessä paperinsa,
ja nautinnokseen joskus purasi neilikan leveiden hampaidensa
välissä. Lopultakin ylemmät virkamiehet huomasivat hänen
rehellisen työintonsa ja uskoivat hänelle silloin tällöin pienen
luottamustoimen.

Antti oli maalinsa saavuttanut. Hän rakasti persoonallisesti noita
ylempiä, ihaili kaukaa lääninsihteerin kultasankaisia rillejä, jotka
istuivat aivan nenän nokassa, hiukan hopeaista tukkaa ja tavattoman
suurta vatsaa. Kun se istui virastohuoneessaan soittokello nenänsä
edessä vihreäverkaisen pöytänsä takana, oli se Antista komea näky,
jotta hänellä ääni värähti ja hän punastui korvalehtiin asti, kun hän
sille siellä asiansa toimitti.
Toiset kanslistit juttelivat aina lomahetkinään tytöistä, "skruuvin"
pelaamisesta, ajoretkistä ja suvisin polkupyörämatkoista. He
koettivat loistaa sukkeluuksilla, lähetellen väliin myrkkysanojaan
Antillekin vasten naamaa. Mutta kaikki tuo puhe meni Antin yhdestä
korvasta sisään ja toisesta ulos. Mitäpä hän huoli niistä ja niiden
jutuista!
Ja voi sattua niin, että silloin kun paras myrkkynuoli ammuttiin
häneen ja koko joukko äänekkäästi nauroi, hän ei sitä yhtään
huomannut, kunparaallansa aivan kiintyneenä itseensä laski, miten
paljon korkoa hänen säästöönpanonsa sen kuukauden lopussa
tekivät. Antilla oli omatintressinsä ja heillä omansa!
Vähitellen alkoivat "toverit" lainata Antilta rahoja. Antti oli siihen
kyllä halukas korkoa vastaan, mutta hän vaati velkakirjan ja kaksi
takuumiestä. Kanslistien luotto ei ole tässä maailmassa paraimpia, ja
siksipä Antin liike kasvoi. Hän otti rahansa pois säästöpankista ja
sijoitti ne paremmin tuottaviin lainoihin. Eivätkä "toverit"
jättäneetkään maksujaan Antille suorittamatta, sillä edeltäpäinselvitti
aina Antti sen ja sen kuukauden maksettaviksi lankeavat lainat
lääninrahastonhoitajan kanssa asianomaisten kuukausipalkoista, jos
hän nimittäin epäili. "Pankkiirin" arvonimen oli jo Antti hankkinut

itselleen ja hän sitä melkein ylpeydellä kantoi, sillä osottihan se,ettei
ainakaan hän ollut velassa.
Muutamana suvena määrättiin Antti virkaatekeväksi
lääninrahastonhoitajaksi. Silloin hänen sydämmensä oli paisuksissa
ilosta kuin keväällä puroset tulvavedestä. Hänen näppinsä erityisellä
lämmöllä käsittelivät setelipakkoja ja kun hän sai suorittaa palkkoja
ja muita maksuja lääninrahastosta, teki hän sen oikein
viranomaisella komeudella, jäykästi ja välinpitämättömän kylmästi,
jotta näytti kuin olisi hän kullan keskellä syntynytkin ja ensimmäisen
pukunsa taskutjo olleet seteleitä täynnä. Istuessaan uhkeiden
kassakaappien sivulla siellä rahastohuoneessa, tahtoi hän
rahanottoluukulle tulevillenäyttää, että hän oli mammoonan valtias ja
että se maailma seoikeastaan kuului hänelle. Mutta kun virastotunnit
olivat loppuneetja hän pani pois jäännökset käsillä olleista rahoista,
piti hänhajamielisenä pitkän aikaa setelejä kämmenellään, sillä
niissä olisellainen verta liikkeelle paneva voima, että ne hurmasivat
häntä. Voijos ne olisivat olleet hänen omiaan!
Ja kotonaan ajatteli hän vain seteleistä — seteleistä! Öisin uneksi
hän seteleistä. Hän oli kuleskelevinaan silloin metsässä, jossa
puiden lehdet olivat sadan markan seteleitä ja niiden seassa
ikäänkuin kukkasina joukossa viiden sadan markan seteleitä. Antti
niitä noukki janoukki, mutta ne muuttuivat hänen kädessään
tuhkaksi ja kun hän sitäkummeksi, heräsi hän. Hänen ruumiinsa oli
silloin hiestä märkä. Hyisitä sellaista mielenliikutusta! Nyt rupesi
kiusaaja häntä ahdistamaan. Eikö hän mitenkään voisi saada
kaapatuksi itselleen jotain vähäistäkään summaa? Se ahdisti häntä
yöt päivät. Rahastossa laski hän aina ensi kerralla väärin ja sai
useasti toistaa, jos mieli olla antamatta liikoja tai liian vähän. Ruoka
ei maistanut eikä unikaan. Mies oli kuinnousevassa kuumeessa.

Hän kävi tilikirjain läpi, eikö hän löytäisi sieltä erehdystä omaksi
edukseen. Kylmä hiki valui hänen otsaltaan sitä tehdessään. Mutta
viimeinkin löysi hän erehdyksen. Varsinaisella rahastonhoitajalla oli
tullut ykkösen erehdys muutamassa suuremmassa yhteenlaskussa
tuhansissa ja se oli hänen edukseen. Rahastossa oli tuhat markkaa
enemmän kuinmitä laskujen mukaan piti olla.
Antin kädet vapisivat kuin pakkasessa, kun hän siirsi 1,000
markkaa rahastosta taskuunsa. Kun rahasto oli hänen
hoidettavakseen uskottu, eioltu pidetty silloin mitään tarkastusta,
koska toimi uskottiin hänelle varsinaisen rahastonhoitajan
esityksestä ja vastuulla. Antin siis eitarvinnut pelätä mitään.
Mutta noita rahoja ottaessaan tuli hän pudottaneeksi kynästään
suuren mustetäplän sen summan kohdalle, jossa erehdys oli. Hän
veitsellä raappi ja raappi sitä, mutta huononi se jälki vain. Silleen sen
lopultatäytyi jättää.
Mutta jos Antilla ollessaan v.t. lääninrahastonhoitajana ennen oli
ollut vähän unta ja ruoka maistanut huonosti, niin nyt se vasta vaiva
alkoi. Ja päivisin hän oli hajamielinen. Pois panna rahat mietti hän,
mutta ei hän tullut sitäkään tehneeksi. Ja niin loppui viransijaisuus,
että rahat jäivät Antille.
Antti kärsi omantunnon tuskia, oli virastossa sietämättömän arka
jamelkein pelkäsi nähdä varsinaista rahastonhoitajaa. Korvat herillä
hän nyt tarkkaan kuunteli, mitä mikin puhui, ja kaduilla hän vältteli
poliiseja. Asuntonsa eteisessä jos kuului askeleita, niin hän säikähtyi
ja kun hän kuuli jonkun siellä häntä kyselevän, oli hän kauhusta
pyörtyä, sillä hän kuvitteli mielessään tulijan komisariukseksi, jolla oli
vangitsemiskäsky. Hän kuuli muuten ääniä sielläkin, missä oli

haudan hiljaisuus sillä hänen hermonsa olivat menettäneet
tasapainonsa.
Pari viikkoa hän hoippui tällä tavalla, mutta sitte tuli hän
sanomattoman synkkämieliseksi ja jäi sairauden takia pois
virastosta. Mutta nukkua hän ei voinut. Levotonna ja ahdistettuna
hän aamustailtaan ja läpi yönkin taivalti huoneensa lattiaa.
Muutamana iltapäivänä hän pistäysi rautakauppaan ja osti
kuusilatinkisen revolverin. Vedet tulivat hänelle silmiin, kun hän sitä
taskussaan kantoi. Koko kulunut elämä sukelsi mieleen. Nyt se
tuntui ihanaltakin, sillä olihan siellä joitakin muistoja, jotka
lämmittivät. Poikasena hän oli aina vienyt jouluruokia köyhälletädille,
rippikoulussa ollessaan oli hän ollut rakastunut muutamaansievään
tyttöön, kerran nimipäiväksi oli hän ostanut äitivainajalleen
hamekankaan. Heidän vanhalla kartanollaan oli ollut suuri raita ja
tuomipuita. Suvella juoda niiden juurella teetä auringon laskiessa,
kun koko läheinen kangas hohti valon runsaudessa, oli kerrassaan
ihanaa. Tai soittaa viulua tuoreella nurmella päivän mailleen mentyä
yksinäisenlinnun läheisessä metsässä laulellessa!
Ylioppilaaksi tullessaan oli hänkin unelmoinut voivansa jotain
tehdäisänmaansa eduksi…
Antti kokosi asunnossaan rahansa ja tovereinsa antamat
velkakirjat, sitoi ne yhteen kimppuun, työnsi kimpun toiseen
taskuunsa, revolverin toiseen ja lähti matkalle — viimeiselle.
Yht'äkkiä tuli hänen sieluunsa kauhea tyhjyys ja vedet kuivuivat
silmistä. Tunteiden heruvat hetteet sulkeutuivat ja itsemurhaajan
kylmyydellä läheni Antti ulkopuistoa. Siinä olevasta ravintolasta tuikki
tulia. Puiston satavuotiset kuuset olivat totiset vienossa kuutamossa
ja ulompana kuului syksyisen aallon loiskinta rantaa vasten. Sitä

kohti käveli Antti. Hän tuli rannalle, näki merellä sisäsaariston
hämärät maat, mutta ei yhtään elävää sielua. Laine vain löi
yksitoikkoisesti jääkohmeiseen rantaan ja kuun valo olisurullinen.
Antti istui kivelle, otti esille rahakimppunsa, repi sen pieniksi
palasiksi ja huokasi ääneensä:
— Säästäväisyyteni uhrina minä poistun elämästä. Nuoruuteni on
ollut vain saiturin hävittömyyttä, pohjatonta kurjuutta. Kun minun olisi
pitänyt iloita ystävistä ja tovereista, nylin minä vain heitä. Nuoruutta,
tosi nuoruutta ei ole minulla ollut ollenkaan, vaan lapsuudesta astuin
suoraan vanhuuteen. Haudassa olen elänyt ja nytmenen vielä
pahempaan…
Hän sitoi nenäliinan silmilleen, asettui pitkälleen ruohikolle ja
revolverin oikean ohimonsa kohdalle.
Pau — pau — pau —, kuului yhtenään.
Sitte seurasi kuoleman hiljaisuus ja viheriä nurmi oli hulveisillaan
verta. Ammunta oli kuulunut ravintolaan. Sieltä tultiin katsomaan ja
tavattiin Antti Kasuri kuolleena.
Mielipuolena hänen arveltiin ampuneen itsensä, kun oli siihen
viereensä kaikki rahansakin sämpännyt. Ja hän sai kunniallisen
hautauksen. Mutta joku Antin virkakumppaleista ajatteli asiaa
syvemmältä jalääninrahastonhoitaja löysi tilikirjoistaan mustan
täplän. Eihän sentään tahtonut häväistä Antin muistoa. Hän korjasi
asianhiljaisuudessa.
Vieläkin tuossa virastossa muistelevat ylemmät Antti Kasuria
mallikelpoisena kamarivirkamiehen alkuna, jonka liiallinen työ

hermostutti ja vei mielipuolena hautaan.
Lokki.
"Lokki" oli höyryalus, jolla oli lupa kuljettaa 99 matkustajaa, paitsi
lastia. Omistaja itse oli tehnyt sen piirustukset. Ja kun sen piti olla
ikäänkuin näyte hänen taidostaan, piti siitä tullakin kokonainen
mestariteos. Yöt päivät oli hän sitä sommitellut ja niissä puuhissaan
oli hän saanut ikäänkuin uuden elinvoiman joka soluunsa. Ei hän
muistanut syödä, ei juoda, eikä nukkua oikealla ajallaan. Tuo
mestariteos hänet ravitsi ja hän kokonaan eli siitä kuin nuori tyttö
rakastettunsa hyväilyistä. Jo varhaisimmassa nuoruudessaan, jolloin
hän vielä työskenteli konepajan työmiehenä kasvot noessa ja
viilajauhoja kurkussa, oli hän kyhännyt pienen purren, joka lyhyen
matkaa mennä tuprutti höyrynvoimalla sellaista hoppua kuin
aristunut peuran vasa ensi kerran pulkan eteen sidottuna. Senkin
nimi oli ollut "Lokki". Yleensä sille oli naurettu, sillä se oli ollut
ikäänkuin ivateos höyryn kaikkivaltiaasta majesteetista. Mutta tekijä
oli katsonut naurajia vihaisesti silmiin ja hän oli sielunsa sisimmässä
miettinyt, että vielä maailmassa hänellä pitää olla sellainenkin
omatekemä "Lokki", jolle eivät naura. Ja nyt hänellä oli valmiina
toisemmoinen "Lokki".
Siellä se tämä toinen "Lokki" kellui tyynen sisäveden pinnalla,
kirkkaassa auringon paisteessa luoden järven kalvoon ihanan kuvan
itsestään. Siinä se peilaili itseään valkoiseksi maalattuna kuin
puhdasverinen kaunotar aamutuoreudessaan suuren kuvastimen
edessä.Kaikki oli niin sileää, kiiltelevää, hohtavaa.

Ensin oli "Lokissa" pieni etusalonki, johon myös oli sovitettu pieni
ravintola. Konehuone oli ahdas, mutta ei silti liiaksi. Sen takana oli
kipparin hytti ja varastohuone rinnakkain, sitte seurasi suurempi
yhteisperäsalonki, jossa olivat lihankarvaisella plyyssillä verhotut
lavitsat ja seinissä tammikatetus. Täällä oli kaikki suurellista. Sen
takana oli pari matkustavien hyttiä, toinen herroille toinen naisille.
Vielä oli yläkannella erityinen pienempi salonki, joka olitoiseksi
puoleksi puuta, toiseksi lasia. Sen ikkunat olivat koristetut
silkkiuutimilla ja peräseinällä oli hienopuitteinen trymoo
parhaimmasta hiotusta lasista. "Lokissa" oli vielä sähkökellolaitos,
telefooni jaoma sähkövalo. Se oli todellakin erinomainen
sisävesialus!
Koko pikku kaupunki rakastui "Lokkiin" ja siitä puhuttiin
innostuksella niinkuin ainakin jostain yhteisestä suuruudesta, joka on
koko kylän ylpeys. Harvat siihen sisälle pääsivät, mutta jotka
pääsivät, tunsivat siitä ikäänkuin arvonsa kasvavan, sillä suuri
rahvas sai sitä rannalta ihailla. Ja "Lokin" omistaja tunsi nuoruutensa
ihanan unelman nyt toteutuneen. Hän voi laivaansa väsymättä
katsella tuntikausia. Kuin silmäteräänsä hän sitä huolti. Erityinen
vahti piti olla yöt päivät valvomassa, etteivät joutilaat päässeet
tallaamaan sen neitseellistäloistoa.
Köyhästä pojasta oli John Tapio, niinkuin hänen nimensä nyt
kuului, päässyt konepajan omistajaksi. Ja tuossa omassa pajassaan
omien piirustustensa mukaan oli hän "Lokkinsa" rakentanut. Hän oli
lähes neljänkymmenen vuotinen mies ja naimaton, sillä kosia ei
hänellä vielä ollut aikaa. Lukea hän taisi kangertelevasti, kirjoittaa
sen verran, että sai nimensä vekseliin. Kaikkia yleisiä pohjatietoja
häneltä puuttui, sillä ei hän ollut päivääkään käynyt koulussa,
niinkuin väliin ylpeillen kehuikin. Mutta hän oli terävä mekaanillinen

kyky, ja joku häntä puoleksi ivalla nimitti "pikku Edisoniksi". Ei hän
suinkaan ollut kaunis mies: kasvot olivat kuivat, laihat ja vähän
teirenpilkkuiset.V artalo oli pitkä, mutta vaatteet silti riippuivat löyhästi
hänen päällään kuin lippu tangossaan tuulettomalla säällä, sillä
ruumiissa eiollut ollenkaan ryhtiä.
Juhannuksena — omistajansa nimipäivänä — piti "Lokilla" olla
koematka. Silloin tulisivat läheisestä suuremmasta
tehdaskaupungista tarkastavat insinöörit ja silloin oli myös määrä
juhlia "Lokin" vihkiäisiä vedenneitojen kanssa. Pikku kaupungin
hienoin ja parhain yleisö oli koeretkelle kutsuttu. Sen päätyttyä aikoi
Tapio pitää suuret illalliset tanssin kerällä kaupungin ulkopuiston
sievässä ravintolassa. Siihen tilaisuuteen oli hän tilannut koko
asevelvollisuuspataljoonan soittokunnan. Koeretkellä oli mukana
vain septetti, sillä enempää eilaivaan muiden vieraiden tähden
sopinut. Tapio tahtoi tarjota kerran koko kädellä, kun hänen
nuoruutensa ihana unelma nyt oli toteentunut ja noita ensimmäisen
"Lokin" naurajia oli vielä monta elossa. Ne tosin kuuluivat toiseen
ihmisluokkaan kuin Tapio nykyisin ja katsoivat kunniakseen saada
hänelle hattua nostaa. Mutta kaikessa tapauksessa Tapio nautti
"Lokistaan" sydämmensä pohjasta, ja sitä nautintoa tahtoi hän
muillekin tarjota.
Juhannuspäivä, sydänkesän armas juhla, oli kirkas, täynnä
auringon valoa, lintujen laulua, kukkien huumaavaa tuoksua. Jo
edeltä puolenpäivän kokoontuivat "Lokille", joka oli juhannuskoivuilla
koristettu japerätangossa virui uutukaisena suuri Venäjän lippu,
kutsutut vieraat: rouvasihmiset keveässä kesätoaletissa, nuoret
neidit värikkäissä suvipuvuissa ja herrat viileässä juhannusasussa.
Suuri yleisö olikokoontunut rannalle katsomaan lähtöä. Niiden
joukossa oli ruusuja kauppaava tyttönen. Muuan herroista,

kaupungin kaunottaren isä, tupakkatehtailija Löwenstein, kehotti
kaikkia mukaan tulevia nuoria naisia koristamaan herrain nuttuin
rintapieluksia ruusulla. Hän olijo ostanut tytöltä sen suuren kopan,
maksanut siitä ruhtinaallisen hinnan ja nyt tarjosi ihanan
tavarastonsa neitien käytettäväksi. Ne hyökkäsivätkin kilvan vasun
kimppuun. Seurasi hetkinen herrain tarkastelu ja sitte kukin löi
ritarinsa.
Neiti Löwenstein, parinkymmenenvuotinen kaupungin
ensimmäinen kaunotar,jonka kasvojen hipiä oli puhdas kuin vasta
satanut lumi, jonka silmät olivat suuret, tummat ja verhotut, hiukset
kiharaiset ja kiiltävät kuin musta sametti, povi korkea ja täyteläinen,
huulet ikäänkuin valmiit lahjoittamaan hurmaavan muiskun ja vartalo
ylevän eheämuotoinen, tulla sipsutteli puettuna mustaan
silkkihameeseen ja vaaleaan röijyyn itsetietoisena koko
komeudestaan Tapion luo ja pisti ruusun laivanisännän rintaan.
Veri nousi Tapion poskiin ja herpasevaa kuumuutta uhoi hänen
ruumiiseensa kaunottaren läsnäolo hänen kiinnittäessään kukan
hänen nuttunsa rintapieleen. Herrat huusivat "bravo" ja taputtivat
käsiään. Musiikki alkoi soittaa, "Lokki" vihelsi lähtömerkin heleästi,
mutta korkeasti, joka kaukaisena kaikuna kuoli kauvas metsien
poveen tyynessäjuhannusilmassa ja kuului Tapion korvissa ihanalta
soitolta. Rannalla olevat hurrasivat ja puistelivat nenäliinojaan ja
lakkejaan. "Lokki" loittoni laiturista Tapio itse ruotelin pyörässä. Hän
eli kuin ihanassaunessa. Mikään "seuran mies" ei hän tavallisesti
ollut ja näistäkin kutsuvieraista olivat useimmat hänelle vain "hyvän
päivän tuttuja,"joiden kodeissa ei hän ollut edes koskaan käynyt.
Hetken takaa tuli neiti Löwenstein — sekin hänelle melkein
ventovieras,vaikka isän kanssa hän olikin lähempi tuttava — ja pyysi

saada ohjata "Lokkia". Vesi olikin väljää selkää siinä, jotta ei ollut
vaaraa karille ajautumisesta. Hänen jälessään astui kaupungin
pormestari, kädessään kuohuva sampanjalasi, ja muita herroja.
Tapiolle tuotiin simalasi, sillä yleensä tunnettiin, ettei hän nauttinut
väkijuomia. Pormestari esitti Tapion, siron ja soman "Lokin" isännän
ja rakentajan maljan ja koko juhlayleisö huusi yhdeksänkertaisen
"eläköön" hänen kunniakseen. Yht'aikaa vedettiin laivan
keulapuolessa olevaan mastoon kaupungin naisten lahjoittama
kolmikulmainen pitkäkielinen lippu, jossa luettiin "Lokki". Sen lipun
piti olla puhuvin myötätuntoisuuden osotus "Lokkia" kohtaan
kauniimmalta sukupuolelta. Ei missään osatakaan ollaniin juhlallisia
kuin pikku kaupungissa, kun kerran sille tuulelle joudutaan, sillä
siihen on niin harvoin tilaisuutta.
Neiti Löwenstein jätti taas isännälle laivansa ohjaamisen.
Herttaisessa säässä kuljettiin sisä-Hämeen ihanimpia seutuja, ohi
synkkien männikköharjujen, savipaltteisten viljavien peltojen, poikki
tummien selkien, jylhäkköin salaisten vesien. Laivalla oli elämä
nuorekasta. Soitettiin, laulettiin, naurettiin. Silloin tällöin kuului
korkean lasin kilinä ja kohteliaisuuksia oli laiva kukkuramitassa
perästä keulaan ja keulasta perään. Katseltiin taki tilaan "Lokkia" ja
nekin, jotka olivat sen nähneet jo moneen kertaan sisäpuoleltakin,
eivät väsyneet sen uudestaan tarkastamisessa. Naiset pehmoisilla
käsillään hyväilivät salonkien plyyssejä ja silkkejä ja jokaisen täytyi
huomata, että "Lokki" ja sen tekijä olivat voittaneet kaikkien
sympatiiat,niinhyvin nuorten kuin vanhainkin.
Sen huomasi kaikista parhaiten Armas Brandt, joka viime ajan oli
ollut tämän pienen yhteiskunnan ihailun esine. Mutta nyt oli hänet
kokonaan työntänyt syrjään "Lokki" ja sen omistaja. Häntä tuskin nyt
huomattiinkaan ja siitä syystä oli hän murheissaan unohtunut

istumaan laivan peräkannelle yksinään huulet lujasti kiinni ja leuka
kepin kantaa vasten. Hänen korviinsa yhtenään kuului sinne
ihastuksen huudahduksia ja ne kaikki annettiin jakamattomasti
"Lokille". Ne häntä hermostuttivat ja ärsyttivät. Ruveta nyt järki-
ihmisten tuolla tavalla kuollutta kappaletta ylistelemään, jonka oli
rakentanut sivistymätönihmiskäsi!
Kuka oli Armas Brandt? Runoilija, Jumalan armosta. Hän oli
kaupungin entisen pormestari-vainajan poika ja nuori maisteri. Viime
vuonna olihän julaissut runokokoelman, josta oli paljo puhuttu ja
tekijästä suuria ennustettu pääkaupungin sanomalehdissä.
Runokokoelmassaan oli hän esiintynyt tunteita kuohuvana
romantikkona, laulanut trubaduureista, lemmen käräjistä
ritarilinnoissa ja naisen ihailusta. Hänestä luuloteltiin tulevan vallassa
olevan kirjallisen maun muuttajan ja ajan harrastusten
aatteellisempaan suuntaan ohjailijan. Kaikista maan päällä olevista
olennoista uskoi hän itse parhaiten siihen todellakin pystyvänsä. Ja
tuo pieni kaupunki, jossa hän oli syntynyt jakasvanut, oli hänet kohta
nostanut hartioilleen ikäänkuin ylpeilläkseen koko maailmalle, että se
on meidän kaupungin poika, jolla on sellainensuuri elämän työ.
Tunnustusta oli Armas Brandt saanut erittäinkin kaupungin
neideiltä. Ne maleksivat pitkin puistoja ja metsiä hänen
runokokoelmansa mukanaan, jakesäisinä kuutamoöinä itkivät ja
haaveilivat, hänen runojaan kuiskaten lempeään yöhön. Ja jokainen
heistä lemmen kuumuus povessaan olisi ollut valmis lahjoittamaan
sen hehkua Armas Brandtille, jos hän vain olisi tullut pyytämään.
Mutta ainoa, joka saavutti nuoren runoilijan suosion, oli neiti
Löwenstein. Ja nyt täytyi Armas Brandtin verta vuotavalla
sydämmellä nähdä, miten Ada Löwensteinkin unohti kokonaan hänet
"Lokkia" ihastellessaan.

Tultiin lopulta perille muutaman suuren talonpoikaistalon laituriin.
Siellä oli määrä syödä oikeat maalaispäivälliset viilipiimän kanssa. Ja
myös leikkiä siellä oikeaa suomalaista juhannusta.
Täällä oltaessa oli Ada kestien isäntää kohtaan niin huomaavainen
— arvatenkin pelkästä kohteliaisuudesta —, jotta Armas Brandtin,
jolla oli kultasankaiset rillit ja kellervät suvihansikkaat, jajoka oli
tunnustettu hieno kavaljeeri — sellaisenhan tulikin olla
ritarikasvatuksen ihailijan — ja komea nuori herra, veri kuohahti
mennä antamaan korvalle Tapiota, joka siinä hämillään hikoili tuon
hienonjoukon keskellä.
Viimein täytyi hänen pakostakin saada vähän pistellä Tapiota.
Sopivassa tilaisuudessa kysyi hän juhlan isännältä, jotta sen muutkin
kuulivat:
— Mitä aiotte laivallanne tehdä?
— Aivon sen panna kulkemaan tätä sisäreittiä, vastasi Tapio
tyynesti.
— Olette rakentanut sen kreivejä, parooneja ja neuvoksia varten.
Paha vain, että tällä reitillä kulkee melkein yksinomaan likaisia
talonpoikia, sanoi runoilija nenäkkäästi ja laitteli ivan kure
suupielessään rillejään.
Mutta hän kohtasi vain paheksuvia katseita ja muuan joukosta
laukasi:
— Kun meillä on kaupungissamme runoilija kreivejä, parooneja ja
neuvoksia varten, niin toki saa heitä varten olla laivakin, jolla
kehtaavat tulla tervehtimään nuorta runoilijaamme.

Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade
Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and
personal growth!
ebookfinal.com

Ecological Risk Assessment Second Edition Glenn W. Suter Ii

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Tags

Categories

Download

Quick Actions

Statistics

Related Slideshows

Ecological Risk Assessment Second Edition Glenn W. Suter Ii

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Slide 1

Slide 2

Slide 3

Slide 5

Slide 7

Slide 8

Slide 9

Slide 10

Slide 11

Slide 12

Slide 13

Slide 14

Slide 15

Slide 16

Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 19

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

Slide 23

Slide 24

Slide 25

Slide 26

Slide 27

Slide 28

Slide 29

Slide 30

Slide 31

Slide 32

Slide 33

Slide 34

Slide 35

Slide 36

Slide 37

Slide 38

Slide 39

Slide 40

Slide 41

Slide 42

Slide 43

Slide 44

Slide 45

Slide 46

Slide 47

Slide 48

Slide 49

Slide 50

Slide 51

Slide 52

Slide 53

Slide 54

Slide 55

Slide 56

Slide 57

Slide 58

Slide 59

Slide 60

Slide 61

Slide 62

Slide 63

Slide 64

Slide 65

Slide 66

Slide 67

Tags

Categories

Download

Quick Actions

Statistics

Related Slideshows

TLE-9-Prepare-Salad-and-Dressing.pptxkkk

LESSON 1 ABOUT MEDIA AND INFORMATION.pptx

GRADE-8-AQUACULTURE-WEEKQ1.pdfdfawgwyrsewru

Feelings PP Game FOR CHILDREN IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.pptx

Jeopardy_Figures_of_Speech_Template.pptx [Autosaved].pptx

Jeopardy_Figures_of_Speech.pptxvdsvdsvsdvsd