ABSTRACT
The planning of an ecological risk assessment depends primarily on the goal of the manage-
ment action to be supported. Most environmental laws in the United States provide rather
vague goals such as ‘‘protect public health and the environment’’ or ‘‘protect and restore the
physical, chemical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.’’ Agencies that implement
laws should interpret those vague goals in more concrete terms that can be evaluated. For
example, the International Joint Commission (1989) interpreted the biological impairment
goal for Lake Superior thus: ‘‘The Lake should be maintained as a balanced and stable
oligotrophic ecosystem with lake trout as the top aquatic predator of a cold-water community
and with Pontoporeia hoyi as a key organism in the food chain.’’ Such specific goals, called
objectives, may apply to an entire regulatory or management program, or may be assessment-
specific. A programmatic example is the European Commission’s goals for their water quality
objectives (WQOs). Accordingly, a WQO
. should be such as to permit all stages in the life of aquatic organisms to be successfully
completed . should not produce conditions that cause these organisms to avoid parts of the habitat
where they would normally be present . should not give rise to the accumulation of substances that can be harmful to the biota
(including man) whether via the food chain or otherwise and . should not produce conditions that alter the functioning of the ecosystem (CSTE= EEC 1994)
Examples of appropriate management goals in the EPA’s guidelines include ‘‘reduce or
eliminate macroalgal growth’’ and ‘‘maintain diversity of native biotic communities’’ (EPA
1998a). Goals for site-specific or ‘‘place-based’’ assessments may be generated through
workshops or other consensus-building processes. Goals for public lands or other natural
resources are often contained in their management plans. In addition to these goals for a
specific law or assessment, it may be possible to define national environmental goals. How-
ever, goal setting is probably the most inconsistent and ill-defined component of the eco-
logical risk assessment process (McCarty and Power 2001). In any case, careful thought
should be devoted to defini ng goals (Box 11.1) . However derive d, ecologi cal goals provide
the basis for identification of the assessment endpoints.
