Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A paradigm for protecting ecological resources following remediation as a function of future land use designations: a case study for the Department of Energy’s Hanford Site

  • Published:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since the late 1980s, there has been a US federal mandate to clean up contaminated sites remaining from the Second World War, the Cold War, and abandoned industries. One determinant of cleanup standards for remediation is future land use—how will the land be used and by whom? Land use decisions may be consensus documents developed by site owners, state and federal agencies, and local stakeholders. Often there are competing views and/or claims on how remediated sites should be used, including as open or green space. Large sites are likely to have more ecological heterogeneity within similar land use designations because of differences in climate, geology, topography, and history of human use. This paper uses the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Hanford Site as a case study to examine how and whether future land use designations will protect species, species diversity, heterogeneity, and ecosystems once remediation is complete. The objective of this paper is to describe “future land use designations” on a large, complex site (DOE’s Hanford Site) and to examine the following: (1) how future land use designations were made and have changed over time, (2) how land use designations included the value of ecological resources, (3) how risk evaluations of ecological resources from remediation were made, and (4) how future land use may affect the health and well-being of ecological resources on site in the post-remediation period. The paper provides a paradigm for integrating ecological protection into future land use designations such that rare and sensitive resources are protected throughout the process. The paradigm includes the following: (1) developing future land use designations, (2) defining resource levels (values), (3) relating resource levels to land use designations and management, (4) defining risk evaluations, (5) determining the likelihood that valuable resources will occur on each land use type after remediation, and (6) evaluating the potential risk to those resources that results from activities allowed under future land use designations. The paper discusses the importance of each step, the implications for protection of ecological resources, and the importance of land use designations in the assessment of risk to ecological resources from both continued monitoring and maintenance by DOE (or other land owners) and the activities permitted by the established future land use designations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbotts, A., & Takaro, T. K. (2005). The Hanford 100 area: The influence of expressed stakeholder values on remediation decisions. Federal Facilities Environmental Journal. Autumn, 2005, 71–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ASTM. (1995). Standard guide for developing conceptual site models for contaminated sites, E1689-1965. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 04.08.

  • Baird, R. C. (2005). On sustainability, estuaries, and ecosystem restoration: the art of the practical. Restoration Ecology, 13, 154–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartell, S. M., Campbell, K. R., Lewis, C. J., & Burger, J. (2002). Assessing ecological risks at US Department of Energy facilities using methods borrowed from landscape ecology and habitat suitability analysis. Part I. Analysis of historical aerial photography and maps. International Journal of Global Environment, 2, 15–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohnee, G., Matthews, J.P., Pinkham, J., Smith, A. &, Stanfill, J. (2011). Nez Perce involvement with solving environmental problems: history, perspectives, treaty rights, and obligations. In Stakeholders and scientists: achieving implementable solutions to energy and environmental issues, ed. J. Burger, 149–184. New York: Springer.

  • Brown, K. S. (1998). The great DOE land rush. Science., 282, 616–617.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, P. H., & Rechberger, H. (2015). Waste to energy – key elements for sustainable waste management. Waste Management, 37, 3–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J. (2002). Incorporating ecology and ecological risk into long-term stewardship on contaminated sites. Remediation, 13, 107–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J. (2008). Environmental management: integrating ecological evaluation, remediation, restoration, natural resource damage assessment and long-term stewardship on contaminated lands. Science of the Total Environment, 400, 6–19.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J. (2011). Science and stakeholders: a synthesis. In J. Burger (Ed.), Science and stakeholders: achieving implementable solutions to energy and environmental issues. New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J., & Gochfeld, M. (2011). Conceptual environmental justice model: evaluation of chemical pathways of exposure in low-income, minority, Native American, and other unique exposure populations. American Journal of Public Health, 101(Supplement 1), S64–S73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J., Mayer, H., Greenberg, M., Powers, C. W., Volz, C. D., & Gochfeld, M. (2006a). Conceptual site models as a tool in evaluating ecological health: the case of the Department of Energy’s Amchitka Island nuclear test site. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 69, 1217–1238.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J., Tsipoura, N., Gochfeld, M., & Greenberg, M.R. (2006b). Ecological considerations for evaluating current risk and designing long-term stewardship on Department of Energy lands. In Long-term management of contaminated sites, 139–162. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

  • Burger, J., Harris, S., Harper, B., & Gochfeld, M. (2010). Ecological information needs for environmental justice. Risk Analysis, 30, 893–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., Salisburym, J., & Bunn, A. (2015). An approach to evaluating and monitoring ecological resources for sustainability on DOE remediation sites: Hanford as a case study. Phoenix Az: Waste Management Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., Bunn, A., Downs, J., Jeitner, C., Pittfield, T., & Salisbury, J. (2016). Functional remediation components: a conceptual method of evaluating the effects of remediation on risks to ecological receptors. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 79, 957–968.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., & Jeitner, C. (2018). Risk evaluation of ecological resources at contaminated deactivation and decommissioning facilities: methodology and a case study at the Department of Energy’s Hanford site. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 190, 478–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., Bunn, A., Downs, J., Jeitner, C., Pittfield, T., Salisbury, J. and Kosson, D. (2017). A methodology to evaluate ecological resources and risk using two case studies at the Department of Energy’s Hanford site. Environmental management, 59(3), 357–372.

  • Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., Kosson, D. S., Brown, K. G., Bliss, L. S., Bunn, A., Clarke, J. H., Mayer, H., & J., & Salisbury, J.A. (2019). The costs of delaying remediation on human, ecological, and eco-cultural resources: considerations for the Department of Energy: a methodological framework. Science of the Total Environment, 649, 1054–1064.

  • Butler, V. L., & O’Connor, J. E. (2004). 9000 years of salmon fishing on the Columbia River, North America. Quarternary Research, 62, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairns Jr., J. (1994). Rehabilitating damaged ecosystems. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairns Jr., J., Niederlehner, B. R., & Orvos, D. R. (1992). Predicting ecosystem risk. Princeton: Princeton Scientific Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappuyns, V. (2016). Inclusion of social indicators in decision support tools for the selection of sustainable site remediation options. Journal of Environmental Management, 184, 45–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K. M. A., Satterield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITC). (2013). We are salmon people. http://critfc.org/salmon-culture/columbia-river-salmon/columbia-river-salmon-species. Accessed 18 June 2019.

  • Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP). (2015). Final methodology for the Hanford Site-wide risk review project. Nashville: CRESP. Vanderbilt University http://www.cresp.org/hanford/#methodology (accessed Dec. 28, 2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP). (2018). Hanford risk review final report. Nashville: CRESP. Vanderbilt University http://www.cresp.org/hanford/ (accessed Dec. 28, 2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S., & Turner, R. K. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., Farber, S., & Grasso, M. (2017). Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecological Services, 28, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowley, K. D., & Ahearne, J. F. (2002). Managing the environment legacy of US nuclear-weapons production. American Scientist, 90, 514–5213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dale, V. H., & Parr, P. D. (1998). Preserving DOE’s research parks. Issues in Science and Technology, 14, 73–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, M. D. (2013). On the relation between ecosystem services, intrinsic value, existence value and economic valuation. Ecological Economics, 95, 171–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davydchuk, V. (1997). Ecosystem remediation in radioactively polluted areas: the Chernobyl experience. Ecological Engineering, 8, 325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delistraty, D., & Yokel, J. (2011). Exotoxicological study of arsenic and lead contaminated soils in former orchards at the Hanford Site, USA. Environmental Toxicology, 29, 10–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Energy (DOE). (1994a). Stewards of a national resources. (DOE/FM-0002). Washington D.C: Office of Energy Research, Department of Energy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Energy (DOE). (1994b). National Environmental Research Parks. Washington, D.C.: Office of Energy Research. Department of Energy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Energy (DOE). (1996). Baseline environmental management report. https://energy.gov/em/downloads/baseline-environmental-management-report-bemr-1996 [Dec 29 2017].

  • Department of Energy (DOE). (1999). Final Hanford comprehensive land use plan environmental impact statement. DOE/EIS-0222f. Richland, Washington.

  • Department of Energy (DOE). (2001a). Long-term stewardship report to Congress, Washington, DC, prepared to fulfill a requirement in the FY2000 National Defense Authorization ACT. Washington, D.C.

  • Department of Energy (DOE). (2001b). Hanford Site biological resources management plan, Appendix D: Hanford’s biological resources: geographic information system-based resource maps, species of concern data tables, and their technical basis. DOE/RL 96-32. Richland, WA: Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office.

  • Department of Energy (DOE). (2002a). Long-term surveillance and maintenance program, 2001 report, Washington, D.C.

  • Department of Energy (DOE). (2002b). A review of the environmental management program (by Top to Bottom Review Team), Washington, D.C.

  • Department of Energy (DOE). (2008). Hanford comprehensive land use plan environmental impact statement. DOE/EIS-0222-SA-1. Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

  • Department of Energy (DOE/RL-2009–10, Rev. 1). (2009). Hanford Site cleanup completion framework. Washington: Richland Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Energy (DOE/EA-1728-F). (2012). Integrated vegetation management on the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington. Washington: Richland Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Energy (DOE/RL-96-32, Rev. 1). (2013). Hanford Site biological resources management plan. Washington: Richland Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Energy (DOE). (2015). Supplemental analysis of the Hanford comprehensive land use plan environmental impact statement. DOE/EIS-0222-SA-2. Richland: Richland Operations Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Energy (DOE). (2016). Hanford lifecycle scope, schedule and cost report. DOE,/RL-2015-10. http://www.hanford.gov/files.cfm/2016_LCR_Report_Appendices_Final_Draft.pdf (accessed Dec 8 2019).

  • Department of Energy (DOE/RL-96-32, Rev. 2). (2017). Hanford Site biological resources management plan. Washington: Richland Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Energy (DOE). (2019). Hanford lifecycle scope, schedule, and cost report. DOE/RL-2018-45 (Rev 0). Richland: Richland Operations Office https://www.hanford.gov/files.cfm/2019_Hanford_Lifecycle_Report_w-Transmittal_Letter.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downs, J. L., Rickard, W. H., & Brandt, C. A. (1993). Habitat types on the Hanford Site: wildlife and plant species of concern. PNL-8942, UC-702. Richland: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Endangered Species Act (ESA). (1973). Public Law 93-205, as amended, 16USC 1513 et seq.

  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1995). Land use in CERCLA remedy selection process: the Superfund Land use Directive. US Environmental Protection Agency, SWER, 9355, 7–04.

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1997). Ecological risk assessment guidance for Superfund: process for designing and conducting ecological risk assessments - Interim Final U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 540-R-97-006 OSWER 9285.7-25. https://semspub.epa.gov/work/11/157941.pdf [2/24/2016].

  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1999). A guide to preparing superfund proposed plans, records of decision, and other remedy selection decision documents. US Environmental Protection Agency, OSWER9200-1.23.p.EPA 540-R-98-031.

  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2018) Environmental justice and national environmental policy act. https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/environmental-justice-and-national-environmental-policy-act. Accessed 16 December 2018.

  • Gephart, R. E. (2010). A short history of waste management at the Hanford Site. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 35, 298–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gochfeld, M., Burger, J., Powers, C., & Kosson, D. (2015). Land use planning scenarios for contaminated land: comparing EPA, state and federal and tribal approaches. Waste Management Symposium, Phoenix, Arizona.

  • Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2019. Department of energy program-wide strategy and better reporting needed to address growing environmental cleanup liability. https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/696632.pdf. Accessed Aug 12 2019.

  • Greenberg, M., Miller, K. T., Lowrie, K., Carletta, M. A., & Burger, J. (2003). An ecologically oriented database to guide remediation and reuse of contaminated sites. Remediation, 14, 69–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, M., Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., Kosson, D., Lowrie, K., Mayer, H., et al. (2005). End-state land uses, sustainably protective systems, and risk management: a challenge for remediation and multigenerational stewardship. Remediation, 17, 91–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harclerod, M. A., Macbeth, T. W., Milles, M. E., Gurr, C. J., & Myers, T. S. (2016). Early decision framework for integrating sustainable risk management for complex remediation sites: drivers, barriers, and performance metrics. Journal of Environmental Management, 184, 57–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, S. G., & Harper, B. L. (2000). Using eco-cultural dependency webs in risk assessment and characterizations of risks to tribal health and cultures. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2, 91–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, R. J., & Harris, J. A. (2001). Restoration ecology: repairing the Earth’s ecosystems in the new millennium. Restoration Ecology, 9, 25–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hou, D., & Tabbaa, A. (2014). Sustainability: a new imperative in contaminated land remediation. Environmental Science and Policy, 39, 25–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hou, D., Al-tabbaa, A., Guthrie, P., Hellings, J., & Gu, Q. (2014). Using a hybrid LCA method to evaluate the sustainability of sediment remediation at the London Olympic Park. Journal of Cleaner Production, 83, 87–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, K. L., Bottom, D. L., Hood, W. G., Johnson, G. E., Johes, K. K., & Thom, R. M. (2017). An expert panel process to evaluate habitat restoration actions in the Columbia River estuary. Journal of Environmental Management, 188, 337–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landeen, D., & Pinkham, A. (1999). Salmon and his people. Lewiston: Confluence Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, D. L., Phillips, M., Quiram, G., Sharpe, L., Stark, R., Sugita, S., & Weiler, A. (2011). A framework for sustainable invasive species management: environmental, social and economic objectives. Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 14–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerch, J. A., & Ceto, N. (2011). Establishing final action cleanup decisions for the Hanford Site River Corridor. Phoenix: Waste Management Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerch, J. A., Cusack, L. J., & Hansen, J. A. (2014). Hanford Site River corridor cleanup – effectiveness of interim actions and transition to final actions. Phoenix: Waste Management Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, C., Beckert, H., Abrams, C., Bilyard, G., Cadwell, K., Friant, S., Glantz, C., Maziaka, R., & Miller, K. (1996). Survey of ecological resources at selected US Department of Energy Sites (DOE/EH-0534). Richland: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, H. A., & Hobbs, R. J. (2000). Invasive species in a changing world. Washington D.C: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, B., Rotterman, Y., Silverman, J., & Bradley, E. (2016). DOE climate change vulnerably and adaptation planning: three relevant case studies. Waste Manage. Phoenix: Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy Press (NAP). (2019). Independent assessment of science and technology for the Department of Energy’s defense environmental cleanup program. Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board. Washington, DC: National Acadmey Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (1993). Risk assessment in the federal government: managing the process. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (1995). Improving the environment: an evaluation of DOE’s environmental management program. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Long-term institutional management of US Department of Energy legacy waste sites. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2008). Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Park Service (NPS). (2017). Hanford, WA Site - Manhattan Project National Historical Site. https://www.nps.gov/mapr/hanford.htm [Dec 29 2017].

  • Nez Perce Tribe. (2003). Treaties: Nez Perce perspectives. Richland: US DOE and Confluence Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Halloran, K. (2006). Toxicological considerations of contaminants in the terrestrial environment for ecological risk assessment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 12, 74–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M. J., Efroymson, R. A., & Adams, S. M. (2011). Long-term biological monitoring of an impaired stream: synthesis and environmental management implications. Environmental Management, 47, 1125–1140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poodat, F., Arrowsmith, C., Fraser, D., & Gordon, A. (2015). Prioritizing urban habitats for connectivity conservation: integrating centrality and ecological metrics. Environmental Management, 56, 664–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resasco, J., Haddad, N. M., Orrock, J. L., Shoemaker, D., Brudvig, L. A., Damschen, E. I., Tewksbury, J. J., & Levey, D. J. (2014). Landscape corridors can increase invasion by an exotic species and reduce diversity of native plants. Ecology, 95, 2033–2039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sackschewsky, M. R., & Downs, J. L. (2001). Vascular plants of the Hanford Site. PNNL-13688. Richland: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandifer, P. A., Sutteon-Grier, A., & Ward, B. P. (2015). Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosystem Services, 12, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheffield, J. (1998). World population growth and the role of annual energy use per capita. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 59, 55–87.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Suter II, G. W., Cornaby, B. W., Hadden, C. T., Hull, R. N., Stack, M., & Zafran, F. A. (1995). An approach for balancing health and ecological risks at hazardous waste sites. Risk Anaysis, 15, 221–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2014). Rare, threatened, or endangered species: Hanford Reach. http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Hanford_Reach/Wildlife_Habitat/Rare_Species.html [Accessed 16 Feb 2018].

  • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2017). Hanford Reach National Monument—Washington. https://www.fws.gov/refuge/hanford_reach/ [Dec 29, 2017].

  • Wagner, A. M., Larson, D. L., DalSoglio, J. A., Harris, J. A., Labus, P., Rosi-Marshall, E. J., & Skrabis, E. (2015). A framework for establishing restoration goals for contaminated ecosystems. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 12, 264–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Washington Noxious Weed Control Board (WNWCB). (2014). Noxious Weed List. http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/. Accessed 12 July 2016.

  • Whicker, F. W., Hinton, T. G., MacDonell, M. M., Pinder III, J. E., & Habegger, L. J. (2004). Avoiding destructive remediation at DOE sites. Science, 303, 1615–1517.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. N. (2006). Return to the river: restoring salmon to the Columbia River. New York: Elsevier.

  • World Health Organization (WHO). (2016). Fukushima five years on. https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fusushima/fags-fukushima/en/

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the many people who have discussed land use and resource value with us over the years, including colleagues from CRESP, DOE, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, managers and scientists from EPA, the State of Washington, the Tribes, and others.

Funding

This research was funded by the DOE (DE-FC01-06EW07053 through the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) to Vanderbilt University and Rutgers University as a sub-awardee.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Life Sciences, Rutgers University, 604 Allison Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA

    Joanna Burger & Christian Jeitner

  2. Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI), Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA

    Joanna Burger, Michael Gochfeld & Christian Jeitner

  3. Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP), Vanderbilt University and Rutgers University, Nashville, TN, USA

    Joanna Burger, Michael Gochfeld, David S. Kosson, Kevin G. Brown, Jennifer Salisbury & Christian Jeitner

  4. Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA

    Michael Gochfeld

  5. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, 37235, USA

    David S. Kosson & Kevin G. Brown

Authors
  1. Joanna Burger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Gochfeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David S. Kosson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kevin G. Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jennifer Salisbury
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christian Jeitner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joanna Burger.

Ethics declarations

Disclaimer

The opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. DOE, Rutgers University, Vanderbilt University, and other participating universities.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., Kosson, D.S. et al. A paradigm for protecting ecological resources following remediation as a function of future land use designations: a case study for the Department of Energy’s Hanford Site. Environ Monit Assess 192, 181 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-8084-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-8084-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation