Environmental Management

, Volume 59, Issue 3, pp 357–372 | Cite as

A Methodology to Evaluate Ecological Resources and Risk Using Two Case Studies at the Department of Energy’s Hanford Site

  • Joanna Burger
  • Michael Gochfeld
  • Amoret Bunn
  • Janelle Downs
  • Christian Jeitner
  • Taryn Pittfield
  • Jennifer Salisbury
  • David Kosson
Article

Abstract

An assessment of the potential risks to ecological resources from remediation activities or other perturbations should involve a quantitative evaluation of resources on the remediation site and in the surrounding environment. We developed a risk methodology to rapidly evaluate potential impact on ecological resources for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Hanford Site in southcentral Washington State. We describe the application of the risk evaluation for two case studies to illustrate its applicability. The ecological assessment involves examining previous sources of information for the site, defining different resource levels from 0 to 5. We also developed a risk rating scale from non-discernable to very high. Field assessment is the critical step to determine resource levels or to determine if current conditions are the same as previously evaluated. We provide a rapid assessment method for current ecological conditions that can be compared to previous site-specific data, or that can be used to assess resource value on other sites where ecological information is not generally available. The method is applicable to other Department of Energy’s sites, where its development may involve a range of state regulators, resource trustees, Tribes and other stakeholders. Achieving consistency across Department of Energy’s sites for valuation of ecological resources on remediation sites will assure Congress and the public that funds and personnel are being deployed appropriately.

Keywords

Risk evaluation Ecological resources Remediation Risk methodology Risk rating Assessment method 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge other members of CRESP and PNNL for valuable discussions about risk, exposure assessments, and ecological evaluations, including J. Clarke, E. Golovich, K Hand, W. Johnson, K. Brown, and M. Chamness. This research was funded by the Consortium for Risk Evaluation through the Department of Energy (DE-FC01-95EW55084). PNNL’s funding was provided by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of River Protection and Richland Operations Office. PNNL is operated by Battelle Memorial Institute for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. Azerrad JM, Divens KA, Livingston MF, Teske MS, Ferguson HL, Davis JL (2011) Site-specific management: how to avoid and minimize impacts of development to shrub-steppe. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01335/wdfw01335.pdf. Accessed 11 Feb 2016
  2. Becker JM, Chamness MA (2012) Annual ecological survey: pacific northwest national laboratory site, pnnl-21164. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA. http://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-21164.pdf. Accessed 11 Feb 2016
  3. Bingham G, Bishop R, Brody M, Bromley D, Clark ET, Cooper W, Costanza R, Hale T, Hayden G, Kellert S, Norgaard R (1995) Issues in ecosystem valuation: improving information for decision making. Ecol Econ 14:73–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bleicher A (2016) Technological change in revitalization–phytoremediation and the role of nonknowledge. J Environ Manage. 184:78–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.046 (in press)
  5. Brown KS (1998) The great DOE land rush. Science 282:616–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burger J (2000) Integrating environmental restoration and ecological restoration: long-term stewardship at the department of Energy. Environ Manage 26:469–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burger J (2002) Incorporating ecology and ecological risk into long‐term stewardship on contaminated sites. Remediation J 13:107–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burger J (2007) A framework for analysis of contamination on human and ecological receptors at DOE hazardous waste site buffer lands. Remediation J 17:71–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burger J (2008) Environmental management: integrating ecological evaluation, remediation, restoration, natural resource damage assessment, and long-term stewardship on contaminated lands. Sci Tot Environ 400:6–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burger J (2011) Stakeholders and scientists: achieving Implementable Solutions to Energy and Environmental Issues. Springer, New York, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burger J, Gochfeld M (2004) Bioindicies for assessing human and ecological health. In: Wiersma GB (ed) Environmental monitoring. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 541–556. 2004Google Scholar
  12. Burger J, Gochfeld M (2011) Conceptual environmental justice model for evaluating chemical pathways of exposure in low-income, minority, Native American, and other unique exposure populations. Amer J Public Health 101:S64–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burger J, Carletta MA, Lowrie K, Miller KT, Greenberg (2004) Assessing ecological resources for remediation and future land uses on contaminated lands. Environ Manage 34:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burger J, Gochfeld M, Pletnikoff K, Snigaroff R, Snigaroff D, Stamm T (2008) Ecocultural attributes: evaluating ecological degradation in terms of ecological goods and services versus subsistence and tribal values. Risk Analysis 28:1261–1272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burger J, Harris S, Harper B, Gochfeld M (2010) Ecological information needs for environmental justice. Risk Analysis 30:893–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burger J, Clarke J, Gochfeld M (2011) Information needs for siting new, and evaluating current, nuclear facilities: ecology, fate and transport, and human health. Environ Monitor Assess 172:121–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Burger J, Gochfeld M, Clarke J, Powers CW, Kosson D (2013) An ecological multidisciplinary approach to protecting society, human health, and the environment at nuclear facilities. Remediation J 23:123–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Burger J, Gochfeld M, Salisbury J, Bunn A (2015) An approach to evaluating and monitoring ecological resources for sustainability on DOE remediation sits: Hanford as a cast study. Waste Management Symposium, Waste Management Proceedings Phoenix, Arizona, 14–20 March 2015Google Scholar
  19. Cairns Jr J, Niederlehner BR (1992) Predicting ecosystem risk: genesis and future needs. Predict Ecosys Risk 1:327–343Google Scholar
  20. Cappupyns V (2016) Inclusion of social indicators in decision support tools for the selection of sustainable site remediation options. J Environ Manage. Available online 21 July 2016. In Press 184:45–56Google Scholar
  21. Corcoran J, Nichols-Casebolt A (2004) Risk and resilience ecological framework for assessment and goal formulation. Child Adol Soc Work J 21:211–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Costanza R, d’Arge R, Limburg K, Grasso M, de Groot R, Faber S, O’Neill RV, Van den Belt M, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Hannon B (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton P, van der Ploeg S, Anderson SJ, Kubiszewski I, Farber S, Turner RK (2014) Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environ Change 26:152–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Crowley KD, Ahearn JF (2002) Managing the environmental legacy of U.S. nuclear-weapons production. Amer Sci 90:514–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dale VH, Parr PD (1998) Preserving DOE’s research parks. Issues Sci Technol 14:73–77Google Scholar
  26. De Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RM (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Department of Energy (DOE) (1991) Natural resource damage assessment: preassessment screening and integration with CERCLA ecological evaluations. EH-231-008/0991. Washington, DC: Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Guidance. homer.ornl.gov/sesa/environment/guidance/cercla/nrda2.pdf. Accessed 9 Aug 2016Google Scholar
  28. Department of Energy (DOE) (1994a) Stewards of a national resources. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Department of Energy (DOE) (1994b) National environmental research parks. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. Department of Energy (DOE) (2000) Status Report on Paths to Closure, DOE/EM-0526 Washington, DC: Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management. http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f8/StatusReportOnPathsToClosure_2000.pdf. Accessed 9 Aug 2016
  31. Department of Energy (DOE), DOE/RL 96-32 (2001a) 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. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, WAGoogle Scholar
  32. Department of Energy (DOE), DOE/RL 96-32 (2001b) Hanford site biological resources management plan, appendix C: hanford biological resources in a regional context. DOE/RL 96-32. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, WAGoogle Scholar
  33. Department of Energy (DOE) (2002) A review of the environmental management program. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  34. Department of Energy (DOE), DOE/RL 96-32 (2013a) Hanford Site Biological Resources Management Plan, Revision 0. DOE/RL-96-32. Richland, WA: Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office. http://www.hanford.gov/files.cfm/DOE-RL-96-32-01.pdf. Accessed 9 Aug 2016
  35. Department of Energy (DOE) (2013b) Hanford natural resource damage assessment: injury assessment plan. DOE, Richland, WAGoogle Scholar
  36. Downs JL, Rickard WH, Brandt CA (1993) Habitat types on the Hanford site: wildlife and plant species of concern. Pacific Northwest national Laboratory, Richland, WA, PNL-8942, UC-702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Duncan JP, Burk KW, Chamness MA, Fowler RA, Fritz BG, Hendrickson PL, Kennedy EP, Last GL, Poston TM, Sackschewsk MR (2007) Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization, PNNL-6415. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, Rev.18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. European Environment Agency (EEA) (2003) Environmental Indicators: Typology and Use in Reporting, EEA; Copenhagen, p 20Google Scholar
  39. Flanagan CA, Byington R, Gallay E, Sambo A (2016) Chapter seven- Social justice and the environmental commons. Adv Child Dev Behav 51:203–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwick A (2013) Introduction to environmental impact assessment. Taylor and Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. Gochfeld M, Burger J (2011) Disproportionate exposures in environmental justice and other populations: the importance of outliers. Amer J Public Health 101:S53–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gochfeld M, Burger J, Powers C, Kosson D (2015) Land use planning scenarios for contaminated land: comparing EPA, State, Federal and Tribal approaches. Waste Management Symposium, Waste Management Proceedings Phoenix, Arizona, 14–20 March 2015Google Scholar
  43. Goodsell PJ, Underwood AJ, Chapman MG (2009) Evidence necessary for taxa to be reliable indicators of environmental conditions or impacts. Mar Poll Bull 58:323–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Greenberg M, Lowrie K (2002) External stakeholders’ influence on the DOE’s long-term stewardship programs. Fed Facil Environ J 13:108–125Google Scholar
  45. Hall Jr L, Giddings JM (2000) The need for multiple lines of evidence for predicting site-specific ecological effects. Human Ecol Risk Asess 6: 679–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hough RL (2014) Biodiversity and human health: evidence for causality? Biodivers Conserv 23:267–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kennedy CJ, Cheong SM (2013) Lost ecosystem services as a measure of oil spill damages: a conceptual analysis of the importance of baselines. J Environ Manage doi: 10.1016/j.envman.2013.04.035 Epub
  48. Knick ST, Dobkin DS, Rotenberry JT, Schroeder MA, Vander Haegen WM, van Riper III C (2003) Teetering on the edge or too late? Conservation and research issues for avifauna of sagebrush habitats. Condor 105:611–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Knox JH (2002) The myth and reality of transboundary environmental impact assessment. Am J Intern Law 96:291–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kyne D, Bolin B (2016) Emerging environmental justice issues in nuclear power and radioactive contamination. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13:700–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lamb EG, Bayne E, Holloway G, Schieck J, Boutin S, Herbers J, Haughland DL (2009) Indices for monitoring biodiversity change: Are some more effective than others? Ecol Indic 9:432–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Leitao AB, Ahern J (2002) Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landscape Urban Plan 59:65–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lemming G, Friis-Hansen P, Bjerg PL (2010) Risk-based economic decision analysis of remediation options at a PCE-contaminated site. J Environ Manag 91:1169–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lemming G, Chambon JC, Binning PJ, Bjerg PL (2012) Is there an environmental benefit from remediation of a contaminated site? Combined assessments of the risk reduction and life cycle impact of remediation. J Environ Manag 112:392–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mascarenhas A, Coelho P, Subtil E, Ramos TB (2010) The role of common local indicators in regional sustainability assessment. Ecol Indicat 10:646–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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 U.S. Department of Energy sites. DOE/EH-0534. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA. http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/29/015/29015260.pdf. Accessed 11 Feb 2016
  57. Mouquet N, Lagadeuc Y, Devictor V, Doyen L, Duputie A, Eveillard D, Faure D, Garnier E, Gimenez O, Huneman P, Jabot F (2015) Review: predictive ecology in a changing world. J Appl Ecol 52:1293–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Müller F, Lenz R (2006) Ecological indicators: theoretical fundamentals of consistent applications in environmental management. Ecol Indicat 6:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. National Research Council (NRC) (1993) Issues in risk assessment. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  60. National Research Council (NRC) (1995) Improving the environment: An evaluation of DOE’s environmental management program. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  61. National Research Council (NRC) (2000) Long-term institutional management of US Department of Energy legacy waste sites. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  62. Nez Perce Tribe (2003) Treaties: Nez Perce perspectives. US DOE and Confluence Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  63. Niemeijer D, de Groot RS (2008) A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets. Ecol Indicat 8:14–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Nuissl H, Haase D, Lanzendorf M (2009) Environmental impact assessment of urban land use transitions—a context-sensitive approach. Land Use Pol 26:414–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Paavola J, Hubacek K (2013) Ecosystem services, governance, and stakeholder participation: an introduction. Ecol Soc 18:42–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Prach K (2004) The restoration and management of derelict land: modern approaches. Restor Ecol 12:310–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sample BE, Lower J, Seeley P, Markin M, McCarthy C, Hansen J, Aly AH (2015) Depth of the biologically active zone in upland habitats at the hanford Site, Washington: implication for remediation and ecological risk. Integr Environ Assess Manag 11:150–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sandifer PA, Sutton-Grier AE, Ward BP (2015) Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosyst Serv 12:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sharma S, Singh B, Manchanda VK (2015) Phytoremediation: role of terrestrial plants and aquatic macrophytes in the remediation of radionuclides and heavy metal contaminated soil and water. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 22:946–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sorvari H, Seppala JA (2010) Decision support tool to prioritize risk management for contaminated sites. Sci Tot Environ 408:1786–1799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Suter II GW, Cornaby BW, Hadden CT, Hull RN, Stack M, Zafran FA (1995) An approach for balancing health and ecological risks at hazardous waste sites. Risk Analysis 15:221–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Thijs S, Sillen W, Weyens N, Vangronsveld J (2016) Phytoremediation: state-of-the-art and a key role for the plant microbiome in future trends and research prospects. Int J Phytoremediation doi: 10.1080/15226514.2016.1216076
  73. Turnhout E, Hisschemöller M, Eijsackers H (2007) Ecological indicators: between the two fires of science and policy. Ecol Indicat 7:215–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. United States Environmental Protection Agency-Science Advisory Board (USEPASAB) (2002) A framework for assessing and reporting on ecological condition: An SAB report. EPA Science Advisory Board, Washington, DC, EPA-SAB-EPEC-02-009Google Scholar
  75. 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 2016
  76. Varley A, Tyler A, Smith L, Dale P, Davies M (2015) Remediating radium contaminated legacy sites: advances made through machine learning in routine monitoring of “hot” particles. Sci Total Environ 521:270–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) (2008) Washington state priority habitats and species list. Olympia, WA. p 174. http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/. Accessed 16 Feb 2016
  78. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) (2014) Species of concern in Washington. http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/. Accessed 16 Feb 2016
  79. Washington Noxious Weed Control Board (WNWCB) (2014) Noxious weed List. http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/. Accessed 16 Feb 2016
  80. Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WSDNR) (2014) Washington natural heritage program plant ranks. http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/lists/plantrnk.html. Accessed 16 Feb 2016
  81. Whitmee S, Haines A, Beyrer C, Boltz F, Capon AG, de Souza Dias BF, Ezeh A, Frumkin H, Gong P, Head P, Horton R (2015) Safeguarding human health in the anthropocene epoch: report of The rockefeller foundation–Lancet Commission on planetary health. Lancet 10007:1973–2028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wolf KL, Blahna DJ, Brinkley W, Romolini M (2013) Environmental stewardship footprint research: linking human agency and ecosystem health in the Puget Sound region. Urban Ecosyst 16:13–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joanna Burger
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michael Gochfeld
    • 2
    • 3
  • Amoret Bunn
    • 4
  • Janelle Downs
    • 4
  • Christian Jeitner
    • 1
    • 2
  • Taryn Pittfield
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jennifer Salisbury
    • 2
  • David Kosson
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Life SciencesRutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA
  2. 2.Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP)Vanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  3. 3.Rutgers, robert Wood Johnson Medical SchoolPiscatawayUSA
  4. 4.Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryRichlandUSA

Personalised recommendations