SADA: Ecological Risk Based Decision Support System for Selective Remediation

  • S. Thomas Purucker
  • Robert N. Stewart
  • Chris J.E. Welsh
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

Spatial Analysis and Decision Assistance (SADA) is freeware that implements terrestrial + criteria were applied to determine a spatially explicit remedial design that reduced shrew exposures to protective levels.

Keywords

Geographical Information System Decision Support System Ecological Risk Ordinary Kriging Ecological Risk Assessment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Comments from Lou Gross, Tom Hallam, Suzanne Lenhart, Gary McCracken, Fran Rauschenberg, and Robert Swank improved the manuscript. This chapter has been reviewed in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s peer and administrative review policies and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

References

  1. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1989. Toxicological profile for selected PCBs (Aroclor 1260, 1254, 1248, 1242, 1232, 1221 and 1016), Atlanta, Georgia, ATDSR/TP-88/21.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, M.C., Thompson, B., Boykin, K., 2004. Spatial risk assessment across large landscapes with varied land use: lessons from a conservation assessment of military lands. Risk Analysis, 24(5):1231–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aulerich, R.J., Ringer, R.K., 1977. Current status of PCB toxicity to mink, and effect on their reproduction. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 6:279–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barron, M.G., Wharton, S.R., 2005. Survey of methodologies for developing media screening values for ecological risk assessment. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 1(4):320–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blacker, S.B., Goodman, D., 1994. Case study: application at a Superfund cleanup. Environmental Science and Technology, 28(11):471A–477A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradbury, S.P., Feijtel, T.C.J., van Leeuwen, C.J., 2004. Meeting the needs of ecological risk assessment in a regulatory context. Environmental Science and Technology, 38:463A–470A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brakewood, L.H., Grasso, D., 2000. Floating spatial domain averaging in surface soil remediation. Environmental Science and Technology, 34:3837–3842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carpenter, S.R., DeFries, R., Dietz, T., Mooney, H.A., Polasky, S., Reid, W.V., Scholes, R.J., 2006. Millennium ecosystem assessment: research needs. Science, 314:257–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chow, T.E., Gaines, K.F., Hodgson, M.E., Wilson, M.D., 2005. Habitat and exposure modeling for ecological risk assessment: A case study for the raccoon on the Savannah River Site. Ecological Modelling, 189:151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crommentuijn, T., Sijm, D., de Bruijn, J., van Leeuwen, K., de Plassche, E., 2000a. Maximum permissible and negligible concentrations for some organic substances and pesticides. Journal of Environmental Management, 58:297–312.Google Scholar
  11. Crommentuijn, T., Sijm, D., de Bruijn, J., van Leeuwen, K., de Plassche, E., 2000b. Maximum permissible and negligible concentrations for metals and metalloids in the Netherlands, taking into account background concentrations. Journal of Environmental Management, 60:121–143.Google Scholar
  12. Dearfield, K.L., Bender, E.S., Kravitz, M., Wentsel, R., Slimak, M.W., Farland, W.H., Gilman, P., 2005. Ecological risk assessment issues identified during the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s examination of risk assessment practices. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 1(1):73–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeMott, R.P., Balaraman, A., Sorensen, M.T., 2005. The future direction of ecological risk assessment in the United States: Reflecting on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “Examination of Risk Assessment Practices and Principles.” Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 1(1):77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Efroymson, R.A., Will, M.E., Suter, G.W., Wooten, A.C., 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-85/R3.Google Scholar
  15. Efroymson, R.A., Will, M.E., Suter, G.W., 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Processes: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-126/R2.Google Scholar
  16. Eisler, R., 1986. Polychlorinated Biphenyl Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Biological Report 85 (1.7).Google Scholar
  17. Goovaerts, P., 1997. Geostatistics for Natural Resource Evaluation. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Gotway, C., 1991. Fitting semi-variogram models by weighted least squares. Computers and Geosciences, 17(1):171–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Halbrook, R.S., Aulerich, R.J., Bursian, S.J., Lewis, L., 1999. Ecological risk assessment in a large river-reservoir: 8. Experimental study of the effects of polychlorinated biphenyls on reproductive success in mink. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 18:649–654.Google Scholar
  20. Hope, B.K., 2000. Generating probabilistic spatially-explicit individual and population exposure estimates for ecological risk assessments. Risk Analysis, 20:573–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hope, B.K., 2001. A case study comparing static and spatially explicit ecological exposure analysis models. Risk Analysis, 21(6):1001–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kelly, B.C., Ikonomou, M.G., Blair, J.D., Morin, A.E., Gobas, F.A.P.C., 2007. Food web-specific biomagnifications of persistent organic pollutants. Science, 317:236–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Landis, W., McLaughlin, J., 2000. Design criteria and derivation of indicators for ecological position, direction, and risk. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 19(4):1059–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Legendre, P., Legendre, L., 1998. Numerical Ecology. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  25. Mackay, D., 1982. Correlation of bioconcentration factors. Environmental Science and Technology, 16:274–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miller, H., Getz, L.L., 1977. Factors influencing local distribution and species diversity of forest small mammals in New England. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 55:806–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Prokop, G., Schamann, M., Edelgaard, I., 2000. Management of contaminated sites in Western Europe. Europe Environment Agency, Topic Report No. 13.Google Scholar
  28. Purucker, S.T, Welsh, C.J.E., Stewart, R.N., Starzec, P., 2007. Use of habitat-contamination spatial correlation to determine when to perform a spatially explicit ecological risk assessment. Ecological Modelling, 204(1–2):180–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Purucker, S.T., Stewart, R.N., Wulff, J., 2008. A spatial decision support system for efficient environmental assessment and remediation. In: Madden, M. & Allen, E. (eds.), Landscape Analysis Using Spatial Tools. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  30. Ringer, R.K., Aulerich, R.J., Blevins, M.R., 1981. Biologic and toxic effects of PCBs and PBBs on mink and ferret- a review. In: Khan, M.A.Q. & Stomton, R.M.H. (eds.), Toxicology of Halogenated Hydrocarbons: 329–343. Pergamon, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  31. Sample, B.E., Opresko, D.M., Suter, G.W., 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ES/ER/TM-86/R3, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stewart, R.N., Purucker, S.T., Powers, G.E., 2007. SADA: A Freeware Decision Support Tool Integrating GIS, Sample Design, Spatial Modeling, and Risk Assessment. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Environmental Software Systems, Prague, Czech Republic.Google Scholar
  33. Suter, G.W. II, 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  34. Suter, G.W. II, Vermeire, T., Munns, W.R. Jr., Sekizawa, J., 2003. Framework for the integration of heath and ecological risk. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 9(1):281–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Swartjes, F.A., 1999. Risk-based assessment of soil and groundwater quality in the Netherlands: standards and remediation urgency. Risk Analysis, 19(6):1235–1249.Google Scholar
  36. Tannenbaum, L.V., Johnson, M.S., Bazar, M., 2003. Application of the hazard quotient method in remedial decisions: A comparison of human and ecological risk assessments. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 9(1):387–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Polychlorinated Biphenyls. Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Office of Research and Development. Carcinogen Assessment Group. Environmental Research Laboratories. EPA/440/5-80-068.Google Scholar
  38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1992. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington DC. EPA/630/R-92/001.Google Scholar
  39. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-93/187a.Google Scholar
  40. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1997. Ecological risk assessment guidance for superfund: process for designing and conducting ecological risk assessments – interim final. EPA 540-R-97-006, OSWER 9285.7-25.Google Scholar
  41. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA 630/R-95/002F.Google Scholar
  42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1999. Ecological screening levels for RCRA Appendix IX hazardous constituents. Washington DC, Region V. Work draft, August 22, 2003 update.Google Scholar
  43. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2001a. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins, Ecological Risk Assessment. Originally published: EPA Region IV. 1995. Ecological Risk Assessment Bulletin No. 2: Ecological Screening Values. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, Waste Management Division, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  44. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2001b. The role of screening-level risk assessments and refining contaminants of concern in baseline ecological risk assessments. ECO Update. Washington DC, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA 540/F-01/014.Google Scholar
  45. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2002. Guidance on Choosing a Sampling Design for Environmental Data Collection. Office of Environmental Information, Washington, DC. EPA QA/G-5S.Google Scholar
  46. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2003. Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-55. November 2003.Google Scholar
  47. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2006. Data Quality Assessment: A Reviewer’s Guide. Office of Environmental Information, Washington, DC. EPA QA/G-9R.Google Scholar
  48. U.S. Office of Technology Assessment (USOTA), 1985. Superfund Strategy. Washington, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, DC. OTA-ITE-252.Google Scholar
  49. Wang, D., Buchanan, N., Berry, M.W., Carr, E., Comiskey, J.E., Gross, L.J., Shaw, S.-L., 2006. A GIS-enabled distribution simulation framework for high-performance ecosystem modeling. Proceedings of the ESRI International User Conference, August 11–15, 2006.Google Scholar
  50. Wind, T., 2004. Prognosis of environmental concentrations by geo-referenced and generic models: a comparison of GREAT-ER and EUSES exposure simulations for some consumer product ingredients in the Itter. Chemosphere, 54:1145–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wren, C.D., Hunter, D.B., Leatherland, J.F., Stoakes, P.F., 1987. The effects of polychlorinated biphenyls and methylmercury, singularly and in combination on mink. II: reproduction and kit development. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 16:449–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Thomas Purucker
    • 1
  • Robert N. Stewart
  • Chris J.E. Welsh
  1. 1.U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations