Abstract
Management of contaminated sediments in coastal and inland waterways poses many complex technical and social issues that must be addressed by multiple stakeholders. These stakeholders are guided by conflicting sets of values, regulatory constraints, and management goals, and have imperfect information on which to base decisions. The environmental quality of coastal and inland waters is usually affected by multiple stressors in addition to the sediment contamination at issue, and navigating these dynamics can be aided when decision makers and stakeholders have a shared vision of goals and a path forward to achieving them. The management process necessarily involves making a variety of decisions of varying complexity, with varying levels of importance to affected stakeholders. That process can benefit from using a systematic decision support system (DSS) to develop management goals, consider alternatives, understand their associated risks, and include the participation of various specialists such as environmental scientists, policy makers, economists, the businesses community, cultural experts, and public interest groups. This chapter summarizes recent developments in quantitative DSSs, both informal and formal, in the context of contaminated sediments in coastal environments, and provides insight into the benefits of incorporating DSS into sediment management.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
(see for example http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/cs/pubs.htm).
- 2.
 U.S. EPA (2005) notes that Highlight 7-2 is intended as a general tool for project managers as they look more closely at particular approaches when most of these characteristics are present. Project managers should note that these characteristics are not requirements. It is important to remain flexible when evaluating sediment alternatives and when considering approaches that at first may not appear the most appropriate for a given environment. When an approach is selected for a site that has one or more characteristics or conditions that appear problematic, additional engineering or in-situ caps (ICs) may be available to enhance the remedy.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
(http://www.osti.gov/ bridge/servlets/purl/6263513-x0b8ug/6263513.PDF).
- 6.
- 7.
References
Beem B (2006) Planning to learn: Blue crab policymaking in the Chesapeake Bay. Coast Manage 34(2):167–182
Belton V, Stewart TJ (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: An integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston
Bergquist G, Bergquist C (1999) Post decision assessment. In: Tools to Aid Environmental Decision Making, Dale VH, English MR (eds), Springer, Berlin
Chesapeake Bay Agreement (1983) http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/1983ChesapeakeBayAgreement.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program (2004) Analytical segmentation scheme. Revisions, decisions and rationales 1983–2003. October 2004. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/segmentscheme.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Health and Restoration Assessment (2007) file:/// C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/slaw/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/29PZGZS9/Bay%2520Restoration%2520Effort%2520Indicators%5B1%5D.ppt#388,1,Chesapeake Bay 2006 Health and Restoration Assessment, Part Two: Restoration Efforts, April
Corps (2003) USACE environmental operating principles and implementation guidance. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/CEPA/7%20Environ%20Prin%20web%20site/Page1.html
Corps (2004) River basins and coastal systems planning within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: methods of analysis and peer review for water resources planning. National Research Council
Cura JJ, Bridges TS, McArdle ME (2004) Comparative risk assessment methods and their applicability to dredged material management decision-making. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 10(3):485–503
DOE (1998) Guidelines for risk-based prioritization of DOE activities. DOE-DP-STD-3023-98. U.S. Department of Energy
Driscoll SBK, Wickwire WT, Cura JJ, Vorhees DJ, Butler CL, Moore DW, Bridges TS (2002) A comparative screening-level ecological and human health risk assessment for dredged material management alternatives in New York/New Jersey Harbor. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 8(3):603–626
Efroymson RA, Nicolette JP, Suter II GW (2003) A framework for net environmental benefit analysis for remediation or restoration of petroleum-contaminated sites. ORNL/TM-2003/17. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Environmental Sciences Division
Gerlak AK, Heikkila T (2006) Comparing collaborative mechanisms in large-scale ecosystem governance. Nat Res J Summer 46: 657–707
GLDT (1999) Decision making process for dredged material management. Great Lakes Dredging Team, http://www.glc.org/dredging/dmm/decision.pdf
Gregory RS, Keeney RL (2002) Making smarter environmental management decisions. J Am Wat Res Assoc 38(6):1601–1612
Horinko M (2002) Principles for managing contaminated sediment risks at hazardous waste sites. OSWER Directive 9285.6-08. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Jenni KE, Merkhofer MW, Williams C (1995) The rise and fall of risk-based priority system: lessons from DOE’s environmental restoration priority system. Risk Anal 15(3):397–410
Kiker GA, Bridges TS, Varghese A, Seager TP, Linkov I (2005) Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integ Environ Assess Manage 1(2):95–108
Kiker GA, Linkov I, Bridges TS (2007) Integrating comparative risk assessment and multi-criteria decision analysis. Working through wicked problems and their impossible solutions, pp. 37–51, In: Environmental Security in Harbors and Coastal Areas, Linkov I, et al. (eds), Springer
Landis WG, Duncan B, Hart Hayes E, Markiewicz AJ, Thomas JF (2004) A regional retrospective assessment of the potential stressors causing the decline of the Cherry Point Pacific Herring run. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 10:271–297
Landis WG, Weigers J (2005) Chapter 2: Introduction to the regional risk assessment using the relative risk model. In: Regional Scale Ecological Risk Assessment Using the Relative Risk Model, Landis WG (ed), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL
Linkov I, Burmistrov D, Cura J, Bridges TS (2002) Risk-based management of contaminated sediments: Consideration of spatial and temporal patterns in exposure modeling. Environ Sci Technol 36:238–246
Linkov I, Varghese A, Jamil S, Seager TP, Kiker G, Bridges T (2004) Multi-criteria decision analysis: A framework for structuring remedial decisions at contaminated sites, pp. 15–24. In: Comparative Risk Assessment and Environmental Decision Making, Livov I, Ramadan A (eds), Kluwer
Linkov I, Sahay S, Kiker G, Bridges T, Seager TP (2005) Multi-criteria decision analysis: A framework for managing contaminated sediments, pp. 271–297, In: Strategic Management of Marine Ecosystems, Levner E, et al. (eds), Springer
Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Kiker G, Batchelor C, Bridges T, Ferguson E (2006) From comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: Recent developments and applications. Environ Int 32:1072–1093
Luxon M, Landis WG (eds) (2005) Application of the relative risk model to the upper Willamette River and lower McKenzie River, Oregon, In: Regional Scale Ecological Risk Assessment Using The Relative Risk Model, CRC Press, Boca Raton
Mendoza GA, Martins H (2006) Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: A critical review of methods and new modeling paradigms. Forest Ecol Manage 230:1–22
Menzie CA, MacDonell MM, Mumtaz M (2007) A phased approach for assessing combined effects from multiple stressors. Environ Health Perspect 115(5):807–816
Morares R, Landis WG, Molander S (2002) Regional risk assessment of a Brazilian rain forest reserve. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 8(7):1779–1803
NRC (1997) Contaminated sediments in ports and waterways. National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC
NRC (1999) New directions in water resources planning for the U.S. Army. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Nicolette JP, Hutcheson K (2004) Use of a net environmental benefits analysis (NEBA) approach for remedial decision making at two BRAC sites. CH2M Hill and Marstel-Day Associates. Presentation at the 30th Environmental and Energy Symposium & Exhibition 5–8 April 2004, San Diego, CA, http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004enviro/ 2004enviro.html
NRC (2001) A risk-management strategy for PCB-contaminated sediments. National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC
NRC (2007) Sediment dredging at Superfund megasites: Assessing the effectiveness. National Research Council, Committee on Sediment Dredging at Superfund Megasites. National Academy of Sciences
Ohlson DW, Serveiss VB (2007) The integration of ecological risk assessment and structured decision making into watershed management. Integr Environ Assess Manage 3(1):118–128
Palermo M, Clausner J, Channel M, Averett D (2000) Multiuser disposal sites (MUDS) for contaminated sediments from Puget Sound-subaqueous capping and confined disposal alternatives. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS
Stahl CH (2003) Multi-criteria integrated resource assessment (MIRA): A new decision analytic approach to inform environmental policy analysis. Vol. 1. Dissertation
Stahl CH, Cimorelli AJ, Chow AH (2002) A new approach to environmental decision analysis: Multi-criteria integrated resource assessment (MIRA). Bull Sci Technol Soc 22(6):443–459
Stahl R (2008) Personal communication concerning the Dupont evaluation of ecological stressors in the Delaware River Estuary. DuPont Corporate Remediation Group, Wilmington, DE
Tetra Tech Inc. (1986) Framework for comparative risk analysis of dredged material disposal options. TC3090-02. Prepared for Puget Sound Disposal Analysis, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, WA
USEPA (1987) Unfinished business: A comparative assessment of environmental problems. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy Analysis, Washington, DC
USEPA (1993) A guidebook to comparing risks and setting environmental priorities. EPA 230-B-93-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, Washington, DC
USEPA (1998) EPA’s contaminated sediment management strategy. EPA-823-R-98-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
USEPA (2000) Toward integrated environmental decision-making. EPA-SAB-EC-10-011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board, Washington, DC
USEPA (2005) Contaminated sediment remediation guidance for hazardous waste sites. EPA-540-R-05-012, OSWER 9355.0-85. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Versar and Exponent (2008) Ecological risk assessment related to alternatives for restoration of oysters in Chesapeake Bay. Versar, Inc., Columbia, MD, and Exponent, Inc., Bellevue, WA
Yatsalo BI, Kiker GA, Kim J, Bridges TS, Seager TP, Gardner K, Satterstrom FK, Linkov I (2007) Application of multicriteria decision analysis tools to two contaminated sediment case studies. Integr Environ Assess Manage 3(2):223–233
Yoe C (2002) Trade-off analysis planning and procedures guidebook. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Menzie, C.A., Booth, P., Law, S.A., von Stackelberg, K. (2009). Use of Decision Support Systems to Address Contaminated Coastal Sediments: Experience in the United States. In: Marcomini, A., Suter II, G., Critto, A. (eds) Decision Support Systems for Risk-Based Management of Contaminated Sites. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09722-0_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09722-0_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-09721-3
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-09722-0
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)