Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Notes

  1. Biological survey data for the Hanford Site for 1999-2011 is archived in PNNL’s Environmental Compliance Assessment Project database and was queried to retrieve any applicable survey data for the EU and surrounding buffer area. Mission Support Alliance provided more recent Hanford biological survey data.

References

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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 14:73–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • Brown KS (1998) The great DOE land rush. Science 282:616–617

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Burger J (2000) Integrating environmental restoration and ecological restoration: long-term stewardship at the department of Energy. Environ Manage 26:469–478

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger J (2007) A framework for analysis of contamination on human and ecological receptors at DOE hazardous waste site buffer lands. Remediation J 17:71–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Burger J (2011) Stakeholders and scientists: achieving Implementable Solutions to Energy and Environmental Issues. Springer, New York, NY

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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. 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • 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:S64–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger J, Carletta MA, Lowrie K, Miller KT, Greenberg (2004) Assessing ecological resources for remediation and future land uses on contaminated lands. Environ Manage 34:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 28:1261–1272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 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 172:121–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 23:123–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 2015

  • Cairns Jr J, Niederlehner BR (1992) Predicting ecosystem risk: genesis and future needs. Predict Ecosys Risk 1:327–343

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 184:45–56

  • Corcoran J, Nichols-Casebolt A (2004) Risk and resilience ecological framework for assessment and goal formulation. Child Adol Soc Work J 21:211–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 387:253–260

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 26:152–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowley KD, Ahearn JF (2002) Managing the environmental legacy of U.S. nuclear-weapons production. Amer Sci 90:514–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dale VH, Parr PD (1998) Preserving DOE’s research parks. Issues Sci Technol 14:73–77

    Google Scholar 

  • De Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RM (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 2016

  • Department of Energy (DOE) (1994a) Stewards of a national resources. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Energy (DOE) (1994b) National environmental research parks. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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, WA

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, WA

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Energy (DOE) (2002) A review of the environmental management program. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Department of Energy (DOE) (2013b) Hanford natural resource damage assessment: injury assessment plan. DOE, Richland, WA

  • 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-702

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.18

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • European Environment Agency (EEA) (2003) Environmental Indicators: Typology and Use in Reporting, EEA; Copenhagen, p 20

  • Flanagan CA, Byington R, Gallay E, Sambo A (2016) Chapter seven- Social justice and the environmental commons. Adv Child Dev Behav 51:203–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwick A (2013) Introduction to environmental impact assessment. Taylor and Francis, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gochfeld M, Burger J (2011) Disproportionate exposures in environmental justice and other populations: the importance of outliers. Amer J Public Health 101:S53–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 2015

  • Goodsell PJ, Underwood AJ, Chapman MG (2009) Evidence necessary for taxa to be reliable indicators of environmental conditions or impacts. Mar Poll Bull 58:323–331

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg M, Lowrie K (2002) External stakeholders’ influence on the DOE’s long-term stewardship programs. Fed Facil Environ J 13:108–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall Jr L, Giddings JM (2000) The need for multiple lines of evidence for predicting site-specific ecological effects. Human Ecol Risk Asess 6: 679–710

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hough RL (2014) Biodiversity and human health: evidence for causality? Biodivers Conserv 23:267–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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 105:611–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knox JH (2002) The myth and reality of transboundary environmental impact assessment. Am J Intern Law 96:291–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyne D, Bolin B (2016) Emerging environmental justice issues in nuclear power and radioactive contamination. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13:700–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 9:432–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leitao AB, Ahern J (2002) Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landscape Urban Plan 59:65–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemming G, Friis-Hansen P, Bjerg PL (2010) Risk-based economic decision analysis of remediation options at a PCE-contaminated site. J Environ Manag 91:1169–1182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 112:392–403

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mascarenhas A, Coelho P, Subtil E, Ramos TB (2010) The role of common local indicators in regional sustainability assessment. Ecol Indicat 10:646–656

    Article  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 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

  • 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 52:1293–1310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller F, Lenz R (2006) Ecological indicators: theoretical fundamentals of consistent applications in environmental management. Ecol Indicat 6:1–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC) (1993) Issues in risk assessment. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemeijer D, de Groot RS (2008) A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets. Ecol Indicat 8:14–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuissl H, Haase D, Lanzendorf M (2009) Environmental impact assessment of urban land use transitions—a context-sensitive approach. Land Use Pol 26:414–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paavola J, Hubacek K (2013) Ecosystem services, governance, and stakeholder participation: an introduction. Ecol Soc 18:42–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prach K (2004) The restoration and management of derelict land: modern approaches. Restor Ecol 12:310–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 11:150–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 12:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 22:946–962

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sorvari H, Seppala JA (2010) Decision support tool to prioritize risk management for contaminated sites. Sci Tot Environ 408:1786–1799

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 15:221–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Turnhout E, Hisschemöller M, Eijsackers H (2007) Ecological indicators: between the two fires of science and policy. Ecol Indicat 7:215–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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-02-009

    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 2016

  • 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 521:270–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) (2014) Species of concern in Washington. http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/. Accessed 16 Feb 2016

  • Washington Noxious Weed Control Board (WNWCB) (2014) Noxious weed List. http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/. Accessed 16 Feb 2016

  • 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

  • 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 10007:1973–2028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 16:13–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Life Sciences, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, 08854-8082, USA

    Joanna Burger, Christian Jeitner & Taryn Pittfield

  2. Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP), Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, 37235, USA

    Joanna Burger, Michael Gochfeld, Christian Jeitner, Taryn Pittfield, Jennifer Salisbury & David Kosson

  3. Rutgers, robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA

    Michael Gochfeld

  4. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, 99354, USA

    Amoret Bunn & Janelle Downs

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. Amoret Bunn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Janelle Downs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christian Jeitner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Taryn Pittfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jennifer Salisbury
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. David Kosson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joanna Burger.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

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., Bunn, A. et al. A Methodology to Evaluate Ecological Resources and Risk Using Two Case Studies at the Department of Energy’s Hanford Site. Environmental Management 59, 357–372 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0798-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0798-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation