Risk to ecological resources following remediation can be due mainly to increased resource value of successful restoration: A case study from the Department of Energy's Hanford Site

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

doi:10.1016/j.envres.2020.109536

Title: Risk to ecological resources following remediation can be due mainly to increased resource value of successful restoration: A case study from the Department of Energy's Hanford Site

Journal Article · Wed Apr 15 00:00:00 EDT 2020 · Environmental Research

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109536· OSTI ID:1799598

Burger, Joanna ^[1]; Gochfeld, Michael ^[2]; Kosson, David S. ^[3]; Brown, Kevin G. ^[4]; Salisbury, Jennifer A. ^[4]; Jeitner, Christian ^[5]

Rutgers Univ., Piscataway, NJ (United States). Division of Life Sciences; Rutgers Univ., Piscataway, NJ (United States). Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute; Vanderbilt Univ., Nashville, TN (United States) and Rutgers Univ., Piscataway, NJ (United States). Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation
Rutgers Univ., Piscataway, NJ (United States). Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute; Vanderbilt Univ., Nashville, TN (United States) and Rutgers Univ., Piscataway, NJ (United States). Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation; Vanderbilt Univ., Nashville, TN (United States)
Vanderbilt Univ., Nashville, TN (United States) and Rutgers Univ., Piscataway, NJ (United States). Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation; Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ (United States); Vanderbilt Univ., Nashville, TN (United States)
Vanderbilt Univ., Nashville, TN (United States) and Rutgers Univ., Piscataway, NJ (United States). Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation; Vanderbilt Univ., Nashville, TN (United States)
Rutgers Univ., Piscataway, NJ (United States). Division of Life Sciences; Rutgers Univ., Piscataway, NJ (United States). Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute; Vanderbilt Univ., Nashville, TN (United States) and Rutgers Univ., Piscataway, NJ (United States). Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation

Several nations are faced with the need to remediate large contaminated sites following World War II, the Cold War, and abandoned industrial sites, and to return them to productive land uses. In the United States, the Department of Energy (DOE) has the largest cleanup challenge, and its Hanford Site in the state of Washington has the most extensive and most expensive cleanup task. Ideally, the risk to ecological resources on remediation sites is evaluated before, during, and after remediation, and the risk from, or damage to, ecological resources from contaminants should be lower following remediation. In this paper, we report the risk to ecological resources before, during, and as a consequence of remediation on contaminated units requiring cleanup, and then examine the causes for changes in risk by evaluating 56 cleanup evaluation units (EUs) at the Hanford Site. In this case, remediation includes a restoration phase. In general, the risk to ecological and eco-cultural resources is currently not discernible or low at most contaminated units, increases during remediation, and decreases thereafter. Remediation often causes physical disruption to ecosystems as it reduces the risk from exposure to contaminants. Most new remediation projects at the Hanford Site include ecological restoration. Ecological restoration results in the potential for the presence of higher quality resources after remediation than currently exists on these contaminated lands and facilities. Although counter-intuitive, our evaluation of the risk to ecological resources following remediation indicated that a significant percentage of units (61%) will be at increased risk in the post-remediation period. This increased risk is due to DOE's successful remediation and restoration that results in a higher percent of native vegetation and higher ecological value on the sites in the post-remediation period than before. These newly-created resources can then be at risk from post-remediation activities. Risks to these new higher quality resources include the potential for spread of invasive species and of noxious grasses used in previous cleanup actions, disruption of ecosystems (including those with state or federally listed species and unique ecosystems), compaction of soil, use of pesticides to control invasive species, and the eventual need for continued monitoring activities. Thus, by greatly improving the existing habitat and health of eco-receptors, and maintaining habitat corridors between high quality habitats, the ecological resources in the post-remediated units are at risk unless care is taken to protect them. Many of the negative effects of both remediation and future monitoring (or other future land uses) can be avoided by planning and management early in the remediation process. We suggest DOE and other agencies convene a panel of managers, remediation scientists, regulators, environmental and ecological scientists, Native Americans, economists, and the public to develop a generic list of performance metrics for the restoration phase of remediation, including evaluation of success, which could be applied across the DOE complex.

View Accepted Manuscript (DOE)

View Accepted Manuscript (Publisher)

Cite

Export

Save

Research Organization:: Vanderbilt Univ., Nashville, TN (United States)

Sponsoring Organization:: USDOE Office of Science (SC)

Grant/Contract Number:: FC01-06EW07053

OSTI ID:: 1799598

Alternate ID(s):: OSTI ID: 1616185

Journal Information:: Environmental Research, Vol. 186, Issue C; ISSN 0013-9351

Publisher:: ElsevierCopyright Statement

Country of Publication:: United States

Language:: English

Citation Metrics:

Cited by: 6 works

Citation information provided by
Web of Science

References (56)

Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Costanza, Robert; de Groot, Rudolf; Braat, Leon Ecosystem Services, Vol. 28 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008	journal	December 2017
On the relation between ecosystem services, intrinsic value, existence value and economic valuation Davidson, Marc D. Ecological Economics, Vol. 95 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.09.002	journal	November 2013
Ecological indicators: Between the two fires of science and policy Turnhout, Esther; Hisschemöller, Matthijs; Eijsackers, Herman Ecological Indicators, Vol. 7, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.12.003	journal	April 2007
Service providing units, existence values and the valuation of endangered species: A methodological test Kontogianni, A.; Tourkolias, C.; Machleras, A. Ecological Economics, Vol. 79 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.023	journal	July 2012
The role of common local indicators in regional sustainability assessment Mascarenhas, André; Coelho, Pedro; Subtil, Eduarda Ecological Indicators, Vol. 10, Issue 3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.11.003	journal	May 2010
A social-ecological systems approach for environmental management Virapongse, Arika; Brooks, Samantha; Metcalf, Elizabeth Covelli Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 178 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.02.028	journal	August 2016
Regional risk assessment for contaminated sites Part 2: Ranking of potentially contaminated sites Pizzol, Lisa; Critto, Andrea; Agostini, Paola Environment International, Vol. 37, Issue 8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2011.05.010	journal	November 2011
Measuring human disturbance using terrestrial invertebrates in the shrub–steppe of eastern Washington (USA) Kimberling, D.; Karr, J.; Fore, L. Ecological Indicators, Vol. 1, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-160X(01)00009-7	journal	December 2001
Changes in the global value of ecosystem services Costanza, Robert; de Groot, Rudolf; Sutton, Paul Global Environmental Change, Vol. 26 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002	journal	May 2014
An ecologically oriented database to guide remediation and reuse of contaminated sites Greenberg, Michael; Miller, K. Tyler; Lowrie, Karen Remediation Journal, Vol. 14, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.10095	journal	January 2003
A framework for establishing restoration goals for contaminated ecosystems Wagner, Anne M.; Larson, Diane L.; DalSoglio, Julie A. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, Vol. 12, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1709	journal	December 2015
Measuring ecological complexity Parrott, Lael Ecological Indicators, Vol. 10, Issue 6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.03.014	journal	November 2010
Connecting stressors, ocean ecosystem services, and human health: Connecting stressors, ocean ecosystem services, and human health Sandifer, Paul A.; Sutton-Grier, Ariana E. Natural Resources Forum, Vol. 38, Issue 3 https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12047	journal	June 2014
Response of Winter Birds to Soil Remediation along the Columbia River at the Hanford Site Becker, J. M.; McKinstry, C. A. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Vol. 93, Issue 1-3 https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EMAS.0000016801.38603.b3	journal	April 2004
Waste to energy – key element for sustainable waste management Brunner, Paul H.; Rechberger, Helmut Waste Management, Vol. 37 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.02.003	journal	March 2015
The costs of delaying remediation on human, ecological, and eco-cultural resources: Considerations for the Department of Energy: A methodological framework Burger, Joanna; Gochfeld, Michael; Kosson, David S. Science of The Total Environment, Vol. 649 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.232	journal	February 2019
Early decision framework for integrating sustainable risk management for complex remediation sites: Drivers, barriers, and performance metrics Harclerode, Melissa A.; Macbeth, Tamzen W.; Miller, Michael E. Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 184 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.087	journal	December 2016
Restoration Ecology: Repairing the Earth's Ecosystems in the New Millennium Hobbs, R. J.; Harris, J. A. Restoration Ecology, Vol. 9, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-100x.2001.009002239.x	journal	June 2001
An expert panel process to evaluate habitat restoration actions in the Columbia River estuary Krueger, Kirk L.; Bottom, Daniel L.; Hood, W. Gregory Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 188 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.028	journal	March 2017
Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values Chan, Kai M. A.; Satterfield, Terre; Goldstein, Joshua Ecological Economics, Vol. 74 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011	journal	February 2012
Integrating Environmental Restoration and Ecological Restoration: Long-Term Stewardship at the Department of Energy Burger, Joanna Environmental Management, Vol. 26, Issue 5 https://doi.org/10.1007/s002670010105	journal	November 2000
Functional remediation components: A conceptual method of evaluating the effects of remediation on risks to ecological receptors Burger, Joanna; Gochfeld, Michael; Bunn, Amoret Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, Vol. 79, Issue 21 https://doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2016.1201026	journal	August 2016
Risk valuation of ecological resources at contaminated deactivation and decommissioning facilities: methodology and a case study at the Department of Energy’s Hanford site Burger, Joanna; Gochfeld, Michael; Jeitner, Christian Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Vol. 190, Issue 8 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-6866-1	journal	July 2018
Coordinating ecological restoration options analysis and risk assessment to improve environmental outcomes Kapustka, Lawrence A.; Bowers, Keith; Isanhart, John Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, Vol. 12, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1673	journal	September 2015
Human health risk assessment in restoring safe and productive use of abandoned contaminated sites Wcisło, Eleonora; Bronder, Joachim; Bubak, Anicenta Environment International, Vol. 94 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.05.028	journal	September 2016
A Meta-Analytic Review of Corridor Effectiveness: Corridor Meta-Analysis Gilbert-Norton, Lynne; Wilson, Ryan; Stevens, John R. Conservation Biology, Vol. 24, Issue 3 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01450.x	journal	February 2010
Who Holds the Stakes? A Case Study of Stakeholder Identification at Two Nuclear Weapons Production Sites Boiko, Patricia E.; Morrill, Richard L.; Flynn, James Risk Analysis, Vol. 16, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00782.x	journal	April 1995
Inclusion of social indicators in decision support tools for the selection of sustainable site remediation options Cappuyns, Valérie Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 184 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.035	journal	December 2016
Effectiveness of shallow water habitat remediation for improving fish habitat in a large temperate river Fischer, Jason L.; Roseman, Edward F.; Mayer, Christine M. Ecological Engineering, Vol. 123 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.07.022	journal	November 2018
ECOLOGY:The Great DOE Land Rush? Brown, K. S. Science, Vol. 282, Issue 5389 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.282.5389.616	journal	October 1998
Public Participation and the Environment: Do We Know What Works? Chess, Caron; Purcell, Kristen Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 33, Issue 16 https://doi.org/10.1021/es980500g	journal	August 1999
Evaluation of ecological resources at operating facilities at contaminated sites: The Department of Energy's Hanford Site as a case study Burger, Joanna; Gochfeld, Michael; Kosson, David S. Environmental Research, Vol. 170 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.12.052	journal	March 2019
Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation Sandifer, Paul A.; Sutton-Grier, Ariana E.; Ward, Bethney P. Ecosystem Services, Vol. 12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.007	journal	April 2015
Issues in ecosystem valuation: improving information for decision making Bingham, Gail; Bishop, Richard; Brody, Michael Ecological Economics, Vol. 14, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(95)00021-Z	journal	August 1995
Ecotoxicological study of arsenic and lead contaminated soils in former orchards at the Hanford site, USA: Ecotoxicological Study of Contaminated Orchard Soils at Hanford Delistraty, Damon; Yokel, Jerry Environmental Toxicology, Vol. 29, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.1002/tox.20768	journal	September 2011
Sustainability: A new imperative in contaminated land remediation Hou, Deyi; Al-Tabbaa, Abir Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 39 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.02.003	journal	May 2014
A framework for sustainable invasive species management: Environmental, social, and economic objectives Larson, Diane L.; Phillips-Mao, Laura; Quiram, Gina Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 92, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.08.025	journal	January 2011
From science to action: Principles for undertaking environmental research that enables knowledge exchange and evidence-based decision-making Cvitanovic, C.; McDonald, J.; Hobday, A. J. Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 183 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.038	journal	December 2016
End-state land uses, sustainably protective systems, and risk management: A challenge for remediation and multigenerational stewardship Greenberg, Michael; Burger, Joanna; Gochfeld, Michael Remediation Journal, Vol. 16, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.20072	journal	January 2005
Risk assessment, remedial decisions and the challenge to protect public health: The perchlorate case study Baier-Anderson, Cal Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 567, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2006.02.047	journal	May 2006
A short history of waste management at the Hanford Site Gephart, Roy E. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, Vol. 35, Issue 6-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2010.03.032	journal	January 2010
Ecocultural Attributes: Evaluating Ecological Degradation in Terms of Ecological Goods and Services Versus Subsistence and Tribal Values Burger, Joanna; Gochfeld, Michael; Pletnikoff, Karen Risk Analysis, Vol. 28, Issue 5 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01093.x	journal	October 2008
The Need for Multiple Lines of Evidence for Predicting Site-Specific Ecological Effects Hall, Lenwood W.; Giddings, Jeffrey M. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, Vol. 6, Issue 4 https://doi.org/10.1080/10807030008951334	journal	June 2000
Landscape corridors can increase invasion by an exotic species and reduce diversity of native species Resasco, Julian; Haddad, Nick M.; Orrock, John L. Ecology, Vol. 95, Issue 8 https://doi.org/10.1890/14-0169.1	journal	August 2014
Ecological Information Needs for Environmental Justice: Ecological Information Needs for Environmental Justice Burger, Joanna; Harris, Stuart; Harper, Barbara Risk Analysis, Vol. 30, Issue 6 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01403.x	journal	April 2010
Using a hybrid LCA method to evaluate the sustainability of sediment remediation at the London Olympic Park Hou, Deyi; Al-Tabbaa, Abir; Guthrie, Peter Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 83 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.062	journal	November 2014
Integrated risk and recovery monitoring of ecosystem restorations on contaminated sites Hooper, Michael J.; Glomb, Stephen J.; Harper, David D. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, Vol. 12, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1731	journal	February 2016
Managing the Environmental Legacy of U.S. Nuclear-Weapons Production Crowley, Kevin; Ahearne, John American Scientist, Vol. 90, Issue 6 https://doi.org/10.1511/2002.6.514	journal	January 2002
Opportunities and challenges of integrating ecological restoration into assessment and management of contaminated ecosystems Hull, Ruth N.; Luoma, Samuel N.; Bayne, Bruce A. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, Vol. 12, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1714	journal	December 2015
Conceptual Framework for Assessing Ecosystem Health Harwell, Mark A.; Gentile, John H.; McKinney, Larry D. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, Vol. 15, Issue 4 https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4152	journal	June 2019
On Sustainability, Estuaries, and Ecosystem Restoration: The Art of the Practical Baird, R. C. Restoration Ecology, Vol. 13, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2005.00019.x	journal	March 2005
Prioritizing Urban Habitats for Connectivity Conservation: Integrating Centrality and Ecological Metrics Poodat, Fatemeh; Arrowsmith, Colin; Fraser, David Environmental Management, Vol. 56, Issue 3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0520-2	journal	April 2015
Downsizing US Department of Energy facilities: evaluating alternatives for the region surrounding the Savannah River nuclear weapons site region Greenberg, Michael; Frisch, Michael; Solitare, Laura Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 23, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7189(00)00002-1	journal	May 2000
Tissue radionuclide concentrations in water birds and upland birds on the Hanford Site (USA) from 1971–2009 Delistraty, Damon; Van Verst, Scott Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, Vol. 102, Issue 8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2011.03.016	journal	August 2011
Development of a site-specific ecological risk assessment for contaminated sites: Part I. A multi-criteria based system for the selection of ecotoxicological tests and ecological observations Critto, Andrea; Torresan, Silvia; Semenzin, Elena Science of The Total Environment, Vol. 379, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.02.035	journal	June 2007
A Methodology to Evaluate Ecological Resources and Risk Using Two Case Studies at the Department of Energy’s Hanford Site Burger, Joanna; Gochfeld, Michael; Bunn, Amoret Environmental Management, Vol. 59, Issue 3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0798-8	journal	November 2016

Similar Records

Risk to Ecological Resources on Burial Waste Sites on the Hanford Site, Washington - 20248

Conference · Wed Jul 01 00:00:00 EDT 2020 · OSTI ID:1799598

Burger, Joanna; Jeitner, Christian; Gochfeld, Michael; +3 more

Comparing Ecological Risk between D and D Facilities and Operating Facilities at the Hanford Site - 19531

Conference · Mon Jul 01 00:00:00 EDT 2019 · OSTI ID:1799598

Burger, Joanna; Gochfeld, Michael; Kosson, David; +5 more

Application of Field Evaluations of Ecological Resources at Hanford and Other DOE Sites for Consistency of Resource Protection and Sustainability - 16404

Conference · Fri Jul 01 00:00:00 EDT 2016 · OSTI ID:1799598

Burger, Joanna; Gochfeld, Michael; Bunn, Amoret; +4 more

Related Subjects

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Environmental Sciences & Ecology
Public
Environmental & Occupational Health
Remediation
Department of energy
Ecological resources
Ecological risk
Restoration
Hanford site

Title: Risk to ecological resources following remediation can be due mainly to increased resource value of successful restoration: A case study from the Department of Energy's Hanford Site

Citation Formats

References (56)

Similar Records

Related Subjects