Defining an ecological baseline for restoration and natural resource damage assessment of contaminated sites: The case of the Department of Energy

Retrospective ecological risk assessment, restoration, natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) and managing ecosystems all require having a baseline. This policy and practice paper explores the factors that influence baseline selection, and it is suggested that ecological resources would best be served by: (1) integrating NRDA considerations into both future land-use planning and remediation/restoration; (2) selecting a baseline for NRDA that approximates the land-use conditions at the time of occupation (or a preferred ecosystem); and (3) integrating both the positive and negative aspects of industrial occupation into restoration decisions, baseline selection and NRDA. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), natural resource damages are assessed for injuries incurred since 1980 due to releases, but the release itself may have occurred before 1980. The paper uses the Department of Energy as a case study to examine NRDA and the management of ecosystems. Releases occurred at many DOE sites from the 1950s to the 1980s during nuclear bomb production. It is suggested that the DOE has been responsible not only for injuries to natural resources that occurred as a result of releases, but for significant ecosystem recovery since DOE occupation, because some lands were previously farmed or industrialized. Natural resource injuries due to releases occurred simultaneously with ecosystem recovery that resulted from DOE occupation. While the 1980 date is codified in CERCLA law as the time after which damages can be assessed, baseline can be defined as the conditions the natural resources would have been in today, but for the release of the hazardous substance. It is also suggested that NRDA considerations should be incorporated into the remediation and restoration process at DOE sites, thereby negating the need for formal NRDA following restoration, and reducing the final NRDA costs.     

Cancer atlases: Uses and limitations

Summary Atlases of cancer mortality have recently appeared in many nations. This paper cautions environmental professionals against using them to draw cause-and-effect conclusions because of limitations of the map as a conveyor of information, and limitations of the data used in cancer atlases. Appropriate uses include, finding clues for detailed epidemiological and environmental research, places with poor data, regions requiring special equipment and personnel, and as tools for persuading the public to be less fatalistic about cancer and more supportive of public health protection and education programs.Dr Michael Greenberg is both Professor of the School of Urban and Regional Policy, and Acting Director of the Graduate Program in Public Health, at the University of Medicine and Dentistry and Rutgers University.     

Choosing remediation and waste management options at hazardous and radioactive waste sites

This article discusses a process for finding insights that will allow federal agencies and environmental professionals to more effectively manage contaminated sites. The process is built around what Etzioni (1968) called mixed‐scanning, that is, perpetually doing both comprehensive and detailed analyses and periodically re‐scanning for new circumstances that change the decision‐making environment. The article offers a checklist of 127 items, which is one part of the multiple‐stage scanning process. The checklist includes questions about technology; public, worker, and ecological health; economic cost and benefits; social impacts; and legal issues. While developed for a DOE high‐level radioactive waste application, the decision‐making framework and specific questions can be used for other large‐scale remediation and management projects. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Bird Populations in Shade and Sun Coffee Plantations in Central Guatemala

We studied the avifauna of sun and shade coffee plantations and associated mid-elevation habitats during the dry season of 1995. The three plantation types (Inga, Gliricidia, and sun) showed high faunistic similarities with each other and were both distinct and depauperate compared to matorral and forest patch habitats. Of all the coffee plantation habitats, Inga shade had the highest diversity. Species associated with wooded vegetation were more common in shade plantations, particularly in Inga. A second census showed a decline in bird numbers that was more pronounced in sun and Gliricidia than in Inga plantations. Overall, differences between the plantation types were small and all coffee plantations were less diverse than traditional coffee farms previously studied in nearby Chiapas, México. The relatively low bird diversity was probably due to the low stature, low tree species diversity, and heavy pruning of the canopy. These features reflect management practices that are common throughout Latin America. The most common species of birds in all coffee plantation habitats were common second-growth or edge species; more specialized forest species were almost completely absent from plantations. Furthermore, many common matorral species were rare or absent from coffee plantations, even sun plantations with which matorral shares a similar superficial structure. Coffee plantations probably will only be important for avian diversity if a tall, taxonomically and structurally diverse canopy is maintained. We suggest this is most likely to occur on farms that are managed for a variety of products rather than those designated entirely for the production of coffee.     

Local and interregional economic analysis of large US Department of Energy waste management projects

An economic simulation model was used to understand the local and interregional economic impacts of four alternative waste management technologies proposed for the US Department of Energy's Savannah River nuclear weapons site. The simulations of the four technologies, each of which will cost at least a billion dollars, were done for the period 2000-2015. The analyses show that differences in project costs are not directly reflected in local economic impacts because of differences among the technologies during the design, testing and construction phases; differences in locations where the design and pilot-testing would occur; and choices about how any of the technologies would be funded.