Ecological Considerations for Evaluating Current Risk and Designing Long-Term Stewardship on Department of Energy Lands

Research in Social Problems and Public Policy

Volumn 13, Issue , 2006, Pages 139-162

  Burger, Joanna ^a   Tsipoura, Nellie ^a   Gochfeld, Michael ^a   Greenberg, Michael R ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750633354     PISSN: 01961152     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1016/S0196-1152(06)13006-9     Document Type: Review

References (65)

1. Aspinall R., and Pearson D. Integrated geographical assessment of environmental contamination in watch catchments: Linking landscape ecology, environmental modeling and GIS. Journal of Environmental Management 59 (2000) 299-319
2. Bartell S.M., Campbell K.R., and Burger J. Assessing ecological risks at U.S. Department of Energy facilities using methods borrowed from landscape ecology and habitat suitability analysis. II. Adapting Habitat Suitability Index models and landscape-scale ecological models for use in ecological risk assessment. International Journal of Environment and Pollution 2 (2002) 52-77
3. Brown K.S. The great DOE land rush?. Science 282 (1998) 616-617
4. Burger J. Method for and approaches to evaluating susceptibility of ecological systems to hazardous chemicals. Environmental Health Perspectives 105 (1997) 843-848
5. Burger J. American Indians, hunting and fishing rates, risk, and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Environmental Research 80 (1999) 317-329
6. Burger J. Recreation, consumption of wild game, risk, and the Department of Energy sites: Perceptions of people attending the Lewiston (Idaho) "Roundup". Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 56 (1999) 221-234
7. Burger J. Environmental monitoring on Department of Energy lands: The need for a holistic plan. Strategic Environmental Management 1 (1999) 351-367
8. Burger J. Contaminated Department of Energy facilities and ecosystems: Weighing the ecological risks. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 61 2 (2000) 141-154
9. Burger J. Recreation and risk around Los Alamos: Are Hispanics more at risk?. Journal of Toxicology of Environmental Health 61 (2000) 265-280
10. Burger J. A comparison of on-site hunters, sportsmen and the general public about recreational rates and future land use for the Savannah River Site. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43 (2000) 221-233
11. Burger J. Recreational rates and future land use preferences about Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46 (2003) 857-874
12. Burger J. Recreational rates and future land-use preferences about four Department of Energy sites: Consistency despite demographic and geographical differences. Environmental Research 95 2 (2004) 215-223
13. Burger J., Carletta M.A., Lowrie K., Miller K.T., and Greenberg M. Assessing ecological resources for remediation and future land uses on contaminated lands. Environmental Management 34 (2004) 1-10
14. Burger J., and Gochfeld M. On developing bioindicators for human and ecological health. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 66 (2001) 23-46
15. Burger J., and Gochfeld M. Bioindicators for assessing human and ecological health. In: Wiersma G.B. (Ed). Environmental monitoring (2004), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL 541-566
16. Burger J., Leschine T.M., Greenberg M., Karr J., Gochfeld M., and Powers C.W. Shifting priorities at the Department of Energy's bomb factories: Protecting human and ecological health. Environmental Management 31 (2003) 157-167
17. Burger J., Roush D., Ramos R., and Gochfeld M. Risk concerns, land use, stewardship, and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory: Attitudes of the Shoshone-Bannock and other American Indians. Environmental Research 83 (2000) 298-310
18. Burger J., Roush Jr. D.E., Sanchez J., Ondrof J., Ramos R., McMahon M.J., and Gochfeld M. Attitudes and perceptions about ecological resources, hazards, and future land use of people living near the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 60 (2000) 145-161
19. Burger J., Roush Jr. D.E., Wartenberg D., and Gochfeld M. Future land use and concerns about the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory: Perceptions and concerns of urban dwellers. Environmental Management 24 (1999) 541-551
20. Burger J., and Sanchez J. Perceptions of on-site hunters: Environmental concerns, future land use, and cleanup options at the Savannah River Site. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 56 (1999) 267-281
21. Burger J., Sanchez J., Gibbons J.W., and Gochfeld M. Risk perception, federal spending, and the Savannah River Site: Attitudes of hunters and fishermen. Risk Analysis 17 (1997) 313-320
22. Burger J., Sanchez J., Gibbons J.W., Ondrof J., Ramos R., McMahon M.J., Gaines K.F., Lord C., Fulmer M., and Gochfeld M. Attitudes and perceptions about ecological resources and hazards of people living around the Savannah River Site. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 57 (1999) 195-211
23. Cairns Jr. J. The genesis of biomonitoring in aquatic ecosystems. Environmental Professional 12 (1990) 169-176
24. Cairns Jr. J., and Niederlehner B.R. Predicting ecosystem risk: Genesis and future needs. In: Cairns Jr. J., Niederlehner B.R., and Orvos D.R. (Eds). Predicting ecosystem risk (1992), Princeton Scientific Publishing Co, Princeton, NJ 327-344
25. Cairns Jr. J., and Niederlehner B.R. Developing a field of landscape ecotoxicology. Ecological Application 6 (1996) 780-796
26. Carignan V., and Villard M.A. Selecting indicator species to monitor ecological integrity: A review. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 78 (2001) 45-61
27. Crowley K.D., and Ahearne J.F. Managing the environmental legacy of U.S. nuclear-weapons production. American Scientist 90 (2002) 514-523
28. Daisey J.M. A report on the workshop on improving exposure analysis for DOE sites, September, 1996, San Francisco, CA. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 8 (1998) 3-8
29. Dale V.H., and Parr P.D. Preserving DOE's research parks. Issues in Science and Technology 14 (1998) 73-77
30. Department of Energy (DOE). Stewards of national resources (1994), Department of Energy., Washington, DC DOE/FM-0002
31. DOE. National environmental research parks (1994), Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research., Washington, DC DOE/EM-0232
32. DOE. Estimating the cold war mortgage: The 1995 baseline environmental management report (1995), Office of Environmental Management., Washington, DC DOE/EM-0232
33. DOE. Charting the course: the future use report (1996), Department of Energy., Washington, DC DOE/EM-0283
34. DOE. Hanford site: Comprehensive facility and land use plan (1996), Department of Energy., Washington, DC DOE/EM-0283
35. DOE. Idaho national engineering laboratory: Comprehensive facility and land use plan (1996), Department of Energy., Washington, DC DOE/EM-0283
36. DOE. (1997). Cross-cut guidance on environmental requirements for DOE real property transfers. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance (October 1997, DOE/EH412/9712, p. 3-3), Washington, DC.
37. DOE. (1999a). Nuclear and environmental stewardship dominate DOE spending. Available at http://nmsnet.ilnl.gov/demo/demo/ndom.html
38. DOE, (1999b). From cleanup to stewardship: A companion report to accelerating cleanup: Paths to closure. Washington, DC: Office of Environmental Management. DOE/EM-0466.
39. DOE, (2000). Paths to closure: Status report 2000. Washington, DC: Office of Environmental Management. DOE-EM-0526.
40. DOE. (2001). Long-term stewardship report to Congress. Prepared to fulfill a requirement in the FY 2000 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
41. DOE. (2002). A review of the environmental management program. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. Available at http://web.em.doe.gov/ttbr.pdf
42. DOE. (2003). Use of risk-based end states. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. (Policy 455.1, July 2003).
43. Frisch M., Solitare L., Greenberg M., and Lowrie K. Regional economic benefits of environmental management at the US Department of Energy's major nuclear weapons sites. Journal of Environmental Management 54 (1998) 23-37
44. Harwell M.A., and Kelly J.R. Indicators of ecosystem recovery. Environmental Management 14 (1990) 527-545
45. Hunsaker C., Carpenter D., and Messer J. Ecological indicators for regional monitoring. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 71 (1990) 165-172
46. Linthurst R.A., Bourdeau P., and Tardiff R.G. Methods to assess the effects of chemicals on ecosystems (1995), Wiley, Chichester, UK
47. Lowrie K., and Greenberg M. Placing future land use planning in a regional context: The Savannah River Site. Federal Facilities Environmental Journal 1 (1997) 51-65
48. Lubbert R.F., and Chu T.J. Challenges to cleaning up formerly used defense sites in the twenty-first century. Remediation 11 (2001) 19-31
49. Malone C.R. Implications of resources management at the Nevada Test Site. Federal Facilities Environmental Journal 9 (1998) 51-62
50. Meffe G.K., and Viederman S. Combining science and policy in conservation biology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23 (1995) 327-332
51. National Research Council (NRC). Risk assessment in the federal government: Managing the process (1983), National Academy Press, Washington, DC
52. NRC. Issues in risk assessment (1993), National Academy Press, Washington, DC
53. NRC. Long-term institutional management of U.S. Department of Energy legacy waste sites (2000), National Academy Press, Washington, DC
54. Nelson, R. H. (2001). From waste to wilderness: Maintaining biodiversity on nuclear-bomb-building sites. Competitive Enterprise Institute. Available at hhtp//www.cei.org/MonoReader.asp?ID=1411.
55. Niemela J. Biodiversity monitoring for decision-making. Annals Zoologica Fennici 37 (2000) 307-317
56. Norgaard R.B. Environmental science as a social process. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 20 (1992) 95-110
57. O'Connell T.J., Jackson L.E., and Brooks R.P. Bird guilds as indicators of ecological condition in the central Appalachians. Ecological Applications 10 (2000) 1706-1721
58. Peakall D. Animal biomarkers as pollution indicators (1992), Chapman and Hall, London
59. Piotrowski, J. K. (1985). Individual exposure and biological monitoring. In: V. B. Vouk, G. C. Butler, D. G. Hoel & D. B. Peakell (Eds), Methods for estimating risk of chemical injury: Human and non-human biota and ecosystem (pp. 123-135). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
60. Sink C.H., and Frank C.W. DOE forges partnerships for environmental cleanup. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy 11 (1996) 65-69
61. Sawicka-Kapusta K., and Zakrzewska M. Use of small mammals for monitoring heavy metal contamination in the environment. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 33 (1997) 172-181
62. Schroeder, R. L. (1983). Habitat suitability index models: red-spotted newt. US Fish & Wildlife Service Biol. Rep. 82 (10.111). US Department of Interior, Washington, DC.
63. Suter II G.W. Endpoints for regional ecological risk assessment. Environmental Management 14 (1990) 9-23
64. In: Suter III G.W. (Ed). Ecological risk assessment (1993), Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL
65. Whicker, F. W., Hinton, T. G., MacDonell, M. M., Pinder III, J. E., & Habegger, L. J. (2004). Avoiding destructive remediation at DOE sites. Science, 303, (12 Mar), 1615-1616.