The Experts below are selected from a list of 57912 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Ron Johnstone - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
use of system dynamics modelling in design of an Environmental Restoration banking institution
Ecological Economics, 2008Co-Authors: Steve Arquitt, Ron JohnstoneAbstract:This paper describes a system dynamics model developed to inform design of a proposed Environmental Restoration banking system. The purpose of the proposed system is to facilitate Restoration of extensive areas of mangrove forests that have been cleared or damaged in large part by expansion of the commercial shrimp farming industry. A case study is developed for mangrove Restoration in Thailand; however, the model is seen as applicable to a number of countries which have experienced severe mangrove loss. The scheme is based on Environmental mitigation banking principles, in which users of an Environmental resource are required to purchase from a mitigation bank credits representing Restorations undertaken to compensate for Environmental damage, thereby achieving "no net loss" of the Environmental asset. The scheme proposed in this paper differs from usual mitigation banking practise in that the objective is to restore large degraded areas over and above present rates of consumption. Model simulations show that the Restoration banking system may be effective in restoring coastal mangroves and in rehabilitating the coastal shrimp farming industry that is dependent on Environmental services provided by the mangrove stock.
-
use of system dynamics modelling in design of an Environmental Restoration banking institution
Ecological Economics, 2008Co-Authors: Steve Arquitt, Ron JohnstoneAbstract:This paper describes a system dynamics model developed to inform design of a proposed Environmental Restoration banking system. The purpose of the proposed system is to facilitate Restoration of extensive areas of mangrove forests that have been cleared or damaged in large part by expansion of the commercial shrimp farming industry. A case study is developed for mangrove Restoration in Thailand; however, the model is seen as applicable to a number of countries which have experienced severe mangrove loss. The scheme is based on Environmental mitigation banking principles, in which users of an Environmental resource are required to purchase from a mitigation bank credits representing Restorations undertaken to compensate for Environmental damage, thereby achieving "no net loss" of the Environmental asset. The scheme proposed in this paper differs from usual mitigation banking practise in that the objective is to restore large degraded areas over and above present rates of consumption. Model simulations show that the Restoration banking system may be effective in restoring coastal mangroves and in rehabilitating the coastal shrimp farming industry that is dependent on Environmental services provided by the mangrove stock. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Federico Martinezcarrasco - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
assessment of the programme of measures for coastal lagoon Environmental Restoration using cost benefit analysis
European Planning Studies, 2013Co-Authors: Jose M Martinezpaz, Angel Perni, Federico MartinezcarrascoAbstract:The degradation of marine and coastal ecosystems has given rise to the creation of specific protection rules. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Water Framework Directive are the standards agreed in the European Union with the aim of obtaining a good ecological status in marine and coastal waters by applying a programme of measures, if necessary. These measures must be technical, social and economically feasible, in such a way that costs do not exceed benefits. This work expounds the implementation of two economic tools to assess the programme of measures intended for the Environmental Restoration of one of the most important coastal ecosystems in Europe, the Mar Menor coastal lagoon (SE Spain). Thus, the cost--benefit analysis (CBA) (and its extensions) and the contingent valuation method are used to assess the aforementioned programme in terms of economic and Environmental profitability. Results prove the socioeconomic and Environmental profitability of the actions due to be undertaken, with rates of return of around 10%. From a methodological point of view, there is a clear need to widen the classic CBA scheme by using the extended CBA and the dual CBA to gauge this type of Environmental Restoration actions.
-
assessment of the programme of measures for coastal lagoon Environmental Restoration using cost benefit analysis
European Planning Studies, 2013Co-Authors: Jose M Martinezpaz, Angel Perni, Federico MartinezcarrascoAbstract:The degradation of marine and coastal ecosystems has given rise to the creation of specific protection rules. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Water Framework Directive are the standards agreed in the European Union with the aim of obtaining a good ecological status in marine and coastal waters by applying a programme of measures, if necessary. These measures must be technical, social and economically feasible, in such a way that costs do not exceed benefits. This work expounds the implementation of two economic tools to assess the programme of measures intended for the Environmental Restoration of one of the most important coastal ecosystems in Europe, the Mar Menor coastal lagoon (SE Spain). Thus, the cost–benefit analysis (CBA) (and its extensions) and the contingent valuation method are used to assess the aforementioned programme in terms of economic and Environmental profitability. Results prove the socioeconomic and Environmental profitability of the actions due to be undertaken, with...
Alfred Wickline - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
streamlined approach for Environmental Restoration safer plan for corrective action unit 130 storage tanks nevada test site nevada revision 0
2008Co-Authors: Alfred WicklineAbstract:This Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) Plan addresses the actions needed to achieve closure for Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 130, Storage Tanks, identified in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) (1996, as amended February 2008). Corrective Action Unit 130 consists of the seven following corrective action sites (CASs) located in Areas 1, 7, 10, 20, 22, and 23 of the Nevada Test Site: • 01-02-01, Underground Storage Tank • 07-02-01, Underground Storage Tanks • 10-02-01, Underground Storage Tank • 20-02-03, Underground Storage Tank • 20-99-05, Tar Residue • 22-02-02, Buried UST Piping • 23-02-07, Underground Storage Tank This plan provides the methodology for field activities needed to gather the necessary information for closing each CAS. There is sufficient information and process knowledge from historical documentation and investigations of similar sites regarding the expected nature and extent of potential contaminants to recommend closure of CAU 130 using the SAFER process. Additional information will be obtained by conducting a field investigation before selecting the appropriate corrective action for each CAS. The results of the field investigation will support a defensible recommendation that no further corrective action is necessary. This will be presented in a Closure Report that will bemore » prepared and submitted to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) for review and approval. The sites will be investigated based on the data quality objectives (DQOs) finalized on April 3, 2008, by representatives of NDEP; U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office; Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture; and National Security Technologies, LLC. The DQO process was used to identify and define the type, amount, and quality of data needed to determine and implement appropriate corrective actions for each CAS in CAU 130. The DQO process developed for this CAU identified the following expected closure options: (1) investigation and confirmation that no contamination exists above the final action levels, leading to a no further action declaration; (2) characterization of the nature and extent of contamination, leading to closure in place with use restrictions; or (3) clean closure by remediation and verification. The following text summarizes the SAFER activities that will support the closure of CAU 130: • Perform site preparation activities (e.g., utilities clearances, geophysical surveys). • Move or remove and dispose of debris at various CASs, as required. • Collect Environmental samples from designated target populations (e.g., stained soil) to confirm or disprove the presence of contaminants of concern (COCs) as necessary to supplement existing information. • If no COCs are present at a CAS, establish no further action as the corrective action. • If COCs exist, collect Environmental samples from designated target populations (e.g., clean soil adjacent to contaminated soil) and submit for laboratory analyses to define the extent of COC contamination. • If a COC is present at a CAS, either: - Establish clean closure as the corrective action. The material to be remediated will be removed, disposed of as waste, and verification samples will be collected from remaining soil, or - Establish closure in place as the corrective action and implement the appropriate use restrictions. • Obtain consensus from NDEP that the preferred closure option is sufficient to protect human health and the environment. • Close the underground storage tank(s) and their contents, if any, in accordance with Nevada Administrative Code regulations. • Remove the lead brick(s) found at any CAS in accordance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.« less
-
streamlined approach for Environmental Restoration safer plan for corrective action unit 124 storage tanks nevada test site nevada draft revision 0
2007Co-Authors: Alfred WicklineAbstract:This Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) Plan addresses closure for Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 124, Areas 8, 15, and 16 Storage Tanks, identified in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order. Corrective Action Unit 124 consists of five Corrective Action Sites (CASs) located in Areas 8, 15, and 16 of the Nevada Test Site as follows: • 08-02-01, Underground Storage Tank • 15-02-01, Irrigation Piping • 16-02-03, Underground Storage Tank • 16-02-04, Fuel Oil Piping • 16-99-04, Fuel Line (Buried) and UST This plan provides the methodology of field activities necessary to gather information to close each CAS. There is sufficient information and process knowledge from historical documentation and investigations of similar sites regarding the expected nature and extent of potential contaminants to recommend closure of CAU 124 using the SAFER process.
-
streamlined approach for Environmental Restoration safer plan for corrective action unit 177 mud pits and cellars nevada test site nevada rev no 0
2006Co-Authors: Alfred WicklineAbstract:This Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) Plan addresses closure for Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 177, Mud Pits and Cellars, identified in the ''Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order''. Corrective Action Unit 177 consists of the 12 following Corrective Action Sites (CASs) located in Areas 8, 9, 19, and 20 of the Nevada Test Site: (1) 08-23-01, Mud Pit and Cellar; (2) 09-09-41, Unknown No.3 Mud Pit/Disposal Area; (3) 09-09-45, U-9bz PS No.1A Mud Pit (1) and Cellar; (4) 09-23-05, Mud Pit and Cellar; (5) 09-23-08, Mud Pit and Cellar; (6) 09-23-09, U-9itsx20 PS No.1A Cellar; (7) 10-23-02, Mud Pit and Cellar; (8) 10-23-03, Mud Pit and Cellar; (9) 19-23-01, Mud Pit and Cellar; (10) 19-23-02, Cellar and Waste Storage Area; (11) 19-23-03, Cellar with Casing; and (12) 20-23-07, Cellar. This plan provides the methodology for field activities needed to gather the necessary information for closing each CAS. There is sufficient information and process knowledge from historical documentation and investigations of similar sites regarding the expected nature and extent of potential contaminants to recommend closure of CAU 177 using the SAFER process. The data quality objective process developed for this CAU identified the following expected closure options: (1) investigation and confirmation that no contamination exists above the preliminary action levels (PALs), leading to a no further action declaration, or (2) characterization of the nature and extent of contamination, leading to closure in place with use restrictions. The expected closure options were selected based on available information including contaminants of potential concern, future land use, and assumed risks. A decision flow process was developed to outline the collection of data necessary to achieve closure. There are two decisions that need to be answered for closure. Decision I is to determine whether contaminants of potential concern are present in concentrations exceeding the PALs. If contaminants of potential concern are found to be present above PALs, Decision II will be to determine the extent of contamination and generate the information necessary to close the site in place and implement the appropriate administrative controls (i.e., use restrictions). The following text summarizes the types of activities that will support the closure of CAU 177: (1) Perform site preparation activities (e.g., boundary setup, utility clearances, vegetation removal, movement/removal of fencing and debris). (2) Remove non-hazardous debris at various CASs, as required. (3) Collect Environmental samples of residual drilling mud and soil using probabilistic (mud pits) and judgmental (cellars) sampling to confirm or disprove the presence of contaminants of concern (COCs) (i.e., nature of contamination) if these data do not already exist. Collect Environmental samples from designated target populations (e.g., clean soil adjacent to contaminated soil if COCs exist) and submit for laboratory analyses to define the extent of COC contamination. (4) Establish no further action as the corrective action if no contaminants are detected above final action levels. (5) If COCs are present at a CAS, establish the corrective action and implement appropriate use restrictions. (6) Confirm the preferred closure option is sufficient to protect human health and the environment. (7) Document all closure activities for CAU 177 in a Closure Report.
-
streamlined approach for Environmental Restoration safer plan for corrective action unit 538 spill sites nevada test site nevada rev no 0
2006Co-Authors: Alfred WicklineAbstract:This Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) Plan addresses the actions necessary for the closure of Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 538: Spill Sites, Nevada Test Site, Nevada. It has been developed in accordance with the ''Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order'' (FFACO) (1996) that was agreed to by the State of Nevada, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and the U.S. Department of Defense. A SAFER may be performed when the following criteria are met: (1) Conceptual corrective actions are clearly identified (although some degree of investigation may be necessary to select a specific corrective action before completion of the Corrective Action Investigation [CAI]). (2) Uncertainty of the nature, extent, and corrective action must be limited to an acceptable level of risk. (3) The SAFER Plan includes decision points and criteria for making data quality objective (DQO) decisions. The purpose of the investigation will be to document and verify the adequacy of existing information; to affirm the decision for either clean closure, closure in place, or no further action; and to provide sufficient data to implement the corrective action. The actual corrective action selected will be based on characterization activities implemented under this SAFER Plan. This SAFER Plan identifies decisionmore » points developed in cooperation with the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) and where DOE will reach consensus with NDEP before beginning the next phase of work.« less
-
streamlined approach for Environmental Restoration plan for corrective action units 530 531 532 533 534 and 535 nevada test site mud pits nevada test site nevada revision 0 with rotc 1 and 2
2005Co-Authors: Alfred WicklineAbstract:This Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) Plan addresses closure for the following six corrective action units (CAUs) identified in the ''Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order'' (1996): (1) CAU 530 - LANL Preshot Mud Pits; (2) CAU 531 - LANL Postshot Mud Pits; (3) CAU 532 - LLNL Preshot Mud Pits; (4) CAU 533 - LLNL Postshot Mud Pits; (5) CAU 534 - Exploratory/Instrumentation Mud Pits; and (6) CAU 535 - Mud Pits/Disposal Areas. Corrective Action Units 530-535 consist of corrective action sites (CASs) located in Areas 1-10, 14, 17, 19, and 20 of the Nevada Test Site (NTS). This plan provides the approach for activities needed to gather the necessary information for closing all the CASs within these CAUs. There is sufficient information and process knowledge from historical documentation and investigations of similar sites regarding the expected nature and extent of potential contaminants to recommend closure of all CASs within CAUs 530-535 using the SAFER process. The Data Quality Objective (DQO) process utilized in this investigation follows the approved risk-based closure strategy outlined in the ''Mud Pit Risk-Based Closure Strategy Report'' (NNSA/NSO, 2004b). The closure strategy was developed based on available information including historical documentation of process knowledge, analytical results from previous sampling activities for contaminants of potential concern at similar mud pits located at the NTS and at off-site locations, future land-use scenarios for each NTS area, and potential exposure scenarios along with the calculated risk for human and ecological receptors.
Mark Krauss - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
streamlined approach for Environmental Restoration safer plan for corrective action unit 544 cellars mud pits and oil spills nevada test site nevada revision 0
2010Co-Authors: Mark KraussAbstract:This Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) Plan addresses the actions needed to achieve closure for Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 544, Cellars, Mud Pits, and Oil Spills, identified in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO). Corrective Action Unit 544 comprises the following 20 corrective action sites (CASs) located in Areas 2, 7, 9, 10, 12, 19, and 20 of the Nevada Test Site (NTS): • 02-37-08, Cellar & Mud Pit • 02-37-09, Cellar & Mud Pit • 07-09-01, Mud Pit • 09-09-46, U-9itsx20 PS #1A Mud Pit • 10-09-01, Mud Pit • 12-09-03, Mud Pit • 19-09-01, Mud Pits (2) • 19-09-03, Mud Pit • 19-09-04, Mud Pit • 19-25-01, Oil Spill • 19-99-06, Waste Spill • 20-09-01, Mud Pits (2) • 20-09-02, Mud Pit • 20-09-03, Mud Pit • 20-09-04, Mud Pits (2) • 20-09-06, Mud Pit • 20-09-07, Mud Pit • 20-09-10, Mud Pit • 20-25-04, Oil Spills • 20-25-05, Oil Spills This plan provides the methodology for field activities needed to gather the necessary information for closing each CAS. There is sufficient information and process knowledge from historical documentation and investigations of similar sites regarding the expected nature and extent of potential contaminants to recommendmore » closure of CAU 544 using the SAFER process. Using the approach approved for previous mud pit investigations (CAUs 530–535), 14 mud pits have been identified that • are either a single mud pit or a system of mud pits, • are not located in a radiologically posted area, and • have no evident biasing factors based on visual inspections. These 14 mud pits are recommended for no further action (NFA), and further field investigations will not be conducted. For the sites that do not meet the previously approved closure criteria, additional information will be obtained by conducting a field investigation before selecting the appropriate corrective action for each CAS. The results of the field investigation will support a defensible recommendation for closure of the remaining CASs in CAU 544. This will be presented in a closure report (CR) that will be prepared and submitted to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) for review and approval. The sites will be investigated based on the data quality objectives (DQOs) developed on April 27, 2010, by representatives of NDEP and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO). The DQO process was used to identify and define the type, amount, and quality of data needed to determine and implement appropriate corrective actions for each CAS in CAU 544. The DQO process developed for this CAU identified the following expected closure options: (1) investigation and confirmation that no contamination exists above the final action levels (FALs) leading to an NFA declaration, (2) characterization of the nature and extent of contamination leading to closure in place with use restrictions, (3) clean closure by remediation and verification, (4) closure in place with use restrictions with no investigation if CASs are in crater areas that have been determined to be unsafe to enter, or (5) NFA if the mud pit CAS meets the criteria established during the CAUs 530–535 SAFER investigation. The following summarizes the SAFER activities that will support the closure of CAU 544: • Perform visual inspection of all CASs. • Perform site preparation activities (e.g., utilities clearances, construction of temporary site exclusion zones). • Removal of easily managed, nonhazardous, and nonradioactive debris, including vegetation (e.g., tumbleweeds), at various CASs that interfere with sampling, if required to inspect soil surface or collect soil sample. • Collect Environmental samples from designated target populations (e.g., mud pits, cellars, stained soil) to confirm or disprove the presence of contaminants of concern (COCs) as necessary to supplement existing information. • If no COCs are present at a CAS, establish NFA as the corrective action. • If COCs exist, collect Environmental samples from designated target populations (e.g., clean soil adjacent to contaminated soil) and submit for laboratory analyses to define the extent of COC contamination. • If a COC is present at a CAS, either - Establish clean closure as the corrective action. The material to be remediated will be removed, disposed of as waste, and verification samples will be collected from remaining soil, or - Establish closure in place as the corrective action and implement the appropriate use restrictions. • Confirm the preferred closure option is sufficient to protect human health and the environment.« less
-
streamlined approach for Environmental Restoration safer plan for corrective action unit 114 area 25 emad facility nevada test site nevada
2010Co-Authors: Mark KraussAbstract:This Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) Plan addresses the actions needed to achieve closure for Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 114, Area 25 EMAD Facility, identified in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO). Corrective Action Unit 114 comprises the following corrective action site (CAS) located in Area 25 of the Nevada Test Site: • 25-41-03, EMAD Facility This plan provides the methodology for field activities needed to gather the necessary information for closing CAS 25-41-03. There is sufficient information and process knowledge from historical documentation and investigations of similar sites regarding the expected nature and extent of potential contaminants to recommend closure of CAU 114 using the SAFER process. Additional information will be obtained by conducting a field investigation before selecting the appropriate corrective action for CAS 25-41-03. It is anticipated that the results of the field investigation and implementation of corrective actions will support a defensible recommendation that no further corrective action is necessary. If it is determined that complete clean closure cannot be accomplished during the SAFER, then a hold point will have been reached and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) will be consulted to determine whether the remaining contamination will be closed undermore » the alternative corrective action of closure in place. This will be presented in a closure report that will be prepared and submitted to NDEP for review and approval. The CAS will be investigated based on the data quality objectives (DQOs) developed on April 30, 2009, by representatives of NDEP and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office. The DQO process was used to identify and define the type, amount, and quality of data needed to determine and implement appropriate corrective actions for CAS 25-41-03. The following text summarizes the SAFER activities that will support the closure of CAU 114: • Perform site preparation activities (e.g., utilities clearances, radiological surveys). • Collect samples of materials to determine whether potential source material (PSM) is present that may cause the future release of a contaminant of concern to Environmental media. • If no PSMs are present at the CAS, establish no further action as the corrective action. • If a PSM is present at the CAS, either: - Establish clean closure as the corrective action. The material to be remediated will be removed and disposed of as waste, or - Establish closure in place as the corrective action and implement the appropriate use restrictions. • Confirm the selected closure option is sufficient to protect human health and the environment.« less
-
streamlined approach for Environmental Restoration safer plan for corrective action unit 539 area 25 and area 26 railroad tracks nevada test site nevada revision 0
2010Co-Authors: Mark KraussAbstract:This Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) Plan addresses the actions needed to achieve closure for Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 539, Areas 25 and 26 Railroad Tracks, as identified in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO). A modification to the FFACOwas approved in May 2010 to transfer the two Railroad Tracks corrective action sites (CASs) from CAU 114 into CAU539. The two CASs are located in Areas 25 and 26 of the Nevada Test Site: • 25-99-21, Area 25 Railroad Tracks • 26-99-05, Area 26 Railroad Tracks This plan provides the methodology for field activities needed to gather the necessary information for closing the two CASs. There is sufficient information and process knowledge from historical documentation and investigations of similar sites regarding the expected nature and extent of potential contaminants to recommend closure of the CAU 539 Railroad Tracks CASs using the SAFER process. Additional information will be obtained by conducting a field investigation before selecting the appropriate corrective action for each CAS. The results of the field investigation should support a defensible recommendation that no further corrective action is necessary. If it is determined that complete clean closure cannot be accomplished during the SAFER, then a holdmore » point will have been reached and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) will be consulted to determine whether the remaining contamination will be closed under the alternative corrective action of closure in place with use restrictions. This will be presented in a closure report that will be prepared and submitted to the NDEP for review and approval. The sites will be investigated based on the data quality objectives (DQOs) developed on December 14, 2009, by representatives of U.S.Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office; Navarro Nevada Environmental Services, LLC (NNES); and National Security Technologies, LLC. The DQO process has been used to identify and define the type, amount, and quality of data needed to determine and implement appropriate corrective actions for each Railroad Tracks CAS in CAU 539. The following text summarizes the SAFER activities that will support the closure of CAU 539: • Perform site preparation activities (e.g., utilities clearances, radiological surveys). • Collect in situ dose measurements. • Collect Environmental samples from designated target populations (e.g., lead bricks) to confirm or disprove the presence of contaminants of concern (COCs) as necessary to supplement existing information. • If no COCs are present at a CAS, establish no further action as the corrective action. • If COCs exist, collect Environmental samples from designated target populations (e.g., clean soil adjacent to contaminated soil) and submit for laboratory analyses to define the extent of COC contamination. If a COC is present at a CAS, NNES will consult NDEP to determine the path forward, then either: • Establish clean closure as the corrective action. The material to be remediated will be removed, disposed of as waste, and verification samples will be collected from remaining soil, or • Establish closure in place as the corrective action and implement the appropriate use restrictions.« less
-
streamlined approach for Environmental Restoration safer plan for corrective action unit 408 bomblet target area tonopah test range ttr nevada revision 1
2010Co-Authors: Mark KraussAbstract:This Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration Plan addresses the actions needed to achieve closure of Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 408, Bomblet Target Area (TTR). Corrective Action Unit 408 is located at the Tonopah Test Range and is currently listed in Appendix III of the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order. Corrective Action Unit 408 comprises Corrective Action Site TA-55-002-TAB2, Bomblet Target Areas. Clean closure of CAU 408 will be accomplished by removal of munitions and explosives of concern within seven target areas and potential disposal pits. The target areas were used to perform submunitions related tests for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The scope of CAU 408 is limited to submunitions released from DOE activities. However, it is recognized that the presence of other types of unexploded ordnance and munitions may be present within the target areas due to the activities of other government organizations. The CAU 408 closure activities consist of: • Clearing bomblet target areas within the study area. • Identifying and remediating disposal pits. • Collecting verification samples. • Performing radiological screening of soil. • Removing soil containing contaminants at concentrations above the action levels. Based on existing information, contaminants of potential concern at CAU 408more » include unexploded submunitions, explosives, Resource Conservation Recovery Act metals, and depleted uranium. Contaminants are not expected to be present in the soil at concentrations above the action levels; however, this will be determined by radiological surveys and verification sample results.« less
Steve Arquitt - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
use of system dynamics modelling in design of an Environmental Restoration banking institution
Ecological Economics, 2008Co-Authors: Steve Arquitt, Ron JohnstoneAbstract:This paper describes a system dynamics model developed to inform design of a proposed Environmental Restoration banking system. The purpose of the proposed system is to facilitate Restoration of extensive areas of mangrove forests that have been cleared or damaged in large part by expansion of the commercial shrimp farming industry. A case study is developed for mangrove Restoration in Thailand; however, the model is seen as applicable to a number of countries which have experienced severe mangrove loss. The scheme is based on Environmental mitigation banking principles, in which users of an Environmental resource are required to purchase from a mitigation bank credits representing Restorations undertaken to compensate for Environmental damage, thereby achieving "no net loss" of the Environmental asset. The scheme proposed in this paper differs from usual mitigation banking practise in that the objective is to restore large degraded areas over and above present rates of consumption. Model simulations show that the Restoration banking system may be effective in restoring coastal mangroves and in rehabilitating the coastal shrimp farming industry that is dependent on Environmental services provided by the mangrove stock.
-
use of system dynamics modelling in design of an Environmental Restoration banking institution
Ecological Economics, 2008Co-Authors: Steve Arquitt, Ron JohnstoneAbstract:This paper describes a system dynamics model developed to inform design of a proposed Environmental Restoration banking system. The purpose of the proposed system is to facilitate Restoration of extensive areas of mangrove forests that have been cleared or damaged in large part by expansion of the commercial shrimp farming industry. A case study is developed for mangrove Restoration in Thailand; however, the model is seen as applicable to a number of countries which have experienced severe mangrove loss. The scheme is based on Environmental mitigation banking principles, in which users of an Environmental resource are required to purchase from a mitigation bank credits representing Restorations undertaken to compensate for Environmental damage, thereby achieving "no net loss" of the Environmental asset. The scheme proposed in this paper differs from usual mitigation banking practise in that the objective is to restore large degraded areas over and above present rates of consumption. Model simulations show that the Restoration banking system may be effective in restoring coastal mangroves and in rehabilitating the coastal shrimp farming industry that is dependent on Environmental services provided by the mangrove stock. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.