ASTM E2385-2011 Standard Guide for Estimating Wildlife Exposure Using Measures of Habitat Quality《生境质量措施实施野生生物暴露率估测的标准指南》.pdf

《ASTM E2385-2011 Standard Guide for Estimating Wildlife Exposure Using Measures of Habitat Quality《生境质量措施实施野生生物暴露率估测的标准指南》.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《ASTM E2385-2011 Standard Guide for Estimating Wildlife Exposure Using Measures of Habitat Quality《生境质量措施实施野生生物暴露率估测的标准指南》.pdf（10页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、Designation: E2385 11Standard Guide forEstimating Wildlife Exposure Using Measures of HabitatQuality1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E2385; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year oforiginal adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revisi

2、on. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon () indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.1. Scope1.1 Ecological Risk Assessments (EcoRAs) typically focuson valued wildlife populations. Regulatory authority for con-ducting EcoRAs d

3、erives from various federal laws for ex-ample, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensa-tion and Liability Act 1981, (CERCLA), ResourceConservation Recovery Act (RCRA), and Federal Insecticide,Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, (FIFRA). Certain proceduresfor conducting EcoRAs (1-4)2have been stan

4、dardized E1689-95(2003) Standard Guide for Developing Conceptual SiteModels for Contaminated Sites; E1848-96(2003) StandardGuide for Selecting and Using Ecological Endpoints forContaminated Sites; E2020-99a Standard Guide for Data andInformation Options for Conducting an Ecological Risk As-sessment

5、at Contaminated Sites; E2205-02 Standard Guide forRisk-Based Corrective Action for Protection of Ecologicalresources; E1739-95(2002) Standard Guide for Risk-BasedCorrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites. Spe-cialized cases for reporting data have also been standardizedE1849-96(2002) Stan

6、dard Guide for Fish and Wildlife Inci-dent Monitoring and Reporting as have sampling proceduresto characterize vegetation E1923-97(2003) Standard Guide forSampling Terrestrial and Wetlands Vegetation.1.2 Most states have enacted laws modeled after the federalacts and follow similar procedures. Typic

7、ally, estimates oflikely exposure levels to constituents of potential concern(CoPC) are compared to toxicity benchmark values orconcentration-response profiles to establish the magnitude ofrisk posed by the CoPC and to inform risk managers consid-ering potential mitigation/remediation options. The l

8、ikelihoodof exposure is influenced greatly by the foraging behavior andresidence time of the animals of interest in the areas containingsignificant concentrations of the CoPC. Foraging behavior andresidence time of the animals are related to landscape features(vegetation and physiognomy) that compri

9、se suitable habitatfor the species. This guide presents a framework for incorpo-rating habitat quality into the calculation of exposure levels foruse in EcoRAs.1.3 This guide is intended only as a framework for usingmeasures of habitat quality in species specific habitat suitabil-ity models to assis

10、t with the calculation of exposure levels inEcoRA. Information from published Habitat Suitability Index(HSI) models (5) is used in this guide. The user should becomefamiliar with the strengths and limitations of any particular HSImodel used in order to characterize uncertainty in the exposureassessm

11、ent (5-7). For species that do not have publishedhabitat suitability models, the user may elect to develop broadcategorical descriptions of habitat quality for use in estimatingexposure.2. Referenced Documents2.1 ASTM Standards:3E1689 Guide for Developing Conceptual Site Models forContaminated Sites

12、E1739 Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied atPetroleum Release SitesE1848 Guide for Selecting and Using Ecological Endpointsfor Contaminated SitesE1849 Guide for Fish and Wildlife Incident Monitoring andReportingE1923 Guide for Sampling Terrestrial and Wetlands Veg-etationE2020 Guide for D

13、ata and Information Options for Con-ducting an Ecological Risk Assessment at ContaminatedSitesE2205 Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action for Protec-tion of Ecological Resources3. Terminology3.1 The words “must,” “should,” “may,” “can,” and “might”have specific meanings in this guide. “Must” is use

14、d to expressan absolute requirement, that is, to state that the test ought tobe designed to satisfy the specified condition, unless the1This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E47 on BiologicalEffects and Environmental Fate and is the direct responsibility of SubcommitteeE47.02 on Ter

15、restrial Assessment and Toxicology.Current edition approved Oct. 1, 2011. Published October 2011. Originallyapproved in 2004. Last previous edition approved in 2004 as E238504. DOI:10.1520/E2385-11.2The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to the list of references at the end ofthis standard.3For r

16、eferenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, orcontact ASTM Customer Service at serviceastm.org. For Annual Book of ASTMStandards volume information, refer to the standards Document Summary page onthe ASTM website.1Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700,

17、West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.purpose of the test requires a different design. “Should” is usedto state that the specified condition is recommended and oughtto be met if possible. Although violation of one “should” israrely a serious matter, violation of several will often render t

18、heresults questionable. “May” is used to mean “is (are) allowedto,” “can” is used to mean “is (are) able to,” and “might” isused to mean “could be possible.” Thus, the distinctionbetween “may” and “can” is preserved, and “might” is neverused as a synonym for either “may” or “can.”3.2 Consistent use

19、of terminology is essential for anyvegetation sampling effort. below is a list of terms that are usedin this guide, as well as others that may be encounteredcommonly in the wildlife habitat quality literature. this list isnot exhaustive.3.2.1 abundancethe number of individuals of one taxonin an area

20、; equivalent to the term density as used in botanicalliterature.3.2.2 basal area (BA)the cross-sectional area of a treetrunk at 1.4 m (4.5 ft) above ground. (See diameter at breastheight.)3.2.3 biomassthe mass of vegetation per unit area.3.2.4 canopythe uppermost layer, consisting of branchesand lea

21、ves of trees and shrubs, in a forest or woodland.3.2.5 carrying capacitythe theoretical density of organ-isms that can be supported in a specified ecological system.3.2.6 coverthe area of ground covered by plants of one ormore taxa.3.2.7 densitythe number of organisms in a specified area.3.2.8 diame

22、ter at breast height (DBH)the widest point ofa tree trunk measured 1.4 m (4.5 ft) above the ground.3.2.9 forba non-graminoid (that is, broadleaf) herbaceousplant.3.2.10 foraging-rangethe area typically explored by ananimal while it is feeding. (See home-range.)3.2.11 geographic information system (G

23、IS)an integratedspatial data base and mapping system in which geographicalinformation can be used to produce digital maps, manipulatespatial data, and model spatial information. It allows theoverlay of layers of information, such as habitats or plantranges.3.2.12 global positioning system (GPS)a sur

24、vey system inwhich a GPS unit is used to receive signals from satellites.Signals are then interpreted to provide information such aslatitude and longitude or bearings for navigation, positioning,or mapping.3.2.13 graminoida grass (Poaceae), sedge (Cyperaceae),or rush (Juncaceae).3.2.14 habitatthe co

25、llection of biological, chemical, andphysical features of a landscape that provide conditions for anorganism to live and reproduce.3.2.15 habitat suitability indexa calculated value thatcharacterizes a specified landscape unit (for example, a poly-gon) in terms of the features and conditions that ar

26、e favorablefor a particular species. Values range between 0.0 (unsuitable)and 1.0 (ideal).3.2.16 herba plant with one or more stems that die backto the ground each year; (that is, graminoids and forbs).3.2.17 home-rangethe area around an animals estab-lished home, which is traversed in normal activi

27、ties. (Seeforaging-range.)3.2.18 physiognomythe surface features of an area.3.2.19 populationa group of individuals of the samespecies occupying a habitat small enough to permit interbreed-ing.3.2.20 remote sensingthe use of satellites or high-altitudephotography to measure geographic patterns such

28、as vegeta-tion.3.2.21 shrubwoody plant typically smaller than a treewhen both are mature (typically with DBH 2to3mtall when mature (typically DBH 10 cm). The operational definition should be stated explicitlyfor each project.4. Habitat Approaches4.1 Naturalists and wildlife managers have understood,

29、 atleast in qualitative terms, the importance of critical habitat forvarious life history stages (for example, nesting sites, winterrange, etc.). Animals are drawn to suitable physical structureand food availability, while avoiding areas of lower quality.The term habitat, though often used loosely a

30、s an indication ofenvironmental quality, refers to the combination of physicaland biological features preferred by a particular species.Habitat that is great for prairie chicken is unacceptable forbarred owls. Different habitat preferences reflect evolution andadaptation of species separating from e

31、ach other in “n-dimensional niche space” (8). There are differential area userates by different species. Animals are drawn to particularfeatures of the landscape for foraging, loafing, nesting/birthing,etc. Some species are attracted to disturbance zones and edges,but others avoid such areas.4.2 Hab

32、itat Suitability Index (HSI) Models have been de-veloped for many species of interest. Characterization ofhabitat for certain species was formalized by the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service in the 1990s (9). Currently, more than 160 HSImodels have been published, though usage is limited forquantitative

33、predictions of population densities (6). Rand andNewman (10) describe the applicability of HSI models forEcoRAin general terms, but provide no examples of its use anddo not give specific details to integrate habitat information withexposure assessment or risk characterization. Freshman andMenzie (11

34、) describe two approaches to take into accountspatial differences in contaminant concentrations with respectto foraging activities and the proportion of a local populationlikely to be exposed to the contaminants. Their approach doesnot incorporate HSI models formally, but does demonstrate thefundame

35、ntal concepts for such use. Hope (12-14), Wickwire etal. (15), Linkov et al. (16, 17) and Linkov and Grebenkov (18)have used placeholder habitat values to illustrate the effect ofhabitat on cumulative exposure levels. Kapustka et al. (5, 19)and Linkov et al. (20) have described procedures to use HSI

36、sas the habitat quality parameter for use in estimating exposurelevels. The U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste conducted anexploratory program in which they characterized vegetationE2385 112types and physical features within a 2-km radius of more than200 chemically contaminated sites. The focus was on u

37、singhabitat characteristics to modify estimates of risk. Landscaperelationships were used to incorporate ecological dynamicsinto risk assessments by another group within the U.S. EPA.The Program to Assist in Tracking Critical Habitat (PATCH)model used a GIS platform that allows user input in definin

38、gpolygons and their characteristics (21); www.epa.gov/wed/pages/models.htm). This program has been incorporated intoHexSim (22). The Army Risk Assessment Modeling System(ARAMS) (www.wes.army.mil/el/arams/arams.html) devel-oped modules that use habitat quality assessments to improvethe realism of exp

39、osure assessments. Loos et al. (23) developeda receptor-oriented cumulative exposure model (Eco-SpaCE)for wildlife species that includes relevant ecological processessuch as spatial habitat variation, food web relations, predation,and life history characteristics. Johnson et al. (24) found that aspa

40、tially explicit exposure model based on the general proce-dures outlined in this Standard provided good agreement withfield observations and therefore produced more accurate riskestimates than conventional deterministic approaches. Loos etal. (25) provided a comparative review of approaches used tom

41、odel exposures experienced by humans and wildlife. Wick-wire et al. (26) discussed the rationale for using spatiallyexplicit exposure models and also describe some of theimpediments that may be deterring a broader use of suchapproaches.5. Identifying Scenarios where Habitat Value can beImportant in

42、EcoRAs5.1 Heterogeneous landscapes coupled with heterogeneousdistribution of contaminants introduce great uncertainty inexposure estimates for any species (Fig. 1). In such situations,the relative size of the site to the home range of the speciesdoes not matter. Two other cases occur in which habita

43、tmodifications of exposure estimates would reduce uncertainty;one in which contaminant distribution is heterogeneous andhome range is small relative to the area of the site, the other inwhich habitat is heterogeneous and the home range is verylarge relative to the contaminated area. The combination

44、ofhomogeneous habitat and homogeneous contaminant distribu-tion precludes using habitat conditions as a modifier ofexposure regardless of the home range to site area relationship.Homogeneous contaminant distribution also makes habitatconditions moot for species with home ranges equal to or lessthan

45、the site. Finally, with homogeneous habitat conditions,exposure estimates for species having home ranges equal to orlarger than the contaminated area would not be improved.6. Significance and Use6.1 Explicit consideration of landscape features to charac-terize the quality of habitat for assessment s

46、pecies can enhancethe ecological relevance of an EcoRA. This can help avoidassessing exposure in areas in which a wildlife species wouldbe absent because of a lack of habitat or to bound exposureestimates in areas with low habitat quality. The measure ofhabitat quality is used in place of the common

47、ly usedArea UseFactor (AUF). Greater ecological realism and more informedmanagement decisions can be realized through better use oflandscape features to characterize sites.7. Interference7.1 Observed population density in field tests often is lowerthan expected based on HSI values (6). Such informat

48、ion canbe interpreted as a deficiency. However, it can also be thatCases where habitat characterization may be useful in reducing uncertainty of exposure estimates (+) and cases where habitat considerations may be moot (O).Adapted from Kapustka et al., 2001, (5).FIG. 1 Contingency Table Illustrating

49、 Relationships of Home Range (Circle) Relative to Site Size (Square).E2385 113expectations of precision are too great and beyond the capa-bility of the model (7). HSI model predictions should beviewed as an indication of potential carrying capacity gener-alized over time, rather than a static predictor of populationdensity, and then the models can be useful. An environmentalfactor governs the maximum response attainable by an organ-ism; at any interval along a parameter gradient, other variablesmay curtail attainment of the potential. In statistical de