1、Designation: E 2385 04Standard Guide forEstimating Wildlife Exposure Using Measures of HabitatQuality1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E 2385; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year oforiginal adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revi
2、sion. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon (e) 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 EcoRA
3、s derives 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 s
4、tandardizedE 1689-95(2003) Standard Guide for Developing ConceptualSite Models for Contaminated Sites; E 1848-96(2003) Stan-dard Guide for Selecting and Using Ecological Endpoints forContaminated Sites; E 2020-99a Standard Guide for Data andInformation Options for Conducting an Ecological Risk As-se
5、ssment at Contaminated Sites; E 2205-02 Standard Guide forRisk-Based Corrective Action for Protection of Ecologicalresources; E 1739-95(2002) Standard Guide for Risk-BasedCorrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites. Spe-cialized cases for reporting data have also been standardizedE 1849-96(
6、2002) Standard Guide for Fish and Wildlife Inci-dent Monitoring and Reporting as have sampling proceduresto characterize vegetation E 1923-97(2003) Standard Guidefor Sampling Terrestrial and Wetlands Vegetation.1.2 Most states have enacted laws modeled after the federalacts and follow similar proced
7、ures. Typically, 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 opt
8、ions. The likelihoodof 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)
9、that comprise 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 mode
10、ls to assist 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 expo
11、sureassessment (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:3E 1689 Guide for Developing Conceptual Site Models forContam
12、inated SitesE 1739 Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied atPetroleum Release SitesE 1848 Guide for Selecting and Using Ecological Endpointsfor Contaminated SitesE 1849 Guide for Fish and Wildlife Incident Monitoringand ReportingE 1923 Guide for Sampling Terrestrial and Wetlands Veg-etationE
13、 2020 Guide for Data and Information Options for Con-ducting an Ecological Risk Assessment at ContaminatedSitesE 2205 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 gu
14、ide. “Must” is used to expressan absolute requirement, that is, to state that the test ought to1This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E47 on BiologicalEffects and Environmental Fate and is the direct responsibility of SubcommitteeE47.02 on Terrestrial Assessment and Toxicology.Curre
15、nt edition approved Dec. 1, 2004. Published January 2005.2The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to the list of references at the end ofthis standard.3For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, orcontact ASTM Customer Service at serviceastm.org. For Annual Book of ASTMSt
16、andards volume information, refer to the standards Document Summary page onthe ASTM website.1Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.be designed to satisfy the specified condition, unless thepurpose of the test requires a diff
17、erent 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 theresults questionable. “May” is used to mean “is (are) allowedto,” “can” is used t
18、o 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 of terminology is essential for anyvegetation sampling effort. below is a list of t
19、erms 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; equivalent to the term density as used in botanicalliterature.3.2.2 basal area (B
20、A)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 leaves of trees and shrubs, in a forest or woodland.3.2.5 carrying capacitythe theoret
21、ical 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 diameter at breast height (DBH)the widest point ofa tree trunk measured 1.4 m (4.5 ft) a
22、bove 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 (GIS)an integratedspatial data base and mapping system in which geographicalinformati
23、on 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 survey system inwhich a GPS unit is used to receive signals from satellites.Signals ar
24、e 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 collection of biological, chemical, andphysical features of a landscape that provide
25、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 are favorablefor a particular species. Values range between 0.0 (unsuitable)and 1.0 (
26、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 activities. (Seeforaging-range.)3.2.18 physiognomythe surface features of an area.3.2.19
27、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 as vegeta-tion.3.2.21 shrubwoody plant typically smaller than a treewhen both are m
28、ature (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, atleast in qualitative terms, the importance of critical habitat forvarious life h
29、istory 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 as an indication ofenvironmental quality, refers to the combination of physicaland b
30、iological 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 each other in “n-dimensional niche space” (8). There are differential area userates
31、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 Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Models have been de-veloped for many species of intere
32、st. 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 predictions of population densities (6). Rand andNewman (10) describe the applicabi
33、lity 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) describe two approaches to take into accountspatial differences in contaminant co
34、ncentrations 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 thefundamental concepts for such use. Hope (12-14), Wickwire etal. (15), Linkov et al. (16, 1
35、7) 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 HSIsas the habitat quality parameter for use in estimating exposurelevels. The U.S. EP
36、A Office of Solid Waste conducted anexploratory program in which they characterized vegetationE2385042types and physical features within a 2-km radius of more than200 chemically contaminated sites. The focus was on usinghabitat characteristics to modify estimates of risk. Landscaperelationships are
37、being considered in efforts to incorporateecological dynamics into risk assessments by another groupwithin the U.S. EPA. The Program to Assist in TrackingCritical Habitat (PATCH) model uses a GIS platform thatallows user input in defining polygons and their characteristics(21); www.epa.gov/wed/pages
38、/models.htm). The Army RiskAssessment Modeling System (ARAMS) (www.wes.army.mil/el/arams/arams.html) is developing modules that use habitatquality assessments to improve the realism of exposure assess-ments.5. Identifying Scenarios where Habitat Value can beImportant in EcoRAs5.1 Heterogeneous lands
39、capes 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 habitatmodifications of exposure es
40、timates 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 ofhomogeneous habitat and hom
41、ogeneous 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 the site. Finally, with homog
42、eneous 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 species can enhancethe ecologi
43、cal 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 commonly usedArea UseFactor (AUF).
44、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 information canbe interpreted as a de
45、ficiency. However, it can also be thatexpectations 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 m
46、odels 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 descrip-tions, the relationship can be characterized as having increas-ing variance
47、as the quality of habitat increases. If applied towildlife populations, limiting factors such as food supply,predation, or human disturbance may override the apparentquality of habitat for the species of interest. Thus in low habitatCases where habitat characterization may be useful in reducing unce
48、rtainty of exposure estimates (+) and cases where habitat considerations may be moot (O).Adapted from Kapustka et al., 2001, (5).FIG. 1 Contingency Table Illustrating Relationships of Home Range (Circle) Relative to Site Size (Square).E2385043quality areas, the observed populations are near zero; bu
49、t inhigher quality habitat areas, observed populations may rangefrom near zero to some predicted maximum.7.2 Metabolic energy requirements may result in animals inpoor-quality habitats to forage longer and consume more foodto obtain basal metabolic needs (13). Caution should beexercised when interpreting results, especially for individualsconfined entirely within contaminated areas.7.3 If site data are evaluated as part of a calibration step,caution should be exercised when interpreting results asindividuals may move some distance away from the area inwhic
copyright@ 2008-2019 麦多课文库（www.mydoc123.com）网站版权所有
备案/许可证编号：苏ICP备17064731号-1