ASTM E2385-11
(Guide)Standard Guide for Estimating Wildlife Exposure Using Measures of Habitat Quality
Standard Guide for Estimating Wildlife Exposure Using Measures of Habitat Quality
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
Explicit consideration of landscape features to characterize the quality of habitat for assessment species can enhance the ecological relevance of an EcoRA. This can help avoid assessing exposure in areas in which a wildlife species would be absent because of a lack of habitat or to bound exposure estimates in areas with low habitat quality. The measure of habitat quality is used in place of the commonly used Area Use Factor (AUF). Greater ecological realism and more informed management decisions can be realized through better use of landscape features to characterize sites.
SCOPE
1.1 Ecological Risk Assessments (EcoRAs) typically focus on valued wildlife populations. Regulatory authority for conducting EcoRAs derives from various federal laws [for example, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 1981, (CERCLA), Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA), and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, (FIFRA)]. Certain procedures for conducting EcoRAs (1-4) have been standardized [E1689-95(2003) Standard Guide for Developing Conceptual Site Models for Contaminated Sites; E1848-96(2003) Standard Guide for Selecting and Using Ecological Endpoints for Contaminated Sites; E2020-99a Standard Guide for Data and Information Options for Conducting an Ecological Risk Assessment at Contaminated Sites; E2205-02 Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action for Protection of Ecological resources; E1739-95(2002) Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites]. Specialized cases for reporting data have also been standardized [E1849-96(2002) Standard Guide for Fish and Wildlife Incident Monitoring and Reporting] as have sampling procedures to characterize vegetation [E1923-97(2003) Standard Guide for Sampling Terrestrial and Wetlands Vegetation].
1.2 Most states have enacted laws modeled after the federal acts and follow similar procedures. Typically, estimates of likely exposure levels to constituents of potential concern (CoPC) are compared to toxicity benchmark values or concentration-response profiles to establish the magnitude of risk posed by the CoPC and to inform risk managers considering potential mitigation/remediation options. The likelihood of exposure is influenced greatly by the foraging behavior and residence time of the animals of interest in the areas containing significant concentrations of the CoPC. Foraging behavior and residence time of the animals are related to landscape features (vegetation and physiognomy) that comprise suitable habitat for the species. This guide presents a framework for incorporating habitat quality into the calculation of exposure levels for use in EcoRAs.
1.3 This guide is intended only as a framework for using measures of habitat quality in species specific habitat suitability models to assist with the calculation of exposure levels in EcoRA. Information from published Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) models (5) is used in this guide. The user should become familiar with the strengths and limitations of any particular HSI model used in order to characterize uncertainty in the exposure assessment (5-7). For species that do not have published habitat suitability models, the user may elect to develop broad categorical descriptions of habitat quality for use in estimating exposure.
General Information
Relations
Buy Standard
Standards Content (Sample)
NOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.
Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information
Designation: E2385 − 11
StandardGuide for
Estimating Wildlife Exposure Using Measures of Habitat
1
Quality
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E2385; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope (vegetation and physiognomy) that comprise suitable habitat
for the species. This guide presents a framework for incorpo-
1.1 Ecological Risk Assessments (EcoRAs) typically focus
rating habitat quality into the calculation of exposure levels for
on valued wildlife populations. Regulatory authority for con-
use in EcoRAs.
ducting EcoRAs derives from various federal laws [for
example, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compen- 1.3 This guide is intended only as a framework for using
sation and Liability Act 1981, (CERCLA), Resource Conser- measures of habitat quality in species specific habitat suitabil-
vation Recovery Act (RCRA), and Federal Insecticide, ity models to assist with the calculation of exposure levels in
Fungicide, and RodenticideAct, (FIFRA)]. Certain procedures EcoRA. Information from published Habitat Suitability Index
2
for conducting EcoRAs (1-4) have been standardized [E1689- (HSI) models (5) is used in this guide.The user should become
95(2003) Standard Guide for Developing Conceptual Site familiarwiththestrengthsandlimitationsofanyparticularHSI
Models for Contaminated Sites; E1848-96(2003) Standard model used in order to characterize uncertainty in the exposure
Guide for Selecting and Using Ecological Endpoints for assessment (5-7). For species that do not have published
Contaminated Sites; E2020-99a Standard Guide for Data and habitat suitability models, the user may elect to develop broad
Information Options for Conducting an Ecological Risk As- categorical descriptions of habitat quality for use in estimating
sessment at Contaminated Sites; E2205-02 Standard Guide for exposure.
Risk-Based Corrective Action for Protection of Ecological
2. Referenced Documents
resources; E1739-95(2002) Standard Guide for Risk-Based
3
Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites]. Spe-
2.1 ASTM Standards:
cialized cases for reporting data have also been standardized
E1689 Guide for Developing Conceptual Site Models for
[E1849-96(2002) Standard Guide for Fish and Wildlife Inci-
Contaminated Sites
dent Monitoring and Reporting] as have sampling procedures
E1739 Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied at
tocharacterizevegetation[E1923-97(2003)StandardGuidefor
Petroleum Release Sites
Sampling Terrestrial and Wetlands Vegetation].
E1848 Guide for Selecting and Using Ecological Endpoints
for Contaminated Sites
1.2 Most states have enacted laws modeled after the federal
E1849 Guide for Fish and Wildlife Incident Monitoring and
acts and follow similar procedures. Typically, estimates of
Reporting
likely exposure levels to constituents of potential concern
E1923 Guide for Sampling Terrestrial and Wetlands Vegeta-
(CoPC) are compared to toxicity benchmark values or
4
tion (Withdrawn 2013)
concentration-response profiles to establish the magnitude of
E2020 GuideforDataandInformationOptionsforConduct-
risk posed by the CoPC and to inform risk managers consid-
ing an Ecological RiskAssessment at Contaminated Sites
ering potential mitigation/remediation options. The likelihood
E2205 Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action for Protec-
of exposure is influenced greatly by the foraging behavior and
tion of Ecological Resources
residence time of the animals of interest in the areas containing
significant concentrations of the CoPC. Foraging behavior and
3. Terminology
residence time of the animals are related to landscape features
3.1 Thewords“must,”“should,”“may,”“can,”and“might”
have specific meanings in this guide. “Must” is used to express
1
ThisguideisunderthejurisdictionofASTMCommitteeE50onEnvironmental
Assessment, Risk Management and CorrectiveAction and is the direct responsibil-
3
ity of Subcommittee E50.47 on Biological Effects and Environmental Fate. For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
Current edition approved Oct. 1, 2011. Published October 2011. Originally contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM
approved in 2004. Last previous edition approved in 2004 as E2385–04. DOI: Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on
10.1520/E2385-11. the ASTM website.
2 4
The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to the list of references at the end of The last approved version of this historical standard is referenced on
this standard. www.astm.org.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100
...
This document is not anASTM standard and is intended only to provide the user of anASTM standard an indication of what changes have been made to the previous version. Because
it may not be technically possible to adequately depict all changes accurately, ASTM recommends that users consult prior editions as appropriate. In all cases only the current version
of the standard as published by ASTM is to be considered the official document.
Designation:E2385–04 Designation: E2385 – 11
Standard Guide for
Estimating Wildlife Exposure Using Measures of Habitat
1
Quality
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E2385; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope
1.1 Ecological RiskAssessments (EcoRAs) typically focus on valued wildlife populations. Regulatory authority for conducting
EcoRAs derives from various federal laws [for example, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act 1981, (CERCLA), Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA), and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act,
2
(FIFRA)]. Certain procedures for conducting EcoRAs (1-4) have been standardized [E1689-95(2003) Standard Guide for
Developing Conceptual Site Models for Contaminated Sites; E1848-96(2003) Standard Guide for Selecting and Using Ecological
Endpoints for Contaminated Sites; E2020-99a Standard Guide for Data and Information Options for Conducting an Ecological
RiskAssessment at Contaminated Sites; E2205-02 Standard Guide for Risk-Based CorrectiveAction for Protection of Ecological
resources; E1739-95(2002) Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites]. Specialized
cases for reporting data have also been standardized [E1849-96(2002) Standard Guide for Fish and Wildlife Incident Monitoring
and Reporting] as have sampling procedures to characterize vegetation [E1923-97(2003) Standard Guide for Sampling Terrestrial
and Wetlands Vegetation].
1.2 Most states have enacted laws modeled after the federal acts and follow similar procedures. Typically, estimates of likely
exposure levels to constituents of potential concern (CoPC) are compared to toxicity benchmark values or concentration-response
profiles to establish the magnitude of risk posed by the CoPC and to inform risk managers considering potential mitigation/
remediation options. The likelihood of exposure is influenced greatly by the foraging behavior and residence time of the animals
of interest in the areas containing significant concentrations of the CoPC. Foraging behavior and residence time of the animals are
related to landscape features (vegetation and physiognomy) that comprise suitable habitat for the species. This guide presents a
framework for incorporating habitat quality into the calculation of exposure levels for use in EcoRAs.
1.3 Thisguideisintendedonlyasaframeworkforusingmeasuresofhabitatqualityinspeciesspecifichabitatsuitabilitymodels
to assist with the calculation of exposure levels in EcoRA. Information from published Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) models (5)
is used in this guide.The user should become familiar with the strengths and limitations of any particular HSI model used in order
to characterize uncertainty in the exposure assessment (5-7). For species that do not have published habitat suitability models, the
user may elect to develop broad categorical descriptions of habitat quality for use in estimating exposure.
2. Referenced Documents
3
2.1 ASTM Standards:
E1689 Guide for Developing Conceptual Site Models for Contaminated Sites
E1739 Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites
E1848 Guide for Selecting and Using Ecological Endpoints for Contaminated Sites
E1849 Guide for Fish and Wildlife Incident Monitoring and Reporting
E1923 Guide for Sampling Terrestrial and Wetlands Vegetation
E2020 Guide for Data and Information Options for Conducting an Ecological Risk Assessment at Contaminated Sites
E2205 Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action for Protection of Ecological Resources
3. Terminology
3.1 The words “must,” “should,” “may,” “can,” and “might” have specific meanings in this guide. “Must” is used to express
1
This guide is under the jurisdiction ofASTM Committee E47 on Biological Effects and Environmental Fate and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E47.02 on
Terrestrial Assessment and Toxicology.
Current edition approved Dec. 1, 2004. Published January 2005. DOI: 10.1520/E2385-04.
Current edition approved Oct. 1, 2011. Published October 2011. Originally approved in 2004. Last previous edition approved in 2004 as E2385–04. DOI:
10.1520/E2385-11.
2
The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to the list of references at the end of this standard.
3
For referencedASTM standards, vi
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.