The Department of Defense (DoD) lacks the methodology to address risks to natural resources resulting from multiple activities, multiple effects, and cumulative effects of military activities. The objective of this project was to develop a structured, scientifically valid, integrated Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) framework to provide, at both the installation and command levels, a common context for characterizing different kinds of risks for comparison and prioritization for risk-based sustainable management of DoD training and testing assets. This document provides a risk assessment framework consistent with, but extending beyond, the EPA's ecological risk assessment framework, and specifically addresses DoD-activities and management needs. It is titled Military Ecological Risk Assessment Framework (MERAF) to convey this military focus. The modifications made to the EPA ecological risk assessment framework in developing MERAF enable MERAF to: (1) explicitly address risks from the imposition of multiple and diverse stressors on a site, (2) explicitly address risks resulting from causal chains (e.g., effects on habitat that indirectly impact wildlife), and (3) incorporate the fact that risks to natural resources imply other consequent risks.

The objective of this research is to provide the DoD with a framework based on a systematic, risk-based approach to assess impacts for management of natural resources in an ecosystem context. This risk assessment framework is consistent with, but extends beyond, the EPA's ecological risk assessment framework, and specifically addresses DoD activities and management needs. MERAF is intended to be consistent with existing procedures for environmental assessment and planning with DoD testing and training. The intention is to supplement these procedures rather than creating new procedural requirements. MERAF is suitable for use for training and testing area assessment and management. It does not include human health risks nor does it address specific permitting or compliance requirements, although it may be useful in some of these cases. Use of MERAF fits into the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process by providing a consistent and rigorous way of organizing and conducting the technical analysis for Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) (Sigal 1993; Carpenter 1995; Canter and Sadler 1997). It neither conflicts with, nor replaces, procedural requirements within the NEPA process or document management processes already in place within DoD.

This ecological risk assessment for a testing program at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, is a demonstration of the Military Ecological Risk Assessment Framework (MERAF; Suter et al. 2001). The demonstration is intended to illustrate how risk assessment guidance concerning-generic military training and testing activities and guidance concerning a specific type of activity (e.g., low-altitude aircraft overflights) may be implemented at a military installation. MERAF was developed with funding from the Strategic Research and Development Program (SERDP) of the Department of Defense. Novel aspects of MERAF include: (1) the assessment of risks from physical stressors using an ecological risk assessment framework, (2) the consideration of contingent or indirect effects of stressors (e.g., population-level effects that are derived from habitat or hydrological changes), (3) the integration of risks associated with different component activities or stressors, (4) the emphasis on quantitative risk estimates and estimates of uncertainty, and (5) the modularity of design, permitting components of the framework to be used in various military risk assessments that include similar activities. The particular subject of this report is the assessment of ecological risks associated with a testing program at Cibola Range of Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona. The program involves an Apache Longbow helicopter firing Hellfire missiles at moving targets, i.e., M60-A1 tanks. Thus, the three component activities of the Apache-Hellfire test were: (1) helicopter overflight, (2) missile firing, and (3) tracked vehicle movement. The demonstration was limited, to two ecological endpoint entities (i.e., potentially susceptible and valued populations or communities): woody desert wash communities and mule deer populations. The core assessment area is composed of about 126 km2 between the Chocolate and Middle Mountains. The core time of the program is a three-week period, including fourteen days of activity in August of 2000.

Based on the "go to" book in the field of ecological risk assessment, this shorter, principles-based, updated textbook is essential for students and new practitioners who want to understand the purposes of environmental assessments and how to achieve them. It includes environmental risks to humans as well as nonhuman populations and ecosystems, and most types of environmental assessments. Drawing upon the author’s extensive experience in the field, first as a senior research staff member in the Environmental Sciences Division at Oak Ridge Laboratory and then as science advisor in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s National Center for Environmental Assessment, the book explains fundamental principles and basic techniques and illustrates them with example applications which carry through multiple chapters and make this book a practical and hands-on guide. Both the content and the style are inviting and approachable to different levels of students. Features Integrates human health and ecological assessments. Includes epidemiological, risk, causal, impact, and outcome assessments. Focuses on fundamental principles that are applicable in all nations and legal contexts. Employs an engaging style and draws on the author’s practical experience. Explains fundamental concepts in short chapters, making it perfect for beginners in the field. Explains the challenges and rewards of a career in environmental assessment. This book is a practical guide for senior and graduate students in environmental sciences and management, as well as new practitioners of assessment who want to understand the purposes of environmental assessments and how to achieve them.

To guide mission planning, military decision makers need information on the health risks of potential exposures to individual soldiers and their potential impact on mission operations. To help with the assessment of chemical hazards, the U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine developed three technical guides for characterizing chemicals in terms of their risks to the mission and to the health of the force. The report reviews these guides for their scientific validity and conformance with current risk-assessment practices. The report finds that the military exposure guidelines are appropriate (with some modification) for providing force health protection, but that for assessing mission risk, a new set of exposure guidelines is needed that predict concentrations at which health effects would degrade the performance of enough soldiers to hinder mission accomplishment.

More than 21,000 contaminated sites have been identified on Department of Defense (DoD) installations. The scope of this environmental problem is obvious whether one considers the nature and extent of contamination or the amount of resources required to evaluate and/or clean up such a large number of sites. Under most circumstances, decisions regarding the need for and the scope of any cleanup action will be driven by environmental risk assessment. As required by Federal regulation, such assessments must address the potential risk to human health and the environment posed by the contaminants present at any particular site. Over the last 20 years, methods for performing human health risk assessments have developed, matured, and been incorporated into well established Federal guidance used within various Federal programs and agencies, Compensation and Liability Act or Superfund. Greater public concern recent years has been focused on more general environmental problems resulting from the presence of contaminants in the environment. However, the issues involved in making a determination about the broader ecological consequences of contaminant exposure are more complex than those related to human health risk. This fact is most simply illustrated by considering that human heath risk assessments need only focus on the risk to one receptor, humans; whereas, an ecological risk assessment must potentially consider the risk to hundreds of interacting species located at any particular site. This disparity in the complexity involved in human and ecological assessments of risk is further emphasized by the fact that for ecological risk assessments, the number and kinds of receptors vary considerably from site to site.

This book provides an insight into the global practices for environmental management of military live-fire training ranges by combining scientific research with practical solutions to ensure continued training capability. The book is divided into four parts: the first provides background information necessary to understand the scientific principles behind environmental management; the second comprises methodologies for the environmental risk assessment of explosives and munitions; the third collates case studies and innovative management techniques that have been applied to reduce remediation costs; while the final section considers the design of 'greener or insensitive munitions' to reduce environmental impact. The book is an essential reference guide for those with a responsibility for environmental management of military training ranges, and who are required to ensure sustainable long-term training capability.

This phrase can mean a variety of things.

A Practical Guide to Understanding, Managing and Reviewing Environmental Risk Assessment Reports provides team leaders and team members with a strategy for developing the elements of risk assessment into a readable and beneficial report. The authors believe that successful management of the risk assessment team is a key factor is quality repor