The Environmental Evaluation System (EES) is a methodology for conducting environmental impact analysis. It was developed by an interdisciplinary research team and is based on a hierarchical arrangement of environmental quality indicators, an arrangement that classifies the major areas of environmental concern into major categories, components, and ultimately into parameters and measurements of environmental quality. The EES provides for environmental impact evaluations in four major categories: ecology, environmental pollution, esthetics, and human interest. These four categories are further broken down into 18 components and finally into 78 parameters. The EES provides a means for measuring or estimating selected environmental impacts of large-scale water resource development projects in commensurate units termed 'environmental impact units' (EIU). Results of using the EES include a total score in EIU 'with' and 'without' the proposed project; the difference between the two scores is one measure of environmental impact. Environmental impact scores developed in the EES are based on the magnitude of specific environmental impacts and their relative importance. Another major output from the EES is an indication of major adverse impacts called 'red flags', which are of concern of and by themselves. These flags indicate 'fragile' elements of the environment, which must be studied in more detail.It has become increasingly clear that as a nation we are not being very good stewards of our environment. Perhaps more disturbing, we lack a national consensus on what constitutes good stewardship in light of seemingly conflicting objectives, such as economic growth and environmental quality enhancement, and the limited resources available to tackle the majority of contemporary problems. Further, even if we knew the elements of good stewardship there is some question whether we possess the mechanisms for incorporating those practices into our public and private decision-making processes.

Most successful Brownfield redevelopment in North America involves a partnership of interests between government and private developers. Much has been written of the need for "Public-Private Partnerships", as well as community involvement as contaminated Brownfield sites are recycled into economic productivity. Less well understood are the motivation and incentives for private investors and developers to take the risks necessary to succeed at Brownfield redevelopment, and the criteria used by the development community to determine when to do so.The National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP), of Herndon, Virginia, represent the largest and most experienced owners and developers of commercial real estate in North America. NAIOP is one of the few private sector organizations that has worked with USEPA and other public agencies to promote and enhance the understanding of the private sector opportunities and risks in Brownfield redevelopment.Interviews were conducted with NAIOP members and other Brownfield players regarding the market drivers that motivate private developers and their financial backers to invest their time and resources in Brownfield restoration and redevelopment, and the issues which stand in the way of such investment. Information developed from interviews and discussions with developers, and from NAIOP presentations at EPA's National Brownfields Conferences and from commercial real estate forums are cited and factored into the analysis of private sector forces that lead to success in Brownfield redevelopment.www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)

A large subsurface pool of waste solvent product, consisting primarily of 1,1,1‐tichloroethanc and carbon tetrachloride, was encountered during investigations at an industrial site in northern New Jersey. In the 1950s the product was discharged through a settling chamber directly below the shallow water table. Eventually the product accumulated within elongated depressions of erosional surface of varved clays at depths 10 to 15 feet below grade. The host sediment, line to medium sand, was overlain by line sand and silt. The delineated area of pooled DNAPLs covered 2750 feet2, and the maximum pool thickness exceeded 3 feel. The primary recovery involved pumping product from nine wells. Each recovery well was equipped with a sump extending into the clay, which enabled the system to keep the product pumping level below the bottom of the pool. A total of 3495 gallons of solvent product was recovered over two years. Nearly half of this volume was produced by two wells placed at the lowest points of the pools. Postpumping sampling of the former pools indicated that 43 to 94 percent of the pooled solvent mass was removed during the primary recovery. Average initial product salutation within the pool was estimated at 53.2 percent of the total porosity measured at 31 percent. Average residual saturation after the primary product recovery was 3.7 percent of the total pore volume. To test the feasibility of residual product recovery, an experimental secondary recovery was undertaken. Using sheet piling, a 506 feet2 lest cell was constructed inside the former DNAPL pool. The cell featured a central recovery well, six peripheral wells, and monitoring probes. I he selected sequence of secondary operations included partial dewatering. hot water injection, final dewatering, and thermally enhanced vapor extraction (TVE). During six weeks of the secondary recovery operations. 87.9 gallons of product were removed, of which 72 percent was from TVE. 25 percent from hydraulic mobilization effects. and 3 percent from dissolution of residuals. Confirmatory soil sampling showed an average reduction of residual contamination by 93.4 percent in comparison to the concentration of residuals prior to the secondary recovery. For the lest cell, a combined total solvent recovery of 99.6 percent was achieved. This high recovery exceeded DNAPL recoveries expected or achieved in other field‐scale attempts.

Every so often, solitary voices in the past proclaimed a need to do something about the environment. Until the last few years, however, environmental‐system analysis was disdained because the environment was not considered important enough by those who made policy. The authors report on the procedures that are being used now that the situation has changed.

The role of water resources in the urban economic and social environment, particularly in the inner city, has never been established to the degree necessary for making informed decisions on investments in urban waterway and shoreline improvements. The basic tools for measuring psychological and social impacts of waterway and shoreline developments in the inner city have not been fully developed and utilized to date. However, through a detailed analysis of the water resources in the urban core area of Cleveland, it appears that deliberate development of water‐based recreation and other environmental resources can lead to improvement in some of the social problems of the inner city. In recreation analysis, there is currently a great gap between methodologies that are conceptually sound and those that have been applied by urban and water‐resources planning agencies. New tools and methodologies can only be used successfully when public agencies are given the institutional and policy means for using them equitably in light of social needs. Present urban‐water planning practices have been found to be biased against the inner city, often unintentionally.