A critical review finds government agencies allow, permit, license, or ignore arsenic releases to surface soils. Release rates are controlled or evaluated using risk-based soil contaminant numerical limits employing standardized risk algorithms, chemical-specific and default input values. United States arsenic residential soil limits, approximately 0.4- approximately 40 ppm, generally correspond to a one-in-one-million to a one-in-ten-thousand incremental cancer risk range via ingestion of or direct contact with contaminated residential soils. Background arsenic surface soil levels often exceed applicable limits. Arsenic releases to surface soils (via, e.g., air emissions, waste recycling, soil amendments, direct pesticide application, and chromated copper arsenic (CCA)-treated wood) can result in greatly elevated arsenic levels, sometimes one to two orders of magnitude greater than applicable numerical limits. CCA-treated wood, a heavily used infrastructure material at residences and public spaces, can release sufficient arsenic to result in surface soil concentrations that exceed numerical limits by one or two orders of magnitude. Although significant exceedence of arsenic surface soil numerical limits would normally result in regulatory actions at industrial or hazardous waste sites, no such pattern is seen at residential and public spaces. Given the current risk assessment paradigm, measured or expected elevated surface soil arsenic levels at residential and public spaces suggest that a regulatory health crisis of sizeable magnitude is imminent. In contrast, available literature and a survey of government agencies conducted for this paper finds no verified cases of human morbidity or mortality resulting from exposure to elevated levels of arsenic in surface soils. This concomitance of an emerging regulatory health crisis in the absence of a medical crisis is arguably partly attributable to inadequate government and private party attention to the issue.

Current uncertainties in our understanding of ecosystems require shifting from optimization‐based management to an adaptive management paradigm. Risk managers routinely make suboptimal decisions because they are forced to predict environmental response to different management policies in the face of complex environmental challenges, changing environmental conditions, and even changing social priorities. Rather than force risk managers to make single suboptimal management choices, adaptive management explicitly acknowledges the uncertainties at the time of the decision, providing mechanisms to design and institute a set of more flexible alternatives that can be monitored to gain information and reduce the uncertainties associated with future management decisions. Although adaptive management concepts were introduced more than 20 y ago, their implementation has often been limited or piecemeal, especially in remedial decision making. We believe that viable tools exist for using adaptive management more fully. In this commentary, we propose that an adaptive management approach combined with multicriteria decision analysis techniques would result in a more efficient management decision‐making process as well as more effective environmental management strategies. A preliminary framework combining the 2 concepts is proposed for future testing and discussion.

No abstract

Current uncertainties in our understanding of ecosystems require shifting from optimization-based management to an adaptive management paradigm. Risk managers routinely make suboptimal decisions because they are forced to predict environmental response to different management policies in the face of complex environmental challenges, changing environmental conditions, and even changing social priorities. Rather than force risk managers to make single suboptimal management choices, adaptive management explicitly acknowledges the uncertainties at the time of the decision, providing mechanisms to design and institute a set of more flexible alternatives that can be monitored to gain information and reduce the uncertainties associated with future management decisions. Although adaptive management concepts were introduced more than 20 y ago, their implementation has often been limited or piecemeal, especially in remedial decision making. We believe that viable tools exist for using adaptive management more fully. In this commentary, we propose that an adaptive management approach combined with multicriteria decision analysis techniques would result in a more efficient management decision-making process as well as more effective environmental management strategies. A preliminary framework combining the 2 concepts is proposed for future testing and discussion.

No abstract