Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21384273›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental management2011

Twenty-five years of ecological recovery of East Fork Poplar Creek: review of environmental problems and remedial actions.

James M Loar, Arthur J Stewart, John G Smith

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental management, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

James M LoarEnvironmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA.
Arthur J Stewart
John G Smith

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In May 1985, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit was issued for the Department of Energy's Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12 Complex) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA, allowing discharge of effluents to East Fork Poplar Creek (EFPC). The effluents ranged from large volumes of chlorinated once-through cooling water and cooling tower blow-down to smaller discharges of treated and untreated process wastewaters, which contained a mixture of heavy metals, organics, and nutrients, especially nitrates. As a condition of the permit, a Biological Monitoring and Abatement Program (BMAP) was developed to meet two major objectives: demonstrate that the established effluent limitations were protecting the classified uses of EFPC, and document the ecological effects resulting from implementing a Water Pollution Control Program at the Y-12 Complex. The second objective is the primary focus of the other papers in this special series. This paper provides a history of pollution and the remedial actions that were implemented; describes the geographic setting of the study area; and characterizes the physicochemical attributes of the sampling sites, including changes in stream flow and temperature that occurred during implementation of the BMAP. Most of the actions taken under the Water Pollution Control Program were completed between 1986 and 1998, with as many as four years elapsing between some of the most significant actions. The Water Pollution Control Program included constructing nine new wastewater treatment facilities and implementation of several other pollution-reducing measures, such as a best management practices plan; area-source pollution control management; and various spill-prevention projects. Many of the major actions had readily discernable effects on the chemical and physical conditions of EFPC. As controls on effluents entering the stream were implemented, pollutant concentrations generally declined and, at least initially, the volume of water discharged from the Y-12 Complex declined. This reduction in discharge was of ecological concern and led to implementation of a flow management program for EFPC. Implementing flow management, in turn, led to substantial changes in chemical and physical conditions of the stream: stream discharge nearly doubled and stream temperatures decreased, becoming more similar to those in reference streams. While water quality clearly improved, meeting water quality standards alone does not guarantee protection of a waterbody's biological integrity. Results from studies on the ecological changes stemming from pollution-reduction actions, such as those presented in this series, also are needed to understand how best to restore or protect biological integrity and enhance ecological recovery in stream ecosystems. With a better knowledge of the ecological consequences of their decisions, environmental managers can better evaluate alternative actions and more accurately predict their effects.

Indexed as

Environmental MonitoringEnvironmental Restoration and RemediationLicensureRiversUnited StatesUnited States Government AgenciesWater Pollutants, ChemicalWater Pollution, ChemicalWater Pollutants, Chemical

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.