Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance - State of New Jersey

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Quality AssuranceAll toxicity studies should meet the minimum test acceptability criteria for controlorganism survival, growth, reproduction or fecundity set forth in the appropriate guidancedocuments. Additionally, SRT tests should be performed by the laboratory at regularintervals (at least monthly for surface water species). It is preferable that the SRT beinitiated on the same day, by the same technicians, with the same batch of organismsused for the test samples (so the SRT is directly related to the study). The lab shouldhave a reference toxicant control chart for each species and age group they regularly usein testing. The object of the SRT is to assess the organism health, the lab procedure andthe technician's handling.Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance Document 113Version 1.2 8/29/12
Appendix E - Sediment Pore Water and Elutriate Toxicity TestingFreshwater Test SpeciesThe most commonly used species for freshwater (salinity of 3.5 ppt or less) surface watertoxicity studies in New Jersey are the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) and thewater flea (Ceriodaphnia dubia). These species would also be appropriate for testing ofsediment pore water and elutriate samples.Salt Water Test SpeciesThe most commonly used species for saltwater (salinity greater than 3.5 ppt) surfacewater toxicity studies in New Jersey are the sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus)and the opossum shrimp (Americamysis bahia). These species would also beappropriate for testing of sediment pore water and elutriate samples.Toxicity Test TypesThere are three basic types of aqueous toxicity tests:(1) static, nonrenewal tests, in which the test solution is not changed throughout thetest. These have the advantages of being simple, with minimal physicaldisturbance of the test organisms, and the disadvantage that toxicants mayvolatilize or degrade during testing;(2) static-renewal tests in which the test organisms are exposed to fresh test solutionperiodically (e.g., every 24 hours). These have the advantage of being able toaddress the volatilization and degradation issues, but are more labor intensive andcause more physical disturbance to the test organisms; and(3) flow-through tests, in which there is a continual or semi-continual flow of freshtest solution through the test chambers for the duration of the test. These have theadvantage of exposing organisms in a more stream-like manner, but they aresignificantly more labor intensive and are also more expensive than the other twotest types.Flow-through assays are difficult to perform with pore water and elutriate samplesbecause of the volumes of sample required. Therefore, the static-renewal and the staticnonrenewalare the most commonly performed test types.Toxicity Test Duration - Acute or ChronicToxicity is generally assessed in the laboratory using acute or chronic studies. Acutestudies are of short duration, usually one to four days, and are designed to determinewhether the sediment pore water or elutriate sample in question will kill the exposedorganisms. Chronic studies usually take seven days and are designed to determinesublethal effects on growth and reproduction. While observed lethality is a directindication that the sample in question is toxic, sublethal effects are important forassessing long-term population health.If no historical aquatic toxicity information is available, investigators can perform 24-hour to 96-hour acute toxicity studies to determine whether the samples are acutely toxic.If no acute toxicity is observed, investigators can initiate short-term chronic toxicitystudies. Acute toxicity studies are quicker and cheaper than chronic studies. However,because aqueous samples can be diluted, it is often easier to go straight to the short-termEcological Evaluation Technical Guidance Document 114Version 1.2 8/29/12
Page 1 and 2:
Ecological EvaluationTechnical Guid
Page 3 and 4:
6.2.1.3 Biological Sampling of Fish
Page 5 and 6:
Acronyms and AbbreviationsADDAETAFA
Page 7 and 8:
Executive SummaryThis document prov
Page 9 and 10:
environmentally sensitive areas pur
Page 11 and 12:
Figure 3-1: Flow diagram to describ
Page 13 and 14:
assessment may also include evaluat
Page 15 and 16:
“Hazard quotient” or “HQ” m
Page 17 and 18:
“Site investigation” means the
Page 19 and 20:
parameters as specified in ERAGS (i
Page 21 and 22:
document otherwise). The investigat
Page 23 and 24:
5.3.2.1 Potential Contaminant Migra
Page 25 and 26:
71 0Sampling pointsSampling transec
Page 27 and 28:
5.3.4 Background ConsiderationsIt i
Page 29 and 30:
III. GroundwaterAnalytical data fro
Page 31 and 32:
5.5 Ecological Evaluation ReportThe
Page 33 and 34:
Step 1 - Preliminary Screening Leve
Page 35 and 36:
specific measurements of receptor h
Page 37 and 38:
Figure 6-2: Ecological Conceptual S
Page 39 and 40:
ingested, air inhaled, or material
Page 41 and 42:
Fugacity, which is described as the
Page 43 and 44:
environment. As noted in ERAGS, the
Page 45 and 46:
Sample SelectionAfter completing th
Page 47 and 48:
While there are many laboratories t
Page 49 and 50:
ioavailability, and by doing so, of
Page 51 and 52:
For the purposes of surface water,
Page 53 and 54:
higher trophic level receptors. Lip
Page 55 and 56:
Details regarding surface water tox
Page 57 and 58:
e present at intervals greater than
Page 59 and 60:
elatively sedentary organisms that
Page 61 and 62:
COPECs. The following references ar
Page 63 and 64: tests (USEPA, 2002e). After collect
Page 65 and 66: multiple reference area soils repre
Page 67 and 68: In ERAs, tissue residue analyses ar
Page 69 and 70: Objectives of the ERA: including a
Page 71 and 72: evaluation might necessitate the co
Page 73 and 74: N.J.A.C. 7:26E-4.8(c)1. The ERA may
Page 75 and 76: sediment (i.e., that fraction that
Page 77 and 78: Twelve dioxin-like PCB congeners ha
Page 79 and 80: indicates burial of potential dioxi
Page 81 and 82: of evidence for evaluating risk unt
Page 83 and 84: 7.2.1 Apparent Effects Threshold Ap
Page 85 and 86: when site conditions are most simil
Page 87 and 88: destroying 10 acres of the mature f
Page 89 and 90: ASTM (American Society for Testing
Page 91 and 92: Establishing Sediment Quality Crite
Page 93 and 94: N.J.A.C. (New Jersey Administrative
Page 95 and 96: USEPA. 1989c. Risk Assessment Guida
Page 97 and 98: http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regu
Page 99 and 100: USEPA 2006a. Data Quality Assessmen
Page 101 and 102: Appendix A - Habitat Survey FormsEc
Page 103 and 104: Ecological Evaluation Technical Gui
Page 105 and 106: Appendix B - Sampling Procedures fo
Page 107 and 108: Appendix C - Surface Water Toxicity
Page 109 and 110: Short-term chronic studies, endpoin
Page 111 and 112: Appendix D - Sediment Toxicity Test
Page 113: Toxicity Test DesignSediment toxici
Page 117 and 118: The seven-day daphnid survival and
Page 119 and 120: esults are then evaluated using USE
Page 121 and 122: Surber or Square-foot BottomThis sa
Page 123 and 124: Appendix H - Soil Toxicity TestingS
Page 125 and 126: another sample may still have a sub
Page 127 and 128: conservative approach from an ecolo
Page 129: Data PresentationTabular presentati
show all

Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance - State of New Jersey

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?