provide suitable habitat. D-framed or rectangular framed 500 – 900 mm mesh “kick” netscan be employed as either single or multiple habitat samplers.Single Habitat SamplingA 100-meter reach representative <strong>of</strong> the characteristics <strong>of</strong> the stream is chosen, andwhenever possible, upstream <strong>of</strong> road or bridge crossing. A composite sample is takenfrom individual sampling spots in the riffles and runs in the stream reach. A minimum <strong>of</strong>2m 2 composited area is sampled. Sampling begins at the downstream end <strong>of</strong> the reachand proceeds upstream. Two to three kicks are sampled at various velocities in the reach.A kick is a stationary sampling accomplished by positioning the net on the bottom <strong>of</strong> thestream and disturbing one square meter upstream <strong>of</strong> the net. The substrate can bedisturbed using the heel and toe <strong>of</strong> the boot or rubbed by hand for larger substrateparticles. Several kicks will make up the composite sample. Empty the composite sampleinto a sieve or sieve bucket and mix to ensure a homogeneous composite.Multi-habitat SamplingFor sampling low-gradient streams or streams with variable habitats, a multi-habitatsampling approach is required. A 100-meter reach representative <strong>of</strong> the characteristics <strong>of</strong>the stream is chosen, and whenever possible, upstream <strong>of</strong> road or bridge crossing.Sampling begins at the downstream end <strong>of</strong> the reach and proceeds upstream. Habitats aresampled in their approximate proportion to their representation <strong>of</strong> surface area in thereach. In low-gradient streams, snags, vegetated banks, submerged macrophytes, andgravel and sand are habitats that support fauna. A total <strong>of</strong> 20 jabs or kicks should besampled over the length <strong>of</strong> the reach. A kick is a stationary sampling accomplished bypositioning the net on the bottom <strong>of</strong> the stream and disturbing one square meter upstream<strong>of</strong> the net. The substrate can be disturbed using the heel and toe <strong>of</strong> the boot or rubbed byhand for larger substrate particles. A jab consists <strong>of</strong> forcefully thrusting the net into aproductive habitat for a linear distance <strong>of</strong> 0.5 meters. Then, sweep the area with a net toensure that benthic macroinvertebrates that have disengaged from the substrate arecollected. A minimum <strong>of</strong> two square meters <strong>of</strong> composited area is sampled. Empty thecomposite sample into a sieve or sieve bucket and mix to ensure a homogeneouscomposite.<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>Technical</strong> <strong>Guidance</strong> Document 121Version 1.2 8/29/12
Appendix H - Soil Toxicity TestingSoil Test SpeciesThe most commonly used invertebrate species for soil toxicity studies is the earthworm(Eisenia fetida). Other species mentioned in the ASTM guidance include the potworm(Enchytraeus albidus), and while use <strong>of</strong> potworms is appropriate, the earthworm canconstitute up to 92 percent <strong>of</strong> the invertebrate biomass in soil (ASTM, 2004) and is,therefore, a more important receptor. Additionally, the earthworm has been more widelyand commonly used by the USEPA. For these reasons, the earthworm is preferred.Most plant toxicity testing guidance is geared toward agricultural crops, and test methodswere developed for exposing crop plants to chemical products (e.g., pesticides). Thesemethods can also be used for testing the effects <strong>of</strong> site soils on more appropriate siterelatedspecies. The noncrop plants most commonly used for soil toxicity testing includeperennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and red clover (Trifolium pratense).Toxicity Test TypesThere is basically a single type <strong>of</strong> soil toxicity test: static, nonrenewal. Worms or plantseeds are added to the soil at test initiation and removed from the soil at test termination.However, earthworm biomass loading is dependent on the soil’s total organic carbon(TOC) content, and toxicity tests have been performed where worms have beentransferred to fresh site soil halfway through the study to avoid nutrition-related stress.Toxicity Test DurationSoil toxicity is generally assessed in the laboratory using acute or chronic studies. Acutesoil studies usually take 14 days (though earthworm screening assays may be shorter).Chronic studies are longer, usually 28 days or more (some exceeding 140 days), and aredesigned to determine sublethal effects on growth, emergence and reproduction. Whileobserved lethality is a direct indication that the sample in question is toxic, sublethaleffects are important for the assessment <strong>of</strong> long-term population health.The longer term, sublethal studies are not always appropriate for environmental soilsamples. They are very sensitive, and can yield false positives. Sensitive, sublethal testsare good for testing chemicals and wastewater solutions that can be diluted to differentconcentrations (e.g., 100%, 50%, 25%, 12.5% and 6.25%) at which a dose responsebecomes apparent. If a response not related to dose is observed (e.g., effect at 25%, butnot at 100%), the test is suspect. When testing soil samples, they are not diluted and aretested as 100 percent versus a lab control reference area sample. If there is a sublethaleffect, investigators may not be able to tell whether it is related to the sample or to theinherent variability <strong>of</strong> the biological system being tested.Variability is expected even in the laboratory's standard reference toxicant (SRT) studies.Labs perform regular SRT tests to assess the health <strong>of</strong> each batch <strong>of</strong> test organisms andthe procedures used by the technicians setting up the tests. The SRT studies are typicallyshort-term (96 hours or shorter), water-only tests that use a common reagent-grade salt(e.g., KCl). The USEPA (2000a) states that even though the final SRT result is allowedto fall within two standard deviations <strong>of</strong> the laboratory's historical mean, the laboratory isexpected to have up to 10 percent <strong>of</strong> SRT tests fall outside <strong>of</strong> that range. It is not untilthe lab has more than 10 percent SRT failures that a problem is noted. Because USEPA<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>Technical</strong> <strong>Guidance</strong> Document 122Version 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 and 114: Toxicity Test DesignSediment toxici
- Page 115 and 116: Appendix E - Sediment Pore Water an
- Page 117 and 118: The seven-day daphnid survival and
- Page 119 and 120: esults are then evaluated using USE
- Page 121: Surber or Square-foot BottomThis sa
- 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