Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance - State of New Jersey

More documents

Recommendations

Info

A formal wetland delineation or functional assessment may be appropriate on asite-specific basis in accordance with the New Jersey Freshwater Protection ActRules, N.J.A.C.7:26A. See Section 6.4.1 for additional information.If ESNRs do not exist, it is not necessary to complete the requirements ofSections 5.2 through 5.4, and documentation of the lack of ESNRs shouldcomprise the EE report. If ESNRs exist, complete Sections 5.2 through 5.5.The EE submitted as part of the Receptor Evaluation should document thepresence of ESNRs on-site, adjacent to the site, or in areas potentially receivingcontaminants from the site. The location of ESNRs should be presenteddiagrammatically using maps and figures showing the site.5.2.2 Contaminants of Potential Ecological ConcernPursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-1.16(b) and 4.8(c), the investigator must identify thepresence of Contaminants of Potential Environmental Concern (COPEC).Compare all surface water, sediment, soil, and groundwater (from monitoringwells or piezometers proximal to ESNRs) data collected from contaminantmigration pathways and ESNRs to ESCs and standards in the most recent versionof the NJDEP Ecological Screening Criteria Table, available athttp://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/ecoscreening/ (Section 5.4). At a minimum,those contaminants that exceed the ESC or standards or do not have an ESCshould be considered COPECs.If all ESNR contaminant concentrations are less than the ecological screeningcriteria, and contaminants without ecological screening criteria are not present,then further ecological investigation is not required.If any ESNR contaminant concentrations exceed ecological screening criteria, orcontaminants without ecological screening criteria are present, then furtherecological investigation is required. Tentatively identified compounds (TICs)must be addressed pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-2.1(e). Further investigation ofTICs may include a statistical summary (i.e. frequency of detection, range ofdetection, etc.), comparison with background data, use of specialty analyticalservices, or site-specific testing such as toxicity testing to determine whether theTIC constitutes a COPEC. TICs which are frequently detected or are detected athigh concentrations should be carried forward in the ERA process.The investigator should ensure that the laboratory meets the method detectionlimits (MDL) as specified by the analytical method and should highlight wherethe sample analytical detection limits exceed the ESC and standards for the siteCOPECs. For the initial screening, it is standard practice for the investigator touse one half of the MDL for comparison to ESCs in those circumstances wherethe detection limit exceeds the ESC and the analytical result is nondetect.5.2.3 Contaminant Migration PathwaysPursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-4.8(a) and 4.8(b), the investigator must identifycurrent and historic actual and potential contaminant migration pathways toESNRs, including the possibility that direct dumping or discharge may beoccurring or may have occurred historically (possibly before site recordsEcological Evaluation Technical Guidance Document 19Version 1.2 8/29/12
document otherwise). The investigator should evaluate site topography,contaminant chemical characteristics, fate and transport mechanisms, and sitefeatures or practices that may facilitate or have facilitated contaminant migration.Current and historic presence of surface or subsurface piping beds, drains, ditches,lagoons, and locations where current or historic direct discharges could haveoccurred, such as from over-water or over-shoreline product transfers, dumpingfrom trucks, etc., should be considered.The investigator should identify direct evidence of contaminant migration byvisual indicators. Examples of direct observations of contaminant migrationinclude, but are not limited to, stressed, stunted, chlorotic, and dead vegetation,discolored soil, sediment, or water, acute effects on biota, absence of biota (plantsand animals) in a specified area of the ESNR that would be expected as comparedto a similar unimpacted ESNR, presence of seeps, sheens, discharges, andevidence of surface erosion.The investigator should identify potential contaminant migration pathways. Suchpathways may include, but are not limited to, contaminant migration during stormevents, tidal reversals, discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface water,food chain transfer, and the potential for direct disposal or discharge of siteCOPECs to ESNRs. An example of potential migration is where a riparian area orfloodplain surrounding a contaminated surface water body may becomecontaminated during flood events.The investigator should ensure that all contaminant migration pathways have beenconsidered in the sampling plan design and data have been collected inappropriate ESNRs. Data gaps should be identified in the EE report (Section5.5(b)ii).5.3 Recommended Sample Collection in Support of Ecological EvaluationsGenerally, the goals of a surface water, sediment or soil sampling program includepreliminary and definitive determination of the nature and areal extent ofcontamination and identification of areas of highest contamination. Data are also tobe gathered in support of ERAs, long-term monitoring, or for sediment transport anddeposition modeling or contaminant migration or natural attenuation. The surfacewater, sediment or soil sampling plan must be a component of the SI or RI WorkPlan, and must be prepared pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E and the NJDEP FieldSampling Procedures Manual (FSPM) (NJDEP, August 2005 or most recent versionat http://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/fspm/). Site-specific details regarding thestudy objectives, data quality objectives (DQO), sampling methodology, location, anddepth of samples must be specified, as well as field and laboratory quality assuranceand quality control (QA/QC) procedures (N.J.A.C. 7:26E). Guidance and specialconsiderations for designing a surface water, sediment, and soil sampling scheme areprovided herein to supplement and highlight the regulatory requirements and FSPMguidance; the reader is referred to these documents for a comprehensive treatment ofthe subject. The reader is referred to USEPA’s Sediment Sampling Quality AssuranceUser’s Guide (USEPA, 1985a), Methods for Collection, Storage and Manipulation ofSediments for Chemical and Toxicological Analyses: Technical Manual (USEPA,Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance Document 20Version 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: parameters as specified in ERAGS (i
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 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?