Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance - State of New Jersey

More documents

Recommendations

Info

individual sample points from site data, based on professional judgment. Forlarger background area sample sizes, the investigator is referred to USEPA(1995a, 2002a, 2009a, and 2009b) for guidance on statistical treatment of the data.5.4 Comparison of Sample Data with Ecological Screening CriteriaPursuant to Sections 3.1 and 5.3, et seq., all individual sample data should becompared to the ecological screening criteria (ESC) found in the NJDEP EcologicalScreening Criteria Table (March 10, 2009 or most current version) athttp://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/ecoscreening/. With the exception of the surfacewater quality standards (SWQS) (N.J.A.C. 7:9B), the ESC are not promulgatedstandards but are to be used as screening values in ecological assessments. Whenmultiple ESCs are provided for the same contaminant and media, generally the mostconservative criterion is used; however, the investigator may choose to use a differentvalue based on site conditions (e.g. study is based on a receptor not expected to befound at the site). A rationale should be provided for using ESCs other than the mostconservative value presented. This table does not preclude the investigator fromdeveloping or proposing alternate ESC for contaminants with ESCs on the NJDEPtable, or from proposing an ESC for contaminants without an ESC on the NJDEPtable. The most recent version of the cited ESC should be used. In the EE, all data,along with the maximum and mean concentrations of site-related and backgroundcontaminant sample data, are compared to ESCs. No contaminants can be excludedfrom the evaluation without adequate justification, which will be presented in the EEconclusions. Until EE conclusions are presented, contaminants may not be excludedfrom consideration based on comparison with background contaminant data becausean evaluation of all risk associated with the site is appropriate at this stage. The ESCwere developed based on benthic community studies and, while intentionallyconservative, do not directly address bioaccumulation, biomagnification, and foodchain toxicity to fish, birds, and mammals. When concentrations of knownbiomagnifying contaminants, including but not limited to, dioxins, furans, PCBs,organochlorine pesticides, mercury, and selenium are present at or below criteria, theinvestigator is given the flexibility based on professional judgment to carrybioaccumulative constituents into the ERA for further evaluation.5.4.1 Potential Migration PathwaysI. Ditches and SwalesAnalytical data from ditches and swales that do not contain standing or flowingwater should be compared to ESC as indicated in Section 5.4.4 (upland), andanalytical data from ditches and swales that contain standing or flowing watershould be compared to ESC as indicated in Section 5.4.2 (surface water bodies).Analytical data from ditches and swales that are periodically or seasonallyflooded should be compared to ESC as indicated in Section 5.4.3 (wetlands).II. Overland FlowAnalytical data from areas of general overland flow with no discernable ditches orswales should be compared to ESC as indicated in Section 5.4.4 (upland).Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance Document 27Version 1.2 8/29/12
III. GroundwaterAnalytical data from groundwater that could potentially flow into a surface waterbody or wetland should be compared to ESC as indicated in Section 5.4.2 (surfacewater bodies). If the most recent data from the most downgradient groundwatermonitoring well or piezometer are below the SWQS or ESC, then a surface waterinvestigation will not be required for this potential migration pathway.5.4.2 Surface Water BodiesI. FreshwaterA. Surface WaterAnalytical data from freshwater surface water, whether standing or flowing,should be compared to the SWQS freshwater chronic standards. Where SWQSdo not exist for a contaminant, the analytical data should be compared to ESC forfreshwater on the NJDEP ESC Table referenced above. If the SWQS and theESC Table do not contain ESC for a contaminant, then the investigator shouldpropose an alternate ESC based on peer reviewed literature or develop a sitespecificESC.B. SedimentAnalytical data from freshwater sediment should be compared to the sedimentESC for freshwater sediment on the NJDEP ESC Table referenced above. Whereboth an LEL (Lowest Effects Level) and SEL (Severe Effects Level) areprovided, the LEL is to be used for screening purposes in the EE. If the NJDEPESC Table does not contain ESC for a contaminant, then the investigator shouldpropose an alternate ESC based on peer reviewed literature or develop a sitespecificESC.II. Saline WatersA. Surface WaterAnalytical data from saline surface water, whether standing or flowing, should becompared to the SWQS saline water aquatic chronic standards. Where SWQS donot exist for a contaminant, the analytical data should be compared to ESC forsaline water on the NJDEP ESC Table referenced above. If the SWQS and theNJDEP ESC Table do not contain ESC for a contaminant, then the investigatorshould propose an alternate ESC based on peer reviewed literature or develop asite-specific ESC.B. SedimentAnalytical data from saline sediment should be compared to the sediment ESC formarine/estuarine sediment on the NJDEP ESC Table referenced above. Whereboth an ER-L (Effects Range-Low) and ER-M (Effects Range-Median) areprovided, the ER-L is to be used for screening purposes in the EE. If the NJDEPESC Table does not contain ESC for a contaminant, then the investigator shouldpropose an alternate ESC based on peer reviewed literature or develop a sitespecificESC.Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance Document 28Version 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: 5.3.4 Background ConsiderationsIt i
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?