Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance - State of New Jersey

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6.1.3.4 Weight-of-EvidenceIn the risk characterization phase, a weight-of-evidence approach is used tobalance the results of more than one type of study (or lines of evidence) foreach endpoint. The weight-of-evidence approach is used to integrate multipletypes of data to support a conclusion. In EEs where there may only be one ortwo lines of evidence (e.g., COPECs and ESNRs), a weight-of-evidenceapproach may either be unnecessary or simplistic. However, in more complexERAs, multiple studies or lines of evidence may need to be evaluated for eachendpoint to reach a conclusion regarding the level of risk.The weight-of-evidence begins by summarizing the findings of each line ofevidence for each assessment endpoint. If the endpoint is associated with theexceedance of some threshold, then the weight-of-evidence evaluation willfirst evaluate each line of evidence to determine whether (1) the findings ofthe study can be definitively identified as an exceedance of the threshold, (2)whether it can be definitively identified as not exceeding the threshold, or (3)the findings are ambiguous. Then, the findings of all lines of evidence foreach assessment endpoint should be summarized to reach a decision as towhether it is likely or unlikely that the threshold was exceeded.If all lines of evidence support a conclusion, then the process of determiningrisk has been completed with a high degree of confidence. However, if thereis bias or uncertainty in the various lines of evidence, then a true weighing ofevidence should occur. As noted in Suter et al. (2000), the lines of evidencewithin each assessment endpoint should be evaluated as per the followingparameters: Relevance –greater weight is given if the measure of effect is moredirectly related to the assessment endpoint; Exposure and Response –greater weight is given to those studies that showa correlation between the magnitude of the response to the magnitude ofthe exposure; Temporal Scope –greater weight is given to those results that relate to thetime constraints and variations of the assessment endpoint; Spatial Scope – greater weight is given to those results that accuratelyreflect the location of the site being assessed; Data Quality – greater weight is given to data that meet appropriateDQOs; Data Quantity – greater weight is given to those studies that have anadequate amount of data to meet statistical confidence; and Uncertainties – greater weight is given to those studies that have the leastuncertainties.6.2 ERA Data DevelopmentThis section describes the various tools and methods that may be employed to moreaccurately characterize ecological risk. Many of the tools identified (e.g. sedimenttoxicity test, tissue sampling) are designed to take into account site-specificEcological Evaluation Technical Guidance Document 47Version 1.2 8/29/12
ioavailability, and by doing so, offer a more refined measure of toxicity than simplycomparing bulk sediment chemistry results to generic screening values.The subsections that follow are organized by media (surface water, sediment, andsoil) and include a description of some of the tools and methods commonly used toevaluate ecological risk. The selection of the tools and methods to employ at aparticular site will be dependent upon site-specific factors such as habitat type,ecological receptors present, type of COPECS, ability of the contaminant tobioaccumulate or biomagnify, and complexity of the site under investigation(multiple media contamination).6.2.1 Surface WaterBasic surface water sampling guidance is provided in Section 5.3.3.2. Thefollowing sections describe data development issues and the suggested protocolsto be used in more comprehensive surface water sampling programs.6.2.1.1 Sampling Plan Design for Study and Reference AreasThe investigator is referred to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-2.1 for appropriate analyticalprotocol and quality assurance requirements. The investigator is also referredto Section 10.0 of this document for additional guidance on QA/QC and thepreparation of quality assurance plans.If a discharge is observed or the preliminary surface water results, collectedduring the EE phase (Sections 5.3.2.2 and 5.3.3.2), reveal the presence ofcontaminants at concentrations above their respective aquatic chronic SWQSor appropriate ESC, then additional investigations are required to support theERA. Per N.J.A.C. 7:26E-4.8(c)1, it is imperative that the area of impact beaccurately delineated to the appropriate SWQS or ESC. Professionaljudgment is required to develop an appropriate sampling strategy, which willbe determined by the size and characteristics of the surface water body beinginvestigated. Smaller water bodies may be investigated with the collection ofadditional grab samples. The sampling of larger water bodies can beaccomplished with additional sampling along transects that typically runperpendicular to the banks of the water feature under investigation. Thenumber of samples, number of transects, number of samples per transect, anddepth of the sample in the water column are site-specific and depend onfactors such as magnitude of discharge, size of water feature, water depth, etc.Surface water in tidally influenced water bodies should be sampled at bothlow and high tides at several locations to better define the area of impact as itrelates to the tidal cycle. Corresponding background area samples should alsobe collected with each tidal cycle and should be located upgradient of themixing zone to ensure they are located outside the realm of potential siteimpacts.The decision to collect additional background area locations should consider:(1) the relationship of the existing background area locations to the sitelocation; (2) the complexities of the water body; and (3) the need for increasedstatistical significance in the relationship between the site and backgroundEcological Evaluation Technical Guidance Document 48Version 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: While there are many laboratories t
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?