Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance - State of New Jersey

More documents

Recommendations

Info

al., 1996; USEPA 1994a, 2003). The equilibrium partitioning (EqP) model,widely used for many years, measures bioavailability by calculating a porewater concentration. It is assumed that equilibrium exists between thecontaminants sorbed to the bulk sediment (organic carbon) and the sedimentpore water as expressed in following equation:C W = C S / f OC K OCSediment pore water concentrations (C W ) are derived through a calculationwhereby the bulk sediment concentration (C S ) is divided by the fraction oforganic carbon (f OC ) times the organic carbon partition coefficient (K OC ).Toxicity in sediments can be estimated by comparing the derived pore waterconcentration to effects concentrations previously measured in water-onlyexposures (e.g. USEPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria).While the use of EqP is considered to provide a more accurate measure ofbioavailability (toxicity) than simply screening bulk sediment data againstscreening values, more recent advancements in pore water sampling havemade it possible to measure site-specific bioavailability at an even greateraccuracy. Many of these methods have the advantage of directly measuringpore water, and thus reduce the inherent uncertainty associated withcalculating a pore water concentration via a model. Details regardingsediment pore water sampling techniques can be found in Appendix F.Groundwater to Surface Water Discharges:Contaminated groundwater that discharges to surface water also has thepotential to impact the pore water present in the interstitial space of sediment.Historically, measuring chemicals in groundwater that discharges to surfacewater was evaluated via groundwater monitoring wells positioned along theshoreline, through mass-balance equations designed to model dischargeconcentrations, or through the analysis of grab surface water samples.However, these methods do not accurately characterize the pore watercontaminant levels in the sediment in the biotic zone where the majority of thebenthic organisms reside.More recently, methods have been developed to sample tidal and subaqueousgroundwater discharges to a water body (Chadwick and Hawkins, 2008;Chadwick et al., 2003; Duncan et al., 2007a, b). These tools include intertidalseep sampling, piezometers, and diver-deployed diffusion samplers. Thereferences provide a detailed description of the tools and measures applicableto measuring COPECs in groundwater and pore water. Additionally, theUSEPA has released a document stressing the importance of evaluating thisecologically significant zone: Evaluating Ground-Water/Surface-WaterTransition Zones in Ecological Risk Assessments (USEPA, July 2008).Diffusion bags have also been used for the collection of pore water fromsediments when the groundwater to surface water pathway is of concern. Thediffusion bags are deployed and are allowed to equilibrate over time. Thebags are then collected and the water within the bags is analyzed for theEcological Evaluation Technical Guidance Document 59Version 1.2 8/29/12
COPECs. The following references are provided for this procedure: Savoie,et al., 2000; Vroblesky, 2001a, b; Vroblesky, et al., 2002.6.2.2.4 Benthic Macroinvertebrate SamplingBenthic macroinvertebrate sampling techniques are well established andgenerally do not require expensive equipment or elaborate field effortsbecause these organisms tend to be sedentary and remain fairly localized.However, sampling strategy and data interpretation should reflect the dataneeds of the risk assessment.Collocated sediment chemistry analysis should be conducted during anybenthic macroinvertebrate survey. Physicochemical and habitat data should becollected on the same day as the survey. If the data collection requiresdisturbing targeted habitat, it should be conducted either after the survey iscomplete or just outside the survey area.Freshwater benthic macroinvertebrate community surveys should beconducted in accordance with USEPA (1990b, 1997b, and 1999b), USEPARapid Bioassessment Protocols For Use in Streams and Rivers: Periphyton,Benthic, Macroinvertebrates, and Fish (EPA 841-B-99-002), NJDEP (2005),and the NJDEP Water Monitoring and Standards (WMS) Program, Bureau ofFreshwater and Biological Monitoring Standard Operating Procedures,Ambient Biological Monitoring Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates, Field,Lab, and Assessment Methods, Document No. BMNJ2, Revision No. 1; 2007,availableathttp://www.state.nj.us/dep/wms/bfbm/download/AMNET_SOP.pdf. Forconsistency with New Jersey’s Ambient Biomonitoring Network (AMNET)Program, benthic community structure should be evaluated with one of threestandardized regional multi-metric indices described in the SOP: HighGradient Macroinvertebrate Index (HGMI), Coastal Plain MacroinvertebrateIndex (CPMI), or the Pinelands Macroinvertebrate Index (PMI). The indicesshould be used to determine the biological condition category (i.e., excellent,good, fair, poor) for each sample location.In estuarine water, benthic macroinvertebrate community surveys should beconducted in accordance with the National Coastal Assessment FieldOperations Manual (USEPA 2001), available athttp://www.epa.gov/emap/nca/html/docs/c2kfm.pdf. Benthic communitystructure should be evaluated via two indices. For consistency with theNational Coastal Assessment Program and the NJDEP Bureau of MarineWater Monitoring, the Virginian Biogeographic Province benthic indexincorporating three metrics (EMAP BI, Paul et al., 2001) should bedetermined; the indices are used to determine the biological conditioncategory (stressed or not stressed) for each sample location. Additionally, forconsistency with existing USEPA data from the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary, theUSEPA Region 2 Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) for the NY/NJ REMAPProject incorporating five metrics (Weisberg et al., 1998; Adams et al., 2003)Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance Document 60Version 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: elatively sedentary organisms that
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?