the process <strong>of</strong> understanding the extent <strong>of</strong> a wetlands as part <strong>of</strong> identifyingESNRs, it may be necessary to define the boundary <strong>of</strong> the wetlands from aregulatory standpoint through a process known as wetlands delineation. TheFreshwater Wetlands Protection Act requires that freshwater wetlands beidentified or delineated in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Jersey</strong> using the three-parameter approach asdescribed in the Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation (1989).Such an approach dictates that areas meeting the defined criteria <strong>of</strong> vegetation,soils, and hydrology will be designated as jurisdictional wetlands.For vegetation, the criterion is more than 50 percent <strong>of</strong> the composition <strong>of</strong> thedominant species from all strata should be categorized as hydrophytic or adaptedto living in saturated areas. That is, the plant species should be classified asobligate, facultative wetland or facultative as defined in the "National List <strong>of</strong>Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands," published by the United <strong>State</strong>s Fish &Wildlife Service (USFWS, 1988). Soils are considered hydric if they meet thecriteria defined by the National <strong>Technical</strong> Committee for Hydric Soils.Hydrology should be present to effect either permanent or periodic saturation <strong>of</strong>the soil. The Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation (1989)does allow an assumption that the hydrologic parameter is present if hydric soilsand hydrophytic vegetation are present and field indications <strong>of</strong> hydrology arepresent.Wetland delineation involves the determination <strong>of</strong> the boundary between the areaswhere the three hydric parameters are present and where they are not. Usingperceived changes in elevation and vegetation as a guide, representativeobservation points are selected along the apparent boundary <strong>of</strong> the wetland areas.At each <strong>of</strong> the observation points, soil borings are made to determine soil andhydrologic conditions. Observations <strong>of</strong> floral species and surface hydrologicconditions are also made. Observations would be made on both the wetland andupland side. The boundary would then be located between the two.From a regulatory standpoint, wetland boundaries must be confirmed through theNJDEP Division <strong>of</strong> Land Use Regulation through the Letter <strong>of</strong> Interpretation(LOI) process as is outlined at N.J.A.C. 7:7A-3.The concern with conducting ERAs in wetland environments is that wetlandscontain receptors that can be typical <strong>of</strong> upland and aquatic environments, andthose that may be specific only to wetlands. Wetland media may act as soil,sediment or both depending on the type <strong>of</strong> wetland and season. Refer to Section5.4.3 for additional guidance on whether to use soil ESC or sediment ESC.Additionally, exposure pathways not normally seen in upland settings or in solelyaquatic settings may have to be considered (e.g., groundwater exposure toshallow-rooted plants).In designing ERAs for wetlands, the investigator should bear in mind that one <strong>of</strong>the major benefits to the environment and to society are the ecological functionsthat the wetlands perform. In addition to an understanding <strong>of</strong> ecotoxicologicalimpacts, the risk assessment should consider whether the COPECs beingevaluated have impacted the functional capabilities <strong>of</strong> the wetlands. This<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>Technical</strong> <strong>Guidance</strong> Document 69Version 1.2 8/29/12
evaluation might necessitate the completion <strong>of</strong> a wetland functional analysis(Bartoldus, 1999, Bartoldus, et al., 1994, Magee, 1998, and USACE, 1995),which can range from a semiquantitative assessment such as the Wetland<strong>Evaluation</strong> Technique (Adamus, et al., 1987), to a more rigorous quantitativeassessment such as the Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) evaluation (Brinson, 1993,Smith, 1993, and Smith et al., 1995). At a minimum, an increased focus on theproblem formulation stage should be made to ensure that all <strong>of</strong> the intricacies <strong>of</strong>the wetland habitat are addressed.It is also advised that an increased focus be placed on the risk managementaspects <strong>of</strong> the project, and the ecological impacts <strong>of</strong> the proposed remedialmeasures. If the ERA indicates that intrusive remedial measures may benecessary to meet ecologically based cleanup goals, the potential ramifications <strong>of</strong>the physical impacts to the wetlands and the resulting difficulties in mitigating thewetlands for those physical impacts should be considered prior to remedyselection and design. For a full discourse on the completion <strong>of</strong> ERAs in wetlandsenvironments, the investigator is directed to SETAC (1995).6.4.1.1 Wetland Permit ConsiderationsAny person proposing to engage in a regulated activity in freshwater wetlandsand/or <strong>State</strong> open waters as described in N.J.A.C. 7:7A-2.2 must obtain thenecessary permits from the Department as required by the FreshwaterWetlands Protection Act Rules. For more guidance on the freshwaterwetlands program see http://www.nj.gov/dep/landuse/fww.html. Each permitapplication submitted is reviewed by the Department to determine compliancewith freshwater wetlands regulations. Applications should be submitted to theDivision <strong>of</strong> Land Use Regulation, Application Support, Mail Code 501-02A,PO Box 420, Trenton, NJ 08625-0420.At times it is necessary for the Department to seek comments or concurrencefrom federal agencies for regulated activities in freshwater wetlands and/or<strong>State</strong> open waters. Those instances are as follows.Pursuant to a 1993 Memorandum <strong>of</strong> Agreement between the United <strong>State</strong>sFish and Wildlife Service (USFW), the USEPA and the Department, if aFederally-Listed Threatened or Endangered (T&E) Species and DesignatedCritical Habitat is found to be present or adjacent to the site, the Departmentmust provide the USFW with a copy <strong>of</strong> the permit application for review andcomment by the Service. Depending on the nature and extent <strong>of</strong> commentsfrom the USFW, the applicant, in conjunction with the site’s LSRP will berequired to respond to the comments and potentially need to modify theremedy for a given site, or timing <strong>of</strong> said remedy, to be protective <strong>of</strong> afederally-listed T&E species and its designated critical habitat. Accordingly,it is strongly recommended that an LSRP or Responsible Party engage theUSFW service during the development <strong>of</strong> a remedial strategy for a given siteif it is determined that a federally listed T&E species or Designated CriticalHabitat is present or adjacent to the site.<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>Technical</strong> <strong>Guidance</strong> Document 70Version 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: Objectives of the ERA: including a
- 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