applied (USEPA, 1989b, 1989c, and 1999a). Quantitative uncertainty analyses provideobjective measures <strong>of</strong> the relative confidence in the conclusions that have been drawn inan evaluation.Uncertainty surrounding risk assessment conclusions has important implications for riskmanagement (USEPA, 1988, 1998a). However, uncertainty is not a single, generallyapplicable parameter. Uncertainty surrounding a risk estimate or application has anumber <strong>of</strong> components, including parameter variability, calculation error andsimplification, and the underlying reality <strong>of</strong> exposure assumptions and pathways(USEPA, 1988). Uncertainty includes both real variation (reflecting actual, mechanisticbiological response ranges and variability in ecosystem conditions) and error (USEPA,1997a).Because biological systems are inherently uncertain and variable, some component <strong>of</strong>variability in risk estimation is due to a realistic expression <strong>of</strong> ecological conditions,while another component is due to error or uncertainty introduced by the overallanalytical process. Error is the component to be minimized because error encompassesundesirable uncertainty that has been introduced by the assessment process. However, itis critically important to understand ecosystem variability because this represents animportant component <strong>of</strong> the ecosystem within which RMDs will be made. Substantialdifferences exist between observations and conclusions made at the individual,population, and community levels <strong>of</strong> biological organization. For example, effects notmanifested at the population or community levels (e.g., mortality <strong>of</strong> only a fewindividuals) may not be observable with the type <strong>of</strong> studies implemented. Theramifications <strong>of</strong> this also include an understanding that, because the assessment levelendpoints are protective <strong>of</strong> populations and communities and not individuals, theprojected loss <strong>of</strong> a few individuals may not cause impacts that are important at the levels<strong>of</strong> assessment at which RMDs are made.Because <strong>of</strong> the many potential receptor species and general lack <strong>of</strong> knowledge regardingtheir life cycles, feeding habits, nutritional requirements (e.g., essential elements such asarsenic, trivalent chromium, selenium, and zinc), and relative toxicological sensitivity,the uncertainty surrounding estimates <strong>of</strong> ecological risks may be substantially greaterthan those associated with human health risk assessment. The generic screening andregulatory criteria and TRVs used in this assessment are intended to provide conservativebenchmarks, but it is important to note that no one approach to criterion or TRVderivation is adequate for all sites and all COPECs. The criteria or TRVs used in thisassessment are all chemical-specific and as such, cannot address the additive,antagonistic, or synergistic effects <strong>of</strong> the chemical mixtures typically found in theenvironment. Further, these criteria or TRVs do not take into account the structure anddynamics <strong>of</strong> the ecosystem present at the site, site-specific conditions regulating chemicalcontact and bioavailability, the potential toxicity <strong>of</strong> other constituents that were notquantified, or the pervasive influence <strong>of</strong> physical stressors associated with the disruptionby human activities that is characteristic <strong>of</strong> an area that may have an industrial history.The uncertainty evaluations should be performed within a range <strong>of</strong> conditions defined bycharacteristics <strong>of</strong> the environment at the time field data were gathered. As such, dataobtained and conclusions drawn represent a series <strong>of</strong> snapshots <strong>of</strong> site conditions and,while they can be extrapolated to a broad range <strong>of</strong> conditions, they are most accurate<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>Technical</strong> <strong>Guidance</strong> Document 83Version 1.2 8/29/12
when site conditions are most similar to those that existed at the time <strong>of</strong> sampling. Inaddition, screening criteria do not necessarily reflect the entire range <strong>of</strong> possible siteconditions and, as such, the applicability <strong>of</strong> conclusions is also restricted by thesesimplifications.The investigator is referred to Suter et al. 2000 for a comprehensive discussion onuncertainty and the methods for calculating it.9.0 Risk Management ConsiderationsDecisions about whether estimated ecological risks are unacceptable and how to managethem require consideration <strong>of</strong> the magnitude <strong>of</strong> the estimated risk and the weighing <strong>of</strong>expected benefits against the expected short- or long-term harm that might be caused bythe proposed action. Risk Management Decisions (RMDs) are made in a process notdriven wholly by technical information even though the potential for ecological risk is amajor component <strong>of</strong> the decision making. RMDs cannot be performed until ERA hasbeen completed and ecological-based risk goals have been calculated. Overviews <strong>of</strong>ecological risk management can be found in Pittinger et al., 2001a; Pittinger et al.,2001b; Stahl et al., 2001; Wentsel et al., 2001; and USEPA, 1997a.9.1 Soil Remediation Standards and Deed NoticesRemediation to the Soil Remediation Standards (SRS) found at N.J.A.C. 7:26D -Remediation Standards is not appropriate in ESNRs because the SRS are based onhuman health and assume human exposure in a residential or industrial setting.Human exposure to contaminated media within an ESNR would not be expected atthe same exposure level as in a residential or industrial setting. Human exposure tomedia in ESNRs is generally limited, while exposure to ecological receptors is <strong>of</strong>greater concern. Therefore, deed notices and engineering controls for human healthpurposes are not applicable or relevant in ESNRs that consist <strong>of</strong> open water bodies orwetlands. ESNRs that consist <strong>of</strong> uplands where future use may change may require adeed notice as the intention <strong>of</strong> a deed notice is the protection <strong>of</strong> public health in theevent <strong>of</strong> a change in site use. Deed notices contain written notice to current andfuture property owners <strong>of</strong> post-remedial contaminants that will remain at a site aboveSRS, including when engineering controls are used to mitigate human exposure.Therefore, when the site-specific ecological risk-based remediation goals areachieved via site remediation, the appropriate receptors are protected and the need fordeed notices and engineering controls, which require costly permitting and biennialcertifications, is negated for most ESNRs. This approach is appropriate in areasdesignated as preserved in perpetuity (e.g. conservation easements, farmlandpreserved areas, wetland mitigation areas protected pursuant to 7:7A-15.14), becausefuture development is restricted. However, for upland ESNRs, where no suchrestrictions exist and where there is the potential for future development (e.g. uplandforest that may be developed into residential use or where the soil may be used as fillon another site), a deed notice will be required.9.2 Risk Management DecisionsThe approach to setting potential remediation goals has been described in Section 7.0.RMDs involve adjusting ecological risk-based remediation goals for remedial<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>Technical</strong> <strong>Guidance</strong> Document 84Version 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 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: 7.2.1 Apparent Effects Threshold Ap
- 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