Braun, C. 2005. Techniques for Wildlife Investigations and Management. The WildlifeSociety, Bethesda, MD.Breden, T.F. 1989. A Preliminary Natural Community Classification <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Jersey</strong>. inE.F. Karlin. <strong>New</strong> <strong>Jersey</strong>’s Rate and Endangered Plants and Animals. Institute forEnvironmental Studies, Ramapo College, Mahway, NJ.Brinson, M. M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. WetlandsResearch Program <strong>Technical</strong> Report WRP-DE-4.Brumbaugh, W.G., Hammerschmidt, C.R., Zanella, L., Rogevich, E., Salata, G. andBolek, R. 2011. Interlaboratory Comparison <strong>of</strong> Measurements <strong>of</strong> Acid-Volatile Sulfideand Simultaneously Extracted Nickel in Spiked Sediments, Environmental Toxicology &Chemistry, 30(6): 1306-1309, (91856).Burton, G.A. Jr, Greenberg, M.S., Rowland, C.D., Irvine, C.A., Lavoie, D.R., Brooker,J.A., Moore, L., Raymer, D.F.N. and McWilliam, R.A. 2004. In situ exposures usingcaged organisms: a multi-compartment approach to detect aquatic toxicity andbioaccumulation. Environmental Pollution, volume 134, number 1, pp. 133-144.Canadian Council <strong>of</strong> Ministers <strong>of</strong> the Environment. 1999. Protocol for the Derivation <strong>of</strong>Canadian Tissue Residue Guidelines for the Protection <strong>of</strong> Wildlife that Consume AquaticBiota. http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/trg_protocol.pdf.Chadwick, D., Groves, J. Harre, B. Paulsen, R. and Smith, C. 2003. Coastal ContaminantMigration Monitoring: The Trident Probe and Ultraseep System: Hardware Description,Protocols, and Procedures. SSC San Diego <strong>Technical</strong> Report 1902.www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/tr/1902/tr1902cond.pdf.Chadwick, B., and Hawkins, A. 2008. Monitoring <strong>of</strong> Water and Contaminant Migrationat the Groundwater-Surface Water Interface. ER200422 Final Report. Arlington, Va.U.S. Department <strong>of</strong> Defense, Environmental Security and Technology CertificationProgram. www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/tr/1966/tr1966cond.pdf.Collins, B. R. and Anderson, K.H. 1994. Plant Communities <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Jersey</strong>. RutgersUniversity Press, <strong>New</strong> Brunswick, NJ.Davis, D.E. 1982. CRC Handbook <strong>of</strong> Census Methods for Terrestrial Vertebrates. CRCPress, Boca Raton, FL.Davison, W., Fones, G., Harper, M., Teasdale, P., and Zhang H. 2000. Dialysis, DET andDGT: In Situ Diffusional Techniques for Studying Water, Sediment and Soils, pp.495−569 in In Situ Monitoring <strong>of</strong> Aquatic Systems: Chemical Analysis and Speciation, J.Buffle and G. Horvai, eds. NY: Wiley.de Solla, S.R., Weseloh, D.V., Hebert, C.E., and Pekarik C. 2010. Impact <strong>of</strong> changes inanalytical techniques for the measurement <strong>of</strong> polychlorinated biphenyls andorganochlorine pesticides on temporal trends in herring gull eggs. EnvironmentalToxicology and Chemistry, v29, n7, p1476-1483, July 2010http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.191/pdfDi Toro, D. M., Zarba, C. S., Hansen, D. J., Berry, W. J., Swartz, R. C., Cowan, C. E.,Pavlou, S. P., Allen, H. E., Thomas, N. A., and Paquin, P. R. 1991. <strong>Technical</strong> Basis for<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>Technical</strong> <strong>Guidance</strong> Document 89Version 1.2 8/29/12
Establishing Sediment Quality Criteria for Nonionic Organic Chemicals UsingEquilibrium Partitioning, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 10: 1541-83.Di Toro D. M., Berry, W. J., Burgess, R. M., Mount, D. R., O’Connor, T. P., and Swartz,R. C. 2005a. The Predictive Ability <strong>of</strong> Sediment Quality Guidelines Derived UsingEquilibrium Partitioning, in Use <strong>of</strong> Sediment Quality Guidelines and Related Tools forthe Assessment <strong>of</strong> Contaminated Sediments, R. J. Wenning, G. Bartley, C. Ingersoll, andD. Moore, eds. Pensacola, FL.: SETAC Press.Di Toro, D. M, Mcgrath, J. M., Hansen, D. J., Berry, W. J., Paquin, P. R., Mathew, R.,Wu, K. B., and Santore, R. C. 2005b. Predicting Sediment Metal Toxicity Using aSediment Biotic Ligand Model: Methodology and Initial Application, EnvironmentalToxicology and Chemistry 24(10): 2410–27.Di Toro, D. M. 2008. Bioavailability <strong>of</strong> Chemicals in Sediments and Soils: Toxicologicaland Chemical Interactions, pp. B-73-B-103 in SERDP and ESTCP Expert PanelWorkshop on Research and Development Needs for Understanding and Assessing theBioavailability <strong>of</strong> Contaminants in Soils and Sediments. Washington, DC. StrategicEnvironmental Research and Development Program and the Environmental SecurityTechnology Certification Program. http://serdpestcp.org/content/download/8049/99405/version/1/file/Bioavailability_Wkshp_Nov_2008.pdf.Duncan, P., Greenberg, M., Leja, S., Williams, J., Black, C., Henry, R., and Wilhelm, L.2007a. Case Study <strong>of</strong> Contaminated Groundwater Discharge: How In Situ Tools Link anEvolving Conceptual Site Model with Management Decisions, Integrated EnvironmentalAssessment and Management 3: 279–89.Duncan, P., Henry, R., Sheldrake, S., and Thompson, D. 2007b. Adaptation <strong>of</strong>Groundwater <strong>Evaluation</strong> and Sampling Tools for Underwater Deployment, pp. 55–83 inDiving for Science 2006, Proceedings, American Academy <strong>of</strong> Underwater Sciences 25thSymposium, Dauphin Island, AL., J. M. Godfrey and N. W. Pollock, eds.http://Yosemite1.epa.gov/R10/OEA.NSF/investigations/dive+sediment.Eisler, R. 2000. Handbook <strong>of</strong> Chemical Risk Assessment - Health Hazards to Humans,Plants, and Animals. Volume 2 Organics. Chapter 25 PAHs. Boca Raton: LewisPublishers.Environment Canada. 1994. <strong>Guidance</strong> document on collection and preparation <strong>of</strong>sediments for physicochemical characterization and biological testing. EnvironmentalProtection Series. Report EPS 1/RM/29, December 1994, 132 pp.Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual forIdentifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. USACE, USEPA, USFWS, andUSDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC. Cooperative technical publication.76 pp. plus appendices.Hammerschmidt, C.R. and Burton, G.A., Jr. 2010. Measurements <strong>of</strong> Acid VolatileSulfide and Simultaneously Extracted Metals are Irreproducible Among Laboratories.Environmental Technology and Chemistry, Volume 29, number 7, pp. 1453-1456.<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>Technical</strong> <strong>Guidance</strong> Document 90Version 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 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: ASTM (American Society for Testing
- 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