Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance - State of New Jersey

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Braun, C. 2005. Techniques for Wildlife Investigations and Management. The WildlifeSociety, Bethesda, MD.Breden, T.F. 1989. A Preliminary Natural Community Classification of New Jersey. inE.F. Karlin. New Jersey’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 Technical Report WRP-DE-4.Brumbaugh, W.G., Hammerschmidt, C.R., Zanella, L., Rogevich, E., Salata, G. andBolek, R. 2011. Interlaboratory Comparison of Measurements of 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 of Ministers of the Environment. 1999. Protocol for the Derivation ofCanadian Tissue Residue Guidelines for the Protection of 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 Technical Report 1902.www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/tr/1902/tr1902cond.pdf.Chadwick, B., and Hawkins, A. 2008. Monitoring of Water and Contaminant Migrationat the Groundwater-Surface Water Interface. ER200422 Final Report. Arlington, Va.U.S. Department of 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 of New Jersey. RutgersUniversity Press, New Brunswick, NJ.Davis, D.E. 1982. CRC Handbook of 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 of 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 of changes inanalytical techniques for the measurement of 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. Technical Basis forEcological Evaluation Technical Guidance 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 of Sediment Quality Guidelines Derived UsingEquilibrium Partitioning, in Use of Sediment Quality Guidelines and Related Tools forthe Assessment of 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 of 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 of 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 of 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 ofGroundwater Evaluation and Sampling Tools for Underwater Deployment, pp. 55–83 inDiving for Science 2006, Proceedings, American Academy of 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 of Chemical Risk Assessment - Health Hazards to Humans,Plants, and Animals. Volume 2 Organics. Chapter 25 PAHs. Boca Raton: LewisPublishers.Environment Canada. 1994. Guidance document on collection and preparation ofsediments 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 of Acid VolatileSulfide and Simultaneously Extracted Metals are Irreproducible Among Laboratories.Environmental Technology and Chemistry, Volume 29, number 7, pp. 1453-1456.Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance 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
show all

Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance - State of New Jersey

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?