Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance - State of New Jersey

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Hansen, D.J., Berry, W.J., Mahony, J.D., Boothman, W.S., Di Toro, D.M., Robson, D.L.,Ankley, G.T., Ma, D., Yan, Q., and Pesch, C.E. 1996. Predicting the Toxicity of Metal-Contaminated Field Sediments Using Interstitial Concentration of Metals and Acid-Volatile Sulfide Normalizations, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15(12): 2080–94.Harshberger, J.W. 1970. The Vegetation of the New Jersey Pine-Barrens. DoverPublications, NY.Hawthorne, S.B., Azzolina, N.A., Neuhauser, E.F., Kreitinger, J.P. 2007. PredictingBioavailability of Sediment Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons to Hyalella azteca usingEquilibrium Partitioning, Supercritical Fluid Extraction, and Pore WaterConcentrations. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 6297–6304.Imamoglu, I., Li, K., and Christensen, E.R. 2002. PCB sources and degradation insediments of Ashtabula River, USA, determined from receptor models. Water Scienceand Technology, 46(3), p.89-96.ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council). 2005. Technology Overview ofPassive Sampler Technologies. DSP-4. Washington, DC.: Interstate Technology &Regulatory Council, Authoring Team. www.itrcweb.org.ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council). 2011. Incorporating BioavailabilityConsiderations into the Evaluation of Contaminated Sediment Sites. CS-1. Washington,DC.: Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, Contaminated Sediments Team.http://www.itrcweb.org/contseds-bioavailability/.Jarvinen, A.W., and Ankley, G.T. 1999. Linkage of Effects to Tissue Residues:Development of a Comprehensive Database for Aquatic Organisms Exposed to Inorganicand Organic Chemicals. SETAC Technical Publications Series. Society ofEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, FL.Kapustka, L., Biddinger, G., Luxon, M., and Galbraith, H. 2004. Landscape Ecologyand Wildlife Habitat: Critical Information for Ecological Risk Assessment, Land-UseManagement Activities, and Biodiversity Enhancement Activities. ASTM STP 1458,Conshohocken, PA.Kent, M. and Coker, P. 1992. Vegetation Description and Analysis. CRC Press, BocaRaton, FL.Long, E.R. and Chapman, P.M. 1985. A Sediment Quality Triad: Measures of SedimentContamination, Toxicity and Infaunal Community Composition in Puget Sound, March1985, Pollution Bulletin, 16, 405–15.Magee, D. W. 1998. "A Rapid Procedure for Assessing Wetland Functional Capacity,Based on Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Classification." Association of State WetlandManagers.Moles, A., Holland, L., and Andersson, O. 2006. Assessment of the Significant of Directand Indirect Pollution Inputs to a Major Salmon-producing River Using PolyethyleneMembrane Devices, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 25: 2011–17.Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance Document 91Version 1.2 8/29/12
N.J.A.C. (New Jersey Administrative Code). 2006. N.J.A.C. 7:18, RegulationsGoverning the Certification of Laboratories and Environmental Measurements, Sub-Chapter 7 Toxicity Testing. Last amended November 22, 2006.http://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/rules/njac7_18.pdfNJDEP. 2002. Creating Indicators of Wetland Status: Freshwater Wetland Mitigationin New Jersey. Division of Science, Research, & Technology.http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/wetlands/final.pdfNJDEP. 2005. Field Sampling Procedures Manual, August 2005http://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/fspm/Pittinger, C.A., Stahl, R.G., Clark, J.R., Bachman, R., Barton, A.L., deFur, P.L., Ells,S.J., Slimak, M.W., Wentsel, R.S. 2001a. Managing ecological risk issues in a corporatecontext. Risk Management: Ecological risk-based decision making. Pensacola, FL:SETAC Press. pp. 137-148.Pittinger, C.A., Turnley, J.G., Mehrle, P.M., Stahl, R.G., Bachman, R., Barton, A.L.,Clark, J.R., deFur, P.L., Ells, S.J., Slimak, M.W. and others. 2001b. A multistakeholderecological risk management framework. Risk Management: Ecological risk-baseddecision making. Pensacola, FL: SETAC Press. pp. 21-32.Sample, B.E. and Suter, G.W. 1994. Estimating Exposure of Terrestrial Wildlife toContaminants. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-125.http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm125.pdfSample, B.E., Opresko, D.M., and Suter, G.W. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks forWildlife: 1996 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-86/R3. http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm86r3.pdfSavoie, J.G., LeBlanc, D.R., Blackwood, D.S., McCobb, T.D., Rendigs, R.R., and Scott,C. 2000. Delineation of Discharge Areas of Two Contaminant Plumes by Use ofDiffusion Samplers, Johns Pond, Cape Cod, Massachusetts, 1998. US Geological SurveyWater-Resources Investigations Report 00-4017, 30 pp.Schmitt, C.J. and Dethloff, G.M. Editors. 2000. Biomonitoring of Environmental Statusand Trends (BEST) Program: Selected Methods for Monitoring Chemical Contaminantsand Their Effects in Aquatic Ecosystems. US Geological Survey, Biological ResourcesDivision, Columbia, MO: Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD-2000-0005.81 pp.Skalski, J.R. and Robson, D.S. 1992. Techniques for Wildlife Investigations. AcademicPress, San Diego.Smith, R. D. 1993. A Conceptual Framework for Assessing the Functions of Wetlands.Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-3. Vicksburg, Miss.: U.S. ArmyEngineer Research and Development Center.Smith, R. D., A. Ammann, C, Bartoldus, and M. Brinson. 1995. An Approach forAssessing wetland Functions Using Hydrogeomorphic Classification, ReferencesWetlands, and Functional Indices. Wetlands Research Program Tech Report WRP-DE-9.Vicksburg, MS: US Army Corp of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station.http://www.wes.army.mil/el/wetlands/wlpubs.htmlEcological Evaluation Technical Guidance Document 92Version 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 and 90: ASTM (American Society for Testing
Page 91: Establishing Sediment Quality Crite
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?