USEPA. 2002c. Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity <strong>of</strong> Effluents andReceiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition, October 2002. USEPAOffice <strong>of</strong> Water, Washington, DC. EPA-821-R-02-013.http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/methods/wet/upload/2007_07_10_methods_wet_disk3_ctf.pdfUSEPA. 2002d. Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity <strong>of</strong> Effluents andReceiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms. Third Edition, October 2002.USEPA Office <strong>of</strong> Water, Washington, DC. EPA-821-R-02-014.http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/methods/wet/upload/2007_07_10_methods_wet_disk1_ctm.pdfUSEPA. 2002e. A <strong>Guidance</strong> Manual to Support the Assessment <strong>of</strong> ContaminatedSediments in Freshwater Ecosystems. Volume III – Interpretation <strong>of</strong> the Results <strong>of</strong>Sediment Quality Investigations. December 2002. USEPA Great Lakes NationalProgram Office, Chicago, IL. EPA-905-B02-001-C.http://www.cerc.usgs.gov/pubs/sedtox/VolumeIII.pdfUSEPA. 2002f. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Using Vegetation ToAssess Environmental Conditions in Wetlands. EPA-822-R-02-020. Office <strong>of</strong> Water,USEPA, Washington, DC.USEPA. 2002g. <strong>Guidance</strong> on Environmental Data Verification and Data Validation.Office <strong>of</strong> Environmental Information, Washington, DC. EPA QA /G-8. EPA/240/R-02/004. http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g8-final.pdfUSEPA. 2003. Procedures for the Derivation <strong>of</strong> Equilibrium Partitioning SedimentBenchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection <strong>of</strong> Benthic Organisms: PAH Mixtures. USEPA,Office <strong>of</strong> Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA-600-R-02-013.http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/publications/files/PAHESB.pdfUSEPA. 2004. Data Quality Assessment: A Reviewer’s Guide. EPA QA/G-9R. EPA-240-B-06-002. Office <strong>of</strong> Environmental Information, Washington, DC.http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g9r-final.pdfUSEPA. 2005a. <strong>Guidance</strong> for Developing <strong>Ecological</strong> Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSL).OSWER Directive 9285.7-55. Including Attachments 4-2 through 4-5. November 2003.Revised February 2005. http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/.USEPA. 2005b. Procedures for the Derivation <strong>of</strong> Equilibrium Partitioning SedimentBenchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection <strong>of</strong> Benthic Organisms: Metal Mixtures (cadmium,copper, lead, nickel, silver, zinc). EPA/600/R-02/011. Office <strong>of</strong> Research andDevelopment, Washington, DC.USEPA. 2005c. Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans.Evaluating, Assessing, and Documenting Environmental Data Collection and UsePrograms. Part 1: UFP-QAPP Manual. Final Version 1. March 2005.Intergovernmental Data Quality Task Force (USEPA, US Department <strong>of</strong> Defense, USDepartment <strong>of</strong> Energy). EPA 505-B-04-900A.http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/pdf/ufp_qapp_v1_0305.pdf<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>Technical</strong> <strong>Guidance</strong> Document 97Version 1.2 8/29/12
USEPA 2006a. Data Quality Assessment: Statistical Methods for Practitioners.USEPA QA/G-9S. http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g9s-final.pdfUSEPA. 2006b. <strong>Guidance</strong> on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality ObjectivesProcess, USEPA QA/G-4, 2006, EPA-240-B-06-001, Office <strong>of</strong> EnvironmentalInformation., Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g4-final.pdfUSEPA. 2006c. Data Quality Assessment: Statistical Methods for Practitioners. EPAQA/G-9S. EPA-240-B-06-003. Office <strong>of</strong> Environmental Information., Washington, DC.http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g9s-final.pdfUSEPA. 2008a. Evaluating Ground-Water/Surface-Water Transition Zones in<strong>Ecological</strong> Risk Assessments. Eco Update/Ground Water Forum Issue Paper. Office <strong>of</strong>Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. EPA-540-R-06-072.http://epa.gov/osa/raf/tefframework/pdfs/tefs-draft-052808.pdfUSEPA. 2008b. Framework for Application <strong>of</strong> the Toxicity Equivalence Methodologyfor Polychlorinated Dioxins, Furans, and Biphenyls in <strong>Ecological</strong> Risk Assessment.Office <strong>of</strong> Science Advisor, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC. EPA-100-R-08-004. http://epa.gov/osa/raf/tefframework/pdfs/tefs-draft-052808.pdfUSEPA. 2008c. <strong>Ecological</strong> Risk Assessment Step 3. USEPA Region V, Chicago, IL.http://www.epa.gov/R5Super/ecology/html/erasteps/erastep3.html#csmUSEPA. 2009a. ProUCL Version 4.00.04 <strong>Technical</strong> Guide. Office <strong>of</strong> Research andDevelopment, Washington, DC.http://www.epa.gov/esd/tsc/ProUCL_v4.00.04/ProUCL_v4.00.04_tech_guide.pdfUSEPA. 2009b. ProUCL s<strong>of</strong>tware. Version 4.00.04. USEPA <strong>Technical</strong> Support Center.http://www.epa.gov/esd/tsc/TSC_form.htmUSEPA. 2009c. Estimation <strong>of</strong> Biota Sediment Accumulation Factor (BSAF) FromPaired Observations <strong>of</strong> Chemical Concentrations in Biota and Sediment. USEPA, Office<strong>of</strong> Research and Development, Duluth, MN. EPA/600/R-06/047, February 2009.http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=205446#DownloadUSEPA. 2009d. Burgess, R.M. Evaluating <strong>Ecological</strong> Risk to Invertebrate Receptorsfrom PAHs in Sediments at Hazardous Waste Sites. USEPA, <strong>Ecological</strong> Risk AssessmentSupport Center, Cincinnati, OH. EPA-600-R-06-162F. October 2009.http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=214715#DownloadUSEPA. 2011. <strong>Ecological</strong> Soil Screening Level (Eco-SSL). USEPA. February 10, 2011.http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/USEPA/USACE (United <strong>State</strong>s Environmental Protection Agency and United <strong>State</strong>sArmy Corps <strong>of</strong> Engineers). 1991. <strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>of</strong> Dredged Material Proposed for OceanDisposal, Testing Manual. USEPA Office <strong>of</strong> Water, Washington, DC. EPA 503/8-91/001.USEPA/USACE (United <strong>State</strong>s Environmental Protection Agency and United <strong>State</strong>sArmy Corps <strong>of</strong> Engineers). 1998. <strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>of</strong> Dredged Material Proposed forDischarge in Waters <strong>of</strong> the U.S. - Testing Manual (Inland Testing Manual). USEPAOffice <strong>of</strong> Water, Washington, DC. EPA-823-B-98-004.<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>Technical</strong> <strong>Guidance</strong> Document 98Version 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 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: http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regu
- 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