1.1 MB pdf - Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SECTION 4: RISK CHARACTERIZATION chlordane – technical, alpha, and gamma, dieldrin) and PAHs (plus TPH diesel and waste oil) have probable risk (Category A) and the highest HQs for exceedance of an acute RTV. Chemicals posing a possible risk to semi-aquatic birds consisted of metals, pesticides, and Aroclor 1254. 4.2.3.3 Surface Water Chemicals posing probable risks (Category A) consisted of metals, pesticides, petroleum products. Chemicals exceeding CA State water criterion for chronic effects consisted of arsenic, copper, lead, nickel, 4,4’-DDT, and dieldrin. Copper (total and dissolved) also exceeded acute toxicity values 4.2.4 Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control Channel Potential risks were evaluated for aquatic and semi-aquatic receptors in the Garden Grove area. All chemicals with HQs exceeding one were retained as COECs (Tables 4-6 and 4-7). A summary of the potential for risk is presented below for each exposure medium. 4.2.4.1 Sediment/Soil – Aquatic Receptors Potential risks to aquatic plants resulted from to metals and PAHs. Chemicals with the highest HQs consisted of arsenic, lead, benzo(a)pyrene, and benzo(g,h,i)perylene. For sediment-related risks to aquatic invertebrates, probable risks (Category A) were observed for selenium, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, chlordane (technical and alpha), phenanthrene, and total DDT. Possible risks (Category B) were estimated for many metals, PAHs, and dieldrin. Estimation of potential risks to semi-aquatic birds show that cobalt, copper, lead, zinc, 4,4’-DDE, and Aroclor 1254 pose possible (Category B) risks. 4.2.4.2 Surface Water Chemicals exhibiting the highest HQs and exceeding RTVs for different receptor groups consisted of metals, pesticides, diesel, and waste oil. Chemicals with the highest HQs for chronic effects consisted of cadmium, copper, nickel, vanadium, 4-nitorphenol, dieldrin, and waste oil. Copper was the only chemical exceeding acute criteria. 4.2.5 Gas Plant Pond Area Potential risks were evaluated for terrestrial, aquatic, and semi-aquatic receptors in the Gas Plant Pond area. All chemicals with HQs exceeding one were retained as COECs (Tables 4-5, 4-6, and 4-7). A summary of the potential for risk is presented below for each exposure medium. 4.2.5.1 Sediment/Soil – Terrestrial Receptors Potential risks to terrestrial plants resulted from metals and PAHs. Chemicals with the highest HQs consisted of arsenic, copper, lead, thallium, benzo(a)pyrene, and benzo(g,h,i)perylene. Potential risks to terrestrial invertebrates resulted from 4 metals and one PAH. These were arsenic, chromium, copper, vanadium, and acenaphthene. The hazard quotients were fairly low, with the highest value being that for chromium. SAC/143368(004.DOC) 4-21 ERA REPORT 7/31/02
SECTION 4: RISK CHARACTERIZATION Potential risks to upland birds and mammals were in the some possible range (Category C) for metals. Arsenic in mice was the only chemical with a probable risk (Category B – exceedance of a LOAEL). 4.2.5.2 Sediment/Soil – Aquatic Receptors Potential risks to aquatic plants are the same as those reported for terrestrial plants in the previous subsection because both receptors were evaluated using the same RTVs. For sediment-related risks to aquatic invertebrates, probable risks were estimated for metals (arsenic, chromium, selenium, thallium), pesticides (4,4’-DDD, total DDT), petroleumrelated chemicals (acenaphthene, fluorene, napthalene, oil and grease, phenanthrene, TPH-diesel, waste oil, low MW PAHs, total PAHs), total PCB, and di-n-octylphthalate. Possible risks (Category B) were estimated for several other metals, pesticides, and PAHs. Estimated risks to semi-aquatic birds were in the possible range for several metals (cobalt, copper, lead, zinc), as well as 4,4’-DDE and Aroclor 1254. 4.2.5.3 Surface Water Potential risks to aquatic organisms exposed to surface water were limited to diesel and waste oil. Both had possible risks. 4.2.6 Muted Tidal Plus Rabbit Island Potential risks were evaluated for terrestrial, aquatic, and semi-aquatic receptors in the Muted Tidal and Rabbit Island area. All chemicals with HQs exceeding one were retained as COECs (Tables 4-5, 4-6, and 4-7). A summary of the potential for risk is presented below for each exposure medium. 4.2.6.1 Sediment/Soil – Terrestrial Receptors Estimated risks to terrestrial plants were in the possible range (Category B) for metals and PAHs. Chemicals with the highest estimated risk consisted of arsenic, barium, copper, lead, benzo(a)pyrene, and benzo(g,h,i)perylene. Chemicals that showed potential risks to terrestrial invertebrates were limited to metals, most with lower HQs. The highest HQs were observed for barium and lead. Potential risks to upland birds and mammals showed possible risks from lead. Some possible risks were estimated for other metals. The highest HQs were observed for barium and lead. 4.2.6.2 Sediment/Soil – Aquatic Receptors Potential risks to aquatic plants were the same as those listed above for terrestrial plants because they were evaluated using the same RTVs. For sediment-related risks to aquatic invertebrates, probable risks (Category A) were estimated for metals (chromim, cobalt, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, thallium, and zinc), pesticides (4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDT , chlordane [alpha, gamma, technical], dieldrin, endrin, endrin aldehyde, endrin ketone, total DDT ), petroleum (acenaphthylene, fluorene , oil and grease, phenanthrene, TPH diesel, waste oil, low MW PAHs), and other organics (di-n-ocylphthalate, total PCB). Possible risks (Category B) were estimated for several other metals and PAHs. Potential risks to semi-aquatic birds were in the possible range for several ERA REPORT 4-22 SAC/143368(004.DOC) 7/31/02
Page 1 and 2:
REVISED FINAL VOLUME I Ecological R
Page 3 and 4:
CONTENTS 3. Analysis...............
Page 5 and 6:
CONTENTS 3-21 Summary of EC 50 s an
Page 7 and 8:
Executive Summary The Bolsa Chica L
Page 9 and 10:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The ERA report ev
Page 11 and 12:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY “focused sampli
Page 13 and 14:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Exposure point co
Page 15 and 16:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY sample. However,
Page 17 and 18:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The chemicals in
Page 19 and 20:
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION • Sedimen
Page 21 and 22:
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION Assessment
Page 23 and 24:
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION Based on th
Page 25 and 26:
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.5 Organiz
Page 27 and 28:
SECTION 2:PROBLEM FORMULATION The L
Page 29 and 30:
SECTION 2:PROBLEM FORMULATION The e
Page 31 and 32:
SECTION 2:PROBLEM FORMULATION 2.2.1
Page 33 and 34:
SECTION 2:PROBLEM FORMULATION tern
Page 35 and 36:
SECTION 2:PROBLEM FORMULATION backg
Page 37 and 38:
SECTION 2:PROBLEM FORMULATION 2.4.1
Page 39 and 40:
SECTION 2:PROBLEM FORMULATION The f
Page 41 and 42:
SECTION 2:PROBLEM FORMULATION Benth
Page 43 and 44:
SECTION 2:PROBLEM FORMULATION Fish
Page 45 and 46:
SECTION 3: ANALYSIS The field sampl
Page 47 and 48:
SECTION 3: ANALYSIS CAR Sites A tot
Page 49 and 50:
SECTION 3: ANALYSIS 3.1.2 Data Eval
Page 51 and 52: SECTION 3: ANALYSIS questionable. T
Page 53 and 54: SECTION 3: ANALYSIS Pesticides were
Page 55 and 56: SECTION 3: ANALYSIS copper were det
Page 57 and 58: SECTION 3: ANALYSIS For five of the
Page 59 and 60: SECTION 3: ANALYSIS the subsurface
Page 61 and 62: SECTION 3: ANALYSIS 3.1.4 Exposure
Page 63 and 64: SECTION 3: ANALYSIS 3.1.4.2 Exposur
Page 65 and 66: SECTION 3: ANALYSIS Model The gener
Page 67 and 68: SECTION 3: ANALYSIS 3.1.5 Exposure
Page 69 and 70: SECTION 3: ANALYSIS The toxicity bi
Page 71 and 72: SECTION 3: ANALYSIS The chronic tox
Page 73 and 74: SECTION 3: ANALYSIS conductivity wi
Page 75 and 76: SECTION 3: ANALYSIS the regression
Page 77 and 78: SECTION 3: ANALYSIS Scatter plots a
Page 79 and 80: SECTION 3: ANALYSIS concentrations,
Page 81 and 82: SECTION 3: ANALYSIS dieldrin. These
Page 83 and 84: SECTION 4: RISK CHARACTERIZATION Ha
Page 85 and 86: SECTION 4: RISK CHARACTERIZATION Te
Page 87 and 88: SECTION 4: RISK CHARACTERIZATION to
Page 89 and 90: SECTION 4: RISK CHARACTERIZATION te
Page 91 and 92: SECTION 4: RISK CHARACTERIZATION Se
Page 93 and 94: SECTION 4: RISK CHARACTERIZATION Aq
Page 95 and 96: SECTION 4: RISK CHARACTERIZATION 4.
Page 97 and 98: SECTION 4: RISK CHARACTERIZATION pl
Page 101: SECTION 4: RISK CHARACTERIZATION 4.
Page 107 and 108: SECTION 4: RISK CHARACTERIZATION De
Page 109 and 110: SECTION 4: RISK CHARACTERIZATION no
Page 111 and 112: CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AN
Page 117 and 118: SECTION 6 References Abbasi, S. A.
Page 119 and 120: SECTION 6: REFERENCES Dunteman, G.
Page 121 and 122: SECTION 6: REFERENCES Kauss, P. B.
Page 123 and 124: SECTION 6: REFERENCES RareFind. 199
Page 125 and 126: SECTION 6: REFERENCES U.S. EPA. 199
Page 127: SECTION 6: REFERENCES Wentsel, R. S
show all

1.1 MB pdf - Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?