1.1 MB pdf - Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SECTION 3: ANALYSIS These nine primary principal components were back-correlated with the original variables in the dataset (Table 3-24). The first principal component is highly correlated with petroluem compounds (e.g., PAHs, TPH, waste oil, etc.) and may be interpreted as a measure of petroleum contamination. The second principal component best correlates to metals (nickel, vanadium, mercury, zinc, and lead) and total PCBs. The third component is positively correlated to organochlorines and copper and negatively correlated to petroleum compounds. Component 4 is negatively correlated to PAHs and positively correlated to organochlorines and metals (Table 3-24). Component 5 is positively correlated to inorganics and negatively correlated to organochlorines. 3.2.2 Stressor-Response Profile The stressor-response profile presents the results of the stressor-response analysis. It results in a set of reference toxicity values (RTVs) that were then used as the basis for estimating risks to representative species at the Bolsa Chica Lowlands. The RTVs were selected primarily from the site-specific dose-response information, in addition to other available sources, including toxicological databases, wildlife toxicological reviews, and scientific literature. The most conservative of the reliable RTVs generally were used, because of the stated future land use (mitigation and wildlife refuge). The RTVs were selected according to a specified hierarchy. This was presented for aquatic organisms (sediment and surface water exposure) in Sections 2.3.3 and 3.2.2, and for terrestrial organisms in Section 3.2.2. The RTVs included both acute and chronic effect levels. The selection of RTVs for the various receptor groups is presented below. In addition, the GIS application and Tables 3-25 to 3-28 identify the RTVs that were used in the risk calculations. RTVs representing no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs), NOECs, lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs), or LOECs are preferred over those for lethal doses or concentrations (such as LD 50 or LC 50 ). The RTVs for terrestrial plants and invertebrates exposed to sediment/soil were obtained from several sources, including wildlife toxicity reviews, literature searches, and toxicity databases, such as PHYTOTOX and the database compiled by Efroymson et al. (1997a and 1997b). The RTVs are presented in Table 3-25 for terrestrial plants and in Table 3-26 for terrestrial invertebrates. The RTVs for birds and mammals exposed to sediment/soil and surface water were obtained from several sources, including wildlife toxicity reviews, literature searches, Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST), Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), and toxicity databases, such as TERRETOX. The most conservative RTVs were typically selected for terrestrial receptors with the following two additional criteria: Where possible, a) values that were based on test species most similar to representative Bolsa Chica species were selected, and b) sources reporting both a NOAEL and a LOAEL were generally preferred. The RTVs are presented in Table 3-27 for birds and in Table 3-28 for mammals. The RTVs for aquatic organisms (e.g., benthic macroinvertebrates) exposed to sediment were obtained from the dose-response regression analyses conducted on the amphipod survival and reburial bioassays and Nereis bioaccumulation studies described in the previous section. The ER-L and ER-M values from Long et al. (1995), and Long and Morgan (1990) where not available in Long et al. (1995), are also included as reference benchmarks. RTVs obtained from Long and Morgan (1990) include 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDT, chlordane, and SAC/143368(003.DOC) 3-37 ERA REPORT 7/31/02
SECTION 3: ANALYSIS dieldrin. These values do not have as high a degree of confidence as those obtained from Long et al., 1995 because of limited sample size. The RTVs for sediment are presented in Table 3-29. The RTVs for aquatic organisms (e.g., invertebrates and fish) exposed to surface water were obtained from the California Water Quality Standards (U.S. EPA, 2000), as well as sitespecific bioassay using topsmelt, Ceriodaphnia, and Mysidopsis (described in the previous section). In addition, RTVs for aquatic plants exposed to surface water are presented. The RTVs for surface water are presented in Table 3-30. ERA REPORT 3-38 SAC/143368(003.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: SECTION 3: ANALYSIS concentrations,
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 103 and 104: SECTION 4: RISK CHARACTERIZATION Po
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?