16.05.2015 Views

1.1 MB pdf - Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project

1.1 MB pdf - Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project

1.1 MB pdf - Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

SECTION 4: RISK CHARACTERIZATION<br />

Aquatic Invertebrates<br />

There were 4 inorganic and 14 organic chemicals that showed probable risk (Category A) by<br />

exceeding acute toxicity levels (Table 4-3). Chemicals that exceeded both the ER-M and the<br />

LC 50 included fluorene, phenanthrene, and low MW PAHs. The HQs for these chemicals<br />

ranged from 1.0 (phenanthrene) to 367 (fluorene). The HQs for comparisons to the ER-M<br />

tended to be lower than those for comparisons to the LC 50 . The largest difference occurs<br />

with fluorene, for which the ER-M HQ was 6.7 and the LC 50 HQ was 367. This indicates that<br />

the LC 50 s for some chemicals may be overestimated depending on the availability of data.<br />

The HQs for other chemicals exceeding either the ER-M or the LC 50 were all less than 10.<br />

Possible risk (Category B), whereby the ER-L or the LC 20 value for amphipod toxicity was<br />

exceeded, was observed for 9 inorganic and 5 organic chemicals. Both the ER-L and LC 20<br />

were exceeded by nickel, zinc, and chrysene with HQs all below 2. The HQs for these<br />

chemicals were comparable between the ER-Ls and LC 20 s. Other chemicals exceeding the<br />

ER-L included copper, lead, mercury, silver, 4,4’-DDE, benzo(a)anthracene, and dieldrin<br />

with HQs ranging from <strong>1.1</strong> (silver) to 105 (dieldrin). Other chemicals exceeding the LC 20<br />

consisted of beryllium, cobalt, and benzo(b)fluoranthene with HQs ranging from 1.4 (cobalt)<br />

to 7.1 (benzo[b]fluoranthene).<br />

Some possible risk (Category C) was observed for cadmium, benzo(a)pyrene, fluoranthene,<br />

pyrene, and high MW PAHs. These were all based on exceeding the no-effect level (Nereis<br />

NOEC), but not a low-effect level. The HQs for these chemicals ranged from 2.3 (high MW<br />

PAHs) to 102 (fluoranthene). Similarly, several chemicals (1 inorganic and 8 organics)<br />

showed uncertain risk (Category U) since the Nereis NOEC was the only RTV available.<br />

Three toxicity bioassays were conducted using the marine amphipod (Eohaustorius estuarius)<br />

with sediment collected from the ponds downgradient from the former Gas Plant<br />

(Table 3-14). Two samples were significantly different from controls for survival. None were<br />

significantly different for reburial.<br />

Semi-Aquatic Birds<br />

Risk estimates for semi-aquatic birds indicated that metals and pesticides pose the greatest<br />

potential for adverse effects (Table 4-2). The tern was the most sensitive receptor in most<br />

cases followed by the heron. Herons were more sensitive to arsenic and equally sensitive to<br />

cadmium. The stilt was the least sensitive, with only one exceedance for chromium.<br />

Chemicals with possible risk (Category B) consisted of cobalt, copper, lead, zinc, 4,4’-DDE,<br />

and Aroclor 1254 (heron and tern). The NOAEL HQs for these chemicals ranged from 2.9 for<br />

copper (heron) to 318 for zinc (tern). The LOAEL HQs ranged from <strong>1.1</strong> for Aroclor 1254<br />

(heron) to 184 for 4,4’-DDE (tern). Two chemicals, arsenic (heron) and cadmium (heron and<br />

tern), showed some possible risk (Category C), and several chemicals showed uncertain<br />

risks (Category U). The NOAEL HQs for the Category U chemicals ranged from 1.4 for<br />

chromium (stilt) to 663 for selenium (tern).<br />

4.1.2.6 Muted Tidal plus Rabbit Island<br />

Aquatic Plants<br />

Potential risks to aquatic plants were estimated through comparison to RTVs for terrestrial<br />

plants (Table 4-1). Calculation of HQs indicate that potential risks are primarily as a result of<br />

metals and PAHs. Both nickel and selenium exceeded chronic NOECs for aquatic plants<br />

ERA REPORT 4-12 SAC/143368(004.DOC)<br />

7/31/02

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!