1.1 MB pdf - Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SECTION 4: RISK CHARACTERIZATION cobalt, copper, lead, zinc, and 4,4’-DDE for both heron and tern; and arochlor 1254 for tern. The NOAEL HQs for these chemicals ranged from 1.3 for copper (heron) to 220 for zinc (tern). The LOAEL HQs ranged from 1.0 for copper (heron) to 91 for 4,4’-DDE (tern). Cobalt and lead showed some possible risk to stilts, but had relatively low HQs. Several chemicals had uncertain risks (Category U) including barium, chromium, nickel, selenium, vanadium, 4,4’-DDD, and dieldrin. The NOAEL HQs for these chemicals ranged from 1.1 for nickel (tern) to 350 for selenium (tern). 4.1.3 Surface Water – Aquatic Receptors Potential risks to aquatic receptors from exposure to surface water were evaluated using several RTVs (Table 4-4) including California State acute and chronic standards (used for all receptors - plants, invertebrates, and fish), established benchmarks (plants), and estimated NOECs and LOECs from the site-specific bioassays conducted using aquatic invertebrates and fish. In addition, the toxicity of surface waters to aquatic invertebrates and fish was also measured using bioassays (Table 3-14), and is discussed with the estimated risks for each area below. 4.1.3.1 Bolsa Bay Aquatic Plants Risk estimates for aquatic plants showed that only one chemical, dissolved copper, exceeded any of the RTVs (Table 4-4). However, it showed probable risk (Category A) to plants because it exceeded the acute California Water Quality Standard (CA-WQS). Aquatic Invertebrates Evaluations for aquatic invertebrates (Table 4-4) showed that dissolved copper had probable risk (Category A) for exceedance of the acute CA-WQS. Four other inorganic and 2 organic chemicals showed possible risk (Category B) because they exceeded the low-effect level (Ceriodaphnia LOEC). The HQs for these chemicals ranged from 1.4 (dissolved cadmium) to 32 (sulfate). Chemicals with some possible risk (Category C) exceeded a no-effect level, but not a low-effect level. The HQs for these chemicals ranged from 1.1 to 1.7. Fish Risk estimates for fish (Table 4-4) showed that dissolved copper had probable risk (Category A), dissolved silver and dissolved zinc had some possible risk (Category C), and dissolved beryllium and dissolved chromium had uncertain risk (Category U). The HQs for all of these chemicals were close to 1. Toxicity bioassays were conducted to evaluate toxicity to topsmelt using surface water samples from Inner Bolsa Bay (Cell IB). The percentage of sample resulting in NOECs for development, survival, and reproduction was 90.9 percent (the sample was adjusted for salinity, so could not be tested at full strength). Because no adverse effects were seen in this sample, the LOEC was greater than 90.9 percent. 4.1.3.2 Full Tidal Aquatic Plants Evaluation of potential risk to aquatic plants (Table 4-4) showed that only 4 chemicals were of concern. Two, dissolved copper and endrin, have probable risk (Category A) to aquatic SAC/143368(004.DOC) 4-15 ERA REPORT 7/31/02
SECTION 4: RISK CHARACTERIZATION plants. Dissolved copper exceeded no-, low-, and acute RTVs with the HQs of 7.8, 2.5, and 1.6 respectively. Endrin had HQs of 23 and 1.5 for the low-effect (chronic CA-WQS) and acute CA-WQS, respectively. Two chemicals (dissolved nickel and dieldrin) had possible risk (Category B) for exceeding the chronic CA-WQS. Aquatic Invertebrates Potential risks to aquatic invertebrates were probable (Category A) for dissolved copper and endrin (Table 4-4). Several chemicals showed possible risks (Category B) with LOEC HQs ranging from 1.1 (dieldrin) to 86 (sulfate). Fish Chemicals with probable risk (Category A) consisted of dissolved copper and endrin (Table 4-4). Chemicals with possible risk were dissolved nickel and dieldrin, with CA-WQS chronic HQs of 2.9 and 6.8, respectively. Dissolved arsenic, dissolved cadmium, dissolved lead, and dissolved zinc showed some possible risk with NOEC HQs ranging from 1.0 (zinc) to 3.3 (cadmium and arsenic). Toxicity bioassays using topsmelt were conducted on surface water samples collected from Cells 3 and 17 in the Full Tidal area. Neither sample was toxic to test organisms, but both were adjusted for salinity and could not be tested at full strength. Percents of sample resulting in NOECs for development, survival, and reproduction were 30.3 for Cell 3 and 73.2 for Cell 17. These were the highest concentrations of original sample tested. Because no effects were seen, LOECs were greater than the tested concentrations. 4.1.3.3 Future Full Tidal Aquatic Plants Evaluations for aquatic plants (Table 4-4) indicated that copper (total and dissolved) could have probable risks (Category A) for aquatic plants. The acute HQs were 3.1 and 2.7, respectively. Chemicals with possible risk (Category B) consisted of arsenic, lead, nickel (total and dissolved), zinc (total and dissolved), 4,4’-DDT, and dieldrin. The HQs for these chemicals were less than 10 with the exception of 4,4’-DDT (13) when compared to the chronic CA-WQS, and copper (15) and dissolved copper (13) when compared to the lowest chronic value for plants. Aquatic Invertebrates Copper (total and dissolved) was the only chemical with probable risk to aquatic invertebrates (Table 4-4). There were several chemicals with possible risk (Category B). The LOEC HQs for these chemicals were less than 10 with the exception of arsenic (15), sulfate (133), TPH-diesel (6,667) and waste oil (3,596). Toxicity bioassays were conducted on surface waters collected from Cell 38 (Ceriodaphnia), and Cell 36 (Mysidopsis). Bioassays using Ceriodaphnia were planned for the samples collected from Cell 36, but given the total dissolved solids (electrical conductivity), Mysidopsis were used instead. As such, the test waters were adjusted for salinity. Results of the Ceriodaphnia tests found that samples were slightly toxic to test organisms. The percentage of sample resulting in NOECs for reproduction, development, and survival was 50 percent and 100 percent for LOECs of reproduction, development, and survival. The EC 50 for reproduction was greater than 50 percent. The LC 50 was 57.4 percent. Mysidopsis ERA REPORT 4-16 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: SECTION 4: RISK CHARACTERIZATION 4.
Page 99 and 100: SECTION 4: RISK CHARACTERIZATION 4.
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?