1.1 MB pdf - Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SECTION 4: RISK CHARACTERIZATION bioassays were not toxic to test organisms at the highest concentration tested, so NOECs were 100 percent of the sample and the LOECs were greater than 100 percent. Fish Copper (total and dissolved) was the only chemical with probable risk to fish (Table 4-4). Arsenic, lead, nickel, 4,4’-DDT, and dieldrin showed possible risk (Category B). The chronic CA-WQS HQs for these chemicals were all less than 10 with the exception of 4,4’-DDT (13). There were also several chemicals with some possible risk (Category C). The NOEC HQs for these ranged from 1.0 (dissolved lead) to 6.3 (zinc). Chemicals with uncertain risks (Category U) had fish NOECs less than 10 except for TPH-diesel (1,491) and waste oil (754). Toxicity bioassays were conducted on surface waters collected from Cell 63 (topsmelt). The bioassays using topsmelt resulted in no adverse effects on test organisms using 100 percent sample. The NOEC was then 100 percent of sample and the LOEC was greater than 100 percent. 4.1.3.4 Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control Channel Aquatic Plants Estimation of potential risks to aquatic plants showed that copper was the only chemical that had a probable risk (Category A) with an acute CA-WQS HQ of 3.5 (Table 4-4). Possible risk (Category B) was indicated for dissolved copper, nickel, zinc, and dieldrin. Dissolved copper exceeded both the lowest chronic value for plants and the CA-WQS chronic value with HQs of 4.7 and 1.5, respectively. Nickel (6.6) and dieldrin (52) also exceeded the CA- WQS chronic level, but not the plant lowest chronic value. Zinc exceeded the plant lowest chronic value, but not the CA-WQS chronic value. Aquatic Invertebrates Copper 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 4-nitrophenol (23) and dieldrin (52). Arsenic (total and dissolved), chromium, dissolved cobalt, and zinc all had some possible risk (Category C). The NOEC HQs for these chemicals range from 1.4 (dissolved arsenic) to 45 (4-nitrophenol). Toxicity bioassays were conducted with surface water collected from Cell 52. Given the total dissolved solids (electrical conductivity), Mysidopsis were used instead of Ceriodaphnia. As such, the test waters were adjusted for salinity. The results indicated that samples were not toxic to organisms at the highest concentration tested; therefore, the NOEC was 100 percent of the sample and the LOEC was greater than 100 percent of the sample. Fish Risk evaluations for fish indicated that copper was the only chemical with probable risk (Category A) to fish (Table 4-4). Chemicals with possible risk included dissolved copper, nickel, and dieldrin. The CA-WQS chronic HQs for these chemicals ranged from 1.5 (dissolved copper) to 52 (dieldrin). Cadmium, lead, and zinc showed some possible risk (Category C) with fish NOEC HQs ranging from 2.9 to 6.7. SAC/143368(004.DOC) 4-17 ERA REPORT 7/31/02
SECTION 4: RISK CHARACTERIZATION 4.1.3.5 Gas Plant Pond Area Aquatic Plants Estimates of potential risk to aquatic plants (Table 4-4) indicated that there were no COPECs that posed a risk to aquatic plants. Aquatic Invertebrates Evaluation of potential risk to aquatic invertebrates (Table 4-4) showed that TPH-diesel and waste oil were the only COPECs that posed a risk. Both of these chemicals pose a possible (Category B) risk based on exceedance of the LOEC for Ceriodaphnia. Fish Evaluation of potential risk to fish (Table 4-4) showed that TPH-diesel and waste oil were the only COPECs that posed a risk. Both of these chemicals pose an uncertain risk (Category U) because they exceeded the fish NOEC, but did not have any low-effect levels available. 4.1.3.6 Muted Tidal plus Rabbit Island Aquatic Plants Estimates of potential risk to aquatic plants (Table 4-4) indicated that there were no COPECs that posed a risk to aquatic plants. Aquatic Invertebrates Evaluation of potential risk to aquatic invertebrates (Table 4-4) showed that TPH-diesel and waste oil were the only COPECs that posed a risk. Both of these chemicals pose a possible (Category B) risk based on exceedance of the LOEC for Ceriodaphnia. Fish Evaluation of potential risk to fish (Table 4-4) showed that were no COPECs that posed a risk to fish. 4.1.3.7 Seasonal Ponds Aquatic Plants Estimates of potential risk to aquatic plants (Table 4-4) indicated that dissolved copper and zinc pose a probable risk (Category A) to aquatic plants. Both exceeded the plant lowest chronic value as well as the CA-WQS acute value (for which, the HQs were close to 1). Copper and dissolved zinc pose a possible risk (Category B) with exceedances of the plant lowest chronic value. The HQs for these chemicals were 1.5 and 2.8, respectively. Aquatic Invertebrates Evaluation of potential risk to aquatic invertebrates (Table 4-4) showed that dissolved copper and zinc have probable risk (Category A). Several chemicals have possible risks (Category B) to aquatic invertebrates. The LOEC HQs for these range from 1.4 (dissolved cadmium) to 1,333 ( TPH-diesel). Toxicity bioassays used surface water collected from Cell 11. Bioassays were conducted using Ceriodaphnia. The bioassays were slightly toxic to test organisms. The percent of sample resulting in a NOEC for reproduction, development, and survival was 50 percent with a LOEC of 100 percent. The EC 50 was greater than 50 percent and the LC 50 was 70.7 percent. ERA REPORT 4-18 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: 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?