REPORT APPENDIX H. Ecological Risk Assessment

Transcription

1 REPORT APPENDIX H Ecological Risk Assessment

2 Table of Contents H.1. CHARACTERIZATION OF VECS...1 H.1.1. VEC Descriptions...1 H Masked Shrew (Sorex cinereus)...1 H Meadow Vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus)...1 H Mink (Mustela vison)...2 H Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus)...2 H Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes)...2 H American Robin (Turdus migratorius)...3 H Belted Kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon)...3 H Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos)...3 H Red-Tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)...4 H.1.2. VEC Intake Parameters...4 H.1.3. Community-Based VECs...9 H.2. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT...10 H.2.1. Biotic Uptake Factors...10 H Soil to s, UP SI...10 H Organics...11 H H Soil to Mammals, UP SA and BA SPA...13 H Organics...14 H H Sediment to Aquatic Plants, UP SAP...18 H Organics...19 H H Sediment to Benthic s, UP SBI...22 H Organics...22 H H.2.2. Exposure Point Concentrations PROJECT June 14, 2007 ii

3 H.3. TOXICITY ASSESSMENT...28 H.3.1. Toxicity Reference Studies...29 H.3.2. Toxicity Reference Values and Benchmark Values used in the ERA...33 H.3.3. Hazard Quotients Generated for VECs...38 H.3.4. Hazard Quotients Generated for Community-Based VECs...65 H.4. REFERENCES...69 List of Tables Table H.1 Intake Parameters for the Masked Shrew... 5 Table H.2 Intake Parameters for the Meadow Vole... 5 Table H.3 Intake Parameters for the Mink... 6 Table H.4 Intake Parameters for the Muskrat... 7 Table H.5 Intake Parameters for the Red Fox... 7 Table H.6 Intake Parameters for the American Robin... 8 Table H.7 Intake Parameters for the Belted Kingfisher... 8 Table H.8 Intake Parameters for the Mallard... 9 Table H.9 Intake Parameters for the Red-Tailed Hawk... 9 Table H.10 Summary of Soil to Uptake Parameters Table H.11 Summary of Soil-and-Plant to Small Mammal Uptake Parameters Table H.12 Summary of Sediment to Aquatic Plant Uptake Parameters Table H.13 Summary of Sediment to Benthic Uptake Parameters Table H.14 Scenario 1 Exposure Point Concentrations Table H.15 Scenario 2 Exposure Point Concentrations Table H.16 Scenario 3 Exposure Point Concentrations Table H.17 Toxicity Reference Studies used for Deriving TRVs for Mammalian VECs Table H.18 Toxicity Reference Studies used for Deriving TRVs for Mammalian VECs (cont d) 30 Table H.19 Toxicity Reference Studies used for Deriving TRVs for Avian VECs Table H.20 Toxicity Reference Studies used for Deriving TRVs for Avian VECs (cont d) PROJECT June 14, 2007 iii

4 Table H.21 Toxicity Reference Values for VECs Table H.22 Benchmark Values for Phytotoxicity Assessment Table H.23 Benchmark Values for Assessing Toxicity to Soil s Table H.24 Benchmark Values for Assessing Toxicity to Aquatic Life Table H.25 Benchmark Values for Assessing Toxicity to Aquatic s Detailed Hazard Quotients for the Masked Shrew Exposed to s under Scenario 1 Operating Conditions Table H.26 Table H.27 Table H.28 Table H.29 Table H.30 Detailed Hazard Quotients for the Masked Shrew Exposed to s under Scenario 2 Operating Conditions Detailed Hazard Quotients for the Masked Shrew Exposed to s under Scenario 3 Operating Conditions Detailed Hazard Quotients for the Meadow Vole Exposed to s under Scenario 1 Operating Conditions Detailed Hazard Quotients for the Meadow Vole Exposed to s under Scenario 2 Operating Conditions Detailed Hazard Quotients for the Meadow Vole Exposed to s under Scenario 3 Operating Conditions Table H.31 Detailed Hazard Quotients for the Mink Exposed to s under Scenario 1 Operating Conditions Table H.32 Detailed Hazard Quotients for the Mink Exposed to s under Scenario 2 Operating Conditions Table H.33 Detailed Hazard Quotients for the Mink Exposed to s under Scenario 3 Operating Conditions Table H.34 Table H.35 Table H.36 Table H.37 Table H.38 Detailed Hazard Quotients for the Muskrat Exposed to s under Scenario 1 Operating Conditions Detailed Hazard Quotients for the Muskrat Exposed to s under Scenario 2 Operating Conditions Detailed Hazard Quotients for the Muskrat Exposed to s under Scenario 3 Operating Conditions Detailed Hazard Quotients for the Red Fox Exposed to s under Scenario 1 Operating Conditions Detailed Hazard Quotients for the Red Fox Exposed to s under Scenario 2 Operating Conditions PROJECT June 14, 2007 iv

5 Table H.39 Table H.40 Table H.41 Table H.42 Table H.43 Table H.44 Table H.45 Table H.46 Table H.47 Table H.48 Table H.49 Table H.50 Table H.51 Table H.52 Table H.53 Table H.54 Table H.55 Detailed Hazard Quotients for the Red Fox Exposed to s under Scenario 3 Operating Conditions Detailed Hazard Quotients for the American Robin Exposed to s under Scenario 1 Operating Conditions Detailed Hazard Quotients for the American Robin Exposed to s under Scenario 2 Operating Conditions Detailed Hazard Quotients for the American Robin Exposed to s under Scenario 3 Operating Conditions Detailed Hazard Quotients for the Belted Kingfisher Exposed to s under Scenario 1 Operating Conditions Detailed Hazard Quotients for the Belted Kingfisher Exposed to s under Scenario 2 Operating Conditions Detailed Hazard Quotients for the Belted Kingfisher Exposed to s under Scenario 3 Operating Conditions Detailed Hazard Quotients for the Mallard Exposed to s under Scenario 1 Operating Conditions Detailed Hazard Quotients for the Mallard Exposed to s under Scenario 2 Operating Conditions Detailed Hazard Quotients for the Mallard Exposed to s under Scenario 3 Operating Conditions Detailed Hazard Quotients for the Red-Tailed Hawk Exposed to s under Scenario 1 Operating Conditions Detailed Hazard Quotients for the Red-Tailed Hawk Exposed to s under Scenario 2 Operating Conditions Detailed Hazard Quotients for the Red-Tailed Hawk Exposed to s under Scenario 3 Operating Conditions Hazard Quotients for Exposure to Plants for All Operating Scenarios 65 Hazard Quotients for Exposure to Fish for All Operating Scenarios 66 Hazard Quotients for Exposure to Benthic s for All Operating Scenarios Hazard Quotients for Exposure to Soil s for All Operating Scenarios PROJECT June 14, 2007 v

6 H.1. CHARACTERIZATION OF VECS H.1.1. VEC Descriptions The following descriptions provide details of the ecology and life history of VECs that are relevant to this ERA. Some of these parameters are estimates (e.g. food ingestion rate, water intake rate) that were derived using equations from sources supported/provided by the US EPA and CCME (i.e. Nagy s (1987) equations for food ingestion rates). For each VEC, the major dietary components (e.g. fish, terrestrial plants, etc.) were expressed as percent estimates of total diet. Dietary composition is extremely variable for most species, often varying with season, habitat, lifestage, etc. Therefore, the estimates presented below are typically based on multiple literature sources (incl. USEPA 1993) in order to establish percentages that are typical for VECs living near the project area. H Masked Shrew (Sorex cinereus) The masked shrew (Sorex cinereus), which weighs approximately kg (USEPA 1993), is the most widely distributed shrew in North America, and is found throughout most of Canada (Lee 2001). It is common in moist environments and is found in open and closed forests, meadows, riverbanks, lakeshores, and willow thickets (Lee 2001). Home range sizes are 0.2 ha to 0.6 ha (Saunders 1988). Masked shrews are preyed upon by many small predators such as weasels, hawks, falcons, owls, domestic cats, foxes, snakes, and short-tailed shrews (Lee 2001). The masked shrew does not hibernate (NWF 2003) and feeds year-round on insects (dormant insects in winter) (NWF 2003; Lee 2001) including insect larvae, ants, beetles, crickets, grasshoppers, spiders, harvestmen, centipedes, slugs, and snails, but will also consume seeds and fungi (Lee 2001). It consumes approximately kg of wet-weight food per day and L of water or its equivalent per day. The masked shrew's diet is modeled as including 2.5% terrestrial plant material and 97.5% terrestrial invertebrates. Based on its consumption of these foods, the masked shrew is estimated to incidentally ingest 4.44E- 05 kg/day of dry soil. H Meadow Vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) The meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) is a small rodent (approximately kg) which makes its burrows along surface runways in grasses or other herbaceous vegetation (USEPA 1993). It is active year-round and is the most widely distributed small grazing herbivore in North America, inhabiting moist to wet habitats including grassy fields, marshes, and bogs (USEPA 1993). Meadow voles are found throughout Canada, roughly to the limit of the tree line in the north. Home ranges vary considerably, from less than ha to greater than ha (USEPA 1993). Meadow voles are a major prey item for predators such as hawks and foxes, and they feed primarily on vegetation such as grasses, leaves, sedges, seeds, roots, bark, fruits, and fungi, but will occasionally feed on insects and animal matter (USEPA 1993, Neuburger 1999). It consumes approximately kg of wet-weight food per day and L of water or its equivalent per day. The meadow vole's diet is modeled as 1

7 including 98% terrestrial plant material and 2% terrestrial invertebrates. Based on its consumption of these foods, the meadow vole is estimated to incidentally ingest 3.15E-04 kg/day of dry soil. H Mink (Mustela vison) The mink (Mustela vison), which weighs approximately 0.85 kg, is a small member of the weasel family and is the most abundant and widely distributed carnivorous mammal in North America (USEPA 1993). Mink are found throughout the continental portion of Canada, including Newfoundland, except in the most barren portions of northwestern Quebec, and eastern Nunavut. Mink are active year-round and are associated with aquatic habitats such as rivers, streams, lakes, ditches, swamps, marshes, and backwater areas (USEPA 1993). Home ranges vary considerably but are in the range of 7.8 ha to 380 ha (USEPA 1993). Feeding extensively on small mammals, fish, amphibians, and crustaceans, as well as birds, reptiles, and insects depending on the season (USEPA 1993), mink consume approximately 0.22 kg of wet weight food per day and 0.09 L of water or its equivalent per day. The mink's diet is modeled as including 55% small mammal or bird prey, 35% freshwater fish, and 10% benthic invertebrates. Based on its consumption of these foods, the mink is estimated to incidentally ingest 3.58E-04 kg/day of dry soil, and 7.77E-04 kg/day of dry sediment. H Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) The muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), which weighs approximately 1.17 kg, is a highly aquatic rodent that is common throughout Canada except in the extreme north, living in saltwater and brackish marshes, freshwater creeks, streams, lakes, marshes, and ponds (USEPA 1993). Home ranges vary in configuration depending on aquatic habitat and range from approximately ha to 0.17 ha (USEPA 1993). Muskrat are prey for many species including foxes, hawks, minks, and otters, and feed mainly on aquatic vegetation, although they also consume terrestrial vegetation, benthic invertebrates, young birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish (USEPA 1993). Active year-round (USEPA 1993), muskrats consume approximately 0.12 kg of wet weight food per day and 0.11 L of water or its equivalent per day. Based on USEPA (1993), the muskrat's diet is modeled as including 12.5% terrestrial plant material, 80% aquatic plant material, 2.5% terrestrial mammals, 2.5% fish, and 2.5% benthic invertebrates. Based on its consumption of these foods, the muskrat is estimated to incidentally ingest 9.93E-05 kg/day of dry soil, and 2.05E-03 kg/day of dry sediment. H Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) The red fox (Vulpes vulpes), which weighs approximately 4.5 kg, is found throughout continental Canada and is the most widely distributed carnivore in the world (USEPA 1993). It is found in habitats as diverse as the Arctic and the temperate desert, and prefers areas with broken and diverse upland habitats (USEPA 1993). Family territories, which consist of home ranges of individuals from the same family, vary from approximately 57 ha to over 3,000 ha (USEPA 1993). Foxes are active year-round and prey heavily on small mammals such as voles, mice and rabbits, and will also consume birds, insects, fruits, berries, and nuts; they are also noted scavengers (USEPA 1993). Red foxes consume approximately 0.76 kg of wet weight food per day and 0.38 L of water or its equivalent per day. The red 2

8 fox's diet is modeled as including 10% terrestrial plant material, 5% terrestrial invertebrates, and 85% small mammal and bird prey. Based on its consumption of these foods, the red fox is estimated to incidentally ingest 3.00E-03 kg/day of dry soil. H American Robin (Turdus migratorius) The American Robin (Turdus migratorius) is a medium-sized bird (weighing approximately 0.08 kg; USEPA 1993) that occurs throughout most of Canada during the breeding season and overwinters in mild areas of Canada (CWS & CWF 2005). Access to fresh water, protected nesting habitat, and foraging areas are important to the American Robin. Nesting habitat includes moist forest, swamps, open woodlands, orchards, parks, and lawns (USEPA 1993), and the American Robin is well adapted to urban living, as well as having a summer range that extends up to the tundra. Foraging home range sizes (for fruit, earthworms, and insects) are approximately 0.15 ha to 0.81 ha (USEPA 1993). The American Robin consumes approximately kg of wet weight food per day and 0.01 L of water or its equivalent per day. The American Robin's diet is modeled as including 52.3% terrestrial plant material and 47.8% soil invertebrates. Based on its consumption of these foods, the American Robin is estimated to incidentally ingest 4.85E-04 kg/day of dry soil. H Belted Kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon) The Belted Kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon) occurs throughout southern Canada (as far north as James Bay, across the northern portions of the prairie provinces, and into the Yukon in the west, and into northern Quebec and sourthern Labrador in the east). Belted Kingfisher are typically found along rivers and streams, lake and pond edges, or on seacoasts and estuaries (USEPA 1993). They usually nest in burrows in a steep bank, preferably near water, and the tunnels may extend as far as 5 m before ending in a nest chamber. The Belted Kingfisher weighs approximately 0.15 kg. Feeding territory sizes range from approximately 2 ha to greater than 10 ha (assuming a watercourse width of 50 m), depending on the season (USEPA 1993). Feeding primarily on fish, they prefer stream riffles and waters that are free from thick vegetation in order to see their prey (USEPA 1993). Belted Kingfisher will also consume aquatic invertebrates, insects, mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians (USEPA 1993). They consume approximately 0.06 kg of wet weight food per day and 0.02 L of water or its equivalent per day. The Belted Kingfisher's diet is modeled as including 5% terrestrial invertebrates, 10% terrestrial mammals, 15% benthic invertebrates, and 70% freshwater fish. Based on its consumption of aquatic prey the Belted Kingfisher is estimated to incidentally ingest 3.45E-04 kg/day of dry sediment. As a result of terrestrial prey consumption and incidental soil ingestion occurring while burrowing, the Belted Kingfisher is estimated to consume 8.35E-04 kg/day of dry soil. H Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) The Mallard Duck (Anas platyrhynchos) is found throughout Europe, Asia, western and central North America (although generally not found in northern Quebec, Labrador, Newfoundland or the Maritime provinces), nesting near woodland lakes and streams, or in freshwater and tidal marshes, and adapting well to human activity in urban areas. The Mallard Duck weighs approximately 1.16 kg. Home range 3

9 sizes vary from approximately 40 ha to 1,400 ha (USEPA 1993). The Mallard Duck feeds primarily on aquatic invertebrates as ducklings and adults during the breeding season, and on aquatic and terrestrial plants during the nonbreeding season (CWS & CWF 2005). Breeding females consume approximately 0.61 kg of wet weight food per day and 0.07 L of water or its equivalent per day. The duck's diet is modeled as including 12.5% terrestrial plant material, 12.5% aquatic plant material, and 75% benthic invertebrates. Based on its consumption of these foods, the duck is estimated to incidentally ingest 4.38E-04 kg/day of dry soil, and 1.24E-02 kg/day of dry sediment. H Red-Tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) The Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) is the most common and widespread hawk in North America (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2003). The Red-tailed Hawk weighs approximately 1.1 kg (USEPA 1993). It breeds throughout southern Canada except in Newfoundland (Tufts 1986), where a similar niche is occupied by the Short-eared Owl. Northern populations of the Red-tailed Hawk are migratory, while populations from southern Canada southward may be year-round residents (USEPA 1993; Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2003). They are typically found in open areas with scattered, elevated perches in a wide range of habitats including scrub deserts, plains and montane grasslands, agricultural fields, pastures, urban parks, patchy coniferous and deciduous woodlands, and tropical rainforests (Arnold and Dewey 2002). Red-tailed Hawks prefer a mixed landscape containing old fields, wetlands, and pastures for foraging, interspersed with groves of woodland, bluffs, or streamside trees for perching and nesting (USEPA 1993). Red-tailed Hawk home ranges vary in size from approximately 85 ha to greater than 2,400 ha, depending on the habitat (USEPA 1993; Arnold and Dewey 2002). They generally hunt from an elevated perch, feeding primarily (approximately 80% to 85% of diet) on small rodents such as mice, voles, shrews, rabbits, and squirrels, as well as birds and reptiles (Arnold and Dewey 2002). They consume approximately 0.19 kg of wet weight food per day and 0.06 L of water or its equivalent per day. The Red-tailed Hawk's diet is modeled as including 100% terrestrial mammals. Based on its consumption of these foods, the Red-tailed Hawk is estimated to incidentally ingest 6.59E-04 kg/day of dry soil. H.1.2. VEC Intake Parameters 4

10 Table H.1 Intake Parameters for the Masked Shrew General Parameters Body weight kg Food intake rate 3.00E-03 kg wet-wt/day Water intake rate 1.00E-03 L/day of Soil Fraction diet that is dry solid 3.02E-01 Fraction of food intake rate 4.89E-02 rate 4.44E-05 kg dry-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-sl) 8.87E-03 kg/kg-day of Plants rate 7.50E-05 kg wet-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-tp) 1.50E-02 kg/kg-day of s rate 2.93E-03 kg wet-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-ti) 5.85E-01 kg/kg-day of Surface Water rate 1.00E-03 L/day Intake factor (IFing-sw) 2.00E-01 L/kg-day Table H.2 Intake Parameters for the Meadow Vole General Parameters Body weight kg Food intake rate 1.10E-02 kg wet-wt/day Water intake rate 6.00E-03 L/day of Soil Fraction diet that is dry solid 4.80E-01 Fraction of food intake rate 5.96E-02 rate 3.15E-04 kg dry-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-sl) 7.49E-03 kg/kg-day of Plants rate 1.08E-02 kg wet-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-tp) 2.57E-01 kg/kg-day of s rate 2.20E-04 kg wet-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-ti) 5.24E-03 kg/kg-day of Surface Water rate 6.00E-03 L/day Intake factor (IFing-sw) 1.43E-01 L/kg-day 5

11 Table H.3 Intake Parameters for the Mink General Parameters Body weight 0.85 kg Food intake rate 2.20E-01 kg wet-wt/day Water intake rate 9.00E-02 L/day of Soil Fraction diet that is dry solid 2.80E-01 Fraction of food intake rate 5.81E-03 rate 3.58E-04 kg dry-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-sl) 4.21E-04 kg/kg-day of Mammals/Birds rate 1.21E-01 kg wet-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-tm) 1.42E-01 kg/kg-day of Surface Water rate 9.00E-02 L/day Intake factor (IFing-sw) 1.06E-01 L/kg-day of Sediment Fraction diet that is dry solid 2.80E-01 Fraction of food intake rate 1.26E-02 rate 7.77E-04 kg dry-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-sed) 9.14E-04 kg/kg-day of Benthic s rate 2.20E-02 kg wet-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-ai) 2.59E-02 kg/kg-day of Fish rate 7.70E-02 kg wet-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-fsh) 9.06E-02 kg/kg-day 6

12 Table H.4 Intake Parameters for the Muskrat General Parameters Body weight 1.17 kg Food intake rate 1.20E-01 kg wet-wt/day Water intake rate 1.10E-01 L/day of Soil Fraction diet that is dry solid 2.75E-01 Fraction of food intake rate 3.01E-03 rate 9.93E-05 kg dry-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-sl) 8.49E-05 kg/kg-day of Plants rate 1.50E-02 kg wet-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-tp) 1.28E-02 kg/kg-day of Mammals/Birds rate 3.00E-03 kg wet-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-tm) 2.56E-03 kg/kg-day of Surface Water rate 1.10E-01 L/day Intake factor (IFing-sw) 9.40E-02 L/kg-day of Sediment Fraction diet that is dry solid 2.75E-01 Fraction of food intake rate 6.22E-02 rate 2.05E-03 kg dry-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-sed) 1.75E-03 kg/kg-day of Aquatic Plants rate 9.60E-02 kg wet-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-ap) 8.21E-02 kg/kg-day of Benthic s rate 3.00E-03 kg wet-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-ai) 2.56E-03 kg/kg-day of Fish rate 3.00E-03 kg wet-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-fsh) 2.56E-03 kg/kg-day Table H.5 Intake Parameters for the Red Fox General Parameters Body weight 4.5 kg Food intake rate 7.60E-01 kg wet-wt/day Water intake rate 3.83E-01 L/day of Soil Fraction diet that is dry solid 3.15E-01 Fraction of food intake rate 1.25E-02 rate 3.00E-03 kg dry-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-sl) 6.66E-04 kg/kg-day of Plants rate 7.60E-02 kg wet-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-tp) 1.69E-02 kg/kg-day of s rate 3.80E-02 kg wet-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-ti) 8.44E-03 kg/kg-day of Mammals/Birds rate 6.46E-01 kg wet-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-tm) 1.44E-01 kg/kg-day of Surface Water rate 3.83E-01 L/day Intake factor (IFing-sw) 8.51E-02 L/kg-day 7

13 Table H.6 Intake Parameters for the American Robin General Parameters Body weight 0.08 kg Food intake rate 6.50E-02 kg wet-wt/day Water intake rate 1.00E-02 L/day of Soil Fraction diet that is dry solid 2.57E-01 Fraction of food intake rate 2.90E-02 rate 4.85E-04 kg dry-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-sl) 6.06E-03 kg/kg-day of Plants rate 3.40E-02 kg wet-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-tp) 4.25E-01 kg/kg-day of s rate 3.11E-02 kg wet-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-ti) 3.88E-01 kg/kg-day of Surface Water rate 1.00E-02 L/day Intake factor (IFing-sw) 1.25E-01 L/kg-day Table H.7 Intake Parameters for the Belted Kingfisher General Parameters Body weight 1.16 kg Food intake rate 6.10E-01 kg wet-wt/day Water intake rate 7.00E-02 L/day of Soil Fraction diet that is dry solid 2.61E-01 Fraction of food intake rate 2.75E-03 rate 4.38E-04 kg dry-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-sl) 3.77E-04 kg/kg-day of Plants rate 7.63E-02 kg wet-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-tp) 6.57E-02 kg/kg-day of Surface Water rate 7.00E-02 L/day Intake factor (IFing-sw) 6.03E-02 L/kg-day of Sediment Fraction diet that is dry solid 2.61E-01 Fraction of food intake rate 7.77E-02 rate 1.24E-02 kg dry-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-sed) 1.07E-02 kg/kg-day of Aquatic Plants rate 7.63E-02 kg wet-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-ap) 6.57E-02 kg/kg-day of Benthic s rate 4.58E-01 kg wet-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-ai) 3.94E-01 kg/kg-day 8

14 Table H.8 Intake Parameters for the Mallard General Parameters Body weight 0.15 kg Food intake rate 6.00E-02 kg wet-wt/day Water intake rate 2.00E-02 L/day of Soil Fraction diet that is dry solid 2.78E-01 Fraction of food intake rate 5.00E-02 rate 8.35E-04 kg dry-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-sl) 5.57E-03 kg/kg-day of s rate 3.00E-03 kg wet-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-ti) 2.00E-02 kg/kg-day of Mammals/Birds rate 6.00E-03 kg wet-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-tm) 4.00E-02 kg/kg-day of Surface Water rate 2.00E-02 L/day Intake factor (IFing-sw) 1.33E-01 L/kg-day of Sediment Fraction diet that is dry solid 2.78E-01 Fraction of food intake rate 2.07E-02 rate 3.45E-04 kg dry-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-sed) 2.30E-03 kg/kg-day of Benthic s rate 9.00E-03 kg wet-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-ai) 6.00E-02 kg/kg-day of Fish rate 4.20E-02 kg wet-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-fsh) 2.80E-01 kg/kg-day Table H.9 Intake Parameters for the Red-Tailed Hawk General Parameters Body weight 1.1 kg Food intake rate 1.90E-01 kg wet-wt/day Water intake rate 6.00E-02 L/day of Soil Fraction diet that is dry solid 3.28E-01 Fraction of food intake rate 1.06E-02 rate 6.59E-04 kg dry-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-sl) 5.99E-04 kg/kg-day of Mammals/Birds rate 1.90E-01 kg wet-wt/day Intake factor (IFing-tm) 1.73E-01 kg/kg-day of Surface Water rate 6.00E-02 L/day Intake factor (IFing-sw) 5.45E-02 L/kg-day H.1.3. Community-Based VECs Plants To evaluate the risks presented to plants by s emitted by the Project, existing and predicted soil concentrations were compared against phytoxicity benchmarks. These benchmarks were derived to be protective of most plants species, acknowledging the variability associated with phytoxicity resulting from soil conditions. 9

15 Fish and Benthic s For the purposes of this ERA, individual fish species and freshwater invertebrates were not considered as potential receptors. Rather, fish and invertebrates as a whole were considered. This is reasonable since the benchmarks used to evaluate aquatic receptors are based on the most sensitive reported toxicological data from the literature and are designed to be protective of all aquatic life. Soil s Specific species of terrestrial invertebrates were not assessed in this ERA. Existing and predicted soil concentrations were compared to benchmark toxicity values derived to be protective of most terrestrial invertebrate species. H.2. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT The generalized equation used to calculate a concentration in receptors, (such as soil invertebrates) from a soil concentration is as follows: EPC i = EPC soil * UP i Eq. H-1 where: EPC i exposure point concentration in biological compartment i (mg/kg wet weight); EPC soil exposure point concentration in soil (mg/kg dry weight); and UP i Uptake Factor from soil to target biotic tissue i (dimensionless). An analogous equation is used to calculate EPCs (on a mg/kg wet tissue basis) using water (mg/l) or sediment (mg/kg dry sediment) EPC calculations. For this ERA, EPCs were calculated for soil, water, sediment, terrestrial plants, and fish following the methods described in Section 4. EPCs for aquatic plants, terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, and small mammals (prey species) are specific to the ERA. H.2.1. Biotic Uptake Factors The following text provides an explanation of the Uptake Factors (UPs) that were used to calculate ERA-specific EPCs. For many UPs, It is necessary that certain corrections factors are applied before being submitted to Eq. H-1. The purpose of these correction factors is to incorporate additional chemical specific environmental fate properties (i.e., metabolic and bioavailability factors), and/or to simply correct units of measurement (typically a dry weight to wet weight conversion) so they are in agreement with EPC units. The applicable correction factors to each UP are also discussed below. H Soil to s, UP SI Uptake factors for soil-to-terrestrial-invertebrate (UP SI ) are generally reported for earthworms due to available information in the literature and a lack of information with regards to insects. The ERA 10

16 therefore focuses on earthworms as the "model" soil invertebrate, due to the relative abundance of data and models to predict contaminant uptake, and the perceived importance of earthworms in food webs. The UP SI are estimated in dry weight units (i.e., mg/kg dry soil invertebrate / mg/kg dry soil) and are converted to wet weight where necessary assuming that the fresh earthworm contains 84% water and 16% dry solids (typical value for earthworms; USEPA 1993). A summary of the Equations, point estimates, and relevant correction factors for soil to terrestrial invertebrate uptake is provided in table H-10. H Organics, Soil-to-earthworm uptake models for and 2,3,7,8-TCDD are derived from Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Earthworms (Sample et al. 1998a, Table 12). The standard equation developed by Sample et al. (1998a) has the form: ln(c worm ) = B 0 + B 1 (ln(c soil )) Eq. H-2 where, C worm is the contaminant concentration in an earthworm (mg/kg dry weight), C soil is the contaminant concentration in soil (mg/kg dry weight), and B 0 and B 1 are regression constants subject to statistical fitting procedures. T these equations explicitly apply to earthworms that were depurated prior to chemical analysis, to eliminate soil in the gut contents. In the ERA model, the equations are modified slightly in order that they can be used to estimate a soil to invertebrate concentration ratio that is appropriate for the expected soil contaminant concentration. Thus, the equation in the ERA model becomes: UP SI = e (B 0 + B 1 ln(c soil )) / C soil. Eq. H-3 For, the equation from Sample et al. (1998a) becomes: UP SI = e ( ln(c soil )) / C soil. Eq. H-4 For dioxins and furans (as TCDD) the equation from Sample et al. (1998a) becomes: UP SI = e ( ln(c soil )) / C soil. Eq. H-5 Other Organics The soil-to-earthworm uptake model for the remaining organic compounds is derived from US EPA (2005a) and Jager et al. (1998), and is calculated as: UP SI = ((f water + (f lipid K OW )) / (f OC K OC )) / 0.16 Eq. H-6 11

17 where f water is the water content of the worm (0.84), f lipid is the lipid content of the worm (0.01), f OC is the fraction of organic carbon in soil (assumed to be 0.01), and K OC is the water to organic carbon partitioning coefficient (L/kg OC). For Pentachlorophenol, the UP SI was obtained from USEPA (2005a; Attachment 4-1, appendix F) as follows: UP SI = e ( ln(csoil)) / C soil Eq. H-7 Bioavailability and metabolic factors (unitless) for use with this equation as multipliers before calculating the final concentration in earthworms were estimated based on Kow. Estimated values ranged from 0.1 to 1 for bioavailability, and 0.05 to 1 for metabolic factors (Table H-10). H Soil-to-earthworm uptake models for inorganic elements were derived (on a dry weight basis) from Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Earthworms (Sample et al. 1998a, Table 12), for the following elements: Arsenic UP SI = e ( ln(csoil)) / C soil Eq. H-8 Cadmium UP SI = e ( ln(csoil)) / C soil Eq. H-9 Lead UP SI = e ( ln(csoil)) / C soil Eq. H-10 Zinc UP SI = e ( ln(csoil)) / C soil Eq. H-11 Point estimates of UP SI were also obtained from Sample et al. (1998a, Tables 11 and C1) for Barium, Beryllium, Cobalt, and Vanadium. For chromium, and nickel, the regression equations presented by Sample et al. (1998a) were not considered to be of sufficient reliability to use. Therefore, for those elements, the median values of data presented by Sample et al. (1998a, Table 11) were selected as follows: Chromium the median value (0.306) was selected, as the distribution was lognormal; Nickel the mean value (1.656) was selected as the distribution was normal; and Uptake factors for the remaining elements were derived based on position in the periodic table and chemical characteristics/behaviour as follows: Antimony uptake factor = arsenic uptake factor; Boron uptake factor = 1 (conservative default); The Methyl Mercury UP SI value is 53.13, obtained from USEPA (1999 Appendix C Table C1; converted to dry weight basis) 12

18 Table H.10 Summary of Soil to Uptake Parameters UP SI Equations and Point Estimates (mg/kg-dry tissue / mg/kg-dry soil) 1 Soil to Bioavailability Factor (Unitless) Soil to Metabolic Factor (Unitless) Log Kow Log Koc Benzene Eq. H Anthracene Eq. H Benzo(a)anthracene Eq. H Benzo(a)pyrene Eq. H Benzo(b)fluoranthene Eq. H Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Eq. H Benzo(k)fluoranthene Eq. H Chrysene Eq. H Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Eq. H Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Eq. H Naphthalene Eq. H Phenanthrene Eq. H Aroclor 1254 (Total ) Eq. H ,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalent Eq. H Chloroform Eq. H Dichloromethane Eq. H Formaldehyde Eq. H Tetrachloroethylene Eq. H Vinyl Chloride Eq. H ,2-Dichlorobenzene Eq. H ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Eq. H ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene Eq. H Pentachlorobenzene Eq. H Hexachlorobenzene Eq. H ,4,-Dichlorophenol Eq. H ,4,6-Trichlorophenol Eq. H ,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol Eq. H Pentachlorophenol Eq. H Antimony Based on Arsenic Arsenic Eq. H Barium Beryllium Boron Default (1.0) Cadmium Eq. H Total Chromium Cobalt Lead Eq. H Inorganic Mercury Methyl Mercury Nickel Silver Vanadium Zinc Eq. H UP SI are multiplied by 0.16 to attain mg/kg (wet) / mg/kg (dry) H Soil to Mammals, UP SA and BA SPA Concentrations of contaminants in small mammals are generally estimated using uptake or biotransfer factors directly from soil, or in some cases using biotransfer factors from feed (vegetation). Uptake factors (UP) are technically dimensionless and direct (i.e., mg/kg dry weight mammal / mg/kg dry weight soil). Biotransfer factors (BA) are slightly different, with units of day/kg, and are multiplied by a soil or feed intake rate (kg/day) to generate an uptake factor, which is then multiplied by the contaminant concentration in the soil or feed (mg/kg) to estimate the concentration in the animal. 13

19 All uptake factors are initially reported in dry weight units (i.e., mg/kg dry weight mammal / mg/kg dry weight soil) and subsequently converted to wet weight assuming that small mammals typically have approximately 68% water content and 32% dry solids content (data for small mammals; US EPA 1993). The conversion to wet-weight mammal units is accomplished by multiplying dry-weight transfer factors by the dry solids fraction of 0.32 for small mammals. A summary of the Equations, point estimates, and relevant correction factors for uptake to terrestrial mammals is provided in table H-11. H Organics The soil-to-small-mammal uptake factor (UP SA ) for 2,3,7,8-TCDD was derived from Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Small Mammals (Sample et al. 1998b, Table 8). The selected model for whole body dry weight concentration from soil dry weight concentration was: UP SA = e ( ln(csoil)) / C soil Eq. H-12 Pentachlorophenol The UP SA for pentachlorophenol was obtained from USEPA (2005a, Table 4c), adjusted for a diet of 100% plants: UP SA = (UP SP ) / C soil Eq. H-13 Other Organics Biotransfer into small mammal tissues for the remaining organic contaminants is modeled on the basis of measured or expected contaminant concentration in feed (plant tissue) as well as from soils. Thus, the soil-and-plant-to-animal (SPA) biotransfer factor is defined as BA SPA (day/kg). For most organic compounds (excluding dioxins, furans, and pentachlorophenol) BA SPA values were obtained following "Methodology for Predicting Cattle Biotransfer Values" (RTI 2005). This work was performed by Research Triangle Institute (RTI) on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and is endorsed by the US EPA through the Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol. A key assumption is that the best available predictor of the contaminant concentration in small mammal tissues would be the contaminant concentration in a cow occupying the same habitat. Since the available BA SPA values were developed for cattle, and must be multiplied by feed or soil intake rates and concentrations in order to convert them to animal tissue values, the appropriate feed ingestion rate is that of cattle. To multiply by the feed ingestion rate of individual VEC organisms, which range in weight from <10 g to more than 10 5 g, would make the expected contaminant concentration in tissues directly proportional to the feed ingestion rate, which is not appropriate. 14

20 The UP SPA value can therefore be visualized as the product of the cattle biotransfer factor (BA SPA, day/kg, from RTI 2005) and the cattle food or soil ingestion rates (kg/day). When multiplied by the contaminant concentrations in the soil and feed (mg/kg) the result is the predicted contaminant concentration for the lipid compartment in cattle (mg/kg lipid). The biotransfer factor from soil or plant to animal (BA SPA ) is thus estimated as: BA SPA = (( log Kow2 ) + (1.07 log Kow) 3.56) Eq. H-14 Where is the lipid content of the small mammal relative to its wet weight (Dierenfeld et al. 2002); and the remaining equation (from RTI 2005) predicts the tendency for an organic contaminant compound to be concentrated in lipid, as a function of the log K OW value. Note that the lipid fraction identified here for small mammals is lower than the lipid fraction for cattle as defined by RTI (2005). The equation is valid in the range of log K OW values between and 8.2, and the log K OW values outside this range are capped at the upper or lower range limits, respectively. The equation developed by RTI (2005) is applicable to organic compounds that are both bioavailable (i.e., readily absorbed from feed), and relatively persistent (i.e., resistant to metabolic breakdown and excretion). It is noted by RTI (2005) that many compounds are susceptible to breakdown and excretion, and such compounds were methodically removed from the database used to develop the equation predicting BA SPA values. Further, it is noted by RTI (2005) that metabolic factors ranging from 0 to 1 can be implemented to better predict the bioaccumulation of non-persistent organic compounds. Factors to represent bioavailability and metabolism are therefore applied to those organic compounds that are considered to have low bioavailability or persistence (Table H-11). The expected contaminant concentration in small mammals is then estimated based on cattle tissue concentrations as: C mammal = BA SPA ((60 C plant ) + (0.4 C soil )) B i M i Eq. H-15 Where, C mammal is the contaminant concentration in animal tissue (mg/kg wet weight), BA SPA is the biotransfer factor from soil or plant to animal (day/kg), 60 is the plant feed intake rate (60 kg wet weight/day for cattle), C plant is the contaminant concentration in plants (mg/kg wet weight)(refer to UP SAP section for description of methods to obtain UP SP, needed for deriving C plant ), 0.4 is the soil ingestion rate (0.4 kg dry weight/day for cattle), C soil is the contaminant concentration in soil (mg/kg dry weight), B i is the bioavailability of the contaminant in feed and soils (unitless, ranging from 0 to the default value of 1), and M i is the metabolic factor for the contaminant (unitless, ranging from 0 to the default value of 1) (table H-11). 15

21 As a further check on bioconcentration by small mammals, which have relatively short life spans compared with cattle, a mass limitation is imposed on the bioaccumulation of contaminants. This mass limitation is based on the meadow vole, assuming a median 90 day lifespan (US EPA 1993), the daily food ingestion rate (0.011 kg wet weight/day), the daily soil ingestion rate (3.15E-04 kg dry weight/day) and the contaminant concentrations in wet food and dry soil, respectively. No credit is taken for metabolic losses or excretion of contaminants. The total lifetime contaminant intake (mg) is divided by the body mass of the meadow vole (0.042 kg) to derive the maximum theoretical contaminant concentration in meadow vole tissues (C max ) as: C max = (90 ((0.011 C plant ) + ( C soil )) B i ) / Eq. H-16 Where, C max is lower than C mammal, C max is selected as the maximum possible contaminant concentration in small mammal tissues. H Uptake from soil to animals (UP SA ) for inorganic substances is generally modeled directly (based on correlations or empirical regressions), without direct consideration of concentrations in plant tissues. Values for UP SA for inorganic elements were derived from regression equations presented by Sample et al. (1998b) where available (i.e., for As, Cd, Cr, Co, Pb, Ni, and Zn), followed by point estimates (constants) from Sample et al. (1998b) (i.e., for Ba, Hg, Ag and V). The UP SA models obtained from Sample et al. (1998b) are as follows: UP SA (Arsenic) = e ( ln(csoil) ) / C soil Eq. H-17 UP SA (Cadmium) = e ( ln (Csoil) ) / C soil Eq. H-18 UP SA (Chromium) = e ( ln (Csoil) ) / C soil Eq. H-19 UP SA (Cobalt) = e (1.307 ln (Csoil) ) / C soil Eq. H-20 UP SA (Lead) = e ( ln (Csoil) ) / C soil Eq. H-21 UP SA (Nickel) = e ( ln (Csoil) ) / C soil Eq. H-22 UP SA (Zinc) = e ( ln (Csoil) ) / C soil Eq. H-23 Antimony and beryllium uptake models were derived from US EPA (2005a), assuming a diet of 100% plants. For these elements, US EPA (2005a) presents an equation relating C mammal to C plant : C mammal = C plant Eq. H-24 16

22 These are converted in the ERA model to provide uptake factors from soil to small mammals for antimony and beryllium by substituting UP SP for C plant as follows: UP SM = 0.05 UP SP Eq. H-25 where, UP SP (antimony) = e (0.938 ln(csoil) 3.233) / C soil (USEPA, 2005a) Eq. H-26 UP SP (beryllium)= e ( ln(csoil) ) / C soil (USEPA, 2005a) Eq. H-27 Uptake factors or regression equations were not available for Boron. Therefore, a biotransfer from soil or plant to animal (BA SPA ) point estimate was derived from A Review and Analysis of Parameters for Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides through Agriculture (Baes et al. 1984). This BA SPA values was handled in the same manner as for most organic compounds to derive expected concentrations in small mammals based upon exposure of cattle to ingested soil and plant materials, except that the metabolic factor is required to have a value of 1.0 since inorganic elements are not metabolized. 17

23 Table H.11 Summary of Soil-and-Plant to Small Mammal Uptake Parameters UP SI Equations and Point Estimates (mg/kg-dry tissue / mg/kg-dry soil) 1 Soil to Bioavailability Factor (Unitless) Soil to Metabolic Factor (Unitless) Benzene Eq. H Anthracene Eq. H Benzo(a)anthracene Eq. H Benzo(a)pyrene Eq. H Benzo(b)fluoranthene Eq. H Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Eq. H Benzo(k)fluoranthene Eq. H Chrysene Eq. H Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Eq. H Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Eq. H Naphthalene Eq. H Phenanthrene Eq. H Aroclor 1254 (Total ) Eq. H ,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalent Eq. H Chloroform Eq. H Dichloromethane Eq. H Formaldehyde Eq. H Tetrachloroethylene Eq. H Vinyl Chloride Eq. H ,2-Dichlorobenzene Eq. H ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Eq. H ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene Eq. H Pentachlorobenzene Eq. H Hexachlorobenzene Eq. H ,4,-Dichlorophenol Eq. H ,4,6-Trichlorophenol Eq. H ,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol Eq. H Pentachlorophenol Eq. H Antimony Based on Arsenic Arsenic Eq. H Barium Beryllium Boron Default (1.0) Cadmium Eq. H Total Chromium Cobalt Lead Eq. H Inorganic Mercury Methyl Mercury Nickel Silver Vanadium Zinc Eq. H UP SI are multiplied by 0.16 to attain mg/kg (wet) / mg/kg (dry) H Sediment to Aquatic Plants, UP SAP Sediment to Aquatic Plant uptake factors (UP SAP ) for most compounds (with the exception of ) were generally assumed to be similar to soil to terrestrial plant uptake factors (as in US EPA 1999). A summary of the equations and point estimates is provided in table H

24 H Organics For most PAH compounds (those having Log K OW values greater than or equal to 4) aquatic plant concentrations were derived using the equation of Vanier et al. (2001): C AP = ( Log CSED) Eq. H-28 Where C AP is the contaminant (PAH) concentration in aquatic plants (mg/kg wet weight); and C SED is the PAH concentration in sediment (mg/kg dry weight). Note that this equation directly calculates the PAH concentration in aquatic plants, and is not the same as UP SAP. For the remaining PAH compound, naphthalene, UP SAP was assumed to be the same as the soil to terrestrial plant uptake factor (UP SP ). The UP SP for naphthalene is a point estimate derived from empirical data (USEPA, 2005a)., For, dioxins and furans, UP SP were used to represent UP SAP. The uptake model used to derive UP SP for persistent organic compounds (i.e.,, dioxins and furans) based on log K ow was derived from the equation shown in Figure 4A of US EPA (2005a) (unrinsed plant foliage) for non-ionic organics: UP SP = 10 ( log Kow ) Eq. H-29 This model is similar to that developed by Travis and Arms (1988 Fig. 3) if outliers are removed. Other Organics UP SP were used to represent UP SAP for the remaining organic compounds (based on the model of Ryan et al. (1988). The Ryan et al. (1988) model builds on empirical soil to plant concentration relationships derived by Briggs et al. (1982, 1983) for O-methylcarbamoyloximes and substituted phenylureas. Briggs et al. (1982, 1983) developed log K OW based equations for determining Root Concentration Factors (RCF) and Shoot Concentration Factors (SCF) through analysis of non-ionic organic chemical uptake by hydroponically grown Barley. Ryan et al. (1988) introduced a soil correction factor which considers potentially large changes to chemical bioavailability as a result of adsorption to soil organic carbon, and broadened the model to make it potentially applicable to pesticides,, halogenated aliphatic hydrocarbons, halogenated ethers, monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (including ), phthalate 19

25 esters, and nitrosamines. Soil adsorption was predicted using knowledge of the organic carbon content of soil and the organic carbon water partitioning properties of the chemical. The equation for estimating uptake from soil to shoots from Ryan et al (1988), identified as the Shoot Concentration Factor, SCF, with units of mg/kg wet weight plant / mg/kg dry weight soil, identical to UP SP, is applied to derive UP SP for the remaining organic compounds: Eq. H-30 UP SP = ( ( log Kow 1.78 ) 2 / 2.44 ( log Kow )) φ θ + φ K OC f OC where, UP SP is the soil to above-ground plant concentration (mg/kg wet weight plant / mg/kg dry weight soil); φ is the dry bulk density of the soil (g dry weight / cm 3 ); θ is the soil water content by volume (ml/cm 3 ); K OC is the organic carbon water partitioning coefficient for the contaminant (L/kg OC); and f OC is the fraction of organic carbon in the soil (dimensionless). Soil bulk density values can vary in nature from 0.25 g/cm 3 (for very light peaty soils) to approximately 2.25 g/cm 3 (for very heavy inorganic soils). Most values lie between 1.0 and 1.75 g/cm 3 (Heuscher et al. 2005). Heuscher et al. (2005) provide an equation that allows soil bulk density to be estimated based on the soil organic carbon content as follows: φ = (100 f oc ) 0.5 Eq. H-31 This equation provides an estimated default soil bulk density (φ ) value of g/cm 3 at f oc = The limits on the allowable range of f oc are to 0.25, and based on this range, the corresponding limits on the value of φ would be g/cm 3 (inorganic soils) to g/cm 3 (organic soils). Soil moisture content is highly variable depending upon soil type and both regional and seasonal weather conditions, but typically ranges from 0.05 to 0.5 ml/cm 3 (NASA, 2007). For simplicity, a constant standard soil moisture content of 0.25 ml/ cm 3 is assumed. Compounds that have a high tendency to sorb to soil solids become inactivated or have low bioavailability. Graham-Bryce (1984) noted that this occurs for substances that have K d values greater than 1000 L/kg, and Ryan et al. (1988) relate this to organic compounds having log K ow values of between 5 and 6, or greater. The Ryan et al. (1988) model in fact reflects variable bioavailability by including partitioning and competition between soil organic carbon and plants for uptake of organic contaminants in soil pore water. For this ERA the bioavailability factor is set to 1 (i.e., all contaminants are fully bioavailable). In addition to having limited bioavailability, some organic compounds are also potentially metabolized by plants, or may be volatilized across plant leaf surfaces. Therefore, the potential loss of selected organic compounds from plant tissues can be represented using an empirical metabolic factor (unitless, 20