Appendix A: Ecological Risk Assessment

Lower Duwamish Waterway Group Port of Seattle / City of Seattle / King County / The Boeing Company Lower Duwamish Waterway Remedial Investigation APPENDIX A. PHASE 1 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT FINAL For submittal to The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 Seattle, WA The Washington State Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office Bellevue, WA July 3, 2003 Prepared by: 200 West Mercer Street, Suite 401 Seattle, Washington 98119 Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES V LIST OF FIGURES XI ACRONYMS XIII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 ES.1 PROBLEM FORMULATION ES-2 ES.2 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT ES-2 ES.3 EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ES-3 ES.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION AND UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT ES-3 A.1 INTRODUCTION 1 A.2 PROBLEM FORMULATION 2 A.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2 A.2.1.1 Site description and history 3 A.2.1.2 Habitat features 5 A.2.1.3 Hydrologic data 5 A.2.1.4 Estuarine features 6 A.2.1.5 Sediment dynamics and load 7 A.2.2 RESOURCES POTENTIALLY AT RISK 8 A.2.2.1 State and federal threatened, endangered, and sensitive species in the LDW 8 A.2.2.2 Benthic invertebrates 9 A.2.2.3 Fish 19 A.2.2.4 Wildlife 31 A.2.2.5 Plants 39 A.2.3 RECEPTOR OF CONCERN SELECTION 40 A.2.3.1 Benthic invertebrates 41 A.2.3.2 Fish 42 A.2.3.3 Wildlife 46 A.2.3.4 Plants 48 A.2.3.5 Summary of ROC Selection 49 A.2.4 CHEMICAL OF POTENTIAL CONCERN SELECTION 52 A.2.4.1 Data used in COPC screening 52 A.2.4.2 Data availability 52 A.2.4.3 Data selection and reduction 56 A.2.4.4 Suitability of data for risk assessment 57 A.2.4.5 Benthic invertebrates 59 A.2.4.6 Fish 65 A.2.4.7 Wildlife 80 A.2.4.8 Plants 97 ower uwamish aterway roup LDW RI Appendix A: ERA L D W G FINAL July 3, 2003 Port of Seattle / City of Seattle / King County / The Boeing Company Page ii A.2.5 SITE CONCEPTUAL MODEL 101 A.2.5.1 Exposure pathways 101 A.2.5.2 Food-web model 106 A.2.5.3 Summary of ROC/COPC pairs and pathways 108 A.2.5.4 Assessment endpoints and measures of effect and exposure 109 A.3 EXPOSURE AND EFFECTS ASSESSMENT: BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES 111 A.3.1 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 113 A.3.1.1 Sediment chemistry 113 A.3.1.2 Tissue chemistry 124 A.3.2 EFFECTS ASSESSMENT 129 A.3.2.1 AETs 130 A.3.2.2 Site-specific toxicity tests 133 A.3.2.3 Site-specific benthic community data 136 A.3.2.4 Effects data for crabs 138 A.3.2.5 Tissue-based toxicity data for TBT 139 A.3.3 SUMMARY OF BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE ASSESSMENT 142 A.3.3.1 Exposure assessment 142 A.3.3.2 Effects assessment 143 A.4 EXPOSURE AND EFFECTS ASSESSMENT: FISH 145 A.4.1 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 146 A.4.1.1 Tissue data 146 A.4.1.2 Dietary exposure 150 A.4.2 EFFECTS ASSESSMENT 161 A.4.2.1 Arsenic 163 A.4.2.2 Copper 167 A.4.2.3 Mercury 171 A.4.2.4 TBT 178 A.4.2.5 DDTs 181 A.4.2.6 PCBs 185 A.4.2.7 PAHs 192 A.4.3 REGIONAL FIELD STUDIES 196 A.4.3.1 Juvenile chinook salmon 197 A.4.3.2 English sole 205 A.4.4 SUMMARY OF FISH ASSESSMENT 209 A.4.4.1 Summary of fish exposure assessment 209 A.4.4.2 Summary of fish effects assessment 210 A.5 EXPOSURE AND EFFECTS ASSESSMENT: WILDLIFE 212 A.5.1 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 212 A.5.1.1 Approach 212 A.5.1.2 Prey tissue, sediment, and egg data 213 A.5.1.3 Exposure assumptions 219 A.5.1.4 Exposure results 227 ower uwamish aterway roup LDW RI Appendix A: ERA L D W G FINAL July 3, 2003 Port of Seattle / City of Seattle / King County / The Boeing Company Page iii A.5.2 EFFECTS ASSESSMENT 230 A.5.2.1 Dietary TRVs for birds 232 A.5.2.2 Egg TRVs for birds 242 A.5.2.3 TRVs for mammals 245 A.5.3 SUMMARY OF WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT 254 A.5.3.1 Exposure assessment 254 A.5.3.2 Effects assessment 254 A.6 EXPOSURE AND EFFECTS ASSESSMENT: PLANTS 256 A.6.1 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 256 A.6.2 EFFECTS ASSESSMENT 257 A.6.3 SUMMARY OF ROOTED PLANTS ASSESSMENT 262 A.6.3.1 Exposure assessment 262 A.6.3.2 Effects assessment 262 A.7 RISK CHARACTERIZATION AND UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT 263 A.7.1 RISK CHARACTERIZATION FOR BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES 266 A.7.1.1 Risk estimation 266 A.7.1.2 Uncertainty assessment 272 A.7.1.3 Risk conclusions 286 A.7.2 RISK CHARACTERIZATION FOR FISH 289 A.7.2.1 Risk estimation 289 A.7.2.2 Uncertainty assessment 292 A.7.2.3 Risk conclusions 319 A.7.3 RISK CHARACTERIZATION FOR WILDLIFE 327 A.7.3.1 Risk estimation 327 A.7.3.2 Uncertainty assessment 329 A.7.3.3 Risk conclusion 346 A.7.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION FOR PLANTS 353 A.7.4.1 Risk estimation 353 A.7.4.2 Uncertainty assessment 355 A.7.4.3 Risk conclusions 360 A.8 CONCLUSIONS 360 A.8.1 BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES 361 A.8.2 FISH 361 A.8.3 WILDLIFE 362 A.8.4 PLANTS 363 A.8.5 UNCERTAINTIES 363 A.8.6 NEXT STEPS 363 A.9 REFERENCES 364 ATTACHMENT A.1 GIS MAPS: PUBLISHED AS SEPARATE DOCUMENT 416 ower uwamish aterway roup LDW RI Appendix A: ERA L D W G FINAL July 3, 2003 Port of Seattle / City of Seattle / King County / The Boeing Company Page iv ATTACHMENT A.2 SUMMARY OF KING COUNTY WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF RISKS TO FISH AND INVERTEBRATES IN THE WATER COLUMN 417 INTRODUCTION 417 METHODS 418 Screening 418 Tier 1 418 Tier 3 419 RESULTS 420 Metals and TBT 420 PAHs and PCBs 422 CONCLUSION 425 REFERENCES FOR ATTACHMENT A-2 425 ATTACHMENT A.3. WILDLIFE TABLES FROM KING COUNTY WQA 431 REFERENCES FOR CHARTS AND TABLES 449 List of Tables1 Table A-2-1. Species listed under ESA or by Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife 9 Table A-2-2. Species list of benthic invertebrates in the LDW 10 Table A-2-3. Average abundance per trawl of invertebrate species collected in PSAMP otter trawls from LDW stationsa 15 Table A-2-4. Fish species in the LDW 20 Table A-2-5. Bird species using the LDW 33 Table A-2-6. ROCs selected for the LDW and a summary of the rationale for selection 50 Table A-2-7. Tissue chemistry samples collected from the LDW that were used in Phase 1 risk assessment a 54 Table A-2-8. Summary of COPCs retained for benthic invertebrates a,b,c 63 Table A-2-9. Lowest dietary fish LOECs and NOECs for metals 70 Table A-2-10. Bull trout metals screen 71 Table A-2-11. Comparison of estimated amphipod tissue concentrations in LDW to toxicity data 72 Table A-2-12. Comparison of LDW chinook and English sole whole body tissue concentrations of organochlorine pesticides with lowest reported NOECs and LOECs 75 Table A-2-13. Comparison of LDW shiner surfperch and English sole whole-body tissue concentrations of PCBs (mg/kg ww) with lowest reported NOECs and LOECs 77 Table A-2-14. Comparison of LDW perch whole-body tissue concentrations of other organic chemicals with relevant effects concentrations 79 1 Includes figures from King County WQA (Attachment A.2) ower uwamish aterway roup LDW RI Appendix A: ERA L D W G FINAL July 3, 2003 Port of Seattle / City of Seattle / King County / The Boeing Company Page v Table A-2-15. Contaminants of concern evaluated in the King County WQA 85 Table A-2-16. ROC/COPC pairs with 95th percentile HQs greater than 1 (based on King County [1999]) 94 Table A-2-17. DDT and mercury data and HQs for additional screen of risk to heron, eagle, and seal 95 Table A-2-18. Plant COPC screen using terrestrial plant screening values from Efroymson et al. 1997 99 Table A-2-19. Comparison of sediment COPC concentrations in marsh and intertidal habitat to Puget Sound background concentrations 100 Table A-2-20. Comparison of sediment chemical concentrations in LDW intertidal and marsh areas relative to background concentrations. 101 Table A-2-21. COPCs retained for benthic invertebrates a,b,c,d 108 Table A-2-22. ROC/COPC pairs to be evaluated in the exposure and effects assessments for fish, wildlife, and plants 109 Table A-2-23. Assessment endpoints for ROCs and measures of effect and exposure 111 Table A-3-1. Summary of chemical-specific exceedances of SQS or SL 117 Table A-3-2. Summary of chemical-specific exceedances of CSL or ML for COPCs that warranted detailed analysis (COPC Groups 1 and 4) 120 Table A-3-3a. Group 1 COPCs ranked by CSL/ML exceedance frequency 121 Table A-3-3b. Group 4 COPCs ranked by CSL/ML exceedance frequency 121 Table A-3-4. List of compounds analyzed in raw edible meat of Dungeness crabs collected by King County in 1997 125 Table A-3-5.

Load more