Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION AND FEASIBILITY STUDY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY MARION, UNION PARISH, LOUISIANA

Prepared for

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1445 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75202-2733

Work Assignment No. : 031-RICO-067Z EPA Region : 6 Date Prepared : July 21, 2000 Contract No. : 68-W6-0037 Prepared by : Tetra Tech EM Inc. Tetra Tech Project Manager : George Allman Telephone No. : (214) 740-2029 EPA Work Assignment Manager : Bartolome J. Cañellas Telephone No. : (214) 665-6662 CONTENTS

Section Page

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... vi

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2.0 SCREENING LEVEL PROBLEM FORMULATION ...... 3

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... 5

2.1.1 Upland Forest Habitat ...... 6 2.1.2 Aquatic Habitat ...... 8 2.1.3 Bottomland Hardwood Forest ...... 8 2.1.4 On-Site Soils ...... 9 2.1.5 Receptors ...... 9

2.1.5.1 Primary Consumers ...... 12 2.1.5.2 Secondary Consumers ...... 13 2.1.5.3 Top-Level Consumers ...... 13

2.1.6 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species ...... 14

2.1.6.1 Bald Eagle ...... 14 2.1.6.2 Louisiana Black Bear ...... 14 2.1.6.3 Red-Cockaded Woodpecker ...... 14

2.2 CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN ...... 16 2.3 CONTAMINANT FATE AND TRANSPORT ...... 17 2.4 MECHANISMS OF ECOTOXICITY ...... 22

2.4.1 Aquatic Mechanisms and Toxic Effects Summary ...... 23 2.4.2 Terrestrial Mechanisms and Effects Summary ...... 24

2.5 COMPLETE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS ...... 25 2.6 SELECTION OF ENDPOINTS AND CONCEPTUAL MODEL ...... 26

2.6.1 Assessment Endpoint Selection ...... 26 2.6.2 Null Hypotheses ...... 27 2.6.3 Measurement Endpoints ...... 28 2.6.4 Measurement Receptor Species Selection Rationale ...... 31

2.6.4.1 Aquatic Food Web ...... 34 2.6.4.2 Terrestrial Food Web ...... 39

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd i CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Page

2.6.5 Summary of Conceptual Model ...... 43

3.0 ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT...... 45

3.1 TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUE IDENTIFICATION...... 46

3.1.1 TRVs for Plant and Invertebrate Communities in Soils and Sediments ...... 47

3.1.1.1 TRVs for Benthic Invertebrates ...... 47 3.1.1.2 TRVs for Soil Invertebrates ...... 47 3.1.1.3 TRVs for Terrestrial and Rooted Aquatic Plants ...... 48

3.1.2 TRVs FOR WILDLIFE MEASUREMENT ENDPOINT RECEPTORS .... 49

3.1.2.1 Mammals ...... 50 3.1.2.2 Birds ...... 53 3.1.2.3 Reptiles and Amphibians ...... 55

4.0 SCREENING LEVEL EXPOSURE ESTIMATES ...... 55

4.1 INGESTION RATES AND DIETARY ASSUMPTIONS FOR MEASUREMENT ENDPOINT RECEPTORS ...... 57

4.1.1 Aquatic Food Web Measurement Endpoint Receptors ...... 57

4.1.1.1 Herbivorous Bird—Wood Duck (Mallard Surrogate) ...... 59 4.1.1.2 Omnivorous Mammal—Raccoon ...... 59 4.1.1.3 Omnivorous Bird—Mallard ...... 60 4.1.1.4 Piscivorous Bird—Heron (Belted Kingfisher Surrogate) ...... 60 4.1.1.5 Omnivorous Amphibian/Reptile—Southern Painted Turtle ..... 61

4.1.2 Terrestrial Food Web Measurement Endpoint Receptors ...... 61

4.1.2.1 Herbivorous Mammals—Cotton Mouse (Deer Mouse Surrogate) ...... 61 4.1.2.2 Herbivorous Birds—Carolina Chickadee (Mourning Dove Surrogate) ...... 62 4.1.2.3 Omnivorous Mammal—Short-Tailed Shrew ...... 62 4.1.2.4 Omnivorous Bird—Pine Warbler (Marsh Wren Surrogate) ..... 62

4.2 COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN FOOD ITEMS OF MEASUREMENT ENDPOINT RECEPTORS ...... 63

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd ii CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Page

4.2.1 COPC Concentration in Invertebrates and Plants ...... 63 4.2.2 COPC Concentration in Mammals, Birds, Amphibians, and Reptiles ...... 65

4.2.2.1 Herbivorous Mammals and Birds ...... 65 4.2.2.2 Omnivorous Mammals and Birds ...... 66

4.2.3 Determination of Wildlife Bioconcentration Factors ...... 67

4.2.3.1 Bioconcentration Factors for Food Ingestion Pathway ...... 68 4.2.3.2 BCFs for Measurement Receptors Ingesting Media ...... 69

5.0 RISK CHARACTERIZATION AND UNCERTAINTY ...... 69

5.1 SCREENING LEVEL HAZARD QUOTIENTS ...... 70

5.1.1 Approach ...... 70 5.1.2 Benthic Invertebrates, Soil Invertebrates, and Plants ...... 72 5.1.3 Risk to Aquatic Food Web Wildlife ...... 72

5.1.3.1 Piscivorous Birds—Herons (Belted Kingfisher Surrogate) ..... 72 5.1.3.2 Omnivorous Mammals—Raccoon ...... 73 5.1.3.3 Omnivorous Birds—Mallard...... 73 5.1.3.4 Herbivorous Birds—Wood Duck ...... 74

5.1.4 Terrestrial Food Web Wildlife ...... 74

5.1.4.1 Omnivorous Mammals—Short-Tailed Shrew ...... 74 5.1.4.2 Herbivorous Mammals—Cotton Mouse (Deer Mouse Surrogate) 74 5.1.4.3 Insectivorous Birds—Pine Warbler (Marsh Wren Surrogate) . . . 75 5.1.4.4 Herbivorous Birds—Carolina Chickadee (Mourning Dove Surrogate) ...... 75

5.1.5 Summary ...... 76

5.2 DATA GAPS AND OTHER UNCERTAINTIES ...... 76

5.2.1 Uncertainty in Problem Formulation ...... 76

5.2.1.1 Data Availability ...... 76 5.2.1.2 Identification of COPCs ...... 79 5.2.1.3 Conceptual Model: Endpoint and Receptor Selection ...... 80 5.2.1.4 Data Representativeness ...... 80

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd iii CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Page

5.2.2 Toxicity Assessment ...... 80 5.2.3 Exposure Assessment ...... 81

5.2.3.1 Home Range Assumptions ...... 81 5.2.3.2 Plant Uptake and Herbivore Exposure ...... 82 5.2.3.3 Soil and Sediment Ingestion Rates ...... 82 5.2.3.4 Bioconcentration Factor Approach ...... 83 5.2.3.5 Media Concentrations with Depth ...... 84 5.2.3.6 Inhalation and Dermal Exposures ...... 84

5.2.4 Uncertainty in Risk Characterization ...... 85

5.2.4.1 Risks to the Sediment Community ...... 85 5.2.4.2 Risks to the Terrestrial Plant and Invertebrate Community ..... 86

5.3 PRELIMINARY SCIENTIFIC AND MANAGEMENT DECISION POINTS (SMDPs)86

REFERENCES ...... 88

APPENDICES

A CHECKLIST FOR ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT/SAMPLING

B PHOTOGRAPHS

C SOIL AND SEDIMENT DATA

D SUMMARY OF TOXICITY INFORMATION

E CONCENTRATION, DOSE, AND HAZARD QUOTIENT CALCULATIONS

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd iv TABLES

Section Page

2-1 MAJOR WILDLIFE RECEPTORS...... 10 2-2 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING AT THE MPTC SITE ...... 15 2-3 SURFACE SOIL DATA USED IN THE MPTC SLERA...... 18 2-4 BIG CREEK SEDIMENT DATA USED IN THE MPTC SLERA...... 19 2-5 UNNAMED TRIBUTARY SEDIMENT DATA USED IN THE MPTC SLERA ...... 20 4-1 INGESTION RATES FOR MEASUREMENT ENDPOINT RECEPTORS...... 58 5-1 SUMMARY OF RISK CHARACTERIZATION ...... 77

FIGURES

Figure Page

1 SITE LOCATION MAP...... 2 2 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS ...... 4 3 HABITAT MAP...... 7 4 LOCATIONS OF SURFACE SOIL AND SEDIMENT SAMPLES COLLECTED DURING EPA REMOVAL ACTION ...... 21 5 AQUATIC FOOD WEB ...... 32 6 TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEB ...... 33 7 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL...... 44

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd v ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AET Apparent effects threshold Ba Biotransfer factor BCF Bioconcentration factor bgs Below ground surface BW Body weight CCA Copper-chromium-arsenate cm Centimeter COC Contaminant of concern COPC Contaminant of potential concern dDay DW Dry weight E&E Ecology and Environment EC20 Effects concentration, where 20 percent of test organisms are affected EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ERA Ecological risk assessment FCM Food chain multiplier FSP Field sampling plan gGram HI Hazard index HPAH High molecular weight PAH HQ Hazard quotient kg Kilogram

Kow Octanol-water coefficient LC50 Lethal concentration, where 50 percent of test organisms are affected LDEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality LDWF Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries LEL Lowest effect level LOAEL Lowest observable adverse effect level LPAH Low molecular weight PAH MCW Madisonville Creosote Works mg Milligram mg/kg Milligram per kilogram MPTC The Marion Pressure Treating Company NEL No effect level NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAEL No observable adverse effect level NOEL No observed effect level OECD Organization of European Community Development ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon PCP Pentachlorophenol QAPP Quality assurance project plan RFW Roy F. Weston, Inc. RI/FS Remedial investigation and feasibility study RME Reasonable maximum exposure SH State highway

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd vi ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)

SLERA Screening level ecological risk assessment SMDP Scientific and management decision points Tetra Tech Tetra Tech EM Inc. TL2 Second trophic level TL3 Third trophic level TLn Tropic level of the prey item TNRCC Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission TRV Toxicity reference value µg Microgram USGS United States Geological Survey UET Upper effects threshold WW Wet weight

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd vii MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SITE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Marion Pressure Treating Company (MPTC) site is located in Marion, Louisiana (Figure 1). From 1964 to 1985, site operations involved the creosote pressure impregnation of wood products, such as poles, bridge pilings, fence posts, and railroad ties. Investigations at the site found that indicate soils, sediments of nearby water bodies, and ground water are contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), the principal constituents of creosote. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified the PAHs as contaminants of potential concern (COPC) for the remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) (EPA 1999a).

The three main steps in an ecological risk assessment (ERA) are (1) problem formulation, (2) analysis (consisting of the exposure assessment and ecological effects assessment), and (3) risk characterization. The problem formulation is the foundation of an ERA, establishing the basis for assessing exposure and evaluating ecological effects (EPA 1997). The analysis and risk characterization phases are performed to (1) identify exposure pathways for which COPCs do not pose an unacceptable risk, and (2) identify additional information needed to evaluate ecological risk.

The objective of a screening level ecological risk assessment (SLERA) is to determine whether ecological receptors may be adversely affected by the COPCs at a site (EPA 1997). The MPTC SLERA was prepared using EPA (1997) guidance for performing ERAs at Superfund sites. It follows EPA’s ERA principles (EPA 1999a). The specific objectives of the MPTC SLERA were to (1) assess potential ecological risks at the site, (2) identify COPCs and exposure pathways that pose negligible risks, and (3) determine whether subsequent steps in the ERA process (the baseline risk assessment) should be performed. The main outputs from the SLERA used in the baseline risk assessment are the identification of exposure pathways and identification of contaminants of concern (COC).

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 1

Ecological risk was screened with limited COPC data collected from soil and sediment during an emergency action performed several years ago. In addition, EPA and Tetra Tech EM Inc. (Tetra Tech), held two scoping meetings and one site visit, were held to scope the SLERA and identify projected outputs from the SLERA to facilitate the initiation of field sampling. Tetra Tech and EPA conducted a short site visit to identify additional site information for the SLERA. The SLERA encompasses the first two steps in the ERA process (Figure 2). The elements of these steps are: (1) screening level problem formulation, (2) screening level ecological effects evaluation, (3) screening level exposure estimates, and (4) screening level risk calculations and uncertainty discussion. Sections 2 through 5 present these four elements.

2.0 SCREENING LEVEL PROBLEM FORMULATION

The problem formulation is the foundation of the baseline ERA. The screening level problem formulation includes all of the functions of the baseline problem formulation, but does not typically include the level of receptor-, site-, and chemical-specific information normally used in the baseline ERA, unless these data are readily available. The conceptual model, which is the main output from the problem formulation, discusses the following issues:

• Environmental setting

• Contaminants of potential concern

• Contaminant fate and transport

• Mechanisms of ecotoxicity

• Complete exposure pathways

• Selection of endpoints

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 3 STEP 1: SCREENING-LEVEL:

g * Site Visit Risk Assessor and n i t n Risk Manager

s * Problem Formulation o i i t x Agreement a

E * Toxicity Evaluation

m e r l i o f p n m I o C STEP 2: SCREENING-LEVEL: * Exposure Estimate SMDP * Risk calculation

STEP 3: PROBLEM FORMULATION

Toxicity Evaluation

Assessment Conceptual Model Endpoints Exposure Pathways

Questions/Hypotheses

SMDP n o i t c

e STEP 4: STUDY DESIGN AND DQO PROCESS l l o * Lines of Evidence SMDP C

* Measurement Endpoints a t * W ork Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan a D

STEP 5: VERIFICATION OF FIELD SAMPLING DESIGN SMDP

STEP 6: SITE INVESTIGATION AND DATA ANALYSIS SMDP

STEP 7: RISK CHARACTERIZATION

STEP 8: RISK MANAGEMENT SMDP

Notes: MARION PRESSURE TREATING SMDP = Scientific and management decision point. COMPANY Taken from EPA 1997, Exhibit I-2, "Eight-Step Ecological Risk MARION, LOUISIANA Assessment Process for Superfund." FIGURE 2 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSM ENT Shaded boxes reflect steps of the eight-step process that have been completed to date and/or completed in the present PROCESS submission. PREPARED FOR: BY: 2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The MPTC site is located on State Highway (SH) 551 in an undeveloped rural area in Union Parish, Louisiana, about 0.5 miles north of the SH 551 and SH 33 junction in the city of Marion (Figure 1).

Several residences are located near the site, including houses across SH 551 and two mobile homes on the near side of SH 551 about 100 meters from the south end of the site.

From the onset of operations in 1964 until commencement of closure in 1985, MPTC manufactured creosote-preserved wood products. Creosote-contaminated process wastewater was contained in an unlined surface impoundment on the northeast corner of the site (about 50 meters upgradient from Big Creek) (Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality [LDEQ] 1999). In 1989 MPTC filed for bankruptcy. In 1996 and 1997, EPA performed an emergency action at the site in which the top one foot of soil from the former area of operations was removed and consolidated at the north end of the site (see Attachment P in Ecology and Environment [E&E] 1997). A few remnants of the MPTC operation, including a house, the former wastewater treatment sump, and an old aboveground storage tank, are still at the site. Available information indicates that on-site soil and ground water, and adjacent off-site soils and sediments are contaminated with PAHs, the principal constituents of creosote. No surface water data have been collected. EPA (1999b) indicates that creosote is believed to be the only preservative that was used by MPTC. Whether other wood preservatives (like pentachlorophenol [PCP] and copper-chromium-arsenate [CCA]) were used at the facility is unknown. The forthcoming RI/FS sampling program will collect data to make this determination.

Regional topography is composed of gently rolling hills in a forested environment. The site is located about 10 miles west of the Ouachita River and about 10 miles east of Bayou de Loutre, which is used for recreational and sport fishing. The site generally slopes to the south toward Big Creek, the Unnamed Tributary, and the confluence of the two creeks at the south end of the site. The soil consolidation area is the topographic highpoint of the site, with the steepest gradients toward Big Creek and the Unnamed Tributary.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 5 Tetra Tech and EPA performed a site visit on April 21, 2000, to determine the types and locations of habitats, and assess the physical perturbation by logging operations on habitat quality. The Checklist for Ecological Assessment/Sampling (EPA 1997) was completed during the site visit (Appendix A). During the site visit, Tetra Tech directly observed some receptors and evidence of others, including wading birds (unknown heron species), ducks (unknown species), songbirds, deer, minnows, aquatic beetles, aquatic insects, crayfish, and snakes. A baseline ecological survey of the MPTC site has not been conducted. Figure 3 presents the types and locations of habitats at the site. The habitats at the site include flowing water bodies, patches of riparian vegetation, upland forest, and shrub-scrub. The aquatic ecosystem provides habitat for small fish, phytoplankton, rooted aquatic plants, and macroinvertebrates. The terrestrial areas provide foraging, roosting, nesting, and hunting habitat for mammals, birds, amphibians, and small reptiles.

2.1.1 Upland Forest Habitat

The site is situated amid a mixed pine-hardwood forest typical of north-central Louisiana and south-central Arkansas. Oak (Quercus spp.), hickory (Carva spp.), and shortleaf pines are the dominant species in the community (LDWF 1993). Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) comprises 20 percent or more of the overstory in a mixture with a number of hardwood species in the mixed pine-hardwood forest community. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), beech (Fagus grandiflora), water oak (Quercus nigra), cherry bark oak (Quercus falcata var. Pagodaefolia), swamp white oak (Quercus michauxii), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), American elm (Ulmus americana), southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), red maple (Acer rubrum), and pignut hickory (Carva glabra) are important hardwood components (LDWF 1987). Shrubs and understory species may include gallbery (Ilex glabra), french mulberry (Callicarpa americana), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), hawthornes (Crataegus spp.), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), Elliott’s blueberry (Vaccinium elliottii), winter huckleberry (Vaccinium arboreum), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), Yaupon (Ilex vomitoria), blackberries (Rubus spp.), deciduous holly (Ilex decidua), crab apple (Pyrus angustifolia), and yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens).

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 6

2.1.2 Aquatic Habitat

Big Creek and an Unnamed Tributary of Big Creek border the site on two sides. Big Creek is a shallow, perennial stream (about 4 to 8 feet wide during the site visit) that meanders just east of the MPTC site. Big Creek flows through a corridor of old bottomland hardwood forest that has been extensively and continuously logged for an unknown period of time. Available information indicates that this area is a wetland (Ecology and Environment, Inc. [E&E] 1999). The Unnamed Tributary is a shallow, intermittent stream (about 3 feet wide during the site visit) that flows between the west boundary of the MPTC site and SH 551. Both water bodies meet the definition of a first-order stream (Hynes 1970). Both streams receive runoff from the site and convey it downstream (about one-half mile to downtown Marion). Big Creek meanders along the east side of the MPTC site. Photographs B-1 through B-4 in Appendix B show the three types of habitats in the reach of Big Creek. Photograph B-1 is an example of very shallow, aquatic habitat vegetated with rooted aquatic plants—evidence of wetland environments along the corridor of Big Creek. Crayfish chimneys—evidence of a very shallow water table—were also observed within 10 meters from the creek. Photograph B-2 is typical of several areas of Big Creek that are inundated with fallen timber. Photographs B-3 and B-4 portray typical patches of new riparian vegetation that is interspersed along the Big Creek corridor.

The Unnamed Tributary flows midway between SH 551 and the western edge of the site. The upper reach of the tributary flows through a forested (pine) area (Photograph B-5); the middle reach (Photograph B-6) flows through a stretch of logged habitat; and the lower reach lies within the old bottomland hardwood forest habitat. The confluence of Big Creek and the Unnamed Tributary is about 200 meters southwest of the former operational boundary.

2.1.3 Bottomland Hardwood Forest

According to LDWF, wetland habitats most commonly existing in Union Parish are patches of bottomland hardwood habitat interspersed among drier upland terrace habitat (LDWF 1993 and 2000). Bottomland forest communities are forested, alluvial wetlands that commonly occupy broad floodplain areas that flank large river systems (LDWF 1987). In the state of Louisiana, bottomland hardwood

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 8 forests are predominantly associated with the Mississippi, Ouachita, Red, Pearl, Tensas, Calcasieu, Sabine, and Atchafalaya River flood plains.

Bottomland hardwood forests are transitional between permanently inundated swamp habitat and the drier upland terrace habitat. This habitat generally experiences flooding during the wet season, as well as an annual dry down. Community dominance in the bottomland hardwood forest habitat is based in large part on the ability of plants to tolerate the anaerobic soil conditions that occur when these habitats are inundated.

At the MPTC site, Big Creek meanders through old bottomland hardwood forest habitat; almost all of the floodplain, which is about 50 to 100 meters wide, is east of Big Creek. Logging activities changed the structure and seriously degraded the quality of the habitat. This area is more accurately described as mixed forest-shrub/scrub habitat. Photographs B-7 and B-8 depict the physical condition of the habitat, and also show remnants of the old bottomland forest habitat.

2.1.4 On-Site Soils

Soils in the former operational area were heavily disturbed during the recent EPA removal action (E&E 1997). These soils are in the initial stages of recovery from this disturbance. Photographs B-9 and B-10 show the sparsely vegetated on-site habitat. Photograph B-10, taken near the southern end of the former operational area, also depicts the crown of the soil consolidation area.

2.1.5 Receptors

A list of potentially exposed receptors was developed from available literature information and observations made during the site visit. The receptors include those potentially exposed through direct contact with, and ingestion of, PAH contamination. Table 2-1 presents a list of wildlife species expected to be found at the site. These receptors were organized into tropic level-specific terrestrial and aquatic

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 9 TABLE 2-1

MAJOR WILDLIFE RECEPTORS

Common Name Scientific Name Sources

Mammals

White-tail deer Odocoileus virginianus USFWS 1999

Beaver Castor canadensis USFWS 1999

Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus USFWS 1999

Eastern gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensus USFWS 1999

Southern flying squirrel Glaucomys volans USFWS 1999

Raccoon Procyon lotor USFWS 1999

Coyote Canis latrans USFWS 1999

Red fox Vulpes vulpes USFWS 1999

Gray fox Urocyon cinereoagenteus USFWS 1999

Mink Mustela vison USFWS 1999

River otter Lutra canadensis USFWS 1999

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis USFWS 1999

Birds

Northern flicker Colaptes auratus USFWS 1999

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura USFWS 1999

Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus USFWS 1999

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens USFWS 1999

Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus USFWS 1999

Carolina chickadee Parus carolinensis USFWS 1999

Tufted titmouse Parus bicolor USFWS 1999

Mallard Anas platyrhychos USFWS 1999

Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon USFWS 1999

Great blue heron Ardea herodias USFWS 1999

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus USFWS 1999

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus USFWS 1999

Barred owl Strix varia USFWS 1999

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 10 TABLE 2-1 (Continued)

MAJOR WILDLIFE RECEPTORS

Common Name Scientific Name Sources

Amphibians

Green treefrog Hyla cinerea USFWS 1999

Gray treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis USFWS 1999

Southern leopard frog Rana utricularia USFWS 1999

Reptiles

Alligator snapping turtle Macroclemys temminckii USFWS 1999

Common snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina USFWS 1999

Southern painted turtle Chrysemys picta dorsalis USFWS 1999

Five-lined skink Eumeces inexpectus USFWS 1999

Green anole Anolis carolinensis USFWS 1999

Black rat snake Elaphe obsoleta USFWS 1999

Southern copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix USFWS 1999

Western cottonmouth Agkistrodon piscivorus USFWS 1999

Speckled kingsnake Lampropeltis getulus USFWS 1999

Yellowbelly watersnake Nerodia erythogastor USFWS 1999

Broad-banded watersnake Nerodia fasciata USFWS 1999

Red-eared slider Trachemys scripta USFWS 1999

Three-toed box turtle Terrepene carolina USFWS 1999

Note:

USFWS. 1999. Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Appendix B—Flora and Fauna Lists for Pond Creek National Wildlife Refuge. December 7.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 11 food webs discussed in Section 2.6.4. The animal receptors most likely to occur (inhabit or visit) at the MPTC site are discussed below. Available information about the regional ecology was reviewed to develop the food webs for facilitating the identification and analysis of dietary pathways. Professional judgement was used to assign each receptor to a single feeding guild, even though some receptors may occupy different feeding niches concurrently, depending on age, dietary requirements, available food, reproductive status, and season.

2.1.5.1 Primary Consumers

Numerous primary consumers representing several guilds and communities are expected at the site. These receptors occupy the second tropic level. Primary consumers include herbivorous wildlife, soil and benthic invertebrates, demersal fish, and herbivorous/other small fish. While the feeding strategies of fish vary depending on food availability, age, and other factors, this guild (planktonic/herbivorous and other small fish) was positioned in the food web to reflect the likely dietary relationships in aquatic environments at the site.

• Terrestrial herbivorous mammals (e.g., squirrels and deer) and birds (e.g. Carolina chickadee and mourning dove) feed on terrestrial vegetation, such as seeds and fruit. These receptors also may be exposed through ingestion of contaminated drinking water, and through dermal contact with, and incidental ingestion, of contaminated sediment and soil.

• Soil in fauna (earthworms) and other terrestrial invertebrates may be exposed through direct contact with contaminated soils.

• Aquatic herbivorous birds, such as the wood duck, may be exposed both through direct contact during foraging as well as (possibly to a lesser extent) through diet.

• Aquatic animals that may be exposed to surface water and sediment, including

- Benthic invertebrates, such as insect larvae, odonates, pelecypods, and decapods - Zooplankton, such as Crustacea and Copepoda - Planktivorous/herbivorous fish (e.g., minnows and shiners) and other small fish (e.g., larval and juvenile largemouth bass that eat meiofauna, insect larvae, and planktivorous invertebrates) - Demersal (bottom feeding) fish that subsist largely on benthic invertebrates

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 12 2.1.5.2 Secondary Consumers

Receptors occupying secondary or intermediate positions in aquatic and terrestrial food webs occur at the MPTC site. True omnivores expected at the MPTC site include small mammals, turtles, frogs, and the mallard duck. These receptors may be exposed through (1) direct ingestion of contaminated water, (2) incidental ingestion of contaminated soil and sediment, and (3) indirect ingestion of contaminated food, with a focus mainly on animal matter because PAHs are taken up poorly by plants. Insectivorous birds, such as the pine warbler and mockingbird, may be directly exposed through ingestion (drinking, preening after bathing) of contaminated water, and indirectly through ingestion of mature aquatic and terrestrial insects. Insect communities in soft bottom aquatic environments (expected at MPTC site) are typically dominated by tube-building benthic detritivores such as midge larvae. Therefore, exposure potential for mid-level consumers will be dominated by two pathways: (1) direct ingestion of contaminated media, and (2) direct ingestion of contaminated animal matter. Accordingly, direct ingestion of contaminated media is the main exposure pathway for omnivores that are chiefly herbivorous. Food chain transfer of PAHs is not expected for intermediate consumers, as evidence indicates that ingested PAHs are quickly metabolized before reaching sites of toxic action (Eisler 1987; Albers 1983). Therefore, dietary exposures to PAHs are considered complete, but insignificant.

2.1.5.3 Top-Level Consumers

Top-level carnivores expected at the MPTC site include birds of prey, piscivorous birds, fox, and snakes. Large carnivorous fish are not expected to occur at the site because of the limited size of the aquatic habitat. In general, incidental ingestion of soil and sediment by top-level consumers is negligible relative to amount of animal matter ingested. Piscivorous birds, such as the heron, may be an exception if they are feeding on large benthic invertebrates, such as crayfish, when fish are not readily available. Sources of potentially contaminated drinking water at the MPTC site include Big Creek and the Unnamed Tributary. Food chain transfer of PAHs is not expected for any top-level consumer, as evidence indicates that PAHs are not accumulated in prey (Eisler 1987; Albers 1983). Therefore, top-level consumer exposures to PAHs are considered complete, but insignificant. However, exposures by piscivorous birds through direct ingestion may be a significant pathway, depending on diet.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 13 2.1.6 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species

Rare, threatened, and endangered species that potentially occur at the MPTC site are listed in Table 2-2. The species include the bald eagle, Louisiana black bear, and the red-cockaded woodpecker (LDWF 2000a,b).

2.1.6.1 Bald Eagle

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is listed as an endangered species in the state of Louisiana. It inhabits cypress swamps or open lakes where it feeds on fish, waterfowl, and small mammals (LDWF 2000a,b). It is unlikely that the bald eagle would occur at the MPTC site because the aquatic habitat is small and sustains only small populations of desirable prey.

2.1.6.2 Louisiana Black Bear

The state status of the Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) is threatened. This large mammal inhabits cypress-tupelo swamps, cypress swamps, bottomland forests, and occasionally sugarcane fields (LDWF 2000b). It is known to exist in bottomland forests of northeastern Louisiana (LDWF 2000b). It is unlikely that the Louisiana black bear would occur at the MPTC site because habitat size and quality is low, and because more desirable foraging areas are nearby.

2.1.6.3 Red-Cockaded Woodpecker

The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) is listed as an endangered species by the state of Louisiana. It is a zebra-backed woodpecker with a black cap and prominent white check patches. The species is the only woodpecker that excavates its nest in living pines (LDWF 1987). This bird prefers longleaf pine forests but will also inhabit mixed pine-upland hardwood forests (LDWF 2000a). Most surviving colonies are located near the Kisatchie National Forest, located approximately 75 miles south of the MPTC near Pineville, Louisiana. Habitat desirable to this species occurs at the MPTC site.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 14 TABLE 2-2

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING AT THE MPTC SITE

Common Name Scientific Name Species Status Reference

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus SE, FT LDWF 2000b

Louisiana black bear Ursus americanus luteolus ST LDWF 2000b

Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis SE LDWF 2000b

Notes:

FT Federally threatened species SE State endangered species

LDWF. 2000b. "Species Listed as Endangered and Threatened in Louisiana." Accessed on March 3, 2000. Internet address: http://www.wlf.state.la

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 15 Therefore, the red-cockaded woodpecker could potentially inhabit forested areas near the site. LDWF confirmed that a red-cockaded woodpecker nesting site was found approximately 2.9 miles north of Marion, Louisiana (LDWF 2000a).

2.2 CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN

The EPA Statement of Work (EPA 1999c) identified 15 hazardous substances, mainly PAHs, as COPCs for the MPTC RI/FS. These substances were detected in various types of samples, including soils, sediments, waste piles, waste material in a tanker truck, and sludge in a former wastewater treatment sump, during the EPA removal investigation in 1996 and 1997 (E&E 1997).

While the fate, persistence, and toxicity of PAHs depends on physical and chemical properties of individual compounds, the literature indicates that PAHs behave similarly depending on molecular weight. Consistent with the approach taken at other EPA-lead sites in Louisiana, the classification scheme (based on a molecular weight cutoff) for PAHs was adopted for use in the MPTC SLERA (Parametrix 1997; Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission [TNRCC] 2000) with the addition of site-specific COPCs identified in historical data. Therefore, PAHs are grouped into the low molecular weight PAH (LPAH) compounds and the high molecular weight PAH (HPAH) compounds. The following PAHs have been detected at the MPTC site:

• LPAHs • HPAHs

- Acenaphthene - Benzo(a)anthracene - Acenaphthylene - Benzo(a)pyrene - Anthracene - Benzo(b)fluoranthene - Fluorene - Benzo(g,h,i)perylene - Naphthalene - Benzo(k)fluoranthene - Phenanthrene - Chrysene - Dibenz(a,h)anthracene - Fluoranthene - Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene - Pyrene

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 16 In addition, carbazole and dibenzofuran were detected in some historical samples. Carbazole is a water-insoluble compound composed of two benzene molecules linked by a nitrogen bridge. Dibenzofuran is also a water-insoluble compound, with a furan group situated between two benzene molecules. Only infrequent detections of volatile organic constituents were reported (Tetra Tech 2000b, Page A8-59), primarily in waste sampled during the 1994 site assessment.

Available PAH data from surface soils and sediments used in the SLERA are summarized in Tables 2-3 through 2-5, with all data given in Appendix C. These data were collected from the zero-to-6 inch soil and sediment intervals, which is the most biologically active depth. Figure 4 shows the sampling locations for these data. No surface water data have been collected from the site.

2.3 CONTAMINANT FATE AND TRANSPORT

The primary sources of contamination at the former operational area include (1) the consolidated soil pile, (2) the wastewater treatment sump, (3) the trailer tank, and (4) the waste piles. The primary contaminant release mechanisms for these sources are:

• Erosion from waste piles and the soil consolidation area to surface soils

• Percolation from the waste piles, soil consolidation area, and wastewater treatment sump to subsurface soils

• Spills from the trailer tank to surface soils

• Storm water runoff from the waste piles and soil consolidation area to creeks

On-site soil is the secondary source of contamination. The potential on-site contaminant exposure pathways for ecological receptors include:

• Windblown particles and dust

• Infiltration into ground water (tertiary source) and migration to surface water and sediments

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 17 TABLE 2-3

SURFACE SOIL DATA USED IN THE MPTC SLERA

Maximum Number of Number of Minimum Detect Detect Median COPC Samples Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

Low Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (LPAH)

Acenaphthene 50 7 0.29 932.56 0.34

Acenaphthylene 50 12 0.20 83.00 0.35

Anthracene 50 28 0.16 2,447.24 1.20

Fluorene 50 11 0.62 1,476.95 0.35

Naphthalene 48 7 0.61 555.05 0.35

Phenanthrene 50 25 0.19 2,595.49 0.78

Total LPAHa 50 37 2.10 8,039.00 5.26

High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (HPAH)

Benzo(a)anthracene 50 31 0.13 1,700.00 1.63

Benzo(a)pyrene 50 28 0.12 548.70 1.92

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 50 36 0.05 1,100.00 4.28

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 50 34 0.05 697.40 2.25

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 47 21 0.22 202.62 0.74

Chrysene 50 33 0.35 1,079.80 2.86

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 49 6 4.10 48.50 0.34

Fluoranthene 50 34 0.24 2,819.80 5.25

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 50 20 0.29 153.03 1.05

Pyrene 50 32 0.15 4,500.00 3.49

Total HPAHb 50 38 2.98 15,702.00 36.19

Notes:

a Detects for “Total LPAH” reflect the number of samples in which at least one LPAH was detected. Where PAHs were detected but one or more PAH included in the sum was not detected (and analytical results were flagged “U”), the detection limit was used as a proxy concentration in calculating the Total LPAH concentration. b Detects for “Total HPAH” reflect the number of samples in which at least one HPAH was detected. Where PAHs were detected but one or more PAH included in the sum was not detected (and analytical results were flagged “U”), the detection limit was used as a proxy concentration in calculating the Total HPAH concentration.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 18 TABLE 2-4

BIG CREEK SEDIMENT DATA USED IN THE MPTC SLERA

Number of Number of Detects Minimum Detect Maximum Median COPC Samples (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Detect (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

Low Molecular Weight Polycylic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (LPAH)

Acenaphthene 9 3 20.00 840.00 20.00

Acenaphthylene 10 4 0.75 440.00 3.98

Anthracene 10 4 5.60 3,300.00 44.30

Fluorene 10 4 2.00 1,400.00 27.00

Naphthalene 8 3 1.70 170.00 111.35

Phenanthrene 10 4 3.50 3,700.00 37.75

Total LPAHa 10 4 229.45 9,432.00 340.28

High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (HPAH)

Benzo(a)anthracene 10 4 4.00 190.00 12.00

Benzo(a)pyrene 10 4 2.60 100.00 4.80

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 10 4 6.70 150.00 8.20

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 19 4 1.70 82.00 5.85

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 9 3 2.00 14.00 2.00

Chrysene 10 4 4.50 330.00 14.75

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 9 3 0.87 6.60 0.87

Fluoranthene 9 3 44.00 1,400.00 44.00

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 10 4 1.10 26.00 2.05

Pyrene 10 4 4.30 890.00 20.15

Total HPAHb 10 4 24.90 3095.5 91.24

Notes:

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 19 TABLE 2-5

UNNAMED TRIBUTARY SEDIMENT DATA USED IN THE MPTC SLERA

Number of Maximum Number of Detects Minimum Detect Detect Median COPC Samples (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

Low Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (LPAH)

Acenaphthene 4 0 NA NA 0.33

Acenaphthylene 4 0 NA NA 0.33

Anthracene 4 1 5.10 5.10 0.35

Fluorene 4 1 0.61 0.61 0.35

Naphthalene 4 0 NA NA 0.33

Phenanthrene 4 1 1.10 1.10 0.35

Total LPAHa 4 1 9.51 9.51 4.17

High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (HPAH)

Benzo(a)anthracene 4 1 0.67 0.67 0.35

Benzo(a)pyrene 4 1 0.65 0.65 0.35

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4 1 4.60 4.60 0.35

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4 1 1.00 1.00 0.35

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 4 1 1.00 1.00 0.35

Chrysene 4 1 2.50 2.50 0.35

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 4 0 NA NA 0.33

Fluoranthene 4 1 1.40 1.40 0.35

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 4 1 0.85 0.85 0.35

Pyrene 4 1 1.30 1.3 0.35

Total HPAHb 4 1 14.77 14.77 6.95

Notes:

NA Not applicable. This PAH was not detected.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 20

• Storm water runoff into off-site soils and surface water (tertiary source), and deposition to sediment

- The east drainage area conveys eroded soil from the northeast parcel of the property to Big Creek - The west drainage area conveys eroded soil from the northwest parcel of the MPTC site to the Unnamed Tributary - Other surface water runoff to Big Creek and the Unnamed Tributary

• During flooding, Big Creek sediments may be resuspended and transported to adjacent wetland soils

• Migration of contaminated ground water to Big Creek

2.4 MECHANISMS OF ECOTOXICITY

The mechanisms through which PAHs adversely affect ecological receptors is a key factor in determining the significance of potential exposure pathways. This understanding, in turn, facilitates the identification of assessment endpoints. Representative receptors at the MPTC site can be broadly classified as:

• Soil invertebrates (e.g., detritivores)

• Soil vegetation

• Benthic invertebrates (e.g., detritivores)

• Rooted aquatic vegetation

• Aquatic (water column) invertebrates (e.g., filter-feeding detritivores and predators)

• Aquatic vegetation (e.g., floating plants, benthic algae, and phytoplankton)

• Fish (e.g., herbivores and planktivores)

• Amphibians

• Reptiles

• Mammals (herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores)

• Birds (herbivores, insectivores, and carnivores)

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 22 PAHs exert their toxicity by disrupting the function of several key enzyme systems. PAHs induce the cytochrome P-450 enzyme systems of mammals, birds, fish, and invertebrates, with induction potential varying between taxa. The cytochrome P-450 system mainly detoxifies xenobiotics and endogenous waste products. Sometimes, however, metabolic intermediates are more toxic than parent compounds. PAHs also may disrupt the synthesis of steroids, adversely affecting hormonally controlled systems that regulate growth and reproduction (Klaassen and others 1986). Other mechanisms of the toxic action of PAHs include binding to the surface of cellular membranes and increasing membrane permeability, resulting in impairment of physiological, membrane-dependent processes, including neurotransmission, muscle contraction, and osmoregulation.

In the MPTC setting, understanding the mechanisms of PAH toxicity in ecological receptors is useful both in the problem formulation phase as well as for identifying pertinent toxicity reference values for wildlife (Section 3). Despite the lipophilic nature of PAHs, bioaccumulation (and therefore, biomagnification) does not occur because PAHs tend to be rapidly transformed or eliminated in many fish and mammalian species (TNRCC, 2000; Yuan and others 1999; Nezda and others 1997). However, large bioconcentration factors have been reported for community-level receptors in sediments, as benthic invertebrates are incapable of the metabolic transformations necessary for efficient excretion of PAHs (TNRCC 2000; Eisler 1987; Sheedy and others 1998). Given the MPTC food webs identified in Section 2.6.4 below, factors such as the route of exposure, environmental conditions, and feeding behaviors are important factors to consider during the risk assessment of PAHs.

2.4.1 Aquatic Mechanisms and Toxic Effects Summary

LPAHs are expected to be more available than HPAHs to benthic invertebrates because their aqueous solubility is higher. However, their lower molecular weight and aqueous solubility make them more prone than HPAHs to be transformed and otherwise depurated. HPAHs have been reported to accumulate in higher levels in deposit feeders that ingest sediment particles than in suspension feeders exposed under similar conditions (Kaag and others 1998). Organisms that selectively feed on certain aquatic invertebrates may be exposed to substantial quantities of LPAH and HPAH. The mechanistic effects of PAHs in invertebrate species includes a range from acute toxicity (Thompson and others 1999) and metabolic disruption (Saint-Denis and others 1999) to stimulatory effects (Erstfeld and

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 23 Snow-Ashbrook 1999) in invertebrate communities. Although many fish effectively metabolize PAHs, the most heavily exposed (such as bottom-dwelling species) may also be sensitive to carcinogenic effects through dermal exposure (Anulacion and others 1998; Baumann 1998). Other effects in fish exposed to PAHs may include decreases in circulating hormones, disruption of vitellogenesis and oocyte maturation, decreased reproductive success, and altered immune function (Nicolas 1998; Karrow and others 1999). At MPTC, historical sediment data are available for screening the effects of PAHs in sediment relative to sediment-dwelling biota. However, since no surface water data have been collected to date, uncertainty with respect to the characterization of ecological risks to fish and other aquatic receptors exists, as discussed in Section 5.

2.4.2 Terrestrial Mechanisms and Effects Summary

The literature documents that PAHs have little potential to accumulate in terrestrial biota because of the presence of detoxification mechanisms in most wildlife species (Eisler 1987). Measurable levels of PAHs have been detected in plants, but evidence suggests that residues may have resulted from aerial deposition rather than active transport from soils (O’Connor and others 1991). In general, minimal bioconcentration of PAHs has been observed in terrestrial invertebrates, with the exception of a study by Gile and others (1982), which reported phenanthrene concentrations of up to 78.3 ppm in earthworms (Parametrix 1997).

LPAHs are acutely toxic to many invertebrates, but are much less toxic to terrestrial wildlife and generally considered noncarcinogenic. However, HPAHs (though less acutely toxic) may be mutagenic, teratogenic, or carcinogenic. When PAHs are present in doses high enough to elicit effects in test animals, the primary effect studied has generally been a carcinogenic endpoint. This cluster of studies in PAH carcinogenesis occurs because PAH toxicity involves the disruption of the normal (detoxification) function of enzyme systems, resulting in DNA damage by reactive metabolic intermediates. When detoxification does not occur completely, some reactive intermediates may persist in the cell and initiate or promote carcinogenic processes by damaging DNA. Individual species have widely differing abilities to metabolize PAHs to carcinogenic intermediate compounds (Yuan and others 1999; Livingston 1998; Eisler 1987). Very little information exists on the effects of PAHs to avian species (Eisler 1987).

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 24 Although a focus on carcinogenic effects in the general PAH toxicity literature exists, the endpoints of particular interest in the upland forest food web include reproductive and developmental impairment, systemic effects, and mortality. Reproductive endpoints include effects such as reduced litter size and sterility in offspring. Systemic effects include cardiac, hepatic, and renal disorders. Specifically, studies which focus on the survival of a feeding guild (involving endpoints such as longevity, fertility, reproductive success, and other specific measures relevant to the population under evaluation) are of particular interest. Therefore, toxicity reference values (TRV) were selected with particular reference to many of the noncarcinogenic endpoints reported in the PAH toxicity literature, as discussed further in Section 3.

2.5 COMPLETE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

As discussed in Section 2.3, PAHs can make contact with ecological receptors through several exposure pathways, some of which are significant. Exposure pathways for PAHs were evaluated based on site-specific data for soil and sediment, as well as contaminant fate and transport mechanisms. Since PAHs were detected consistently throughout MPTC media, exposure to these COPCs is expected via incidental ingestion of soil and sediment, as well as ingestion of food and prey items. Although some exposure may be expected via ingestion of surface water, no historical surface water data are available for PAHs at MPTC. Therefore, although the water ingestion pathway is potentially complete for all ecological receptors, it could not be quantitatively evaluated in the MPTC SLERA. However, this data gap is likely to be insignificant given the extremely low water solubility of the PAHs, as discussed further in Section 5.2.

Pathways of exposure evaluated in this screening assessment are presented in the site conceptual model (discussed in Section 2.6). A detailed discussion of the assumptions and values used to quantify exposure via these pathways is presented in Section 4.

2.6 SELECTION OF ENDPOINTS AND CONCEPTUAL MODEL

To assess ecological risks, assessment and measurement endpoints were identified. Assessment endpoints represent potentially significant ecological impacts and are selected based on the ecosystems,

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 25 communities, and species that are of particular concern at the site. For each assessment endpoint, one or more measurement endpoints are selected to integrate modeled or field data with the individual assessment endpoint. Measurement endpoints are measurable responses to a stressor that are related to the valued assessment endpoints (Suter 1990). Each of the endpoints is discussed below for the MPTC SLERA, along with the risk hypotheses regarding the relationships between the assessment endpoints and their respective measurement endpoints.

2.6.1 Assessment Endpoint Selection

Based on the April 11, 2000, scoping meeting (Tetra Tech 2000a), the following assessment endpoints were chosen to evaluate potential risk to ecological communities in the MPTC study areas.

1. Protection of piscivorous birds that may ingest contaminated food (i.e., small fish and crayfish), surface water, and sediment from potentially lethal, mutagenic, reproductive, systemic, or general adverse toxic effects of PAHs.

2. Protection of omnivorous mammals that may ingest contaminated food (i.e., small fish and crayfish), surface water, and sediment from potentially lethal, mutagenic, reproductive, systemic, or general adverse toxic effects of PAHs.

3. Protection of herbivorous mammals that may ingest contaminated forage, surface water, and soil from potentially lethal, mutagenic, reproductive, systemic, or general adverse toxic effects of PAHs.

4. Protection of omnivorous birds that may ingest contaminated food (i.e., seeds, sediment invertebrates, and insects), surface water, sediment, and soil from potentially lethal, mutagenic, reproductive, systemic, or general adverse toxic effects of PAHs.

5. Protection of herbivorous birds that may ingest contaminated food (i.e., seeds, berries, herbaceous and/or rooted aquatic vegetation), surface water, sediment, and soil from potentially lethal, mutagenic, reproductive, systemic, or general adverse toxic effects of PAHs.

6. Protection of omnivorous amphibians/reptiles exposed to contaminated surface water and sediment from potential adverse toxic effects of PAHs.

7. Maintenance of the benthic macroinvertebrate community structure and function.

8. Maintenance of soil (invertebrate and plant) communities’ structure and function.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 26 2.6.2 Null Hypotheses

For each of the assessment endpoints identified in Section 2.6.1, a corresponding null hypothesis was formed to capture the relationship between the assessment endpoint and their predicted responses when exposed to COPCs. The testable (null) hypotheses identified for ecological receptors in the vicinity of the MPTC site are as follows:

1. Levels of PAHs in surface water, sediment, and biota are not sufficient to cause lethal, mutagenic, reproductive, systemic, or general adverse toxic effects in piscivorous birds that frequent the MPTC site.

2. Levels of PAHs in surface water, sediment, and biota are not sufficient to cause lethal, mutagenic, reproductive, systemic, or general adverse toxic effects in omnivorous mammals that frequent the MPTC site.

3. Levels of PAHs in surface water, soil, and biota are not sufficient to cause lethal, mutagenic, reproductive, systemic, or general adverse toxic effects in herbivorous mammals that frequent the MPTC site.

4. Levels of PAHs in surface water, sediment, soil, and biota are not sufficient to cause lethal, mutagenic, reproductive, systemic, or general adverse toxic effects in omnivorous avian species that frequent the MPTC site.

5. Levels of PAHs in surface water, sediment, soil, and biota are not sufficient to cause lethal, mutagenic, reproductive, systemic, or general adverse toxic effects in herbivorous birds that frequent the MPTC site.

6. Levels of PAHs in surface water, sediment, and biota are not sufficient to cause lethal, mutagenic, reproductive, systemic, or general adverse toxic effects in reptilian or amphibian species that frequent the MPTC site.

7. Levels of PAHs in surface water and sediment are not sufficient to cause adverse effects to the structure and/or function of the aquatic benthic macroinvertebrate community.

8. Levels of PAHs in surface water and sediment are not sufficient to cause adverse effects to the structure and/or function of soil (invertebrate and plant) communities.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 27 2.6.3 Measurement Endpoints

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 28 Measurement endpoints and receptor species were chosen to test the null hypotheses and, therefore, evaluate the assessment endpoints. Listed below is each assessment endpoint, proceeded by the accompanying measurement endpoint(s) and target receptor species:

Although food chain accumulation studies could be used to evaluate the protection of piscivorous birds that may feed on small herbivorous fish in Big Creek or the Unnamed Tributary, no surface water data are available for these intermittent streams, making estimation of water column uptake impossible. Further, PAHs are known to be metabolized in most fish species, such that little if any exposure is expected for the PAHs at MPTC with respect to the exposure of a piscivorous bird. Therefore, to focus the SLERA on media and biota of concern for MTPC, direct ingestion of affected sediments as well as ingestion of contaminated benthic invertebrates will be evaluated to assess this endpoint. Herons were selected as the selected measurement endpoint receptor; the belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon) is proposed as the surrogate. This receptor was selected based on its potential to occur at the site and availability of natural history information required to model risk to piscivorous birds. No information on the toxicity of PAHs is available to determine the sensitivity of this species. Avian toxicity information in general is very limited.

Food chain accumulation studies will be used to evaluate risk to omnivorous mammals that may access on-site (terrestrial) areas of the site as well as off-site (aquatic) areas near MPTC. Therefore, the selected measurement endpoint receptor species for omnivorous mammals is the short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda) in the terrestrial portion of the site, and the raccoon (Procyon lotor) in the riparian areas of the site. These receptors were selected because (1) they can be reasonably expected to occur at the site, (2) natural history information, required to assess risk to omnivorous mammals, is available, and (3) a moderately high exposure potential exists based on moderate (raccoon) to high (shrew) ingestion rate-to-body weight ratios. No information on the toxicity of PAHs is available to determine the sensitivity of these species. Dietary exposure of these receptors to contaminants will be estimated by a

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 29 food chain effects model (described in Section 4) and compared with existing toxicity data for mammals (see Section 3).

3. Protection of herbivorous mammals that may ingest contaminated forage, surface water, and soil from potentially lethal, mutagenic, reproductive, systemic, or general adverse toxic effects of PAHs.

Food chain accumulation studies will be used to evaluate risk to herbivorous mammals that may access on-site (terrestrial) areas of the site. Mouse species expected to occur at MPTC include the white-footed mouse and cotton mouse. The deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) was selected as a surrogate measurement endpoint receptor species for the herbivorous mammal guild in the terrestrial portion of the site. This receptor was selected because it (or similar mouse species) can be reasonably expected to occur at the site, and availability of natural history information required to assess risk to omnivorous mammals, and high exposure potential based on a high ingestion rate-to-body weight ratio. No information on the toxicity of PAHs is available to determine the sensitivity of this species. Dietary exposure of this receptor to contaminants will be estimated by a food chain effects model (set forth in Section 4) and compared with existing toxicity data for mammals.

4. Protection of omnivorous birds that may ingest contaminated food (i.e., seeds, benthic invertebrates, and insects), surface water, sediment, and soil from potentially lethal, mutagenic, reproductive, systemic, or general adverse toxic effects of PAHs.

Food chain accumulation studies will be used to evaluate risk to omnivorous birds that may access on-site (terrestrial) areas as well as off-site (aquatic) areas near MPTC. Therefore, the mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) is the selected measurement endpoint receptor species for omnivorous aquatic birds, and the pine warbler, Dendroica pinus (with the marsh wren as a surrogate), is the selected measurement endpoint receptor species for nonaquatic omnivorous birds. The mallard and pine warbler were selected because each species is known to reside at or near the site. No information on the toxicity of PAHs is available to determine the sensitivity of this species. Dietary exposure of these receptors to contaminants will be estimated by a food chain effects model and compared with existing toxicity data for birds.

5. Protection of herbivorous birds that may ingest contaminated food (i.e., seeds, berries, herbaceous and rooted aquatic vegetation), surface water, sediment, and soil from potentially lethal, mutagenic, reproductive, systemic, or general adverse toxic effects of PAHs.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 30 Food chain accumulation studies will be used to evaluate risk to herbivorous birds that may access on-site (terrestrial) areas of the site as well as off-site (aquatic) areas near MPTC. Therefore, the wood duck is the selected measurement endpoint receptor species for herbivorous aquatic birds, and the Carolina chickadee is the selected measurement endpoint receptor species for the terrestrial areas. No information on the toxicity of PAHs is available to determine the sensitivity of this species. Dietary exposure of these receptors to contaminants will be estimated by a food chain effects model and compared with existing toxicity data for birds.

6. Protection of omnivorous amphibians/reptiles exposed to contaminated surface water and sediment from potentially adverse toxic effects of PAHs.

Because exposure information for receptors in this measurement guild is generally not available, the available toxicity literature will be reviewed for a qualitative assessment of the potential for ecological risks to this guild. At present, no reptilian toxicity information is available in the AQUIRE database. Therefore, this measurement endpoint is an uncertainty, as discussed further in Section 5.2. The southern painted turtle (Chrysemys picta dorsalis) is the selected measurement endpoint receptor species. This receptor was selected because it probably lives at the site (based on habitat and food availability), and natural history information is available.

7. Maintenance of the aquatic benthic macroinvertebrate community structure and function.

At the screening stage, maximum concentrations of sediment PAHs will be compared to appropriate benthic community benchmarks. Therefore, the measurement receptor is the benthic macroinvertebrate community, rather than a particular species. Although the exceedance of a benchmark does not necessarily indicate an effect on the benthic community structure or function, it will provide a preliminary, conservative scale of comparison for this measurement endpoint.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 31 8. Maintenance of the terrestrial invertebrate and plant communities’ structure and function.

At the screening stage, maximum concentrations of soil PAHs will be compared to appropriate soil community benchmarks. Therefore, the measurement receptors are the soil invertebrate (e.g., earthworm) and plant communities, rather than a particular species. Although the exceedance of a benchmark does not necessarily indicate an effect on the soil communities’ structure or function, it will provide a preliminary, conservative scale of comparison for this measurement endpoint. Both soil invertebrates and terrestrial plants provide an important food source and ecological function at MPTC, such that severe disruption to either community may be detrimental to the continued structure and function of the current ecosystem.

2.6.4 Measurement Receptor Species Selection Rationale

Based on the information collected during the site visit, the MPTC site has three distinct habitats (or ecological exposure areas). As shown on Figure 3, two freshwater aquatic habitats (one near the western, Unnamed Tributary and one near the eastern fork of Big Creek) and one terrestrial habitat (more closely related to a shrub/scrub ecosystem than a forest ecosystem) are at the MPTC site. Since both of the aquatic habitats are small, lotic systems, a single food web was constructed to represent the two aquatic exposure areas; however, each was quantitatively evaluated separately as noted in Section 5. Thus, a single aquatic food web (Figure 5) represents both aquatic habitats at MPTC, and a second, terrestrial food web (Figure 6) represents the various terrestrial environments at the site. Each of the measurement endpoint receptors is discussed (with a review of the natural history and exposure factor inputs for representative species) in the sections below.

The terrestrial habitat is composed of patches of sparsely vegetated soils, stands of new riparian vegetation, patches of forested areas, and the large on-site soils in the initial stages of recovery following

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 32 Piscivorous Birds1 Herons, Belted Kingfisher (Sur.)

Insectivorous Birds2 Omnivorous Omnivorous Omnivorous Aquatic Birds Pine W arbler Amphibians/Reptiles3 M ammals Red-Cockaded W oodpecker* Mallard Southern Painted Turtle, Raccoon, Opossum Marsh W ren (Sur.) Red-Eared Slider

Herbivorous Benthic Invertebrates4 4 Herbivorous Birds Demersal Fish 4 W ood Duck Diptera Larvae, Dragonfly Larvae, Blue Catfish, Channel Catfish, Small Fish Crawfish, Corbicula Bullhead Catfish Black Stripe Top Minnow, Carp, Golden Shiner

Notes: * Threatened or endangered species 1 Representative receptors are listed for each guild. Rooted Phytoplankton, Measurement endpoint receptors for mammals, birds, and Benthic Algae and Aquatic Plants4 amphibians/reptiles are underlined. Floating Plants4 2 The pine warbler (with the marsh wren as a surrogate) was evaluated in the terrestrial food web; therefore, a quantitative assessment of the insectivorous bird guild was not done in the riparian areas. 3 Exposure assessment for amphibians and reptiles not performed W ater and because of insufficient toxicity and natural history information. Sediment5 Dietary pathways shown for completeness. Nutrients, Detritus 4 Risk to sediment and aquatic receptors was evaluated by comparing media concentrations to respective toxicity reference values. Dietary pathways to these receptors are not explicitly evaluated (such as rooted aquatic plants-to- MARION PRESSURE herbivorous small fish); however, they are shown for TREATING COMPANY completeness. MARION, LOUISIANA 5 Pathways shown for food chain interactions only. FIGURE 5 However, direct exposure to sediment was also quantitatively AQUATIC FOOD W EB evaluated (see Section 4). Solid arrows represent dietary SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL relationships evaluated in the SLERA. Dashed arrows RISK ASSESSMENT represent dietary interactions that are not explicitly evaluated in the SLERA because site data (e.g., surface water and PREPARED FO R: BY: tissue COPC concentrations) are not available. Omnivorous Amphibians/ Insectivorous Birds Omnivorous M ammals1 Reptiles 2 Pine W arbler Raccoon Southern Painted Turtle American W arbler Short-Tailed Shrew Three-Toed Box Turtle Red-Cockaded W oodpecker* Nine-Banded Armadillo Green Treefrog Marsh W ren (Sur.)3

Herbivorous M ammals W hite-Tail Deer Eastern Cottontail Infauna/Terrestrial Herbivorous Birds W hite-Footed Mouse Invertebrates Carolina Chickadee Cotton Mouse Snail, Beetle, Earthworm, Tufted Titmouse 3 Deer Mouse (Sur.) Nematode Mourning Dove (Sur.)3

Terrestrial Plants Pinus spp. Quercus spp.

Notes: * Threatened or endangered species Soil 4 1 Representative receptors are listed for each guild. Measurement Nutrients, Detritus endpoint receptors for mammals, birds, and amphibians/reptiles are MARION underlined. TREATING COMPANY 2 Exposure assessment for amphibians and reptiles was not MARION, LOUISIANA performed because of insufficient toxicity and natural history information. Dietary pathways shown for completeness. FIGURE 6 3 Marsh wren, mourning dove, and deer mouse are surrogates for TERRESTRIAL FOOD W EB representative measurement endpoint receptors SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL 4 Pathways shown for food chain interactions only. However, RISK ASSESSMENT direct exposure to soil was also quantitatively evaluated (see Section 4). PREPARED FO R: BY: the EPA removal action. (See photos in Appendix B.) However, if not for manmade disruption, the area would likely return to an mixed pine-hardwood upland forest in the upland terrace areas and a bottomland hardwood forest in the Big Creek corridor. For screening ecological risk, the on-site soil data were assumed to be representative of PAH concentrations across all of the terrestrial areas.

2.6.4.1 Aquatic Food Web

The aquatic food web (Figure 5) is used to model food chain interactions in both the Big Creek riparian area and the Unnamed Tributary. The aquatic food web receptors identified below are pertinent to both of these exposure areas. Since one guild (the insectivorous bird, represented by the pine warbler) was also represented in the terrestrial food web (see Figure 6), and realistic dietary exposure is more likely to come from the terrestrial portion of the site, that guild was quantitatively evaluated in the terrestrial food web where more relevant dietary exposures may exist. This is discussed in Section 2.6.2.

Herbivorous Bird Guild—Wood Duck (Mallard as surrogate)

The wood duck (Aix sponsa) is a relevant ecological receptor for the MPTC SLERA. The male wood duck has brilliant white stripes about face and crest with a large white throat patch and "fingerlike" extensions on the cheek and neck, and iridescent dark green-blue back and wings. The wood duck breeds near wetlands and open water, building a cavity nest for its 8 to 15 young (Ehrlich and others 1988). The diet of the wood duck consists primarily of seeds, fruit, nuts, and green plant matter, with lesser quantities of insects and aquatic invertebrates (Gaugh and others 1998). The MPTC SLERA assumes the wood duck is strictly herbivorous. Specific quantitative estimates of exposure factors for the wood duck (using the mallard as a surrogate) are set forth in Section 4. This measurement receptor species is appropriate given the observation of several duck species at MPTC during the site visit.

Omnivorous Mammal Guild—American Raccoon

Raccoons (from the order Carnivora, family Procyonidae) are medium-sized omnivores that might be expected to occur at MPTC as they feed on insects, crayfish, lizards, and fruits. The American raccoon (Procyon lotor) is the most abundant and widespread medium-sized omnivore in the North America

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 35 (EPA 1993). During the last 50 years, raccoon populations in the United States have increased greatly (Sanderson 1987). In suburban areas, they frequently raid garbage cans and dumps. Raccoons are preyed on by bobcats, coyotes, foxes, and great horned owls (Kaufmann 1982). The popularity of the raccoon in public opinion, as well as its widespread nature in the United States and its propensity to consume potentially affected sediment-dwelling prey items, made it suitable for evaluating risk to omnivorous mammals that feed on receptors in aquatic environments.

Raccoons measure from 46 to 71 centimeters (cm) with a 20 to 30 cm tail (EPA 1993). Body weights vary by location, age, and sex from 3 to 9 kilograms (kg) (Kaufmann 1982; Sanderson 1987). Raccoons are found near virtually every aquatic habitat, particularly in hardwood swamps, mangroves, floodplain forests, and freshwater and saltwater marshes (Kaufmann 1982). They are also common in suburban residential areas and cultivated and abandoned farmlands (Kaufmann 1982) and may forage in farmyards (Greenwood 1982). Stuewer (1943) stated that a permanent water supply, tree dens, and available food are essential to the raccoon. Raccoons use surface waters for both drinking and foraging (Stuewer 1943). The raccoon is an omnivorous and opportunistic feeder. Although primarily active from sunset to sunrise (Kaufmann 1982; Stuewer 1943), raccoons will change their activity period to accommodate the availability of food and water (Sanderson 1987). Raccoons feed primarily on fleshy fruits, nuts, acorns, and corn (Kaufmann 1982) but also eat grains, insects, frogs, crayfish, eggs, and virtually any animal and vegetable matter (Palmer and Fowler 1975).

The proportion of different foods in their diet depends on location and season, although plants are usually a more important component of the diet. They may focus on a preferred food, such as turtle eggs, when it is available (Stuewer 1943). At MPTC, however, raccoons are likely to prefer the abundant crayfish and other food items, given the limited vegetation in the area (see photos in Appendix B).

The size of a raccoon's home range depends on its sex and age, habitat, food sources, and the season (Sanderson 1987). Values from a few hectares to more than a few thousand hectares have been reported, although home ranges of a few hundred hectares appear to be most common. In general, home ranges of males are larger than those of females; the home range of females with young is restricted, and winter ranges are smaller than ranges at other times of the year for both sexes (Sanderson 1987). During the winter, raccoons commonly den in hollow trees; they also use the burrows of other animals such as foxes,

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 36 groundhogs, skunks, and badgers (EPA 1993). Specific quantitative estimates of exposure factors for the raccoon are given in Section 4.

Omnivorous Bird Guild—Mallard

To represent the omnivorous birds (surface-feeding ducks) in the aquatic habitats of the MPTC site, the mallard (order Anseriformes, family Anatidae) was selected, due in part to the availability of natural history information as well as the importance of ducks as a potentially important recreational species. Surface-feeding ducks (like the mallard) feed by dabbling and tipping up in shallow water, often filtering through soft mud for food (EPA 1993). For this reason, sediment exposure is projected to be significant for this receptor guild. Surface feeding ducks feed primarily on seeds of aquatic plants and cultivated grains, although they also consume aquatic invertebrates, particularly during the breeding season (EPA 1993; Jorde and others 1983; Swanson and others 1985). It is widespread throughout most of the United States and is the most abundant of the United States ducks (US Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 1991).

EPA (1993) summarizes the habitat preferences of mallards as follows. Wintering mallards prefer natural bottomland wetlands and rivers to reservoirs and farm ponds (Heitmeyer and Vohs 1984); water depths of 20 to 40 cm are optimum for foraging (Heitmeyer 1985, cited in Allen 1987). The primary habitat requirement for nesting appears to be dense grassy vegetation at least a half meter high (Bellrose 1976). Nests usually are located within a few kilometers of water, but if choice nesting habitat is not available nearby, females may nest further away (Bellrose 1976; Duebbert and Lokemoen 1976).

In winter, mallards feed primarily on seeds but also on invertebrates associated with leaf litter and wetlands, mast, agricultural grains, and to a limited extent, leaves, buds, stems, rootlets, and tubers (Goodman and Fisher 1962; Heitmeyer 1985, cited in Allen 1987). In spring, females shift from a largely herbivorous diet to a diet of mainly invertebrates to obtain protein for their prebasic molt and then for egg production (Swanson and Meyer 1973; Swanson and others 1979; Swanson and others 1985; Heitmeyer 1988). Laying females consume a higher proportion of animal foods on the breeding grounds than do males or nonlaying females (Swanson and others 1985). The animal diet continues throughout the summer, as many females lay clutches to replace destroyed nests (Swanson and others 1979;

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 37 Swanson and others 1985). Ducklings also consume aquatic invertebrates almost exclusively, particularly during the period of rapid growth (Chura 1961). For these reasons, diet in the mallard was conservatively assumed in the MPTC SLERA to be comprised of 80 percent benthos and only 20 percent aquatic vegetation. This is consistent with EPA (1993) estimates and observations reported in the literature where breeding females consume 67-89 percent animal matter, with a lesser proportion (33-11 percent) of vegetation (based on Swanson and others 1985 as cited in EPA 1993). Specific quantitative estimates of exposure factors for the mallard are set forth in Section 4.

Piscivorous Bird Guild—Herons (Belted Kingfisher Surrogate)

Given that herons were observed on the MPTC site during preliminary investigations, a piscivorous bird representative species is included in the aquatic food web. Due to the presence of adequate life history information and necessary exposure parameter estimates on body weight and ingestion rates, the belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon, formerly Megaceryle alcyon) was selected as the measurement endpoint receptor for piscivorous birds at MPTC. Since kingfishers nest in burrows in earthen banks dug using their bills and feet, incidental sediment exposure may be greater for a kingfisher species than some other piscivorous birds, such as the great blue heron; use of the kingfisher as a surrogate is, therefore, conservative at the SLERA stage. At MPTC, however, prey items (such as crayfish) may be expected to contribute more PAHs to the diet.

Kingfishers are medium-sized birds (33 cm bill tip to tail tip) that eat primarily fish. It is one of the few species of fish-eating birds found throughout inland areas as well as coastal areas. The belted kingfisher's range includes most of the North American continent; it breeds from northern Alaska and central Labrador southward to the southern border of the United States (Bent 1940). Two subspecies sometimes are recognized: the eastern belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon alcyon), which occupies the range east of the Rocky Mountains and north to Quebec, and the western belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon caurina), which occupies the remaining range to the west (Bent 1940).

Belted kingfishers are typically found along rivers and streams and along lake and pond edges (Hamas 1974). They prefer waters that are free of thick vegetation which obscures the view of the water and water that is not completely overshadowed by trees (Bent 1940; White 1953). Given the clearings

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 38 present at MPTC, the habitat present near both Big Creek and the Unnamed Tributary generally fit the kingfisher habitat profile. The shallow nature of the intermittent streams are also attractive to the kingfisher, as White (1953) suggested that water less than 60 cm deep is preferred. Kingfishers prefer stream riffles for foraging sites even when pools are more plentiful because of the concentration of fish at riffle edges (Davis 1982). Belted kingfishers nest in burrows within steep earthen banks devoid of vegetation beside rivers, streams, ponds, and lakes; they also have been found to nest in slopes created by human excavations such as roadcuts and landfills (Hamas 1974). Sandy soil banks, which are easy to excavate and provide good drainage, are preferred (Brooks and Davis 1987; Cornwell 1963; White 1953). In general, kingfishers nest near suitable fishing areas when possible but will nest away from water and feed in bodies of water other than the one closest to home (Cornwell 1963).

Belted kingfishers generally feed on fish that swim near the surface or in shallow water (Salyer and Lagler 1946; White 1953; Cornwell 1963). Davis (personal communication in Prose 1985) believes that these kingfishers generally catch fish only in the upper 12 to 15 cm of the water column. Belted kingfishers capture fish by diving either from a perch overhanging the water or after hovering above the water (Bent 1940). Fish are swallowed whole, head first, after being beaten on a perch (Bent 1940). The Michigan study found that the average length of fish was less than 7.6 cm but ranged from 2.5 to 17.8 cm (Salyer and Lagler 1946); Davis (1982) found fish caught in Ohio streams to range from 4 to 14 cm in length. Several studies indicate that belted kingfishers usually catch the prey that are most available (White 1937 and 1953; Salyer and Lagler 1946; Davis 1982). Diet therefore varies considerably among different water bodies and with season. Although kingfishers feed predominantly on fish, they also sometimes consume large numbers of crayfish (Davis 1982; Salyer and Lagler 1946), which are abundant at the MPTC site. In shortages of their preferred foods, kingfishers have been known to consume crabs, mussels, lizards, frogs, toads, small snakes, turtles, insects, salamanders, newts, young birds, mice, and berries (Bent 1940). Foraging territory size is inversely related to prey abundance (Davis 1982). Kingfishers are sensitive to disturbance and usually do not nest in areas near human activity (White 1953; Cornwell 1963).

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 39 Omnivorous Amphibian/Reptile Guild—Southern Painted Turtle

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 40 The painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) is the most widely distributed North American turtle, and the only one to range across the entire continent, occurring from southern Canada to northern Mexico and from the northwestern to the southeastern United States. At about 5 inches (12.7 cm) long, with a record of 6.1 inches (15.5 cm), the southern painted turtle, Chrysemys picta dorsalis, is the smallest subspecies (Cohen 1992). It ranges from southern Illinois and Missouri along both sides of the Mississippi River south to Louisiana and eastward to Alabama. It features a conspicuous red, orange, or yellow stripe running the length of the carapace, and has a plain yellow plastron.

Wild painted turtles prefer slow-moving shallow waters of ponds, marshes, creeks, and lakes with soft, muddy bottoms, with suitable basking sites and ample aquatic vegetation. Painted turtles are diurnal, and become active at sunrise and bask for several hours before foraging for food in late morning. They may forage again in late afternoon into early evening. Painted turtles are omnivores that consume snails and slugs, insects, crayfish, tadpoles, small fish, carrion, algae and aquatic plants (Cohen 1992). Younger painteds are carnivorous, and older painteds become more herbivorous as they mature.

2.6.4.2 Terrestrial Food Web

The terrestrial food web (Figure 6) was designed to represent the measurement guilds pertinent to the MPTC on-site areas where surface soil data has been collected, as well as terrestrial habitats adjacent to the site. Individual measurement endpoint receptors identified for each guild are detailed below. Since one guild (the omnivorous amphibians/reptiles, represented by the southern painted turtle) was already discussed above in Section 2.6.1, its information will not be repeated here.

Herbivorous Mammal Guild—Cotton Mouse (Deer Mouse Surrogate)

To evaluate the ecological exposures of terrestrial herbivorous mammals, selection of a representative small, ground-dwelling rodent that would have potential direct exposure as well as serve as a prey item to upper tropic levels is desirable. The cotton mouse and white-footed mouse are expected to occur at MPTC. Natural history information (including exposure parameters, such as body weight and ingestion rates) is available for a similar species (the deer mouse) in the EPA Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA 1993). Since the genus Peromyscus is the most widespread and geographically variable of North

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 41 American rodents (MacMillen and Garland 1989), the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) was selected as a surrogate for the measurement endpoint receptor for terrestrial herbivorous mammals at the MPTC site. The deer mouse is primarily granivorous and has the widest geographic distribution of any Peromyscus species (Marinelli and Millar 1989; Brown and Zeng 1989). This mouse is resident and common in nearly every dry-land habitat within its range, including alpine tundra, coniferous and deciduous forests, grasslands, and deserts. The deer mouse is similar (in terms of size and dietary habits) to the cotton mouse and white-footed mouse, and is therefore an appropriate surrogate for this guild.

Deer mice range from 7.1 to 10.2 cm in length, with a 5.1 to 13 cm tail, and adults weigh from 15 to 35 grams (g) (Burt and Grossenheider 1980). Body size varies somewhat among populations and subspecies throughout the species' range. Deer mice are omnivorous and highly opportunistic, which leads to substantial regional and seasonal variation in their diet. They eat principally seeds, arthropods, some green vegetation, roots, fruits, and fungi as available (Johnson 1961; Menhusen 1963; Whitaker 1966). The nonseed plant materials provide a significant proportion of the deer mouse's daily water requirements (MacMillen and Garland 1989).

Deer mice tend to occupy more than one nest site, most frequently in tree hollows up to 8 meters from the ground (Wolff and Durr 1986) but also among tree roots and under rocks and logs (Wolff and Hurlbutt 1982; Wolff 1989). The home range of female deer mice encompasses both their foraging areas and their nests. Male home ranges are larger and overlap the home ranges of many females (Cranford 1984; Taitt 1981; Wolff 1985 and 1986; Wolff and others 1983).

Herbivorous Bird Guild—Carolina Chickadee (Mourning Dove Surrogate)

The Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), which is common to the area, was selected as the measurement endpoint receptor to screen risk of soil COPCs to terrestrial herbivorous birds for the MPTC site. The USGS reports that the Carolina chickadee is considered resident from southern Kansas, central Illinois, central Ohio, and central New Jersey south to central and southeastern Texas, the Gulf Coast, and northern peninsular Florida. The Carolina chickadee inhabits coniferous and deciduous woodlands, and prefers moist and warm forest and forest edge habitats, as are present at MPTC. The

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 42 Carolina chickadee also frequents swamps, thickets, second-growth woodlands, parks, and brushy areas (Degraaf and others 1991).

A particular characteristic of the Carolina chickadee habitat is a requirement for standing dead trees for excavating cavities. This bird usually excavates nest holes in dead, decayed tree trunks or in dead limbs of living trees, but may occasionally nest in old woodpecker holes or natural cavities. Trees of choice include willow, pine, cottonwood, poplar, pear, and cherry for nest trees (Degraaf and others 1991). The Carolina chickadee forages from the ground to the tree tops for a variety of insects, conifer seeds, and fruits (Bent 1946; Brewer 1961 and 1963; Johnsgard 1979; Pitts 1976 in Degraaf and others 1991). Because current ingestion rate data are not available for the Carolina chickadee, the mourning dove will be used as a surrogate receptor. This bird is common in the southeast and is non-migratory, making it a yearlong resident in its home range.

Omnivorous Mammal Guild—Short-Tailed Shrew

Since a raccoon was chosen as a measurement endpoint receptor species for the omnivorous mammal in the aquatic food webs for the aquatic habitats at the MPTC site, the short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda) was selected to represent omnivorous mammals that might be exposed in the terrestrial areas of the MPTC site. The short-tailed shrew eats insects, worms, snails, and other invertebrates and also may eat mice, voles, frogs, and other vertebrates (Robinson and Brodie 1982).

Short-tailed shrews are 8 to 10 cm in length with a 1.9 to 3.0 cm tail (Burt and Grossenheider 1980). The short-tailed shrew is the largest member of the genus, with some weighing over 22 g (George and others 1986). Short-tailed shrews inhabit a wide variety of habitats and are common in areas with abundant vegetative cover (Miller and Getz 1977). The short-tailed shrew is primarily carnivorous. Stomach analyses indicate that insects, earthworms, slugs, and snails make up most of the shrew's food, while plants, fungi, millipedes, centipedes, arachnids, and small mammals also are consumed (Hamilton 1941; Whitaker and Ferraro 1963). Small mammals are consumed more when invertebrates are less available (Allen 1938; Platt and Blakeley 1973, cited in George and others 1986). Shrews are able to prey on small vertebrates because they produce a poison secretion in their salivary glands that is transmitted during biting (Pearson 1942, cited in Eadie 1952). Short-tailed shrews inhabit round, underground nests

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 43 and maintain underground runaways, usually in the top 10 cm of soil, but sometimes as deep as 50 cm (Hamilton 1931; Jameson 1943, cited in George and others 1986).

Omnivorous Bird Guild—Pine Warbler (Marsh Wren Surrogate)

The pine warbler (Dendroica pinus) was selected as the measurement endpoint receptor for the omnivorous bird guild in the terrestrial food web at MPTC. The pine warbler is a common species in the area that inhabits open pine forests and pine barrens, especially upland southern pines. Although the pine warbler generally avoids tall, moist, and dense coniferous forests, the relatively thinned “forest” at MPTC may suit the pine warbler’s special habitat needs. Pine warblers build nests saddled on horizontal limbs of conifers 8 to 80 (usually 30 to 50) feet above the ground, usually far out from the tree trunk and well concealed in foliage. Diet of the pine warbler includes food gleaned from tree trunks, larger branches, and leaves. In the summer, the warbler mostly eats insects and some spiders. In the winter, the warbler supplements this diet with pine seeds, wild fruits and berries, and grass and weed seeds (Bull and Farrand 1977; Griscom and Sprunt 1979; Harrison 1975 cited in Degraaf and others 1991).

However, detailed natural history information on pine warblers (including ingestion rates and other information necessary for the exposure assessment) is limited, and therefore, the marsh wren (also a possible omnivorous avian receptor at MPTC) was used as a surrogate for screening the risk to the omnivorous bird guild. Wrens are small, insectivorous birds that live in a variety of habitats throughout the United States. They have long, slender bills adapted for gleaning insects from the ground and vegetation. The marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris) is a common bird inhabiting freshwater cattail marshes and salt marshes. Marsh wrens breed throughout most of the northern half of the United States and in coastal areas as far south as Florida; they winter in the southern United States and into Mexico, particularly in coastal areas. Marsh wrens eat mostly insects, and occasionally snails, which they glean from the surface of vegetation. This species was formerly known as the long-billed marsh wren (Telmatodytes palustris).

Although wrens are small (13 cm bill tip to tail tip; about 10 g body weight), males tend to be about 10 percent heavier than females (EPA 1993). Marsh wrens inhabit freshwater and saltwater marshes, usually nesting in association with bulrushes, cattails, and sedges or on occasion in mangroves

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 44 (Welter 1935; Bent 1948; Kale 1965; Verner 1965). Standing water from several cm to nearly a meter is typical of the areas selected (Bent 1948). Permanent water is necessary to provide a food supply of insects to the birds and as a defense against predation (Verner and Engelsen 1970). Marsh wrens consume aquatic invertebrates, other insects, and spiders, which they glean from the water surface, on stems and leaves of emergent vegetation, and the marsh floor (Kale 1965; Welter 1935). Marsh wrens are year-round residents in some southern and coastal maritime regions where marshes do not freeze. Marshes smaller than 0.40 hectares usually are not used by breeding marsh wrens (Bent 1948).

The marsh wren is an appropriate surrogate to ensure the protection the red-cockaded woodpecker, an endangered insectivorous avian species in the Louisiana. The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) is a zebra-backed woodpecker with a black cap and prominent white check patches. The species is the only woodpecker that excavates its nest in living pines. It prefers longleaf pine forests but will also inhabit mixed pine-upland hardwood forests (LDWF 2000b). The species was once found throughout Louisiana, but their populations have declined. The main reasons for their decline are (1) loss of critical habitat, (2) short rotations of harvested pine stands, and (3) suppression of natural fires (LDWF 2000a). Most surviving colonies are located near the Kisatchie National Forest. Attempts to conserve this rare bird include protecting nesting colonies on private land, increasing public awareness, colony augmentation, and placing artificial nesting cavities (LDWF 2000b).

2.6.5 Summary of Conceptual Model

The integration of the primary source media and release mechanisms with the exposure routes applicable at the MPTC site are shown in Figure 7. The potential receptors shown to the right of Figure 7 can be matched to those in the site-specific food webs (Figures 5 and 6). The model is intended to be

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 45 conceptual, and shows the major pathways (for clarity) regarding the potential for transport and uptake of PAHs from MPTC media to ecological receptors. The primary media of concern (as seen in Figure 7) are sediment and soil, with primary exposure routes being via incidental ingestion and through the diet. The contribution to ecological risk via dust deposition is an uncertainty for the inhalation pathway but is likely to be encompassed by dietary and direct contact assessments for terrestrial soils.

3.0 ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

Toxicity of a COPC is assessed by identifying TRVs specific to a COPC and to the measurement endpoint receptor being evaluated. TRVs are set as the denominator for computing COPC hazard quotients (HQ) during risk characterization. The available TRVs used in risk characterization for soil, surface water, and sediment communities are media-specific, whereas TRVs for birds and mammal are provided in terms of COPC dose ingested.

Soil, surface water, and sediment TRVs are generally either:

• A COPC media concentration that, based on its intended use by a regulatory agency, confers a high degree of protection to receptor populations or communities inhabiting the media (these include regulatory values such as federal ambient water quality criteria, state no-effect-level sediment quality guidelines, and recommended sediment screening effect concentrations), or

• A laboratory- or field-derived toxicity value representing a COPC media concentration that causes, over a chronic exposure duration, no adverse effects to a representative ecological receptor (e.g., no-observed-effect-concentration).

TRVs for birds and mammals are expressed as a daily ingested dose of a COPC that causes, over a chronic exposure duration, no observed adverse effects to a measurement receptor. These TRVs are expressed in units of mass (e.g., milligrams) of COPC per kilogram body weight (wet weight) per day (mg/kg BW-day). These TRVs are derived from laboratory toxicity values. Uncertainty factors are applied as necessary to extrapolate to a chronic, no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL).

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 47 3.1 TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUE IDENTIFICATION

TRV values were determined for sediment communities, soil communities, mammals and birds. Surface water TRVs were not identified since no surface water data are available. If COPCs are detected in surface water samples collected during the field investigation, TRVs will be identified for guilds of aquatic receptors, including phytoplankton, zooplankton, and fish.

TRVs were identified for PAHs listed in the EPA Statement of Work (EPA 1999b) and for other PAHs detected at the MPTC site; as additional data are collected, TRVs for additional compounds and receptors may be required. PAH-specific TRVs for benthic invertebrates were identified from several available sources of benchmarks. Toxicity information reported in Roy F. Weston (RFW) (1997), Parametrix (1997), and EPA (1999b) were reviewed to identify toxicity values for soil invertebrates, plants, mammals, birds, and amphibians/reptiles. This information was supplemented with data reported in toxicity benchmark reports prepared for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). Due to the general limited number of available PAH toxicity studies, TRVs for soil invertebrates, plants, mammals, and birds were identified for LPAHs and HPAHs. TRVs were not identified for amphibians and reptiles because of the paucity of toxicological information on those receptors. Uncertainty factors used in EPA Region 6 ERAs were applied to the toxicity values, as needed. Appendix D presents tables listing the toxicity benchmarks and toxicity values reviewed to identify TRVs. In each case, the most conservative (lowest) LPAH or HPAH TRV was used among all available TRVs as discussed in detail in Section 3.1.2.

Uncertainty factors were applied, as necessary, to toxicity studies that did not report an NOAEL. The uncertainty factors reported in RFW (1997) for the EPA Region 6 Madisonville Creosote Works (Madisonville) SLERA were used, as follows:

• To extrapolate from a chronic lowest-observable-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) to a chronic NOAEL, the toxicity value was multiplied by 0.1.

• To extrapolate from an acute single point estimate (such as an LC50) to a chronic NOAEL, the toxicity value was multiplied by 0.01.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 48 In addition, to extrapolate from a subchronic NOAEL to a chronic NOAEL, the toxicity value was multiplied by 0.1 (Calabrese and Baldwin 1993).

3.1.1 TRVs for Plant and Invertebrate Communities in Soils and Sediments

TRVs selected for invertebrate and plant communities in sediment and soil were identified from screening toxicity values developed by federal and state regulatory agencies. These screening toxicity values are generally provided in the form of benchmarks. The identified TRVs are listed in Appendix D (Tables D-1 through D-3).

3.1.1.1 TRVs for Benthic Invertebrates

TRVs for benthic invertebrates were identified from various sets of sediment quality benchmarks and ecotoxicity review documents. The lowest available screening values, for individual PAHs, were identified among the following sources:

• No effect level (NEL) and lowest effect level (LEL) values from “Ontario’s Approach to Sediment Assessment and Remediation” (Persaud and others 1993)

• Apparent effects threshold (AET) values for the amphipod, Hyallela azteca, reported in “Creation of Freshwater Sediment Quality Database and Preliminary Analysis of Freshwater Apparent Effects Thresholds” (Washington State Department of Ecology 1994) as tabulated by Buchmann (1999)

• Sediment effect concentrations jointly published by the National Biological Service and EPA (Ingersoll and others 1996).

Available benchmarks identified for benthic invertebrates are compiled in Table D-1.

3.1.1.2 TRVs for Soil Invertebrates

Toxicity values for soil invertebrates, listed in Table D-2, are based on bulk soil exposures. These values were evaluated to identify TRVs for these receptors. In addition to the three EPA Region 6 sources for toxicity information, Toxicological Benchmarks for Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process (Will and Suter 1995a) was also

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 49 reviewed. For HPAHs, one toxicity value for benzo(a)pyrene was identified and selected as the TRV. For LPAHs, one toxicity value for fluorene was identified and selected as the TRV. These values represent the lowest (most conservative) values available.

The HPAH surrogate value of 25 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) for benzo(a)pyrene in soil was based on a chronic (28 day) study by van Straalenand Verweij (1991), where a NOAEL based on growth was calculated for the woodlouse (Porcello scaber). Since the study calculated a NOAEL and was based on chronic effects, no uncertainty factors were applied.

The LPAH surrogate value of 30 mg/kg for fluorene in soil was based on a review of the available soil invertebrate studies reported in Will and Suter (1995a) as updated by Efroymson and others (1997). Neuhauser and others (1986) used the Organization of European Community Development (OECD) artificial soil (pH 6) to assess the effects of fluorene on survival of adults of four earthworms. The LC50s after 14 days showed little difference in sensitivity among the worms; sensitivity decreased in the order P. excavatus > E. fetida > E. eugeniae > A. tuberculata. Neuhauser and Callahan (1990) investigated the effect of this compound on growth and reproduction of E. fetida after 56 days of growth in horse manure. A concentration of 500 mg/kg had no effect on the earthworms, but 750 mg/kg caused a 49 percent reduction in cocoon production. The LC50 value of 170 (Neuhauser and others 1986) was the lowest toxic concentration of the five reported. Efroymson and others (1997) applied a safety factor of 5 (based on the authors' expert judgment) to the LC50 to obtain the TRV of 30 mg/kg fluorene. Although Efroymson and others noted that “no data exist for comparison of lethal and sublethal effects concentrations in tests conducted with the same species and soils, it [was] assumed that a factor of 5 can be used to approximate the ratio LC50/EC20” (Efroymson and others 1997).

3.1.1.3 TRVs for Terrestrial and Rooted Aquatic Plants

Data on the toxicity of PAHs to plants are very limited, probably because PAHs are poorly translocated by plants. Available toxicity values, which are based on bulk soil exposures, are listed in Table D-3 in Appendix D. PAH toxicity values compiled in the three primary sources of information (RFW 1997; Parametrix 1997; EPA 1999b) were reviewed. Toxicity benchmarks compiled by Will and Suter (1995b) were also evaluated.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 50 The preferred secondary sources for plant TRVs set forth in EPA (1999) contained only one plant TRV (for benzo[a]pyrene), which was adopted as a surrogate for HPAHs. This benchmark was a chronic NOAEL for wheat, where 1.2 mg/kg benzo(a)pyrene was studied without observable effects (Sims and Overcash 1983). Studies were identified from the general scientific literature for LPAHs (acenapthene, napthalene, and anthracene data were available) and are listed in Table D-3. Will and Suter (1995b) identified a soil benchmark of 20 mg/kg for acenaphthene in plants, which was adopted as the TRV for LPAHs. This benchmark is also used by the state of Texas (TNRCC 2000), and is within the range of other toxicity values (LOAELs) after application of uncertainty factors.

3.1.2 TRVs FOR WILDLIFE MEASUREMENT ENDPOINT RECEPTORS

The evaluation of literature toxicity values and identification of TRVs for mammals and birds considered (1) ecological relevance of the study, (2) exposure duration (e.g., chronic, acute), and (3) study endpoints (e.g., NOAEL, LOAEL). The evaluation of literature toxicity values for deriving TRVs focused on toxicological data characterizing adverse effects on ecologically relevant endpoints, such as growth, seed germination, reproduction, and survival (EPA 1999b).

The following hierarchy, in terms of decreasing preference, was followed to identify toxicity values for wildlife measurement endpoint receptors: (1) chronic NOAEL; (2) subchronic NOAEL; (3) chronic LOAEL; (4) subchronic LOAEL; (5) acute median lethality point estimate; and (6) single dose toxicity value (EPA 1999b). To generally determine exposure duration for mammals and birds, it was assumed that (1) chronic tests last more than 90 days, (2) subchronic tests last from 14 to 90 days, and (3) acute tests last less than 14 days (EPA 1999b).

The logic followed to identify a toxicity value is documented below for each selected TRV. Where more than one toxicity study met the set of qualifying criteria applicable for study endpoint and exposure duration, best professional judgement was used to identify the most appropriate study and corresponding toxicity value for TRV selection. The most appropriate study was the one with the least uncertainty about the accuracy of the study endpoint (i.e., NOAEL) that, ultimately, provides the greatest degree of protectiveness to the applicable measurement endpoint receptor (EPA 1999b). Thus, TRVs were generally the most conservative (lowest) appropriate value listed in Appendix D for that guild. The most

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 51 appropriate study was identified by reviewing the experimental design of each study, including data analysis procedures.

In accordance with direction from EPA (Tetra Tech 2000a), Tetra Tech identified relevant PAH toxicity values from EPA’s SLERA for the Madisonville site (RFW 1997). EPA and Tetra Tech concluded that the toxicity data in this recent report precluded the need to search for toxicity information in the open literature. Tetra Tech also identified PAH toxicity values in two additional, readily available sources:

• Toxicity values in the problem formulation report for PAHs at the Lavaca Bay/Point Comfort Superfund site in EPA Region 6 (Parametrix 1997).

• Toxicity values in EPA’s recently released guidance for performing ERAs on emissions from hazardous waste combustion facilities (EPA 1999b), which were identified from open and gray literature.

Selected TRV values for wildlife measurement endpoint receptors are listed in Tables D-4 and D-5 (mammals and birds) and described in Sections 3.1.2.1 and 3.1.2.2 below. TRVs were not developed for each avian and mammalian measurement receptor in the MPTC food webs because of the paucity of species-specific data. Rather, the effort was focused on identifying a set of HPAH and LPAH TRVs for avian measurement endpoint receptors and a set of HPAH and LPAH TRVs for mammalian measurement endpoint receptors. As previously noted, TRV values were not identified for amphibians and reptiles because of the paucity of toxicological information on these receptors. The available amphibian and reptile toxicity studies were compiled and are listed in Table D-6.

3.1.2.1 Mammals

Toxicity values for mammals compiled in available documents (RFW 1997; EPA 1999b; Parametrix 1997) were reviewed. To facilitate screening ecological risk at the MPTC site, LPAHs and HPAHs were evaluated separately (discussed in Section 4). Given the propensity for PAHs to exert additive effects in mammals and the paucity of data on the toxicity of individual PAHs to mammals, the systematic grouping for exposure assessment was paralleled with the identification and assignment of a TRV to the LPAHs and a TRV to the HPAHs.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 52 Selection of TRV for LPAHs

For mammals, anthracene was selected as a surrogate for LPAHs, and a TRV of 15 mg/kg-day was selected. This study (summarized in EPA 2000) for anthracene in food of the rat, administered for 550 days, resulted in no effect on lifespan or histology (RFW 1997). These endpoints were measured in a chronic bioassay (Schmahl 1955), where a group of 28 rats received anthracene in the diet, starting when the rats were approximately 100 days old. The EPA file summary notes that the daily dosage was 5 to 15 mg/rat, and the experiment was terminated when a total dose of 4.5 g/rat was achieved, on the 550th experimental day. The rats were observed until they died, with some living more than 1000 days. No treatment-related effects on life-span or gross and histological appearance of tissues were observed. Body weights were not mentioned, and hematological parameters were not measured. Because no chronic LOAEL could be determined from this study, confidence in the study is low.

However, this no-effect dose for anthracene in rats is more conservative than other studies on anthracene in other mammals. Anthracene was administered to groups of 20 male and female mice by oral gavage at doses of 0, 250, 500, and 1,000 mg/kg-day for at least 90 days (EPA 1989). Mortality, clinical signs, body weights, food consumption, ophthalmology findings, hematology and clinical chemistry results, organ weights, organ-to-body weight ratios, gross pathology, and histopathology findings were evaluated. No treatment-related effects were noted. The NOAEL is the highest dose tested (1,000 mg/kg-day). This endpoint forms the basis for the human health oral reference dose recommended in IRIS, after application of appropriate uncertainty factors (EPA 2000). Because the 15 mg/kg-day no-effect level in rats was a chronic study and reflected protection of tissue histology and longevity, the 15 mg/kg-day TRV was selected to represent mammalian wildlife sensitivity to LPAHs.

Selection of TRV for HPAHs

HPAHs are classically represented by benzo(a)pyrene, for which several NOAELs and no-effect doses are reported in the literature. Mice who were dosed with three different doses of benzo(a)pyrene in food for several generations had no observable effects on reproduction or fertility at 130 mg/kg-day (Rigdon and Neal 1965 cited in RFW 1997). The NOAEL (130 mg/kg-day) was the highest dose tested in the study, such that the true NOAEL is likely to be some dose greater than 130 mg/kg-day. This NOAEL of

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 53 130 mg/kg-day was considered as the mammalian TRV for HPAHs because it is protective of reproduction and fertility, so that population effects in mammals would be protected. However, other studies have shown lower NOAELs for reproductive effects in the same species; so for the screening assessment, additional toxicity values were considered.

Specifically, another study found that 120 mg/kg-day was a LOAEL for reproductive effects, based on a chronic feeding study of 800 mg/kg in the diet (LeGraverend and others 1984). Because the 120 mg/kg-day LOAEL was lower than the 130 mg/kg-day NOAEL for the same endpoint (reproductive effects) in the same species (mice), it was preferentially selected in estimating toxicity in the SLERA. Since the 120 mg/kg-day was a LOAEL, an uncertainty factor of 10 (multiplication by 0.1) was applied to convert from an LOAEL to a NOAEL, resulting in the final mammalian TRV for HPAH of 12 mg/kg-day.

The mammalian TRV of 12 mg/kg-day for HPAH was selected over a TRV derived from a study that showed a LOAEL of 10 mg/kg-day for reproductive effects in mice offspring. This TRV was selected because the other study involved administration of benzo(a)pyrene via gavage for 10 days during a sensitive life stage (Mackenzie and Angevine 1981). Since the 120 mg/kg-day LOAEL (and the 130 mg/kg-day NOAEL) study was based on benzo(a)pyrene effects when administered with food, professional judgment with regard to the applicability of a gavage study to mammalian receptor exposure at MPTC was used. The gavage study was reported by ORNL (Sample and others 1996) to have significantly reduced pup weights at all three dose levels tested (10, 40, and 160 mg/kg-d), with sterility observed in the two highest dose groups. Since fertility was impaired among offspring in the 10 mg/kg-d group (on the basis of marked alterations in gametogenesis, folliculogenesis, and a dramatic decrease in the size of the gonads), the 10 mg/kg-d dose was considered to be a chronic LOAEL, with the chronic NOAEL estimated by applying an uncertainty factor of 10 (to result in a 1 mg/kg-d final NOAEL). However, unrealistic conservatism is present in the ORNL NOAEL, given that benzo(a)pyrene administered directly into the gut is (by definition) much more bioavailable than benzo(a)pyrene administered in food or, as is to be simulated, from site soil or sediment. Because any benzo(a)pyrene in an environmental media is most likely to be ingested incidentally along with “food” or site soil and/or sediment, a dietary study is more similar to actual conditions than a gavage scenario.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 54 Other dietary studies included rats dosed with food containing 1,000 mg/kg benzo(a)pyrene, where a limited deleterious effect on embryonic development was observed (Parametrix 1997; Rigdon and Rennels 1964). However, the study lacked strong controls and the treatment and control sample sizes were small. Similarly, a study where mice were fed 250, 500, or 1,000 mg/kg benzo(a)pyrene in food did not report any affects on mice or embryo development (Parametrix 1997; Rigdon and Neal 1965). This study also was based on small sample sizes, and a control group was not used for each of the tests within the study.

3.1.2.2 Birds

Toxicity values for birds compiled in available documents (RFW 1997; EPA 1999b; Parametrix 1997) were reviewed. To facilitate screening ecological risk at the MPTC site, LPAHs and HPAHs were evaluated separately (discussed in Section 4). Given the propensity for PAHs to exert additive effects in mammals and the paucity of data on the toxicity of individual PAHs to birds, the systematic grouping for exposure assessment was paralleled with the identification and assignment of a TRV to the LPAHs and a TRV to the HPAHs.

Selection of TRV for LPAHs

The avian toxicity literature is extremely limited with regard to PAHs. Two studies on the toxicity of PAHs to birds are available, and both concerned mallards (Anas platyrhynchos). In one study, Patton and Dieter (1980) fed mallards diets that contained 4,000 mg PAHs/kg food (mostly as naphthalenes, naphthenes, and phenanthrene) for a period of 7 months. No mortality or visible signs of toxicity were evident during exposure; however, liver weight increased 25 percent and blood flow to liver increased 30 percent, when compared to controls (Eisler 1987). This study reflects a suitable surrogate for the LPAHs, and was converted to a NOAEL of 280 mg/kg-day to estimate the toxicity of LPAHs to birds.

Selection of TRV for HPAHs

In a second study, Hoffman and Gay (1981) measured the embryotoxicity of various PAHs applied externally, in a comparatively innocuous synthetic petroleum mixture, to the surface of mallard eggs.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 55 The most embryotoxic PAH tested was 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene, which caused mortality and, among survivors, produced significant reduction in embryonic growth and a significant increase in the percent of anomalies, e.g., incomplete skeletal ossification, defects in eye, brain, liver, feathers, and bill. For benzo(a)pyrene, 0.002 microgram (µg)/egg did not affect mallard survival, but did reduce embryonic growth and did not increase the incidence of abnormal survivors (Eisler 1987). Higher concentrations resulted in increased mortality. The external exposure route was judged to be less relevant than dietary studies; however, for screening risk at the MPTC site, other TRVs were evaluated.

Eisler (1987), citing Hoffman and Gay (1981), points out that (1) embryos may contain microsomal enzymes that can metabolize PAHs to more highly toxic intermediates than can adults, and (2) avian embryos may have a greater capacity to metabolize PAHs in this manner than do mammalian embryos and fetuses. Several investigators have suggested that (1) the presence of PAHs in petroleum, including benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, and 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene, significantly enhances the overall embryotoxicity in avian species, and (2) the relatively small percent of the aromatic hydrocarbons contributed by PAHs in petroleum may confer much of the adverse biological effects reported after eggs have been exposed to microliter quantities of polluting oils (Hoffman and Gay 1981; Albers 1983).

Since 1987, some additional studies have been conducted. Of particular interest was a 22-week study in mallards, where PAHs administered in food (in the form of weathered Exxon Valdez crude oil in the diet) at a NOAEL of 1.96 mg/kg-day resulted in no significant changes in clinical chemistry parameters, reduction in eggshell thickness and strength, or liver and spleen weights (Stubblefield and others 1995 cited in RFW 1997). Since this study captures a secondary reproduction endpoint (eggshell viability factors), as well as a potentially sensitive indicator of metabolic stress expected with PAH exposure (liver weight increase), the study was judged adequately protective for screening the risk of HPAHs to birds. Given that the PAH mixture was weathered crude, it was projected to consist primarily of HPAH after volatilization of LPAH, and therefore the 1.96 mg/kg-day was selected as the TRV for HPAHs.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 56 3.1.2.3 Reptiles and Amphibians

The toxicity literature with regard to reptiles and amphibians is relatively scant (see Table D-6). A handful of studies for pyrene and benz(a)anthracene in iberian ribbed newt larvae and benzo(a)pyrene in toads were cited in the Madisonville SLERA (RFW 1997). However, these studies were not judged applicable to the measurement endpoint receptor for the MPTC (an omnivorous reptile represented by the southern painted turtle) SLERA, primarily because great differences between newt larvae and toad tadpole exposures and those of a turtle would be expected. To further complicate the assessment, limited information is available for estimating exposures to turtles and, therefore, this class was evaluated in a qualitative manner in Section 5. Uncertainty associated with this approach is discussed in Section 5.2.

4.0 SCREENING LEVEL EXPOSURE ESTIMATES

For an ecological risk to occur, an ecological exposure pathway must be complete. The existence of a potentially complete exposure pathway indicates the potential for a receptor to contact a COPC; it does not require that a receptor be adversely affected. Exposure of ecological receptors to COPCs at MPTC was evaluated by considering multiple pathways. Exposure pathways considered in the SLERA included direct uptake of a COPC from media (e.g., soil, sediment, and surface water) for lower tropic level receptors evaluated at the community level, and ingestion of a COPC-contaminated organism (plant or animal food item) or media for upper tropic level receptors. Exposure pathways not explicitly addressed in this SLERA include (1) inhalation and dermal exposure pathways for upper tropic level organisms, (2) ingestion via grooming and preening, and (3) foliar uptake of dissolved COPCs by aquatic plants, as these pathways currently lack enough accompanying exposure information and guidance for complete quantitative evaluation (EPA 1999b).

Exposure assessments quantify exposure of a measurement endpoint receptor to a COPC. For soil, sediment, and surface water communities, the exposure assessment consists of determining the COPC concentration in the media that the particular community inhabits. For example, the COPC exposure point concentration in soil is determined during the exposure assessment and compared to the TRVs for terrestrial plants and soil invertebrates during risk characterization (see Section 5).

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 57 For upper tropic level organisms, exposure to measurement endpoint receptors is assessed by quantifying the daily dose of ingested contaminated food items (i.e., plant and animal) and ingested media. COPC daily dose ingested depends on (1) the COPC concentration in plant and animal food items and media, (2) the measurement endpoint receptor’s tropic level (i.e., consumer), (3) the tropic level of animal food items (i.e., prey), and (4) the measurement endpoint receptor’s food and media ingestion rates (EPA 1999b). The complexity of the daily dose equation depends on (1) the number of food items in a measurement receptor’s diet, and (2) the tropic level of each prey item and of the measurement endpoint receptor. The daily dose of COPC ingested by a measurement endpoint receptor, considering all food items and media ingested, was calculated using the following generic equation:

D = ' IR F * C I * Pi * F I + ' IR M * CM * PM

where

D = Daily dose of COPC ingested (mg COPC/kg BW-day)

IR F = Measurement endpoint receptor plant or animal food item ingestion rate (kg/kg BW-day)

C I = COPC concentration in ith plant or animal food item (mg COPC/kg) Pi = Proportion of ith food item that is contaminated; may be equivalent to area use factor (unitless)

F I = Fraction of diet consisting of plant or animal food item I (unitless) IR M = Measurement endpoint receptor media ingestion rate (kg/kg BW-day [soil or sediment] or L/kg BW-day [water])

CM = COPC concentration in media (mg/kg [soil or sediment] or mg/L [water]) PM = Proportion of ingested media that is contaminated (unitless)

As noted in Section 2, water pathways were not quantitatively evaluated due to a lack of surface water *data from the MPTC site. Therefore, the focus of the exposure assessment for mammals and birds was on soil and sediment concentrations and their resulting dose to ecological receptors. The daily dose of COPC ingested by a measurement endpoint receptor was determined by summing the contributions from each contaminated plant, animal, and media food item. This approach assumes that 100 percent of the measurement receptor’s diet (total daily mass of food items ingested) is contaminated. Although this approach is inherently conservative, it is appropriate given the screening nature of the MPTC ecological risk evaluation and the data gaps (uncertainties) discussed in Section 5.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 58 For receptors ingesting more than one plant or animal food item, site-specific (and receptor-specific) assumptions were used to apportion the percent composition of each diet item, as discussed for each measurement endpoint receptor in Section 4.3 below.

4.1 INGESTION RATES AND DIETARY ASSUMPTIONS FOR MEASUREMENT ENDPOINT RECEPTORS

Species-specific ingestion rates of food items and media, on a body weight basis, are required for calculating the daily dose of COPC ingested for each measurement receptor. Table 4-1 provides ingestion rate values for the site-specific measurement endpoint receptors identified in the aquatic and terrestrial food webs presented in Section 2. Soil ingestion rates were calculated using the percent soil in estimated diets of wildlife as described in Beyer and others (1994). Species-specific ingestion rates, including food and water, have only been measured for a few wildlife species. Therefore, allometric equations presented in the Wildlife Exposures Factor Handbook (WEFH) (EPA 1993) were used to calculate species-specific food and media ingestion rates.

4.1.1 Aquatic Food Web Measurement Endpoint Receptors

Food ingestion rates, media ingestion rates, and related assumptions are discussed below for each of the measurement endpoint receptors in the aquatic food web.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 59 TABLE 4-1

INGESTION RATES FOR MEASUREMENT ENDPOINT RECEPTORS SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY

Measurement Food IR (kg WW/kg Water IR (L/ kg Soil/Sediment IR (kg Endpoint Receptor Body Weight (kg)a BW-day)b BW-day)b DW/kg BW-day)c

Belted Kingfisher 1.50E-01 5.28E-02 1.66E-02 1.01E-02

Deer Mouse 1.48E-02 5.99E-01 1.51E-01 1.44E-03

Mallard Duck 1.04E+00 1.79E-01 5.82E-02 3.18E-03

Marsh Wren 1.00E-02 9.26E-01 2.75E-01 1.96E-02

Mourning Dove 1.50E-01 3.49E-01 1.09E-01 7.01E-03

Raccoon 3.00E+00 7.70E-01 2.66E-01 1.59E-02

Short-tailed Shrew 1.50E-02 6.2E-01 1.51E-01 1.36E-02

Notes:

a Body weights from the Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA 1993) as also used in other screening level ecological risk assessment guidance in EPA Region 6 (EPA 1999b). Body weights and food ingestion rates for measurement receptors should be conservative, particularly in a screening risk assessment (EPA 1999b). Mean body weights from fledgling, juvenile, or adult female wildlife were selected over adult male body weights, which are generally larger and therefore less sensitive to identical environmental media concentrations. This approach was considered conservative for a reasonable maximum exposure (RME) calculation.

b Food and water IRs were calculated using the allometric equations from EPA (1993) following recommendations in EPA (1999b). To convert IR from a dry weight (as calculated using allometric equations of Nagy 1987) to a wet weight basis, the following general equation was used:

IR kg WW/kg BW-day = (IR kg DW/BW-day)/(1 - % moisture/100). For herbivores, assumed moisture content was 88%, for carnivores 68%, and for omnivores, 78% (EPA 1999b).

c All soil and sediment ingestion rates were based on the percent soil in diet as reported by Beyer and others 1994 as applied in EPA 1999b.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 60 4.1.1.1 Herbivorous Bird—Wood Duck (Mallard Surrogate)

Because exposure factors (including quantitative estimates of ingestion rates and body size) were not specifically available for the wood duck in the scientific literature, the mallard was used as a surrogate with regard to body size and dietary and water intake estimates. The largely herbivorous diet of the wood duck was taken into account, with an assumed 100 percent vegetation composition in the diet. Ingestion rates for the mallard (as a surrogate for the wood duck) were from EPA (1999b); these rates were calculated using the appropriate allometric equations based on a body weight (BW) of 1.04 kilograms (kg). Thus, the food ingestion rate of 0.179 kg wet weight (WW) per kg BW-day was used, with a sediment ingestion rate of 0.00318 kg dry weight (DW) per kg BW-day (based on Beyer and others 1994 as cited in EPA 1999b). One hundred percent of the wood duck diet was assumed to be vegetation rooted in contaminated sediment at MPTC. It was assumed that the wood duck ate no floating aquatic vegetation, which may have a lower exposure potential because PAHs partition out of surface waters to sediments.

4.1.1.2 Omnivorous Mammal—Raccoon

The exposure factors given in the WEFH were used to derive raccoon ingestion rates. Specifically, the lower end of the body weight range (3 kg) was selected to (1) simulate the lighter variety of raccoon that is likely to inhabit the temperate Louisiana climate and (2) maximize exposure potential. Using the appropriate allometric equation, the food ingestion rate for the raccoon is 0.77 kg WW/kg BW-day, calculated using the methodology set forth in EPA (1999b). Based on the WEFH (using scat analyses), it is estimated that the raccoon diet consists of 9.4 percent sediment DW; this percentage was applied to calculate an approximate daily sediment ingestion rate of 0.016 kg DW/kg BW-d. To maximize exposure in this screening phase of the ecological assessment at MPTC, the raccoon diet was assumed to consist of 50 percent benthic invertebrates (in which PAHs have the potential to bioaccumulate) and 50 percent vegetation rooted in contaminated sediment.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 61 4.1.1.3 Omnivorous Bird—Mallard

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 62 Diet in the mallard was conservatively assumed to be 80 percent benthos and 20 percent aquatic vegetation. This is consistent with WEFH estimates and observations reported in the literature where breeding females consume 67 to 89 percent animal matter, with a lesser proportion (33 to 11 percent) of vegetation (based on Swanson and others 1985 as cited in EPA 1993).

Ingestion rates for the mallard were taken from EPA (1999b); these rates were calculated using the appropriate allometric equations based on a body weight of 1.04 kg. Thus, the food ingestion rate of 0.179 kg WW per kg BW-day was used, with a sediment ingestion rate of 0.00318 kg DW per kg BW-day (based on Beyer and others 1994 as cited in EPA 1999b).

4.1.1.4 Piscivorous Bird—Heron (Belted Kingfisher Surrogate)

The belted kingfisher was selected as a surrogate for herons at the site because it has a small body weight and has a relatively high sediment exposure potential, based on its choice of building nests adjacent to water bodies. This surrogate will ensure that direct sediment exposure, a potentially significant pathway, is not underestimated.

Specific ingestion rates for the belted kingfisher were obtained from the WEFH, with an estimated average body weight of 0.150 kg assumed. This body weight was used with the appropriate allometric equations recommended in WEFH to derive a daily ingestion rate of 0.0529 kg WW/kg BW-day. Given the range of sediment ingestion rates recommended in the WEFH for these receptors (10 to 60 percent), the conservative end of the range was used. Therefore, the sediment ingestion rate for the belted kingfisher was calculated to be 0.010 kg DW/kg BW-day. This assumption is conservative, but appropriate, given the screening nature of the MPTC evaluation. The diet of this piscivorous bird was assumed to be 90 percent fish and 10 percent benthic invertebrates. This is consistent with the diet of herons, which preferentially feed on fish but will take large invertebrates occasionally.

4.1.1.5 Omnivorous Amphibian/Reptile—Southern Painted Turtle

Given the fact that younger (more sensitive life stage) painted turtles are carnivorous, and older painteds become more herbivorous as they mature, the diet of the southern painted turtle is conservatively

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 63 assumed to be more carnivorous, consisting of 80 percent benthic and/or terrestrial invertebrates (such as snails, slugs, insects, and crayfish) and 20 percent aquatic plants. This is consistent with reports from the literatures summarized in the WEFH. It was estimated that soil comprises 5.9 percent of the Eastern painted turtle’s diet (EPA 1993). However, calculating an appropriate ingestion rate for the painted turtle is extremely uncertain at best, given that ingestion rates must be estimated using a conversion from metabolic rates since EPA has adopted a regression equation only for iguanids (EPA 1993). This uncertainty, coupled with a lack of toxicity data for PAHs in reptiles (Section 3), was great enough that this guild was evaluated qualitatively rather than quantitatively (see Section 5).

4.1.2 Terrestrial Food Web Measurement Endpoint Receptors

Food ingestion rates, media ingestion rates, and related assumptions are discussed below for each of the measurement endpoint receptors in the terrestrial food web.

4.1.2.1 Herbivorous Mammals—Cotton Mouse (Deer Mouse Surrogate)

The cotton mouse was selected as the measurement endpoint receptor for the herbivorous mammal guild. Natural history information for the deer mouse (EPA 1993) was used as a surrogate. The small body size of this receptor, its limited home range, and the potential for its proximity to soil contamination make it a candidate for evaluation. Ingestion rates for the deer mouse were taken from EPA (1999b), calculated from the appropriate allometric equations based on a body weight of 0.0148 kg. Thus, the food ingestion rate of 0.599 kg WW per kg BW-day was used, with a soil ingestion rate of 0.00144 kg DW per kg BW- day (based on Beyer and others 1994 as cited in EPA 1999b).

4.1.2.2 Herbivorous Birds—Carolina Chickadee (Mourning Dove Surrogate)

The Carolina chickadee was selected as the measurement endpoint receptor for the herbivorous bird guild, however natural history information for this receptor is not available, Given that ingestion rates are available for a herbivorous bird of similar size, the mourning dove, this receptor was selected as a surrogate for the Carolina chickadee. Ingestion rates for the mourning dove were obtained from EPA (1999b); these rates were calculated from the appropriate allometric equations based on a body weight of

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 64 0.15 kg. Thus, the food ingestion rate of 0.349 kg WW per kg BW-day was used, with a sediment ingestion rate of 0.00701 kg DW per kg BW-day (based on Beyer and others 1994 as cited in EPA 1999b).

4.1.2.3 Omnivorous Mammal—Short-Tailed Shrew

Ingestion rates for the short-tailed shrew were obtained from EPA (1999b); these rates were calculated from the appropriate allometric equations based on a body weight of 0.015 kg. Thus, the food ingestion rate of 0.62 WW per kg BW-day was used, with a soil ingestion rate of 0.0136 kg DW per kg BW-day (based on Beyer and others 1994 as cited in EPA 1999b). To assess the diet of the short-tailed shrew that would most likely cause PAH exposure, the shrew diet was considered to be comprised of 50 percent soil invertebrates, 25 percent terrestrial plants, and 25 percent small herbivorous mammals.

4.1.2.4 Omnivorous Bird—Pine Warbler (Marsh Wren Surrogate)

Ingestion rates for the marsh wren (as a surrogate for the pine warbler) were obtained from EPA (1999b); these rates were calculated from the appropriate allometric equations based on a body weight of 0.01 kg. Thus, the food ingestion rate of 0.926 kg WW per kg BW-day was used, with a soil ingestion rate of 0.0196 kg DW per kg BW-day (based on Beyer and others 1994 as cited in EPA 1999b). To assess a possible PAH-containing diet, the winter diet of the pine warbler (that is more likely to contain pine seeds, wild fruits and berries, grass, and weed seeds) was assumed to be appropriate for this guild, as it is more likely to contribute PAHs to the diet than the summer diet (largely insects and spiders). Therefore, 75 percent of the diet was attributed to vegetation and 25 percent of the diet was attributed to soil invertebrates, to account for the occasional ingestion of such prey. This is a conservative estimate.

4.2 COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN FOOD ITEMS OF MEASUREMENT ENDPOINT RECEPTORS

COPC concentrations in food items must be determined in order to calculate the daily dose of COPC ingested for each measurement endpoint receptor. To screen the risk to the measurement endpoint receptors, prior to collecting data on COPC residues in food items, these concentrations are estimated

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 65 mathematically. The following sections discuss the methods used to estimate COPC concentrations in food eaten by measurement endpoint receptors.

4.2.1 COPC Concentration in Invertebrates and Plants

Data on COPC concentrations in invertebrates and plants at the MPTC site are not available. These concentrations can be calculated from the COPC concentrations in soil or sediment, as appropriate, by using receptor-specific bioconcentration factors (BCF). Following the approach given in other EPA Region 6 guidance, BCFs were selected to conservatively estimate PAH bioaccumulation (EPA 1999b). Each BCF, which is the ratio, at steady-state, of the concentration of a compound in a food item to its concentration in a media, can be expressed in terms of a COPC concentration in a food item:

C I = C M * BCF

where

BCF = Bioconcentration factor (unitless [soil, sediment])

C I = COPC concentration in ith animal or plant food item (mg COPC/kg) C M = COPC concentration in media (mg/kg [soil, sediment])

To estimate concentrations of PAHs in soil and sediment invertebrates at MPTC, a BCF of 1.59 was used for the HPAHs, as it is the recommended BCF for benzo(a)pyrene set forth in EPA (1999b). This value represents the geometric mean of sediment-to-benthic invertebrate BCF values available in the literature through 1998. This is a conservative BCF, since some terrestrial studies have yielded a BCF of 0.07 (EPA 1999b). BCFs will be further refined in the baseline ERA.

For the LPAHs, no EPA-recommended BCF was obtained from the scientific literature, so the log BCF for sediment and soil was estimated from EPA (1999b) using the relationship where:

log BCF = 0.819 * log Kow - 1.146

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 66 This regression equation was developed from empirical data on exposures of aquatic invertebrates to organics (EPA 1999b). The equation was used because data correlating body burdens of organics with sediment or soil concentrations are not available. The equation is more applicable to LPAHs than HPAHs because LPAHs have a higher water solubility and therefore, a greater propensity to be dissolved in pore water. The LPAHs with the highest Kow values are anthracene and phenanthrene (both with a Kow

of 2.21E+04). This Kow value was used to calculate BCFs for these pathways, resulting in a value of 258. Thus, the LPAH BCF was conservatively selected to approximate a “worst-case” bioaccumulation

scenario, where a high Kow equates to a high BCF and thus, a high predicted accumulated PAH concentration.

Concentrations in rooted aquatic plants were calculated with a BCF approach essentially identical to that followed for invertebrates. However, the soil-to-plant and sediment-to-plant bioconcentration factors for benzo(a)pyrene is nearly zero (EPA 1999b), reflecting the poor bioconcentration of HPAH in plants. A log BCF for soil-to-plant and sediment-to-plant bioconcentration was calculated from EPA (1999b) using the relationship:

log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988)

This computation results in a soil-to-plant and sediment-to-plant BCF of 0.011 for benzo(a)pyrene, which was used as a surrogate for the HPAH BCF for plant uptake. As with the BCFs for invertebrates, the LPAH may be represented by naphthalene (soil-to-plant and sediment-to-plant BCF of 0.57) or by anthracene and phenanthrene (soil-to-plant and sediment-to-plant BCF of 0.12). For conservative purposes, naphthalene was used as a surrogate for the LPAHs, and a BCF of 0.57 was chosen for soil-to-plant and sediment-to-plant exposure pathways. In each case, the most conservative BCF was used, such that the SLERA dose modeling was also conservative and representative of a RME scenario.

4.2.2 COPC Concentration in Mammals, Birds, Amphibians, and Reptiles

COPC concentrations in mammals and birds, as food items ingested by measurement endpoint receptors, were estimated using equations specific to each guild (i.e., herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores). COPC concentrations in mammal and bird prey depend on several factors, which are detailed in the

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 67 following sections. These concentrations also show mathematically how future site-specific data, such as the COPC concentration in surface water, will be applied to calculate refined exposure terms in the baseline ERA.

4.2.2.1 Herbivorous Mammals and Birds

The COPC concentration in herbivorous mammals and birds is calculated by summing the contribution from the ingestion of contaminated plant food items and the ingestion of contaminated media. The general equation for computing a COPC concentration in herbivores is as follows:

CH = ' (Cpi * BCFpi-H * Ppi * Fpi) + (Cs/sed * BCFs/sed-H * Ps/sed)

+ (Cw * BCFW-HM * PW)

where

CH = COPC concentration in herbivore (mg/kg) Cpi = COPC concentration in ith plant food item (mg/kg) BCFpi-H = bioconcentration factor for plant-to-herbivore for ith plant food item (unitless) Ppi = Proportion of ith plant food item in diet that is contaminated (unitless) Fpi = Fraction of diet consisting of ith plant food item (unitless) Cs/sed = COPC concentration in soil or sediment (mg/kg) BCFs/sed-H = Bioconcentration factor for soil-to-plant or sediment-to-plant (unitless) Ps/sed = Proportion of soil or sediment in diet that is contaminated (unitless) Cw = Total COPC concentration in water column (mg/L) BCFW-HM = Bioconcentration factor for water-to-herbivore (L/kg) PW = Proportion of water in diet that is contaminated (unitless)

As discussed in Section 5.2, no surface water data were available for evaluation in the MPTC SLERA. Therefore, the proportionate concentration of COPCs in herbivorous mammals and birds derived from contaminated water was assumed to be zero. This data gap is discussed further in Section 5.2.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 68 4.2.2.2 Omnivorous Mammals and Birds

The COPC concentration in omnivorous mammals and birds is calculated by summing the contribution due to ingestion of contaminated animal food items, plant food items, and media. However, unlike herbivores which are second tropic level (TL2) consumers, omnivores are third tropic level (TL3) consumers of animal food items. For most COPCs, a ratio of food chain multipliers (FCM) would be applied to each animal food item ingested to account for the increase in COPC concentration occurring between the tropic level of the prey item (TLn) and the tropic level of the omnivore (TL3) (EPA 1999b). The COPC concentration in omnivores depends on the COPC concentration in each food item ingested, and the tropic level of each food item, as follows:

COM = ' (Cai * [FCMTL3/FCMTLn-Ai] * Pai * Fai ) + ' (CPi * BCFpi-OM * Ppi * Fpi)

+ (Cs/sed * BCFs/sed-OM * Ps/sed) + (Cw * BCFW-OM * PW)

where

COM = COPC concentration in omnivore (mg/kg) Cai = COPC concentration in ith animal food item (mg/kg) FCMTL3 = Food chain multiplier for tropic level 3 (unitless) FCMTLn-Ai = Food chain multiplier for tropic level of ith animal food item (unitless) Pai = Proportion of ith animal food item in diet that is contaminated (unitless) Fai = Fraction of diet consisting of ith animal food item (unitless) BCFpi-OM = Bioconcentration factor for plant-to-omnivore for ith plant food item (unitless) Cpi = COPC concentration in ith plant food item (mg/kg) Ppi = Proportion of ith plant food item that is contaminated (unitless) Fpi = Fraction of diet consisting of ith plant food item (unitless) Cs/sed = COPC concentration in soil or sediment (mg/kg) BCFs/sed-OM = Bioconcentration factor for soil- or sediment-to-omnivore (unitless) Ps/sed = Proportion of soil or sediment in diet that is contaminated (mg/kg) Cw = Total COPC concentration in surface water (mg/L) BCFW-OM = Bioconcentration factor for water-to-omnivore (L/kg) PW = Proportion of water in diet that is contaminated (unitless)

This equation is presented to show mechanically how COPC concentrations in omnivores are calculated, considering that strongly bioaccumulative stressors, such as dioxins, will be sampled in the forthcoming field sampling program. In the case of calculation body burdens of PAHs, however, the food chain multipliers were set to unity (1.0) in all cases. This is specific to the nature of the PAH class, in that

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 69 PAHs are generally metabolized before reaching a site of toxic action in vertebrates, which could result in ecologically significant adverse effects such as decreased reproduction. Because PAHs are readily metabolized, bioaccumulation and food chain biomagnification of these toxicants do not occur.

Benzo(a)pyrene BCFs for soil-, sediment-, and plant-to-omnivore pathways from EPA (1999b) were used to calculate concentrations of both HPAHs and LPAHs in omnivores. This is a conservative approach, as the HPAHs (such as benzo[a]pyrene) are much more likely to bioconcentrate than the LPAHs based on their considerably higher octanol-water partition coefficients. No other readily available PAH BCFs for these pathways were available.

It was assumed that 100 percent of ingested animal and plant matter, and media, were contaminated. For measurement endpoint receptors consuming more than one food item, the fraction of each food item in the diet was determined based on available natural history information. These assumptions are detailed in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2.

4.2.3 Determination of Wildlife Bioconcentration Factors

Wildlife BCFs for media and plant pathways were calculated from biotransfer factors (Ba) recommended in EPA (1999b). A Ba is the ratio of the COPC concentration in wet (fresh) weight animal tissue to the daily intake of COPC by the animal through ingestion of food and media. Therefore, BCFs can be calculated from Ba values and receptor-specific ingestion rates. EPA (1999b) developed measurement endpoint-specific BCFs for the food ingestion pathway and media ingestion pathways.

Travis and Arms (1988) reported a regression equation, developed from empirical data, for calculating

COPC-specific Ba values for mammals based on a COPC’s octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow):

log Bamammal = -7.6 + log Kow where

Bamammal = Biotransfer factor for mammals (day/kg WW tissue) Kow = Octanol-water partition coefficient (unitless)

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 70 Bamammal values (abbreviated as BaA), calculated as described above, were used to calculate BCFs for food and media ingestion pathways for measurement endpoint receptors for the MPTC SLERA.

4.2.3.1 Bioconcentration Factors for Food Ingestion Pathway

BCF values for the food ingestion pathway of mammals and birds (preyed on by measurement endpoint receptors) were calculated using a COPC-specific Ba applicable to the mammal or bird, and the receptor-specific food ingestion rate as follows:

BCFF-A = BaA * IRF

where

BCFF-A = Bioconcentration factor for food item (plant or prey)-to-animal (measurement receptor) [(mg COPC/kg WW tissue)/(mg COPC/kg WW food item)] BaA = COPC-specific biotransfer factor applicable for the animal (day/kg WW tissue) IRF = Measurement endpoint receptor food ingestion rate (kg WW/day)

BaA values for avian measurement endpoint receptors (Babird) were derived from Bamammal values by assuming that the lipid content (by mass) of birds and mammals is 15 and 19 percent, respectively

(EPA 1999b). Therefore, Babird values were calculated by multiplying Bamammal values by the bird and mammal fat content ratio of 0.8 (15/19).

Babird and Bamammal values applicable for the measurement endpoint receptors were based on values for benzo(a)pyrene in EPA (1999b). This approach is conservative, since LPAHs may not biotransfer as readily as benzo(a)pyrene.

4.2.3.2 BCFs for Measurement Receptors Ingesting Media

BCF values for herbivore and omnivore measurement endpoint receptors ingesting media were estimated using the compound-specific Bamammal or Babird value, as applicable, and the measurement receptor-specific ingestion rate as follows:

BCFM-A = BaA * IRM

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 71 where

BCFM-A = Bioconcentration factor for media-to-animal [(mg COPC/kg WW tissue)/(mg COPC/kg WW or DW media)] BaA = COPC-specific biotransfer factor applicable for the animal (day/kg WW tissue) IRM = Measurement endpoint receptor media ingestion rate (WW or DW kg/day)

As a conservative measure for assessing PAH accumulation, the high Kow of benzo(a)pyrene made it a conservative surrogate for both LPAH and HPAH. This may be particularly conservative but appropriate for the screening phase of the ERA at MPTC. BCFs were taken from EPA (1999b) and calculated following the methodology outlined below.

5.0 RISK CHARACTERIZATION AND UNCERTAINTY

This section summarizes the findings of the screening-level risk calculations to form conclusions about potential risks posed to the assessment endpoints identified for the MPTC study areas during the problem formulation (Section 2). The SLERA was performed in accordance with EPA’s ERA principles (EPA 1999a). Section 5.1 presents the quantitative estimates derived from the screening-level calculations for each measurement endpoint receptor. A discussion of the uncertainty associated with the risk estimate and identification of pending data gaps is also presented in Section 5.2. The risk characterization section culminates in Section 5.3, which is a summary of the first set of scientific and management decision points (SMDPs) pertinent to the eight-step ecological risk assessment process for Superfund (EPA 1997).

5.1 SCREENING LEVEL HAZARD QUOTIENTS

Risk characterization is the integration of exposure and effects data to determine the likelihood of adverse effects. For the MPTC SLERA, the toxicity quotient method was used to characterize risk of COPCs as recommended in EPA (1997).

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 72 5.1.1 Approach

Potential risks to ecological receptors were assessed by a chemical-specific comparison of maximum estimated daily doses or medium-specific concentrations with ecological benchmarks (TRVs). This comparison, expressed as a hazard quotient (HQ), was performed for individual PAH COPCs for benthic invertebrates, and for LPAHs and HPAHs for all other media communities and mammalian and avian measurement endpoint receptors. This grouping was a conservative measure that provided for the summation of PAH-derived risks, which was appropriate (as described in Section 2) due to the additive toxic effects of most PAHs. The approach also is consistent with ERAs at other EPA Region 6 Superfund sites. HQs were calculated for individual PAHs for benthic invertebrates due to the availability of individual PAH TRVs, but were calculated for LPAH and HPAH groups for all other receptors due to the lack of TRVs for some individual PAHs for mammals and birds. This approach was discussed during the April 11, 2000 scoping meeting for the SLERA.

Where medium-specific concentrations were compared with ecological benchmarks, the HQ is expressed as:

HQ = Cmed/TRVmed

where

Cmed = Concentration of a chemical in a medium (e.g., soil or sediment, mg/kg) TRVmed = Toxicity reference value for the same chemical in the same medium (mg/kg)

The above approach was used to derive HQs for community-level receptors (including benthic organisms, terrestrial plants, and terrestrial invertebrates) as defined in the problem formulation

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 73 discussion (Section 2). For upper tropic level receptors, the HQ was derived from the following expression:

HQ = Dreceptor/TRVreceptor

where

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 74 Dreceptor = Daily dose estimated for a chemical though all exposure routes (µg/kg-day) as outlined in Section 4

TRVreceptor = Toxicity reference value for measurement endpoint receptor (µg/kg-day)

An important context for interpreting the HQ is the fact that the screening-level risk assessment is, by definition, intended to be a conservative “screen” on the maximum COPC concentrations at a site to determine the need for further investigation of ecological risks. A calculated HQ exceeding unity (i.e., HQ > 1) may indicate that the species of concern may be at risk of an adverse effect from the particular COPC. At the same time, however, conservative assumptions were made such that a HQ exceeding unity may not absolutely indicate that an adverse risk will occur. This uncertainty is discussed further in Section 5.2.

A cumulative hazard index (HI), comprised of the sum of all HQs for a receptor, was also calculated for each media community and mammal and bird guild. This conservative approach assumes that the PAH COPCs act in an additive fashion.

5.1.2 Benthic Invertebrates, Soil Invertebrates, and Plants

As shown in Tables E-1 and E-4, individual COPC HQs were calculated for benthic invertebrates, with risks for all individual PAHs (based on maximum detected concentrations) exceeding unity for both the LPAH and HPAH in the Big Creek sediments, as well as total PAHs (Table E-1). Concentrations in the Unnamed Tributary sediments were much lower (with four individual PAHs being nondetect), such that individual HQs for these sediments were also much lower; however, for those individual PAHs that were detected, unity was still exceeded such that risk to the benthos might be concluded in the preliminary stages even in the Unnamed Tributary sediments. However, this conclusion is uncertain, as explained in Section 5.2.

Terrestrial biota also had respective screening-level (based on comparison to benchmarks) exceedances (as shown in Table E-7); however, these comparisons were extremely conservative and not without uncertainty, as discussed in Section 5.2.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 75 5.1.3 Risk to Aquatic Food Web Wildlife

The following sections describe the HQs for the aquatic food web receptors. Considerable uncertainty is associated with each screening-level risk calculation. Uncertainty associated with the assumptions that contribute to the screening risk calculations are summarized in Section 5.2.

5.1.3.1 Piscivorous Birds—Herons (Belted Kingfisher Surrogate)

Estimates of risks to piscivorous birds, based on the belted kingfisher as a surrogate of herons, to maximum detected concentrations of COPCs in the Big Creek and the Unnamed Tributary sediments are presented in Appendix E. In the Big Creek exposure area, total LPAH concentrations up to 9,432 mg/kg and total HPAH concentrations up to 3,095.5 mg/kg were detected in sediments. Ingestion of benthic invertebrates and incidental ingestion of sediments while feeding resulted in HQs greater than unity as shown in Table E-1 (HQs of 496 and 29.2 for LPAH and HPAH, respectively). All doses calculated and assumptions made are compiled in spreadsheets provided in Appendix E (Tables E-2 and E-3).

In the Unnamed Tributary sediments, concentrations were lower (maximum 9.51 and 14.77 mg/kg for LPAH and HPAH, respectively), such that risks to the piscivorous bird guild are also much lower (Table E-4). Accordingly, risks were estimated to be less than unity under the assumptions outlined in this SLERA, such that no excess adverse effect is predicted for piscivorous birds feeding in the Unnamed Tributary. The details of each dose calculation for the Unnamed Tributary are listed in Tables E-5 and E-6.

5.1.3.2 Omnivorous Mammals—Raccoon

As the representative omnivorous mammal in the Big Creek and Unnamed Tributary exposure areas, risks to the raccoon are presented in Appendix E (Tables E-1 through E-6). In the more contaminated Big Creek sediments, risks were calculated much greater than unity (5,040 and 163 for LPAH and HPAH, respectively). This reflects the assumption that this omnivore would subsist largely on benthic invertebrates (plentiful crayfish) in the creekbeds, and the fact that benthic invertebrates as a prey item may bioaccumulate PAHs.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 76 In the Unnamed Tributary sediments, lower risks were predicted (50.8 and 0.78, respectively, for LPAH and HPAH). The greater risks projected by the LPAH fraction are largely due to the greater estimated BCF values (258 as opposed to 1.59 for the HPAH) used in modeling concentrations in the benthos as prey items for the raccoon. This approach includes considerable uncertainty, as discussed further in Section 5.2.

5.1.3.3 Omnivorous Birds—Mallard

The omnivorous nature of the mallard was evaluated in the SLERA, along with incidental ingestion, to determine HQs for the two sediment exposure areas at the MPTC site. For Big Creek sediments, estimated HQs were 1,250 for LPAHs and 365 for HPAHs for the mallard. Most of the risk was from the ingestion of benthic invertebrates, which may bioaccumulate PAHs. In the Unnamed Tributary sediments, risks (and sediment concentrations) were much lower, with a total LPAH HQ of 1.26 and a total HPAH HQ of 1.74. These calculations are detailed in Tables E-1 through E-6.

5.1.3.4 Herbivorous Birds—Wood Duck (Mallard Surrogate)

As the representative herbivorous bird in the two aquatic exposure areas, risks to the wood duck are presented in Appendix E (Tables E-1 through E-6). In the more contaminated Big Creek sediments, risks were calculated slightly greater than unity (3.54 and 8.13 for LPAH and HPAH, respectively). In the Unnamed Tributary sediments, substantially lower risks were predicted (0.004 and 0.039, respectively, for LPAH and HPAH). This trend is indicative of both the lower concentration of PAHs in the Unnamed Tributary (relative to those in Big Creek) as well as the lower (relative) uptake of PAHs in plants, such that risks projected for an herbivore are much lower than those for an omnivore (that would also be exposed to sediment biota with greater PAH accumulation potential).

5.1.4 Terrestrial Food Web Wildlife

The following sections describe the calculated HQs for the terrestrial food web receptors. Considerable uncertainty is associated with each screening-level risk calculation. Uncertainty associated with the assumptions that contribute to the screening risk calculations are summarized in Section 5.2

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 77 5.1.4.1 Omnivorous Mammals—Short-Tailed Shrew

In the terrestrial habitat at MPTC, the omnivorous receptor selected for evaluation, the short-tailed shrew, was projected to have HQs above unity (42,900 for LPAH and 665 for HPAH). This risk is primarily due to the high concentrations detected in the surface soils of the MPTC site (up to 8,039 mg/kg LPAH and 15,702 mg/kg HPAH); this risk is also a factor of the assumed dietary habits of the shrew, which put it at risk via ingestion of prey items (soil invertebrates) in which PAHs were assumed to accumulate. Risks for the shrew are summarized in Table E-7 (with supporting details in Tables E-8 and E-9).

5.1.4.2 Herbivorous Mammals—Cotton Mouse (Deer Mouse Surrogate)

Herbivorous mammals (as represented by the cotton mouse, with the deer mouse as a surrogate) in the terrestrial areas of the MPTC site were projected to have some excess risk (represented by an HQ of 184 for LPAH and 10.5 for HPAH) due to exposure to maximum concentrations of PAHs in the surface soils. Concentrations in soil were estimated to be only poorly taken up by vegetation (as evidenced by the extremely low BCFs for soil-to-plant transfer), but surface soil concentrations were high enough (up to 8,039 mg/kg LPAH and 15,702 mg/kg HPAH) that excess risk was still projected based on vegetative diet and incidental soil ingestion. Risks for the cotton mouse (using the deer mouse as a surrogate) are summarized in Table E-7 (with supporting details in Tables E-8 and E-9).

5.1.4.3 Insectivorous Birds—Pine Warbler (Marsh Wren Surrogate)

The HQs calculated for the pine warbler as a representative of insectivorous birds at the MPTC site similarly reflected the high (up to 8,039 mg/kg LPAH and 15,702 mg/kg HPAH) concentrations present in MPTC surface soils. An LPAH HQ of 1,730 was calculated for the omnivorous avians, with an HPAH HQ of 3,170. These risks are representative of the incidental soil ingested by this guild, as well as a significant contribution by infauna and terrestrial invertebrates (due to relatively high soil-to-invertebrate BCFs) derived from the high soil concentrations of PAHs. Tables E-7 through E-9 detail the calculations for the terrestrial food web receptors, including all dose calculations and exposure factor assumptions.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 78 5.1.4.4 Herbivorous Birds—Carolina Chickadee (Mourning Dove Surrogate)

The HQs calculated for the Carolina chickadee as a representative of the herbivorous avian species that might frequent the terrestrial portions of the MPTC site reflect the high (up to 8,039 mg/kg LPAH and 15,702 mg/kg HPAH) concentrations present in MPTC surface soils. An LPAH HQ of 5.9 was calculated for the herbivorous avians, with an HPAH HQ of 86.9. These risks reflect incidental soil ingested by this guild, as well as contribution from ingested vegetation (despite low soil-to-plant BCFs) due to the high soil concentrations of PAHs. Tables E-7 through E-9 detail the calculations for the terrestrial food web receptors, including all dose calculations and exposure factor assumptions.

5.1.5 Summary

A conceptual summary of the risks projected for ecological receptors in the screening stage is given in Table 5-1, where measurement endpoint receptors (classified by guild) are listed with their risk characterization status. For purposes of this summary, an HQ of 1 was used as the screening-level cutoff to characterize risk as potential (HQ > 1) or unlikely (HQ < 1).

5.2 DATA GAPS AND OTHER UNCERTAINTIES

Several data gaps were identified for each phase of the MPTC SLERA, and each contributes to a measure of uncertainty that eventually becomes manifested within the screening-level ecological hazard quotients summarized in Section 5.1. Therefore, an understanding of the overestimation or underestimation of potential risks is essential to enable informed decision-making during the planning phase of the baseline ERA.

5.2.1 Uncertainty in Problem Formulation

The main uncertainties in the problem formulation center on data availability, identification of COPCs, endpoint selection, and data representativeness. Each uncertainty is discussed below.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 79 5.2.1.1 Data Availability

The keystone of any quantitative risk assessment is a thorough and representative characterization of the magnitude and spatial distribution of contaminant concentrations at a site. In the case of MPTC, some media (e.g., surface soil) are better characterized than others (e.g., Unnamed Tributary sediments). Some media (e.g., surface water) have not been characterized. In addition, available sampling data were collected from areas suspected to be contaminated, which bias high the risk estimates for mobile receptors, like mammals and birds, that are expected to be exposed to a wider range of contaminant concentrations, not just those from highly contaminated areas.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 80 TABLE 5-1

SUMMARY OF RISK CHARACTERIZATION SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY

Benthic Fauna Terrestrial Receptors Aquatic Receptors Contaminant Reptiles and East West Soil Fauna Plants Mammals Birds Mammals Birds Amphibians

Total LPAH T T TT TTW, E E NE Acenaphthene TT TT TTT T NE Acenaphthylene TT TT TTT T NE Anthracene TT TT TTT T NE Fluoranthene TT TT TTT T NE Fluorene TT TT TTT T NE Naphthalene TT TT TTT T NE Phenanthrene TT TT TTT T NE Total HPAH T T TT TT EE NE Benzo(a)pyrene TT TT TTT T NE Benzo(a)anthracene TT TT TTT T NE Benzo(b)fluoranthene TT TT TTT T NE Benzo(k)fluoranthene TT TT TTT T NE Chrysene TT TT TTT T NE Dibenz(a,h)anthracene T E TT TTT T NE Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene TT TT TTT T NE

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 81 TABLE 5-1 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF RISK CHARACTERIZATION SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY

Benthic Fauna Terrestrial Receptors Aquatic Receptors Contaminant Reptiles and East West Soil Fauna Plants Mammals Birds Mammals Birds Amphibians

Total LPAH T T TT TTW, E E NE Pyrene TT TT TTT TNE Notes:

Checkmarks indicate that a screening-level HQ greater than unity (1) was calculated as described in Section 5. E and W reflect exceedances of a HQ of 1 in the Big Creek or Unnamed Tributary sediments, respectively. T indicates that this individual PAH was evaluated for this group of receptors as part of the Total LPAH or Total HPAH groups. NE = receptors that were not evaluated quantitatively.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 82 Data availability is also an important issue for characterizing ecological risk from surface water pathways, as these data have not been collected to date. Due to this data gap, no concentrations were modeled for any direct and indirect water exposures. However, in most cases, this data gap may not be significant due to fate and transport characteristics of the PAHs. The extremely low water solubility of the PAHs, such that HPAHs are not likely to exist in the water column, and LPAHs may be lost from surface waters through biodegradation and volatilization. In addition, most sources on site have been removed or controlled. For higher tropic level receptors (such as the piscivorous herons), small fish might be assumed to accumulate PAHs from the water column; however, the same fish are likely to have PAH-metabolizing enzymes such that exposure via this pathway may not be significant. However, without (1) surface water concentrations (for modeling) or (2) tissue concentrations in small fish from Big Creek or the Unnamed Tributary (to quantitatively assess prey concentrations), the risk from this pathway remains an uncertainty for the piscivorous bird guild, as well as omnivorous receptors in the aquatic food web.

Similarly, the sediment data collected from locations near the Unnamed Tributary is particularly limited (4 analyses), such that confidence in the data set is low. However, where PAHs were detected, their projected ecological risks (at a screening level) were low in relation to those in the Big Creek sediments near Big Creek.

5.2.1.2 Identification of COPCs

This SLERA focused on the PAHs as COPCs. This is particularly appropriate given the available analytical data and site history. Two COPCs (dibenzofuran and carbazole) were not included in the SLERA, primarily due to the lack of toxicity data for these specific COPCs. For example, in the case of dibenzofuran, an upper effects threshold (UET) based on the Hyallella azteca amphipod bioassay could have been used as a sediment benchmark, with appropriate uncertainty factors applied. However, very little mammalian or avian toxicity information has been identified in the literature to adequately evaluate this compound. Similarly, carbazole is frequently present as a component in creosote; however, little toxicity information exists for this specific COPC. Therefore, since the screening-level assessment was designed to give a preliminary estimate of the need for further information, this data gap was considered

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 83 acceptable, but should be revisited if specific analysis of these compounds is required for an accurate baseline risk assessment.

5.2.1.3 Conceptual Model: Endpoint and Receptor Selection

Carnivores (with the exception of the piscivorous bird in the riparian habitat) were not evaluated in the MPTC SLERA, primarily due to the well-documented PAH detoxification mechanisms at work in upper tropic level ecological receptors. However, due to the lack of wildlife-specific data, it is possible that this assumption could underestimate risks if a carnivore that did not have the proper enzyme capability to excrete PAHs was assumed in the conceptual model construction. The likelihood of this possibility, however, is rather remote, given the other conservative assumptions built into the SLERA, such that risks are more likely to be overestimated than underestimated.

5.2.1.4 Data Representativeness

Given that the historical database was comprised mainly of data collected with a biased (skewed high) sampling approach, the data evaluated in the MPTC SLERA are likely to represent a “worst case” concentration, particularly since the maximum data were used as media exposure point concentrations in the exposure assessment. Exposure by ecological receptors is not limited to a specific location; therefore, a more random, unbiased sampling approach is recommended.

5.2.2 Toxicity Assessment

Several guilds lacked guild-specific data, and therefore, the approach to selecting TRVs (Section 3) was broadly grouped by class (Mammalia and Aves) for measurement assessment endpoint receptor species. Although this data gap introduces theoretical uncertainty, very limited data exists for the specific wildlife receptors in the toxicology literature; therefore, this approach is appropriate. No body scaling (weighting toxicity factors based on relative body size of the test animal to that of the measurement endpoint species) was used in the MPTC SLERA, consistent with the approaches taken at other EPA Region 6 sites where ecological risks were assessed (Parametrix 1997; RFW 1997).

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 84 A particular data gap exists for the amphibian and reptilian receptors described in the problem formulation (Section 2) discussion. Although these receptors are present at MPTC, and exposure pathways are likely to be complete, little toxicity information is available to quantitatively evaluate either exposure (as ingestion rates, dietary composition, and other information is lacking) or toxicity (as the available literature focuses primarily on water-column life stages for amphibians) to the omnivorous amphibian/reptilian feeding guild. Based on the current historical database for MPTC, in general, the excess HQ for sediment-dwelling biota may be a gross indicator of a potential for amphibian/reptilian risk. However, this hypothesis cannot be tested without additional media concentration data and exposure information. Therefore, Section 5.3 recommends further evaluation of this guild. No reptilian TRVs were identified, so potential for reptilian risk at the MPTC site remains an uncertainty.

5.2.3 Exposure Assessment

The exposure assessment has several uncertainties that affect interpretation of the significance of the HQs. The main uncertainties include home range assumptions, herbivore exposure, media ingestion rates, estimation of bioconcentration factors, media concentrations with depth, and inhalation and dermal exposure potential.

5.2.3.1 Home Range Assumptions

At the SLERA stage, the dose equation does not directly include a term for home range, as defined spatially. For conservatism, the term accounting for the proportion of plant or animal food item that is contaminated, Pi, was set to unity, thus assuming 100 percent contamination in each food item. In other words, it was assumed that 100 percent of the diet was captured on the MPTC site, and by default, this sets the home range (with respect to dietary exposure) equal to the MPTC site area. This is an appropriate assumption at the SLERA stage, but may be modified in subsequent ecological risk assessment efforts at MPTC, as it could be a potential source of overestimation of risks for those organisms (typically in higher tropic levels) that would not forage exclusively at MPTC.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 85 5.2.3.2 Plant Uptake and Herbivore Exposure

The assessment of risks in soil-to-plant pathways contains some uncertainty, since the COPC concentration in terrestrial plants would be theoretically estimated by summing the plant concentration due to direct deposition, air-to-plant transfer, and root uptake (EPA 1999b). However, at the MPTC site, PAHs in soil and sediment are likely to remain bound to organic matter and are poorly water soluble. As noted in other Region 6 investigations, the physicochemical properties of PAHs result in inefficient uptake via root mechanisms (Parametrix 1997). Because many researchers have not found evidence of PAH translocation in plants, it is most likely that plant uptake is near zero for the PAHs of concern. At MPTC, much of the creosote-affected material has been removed to the consolidation area, such that it is not a significant source of either direct depositional source material or air-to-plant transfer source material. Thus, limitations to PAH solubility and volatility indicate that plant uptake is minimal (Parametrix 1997) with regard to exposures for the ecological receptors at the MPTC site, and no detailed modeling of PAHs through vegetation is included, other than the application of the BCFs calculated

(based on Kow) as applied in Section 4.

However, the potential quantitative over- or underestimation of the ecological risks (to herbivores and omnivores, as well as via tropic level transfer) attributed by these assumptions is unknown. For purposes of the quantitative assessment of soil-to-plant (and sediment-to-rooted aquatic vegetation) uptake, benzo(a)pyrene was used as a surrogate for the HPAHs (introducing the uncertainty associated with surrogate selection), and naphthalene was used as a surrogate for the LPAHs. Therefore, the true risk associated with soil- and sediment-to-plant uptake mechanisms may be over- or under-estimated to an unknown degree.

5.2.3.3 Soil and Sediment Ingestion Rates

To assess direct incidental ingestion exposures to all measurement guilds, some assumption regarding soil intake rates was made. Although the values selected for these ingestion rates are consistent with EPA Region 6 guidance (e.g., EPA 1999b), they are still subject to uncertainty and may over- or under-estimate risks. For example, the sediment ingestion rates for some shorebirds may range from 10-60 percent of the daily dietary volume (EPA 1993); this wide a range of ingestion rates may indicate

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 86 that the point estimate of the belted kingfisher’s sediment ingestion rate, for example, that actual sediment ingestion may be greater (particularly if a higher percentage of sediment biota augments the fish diet) than assumed, or may be less. Similarly, the raccoon’s sediment ingestion rate may vary depending on the dietary composition (i.e., may be greater if crayfish and other sediment-affected prey items are consumed, but lower if less crayfish are eaten), which is uncertain in its own right.

5.2.3.4 Bioconcentration Factor Approach

The use of BCFs (for sediment-to-benthos, sediment-to-plant, and soil-to-plant pathways) is not without uncertainty. This approach and its associated uncertainty is discussed in detail in EPA (1999) but is still appropriate for SLERA given the screening, preliminary nature of the assessment. However, BCFs developed on the premise of a log Kow relationship, by definition, are made to fit a predefined model that may not be appropriate for every soil type or specific benthic species.

The uncertainty associated with the use of BCFs to model food chain accumulation is also discussed in detail in EPA (1999). In the case of the MPTC SLERA, no LPAH BCFs were identified from the general scientific literature; instead, the BCFs for media-to-receptor uptake were modeled on benzo(a)pyrene, which may over- or underestimate the true propensity for concentrations in media (soil or sediment) or plants to be concentrated in herbivores or omnivores. However, the media-to-receptor BCFs used in the MPTC SLERA played a limited role, given that the PAHs are generally assumed to be metabolized and excreted from the upper tropic levels without being passed on in great concentrations to higher-order consumers. Therefore, the contribution of this uncertainty to the risk characterization is considered to be minimal. However, to reduce the uncertainty associated with the overall approach, tissue concentrations could be measured in select receptors to determine appropriate BCFs relevant to the MPTC food webs.

5.2.3.5 Media Concentrations with Depth

Although surface media (soils and sediments) were used to construct the MPTC SLERA database, some uncertainty with regard to the applicability (and definition) of “surface” exists with regard to the exposure assessment. Specifically, most ecological receptors would be exposed only to the top six inches of surface soils and sediments, but in some cases (such as during burrowing, as is common for some of

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 87 the selected measurement endpoint receptors) exposure to deeper depths would be possible. For purposes of the SLERA, all available data from the 0- to 2-foot below ground surface (bgs) interval was included as if it were directly at the surface and available for receptor contact. This assumption may have over- or underestimated true ecological risks at the MPTC site.

5.2.3.6 Inhalation and Dermal Exposures

Because of a general lack of information on inhalation risks and dermal exposures in wildlife, these potential complete pathways to exposure were not quantitatively assessed in the MPTC SLERA. However, essentially all avian receptors would be expected to have little, if any, exposure via these pathways. In some mammalian receptors, inhalation and dermal exposures could be notable (particularly when burrowing activity occurs, such that LPAH vapors could accumulate in confined spaces and dermal loading could occur due to grooming). Both of these scenarios are likely to be insignificant, however.

Inhalation exposures would be minimal due to the relatively non-volatile nature of most PAHs present in creosote. For those LPAHs that are most volatile, the length of time since the original release to the environment is long enough (over 20 years) that volatilization has likely occurred, especially in the top 6 inches of soil and perhaps to 2 ft bgs in some cases. A more likely scenario would be that burrowing mammals (such as the short-tailed shrew) would avoid creosote-contaminated areas due to mothball-like odors that would make the area undesirable for chronic habitat use.

Similarly, dermal grooming activity (where the fur is licked clean) would be expected to be included in incidental soil ingestion estimates where the percent soil in the diet has been estimated, since the source of insoluble ash in the gut contents could have come from incidental ingestion of soiled diet items or from incidental ingestion during grooming. Actual dermal uptake where fur, feathers, or scales covers the receptor body is likely to be minimal in most portions of the site, since normal grooming activity generally would remove any soil- or sediment-borne PAHs shortly after deposition. Thus, the contribution of dermal exposure and inhalation exposures is likely minimal, and therefore its status as a data gap in the SLERA is not believed to be significant.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 88 5.2.4 Uncertainty in Risk Characterization

A conceptual uncertainty exists in the risk characterization stage, since a calculated HQ exceeding unity (i.e., HQ > 1) may indicate that the species of concern may be at risk of an adverse effect from the particular COPC. At the same time, however, conservative assumptions were made such that a HQ exceeding unity may not absolutely indicate that an adverse risk will occur.

5.2.4.1 Risks to the Sediment Community

As discussed in Section 5.1, the initial SLERA screening of maximum sediment concentrations against conservative LELs (as sediment TRVs) is only one indication of whether an effect on the benthic community might be expected. However, many site-specific conditions (including organic carbon content, turbidity characteristics, and community structure) can influence the actual risks to the benthic community. Specifically, higher organic carbon content may indicate a greater PAH binding to sediments, such that they are less bioavailable to the benthic community as well as higher tropic level organisms exposed via incidental ingestion. Therefore, the preliminary HQs presented for the bed sediment community in Appendix E are likely to be overestimates of the risks posed at a site. However, the magnitude of such an overestimate is unknown.

In addition, TRVs for sediments were chosen from multiple sources (tabulated in Table D-1) to avoid leaving data gaps. For most of the PAHs at MPTC, freshwater TRVs were used (specifically, the LELs [Persaud and others 1993] used for the majority of PAHs and the UET of Buchmann 1999); however, where no freshwater benchmark was available, toxicity data that included studies on estuarine sediments were considered (specifically, for benzo[b]fluoranthene, and naphthalene, where the ERL [Ingersoll and others 1996]) and were judged acceptable due to their conservative nature. The database upon which the two PAH TRVs from Ingersoll and others was derived included 62 samples in all, with 11 of the samples being tested in a static H. azteca 28-day test under saline overlying water. Therefore, the sediment TRVs for these two PAHs include some uncertainty, as freshwater sediments may behave differently. The acenaphthene TRV of 150 ug/kg dry weight is also an exception, as it is a marine ERL derived by Long and Morgan (1990): its conservative nature was judged more appropriate than the freshwater benchmarks listed in Table D-1.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 89 Furthermore, although a numeric estimation of the relative risk to the benthic community may indicate an “effect,” the assessment endpoint in this case is “maintenance of the aquatic benthic macroinvertebrate community structure and function” (see Section 2.6.3). Therefore, site-specific diversity surveys may be considered to further test the hypothesis to determine whether any effect is occurring. The time since the release (over a period of approximately 40 years) may indicate that any effects likely to have occurred in the sediment community have already been manifested, such that the concentrations detected in present-day investigations and analyses have become “baseline” and the ecosystem has adapted accordingly. This hypothesis, however, should be explored further in Section 5.3.

5.2.4.2 Risks to the Terrestrial Plant and Invertebrate Community

As with the risk characterization uncertainties associated with the bed sediment community, although comparison to conservative benchmarks may indicate a preliminary risk, these findings should be tested with site-specific assumptions. Specifically, although the TRVs for plant and soil invertebrates were exceeded (using a surrogate approach described in Section 3), site-specific species identification and abundance surveys (in combination with laboratory toxicity tests) may yield additional data to reduce this uncertainty.

5.3 PRELIMINARY SCIENTIFIC AND MANAGEMENT DECISION POINTS (SMDPs)

Following the protocol set forth in the Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (EPA 1997), once the screening-level risk assessment is complete and preliminary estimates of exposure have been summarized in risk calculations, a first set of SMDPs should be compiled for review by site-related decisionmakers to help focus the next steps of the ERA process. Following EPA (1997), the first SMDP determines whether or not further ERA is needed. Since several HQs (on the basis of the maximum detected PAH concentrations) exceeded unity (some by several orders of magnitude), the SLERA results indicate a need for a baseline ERA.

For MPTC, several additional SMDPs were derived on the basis of the SLERA risk characterization, as summarized below.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 90 C Determine whether surface water data collection is necessary, and determine an appropriate number and location of surface water samples to help eliminate the uncertainty associated with all aquatic pathways at MPTC.

C Consider the need for tissue concentration determination in small fish from Big Creek or the Unnamed Tributary to help eliminate uncertainty for the piscivorous bird guild.

C Evaluate the data set strength for the Unnamed Tributary sediments, and determine whether additional sampling is needed or whether the western area poses a negligible risk in comparison to the terrestrial and eastern sediment (near Big Creek) area.

C Assess whether tissue concentrations should be measured in select receptors to accurately determine COPC concentrations in food, and reduce the uncertainty of the COPC doses ingested by the measurement endpoint receptors.

C Plan appropriate site-specific toxicity testing to further test the hypothesis concerning whether benthic invertebrates and early life stages of amphibians are adversely affected by sediments at the site.

C Determine appropriate site-specific laboratory toxicity tests to gain additional data to reduce the uncertainty associated with the protection of soil infauna.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 91 REFERENCES

Albers, P.H. 1983. “Effects of Oil on Avian Reproduction: A Review and Discussion.” The Effects of Oil on Birds: A multidiscipline symposium. Tri-State Bird Rescue and Research, Inc. Wilmington, Delaware. Pages 78 through 96.

Allen, A. W. 1987. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Mallard (Winter Habitat, Lower Mississippi Valley). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report. No. 82(10.132).

Allen, D. L. 1938. “Ecological Studies on the Vertebrate Fauna of a 500-Acre Farm in Kalamazoo County, Michigan.” Ecological Monographs. Volume 8, Pages 347 through 436.

Anulacion, B.F., M.S. Myers, M.L. Willis, and T.K. Collier. 1998. “Quantitation of CYP1A Expression in Two Flatfish Species Showing Different Prevalences of Contaminant-Induced Hepatic Disease.” Marine Environmental Research, Volume 46, Number 1-5, Pages 7 through 11.

Battelle. 1980. “Subchronic Toxicity Study: Naphthalene (C52904), Fischer 344 Rats.” Report to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Toxicology Program, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina by Battelle’s Columbus Laboratories, Columbus Ohio.

Baumann, P.C. 1998. “Epizootics of Cancer in fish Associated with Genotoxins in Sediment and Water.” Mutation Research, Volume 411, Pages 227 through 233.

Bellrose, F. C. 1976. Ducks, Geese, and Swans of North America. The Stackpole Company, Harrisburg, PA, Pages 229 through 243.

Bent, A. C. 1940. Life Histories of North American Cuckoos, Goat Suckers, Hummingbirds, and Their Allies. Smithsonian Institute, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 176. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Bent, A.C. 1946. Life Histories of North American Jays, Crows, and Titmice. Smithsonian Institute, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 191 (Part II). U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., Page 495 (Reprinted by Dover Publishers, Inc., New York, 1964).

Bent, A. C. 1948. Life Histories of North American Nuthatches, Wrens, Thrashers, and Their Allies. Smithsonian Institute, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 195. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Beyer, W.N., E.E. Connor, and S. Gerould. 1994. “Estimates of Soil Ingestion by Wildlife.” Journal of Wildlife Management. Volume 58, Pages 375 through 382.

Bock, F. G. and D. W. King. 1959. “A Study of the Sensitivity of the Mouse Forestomach Toward Certain Polycyclic Hydrocarbons.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Volume 23. Page 833 through 839.

Brewer, R. 1961. “Comparative Notes on the Life History of the Carolina Chickadee.” Wilson Bulletin, Volume 73, Pages 348 through 373.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 92 REFERENCES (Continued)

Brewer, R. 1963. “Ecological and Reproductive Relationships of Black-capped and Carolina Chickadees.” The Auk. Volume 80, Pages 9 through 47.

Brooks, R. P. and Davis, W. J. 1987. “Habitat Selection by Breeding Belted Kingfishers (Ceryle alcyon).” American Midland Naturalist. Volume 117, Pages 63 through 70.

Brown, J. H. and Zeng, Z. 1989. “Comparative population ecology of eleven species of rodents in the Chihuahuan Desert.” Ecology Volume 70, Pages 1507 through 1525.

Brunström, B., D. Broman, and C. Näf. 1991. “Toxicity and EROD-Inducing Potency of 24 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Chick Embryos.” Archives of Toxicology. Volume 65, Pages 485 through 489.

Brune, H., R.P. Deutsch-Wenzel, M. Habs, S. Ivankovic, and D. Schmal. 1981. “Investigation of the Tumorigenic Response to Benzo(a)pyrene in Aqueous Caffeine Solution Applied Orally to Sprague-Dawley Rats.” Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology. Volume 102. Pages 153-157.

Buchman, M.F. 1999. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Screening Quick Reference Tables. NOAA HAZMAT Report 99-1. Seattle, Washington. Coastal Protection and Restoration Division, NOAA.

Buckner, C. H. 1966. “Populations and Ecological Relationships of Shrews in Tamarack Bogs of Southeastern Manitoba.” Journal of Mammalogy. Volume 47, Pages 181 through 194.

Bull, J. and Farrand, J., Jr. 1977. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Birds. Alfred A. Knopf. New York, New York. Page 775.

Burt, W. H. and Grossenheider, R. P. 1980. A Field Guide to the Mammals of North America North of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, Massachusetts.

Cabbage, J., D. Batts, and S. Breidenbach. 1997. Creation and Analysis of Freshwater Sediment Quality Values in Washington State. Sediment Management Unit, Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia. Publication Number 97-323a. July.

Calabrese, E.J., and L.A. Baldwin. 1993. Performing Ecological Risk Assessments. Lewis Publishers. Chelsea, Michigan. 257 pp.

Chura, N. J. 1961. “Food Availability and Preference of Juvenile Mallards.” Transactions of the North American Wildlife Natural Resource Conference. Volume 26. Pages 121 through 134.

Cohen, M. 1992. “The Painted Turtle (Chrysemys Picta).” Tortuga Gazette Volume 28, Number 10, Pages 1 through 3. October 1992.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 93 REFERENCES (Continued)

Cornwell, G. W. 1963. “Observations on the Breeding Biology and Behavior of a Nesting Population of Belted Kingfishers.” Condor Volume 65, Pages 426 through 431.

Cranford, J. A. 1984. “Population Ecology and Home Range Utilizations of Two Subalpine Meadow Rodents (Microtus Longicaudus and Peromyscus Maniculatus).” In: Merrit, J.F., ed. Winter Ecology of Small Mammals, Volume 10. Special Publication of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History. Pages 1 through 380.

Davis, W. J. 1982. “Territory Size in Megaceryle Alcyon along a Stream Habitat.” The Auk Volume 99, Pages 353 through 362.

DeGraaf, Richard M., Virgil E. Scott, R.H. Hamre, Liz Ernst, and Stanley H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and Rangeland Birds of the United States Natural History and Habitat Use. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook 688.

Duebbert, H. F. and Lokemoen, J. T. 1976. “Duck Nesting in Fields of Undisturbed Grass-Legume Cover.” Journal of Wildlife Management Volume 40, Pages 39 through 49.

Eadie, R. W. 1952. “Shrew Predation and Vole Populations on a Localized Area.” Journal of Mammalogy. Volume 33, Pages 185 through 189.

Ecology & Environment, Inc. (E&E). 1997. Site Inspection Report for the Marion Pressure Treating Company, Marion, Union Parish, Louisiana. Prepared for EPA under Contract No. 68-W6- 0013. January.

Ehrlich, P., Dobkin, D., and Wheye, D. 1988. The Birders Handbook: A Field Guide to the Natural History of North American Birds. Simon and Schuster, Inc. New York, New York.

Efroymson, R.A., M. E. Will, and G. W. Suter II. 1997. Toxicological Benchmarksfor Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process: 1997 Revision. Report ES/ER/TM-126/R2. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management. November.

Eisler, R. 1987. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: a Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Laurel, Maryland. U.S. Department of the Interior. Biological Report 85(1.11), Contaminant Hazard Reviews Report No. 11.

Erstfeld, K.M. and J. Snow-Ashbrook. 1999. “Effects of Chronic Low-level PAH Contamination on Soil Invertebrate Communities.” Chemosphere, Volume 39, Number 12, Pages 2117 through 2139.

George, S. B., Choate, J. R., and Genoways, H. H. 1986. Blarina brevicauda. American Society of Mammalogists; Mammalian Species Volume 261.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 94 REFERENCES (Continued)

Gile, J.D., J.C. Collins and J.W. Gillet. 1982. “Fate and Transport of Wood Preservatives in a Terrestrail Microcosm.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Volume 30, Pages 295 through 301.

Greenwood, R. J. 1982. “Nocturnal Activity and Foraging of Prairie Raccoons ( Procyon Lotor) in North Dakota.” American Midland Naturalist. Volume 107, Pages 238 through 243.

Gaugh, G.A., Sauer, J.R., and Iliff, M. 1998. Patuxent Bird Identification Infocenter. Version 97.1. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Available on the Internet at http://www.mbr- pwrc.usgs.gov/Infocenter/Infocenter.html.

Goodman, D. C., and Fisher, H. I. 1962. Functional Anatomy of the Feeding Apparatus in Waterfowl. Aves: Anatidae. Southern Illinois University Press. Carbondale, Illinois.

Griscom, L., and Sprunt, A., Jr. 1979. The Warblers of America. Doubleday and Co. Garden City, New York. Page 302.

Haddow, A., C. M. Scott, and J. D. Scott. 1937. “The Influence of Certain Carcinogenic and Other Hydrocarbons on Body Growth in the Rat.” Proceeding Royal Society of London. Series B. Volume 122. Pages 477 through 507.

Hamas, M. J. 1974. “Human Incursion and Nesting Sites of the Belted Kingfisher.” The Auk Volume 91, Pages 835 through 836.

Hamilton, W. J., Jr. 1931. “Habits of the Short-tailed Shrew, Blarina Brevicauda.” Ohio Journal of Science. Volume 31, Pages 97 through 106.

Hamilton, W. J., Jr. 1941. “The Foods of Small Forest Mammals in Eastern United States.” Journal of Mammalogy. Volume 22, Pages 250 through 263.

Harrison, H.H. 1975. A Field Guide to Birds' Nests in the United States East of the Mississippi River. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, Massachusetts. Page 257.

Heitmeyer, M. E. 1985. Wintering Strategies of Female Mallards Related to Dynamics of Lowland Hardwood Wetlands in the Upper Mississippi Delta [Ph.d. Dissertation]. University of Missouri. Columbia, Missouri.

Heitmeyer, M. E. 1988. “Protein Costs of the Prebasic Molt of Female Mallards.” Condor Volume 90, Pages 263 through 266.

Heitmeyer, M. E. and Vohs, P. A. 1984. “Distribution and Habitat Use of Waterfowl Wintering in Oklahoma.” Journal of Wildlife Management. Volume 48, Pages 51 through 62.

Hoffman, D.J., and M.L. Gay. 1981. “Embryotoxic Effects of Benzo(a)pyrene, Chrysene, and 7,12- Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene in Petroleum Hydrocarbon Mixtures in Mallard Ducks.” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. Volume 7, Pages 775 through 787.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 95 REFERENCES (Continued)

Hulzebos, E.M., D.M.M. Adema, E.M. Dirven-van Breemen, L. Henzen, W.A. van Dis, H.A. Herbold, J.A. Hoekstra, R. Baerselman, and C.A.M. van Gestel. 1993. “Phytotoxicity Studies with Latuca sativa in soil and nutrient solution.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 12, Pages 1079 through 1094.

Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The Ecology of Running Waters. University of Toronto Press. Toronto, Ontario. Pages 1 through 555.

Ingersoll, C.G. and others. 1996. "Calculation and Evaluation of Sediment Effect Concentrations for the Amphipod Hyalella azteca and the Midge Chironomus riparus." Journal of Great Lakes Research. Volume 22, Number 3. Pages 602 through 623.

Jameson, E. W., Jr. 1943. “Notes on the Habits and Siphanapterous Parasites of the Mammals of Welland County, Ontario.” Journal of Mammalogy. Volume 24, Pages 194 through 197.

Johnsgard, P.A. 1979. Birds of the Great Plains. University of Nebraska Press. Lincoln, Nebraska. Page 539.

Johnson, D. R. 1961. “The Food Habits of Rodents in Range Lands of Southern Idaho.” Ecology. Volume 42, Pages 407 through 410.

Jorde, D. G., Krapu, G. L., and Crawford, R. D. 1983. “Feeding Ecology of Mallards Wintering in Nebraska.” Journal of Wildlife Management. Volume 47, Pages 1044 through 1053.

Kaag, N.H., E.M. Foekema and M.C. Scholten. 1998. “Ecotoxicity of Contaminated Sediments, a Matter of Bioavailability.” Water Science and Technology. Volume 37, Number 6-7. Pages 225 through 31.

Kale, H. W., II. 1965. “Ecology and Bioenergetics of the Long-billed Marsh Wren Telmatoidytes Palustris Griseus (Brewster) in Georgia Salt Marshes.” Publication of the Nuttall Ornithology Club. No. 5.

Karrow, N.A., H.J. Boermans, D.G. Dixon, A. Hontella, K.R. Soloman, J.J. Whyte and N.C. Bols. 1999. “Characterizing the Immunotoxicity of Cresote to Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus Mykiss): A Microcosm Study.” Aquatic Toxicology. Volume 45, Pages 223 through 239.

Kaufmann, J. H. 1982. Raccoon and Allies. In: Chapman, J. A. and Feldhamer, G. A., eds. Wild Mammals of North America. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, Maryland, Pages 567 through 585.

Klaassen, C.D., Amdur, M.O., and J. Doull. 1986. Casarett and Doull’s Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons. Third Edition. Macmillan Publishing Company. New York, New York.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 96 REFERENCES (Continued)

LeGraverend, C., Guenthner, T., and Nebert, D. 1984. “Importance of the Route of Administration for Genetic Differences in Benzo(a)pyrene-induced in Utero Toxicity and Teratogenicity.” Laboratory of Developmental Pharmacology, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institute of Health. Teratology. Volume 29, Pages 35 through 47. Bethesda, Maryland.

Livingston, D.R. 1998. “The Fate of Organic Xenobiotics in Aquatic Ecosystems: Quantitative and Qualitative Differences in Biotransformation by Invertebrates and Fish.” Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A, Volume 120, Pages 43 through 49.

Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, and F.D. Calder. 1995. “Incidence of Adverse Biological Effects Within Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine Sediments.” Environmental Management. Volume 19, Pages 81 through 97.

Long, E.R. and L.G. Morgan. 1990. “The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program.” NOAA Technical Memorandum. NOS OMA 52. U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA.

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). 1999. Expanded Site Investigation Sampling Episode. Memorandum from Mr. Ronny Matt, Office of Environmental Assessment. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. May 25.

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). 1987. The Natural Communities of Coastal Louisiana: Classification and Description. Prepared for the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources Coastal Management Division. March.

LDWF. 1993. Atlas of the Vascular Flora of Louisiana. Volume I: Ferns & Fern Allies, Conifers & Monocotyledons. Natural Heritage Program. December.

LDWF. 1999. Letter from Mr. Gary Lester, Natural Heritage Program, to Alma Rillera Canning, Ecology and Environment, Inc. July 26.

LDWF. 2000a. Review of the Natural Heritage Program Database for Information on Known Sensitive Elements near Marion, Louisiana. March 10.

LDWF. 2000b. Species Listed as Endangered and Threatened in Louisiana. Accessed on March 3, 2000. Internet address: http://www.wlf.state.la

Mackenzie, K., and Angevine, D.M. 1981. “Infertility in Mice Exposed in Utero to Benzo(a)pyrene.” Raltech Scientific Services. Biology of Reproduction. Volume 24, Pages 183 through 191. Madison, Wisconsin.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 97 REFERENCES (Continued)

MacMillen, R. E., and Garland, T. J. 1989. “Adaptive Physiology.” In: Kirkland, G. L. and Lane, J. N., eds. Advances in the Study of Peromyscus (Rodentia). Texas Tech University Press. Lubbock, Texas.

Marinelli, L. and Millar, J. S. 1989. “The Ecology of Beach-dwelling Peromyscus maniculatus on the Pacific Coast.” Canadian Journal of Zoology. Volume 67. Pages 412 through 417.

Menhusen, B. R. 1963. “An Investigation on the Food Habits of Four Species of Rodents in Captivity.” Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science. Volume 66. Pages 107 through 112.

Miller, H. and Getz, L. L. 1977. “Factors Influencing Local Distribution and Species Diversity of Forest Small Mammals in New England.” Canadian Journal of Zoology. Volume 55, Pages 806 through 814.

Mitchell, R.L., M.D. Burchett, A. Pulkownik, and L. McCluskey. 1988. “Effects of Environmentally Hazardous Chemicals on the Emergence and Early Growth of Selected Australian plants.” Plant Soil Science. Volume 112. Pages 195 through 1999.

Navarro, H.A., C.J. Price, M.C. Marr, C.B. Myers, J.J. Heindel, and B.A. Schwetz. 1991. “Developmental Toxicity Evaluation of Naphthalene (CAS NO. 91-20-3) Administered by Gavage To Sprague-Dawley (CD) Rats on Gestation Days 6 through 15.” Chemistry and Life Sciences, Research Triangle Institute. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. RTI Master Protocol number: RTI-376. December 5, 1991.

Neal, J. and R.H. Rigdon. 1967. “Gastric Tumors in Mice Fed Benzo(a)pyrene: A Quantitative Study.” Texas Reports on Biology and Medicine. Volume 25, Number 4. Pages 553-557.

Neuhauser, E.F. and C.A. Callahan. 1990. "Growth and Reproduction of the Earthworm Eisenia fetida Exposed to Sublethal Concentrations of Organic Chemicals." Soil Biology and Biochemistry. Volume 22. Pages 175 through 179.

Neuhauser, E.F., P.R. Durkin, M.R. Malecki, and M. Anatra. 1986. "Comparative toxicity of ten organic chemicals to four earthworm species." Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Volume 83C, Number 1, Pages 197 through 200.

Nezda, M., T. Herbst, C. Kussatz and A. Gies. 1997. “Potential for Secondary Poisoning and Biomagnification in Marine Organisms.” Chemosphere, Volume 35, Number 9, Pages 1875 through 1885.

Nicolas, J.M. 1998. “Vitellogenesis in Fish and the Effects of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Contaminants.” Aquatic Toxicology, Volume 45, Pages 77 through 90.

O’Connor, J.M., R.L. Chaney and J.A. Ryan. 1991. “Bioavailability to Plants of Sludge-borne Toxic Organics.” Reviews in Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Volume 12, Pages 129 through 155.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 98 REFERENCES (Continued)

Palmer, E. L. and Fowler, H. S. 1975. Fieldbook of Natural History. McGraw-Hill Book Co. New York, New York.

Parametrix, Inc. 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Problem Formulation for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Lavaca Bay/Point Comfort Superfund Site. Prepared for Aluminum Company of America. January.

Patton, J.F., and Dieter, M.F. 1980. “Effects of Petroleum Hydrocarbons on hepatic Function in the Duck.” Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology. Volume 65. Pages 33 through 36.

Pearson, O. P. 1942. “The Cause and Nature of a Poisonous Action Produced by the Bite of a Shrew (Blarina Brevicauda).” Journal of Mammalogy. Volume 23, Pages 159 through 166.

Persaud, D, R. Jaagumagi, and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment in Ontario. Water Resources Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Toronto. Log 92-2309-067. March.

Pitts, D. 1976. Fall and winter roosting habits of Carolina chickadees. Wilson Bulletin. Volume 88, Pages 603 through 610.

Plasterer, M.R., W.S. Bradshaw, G.M. Booth, M.W. Carter, R.L. Schuler, and B.D. Hardin. 1985. “Developmental Toxicity of Nine Selected Compounds Following Prenatal Exposure in Mouse: Naphthalene, p-Nitrophenol, Sodium Selenite, Dimethyl Phthalate, Ethylenethiourea, and Four Glycol Ether Derivatives.” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. Volume 15, Pages 25 through 38.

Platt, W. J. and Blakeley, N. R. 1973. “Short-term Effects of Shrew Predation upon Invertebrate Prey Sets in Prairie Ecosystems.” Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science. Volume 80, Pages 60 through 66.

Prose, B. L. 1985. “Habitat Suitability Index Models: Belted Kingfisher.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report No. 82(10.87).

Puget Sound Estruary Program (PSEP). 1988. Sediment Quality Values Refinement, Volume I: Update and Evaluation of Puget Sound AET. Prepared for the U.S. EPA Region 10 by PTI Environmental Services, Inc.

Roy F. Weston, Inc. (RFW). 1997. “Draft Final Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Screening Risk Assessment for Madisonville Creosote Works, Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.” March.

Rigdon, R.H. and J. Neal. 1965. “Effects of Feeding Benzo(a)pyrene on Fertility, Embryos, and Young Mice.” The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Volume 34, Number 2, Pages 297 through 305.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 99 REFERENCES (Continued)

Rigdon, R.H. and J. Neal. 1969. “Relationship of Leukemia to Lung and Stomach Tumors in Mice Fed Benzo(a)pyrene.” Proceedings of the Society of Biological Medicine. Volume 130. Pages 146 through 148.

Rigdon, R.H. and Rennels, E.G. 1964. “Effect of Feeding Benzo(a)pyrene on Reproduction in the Rat.” Experientia. Volume 20, Pages 224 through 226.

Robinson, D. E. and Brodie, E. D. 1982. “Food Hoarding Behavior in the Short-tailed Shrew, Blarina Brevicauda.” American Midland Naturalist. Volume 108, Pages 369 through 375.

Saint-Denis, M., J.F. Narbonne, C. Arnaud, E. Thybaud and D. Ribera. 1999. “Biochemical Responses of the Earthworm Eisenia Fetida Andrei Exposed to Contaminated Artificial Soil: Effects of Benzo(a)pyrene.” Soil Biology and Biochemistry, Volume 31, Pages 1837 through 1846.

Salyer, J. C. and Lagler, K. F. 1946. “The Eastern Belted Kingfisher, Megaceryle Alcyon Alcyon (Linnaeus), in Relation to Fish Management.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Volume 76, Pages 97 through 117.

Sample, B.E., Opresko, D.M., and G.W. Suter II. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management under budget and reporting code EW 20. June. ES/ER/TM-86/R3

Sanderson, G. C. 1987. “Raccoon.” In: Novak, M.; Baker, J. A.; Obbarel, M. E.; and others, eds.Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation. University of Pittsburgh Press; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Pages 487 through 499.

Schmahl, D. 1955. “Examination of the Carcinogenic Action of Naphthalene and Anthracene in Rats.” Z. Krebsforsch. Volume 60, Pages 697 through 710.

Sheedy, B.R., V.R. Mattson, J.S. Cox, P.A. Kosian, G.L. Phipps and G.T. Ankley. 1998. “Bioconcentration of Polycyclic Aromatcic Hydrocarbons by the Freshwater Oligochaete Lumbriculus Variegatus.” Chemosphere. Volume 36, Number 15, Pages 3061 through 3070.

Shopp, G.M., K.L. White, Jr., M.P. Holsapple, D.W. Barnes, S.S. Duke, A.C. Anderson, L.W. Condie, Jr., J.R. Hayes, and J.F. Borzelleca. 1984. “Naphthalene Toxicity in CD-1 Mice: General Toxicology and Immunotoxicology.” Fundamental and Applied Toxicology. Volume 4. Pages 406-419.

Sims, R.C., and M.R. Overcash. 1983. “Fate of Polynuclear Aromatic Compounds in Soil Plant Systems.” Residue Review. Volume 88, Pages 1 through 68.

Stubblefield, W.A., G.A. Hancock, W.H. Ford, and R.K. Ringer. 1995a. “Acute and Subchronic Toxicity of Naturally Weathered Exxon Valdez Crude Oil on Mallard Reproduction.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 14, Number 11, Pages 1941 through 1950.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 100 REFERENCES (Continued)

Stubblefield, W.A., G.A. Hancock, W.H. Ford, and R.K. Ringer. 1995b. “Acute and Subchronic Toxicity of Naturally Weathered Exxon Valdez Crude Oil on Mallards and Ferrets.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 14, Number 11, Pages 1951 through 1960.

Stuewer, F. W. 1943. Raccoons: Their Habits and Management in Michigan. Ecological Monograph. Volume 13, Pages 203 through 257.

Suter, G.W. 1990. “Endpoints for Regional Risk Assessments.” Environmental Management. Volume 14, Pages 10 through 23.

Suter, G.W. 1997. A Framework for Assessing Ecological Risks of Petroleum-Derived Materials in Soil. U.S. Department of Energy. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Environmental Sciences Division. Publication No. 4666. ORNL/TM-13408. Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Swanson, G. A. and Meyer, M. I. 1973. “The Role of Invertebrates in the Feeding Ecology of Anatinae During the Breeding Season.” In: The Waterfowl Habitat Management Symposium at Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada; July 30 - August 1, 1973; The Atlantic Waterfowl Council. Pages 143 through 180.

Swanson, G. A., Meyer, M. I., and Adomaitis, V.A. 1985. “Foods Consumed by Breeding Mallards on Wetlands of South-central North Dakota.” Journal of Wildlife Management. Volume 49, Pages 197 through 203.

Swanson, G. A., Krapu, G. L., and Serie, J. R. 1979. “Foods of Laying Female Dabbling Ducks on the Breeding Grounds.” In: Bookhout, T. A., ed. Waterfowl and Wetlands—An Integrated Review: Proceedings of 1977 Symposium. The Wildlife Society, NC Sect. Madison, Wisconsin. Pages 47 through 57.

Taitt, M. J. 1981. “The Effect of Extra Food on Small Rodent Populations: Deer Mice (Peromyscus Maniculatus).” Journal of Animal Ecology. Volume 50, Pages 111 through 124.

Tetra Tech. 2000a. Notes of meeting held by EPA, USGS, USFWS, NOAA, and Tetra Tech. April 11.

Tetra Tech. 2000b. Quality Assurance Project Plan, Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study for Marion Pressure Treating Company, Marion, Union Parish, Louisiana. Prepared under Contract Number 68-W6-0037. July.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC). 2000. TNRCC Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance. Austin, Texas. Draft Final. June 6.

Thompson, B., B. Anderson, J. Hunt, K. Taberski and B. Phillips. 1999. Relationships Between Sediment Contamination and Toxicity in San Francisco Bay. Marine Environmental Research, Volume 48, Pages 285 through 309.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 101 REFERENCES (Continued)

Travis, C.C. and A.D. Arms. 1988. “Bioconcentration of Organics in Beef, Milk, and Vegetation.” Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 22. Pages 271 through 274.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1988. Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual. EPA/540/11-88/001.

EPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Vol. II Environmental Evaluation Manual. Interim Final. EPA/540/1-89/001.

EPA. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. Accessed on May 12, 2000. On-Line Address: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/wefh.htm

EPA. 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, D.C. EPA 543-R-97-006. Interim Final. June.

EPA. 1999a. Issuance of Final Guidance: Ecological Risk Assessment and Risk Management Principles for Superfund Sites. Memorandum from Stephen Luftig, Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. To Superfund National Policy Managers, Regions 1- 10. October 7.

EPA. 1999b. Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Volume One. Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C. EPA 530-D-99-001A. Peer Review Draft. August.

EPA. 1999c. Statement of Work for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Marion Pressure Treating Company (MPTC), Marion, Union Parish, Louisiana. November 15.

EPA. 2000. Integrated Risk Information System, Anthracene. Accessed on May 12, 2000. On-Line Address: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0434.htm

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. 1991 Status of Waterfowl & Fall Flight Forecast. Laurel, MD: U.S. Fish Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management.

USFWS. 1999. Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Appendix B—Flora and Fauna Lists for Pond Creek National Wildlife Refuge. December 7. van Straallen, N. M., and R. A. Verweij. 1991. “Effects of Benzo( a) pyrene on Food Assimilation and Growth Efficiency in Porcellio scaber (Isopoda).” Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 46. Pages 134- 140.

Verner, J. 1965. “Breeding Biology of the Long-Billed Marsh Wren.” Condor Volume 67, Pages 6 through 30.

Verner, J. and Engelsen, G. H. 1970. “Territories, Multiple Nest Building, and Polygamy in the Long- billed Marsh Wren.” The Auk Volume 87, Pages 557 through 567.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 102 REFERENCES (Continued)

Washington State Department of Ecology. 1994. Creation of Freshwater Sediment Quality Database and Preliminary Analysis of Freshwater Apparent Effects Thresholds. June.

Welter, W. A. 1935. “The Natural History of the Long-Billed Marsh Wren.” Wilson Bull. Volume 47, Pages 3 through 34.

Whitaker, J. O., Jr. 1966. “Food of Mus Musculus, Peromyscus Maniculatus Bairdi, and Peromyscus Leucopus in Vigo County, Indiana.” Journal of Mammalogy. Volume 47, Pages 473 through 486.

Whitaker, J. O., Jr. and Ferraro, M. G. 1963. “Summer Food of 220 Short-Tailed Shrews from Ithaca, New York.” Journal of Mammalogy. Volume 44, Page 419.

Will, M.E., and G.W. Suter. 1995a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Processes. 1995 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Environmental Restoration Program. Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Will, M.E., and G.W. Suter. 1995b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Environmental Restoration Program. Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

White, H. C. 1937. “Local Feeding of Kingfishers and Mergansers.” Journal of the Biological. Board Canada.Volume 3, Pages 323-338.

White, H. C. 1953. “The Eastern Belted Kingfisher in the Maritime Provinces.” Fisheries Resource Board Canada Bulletin. 97.

Wolff, J. O. 1985. “The Effects of Density, Food, and Interspecific Interference on Home Range Size in Peromyscus Leucopus and Peromyscus Maniculatus.” Canadian Journal of Zoology. Volume 63, Pages 2657 through 2662.

Wolff, J. O. 1986. “The Effects of Food on Midsummer Demography of White-Footed Mice, Peromyscus Leucopus.” Canadian Journal of Zoology. Volume 64, Pages 855 through 858.

Wolff, J. O. 1989. “Social Behavior.” In: Kirkland, G. L. and Lane, J. N., eds. Advances in the study of Peromyscus (Rodentia). Texas Tech. University Press; Lubbock, Texas. Pages 271 through 291.

Wolff, J. O. and Durr, D. S. 1986. “Winter Nesting Behavior of Peromyscus Leucopus and Peromyscus Maniculatus.” Journal of Mammalogy. Volume 67, Pages 409 through 412.

Wolff, J. O., Freeberg, H., and Dueser, R. D. 1983. “Interspecific Territoriality in Two Sympatric Species of Peromyscus (Rodentia: Cricetidae).” Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. Volume 12, Pages 237 through 242.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 103 REFERENCES (Continued)

Wolff, J. O. and Hurlbutt, B. 1982. “Day refuges of Peromyscus leucopus and Peromyscus maniculatus.” Journal of Mammalogy. Volume 63, Pages 666 through 668.

Yuan, Z., Honey, S. Kumar and H.C. Sikka. 1999. “Comparative Metabolism of Dibenzo[a, L]pyrene by Liver Microsomes from Rainbow Trout and Rats.” Aquatic Toxicology. Volume 45, Pages 1 through 8.

S:\Government\G00DA\1931\Plans (pdf)\SLERA\SLERA Report\Final_SLERA.wpd 104

APPENDIX C

SOIL AND SEDIMENT DATA

TABLE

C-1 Surface Soil Data used in the Terrestrial Food Web

C-2 Big Creek (Eastern Exposure Area) Sediments

C-3 Unnamed Tributary (Western Exposure Area) Sediments TABLE C-1

SURFACE SOIL DATA USED IN THE TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEB

(20 PAGES) TABLE C-1

SURFACE SOIL DATA USED IN THE TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEB MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Analyte Total LPAH Concentration or HPAH Sample ID Analyte (mg/kg) Qualifier (mg/kg) MP11-0.5 Benzo(a)anthracene 6 J MP11-0.5 Benzo(a)pyrene 2.8 J MP11-0.5 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 8.3 J MP11-0.5 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 7.2 J MP11-0.5 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 5.5 U MP11-0.5 Chrysene 10 J MP11-0.5 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 11 U MP11-0.5 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 11 U MP11-0.5 Pyrene 14 64.8000 MP12-0.5 Benzo(a)anthracene 3.9 MP12-0.5 Benzo(a)pyrene 2.9 MP12-0.5 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7.4 MP12-0.5 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 3.2 MP12-0.5 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 1.4 MP12-0.5 Chrysene 6.2 MP12-0.5 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.67 U MP12-0.5 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 1.7 MP12-0.5 Pyrene 4.9 31.9350 MP13-0.5 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.85 MP13-0.5 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.39 MP13-0.5 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.4 MP13-0.5 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.9 MP13-0.5 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.22 J MP13-0.5 Chrysene 1.6 MP13-0.5 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.37 U MP13-0.5 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.39 MP13-0.5 Pyrene 1.7 7.6350 MP14-0.5 Benzo(a)anthracene 3.9 MP14-0.5 Benzo(a)pyrene 2.1 MP14-0.5 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7 MP14-0.5 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2.4 MP14-0.5 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.75 MP14-0.5 Chrysene 7.5 MP14-0.5 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.73 U MP14-0.5 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 1.5 MP14-0.5 Pyrene 9.7 35.2150

1 TABLE C-1

SURFACE SOIL DATA USED IN THE TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEB MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Analyte Total LPAH Concentration or HPAH Sample ID Analyte (mg/kg) Qualifier (mg/kg) MP19-0.5 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.36 U MP19-0.5 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.36 U MP19-0.5 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.052 J MP19-0.5 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.052 J MP19-0.5 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.36 U MP19-0.5 Chrysene 0.36 U MP19-0.5 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.36 U MP19-0.5 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.36 U MP19-0.5 Pyrene 0.36 U 1.3640 MP2-0.5 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.35 U MP2-0.5 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.35 U MP2-0.5 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.35 U MP2-0.5 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.35 U MP2-0.5 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.35 U MP2-0.5 Chrysene 0.35 U MP2-0.5 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.35 U MP2-0.5 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.35 U MP2-0.5 Pyrene 0.15 J 1.5500 MP21-0.5 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.35 U MP21-0.5 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.35 U MP21-0.5 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.35 U MP21-0.5 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.35 U MP21-0.5 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.35 U MP21-0.5 Chrysene 0.35 U MP21-0.5 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.35 U MP21-0.5 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.35 U MP21-0.5 Pyrene 0.35 U 1.5750 MP23-0.5 Benzo(a)anthracene 130 MP23-0.5 Benzo(a)pyrene 37 J MP23-0.5 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 61 J MP23-0.5 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 78 J MP23-0.5 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 100 U MP23-0.5 Chrysene 190 MP23-0.5 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 100 U MP23-0.5 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 100 U MP23-0.5 Pyrene 810 1456.0000

2 TABLE C-1

SURFACE SOIL DATA USED IN THE TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEB MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Analyte Total LPAH Concentration or HPAH Sample ID Analyte (mg/kg) Qualifier (mg/kg) MP27-0.5 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.54 J MP27-0.5 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.82 MP27-0.5 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4.1 MP27-0.5 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.8 MP27-0.5 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.64 J MP27-0.5 Chrysene 1.9 MP27-0.5 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.67 U MP27-0.5 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 1.4 MP27-0.5 Pyrene 0.81 12.3450 MP3-0.5 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.38 U MP3-0.5 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.38 U MP3-0.5 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.38 U MP3-0.5 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.38 U MP3-0.5 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.38 U MP3-0.5 Chrysene 0.38 U MP3-0.5 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.38 U MP3-0.5 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.38 U MP3-0.5 Pyrene 0.38 U 1.7100 MP35-0.5 Benzo(a)anthracene 5.9 MP35-0.5 Benzo(a)pyrene 6 MP35-0.5 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 27 MP35-0.5 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 12 MP35-0.5 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 3.5 J MP35-0.5 Chrysene 14 MP35-0.5 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 3.5 U MP35-0.5 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 6 MP35-0.5 Pyrene 17 93.1500 MP36-0.5 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.13 J MP36-0.5 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.12 J MP36-0.5 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.85 MP36-0.5 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.37 J MP36-0.5 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.32 J MP36-0.5 Chrysene 0.35 J MP36-0.5 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.45 U MP36-0.5 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.29 J MP36-0.5 Pyrene 0.26 J 2.9150

3 TABLE C-1

SURFACE SOIL DATA USED IN THE TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEB MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Analyte Total LPAH Concentration or HPAH Sample ID Analyte (mg/kg) Qualifier (mg/kg) MP39-0.5 Benzo(a)anthracene 3.9 MP39-0.5 Benzo(a)pyrene 3.3 MP39-0.5 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 10 MP39-0.5 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2.7 MP39-0.5 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.82 MP39-0.5 Chrysene 7.8 MP39-0.5 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.68 U MP39-0.5 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 1.9 MP39-0.5 Pyrene 4.5 35.2600 MP4-0.5 Benzo(a)anthracene 1.4 J MP4-0.5 Benzo(a)pyrene 2.1 MP4-0.5 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 13 MP4-0.5 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 5.3 MP4-0.5 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 1.8 J MP4-0.5 Chrysene 4.1 MP4-0.5 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 2.1 U MP4-0.5 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 2.1 U MP4-0.5 Pyrene 44 73.8000 MP5-0.5 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.88 MP5-0.5 Benzo(a)pyrene 1.3 MP5-0.5 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4.2 MP5-0.5 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2 MP5-0.5 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 1.4 MP5-0.5 Chrysene 2.3 MP5-0.5 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.68 U MP5-0.5 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 1.8 MP5-0.5 Pyrene 2.9 17.1200 MP7-0.5 Benzo(a)anthracene 6.3 MP7-0.5 Benzo(a)pyrene 5.7 MP7-0.5 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 17 MP7-0.5 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 5.8 MP7-0.5 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 2.3 MP7-0.5 Chrysene 15 MP7-0.5 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.8 U MP7-0.5 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 3.5 MP7-0.5 Pyrene 12 68.5000

4 TABLE C-1

SURFACE SOIL DATA USED IN THE TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEB MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Analyte Total LPAH Concentration or HPAH Sample ID Analyte (mg/kg) Qualifier (mg/kg) MP99-SS-13 (FGL 26) Benzo(a)anthracene 580 MP99-SS-13 (FGL 26) Benzo(a)pyrene 440 MP99-SS-13 (FGL 26) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 860 MP99-SS-13 (FGL 26) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 670 MP99-SS-13 (FGL 26) Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 57 LJ MP99-SS-13 (FGL 26) Chrysene 830 MP99-SS-13 (FGL 26) Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 35 LJ MP99-SS-13 (FGL 26) Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 100 LJ MP99-SS-13 (FGL 26) Pyrene 2500 4822.0000 MP99-SS-14 (FGL 14) Benz[g,h,I]perlyene 40 JK MP99-SS-14 (FGL 14) Benzo(a)anthracene 620 MP99-SS-14 (FGL 14) Benzo(a)pyrene 390 MP99-SS-14 (FGL 14) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 470 MP99-SS-14 (FGL 14) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 340 MP99-SS-14 (FGL 14) Chrysene 510 MP99-SS-14 (FGL 14) Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 20 JK MP99-SS-14 (FGL 14) Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 75 J MP99-SS-14 (FGL 14) Pyrene 950 3415.0000 MQ10-P1 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.652 U MQ10-P1 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.652 U MQ10-P1 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.652 U MQ10-P1 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.652 U MQ10-P1 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.652 U MQ10-P1 Chrysene 0.652 U MQ10-P1 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.652 U MQ10-P1 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.652 U MQ10-P1 Pyrene 0.652 U 2.9340 MQ11-P2-D05 Benzo(a)anthracene 13.101 MQ11-P2-D05 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.65 U MQ11-P2-D05 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 14.748 MQ11-P2-D05 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 19.385 MQ11-P2-D05 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.65 U MQ11-P2-D05 Chrysene 14.362 MQ11-P2-D05 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.65 U MQ11-P2-D05 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.65 U MQ11-P2-D05 Pyrene 0.65 U 63.2210

5 TABLE C-1

SURFACE SOIL DATA USED IN THE TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEB MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Analyte Total LPAH Concentration or HPAH Sample ID Analyte (mg/kg) Qualifier (mg/kg) MQ15-P1 Benzo(a)anthracene 348 MQ15-P1 Benzo(a)pyrene 548.7 MQ15-P1 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 834.5 MQ15-P1 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 697.4 MQ15-P1 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 202.618 MQ15-P1 Chrysene 1079.8 MQ15-P1 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 48.5 MQ15-P1 Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 153.025 MQ15-P1 Pyrene 2014.2 5926.7430 MQ16-P2-D05 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.654 U MQ16-P2-D05 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.654 U MQ16-P2-D05 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.654 U MQ16-P2-D05 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.654 U MQ16-P2-D05 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.654 U MQ16-P2-D05 Chrysene 0.654 U MQ16-P2-D05 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.654 U MQ16-P2-D05 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.654 U MQ16-P2-D05 Pyrene 0.654 U 2.9430 MQ18-P2 D10 Benzo(a)anthracene 1.865 MQ18-P2 D10 Benzo(a)pyrene 1.739 MQ18-P2 D10 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2.045 MQ18-P2 D10 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.717 MQ18-P2 D10 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 1.17 MQ18-P2 D10 Chrysene 3.056 MQ18-P2 D10 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.658 U MQ18-P2 D10 Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 1.041 MQ18-P2 D10 Pyrene 13.298 26.2600 MQ19-P2-D05 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.717 U MQ19-P2-D05 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.717 U MQ19-P2-D05 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.526 MQ19-P2-D05 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.581 MQ19-P2-D05 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.717 U MQ19-P2-D05 Chrysene 0.717 U MQ19-P2-D05 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.717 U MQ19-P2-D05 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.717 U MQ19-P2-D05 Pyrene 0.717 U 5.6165

6 TABLE C-1

SURFACE SOIL DATA USED IN THE TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEB MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Analyte Total LPAH Concentration or HPAH Sample ID Analyte (mg/kg) Qualifier (mg/kg) MQ1-P1 Benzo(a)anthracene 23.3 MQ1-P1 Benzo(a)pyrene 6.567 U MQ1-P1 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 34.9 MQ1-P1 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 34.4 MQ1-P1 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 6.567 U MQ1-P1 Chrysene 25.6 MQ1-P1 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 6.567 U MQ1-P1 Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 6.567 U MQ1-P1 Pyrene 6.567 U 134.6175 MQ1-P2-D10 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.617 U MQ1-P2-D10 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.617 U MQ1-P2-D10 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.617 U MQ1-P2-D10 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.617 U MQ1-P2-D10 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.617 U MQ1-P2-D10 Chrysene 0.617 U MQ1-P2-D10 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.617 U MQ1-P2-D10 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.617 U MQ1-P2-D10 Pyrene 0.617 U 2.7765 MQ20-P2 DO5 Benzo(a)anthracene 3.7 MQ20-P2 DO5 Benzo(a)pyrene 3.1 MQ20-P2 DO5 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 8.3 MQ20-P2 DO5 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2.1 MQ20-P2 DO5 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.849 MQ20-P2 DO5 Chrysene 8.4 MQ20-P2 DO5 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.647 U MQ20-P2 DO5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 0.727 MQ20-P2 DO5 Pyrene 3.7 31.1995 MQ21-P2 DO5 Benzo(a)anthracene 1.2 MQ21-P2 DO5 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.619 U MQ21-P2 DO5 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.996 MQ21-P2 DO5 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.862 MQ21-P2 DO5 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.619 U MQ21-P2 DO5 Chrysene 1.241 MQ21-P2 DO5 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.619 U MQ21-P2 DO5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 0.619 U MQ21-P2 DO5 Pyrene 0.619 U 5.8465

7 TABLE C-1

SURFACE SOIL DATA USED IN THE TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEB MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Analyte Total LPAH Concentration or HPAH Sample ID Analyte (mg/kg) Qualifier (mg/kg) MQ22-P1 Benzo(a)anthracene 1.218 MQ22-P1 Benzo(a)pyrene 2.113 MQ22-P1 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.505 MQ22-P1 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.344 MQ22-P1 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.713 U MQ22-P1 Chrysene 2.667 MQ22-P1 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.713 U MQ22-P1 Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 0.713 U MQ22-P1 Pyrene 2.3 12.2165 MQ23-P2 D10 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.612 U MQ23-P2 D10 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.612 U MQ23-P2 D10 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.612 U MQ23-P2 D10 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.612 U MQ23-P2 D10 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.612 U MQ23-P2 D10 Chrysene 0.612 U MQ23-P2 D10 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.612 U MQ23-P2 D10 Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 0.612 U MQ23-P2 D10 Pyrene 0.612 U 2.7540 MQ24-P2 DO5 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.658 U MQ24-P2 DO5 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.658 U MQ24-P2 DO5 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.8 MQ24-P2 DO5 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.658 U MQ24-P2 DO5 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.658 U MQ24-P2 DO5 Chrysene 0.877 MQ24-P2 DO5 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.658 U MQ24-P2 DO5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 0.658 U MQ24-P2 DO5 Pyrene 0.658 U 3.9800 MQ25-P2-D10 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.658 U MQ25-P2-D10 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.658 U MQ25-P2-D10 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.658 U MQ25-P2-D10 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.658 U MQ25-P2-D10 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.658 U MQ25-P2-D10 Chrysene 0.658 U MQ25-P2-D10 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.658 U MQ25-P2-D10 Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 0.658 U MQ25-P2-D10 Pyrene 0.658 U 2.9610

8 TABLE C-1

SURFACE SOIL DATA USED IN THE TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEB MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Analyte Total LPAH Concentration or HPAH Sample ID Analyte (mg/kg) Qualifier (mg/kg) MQ26-P2 D05 Benzo(a)anthracene 9.1 MQ26-P2 D05 Benzo(a)pyrene 26 MQ26-P2 D05 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 114.666 MQ26-P2 D05 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 114.8 MQ26-P2 D05 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 13.673 MQ26-P2 D05 Chrysene 14.8 MQ26-P2 D05 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 8.8 MQ26-P2 D05 Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 10.479 MQ26-P2 D05 Pyrene 14.5 326.8180 MQ27-P2 DO5 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.725 U MQ27-P2 DO5 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.725 U MQ27-P2 DO5 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.725 U MQ27-P2 DO5 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2.5 MQ27-P2 DO5 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.725 U MQ27-P2 DO5 Chrysene 2.4 MQ27-P2 DO5 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.725 U MQ27-P2 DO5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 0.725 U MQ27-P2 DO5 Pyrene 0.725 U 7.4375 MQ28-P2-D10 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.594 U MQ28-P2-D10 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.594 U MQ28-P2-D10 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.594 U MQ28-P2-D10 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.594 U MQ28-P2-D10 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.594 U MQ28-P2-D10 Chrysene 0.594 U MQ28-P2-D10 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.594 U MQ28-P2-D10 Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 0.594 U MQ28-P2-D10 Pyrene 0.594 U 2.6730 MQ29-P2-D05 Benzo(a)anthracene 2.498 MQ29-P2-D05 Benzo(a)pyrene 2.283 MQ29-P2-D05 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4.364 MQ29-P2-D05 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 3.087 MQ29-P2-D05 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 3.061 MQ29-P2-D05 Chrysene 3.502 MQ29-P2-D05 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.222 U MQ29-P2-D05 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 2.349 MQ29-P2-D05 Pyrene 9.31 31.0650

9 TABLE C-1

SURFACE SOIL DATA USED IN THE TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEB MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Analyte Total LPAH Concentration or HPAH Sample ID Analyte (mg/kg) Qualifier (mg/kg) MQ2-P1 Benzo(a)anthracene 582.826 MQ2-P1 Benzo(a)pyrene 153.946 MQ2-P1 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 260.368 MQ2-P1 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 228.007 MQ2-P1 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 114.314 MQ2-P1 Chrysene 736.643 MQ2-P1 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 32.459 MQ2-P1 Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 88.611 MQ2-P1 Pyrene 1796.943 3994.1170 MQ2-P2-D10 Benzo(a)anthracene 1.992 MQ2-P2-D10 Benzo(a)pyrene 1.41 MQ2-P2-D10 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2.761 MQ2-P2-D10 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2.842 MQ2-P2-D10 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.74 MQ2-P2-D10 Chrysene 0.658 U MQ2-P2-D10 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.658 U MQ2-P2-D10 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.658 U MQ2-P2-D10 Pyrene 13.368 24.1000 MQ30-P1 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.657 U MQ30-P1 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.657 U MQ30-P1 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.657 U MQ30-P1 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.657 U MQ30-P1 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.657 U MQ30-P1 Chrysene 0.657 U MQ30-P1 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.657 U MQ30-P1 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.657 U MQ30-P1 Pyrene 0.657 U 2.9565 MQ31-P1-D10 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.635 U MQ31-P1-D10 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.635 U MQ31-P1-D10 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.635 U MQ31-P1-D10 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.635 U MQ31-P1-D10 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.635 U MQ31-P1-D10 Chrysene 0.635 U MQ31-P1-D10 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.635 U MQ31-P1-D10 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.635 U MQ31-P1-D10 Pyrene 0.635 U 2.8575

10 TABLE C-1

SURFACE SOIL DATA USED IN THE TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEB MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Analyte Total LPAH Concentration or HPAH Sample ID Analyte (mg/kg) Qualifier (mg/kg) MQ32-P1-D10 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.558 U MQ32-P1-D10 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.558 U MQ32-P1-D10 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.558 U MQ32-P1-D10 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.558 U MQ32-P1-D10 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.558 U MQ32-P1-D10 Chrysene 0.558 U MQ32-P1-D10 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.558 U MQ32-P1-D10 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.558 U MQ32-P1-D10 Pyrene 0.558 U 2.5110 MQ4-P1 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.723 U MQ4-P1 Benzo(a)pyrene 16.7 MQ4-P1 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 76.3 MQ4-P1 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.723 U MQ4-P1 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 6.166 MQ4-P1 Chrysene 0.723 U MQ4-P1 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 4.1 MQ4-P1 Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 4.92 MQ4-P1 Pyrene 7.7 116.9705 MQ5-P1 Benzo(a)anthracene 26.8 MQ5-P1 Benzo(a)pyrene 10.4 MQ5-P1 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 18.5 MQ5-P1 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 17.8 MQ5-P1 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 6.539 U MQ5-P1 Chrysene 29.4 MQ5-P1 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 6.539 U MQ5-P1 Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 6.539 U MQ5-P1 Pyrene 87.8 200.5085 MQ6-P2 DO5 Benzo(a)anthracene 19.4 MQ6-P2 DO5 Benzo(a)pyrene 6.496 U MQ6-P2 DO5 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 25 MQ6-P2 DO5 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 25 MQ6-P2 DO5 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 6.496 U MQ6-P2 DO5 Chrysene 27.3 MQ6-P2 DO5 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 6.496 U MQ6-P2 DO5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 6.496 U MQ6-P2 DO5 Pyrene 84.7 194.3920

11 TABLE C-1

SURFACE SOIL DATA USED IN THE TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEB MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Analyte Total LPAH Concentration or HPAH Sample ID Analyte (mg/kg) Qualifier (mg/kg) MQ6-P2-D10 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.653 U MQ6-P2-D10 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.653 U MQ6-P2-D10 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.653 U MQ6-P2-D10 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.653 U MQ6-P2-D10 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.653 U MQ6-P2-D10 Chrysene 0.653 U MQ6-P2-D10 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.653 U MQ6-P2-D10 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.653 U MQ6-P2-D10 Pyrene 0.653 U 2.9385 OFS1-E01 Benzo(a)anthracene 200 OFS1-E01 Benzo(a)pyrene 130 OFS1-E01 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 260 OFS1-E01 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 100 JKQ OFS1-E01 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 48.5 U OFS1-E01 Chrysene 420 OFS1-E01 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 48.5 U OFS1-E01 Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 48.5 U OFS1-E01 Pyrene 420 1602.7500 OFS2-W01 Benzo(a)anthracene 46 U OFS2-W01 Benzo(a)pyrene 46 U OFS2-W01 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 80 JQ OFS2-W01 Benzo(g,h,I)perylene 44 JQ OFS2-W01 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 46 U OFS2-W01 Chrysene 69 JQ OFS2-W01 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 46 U OFS2-W01 Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 46 U OFS2-W01 Pyrene 280 588.0000 SS-02 Benzo(a)anthracene 320 SS-02 Benzo(a)pyrene 99 SS-02 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 190 JK SS-02 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 80 SS-02 Chrysene 150 SS-02 Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 13 JQ SS-02 Pyrene 910 1762.0000 SS-03 Benzo(a)anthracene 250 SS-03 Benzo(a)pyrene 90 JLQ SS-03 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 230 SS-03 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 85 JKQ SS-03 Chrysene 380 SS-03 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 47.5 U SS-03 Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 47.5 U SS-03 Pyrene 480 1562.5000

12 TABLE C-1

SURFACE SOIL DATA USED IN THE TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEB MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Analyte Total LPAH Concentration or HPAH Sample ID Analyte (mg/kg) Qualifier (mg/kg) SS-04 Benzo(a)anthracene 1700 SS-04 Benzo(a)pyrene 440 SS-04 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1100 SS-04 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 310 SS-04 Chrysene 2000 SS-04 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 52 U SS-04 Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 100 JKQ SS-04 Pyrene 4500 9176.0000 MP11-0.5 Acenaphthene 11 U MP11-0.5 Ancenaphylene 11 U MP11-0.5 Anthracene 11 U MP11-0.5 Fluoranthene 10 J MP11-0.5 Fluorene 11 U MP11-0.5 Napthalene 11 U MP11-0.5 Phenanthrene 11 U 43.0000 MP12-0.5 Acenaphthene 0.67 U MP12-0.5 Ancenaphylene 0.39 J MP12-0.5 Anthracene 3.3 MP12-0.5 Fluoranthene 3.6 MP12-0.5 Fluorene 0.67 U MP12-0.5 Napthalene 0.67 U MP12-0.5 Phenanthrene 0.19 J 8.4850 MP13-0.5 Acenaphthene 0.37 U MP13-0.5 Ancenaphylene 0.37 U MP13-0.5 Anthracene 0.25 J MP13-0.5 Fluoranthene 1.2 MP13-0.5 Fluorene 0.37 U MP13-0.5 Napthalene 0.37 U MP13-0.5 Phenanthrene 0.37 U 2.3750 MP14-0.5 Acenaphthene 0.73 U MP14-0.5 Ancenaphylene 0.2 J MP14-0.5 Anthracene 1.4 MP14-0.5 Fluoranthene 6 MP14-0.5 Fluorene 0.73 U MP14-0.5 Napthalene 0.73 U MP14-0.5 Phenanthrene 0.26 J 8.9550

13 TABLE C-1

SURFACE SOIL DATA USED IN THE TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEB MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Analyte Total LPAH Concentration or HPAH Sample ID Analyte (mg/kg) Qualifier (mg/kg) MP19-0.5 Acenaphthene 0.36 U MP19-0.5 Ancenaphylene 0.36 U MP19-0.5 Anthracene 0.36 U MP19-0.5 Fluoranthene 0.36 U MP19-0.5 Fluorene 0.36 U MP19-0.5 Napthalene 0.36 U MP19-0.5 Phenanthrene 0.36 U 1.2600 MP2-0.5 Acenaphthene 0.29 J MP2-0.5 Ancenaphylene 0.35 U MP2-0.5 Anthracene 0.16 J MP2-0.5 Fluoranthene 0.24 J MP2-0.5 Fluorene 0.62 MP2-0.5 Napthalene 0.61 MP2-0.5 Phenanthrene 0.87 2.9650 MP21-0.5 Acenaphthene 0.35 U MP21-0.5 Ancenaphylene 0.35 U MP21-0.5 Anthracene 0.35 U MP21-0.5 Fluoranthene 0.35 U MP21-0.5 Fluorene 0.35 U MP21-0.5 Napthalene 0.35 U MP21-0.5 Phenanthrene 0.35 U 1.2250 MP23-0.5 Acenaphthene 300 MP23-0.5 Ancenaphylene 100 U MP23-0.5 Anthracene 62 J MP23-0.5 Fluoranthene 1300 MP23-0.5 Fluorene 260 MP23-0.5 Napthalene 240 MP23-0.5 Phenanthrene 1100 3312.0000 MP27-0.5 Acenaphthene 0.67 U MP27-0.5 Ancenaphylene 0.67 U MP27-0.5 Anthracene 0.46 J MP27-0.5 Fluoranthene 0.66 J MP27-0.5 Fluorene 0.67 U MP27-0.5 Napthalene 0.67 U MP27-0.5 Phenanthrene 0.67 U 2.7950 MP3-0.5 Acenaphthene 0.38 U MP3-0.5 Ancenaphylene 0.38 U MP3-0.5 Anthracene 0.38 U MP3-0.5 Fluoranthene 0.38 U MP3-0.5 Fluorene 0.38 U MP3-0.5 Napthalene 0.38 U MP3-0.5 Phenanthrene 0.38 U 1.3300

14 TABLE C-1

SURFACE SOIL DATA USED IN THE TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEB MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Analyte Total LPAH Concentration or HPAH Sample ID Analyte (mg/kg) Qualifier (mg/kg) MP35-0.5 Acenaphthene 3.5 U MP35-0.5 Ancenaphylene 3.5 U MP35-0.5 Anthracene 4.6 MP35-0.5 Fluoranthene 13 MP35-0.5 Fluorene 3.5 U MP35-0.5 Napthalene 3.5 U MP35-0.5 Phenanthrene 2.1 J 26.7000 MP36-0.5 Acenaphthene 0.45 U MP36-0.5 Ancenaphylene 0.45 U MP36-0.5 Anthracene 0.2 J MP36-0.5 Fluoranthene 0.24 J MP36-0.5 Fluorene 0.45 U MP36-0.5 Napthalene 0.45 U MP36-0.5 Phenanthrene 0.45 U 1.5650 MP39-0.5 Acenaphthene 0.68 U MP39-0.5 Ancenaphylene 0.29 J MP39-0.5 Anthracene 1.7 MP39-0.5 Fluoranthene 4.5 MP39-0.5 Fluorene 0.68 U MP39-0.5 Napthalene 0.68 U MP39-0.5 Phenanthrene 0.6 J 8.1100 MP4-0.5 Acenaphthene 2.1 U MP4-0.5 Ancenaphylene 2.1 U MP4-0.5 Anthracene 1.7 J MP4-0.5 Fluoranthene 3.8 MP4-0.5 Fluorene 2.1 U MP4-0.5 Napthalene 2.1 U MP4-0.5 Phenanthrene 0.81 J 10.5100 MP5-0.5 Acenaphthene 0.68 U MP5-0.5 Ancenaphylene 0.36 J MP5-0.5 Anthracene 0.76 MP5-0.5 Fluoranthene 2.2 MP5-0.5 Fluorene 0.68 U MP5-0.5 Napthalene 0.68 U MP5-0.5 Phenanthrene 0.48 J 4.8200 MP7-0.5 Acenaphthene 1.8 U MP7-0.5 Ancenaphylene 0.74 J MP7-0.5 Anthracene 3 MP7-0.5 Fluoranthene 10 MP7-0.5 Fluorene 1.8 U MP7-0.5 Napthalene 1.8 U MP7-0.5 Phenanthrene 0.81 J 17.2500

15 TABLE C-1

SURFACE SOIL DATA USED IN THE TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEB MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Analyte Total LPAH Concentration or HPAH Sample ID Analyte (mg/kg) Qualifier (mg/kg) MP99-SS-13 (FGL 26) Acenaphthene 230 U MP99-SS-13 (FGL 26) Acenaphthylene 57 LJ MP99-SS-13 (FGL 26) Anthracene 880 MP99-SS-13 (FGL 26) Fluoranthene 850 MP99-SS-13 (FGL 26) Fluorene 14 LJ MP99-SS-13 (FGL 26) Napthalene 230 U MP99-SS-13 (FGL 26) Phenanthrene 46 LJ 2077.0000 MP99-SS-14 (FGL 14) Acenaphthene 10 J MP99-SS-14 (FGL 14) Acenaphthylene 21 MP99-SS-14 (FGL 14) Anthracene 160 JK MP99-SS-14 (FGL 14) Fluoranthene 450 MP99-SS-14 (FGL 14) Fluorene 31 MP99-SS-14 (FGL 14) Napthalene 1.3 LJ MP99-SS-14 (FGL 14) Phenanthrene 61 734.3000 MQ10-P1 Acenaphthene 0.652 U MQ10-P1 Ancenaphylene 0.652 U MQ10-P1 Anthracene 0.652 U MQ10-P1 Fluoranthene 0.652 U MQ10-P1 Fluorene 0.652 U MQ10-P1 Napthalene 0.652 U MQ10-P1 Phenanthrene 0.652 U 2.2820 MQ11-P2-D05 Acenaphthene 0.65 U MQ11-P2-D05 Ancenaphylene 0.65 U MQ11-P2-D05 Anthracene 0.65 U MQ11-P2-D05 Fluoranthene 8.597 MQ11-P2-D05 Fluorene 0.65 U MQ11-P2-D05 Napthalene 0.65 U MQ11-P2-D05 Phenanthrene 1.936 11.1900 MQ15-P1 Acenaphthene 35 MQ15-P1 Acenaphthylene 0.729 U MQ15-P1 Anthracene 0.729 U MQ15-P1 Fluoranthene 2819.8 MQ15-P1 Fluorene 115.1 MQ15-P1 Napthalene 0.729 MQ15-P1 Phenanthrene 1442.5 4413.8580 MQ16-P2-D05 Acenaphthene 0.654 U MQ16-P2-D05 Ancenaphylene 0.654 U MQ16-P2-D05 Anthracene 0.654 U MQ16-P2-D05 Fluoranthene 0.654 U MQ16-P2-D05 Fluorene 0.654 U MQ16-P2-D05 Napthalene 0.654 U MQ16-P2-D05 Phenanthrene 0.759 2.7210

16 TABLE C-1

SURFACE SOIL DATA USED IN THE TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEB MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Analyte Total LPAH Concentration or HPAH Sample ID Analyte (mg/kg) Qualifier (mg/kg) MQ18-P2 D10 Acenaphthene 0.658 U MQ18-P2 D10 Acenaphthylene 0.658 U MQ18-P2 D10 Anthracene 0.658 U MQ18-P2 D10 Fluoranthene 9.916 MQ18-P2 D10 Fluorene 0.658 U MQ18-P2 D10 Napthalene 0.658 U MQ18-P2 D10 Phenanthrene 0.658 U 11.8900 MQ19-P2-D05 Acenaphthene 0.717 U MQ19-P2-D05 Ancenaphylene 0.758 MQ19-P2-D05 Anthracene 6.314 MQ19-P2-D05 Fluoranthene 0.717 U MQ19-P2-D05 Fluorene 0.717 U MQ19-P2-D05 Napthalene 0.717 U MQ19-P2-D05 Phenanthrene 0.717 U 8.8645 MQ1-P1 Acenaphthene 6.567 U MQ1-P1 Acenaphthylene 6.567 U MQ1-P1 Anthracene 26.3 MQ1-P1 Fluoranthene 48.353 MQ1-P1 Fluorene 6.567 U MQ1-P1 Napthalene 6.567 U MQ1-P1 Phenanthrene 27.9 115.6870 MQ1-P2-D10 Acenaphthene 0.617 U MQ1-P2-D10 Ancenaphylene 0.617 U MQ1-P2-D10 Anthracene 0.617 U MQ1-P2-D10 Fluoranthene 0.617 U MQ1-P2-D10 Fluorene 0.617 U MQ1-P2-D10 Napthalene 0.617 U MQ1-P2-D10 Phenanthrene 0.617 U 2.1595 MQ20-P2 DO5 Acenaphthene 0.647 U MQ20-P2 DO5 Acenaphthylene 0.647 U MQ20-P2 DO5 Anthracene 0.647 U MQ20-P2 DO5 Fluoranthene 16.2 MQ20-P2 DO5 Fluorene 0.647 U MQ20-P2 DO5 Napthalene 0.647 U MQ20-P2 DO5 Phenanthrene 2.1 19.9175 MQ21-P2 DO5 Acenaphthene 0.619 U MQ21-P2 DO5 Acenaphthylene 0.619 U MQ21-P2 DO5 Anthracene 1.2 MQ21-P2 DO5 Fluoranthene 1.7 MQ21-P2 DO5 Fluorene 0.619 U MQ21-P2 DO5 Napthalene 0.619 U MQ21-P2 DO5 Phenanthrene 0.619 U 4.4475

17 TABLE C-1

SURFACE SOIL DATA USED IN THE TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEB MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Analyte Total LPAH Concentration or HPAH Sample ID Analyte (mg/kg) Qualifier (mg/kg) MQ22-P1 Acenaphthene 0.713 U MQ22-P1 Acenaphthylene 0.713 U MQ22-P1 Anthracene 2.037 MQ22-P1 Fluoranthene 10.7 MQ22-P1 Fluorene 1.5 MQ22-P1 Napthalene 0.713 U MQ22-P1 Phenanthrene 10.4 25.7065 MQ23-P2 D10 Acenaphthene 0.612 U MQ23-P2 D10 Acenaphthylene 0.612 U MQ23-P2 D10 Anthracene 0.612 U MQ23-P2 D10 Fluoranthene 0.612 U MQ23-P2 D10 Fluorene 0.612 U MQ23-P2 D10 Napthalene 0.612 U MQ23-P2 D10 Phenanthrene 0.612 U 2.1420 MQ24-P2 DO5 Acenaphthene 0.658 U MQ24-P2 DO5 Acenaphthylene 0.658 U MQ24-P2 DO5 Anthracene 0.658 U MQ24-P2 DO5 Fluoranthene 0.658 U MQ24-P2 DO5 Fluorene 0.658 U MQ24-P2 DO5 Phenanthrene 0.658 U 1.9740 MQ25-P2-D10 Acenaphthene 0.658 U MQ25-P2-D10 Acenaphthylene 0.658 U MQ25-P2-D10 Anthracene 0.658 U MQ25-P2-D10 Fluoranthene 0.658 U MQ25-P2-D10 Fluorene 0.658 U MQ25-P2-D10 Napthalene 0.658 U MQ25-P2-D10 Phenanthrene 0.658 U 2.3030 MQ26-P2 D05 Acenaphthene 0.722 U MQ26-P2 D05 Acenaphthylene 1.203 MQ26-P2 D05 Anthracene 5.6 MQ26-P2 D05 Fluoranthene 25.9 MQ26-P2 D05 Fluorene 1.1 MQ26-P2 D05 Napthalene 0.722 U MQ26-P2 D05 Phenanthrene 3 37.5250 MQ27-P2 DO5 Acenaphthene 0.725 U MQ27-P2 DO5 Acenaphthylene 0.725 U MQ27-P2 DO5 Anthracene 1.2 MQ27-P2 DO5 Fluoranthene 0.725 U MQ27-P2 DO5 Fluorene 0.725 U MQ27-P2 DO5 Napthalene 0.725 U MQ27-P2 DO5 Phenanthrene 2.6 5.6125

18 TABLE C-1

SURFACE SOIL DATA USED IN THE TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEB MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Analyte Total LPAH Concentration or HPAH Sample ID Analyte (mg/kg) Qualifier (mg/kg) MQ28-P2-D10 Acenaphthene 0.594 U MQ28-P2-D10 Acenaphthylene 0.594 U MQ28-P2-D10 Anthracene 0.594 U MQ28-P2-D10 Fluoranthene 0.594 U MQ28-P2-D10 Fluorene 0.594 U MQ28-P2-D10 Napthalene 0.594 U MQ28-P2-D10 Phenanthrene 0.594 U 2.0790 MQ29-P2-D05 Acenaphthene 1.222 U MQ29-P2-D05 Ancenaphylene 1.222 U MQ29-P2-D05 Anthracene 2.438 MQ29-P2-D05 Fluoranthene 9.31 MQ29-P2-D05 Fluorene 1.222 U MQ29-P2-D05 Napthalene 1.222 U MQ29-P2-D05 Phenanthrene 4.092 18.2840 MQ2-P1 Acenaphthene 932.56 MQ2-P1 Acenaphthylene 32.459 MQ2-P1 Anthracene 2447.236 MQ2-P1 Fluoranthene 1752.068 MQ2-P1 Fluorene 1476.947 MQ2-P1 Napthalene 555.046 MQ2-P1 Phenanthrene 2595.492 9775.5785 MQ2-P2-D10 Acenaphthene 0.658 U MQ2-P2-D10 Ancenaphylene 0.658 U MQ2-P2-D10 Anthracene 0.658 U MQ2-P2-D10 Fluoranthene 9.991 MQ2-P2-D10 Fluorene 0.658 U MQ2-P2-D10 Napthalene 0.658 U MQ2-P2-D10 Phenanthrene 0.658 U 11.9650 MQ30-P1 Acenaphthene 0.657 U MQ30-P1 Ancenaphylene 0.657 U MQ30-P1 Anthracene 0.657 U MQ30-P1 Fluoranthene 0.657 U MQ30-P1 Fluorene 0.657 U MQ30-P1 Napthalene 0.657 U MQ30-P1 Phenanthrene 0.657 U 2.2995 MQ31-P1-D10 Acenaphthene 0.635 U MQ31-P1-D10 Ancenaphylene 0.635 U MQ31-P1-D10 Anthracene 0.635 U MQ31-P1-D10 Fluoranthene 0.635 U MQ31-P1-D10 Fluorene 0.635 U MQ31-P1-D10 Napthalene 0.635 U MQ31-P1-D10 Phenanthrene 0.635 U 2.2225

19 TABLE C-1

SURFACE SOIL DATA USED IN THE TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEB MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Analyte Total LPAH Concentration or HPAH Sample ID Analyte (mg/kg) Qualifier (mg/kg) MQ32-P1-D10 Acenaphthene 0.558 U MQ32-P1-D10 Ancenaphylene 0.558 U MQ32-P1-D10 Anthracene 0.558 U MQ32-P1-D10 Fluoranthene 0.558 U MQ32-P1-D10 Fluorene 0.558 U MQ32-P1-D10 Napthalene 0.558 U MQ32-P1-D10 Phenanthrene 0.558 U 1.9530 MQ4-P1 Acenaphthene 3.8 MQ4-P1 Acenaphthylene 0.723 U MQ4-P1 Anthracene 14.7 MQ4-P1 Fluoranthene 12.7 MQ4-P1 Fluorene 9.4 MQ4-P1 Napthalene 2.044 MQ4-P1 Phenanthrene 21.7 64.7055 MQ5-P1 Acenaphthene 6.539 U MQ5-P1 Acenaphthylene 6.539 U MQ5-P1 Anthracene 7.7 MQ5-P1 Fluoranthene 62.9 MQ5-P1 Fluorene 6.539 U MQ5-P1 Napthalene 6.539 U MQ5-P1 Phenanthrene 6.539 U 86.9475 MQ6-P2 DO5 Acenaphthene 6.496 U MQ6-P2 DO5 Acenaphthylene 6.496 U MQ6-P2 DO5 Anthracene 6.496 U MQ6-P2 DO5 Fluoranthene 78.8 MQ6-P2 DO5 Fluorene 6.496 U MQ6-P2 DO5 Napthalene 6.496 U MQ6-P2 DO5 Phenanthrene 6.496 U 98.2880 MQ6-P2-D10 Acenaphthene 0.653 U MQ6-P2-D10 Ancenaphylene 0.653 U MQ6-P2-D10 Anthracene 0.653 U MQ6-P2-D10 Fluoranthene 0.653 U MQ6-P2-D10 Fluorene 0.653 U MQ6-P2-D10 Napthalene 0.653 U MQ6-P2-D10 Phenanthrene 0.653 U 2.2855 OFS1-E01 Acenaphthene 48.5 U OFS1-E01 Acenaphthylene 48.5 U OFS1-E01 Anthracene 570 OFS1-E01 Fluoranthene 340 OFS1-E01 Fluorene 48.5 U OFS1-E01 Phenanthrene 48.5 U 1007.0000

20 TABLE C-1

SURFACE SOIL DATA USED IN THE TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEB MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Analyte Total LPAH Concentration or HPAH Sample ID Analyte (mg/kg) Qualifier (mg/kg) OFS2-W01 Acenaphthene 46 U OFS2-W01 Acenaphthylene 46 U OFS2-W01 Anthracene 46 U OFS2-W01 Fluoranthene 220 OFS2-W01 Fluorene 46 U OFS2-W01 Napthalene 46 U OFS2-W01 Phenanthrene 46 U 358.0000 SS-02 Acenaphthene 100 SS-02 Acenaphthylene 21 SS-02 Anthracene 140 SS-02 Fluoranthene 1100 SS-02 Fluorene 440 SS-02 Napthalene 11 JQ SS-02 Phenanthrene 970 2782.0000 SS-03 Acenaphthene 47.5 U SS-03 Acenaphthylene 47.5 U SS-03 Anthracene 1500 SS-03 Fluoranthene 480 SS-03 Fluorene 110 SS-03 Napthalene 47.5 U SS-03 Phenanthrene 300 2461.2500 SS-04 Acenaphthene 52 U SS-04 Acenaphthylene 83 JQK SS-04 Anthracene 510 SS-04 Fluoranthene 5500 SS-04 Fluorene 52 U SS-04 Napthalene 52 U SS-04 Phenanthrene 55 JKQ 3476.0000

21 TABLE C-2

BIG CREEK (EASTERN EXPOSURE AREA) SEDIMENTS

(4 PAGES) TABLE C-2

BIG CREEK (EASTERN EXPOSURE AREA) SEDIMENTS MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Analyte Concentration Total LPAH or Sample ID Analyte (mg/kg) Qualifier HPAH (mg/kg) MP99-SD-03 (FGL08) Benzo(a)anthracene 0.42 U MP99-SD-03 (FGL08) Benzo(a)pyrene 0.42 U MP99-SD-03 (FGL08) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.42 U MP99-SD-03 (FGL08) Benzo(g,h,I)perylene 0.42 U MP99-SD-03 (FGL08) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.42 U MP99-SD-03 (FGL08) Chrysene 0.42 U MP99-SD-03 (FGL08) Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.42 U MP99-SD-03 (FGL08) Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 0.42 U MP99-SD-03 (FGL08) Pyrene 0.42 U 1.9 MP99-SD-05 (FGL18) Benzo(a)anthracene 4800 U MP99-SD-05 (FGL18) Benzo(a)pyrene 4800 U MP99-SD-05 (FGL18) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4800 U MP99-SD-05 (FGL18) Benzo(g,h,I)perylene 4800 U MP99-SD-05 (FGL18) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4800 U MP99-SD-05 (FGL18) Chrysene 4800 U MP99-SD-05 (FGL18) Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 4800 U MP99-SD-05 (FGL18) Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 4800 U MP99-SD-05 (FGL18) Pyrene 4800 U 21600.0 MP99-SD-06 (FGL19) Benzo(a)anthracene 4400 U MP99-SD-06 (FGL19) Benzo(a)pyrene 4400 U MP99-SD-06 (FGL19) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4400 U MP99-SD-06 (FGL19) Benzo(g,h,I)perylene 4400 U MP99-SD-06 (FGL19) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4400 U MP99-SD-06 (FGL19) Chrysene 4400 U MP99-SD-06 (FGL19) Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 4400 U MP99-SD-06 (FGL19) Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 4400 U MP99-SD-06 (FGL19) Pyrene 4400 U 19800.0 MP99-SD-07 (FGL20) Benzo(a)anthracene 20 JK MP99-SD-07 (FGL20) Benzo(a)pyrene 7 JK MP99-SD-07 (FGL20) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 9.7 MP99-SD-07 (FGL20) Benzo(g,h,I)perylene 2 JK MP99-SD-07 (FGL20) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 10 MP99-SD-07 (FGL20) Chrysene 25 JK MP99-SD-07 (FGL20) Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.87 JK MP99-SD-07 (FGL20) Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 3 JK MP99-SD-07 (FGL20) Pyrene 36 113.6 MP99-SD-08 (FGL21) Benzo(a)anthracene 190 JK MP99-SD-08 (FGL21) Benzo(a)pyrene 100 MP99-SD-08 (FGL21) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 58 JK MP99-SD-08 (FGL21) Benzo(g,h,I)perylene 14 JK MP99-SD-08 (FGL21) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 82 MP99-SD-08 (FGL21) Chrysene 330 JK MP99-SD-08 (FGL21) Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 5.5 JK MP99-SD-08 (FGL21) Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 26 MP99-SD-08 (FGL21) Pyrene 890 1695.5

1 TABLE C-2

BIG CREEK (EASTERN EXPOSURE AREA) SEDIMENTS MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Analyte Concentration Total LPAH or Sample ID Analyte (mg/kg) Qualifier HPAH (mg/kg) MP99-SD-09 (FGL22) Benzo(a)anthracene 140 MP99-SD-09 (FGL22) Benzo(a)pyrene 82 MP99-SD-09 (FGL22) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 150 MP99-SD-09 (FGL22) Benzo(g,h,I)perylene 12 JK MP99-SD-09 (FGL22) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 68 MP99-SD-09 (FGL22) Chrysene 140 MP99-SD-09 (FGL22) Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 6.6 JK MP99-SD-09 (FGL22) Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 21 MP99-SD-09 (FGL22) Pyrene 300 919.6 MP99-SD-11 (FGL24) Benzo(a)anthracene 0.38 U MP99-SD-11 (FGL24) Benzo(a)pyrene 0.38 U MP99-SD-11 (FGL24) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.38 U MP99-SD-11 (FGL24) Benzo(g,h,I)perylene 0.38 U MP99-SD-11 (FGL24) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.38 U MP99-SD-11 (FGL24) Chrysene 0.38 U MP99-SD-11 (FGL24) Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.38 U MP99-SD-11 (FGL24) Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 0.38 U MP99-SD-11 (FGL24) Pyrene 0.38 U 1.7 MP99-SD-12 (FGL25) Benzo(a)anthracene 0.38 U MP99-SD-12 (FGL25) Benzo(a)pyrene 0.38 U MP99-SD-12 (FGL25) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.38 U MP99-SD-12 (FGL25) Benzo(g,h,I)perylene 0.38 U MP99-SD-12 (FGL25) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.38 U MP99-SD-12 (FGL25) Chrysene 0.38 U MP99-SD-12 (FGL25) Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.38 U MP99-SD-12 (FGL25) Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 0.38 U MP99-SD-12 (FGL25) Pyrene 0.38 U 1.7 SED-E01 (PPE#1) Benzo(a)anthracene 4 JL SED-E01 (PPE#1) Benzo(a)pyrene 2.6 JL SED-E01 (PPE#1) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 6.7 JL SED-E01 (PPE#1) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.7 JKQ SED-E01 (PPE#1) Chrysene 4.5 JL SED-E01 (PPE#1) Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 1.1 JL SED-E01 (PPE#1) Pyrene 4.3 JL 24.9 SED-E02 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.94 U SED-E02 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.94 U SED-E02 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.94 U SED-E02 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.94 U SED-E02 Benzo[g,h,I]perylene 0.94 U SED-E02 Chrysene 0.94 U SED-E02 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.94 U SED-E02 Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 0.94 U SED-E02 Pyrene 0.94 U 4.2

2 TABLE C-2

BIG CREEK (EASTERN EXPOSURE AREA) SEDIMENTS MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Analyte Concentration Total LPAH or Sample ID Analyte (mg/kg) Qualifier HPAH (mg/kg) MP99-SD-03 (FGL08) Acenaphthene 0.42 U MP99-SD-03 (FGL08) Acenaphthylene 0.42 U MP99-SD-03 (FGL08) Anthracene 0.42 U MP99-SD-03 (FGL08) Fluoranthene 0.42 U MP99-SD-03 (FGL08) Fluorene 0.42 U MP99-SD-03 (FGL08) Naphthalene 0.42 U MP99-SD-03 (FGL08) Phenanthrene 0.42 U 1.5 MP99-SD-05 (FGL18) Acenaphthene 4800 U MP99-SD-05 (FGL18) Acenaphthylene 4800 U MP99-SD-05 (FGL18) Anthracene 4800 U MP99-SD-05 (FGL18) Fluoranthene 4800 U MP99-SD-05 (FGL18) Fluorene 4800 U MP99-SD-05 (FGL18) Naphthalene 4800 U MP99-SD-05 (FGL18) Phenanthrene 4800 U 16800.0 MP99-SD-06 (FGL19) Acenaphthene 4400 U MP99-SD-06 (FGL19) Acenaphthylene 4400 U MP99-SD-06 (FGL19) Anthracene 4400 U MP99-SD-06 (FGL19) Fluoranthene 4400 U MP99-SD-06 (FGL19) Fluorene 4400 U MP99-SD-06 (FGL19) Naphthalene 4400 U MP99-SD-06 (FGL19) Phenanthrene 4400 U 15400.0 MP99-SD-07 (FGL20) Acenaphthene 20 MP99-SD-07 (FGL20) Acenaphthylene 0.75 JK MP99-SD-07 (FGL20) Anthracene 83 MP99-SD-07 (FGL20) Fluoranthene 44 MP99-SD-07 (FGL20) Fluorene 52 MP99-SD-07 (FGL20) Naphthalene 1.7 JK MP99-SD-07 (FGL20) Phenanthrene 72 273.5 MP99-SD-08 (FGL21) Acenaphthene 840 MP99-SD-08 (FGL21) Acenaphthylene 22 MP99-SD-08 (FGL21) Anthracene 3300 MP99-SD-08 (FGL21) Fluoranthene 1400 MP99-SD-08 (FGL21) Fluorene 1400 MP99-SD-08 (FGL21) Naphthalene 170 JK MP99-SD-08 (FGL21) Phenanthrene 3700 10832.0 MP99-SD-09 (FGL22) Acenaphthene 97 MP99-SD-09 (FGL22) Acenaphthylene 7.2 JK MP99-SD-09 (FGL22) Anthracene 400 MP99-SD-09 (FGL22) Fluoranthene 310 MP99-SD-09 (FGL22) Fluorene 150 MP99-SD-09 (FGL22) Naphthalene 21 MP99-SD-09 (FGL22) Phenanthrene 410 1395.2

3 TABLE C-2

BIG CREEK (EASTERN EXPOSURE AREA) SEDIMENTS MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Analyte Concentration Total LPAH or Sample ID Analyte (mg/kg) Qualifier HPAH (mg/kg) MP99-SD-11 (FGL24) Acenaphthene 0.38 U MP99-SD-11 (FGL24) Acenaphthylene 0.38 U MP99-SD-11 (FGL24) Anthracene 0.38 U MP99-SD-11 (FGL24) Fluoranthene 0.38 U MP99-SD-11 (FGL24) Fluorene 0.38 U MP99-SD-11 (FGL24) Naphthalene 0.38 U MP99-SD-11 (FGL24) Phenanthrene 0.38 U 1.3 MP99-SD-12 (FGL25) Acenaphthene 0.38 U MP99-SD-12 (FGL25) Acenaphthylene 0.38 U MP99-SD-12 (FGL25) Anthracene 0.38 U MP99-SD-12 (FGL25) Fluoranthene 0.38 U MP99-SD-12 (FGL25) Fluorene 0.38 U MP99-SD-12 (FGL25) Naphthalene 0.38 U MP99-SD-12 (FGL25) Phenanthrene 0.38 U 1.3 SED-E01 (PPE#1) Acenaphthylene 440 JKQ SED-E01 (PPE#1) Anthracene 5.6 JL SED-E01 (PPE#1) Fluorene 2 JL SED-E01 (PPE#1) Phenanthrene 3.5 JLK 451.1 SED-E02 Acenaphthene 0.94 U SED-E02 Acenaphthylene 0.94 U SED-E02 Anthracene 0.94 U SED-E02 Fluoranthene 0.94 U SED-E02 Fluorene 0.94 U SED-E02 Phenanthrene 0.94 U 2.8

4 TABLE C-3

UNNAMED TRIBUTARY (WESTERN EXPOSURE AREA) SEDIMENTS

(1 PAGE) TABLE C-3

UNNAMED TRIBUTARY (WESTERN EXPOSURE AREA) SEDIMENTS MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Analyte Total Concentration LPAH or Sample ID Analyte (mg/kg) Qualifier HPAH MP99-SD-04 (FGL10) Benzo(a)anthracene 0.38 U MP99-SD-04 (FGL10) Benzo(a)pyrene 0.38 U MP99-SD-04 (FGL10) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.38 U MP99-SD-04 (FGL10) Benzo(g,h,I)perylene 0.38 U MP99-SD-04 (FGL10) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.38 U MP99-SD-04 (FGL10) Chrysene 0.38 U MP99-SD-04 (FGL10) Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.38 U MP99-SD-04 (FGL10) Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 0.38 U MP99-SD-04 (FGL10) Pyrene 0.38 U 1.7100 MP99-SD-10 (FGL23) Benzo(a)anthracene 0.42 U MP99-SD-10 (FGL23) Benzo(a)pyrene 0.42 U MP99-SD-10 (FGL23) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.42 U MP99-SD-10 (FGL23) Benzo(g,h,I)perylene 0.42 U MP99-SD-10 (FGL23) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.42 U MP99-SD-10 (FGL23) Chrysene 0.42 U MP99-SD-10 (FGL23) Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.42 U MP99-SD-10 (FGL23) Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 0.42 U MP99-SD-10 (FGL23) Pyrene 0.42 U 1.8900 SED-W01 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.97 U SED-W01 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.97 U SED-W01 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.97 U SED-W01 Benzo(g,h,I)perylene 0.97 U SED-W01 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.97 U SED-W01 Chrysene 0.97 U SED-W01 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.97 U SED-W01 Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 0.97 U SED-W01 Pyrene 0.97 U 4.3650 SED-W02 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.67 JQ SED-W02 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.65 JQ SED-W02 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4.6 SED-W02 Benzo(g,h,I)perylene 0.9 U SED-W02 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1 SED-W02 Chrysene 2.5 SED-W02 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.9 U SED-W02 Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 0.85 JQ SED-W02 Pyrene 1.3 12.4700 MP99-SD-04 (FGL10) Acenaphthene 0.38 U MP99-SD-04 (FGL10) Acenaphthylene 0.38 U MP99-SD-04 (FGL10) Anthracene 0.38 U MP99-SD-04 (FGL10) Fluoranthene 0.38 U MP99-SD-04 (FGL10) Fluorene 0.38 U MP99-SD-04 (FGL10) Napthalene 0.38 U MP99-SD-04 (FGL10) Phenanthrene 0.38 U 1.3300 MP99-SD-10 (FGL23) Acenaphthene 0.42 U MP99-SD-10 (FGL23) Acenaphthylene 0.42 U MP99-SD-10 (FGL23) Anthracene 0.42 U MP99-SD-10 (FGL23) Fluoranthene 0.42 U MP99-SD-10 (FGL23) Fluorene 0.42 U MP99-SD-10 (FGL23) Napthalene 0.42 U MP99-SD-10 (FGL23) Phenanthrene 0.42 U 1.4700 SED-W01 Acenaphthene 0.97 U SED-W01 Acenaphthylene 0.97 U SED-W01 Anthracene 0.97 U SED-W01 Fluoranthene 0.97 U SED-W01 Fluorene 0.97 U SED-W01 Napthalene 0.97 U SED-W01 Phenanthrene 0.97 U 3.3950 SED-W02 Acenaphthene 0.9 U SED-W02 Acenaphthylene 0.9 U SED-W02 Anthracene 5.1 SED-W02 Fluoranthene 1.4 SED-W02 Fluorene 0.61 JQ SED-W02 Napthalene 0.9 U SED-W02 Phenanthrene 1.1 9.5600

1 APPENDIX D

SUMMARY OF TOXICITY INFORMATION

(7 PAGES)

TABLE

D-1 Sediment Toxicity Benchmarks

D-2 Soil Invertebrate Toxicity Values

D-3 Plant Toxicity Values

D-4 Mammalian Toxicity Values

D-5 Avian Toxicity Values

D-6 Amphibian and Reptile Toxicity Values TABLE D-1

SEDIMENT TOXICITY BENCHMARKS MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Acenaphthene 4.10E+03 3.50E+03 Cabbage and others 1997

Anthracene 1.00E+01 1.40E+02 1.00E+01 1.70E+02 2.00E+03 Ingersoll and others 1996 Anthracene 2.80E+03 2.10E+03 Cabbage and others 1997 Anthracene 2.20E+02 Persaud and others 1993

Benz(a)anthracene 3.20E+02 Persaud and others 1993 Benz(a)anthracene 1.90E+01 3.00E+02 1.60E+01 2.80E+02 3.00E+03 Ingersoll and others 1996

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 3.70E+01 7.10E+01 2.70E+01 1.60E+02 4.00E+03 Ingersoll and others 1996

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 3.70E+01 7.10E+01 2.70E+01 1.60E+02 4.00E+03 Ingersoll and others 1996 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2.40E+02 Persaud and others 1993

Benzo(a)pyrene 8.40E+01 4.70E+02 3.20E+01 3.20E+02 1.00E+03 Ingersoll and others 1996 Benzo(a)pyrene 1.10E+04 7.00E+03 Cabbage and others 1997 Benzo(a)pyrene 3.70E+02 Persaud and others 1993

Chrysene 3.00E+01 5.00E+02 2.70E+01 4.10E+02 3.00E+03 Ingersoll and others 1996 Chrysene 1.10E+04 7.00E+03 Cabbage and others 1997 Chrysene 3.40E+02 Persaud and others 1993

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 1.00E+01 1.50E+01 1.00E+01 2.80E+01 8.70E+02 Ingersoll and others 1996 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 2.30E+02 2.30E+02 Cabbage and others 1997 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 6.00E+01 Persaud and others 1993

Fluoranthene 3.30E+01 1.80E+02 3.10E+01 3.20E+02 1.00E+04 Ingersoll and others 1996 Fluoranthene 2.10E+04 1.10E+04 Cabbage and others 1997 Fluoranthene 7.50E+02 Persaud and others 1993

Fluorene 1.00E+01 1.40E+02 1.00E+01 1.50E+02 3.00E+03 Ingersoll and others 1996 Fluorene 4.20E+03 3.60E+03 Cabbage and others 1997 Fluorene 1.90E+02 Persaud and others 1993

1 TABLE D-1

SEDIMENT TOXICITY BENCHMARKS MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

ERL (ug/kg ERM (ug/kg TEL (ug/kg PEL (ug/kg NEC (ug/kg LAET (ug/kg FSQV (ug/kg Lowest Effect Level Primary Chemical dry weight) dry weight) dry weight) dry weight) dry weight) dry weight) dry weight) (ug/kg organic carbon) Reference High Molecular Weight PAHs (HPAH) 6.90E+04 PSEP 1988 HPAH 1.70E+02 1.70E+03 Ingersoll and others 1996 HPAH 1.70E+03 9.60E+03 Long and others 1995

Low Molecular Weight PAHs (LPAH) 1.30E+04 PSEP 1988 LPAH 8.00E+01 6.50E+02 Ingersoll and others 1996 LPAH 5.52E+02 3.16E+03 Long and others 1995

Naphthalene 1.30E+01 9.80E+01 1.50E+01 1.40E+02 1.40E+03 Ingersoll and others 1996 Naphthalene 4.60E+04 3.70E+04 Cabbage and others 1997

Phenanthrene 2.70E+01 3.50E+02 1.90E+01 4.10E+02 2.00E+04 Ingersoll and others 1996 Phenanthrene 1.50E+04 5.70E+03 Cabbage and others 1997 Phenanthrene 5.60E+02 Persaud and others 1993

Pyrene 4.00E+01 3.50E+02 4.40E+01 4.90E+02 9.00E+03 Ingersoll and others 1996 Pyrene 2.30E+04 9.60E+03 Cabbage and others 1997 Pyrene 4.90E+02 Persaud and others 1993

Total PAH (TPAH) 2.40E+02 2.20E+03 2.60E+02 3.40E+03 6.20E+04 Ingersoll and others 1996 TPAH 4.00E+03 Persaud and others 1993 TPAH 1.70E+05 6.00E+04 Cabbage and others 1997 TPAH 4.02E+03 4.48E+04 Long and others 1995

Notes: ERL (Effect Low Range): calculated by sorting calculations observed to be associated with effects in ascending order and calculating the lower 10th percentile concentration. ERM (Effect Range Median): calculated by sorting calculations observed to be associated with effects in ascending order and calculating the 50th percentile concentration. TEL (Threshold Effect Level): calculated as the geometric mean of the of the ERL and the NERM (No Effect Range Median; 50th percentile concentration of no effects data). PEL (Probable Effect Level): calculated as the geometric mean of the of the ERM and the NERH (No Effect Range High; 85th percentile concentration of no effects data). NEC (No Effect Concentration): Same as LAET above TEL and PEL are similar to MATC (Maximum Acceptable Toxicant Concentration) LAET: Lowest Apparent Effects Threshold (level above which a significant difference is expected to occur). Value derived using Microtox AET. FSQV: Freshwater Sediment Quality Value. Value derived using Microtox PAET. PAET: (Probable Apparent Effects Threshold) derived as the 95th percentile of values with no significant biological effects and concentrations greater that the lowest hit level. PSEP: Puget Sound Estuary Program. TPAH is the sum of 16 PAH compounds: acenaphthene, anthracene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(b)flourene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, and pyrene.

2 TABLE D-2

SOIL INVERTEBRATE TOXICITY VALUES MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Basis for TRV Duration Concentration TRV Chemical Test Organism Uncertainty Factor Primary Reference Secondary Reference & Notes & Endpoint ug/kg

Chronic (28 day) woodlouse Benzo(a)pyrene 2.50E+04 None (NOAEL) 2.50E+04 EPA 1999 van Straalen and Verweij 1991 NOAEL (growth) (Porcellio scaber )

Will and Suter 1995a; Efroymson Fluorene LC50 earthworm 1.70E+05 5 3.E+04 Neuhauser and others 1986 and others 1997 Notes: EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. See reference list at end of text for citation. LC50: Lethal concentration where 50% of test animals were affected. NOAEL: No observable adverse effects level. RFW: Roy F. Weston, Inc. See reference list at end of text for citation. TRV: Toxicity reference value.

1 TABLE D-3

PLANT TOXICITY VALUES MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Basis for TRV Duration Concentration TRV (ug/kg) Chemical Test Organism Uncertainty Factor Primary Reference Secondary Reference & Notes & Endpoint (ug/kg)

Acenaphthene 20% reduction in growth -- 2.00E+04 -- 2.00E+04 Will and Suter 1995b -- Acenaphthene LOEC -- 2.50E+04 0.1 2.50E+03 RFW 1997 --

Anthracene LC50 seedling emergence oats 5.25E+05 0.01 5.25E+03 Parametrix 1997 Mitchell and others 1988 Anthracene EC50 growth oats 3.00E+04 0.01 3.00E+02 Parametrix 1997 Mitchell and others 1988 Anthracene EC50 growth lettuce 2.50E+04 0.01 2.50E+02 Parametrix 1997 Hulzebos and others 1993 LC50 seedling emergence eucalyptus 1.00E+05 0.01 1.00E+03 Parametrix 1997 Mitchell and others 1988 Anthracene EC50 growth LC50 seedling emergence she-oak 1.00E+06 0.01 1.00E+04 Parametrix 1997 Mitchell and others 1988 Anthracene EC50 growth

Chronic Benzo(a)pyrene wheat 1.20E+03 None 1.20E+03 EPA 1999 Sims and Overcash 1983 NOAEL

Chronic Benzo(b)fluoranthene wheat 1.20E+03 None 1.20E+03 EPA 1999 Sims and Overcash 1983 NOAEL

Naphthalene NOAEL 1.00E+01 None 1.00E+01 Will and Suter 1995b -- Naphthalene EC50 growth lettuce 1.00E+06 0.01 1.00E+04 Parametrix 1997 Hulzebos and others 1993

Notes: -- indicates information not available in primary reference. EC50: 50% effects concentration. EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. See reference list at end of text for citation. LOEC: Lowest observable effects concentration. LC50: Lowest concentration affecting 50% of test plants. NOAEL: No observable adverse effects level. RFW: Roy F. Weston, Inc. See reference list at end of text for citation. TRV: Toxicity reference value.

1 TABLE D-4

MAMMALIAN TOXICITY VALUES MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Exposure Dose Uncertainty Chemical Test Species Life Stage Duration Effect Level/Endpoint TRV Primary Reference Secondary Reference mode (ug/kg-day) Factor

Acenaphthene mouse ------NOAEL hepatoxicity 1.75E+05 None 1.75E+05 EPA 2000

Anthracene mouse gavage -- 90 days NOAEL no treatment-related effects 1.00E+06 None 1.00E+06 EPA 2000 EPA 1989 Anthracene rat food -- 550 days no effect dose no effect on lifespan or histology 1.50E+04 None 1.50E+04 EPA 2000 Schmahl 1955

Benzo(a)anthracene mouse -- -- single dose LOAEL gastrointestinal effect 1.67E+04 0.01 1.67E+02 EPA 1999 Bock and King 1981

mean survival time and Benzo(a)pyrene rat food -- throughout lifetime no effect dose 1.10E+02 None 1.10E+02 Engineering Field Activity West 1988 Brune and others 1981 malignant tumor development Benzo(a)pyrene rat food -- throughout lifetime no effect dose increase in benign tumors 1.60E+01 None 1.60E+01 Engineering Field Activity West 1988 Brune and others 1981 Benzo(a)pyrene mice food -- 110 days no effect dose gastric neoplasms or life span 1.31E+03 None 1.31E+03 Engineering Field Activity West 1988 Neal and Rigdon 1967 Benzo(a)pyrene mice food -- 80 - 140 days effect dose increased pulmonary adenomas 3.28E+04 0.10 3.28E+03 Engineering Field Activity West 1988 Rigdon and Neal 1969 Acute (10 days) but reproduction (impaired fertility, marked Benzo(a)pyrene mouse gavage pregnancy during sensitive life LOAEL 1.00E+04 0.01 1.00E+02 EPA 1999 Mackenzie and Angevine 1981 alterations in gametogenesis and folliculogenesis) stage (pregnancy) Benzo(a)pyrene mouse ------LOAEL reproduction 1.20E+05 0.01 1.20E+03 Parametrix 1997 EPA 2000 Benzo(a)pyrene mouse ------NOAEL reproduction 1.20E+04 None 1.20E+04 Parametrix 1997 LeGraverend and others 1984 Benzo(a)pyrene mouse ------NOAEL reproduction 1.00E+06 None 1.00E+06 Parametrix 1997 Rigdon and Neal 1965 Benzo(a)pyrene rat ------LOAEL embryonic development effects 1.00E+06 0.01 1.00E+04 Parametrix 1997 Rigdon and Neal 1964 Benzo(a)pyrene mouse -- -- generational no effect dose no effect on reproduction or fertility 1.30E+05 None 1.30E+05 RFW 1997 Rigdon and others 1965

Subchronic Dibenz(a,h)anthracene rat -- -- LOAEL growth 2.00E+02 0.01 2.00E+00 EPA 1999 Haddow and others 1937 (15 days) Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mouse food -- 21 days effect dose decrease in number of successful pgs. 1.00E-01 0.01 1.00E-03 RFW 1997 Reno 1968

Fluorene mouse gavage -- -- NOAEL decreased erythrocyte count 1.25E+05 None 1.25E+05 Parametrix 1997 EPA 2000

Fluoranthene mouse gavage -- -- LOAEL liver and kidney 2.50E+05 Parametrix 1997 EPA 2000 Fluoranthene mouse gavage -- -- NOAEL liver and kidney 1.25E+05 None 1.25E+05 Parametrix 1997 EPA 2000

Naphthalene rat food lifetime 700 days no effect dose mortality 4.10E+04 None 4.10E+04 RFW 1997 ATSDR 1990 gestation days Naphthalene lab rats gavage 10 days no effect dose body weight gain or water consumption 5.00E+04 None 5.00E+04 Engineering Field Activity West 1988 Navarro and others 1991 6-15 gestation days Naphthalene lab rats gavage 10 days effect dose maternal lethargy 5.10E+04 0.01 5.10E+02 Engineering Field Activity West 1988 Navarro and others 1991 6-15 gestation days decreased body weight gain Naphthalene lab rats gavage 10 days effect dose 1.50E+05 0.01 1.50E+03 Engineering Field Activity West 1988 Navarro and others 1991 6-15 or water consumption gestation days reduced maternal survival and decreased average Naphthalene lab rats gavage 10 days effect dose 3.00E+05 0.01 3.00E+03 Engineering Field Activity West 1988 Navarro and others 1991 6-15 number of live offspring decreases in serum concentration of blood Naphthalene mice gavage -- 90 days effect dose 2.70E+04 0.01 2.70E+02 Engineering Field Activity West 1988 Shopp and others 1984 urea nitrogen (BUN) and creatinine Naphthalene mouse gavage -- -- LOAEL reduced number of pups per litter 3.00E+05 0.01 3.00E+03 Parametrix 1997 Plasterer and others 1985 Naphthalene mouse gavage -- -- NOAEL reduced number of pups per litter 3.00E+04 None 3.00E+04 Parametrix 1997 Plasterer and others 1985 Naphthalene mouse gavage -- -- NOAEL no effects on reproduction 2.00E+05 None 2.00E+05 Parametrix 1997 Battelle 1980

Pyrene mouse ------LOAEL kidney effects 1.25E+05 0.1 1.25E+04 Parametrix 1997 EPA 2000 Pyrene mouse ------NOAEL kidney effects 7.50E+04 None 7.50E+04 Parametrix 1997 EPA 2000

Notes: -- indicates information not available in primary reference. EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. See reference list at end of text for citation. LOAEL: Lowest observable adverse effects level. NOAEL: No observable adverse effects level. RFW: Roy F. Weston, Inc. See reference list at end of text for citation. TRV: Toxicity reference value.

1 TABLE D-5

AVIAN TOXICITY VALUES MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Dose Uncertainty Chemical Species Exposure mode Life Stage Duration Effect Level/Endpoint TRV Primary Reference Secondary Reference (ug/kg-day) Factor

Benzo(a)anthracene chicken embryo -- embryo Acute LD50 lethality 7.90E+01 0.01 7.90E-01 EPA 1999 Brunström and others 1991

Benzo(a)pyrene chicken embryo -- embryo Acute NOAEL no effect 1.00E+02 0.01 1.00E+00 EPA 1999 Brunström and others 1991 no effect on survival but embryonic surface Benzo(a)pyrene mallard embryo embryo Acute LOAEL growth reduction and increased 0.002 ug/egg NA NA Eisler 1987 Hoffman and Gay 1981 application incidence of abnormalities

Benzo(k)fluoranthene chicken embryo -- embryo Acute LD50 lethality 1.40E+01 0.01 1.40E-01 EPA 1999 Brunström and others 1991

Chrysene chicken embryo -- embryo Acute LOAEL -- 1.00E+02 0.01 1.00E+00 EPA 1999 Brunström and others 1991

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene chicken embryo -- embryo Acute LD50 lethality 3.90E+01 0.01 3.90E-01 EPA 1999 Brunström and others 1991

Naphthalene bob white quail diet 13 day old 5 days NOAEL decreased body weight gain 3.47E+05 None 3.47E+05 RFW 1997 Wildlife International, Ltd. 1985 Naphthalene bob white quail diet 13 day old 5 days LOAEL decreased body weight gain 5.84E+05 0.10 5.84E+04 RFW 1997 Wildlife International, Ltd. 1985 Naphthalene Pekin duck -- 13 day old 11 days effect dose mortality 5.34E+05 0.01 5.34E+03 RFW 1997 Dow Chemical Company 1944 Naphthalene mallard diet -- 7 months NOAEL no effect on survival 2.80E+05 None 2.80E+05 Parametrix 1997 Patton and Dieter 1980 Naphthalene mallard diet -- 7 months NOAEL no effect on survival 2.80E+05 None 2.80E+05 Parametrix 1997 Patton and Dieter 1980

Phenanthrene mallard diet -- 7 months NOAEL no effect on survival 2.80E+05 None 2.80E+05 Parametrix 1997 Patton and Dieter 1980

no significant changes in Total PAHs clinical chemistry parameters, mallard diet -- 22 weeks NOAEL 1.96E+03 None 1.96E+03 RFW 1997 Stubblefield and others 1995a,b (weathered crude) reduction in eggshell thickness and strength, liver and spleen weight

Notes: EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. See reference list at end of text for citation. LD50: Lethal dose where 50% of test animals were affected. LOAEL: Lowest observable adverse effects level. NA: Not applicable. This study was for application of a synthetic petroleum mixture to the surface of eggs, and therefore, a TRV in terms of ug/kg-day (dose) is unknown. NOAEL: No observable adverse effects level. RFW: Roy F. Weston, Inc. See reference list at end of text for citation. TRV: Toxicity reference value. -- indicates information not available in primary reference.

1 TABLE D-6

AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILE TOXICITY VALUES MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT Dose

Chemical Species Life Stage Duration Effect Level/Endpoint mg/kg-day (reported) ug/kg-day Reference

Benzo(a)anthracene iberian ribbed newt larvae, stage 53 6 days effect concentration cytogenic effects 1.88E-01 1.88E+02 RFW 1997 Benzo(a)anthracene iberian ribbed newt larvae, stage 53 6 days effect concentration cytogenic effects 9.38E-02 9.38E+01 RFW 1997

Benzo(a)pyrene American toad 24 hours effect concentration growth 5.00E+00 5.00E+03 RFW 1997 Benzo(a)pyrene clawed toad tadpole stage 52 24 hours effect concentration mutation (multiple tissue/organs) 1.00E-02 1.00E+01 RFW 1997

Pyrene iberian ribbed newt larvae, 32 mm 12 days effect concentration cytogenic effects 3.50E-02 3.50E+01 RFW 1997

Notes: RFW: Roy F. Weston, Inc. See reference list at end of text for citation.

1 APPENDIX E

CONCENTRATION, DOSE, AND HAZARD QUOTIENT CALCULATIONS

(16 PAGES)

Summary of Exposure Algorithms (1 page) Tables (as follows)

TABLE

E-1 Ecological Screening Hazard Quotients for the Aquatic Food Web (Big Creek Sediments)

E-2 Daily Dose Calculations for the Aquatic Food Web (Big Creek Sediments)

E-3 Concentrations in the Aquatic Food Web (Big Creek Sediments)

E-4 Ecological Screening Hazard Quotients for the Aquatic Food Web (Unnamed Tributary Sediments)

E-5 Daily Dose Calculations for the Aquatic Food Web (Unnamed Tributary Sediments)

E-6 Concentrations in the Aquatic Food Web (Unnamed Tributary Sediments)

E-7 Ecological Screening Hazard Quotients for the Terrestrial Food Web

E-8 Daily Dose Calculations for the Terrestrial Food Web

E-9 Concentrations in the Terrestrial Food Web SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE ALGORITHMS USED IN APPENDIX E CALCULATIONS

Where media concentrations were compared with ecological benchmarks,

HQ = Cmed/TRVmed where

Cmed = Concentration of a chemical in a medium (e.g., soil or sediment, mg/kg) TRVmed = Toxicity reference value for the same chemical in the same medium (mg/kg)

For upper trophic level receptors,

HQ = Dreceptor/TRVreceptor where

Dreceptor = Daily dose estimated for a chemical though all exposure routes (µg/kg-day) as outlined in Section 4 TRVreceptor = Toxicity reference value for measurement endpoint receptor (µg/kg-day)

Dreceptor was calculated with the following equation:

D = ' IR F * C i * Pi * F i + ' IR M * CM * PM where

D = Daily dose of COPC ingested (mg COPC/kg BW-day)

IR F = Measurement endpoint receptor plant or animal food item ingestion rate (kg/kg BW-day)

C i = COPC concentration in ith plant or animal food item (mg COPC/kg) Pi = Proportion of ith food item that is contaminated; may be equivalent to area use factor (unitless)

F i = Fraction of diet consisting of plant or animal food item i (unitless) IR M = Measurement endpoint receptor media ingestion rate (kg/kg BW-day [soil or sediment] or L/kg BW-day [water])

CM = COPC concentration in media (mg/kg [soil or sediment] or mg/L [water]) PM = Proportion of ingested media that is contaminated (unitless)

All subscripts are defined in the footnotes to Tables E-1 through E-9, as relevant. TABLE E-1

ECOLOGICAL SCREENING HAZARD QUOTIENTS FOR THE AQUATIC FOOD WEB BIG CREEK SEDIMENTS MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

TRV [SED] TRV TRV TRV TRV HQSED mg/kg dry HQHB [BIRD] HQOM [MAMM] HQOB [BIRD] HQPB [BIRD] Contaminant weight ug/kg-d ug/kg-d ug/kg-d ug/kg-d Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) Low Molecular Weight (LPAH) Acenaphthene 5.60E+03 1.50E-01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Acenaphthylene* 2.75E+03 1.60E-01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Anthracene 1.50E+04 2.20E-01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Fluoranthene 1.87E+03 7.50E-01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Fluorene 7.37E+03 1.90E-01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Naphthalene 1.31E+04 1.30E-02 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Phenanthrene 6.61E+03 5.60E-01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total LPAH 1.35E+05 8.00E-02 4.07E+00 2.80E+05 5.79E+04 1.50E+04 1.43E+03 2.80E+05 5.70E+02 2.80E+05 High Molecular Weight (HPAH) Benzo(a)pyrene 2.70E+02 3.70E-01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Benzo(a)anthracene 5.94E+02 3.20E-01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4.05E+03 3.70E-02 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Benzo(k)fluoranthene 3.42E+02 2.40E-01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Chrysene 9.71E+02 3.40E-01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.45E+00 6.00E-01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 8.67E+02 3.00E-02 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pyrene 1.82E+03 4.90E-01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total HPAH 9.97E+03 1.70E-01 4.45E+00 1.96E+03 8.94E+01 1.20E+04 2.00E+02 1.96E+03 1.60E+01 1.96E+03 TOTAL PAH 3.13E+03 4.00E+00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total HI of the Community or Guild 2.10E+05 8.52E+00 5.80E+04 1.63E+03 5.86E+02

Notes: HQ = Hazard quotient. HI = Hazard index. See Section 5 for description of calculations. Daily doses are shown in Table E-2; exposure point concentrations for benthos are maximum detections given in Table 2-4. LPAH = Low Molecular Weight PAHs. Total LPAH HI calculated separately, along with individual benthos HI for individual PAHs. Anthracene TRV used as surrogate for LPAH in mammals; naphthalene/phenanthrene used as surrogate for LPAHs in birds. HPAH = High Molecular Weight PAHs. Total HPAH HI calculated separately, along with individual benthos HI for individual PAHs, for sediment invertebrates. BAP TRVs used as surrogate for HPAHs in mammals and birds. Total PAH = Total all PAH. Total PAH HI calculated as sum of maximum concentration divided by TRV for "total PAH" irrespective of other individual HIs. * In the absence of any other sediment benchmark, the acenapthylene benchmark was set to the upper effects threshold of 160 ug/kg dry weight, and reflects the lowest reliable value among toxicity tests on a 1% total organic carbon basis for freshwater sediments (Buchman 1999). SED = Sediment community OM = Omnivorous mammal feeding guild HB = Herbivorous bird feeding guild PB = Piscivorous bird feeding guild OB = Omnivorous bird feeding guild TRV = Toxicity reference value (see Section 3) N/A = Not calculated because data were not available. See notes regarding LPAH and HPAH approach above.

1 TABLE E-2

DAILY DOSE CALCULATIONS FOR THE AQUATIC FOOD WEB BIG CREEK SEDIMENTS MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

HERBIVOROUS BIRD: wood duck OMNIVOROUS MAMMAL: raccoon OMNIVOROUS BIRD: mallard PISCIVOROUS BIRD: heron (surrogate: mallard) (surrogate: kingfisher) HPAH Represented by Benzo(a)pyrene DHB 8.73E+03 DOM 1.07E+06 DOB 3.92E+05 DPB 3.14E+04

CAV 1.87E+04 CHM 1.21E+02 CBI 2.70E+06 CBI 2.70E+06 CAL 0.00E+00 CHB 1.89E+02 CWI 0.00E+00 CWI 0.00E+00 CS 1.70E+06 CBI 2.70E+06 CAV 1.87E+04 CHPF 0.00E+00 CW 0.00E+00 CWI 0.00E+00 CAL 0.00E+00 COF 0.00E+00 IRHB 1.79E-01 CAV 1.87E+04 CS 1.70E+06 COB 6.74E+05 IRS-HB 3.18E-03 CAL 0.00E+00 CW 0.00E+00 CS 1.70E+06 IRW-HB 5.82E-02 CS 1.70E+06 IROB 1.79E-01 CW 0.00E+00 PAV 1.00 CW 0.00E+00 IRS-OB 3.18E-03 IRPB 5.29E-02 PAL 1.00 IROM 7.70E-01 IRW-OB 5.82E-02 IRS-PB 1.01E-02 PS 1.00 IRS-OM 1.60E-02 PBI 1.00 IRW-PB 1.66E-02 PW 1.00 IRW-OM 2.66E-01 PWI 1.00 PBI 1.00 FAV 1.00 PHM 1.00 PAV 1.00 PWI 1.00 FAL 0.00 PHB 1.00 PAL 1.00 PHPF 1.00 PBI 1.00 PS 1.00 POF 1.00 Notes: PWI 1.00 PW 1.00 POB 1.00 AL = Aquatic life PAV 1.00 FBI 0.80 PS 1.00 AV = Aquatic vegetation. PAL 1.00 FWI 0.00 PW 1.00 BI = Benthic invertebrates. PS 1.00 FAV 0.20 FBI 0.10 C = Concentration in media in subscript. PW 1.00 FAL 0.00 FWI 0.00 D = Dose to receptor in subscript. FHM 0.000 FHPF 0.90 F = Fraction of diet composed of subscripted item. FHB 0.000 FOF 0.00 HB = Herbivorous bird. FBI 0.500 FOB 0.00 HM = Herbivorous mammal. Not included in the food FWI 0.000 web due to insignificant PAH uptake in this guild. FAV 0.500 HPF = Herbivorous/planktivorous fish. Not included FAL 0.000 due to lack of surface water data. P = Portion of subscripted media or diet component affected by site activities. IR = Intake rate for [media]-[receptor] in subscript. PB = Piscivorous bird. OB = Omnivorous bird. S = Sediment. OF = Omnivorous fish. Not included due to lack of surface water data. W= Water. Not evaluated due to lack of surface water data. OM = Omnivorous mammal. WI = Water column invertebrates.

1 TABLE E-2

DAILY DOSE CALCULATIONS FOR THE AQUATIC FOOD WEB BIG CREEK SEDIMENTS MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

HERBIVOROUS BIRD: wood duck OMNIVOROUS MAMMAL: raccoon OMNIVOROUS BIRD: mallard PISCIVOROUS BIRD: heron (surrogate: mallard) (surrogate: kingfisher) LPAH Represented by Naphthalene, Phenanthrene and Anthracene DHB 1.14E+06 DOM 8.68E+08 DOB 4.00E+08 DPB 1.59E+08

CAV 6.17E+06 CHM 2.81E+04 CBI 2.79E+09 CBI 2.79E+09 CAL 0.00E+00 CHB 1.57E+04 CWI 0.00E+00 CWI 0.00E+00 CS 1.08E+07 CBI 2.79E+09 CAV 6.17E+06 CHPF 0.00E+00 CW 0.00E+00 CWI 0.00E+00 CAL 0.00E+00 COF 0.00E+00 IRHB 1.79E-01 CAV 6.17E+06 CS 1.08E+07 COB 6.99E+08 IRS-HB 3.18E-03 CAL 0.00E+00 CW 0.00E+00 CS 1.08E+07 IRW-HB 5.82E-02 CS 1.08E+07 IROB 1.79E-01 CW 0.00E+00 PAV 1.00 CW 0.00E+00 IRS-OB 3.18E-03 IRPB 5.69E-01 PAL 1.00 IROM 6.20E-01 IRW-OB 5.82E-02 IRS-PB 4.15E-02 PS 1.00 IRS-OM 1.36E-02 PBI 1.00 IRW-PB 1.74E-01 PW 1.00 IRW-OM 1.72E-01 PWI 1.00 PBI 1.00 FAV 1.00 PHM 1.00 PAV 1.00 PWI 1.00 FAL 0.00 PHB 1.00 PAL 1.00 PHPF 1.00 PBI 1.00 PS 1.00 POF 1.00 PWI 1.00 PW 1.00 POB 1.00 PAV 1.00 FBI 0.80 PS 1.00 PAL 1.00 FWI 0.00 PW 1.00 PS 1.00 FAV 0.20 FBI 0.10 PW 1.00 FAL 0.00 FWI 0.00 FHM 0.000 FHPF 0.90 FHB 0.000 FOF 0.00 FBI 0.500 FOB 0.00 FWI 0.000 FAV 0.500 FAL 0.000

2 TABLE E-3

CONCENTRATIONS IN THE AQUATIC FOOD WEB BIG CREEK SEDIMENTS MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

AQUATIC VEGETATION AQUATIC LIFE HERBIVOROUS BIRD BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES OMNIVOROUS MAMMAL: OMNIVOROUS BIRD: HPAH Represented by Benzo(a)pyrene Wood duck (mallard) Raccoon Mallard

CAV 1.87E+04 CAL 0.00E+00 CHB 1.89E+02 CBI 2.70E+06 COM 1.35E+06 COB 6.74E+05

CS 1.70E+06 CW 0.00E+00 CAV 1.87E+04 CS 1.70E+06 CBI 2.70E+06 CBI 2.70E+06 BCFS-AV 1.10E-02 BCFW-AL 5.26E+03 CAL 0.00E+00 BCFS-BI 1.59E+00 CWI 0.00E+00 CWI 0.00E+00 CS 1.70E+06 CHM 1.21E+02 CAV 1.87E+04 CW 0.00E+00 CHB 1.89E+02 CAL 0.00E+00 BCFHB 4.78E-03 CAL 0.00E+00 CS 1.70E+06 BCFS-HB 8.50E-05 CAV 1.87E+04 CW 0.00E+00 BCFW-HB 1.55E-03 CS 1.70E+06 FCMTL3/TL2[BI] 1.00 PAV 1.00 CW 0.00E+00 FCMTL3/TL2[WI] 1.00 PAL 1.00 FCMTL3/TL2[BI] 1.00 BCFAV-OB 4.78E-03 Notes: PS 1.00 FCMTL3/TL2[WI] 1.00 BCFAL-OB 1.05E-02 AL = Aquatic life PW 1.00 FCMTL3/TL2[HM] 1.00 BCFS-OB 8.50E-05 AV = Aquatic vegetation FAV 0.50 FCMTL3/TL2[HB] 1.00 BCFW-OB 1.55E-03 BI = Benthic invertebrates FAL 0.50 BCFAL-OM 0.00E+00 PBI 1.00 BCF = Bioconcentration factor from [media/prey]-[receptor]. BCFAV-OM 2.60E-02 PWI 1.00 BCF values are from EPA (1999) as described in text. BCFS-OM 5.39E-04 PAV 1.00 C = Concentration in media in subscript BCFW-OM 9.00E-03 PAL 1.00 F = Fraction of diet composed of subscripted item PBI 1.00 PS 1.00 FCM = Food chain multiplier between trophic levels (TL). PWI 1.00 PW 1.00 See text for description of use; all FCMs assumed to be one due to presence of PHM 1.00 FBI 0.25 PAH-metabolizing enzyme systems in higher trophic levels. PHB 1.00 FWI 0.25 HB = Herbivorous bird PAL 1.00 FAV 0.25 HM = Herbivorous mammal. Not included in the food PAV 1.00 FAL 0.25 web due to insignificant PAH uptake in this guild. PS 1.00 OB = Omnivorous bird PW 1.00 OM = Omnivorous mammal FBI 0.500 P = Portion of subscripted media or diet component affected by site activities FWI 0.000 S = Sediment FHM 0.000 W= Water. Not evaluated due to lack of surface water data. FHB 0.000 WI = Water invertebrates FAL 0.250

FAV 0.250

1 TABLE E-3

CONCENTRATIONS IN THE AQUATIC FOOD WEB BIG CREEK SEDIMENTS MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT LPAH Represented by Naphthalene, Phenanthrene and Anthracene

CAV 6.17E+06 CAL 0.00E+00 CHB 1.57E+04 CBI 2.79E+09 COM 1.40E+09 COB 6.99E+08

CS 1.08E+07 CW 0.00E+00 CAV 6.17E+06 CS 1.08E+07 CBI 2.79E+09 CBI 2.79E+09 BCFS-AV 5.70E-01 BCFW-AL 5.26E+03 CAL 0.00E+00 BCFS-BI 2.58E+02 CWI 0.00E+00 CWI 0.00E+00 CS 1.08E+07 CHM 2.81E+04 CAV 6.17E+06 CW 0.00E+00 CHB 1.57E+04 CAL 0.00E+00 BCFHB 4.78E-03 CAL 0.00E+00 CS 1.08E+07 BCFS-HB 8.50E-05 CAV 6.17E+06 CW 0.00E+00 BCFW-HB 1.55E-03 CS 1.08E+07 FCMTL3/TL2[BI] 1.00 PAV 1.00 CW 0.00E+00 FCMTL3/TL2[WI] 1.00 PAL 1.00 FCMTL3/TL2[BI] 1.00 BCFAV-OB 4.78E-03 PS 1.00 FCMTL3/TL2[WI] 1.00 BCFAL-OB 1.05E-02 PW 1.00 FCMTL3/TL2[HM] 1.00 BCFS-OB 8.50E-05 FAV 0.50 FCMTL3/TL2[HB] 1.00 BCFW-OB 1.55E-03 FAL 0.50 BCFAL-OM 0.00E+00 PBI 1.00 BCFAV-OM 2.60E-02 PWI 1.00 BCFS-OM 5.39E-04 PAV 1.00 BCFW-OM 9.00E-03 PAL 1.00 PBI 1.00 PS 1.00 PWI 1.00 PW 1.00 PHM 1.00 FBI 0.25 PHB 1.00 FWI 0.25 PAL 1.00 FAV 0.25 PAV 1.00 FAL 0.25 PS 1.00 PW 1.00 FBI 0.500 FWI 0.000 FHM 0.000 FHB 0.000 FAL 0.250 FAV 0.250

2 TABLE E-4

ECOLOGICAL SCREENING HAZARD QUOTIENTS FOR THE AQUATIC FOOD WEB UNNAMED TRIBUTARY SEDIMENTS SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY

TRV [SED] TRV TRV TRV TRV HQSED mg/kg dry HQHB [BIRD] HQOM [MAMM] HQOB [BIRD] HQPB [BIRD] Contaminant weight ug/kg-d ug/kg-d ug/kg-d ug/kg-d Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) Low Molecular Weight (LPAH) Acenaphthenen 1.27E+00 1.50E-01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Acenaphthylene*n 1.19E+00 1.60E-01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Anthracene 2.32E+01 2.20E-01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Fluoranthene 1.87E+00 7.50E-01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Fluorene 3.21E+00 1.90E-01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Naphthalenen 1.46E+01 1.30E-02 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Phenanthrene 1.96E+00 5.60E-01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total LPAH 1.20E+02 8.00E-02 3.59E-03 2.80E+05 5.11E+01 1.50E+04 1.26E+00 2.80E+05 5.03E-01 2.80E+05 High Molecular Weight (HPAH) Benzo(a)pyrene 1.76E+00 3.70E-01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Benzo(a)anthracene 2.09E+00 3.20E-01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.24E+02 3.70E-02 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4.17E+00 2.40E-01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Chrysene 7.35E+00 3.40E-01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dibenz(a,h)anthracene n 3.17E-01 6.00E-01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2.83E+01 3.00E-02 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pyrene 2.65E+00 4.90E-01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total HPAH 7.34E+01 1.70E-01 3.28E-02 1.96E+03 6.57E-01 1.20E+04 1.47E+00 1.96E+03 1.18E-01 1.96E+03 TOTAL PAH 5.51E+00 4.00E+00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total HI of the Community or Guild 4.17E+02 3.64E-02 5.18E+01 2.73E+00 6.20E-01

Notes: HQ = Hazard quotient. HI = Hazard index. See Section 5 for description of calculations. Daily doses are shown in Table E-5; exposure point concentrations for benthos are maximum detections given in Table 2-4. LPAH = Low Molecular Weight PAHs. Total LPAH HI calculated separately, along with individual benthos HI for individual PAHs. Anthracene TRV used as surrogate for LPAH in mammals; naphthalene/phenanthrene used as surrogate for LPAHs in birds. HPAH = High Molecular Weight PAHs. Total HPAH HI calculated separately, along with individual benthos HI for individual PAHs, for sediment invertebrates. BAP TRVs used as surrogate for HPAHs in mammals and birds. Total PAH = Total all PAH. Total PAH HI calculated as sum of maximum concentration divided by TRV for "total PAH" irrespective of other individual HIs. * In the absence of any other sediment benchmark, the acenapthylene benchmark was set to the upper effects threshold of 160 ug/kg dry weight, and reflects the lowest reliable value among toxicity tests on a 1% total organic carbon basis for freshwater sediments (Buchman 1999). SED = Sediment community OM = Omnivorous mammal feeding guild HB = Herbivorous bird feeding guild PB = Piscivorous bird feeding guild OB = Omnivorous bird feeding guild TRV = Toxicity reference value (see Section 3) N/A = Not calculated because data were not available. See notes regarding LPAH and HPAH approach above.

1 TABLE E-5

DAILY DOSE CALCULATIONS FOR THE AQUATIC FOOD WEB UNNAMED TRIBUTARY SEDIMENTS SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY

HERBIVOROUS BIRD: wood duck OMNIVOROUS MAMMAL: raccoon OMNIVOROUS BIRD: mallard PISCIVOROUS BIRD: heron (surrogate: mallard) (surrogate: kingfisher) HPAH Represented by Benzo(a)pyrene

DHB 6.42E+01 DOM 7.89E+03 DOB 2.88E+03 DPB 2.31E+02

CAV 1.37E+02 CHM 8.90E-01 CBI 1.98E+04 CBI 1.98E+04 CAL 0.00E+00 CHB 1.39E+00 CWI 0.00E+00 CWI 0.00E+00 CS 1.25E+04 CBI 1.98E+04 CAV 1.37E+02 CHPF 0.00E+00 CW 0.00E+00 CWI 0.00E+00 CAL 0.00E+00 COF 0.00E+00 IRHB 1.79E-01 CAV 1.37E+02 CS 1.25E+04 COB 4.96E+03 IRS-HB 3.18E-03 CAL 0.00E+00 CW 0.00E+00 CS 1.25E+04 IRW-HB 5.82E-02 CS 1.25E+04 IROB 1.79E-01 CW 0.00E+00 PAV 1.00 CW 0.00E+00 IRS-OB 3.18E-03 IRPB 5.29E-02 PAL 1.00 IROM 7.70E-01 IRW-OB 5.82E-02 IRBS-PB 1.01E-02 PS 1.00 IRS-OM 1.60E-02 PBI 1.00 IRW-PB 1.66E-02 PW 1.00 IRW-OM 2.66E-01 PWI 1.00 PBI 1.00 FAV 1.00 PHM 1.00 PAV 1.00 PWI 1.00 FAL 0.00 PHB 1.00 PAL 1.00 PHPF 1.00 PBI 1.00 PS 1.00 POF 1.00 Notes: PWI 1.00 PW 1.00 POB 1.00 AL = Aquatic life. PAV 1.00 FBI 0.80 PS 1.00 AV = Aquatic vegetation. PAL 1.00 FWI 0.00 PW 1.00 BI = Benthic invertebrates. PS 1.00 FAV 0.20 FBI 0.10 C = Concentration in media in subscript. PW 1.00 FAL 0.00 FWI 0.00 D = Dose to receptor in subscript. FHM 0.000 FHPF 0.90 F = Fraction of diet composed of subscripted item. FHB 0.000 FOF 0.00 HB = Herbivorous bird. FBI 0.500 FOB 0.00 HM = Herbivorous mammal. Not included in the food FWI 0.000 web due to insignificant PAH uptake in this guild. FAV 0.500 HPF = Herbivorous, planktivorous fish. Not FAL 0.000 included due to lack of surface water data. IR = Intake rate for [media]-[receptor] in subscript. OB = Omnivorous bird. S = Sediment. OF = Omnivorous fish. Not included due to lack of surface water data. W= Water. Not evaluated due to lack of surface water data. OM = Omnivorous mammal. WI = Water invertebrates. P = Portion of subscripted media or diet component affected by site activities.

1 TABLE E-5

DAILY DOSE CALCULATIONS FOR THE AQUATIC FOOD WEB UNNAMED TRIBUTARY SEDIMENTS SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY

DHB 1.01E+03 DOM 7.66E+05 DOB 3.53E+05 DPB 1.41E+05

CAV 5.45E+03 CHM 2.48E+01 CBI 2.47E+06 CBI 2.47E+06 CAL 0.00E+00 CHB 1.38E+01 CWI 0.00E+00 CWI 0.00E+00 CS 9.56E+03 CBI 2.47E+06 CAV 5.45E+03 CHPF 0.00E+00 CW 0.00E+00 CWI 0.00E+00 CAL 0.00E+00 COF 0.00E+00 IRHB 1.79E-01 CAV 5.45E+03 CS 9.56E+03 COB 6.17E+05 IRS-HB 3.18E-03 CAL 0.00E+00 CW 0.00E+00 CS 9.56E+03 IRW-HB 5.82E-02 CS 9.56E+03 IROB 1.79E-01 CW 0.00E+00 PAV 1.00 CW 0.00E+00 IRS-OB 3.18E-03 IRPB 5.69E-01 PAL 1.00 IROM 6.20E-01 IRW-OB 5.82E-02 IRS-PB 4.15E-02 PS 1.00 IRS-OM 1.36E-02 PBI 1.00 IRW-PB 1.74E-01 PW 1.00 IRW-OM 1.72E-01 PWI 1.00 PBI 1.00 FAV 1.00 PHM 1.00 PAV 1.00 PWI 1.00 FAL 0.00 PHB 1.00 PAL 1.00 PHPF 1.00 PBI 1.00 PS 1.00 POF 1.00 PWI 1.00 PW 1.00 POB 1.00 PAV 1.00 FBI 0.80 PS 1.00 PAL 1.00 FWI 0.00 PW 1.00 PS 1.00 FAV 0.20 FBI 0.10 PW 1.00 FAL 0.00 FWI 0.00 FHM 0.000 FHPF 0.90 FHB 0.000 FOF 0.00 FBI 0.500 FOB 0.00 FWI 0.000 FAV 0.500 FAL 0.000

2 TABLE E-6

CONCENTRATIONS IN THE AQUATIC FOOD WEB UNNAMED TRIBUTARY SEDIMENTS SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY

AQUATIC VEGETATION AQUATIC LIFE HERBIVOROUS BIRD BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES OMNIVOROUS MAMMAL: OMNIVOROUS BIRD: HPAH Represented by Benzo(a)pyrene Wood duck (mallard) Raccoon Mallard CAV 1.37E+02 CAL 0.00E+00 CHB 1.39E+00 CBI 1.98E+04 COM 9.92E+03 COB 4.96E+03

CS 1.25E+04 CW 0.00E+00 CAV 1.37E+02 CS 1.25E+04 CBI 1.98E+04 CBI 1.98E+04 BCFS-AV 1.10E-02 BCFW-AL 5.26E+03 CAL 0.00E+00 BCFS-BI 1.59E+00 CWI 0.00E+00 CWI 0.00E+00 CS 1.25E+04 CHM 8.90E-01 CAV 1.37E+02 CW 0.00E+00 CHB 1.39E+00 CAL 0.00E+00 BCFHB 4.78E-03 CAL 0.00E+00 CS 1.25E+04 BCFS-HB 8.50E-05 CAV 1.37E+02 CW 0.00E+00 BCFW-HB 1.55E-03 CS 1.25E+04 FCMTL3/TL2[BI] 1.00 PAV 1.00 CW 0.00E+00 FCMTL3/TL2[WI] 1.00 PAL 1.00 FCMTL3/TL2[BI] 1.00 BCFAV-OB 4.78E-03 Notes: PS 1.00 FCMTL3/TL2[WI] 1.00 BCFAL-OB 1.05E-02 PW 1.00 FCMTL3/TL2[HM] 1.00 BCFS-OB 8.50E-05 AL = Aquatic life. FAV 0.50 FCMTL3/TL2[HB] 1.00 BCFW-OB 1.55E-03 AV = Aquatic vegetation. FAL 0.50 BCFAL-OM 0.00E+00 PBI 1.00 BI = Benthic invertebrates. BCFAV-OM 2.60E-02 PWI 1.00 BCF = Bioconcentration factor from [media/prey]-[receptor]. BCFS-OM 5.39E-04 PAV 1.00 BCF values are from EPA (1999) as described in text. BCFW-OM 9.00E-03 PAL 1.00 C = Concentration in media in subscript. PBI 1.00 PS 1.00 F = Fraction of diet composed of subscripted item. PWI 1.00 PW 1.00 FCM = Food chain multiplier between trophic levels (TL). PHM 1.00 FBI 0.25 See text for description of use; all FCMs assumed to be one due to presence of PHB 1.00 FWI 0.25 PAH-metabolizing enzyme systems in higher trophic levels. PAL 1.00 FAV 0.25 HB = Herbivorous bird. PAV 1.00 FAL 0.25 HM = Herbivorous mammal. Not included in the food PBS 1.00 web due to insignificant PAH uptake in this guild. PW 1.00 OB = Omnivorous bird. FBI 0.500 OM = Omnivorous mammal. FWI 0.000 P = Portion of subscripted media or diet component affected by site activities. FHM 0.000 S = Sediment. FHB 0.000 W= Water. Not evaluated due to lack of surface water data. FAL 0.250 WI = Water column invertebrates. FAV 0.250

1 TABLE E-6

CONCENTRATIONS IN THE AQUATIC FOOD WEB UNNAMED TRIBUTARY SEDIMENTS SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY

LPAH Represented by Naphthalene, Phenanthrene and Anthracene CAV 5.45E+03 CAL 0.00E+00 CHB 1.38E+01 CBI 2.47E+06 COM 1.23E+06 COB 6.17E+05 CS 9.56E+03 CW 0.00E+00 CAV 5.45E+03 CS 9.56E+03 CBI 2.47E+06 CBI 2.47E+06 BCFS-AV 5.70E-01 BCFW-AL 5.26E+03 CAL 0.00E+00 BCFS-BI 2.58E+02 CWI 0.00E+00 CWI 0.00E+00 CS 9.56E+03 CHM 2.48E+01 CAV 5.45E+03 CW 0.00E+00 CHB 1.38E+01 CAL 0.00E+00 BCFHB 4.78E-03 CAL 0.00E+00 CS 9.56E+03 BCFS-HB 8.50E-05 CAV 5.45E+03 CW 0.00E+00 BCFW-HB 1.55E-03 CS 9.56E+03 FCMTL3/TL2[BI] 1.00 PAV 1.00 CW 0.00E+00 FCMTL3/TL2[WI] 1.00 PAL 1.00 FCMTL3/TL2[BI] 1.00 BCFAV-OB 4.78E-03 PS 1.00 FCMTL3/TL2[WI] 1.00 BCFAL-OB 1.05E-02 PW 1.00 FCMTL3/TL2[HM] 1.00 BCFS-OB 8.50E-05 FAV 0.50 FCMTL3/TL2[HB] 1.00 BCFW-OB 1.55E-03 FAL 0.50 BCFAL-OM 0.00E+00 PBI 1.00 BCFAV-OM 2.60E-02 PWI 1.00 BCFS-OM 5.39E-04 PAV 1.00 BCFW-OM 9.00E-03 PAL 1.00 PBI 1.00 PS 1.00 PWI 1.00 PW 1.00 PHM 1.00 FBI 0.25 PHB 1.00 FWI 0.25 PAL 1.00 FAV 0.25 PAV 1.00 FAL 0.25 PS 1.00 PW 1.00 FBI 0.500

FWI 0.000

FHM 0.000

FHB 0.000

FAL 0.250

FAV 0.250

2 TABLE E-7

ECOLOGICAL SCREENING HAZARD QUOTIENTS FOR THE TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEB MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

TRV TRV TRV TRV HQTP TRV [TP] HQTI TRV [TI] HQHM [MAMM] HQHB [BIRD] HQOM [MAMM] HQOB [BIRD] Contaminant mg/kg mg/kg ug/kg-d ug/kg-d ug/kg-d ug/kg-d Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) Low Molecular Weight (LPAH) Acenaphthene N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Acenaphthylene* N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Anthracene N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Fluoranthene N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Fluorene N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Naphthalene N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Phenanthrene N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total LPAH 4.89E+02 2.00E+01 3.26E+02 3.00E+01 2.23E+02 1.50E+04 7.19E+00 2.80E+05 5.22E+04 1.50E+04 2.10E+03 2.80E+05 High Molecular Weight (HPAH) Benzo(a)pyrene N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Benzo(a)anthracene N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Benzo(b)fluoranthene N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Benzo(k)fluoranthene N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Chrysene N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dibenz(a,h)anthracene N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pyrene N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total HPAH 7.65E+03 1.20E+00 3.67E+02 2.50E+01 6.14E+00 1.20E+04 5.08E+01 1.96E+03 3.89E+02 1.20E+04 1.85E+03 1.96E+03 TOTAL PAH N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total HI of the Community or Guild 8.14E+03 6.93E+02 2.30E+02 5.80E+01 5.26E+04 3.95E+03

Notes: HQ = Hazard quotient. HI = Hazard index. See Section 5 for description of calculations. Daily doses are shown in Table E-8; exposure point concentrations for plant and invertebrate communities are maximum detections given in Table 2-3. LPAH = Low Molecular Weight PAHs. Anthracene TRV used as surrogate for LPAH in mammals; naphthalene/phenanthrene used as surrogate for LPAHs in birds. HPAH = High Molecular Weight PAHs. BAP TRVs used as surrogate for HPAHs in mammals and birds. OB = Omnivorous bird feeding guild. OM = Omnivorous mammal feeding guild. HB = Herbivorous bird feeding guild. HM = Herbivorous mammal feeding guild. TP = Terrestrial plants. TI = Terrestrial invertebrates. N/A = Not calculated because data were not available. See notes regarding LPAH and HPAH approach above.

1 TABLE E-8

DAILY DOSE CALCULATIONS FOR THE TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEB MARION PRESSURE TESTING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT Deer mouse Carolina chickadee Short-tailed shrew Pine warbler (surrogate: mourning dove) (surrogate marsh wren) HPAH Represented by Benzo(a)pyrene

DHM 7.37E+04 DHB 9.96E+04 DOM 4.66E+06 DOB 3.63E+06

CV 1.01E+05 CV 1.01E+05 CHM 2.49E+03 CBI 1.46E+07 CAL 0.00E+00 CAL 0.00E+00 CHB 2.19E+03 CWI 0.00E+00 CS 9.18E+06 CS 9.18E+06 CSI 1.46E+07 CV 1.01E+05 CW 0.00E+00 CW 0.00E+00 CWI 0.00E+00 CAL 0.00E+00 IRHM 5.99E-01 IRHB 3.49E-01 CV 1.01E+05 CS 9.18E+06 IRS-HM 1.44E-03 IRS-HB 7.01E-03 CAL 0.00E+00 CW 0.00E+00 IRW-HM 1.51E-01 IRW-HB 1.09E-01 CS 9.18E+06 IROB 9.26E-01 PV 1.00 PV 1.00 CW 0.00E+00 IRS-OB 1.96E-02 PAL 1.00 PAL 1.00 IROM 6.20E-01 IRW-OB 2.75E-01 PS 1.00 PS 1.00 IRS-OM 1.36E-02 PSI 1.00 PW 1.00 PW 1.00 IRW-OM 1.72E-01 PWI 1.00 FV 1.00 FV 1.00 PHM 1.00 PV 1.00 FAL 0.00 FAL 0.00 PHB 1.00 PAL 1.00 PSI 1.00 PS 1.00 Notes: PWI 1.00 PW 1.00 AL = Aquatic life. Not applicable in terrestrial food web. PV 1.00 FSI 0.25 C = Concentration in media in subscript. PAL 1.00 FWI 0.00 D = Dose to receptor in subscript. PS 1.00 FV 0.75 F = Fraction of diet composed of subscripted item. PW 1.00 FAL 0.00 HB = Herbivorous bird. FHM 0.250 HM = Herbivorous mammal. FHB 0.000 IR = Intake rate for [media]-[receptor] in subscript. FSI 0.500 OB = Omnivorous bird. FWI 0.000 OM = Omnivorous mammal. FV 0.250 S = Soil. FAL 0.000 SI = Soil invertebrates. W = Water. V = Vegetation. WI = Water column invertebrates. Not applicable in terrestrial food web.

1 TABLE E-8

DHM 3.35E+06 DHB 2.01E+06 DOM 7.83E+08 DOB 5.88E+08

CV 5.57E+06 CV 5.57E+06 CHM 1.14E+05 CSI 2.52E+09 CAL 0.00E+00 CAL 0.00E+00 CHB 2.78E+04 CWI 0.00E+00 CS 9.78E+06 CS 9.78E+06 CSI 2.52E+09 CV 5.57E+06 CW 0.00E+00 CW 0.00E+00 CWI 0.00E+00 CAL 0.00E+00 IRHM 5.99E-01 IRHB 3.49E-01 CV 5.57E+06 CS 9.78E+06 IRS-HM 1.44E-03 IRS-HB 7.01E-03 CAL 0.00E+00 CW 0.00E+00 IRW-HM 1.51E-01 IRW-HB 1.09E-01 CS 9.78E+06 IROB 9.26E-01 PV 1.00 PV 1.00 CW 0.00E+00 IRS-OB 1.96E-02 PAL 1.00 PAL 1.00 IROM 6.20E-01 IRW-OB 2.75E-01 PS 1.00 PS 1.00 IRS-OM 1.36E-02 PSI 1.00 PW 1.00 PW 1.00 IRW-OM 1.72E-01 PWI 1.00 FV 1.00 FV 1.00 PHM 1.00 PV 1.00 FAL 0.00 FAL 0.00 PHB 1.00 PAL 1.00 PSI 1.00 PS 1.00 PWI 1.00 PW 1.00 PV 1.00 FSI 0.25 PAL 1.00 FWI 0.00 PS 1.00 FV 0.75 PW 1.00 FAL 0.00 FHM 0.250 FHB 0.000 FSI 0.500 FWI 0.000 FV 0.250 FAL 0.000

2 TABLE E-9

CONCENTRATIONS IN THE TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEB MARION PRESSURE TESTING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

VEGETATION HERBIVOROUS MAMMAL: HERBIVOROUS BIRD: SOIL INVERTEBRATE OMNIVOROUS MAMMAL: OMNIVOROUS BIRD: Deer mouse Mourning dove COMMUNITY Short-tailed shrew Marsh wren HPAH Represented by Benzo(a)pyrene CV 1.01E+05 CHM 2.49E+03 CHB 2.19E+03 CSI 1.46E+07 COM 7.30E+06 COB 3.65E+06

CS 9.18E+06 CV 1.01E+05 CV 1.01E+05 CS 9.18E+06 CSI 1.46E+07 CSI 1.46E+07 BCFS-V 1.10E-02 CAL 0.00E+00 CAL 0.00E+00 BCFS-SI 1.59E+00 CWI 0.00E+00 CWI 0.00E+00 CS 9.18E+06 CS 9.18E+06 CHM 2.49E+03 CV 1.01E+05 CW 0.00E+00 CW 0.00E+00 CHB 2.19E+03 CAL 0.00E+00 BCFHM 2.03E-02 BCFHB 9.32E-03 CAL 0.00E+00 CS 9.18E+06 BCFS-HM 4.86E-05 BCFS-HB 1.87E-04 CV 1.01E+05 CW 0.00E+00 BCFW-HM 5.10E-03 BCFW-HB 2.92E-03 CS 9.18E+06 FCMTL3/TL2[BI] 1.00 PV 1.00 PV 1.00 CW 0.00E+00 FCMTL3/TL2[WI] 1.00 PAL 1.00 PAL 1.00 FCMTL3/TL2[BI] 1.00 BCFV-OB 2.47E-02 PS 1.00 PS 1.00 FCMTL3/TL2[WI] 1.00 BCFAL-OB 1.05E-02 PW 1.00 PW 1.00 FCMTL3/TL2[HM] 1.00 BCFS-OB 5.22E-04 FV 1.00 FV 0.50 FCMTL3/TL2[HB] 1.00 BCFW-OB 7.53E-03 Notes: FAL 0.00 FAL 0.50 BCFAL-OM 0.00E+00 PSI 1.00 BCFV-OM 2.10E-02 PWI 1.00 AL = Aquatic life. Not applicable in terrestrial food web. BCFS-OM 4.61E-04 PV 1.00 BCF = Bioconcentration factor from [media/prey]-[receptor]. BCFW-OM 5.09E-03 PAL 1.00 BCF values are from EPA (1999) as described in text. S = Soil. PSI 1.00 PS 1.00 C = Concentration in media in subscript. SI = Soil invertebrates. PWI 1.00 PW 1.00 F = Fraction of diet composed of subscripted item. V = Vegetation. PHM 1.00 FSI 0.25 FCM = Food chain multiplier between trophic levels (TL). W = Water. PHB 1.00 FWI 0.00 See text for description of use; all FCMs assumed to be WI = Water column invertebrates. Not PAL 1.00 FV 0.75 one due to presence of PAH-metabolizing enzyme applicable in terrestrial food web. PV 1.00 FAL 0.00 systems in higher trophic levels. PS 1.00 HB = Herbivorous bird. PW 1.00 HM = Herbivorous mammal. FSI 0.500 OB = Omnivorous bird. FWI 0.000 OM = Omnivorous mammal. FHM 0.250 P = Portion of subscripted media or diet component affected by site activities. FHB 0.000 FAL 0.000 FV 0.250

1 TABLE E-9

CONCENTRATIONS IN THE TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEB MARION PRESSURE TESTING COMPANY SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

LPAH Represented by Naphthalene, Phenanthrene and Anthracene CV 5.57E+06 CHM 1.14E+05 CHB 2.78E+04 CSI 2.52E+09 COM 1.26E+09 COB 6.31E+08 CS 9.78E+06 CAV 5.57E+06 CAV 5.57E+06 CS 9.78E+06 CSI 2.52E+09 CSI 2.52E+09 BCFS-V 5.70E-01 CAL 0.00E+00 CAL 0.00E+00 BCFS-SI 2.58E+02 CWI 0.00E+00 CWI 0.00E+00 CS 9.78E+06 CS 9.78E+06 CHM 1.14E+05 CV 5.57E+06 CW 0.00E+00 CW 0.00E+00 CHB 2.78E+04 CAL 0.00E+00 BCFHM 2.03E-02 BCFHB 9.32E-03 CAL 0.00E+00 CS 9.78E+06 BCFS-HM 4.86E-05 BCFS-HB 1.87E-04 CV 5.57E+06 CW 0.00E+00 BCFW-HM 5.10E-03 BCFW-HB 2.92E-03 CS 9.78E+06 FCMTL3/TL2[BI] 1.00 PAV 1.00 PAV 1.00 CW 0.00E+00 FCMTL3/TL2[WI] 1.00 PAL 1.00 PAL 1.00 FCMTL3/TL2[BI] 1.00 BCFAV-OB 2.47E-02 PS 1.00 PS 1.00 FCMTL3/TL2[WI] 1.00 BCFAL-OB 1.05E-02 PW 1.00 PW 1.00 FCMTL3/TL2[HM] 1.00 BCFS-OB 5.22E-04 FAV 1.00 FAV 0.50 FCMTL3/TL2[HB] 1.00 BCFW-OB 7.53E-03 FAL 0.00 FAL 0.50 BCFAL-OM 0.00E+00 PSI 1.00 BCFAV-OM 2.10E-02 PWI 1.00 BCFS-OM 4.61E-04 PV 1.00 BCFW-OM 5.09E-03 PAL 1.00 PSI 1.00 PS 1.00 PWI 1.00 PW 1.00 PHM 1.00 FSI 0.25 PHB 1.00 FWI 0.00 PAL 1.00 FV 0.75 PV 1.00 FAL 0.00 PS 1.00 PW 1.00 FSI 0.500

FWI 0.000

FHM 0.250

FHB 0.000

FAL 0.000

FV 0.250