August 2014 Toxicology Portfolio Improvement, Verification, and Refinement Of Spatially-explicit Exposure Models in Risk Assessment. Spatially – Explicit Exposure Model (SEEM) Demonstration ESTCP PROJECT NO. ER-0917 Prepared by Dr Mark A. Williams, Health Effects Research Program Unclassified/Public Release Authorized ESTCP – Environmental Restoration Projects 1 Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To) FINAL 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Environmental Restoration Projects. Improvement, Verification, and Refinement Of Spatially-explicit Exposure Models in 5b. GRANT NUMBER Risk Assessment.The Spatially FishRand– Explicit Exposure Spatially Model (SEEM)-Explicit Demonstration. 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER Theodore Wickwire MFS ESTCP: ER-0917 Michael J. Quinn Ph.D. 5e. TASK NUMBER Mark A. Williams Ph.D. Mark S. Johnson Ph.D. 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER U.S. Army Public Health Command, Toxicology Portfolio, 5158 Blackhawk Road, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) Dr. Andrea Leeson SERDP/ESTCP SERDP/ESTCP Deputy Director Environmental Restoration Program Manager 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 17 D08, NUMBER(S) Alexandria, VA 22350-3605 Email: [email protected]. Tel: 571-372-6398 12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT This project was developed to improve direct testing and refinement of the use of spatial models for wildlife exposure assessments. Past studies focused on whether spatial models could improve the assessment of avian exposures to chemicals in the environment. This study examined the value of spatial models with respect to improving the assessment of small mammal exposures in the environment, and aimed to overcome the disconnect that exists when applying ‘spatial considerations’ between site-wide averages and an assessment that captures exposures based on species-specific habitat preferences. SEEM model outputs were compared to deterministic risk calculations and directly measured blood-lead based risk calculations to determine if SEEM, increased the reliability of exposure assessment. Three sites were selected (two sites in Maryland and one site in California). For small mammals with comparatively small foraging areas, SEEM was no more predictive than site-wide average-based risk calculations. The results emphasized that if habitat is not heterogeneous at ecologically-relevant scales, then SEEM cannot improve risk estimates. Future work will focus on evaluating small mammal exposures where habitat suitability varies over relevant scales. Additionally, SEEM outputs will be evaluated for large mammals and larger foraging areas. Moreover, the larger ESTCP project accomplished the goals of generating greater awareness of the value of spatial models and training risk assessors and managers on using SEEM. The model was also updated in the course of this project. 15. SUBJECT TERMS Bioaccumulation Model; Spatial Models; Spatially – Explicit Exposure Model (SEEM); Avian Exposures; Environmental Chemicals 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES Dr. Mark Johnson a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE NA 65 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area UU UU UU code) 410-436-3980 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18 Sponsors Department of Defense Environmental Security Technology Certification Program 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 17D08, Alexandria, VA 22350 Study Title Improvement, Verification, and Refinement of Spatially-explicit Exposure Models in Risk Assessment. Spatially – Explicit Exposure Model (SEEM) Demonstration Final Report Author Theodore Wickwire, MFS Michael J. Quinn, Ph.D. Mark A. Williams, Ph.D. Mark S. Johnson, Ph.D. Study Completed March 2014 Performing Laboratory U.S. Army Public Health Command Institute of Public Health Toxicology Portfolio Health Effects Research Program MCHB-IP-THE Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5403 Use of trademarked name(s) does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Army but is intended only to assist in identification of a specific product. i Submitted by: Army Institute of Public Health Toxicology Portfolio Health Effects Research Program MCHB-IP-THE 5158 Blackhawk Road Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5403 Prepared by: ___________________________ ________________ Mark A. Williams Ph.D., FAAAAI Date Biologist Army Institute of Public Health Health Effects Research Program Approved by: ____________________________ _________________ Mark S. Johnson, Ph.D., DABT Date Director, Toxicology Portfolio Army Institute of Public Health 2 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 10 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 11 1.1 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................ 11 1.2 OBJECTIVE OF THE DEMONSTRATION ................................................................ 12 1.3 REGULATORY DRIVERS........................................................................................... 12 2.0 TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 13 2.1 TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION.................................................................................. 13 2.2 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................. 15 2.3 ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS OF THE TECHNOLOGY............................. 15 3.0 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................... 18 3.2.1 OBJECTIVE ........................................................................................................... 22 3.2.2 DATA COLLECTION OVERVIEW..................................................................... 22 3.2.3 PERFORMANCE REVIEW BASED ON SUCCESS CRITERIA........................ 22 3.3 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE: EASE OF USE ......................................................... 25 3.3.1 OBJECTIVE............................................................................................................... 25 3.4 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE: DEVELOP A PUBLICATION TO SHARE FINDINGS, MODEL UPDATES, AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE VALUE OF SPATIAL MODELS................................................................................................................. 26 3.4.1 OBJECTIVE ........................................................................................................... 26 3.4.2 DATA COLLECTION OVERVIEW..................................................................... 26 3.4.3 PERFORMANCE REVIEW BASED ON SUCCESS CRITERIA........................ 26 3.5 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE: DEVELOPMENT AND DELIVERY OF MANDATORY DELIVERABLES.......................................................................................... 27 3.5.1 OBJECTIVE ........................................................................................................... 27 3.5.2 DATA COLLECTION OVERVIEW..................................................................... 27 3.5.3 PERFORMANCE REVIEW BASED ON SUCCESS CRITERIA........................ 27 4.0 SITE DESCRIPTIONS...................................................................................................... 28 4.1 SITE SELECTION......................................................................................................... 28 4.2 THE ROD & GUN CLUB SKEET RANGE at ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND.. 28 4.2.1 SITE LOCATION AND HISTORY....................................................................... 28 4.2.2 SITE HABITAT...................................................................................................... 29 4.2.3 CONTAMINANT DISTRIBUTION...................................................................... 29 4.3 THE RANGE 17 TRAP AND SKEET SITE (FGGM 94), PATUXENT RESEARCH REFUGE, LAUREL, MARYLAND (Fort George G. Meade) ................................................ 33 3 4.3.1 SITE LOCATION AND HISTORY....................................................................... 33 4.3.2 SITE HABITAT.....................................................................................................