## Biological Evaluation

for the Region 2 ESA Consultation on New Jersey’s

Revised Salt w ater Nickel Water Quality Standards

Prepared for:

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region II 290 Broadway On Behalf of Bergen County Utilities Authority

Prep ared by:

1295 King Ave. Columbus, Ohio. 43212 Phone: (614) 487

- 1040 Facsimile: (614) 487

- 1920 739 Hastings Street Traverse City, MI 49686 Phone: (231) 941

- 2230 Facsimile: (231) 941

- 2240

E

- mail: mick@glec.com

March 29 , 20102 PREFACE

This draft analysis document presents the biological evaluation for the saltwater aquatic life criteria for nickel adopted by the State of New Jersey in 2006. It includes the presentation and analysis of the toxicity data, risk summary, and the effects de termination for Federally

- listed estuarine and marine species potentially affected by nickel at criteria

concentrations . This analysis document was prepared according to the Draft Methodology for Conducting Biological Evaluations of Aquatic Life Criteria

– Methods

Manual , which contains the scientific rational e underlying the components of the biological evaluations (i.e., the literature search, toxicity data evaluation, risk analysis,

and effects determination)

, and the step

- by

- step procedures currently u sed by EPA to conduct biological evaluations under the national consultations

. The latest draft of the Methods Manual can be obtained through the Agency’s Office of Water, Health and Ecologica l Criteria Division. Attachment B contains a summary of the Me thods Manual, including the key assumptions, steps, and calculations used in this biological evaluation.3 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 BACKGROUND

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 5

2.0 SCOPE OF STATE ACTIO N

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 6

2.1 D EFINITION OF S TATE A CTION

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 6

2.1.1 New Jersey’s Saltwater Nickel Aquatic Life Criteria

................................ ............................. 6

2.2 D EFINITION OF A CTION A REA

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 8

2.3 S PECIES S TATUS AND L IFE H ISTORY

................................ ................................ ................................ . 8

2.4 E NVIRONMEN TAL B ASELINE

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 32

3.0 ASSESSING EFFECTS OF THE NEW JERSEY SALTW ATER NICKEL CRITERIA ON

FEDERALLY

- LISTED SPECIES

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 42

3.1 O VERVIEW

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 42

3.2 D ATA C OLLECTION

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 42

3.3 T OXIC E FFECTS ON A QUATIC S PECIES

................................ ................................ ............................. 42

3.3.1 Aquatic A nimals

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 42

3.3.2 Multiple Routes of Exposure

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 52

3.3.3 Aquatic Plants

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 54

3. 4 A QUATIC

- D EPENDENT S PECIES

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 55

3.4.1 Overview and Background

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 55

3.4.2 Exposure Assessment

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 56

3.4.3 Toxicity Assessment

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 57

3.4.4 Risk Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 60

3.5 F OOD I TEMS OF F EDERALLY

- L ISTED S PECIES

................................ ................................ .................. 61

4.0 EFFECTS DETERMINATIO NS

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 62

4.1 N O E FFECTS

– N OTES

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 62

4.2 M AY A FFECT

– N OTES

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 62

4.2.1 Not Likely to Adversely Affect

................................ ................................ ................................ 67

4.2.2 Species Requiring Further Evaluation

................................ ................................ .................. 70

5.0 ASSESSING EFFECTS OF THE NEW JERSEY NICKE L CRITERIA ON DESIGN ATED

CRITICAL HABITAT

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 70

6.0 REFERENCES

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 71

APPENDIX A: INTERSP ECIE S CORRELATION ESTIMA TES (ICE) FOR NICKEL

SALTWATER EXPOSURE

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 77

APPENDIX B. BIOLOGI CAL EVALUATION EFFEC TS ASSESSMENT METHOD OLOGY

...... 78

AT TACHMENT 1

– LITERATURE SEARCH AN D DATA REVIEW PROCED URE

...................... 92

ATTACHMENT 1.A

– ECOTOX EXCLUSION COD ES

................................ ................................ ....... 98

ATTACHMENT 1.B

– COMMON GUIDELI NES EXCLUSION CODES

................................ ......... 101

ATTACHMENT 1.C

– BE EXCLUSION CODES

................................ ................................ ................. 103

ATTACHMENT 1.D

– PROCESS FOR DOWNLOAD ING TOXICITY DATA FR OM EPA’S

ECOT OX DATABASE

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 105

ATTACHMENT 1.E

– DIRECTIONS FOR IDENT IFYING USEFUL AQUATI C TOXICITY

INFORMATION

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 107

ATTACHMENT 2

– HISTORIC SEDIMENT N ICKEL MONITORING DAT A FROM

WATERBODIES LOCATED WITHIN NICKEL ASSESS MENT UNITS.

................................ ........ 1094 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1. New Jersey Saltwater List of Federally Threatened and E ndangered Species

..................... 8

Table 2.2. Categorization and Rationale for the Selection of New Jersey Saltwater Listed Species

Included in this Biological Evaluation

................................ ................................ .................... 9

Table 3.1. Saltwater Acute and Chronic Toxicity Data for Nickel

. ................................ ........................ 44

Table 3.2. Nickel Saltwater Toxicity Data by Taxonomic Group

. ................................ .......................... 47

Table 3.3. Nickel B ioconcentration F actors (BCFs) for S altwater A quatic F ood O rganisms

. . ............ 57

Table 3.4. Acute and Chronic Toxicity of N ickel to Potential Surrogate Species Based on Wet Weight

of Oral Dos e

.. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 60

Table 4.1. Results of Effects Analysis for Saltwater Aquatic Listed Species

................................ ......... 68

Table 4.2. Analysis of Effects for Saltwater Aquatic

- Dependent Species

................................ .............. 69

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Piping plover distribution and New Jersey 303(d) Nickel Assessment Units.

........................ 38

Figure 2. Roseate tern distribution and New Jersey 303(d) Nickel Assessment Units.

.......................... 39

Figure 3. Northeastern beach tiger beetle distribution and New Jersey 303(d) Nickel Assessment

Units.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 40

Figure 4. Sensitive joint

- vetch distribution and New Jersey 303(d) Nicke l

................................ ............ 415

1.0 BACKGROUND

In December 1999 a nickel TMDL was completed for the Hackensack River based on

EPAs 1986 national saltwater criteria recommendation of 8.2 μg/L to protect aquatic life

from chronic effects. This criterio n was developed using primarily freshwater acute/chronic ratio data because there was only one saltwater acute to chronic data set published at the time the criterion was issued.

The Great Lakes Environmental Center (GLEC), which represents the Bergen Cou nty Municipal Utilities Authority, subsequently reviewed and evaluated marine chronic nickel data, which were published in the peer reviewed literature subsequent to the

issuance of th e above

- referenced criterion. This effort demonstrated that the 8.2 μ g/ L marine chronic water quality criterion should be updated based upon new scientific information. GLEC found that using the new data significantly changes the acute to chronic ratio, and therefore increases the resultant saltwater chronic criterion by a f actor
of nearly three. Based upon GLEC’s evaluation of the new marine data, a proposed

saltwater chronic nickel criterion of 22 μ g/L was calculated. As a result of this work, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP) revised its salt water chronic nickel criteria based upon this new information and submitted it to EPA for approval as an element of the October 16, 2006 revisions to the New Jersey Surface Water Quality Standards (NJWQS). EPA approved these revisions to the NJSWQS, subj ect to completion of the Endangered Species Act Consultation with the Services, on December 20, 2006.

On November 22, 2006, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) i nitiated informal

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NOAA Fisheries (Services) pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), regarding

all of the October 2006 revisions to the NJSWQS

.

These revisions included the marine aquatic life criteria for nickel. Subsequent to the

initiation of this c onsultation, it came to EPA’s attention that there is an added importance to completing the consultation on the marine aquatic life criteria for nickel as expeditiously as possible. Specifically, completion of this consultation on the nickel

criteria woul d allow EPA to move forward with an action to formally withdraw New Jersey from the National Toxics Rule for these criteria, and allow these new, more scientifically defensible, criteria to become the enforceable standards for nickel.

EPA initiated inform al consultation with the Services, pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA,

on the EPA’s December 20, 2006 approval of NJDEP’s adoption of marine aquatic life criteria for nickel into the NJSWQS on March 20, 2008. As part of this action, a February 15, 2008 Biol ogical Evaluation (B.E.) and additional supporting documentation was provided to the Services to support EPA’s determination that its approval of these nickel criteria is not likely to adversely affect any applicable federally

- listed aquatic or aquatic

- dep endent species under the Services jurisdiction. In a letter dated November 4,
2008, NOAA Fisheries provided concurrence with EPA ’s n ot l ikely to a dversely a ffect

determination.6

2.0 SCOPE OF STATE ACTION In order to fulfill the goals of the MOA 1

, which was wr itten with the inte nt to provide efficient mechanisms for improved interagency cooperation under Section 7 of the ESA, EPA will consult with the Services (National Marine Fisheries Service and United States Fish and Wildlife Service) on newly proposed and/ or revis ed state aquatic life criteria. The agencies agree that it is prudent to exami ne the aquatic life criteria to determine if they protect listed species and critical habitat, and realize the importance of conducting the consultations on proposed and /or revised state criteria in a timely fashion

, so that any

state

- adopted aquatic life criteria are protective of that state’s listed species and their

critical habitat.

2.1 Definition of State Action

EPA approves state

- proposed aquatic life criteria for wat ers where state water quality standards specify a use protecting aquatic life and the criteria protect their use. Federally

- listed aquatic or aquatic

- dependent species that have more than limited exposure to these waters are assessed in this biological ev aluation. Section 2.3 of this document presents a summary of the life history of the listed aquatic and aquatic

dependent species . That section also identifies the listed species that have only limited exposure to waters where the State of New Jersey wat er quality standards specify a use protecting aquatic life ; accordingly

, such species are not addressed in this biological

evaluation (see Table 2.2 ).

2.1.1 New Jersey’s Saltwater Nickel Aquatic Life Criteria

This biological evaluation addresses the final sta te

- adopted saltwater aquatic life criteria

for nickel cited in the New Jersey Surface Water Quality Standards, New Jersey Register, October 16, 2006 Amendment (38 N.J.R. 4449), which can be found at: http://www. nj.gov/dep/rules/

The N.J.A.C 7:9B

- 1.14(d) nickel criteria for saltwater aquatic life in New Jersey are expressed in terms of the dissolved metal in the water column as:

New Jersey Saltwater Acute Criterion = 64  g/L New Jersey Saltwater Chronic Criterion = 22  g/L

New Jersey’s saltwater nickel criteria differ from EPA’s current recommended 304(a)

criteria (acute and chronic criteria of 74 and 8.2  g/L, respectively) because the New Jersey saltwater nickel acute and chronic criteria were derived using additional data published since the revision of EPA’s 304(a) criteria for nickel (U.S. EPA 1986). Specifically, the current saltwater chronic criterion of 8.2  g/L for nickel ( U.S. EPA 1986) was derived as the quoti ent of the final acute value (FAV) for saltwater species

_

1 Memorandum of Agreement Between the Environmenta l Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service Regarding Enhanced Coordination Under the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act; Federal Register

/Vol. 66, No. 36/Thursday, February 22, 2001/Notices, 11202.7

(149.2  g/L)

, and a final acute to chronic ratio (FACR) of 17.99. B ecause saltwater chronic toxicity data were lacking t he FACR of 17.99 was derived from three pairs of acute/chronic tests, where tw o of these values were generated from pairs of tests conducted with freshwater species, and one value generated using a pair of saltwater tests ( U.S. EPA 1986). The two freshwater species tested were an acutely sensitive invertebrate, Daphnia magna , and th e fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ). The

ACRs for D. magna and the fathead minnow were 29.86 and 35.58, respectively. In contrast, the ACR for the mysid

, A mericamysis bahia was 5.4 7 8, which was the only ratio available for a saltwater species at that ti me.

The considerable difference between the two freshwater ratios (29.86 and 35.58) and the single marine ratio (5. 4 78 ) indicate s that the use of freshwater ACRs to derive a saltwater chronic criterion for nickel may result in a criterion that is not ref lective of the chronic toxicity of nickel in marine waters. Recent data from studies involving three west coast marine species indicate that the FACR used to derive the current chronic saltwater nickel criterion can no longer be scientifically justified. C ombined acute and chronic toxicity tests with topsmelt (Atherinops affinis ), red abalone ( Haliotis rufescens ), and the mysid (Mysidopsis intii ) were recently published (Hunt et al. 2002). Critical life stages of the organisms were exposed to nickel for ext ended periods of time

, so that both acute and chronic endpoints could be generated, thereby allowing the researchers to generate additional marine ACR values. The acute/chronic toxicity values for A. affinis

, M. intii

, and H. rufescens were 26,5 6 0/4,2 7 0, 1 48.60/22.09, and 145.50/26.43  g/L, respectively.

The corresponding ACRs were similar ; 6.22 0 , 6.7 27 , and 5.50 5 , respectively.

Given the three new ACRs, which include a saltwater fish species and two saltwater invertebrate species, one of which is the mos t acutely sensitive species tested to date (and

which also happens to be a commercially important species; red abalone), the FACR was

re

- calculated to be 5.9 60 (the geometric mean of the four ACRs for the saltwater species). Using this re

- calculated FACR f or saltwater organisms, along with a re

- calculated FAV (incorporating new acute toxicity data for nickel ; a resultant FAV of 129.6  g/L ), New Jersey determined that the existing chronic saltwater nickel criterion (using the same calculation procedure) shou ld be increased by a factor of approximately three, from 8.2 to

22  g/L.

It should be noted here that t he precise levels of nickel

, and its various form s in saltwater at equilibrium

, may not be easily predicted. Salinity, pH, temperature, and complexing and adsorbing agents such as humic acids influence the oxidation state, toxicity, and bioavailability of the total nickel pool. Previous aquatic life criteria for nickel (U.S. EPA 1980) were expressed as total rec overable nickel. U.S. EPA (1986 ) has als o expressed

nickel criteria as acid

- soluble nickel in the past, but now recommends use of dissolved metal concentrations (operationally defined as the metal in solution that passes through a

0.45  m membrane filter) to set and measure compliance with water quality standards (Prothro 1993; U.S. EPA 1993, 1994). The State of New Jersey has adopted EPA’s recommendation to express nickel on a dis solved chemical basis in their s tate water quality stand ards. Thus, all nickel concentrations used to derive the acute and chronic

effects assessment concentrations (EC A s) reported herein are expressed in terms of the8

dissol ved metal concentration in the water column.

2.2 Definition of Action Area

The State of Ne w Jersey has adopted the saltwater nickel criteria for all coastal and saline waters of estuaries of New Jersey where water quality standards specify a use protecting aquatic life. These waters of New Jersey are defined in N.J.A.C. 7.9B

- 1.4 (Definitions)

as ―SC ‖ and ―SE‖ waters respectively

.

2.3 Species Status and Life History

The U

. S

. Fi sh and Wildlife Service lists 26 federally threatened or endangered species in New Jersey that occur or are expected to occur in the state

. Of these, 13 are saltwater aquatic or aquatic

- dependent species (Table 2.1). The list of saltwater aquatic and aquatic

- dependent species includes 11 animal and 2 plant species. Among the listed animals, there are 3 mammals, 2 birds, 4 reptiles, 1 fish and 1 insect species. A thir d aquatic

- dependent bird species , the red knot ( Calidris canutus rufa ), is a proposed (candidate) species for listing under the Endangered Species Act , but is not included in

this BE because candidate species are not yet under statutory pro tection

.

Table 2. 1

. New Jersey Saltwater List of Federally Threatened and Endangered

Species

Mammals Right whale Eubalaena glacialis Endangered

Finback whale Balaenoptera physalus Endangered Humpback whale Megaptera novaeang liae Endangered

Birds Piping plover Charadrius melodus Threatened

Roseate tern Sterna dougallii Endangered Reptiles

Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered

Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Loggerhead sea turtle C aretta caretta Threatened Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii Endangered

Fish Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered

Insects Northeastern beach tiger beetle Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis Threatened

Plants

Seabeach amaranth Amara nthus pumilus Threatened Sensitive joint

- vetch Aeschynomene virginica Threatened

The following section presents a summary of each listed species ’ stat us and life history

for the species that are relevant (species) for the biological evaluation of New Je rsey’s saltwater nickel aquatic life criteria , and those to which the BE does not apply (four9

species)

. The aquatic and aquatic

- dependent saltwater species that are evaluated in this document, and the rationale for their selection, is provided in Table 2. 2.

Table 2. 2

. Categorization and Rationale for the Selection of New Jersey Saltwater Listed

Species Included in this Biological Evaluation

Species Category Rationale

Relevant Saltwater Listed Species Shortnose sturgeon Eu ryhaline aquatic Aquatic species

Northeastern beach tiger beetle Aquatic

- dependent Forages in the damp sand of the intertidal zone; prey species include lice, fleas, and flies. Adults also regularly scavenge de ad crabs and fish. Piping plover Aquatic

- dependent The piping plover forages on intertidal beaches, washed over areas, exposed mudflats and sandflats

and shorelines.

Roseate tern Aquatic

- d ependent This bird forages over shallow coastal waters, inlets,

and in offshore seas.

Hawksbill sea turtle Aquatic

- dependent F requents rocky areas, coral reefs, shallow coastal areas, lagoo ns or oceanic islands, and narrow creeks and passes. Kemp's ridley sea turtle Aquatic

- dependent C an inhabit deep or shallow estuaries, depending on their preferred diet.

Leatherback sea t urtle Aquatic

- dependent C an inhabit deep or shallow estuaries, depending on their preferred diet. Loggerhead sea turtle Aquatic

- dependent May be found hundreds of miles out to sea, as well as in inshore areas such as bays, lagoons, salt marshes, creeks, ship channels, and at the mouths of large rivers. Sensitive joint

- vetch Aquatic plant Grows in the intertidal zone where plants are flooded twice daily. Saltwater Listed Species to which t his BE does not Apply
finback whale, humpback whale, right

whale Aquatic

- dependent These species are largely pelagic and are expected to spend limited time within New Jersey’s offshore jurisdictional range of three miles for water quality

criteria. Criti cal habitat for the right whale includes portions of Cape Cod Bay and Stellwagen Bank, the Great South Channel (each off the coast of Massachusetts), and waters adjacent to the coasts of Georgia and the east coast of Florida where they feed on dense popula tions of copepods. The near shore waters of New Jersey are apparently not a feeding area for the right whale.

Seabeach amaranth Terrestrial Plant Seabeach amaranth grows on barrier island beaches, where its primary habitat consists of over

- washed

flats a t accreting ends of islands, and lower foredunes and upper strands of non

- eroding beaches.10

Unless noted, all information on these species, provided below, can be found using the following U

. S

. Fish and Wildlife web site, ( http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/StateListingAndOccurrence.do?state=NJ ).

PIPING PLOVER

Charadrius melodus Family: Charadriidae

State

- Endangered, Federal

- Threatened (Atlantic Coast population)

Sources http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end

- thrtened/plover.pdf http:// ecos.fws.gov/species_profile/servlet/gov.doi.species_profile.servlets.SpeciesProfile ?spcode=B079 http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/index.htm

Description The piping plover is a small shorebird with a black neck band and a black bar across the forehead. The upperparts are light sandy

- brown and the under parts are white, providing the plover with camouflage against sandy beach backgrounds. The legs are bright orange and, in breeding plumage, the b ill is also orange with a black tip. Although males and females are similar in appearance, males typically have darker, more extensive neck

bands. Juvenile and winter

- plumage adults are similar in appearance. Both lack the black

neck and forehead bands cha racteristic of breeding adults. Rather, there is a pale band around the neck. The bill is solid black and the legs are pale yellow.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution The Atlantic Coast Population of piping plovers nest along beaches in New Br unswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, southern Maine, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. These birds winter primarily on the Atlantic Coast from North Carolina

to Florida, although some migrate to the Bahamas and West Indies. In New Jersey, the species has been recorded in four counties: Atlantic, Cape May, Monmouth, and Ocean.

Habitat Piping plovers inhabit oceanfront beaches and barrier islands, typically nestin g on the stretch of beach between the dunes and the high

- tide line. Nests are often located in flat areas with shell fragments and sparse vegetation. The coloration of piping plovers and their eggs blend in remarkably with sand and broken pieces of shell. Sparse vegetation, such as American beach grass ( Ammophila breviligulata ) or sea rocket ( Cakile

endentula ), is favored, as it provides cover against predators and the elements. However, areas with dense vegetation, such as dunes, are avoided by nesting plo vers, since these sites provide cover for predators. During the non

- breeding season, piping plovers inhabit coastal beaches, barrier islands, inlets, sandflats, mudflats, and dredged material islands.

N o critical habitat for the piping plover has been de signated in New Jersey. The Fish and Wildlife Service has, however, designated 137 areas along the coasts of North Carolina,11

South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas as critical habitat for the wintering Atlantic Coast population of the piping plover. This includes approximately 2,891.7 kilometers of mapped shoreline and approximately 66,881 hectares of mapped area along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts and along margins of interior bays, inlets, and lagoons.

Life History Piping plovers begin returning to their Atlantic Coast nesting beaches in mid

- March. Males establish and defend territories and court females. Eggs may be present on the

beach from mid

- April through late July. Clutch size is generally four eggs, and the incubation period usually lasts for 27

- 28 days. Piping plovers fledge only a single brood per season, but may re

- nest several times if previous nests are lost. Chicks develop fast. They may move hundreds of yards from the nest site during their first w eek of life. Chicks remain together with one or both parents until they fledge (able to fly) at 25 to 35 days of age. Depending on date of hatching, flightless chicks may be present from mid

May until late August, although most fledge by the end of July. Piping plovers forage on intertidal beaches, washover areas, exposed mudflats and sandflats, wracklines, and

shorelines. Food consists of worms, fly larvae, beetles, crustaceans, mollusks, and other invertebrates (Bent 1928). In New Jersey, intertidal p olychaetes a re the main prey of plovers foraging at night (Staine and Burger 1994). The primary route of exposure to nickel is through contaminated prey items in the diet.

Historical Information On December 11, 1985, the piping plover was listed Threaten ed (50 FR 50726

- 50734, 1985, December 11) in its entire range except in the Great Lakes watershed where it was listed endangered. The Revised Recovery Plan for the Atlantic Coast Population was completed on May 2, 1996.

Although common during the 1800s , the piping plover was on the verge of extirpation by the 1890s and early 1900s due to market hunting and egg collecting. Protection afforded by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and changing fashion trends allowed plover populations to gradually rec over during the 1920s and 1930s. However, since the late 1940s, coastal development and the elevated recreational use of beaches have caused plover population declines. Human habitation along the shore has also resulted in elevated populations of many ma mmalian and avian predators.

In 1984, the piping plover was listed as an endangered species in New Jersey. The New Jersey Natural Heritage Program considers the piping plover to be globally ―very rare and local throughout its range,‖ and ―critically impe riled in New Jersey because of extreme rarity‖. In 1986, the Atlantic Coast piping plover population was listed as Threatened in the United States. A recovery goal of 2,000 pairs was set for the Atlantic Coast population , including 575 pairs in New Jerse y and New York region. Another goal set by the recovery plan is to achieve a five

- year average productivity of 1.5 fledged young per pair. Active monitoring and management of the birds by the Endangered and Nongame Species Program ( ENSP ) are integral par ts of federal recovery efforts.12

Since its date of listing, the Atlantic Coast piping plover population has increased, growing from 790 pairs in 1986 to 1,386 pairs in 1999. As numbers have increased in New England during the 1980s and 1990s, the number o f plovers nesting in New Jersey has remained essentially stable at around 120 pairs. Due to its precarious existence, the piping plover remains one of New Jersey's most endangered species. The threats that it faces, including increased beach recreation a nd predation, continue to act as serious impediments to the recovery of this species. Without management and intense protection from habitat loss and predation, it is unlikely that the piping plover would survive in New Jersey.

Conservation Status

Atlant ic coast populations experienced a 50 to 80 percent decline over the past 50 years. The Long Island, New York population declined from over 500 pairs (Wilcox 1939) to about 100 pairs in 1988 (Cairns and McLaren 1980, USFWS 1988). In 1980 the size of

Atlant ic coast population s was estimated at 910 pairs (Cairns and McLaren 1980); this estimate declined to 790 pairs in 1986 (550 pairs in the U.S. and 240 pairs in Canada) (USFWS 1988). However, many populations have increased with management attention

since th e mid

- 1980s. Most of the increase since 1989 has been in New England; the Mid

Atlantic and Canadian Atlantic populations have dec lined somewhat since 1989 (USFWS 1996) . The 1991

- 1996 international census data indicate an overall increase of 30.4 per

cent, from about 1979 individuals to 2581 (Pli ssner and Haig 2000)

. T he Canadian Atlantic populations declined 16.6 per cent over the same period, from about 513 individuals to 428 (Plissner and Haig 2000). Subsequently, these numbers began to increase ag ain, r eaching 475 in 1999 (USFWS 2002 a ).

Summary of Major Threats (USFWS 1996 )

Habitat Destruction

Human Disturbance Increased predation

Other P ossible Threats

Oil pollution Disease, parasites, and pathogens

Pesticides

Piping p lovers dwell in sparsely veget ated beach dune areas. For the most part, plovers

in these areas show greater success when left mostly undisturbed by humans and if possible, predators (MDNR 2005). Predators remain one of the most burdensome threats to the piping plover, and development s near beaches provide food that attracts increased numbers of predators such as raccoons, skunks, and foxes. Domestic and feral cats are also very efficient predators of plover eggs and chicks (U

. S

. FWS 2002 b ). There are limited reports of oil pollution from commercial or recreational watercraft affecting plover populations (Amirault

- Langlais et al. 2006).13

ROSEATE TERN (northeast U.S. pop.) Sterna dougallii dougallii Family: Laridae

Status: State

- Endangered, Federal

- Endangered (North Atlantic breedin g population)

Sources http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end

- thrtened/roseatetern.pdf http://e cos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=B07O http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7084.html

Description

The roseate tern is a medium

- sized, light colored tern with a dark cap and long tail. In breeding plumage, the adult has a black cap and nape, and a pale gray back and lower wing surface. Black tips on the outer primaries contrast with the otherwise pale upper surface of the wing. The tail is white and deeply forked with long streamers. On perched birds, the tail extends beyond the wingtips. The bill is black with a dark red base. The legs and feet are dark red and the iris is brownish

- black. Sexes are alike in plumage. The

non

- breeding adult has brown legs, a black bill, and a white fo rehead with a black mask extending from the eye to the nape.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution In North America, the roseate tern breeds in two discrete areas: from Nova Scotia to Long Island, New York (northeastern population) and around the Caribbean Sea (including the Florida Keys). It is believed to winter in northern South America and along the Brazilian coast. The total world population was estimated in 1998 at

a pproximately 40,000 pairs. The northeastern population has recently fluct uated around 3,500 pairs, with a low of 3,125 in 1992, and a high of 3,775 in 1996; including 125 pairs in Canada. Various estimates placed the Caribbean population at between 5,000 and 8,500 pairs in 1993 and the Florida breeding population at about 350 pairs in 1995.

Habitat The roseate tern is a coastal species that nests on barrier islands and salt marshes and forages over shallow coastal waters, inlets, and offshore seas. Nesting colonies are located above the high

- tide line, often within vegetated dunes where dense concentrations of beach grasses and seaside goldenrod ( Solidago sempervirens ) provide cover. In comparison to other terns, roseate terns n est at sites with more vegetative cover. Infrequently, they may nest in open areas, especially whe n they are displaced from optimal sites by gulls.

Life History Roseate terns arrive on their Atlantic coast breeding grounds in late April or early May and begin nesting one month later. In New York, roseate terns are always found nesting

with common ter ns. The nest may be only a depression in sand, shell or gravel, and may be lined with bits of grass and other debris. It is usually placed in dense grass clumps, or even under boulders or rip

- rap. Both adults incubate the eggs for about 23 days, and the young fledge in 22

- 29 days. One brood per season is typical, although two broods are14

sometimes produced. Migration begins in late summer. One banded individual from Great Gull Island, New York was 9 years old when recovered. Roseate tern is an aquatic

dependent species that feeds primarily on small freshwater and marine fishes. The primary route of exposure to nickel is through contaminated prey items in the diet.

Historical Information Due to severe population declines in the State, the roseate tern was listed as a threatened species in New Jersey in 1979. Because of a drastic worldwide decline in its population, the roseate tern was reclassified as an endangered species in New Jersey in 1984. The

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service included the North A tlantic breeding population on its list of federally endangered species in 1987 because of declines resulting from human activity, gull competition, and predation. The New Jersey Natural Heritage Program

considers the roseate tern to be a non

- breeding spe cies in the state and globally ―very rare and local throughout its range‖. The National Audubon Society included the roseate tern on its Blue List of Imperiled Species in 1972 and from 1979 to 1986, the final year of the list. Depressed roseate tern popu lations are evident throughout other northeastern states, where the species is listed as endangered (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Virginia), or threatened (Maine, New Hampshire).

Conservation Status Prior to 1890, the roseate tern nested along th e New Jersey coast, although it was not

common. From the late 1800s to the early 1900s, roseate tern populations along the Atlantic Coast were greatly reduced as a result of the millinery trade, in which birds were killed to acquire plumes for women’s hat s. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, which afforded legal protection to all migratory birds, coupled with a change in fashion styles, reduced the pressure on roseate terns, enabling populations to reestablish and increase. Nesting roseate terns were observed at Hereford Inlet and Five Mile Beach in the 1930s and at Brigantine in the 1940s. However, by the 1950s, populations again began to decline and continued to do so for several decades. Breeding roseate terns were documented in New Jersey in the 1970s, when nesting pairs occurred at Little Egg Inlet, Brigantine, Sandy Hook, Holgate, and Barnegat Bay. The last nesting pair in the State

was recorded in 1980 . The decline of this species is attributed to unchecked development and high levels of rec reational activity along the barrier islands, which have resulted in

habitat loss and disturbance of beach

- nesting birds.

The roseate tern was first listed on November 02, 1987. It is currently designated as endangered in the U.S.A. (Atlantic Coast south to NC), Canada (Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Quebec), and Bermuda. Within the United States , this species is known to occur in: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Virginia; and Canada (Newf., N.S, Queb.). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region (Region 5) is the lead region promoting conservation of this species.

Summary of Major Threats (USFWS 1993)

Human Disturbance Gull Competition15 Predation

Habitat Modification

Other Possible Threats

Pollution

Threats to the roseate tern include habitat loss on or near coastal barrier islands from development and disturbance from human recreation and other activities in coastal areas. Predation by great black

- backed ( Larus marinus ) and herring ( Larus argentatus ) gulls is a threat in areas where human garbage provides an abundant food supply to attract and support these predator species (USFWS 1993)

. R eports of threat due to pollutants are extremely limited. Limited data are available for organochlorin e contaminants , mercury, and oil pollution (USFWS 1993 ).

SHORTNOSE STURGEON Acipenser brevirostrum Family: Acipenseridae

Status: State

– Endangered, Federal

– Endangered

Sources http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end

- thrtened/sturgeon.pdf http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/26012.html

Description The shortnose sturgeon is a fish that has a short and bluntly rounded snout, wide mouth, barbels, numerous dorsal, lateral and ventral scutes (bony or horny plates), and a heterocercal tail (the upper lobe of the tail fin is larger and contains the upturned end of the spinal column). Typically, the body is yellowish brown t o nearly black on the head, back and sides level to lateral plates, and whitish to yellowish below. Length at initial maturity for this species occurs between 45

- 55 cm fork length, from the snout to the middle of the tail (18

- 22 in.) for males and females . Maximum known fork lengths are nearly 49 in. for a female and nearly 39 in. for a male. In New Jersey, 28 tagged males ranged between 21 in. to nearly 35 in. fork length.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution The shortnose sturgeon is found o n the Atlantic Coast of North America where its range extends from the Saint John River, New Brunswick, to the St. Johns River, Florida. The federal recovery plan (NMFS 1998) for the species identifies 19 distinct population segments, each defined as a riv er/estuarine system in which shortnose sturgeons have been captured in the generation time of the species (30 years). In New Jersey, the sturgeon has been recorded in Burlington and Mercer counties.

Habitat River mouths, tidal rivers, estuaries, and bay s serve as prime habitat for the shortnose sturgeon. In addition, individuals occasionally enter the open ocean. A significant16

portion of New Jersey's shortnose sturgeon occurs in the upper tidal Delaware River (Dadswell et al. 1984).

Life History

The s hortnose sturgeon's life history is complex. Much of its spawning behavior and early life stages are still not fully understood. The shortnose sturgeon is anadramous, migrating from salt water to spawn in freshwater. In the Hudson River, it spawns from April to May. Adult sturgeons migrate upriver from their mid

- Hudson overwintering areas to freshwater spawning sites north of Coxsackie. Unlike most fish species, spawning is not a yearly event for most shortnose sturgeon. Males spawn every other

year a nd females every third year. Females lay between 40,000

- 200,000 eggs which hatch in approximately 13 days. Newly

- hatched fry are poor swimmers and drift with the currents along the bottom. As they grow and mature, the fish move down

- river into the

most brackish parts of the lower Hudson. Shortnose sturgeon are long

- lived. The oldest known female reached 67 years of age and the oldest known male was 32. Shortnose sturgeons are bottom feeders, they eat sludge worms, aquatic insect larvae, plants, snails, shrimp, and crayfish using their barbels to locate food and their extendable mouths to vacuum it up. Sturgeons are exposed to nickel dissolved in the water and through

contaminated items in their diet.

Historical Information The shortnose sturgeon was first listed on March 11, 1967. It is currently designated as endangered in the entire range. The shortnose sturgeon has been federally listed as endangered since the inception of the Endangered Species Act in 1973, when it was also considered endangered in New Jersey. The Office of Natural Land's Management ranks the species as "rare in NJ‖ and "either very rare and local throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range or because of other factors making it vulnerable to extinction throughout its range." This species is afforded protection under both federal and state Endangered Species Acts, Clean Water Acts, fishing regulations, and environmental review of proposed development projects.

Conservation Status

A combination of factors can be bl amed for declines in shortnose sturgeon populations. During the 1800s and early 1900s, large tidal rivers, such as the Hudson, served as dumping grounds for pollutants that lead to major oxygen depletions and resulting high fish losses. At the same time, g reat demands for sturgeon eggs (caviar) and the fish's smoked flesh resulted in overexploitation of sturgeon stocks.

Summary of Major Threats (NMFS 1998a ):

Commercial and recreational fishing Bridge construction/demolition

Contaminants

Dams

Reduced disso lved oxygen levels Dredging17 Cooling water intakes/power plants

Alteration of natural river flow Loss or manipulation of thermal refuges Possibly

– introduced species, including competitors and viruses

Shortnose sturgeons generally occupy the main stem of their natal rivers and migrate between freshwater and mesohaline river reaches. They will move to upper freshwater areas for spawning, but will occur in fresh or saline habitats for feeding and overwintering activities. Of primary concern are habitat los s and mortality due to impingement of cooling water intake screens, dredging, an d accidental capture (NMFS

1998a ).

The effects of introduced species on shortnose sturgeon are unknown (NMFS 1998a ). It is anticipated, however, that intentional or accidenta l introductions and transfers of indigenous and non

- indigenous sturgeon, e.g., white sturgeon ( A. transmontanus ) or lake sturgeon ( A. fulvescens ), may threaten wild shortnose sturgeon populations by imposing genetic threats, increasing competition for food or habitat, or spreading diseases. It is also anticipated that rapid increases in abundance of other non

- indigenous species (e.g., Asian clams, zebra mussels, blue and flathead catfish) in some rivers will affect sturgeon prey and/or introduce new predat ors to compete for resources o f shortnose sturgeon (NMFS 1998a ).

Shortnose sturgeons are not the main prey item of any known species, and lethal parasites are uncommon (NatureServe, accessed April 2008). Sturgeon species, in general, do however appear to be susceptible to viruses enzootic to the west coast and fish introductions could further spread these diseases. One such pathogen of concern is viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS). In 2005, a freshwater strain of viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) was di scovered in freshwater drum from Lake Ontario, and subsequently it was found in numerous freshwater species throughout much of the Great Lakes. It has also been found in preserved samples from as far back as 2003. Since 1988 the virus, a finfish pathogen , was only known to exist in marine fish off both coasts (USDA 2006). Genetic studies have determined that the strain in the Great Lakes is most closely related to the North Atlantic strain (Gagné et al. 2007). Ballast water is a plausible vector.

High nitrogen and phosphorus loadings, or nutrient pollution, resulting in eutrophication and oxygen depletion is stressful to aquatic life, and presumably, sturgeon. Jenkins et al. (1993) found that juvenile shortnose sturgeon experienced relatively high morta lity (86%) when exposed to dissolved oxygen concentrations of 2.5 mg/L. Older sturgeon (> 100 days) could tolerate dissolved oxygen concentrations of 2.5 mg/L with <20% mortality, indicating an increased tolerance for lowered oxygen levels by older fish.

S imilarly, Campbell and Goodman (2004) reported a 24 h LC50 of 2.7 mg/L for 77

- d old fish tested at 2 ppt salinity and 25 O C; an estimated LC50 of 2.2 mg/L was obtained for

134

- d old fish tested at 4.5 ppt and 26 O C. According to this latter study, shortnose sturgeon may be more tolerant of low dissolved oxygen levels in high ambient water temperatures. A test with 100

- d old fish at 2 ppt and a temperature of 30 O C yielded a 24 h18

LC50 of 3.1 mg/L. The opposite trend was reported by Flournoy et al. (1992) where shortnose sturgeon were less tolerant of low dissolved oxygen levels in high ambient water temperatures and show signs of stress in water temperatures higher than 28 O C.

Shortnose sturgeon are not especially sensitive to ammonia among fishes; the acute sensitivity of shortnose sturgeon to ammonia ranks 19 of 27 among freshwater fish genera. The 96 h LC50 for fingerling shortnose sturgeon is 36.49 mg/L total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) at pH 8 (Fontenot et al. 1998, normalized to pH 8 following U.S. EPA 1999). For nitrite (NO 2 ), the 96 h LC50 for fingerling shortnose sturgeon is 11.3 mg/L.

The toxicity data available evaluating the sensitivity of shortnose sturgeon, and sturgeon species in general, is extremely limited with regard to petroleum hydrocarbons, a nd non

existent for other hydrocarbons, including animal fat

- based hydrocarbons (grease). Several characteristics of shortnose sturgeon (i.e., long lifespan, extended residence in estuarine habitats, benthic predator) predispose the species to long

- term an d repeated exposure to environmental contamination from oil and oil

- related derivatives (PAHs).

Data concerning the acute sensitivity of shortnose sturgeon to metal toxicity is also

limited. A 96

- h LC50 value of 80 μg/L has been reported for copper in the species (Dwyer et al. 2005). This value was the same as that reported for rainbow trout tested in the same study. Another sturgeon species tested in that study (shovelnose sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus platorynchus ) was twice as tolerant of acute copper toxicity by comparison, although the more closely related Atlantic sturgeon ( A. oxyrhynchus ) was slightly more sensitive: 96 h LC50s of 160 an 60 μg/L, respectively (Dwyer et al. 2005).

Sh ortnose sturgeon ranked 5.5 of the 20 fish species tested, the majority of which were threatened or endangered species. There is no chronic copper toxicity data available for shortnose sturgeon. The scant evidence indicates that shortnose sturgeon is as se nsitive to metals as rainbow trout, a sensitive salmonid fish species. In general, the relative rank sensitivity among fishes to heavy metal toxicity tends to be similar across the metals. Therefore, shortnose sturgeon may be presumed to be relatively sens itive to other heavy

metals.

NORTHEASTERN BEACH TIGER BEETLE

Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis Family: Cicindelidae

Status: State

– Endangered, Federal

- Threatened

Sources

ht tp://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end

- thrtened/nebchtgrbeetle.pdf http://ecos.fws.gov/species_profile/servlet/gov.doi.species_profile.se rvlets.SpeciesProfile ?spcode=I02C

Description A whitish tiger beetle with variable dark maculation found only along salt water beaches.19

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution This species is known to occur in: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryl and, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Virginia. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region (Region 5) is the lead region for this entity.

Habitat Although there are no definable indicators of northeastern beach tiger beetle habitat, this species is found on long, wide, dynamic, relatively undisturbed sandy beaches of the Atlantic Coast or Chesapeake Bay. This species o ccurs from about the foredune to the high tide line on ocean and bay beaches only. Larvae live in burrows in the sand.

Life Histor y Northeastern beach tiger beetles have a full, two

- year life cycle. Adults emerge in late June, reach peak abundance by mid

- July, and decline through early September. They feed, mate and bask at the water's edge on warm, sunny days. Some adults are als o active on warm, calm evenings. High body heat is necessary for maximum predatory activity.

Mating and egg

- laying occur from late

- June through August. Females deposit their eggs in the sand after mating, higher up the beach in the dunes. Eggs hatch and larvae appear in late July and August. Larvae experience three developmental stages or "instars." Most larvae reach the second instar by September and a few reach the third instar well into November, when larvae are still active. Most larvae overwin ter as second instars. In the following year, they overwinter again as third instars. Overwintering occurs high up the beach, avoiding storms and wave activity. Both second and third instars emerge from winter inactivity in mid

- March. Third instar larv ae emerge, pupate in the bottom of their burrows, and re

- emerge as winged adults in June, two full years after the eggs were laid.

Larvae live in vertical burrows located in the upper intertidal to high drift zone, where prey is most abundant. Larvae for age from their burrows, preying on passing insects. Their primary food sources are beach fleas, lice, flies and ants. Larvae are regularly covered during high tide; sand moisture is important. Larvae lack a hard shell and are subject to desiccation. The y avoid hot, dry conditions. During the summer months they are inactive, going through a period of aestivation. With each successive stage of development, larvae grow in size and burrow deeper, going from 4 to 6

- 7 to 9

- 14 inches

into the sand.

Populatio ns of tiger beetles normally experience very high larval mortality and dramatic, two to three fold, year

- to

- year fluctuations in abundance that sometimes result in local extinction. Weather factors such as flood tides, hurricanes, erosion and winter storm s, mortality due to predators and parasites, and recreational beach use all contribute to the decline of populations . Natural enemies of adults include robber flies ( Asilidae ), birds and spiders. Larvae are preyed upon by parasitic, wingless wasps ( Metho cha ), which lay their eggs on the tiger beetle larvae. The larval wasps develop by eating the larval tiger

beetles. The primary route of exposure to nickel is through contaminated prey items in

the diet.20

Historical Information The northeastern beach tig er beetle was first listed on August 07, 1990. It is currently designated as threatened in the entire range.

Conservation Status Listed as federally threatened in 1990 and state endangered in 1991, the northeastern beach tiger beetle receives regulator y protection from both federal and state Endangered Species Acts. In addition, habitat protection is afforded through the Coastal Areas Facilities Review Act and other coastal regulations. The Natural Heritage Program ranks the species as ―critically imp eriled in New Jersey because of extreme rarity".

Since 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has supported studies designed to re

establish populations of the northeastern beach tiger beetle in the Northeast. Experiments

to establish translocation tec hniques were conducted at the Gateway National Recreation Area, Sandy Hook, New Jersey by researchers from Randolph

- Macon College in Virginia. During these studies, tiger beetle larvae from the Chesapeake Bay area were

translocated to several beach sites within the recreation area and routinely monitored. Initial results from the experiments indicated that the translocation techniques employed could be used to establish a population of northeastern beach tiger beetles at Sandy Hook and possibly at other sites in the Northeast. A program to reintroduce the species at Gateway National Recreation Area has been underway since 1997.

Supposedly, oil slicks and the use of pesticides for mosquito control have contributed to the decline of this species, but dir ect evidence of the impact of these factors on the

Northeastern beac h tiger beetle does not exist.

Summary of Major Threats (USFWS 1994):

Destruction and disturbance of natural beach habitat

Oil slicks

Pesticides Beach erosion caused by anthropogenic f actors Natural phenomena

- Winter beach erosion

- Flood tides

- Hurricanes

- Vegetation encroachment

The Northeastern beach tiger beetle’s northern most range is Massachusetts and southern range is Virginia. The Northeastern beach tiger b eetle occupies the thin a rea from the foredunes to the high tide lines on ocean and bay beaches (NatureServe, accessed April 2008). Larvae live in burrows in the sand along the same beach zone, but do build some

burrows closer to the tidal zone. Vegetation encroachment on the sand y beaches the beetle utilizes during all life cycles is a concern (USFWS 1994). Invasive species that are transported to the area and utilize sandy soils have the potential to encroach on the beetles’ habitat. Furthermore, significant acreage of underwate r grass beds occur in the21

shallow waters o ff

- shore from the Northeastern beach tiger b eetle’s habitat, which are critical to estuaries’ health (Shank 2004). These grass beds assist in preventing beach erosion and protect the habitat for the beetle. Sedimen tation, low oxygen levels, pH levels outside of the normal ambient surface water range could potentially harm the underwater grass beds and negatively impact the beetles’ habitat through beach erosion.

Northeastern beach tiger b eetles have few known natur ally occurring predators. Those identified include asilid flies, birds, and spiders have been observed feeding on this insect (USFWS 1994). Due to the recent s evere declines of Northeastern beach tiger populations (>99%), the beetle is vulnerable to any n ew predator species (NatureServe,

acce ssed April 2008). Northeastern b each tiger b eetles feed on a variety of food sources small amphipods, flies, other beach arthropods, and scavenge numerous other species (fish, crabs, and dead amphipod s) (B. Knisley and J. Hill personal observation, as cited in USFWS 1994). Any sharp declines in these prey species due to competition by invasive species could prove harmful to the beetle.

Oil slicks have been suggested as a reason for the Northeastern beach tiger b eetles decline (Stamatov 1972). Many of the beach l ocations that the Northeastern beach tiger

b eetles currently inhabit are particularly susceptible to oil spills (USFWS 1994). Oil spills have the potential to cause mo rtality in larval Northeastern beach tiger b e etles inhabiting areas within the tidal range.

Use of pesticides is also speculated to decrease population densities of the Northeastern beach tiger b eetle

, as well as populations of their prey species when these chemicals enter

the environment.

HAWKSBIL L SEA TURTLE Eretmochelys imbricata Family: Cheloniidae

Status: State

– Endangered, Federal

- Endangered

Sources http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich. edu/site/accounts/information/Eretmochelys_imbricat

a.html http://ecos.fws.gov/species_profile/servlet/gov.doi.species_profile.servlets. SpeciesProfile ?spcode=C00E http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/Turtle%20Factsheets/hawksbill

- sea

turtle.htm

Description

The hawksbill is a sma ll to medium

- sized marine turtle having an elongated oval shell with overlapping scutes on the carapace, a relatively small head with a distinctive hawk

like beak, and flippers with two claws. General coloration is brown with numerous splashes of yellow, orange, or reddish

- brown on carapace. The plastron is yellowish with black spots on the intergular and postanal scutes. Juveniles are black or very dark brown with light brown or yellow coloration on the edge of the shell, limbs, and raised ridges of22

the carapace. As an adult, the hawksbill may reach up to 3 feet in length and weigh up to 300 pounds, although adults more commonly average about 21⁄2 feet in length and weigh between 95 to 165 pounds. It is the only sea turtle with a combination of two pairs of prefrontal scales on the head and four pairs of costal scutes on the carapace.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution The hawksbill is found in tropical and subtropical regions of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. The species is widel y distributed in the Caribbean Sea and western Atlantic Ocean. In contrast to all other sea turtle species, hawksbills nest in low densities on scattered small beaches. The Gulf and Caribbean coasts of the Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico, where hawksbills nest on long expanses of beach in densities of 20 to 30 nests/km, are exceptions. The hawksbill sea turtle has experienced global population declines of 80 percent or more during the past century and continued declines are projected. Most populations are dec lining, depleted, or remnants of larger aggregations. Only five regional populations remain with more than 1,000 females nesting annually (Seychelles, Mexico, Indonesia, and two in Australia).

Habitat Hawksbills frequent rocky areas, coral reefs, shall ow coastal areas, lagoons or oceanic islands, and narrow creeks and passes. They are seldom seen in water deeper than 65 feet. Hatchlings are often found floating in masses of sea plants, and nesting may occur on almost any undisturbed deep

- sand beach in the tropics. Adult females are able to climb over reefs and rocks to nest in beach vegetation.

No critical habitat for the hawksbill sea turtle has been designated in New Jersey.

Life History The hawksbill feeds primarily on sponges and is most often a ssociated with the coral reef community. Hawksbill turtles are exposed to nickel dissolved in the water and through

contaminated items in their diet.

The nesting season varies with locality, but in most locations nesting occurs sometime between April and November. Hawksbills nest at night and, on average, about 4.5 times per season at intervals of approximately 14 days. In Florida and the U.S. Caribbean, clutch size is approximately 140 eggs, although several records exist of over 200 eggs per

nest. Re migration intervals of 2 to 3 years predominate. The incubation period averages 60 days. Hawksbills are recruited into the reef environment at about 35 cm in length and are believed to begin breeding about 30 years later. However, the time required to r each 35 cm in length is unknown and growth rates vary geographically. As a result, actual age at sexual maturity is not known.

Historical Information The hawksbill sea turtle was first listed on June 2, 1970. It is currently designated as endangered in the entire range. Within the United States , this species is known to occur in: Alabama, American Samoa, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Hawaii, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Northern Mariana Islands, Mississippi, North23

Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas,

Vir ginia, and Virgin Islands

.

Conservation Status The decline of this species is primarily due to human exploitation for tortoiseshell. While the legal hawksbill shell trade ended when J apan agreed to stop importing shell in 1993, a significant illegal trade continues. In addition, there are serious attempts by Cuba, with support from other countries, to downlist hawksbills in Cuba to Appendix 2 of the

Convention on International Trade i n Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora in order to make it possible to reopen trade with Japan and possibly other countries. Other threats include loss or degradation of nesting habitat from coastal development and beach armoring; disorientation of hatchlings by beachfront lighting; excessive nest predation by

native and non

- native predators; degradation of foraging habitat; marine pollution and debris; watercraft strikes; and incidental take from commercial fishing operations.

KEMP’S RIDLEY SEA TUR TLE Lepidochelys kempi Family: Cheloniidae

Status: State

– Endangered, Federal

- Endangered

Sources http://ecos.fws.gov/species_profile /servlet/gov.doi.species_profile.servlets.SpeciesProfile ?spcode=C00O http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end

- thrtened/marinetrtls.pdf http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/species/turtles/kemps.html

Description The Kemp's ridley and olive ridley sea turtles are the smallest of all extant sea turtles, with the weight of an adult generally being less than 45 kg and the straight carapace length around 65 cm. Adult Kemp's ridleys' shells are almost as wide as long. Coloration changes significantly during development from the grey

- black carapace and plastron of hatchlings to the lighter grey

- olive carapace an d cream

- white or yellowish plastron of adults. There are two pairs of prefrontal scales on the head, five vertebral scutes, five pairs of coastal scutes and generally twelve pairs of marginals on the carapace. In each bridge adjoining the plastron to the carapace, there are four scutes, each of which is perforated by a pore. This is the external opening of Rathke's gland which secretes a substance of unknown (possibly a pheromone) function. Males resemble the females in size and coloration. Secondary s exual characteristics of male sea turtles include a longer tail, more distal vent, recurved claws and, during breeding, a softened mid

- plastron. Eggs

are 34

- 45 mm in diameter and 24

- 40 g in weight. Hatchlings range from 42

- 48 mm in straight line carapace length, 32

- 44 mm in width and 15

- 20 g in weight.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution The major nesting beach for Kemp's ridleys is on the northeastern coast of Mexico. This location is near Rancho Nuevo in southern Tamaulipas. The species o ccurs mainly in

coastal areas of the Gulf of Mexico and the Northwestern Atlantic Ocean.24

Habitat Unlike land turtles from which they evolved more than 150 million years ago, sea turtles spend almost their entire lives in the sea. When active, they often come to the surface to breathe, but can remain underwater for several hours at a time while resting. Preferred

estuarine habitat of sea turtles

-- deeper or shallower water

-- directly relates to their preferred diet. Adult green turtles are herbivores, or p lant eaters. All the other sea turtles are either carnivores (meat

- eaters) or omnivores that eat both plant matter and meat.

No critical habitat for the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle has been designated in New Jersey.

Life History Neonatal Kemp's ridleys fee d on the available sargassum and associated infauna or other epipelagic species found in the Gulf of Mexico. In post

- pelagic stages, the ridley is largely a crab

- eater, with a preference for portunid crabs. The turtles are exposed to

nickel dissolved in seawater and through contaminated items in their diet. Age at sexual maturity is not known, but is believed to be approximately 7

- 15 years, although other estimates of age at maturity range as high as 35 years.

Historical Information The Kemp's ridley sea turtle was first listed on December 2, 1970. It is currently designated as endangered in the entire range. Within the United States , this species is known to occur in: Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryla nd, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia; Mexico

- Atlantic Coast, and tropical and temperate waters in Atlantic Basin.

Conservation Status

It is estimated that b efore the implementation of turtle exclusion devices , the commercial shrimp fleet killed 500

- 5000 Kemp's ridleys each year. Besides shrimp trawls, Kemp's ridleys have been taken in pound nets, trawls, gill nets, hook and line, crab traps, and longlines. Beginning in 1976, the U.S. and Mex ican governments agreed to phase out U.S. shrimping in Mexican waters by 1979. U.S. shrimp vessels continued to illegally operate off Mexico through the mid 1980s. The Mexican shrimp fleet has declined and consists of only approximately 600 vessels, many of which do not operate. Also since 1978, Mexico has closed the nearshore waters off Rancho Nuevo to fishing during the nesting season. However, this closure has not been strictly enforced.

Dredging operations affect Kemp's ridley turtles through inci dental take and by degrading the habitat. Incidental take of ridleys has been documented with hopper dredges. In addition to direct take, channelization of the inshore and nearshore areas can degrade foraging and migratory habitat through spoil dumping, degraded water quality/clarity and

altered current flow.25

LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLE Dermochelys coriacea Family: Cheloniidae

Status: State

– Endangered, Federal

– Endangered

Sources http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end

- thrtened/marinetrtls.pdf http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/Turtle%20Factsheets/leatherback

- sea

turtle.htm http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/species/turtles/leatherback.html

Description The leatherback is the largest, deepest diving, and most migratory and wide ran ging of all sea turtles. The adult leatherback can reach 4 to 8 feet in length and 500 to 2000 pounds in weight. Its shell is composed of a mosaic of small bones covered by firm, rubbery skin with seven longitudinal ridges or keels. The skin is predomin antly black with varying degrees of pale spotting; including a notable pink spot on the dorsal surface of the head in adults. A tooth like cusp is located on each side of the gray upper jaw; the lower jaw is hooked anteriorly. The paddle

- like clawless li mbs are black with white margins and pale spotting. Hatchlings are predominantly black with white flipper margins and keels on the

carapace.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution The leatherback turtle is distributed worldwide in tropical and te mperate waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. It is also found in small numbers as far north as British Columbia, Newfoundland, and the British Isles, and as far south as Australia, Cape of Good Hope, and Argentina. The largest nesting popu lations now occur in the western Atlantic in French Guiana (4,500 to 7,500 females nesting/year) and Colombia (estimated several thousand nests annually), and in the western Pacific in West Papua (formerly Irian Jaya) and Indonesia (about 600 to 650 female s nesting/year). In the United States, small nesting populations occur on the Florida east coast (35 females/year), Sandy Point, U.S. Virgin Islands (50 to 100 females/year), and Puerto Rico (30 to 90 females/year).

Habitat The leatherback is the most pe lagic of the sea turtles. Adult females require sandy nesting beaches backed with vegetation and sloped sufficiently so the crawl to dry sand is not too far. The preferred beaches have proximity to deep water and generally rough

seas.

Leatherbacks can d ive to more than 3,000 feet below sea level. Preferred estuarine

habitat of sea turtles

-- deeper or shallower water

-- directly relates to their preferred diet.

No critical habitat for the leatherback sea turtle has been designated in New Jersey.26

Life History Jellyfish are the main staple of its diet, but it is also known to feed on sea urchins, squid, crustaceans, tunicates, fish, blue

- green algae, and floating seaweed. The turtles are exposed to nickel dissolved in the water and through contaminated items in their diet.

In the United States, nesting occurs from about March to July. Female leatherbacks nest an average of 5 to 7 times within a nesting season, with an observed maximum of 11 nests. The average inter

- nesting interval is about 9 to 10 da ys. The nests are constructed at night in clutches of about 70 to 80 yolked eggs. The white spherical eggs are approximately 2 inches in diameter. Typically incubation takes from 55 to 75 days, and emergence of the hatchlings occurs at night. Most leat herbacks remigrate to their nesting

beaches at 2 to 3

- year intervals. Leatherbacks are believed to reach sexual maturity in 6 to 10 years. No critic al habitat for the leatherback sea turtle has been designated in New Jersey.

Historical Information

Enda ngered throughout its range ( Federal Register , June 2, 1970 2 ). Recent estimates of global nesting populations indicate 26,000 to 43,000 nesting females annually, which is a dramatic decline from the 115,000 estimated in 1980. This is due to exponential de clines in leatherback nesting that have occurred over the last two decades along the Pacific coasts of Mexico and Costa Rica. The Mexico leatherback nesting population, once considered to be the world’s largest leatherback nesting population (65 percent o f worldwide population), is now less than one percent of its estimated size in 1980.

Conservation Status The crash of the Pacific leatherback population, once the world’s largest population, is believed primarily to be the result of exploitation by humans for the eggs and meat, as

well as incidental take in numerous commercial fisheries of the Pacific. Other factors threatening leatherbacks globally include loss or degradation of nesting habitat from coastal development; disorientation of hatchlings by be achfront lighting; excessive nest predation by native and non

- native predators; degradation of foraging habitat; marine pollution and debris; and watercraft strikes.

LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLE

Caretta caretta Family: Cheloniidae

Status: State

– Endangered, F ederal

– Threatened

Sources http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end

- thrtened/marinetrtls.pdf http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/Turtle%20Factsheets/loggerhead

- sea

turtle.htm

_

2 Federa l Register, Vol. 35, No. 106, Tuesday, June 2, 1970

- Title 50 Wildlife and Fisheries (also cited as 35 FR 8491; June 2, 1970)

.27

Description The loggerhead is characterized by a large head with blunt jaws. The carapace and flippers are a reddish

- brown color; the plastro n is yellow. The carapace has five pairs of costal scutes with the first touching the nuchal scute. There are three large inframarginal scutes on each of the bridges between the plastron and carapace. Adults grow to an average weight of about 200 pounds

.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution The loggerhead sea turtle occurs throughout the temperate and tropical regions of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. However, the majority of loggerhead nesting is at

the western rims of the Atlanti c and Indian oceans. Although the major nesting concentrations in the United States are found in South Florida, loggerheads nest from Texas to Virginia. Total estimated nesting in the U.S. is approximately 68,000 to 90,000 nests/year. About 80 percent o f loggerhead nesting in the southeastern U.S. occurs in six Florida counties (Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, and Broward Counties). Adult loggerheads are known to make considerable migrations between foraging areas and nesting beach es. During non

- nesting years, adult females from U.S. beaches are distributed in waters off the eastern U.S. and throughout the Gulf of Mexico, Bahamas, Greater Antilles, and Yucatán.

Habitat The loggerhead is widely distributed within its range. It may be found hundreds of miles out to sea, as well as in inshore areas such as bays, lagoons, salt marshes, creeks, ship channels, and the mouths of large rivers. Coral reefs, rocky places, and ship wrecks are often used as feeding areas. Loggerheads nest o n ocean beaches and occasionally on estuarine shorelines with suitable sand. Nests are typically made between the high tide line and the dune front. Most loggerhead hatchlings originating from U.S. beaches are believed to lead a pelagic existence in the North Atlantic gyre for an extended period of time, perhaps as long as 10 to 12 years, and are best known from the eastern Atlantic near

the Azores and Madeira. Post

- hatchlings have been found floating at sea in association

with Sargassum rafts. Once the y reach a certain size, these juvenile loggerheads begin recruiting to coastal areas in the western Atlantic where they become benthic feeders in lagoons, estuaries, bays, river mouths, and shallow coastal waters. These juveniles occupy coastal feeding gr ounds for a decade or more before maturing and making their first reproductive migration, the females returning to their natal beach to nest.

No critical habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle has been designated in New Jersey.

Life History The species fe eds on mollusks, crustaceans, fish, and other marine animals. The turtles are exposed to nickel dissolved in seawater and through contaminated items in their diet.

The United States nesting season extends from about May through August with nesting

occurri ng primarily at night. Loggerheads are known to nest from one to seven times within a nesting season (mean is about 4.1 nests per season) at intervals of approximately 14 days. Mean clutch size varies from about 100 to 126 along the southeastern United28

S tates coast. Incubation ranges from about 45 to 95 days, depending on incubation temperatures, but averages 55 to 60 days for most clutches in Florida. Hatchlings generally emerge at night. Remigration intervals of 2 to 3 years are most common in

nestin g loggerheads, but remigration can vary from 1 to 7 years. Age at sexual maturity is believed to be about 20 to 30 years.

Historical Information Threatened throughout its range ( Federal Register , July 28, 1978 3 ).

Conservation Status

Threats include los s or degradation of nesting habitat from coastal development and beach armoring; disorientation of hatchlings by beachfront lighting; excessive nest predation by native and non

- native predators; degradation of foraging habitat; marine pollution and debris; watercraft strikes; disease; and incidental take from channel dredging and commercial trawling, longline, and gill net fisheries. There is particular concern about the extensive incidental take of juvenile loggerheads in the eastern Atlantic by longline f

ishing vessels from several countries.

Summary of Major Threats (USFWS 1992 ):

Incidental take by the shrimp industry has been identified as the largest source of mortality; Human encroachment and access along the entire nesting area. Management practices at Rancho Nuevo nesting area concentrates eggs from all of the collected nests in corrals. This concentration makes the eggs more susceptible to reduced viability from the manipulation, disease vectors and

inundation. Marine pollution (chronic, low

- level o il spills and occasional massive oil spills) and debris; Dredging operations (through incidental take and by degrading the habitat); Other known or probable man

- induced stresses which have yet to be fully quantified include the explosive removal of obsolet e oil platforms, impact by the hulls or propellers of boats, power plant entrapment and human activities of various kinds on the foraging ground

Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle has the most restricted distribution of any sea turtle. They occur throughout much of the Gulf of Mexico and the eastern seaboard of the United States, depending on life stage and season. The major nesting beach where this sea turtle emerges in any concentration to lay eggs is on the northeastern coast of Mexico. The occurrence of this spe cies in coastal areas of the Gulf of Mexico and the northwestern Atlantic Ocean places the Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle in waters that are heavily trafficed by large commercial vessels, large and small fishing vessels, and recreational vessels. Most

_

3 Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 146, Friday, July 28, 1978

- Title 50 Wildlife and Fisheries (also cited as 43 FR 32800; July 2 8, 1978 ).29

sea turtle species depend upon algal beds, seagrass and/or reef habitats for food and refuge. The destruction or degradation of these habitats is a widespread and serious threat to the recovery of depleted sea turtle stocks. The general degradation of these habitats can be affected by eutrophicati on and sedimentation (NMFS 1998b ). Sea turtles depend upon suitable beach habitat for nesting. Introduced species of exotic vegetation can displace native dune and beach vegetation and through shading and/or chemical inhibit ion (NMFS

1998b ), leading to degradation of suitable nesting habitat. Dense new vegetation shades nests, potentially altering natural hatchling sex ratios. Thick root masses can also entangle eggs and hatchlings. Environmental contamination also harms biol ogically important nearshore ecosystems, including seagrass, coral, mangrove, and algae communities. The declining productivity of seagrass and coral communities, in particular, can be hazardous to sea turtles that depend on these systems for nutrition and shelter.

The vast majority of diseases and conditions which have been identified or diagnosed in sea turtles are described from captive stock, either turtles in experimental headstart programs or mariculture facilities (NMFS 1991). One notable exception is the occurrence of fibropapillomas, common in the central Indian River system of Florida, Florida Bay, and in the Florida Keys, on green turtles, first described by Smith and Coates (1938). The dinoflagellate Prorocentrum , which lives on seagrasses so it is consumed by foraging green turtles, produces a tumor

- promoting toxin (okadaic acid) that has been found in the tissues of Hawaiian green turtles with fibropapilloma disease (Milton et al. 2003).

Although surprisingly robust when faced with physical da mage (shark attacks, boat strikes), sea turtles are highly sensitive to chemical insults such as oil (Milton et al. 2003). Sea turtles are vulnerable to the effects of oil at all life stages

— eggs, post

hatchlings, juveniles, and adults in nearshore waters. Several aspects of sea turtle biology and behavior place them at particular risk, including a lack of avoidance behavior, indiscriminate feeding in convergence zones, and large predive inhalations. Oil effects on turtles include increased egg mortality an d developmental defects, direct mortality due to oiling in hatchlings, juveniles, and adults; and negative impacts to the skin, blood, digestive and immune systems, and salt glands.

Exposure to heavy metals and other contaminants in the marine environment is also of concern. Kemp’s ridley and other sea turtles are exposed to metals dissolved in seawater and through contaminated items in their diet (USFWS 1992) . Reptiles are prominent members of ecosystems and often have life history characteristics that ma ke them vulnerable to mercury accumulation (e.g., long life span, high trophic level, aquatic habitat).

Sea turtles are long

- lived species, and occupy relatively high trophic positions in the marine food web. These factors predispose sea turtles to bioac cumulate contaminants. Rybitski (1995) reported on the tissue concentrations of organochlorine pollutants in juvenile loggerhead and Kemp's ridley turtles stranded in Virginia and North Carolina. The predominant organochlorines were polychlorinated bipheny ls (PCBs), DDT and its breakdown products, DDE and DDD.30

Keller et al. (2005) monitored the blood plasma of loggerhead turtles along the U.S. East Coast, and consistently found significant levels of perfluorinated compounds (PFCs).

PFC concentrations measu red in the plasma of turtles found along the coast from Florida to North Carolina indicated that PFCs have become a major contaminant for the species. Blood chemistry analyses of PFC

- contaminated loggerheads suggested damage to liver cells and the suppress ion of at least one immune function which could lead to a higher risk of disease. Keller et al. (2005) reported that current environmental PFC exposures are putting marine species at enhanced risk of health problems from reduced immunity.

SENSITIVE JOINT

- VETCH Aeschynomene virginica Family: Fabaceae

Status: State

– Threatened, Federal

– Threatened

Source http://www.ncnhp.org/Images/107.pdf

Description Sensitive joint

- vetch is an annual plant in the be an family native to the eastern United States. Plants typically attain heights of 1 to 2 meters in a single growing season, although they can grow as tall as 2.4 meters. The stems are single, sometimes branching near the top, and with stiff or bristly hair s. The leaves are even

- pinnate, 2 to 12 centimeters (cm) long, with entire, glad

- dotted leaflets. Each leaf consists of 30 to 56 leaflets. Leaflets are 0.8 to 2.5 cm long and 0.2 to 0.4 cm wide. The leaves fold slightly when touched. The yellow, irregular flowers are 1.0 to 1.5 cm across, streaked with red, and grow in racemes (elongated inflorescence with stalked flowers). The fruit is a loment

with 4 to 10 one

- seeded segments, turning dark brown when ripe. Fruits are 3.0 to 7.0 cm long and shallowly scall oped along one side.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution Sensitive joint

- vetch is known from a total of 24 extant sites, including one in Maryland, one in New Jersey, two in North Carolina, and 20 in Virginia. The species shows

considerable ann ual fluctuation in population numbers, varying in at least one case from approximately 50 to 2,000 individuals over a 3

- year period. Although populations do fluctuate, there is an apparent trend for large populations to remain large and sma ll populations t o remain small.

Habitat Sensitive joint

- vetch grows in the intertidal zone where plants are flooded twice daily. The species seems to prefer the marsh edge at an elevation near the upper limit of tidal fluctuation. It is usually found in areas where plant diversity is high (50 species per acre) and annual species predominate. Bare to sparsely vegetated substrates appear to be a habitat feature of critical importance to this plant. As an annual, it requires such microhabitats for establishment and growth. S uch areas may include accreting point bars that have not yet been colonized by perennial species, low swales within extensive marshes, or areas where muskrats have eaten most of the vegetation. It is frequently31

found in the estuarine meander zone of tidal rivers where sediments transported from upriver settle out and extensive marshes are formed. The substrate may be sandy, muddy, gravelly, or peaty.

Life History Plants flower from July through September and occasionally into October. In Autumn,

senescence may be triggered by the drop in water temperature or by salinity intrusion due to a decrease in freshwater flow. Bumblebees have been observed pollinating the flowers. Fruits form shortly after the first signs of flowering in July. Although flowering cont inues until late Fall, production of vigorous fruits appears to decline significantly by mid

October. Seed maturation begins in August and continues through October. Germination takes place from late May to early June. Seedlings grow quickly, approximately doubling in size every 2 weeks during the first 6 weeks. Exposure to nickel occurs when plants

absorb water contaminated with this metal.

Historical Information The sensitive joint

- vetch was first listed on May 20, 1992. It is currently designated as

thr eatened in the entire range. The historic range for the species extended into Delaware and Pennsylvania, but the species has not been seen in those states for more than a

century.

Conservation Status The extirpation of sensitive joint

- vetch from Delaware and Pennsylvania and its elimination from many sites in other states can be directly attributed to habitat destruction. Many of the marshes where it occurred historically have been dredged and/or filled and the riverbanks stabilized with bulkheads or ripr ap. Other threats include sedimentation, competition from exotic plant species, recreational activities, agricultural activities, mining, commercial and residential development with associated pollution and sedimentation, impoundments, water withdrawal pro jects and introduced insect pests. Sedimentation inhibits seed germination, smothers seedlings, and promotes invasion of competing weedy species. Herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers from golf courses, lawns, and gardens degrade water quality.

Summary of Major Threats (USFWS 1995 ):

• sedimentation • competition from exotic plant species

• dams • dredging and filling activities • boating activities • shoreline stabilization and structural development • road and bridge construction

• commercial and resi dential development • water withdrawal projects • changes in water quality • agricultural practices32 • declines in muskrat populations • sea level changes

Sensitive joint

- vetch (

Aeschynomene virginica) is a robust annual herb that can grow up

to two meters tall. It occurs in the intertidal zone of river shores, estuarine

- river marsh borders, and marsh interiors. The sensitive joint

- vetch is a poor competitor. Bare soil or sparsely vegetated substrates are critical for its estab lishment and growth ( U.S. EPA

2003 , USFWS 2008). Invasive plants that form dense, monospecific stands, such as the common reed ( Phragmites australis ), have detrimental effects on this species (USFWS

1995 ) . Destruction and degradation of its habitat cause pronounced impacts on populati ons (USFWS 1995 ) . While the direct effects of water pollution on the sensitive joint

- vetch are unknown, pollution generally appears to reduce species diversity within marshes and may promote the encroachment of aggressive, weedy species ( USFWS

1995 ). Pollu tion or deposition of fine material can cause soil pores to become clogged or plugged. If soil pores are clogged, plant roots may not be able to carry out normal functions during periods when the plants are not inundated.

2.4 Environmental Baseline

The quality of much of New Jersey’s surface waters, where several threatened and endangered species live and forage for food, has been lowered by multiple human activities, such as the release of toxic contaminants, and the loss and degradati on of aquatic habitats and the surrounding vegetation. A total of 111 segme nts of coastal water
bodies in New Jersey have at least one chemical or physical parameter exceeding a water quality standard. Note: information on impaired sites presented in thi s section was taken

from U.S. EPA ’s TMDL website ( www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl ). However , o f the 111 coastal water segments sampled in New Jersey

, only 17 percent of the impairments were

attributed to chemical co n taminants. The remaining 83 percent of the 111 coastal water segments had impairments resulting from low dissolved oxygen, and high coliform and pathogen values

. In most cases, impairment of a water body segment was the result of multiple contaminants. According to New Jersey's final 2008 303(d) list of water quality limited waters (available at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/wms/bwqsa/generalinfo.htm#2

, accessed February 11, 2010), n ickel curre ntly i s among the causes of impairment in only

4 coastal segments (identified in greater detail below)

. The established TMDL for n ickel at a fifth coastal segment ( Hackensack River , NJ) stands to be withdr awn pending

concurr ence with the finding s of ―may effect, but not likely to adversely affect‖

determined in this BE.

Our concern here is with the potential adverse effects of nickel (at or near criteria

concentrations ) on listed estuarine/ marine (so called saltwater) species. As a first

assessment of th e potential of such a risk , maps of the distributions of endangered species were overlain with maps identifying sites impaired by this contaminant

. A ny nickel impaired waters (i.e., waters containing dissolved nickel at concentrations exceeding the

NJ sal twater nickel criteria) within the distribution range of a listed species relevant to

this BE were considered an indicator that the species may be exposed to excessively high

concent rations of nickel. The available data on the locations of New Jersey site s33

considered to be impa ired by nickel suggest that there is no overlap with distributions of the shortnose sturgeon (

Acipenser brevirostrum )

, h awksbill sea turtle ( Chelonia mydas ), Kemp’s r idley sea t urtle ( Lepidochelys kempii ), l eatherback turtle ( Dermochelys

coriacea ), and l oggerhead sea turtle ( Caretta caretta )

. In contrast, this first assessment (overlay of expected geographic range with maps of nickel impaired waters ) suggests that

p iping plover ( Ch aradrius melodus ) , roseate tern ( Sterna dougallii ), northeastern beach tiger beetle ( Cincindela dorsalis ), and the sensitive joint

- vetch ( Aeschynomene virginica )

may all be potentially exposed to waters currently impaired by nickel.

Note, for the purpose of this first assessment analysis, the maps provided below do not

include the coastal segments within Essex and Hudson counties along the Hackensack River subject to the 1999 nickel TMDL , which w as issued based o n New Jersey’ s previous saltwater criteria for the metal. Instead, focus is only on the current nickel

impaired waterbodies located in Atlantic and Ocean counties. The focus on the coastal waterbody segments within these two counties is justified because, a side from the heavily protected nesting areas for the breeding population of piping plover at the Gateway

National Recreation Area

- Sandy Hook Unit , there are no historical records (dating back to the last several decades) of roseate t erns, Northeaster n beach tiger beetle or sensitive joint vetch in these historic ally heavily urban and industrialized areas of New Jersey ’s

coastline.

Past and On

- going Human and Natural Factors Leading to the Current Status of Select Federally

- listed S pecies in New Jersey’s Nickel Impaired Watersheds

Piping Plo vers http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/Endangered/plover.html http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/Fact%20Sheets%20PDF%20holding/Beach_ Manage_.pdf

There are no published data reporting direct effects of nickel in ambient surface waters (includi ng estuarine and marine) on the current populations of piping plover in New Jersey or other Atlantic states. As indicated above, the number of plovers nesting in New Jersey has remained essentially stable through the 1980s and 1990s at around 120 pairs,

i ndicating that continued exposure to heavy metal impaired waters (and other threats) has

not led to f

urther decline of the species.

Figure 1 provides a map overlaying the extant (present), potential (may be present) and

historic (may still be present) spe cies distributions in New Jersey with the nickel

impaired waterbodies identified in the current (200 8 ) state 303(d) list, i.e., Great Egg Harbor River or GEHR, from Great Egg Harbor to Miry Run (state waterbody ID

NJ2040302050130

- 01); GEHR from Miry Run to Lake Lenape (state waterbody ID NJ NJ02040302050060); Toms R Lower from Rt 166 to Oak Ridge Pkwy (state waterbody

ID NJ 02040301080060

- 01) ; and Toms River Lower below state route 166

– ( NJ02040301080090

- 01 ) . The map shows overlap between the extant, poten tial and historic range s of piping plover based on county (Atlantic and Ocean) and municipality

,34

and the four coastal waterbod y segments currently impaired in New Jersey due to nickel.

All four segments are deemed impaired based on exceedance of the aquati c life designated use, and include other toxic metals (cadmium, copper, lead , mercury ) and

toxic metal loid s (arsenic) in addition to nickel. Parts of Great Egg Harbor and Toms River Lower are also impaired due to low dissolved oxygen and pathogens, respec tively.

The extant, present and historic species distributions identified by county (bounded by a light grey line) and municipality (bounded by green, yellow or brown based on whether species populations are considered extant, potential or historic , resp ectively ) were from the New Jersey Field Offices’ document entitled: Federally Listed and Candidate Species Occurences in New Jersey by County and Municipality , available as a pdf document at http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/Endangered/munlist.pdf

.

With regard to the particular nickel

- impaired watershed assessment u nits (NAUs) indicated on the map provided in Figure 1 ( see labeled portions of stream reaches in bold

red font ) , there are no breeding piping plover in these areas

- either currently or the recent past (since regular intensive surveying began in 1986). Furthermore, these areas are well enough up the watersheds that one would not expect these waters to be within their foraging range either. Nor would it be expected to be a concern for migratory plovers. The nickel impaired waters are simply outside the normal piping plover habitat for New Jersey. All of the recent nesting in New Jersey has been on Atlant ic Coast beaches or inlet systems (Todd Pover, New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, Endangered and Nongame Species Program, personal communication). While there has been some recent nesting (as recent as 2005) in the Great Egg Harbor watershed, the n ests are well out on the coast, on the southern side of the inlet (northernmost end of Ocean City) and a site referred to as Sea View Harbor Marina, just inside the northern side of the inlet. But these areas are not within or in close proximity to the NA U. The Toms River area is a "dead zone" for plovers in New Jersey, as the coastal beaches to its east are heavily developed and thus have not had plovers present anytime in the past several decades according to local field biologists.

New Jersey work s wi th the Fish and Wildlife Service, NJ Endangered and Nongame Species Program, and land owners and managers to develop a framework for beach development through beach management planning. The key elements of beach

management are: Applicable laws and regulat ions Roles and responsibilities of each party to the plan Management zones and natural areas Recovery goals for listed species Management issues

o Biological surveys and monitoring

o Predation, herbivory, and disease

o Human disturbance

o Beach management and main tenance

 Beach raking

 Refuse and large debris removal

 Dune management35  Beach nourishment

 Sand scraping

 Beach access structure

o Education and outreach

The New Jersey Field office has also published a couple of documents to help protect the piping plover. Th e first, Guidelines for Managing Recreational Activities in Piping Plover Breeding Habitat on the U.S. Atlantic Coast to Avoid Take Under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act is meant to deal with recreational activities in the areas where piping plover s breed. The second, Guidelines for Managing Fireworks in the Vicinity of Piping Plovers and Seabeach Amaranth on the U.S. Atlantic Coast deals with the direct

and indirect effects of firework displays along the beach for these species.

EPA expects the c urrent status of piping plover in proximity to the NAUs and along the New Jersey coastline in general to be contingent on the above efforts to cont rol human

disturbance and preserve appropriate habitat, two of the primary past and on

- going

threats to exist ing populations.

Roseate T erns http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/Fact%20Sheets%20PDF%20holding/Beach_ Manage_.pdf

There are no published d ata reporting direct effects of nickel in ambient surface waters ( including estuarine and marine) on the current populations of roseate terns in New Jersey or other Atlantic states. As the last known breeding pair was recorded in 1980, it is not possible to evaluate the current effects of nickel to this species.

Figure 2 provides a map overlaying the historic ( although currently not known to be present) species distributions in New Jersey with the nickel

- impaired waterbodies

identified in the 2008 state 3 03(d) list. The map shows overlap between the historic range of roseate tern based on county and watershed ( from Nature Serve , accessed via http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/index.htm ) and the four coastal NAUs impaired in New Jersey due to nick el. Whether or not roseate terns currently reside in or near these

NAUs is not known at this time. No recent occurrence information has been reported in New Jersey.

As of the time of preparation of this BE, there is no information about actions taken to protect th is species. In the Beach Management Plan mentioned above for piping plover, there is reference to two other tern species, and the roseate tern may be included since all federally and state

- listed s pecies are meant to be included, as are othe r species of

concern.

Again, EPA expects the current status of roseate terns, if found to be dwelling along the New Jersey coastline, to be contingent on the above efforts to control human disturbance

a nd preserve appropriate habitat, two of the primary p ast and on

- going threats to existing populations.36

Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/Endangered/tigerbeetle.html http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end

- thrtened/nebchtgrbeetle.pdf

ht tp://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/Fact%20Sheets%20PDF%20holding/Beach_ Manage_.pdf

There are no published data reporting direct effects of nickel (or any other metal) in ambient surface waters (including estuarine and marine) on the current populat ions of Northeastern beach tiger b eetle in New Jersey or other Atlantic states.

Figure 3 provides a map overlaying the distributions of the now extirpated (no longer present) populations of Northeastern beach tiger beetles in New Jersey in relation to t he

four nickel

- impaired NAUs. A ccording to the recent (June 2008) document published by the USFWS, New Jersey Field Office , there are no past or present record s of

Northeaster n beach tiger beetle in the municipalities of Egg Harbor or Toms River Township.

The Northeastern beach t ig er b eetle is included in the Beach Management Planning that New Jersey completes with the Fish and Wildlife Service and land owners. The U.S.

Fi sh and Wildlife Service support studies on how to re

- establish the species in the

n ortheaster n United States. A program to reintroduce the species is underway in the Gateway National Recreation Area, Sandy Hook Unit. Preserving specific habitat and adhering to the practices and principles set forth in the Beach Management Plan ning

appe ars to be among the most viable options for on

- going preservation of the species at

this time.

Sensitive Joint

- vetch http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/ASP/ CPC_ViewProfile.asp?CPCNum=35 http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/Fact%20Sheets%20PDF%20holding/Beach_ Manage_.pdf

There are no published da ta reporting direct effects of nickel in ambient surface waters (including estuarine and marine) on the current populations of sensitive joint

- vetch in New Jersey or other Atlantic states. Results of toxicity tests with other freshwater vascular plants su ggest that metal pollutants do not represent a threat to this species. Vascular plants, in general, are not sensitive to toxic effects of copper, lead, nickel, zinc, aluminum, and other metals ( U.S. EPA 2008).

Figure 4 provides a map overlaying the histo ric species distributions of sensitive joint

vetch in New Jersey in relation to the nickel

- impaired NAUs

. A gain, the 2008 document containing Federally

- Listed and candidate species occurrences by county and municipality published by the USFWS, New Jersey Field Office indicates tha t sensitive joint

- vetch are historic ( may still be present) in E gg Harbor Township; while there is no past or present record of this species in Toms River Township.37

As a federally and state

- listed species, the sensitive joint

- vet ch is included in the Beach Management P lanning that New Jersey completes with the Fish and Wildlife Service and

land owners . The Nature Conservatory in New Jersey protects sites with sensitive joint

vetch and is removing the invasive species Phragmites a ustralis near a population along

the Manumuskin River. Many studies have been conducted, surveying for new populations and determining how best to repopulate the species. Practices to reduce competition and prevent habitat destruction appear to be among the most viable options

for on

- going preservation of the species at this time.38

Figure 1

. Piping plover distribution and New Jersey 303(d) Nickel Assessment Units.39

Figure 2 . Roseate tern distribution an d New Jersey 303(d) Nickel Assessment Units.40

Figure 3 . Northeastern beach tiger beetle distribution and New Jersey 303(d) Nickel

Assessment Units.41

Figure 4 . Sensitive joint

- vetch distribution and Ne w Jersey 303(d) Nickel

Assessment Units.42

3.0 ASSESSING EFFECTS OF THE NEW JERSEY SALTWATER NICKEL

CRITERIA ON FEDERALLY

- LISTED SPECIES

3.1 Overview

See Appendix B in this document.

3.2 Data Collection

The acute and chronic nickel toxicity data used in this b iological evaluation were

collected from a literature search of EPA’s ECOTOX database and EPA’s Ambient Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for Nickel (U.S. EPA 1986). To ensure completeness and broad applicability of this biological evaluation, data for non

- North American species were included.

3.3 Toxic Effects on Aquatic Species

This section presents the results of the toxic effects assessment, including the supporting data and analyses on Federally

- listed aquatic species, their surr ogates, and their food items. The overall process for as sessing aquatic toxicity of nickel is described in detail in Appendix B, Section 5.

3.3.1 Aquatic Animals

This section contains the assessment results for water

- column only toxicity to aquatic

animals. The process f

or assessing the effects of nickel from water column ex posure is described in Appendix B, Sections 1 through 5. Aquatic data for assess ing nickel are presented in Table 3. 1 as mean (geometric) values for a given species. These data are

the n used to derive the mean and 5 th percentile valu es for specific levels of taxa in Table

3. 2. Several aspects of the assessment are worth noting here: (1) the no

- observed effects

con centrations (NOECs) in Table 3.1 are from either (a) chronic tests where nickel in the exposure medium was measured, or (b) were derived from acute tests through acute

- to

chronic ratios for nickel ; and (2) taxa in Table 3. 2 are given a 5 th percentile value only where there are four or more data points for the taxon, where an In terspecies Correlat ion Estimate (ICE) is available for the taxon, and/or where a 5 th percentile value was derived via an alternative approach for the taxon (see Appendix B )

.

Measured LC 50 values for nickel are available for 49 anima l species: 10 fish and 39 invertebrates; whereas measured chronic NOEC values are available for only four marine species: one fish a nd three invertebrates (Table 3. 1). The remaini ng NOEC values in

Table 3. 1 were all estimated by divi ding measured LC 50 values by the mean acute

chronic ratio (ACR) for nickel of 5.960, the geometric mean of the ACRs for four saltwater species available (see Section 2.1.1 of this BE for more details regarding the saltwater ACR for nickel).

No acute or ch ronic nickel toxicity data exist for shortnose sturgeon, A. brevirostrum (Class Actinopterygii , Order Acipenseriformes ). A lthough acute toxicity data exist for 1043

other species of sa ltwater fish in the same class (ray

- finned fishes ), none are benthic

inve rtivores (Table 3. 1)

. Mean acute LC50 valu es for these other fishes in the class Actinopterygii range from a low of 5,400 ug Ni/L for sheepshead minnow, Cyprinodon variegatus , to greater than 148 ,000 ug Ni/L for mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus

. The only available data on the chronic (sublethal) effects of nickel on fish are for the topsmelt, Atherinops affinis (Table 3

. 1). A measured, 40

- d flow

- through early life

- stage chronic toxicity test with early gastrula

- staged embryos exposed to nickel at 20 o C an d in full strength seawater (34 ppt) resulted in a NOEC value for survival o f 3,208 ug Ni/L (Hunt et al. 2002). The NOEC value for embryo hatching success w as nearly three times higher (i.e., 11,167 μg/L ) , and no significant growth effects were found over the range of nickel tested (up to 62,217 μg/L ).

Since none of the fish toxicity test results are available for A. brevirostrum or for a fish in

either the same genus or family of this listed species, we cannot perform either a direct toxicity evaluation o r an Interspecies Correlation Estimation (ICE) model for A.

brevirostrum in New Jersey’s coastal waters. As at least four acute toxicity values are available for members of the class of the listed species ( Actinopterygii , ray

- finned fishes), the approach outlined in Appendix B, Section 4 recommends that a species sensitivity distribution (SSD) for the family, order, class or phylum of the listed species be used to

determine a 5 th percentile acute assessment effects concentration (acute EC A value) for

the f amily, order, class or phylum of the listed species. Generation of an SSD from toxicity data from different families, orders, classes or phyla is the sixth tier of the biological evaluation hierarchy for evaluating acute water quality criteria methodology

outlined.

The 5 th percentile LC 50 and NOEC values for the class Actinopterygii given by the SSD are 4,443 and 763 μg/L , respectively (Table 3. 2). Dividing the 5 th percentile LC 50 value by 2.27 to obtain an acute EC A value results in a value of 1,957 μg/L. Both the acute (1,957 μg/L ) and chronic (763 μg/L ) EC A values derived from the class

- level SSD for all marine fish species are substantially higher than the acute (CMC) and chronic (CCC)

nickel criteria of 64 and 2 2 μg/L, resp ectively (EC A values are summarized in Table 4.1).44

Table 3. 1

. Salt water Acute and Chronic Toxicity Data Obta ined Through ECOTOX and the 1986 Water Qu ality Criteria Document for Nickel . Unless otherwise indicated LC50

values are from acute tests (geometric mean of all acceptable values) . NOEC values are either “Measured NOEC values ” from chronic tests or “Estimated NOEC

values ” derived as the quotient of an acute:chronic ratio (ACR) and the mean LC50 values . An A CR of 5.96 0 was used . All values are dissolved nickel in μg/L.

Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species Common Name Mean

LC50 Meas

NOEC Est NOEC

Annelida Polychaeta Aciculata Nereididae Neanthes arenaceodentata Polychaete worm 48510.0 8139.3

Annelida Polychaeta Aciculata Nereididae Nereis virens Polychaete worm 24750.0 4152.7

Annelida Polychaeta Canalipalpata Ctenodrilidae Ctenodrilus serratus Polychaete worm 16830.0 2823.8

Annelida Polychaeta Scolecida Capitellidae Capitella capitata Polychaete worm 49500.0 8305.4

Arthropoda Malacostraca Am phipoda Ampeliscidae Ampelisca abdita Amphipod 8902.8 1493.8

Arthropoda Malacostraca Amphipoda Corophiidae Corophium volutator Scud 18761.4 3147.9

Arthropoda Malacostraca Amphipoda Hyalidae Allorchestes compressa Scud, Amphipod 34333.2 5760.6

Arthrop oda Malacostraca Decapoda Cancridae Cancer anthonyi Yellow crab 10000.0 1677.9

Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Cancridae Cancer magister Dungeness or edible crab 4316.4 724.2

Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Crangonidae Crangon crangon Common shrimp, sand shrimp 68159.2 11436.1

Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Paguridae Pagurus longicarpus Longwrist hermit crab 46530.0 7807.0

Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Pandalidae Pandalus montagui Aesop shrimp 17140.4 2875.9

Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Penaeidae Metapenaeus ensis Greasyback shrimp 1267.2 212.6

Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Penaeidae Penaeus duorarum Northern pink shrimp 27324.0 4584.6

Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Portunidae Carcinus maenas Green or Europea n shore

crab 127156. 3 21335.0

Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Portunidae Portunus pelagicus Crab 1150.7 193.1

Arthropoda Malacostraca Mysida Mysidae Americamysis bahia Opossum shrimp 375.8 139.6

Arthropoda Malacostraca Mysida Mysidae Americamysis bigelowi Shrimp 627.7 105.3

Arthropoda Malacostraca Mysida Mysidae Heteromysis formosa Opossom Shrimp 150.2 25.2

Arthropoda Malacostraca Mysida Mysidae Mysidopsis intii Mysid 147.1 9.9

Arthropoda Maxillopoda Calanoida Acartiidae Acartia clausi Calanoid copepod 2655.6 445 .6

Arthropoda Maxillopoda Calanoida Acartiidae Acartia tonsa Calanoid copepod 580.3 97.4

Arthropoda Maxillopoda Calanoida Pseudodiaptomidae Pseudodiaptomus coronatus Calanoid copepod 11400.7 1912.9

Arthropoda Maxillopoda Calanoida Temoridae Eurytemora affinis Calanoid copepod 10586.6 1776.345

Table 3. 1

. Salt water Acute and Chronic Toxicity Data Obta ined Through ECOTOX and the 1986 Water Qu ality Criteria Document for Nickel . Unless otherwise indicated LC50

values are from acute tests (geometric mean of all acceptable values) . NOEC values are either “Measured NOEC values ” from chronic tests or “Estimated NOEC

values ” derived as the quotient of an acute:chronic ratio (ACR) and the mean LC50 values . An A CR of 5.96 0 was used . All values are dissolved nickel in μg/L.

Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species Common Name Mean

LC50 Meas

NOEC Est NOEC

Arthropoda Maxillopoda Harpacticoida Ameiridae Nitocra spinipes Harpacticoid copepod 5940.0 996.6

Arthropoda Maxillopoda Harpacticoida Tisbidae Tisbe holothuriae Harpacticoid copepod 2554.2 428.6

Chordata Acti nopterygii Atheriniformes Atherinidae Atherinops affinis Topsmelt 26294.4 3207.6

Chordata Actinopterygii Atheriniformes Atherinidae Menidia menidia Atlantic silverside 7878.4 1321.9

Chordata Actinopterygii Atheriniformes Atherinidae Menidia peninsulae Tidewater silverside 37620.0 6312.1

Chordata Actinopterygii Cyprinodontiformes Cyprinodontidae Cyprinodon variegatus Sheepshead minnow 5400.0 906.0

Chordata Actinopterygii Cyprinodontiformes Cyprinodontidae Fundulus heteroclitus Mummichog 148408.3 249 00.7

Chordata Actinopterygii Mugiliformes Mugilidae Chelon labrosus Thick

- lipped grey mullet 117117.0 19650.5

Chordata Actinopterygii Perciformes Mugilidae Liza vaigiensis Square tail mullet 46645.7 7826.5

Chordata Actinopterygii Perciformes Percichth yidae Morone saxatilis Striped bass 20790.0 3488.3

Chordata Actinopterygii Perciformes Sciaenidae Leiostomus xanthurus Spot 69300.0 11627.5

Chordata Actinopterygii Perciformes Terapontidae Terapon jarbua Tigerfish, crescent perch 19206.0 3222.5

Echin odermata Echinoidea Echinoida Strongylocentrotidae Strongylocentrotus purpuratus Purple

- spined sea urchin 2475.0 415.3

Echinodermata Stelleroidea Forcipulatida Asteriidae Asterias forbesii Common starfish 148500.0 24916.1

Mollusca Bivalvia Myoida Myida e Mya arenaria Sand gaper, soft shell clam 125226.2 21011.1

Mollusca Bivalvia Mytiloida Mytilidae Mytilus edulis Common bay mussel,blue

mussel 882.1 148.0

Mollusca Bivalvia Ostreoida Ostreidae Crassostrea gigas Pacific oyster 345.5 19.8

Mollusca Biva lvia Ostreoida Ostreidae Crassostrea virginica American or virginia

oyster 1168.2 196.0

Mollusca Bivalvia Ostreoida Ostreidae Ostrea edulis Flat, native european

oyster 37540.8 6298.8

Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Cardiidae Cerastoderma edule Cockle 2476 34.6 41549.4

Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Tellinidae Macoma balthica Balthica macoma or clam 291516.0 48912.1

Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Veneridae Mercenaria mercenaria Northern quahog or hard

clam 661.5 111.0

Mollusca Gastropoda Archaeogastropoda Ha liotididae Haliotis rufescens Red abalone 144.1 21.3

Mollusca Gastropoda Neogastropoda Nassariidae Nassarius obsoletus Eastern mud snail 71280.0 11959.746

Table 3. 1

. Salt water Acute and Chronic Toxicity Data Obta ined Through ECOTOX and the 1986 Water Qu ality Criteria Document for Nickel . Unless otherwise indicated LC50

values are from acute tests (geometric mean of all acceptable values) . NOEC values are either “Measured NOEC values ” from chronic tests or “Estimated NOEC

values ” derived as the quotient of an acute:chronic ratio (ACR) and the mean LC50 values . An A CR of 5.96 0 was used . All values are dissolved nickel in μg/L.

Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species Common Name Mean

LC50 Meas

NOEC Est NOEC

Nemata Adenophorea Monhysterida Monhysteridae Monhystera disjuncta Nematode 14850.0 2491.6

Haptop hyta Prymnesiophyceae Isochrysidales Gephyrocapsaceae Isochrysis galbana Haptophyte 79.2

Ochrophyta Bacillariophyceae Centrales Thalassiosiraceae Thalassiosira sp. Diatom 1980.0

Ochrophyta Coscinodiscophyceae Thalassiosirales Stephanodiscaceae Cyclot ella cryptica Diatom 58.1

Bacillariophyta Bacillariophyceae Bacillariales Bacillariaceae Cylindrotheca sp. Diatom 58.1

Bacillariophyta Bacillariophyceae Bacillariales Bacillariaceae Hantzschia amphioxys Diatom 58.1

Bacillariophyta Bacillariophycea e Bacillariales Bacillariaceae Nitzschia dissipata Diatom 290.5

Bacillariophyta Bacillariophyceae Bacillariales Bacillariaceae Nitzschia frustulum Diatom 58.1

Bacillariophyta Bacillariophyceae Centrales Chaetocerotaceae Chaetoceros muelleri Diatom 5 8.1

Bacillariophyta Bacillariophyceae Naviculales Naviculaceae Navicula acceptata Diatom 581.0

Bacillariophyta Bacillariophyceae Naviculales Naviculaceae Navicula sp. Diatom 871.6

Bacillariophyta Bacillariophyceae Naviculales Phaeodactylaceae Phaeo dactylum tricornutum Diatom 990.0

Bacillariophyta Bacillariophyceae Pennales Naviculaceae Amphiprora hyalina Diatom 58.1

Bacillariophyta Bacillariophyceae Thalassiophysales Catenulaceae Amphora coffeaeformis Diatom 871.6

Bacillariophyta Coscinodis cophyceae Lithodesmiales Lithodesmiaceae Ditylum brightwellii Diatom 297.0

Chlorophyta Trebouxiophyceae Microthamniales NotAssigned Stichococcus sp. Green algae 1980.0

Phaeophycophyta Phaeophyceae Laminariales Lessoniaceae Macrocystis pyrifera Giant kelp 1980.0

Rhodophyta Rhodophyceae Gigartinales Gracilariaceae Gracilaria tenuistipitata Red algae 6054.4

Dinophyta Dinophyceae Peridiniales Peridiniaceae Cachonina hallii Dinoflagellate 49.547

Table 3. 2 . Nickel Saltwa ter Toxicity Data from Table 3.1 organized by Taxonomic Group. The 5th percentile value for class Actinopterygii is the basis for the effects

concentrations (EC A s) in Table 4 .1 that relies on surrogate data. All values are given as dissolved nickel in μg /L.

Phylum Class Order Family Genus N Mean
LC50 Mean

NOEC 5th

LC50 a 5th

NOEC a

Annelida 4 31624.51 5306.13 12443.24 2087.8

Polychaeta 4 31624.51 5306.13 12443.24 2087.8

Aciculata 2 34649.98 5813.76

Nereididae 2 34649.98 5813.76

Neanthes 1 48509.99 8139.26

Nereis 1 24750 4152.68

Canalipalpata 1 16829.99 2823.83

Ctenodrilidae 1 16829.99 2823.83

Ctenodrilus 1 16829.99 2823.83

Scolecida 1 49499.98 8305.37

Capitellidae 1 49499.98 8305.37

Capitella 1 49499.98 8305.37

Arthropoda 22 4806.95 802.16 143.89 9.79

Malacostraca 16 5271.22 877.93 138.08 9.14

Amphipoda 3 17899.31 3003.23

Ampeliscidae 1 8902.83 1493.76

Ampelisca 1 8902.83 1493.76

Corophiidae 1 18761.41 3147.89

Corophium 1 18761.41 3147.89

Hyalidae 1 34333.19 5760.6

Allorchestes 1 34333.19 5760.6

Decapoda 9 13166.01 2209.07 1075.91 180.41

Cancridae 2 6569.93 1102.34

Cancer 2 6569.93 1102.34

Crangoni dae 1 68159.2 11436.1

Crangon 1 68159.2 11436.1

Paguridae 1 46529.99 7807.05

Pagurus 1 46529.99 7807.0548

Table 3. 2 . Nickel Saltwa ter Toxicity Data from Table 3.1 organized by Taxonomic Group. The 5th percentile value for class Actinopterygii is the basis for the effects

concentrations (EC A s) in Table 4 .1 that relies on surrogate data. All values are given as dissolved nickel in μg /L.

Phylum Class Order Family Genus N Mean
LC50 Mean

NOEC 5th

LC50 a 5th

NOEC a

Pandalidae 1 17140.36 2875.9

Pandalus 1 17140.36 2875.9

Penaeidae 2 5884.3 987.3

Metapenaeus 1 1267.2 212.62

Penaeus 1 27324 4584.56

Portunidae 2 12096.23 2029.57

Carcinus 1 127156.37 21334.94

Portunus 1 1150.7 193.07

Mysida 4 268.69 43.75 169.86 15.54

Mysidae 4 268.69 43.75 169.86 15.54

Americamysis 2 485.69 12 1.24

Heteromysis 1 150.18 25.2

Mysidopsis 1 147.10 9.9

Maxillopoda 6 3759.19 630.74 1484.05 248.57

Calanoida 4 3693.01 619.63 1048.80 175.53

Acartiidae 2 1241.42 208.29

Acartia 2 1241.42 208.29

Pseudodiaptomidae 1 11400.67 1912.86

Pseudodiaptomus 1 11400.67 1912.86

Temoridae 1 10586.59 1776.27

Eurytemora 1 10586.59 1776.27

Harpacticoida 2 3895.12 653.54

Ameiridae 1 5940 996.64

Nitocra 1 5940 996.64

Tisbidae 1 2554. 2 428.56

Tisbe 1 2554.2 428.56

Chordata 10 31441.49 5109.9 4442.76 763.05

Actinopterygii 10 31441.49 5109.9 4442.76 763.0549

Table 3. 2 . Nickel Saltwa ter Toxicity Data from Table 3.1 organized by Taxonomic Group. The 5th percentile value for class Actinopterygii is the basis for the effects

concentrations (EC A s) in Table 4 .1 that relies on surrogate data. All values are given as dissolved nickel in μg /L.

Phylum Class Order Family Genus N Mean
LC50 Mean

NOEC 5th

LC50 a 5th

NOEC a

Atheriniformes 3 19826.25 2991.22

Atherinidae 3 19826.25 2991.22

Atherinops 1 26294.41 3207.6

Menidia 2 17215.87 2888.57

Cyprinodontiformes 2 28309.1 4749.85

Cyprinodontidae 2 28309.1 4749.85

Cyprinodon 1 5400 906.04

Fundulus 1 148408.3 24900.72

Mugiliformes 1 117117.03 19650.51

Mugilidae 2 73912.13 1 2401.37

Chelon 1 117117.03 19650.51

Perciformes 4 33706.16 5655.39 11864.38 1990.67

Liza 1 46645.73 7826.46

Percichthyidae 1 20790 3488.26

Morone 1 20790 3488.26

Sciaenidae 1 69300 11627.52

Leiostomus 1 69300 11627.52

Terapontidae 1 19206 3222.48

Terapon 1 19206 3222.48

Echinodermata 2 19171.27 3216.66

Echinoidea 1 2475 415.27

Echinoida 1 2475 415.27

Strongylocentrotida 1 2475 415.27

Strongylocentrotus 1 2475 415 .27

Stelleroidea 1 148500.03 24916.12

Forcipulatida 1 148500.03 24916.12

Asteriidae 1 148500.03 24916.12

Asterias 1 148500.03 24916.1250

Table 3. 2 . Nickel Saltwa ter Toxicity Data from Table 3.1 organized by Taxonomic Group. The 5th percentile value for class Actinopterygii is the basis for the effects

concentrations (EC A s) in Table 4 .1 that relies on surrogate data. All values are given as dissolved nickel in μg /L.

Phylum Class Order Family Genus N Mean
LC50 Mean

NOEC 5th

LC50 a 5th

NOEC a

Mollusca 10 7787.79 1158.79 115.57 13.34

Bivalvia 8 9723.72 1426.48 276.3 14.72

Myoida 1 125226.19 21011.11

Myidae 1 125226.19 21011.11

Mya 1 125226.19 21011.11

Mytiloida 1 882.09 148

Mytilidae 1 882.09 148

Mytilus 1 882.09 148

Ostreoida 3 2474.54 290.22

Ostreidae 3 2474.54 290.22

Crassostrea 2 635.31 62.3

Ostrea 1 37540.82 6298.79

Veneroida 3 36279.13 6087.08

Cardiidae 1 247634.52 41549.42

Cerastoderma 1 247634.52 41549.42

Tellinidae 1 291516.09 48912.1

Macoma 1 291516.09 48912.1

Veneridae 1 661.45 110.98

Mercenaria 1 661.45 110.98

Gastropoda 2 3204.35 504.6

Archaeogastropoda 1 144.05 21.29

Haliotididae 1 144.05 21.29

Haliotis 1 144.05 21.29

Neogastropoda 1 71279.98 11959.73

Nassar iidae 1 71279.98 11959.73

Nassarius 1 71279.98 11959.73

Nemata 1 14850 2491.61

Adenophorea 1 14850 2491.6151

Table 3. 2 . Nickel Saltwa ter Toxicity Data from Table 3.1 organized by Taxonomic Group. The 5th percentile value for class Actinopterygii is the basis for the effects

concentrations (EC A s) in Table 4 .1 that relies on surrogate data. All values are given as dissolved nickel in μg /L.

Phylum Class Order Family Genus N Mean
LC50 Mean

NOEC 5th

LC50 a 5th

NOEC a

Monhysterida 1 14850 2491.61

Monhysteridae 1 14850 2491.61

Monhystera 1 14850 2491.61

a Value equals 5 t h percentile estimate from the species sensitivity distribution (SSD)

.52

3.3.2 Multiple Routes of Exposure

Based on the most recent available information, it is known that nickel is a nutritionally essential inorgani c el ement for some aquatic species (Eisler 1998). The strongest evidence of nickel essentiality for aquatic species is in plants, where nickel has been demonstrated to be a cofactor of the enzyme urease, which metabolizes urea to

ammonium and carbon dioxi de (Muyssen et al. 2004). Various other studies have identified nickel as a component of as many as eight enzymes in plants (Muyssen et al. 2004).

Nickel is also known to be essential for normal growth of some birds and mammals ( U

. S

. EPA 1980, Eisler 19 98 ). As there are no known examples of metals that are essential in terrestrial organisms that have not also eventually been shown to be essential to aquatic species (Muyssen et al. 2004), it is likely that nickel is also essential to fish and other

aquat ic biota. Circumstantial evidence for the essentiality of nickel to aquatic species is found in the inverse relationship between waterborne nickel concentrations and bioconcentration factors in both aquatic invertebrates and fish (McGeer et al. 2003) . It is believed that such an inverse relationship is evidence of active regulation of nickel body burdens by aquatic species. As there are no known examples of active regulation of non

essential metals by aquatic biota (Rainbow 1996 , McGeer et al. 2003 ), the inverse relationship between bioconcentration factor (BCF) and water column nickel concentration is indirect evidence of nickel’s essentiality. At least one study (Rayner

Canham et al. 1985) has shown experimental evidence of nickel being essential to th e tunicate Halocynthia pyriformis ; however, studies that document nutritionally deficient, sufficient or toxic concentrations of nickel in tissues of aquatic species are generally lacking

.

Since nickel exhibits potential to accumulate in tissues o f aquati c animals, exposure of aquatic organisms to nickel in concentrations in excess of nutritional needs via the diet

may pose a n additional threat to listed aquatic species. It is worth noting here, however,

that w aterborne nickel is believed to be the primar y source of nutritionally required nickel (Muyssen et al. 2004), as nickel appears to be poorly assimilated by aquatic species through diet (Watras et al. 1985 ; Eisler 1998 ).

For this BE, in order to be appropriately conservative, an added risk factor fo r exposure of aquatic animals via the dietary route of exposure, F R , is applied in the chronic assessment for nickel, as per Appendix B. The derivation of the F R for aquatic animals exposed to nickel via their diet is based on the dietary toxicity data fo r a saltwater benthic invertebrate, Acartia tonsa , because there is no such dietary toxicity data available for a saltwater fish species. The measured dietary NOEC value based on reproduction for A.

tonsa fed for 7 days on nickel

- laden diatoms was 2.34 ug Ni/g wet weight of food (Bielmyer et al. 2006). The aquatic NOEC value of 0.0974 ug Ni/ml of solution is an

estimated value for Acartia tonsa from Table 3.1. The calculated potency factor (quotient of the aquatic NOEC and dietary NOEC) is 0.0416. The p otency factor (PF) along with a food concentration factor (CF) is used to calculate the dietary F R for aquatic animals according to the following equation:53

Risk factor (F R ) = 1 + (PF x Food CF)

The chronic dietary F R for aquatic animals was calculated to be 17 (see Text Box below).

The chronic EC A values in Table 4.1 were divided by th is dietary F R to obtain the EC A  values to be used for the effects determination ( see footnote c in Table 4.1 and Appendix B, section 7 for rationale ). Note here that the Food CF (380 .4 ml/ g ) is the 84 th percentile of BCFs determined for macroinvertebrates (see Table 3.3 below). The 8 4 th percentile approximates one standard deviation above the geometric mean, which represents the conservative bioaccumulation value recommended in the national BE methodology (see Appendix B , Section 8 ).

Basis for Derivation of the Dietary Risk Factor for Nickel

- New Jersey Criteria

Species Aquatic

NOEC, μg/ml Diet NOEC,

μ g/g ww Potency

Factor Food

Concentration

Factor Risk Factor

Acartia tonsa 0.0974 2.34 0.0416 380 17

Because b ody burdens of chemicals in aquatic species integrate contaminant exposures

fro m multiple sources, evaluation of potential risks from bioaccumulated nickel provides a means of identifying potential risks to listed species via exposure to criteria concentrations from all exposure routes combined. As the exposure durations of studies used to assess dietary toxicity f rom contaminants in food are chronic in nature, only residues associated with chronic effects on reproduction and growth have been compiled.

Two whole body residue effects studies are available for effects of nickel on reproduction and growth o f saltwater aquatic species. The two residue

- effect studies with marine species are with a sea urchin ( Lytechinus pictus ) and the blue mussel ( Mytilus edulis ). The normal development of L. pictus embryos was inhibited at a body burden of 26.4 mg Ni/kg wet weight (T imourian and Watchmaker 1972), while byssal thread secretion was

inhibited in M. edulis with a body burden of 90 mg Ni/kg wet weight (Friedrich and Filice 1976). Assu ming a food CF (or BCF) of 380 .4 L/kg as above, and constant exposure to the chronic crit erion (CCC) of 22 ug Ni/L, the estimated residue level is 8.37 mg Ni/kg fresh tissue (see Section 3.4.4 below) , a value 3 times lower than where chronic

effects (based on body burden) might be expected i n representative aquatic invertebrates (there are no such data to draw such an inference fr om for saltwater fish species).

The toxicity of n ickel in s ediment was not considered a significant threat to any of the Federally

- Listed species to which this BE applies for the following reasons: a) Contaminated sed iment is not listed as a cause of impairment in the Lower

Toms or Great Egg Harbor River watersheds which appear on the state 303(d) list of impaired waters due to nickel and other f actors (see http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_index.control?p_area=NJ ) ;54 b) Nick el is only one of several metals and metalloids (including arsenic cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc) identified as causes of impair ment in these watersheds ; c) Nickel is readily displaced in sediment by the ot her heavy metals (z inc, cadmium, lead and copper) in sediment as acid volatile sulfide (AVS , principally iron monosulfide) is exhausted rendering nickel potentially more bioavailable in sediment pore/interstitial water with lower AVS (EPA/600/R

- 02/011) ; and, d) Nickel in int erstitial water is no more toxic or bioavailable than in ambient

surface water (EPA/600/R

- 02/011).

Given the above, the water column

- only toxi city data presented in Table 3.1 should also apply to nickel bioavailable to aquatic organisms via sediment, and particularly via sediment interstitial/pore water

.

Attachment 2 provides relatively current and historic monitoring data for nickel in

s edi ment at locations along impaired segments of the Great Egg Harbor River or nearby

tributaries. The sediment nickel concentrations at these sites appear to be all well below 10 ug Ni/g dry weight sediment. The probable effect level for aquatic organisms exposed to nickel in contaminated sediment is 36 ug Ni/g dry wei ght sediment , and the toxic

effect threshold is estim ated to be 61 ug Ni/g dry w eight sediment (From U.S.EPA’s A Guidance Manual to Support the Assessment of Contaminated Sediments in Freshwater Ecosystems, Volumes III

, December, 2002

- EPA

- 905

- B02

- 001

- C: http://www.cerc.usgs.gov/pubs/sedtox/guidance_manual.htm ). Based on these findings,

adverse effects to l isted aquatic species from nickel in sediment is unlikely.

As of the date of this BE , there is also little evidence for maternal transfer of n ickel in

mammals (Eisler 1998). T he same is presumed for other aquati c and aquatic

- dependent

animals

. Above background exposures, substantial uncertainty exists regarding maternal

transfer of metals such as Ni into eggs of aquatic

- dependent bird species (see Sections

3 .4.3 and 4

. 2 below)

.

3.3.3 Aquatic Plants

This section contains the assessment for water

- column exposure for chronic toxicity to aquatic plants. In general, t here are few existing data on acute toxicity to plants at criteria

leve ls for most of the 304(a) criteria pollutants, and these few data indicate that plants do

not demonstrate acute effects at criteria levels. This is particularly true for aquatic macrophytes. Accordingly, the assessment methodolo gy for the listed plant sp ecies in this BE is based on a comparison of the chronic criterion to the most sensitive acceptable plant value. This methodology is in keeping with the recommendations in the Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Prote ction of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses (Stephan et al. 1985), which is founded on appropriat e measures of chronic toxicity where: (1) the chronic values for plants (reported in Table 3.1 as the NOEC) are from tests where the chemical in the exposure med ium was measured, and (2) the endpoint measured was biologically significant (e.g., vegetative growth or reproduction). The use of this assessment methodology for plants in this BE is55

justified for the following reasons: (i) plants are rarely as sensitive as fish and macroinvertebrates, (ii) the recovery rate for phytoplankton (algae and diatoms) is extremely rapid, (iii) standard methods for conducting toxicity tests with aquatic plants are generally lacking, and (iv) there are no data available on the to xicity to higher plants

.

Toxicity data for 18 plant species, which are all algal and dinoflagellate taxa , are available for nickel . The most sensitive of the se is the dinoflagellate Cachonina hallii

, with a measured NOEC value of 49.5 μg/L (Table 3.1)

. The l east sensitive taxa with a measured NOEC valu e of 1

, 980 μg/L are Thalassiosira sp

. (diatom)

, Macrocystis pyrifera (giant kelp) and Stichococcus sp

. (green algae)

.

Additional data (not in the EPA ’s ECOTOX database

– see Attachment 1 ) on the toxicity

o f nickel to saltwater plants include s a value for growth inhibition of 30 μg/L for the

marine diatom, Thalassiosira rotula , which can accumulate as much as 9 mg Ni/kg wet weight, according to a study by Dongmann and Nurnberg 1 982 (as reported in Eisler

199 8) . This plant chronic toxicity value represents the lowest for any saltwater aquat ic plant species, yet still exceeds the chronic C CC value for nickel of 22 μg/L

.

No published chronic nickel toxicity data were available for a saltwater rooted macrophyte

. Given that the strongest evidence of nickel essentiality for aquatic species is in plants, where nickel has been demonstrated to be a cofactor of the enzyme urease, which metabolizes urea to ammonium and carbon dioxide (Muyssen et al. 2004), it is highl y unlikely that a rooted macrophyte would be more sensitive to nickel than T. rotula

, whether via water

- only or sediment exposure.

3.4 Aquatic

- Dependent Species

3.4.1 Overview and Background

In t his section

, we present the assess ment of the eight saltwater aquati c

- dependent animal species that have more than limited exposure to ― marine surface waters of New Jersey,‖ and which may be affected by the nickel saltwater aquatic life criteria. The assessment methodology for aquatic

- dependent species is in Section s 8 an d 9 of Appendix B

. Effects

on aquatic

- dependent animals from contaminants can be manifested directly through

exposure to the contaminant from food and/or water intake

, and indirectly through the elimination of their prey. This section develops the variab les needed to perform an

effects assessment for aquatic

- dependent animals, namely:

The bioconcentration/bioaccumulation factor (BCF/BAF) used to estimate the concentration of the contaminant in the prey tissue living in water at

chronic criterion concent rations ;

a dietary NOEC estimate for each listed aquatic

- dependent animal ; and

the range of effects levels for aquatic prey species of the listed aquatic

dependent species (data compiled from Table 3.1, as appropriate)

.56

As indicated above, t he limited available data suggest that nickel does not result in high levels of accumulation in aquatic organisms which may be food items for aquatic

dependent animals . Similar to other metals, the low bioaccumulation potential may be due in part to the mechanisms for chemical uptake by aquatic organisms (e.g., passive diffusion, facilitated transport, and active transport), sorption affinities to biotic and abiotic ligands, and chemical speciation in water ( U.S. EPA 2000). A few aspects worth noting regarding the accumulation of nickel in aquatic organisms are that BCFs generated for nickel, similar to other inorganic metals, appear to decrease with increasing concentration of the metal in water (Hall, 1982; Zaroogian and J ohnson 1984 , McGeer et

al. 2003 ), and, at least for the freshwater cladoceran, Daphnia magna , the uptake of nickel directly from water was much greater than uptake from food (Watras et al. 1985). Based on this latter study, it is probable that simple nickel salts

, as well as organic nickel comple xes
, are poorly absorbed by aquatic organisms . The latter is consistent with similar findings for mammals and other animals (Eisler 1998). Needless to say, there is no evidence that nickel biomagnifies in aquatic food webs. This statement is supported

b y the field study reported by Mathis and Cummings (1973) demonstrating that food chain transfer of nickel is minimal, i.e., nickel concentrations were found to decrease with increasing trophic level from clams, to oligochaetes, to omnivorous and carnivorou s fish.

3.4.2 Exposure Assessment

There are only four studies available to be used to determine the bioconcentration factors (BCFs) for nickel for saltwater food items of aqua tic

- dependent species (Table 3 .3). The

available BCF data are for seven species in t h e class Bivalvia

, and one in the class Polychaeta . For these eight specie s, the reported BCF values ranged from 2.8 to 473 ml/g, depending on the water concentration. For assessments of fish

- eating wildlife, the

BCF values f

or bivalve mollusks and polyc haete worm s in Table 3.3 are likely to be

conservative

, as BCFs for inorganic metals are generally higher in invertebrates

c ompared to vertebrates (fish).

Given the information available for assigning appropriate food partition coefficients,

relative to n atural (field) water and sediment concentrations, the par tition coefficient of

380 .4 ml/g was selected fo r vertebrates and invertebrates, as per the methodology

summarized in Appendix B (see Section A.8).57

Table 3. 3

. Nickel bioc oncentration factors a (B CFs) for saltwater aquatic food

organisms. BCFs ar e based on wet weight. Data from the ambient water quality criteria document for n ickel ( U.S. EPA 1986).

Species Exposure

duration (days) Water

concentration (μg/L) BCF a Refere nce

Blue mussel, Mytilus edulis 84 4.4 472.7 Zaroogian and Johnson, 1984

Blue mussel, Mytilus edulis 84 10 328.6 Zaroogian and

Johnson 1984

Eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica 84 4.2 458.1 Zaroogian and

Johnson 1984

Eastern oyster

, Crassostrea virgin ica 84 9.2 261.8 Zaroogian and

Johnson 1984

Bivalve mollusc

, Donax serra 21 20 59 Watling and Watling 1983

Gastropod, Bullia rhodostoma 21 20 28.5 Watling and Watling 1983

Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas 21 100 4.7 Watling 1983

Oyster, Crassostrea ma rgaritacea 21 100 2.8 Watling 1983

Mexilhao mussel, Perna perna 21 100 8.2 Watling 1983

Bivalve mollusc

, Choromytilus

meridionalis 21 100 6.5 Watling 1983

Polychaete worm, Neanthes

arenaceodentata 21 * 47 Pesch et al.

1995

a Bioconcentration factor: co ncentration measured in soft tissue in units of μg/kg fresh weight, divided by concentration measured in water (μg/L).

* Water concentration unavai l able

3.4.3 Toxicity Assessment

Information on the acute and chronic dietary effects of nickel on potential surro gate aquatic

- dependent species is compiled in Table 3. 4. Data are primarily f rom U.S. EPA’s

ECOTOX database.

The amount of data available on the oral (dietary) toxicity of nickel to surrogate aquatic

dependent species is limited. Chronic dietary effects on egg fertilization of mallard duck and egg shell weight, and on the growth of chickens, range from 300 to 800 mg Ni/kg diet (Table 3.4). The 16 th percentile of the five chronic dietary values is 300 mg Ni/kg, and represents the value that was selected as the chronic dietary effects concentration for the assessment of the saltwater nickel aquatic life criteria on aquatic dependent species,58

as per the methodology sum marized in Appendix B, Section 9.

The precise mechanism of toxicity of soluble nickel to aquatic

- dependent wildlife is not known. In mammals, nickel bound to low molecular weight proteins in blood can cross biological membranes where it accumulates in the nucleus and nucleolus (Sunderman et al. 1984, as cited in Eisler 1998). Nickel accumula ted in mammalian tissues is known to disrupt DNA metabolism and cause cross

- links and strand breaks (Kasprzak 1987, U

. S

. PHS 1993, Hartwig et al. 1994, as cited in Eisler 1998). Nickel accumulated within the cell can also elicit the production of reactive oxygen species such as superoxide radical (Novelli et al. 1995). The carcinogenicity of nickel, however, appears to be inversely related to its solubility in water, the least soluble, nickel carbonyl (a volatile, colorless liquid readily formed when nicke l reacts with carbon monoxide), being the most active carcinogen (Sunderman 1968, Furst and Radding 1980, U.S. EPA 1980, U

. S

. PHS 1993).

Accordingly, nickel and soluble nickel salts are comparatively non

- toxic when taken orally because of possible regulat ion of nickel metabolism and limited intestinal absorption (Nielsen 1977). This statement is supported by the fact that teratogenic and

other harmful effects of nickel observed in mammals and birds appear only to be manifest through inhalation of insolubl e nickel, or through injection of low nickel doses, particularly during the organogenic stages of gestation of mammals or during the early development of domestic chick embryos ( Ridgway and Karnofsky 1952; Gilani and Marano (1980) ; Outridge and Scheuhammer 1993; Eisler 1998).

For example, Ridgway and Karnofsky (1952) injected a single dose of nickel ous chloride (NiCl 2 . 6H 2 O) into the yolk

- sac of 4

- day old White Leghorn chicken embryos (eggs) and reported an LD50 of 0.20 mg nickelous chloride /egg (or approxi mately 1 mg Ni/kg fresh

egg content weight assuming a 50 g egg content). Applying a safety factor 10 to convert the LD50 to a NOEC, an appropriately protective chronic value might be as low as 0.1 mg Ni/kg egg content (or 0.5 μg Ni/kg egg dry weight conte nt assuming 80% moisture of egg contents). In the same study, when a single dose of nickelous chloride was injected

into 8

- day old chicken embryos, the LD50 was more than ten times higher than for the 4

- day old embryos. Conversely, Gilani and Marano (198 0) injected 0.02 mg per egg nickel

chloride into 1

- day old White Leghorn chicken eggs and produced a 50% decrease in embryo survival over controls. This would result in an adverse effect concentration of 0.099 mg Ni / kg fresh wet weight egg content. As such, this effect level is actually lower than the Ridgway and Karnofsky value above, without any safety factor being applied.

M aternal transfer of dietary nickel cannot be causally linked to chronic effects on eggs/embryos at this time. For instance, d o cumented levels of nickel in addled (no longer

viable or stale) plover eggs collected during the monitoring of nests in New Jersey in 1990 were below method detection limits, or <0.5 mg/kg dry weight egg content (U.S. FWS 1991). Nationally, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Environmental Contaminants Data Management System (ECDMS) has records of piping plovers outside of New Jersey exceeding the above 0.5 mg/kg dry weight egg content ( U.S. FWS

ECDMS retrieval dated 3/23/10 )

.59

Given the above, acute and chronic toxicity to avian wildlife from the consumption of contaminated prey items is likely very low for nickel, primarily due to the low assimilation efficiency of nickel from the diet (Outridge and Scheuhammer 1993). This is reflected in the relatively high dietary toxicity val ues presented in Table 3.4 , which are consistent with those reported in the extensive review by Eisler (1998). In the review , the

author states that in order to protect birds, ―diets should contain at least 50 μ g Ni/kg ration to p revent nickel deficiency but less than 200 mg Ni/kg ration in the case of young birds and less than 800 mg/kg ration in the case of adults to prevent effects (chronic) on growth and survival.‖ However

, these values are not relatable to the concentration o f Ni

pas sed on to a plover hen’s egg. It is uncertain at this time (due to lack of New Jersey

egg data) whether harmful l evels f rom the maternal transfer of dietary nickel into egg/e mbryos occur. If so, the results of Ridgway and Karnofsky (1952) as well as Gilani and Marano (1980) suggest concentrations of nickel as low as 0.1 mg Ni/kg fresh weight egg content in very young (4

- day old) and (1

- day old) bird eggs/ embryos , respectively,

could also be potentially harmful. If New Jersey residue values exceed 0.1 mg Ni / kg fresh wet weight egg content or 0.5 mg Ni / kg dry weight based on future analyses , EPA

will work with the Service to address the new data accordingly. Similarly, discovery of piping plover deformed embryos as well as live or dead chicks c ould be indicative of Ni effects and will be considered in any follow

- up between the agencies.60

Table 3. 4

. Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Nickel to Potential Surrogate Species Based

on Wet Weight and Oral Dos ing . Data are from E COTOX.

Species (age) Chemical Dose Description, Duration, and Endpoint Acute Toxicity

LD50 (mg/kg) Chronic Toxicity

(mg/kg diet) Reference

Mallard duck

Anas platyrhynchos

, (20 mo) Sulfuric

acid, Nickel(2+) salt (1:1) Diet, 51

- 114 d,

NOEC, Egg

Fertiliz ation - 800 Eastin and O'Shea, 1981

Bantam chicken

Gallus

domesticus

, (22 wk) Sulfuric

acid, Nickel(2+) salt (1:1) Diet, 75 d, NOEC,

Eggshell weight - 300 Meluzzi et al.,

1996

Bantam chicken

Gallus

domesticus

, (< 1d) Nickelous

chloride Diet, 2 wk, LOEC

,

Growth (wt. gain) - 400 Hill, 1979

Bantam chicken

Gallus

domesticus

, (1 d) Nickel Diet, 3 wk, LOEC, Growth (wt. gain) - 500 Ling and Leach, 1979

Bantam chicken

Gallus

domesticus

, (1 d) Nickelous

chloride Diet, 3 w k, LOEC,

Growth (wt. gain) - 300 Ling and Leach, 1979

3.4.4 Risk Analysis

Saltwater exposure concentrations for nickel in potential prey items of aquatic

- dependent organisms indicate a bioaccumulation potential (measur ed as BCFs) of approximately

380 ml/g. For nickel chronic criteria, this prod uces a n estimated residue level of:

Estimate Residue Level = 22 μg/L (CCC) x 380.4 L/kg (BCF) = 8. 37 mg/kg

This tissue exposure concentration ( 8. 37 mg Ni/kg prey tissue) is substantially below any published potential chronic dietary threshold for aquatic

- depend ent species (300 mg Ni/kg diet ; 200 mg Ni/kg diet as indicated in Eisler 1998 ). T herefore, the effects determination for aquatic

- dependent species is being made solely on the acute assessment

effects concentration (EC A ) values for the food organ isms of these species listed in

Section 3.5 of this document . In each instance, the food item effects concentration was derived from known toxicity values for suspected food items. As noted above, however, uncertainty exists regarding the potential chronic d ietary threshold for aquatic

- dependent birds due to maternal transfer into eggs, and the possibility of a subsequent low

- dose

deleterious chronic exposure to developing embryos.61

3.5 Food Items of Federally

- Listed Species

This section consists of the assessme nt results for water

- column only toxicity to food

items of aquatic and aquatic

- dependent animals. For a description of the methodology to

asses s the effects of the N.J.A.C. 7:9B

- 1.14(d) nickel saltwater aquatic life criteria on

food items of aquatic and a quatic

- depende nt species, refer to Section 10 in Appendix B.

The aquatic toxicity data used for this asses sment are presented in Table 3.1 as acute (geometric mean LC50) and chronic (geometric mean NOEC) values for each species.

These data were then grou ped into common categories (e.g., plants, insects, crustaceans, fish). Each respective mean LC50 value from Table 3.1 was divided by 2.27 (see Appendix B). The range of acute and chronic EC A values for the most common food

items are shown in the text box below.62

Range of Effects Concentrations for Food Items a

Organism Type Acute EC (μg Ni/L) Chronic EC (μg Ni/L)

Saltwater

Diatoms and Algae b

- 49.5

– 6,054 c

Invertebrates 64.8

– 128, 000 9.9

- 140 c

Worms and soft

- bodied

animals 6

, 540

- 21,80 0 2

, 490

– 8 ,30 0 d

Mollusks 63 .4

– 128, 000 19.8

– 21 .3 c

Crustaceans 64.8

– 56,0 00 140 c

Fish 2,380

– 65, 400 3

, 210 c

a Minimum and maximum values from Table 3.1 . Values rounded to 3 significant figures.

b Only chronic toxicity endpoints for plants (e.g., minimum 4 da y EC50 for algae were considered in this biological evaluation for Ni (see Section 3.3.3)

.

c M easured values

. d Estimated values.

With the exception of the low NOEC value for a single invertebrate species (the mysid shrimp Mysidopsis intii ), the conservat ive acute and chronic effect concentrations

estimated for ninety seven percent of the possible representative food item species listed

in Table 3.1 are well above the acute and chronic nickel criteria for nickel

. Furthermore,

none of the most sensitive fo od item species to nickel are a likely source of prey for any of the listed species.

4.0 EFFECTS DETERMINATIONS

4.1 No Effects

– Notes

See Section 2.3 of this document for a discussion on which species were selected as aquatic or aquatic

- dependent and which sp ecies were considered to have limited

exposure.

4.2 May A ffect

– Notes

This section contains the effects determinations for the species addressed in this biological evaluation, which are found in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 below. These effects

determinations are base d on the data and analyses in Section 3 of this document

, and

were developed using the methodolog y described in Appendix B

. The effects determinations for nickel rely on surrogate data

, and because this methodology treats surrogate data in a conservative manner, these estimate s of the assessment effects concentration (EC A ) are conservative

.63

The effects determinations were made on aquatic and aquatic

- dependent listed species according to the following rationale

, as given in Appendix B.

Aquatic Species: Rationale for the Effects Determination for Nickel Analysis

Type of Criterion If the effects

concentration is: Then the effects determination

is: New Jersey saltwater nickel acute (64  g/L)  64  g/L

<64  g/L Not likely to adversely affect.

May a ffect a
New Jersey saltwater nickel chronic (22  g/L)  22  g/L

<22  g/L Not likely to adversely affect.

May affect a

a Unless further evaluation or best professional judgment indicates it is reasonable to conclude not likely to adversely affect.

From Table 3.1 an d 3.4, nickel is neither acutely n or chronically toxic to the vast majority of surrogate saltwater aquatic and aquatic

- dependent species or their food items. Nickel is also relatively non

- toxic to plants. Benthic aquatic invertebrates were far more

sensi tive than fish. Among the most sensitive invertebrate species, the pelagic crustacean

M. intii and marine, deep water mullosk H. rufescens, survival and growth were the most sensitive chronic endpoints. C hronic no effect values for these two species (9.9 and 21.3 ug Ni/L, respectively) were slightly below or just at the chronic criterion for nickel

- 22 μg/L . Neither of these species are likely food item s of any of the listed species.

Because nickel is essential for some organisms, it is presumed to be actively regulated. Regulation , along with the poor assimilation of nickel through the intestinal wall, may explain the low levels often observed in higher trophic levels, and the lack of biomagnification in the food web. Because of the poor assimilation efficiency of nickel from the diet, waterborne nickel is believed to be the primary source of nutritionally required nickel (Muyssen et al. 2004).

As noted in Section 2.4, the primary r isk of exposure to elevated levels of nickel in the

water column is l imited to just four watersheds (assessment units) along the New Jersey

c oast line : GEHR from Great Egg Harbor to Miry Run (state waterbody ID

NJ2040302050130

- 01); GEHR from Miry Run to Lake Lenape (state waterbody ID NJNJ02040302050060); Toms R Lower from Rt 166 to Oak Ridge Pkwy (state waterbody ID NJ02040301080060

- 01); and Toms River Lower below state route 166 (state waterbody ID NJ02040301080090

- 01 ) . Only four of the eight listed species

relev ant for this BE (piping plover, roseate tern, northeastern b eech tiger beetle, and sensitive joint vetch) potentially overlap with these nickel

- impaired watershed

assessment units (N AUs) , and of these, only the sensitive joint vetch may be presumed at risk simply because : 1) the habitat for the other three species lies outside the N AUs ( in

the case of the two impaired GEHR segments in particular)

, and because 2) theLower

Toms River is a "dead zone" for listed species in the state, as the coastal beaches to its east are heavily developed and have not had such species present anytime in the past several decades that biologists are aware of.64

Currently, colonization of sensitive joint

- vetch in New Jer sey is restricted to a segment in Cumberland County, although the species formerly occurred in Burlington, Camden,

Glouce ster, Salem, Atlantic, and Cape May Counties. Sensitive joint

- vetch inhabits the intertidal zone of fresh to slightly salty (brackish) tidal river segments, typically in areas

where sediments accumulate and extensive marshes are formed. These tidal marsh es are subjected to a cycle of twice

- daily flooding that most plants cannot tolerate. Such habitats occur only along stretches of river close enough to the coast to be influenced by the tides, yet far enough upstream that river water is fresh or only slig htly brackish. Bare or sparsely vegetated substrate appears to be a habitat requirement for this species, which usually grows on river banks within 6 feet of the low water mark. The plant can also occur on accreting point bars and in sparsely vegetated mi crohabitats of tidal marsh interiors ( http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/Endangered/jointvetch.html ). The risk of overt nickel exposure to sen sitive joint

- vetch in the GEHR N AUs, if capable of

colonization via the availability of appropriate habitat in the areas , is likely low to non

existent because: 1) t here are no facilities permitted for the discharge of nickel in these waters (search for nickel under paramet er code name in New Jersey at http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs/pcs_query.html ) , and 2) sediment nic kel

concentrations in the GEHR N AUs do not present a scenario for concern (see discussio n in Section 3.3.2 and data presented in Attachment 2 ).

Exposure of sensitive joint vetch, as well as ot her listed species in the GEHR N AUs, to potentially toxic nickelocyanide complexes is also low to non

- existent because there are

also no di s chargers of cyanide in these NAUs, or the Lower Toms River N AU. As the New Jersey water quality standards are chemical

- specific, however, consideration of

mixtures of nickel with other metals or contaminants is not relevant to the state action

defined herein to which this BE applies.

Previous studies have shown that w hile data from contaminated freshwater systems indicate a potential for elevated nickel in aquatic plants and animals, f or all species

collected , nickel concentrations were highly variable both between a nd within species ( see Eisler 1998). Wildlife feeding in areas subjected to extensive nickel pollution (nickel smelters) appears to be at special risk because wildlife food items (particularly

tolerant plants) may contain body burdens of nickel. Because of poor assimilation efficiency ; however, wildlife feeding on highly contaminated food items usually contain s only a very small fraction of the dietary nickel concentration they were exposed to (Eastin and O’Shea 1981).

A concern for unfledged piping pl over (and other shorebirds) exists because unfledged birds have limited ability to travel far from their nest sites to forage ; however, as stated above, nesting sites a re limited to habitat which lie outside the watershed assessment unit areas potentially affected by higher levels of nickel (see above). Indirect evidence from a study reported in K raus (1989) indicates that maternal transfer of nickel may also be cause for concern for embryonic birds and pre

- fledging juveniles. Their study indicated

that a dult Meadowlands tree swallows ( Tachycineta bicolor ) consuming midge larvae from contaminated sediments in the Kingsland Impoundment located in Lyndhurst, Bergen County, New Jersey, led to high burdens of nickel (and other metals) in the egg65

shells of tree swallow eggs, but not in the embryos themselves; a phenomenon reported for other passerine birds (Mora 2003). In the case of both of these studies , the data

indicate that while certain metals such as nickel are bound in the shell structure presumably thr ough sequestration from egg laying females, very little metal is passed

i nto the emb ryo itself. There are no studies showing potential for teratogenic or other

effects to early or later stage embryos from nickel (or other metals) accumulated in the egg she ll. As noted above ; however, at least one study (Ridgway and Karnosky 1952)

suggests bird embryos can be acutely sensitive to nickel concentrations as low as approximately 1 mg Ni/kg fresh weight egg content when injected with nickelous

chloride.

Indirec t evidence from studies of other metals suggests that exposure via maternal deposition to piping plover may be quite low in the Atlantic states in general

. Aluminum, antimony, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, lead, molybdenum, nickel, silver, tin and

vanadium w ere not detected in addled piping plover eggs collected from nes ts (U.S. FWS 1991). Furthermore, i n a study reported by Mierzykowski and Carr (2004) where fourteen abandoned piping plover eggs from five coastal nesting sites in Maine were analyzed for pre sence of heavy metal (As, Cu, Hg, Se, and Zn) burdens , a ll piping plover (and tern) eggs analyzed exhibited heavy metal burdens below reproductive impairment thresholds and effects benchmarks. These results imply th at Atlantic Coast piping plover populati ons may not be burdened with unnaturally high metals levels, or especially

sensitive to metal contamination , albeit none of the nesting sites in Maine were heavily

contaminated areas

.

In a compreh ensive review of nickel hazards to fish, wildlife and inver tebrates (Eisler 1998), the author recommended a 24

- hour average value not to be exceeded for total

recoverable nickel of 7.1 μg/L to protect marine life, and a maximum conc entration not

to be exceeded of 140 μg/L

. These are value s that do not reflect the latest science or evidence to ensure that criteria are adequately protective of marine life

, having been previously published in EPA’s Goldbook ( EPA 440/5

- 86

- 001, available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/library/goldbook.pdf ). T he procedures used to

derive criteria in the Goldbook preceded the current procedures used to derive ambient water quality criteria , including New Jersey’s new saltwater criteria for nickel

. The current procedures were established in 1985 and published as the Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and

Their Uses (Stephan et al. 1985). This document provided a framework for deriving numerical ambient water quality criteria to protect aquatic life (ALC) and established a

set of principles that have provided uniformity and transparency in the derivation methodology of ALC for a large number of compounds among several classes of chemicals. The majority of EPA’s currently recommended ALC have been derived using the methods outlined in the 1985 guidance document (hereafter referred to as the

Guidelines ), and the Guidelines remain the primary instrument the Agency uses to meet

its broad objectives for the development of ALC.

It is worth noting that ALC are scientifically

- derived values, derived by States, Tribes, or EPA, to protect aquatic life from the deleterious effects of pollutants in ambient water.66

States and Tribes may use EPA's section 304(a) criteria guidance in developing such criteria. When developing numeric aquatic life criteria, States and Tribes usually express two concentrations; one that protects against acute effects (effects from short term exposure)

, and one th at protects against chronic effects (effects from long term exposure).

The short

- term concentration is expressed as a Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) and is the highest ambient concentration of a toxicant to which aquatic organisms may be exposed fo r a short time period without causing an unacceptable effect. The long

- term concentration is expressed as a Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) and is the highest ambient concentration of a toxicant to which aquatic organisms can be continuously expo sed without causing an unacceptable effect.

Water quality criteria to protect aquatic life consist of three components : magnitude, duration and frequency. Magnitude refers to the acceptable concentration of a pollutant. Duration is the period of time ( averaging period) over which the ambient concentration is averaged for comparison with criteria concentrations. Frequency is how often the criteria can be exceeded to allow the aquatic community sufficient time to recover from excursions of aquatic life c riteria and to thrive after recovery.

The numerical aquatic life criteria are expressed as short

- term and long

- term concentrations in order that the criteria more accurately reflect toxicological and practical

realit ies. The combination of a CMC , over a one

- hour acute duration (a short

- term average acute l imit), and a CCC , over a four

- day chronic duration (a long

- term average chronic limit) provide protection of aquatic life and its uses. Recommended averaging periods are kept relatively short because excursions higher than the average can kill or cause substantial damage in short periods.

The frequency limitations specify that both the acute and chronic criteria may be

exceeded once in a three

- year period on the average. The recommended once in a thr ee

year period coupled with the 4

- day chronic averaging period used for the CCC approximately corresponds to the historically used criterion concentrations that occur in a

once

- in

- ten year seven

- day

- average low flow (7Q10). The once

- in

- three

- year period

c oupled with the one

- hour acute averaging period used for the CMC approximately corresponds to the historically used criterion concentration that occurs in a once

- in

- ten

year one

- day

- average low flow (1Q10). Prior to 1985, the chronic averaging period for

nickel was only 24 hours

. A direct comparison of CCC values with different averaging periods is not possible.

The method by which EPA derives criteria is periodically updated to incorporate advances in the science. To overcome the limitations in the pre vious approaches to duration and frequency, a new risk assessment methodology is being developed. EPA expects that the new risk assessment methodology will include an approach that will better handle variable concentrations by use of a kinetic

- based toxic ity model coupled with a population response model. A kinetic

- based toxicity model considers the speed at which effects appear in different individuals and at different concentrations. The kinetic

based model allows prediction of the toxicity of any seri es of time

- variable67

concentrations. It can predict how often effects would occur, and what fraction of individuals in the species would be affected.

To weigh the full impact that a particular time series of concentrations would have on the exposed popula tion of a species, an additional factor is being considered: how long it takes to replace those individuals lost due to the toxic effects. Consideration of this involves the use of a population model indicating rates of recovery of different taxonomic

gro ups to stresses. The intent of this part of the derivation is to allow the toxic impact to be portrayed as the overall average reduction in the number of individuals in a species, both during lethal or sublethal periods and during recovery periods, accoun ting for both partial lethality and partial recovery. A kinetic

- based toxicity model for nickel has yet to be developed.

In addition to considering the magnitude, duration and frequency of exposure noted above, it is also important to understand that ALC themselves (either EPA’s recommended criteria values or State or Tribal regulatory criteria) are neither intended to reflect ambient concentrations of a pollutant nor to define a level up to which a pollutant should be allowed to accumulate in a waterbody. Rather , ALC are intended to define levels of pollutants that should not be exceeded in order to ensure protection of the designated uses. States and authorized Tribes 4 often seek to control pollutant discharges

to levels below criteria concentrations wit h the intent of ensuring ambient concentrations below the adopted water quality criteria and thereby ensuring protection of the designated uses. States and authorized Tribes may also adopt water quality criteria on a protective basis. In other words, rathe r than wait for a discharge of a particular pollutant to occur and cause a potential problem

, States and authorized Tribes may adopt water quality criteria, often based on EPA’s recommended section 304(a) water quality criteria, so they have a clearly defi ned regulatory standard on which to base controls on discharges of that pollutant, should such occur from an existing or new industry. Therefore, in States or authorized Tribes taking this preventative approach, a criterion value and the ambient

concentrat ion of the pollutant in the water may have little relation.

4.2.1 Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Based on the rationale provided above, the lack of exposure in New Jersey coastal waters relevant to the listed species, and a ccording to the effects analysis pres ented in Table s 4.1

and 4.2 , a ―not likely to adversely affect‖ finding was determined for all aquatic and

aqu atic

- dependent animal species.

The chronic effects concentration for plants (see Section 3. 3.4) exceeds the saltwater CCC by at least a factor of two ; thus, a ―not likely to adversely affect‖ finding was also determined for the sensitive joint

- vetch.

_

4 Authorized tribes are those tribes found eligible to be treated in the same manner as a State (TAS) to administer the water quality standards program under section 518 of the Clean Water Act.68

Table 4. 1

. Results of Effects Analysis for Saltwater Aquatic Listed Species (all units in  g/L) (CMC = 64  g/L, CCC = 22  g/L)

Scientific Name Saltwater v.

Freshwater Exposure Order Acute

EC A a (μg/L) Chronic

EC A b
(μg/L) Chronic

EC A ′ c (μg/L) Taxon

Represented by EC A Food Items Analysis d

Adverse

Effects Family Items Acute EC A (μg/L) Chronic EC A

(μg/L)

Shortn ose Sturgeon Acipenser

brevirostrum SW Acipenseriformes Acipenseridae 1957 S 763 S 45 Ac tinopterygii oligochaetes, aquatic insect larvae, plants, snails, shrimp, and crayfish 6,540

– 21,800

No data Not applicable

63.4

– 128,000

16.8

– 56,000 2,49 0

– 8,300

No data

49.5

– 6,054

19.8

– 21.3

140 Not likely

to adversely

affect

a Acute assessment effects concentration derived using divisor of 2.27.

b Chronic assessment effects concentration based on the NOEC.

c Chronic assessment effects concentration based on the multiple routes of exposure, calculated as EC A ÷ F R (see Section 3.3.2).

d Ranges of toxicity values for food items are provided in the order the food items appear. Ranges are from text box (Section 3.5 this document).

S The e stimate was derived fro m the SSD model (5% percentile) for the Class Actinopterygii. The v alue s were taken from Table 3. 2. The 5 th P LC50 was divided by 2.27 as per Appendix B.69

Table 4. 2

. Analysis of Effects for Saltwater Aquatic

- Dependent Species (Concentrations Based on Wet Weight) ( Proposed New Jersey Saltwater Dissolved

Nickel Criteria: CMC = 64  g/L, CCC = 22  g/L)

Species BC F of food organism

– Saltwater a Estimated Residue

levels in diet

– Saltwater (mg/kg) b Chronic EC

(Dietary Effects

Conce ntration) (mg/kg) c Food Items Analysis d

(all units in  g/L, unless noted otherwise)

Adverse Effects Item Acute

EC A Chronic

EC A Northeastern beach tiger

beetle

Cicindela dorsalis

dorsalis 380 8. 37 300 Crabs and other a rthropods;

marine fish and cr abs 16.8

– 56,000
2,380

– 65,400 140

3,210 Not likely to

adversely affect

Piping plover

Charadrius melodus 380 8.37 300 marine worms; marine mollusks;

marine crustaceans and insects 6,540

– 21,800

63.4

– 128,000

16.8

– 56,000 2,490

– 8,300

19.8

– 21.3

1 40 Not likely to

adversely affect

Roseate tern Sterna dougallii dougallii 380 8.37 300 fresh water and marine small

fish and minnows 2,380

– 65,400 3,210 Not likely to adversely affect

Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata 380 8.37 300 jellyfish, s ponges , and other sessile organisms; marine algae 16.8

– 128,000 Not applicable 21.3

- 140

49.5

– 6,054 Not likely to

adversely affect

Kemp's ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempi 380 8.37 300 blue crabs and other marine

crustaceans 16.8

– 56,000 140 Not likely to adversely affect

Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea 380 8.37 300 jellyfish and other soft

- bodied

sea animals 6,540

– 21,800 2,490

– 8,300 Not likely to adversely affect

Loggerhead turtle

Caretta caretta 380 8.37 300 marine sponges;

mo llusks;

horseshoe crabs No data

63.4

– 128,000

No data No data

19.8

– 21.3

No data Not likely to

adversely affect

a BC F values were determined on a wet weight basis. The B C F of 380 is the 84 th percentile of BCF determined for bivalve mollu s cs. The 84 th percentile approximates one

standard dev iation above the geometric mean, which represents the conservative value recommended for use in the assessment (see Appendix B).

b The e stimated residue value is the product of the BC F value for nickel and the sal twater CCC value, 22 μg/L, divided by 1000  g/L, e.g., (22  g/L x 380 L/kg) x 1mg/1000  g, assuming 1 L is approximately 1 kg (see Section 3.4.4).

c Several chronic dietary toxicity values exist for surrogate aquatic

- dependent species where the dose has been expressed in the desired units of mg Ni/kg food (prey item).

The 16 th percentile value of 300 mg/kg food was selected as the NOEC value for the analysis, and approximates one standard deviation below the geometric mean, i.e., the

conservative value r ecommended for use in the assessment (see Appendix B).

d The r anges of toxicity values for food items are provided in the order the food items appear. The r anges are from the text box found in Section 3.5 of this docume nt.70

4.2.2 Species Requiring Further Eva luation

None. No particular listed species appears to be sensitive to nickel at criterion concentrations , so

no further evaluation is needed.

5.0 ASSESSING EFFECTS OF THE NEW JERSEY NICKEL CRITERIA ON

DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT

None of the listed species addressed in this biological evaluation have a critical habitat designated in New Jersey.71

6.0 REFERENCES

Amirault

- Langlais DL, Thomas PW, McKnight J. 2006. Oiled piping plovers ( Charadrius melodus

melodus ) in Eastern Canada. In Waterbirds. pp 271

– 274.

Bielmyer, GK, Grosell M, Brix KV . 2006. Toxicity of silver, zinc, copper and nickel to the

c opepod Acartia tonsa exposed via a phytoplankton d iet. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40:2063

- 2068.

Cairns , WE, McLaren IA . 1980. Status of the piping plover on the east c oast of North America.

American Birds 34: 206

- 208.

Campbell JG, Goodman LR. 2004. Possible effects of eutrophication and habitat alteration on an endangered species and implementation of dissolved oxygen data. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Envi ronmental Protection Agency, and National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Gulf Ecology Division.

Dadswell, MJ, Taubert BD, Squiers TS, Marchette D

, Buckley J . 1984. Synopsis of biological data

on shortnose sturgeon Acipenser breviros trum Lesueur 1818. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Report National Marine Fisheries Service 14.

Dongmann G, Nurnberg HW. 1982. Observations with Thalassiosira rotula (Menier) on the toxicity and accumulation of cadmium and nickel . Ecotox. Environ. Saf. 6:535

- 544.

Dwyer FJ, Mayer FL, Sappington LC, Buckler DR, Bridges CM, Greer IE, Hardesty DK, Henke CE, Ingersoll CG. 2005. Assessing contaminant sensitivity of endangered and threatened aquatic species: Part I. Acute toxicity of fi ve chemicals. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 48(2):143

- 154.

Eastin, WC Jr.

, O'Shea TJ . 1981. Effects of dietary nickel on m allards. J

. Toxicol

. Environ

. Health. 7(6):883

- 92.

Eisler, R. 1998. Nickel hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: A synoptic re view. Contaminant Hazard Reviews Report No. 34. Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR

- 1998

- 0001. April 1998. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, US Geological Survey, Laurel, MD. 95pp.

Flournoy PH, Rogers SG, Crawford PS. 1992. Restoration of shortnose st urgeon in the Altamaha River, Georgia. Final Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Fontenot QC, Isely JJ, Tomasso JR . 1998. Acute toxicity of ammonia and nitrite to shortnose sturgeon fingerlings. Prog Fish Cult 60:315

- 318.

Friedri c h, AR, Filice FP . 1976. Uptake and accumulation of the nickel ion by Mytilus

edulis . Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 16:750

- 755.

Furst, A, Radding SB . 1980. An update of nickel carcinogenesis. Pages 585

- 600 in J. O. Nriagu,

editor. Nickel in the environmen t. John Wiley & Sons, New York.72

Gagné N, MacKinnon AM, Boston L, Souter B, Cook

- Versloot M, Griffiths S, Olivier G. 2007. Isolation of viral haemorrhagic septicaemia virus from mummichog, stickleback, striped bass and

brown trout in eastern Canada. J Fish Dis 30:213

- 223.

Gilani SH, M. Marano. 1980. Congenital abnormalities in nickel poisoning in check embryos. Arch.

Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 9:17

- 22.

Hall, TM 1982. Free ionic nickel accumulation and localization in the freshwater zooplankter, Daphnia ma gna . Limnol. Oceanogr. 27:718

- 727.

Hartwig, A, Kruger I, Beyersmann D. 1994. Mechanisms in nickel genotoxicity: The significance of interactions with DNA repair. Toxicology Letters 72:353

- 358.

Hill, CH 1979. The effects of dietary protein levels on mine ral t oxi city in c hicks. J

. Nutr. 109(3):501

- 7.

Hunt, JW , Anderson BS, Phillips BM, Tjeerdema RS, Puckett HM, Stephenson M, Tucker DW, Watson D. 2002. Acute and chronic toxicity of nickel to marine organisms: Implications for water quality criteria. Enviro n. Toxicol. Chem. 21(11):2423

- 2430.

Jenkins WE, Smith TIJ, Heyward LD, Knott DM. 1993. Tolerance of shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser

brevirostrum , juveniles to different salinity and dissolved oxygen concentrations. Proceedings of the

Southeast Association o f Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Kasprzak, K S . 1987. Nickel. Advances Modern Environment. Toxicol. 11:145

- 183.

Keller JM, Kannan K, Taniyasu S

. , NYamashita N, Day RD, Arendt MD, Segars AL, Kucklick JR . 2005. Perfluorinated Compounds in th e Plasma of Loggerhead and Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtles from the Southeastern Coast of the United States. Environ Sci Technol 39(23):9101

– 9108.

Kraus, ML. 1989. Bioaccumulation of heavy metals in prefledgling tree swallows, Tachycineta

bicolor . Bull. Environ ment. Contam. Toxicol. 43:407

- 414.

Ling, JR, Leach RM Jr. 1979. Studies on n ickel m etabolism: Interaction with other mineral

e lements. Poult. Sci. 58(3): 591

- 596.

Mathis BJ, Cummings TF. 1973. Selected metals in sediments, water and biota in the Illino is

River. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 45:1573

- 1583.

McGeer JC, Brix KV, Skeaff JM, DeForest DK, Brigham SI, Adams WJ, Green A. 2003. Inverse relationship between bioconcentration factor and exposure concentration of metals: Implications

for hazard asses sment of metals in the aquatic environment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22:1017

- 1037.

Meluzzi, A, Simoncini F, Sirri F, Vandi L, Giordani G . 1996. Feeding hens diets supplemented with heavy metals (chromium, nickel and lead). Arch fur Geflugelkunde 60:119

- 25.73

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2005. Birds. SGCN

- 1 of 72. http://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/HuntingWildlifeHa bitat/WCS/SGCN/Charadrius_me lodus.pdf

.

Milton S, Lutz P, Shigenaka G, Hoff RZ, Yender RA, Mearns AJ. 2003. Oil and Sea Turtles: Biology, Planning, And Response. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Office of Response a nd Restoration. Available at http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/35_turtle_complete.pdf

.

Mierzykowski SE, Carr KC. 2004. Environmental contaminants in piping plover, least tern and common tern eggs from coastal Maine

- 2003 nesting season. USFWS. Spec. Proj. Rep. FY04

- MEFO

- 1

- EC. Old Town, ME, USA.

Mora MA. 2003. Heavy metals and metalloids in egg contents and eggshells of passerine birds

from Arizona. Environm ent. Poll. 125:393

- 400.

Muyssen, BTA., Brix KV, DeForest DK, Janssen CR . 2004. Nickel essentiality and homeostasis in aquatic organisms. Environ. Res. 12:113

- 131.

Nielsen, F H. 1977. Nickel toxicity. Pages 129

- 146 in R. A. Goyer, and M. A. Mehlman, editor s. Advances in modern toxicology. Volume 2. Toxicology of trace elements. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, London.

NMFS. 1998a. Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon ( Acipenser brevirostrum ). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the N ational Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 104 pages.

NMFS and U.S. FWS. 1998b. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Loggerhead Turtle ( Caretta caretta ). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD, USA.

NMFS and U.S . FWS. 1991. Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of the Atlantic Green Turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, DC, USA.

Novelli, ELB, Rodrigues NL, Ribas BO . 1995. Superoxide radical and t oxicity of environmental

nickel exposure. Human Experi mental Toxicol. 14:248

- 251.

Outridge, P M

, Scheuhammer AM . 1993. Bioaccumulation and toxicology of nickel: implications

for wild mammals and birds. Environmental Reviews 1:172

- 197.

Pesch, CE

, Hansen DJ, Boothman WS, Berry WJ, Mahony JD . 1995. The role of acid

- volatile sulfide and interstitial water metal concentrations in determining bioavailability of cadmium and nickel from contaminated sediments to the marine polychaete Neanthes arenaceodentata

. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 14(1):129

- 141.

Plissner, JH, Haig SM . 2000. Status of a broadly distributed endangered species: results and implications of the second International Piping Plover Census. Can. J. Zool 78:128

– 139.

Prothro, M G. 1993. Office of water policy and technical guidance on interpretation and74

imple mentation of aquatic metals criteria. U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. (Memorandum from acting Assistant Administrator for water. U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.).

Rainbow, P S. 1996. Heavy Metals in Aquatic Invertebrates. p. 405

- 425 in Beyer, W.N., G.H.

Heinz and A. W. Redmon

- Norwood, eds. Environmental Contaminants in Wildlife: Interpreting Tissue Concentrations. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

Rayner

- Canham, GW, Van Roode M, Burke J . 1985. Nickel and cobalt concentrations in

the tunicate Halocynthia pyriformis : E vidence for essentiality of the two metals. Inorg. Chim.

Acta 106:L37

- L38.

Ridgway LP, Karnofsky DA. 1952. The effects of metals on the chick embryo: Toxicity and production of abno rmalities in development. Ann. NY Acad. Sciences. 55 : 203

- 215.

Rybitski M J, Hale RC, Musick JA. 1995. Distribution of organochlorine pollutants in Atlantic sea turtles. Copeia 2:379

- 390.

Shank

, R. 2004. Dameron Marsh in the morning. Virginia Mar Res Bull 36(1).

Smith GM, Coates CW. 1938. Fibro

- epithelial growths of the skin i n large marine turtles, Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus). Zoologica 23:93

- 98.

Stamatov

, J. 1972. Cicindela dorsalis endangered on northern Atlantic coast. Cicindela 4:78.

Stephan, CE, Mount DI, Hansen DJ, Gentile JH, Chapman GA, Brungs WA . 1985. Guidelines

for deriving numerical national water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms and

their uses. PB85

- 227049. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.

Sunderman, FW Jr. 1968. Nickel carcinogenesis. Diseases of the Chest 54 (6):41

- 48.

Timourian, H, Watchmaker G . 1972. Nickel uptake by sea urchin embryos and their subsequent development. J. Exp. Zool. 182:379

- 388.

U.S. EPA. 1980. Ambient water quality criteria for nickel. EPA

- 440/5

- 80

- 060. National Technical Information Service, S pringfield , VA.

U.S. EPA. 1986. Ambient water quality criteria for nickel. EPA

- 440/5

- 86

- 004. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.

U.S. EPA. 1993. Water quality criteria: Aquatic life criteria for metals. Federal Register. 58(108): 32 131

- 32133.

U.S. EPA. 1994. Water quality standards handbook, second ed. EPA

- 823

- B

- 94

- 005b. U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. 1999. 1999 update of ambient water quality criteria for ammonia. EPA

- 822

- R

- 99

- 014. National Technical Information Service, Spr ingfield, VA, USA.75

U.S. EPA. 2000. Methodology for deriving ambient water quality criteria for the protection of human health (2000). Technical support document volume 1: Risk assessment. EPA

- 822

- B

- 00

- 005. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA. 2003. Biological Evaluation for the Issuance of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal

Tributaries. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Chesapeake Bay Program

Office. Available at http://www.epa.gov/region3/chesapeake/baycriteria/BE%20Final.pdf . Accessed April 2008.

U.S. EPA. 2008. Propo sed Issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Recreational Vessel General Permit (RGP) for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel Fact Sheet. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.

U.S. Depa rtment of Agriculture. 2006. Viral hemorrhagic septicemia: Emerging disease notice.

Available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei/taf/emergingdiseasen otice_files/vhsgreatlakes.htm

U.S. FWS. 1988 . Atlantic Coast piping plover recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 77 pp.

U.S. FWS. 1991. Environmental contaminants in New Jersey coast piping plover (Charadrius

melod us) eggs. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Jersey Field Office, Pleasantville, NJ. 12

pp.

U.S. FWS and NMFS. 1992. Recovery Plan for the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii ). National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, FL, USA.

U.S. F WS. 1993. Caribbean Roseate Tern Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, Georgia. 40pp.

U.S. FWS. 1994. Recovery Plan: Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle ( Cincindela dorsalis dorsalis Say ). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Hadley, Massachusett s. 60pp.

U.S. FWS. 1995. Sensitive Joint

- Vetch ( Aeschynomene virginica ). Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Hadley, MA, USA.

U.S. FWS. 1996. Piping plover ( Charadrius melodus ), Atlantic Coast Population, Revised Recovery

Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Hadley, Massachusetts. 258pp.

U.S. FWS . 2002 a . 2000

- 2001 status update: U.S. Atlantic Coast piping plover population. Sudbury, Massachusetts. 9 pp.

U.S. FWS. 2002 b . Piping Plover: Atlantic Coast Populations. Available at http://pipingpl over.fws.gov. Accessed in April 2008.76

U.S. FWS. 2008. Sensitive joint

- vetch in North Carolina. United States Fish and Wildlife Services.

Available at http://www.fws.gov/nc

- es/plant/sensjointv .html . Accessed on April 15, 2008.

U.S. PHS. 1993. Toxicological profile for nickel. U.S. Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia. Report TP

- 92/14. 158 pp.

Watling, H R. 1983. Accumulation of seven m etals by Crassostrea gigas

, Crassostrea margaritacea

, Perna perna , and Choromytilus meridionalis. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.

30:317

- 322.

Watling, H R

, Watling RJ . 1983. Sandy beach molluscs as possible b ioindicators of metal

p ollution 2. Laboratory Studies . Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 31:339

- 343.

Watras, CJ, MacFarlane J, Morel FM . 1985. Nickel accumulation by Scenedesmus and Daphnia : Food

- chain transport and geochemical implications. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 42:724

- 730.

Z aroogian, GE, Johnson M . 19 84. Nickel uptake and loss in the bivalves Crassostrea virginica

and Mytilus edulis . Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 13: 411

- 418.77

APPENDIX A : Interspecies C orrelation Estimates (ICE) for N ickel Saltwater E xposure

The ICE estimate for New Jersey’s saltw ater nickel biological evaluation was conducted

, however a valid esti mate could not be produced for s hortnose sturgeon ( Acipenser brevirostrum)

.78

Appendix B. Biological Evaluation Effects Assessment Methodology

This biological eval uation (BE) is performed using the Draft Methodology for Conducting Biological Evaluations of Aquatic Life Criteria

– Methods Manual , dated April 3, 2006 ( U.S.

EPA , Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division). This methodology generally

follo ws the standard U.S. EPA (1998) ecological risk assessment paradigm. The ecological risk assessment paradigm describes a framework for evaluating the likelihood that adverse ecological effects are occurring to threatened and endangered aquatic life and aq uatic

- dependent wildlife as a result of exposure to chemicals.

All ecological risk assessments are based on the results of two primary elements: characterization of exposure, and characterization of ecological effects. These two elements are

evaluated wi thin the three phases of an ecological risk assessment: problem formulation, analysis, and risk characterization. The problem formulation phase results in a description of the purpose of the risk assessment, a definition of the problem to be evaluated, an d an analysis plan for analyzing and characterizing risk. Initial tasks performed within problem formulation include compiling available information on: contaminant sources, ecological effects of contaminants, characteristics of the ecosystems, and critic al habitats and ESA species present within the study area. Note: the study area pertinent to this BE is all coastal and saline waters of estuaries of New Jersey where water quality standards specify a use protecting aquatic life (see Section 2.2). The fi nal product of the problem formulation phase of the assessment is an analysis plan or methodology that describes how exposures and ecological effects will be evaluated. The analysis plan for the ecological risk assessment within this BE is given in the Me thods Manual, but is briefly summarized here for the reader’s convenience.

During the analysis phase of the risk assessment, two primary tasks are performed: ecological effects assessment and exposure assessment. Within the ecological effects assessment, an assumption is made that Federally

- listed species (hereafter referred to as listed species) are exposed to criteria concentrations of chemicals. Within the exposure assessment, species life history information and contaminant data are evaluated to dete rmine how exposure to chemicals is likely to occur. If it is determined that exposure is not likely to occur for a given listed species, the species is not at risk from those chemicals.

Ecological effects assessment describes the potential for and types of ecological effects that could be expected from exposure to criteria chemicals. During water quality criteria development, EPA has historically focused on protection of aquatic life from ecologically relevant adverse effects. The design goal of EPA’s a mbient water quality criteria is to protect 95% of aquatic genera from ―adverse effects that might be biologically important‖ (Stephan et al. 1985). Mortality, reproduction and growth were considered to be biologically important endpoints during criteria development. These three endpoints clearly have ecological significance in a risk assessment context, as do population level endpoints. Two of the purposes of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are to conserve the ecosystems on which endangered species dep end, and to provide a program for the conservation of endangered species. Conserve is defined under ESA as methods and procedures necessary to bring any endangered species to a point at which measures provided within the ESA are no longer necessary.79

The approach to discern the ecological relevance of toxicological studies evaluated in this BE is to consider toxicological endpoints that can be related to adverse effects on either individual fitness, i.e., an organism’s ability to perpetuate itself as measu red by its reproductive success (Pianka 1983), or adverse effects at population or higher levels of biological organization. Toxicological endpoints meeting this ecologically relevant effect guideline are survival, reproduction and growth.

Also included within the analysis phase of the risk assessment process is an evaluation of the uncertainties, strengths and limitations of the data on exposure, toxicity and adverse effects, as well as ecosystem and listed species characteristics. Uncertainty has two components: variability and ignorance . Variability is a component of all natural systems, often quantified with statistical analyses. Summary statistics such as the confidence limits around an LC50 , or the standard error of a mean exposure concentration, are descriptors of variability. Ignorance refers to lack of

information

. Lack of information is the true unknown within a risk assessment.

The final phase of the ecological risk assessment process is the risk characterization. Risk

characterization in tegrates the exposure and toxicity information in a risk estimation process. Included within risk characterization are discussions about assumptions used in the risk assessment, strengths and limitations of the analyses, and a discussion of scientific unc ertainties. The output of the risk characterization of this BE is the description of risks to listed species. Risks to listed species will be expressed either as ―not likely to cause adverse effects‖ or as ―may

affect‖.

Ecological risk assessments are o ften performed using a tiered approach. Tiers are predefined risk assessments of increasing site or species specificity, often with data analyses of increasing complexity and detail as one progresses from a lower to a higher tier . A decision point for

sc ientific management is reached at the end of each tier. Two outcomes are possible from the scientific management decision point within a tier. Either a decision is made to conclude the risk assessment, followed by a description of the conclusions, or the rationale used to justify continuation to the next tier of the assessment is outlined. A risk assessment is complete when

decision makers have sufficient information and confidence in the results of the assessment to make a decision they can defend.

Wit hin this BE a single tier risk assessment approach is employed. This tier is termed a preliminary toxicity assessment. It is performed using conservative estimates of exposure and toxicity, which are used to identify saltwater aquatic and aquatic

- depende nt species not likely to be adversely affected by New Jersey’s new saltwater nickel criteria. When the preliminary toxicity assessment identifies species where adverse effects cannot be ruled out under the conservative assumptions of the assessment, those spec ies are presumed to be at risk to criteria

concentrations.

The basic approach for evaluating the protectiveness of water quality criteria to listed species is to calculate an assessment effects concentration (EC A ) for each listed species. An EC A val ue for a given listed species is the chemical concentration that represents a maximum level of effect considered acceptable. Depending on the context (i.e., whether the listed species under discussion is an aquatic or aquatic

- dependent species), an EC A ca n represent either a chemical80

concentration in water (expressed in units of μg/L), a chemical residue in the tissues of an aquatic species (expressed in units of mg/kg whole body wet weight), or a chemical concentration in the diet of an aquatic

- dependent listed species (expressed in units of mg/kg).

The EC A for each listed species is then compared to the assessment exposure concentration (C A ), defined as either the acute or chronic water quality criterion for aquatic species, or the tissue

residue level b ioaccumulated by prey of aquatic

- dependent species that have been exposed to criteria concentrations of the chemical in water (termed the estimated residue level). The comparison is in the form of a risk ratio (R) as shown in Equation A.1:

Equation A.1:



## R =

If C A < EC A (i.e., R < 1), the chemical criteria concentration is expected to be less than the chemical concentration expected to elicit toxicity in an listed species, and a determination of "not likely to cause adverse effects" is made. Alternat ively, if C A > EC A (i.e. R > 1), the chemical criteria concentration is expected to be at or above the concentration expected to elicit toxicity, and a conditional "may affect" determination would be made. Species which may be affected per the preliminary toxicity assessment should be further evaluated in a secondary toxicity assessment. A secondary assessment would include a more in

- depth examination of the toxicological information. There are no ―may effect‖ designations for the listed species

evaluate d in this document.

Note: the determination of "not likely to cause adverse effects" for a given species in this preliminary toxicity assessment does not include an explicit calculation of a risk ratio, but rather just a simple comparison of C A and EC A

. Readers of this BE familiar with hazard assessment or ecological risk assessment procedures will recognize the risk ratio in Equation A.1 as a safety

factor.

B .1. Literature Review Methodology

While the C A is set equal to the acute or chronic water qu ality criterion during the BE process,

calculation of the EC A for a given listed species is dependent on the amount and type of toxicological information available in the literature. As is the case for the derivation of EPA’s national water quality criter ia, the first step in the BE is to compile the available toxicological data for listed species and their prey.

The literature search and data review procedure used during this BE is presented in detail in Attachment 1. It includes a description of how appropriate studies for inclusion in the BE are identified, how information ( LC50s and NOECs) are summarized from individual literature citations, and how mean LC50s and NOECs are calculated when multiple LC 50 s or NOECs are

available from different literat ure citations for the same species or genera. Note that in this BE the mean LC50 and NOEC values are compiled and presented in Table 3.1. 

## C A 

## EC A81

B .2. Introduction to the Hierarchical Biological Evaluation Methodology for Listed Species Used in the Preliminary Toxicity Assessment

The assessment effects concentration or EC A is an estimate of the highest chemical concentration in water (for aquatic species) or food (for aquatic

- dependent species) that would cause an acceptably small adverse effect on listed spec ies. For acute toxicity, this acceptably small level

of effect is defined as an LC 0 to LC 10 , which is as low an LC value as can usually be measured during laboratory toxicity tests. For chronic toxicity, the acceptably small level of effect is the

No Ob servable Effects Concentration (NOEC).

To adequately define what EC A means in terms of a "may affect" determination requires

consideration of how the EC A is calculated relative to various sources of uncertainty. For those cases in which toxicity tests h ave been conducted using listed species, the test results provide a

direct estimate of the true EC A value for the listed species. However, in most cases, the EC A will be estimated using surrogate information (tests conducted on other species and/or other chemicals) and methods which extrapolate this toxicity information to the listed species. When such surrogate information is used, there are additional uncertainties introduced, and a conservative screen should not simply use average values across surroga tes. The goal of the BE methodology when surrogate species information is used to derive the EC A for a listed species is that there is a 95% probability that the true EC A value for the listed species of interest is above

the estimated acute or chronic EC A

.

Since toxicity data are available for relatively few listed species, this methodology describes a hierarchical sequence of steps to permit evaluation of the protectiveness of water quality criteria without direct toxicity data for the listed species. This hierarchy involves calculating an acute or

chronic EC A for listed species using toxicity data from test species that are progressive ly distant taxonomically from the listed species of interest. The first, most desirable and least uncertain

tier of th e hierarchy involves performing the BE with toxicity tests performed with the listed species themselves.

All other tiers of the BE hierarchy involve extrapolation of toxicity data for either non

- listed species, or a listed species other than the species u ndergoing evaluation, to determine assessment effects concentrations for listed species. Two extrapolation methods are used in the hierarchy with toxicity data for surrogate species, regardless of whether the surrogate is a listed or non

listed species: I nterspecies Correlation Estimation (ICE) models, and species sensitivity distributions (SSDs). Both ICE models and SSDs can be used with toxicity data from multiple taxa levels, which accounts for the number of tiers in the BE hierarchy. Descriptions of these two methodologies and their use in this BE are presented below.

B .3. Interspecies Correlation Estimation (ICE) Methodology

It is impractical for toxicologists to perform laboratory toxicity studies on all aquatic species present in North America with all chemicals to which they are exposed in the environment. This is particularly true for listed species, whose rarity or limited distribution in the environment generally precludes their use as test organisms in aquatic toxicology, except for limite d research82

purposes. ICE models are statistical regressions that permit estimations of LC50s to be made for a species or higher taxa (genus, family) having no measured acute toxicity information from a species for which five or more LC50s have been measur ed. The detailed description of how ICE models were developed and their use to estimate LC50s for taxa for which no toxicity information is available is provided in Asfaw et al. (2003).

ICE models between two taxa are linear regressions of the form sho wn in Equation A.2.

Equation A.2: log X 2 = a + b [log X 1 ]

where: X 1 is a measured LC50 value for an aquatic species (e.g. coho salmon, Daphnia magna )

X 2 is the predicted LC50 value for the taxa (species, genus or family) without toxicity

data

Asfaw et a l. (2003) developed software to predict acute toxicity data from 4082 interspecies correlation models for acute toxicity, derived from toxicity data for 143 aquatic and terrestrial organisms using Model II least squares regression, where both the measured (X 1 ) and predicted (X 2 ) values are independent and subject to measurement error. Toxicity of a chemical to one species can be predicted from toxicity to another species with a known certainty, which is expressed as 95% upper and lower confidence intervals around the predicted LC50 . Asfaw et al. (2003) recommend performing ICE model evaluations on species taxonomically no further apart than the family level. This recommendation was followed in this BE.

No ICE models were available to predict the acute to xicity of nickel to shortnose sturgeon ( Acipenser brevirostrum ) at the genus or family level. Instead, the SSD model was used to predict an LC50 value for A. brevirostrum at the class (Actinopterygii) level.

B .4. Species Sensitivity Distribution (SSD) M ethodology

Species sensitivity distributions are based on the assumption that available toxicity data for a group of taxonomically related species are representative of the response of other species for which toxicity data are not available. Assuming th e latter

, a statistical description of the toxicity data can thus be generated which permits calculation of the proportion of all species that would be adversely affected by exposure to a chemical at a given concentration. As long as the toxicological end point for each species is the same (e.g., an LC50, EC20 , NOEC, etc.) an SSD can be generated for any toxicological endpoint and combination of species. This feature of SSDs is one of their great advantages relative to other endpoint estimation methodologi es, in that they explicitly consider the results of all available toxicological information for a given assemblage of species.

EPA recommendations for using the SSD method are:

1. the method can be used through the class level (the water quality criteria the mselves are derived from SSDs through the kingdom and phylum level);

2. analyses must be based on a minimum of four species within the taxonomic unit analyzed, and83

3. all SSDs should be represented by at least two species in the next lowest taxonomic unit.

If four or more surrogate species within the same taxonomic unit as the listed species of interest have been the subject of toxicity tests, the LC50 or NOEC values can be used to estimate the SSD of that taxonomic unit, and thus provide an estimate of the acu te or chronic EC A for the listed species. To provide confidence in protecting the listed species, the 5 th percentile of the

SSD has been selected as the acute EC A value (using LC50 data) or chronic EC A value (using NOEC data) for the listed species. Assu ming that the species within a SSD are representative of the response of listed species for which toxicity data do not exist, the actual EC A for the listed species is then highly likely to be greater than the chemical concentration estimated by the 5 th

per centile.

Selection of the 5 th percentile as the concentration protective of listed species is not based on either statistics or toxicology. Instead, it is a policy or management decision, or a value judgment, not a scientific decision. Although the 5 th percentile of a SSD is commonly used to set environmental quality criteria (it is, for example, the level of protectiveness of both the Australian water quality guidelines and the Dutch intervention values), it is not the only percentile of the SSD that ha s been used to set criteria. Regulatory and management agencies must make the ultimate decision on the level of protectiveness of criteria and standards.

Multiple statistical methods are available for estimating the 5 th percentile of an SSD, each of

whic h likely yields a different estimated value of the 5 th percentile. Estimation methods for the

5 th percentile have been extensively studied (see discussions in Posthuma et al. 2002). Although no one estimation method is universally used, the most commonly used distributions to estimate

5 th percentiles from SSDs are the log

- logistic and lognormal distributions.

The method used in this BE was EPA’s recommended method based on the censored

- order statistic. This SSD method assumes the data fit a triangular d istribution. The software used for calculating the 5 th P using this method was obtained through EPA’s ORD

- Duluth (Russell Erickson), which was originally produced to support the ESA consultations on EPA’s national 304(a) water quality criteria. The softw are was used to generate Table 3.2 in this BE using the core toxicity data from tests with individual species summarized in Table 3.1.

B .5. Hierarchical Biological Evaluation Methodology for Use with Acute Water Quality

Criteria

This methodology descri bes six tiers of the acute EC A calculation hierarchy. The first step is to

obtain LC50 data for each aquatic species where toxicological data are available. Once the LC50 values are obtained, each LC50 is divided by 2.27 to calculate the acute EC A value for each species. The acute EC A for each listed species undergoing evaluation is compared to the acute water quality criterion as shown in Equation A.1 above to determine if the acute EC A is greater than the acute water quality criterion or C A . The value of 2.27 is intended to convert the LC50

concentration to an ―LC LOW ‖ value that should result in little or no toxicity to the test species. A

criterion based on LC50 values without this adjustment would be an underprotective criterion that potentially eli cits toxicity to 50% of the individuals of the test species.84

In accordance with the Guidelines, the Final Acute Value (FAV) is divided by 2.0 (or multiplied by 0.5 ) to calculate the acute criteria concentration or CMC. The basis for this adjustment fact or is an analysis of data from 219 acute toxicity tests showing that the mean concentration lethal to

0

- 10% of the test population was 0.44 times the LC50 or the LC50 divided by 2.27. The data and analysis on which the 2.27 value is based is described in the Federal Register on May 18, 1978 (43 FR 21506

- 21518). Briefly, the analysis consisted of calculating the geometric mean of the ratios of the highest concentration (HC) affecting or killing 0

- 10% of organisms divided by

the LC50 or EC50 for the same or ganisms in the same acute test (i.e., the geometric mean of 219

HC/ LC50 ratios from toxicity tests with a variety of chemicals). Best professional judgment was used to round the FAV ―adjustment factor‖ of 2.27 to 2 in revisions of the Guidelines that were published (Stephan et al. 1985) subsequent to the 1978 Federal Register notice. The 2.27 adjustment factor was used in this BE to add an additional degree of conservatism in assessing effects on listed species. The use of this value as an adjustment fac tor during the calculation of

EC A values results in an EC A 11.9% lower than is calculated by dividing an FAV by two.

The six tiers of the hierarchy to calculate acute EC A concentrations for listed aquatic species are presented below. Each tier includes s pecific details of how the BE of NJ’s saltwater nickel water quality criteria was performed using the available toxicity data presented in Table 3.1.

First tier : Acute toxicity data are available for the listed species

Where there is only one toxicity t est, use the lower 95% confidence interval of the reported LC50, if available. Where there is more than one toxicity test, use as much of the data as possible to calculate a SMAV, or use best professional judgment in selecting an appropriate LC50 for the listed species, based on data quality and weight

- of

- evidence.

Result of tier one analysis in this BE

- Direct acute toxicity data were not available for any of the listed aquatic species.

Second tier : ICE models are available for the listed species

U se ICE to estimate an LC50 for the listed species based on the lower 95% confidence interval of the predicted LC50 . The lower 95% confidence interval is generated by the ICE

model.

Result of tier two analysis in this BE

- No ICE models could be generated to estimate an LC50

for A. brevirostrum exposed to acute lethal concentrations of nickel at the species level.

Third tier : ICE models are available for the genus of the listed species

Use ICE to estimate an LC50 for the genus of the listed species bas ed on the lower 95%

confidence interval of the model

- predicted LC50

.

Result of tier three analysis in this BE

- No ICE models could be generated to estimate an

LC50 for A. brevirostrum exposed to acute lethal concentrations of nickel at the genus level.85

Fourth tier : Acute toxicity test data values are available for four related species in the same genus of the listed species.

Use an SSD to determine a 5 th percentile LC50 for the genus. This tier of the hierarchy follows the observation in Stephan et al . (1985) that toxicity data for species within the same genus are more comparable to data for other species within a given genus than they are to toxicity data from other genera or higher levels of taxonomic organization.

Result of tier four analysis in t his BE

- Acute toxicity values are not available for four species of fish in the genus Acipenser.

Fifth tier : ICE models are available for the family of the listed species.

Use ICE to estimate an LC50 for the family of the listed species based on the low er 95%

confidence interval.

Result of tier five analysis in this BE

- No ICE models could be generated to estimate an LC50

for A. brevirostrum exposed to acute lethal concentrations of nickel at the family level: Acipenseridae.

Sixth : Acute toxicity tes t data values are available for four related species in the same family, order, class or phylum of the listed species.

Use an SSD to determine a 5 th percentile LC50 for the family, order, class or phylum.

Result of tier six analysis in this BE

- Th e fish SSDs in this tier of the hierarchy were performed at the taxonomic level of the class Actinopterygii , ray

- finned fishes. The 5 th
percentile LC50 value from this SSD was used to estimate the acute EC A value for A.

brevirostrum using the data for sur rogate fish species in the same class listed in Table 3.1.

B .6. Hierarchical Biological Evaluation Methodology for Use with Chronic Water Quality

Criteria

A seven tiered hierarchy was used to calculate chronic EC A values for listed species. Tiers 2

th rough 7 of the chronic EC A hierarchy are nearly identical to the six tiers in the acute EC A calculation methodology, but use NOEC data instead of LC50 data as the starting point of the

evaluation. The additional tier of the chronic EC A hierarchy, which is Tier 1, is use of measured NOEC data generated with a listed species as a direct estimate of the chronic EC A value for the listed species. No NOEC values were available for saltwater listed species pertinent to this BE, however, at least four data values are available in the family, order, class or phylum of the listed species, hence, the SSD was used to determine a 5 th percentile NOEC for the class Actinopterygii.

The SSD was generated from estimated NOECs calculated for each species in Table 3.1 as t he quotient of the LC50 and ACR (i.e., 5.96). The 5 th percentile NOEC value from this SSD was86

used to estimate the chronic EC A value for A. brevirostrum using the data for surrogate fish species in the same class listed in Table 3.1.

B .7. Aquatic Specie s
- Effects from Multiple Routes of Exposure

EPA’s derivation of ambient aquatic life criteria explicitly includes only studies that expose aquatic species to contaminants in water. Studies that expose aquatic species to chemicals in

sediment or their di et are specifically excluded from criteria derivation. The concern with this exclusion revolves around the possibility that simultaneous exposure of aquatic species to multiple sources of a contaminant may result in greater toxic effects than would be pre dicted from water column toxicity tests alone.

This section of the methodology describes an approach that evaluates the amount of risk that might occur on a chronic basis because of other routes of exposure not considered during criteria development, and which may not be accounted for in the analyses described in the previous section. Investigations of the effects of other routes of exposure such as contaminant ingestion from diet are much less common than water only toxicity tests, and also do not have w ell standardized methods. As such, definitive published guidance on how adverse effects from these other routes of exposure should be analyzed is unavailable.

Meyer et al. (2005), after an extensive review of the toxicity of dietborne metals to aquatic species, concluded that the state of the science is currently not advanced enough to explicitly incorporate dietary metal toxicity into current regulatory frameworks. In part, this is due to the known differences in internal organ distributions of chemica ls in aquatic species depending on whether the metal exposure occurs from a waterborne or dietary exposure (Clearwater et al. 2002). Differences in the organs in which contaminants are accumulated can result in contaminants having different sites, modes a nd mechanisms of toxic action depending on the exposure route by which aquatic species obtain their internal contaminant dose. This is one explanation for the multiple modes of action of metals, including the variation in mode of action during short term (damage to respiratory surfaces) and long term (systemic injuries to organs and biochemical processes) exposures. Although the processes controlling waterborne and dietary contaminant uptake in aquatic species are generally independent of each other, whole body contaminant concentrations are integrators of tissue residues resulting from waterborne and dietary contaminant uptake.

Numerous investigators have presented evidence that whole body residues are a reasonable surrogate for the chemical concentratio n at the site of toxic action (Escher and Hermens 2004, Connell et al. 1999, van Wezel and Opperhuizen 1995, McCarty and Mackay 1993, Cook et al. 1992, Landrum et al. 1991). This is particularly true for organic compounds (Meyer et al. 2005),

and has been considered a suitable assumption for making screening level predictions with metals (Chapman et al. 2003, Borgmann et al. 2001, Shephard 1998). If the tissue residue of a

bioaccumulated chemical can be related to the concentration of that chemical in wat er, the level of protection water quality criteria provide from the adverse effects of chemicals obtained via multiple exposure pathways can be evaluated. This evaluation includes comparing the amount of chemical bioaccumulated from exposure to criteria c oncentrations to residue levels associated with adverse effects in aquatic species.87

Bioconcentration factors (BCFs) relate the concentration of a chemical in the tissue of an aquatic organism (mg/kg) to its concentration in water (mg/L), in situations whe re the organism is exposed to the chemical through the water only. BCFs are an appropriate method of predicting chemical concentrations in the tissues of low trophic level (trophic levels 1 and 2) aquatic species. They are also appropriate for predicting tissue residues in higher trophic level (trophic levels 3 and 4) organisms from the concentration in water for many metals and for organics with

low octanol

- water partition coefficients. For most inorganic compounds, BCFs and bioaccumulation factors (BAF s) are assumed to be equivalent for all trophic levels (Appendix B

of U.S. EPA 1995).

In accord with the above, the approach used to evaluate toxicity to aquatic species from dietary nickel exposure to aquatic organisms in this BE is based on the follow ing equation:

F R = 1 + [PF x Food CF] (Equation A.2)

where F R is a "risk factor" that represents the increased risk from the dietary route of exposure, and PF describes the relative potency of the chemical (nickel) in the diet or food versus water.

The PF is calculated as the quotient of an EC W (i.e., NOEC from a water

- only exposure) and EC F (i.e., NOEC from a dietary exposure) for a listed, or surrogate, species, whereas the food concentration factor (Food CF) is an appropriately conservative BCF for fo od organisms of the listed species.

The literature search procedure described in Attachment 1 was also used to identify studies which evaluated partition coefficients between water and other phases in natural systems. The partition coefficients selecte d were based on water concentrations near those to which these analyses apply, i.e., the criterion continuous concentration or CCC. Once useful estimates for

EC W , EC F , and food CF (i.e., BCF) from the literature were obtained and summarized, relevant

cons ervative values for these variables were used to estimate F R for the various taxonomic groups of interest. The PF and food CF (conservative BCF) were not directly available for A.

brevirostrum , so they were derived based on studies of dietary versus water

- borne exposures and bioconcentration in other species. The use of PFs and food CFs from surrogate species requires the assumption that this factor is similar in shortnose sturgeon. The results of this analysis for

this BE are summarized in section 3.3.2 identifying the F R to use for the listed species. The

water

- only chronic EC A that is determined in the analysis for A. brevirostrum was multiplied by

the F R to estimate EC A ' to support the risk comparison for multiple

- routes of exposure in Table

4.1.

It should be noted that the units of PF and food CF depend on the units selected for C Water and

C Food and care must be taken in making sure that the estimation and use of these variables is consistent. There is notable uncertainty in some of the assumptions when considering exposure from additional routes such as dietary. In the simple case of a chemical which approaches equilibrium between the water and the organism in the time frame of a chronic test, multiple routes of exposure might not result in greate r accumulation, but rather would only hasten the approach to equilibrium. Moreover, if potencies are derived from separate experiments for different routes (such as separate water

- only and diet

- only exposures), this additive model can88

overestimate risk. For exposure via water and one other route, the maximum overestimation of risk is a factor of two, which will be reached only when (a) the routes are equally important to toxicity and (b) they are completely independent rather than additive. Because this error is not large and would be difficult to reduce, and because this entire procedure is intended to provide a conservative screen, this issue will not be further addressed here. It should also be noted that, unlike for models of the combined toxicity of different chemicals, synergetic actions will not be of concern here, and an additive model is thus adequately conservative.

B .8. Calculation of the Aquatic

- Dependent Wildlife Exposure Concentration

Aquatic dependent wildlife species are mammals, bird s and reptiles whose diet contains an appreciable proportion of aquatic organisms. As terrestrial wildlife move through the environment, they may be exposed to contamination via three pathways: oral ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation. Oral exposure occurs through the consumption of contaminated food, water, sediment or soil. Dermal exposure occurs when contaminants are absorbed directly through the skin. Inhalation exposure occurs when volatile compounds or fine particulates are respired into the l ungs. Because contaminant exposure experienced by wildlife through both the dermal and inhalation pathways is negligible (Sample et al. 1997), the majority of exposure is due to the oral ingestion pathway.

Contaminant concentrations in soil cannot be at tributed to concentrations in surface waters, thus, it is inappropriate to include soil exposure to contaminants in a biological assessment of water quality criteria. Sediment ingestion rates of many wildlife species are low, 2% or less of the total

food ingestion rate (Beyer et al. 1994). For the purposes of this BE, we assume that the oral ingestion of a chemical in water can be described as the sum of its ingestion of the chemical in water and the chemical accumulated in its prey during the prey specie s exposure to water. Of these oral routes of exposure, the far greater contributor with regards to exposure is from the consumption of contaminated prey items.

If an aquatic dependent wildlife species under evaluation is known to feed on aquatic biota (th e receptor does not have to feed exclusively on aquatic species), the concentration of the contaminant in its aquatic prey can be estimated from the product of a water quality criterion and a bioconcentration factor (or a bioaccumulation factor). If the f ood ingestion rates for a wildlife species are known or can be estimated, and if the contaminant concentration in prey is proportional to the concentration in the water, it is possible to calculate the exposure of a wildlife receptor to a contaminant from its consumption of prey.

The assessment of toxicity on aquatic

- dependent listed species in this BE addresses effects expected from a diet of aquatic organisms because diet is expected to be the important exposure route for aquatic

- dependent species in the vast majority of cases. As with the analysis of the dietary route of exposure on aquatic species, the assessment of risk to aquatic

- dependent species

is based on the same estimation of the risk ratio where R is the risk ratio , C is the exposure

concentra tion (in diet) expected to occur under the constraints of the section 304(a) aquatic life criteria, and EC is the effects concentration (diet) estimated to be of concern for a particular listed species.89

The literature search for the aquatic

- dependent anal ysis (Attachment 1) produced estimates of the bioconcentration factors (BCFs), along with the exposure duration and water concentration associated with each BCF, of food organisms (or surrogates) for listed aquatic

- dependent species (Table 3.3). In additi on, the literature search produced estimates of dietary effects concentrations, including exposure duration, for listed species or their surrogates (Table 3.4).

In this BE residue levels in the prey organisms are estimated to determine exposure

concentr ations for the dietary pathway in aquatic

- dependent wildlife because fish (or other species) tissue is the medium for dietary exposure. Accordingly, the exposure component of this assessment consists of determining the likely residue level in food organis ms, which was calculated by multiplying an appropriately conservative BCF by the chronic section 304(a) aquatic life criteria:

CCC * BCF = Estimated Residue Level

Since the BCFs vary by water column concentration, only those BCFs based on water column

co ncentrations at or near the CCC were used. In this BE only BCFs were used because appropriate BAF data were limited. In addition, since there was such a large range of BCFs in the literature for prey organisms of aquatic

- dependent species, the 84 th perce ntile value was selected as a value that approximates one standard deviation above the mean to provide sufficient conservatism to ensure an acceptable level of risk. For each BCF that was obtained, information on exposure duration, water concentration, an d other important background information from the test was included (see Table 3.3).

B .9. Calculation of Aquatic

- Dependent Wildlife Assessment Effects Concentration

The effects component was calculated by identifying dietary toxicity values for the list ed species or a surrogate. The dietary toxicity values of the aquatic

- dependent listed species or their surrogates were then compared to the estimated residue levels of its food sources. Since the exposure durations of the dietary pathway considered in a ssessing exposure to aquatic

- dependent organisms are chronic in nature, only chronic exposure were evaluated.

Initially, dietary toxic effects concentrations for the listed species or their surrogates were compiled. The compilation included any species f or which dietary effects concentrations exist for the chemical of concern (i.e., nickel), the acute and/or chronic toxicity levels for those species, and the exposure duration. Because there was a range of dietary toxicity values in the literature, a poin t in that range that is appropriately protective for the purpose of this analysis was

selected. The value that was selected is the 16 th percentile value which approximates one standard deviation below the mean. Using this value in combination with one s tandard deviation above the mean of BCFs ensures an acceptable level of risk. In some cases, dietary effects estimates were presented as minimum toxicity values (i.e., the highest dose at which no effects were observed), which potentially adds conservatis m to the analysis.

Toxicity data was more limited for the aquatic

- dependent analysis than for the aquatic analysis. Accordingly, NOEC and LOEC data was used in the same assessment. Table 3.4 in the analysis document indicates whether the dietary effec ts data are based on a measured NOEC or an LOEC.90

B .10 . Methodology for Evaluation of Indirect Effects of Water Quality Criteria on Prey of Listed Species

In addition to the assessment of risk to aquatic and aquatic

- dependent listed species, toxicity of nickel in saltwater to prey of the listed species was evaluated to determine if there might be an effect on the listed species due to a meaningful reduction in the number of prey species on which a listed species feeds. Assessment of indirect effects on l isted species due to a reduction in prey is the most difficult endpoint to quantitatively evaluate in this BE for reasons both practical and of ecological theory. This assessment compiles all LC50 and NOEC values obtained for all aquatic species during t he literature review, as all aquatic species, including listed species are potential prey of one or more other species. As with the analysis of toxic effects on listed species, the LC50s are divided by 2.27 to derive the acute EC A , which generally results in a concentration near or below the lethality threshold at the individual level.

The definition of a meaningful reduction in the diet of a listed species is subjective. It is currently not possible to provide information regarding how many prey speci es can be eliminated from an aquatic system before a listed species is adversely affected by a reduction in its prey base. The rare exception is for those species that rely on a very limited prey base.

No listed species in New Jersey is known to be an o bligate feeder on only one prey species. Therefore, it appears reasonable to assume that numerous alternative prey species exist for listed species in aquatic systems, minimizing or eliminating the potential for adverse effects on listed species from toxi c effects on any one or several of their prey species.

The range of acute and chronic EC A values for the following broad groups of prey species are summarized in tabular form in the text for each chemical undergoing evaluation in this BE: fish,

invertebra tes, and diatoms and algae (see text table in Section 3.5). The aquatic invertebrate section is further subdivided to present the range of acute and chronic EC A values for mollusks, crustaceans, and worms and soft

- bodied animals. The above prey groups co nsumed by the Listed species in New Jersey are listed in the tables (4.1 and 4.2 respectively) summarizing the results of the effects analysis for nickel.

In the analysis on the effects of the water quality criteria on prey species, the acute and chronic

EC A values of each listed species food items are compared to the acute and chronic criteria, respectively. No quantitative determinations are made regarding whether or not reductions in prey species richness may affect listed species. In only a very few i nstances are there acute or

chronic EC A values below the CMC or CCC.

B .11 . Multiple Lines of Evidence and Final Effect Determination Methodology

In the effects determinations section (Section 4.0) in the analysis document a summary of the findings for e ach of the assessments is provided for the acute and chronic criterion. No ―may affect‖ findings were made for a species based on either the water column, prey, multiple routes of exposure, or wildlife

- dependent assessments and the potential exposure to t his pollutant was91

considered ―low to non

- existent.‖ The effects of nickel on critical habitat did not apply in this BE as none of the relevant listed species have critical habitat in the State of New Jersey.92

ATTACHMENT 1

– LI TERATURE SEARCH AND DATA REVIEW PROCEDUR E

The development of a BE to determine w hether new or revised state water quality

criteria/standards are likely to adversely affect any federally

- listed species requires the review and acquisition of applicable aqua tic and terrestrial toxicity and bioaccumulation data

. The review and acquisition of applicable data for such purposes requires personnel with a high level of expertise in aquatic toxicology, ecotoxicology, aquatic chemistry, geochemical speciation

modelin g, statistics , and chemical bioavailability.

The basic design of the overall data review and extraction process pertinent to this BE is

summarized in the flowchart below (Figure 1.1).

FIGURE 1.1 . BE PROCESS FLOWCHART.

Ref erences are reviewed and managed concurrently throughout the literature review and data acquisition, extraction, and compilation process. Quality control and assurance checks and procedures are implemented at various points throughout the process in accord ance with the steps below. 

### Referenc e review and acquisition

Step 1. Title and

abstract review Step 3. On

- line
ECOTOX review

Request reference?
QC Pt. Data acceptable?
QC Pt.



### Step 2. Requested

reference review

Data acceptable?
QC Pt. 

### Data extraction and compilation Enter rejection co de label

no

no no

yes

yes yes

yes Enter rejection code label93

1.1 Source of Secondary Data

This procedure applies to the review and acquisition of articles selected from a lit erature search to determine which articles and the data therein meet the acceptability criteria for use in BE

docu ments , as described below

. For the purpos e of this procedure , secondary data are defined as any existing environmental data used in a way other than they were originally intended. Secondary data may be obtained from many sources, including literature, Agen cy reports, and compilations from computerized databases and information systems (see Section A7).

There are two general sources of secondary data specified for use under this procedure. Data

from on

- going EPA literature searches for maintenance of EPA’s public on

- line ECOTOX

database , and data obtained by the Great Lakes Environmental Center from previous government related projects. Regarding the former, EPA uses a standardized literature search strategy for identifying potential sources of toxicity info rmation on aquatic life and aquatic

- dependent wildlife for BE document development. The primary source of the literature is the ECOTOX literature holdings

. Complete documentation on the ECOTOX literature search strategy is

located at: http://lester.dul.epa.gov/qa/sop/#DAM

. Briefly, ECOTOX is a comprehensive web

based database, compiled and maintained by EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) that provides information on the effects of single c hemical exposures to ecologically relevant species ( http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/). This database supports research in ORD and the broader scientific community, providing data to create and evaluate predictive effect models developed through intra

- and extramural research efforts (e.g., advanced species, dose, and chemical extrapolation modeling)

. It is used by the Agency’s Regional and Program Offices, as well as other Federal, State, Tribal and local governmen t agencies, and the regulated community as a primary source of literature on ecological effects to meet responsibilities under Agency

delegated programs and/or data submissions and analyses required by EPA

.

Literature searches conducted for the ECOTOX da tabase do not use chemical specific terms because the purpose is to capture all the literature on the toxicity of anthropogenic substances to ecologically relevant species

. Therefore, the search includes habitat terms (e.g., pond, soil), effect terms (e.g. , mortality, reproduction, growth), species terms (e.g., bird, worm, salamander), general chemical terms (e.g., metal, organic, pesticide), and/or sub

- file category codes within abstracting databases relevant to ecotoxicology.

The identification of studie s that are potentially applicable to the ECOTOX database is accomplished through comprehensive searches of the open literature

. These searches include use of electronic bibliographic abstracting services (e.g., STN, Science Direct, Cambridge Scientific

Abs tracts, Dialog), the manual review of bibliographies associated with summary or review publications, and the manual review of library holdings at EPA/ORD’s Mid

- Continent Ecology Division, Duluth, MN.

Secondary litera ture from previous relevant projects include s peer

- reviewed and un

- reviewed reports, manuscripts and publications on th e chemical of interest.94

1.2 Reference Review

Publications acquired using the general ECOTOX literature search and acquisition protocols have to meet five minimum data requi rements to be considered eligible for inclusion in the

database

. The publication is eligible for the ECOTOX database if it reports: (1) observed biological responses related to an exposure to a single chemical, and the chemical’s name and

Chemical Abstract Services Registry number can be verified in reliable chemical reference manuals; (2) a taxonomically verifiable test species that is an aquatic or terrestrial plant or animal with the exception of yeast, bacteria and viruses; (3) results based on the expo sure of live, intact organisms; (4) a concurrent environmental chemical concentration/dose or application rate with the exception of concentrations reported in the sediment without concurrent pore water concentrations and air exposures; and (5) the duratio n of exposure

. In addition, publications that are only available in a language other than English, publications that are not the primary source of the effects data (i.e., review or summary publications) and studies that are only available in a

brief abstra ct format are not considered for inclusion in the database.

Copies of non

- applicable publications, i.e., publications which do not meet the minimum data requirements noted above, are for the most part not acquired or retained within the ECOTOX

literature holdings

. Copies of some non

- applicable publications, however, are acquired and retained when they are useful to the ECOTOX database effort, and these are assigned an

ECOTOX reference number

. These publications include review or summary publications that a re not the primary source of data but are used in manual literature searches, and documents that present information on toxicity test protocols and procedures.

Each citation that is identified, either through the electronic literature searches or the manu al searches, is examined to determine whether or not it is potentially applicable to the ECOTOX

database

. With the exception of review/summary and methods publications, publications that are clearly not relevant to the ECOTOX database effort are not ordere d, and the electronic bibliographic record is annotated with the reas on for exclusion (see Attachment 1. A of this

attachment )

. If a clea r decision of applicability can not be made based on the information available (e.g., citation and or abstract), then the publication is acquired

. All publications that are acquired are assessed as to relevance to the ECOTOX database based on the full publication, and if excluded, the citation is annotated with the reason.

The current literature holdings for the ECOTOX data base include over 70,000 publications,

which are accessible to EPA

. All retained publications are assigned a unique ECOTOX reference number. In addition, each citation in the bibliographic file is key

- worded as to the type of information included (e.g., te rrestrial vs. aquatic; plant vs. invertebrate, vs. mammal vs. bird) and chemical of concern to EPA (e.g., Water Quality Criteria chemicals; registered pesticide active ingredients, Superfund priority pollutants).

The BE literature review process begins w ith the review of references from the two primary sources of data, i.e., references from ECOTOX lite rature holdings and articles identified as potentially relevant from previous projects , respectively . There are two categories of references

o btained from these two sources. Each category requires a different type and level of review

. For example, in

- house articles from previous projects are first scanned for potential applicability95

much like what is done for inclusion into the ECOTOX database, and those de emed potentially

useful are selected for further review (see Figure 1.1 )

. Data from references already reviewed

and entered on

- line in ECOTOX are screened using additional sets of acceptance criteria particular to BE development (see Attachment 1. B and 1. C ) . The majority of data from

ECOTOX should be verified with electronic or hardcopies of the original reference as an added measure of quality control (QC)

. Articles eventually rejected for BE development are managed concurrently throughout the process usin g bibliographic software

. The review of secondary data

from the two categories of references proceeds in the following manner:

Step 1

- Title and Abstract Review

All potentially relevant citations are screened for their possible use in BE documents

. Each citation is examined using the acceptance criteria indic ated above for ECOTOX ( Attachment

1. A), as well as additional acceptance criteria specific to BE development (see Attachment 1. B

and 1. C)

. Note that some exclusion codes, while consistent between list s, overlap in definition. This overlap is necessary because of the greater detail needed to assess relevance to BE development, e.g., see definitions for ―Effluent‖ code

. The electronic bibliographic re cords provided by EPA in ECOTOX are marked for use/non

- use. Records (references) not selected for acquisition are annotated with a reason for exclusion by manual entry

. If a clear decision of applicability cannot be made based on the information available (e.g., citation and/or abstract), the publication is a cquired for further review.

Step 2

– Requested Reference Review

All references select ed are reviewed and assessed for their applicability to BE development based on the full publication

. The first page of each reference is marked as accepted or not (incl uding appropriate code)

. Data from accepted references are coded as to their ―use‖ in BE

documents and are earmarked for future extraction and compilation (see Section 1.3 )

. Likewise, publications void of data applicable to BE development are annotated wit h a reason for exclusion and removed from the accepted reference pool

. Notes and calculations are written on the originally obtained article so that photocopies contain the information for future use.

Step 3

- On

- line ECOTOX Data Review

The l iterature r eview strategy for references in ECOTOX consists of a data screen of information downloaded from the ECOTOX public domain

. The download of data entered for these

ECOTOX ―on

- line‖ references is accomplished following the procedure provided in Attachment

D.

The downloaded data from references included in ECOTOX is assessed for applicability to BE development as above, and if excluded, the data record (and by extension, reference) is annotated with the reason ( Attachment 1. A, 1. B and 1. C)

. All references with acceptable data are acquired for data verification, and later collated and transformed into a format suitable for entry into BE documents (see Section 1.3 Table Generation below)

. Explicit directions for sorting through and identifying aquatic toxicity da ta useful/not useful for BE develop ment are provide in Attachment

1.D.96

1.3 DATA MANAGEMENT

Data accepted for use in BE development are compiled into one central spreadsheet file

. Accepted data from the requested reference review are manually entered int o the spreadsheet, whereas accepted data from t he ECOTOX on

- line data review are selected and sorted electronically.

The file created from the on

- line data downloaded from ECOTOX serves as the primary data

instrument for all a ccepted references (see Figur e 1.1 )

. Note: this file also contains data from references not useful for BE development

. Data is extracted and compiled into a ―core‖ data worksheet according to the following steps:

1. Within the Excel download file, add an initial column titled Accept ance Status

. Under the Acceptance Status column, code each row as B (BE acceptable), or enter the appropriate rejection code under this same c olumn (from codes in Attachment 1. A, 1. B and 1. C)

. Sort the worksheet by the Acceptance Status column and transfer all acceptable studies to a

worksheet labeled ―core data.‖

2. If data were deemed acceptable from references acquired and reviewed under the requested reference review , extract and record the relevant information on a ―data

extraction form.‖ The data ex traction form must include the following information:

Relevant Information for BE Development (Aquatic Species)

Information Comment

Chemical Name Check that it is an acceptable form of the contaminant.

Chemical Comment Notes on purity of chemical com pound, etc.

Chemical Method Measured (M) or Unmeasured (U).

Scientific Name Records that do not identify genus and species not included.

Common Name Easy to find through a web search 1 , if not available.

Organism Comment Information on life stage.

Effe ct + Effect Meas. Classification of response type and response measured, respectively.

Endpt1 Classify endpoint as acute or chronic (list endpoints or add column).

Plant / Animal Not Available in Ecotox

.

Media Type Freshwater (FW) or Saltwater (SW).97

Relevant Information for BE Development (Aquatic Species)

Information Comment

Du r + Dur Unit Duration of exposure period: value + time unit.

Concentration1 M ean Endpoint value. If necessary, convert to appropriate unit.

Concentration Unit Ecotox records values in original units.

Concentration Type Active, Dissolved, or Total (A, D, T, respectively).

Temperature + Unit

Salinity + Unit Required value if tests conducted in saltwater.

pH

Hardness + Unit Required value if criteria are expressed as a function of hardness.

Exposure Type Static, Renewal, Flow through.

ECOTOX Referen ce # Reference number in ECOTOX series, if available.

Author + Year

Ref. Source + Title

1 Search at www.itis.usda.gov/ or www.gbif.net/portal/index.jsp

3. Add the r eference and enter the extracted data to the ―core data‖ worksheet

. Add a column to the ―core data‖ worksheet, labeled ―Data Use.‖ Code each row according to the type of toxicity data to be used in BE application

. BE codes are B1 (Table 3

- 1

– acute
and ch ronic, animals and plants), B2 (Table 3

- 3

- bioaccumulation), B3 (dietary toxicity), B4 (sediment toxicity).

1.3.1 BE Table Generation

The MS Excel ―core dat a‖ worksheet, once completed, can be used for creating all BE tables exactly as they will appear in their respective docum ents. The tables can be copied and pasted from Excel into the respective BE documents

.

1.3.2 Bibliography Management

The modified downloaded ECOTOX files serve as the primary reference archive indicating use

or non

- use of refere nces in BE documents

.98

ATTACHMENT 1. A

– ECOTOX EXCLUSION CODES

Keyword Definition

ABSTRACT study results published as an abstract only

ADDENDUM publication is a supplement to another publication and attach to that

publication (erratum or addendum)

B ACTERIA bacteria and microbes

- for microbes, enter bacteria as keyword,

Microbe in Reference Manager field 6 (Notes)

. Includes Microtox tests are bacteria organisms.

BIOLOGICAL

TOXICANT general biological toxicants including venoms, fungal toxins, Bacill us

thuringiensis, and other plant, animal or microbial extracts or toxins not purified (Purified single chemicals (with CAS numbers) of biological origin may be applicable. See the following websites for examples of applicable toxicants with biological or igin: www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/proceedings1990/v1

- 511.html and www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/ingre dients/index.htm ).

CAS #

UNAVAILABLE chemical is not verifiable, no CAS # is available

DRUG testing for drug effects and side

- effects on humans (drugs used as

environmental toxicants are applicable)

EFFLUENT includes sewage and polluted runoff

FATE ch emical distribution, metabolism

HUMAN HEALTH studies with human subjects or with surrogate animal subjects for

human health risk assessment

INCIDENT reports of animal deaths by poison, etc.; lacks usable concentration

and/or duration (use keywords ―INCID ENT/SURVEY‖)

INCOMPLETE

CITATION citation is not complete; order status ARCHIVE

INCORRECT

CITATION citation is wrong; order status ARCHIVE

INHALE Inhalation dose route only.

IN VITRO in vitro studies, including exposure of cell cultures and excised tis sues

METABOLISM what happens to the chemical rather than to the organism99

Keyword Definition

METHODS no usable toxicity tests; describes methods for conducting tests,

purification or determination of chemicals, etc. Some methods publications are ordered for the ECOTOX metho ds information file (METHFILE); documentation provided for toxicology test methods, experimental design, statistical methods, standard terminology, recently developed test methods

. Methfile papers are chosen to support development and interpretation of cod ing guidelines and to assist in reviewer training.

MIXTURE no single chemical tests reported

MODELING modeling only, no new organism exposure data; modeling studies may

report original toxicity tests performed as comparisons or as a basis for extrapolat ion, if so, papers are ordered

MONKEY paper reports effect data for monkey species only

NO CONC no usable dose or concentration reported after examination of the entire

paper; includes lead shot studies lacking dose information and which report only the number of pellets

. Concentrations reported in log units only are not coded.

NO DURATION no duration reported (entire publication examined)

NO EFFECT no organism effect reported, including water quality studies with no

effect on organisms reported

NO QUA NTIFIABLE

TOXICITY

RESULT no specific data values to code, paper used general statements such as

―the animals decreased in weight‖, used only for TERRETOX papers

NO SOURCE source of publication undetermined; order status ARCHIVE

NO SPECIES no organism pr esent or tested, exposure of a dead organism, reviewer

unable to verify species

NO TOX DATA

- chemicals in water, sediment or soil without organism effect data

- ecological interactions with no toxicity tests

- food studies

- chemicals found in foods, foo d safety studies

- genetics studies

- including recombinant DNA and mutant strains

- physiology

- effects of the level of chemicals biologically present in an organism, including hormones and vitamins

- risk assessment publications (related to regulati on and legislation)

- phytoremediation studies where primary purpose is to remove toxicant

from environment100

Keyword Definition

NO TOXICANT no chemical toxicant

- includes ambient air component chemicals (ozone, CO 2 , SO 2 ) and pollution

- other ambient conditions including cha nges in conditions (other than chemical addition), including radioactivity, ultraviolet li ght (UV), temperature, pH, salinity, dissolved oxygen (DO), or other water, air or soil parameters

NOT PURSUING no order will be placed; order status ARCHIVE

NON

- ENGLISH paper in a language other than English

- (these papers receive ECOREF

numbers UNLESS a second keyword is assigned); AUTH orders only (not ILL), if not received in 6 months, citations should be ARCHIVE

NUTRIENT in situ chemicals tested as nutrients

OIL oil and petroleum products

PUBL AS paper was published in another journal or book, ECOREF number of

other paper listed in Reference Manager citation

Ex. PUBL AS ECOREF #####

QSAR Quantitative Structure Activity Relationships

REFS CHECKED reference s in a LITBIB or REVIEW have been checked

REVIEW all toxicity tests reported elsewhere; REVIEW bibliography may be

skimmed to identify relevant citations

SEDIMENT CONC chemical concentration reported in sediment only (see applicable

conditions)

SKIMMED used to show that publication has been skimmed for applicable sections

SURVEY measured chemical present, but lacking quantification of exposure;

lacks usable concentration and/or duration

VIRUS virus used as a test organism

YEAST yeast used as test orga nism10 1

ATTACHMENT 1. B

– COMMON GUIDELINES EXCLUSION CODES

Reject (Unused) Code Definition

BRINE SHRIMP Test species was brine shrimp

PRIOR EXPOSURE Tests with previously exposed organisms (i.e., collected from contaminated field sites)

INSUFFICIENT DE TAIL Inadequate test details (e.g., source of species, acclimation, or duration of exposure)

EFFLUENT Tests on drilling muds, effluents, mixtures, and sludges

SEDIMENT Pollutant added only to sediment or to dilution water to which

clean sediment was adde d (exceptions if water conc. was measured and particulate and TOC were each < 5mg/L)

MIXTURE Use of formulated mixtures and emulsifiable concentrate (unless tests show same results as the individual pollutant)

PURITY If material is less than 80% pure (un less results same as pure material or impurities are much less toxic than chemical of interest)

INJECTION Use of injection or gavage

INAPPROPRIATE METHOD (FOR CHEMICAL) Flow

- through tests were not used for highly biodegradable, hydrolyzable, oxidizable, reducible, or volatile materials

CELLS/TISSUES Tests with cell cultures, enzymes, excised or homogenized tissues

NO CONTROL No control treatment

INADEQUATE # OF

ORGANISMS Too few test organisms

EXCESSIVE CONTROL

MORTALITY Inadequate control survival ( >10% mortality for acute tests, species

- specific exceptions; >20% mortality for chronic tests, species

- specific exceptions)

INSUFFICIENT

ACCLIMATION Organisms cultured/held in one water and tested in another without proper acclimation

DISTILLED WATER Tes ts in distilled or deionized water

ATYPICAL TEST

WATER Test water contained unusual amounts or ratios of inorganic ions

SURFACTANT Tests where an organic solvent that is not water

- miscible or a surfactant was used to prepared stock solutions (unless used to show a relationship between solvent/surfactant and toxicity)

EXPOSURE

FLUCTUATION Data from tests or field exposures where conc. of test material fluctuated substantially (high was 2 times lowest) unless used to compare to other exposure conditions (c onstant, fluctuating, intermittent)

YOUNG WITH ADULTS Acute tests where young cannot be distinguished from adults102

Reject (Unused) Code Definition

INAPPROPRIATE

SOLVENT Acute tests where water

- miscible solvent was used to prepare stock but its conc. exceeds 0.5 ml/L (0.5%) in the test s olution (unless data used to effect of solvent on toxicity)

CHRONIC NOT R OR FT Data from chronic tests which are not renewal or flow

- through

EXCESSIVE TOC Tests in water with TOC > 5mg/L or 5mg particulate/L (must be flagged unless a relationship with t oxicity is developed or data show toxicity is not affected by TOC/particulates)103

ATTACHMENT 1. C

– BE EXCLUSION CODES

Key Word/Code Definition

ACELLULAR (Ace) Studies of acellular organisms (protozoa) and yeast.

BIOMARKER (Biom) Studies reporting resul ts for a biomarker having no reported

association with a biologically significant adverse effect (survival, growth, or reproduction of an individual or population) and an exposure dose (or concentration)

CONTROL (Con) Laboratory or field studies where no control is used or where survival

of control organisms is unacceptable.

DETAIL (Det) Insufficient detail regarding test methodology or statistical analysis.

FOREIGN

LANGUAGE (Forgn) Studies reported in non

- English publication and where results in tables

and figures indicate the data would not likely affect findings.

FORMULATION (Form) Studies where the chemical is a primary ingredient in a commercial

formulation, e.g., biocide, fertilizer, etc.

INAPPROPRIATE

EXPOSURE (Inapp Exp) Chronic studies that wer e not flow

- through, especially for those

chemicals that are highly biodegradable, hydrolyzable, oxidizable, reducible, or volatile.

LETHAL TIME (LT) Laboratory studies reporting only lethal time to mortality, except

under special conditions (no other appl icable information is available for species pivotal in making a finding).

NO NOEC (XNoec) A plant test in which all tested concentrations produce adverse effects,

but the lowest tested concentration is far above the criteria concentrations (e.g., > 1 orde r of magnitude). Note: vascular plant median response measures are not used routinely in establishing acute criteria, but no

- effect levels for all plants are considered in chronic

criteria.

NOMINAL (Nom) Chronic and bioaccumulation studies where test con centrations were

not measured.

NON

- AQUEOUS MEDIUM (Notaq) Exposure to chemical via non

- aqueous or artificial

- aqueous medium,

e.g., agar or soil, hydroponic exposure.

ROUTE OF

EXPOSURE (EXP) Un

- natural exposure routes for aquatic chemicals, e.g., injectio n,

spray, inhalation.

SECONDARY (Sec) Review articles or other reports or papers containing no original data

or only data reported more completely in a primary source.104

Key Word/Code Definition

STEADY

- STATE (Steady) Laboratory bioconcentration studies where the exposure duration

could not be discerned or was too short for steady

- state to be reached in the organism.

TOXICANT (Tox) Inappropriate form of toxicant used or none identified in a laboratory

or field study. Note: Inappropriate form includes mixtures.

UNRELATED (Unrel) St udies that are unrelated to the contaminants and receptor groups of

interest.

UNSUITABLE BCF (BCF) Tissue chemical concentrations reported are not useful for BCF

calculation, e.g., exposure concentrations used in the study were too high, or chemical conc entrations were not measured in the whole animal or edible tissue. (Note: Studies where chemical concentrations were made only in organ tissue may be considered if enough data exists for the chemical to correlate the concentrations in the organ

tissues to whole body concentrations.)

UNUSUAL

DILUTION WATER (Dilut) Laboratory or field studies where the dilution water contained unusual

amounts or ratios of inorganic ions or was without addition of appropriate salts (i.e., distilled or de

- ionized water).

VA RIABLE

EXPOSURE (Var Exp) Excessive variability in contaminant concentrations during the

exposure period.105

ATTACHMENT 1.D

– PROCESS FOR DOWNLOADING TOXICITY DATA FROM

EPA’S ECOTOX DATABASE

Note: The ECOTOX database is to be used in conjunction with the ECOTOX Code List (printable on

- line at www.epa.gov/ecotox/help/codelist.htm ) and Effects List (available at www.epa.gov/cgi

- bin/ecotox_effects_browse ).

1. Download E COTOX data file for the chemical of interest using a search term or terms that find all appropriate forms of the chemical (e.g., the water soluble inorganic salts of metals). Save the file unchanged and save the amended file (below) with a

new file n ame as described in the procedure below:

A. Open internet Site

- www.epa.gov/ecotox

B. Click on Advanced Database Query

C. Click on Report Format

D. Select Delimited Report in Aquatic Report Formats

E. Add the fields ( in Fields Available ) to Fields Selected in Aquatic Lab Output Selections :

1. Chemical Analysis Method

2. Chemical Comment

3. Control Type

4. Document Code

5. Hardness

6. Organic Carbon Type/Value

7. Organism Comment (life stage information)

8. pH

9. Publication year

10. Salinity

11. Species Number

12. Temperature106 F. Repeat for Aquatic Field Output Selections (Note: only field data with a Test Location coded FieldA (Field Artificial) will be considered (i.e., mesocosm studies).

G. C lick on Test Results in Advanced Query Menu

H. Click on the Accumulation, Growth, Mortality, Reproduction, Population, Physiology and No Effect Groups, as well as Histological and Feeding Behavior, in Effects and Measurements

I. Click on Test Conditions in Advanced Query Menu

J. Click on:

1. Fresh Water, Salt Water, and Not Reported in Water , and

Hydroponic and Not Reported in Artificial in Exposure

Media ;

2. Diet, Not Reported, Flow

- through, Lentic, Lotic, Renewal Aquatic, Static Aquatic, and Ti dal in Exposure Types ;

3. Measured, Unmeasured, and Not Reported in Method of Chemical Analysis.

K. Click on Chemical in Advanced Query Menu

l. Select all appropriate forms of the chemical

2. Click on Perform Query

3. Save delimited text fil es for aquatic species with ―.tsv‖ extension as ―ecotox_chemical_aq_data

- month

– day

- yr.tsv‖ (e.g., ecotox_Cr3_aq_12

- 02

- 06.tsv) in a designated HECD

WA File Folder on c:/drive.

4. Open the data into a unique Excel Workbook (.xls) file similarly named, e.g., ―ecotox_Cr3_aq_12

- 02

- 04.xls‖

a. Select ―delimited‖ option and click Next

b. Select ―other‖ and type ―|‖ in blank box (―|‖ key is above ―enter‖ key use the shift)

c. Select ―none‖ in Text qualifier box and then

click Finish.

d. Open and save each chemical as a separate Excel Workbook (.xls) file.107

ATTACHMENT 1. E

– DIRECTIONS FOR IDENTIFYING USEFUL AQUATIC

TOXICITY INFORMATION

1. Within each aquatic file uniquely identified by chemical name, label the ta b for

worksheet #1 ―All Data‖ then create two new worksheets and name each FH2O Core and SH2O Core, respectively.

2. Select and copy all entries in ―All Data‖ and paste into FH2O.

3. Sort data by ―Aquatic Media Type‖ and cut and paste all saltwater data (SW) for

the chemical in SH2O.

4. Perform a data sort using year of publication

5. All publications approximately 6

- 12 months prior to the publication date of the latest AWQC update are ―new.‖

6. Search the ―old‖ data and identify all papers previously ci ted in the AWQC document and check the data endpoint and concentration. Remember that some Table 6 data (identified as other data in the AWQC document) may be of value

and that data from non

- NA species (usually identified in the Unused List of the AWQC doc ument) is not categorically rejected for BEs. These latter papers

should be obtained and reviewed.

7. Enter values from all references cited in Tables 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the most current AWQC document that are not in the ECOTOX database.

8. Note all data from t he AWQC document that are in the ECOTOX database, but do not have the same endpoint or concentration. Record any changes made to the ECOTOX entry based on what is reported in the AWQC document in a

―Comments‖ column.

9. Review the remaining ―old‖ data and any ―new‖ data for potentially useful values.

10. Establish blank worksheets for rejected lines of data: a worksheet for rejected FW animal data, a worksheet for rejected SW animal data, a worksheet for rejected BCF and bioaccumulation data (coded ACC in the Effe ct column) and worksheets for rejected FW and SW plant data. Cut and paste lines of rejected data into the appropriate worksheet. Add rejection codes if this has not already

been done.

11. Note and reject all tests conducted with inappropriate forms of the che mical, e.g.,

if Concentration Type indicates use of a chemical Formulation (F), unless the Chemical Purity and Chemical Comments columns indicate otherwise.

12. Note and reject all tests without a test duration specified (this does not necessarily

include thos e rows of data where a minimum or maximum duration has been provided).108 13. Note and reject all ACC data that are of too short duration for the metal of interest (i.e., indicating steady

- state was not achieved, this will vary with chemical, but use 28 days as a rule of thumb).

14. Note and reject all data that are for inappropriate endpoints (e.g., this requires scrutiny of Effect Measurement Codes and will most likely be the Physiological endpoints coded PHY, possibly HIST).

15. Examine the rejected papers for those wi th species or endpoints that might provide acute LC50s for a new taxon, new ACRs, new BCFs, effect values near or below the AWQC criteria, and dietary effect data. Also, for chemical criteria that are hardness or pH dependent, to see if those required para meters values are absent in ECOTOX. (Note: dietary effect data for aquatic organisms should be relegated to a separate worksheet labeled as such).

16. If data look otherwise okay confirm the chemical form if the CAS designation is ambiguous (e.g., if the CAS # provided is for the general ―Arsenic‖ element and not the specific salt for the desired As3 form).

17. For new and old papers identified as potentially useful in the previous steps, and for papers identified in step 15, request copies of reprints and revie w each paper.

Note : Although chronic and BCF tests are supposed to be used only from tests with measured exposure concentrations, there may be important data from tests with nominal exposure concentrations. Use best professional judgment based on

the sourc e of the data, the detail in the paper, and the consistency of the data with

other BCF data for the chemical. Nominal chronic data can be used to determine if other taxa may be at risk from exposure to the CCC, and in some special cases might be used to es tablish an ACR.109

ATTACHMENT 2

– HISTORIC SEDIMENT NICKEL MONITORING DATA FROM

WATERBODIES LOCATED WITHIN NICKEL ASSESSMENT UNITS.

USGS Site

Number Location Sample

Date Sample

time Sediment Ni

Conc (dw μg/g)

1411170 Great Egg Harbor R

at Mays Landing NJ 10/4/1977 11:45 <10

1411220 South River near

Belcoville NJ (GEH trib) 8/13/1999 9:30 0.26

1411208 Gravelly Run at

Route 559 at Gravelly Run NJ (GEH trib) 8/9/2007 8:00 0.3

1411241 Gibson C at Rout e

50 near Corbin City NJ (GEH trib) 9/9/1999 8:30 1.1

1411196 Babcock Creek near

Mays Landing NJ (GEH trib) 9/1/1998 10:29 <10

1411196 Babcock Creek near

Mays Landing NJ (GEH trib) 8/15/2005 11:40 0.34