Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment of the Calcasieu Estuary, Louisiana: Part 1. Overview and Problem Formulation

  • Donald D. MacDonald
  • Dwayne R. J. Moore
  • Christopher G. Ingersoll
  • Dawn E. Smorong
  • R. Scott Carr
  • Ron Gouguet
  • David Charters
  • Duane Wilson
  • Tom Harris
  • Jon Rauscher
  • Susan Roddy
  • John Meyer
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

A remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) of the Calcasieu Estuary cooperative site was initiated in 1998. This site, which is located in the southwestern portion of Louisiana in the vicinity of Lake Charles, includes the portion of the estuary from the saltwater barrier on the Calcasieu River to Moss Lake. As part of the RI/FS, a baseline ecological risk assessment (BERA) was conducted to assess the risks to aquatic organisms and aquatic-dependent wildlife exposed to environmental contaminants. The purpose of the BERA was to determine if adverse effects on ecological receptors are occurring in the estuary; to evaluate the nature, severity, and areal extent of any such effects; and to identify the substances that are causing or substantially contributing to effects on ecological receptors. This article describes the environmental setting and site history, identifies the chemicals of potential concern, presents the exposure scenarios and conceptual model for the site, and summarizes the assessment and measurement endpoints that were used in the investigation. Two additional articles in this series describe the results of an evaluation of effects-based sediment-quality guidelines as well as an assessment of risks to benthic invertebrates associated with exposure to contaminated sediment.

Keywords

Focal Species Measurement Endpoint Surface Microlayer Assessment Endpoint HCBD 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge a number of individuals who provided excellent technical reviews of the document, including Paul Conzelmann (United States Parks Service), John Kern (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Denise Sanger (South Carolina Department of Natural Resources), Heather Findley, John DeMond (Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality), Barry Forsythe, and Buddy Goatcher (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). Funding for the preparation of this document was provided through a contract to CDM Federal Programs Corporation from the USEPA. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the United States Government.

Supplementary material

244_2010_9636_MOESM1_ESM.wpd (160 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (WPD 160 kb)

References

  1. American Society for Testing and Materials (2009a) Standard test methods for measuring the toxicity of sediment-associated contaminants with freshwater invertebrates (ASTM E1706-05E01). In: Annual Book of ASTM Standards Volume 11.06. ATSM, West Conshohocken, PAGoogle Scholar
  2. American Society for Testing and Materials (2009b) Standard test method for measuring the toxicity of sediment-associated contaminants with estuarine and marine invertebrates (ASTM E1367-03R08). In: Annual Book of ASTM Standards Volume 11.06. ATSM, West Conshohocken, PAGoogle Scholar
  3. American Society for Testing and Materials (2009c) Standard guide for conducting sediment toxicity tests with marine and estuarine polychaetous annelids (ASTM E1611-00R07). In: Annual Book of ASTM Standards Volume 11.06. ATSM, West Conshohocken, PAGoogle Scholar
  4. Beyer WN, Connor EE, Gerould S (1994) Estimates of soil ingestion by wildlife. J Wildl Manag 58:375–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown SS, Gaston GR, Rakocinski CF, Heard RW (2000) Effects of sediment contaminants and environmental gradients on macrobenthic community trophic structure in Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Estuaries 23:411–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carr RS, Chapman DC (1992) Comparison of solid-phase and pore-water approaches for assessing the quality of marine and estuarine sediments. Chem Ecol 7:19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carr RS, Long ER, Chapman DC, Thursby G, Biedenbach JM, Windom H et al (1996a) Toxicity assessment studies of contaminated sediments in Tampa Bay, Florida. Environ Toxicol Chem 15:1218–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carr RS, Chapman DC, Howard LC, Biedenbach J (1996b) Sediment quality triad assessment survey in the Galveston Bay Texas system. Ecotoxicology 5:341–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carr RS, Chapman DC, Presley BJ, Biedenbach JM, Robertson L, Boothe P et al (1997) Sediment porewater toxicity assessment studies in the vicinity of offshore oil and gas production platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53:2618–2628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. CDM Federal Programs Corporation (1999) Final screening level ecological risk assessment: Calcasieu Estuary, Lake Charles, Louisiana. EPA-68-W5-0022. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Golden, COGoogle Scholar
  11. Curry MS, Huguenin MT, Martin AJ, Lookingbill TR (1997) Contamination extent report and preliminary injury evaluation for the Calcasieu Estuary. Prepared by Industrial Economics. Incorporated. Prepared for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MDGoogle Scholar
  12. Gaston GR, Nasci JC (1988) Trophic structure of macrobenthic communities in the Calcasieu Estuary, Louisiana. Estuaries 11:201–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaston GR, Young JC (1992) Effects of contaminants on macrobenthic communities in the upper Calcasieu Estuary, Louisiana. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 49:922–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaston GR, Lee DL, Nasci JC (1988) Estuarine macrobenthic in Calcasieu Lake, Louisiana: community and trophic structure. Estuaries 11:192–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldberg M (2001) Summary of the scoping meeting for refining the list of contaminants of potential concern in the Calcasieu Estuary. CDM Federal Programs Corporation, Dallas, TXGoogle Scholar
  16. Hooten RL, Carr RS (1998) Development and application of a marine sediment porewater toxicity test using Ulva fasciata and U. lactuca zoospores. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:932–940Google Scholar
  17. Johnson BT (1998) Microtox toxicity test system: new developments and applications. In: Wells PG, Lee K, Blaise C (eds) Microscale testing in aquatic toxicology: advances, techniques, and practice. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 201–218Google Scholar
  18. Johnson BT, Long ER (1998) Rapid toxicity assessment of sediments from large estuarine ecosystems: a new tandem in vitro testing approach. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:1099–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Long ER, Morgan LG (1991) The potential for biological effects of sediment-sorbed contaminants tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WAGoogle Scholar
  20. Long ER, MacDonald DD, Smith SL, Calder FD (1995) Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environ Manage 19:81–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. MacDonald DD, Carr RS, Calder FD, Long ER, Ingersoll CG (1996) Development and evaluation of sediment quality guidelines for Florida coastal waters. Ecotoxicology 5:253–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MacDonald DD, Moore DRJ, Pawlitz A, Smorong DE, Breton RL, MacDonald DR, Thompson R, et al. (2001) Calcasieu Estuary remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS): Baseline ecological risk assessment—baseline problem formulation. Report prepared for CDM Federal Programs Corporation, Dallas, Texas. http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6sf/louisiana/calcasieu/la_calcasieu_appendices_bera_report.html. Accessed September 2010
  23. MacDonald DD, Ingersoll CG, Moore DRJ, Bonnell M, Breton RL, Lindskoog EA, et al. (2002) Calcasieu Estuary remedial investigation/feasability study (RI/FS): Baseline ecological risk assessment (BERA). Technical report plus appendices. Contract No. 68-W5-0022, Prepared for CDM Federal Programs Corporation and United States Environmental Protection Agency, Dallas, TX. http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6sf/louisiana/calcasieu/la_calcasieu_datarep.html. Accessed September 2010
  24. Moore DRJ, Breton RL, Lloyd KM (1997) The effects of hexachlorobenzene on mink in the Great Lakes area: an ecological risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 16:1042–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moore DRJ, Sample BE, Suter GW, Parkhurst BR, Teed RS (1999) A probabilistic risk assessment of the effects of methyl mercury and PCBs on mink and kingfishers and East Fork Poplar Creek, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:2941–2953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ramelow GJ, Webre C, Mueller CS, Beck JN, Young J, Langley MP (1989) Variations of heavy metals in fish and other organisms from the Calcasieu River/Lake complex. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 18:804–818Google Scholar
  27. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1989) Risk assessment guidance for superfund, volume II, environmental evaluation manual, interim final. EPA-540/1-89/001. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1992) Framework for ecological risk assessment. EPA/630/R-92-001. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1997) Ecological risk assessment guidance for Superfund: Process for designing and conducting ecological risk assessments. EPA-540-R-97-006. Environmental Response Team, Edison, NJGoogle Scholar
  30. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1998) Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/R-95/002F. U.S. EPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1999) National recommended water quality criteria―Correction. EPA-822-Z-99-001. Office of Water, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2000a) Stressor identification guidance document. EPA-822-B-00–025. Office of Research and Development. Office of Water, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2000b) Prediction of sediment toxicity using consensus-based freshwater sediment quality guidelines. EPA 905/R-00/007. Great Lakes Program Office, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  34. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2000c) Methods for measuring the toxicity and bioaccumulation of sediment-associated contaminants with freshwater invertebrates. EPA 600/R-99/064, 2nd edn. U.S. EPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC (outside the USA) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald D. MacDonald
    • 1
  • Dwayne R. J. Moore
    • 2
  • Christopher G. Ingersoll
    • 3
  • Dawn E. Smorong
    • 1
  • R. Scott Carr
    • 4
  • Ron Gouguet
    • 5
  • David Charters
    • 6
  • Duane Wilson
    • 7
  • Tom Harris
    • 7
  • Jon Rauscher
    • 8
  • Susan Roddy
    • 8
  • John Meyer
    • 8
  1. 1.MacDonald Environmental Sciences Ltd.NanaimoUSA
  2. 2.Intrinsik Environmental Sciences, Inc.New GloucesterUSA
  3. 3.Columbia Environmental Research CenterUnited States Geological SurveyColumbiaUSA
  4. 4.Columbia Environmental Research CenterUnited States Geological SurveyCorpus ChristiUSA
  5. 5.Windward Environmental LLCSeattleUSA
  6. 6.United States Environmental Protection AgencyEdisonUSA
  7. 7.Louisiana Department of Environmental QualityBaton RougeUSA
  8. 8.United States Environmental Protection AgencyDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations