EPA
United States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9345.0-051
March 1994
ECO Update
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division (5204G)
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 2, Numbers
Field Studies for Ecological Risk Assessment
Ecological risk assessments of Superfund sites evaluate
the actual or potential effects of site contaminants on
plants and animals and assess the need for remediation,
including considering remedial alternatives and evaluating
ecological effects of remediation. Such ecological risk
assessments make use of a variety of desktop, laboratory,
and field approaches, which may include chemical
analyses of media, toxicity testing, literature searches,
evaluation of the condition of organisms, and ecological
field studies. As the name implies, ecological field
studies are investigations that take place in the actual area
under scrutiny, focusing on the site's habitats and biota1
(resident organisms) and comparing them with unimpacted
conditions. The ecological risk assessment of a Superfund
site nearly always requires some type of field study. At a
minimum, some field study is necessary in order to
identify organisms and habitats2 that may be at risk. By
themselves, hazard indices based on literature values rarely
prove adequate for characterizing ecological effects.
Rather than studying individual organisms, field
studies generally focus on populations or communities.
Populations are groups of organisms belonging to the
same species and inhabiting a contiguous area.
Communities consist of populations of different species
living together. For example, a forest community consists
of the plants, animals, and microorganisms found in a
forest. A community also can be a more restricted group
of organisms. Within the forest, the soil community
consists of only those organisms living in, or in close
association with, the soil. Less frequently, a field study
evaluates an ecosystem, which consists of both the
organisms and the nonliving components of a specific,
1 The first time that a technical term appears, it is bolded and either
defined in the text or in a footnote.
2 A habitat is the place that a species naturally inhabits.
limited area. In the case of a forest, the ecosystem
includes the soils, rocks, streams, and springs as well as
the resident organisms that make up the forest community.
Which sites warrant a detailed field study? At many
sites the existing information indicates a significant
likelihood of present or future adverse impact but is
insufficient to support remedial decision making. At such
sites, field studies can identify actually or potentially
exposed organisms, exposure routes, ecological effects,
and also the potential of the site to support biota. In the
initial phase of an ecological risk assessment, a field study
can take the form of a site's habitats and many of its
species and also note any obvious adverse ecological
effects. If a site warrants further study, a more intensive
effort during the analysis phase can help to provide
evidence of a link between a site's contaminants and an
adverse effect. As Table 1 shows, field studies can
contribute information at different stages of the ecological
risk assessment and can assist with each of the
assessment's components:
IN THIS BULLETIN
The Organisms in a Field Study 2
Elements in the Design of a Field Study 5
Catalogue of Field Methods 9
Field Studies: Their Contribution 12
3 Although ecologists often use this term to include much larger
resources, this definition gives the word dimensions usable at a Superfund
site.
ECO Update is a Bulletin series on ecological risk assessment of Superfund sites. These Bulletins serve as supplements to Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund, Volume II: Environmental Evaluation Manual (EPA/540-1-89/001). The information presented is intended to provide technical information to EPA and
other government employees. It does not constitute rulemaking by the Agency, and may not be relied on to create a substantive or procedural right enforceable by any
other person. The Government may take action that is at variance with these Bulletins
-------
problem formulation, analysis, and risk characterization.
The specific role of field study in an ecological risk
assessment varies with the site. Site managers5 should
consult with the Biological Technical Assistance Group
(BTAG) in their Region to determine the best approach to
each site.6 This consultation should occur at the earliest
possible stage of site investigation. The BTAG may
suggest other methods—in addition to, or instead of,
techniques discussed in this document—that are especially
appropriate for a particular site.
This Bulletin provides site managers with an overview
of field study options. Four main sections follow this
Introduction. The first considers the organisms, which are
the major focus of most field studies, and the second
describes the remaining elements in the design of a field
study. The third section presents a catalogue of common
field study methods, while the fourth section summarizes
the contributions that field study can make to an ecological
risk assessment.
This Bulletin is intended only as quick reference for
site managers, not as a comprehensive review of field
methods or of the ecological attributes evaluated using
these methods. Those who want to examine the subject in
greater depth should consult the list of references at the
end of the Bulletin and also the list of additional resources
available from the federal government.
The Organisms in a Field Study
Although a large number of species can inhabit a site,
an ecological risk assessment of a Superfund site concerns
itself only with those that are actually or potentially
adversely affected by site contamination or that can serve
as surrogates for such species. Such organisms are among
a site's ecological components. Ecological components
are populations, communities, habitats, or ecosystems
actually or potentially affected by site contamination. A
field survey conducted as part of a reconnaissance visit can
help to identify the potentially affected organisms at a site.
Some factors to consider in making this identification
4 In preparing this Bulletin every effort was made to use terminology
found in the Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA.
1992. Office of Research and Development, Risk Assessment Forum.
EPA/630/R-92/001. Washington, D.C.). The three phases listed in the text
are equivalent to the four components of an ecological risk assessment
described in "Ecological Assessment of Superfund Sites: An Overview"
(ECO Update Vol. 1, No. 2). The Framework's analysis phase
corresponds to the "Overview's" exposure assessment and the ecological
effects assessment phases.
5 Site managers include both remedial project managers and on-scene
coordinators.
6 These groups are sometimes known by different names, depending
on the Region. Readers should check with the appropriate Superfund
manager for the name of the BTAG coordinator or other sources of
technical assistance in their Region. A more complete description of
BTAG structure and function is available in "The Role of BTAGs in
Ecological Assessment" (ECO Update Vol. 1, No. 1).
include which media (e.g., soil, surface water, ground
water) have become contaminated, the site's contaminants,
their environmental concentrations, and their
bioavailability.7
Table 1. Field Study Contributions to Ecological
Risk Assessments
Task
Problem
Formulation
Analysis
Risk
Characteri-
zation
Site Reconnaissance
Visit
Identify ecological
components potentially
exposed to contaminants.
Identify ecological
components likely to be
exposed to contaminants.
Identify readily apparent
effects.
Develop hypothesis of
relationship between
exposure and effects.
Intensive Field
Study
Identify specific
ecological
components and the
exposure pathways
for populations and
communities.
Describe
populations and
community
attributes with
respect to exposure.
Quantify exposure
of specific
ecological
components.
Quantify effects on
specific ecological
components
Characterize and
document links
between exposure
and effects.
Quantify relation-
ship between
exposure and
effects.
General Considerations in Selecting
Organisms for Study
Most sites have a large number of species, making it
necessary for the investigator8 to focus on a limited
number of these for detailed study. A variety of site-
7 Bioavailability is the occurrence of a contaminant in a form that
organisms can take up.
8 The term "investigator" refers to the individual charged with
responsibility for designing and/or carrying out any part of an ecological
risk assessment. Investigators can include government scientists,
contractors, or university scientists. However, the site manager (remedial
project manager or on-scene coordinator) retains ultimate responsibility
for the quality of the ecological risk assessment.
March 1994 • Vol. 2, No. 3
ECO Update
-------
specific factors—including the size of the site and the
types of habitats that have become contaminated—
contribute to making this selection. In their role as
protectors of natural resources, trustees also can influence
the selection of organisms for study.
Species-specific factors also enter into the selection.
These include:
• Intensity of exposure. Species vary in the
intensity of their contact with contaminated media.
For example, earthworms and other invertebrates
inhabiting a contaminated medium receive longer
and more intense exposures than wider-ranging
invertebrates such as butterflies. Some animals
have limited mobility early in their life cycle—as
eggs, larvae, or nestlings, for example—so have
greater exposure than older animals.
• Relative sensitivity to contaminants. Evaluation
of a highly sensitive species can bring about de
facto consideration and protection of other species
inhabiting the site. However, at a site with a
complex mixture of contaminants, the investigator
may be unable to identify one sensitive species
that is most appropriate for study.
• Ecological function, along with significance of a
species' contribution to this function. An
investigator may select a species for study based
on its ecological function. For example, at a site
with contaminated surface water, the investigator
may choose to study algae as the aquatic
community's primary producers.9 The
investigator may specifically focus on those algal
species that make a large contribution to this
function.
• Time spent on-site. To qualify for further study, a
species should inhabit the site during either a
considerable portion or a critical stage of its life
cycle.
• Ease of difficulty of conducting field studies with
the organisms. A field study that requires
capturing birds is resource-intensive, and unlikely
to occur at a typical Superfund assessment. Where
fish-eating birds are at risk because
bioaccumulating substances have contaminated the
surface water or aquatic organisms, the
investigator might choose instead to focus
primarily on the fish that the birds eat or to study a
mammal or reptile with feeding habits similar to
birds.
• Appropriateness of surrogate species. In the case
of a site with an endangered or threatened species,
the investigator may elect to study a surrogate
9 A primary producer is an organism, such as an alga or a terrestrial
plant, that converts the energy from sunlight to chemical energy.
species with similar exposure. Surrogate species
offer the advantage of sampling and analysis
options that cannot be employed with threatened
or endangered species. However, in selecting a
surrogate species, the investigator should identify
one that resembles the site species in behavior,
feeding, and physiological response to the
contaminants of concern. The best choice for a
surrogate is not necessarily the one most closely
related to the site species.
• Other recognized values. At some sites the
investigator may want to consider a species
because of other values associated with it, such as
economic or recreational value.
Based on the above considerations, the investigator
generally selects no more than a few species as subjects of
the field study. However, an investigator can choose to
Although a large number of species
can inhabit a site, an ecological risk
assessment of a Superfund site concerns
itself only with those that are actually or
potentially adversely affected by site
contamination or that can serve as
surrogates for such species.
study a community. For example, at a lake with
contaminated water and sediment the investigator can
study the benthic community that lives in association with
the lake's bottom. When selecting a community as an
ecological component, the investigator needs to ascertain
that the study includes populations representing multiple
trophic levels.10
At some Superfund sites, investigators have selected a
wetland habitat as the ecological component for further
study. Such choice can prove more protective of the
environment since the investigator can document a variety
of adverse effects on the habitat rather than having to
demonstrate significant impact to only selected species.
Studying a habitat becomes especially important when one
or more of the remedies under consideration could
adversely affect the habitat. However, designating a
habitat as the ecological component can prove costly,
depending upon how the ecological risk assessment
delineates the habitat.
10 A trophic level is a stage in the flow of food from one population
to another. For example, as primary producers, plants occupy the first
trophic level, and grazing organisms occupy the second trophic level.
March 1994 • Vol. 2, No. 3
ECO Update
-------
To extend these general guidelines for selecting
ecological components, the following sections consider
different kinds of organisms that inhabit either aquatic or
terrestrial environments and detail how each can increase
an investigator's knowledge of the ecological conditions at
the site.
Aquatic Organisms
At a site where contaminated surface water is a
medium of concern, field studies can focus on periphyton,
plankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, or fish.
Periphytons are microscopic algae that grow on sediment,
stems and leaves of rooted water vegetation, and other
surfaces that project above the bottom of a body of water.
Studying periphyton provides information about primary
producers in an aquatic environment. These organisms
also include many species useful in assessing the cause,
extent, and magnitude of contaminant problems.
Plankton are microscopic organisms that float or swim
weakly in the water column. Plankton includes algae,
protozoa, and small crustaceans. Planktonic algae are
called phytoplankton, and the protozoa and crustaceans
are referred to as zooplankton. Because plankton include
primary producers, which supply food for larger animals
and also increase the amount of oxygen dissolved in water,
these organisms make an important contribution to the
aquatic community. Like periphyton, plankton includes
species that are sensitive indicators of ecological injury
resulting from contamination or enrichment of water
bodies.
As defined by EPA, benthic macroinvertebrates are
invertebrate animals that live in or near the bottom of a
body of water and that will not pass through a U.S.
Standard No. 30 sieve, which has 0.595 mm openings.
Such organisms occur in gravel, sediments, on submerged
logs and debris, on pilings, and even on filamentous algae.
Freshwater benthic macroinvertebrates include insects,
worms, freshwater clams, snails, and crustaceans. The
benthic macroinvertebrate communities of marine and
estuarine environments include worms, clams, mussels,
scallops, oysters, snails, crustaceans, sea anemones,
sponges, starfish, sea urchins, sand dollars, and sea
cucumbers. When water becomes contaminated, some of
the contaminants migrate to the sediment and accumulate
there. Field studies of benthic macroinvertebrates can
indicate the degree to which sediment contamination can
adversely affect biota. In addition, the composition and
diversity of benthic macroinvertebrate communities can
indicate the overall well-being of the aquatic ecosystem.
Because fish occupy a range of trophic levels, they
serve as useful indicators of community-level effects. The
relative ease of identifying most juvenile and adult forms
makes fish particularly convenient subjects for field study.
In addition, field study methods for fish are relatively
simple and inexpensive. In selecting a species for
sampling, the investigator will want to consider its
characteristic home range. For a species that spends little
time on-site, a field study may not be able to establish
whether any adverse effects result from exposure to site-
associated contaminants.
Semi-aquatic and Terrestrial Animals
Semi-aquatic and terrestrial animals—including
insects, other invertebrates, and vertebrates—can all
provide useful information about ecological effects
associated with the site. Soil fauna, the organisms most
intimately associated with this medium, include many
species that perform important functions in terrestrial
ecosystems. For example, earthworms aerate the soil.
Other soil-dwellers—such as some small insects, soil
mites, and certain nematodes (a kind of worm), break
down organic wastes and dead organisms—releasing the
elements and compounds they contain and making these
available to living organisms. Both soil aeration and
organic decomposition support the growth of terrestrial
plants. Consequently, plants can suffer impact if soil fauna
are affected.
Insects' small size and their large numbers make them
convenient subjects of study. Further, a site generally has
a large number of species. Because these species occupy a
variety of microhabitats and also differ in their behaviors,
the investigator can measure a range of effects. For
example, because insects include species at different
trophic levels, a field study can assess the potential for
biomagnification11 of a site's contaminants.
Field studies focusing on such vertebrates as
amphibians, reptiles, and mammals can contribute to a
site's ecological assessment. Depending on their trophic
level, these vertebrates may ingest contaminants as a result
of consuming contaminated plants, other terrestrial
animals, or fish. Burrowing animals, such as voles, can
show greater ecological effects from contaminated soil
than animals that have less intimate contact with the soil.
Where investigators at Superfund sites decide to study
terrestrial vertebrates, they generally choose small species,
which are likely to range over a smaller area than larger
species. As a result, the smaller species tend to spend
more of their time on the site, making it easier to estimate
exposure.
Field studies of birds present certain difficulties at a
Superfund site. These organisms can range far off-site,
making it difficult for a field study to establish whether an
adverse ecological effect results from exposure to site-
associated contaminants. In addition, bird studies can
prove especially resource-intensive. However, at a large
11 Biomagnification is the increasing of concentration of a
bioaccumulating contaminant as it passes up a food chain or a food web.
A food chain is a series of organisms that sequentially feed on one
another. For example, mice eat seeds and are in turn eaten by owls. A
food web, which is a group of interrelated food chains, takes into account
a species' participation in multiple food chains. For example, birds,
insects, and other mammals also eat seeds, and cats, as well as owls, prey
on mice.
March 1994 • Vol. 2, No. 3
ECO Update
-------
site or a site with a complicated contaminant picture, the
investigator and the BTAG may decide that avian field
studies are worth the effort. For example, many sites have
large populations of waterfowl that can potentially suffer
adverse effects from site contaminants.
Terrestrial Vegetation
When a site has contaminants associated with soil, field
study can focus on terrestrial vegetation. In particular,
investigators may want to conduct field studies of
vegetation at Superfund sites where plants show signs of
stress, such as stunted growth or yellowing, or where
pollution-tolerant species are abundant. Since plants are
the primary producers in terrestrial environments, an
ecological impact to vegetation can affect other terrestrial
biota.
Elements in the Design of a Field
Study
As with any study, an ecological field study has several
elements. In addition to selection of the organisms, the
elements of a field study encompass the study's objectives,
a reference site, endpoints, methods, level of effort, sample
design, quality assurance/quality control standards, and the
statistical analysis of the data. When the investigator
carefully crafts each of these elements, the resulting study
should achieve its objectives and should further the overall
ecological risk assessment of the Superfund site. Under-
developing any of these elements can weaken the study's
results and adversely affect the results of the overall
assessment.
Objectives
To ensure that the study will have clear direction, the
investigator needs to establish study objectives that address
ecological concerns for that site. The objectives should
ensure that the field study supports the over-all objectives
of an ecological risk assessment for a Superfund site.
These objectives are (1) to determine whether site
contamination poses a current or potential threat of adverse
ecological effects; (2) if a threat does exist, to decide
whether remediation is required; and (3) if remediation is
required, to set cleanup levels.
Investigators will find that study objectives help to
indicate the appropriate level of effort. In an initial field
study to identify ecological components, for instance, an
investigator might find that a qualitative survey method
would achieve the study's objective. The later study of
adverse effects to a population might require a more
resource-intensive approach, such as semi-quantitative or
quantitative sampling to estimate population sizes or
capture of organisms and transport to a laboratory for
biochemical analysis.
Although the specific objectives for a field study will
vary both with the site and its stage in the ecological risk
assessment process, investigators should keep in mind that
a field study performed as part of a Superfund site's
ecological risk assessment is not a research project.
Generally, a snapshot of site characteristics can provide the
needed information.
In addition to stating the purpose of a field study, the
objectives also should indicate whether the field study is
occurring in conjunction with another type of study, such
as a toxicity assessment. In such a case, the two studies
have a shared goal: to determine whether adverse
ecological effects correlate with toxicity. To meet this
goal, the studies' objectives should emphasize the need for
integrating sampling plans and coordinating the collection
of data. When sampling for coordinated studies occurs at
the same time and location, and with similar data quality
objectives and levels of precision, the investigator can
more convincingly compare results.
Reference Site
A reference site is a location that closely resembles the
Superfund site in terrain, hydrologic regime, soil types,
vegetation, and wildlife. A well-chosen reference site
provides background conditions, allowing the investigator
to draw conclusions about the ecological effects of
contaminants on the Superfund site. The more closely the
reference site resembles the Superfund site, the more valid
will be the conclusions based on comparisons of the two.
In some cases, no single reference site adequately
approximates the Superfund site. In such a case, the
investigator may need to identify multiple reference sites.
The investigator should try to locate a reference site as
close as possible to the Superfund site so that it will
accurately reflect the conditions prevailing at the
Superfund site. Yet the reference site should lie at a great
enough distance from the Suprerfund site to be outside its
sphere of influence and relatively contaminant-free. For
example, an upstream location often can provide
appropriate reference site conditions for a site with
contaminated surface water. A woodland site used as a
reference site needs to lie at a great enough distance from
the Superfund site that ranges of organisms will not
include both sites. Failure to choose appropriate reference
sites can result in inaccurate conclusions. For example, if
the surface water at the Superfund site consists largely of
soft-bottomed pools, then an area having fast-running
streams with gravel bottoms will not provide an
appropriate comparison. Differences in species
composition and other features at the two sites will, at least
in part, reflect their very different aquatic habitats rather
than contamination at the Superfund site.
In the absence of suitable reference sites, an
investigator may need to turn to historical information
about the site and/or a large database in order to make a
comparison between site conditions and conditions in an
uncontaminated area. If this approach becomes necessary,
March 1994 • Vol. 2, No. 3
ECO Update
-------
the investigator needs to choose a data source that reflects
the site's geologic, hydrologic, and ecological traits as
closely as possible. In making this selection, the
investigator can obtain advice and suggestions from the
BTAG.
A field study performed as part of a
Superfund site's ecological risk
assessment is not a research project.
Endpoints
The identification of endpoints, which are ecological
characteristics that may be adversely affected by site
contaminants, is essential to a successful ecological risk
assessment as a whole and also to each of the studies that
make up this assessment. Ecological risk assessors have
found it useful to recognize two levels as endpoints,
assessment and measurement endpoints. An assessment
endpoint is an explicit expression of the environmental
characteristic that is to be protected (24, 29).12 At a
Superfund site an assessment endpoint is an endpoint that
may drive remedial decision-making. Determining
potential contaminants of concern and potential ecological
components and developing a conceptual model of a site's
contaminant situation generally indicates which ecological
traits are assessment endpoints at a particular site.
A measurement endpoint is an ecological trait that is
closely related to an assessment endpoint and that is, in
addition, readily measurable. A measurement endpoint,
then, is a response that can approximate or represent an
assessment endpoint which is not amenable to direct
measurement. A site's ecological components and
assessment endpoints drive the selection of the
measurement endpoint(s). (See Figure 1.) For example, at
a site where lead is a contaminant of concern and which
has resident species sensitive to lead, the investigator may
identify lead poisoning as an assessment endpoint and one
or more lead-sensitive species as ecological components.
The investigator's choices of measurement endpoints are
then limited to accepted ways of measuring the presence of
lead in organisms or its effects on them.
Table 2 summarizes measurement endpoints for field
studies. Although a field study can focus on one
population, an entire community, or even two or three
communities, as both Table 2 and the following discussion
indicate, measurement endpoints for field studies are much
more than simply "head counts."
12 Numbers in parentheses refer to references listed at the end of this
Bulletin.
Biomass, the total weight of individuals, can be a
measurement endpoint for both populations and
communities. An investigation may measure biomass
directly by weighing collections of some organisms or, for
larger organisms, by weighing individuals and summing
their weights. Alternatively, he or she may use an indirect
method, such as applying length-to-weight regressions to
data detailing the number and length of individuals in a
population, an especially common approach for fishes.
Figure 1. The Relationship Between
Ecological Components,
Assessment Endpoints, and
Measurement Endpoints
In designing a field study, the ecological
components and assessment endpoints
generally drive the selection of measurement
endpoints.
Ecological
Component
\,
\
Measurement
Endpoint
Assessment
Endpoint
Productivity, the rate of increase, is another
measurement endpoint that can apply to both populations
and communities. For plants, the rate of increase in
biomass indicates productivity. For many animals,
investigators take the rate of increase in numbers as the
measure of productivity. Because productivity is a rate,
measurements or estimates must occur at least twice
during growing season. However, investigators can infer
productivity by conducting seed or egg counts or by
studying the age structure of a population. At Superfund
sites, investigators can infer relative productivity by
comparing data from the Superfund site and the reference
site(s).
A common measurement endpoint for terrestrial plant
population is cover, which is the percentage of ground
March 1994 • Vol. 2, No. 3
ECO Update
-------
area that lies beneath the canopy (uppermost branches) of
a tree or shrub species. In evaluating a stand of trees, an
investigator can instead measure basal area, which is the
sum of the cross-sectional area of the trees' trunks.
Some measurement endpoints relate specifically to
community parameters. Species richness is the number of
species in a community. Species density refers to the
number of individuals of a given species per unit area,
while relative abundance is the number of individuals in
a particular species compared to the total number of
individuals. Dominance, in the sense of commonness at a
site, describes a species that occurs in high abundance, as
indicated largely by species density. Diversity relates the
abundance of individuals in one taxon (level of
classification) to the total abundance of individuals in all
other taxa. Evenness measures how evenly distributed
individuals are among the community's taxa. Guild
structure, which refers to the different types of feeding
groups in a community, also can be used to evaluate
community structure.13 A number of similarity and
different indices14 can compare community structure at
Superfund and reference sites.
Another community-level measurement endpoint
concerns indicator species, which are species whose
presence, absence, or population density helps to indicate
whether the environment is contaminated. Some species
are associated with thriving communities, so either
absence or a reduced population can indicate an
ecologically disturbed environment. For example, the
larval stage of insects in the orders Ephemeroptera
(mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera
(caddisflies), referred to collectively as the "EPTs," show
sensitivity to metals and other inorganic contaminants.
Reduced populations of EPTs, then, can indicate toxic
levels of metals or other inorganics in a stream.
Conversely, some species occur in association with a
disturbed habitat, where they dominate or kill native
species weakened by exposure to contaminants. For
example, such plant species as Phragmites and cattails
(Typha) characteristically grow abundantly in disturbed
wetlands. Consequently, dense growth of Phragmites or
cattails indicates that a wetland may have suffered
ecological stress.
Methods
Field studies gather information about the site by
observing organisms, noting signs of an animal species'
presence, or collecting organisms for further study. With
respect to methods, the work plan for a site should include
13 Guilds, also called functional feeding groups, are groups of
animals occupying the same trophic level and feeding either in the same
way or in the same location. For example, among terrestrial plant-eaters
there are five guilds: stem-eaters, root-eaters, leaf-eaters, bud-eaters, and
nectar-sippers.
14 An index is a single number that incorporates information from a
class of data.
detailed instructions for sampling organisms and collecting
the relevant data. This data may include such physical
measurements as the temperature at a sampling site.
Proper methodology ensures that the data collected can be
analyzed and results interpreted.
Observation indicates whether a species occurs at the
site. For vegetation and for animals with limited mobility,
the observer also can note the condition of the organisms.
Investigators need to keep in mind that for more mobile
animals, observation indicates only whether the species
occurs at the site, not what percentage of time it spends
there. Observing organisms can be as straightforward as
walking the site or can involve the use of specialized
equipment, as in remote sensing of terrestrial vegetation.
Remote sensing by such means as infrared or multispectral
photography can prove an effective way of detecting
stressed vegetation at a large site.
The signs of an animal's presence include scat (feces);
burrows, nests, or dens; cast-off larval cases or cocoons;
tracks; and carcasses. Characteristic sounds, such as bird
song, also can reveal an animal's presence and sometimes
provide limited information about relative abundance.
Like direct observation of resident organisms, observation
of animal sign indicates only whether a species occurs at
the site, not the percentage of time it spends there.
Table 2. Measurement Endpoints in Field Studies
Type
Measurement Endpoints
for Populations
Measurement Endpoints
for Communities
Measurement Endpoint
Biomass
Productivity
-Cover (terrestrial vegetation)
-Basal area (terrestrial vegetation)
Biomass
-Productivity and Respiration
(aquatic communities)
-Species richness
-Species density
-Relative abundance
-Dominance
-Diversity
-Evenness
-Similarity/difference between
Superfund site and reference site
-Similarity/difference in guild
structure between Superfund site and
reference site.
-Presence, absence, or population
density of indicator species.
March 1994 • Vol. 2, No. 3
ECO Update
-------
Methods of collecting samples for further study vary
with the kind of organism being studied. A field worker
can catch a fish in a net, capture a mouse in a trap, or sieve
organisms from a soil or sediment sample. Depending on
the species and objectives, once the investigator has
collected the organisms, he or she may make direct
observations and then release them. Alternatively, the
investigator may retain the organisms for further study,
such as analyzing tissues for their contaminant content or
examining them microscopically for indications of
contaminant-related abnormalities.
From among the wide variety of available field
methods, those used at a Superfund site should provide
data at a reasonable cost and within a reasonable
timeframe for that site. They should be readily
reproducible, reliable, and relevant to the site. The BTAG
can assist investigators in selecting methods appropriate to
a site. In choosing a method, investigators also need to be
aware that they should obtain permission from federal and
state fish and wildlife agencies before collecting
vertebrates. Some states also require permits for collecting
certain other organisms.
At sites in the nation's temperate areas, investigators
need to coordinate site studies with seasons. Floristics
surveys and photosynthetic measurements must be
conducted during the growing season. Surveying a
migratory population, such as most bird species, will
require coordination with season. In addition, natality
studies should occur during the warm months, when most
animal species produce young.
The final section of this Bulletin provides additional
information about techniques available for field studies of
different types of populations and communities.
Level of Effort
A site's characteristics, its contaminant picture, and a
proposed field study's objectives together indicate the
level of effort appropriate to carrying out the study. For
example, an objective to identify potentially affected
animal species at a small site with few habitats will require
a lower level of effort than one that specific to the
evaluation of community structure at a large site with
several habitats. The number and nature of ecological
components are endpoints specified by the objectives also
may affect a study's level of effort. As the number of
ecological components and assessment and measurement
endpoints increases, the level of effort generally will
increase. Additionally, some organisms are more difficult
to observe or sample than others, and some measurements
are more difficult to make. For example, collecting insects
usually entails less effort than collecting fish.
In conducting field studies, the level of effort varies
with the sampling method chosen: qualitative, semi-
quantitative, or quantitative (17). Qualitative sampling
which has as its goal to observe or sample as many taxa as
possible in the available time, requires the least effort.
Qualitative sampling attempts to sample all habitats, using
several collection methods at each sample station. Such an
approach can prove useful for a site reconnaissance visit,
with the objective of identifying potentially exposed
ecological components and readily apparent effects.
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol II is an example of a
semi-quantitative, or intermediate-level, sampling method
for benthic macroinvertebrates inhabiting flowing waters
(21). This approach offers a time-saving and cost-effective
means of obtaining information about benthic
macroinvertebrates. In this approach, the field team uses a
net to collect organisms from two approximately one-
square-meter areas, one in a fast-flowing part of the stream
and the other in a slow-flowing area. The organisms are
then enumerated and classified only to family level, which
requires less time than classification to genus or species.
A sub-sample of 100 organisms is then classified
according to guild. An additional sample is collected from
an area with coarse paniculate organic matter, such as a
leafpack or an area near the shore. The organisms in this
sample are classified simply as shredders or non-shredders.
Quantitative sampling uses methods that sample a unit
area or volume of habitat. Generally, these methods are
applied to randomly selected sampling units. As with
semi-quantitative sampling, the organisms collected are
counted and classified.
In deciding on level of effort, investigators should be
aware that limited sampling efforts could provide enough
data for an adequate ecological risk assessment of a
Superfund site. It is true that differences in life cycle
characteristics and diurnal effects do prevent limited
sampling from providing a comprehensive estimate of all
species. However, if field studies at the site sample
enough biota, these kinds of variations will have minimal
effect on the overall assessment.
Sampling Plan
A sampling plan for field study indicates the number of
sampling points, the number of replicates for each
sampling point, the method for determining sampling
locations, holding times for samples, and any sample
preparation required for laboratory analysis. In making
these decisions for an ecological field study, the
investigator needs to consider the study objectives, the
level of effort, the site's soil, the ecological component(s),
the measurement endpoints, the method, the statistical
method of analyzing data, and the available resources. For
example, the approach to statistical analysis will affect
sampling size. If the field study is one of a group of
coordinated studies, then the investigator also needs to
consider whether a particular sampling method can apply
to all the studies in the group.
In general, sampling locations can be selected either
non-randomly or randomly. Qualitative and semi-
quantitative surveys make use of non-random sampling,
taking into account the habitat and mobility of the
March 1994 • Vol. 2, No. 3
ECO Update
-------
organisms and the location of contaminant "hot spots."
For quantitative sampling, investigators generally use
random sampling methods.
When the investigator has decided on the number of
sampling locations and the method of selecting them, he or
she must also decide how many replicate samples to
collect per site. Both the study objectives and the data
quality objectives (discussed below) influence this
decision. While natural variability makes replicate
sampling desirable, for some field studies the sampling
population cannot specify a fixed number of replicates.
For example, field biologists have no control over trapping
success.
Quality Assurance/Quality
(QA/QC) Standards
Control
Quality assurance and quality control standards are an
essential element in the study plan. Included among the
QA/QC considerations are the data quality objectives
(DQOs). These are statements that define the level of
uncertainty that the investigator is willing to accept in
environmental data used to support a remedial decision.
DQOs address the purpose and use of the data, the
resource constraints on data collection, and any
calculations based on the data. In particular, DQOs help
investigators to decide how many samples and replicates to
collect in order to limit uncertainty to an acceptable level.
DQOs also guide decisions about the level of detail
necessary for the study. For example, in field studies
involving certain groups of organisms, such as insects,
DQOs establish the level to which the investigation should
take the identification of organisms. Identification to the
level of family or genus requires less expertise and time
than identification to the level of species. However, the
DQOs may require identification to the species level to
obtain detailed enough information about the site's
ecological condition.
In addition to defining acceptable uncertainty, QA/QC
standards address other concerns:
• Reference sites. As discussed earlier, the investigator
should achieve a careful match between the Superfund
site and one or more reference sites.
• Accurate identification of organisms. The investigator
must identify organisms accurately. A common
means of ensuring the accuracy of identification
involves having the classification of a subset of
organisms verified by independent experts.
• Adherence to sampling plan. Field biologists must
adhere closely to the sampling plan in order to collect
valid data. Consequently, the study's design will need
to incorporate methods for checking how precisely
personnel have followed the sampling plan. For
example, QA/QC standards may require field
biologists to maintain field notebooks and submit
copies of these. Chain of custody documents provide
another means of tracking small collection, transfer,
and analysis.
• Contractor. The contractor selected must have
personnel with the expertise needed to perform the
particular type of field study and interpret the data. In
addition, the contractor must have the necessary
equipment and personnel skilled in its use and
maintenance.
Statistical Analysis of Field Data
In performing statistical analyses of field data from
Superfund sites, two issues require special consideration:
lack of randomness and use of indices.
Lack of Randomness. Neither the Superfund site nor
the reference site is selected randomly. As a result of this
lack of randomness, the investigator must use one of the
following approaches in statistically analyzing differences
between the Superfund site and the reference site:
• The investigator selects sampling stations
randomly at both the Superfund site and the
reference site(s), and then tests the hypothesis that
observed differences between these stations result
from conditions at the stations in the Superfund
site.
• The investigator tests the hypothesis that the
reference site(s) and the Superfund site differ. If
such a difference exists, the investigator then
employs nonstatistical methods to evaluate
whether contamination at the Superfund site
causes this difference.
Use of Indices. A field study can generate a volume of
data too large to be analyzed efficiently. In such a case,
reducing classes of data to a single number, called an
index, simplifies the analysis. Some of the community
traits discussed earlier, including evenness and diversity,
are examples of indices calculated from taxonomic data.
Indices also include biotic indices, which examine the
environmental tolerances or requirements of particular
species or groups of species.
While indices can make field data more manageable,
investigators need to appreciate that indices have
properties that can preclude standard statistical comparison
of results among sampling locations (9). If an ecological
risk assessment makes use of indices, the discussion of
uncertainty needs to address the limitations of the indices
and acknowledge the assumptions that they make.
Field Methods
The following list includes a brief description, by type
of organism, of field methods useful in ecological risk
assessments at Superfund sites. Some methods focus on
ways to collect organisms, while others concern ways to
examine them.
March 1994 • Vol. 2, No. 3
ECO Update
-------
These methods represent only a selection of those
available. In designing a field study, the investigator
should consult the BTAG, which may suggest approaches
not described here. Please note also that this catalogue
includes only methods used in studying biota. For
methodology relating to the study of physical and chemical
characteristics of a site, investigators should consult the
following EPA documents:
• Sampler's Guide to the Contract Laboratory
Program. EPA/540/P-90/006, December 1990.
• Compendium ofERT Surface Water and Sediment
Sampling Procedures. EPA/540/P-91/005, January
1991.
• Compendium of ERT Soil Sampling and Surface
Geophysics Procedures. EPA/540/P-91/006,
January 1991.
• Compendium of ERT Groundwater Sampling
Procedures. EPA/540/P-91/007, January 1991.
• Compendium of ERT Waste Sampling Procedures.
EPA/540/P-91/008, January 1991.
Periphyton
Scraping, coring, or suction. Field studies of
periphyton can involve collecting these organisms from
their natural environment by means of devices that scrape,
core, or use suction (18,30).
Artificial substrate. Materials such as granite, tile,
plastic, and glass can serve as an artificial substrate on
which periphyton communities can develop (18, 30).
Data Analysis. Investigators can study the taxonomic
composition, biomass, species richness, and relative
abundance of periphyton communities from either natural
habitats or artificial substrates. In addition, analysis of
data can yield information about diversity, evenness, and
similarity (18, 30).
Plankton
Trapping, pumping, netting, and using closing
samplers. Samples can be collected from natural
substrates by means of traps, pumps, nets, and closing
samplers such as tubes and bottles (3, 18, 30).
Data Analysis. After identifying the organisms in the
sample investigators can determine species richness,
relative abundance and diversity (18).
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Dredging and digging. Dredging and digging provide
qualitative samples from the natural environment (17, 18).
Stream netting, coring, or sampling with a grab.
Stream netting, coring and sampling with a grab collect
quantitative samples from the natural environment.
Stream netting involves using specialized nets to collect
samples. The Surber and the Hesser are stream nets
commonly used to sample macroinvertebrates in or on
substrate. Some types of stream nets collect
macroinvertebrates drifting in the water column ( a normal
occurrence with benthic macroinvertebrates inhabiting
flowing water). A grab is a sampling device with jaws that
penetrate and extract an area of the substrate (1, 4, 12, 17,
18,21).
Sweep netting. Sweep nets collect qualitative samples
associated with aquatic vegetation (17, 18).
Sampling with other devices. More quantitative
methods of sampling benthic macroinvertebrates
associated with aquatic vegetation involve using either the
Wilding stovepipe or the Maca the Minto, or the
McCauley samplers (17, 18, 21).
Artificial substrate. Communities of benthic macro-
invertebrates can develop on artificial substrates
introduced in the site's water (17, 18, 21).
Data Analysis. Once the sample has been collected,
the investigator can identify the species present and
measure biomass. Further analysis of data can disclose
such parameters as species richness, species density,
diversity, and relative abundance (17, 18, 21).
Fish
Seining. Seines are effective sampling devices for
shallow water such as stream, nearshore areas of lakes, and
shallow marine and estuarine locations. The most
commonly used seines consists of a specialized net
attached to long vertical poles (4, 21, 30).
Trawling. In deeper waters that have no obstructions,
investigators use tapered conical fishing net called a trawl.
A boat pulls the trawl through the water at a specified
depth (18, 21,30).
Passive Netting. For passive netting, the field biologist
attaches a net to the bottom of a river or lake. Fish that
swim into the net become entangled or unable to escape.
Passive nets include gear trammel, and hoop nets (20, 18,
21,30).
Electrofishing. This technique which applies an
electrical charge to a small area in a body of water
momentarily immobilizing fish. Electrofishing is effective
for sampling fish in streams, rivers, and lakes (18, 21, 30).
Chemical collection. This specialized technique
involves exposing the animals to fish toxicants (21).
Investigators should familiarize themselves with state
regulations regarding the use of these substances. While
use of such chemicals is a standard procedure, this method
is not preferred because of its negative effects.
Fish tissue collection. Methods for collecting fish
tissue are described in References 25, 27, and 28.
March 1994 • Vol. 2, No. 3
10
ECO Update
-------
Data analysis. Once the investigator has identified the
fish, he or she can determine such measurement endpoints
as relative abundance and species richness (18, 21, 30).
Terrestrial Vegetation
The methods described for terrestrial vegetation work
equally well for upland and wetland areas. This is true
even though in wetlands, by definition, the prevailing
vegetation is typically adapted to saturated soil conditions.
Remote sensing. Remote sensing, which uses either
satellite imagery or aerial photography, is useful when
contamination of a site has resulted in restricted access or
when initial site reconnaissance requires surveys of large
areas. The technique provides information about general
landscape patterns, gross features of the vegetation, and
photosynthetic rates. Infrared and multispectral remote
sensing also can be used to identify and map areas of
stressed vegetation (13). Usually, some limited ground-
level survey (ground-truthing) is required to verify
identification of species and condition.
Quadrats and transects. Quadrats and transects are
often used in vegetation survey and sampling methods to
provide a more quantitative approach to collecting data.
Quadrats are closed sampling units or plots. Transects
consist of belts, strips, or lines used as a sampling unit.
Both methods define precise, isolated areas for sampling,
recording, mapping, or studying organisms within a larger
area. Both methods allow investigators to estimate
characteristics such as cover, species frequency, and
density (2, 10).
Point method. The point method estimates cover using
sampling points (2, 10).
Distance methods. Distance methods provide a means
of estimating coverage and species density in forests,
which would require large quadrants to sample trees
adequately. There are several different versions of
distance methods but in general the methods are based on
measuring distances between random points and the
sampled plants, or between individual plants (2, 10).
Soil Fauna
Coring. Field biologists collect samples by coring
devices (23).
Driving organisms from soil sample. Heat, moisture,
or chemical stimuli drive the organisms from the soil into
collection chambers (23).
Sieving. Sieving can be used to retrieve the fauna from
the soil. Dry sieving separates soil fauna from fallen
leaves and friable soil. Wet sieving, also called soil
washing, is used to extract organisms from fine mud,
sediments, and leaf litter (23).
Density separation. Floatation, centrifugation, and
sedimentation separate organisms from soil on the basis of
density (23).
Data analysis. After the investigator has identified the
organisms, he or she can determine parameters that
characterize the community.
Terrestrial and Flying Insects
Trapping. Traps can be used to collect insects of
particular species, groups of species, insects at specific life
stages, or insects with specific behaviors. Trapping
methods include the use of attractant chemicals, light,
hosts, host substitutes, and insect sounds. Traps include
emergence, pitfall, and sticky traps, to name a few (23).
The type of trap used affects both the range of species
collected and the types of data collected. When collecting
several kinds of insects, the investigator can determine
such measurement endpoints as species diversity (23).
Sign. Frass (feces), nests, cast-off larval cases or
cocoons, and auditory signals indicate the presence of
particular insects (23).
Amphibians, Reptiles, and Mammals
Auditory and visual study. Visual studies can
determine the presence of species on a site. In addition,
sounds can indicate the presence of certain amphibians and
mammals (19, 22).
Sign. Tracks, nests, burrows, dens, scat, or carcasses
indicate which species occur on a site (19, 22).
Trapping. Traps and nets can provide more
quantitative means of sampling, and depending on the
breadth of the study, allow an investigator to determine
population and/or community parameters relative to the
reference site. Trapping methods include both live traps
and kill traps. Depending on the study objectives, the
investigator either makes observations on live-trapped
animals and leases them or retains the animals for further
study (5, 6, 7, 19).
Tissue collection. Methods for collecting tissues are
described in Reference 26.
Birds
Auditory and visual studies. Ornithologists identify the
species at a site by walking specified areas or distances
(e.g., along a transect) and record birds sighted or
identified through their songs (5).
Nest success. The evaluation of nest success on the
basis of measures such as clutch size and number of
fledglings is practical only for very large Superfund sites
(7).
Trapping. Not practical for most Superfund sites, a
variety of traps and nets can be used to capture birds (6).
March 1994 • Vol. 2, No. 3
11
ECO Update
-------
Field Studies: Their Contribution
As the previous sections of this Bulletin indicate, field
studies can contribute to all phases of the ecological risk
assessment of a Superfund site and in a variety of ways.
Specifically, a well designed field study can allow
investigators to:
• Identify and describe the habitats and species
(including those of special concern) actually or
potentially exposed to waste site contaminants.
• Indicate detrimental ecological effects that may
have occurred on or near the site.
• Provide information adding to the weight of
evidence linking adverse effects to the site's
contaminants.
• Provide samples for biomarker studies, such as
bioaccumulation studies, biochemical analyses,
and histopathological studies.15
• Aid in identifying remedial alternatives that are
protective of natural resources.
• Assist in monitoring remediation effectiveness.
Investigators should consult with their Region's BTAG
to determine whether and when to conduct field studies
and to select the studies most appropriate to their sites.
References
1. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).
1988. Annual Book of ASTM Standards: Water and
Environmental Technology, Vol. 11.04. American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
2. Harbour, M.G., J.H. Burk and W.D. Pitts. 1980.
Terrestrial Plant Ecology. The Benjamin/Cummings
Publishing company, Inc., Reading, MA.
3. Bloesch, J. (Editor). 1988. Mesocosm Studies.
Hydrobiologia 159:221-313. W. Junk, Publishers,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
4. Coull, B.C. 1980. Shallow Water Marine Biological
Research. Pages 275-284 in P.P. Diemer, FJ.
Vernberg and D.Z. Mirkes (Editors). Ocean
Measurements for Marine Biology. University of
South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC.
5. Davis, D.E. and R.L. Winstead. 1980. Estimating the
Numbers of Wildlife Populations. Pages 221-245 in
S.D. Schemnitz (Editor). Wildlife Management
Techniques Manual. Fourth Edition. The Wildlife
Society, Washington, DC.
15 A biomarker is a physiological, biochemical, or histological
response that is measured in individual organisms and that indicates
either exposure or sub-lethal stress.
6. Day, G.I., S.D. Schemnitz and R.D. Taber. 1980.
Capturing and Marking Wild Animals. Pages 61-88 in
S.D. Schemnitz (Editor). Wildlife Management
Techniques Manual. Fourth Edition. The Wildlife
Society, Washington, DC.
7. Downing, R.L. 1980. Vital Statistics of Animal
Populations. Pages 247-267 in S.D. Schemnitz
(Editor). Wildlife Management Techniques Manual.
Fourth Edition. The Wildlife Society, Washington,
DC.
8. Escherich, P. and D. Rosenburger. 1987. Guidance on
Use of Habitat Evaluation Procedures and Habitat
Suitability Index Models for CERCLA Applications.
U.S. Department of the Interior, CERCLA 301
Project, Washington, DC.
9. Greig-Smith, P. 1983. Quantitative Plant Ecology.
Third Edition. University of California Press,
Berkeley, CA.
10. Green, R.H. 1979. Sampling Design and Statistical
Methods for Environmental Biologists. J. Wiley and
Sons, New York, NY.
11. Hair, J.D. 1980. Measurement of Ecological Diversity.
Pages 269-275 in S.D. Schemnitz (Editor). Wildlife
Management Techniques Manual. Fourth Edition. The
Wildlife Society, Washington, DC.
12. Hess, A.D. 1941. New Limnological Sampling
Equipment. Limnol Soc. Amer. Spec. Pub I. 6:1-5.
13. Kapustka, L.A. 1989. Vegetation Assessment. Section
8.3 in Warren-Hicks, W., B.R. Parkhurst, and S.S.
Baker Jr. (Editors). Ecological Assessment of
Hazardous Waste Sites: A Field and Laboratory
Reference. EPA/600/3-89/013. Environmental
Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Corvallis, OR.
14. Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of Biotic Integrity Using
Fish Communities. Fisheries 6:21-27.
15. Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L Angermeier, P.R. Yant,
and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing Biological
Integrity in Running Waters: Method and Its
Rationale. Illinois Natural Historical Survey, Special
publ. No. 5.
16. Kirkpatrick, R.L. 1980. Physiological Indices in
Wildlife Mangement. Pages 99-112 in S.D. Schemnitz
(Editor) Wildlife Management Techniques Manual.
Fourth Edition. The Wildlife Society, Washington,
DC.
17. Klemm, D.J., P.A. Lewis, F. Fulk, and J.M.
Lazorchak. 1990. Macroinvertebrate Field and
Laboratory Methods for Evaluating the Biological
Integrity of Surface Waters. EPA/600/4-90/030.
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory—
Cincinnati, Office of Modeling, Monitoring Systems,
March 1994 • Vol. 2, No. 3
12
ECO Update
-------
and Quality Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Cincinnati, OH.
18. LaPoint, T.W. and J.F. Fairchild. 1989. Aquatic
Surveys Section 8.2 in Warren-Hicks, W., B.R.
Parkhurst, and S.S. Baker Jr. (Editors). Ecological
Assessment of Hazardous Waste Sites: A Field and
Laboratory Reference. EPA/600/3-89/013.
Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR.
19. McBee, K. 1989. Field Surveys: Terrestrial Vertebrate
Section 8.4 in Warren-Hicks, W., B.R. Parkhurst, and
S.S. Baker Jr. (Editors). Ecological Assessment of
Hazardous Waste Sites: A Field and Laboratory
Reference. EPA/600/3-89/013. Environmental
Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
20. Nielsen, L.A. and D.L. Johnson (Editors). 1983.
Fishing Techniques. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, MD.
21. Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross,
and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols for Studies in Streams and Rivers: Benthic
Macroinvertebrates and Fish. EPA/600/4-89/001.
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division,
Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Corvallis, OR.
22. Smith, R.L. 1966. Ecology and Field Biology. Harper
and Row, New York, NY.
23. Southwood, T.R.E. 1978. Ecological Methods: With
Particular Reference to the Study of Insect
Populations. Second Edition. John Wiley and Sons,
New York, NY.
24. Suter, G. 1989. Ecological Endpoints. Chapter 2 in
Warren-Hicks, W., B.R. Parkhurst, and S.S. Baker Jr.
(Editors). Ecological Assessment of Hazardous Waste
Sites: A Field and Laboratory Reference. EPA/600/3-
89/013. Environmental Research Laboratory, Office
of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR.
25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1981. Interim
Methods for the Sampling and Analysis of Priority
Pollutants in Sediments and Fish Tissue. EPA/600/4-
81/055. Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1982. Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste:
Physical/Chemical Methods. SW-A46. 2nd edition.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Washington, DC.
27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990.
Analytical Procedures and Quality Assurance Plan for
the Determination of PCDD/PCDF in Fish.
EPA/600/3-90/022. Environmental
Laboratory, Duluth, MN.
Research
28. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990.
Analytical Procedures and Quality Assurance Plan for
the Determination of Xenobiotic Contaminants in
Fish. EPA/600/3-90/023. Environmental Research
Laboratory, Duluth, MN.
29. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992.
Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment.
EPA/630/R-92/001. Risk Assessment Forum,
Washington, DC.
30. Weber, C.I. (Editor). 1973. Biological Field and
Laboratory Methods for Measuring the Quality of
Surface Waters and Effluents. EPA/67/4-73-001.
National Environmental Research Center, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
Additional Print Resources Available
from the Federal Government
Adamus, P.R. etal. 1991. Wetland Evaluation Technique.
Vol. I: Literature Review and Evaluation Rationale.
Technical Report WRP-DE-2. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
Baker, B. andM. Kravitz. 1992. Sediment Classification
Methods Compendium. EPA/823/R-92/006. U.S. EPA
Office of Water.
Beyer, W.N. 1990. Evaluating Soil Contamination.
Biological Report 90(2). U.S. Department of Interior.
Fletcher, J. and H. Ratsch. 1990. Plant Tier Testing: A
Workshop to Evaluate Nontarget Plant Testing in
Subdivision J Pesticide Guidelines. EPA/600/9-91/041.
Linder, G. et al. 1992. Evaluation of Terrestrial Indicators
for Use in Ecological Assessments at Hazardous Waste
Sites. EPA/600/R-92/183. Office of Research and
Development, ERL-Corvallis, OR.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Guidance
for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility
Studies under CERCLA. EPA/540/G-89/004.
March 1994 • Vol. 2, No. 3
13
ECO Update
-------
U.S. EPA Regional BTAG Coordinators/Contacts
EPA Headquarters
Ruth Bleyler
Toxics Integration Branch
(OS-230)
OERR/HSED
USEPA
Washington, DC 20460
(703) 603-8816
(703) 603-9104 FAX
David Charters
ERT
U.S EPA(MS-lOl)
2890 Woodbridge Ave.
Bldg. 18
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
(908) 906-6826
(908) 906-6724 FAX
Steve Ellis
Elaine Suriano
OWPE
U.S. EPA(OS-510)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-9803
(202) 260-3106 FAX
Joseph Tieger
U.S. EPA(OS-510W)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 308-2668
REGION 1
Susan Svirsky
Waste Management Division
U.S. EPA Region 1
(HSS-CAN7)
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 573-9649
(617) 573-9662 FAX
REGION 2
Sharri Stevens
Surveillance Monitoring
Branch
U.S. EPA Region 2
(MS-220)
Woodbridge Avenue
Raritan Depot Building 209
Edison, NJ 08837
(908) 906-6994
(908) 321-6616 FAX
REGION 3
Robert Davis
Technical Support Section
U.S. EPA Region 3 (3HW13)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-3155
(215) 597-9890 FAX
REGION 4
Lynn Wellman
WSMD/HERAS
U.S. EPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-1586
(404) 347-0076 FAX
REGION 5
Eileen Helmer
U.S. EPA Region 5
(5HSM-TUB7)
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604-1602
(312) 886-4828
(312) 886-7160 FAX
REGION 6
Jon Rauscher
Susan Swenson Roddy
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6H-SR)
First Interstate Tower
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 655-8513
(214) 655-6762 FAX
REGION 7
Bob Koke
SPFD-REML
U.S. EPA Region 7
726 Minnesoata Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7468
(913) 551-7063 FAX
REGION 8
Gerry Hennington
U.S. EPA Region 8
Denver Place, Suite 500
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2405
(303) 294-7656
(303) 293-1230 FAX
REGION 9
Doug Steele
U.S. EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-2309
(415) 744-1916 FAX
REGION 10
Bruce Duncan
U.S. EPA Region 10
(ES-098)
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-8086
(206) 553-0119 FAX
------- |