5480
DRAFT
July 5, 1983
Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria
for Che Protection of Aquatic Life and Its Uses
by
Charles E. Stephan3, Donald I. Mount*, David J. Hansen ,
John H. Gentilec, Gary A. Chapman**, and William A. Brungsc
a U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, Minnesota
b U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, Florida
c U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Narragansett, Rhode Island
d U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon
-------
DRAFT
July 5, 1983
Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria
for the Protection of Aquatic Life and Its Uses
by
Charles E. Stephan3, Donald I. Mounta, David J. Hansen ,
John H. Gentilec, Gary A. Chapman**, and William A. Brungsc
a U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, Minnesota
b U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, Florida
c U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Narragansett, Rhode Island
d U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon
-------
CONTENTS
Executive Summary 1
Introduction ^
1. Definition of material of concern 18
II. Collection of data 20
III. Required data 21
IV. Final Acute Value 25
V. Final Acute Equation 31
VI. Final Chronic Value 34
VII. Final Chronic Equation 40
VIII. Final Plant Value 42
IX. Final Residue Value 43
X. Other Data 48
XI. Criterion 49
XII. Final Review 50
References 52
Appendix 1. Resident North American Species of Aquatic Animals Used
in Toxicity Tests 54
Appendix 2. Example Calculation of Final Acute Value, Computer
Program, and Printouts 82
U,S. Environmental Protection Agency
ii
-------
-1-
Executive Summary
Derivation of numerical national water quality criteria for the
protection of aquatic life and its uses is a complex process (Figure 1) that
uses information from many areas of aquatic toxicology. After a decision is
made that a national criterion is needed for a particular material, all
available information concerning toxicity to, and bioaccumulation by, aquatic
organisms is collected, reviewed for acceptability, and sorted. If enough
acceptable information is available, the data on acute toxicity to aquatic
animals are used to estimate the maximum concentration which will not cause
unacceptable toxicity during a 96-hour exposure. If justified, this maximum
concentration is made a function of a water quality characteristic such as
pH, salinity, or hardness. Similarly, data on the chronic toxicity of the
material to aquatic animals are used to estimate the highest concentration
which will not cause unacceptable toxicity during a long-term exposure. If
appropriate, this concentration is also related to a water quality
characteristic. For most materials the concentrations which cause acute and
chronic toxicity can be usefully related to each other by means of an
experimentally determined acute-chronic ratio.
Data on toxicity to aquatic plants usually indicate that concentrations
which will not cause unacceptable effects on animals will also not
unacceptably affect plants. Data on bioaccumulation by aquatic organisms are
used to determine if residues might subject some important species to
restrictions by the Food and Drug Administration or if such residues might
harm some wildlife consumers of aquatic life. All other available data are
examined for adverse effects that might be biologically important.
-------
-2-
If a thorough review of the pertinent information indicates that enough
acceptable data are available, numerical national water quality criteria are
derived for fresh water or salt water or both to protect aquatic life and its
uses from unacceptable effects due to exposures to high concentrations for
short periods of time, average concentrations over long periods of time, and
combinations of the two.
-------
-4-
Introduction
Of the several possible forms of criteria, the numerical form is the
most common, but the narrative (e.g., pollutants must not be present in
harmful concentrations) and operational (e.g., concentrations of pollutants
must not exceed one-tenth of the 96-hr LCSO) forma can be used if numerical
criteria are not possible or desirable. If it were feasible, a freshwater or
saltwater numerical aquatic life national criterion for a material should be
determined by conducting field tests on a wide variety of unpolluted bodies
of fresh or salt water. It would be necessary to expose each body of water
to various concentrations of the material in order to determine the highest
concentration that would not cause an unacceptable long-term or short-term
effect on the aquatic life or its uses. The lowest of these highest
concentrations would become the freshwater or saltwater national aquatic life
water quality criterion for that material, unless one or more of the lowest
concentrations were judged to be outliers. Because it is not feasible to
determine national criteria by conducting field tests, these Guidelines for
Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Aquatic Life and Its Uses (hereinafter referred to as the National
Guidelines) describe an objective, internally consistent, and appropriate way
of estimating national criteria.
Because aquatic life can tolerate some stress and occasional adverse
effects, protection of all species all of the time was not deemed necessary.
If acceptable data were available for a large number of appropriate taxa from
a variety of taxonomic and functional groups, a reasonable level of
protection would probably be provided if all except a small fraction were
-------
-5-
protected, unless a commercially, recreationally, or socially important
species was very sensitive. The small fraction was set at 0.05 because other
fractions resulted in criteria that seemed too high or too low in comparison
with the sets of data from which they were calculated. Use of 0.05 to
calculate a Final Acute Value does not imply that this percentage of
adversely affected taxa should be used to decide in & field situation whether
a criterion is too high or too low or just right,
Determining the validity of a criterion derived for a particular body of
water, possibly by modification of a national criterion to reflect local
conditions [1], should be based on an operational definition of "protection
of aquatic life and its uses" that takes into account the practicalities of
field monitoring programs and the concerns of the public. Monitoring
programs should contain sampling points at enough times and places that all
unacceptable changes, whether caused by direct or indirect effects, will be
detected. The programs should adequately monitor the kinds of species of
concern to the public, i.e., fish in fresh water and fish and
raacroinvertebrates in salt water. Unfortunately, in some situations the
kinds of species of concern cannot be adequately monitored at a reasonable
cost and so appropriate surrogate species must be monitored. The kinds of
species most likely to be good surrogates are those that either (a) are a
major food of the desired kinds of species or (b) utilize the same food as
the desired species or (c) both. A major adverse effect on appropriate
surrogate species will result in an unacceptable effect on the kinds of
species of concern to the public or will indicate the strong probability of
such an effect.
-------
-6-
To be acceptable to the public and useful in field situations,
protection of aquatic life and its uses should be defined as prevention of
unacceptable long-term and short-term effects on CD fcotttnerdally,
recreationally, and socially important species and (2) (a) fish and benthic
invertebrate assemblages in rivers and streams, and (b) fish, benthic
invertebrate, and zooplankton assemblages in lakes, reservoirs, estuaries,
and oceans. To be able to detect unacceptable effects, each monitoring
program should be tailored to the body of water of concern so that sampling
points occur at enough times and places to provide adequate data on the
populations of important species, as well as data directly related to the
reasons for their being considered important, for example, species that are
important because they are consumed should be monitored for residues harming
wildlife predators, exceeding FDA action levels, or causing flavor impair-
ment. The monitoring program should also provide data on the number of taxa
and number of individuals in the above-named assemblages that can be sampled
at reasonable cost. The amount of decrease in the number of taxa or number
of individuals in an assemblage that should be considered unacceptable should
take into account appropriate features of the body of water and its aquatic
community. However, most monitoring programs can only detect decreases of
more than 20 percent, and so any statistically significant decrease should
usually be considered unacceptable. The insensitivity of most monitoring
programs greatly limits their usefulness for studying the validity of
criteria because unacceptable changes can occur and not be detected.
Therefore, although even limited field studies can sometimes demonstrate that
criteria are too high, only very extensive, high quality field studies can
reliably demonstrate that criteria do not allow unacceptable effects to
occur.
-------
-7-
If the purpose of water quality criteria were to protect only
commercially and recreationally important species, criteria specifically
derived to protect such species and their uses from direct adverse effects of
a material would probably, for most materials, also protect those species
from adverse effects due to effects of the material on the food chain. In
most situations either the food chain would be more resistant than the
important species and their uses or the important species and their food
chains would be adaptable enough to overcome effects of a material on
portions of the food chains.
These National Guidelines have been developed ots the theory that effects
which occur on a species in appropriate laboratory tests will generally occur
on the same species in comparable field situations „ All North American
bodies of water and resident aquatic species and their uses are meant to be
taken into account, except for & few that may be too atypical, such as the
Great Salt Lake, brine shrimp, and the siscowet subspecies of lake trout
which occurs in Lake Superior and contains up to 67% fat in the fillets [2].
Derivation of criteria specifically for the Great Salt Lake or Lake Superior
would probably have to take brine shrimp and siseowet, respectively, into
account.
Numerical aquatic life criteria derived using ehese National Guidelines
are expressed as two numbers, rather Chan the traditional one number, so that
the criteria can more accurately reflect toxicological and practical
realities. The combination of a maximum concentration and an average
concentration is designed to provide adequate protection of aquatic life and
its uses from acute and chronic toxicity to animals, toxicity to plants, and
bioaccumulation by aquatic organisms without being as restrictive as a
-------
-8-
one-number criterion would have to be in order to provide the same degree of
protection. In order to provide the same degree of protection with a
one-number criterion the average would have to be used as a concentration
that is not to be exceeded at any time or place.
This two-number criterion is intended to identify the highest average
concentration which will produce a water quality generally suited to the
maintenance of aquatic Life and its uses while restricting the extent and
duration of excursions over the average so that the total exposure will not
cause unacceptable effects. Merely specifying an average concentration over
a period of time is insufficient, unless the period of time is rather short,
because concentrations higher than the average value can kill or cause
substantial damage in short periods. Furthermore, short exposures to high
concentrations of some materials are cumulative and some exposures cause
delayed adverse effects. It is therefore necessary to place an upper limit
on concentrations to which aquatic life might be exposed. These Guidelines
describe principles for using toxicological information and a format for
expressing aquatic life criteria so that any allowed exposure, whether
constant or fluctuating, would probably not cause unacceptable harm to
aquatic life or its uses, whereas any disallowed exposure would probably
cause unacceptable harm.
The use of a maximum concentration and an average concentration is not
an attempt to specify a format for standards, permits or monitoring programs.
Appropriate formats for these probably should take into account, on a case by
case basis, such things as the ratio of the two concentrations, the flow rate
and average retention time of the discharge, the flow rate of the receiving
-------
-9-
water, the size of the mixing zone, and the range of sensitivities of the
aquatic species.
Criteria produced by these Guidelines are intended to be useful for
developing water quality standards, mixing zone standards, effluent
standards, etc. The development of standards, however, may have to take into
account additional factors such as social, legal, economic, and hydrological
considerations, the environmental and analytical chemistry of the material,
the extrapolation from laboratory data to field situations, and the
relationship between the species for which data are available and the species
in the body of water of concern. As an intermediate step in the development
of standards, it may be desirable to derive site-specific criteria by
modification of national criteria to reflect local conditions [!}. In
addition, with appropriate modifications these National Guidelines can be
used to derive criteria for any specific geographical area, body of water
(such as the Great Salt Lake), or group of similar bodies of water, if
adequate information is available concerning the effects of the material of
concern on appropriate species and their uses.
A common belief is that national criteria ere based on "worst case"
assumptions and that local considerations will raise, but not lower,
criteria. For example, it will usually be assumed that if the concentration
of a material in a body of water is lower than the national criterion, no
unacceptable effects will occur and no site-specific criterion needs to be
derived. If, however, the concentration of a material in a body of water is
higher than the national criterion, the usual assumption will probably be
that a site-specific criterion should be derived. In order to prevent the
assumption of the "worst case" nature of national criteria from resulting in
-------
-10-
the underprotection of too many bodies of water, the national criteria must
protect alL or almost all bodies of water. Thus if bodies of water and the
aquatic communities in them do differ substantially in their sensitivities to
a material, national criteria will be at least somewhat overprotective for a
majority of the bodies of water. To do otherwise would (a) require
derivation of site-specific criteria even if the site-specific concentration
were substantially below the national criterion or (b) cause the "worst case"
assumption to result in the underprotection of numerous bodies of water. On
the other hand, national criteria are probably underprotective of some bodies
of water. Even if national criteria are overprotective (or underprotective),
effluent limitations based on national criteria may be underprotective (or
overprotective) because of how they take into account the flow rates of the
effluent and the receiving water, the concentrations of the material in the
effluent and the receiving water, and the variability in all four.
The two factors that will probably cause the most difference between
national and site-specific criteria are the species that will be exposed and
the characteristics of the water. Thus if the required data for the national
criteria include some species which are sensitive to many materials and if
the national criteria are specifically based on tests conducted in water
relatively low in particulate matter and organic matter, the national
criteria will be purposely designed to adequately protect most bodies of
water using the two factors that will usually be considered in the derivation
of site-specific criteria from national criteria.
Even so, some local conditions may require that site-specific criteria
be lower than national criteria. Some untested important local species may
be more sensitive than the most sensitive species used in deriving the
-------
-11-
national criterion, and local water quality may not.reduce the toxicity of
the material. In addition, aquatic life in field situations may be stressed
by diseases, parasites, predators, other pollutants, contaminated or
insufficient food, and fluctuating and extreme conditions of flow, water
quality, and temperature. Further; some materials may degrade to more toxic
materials, or some community functions or species interactions may be
adversely affected by concentrations lower than those that affect individual
species.
Criteria should attempt to provide a reasonable and adequate amount of
protection with only a small possibility of considerable overprotection or
underprotection. It is not enough that a criterion be the best estimate that
can be obtained using available data; it is equally important that a
criterion be derived only if adequate appropriate data are available to
provide reasonable confidence that it is a good estimate. Thus these
Guidelines require that certain data should be available if a criterion is to
be derived. If all of the required data are not available, usually a
criterion should not be derived. On the other hand, availability of all the
required data does not always ensure that a criterion can be derived.
Because fresh water and salt water have basically different chemical
compositions and because freshwater and saltwater (i.e., estuarine and true
marine) species rarely inhabit the same water simultaneously, these National
Guidelines provide for the derivation of separate criteria for these two
kinds of water. For some materials sufficient data may not be available to
allow derivation of criteria for one or both kinds of water. Even though
absolute toxicities may be different in fresh and salt waters, such relative
data as acute-chronic ratios and bioconcentration factors often appear to be
-------
-12-
similar in the two waters. When data are available to indicate that such
relative data are probably similar, they are used interchangeably.
The material for which a criterion is desired is usually defined in
terms of a particular chemical compound or ion, or a closely related group of
compounds or ions, but it might possibly be defined in terms of an effluent,
although toxicity tests on a specific effluent should probably be conducted
in the receiving water. These Guidelines might also be useful for deriving
criteria for temperature, dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, pH, etc., if
the kinds of data on which the Guidelines are based are available.
Because they are meant to be applied only after a decision has been made
that a national water quality criterion for aquatic life is needed for a
material, these Guidelines do not address the rationale for making that
decision. If the potential for adverse effects on aquatic life and its uses
is part of the basis for deciding whether an aquatic life criterion is needed
for a material, these Guidelines may be helpful in the collection and
interpretation of relevant data. Such properties as volatility affect the
fate of a material in the aquatic environment and may be important when
determining whether a criterion is needed for a material; for example,
aquatic life criteria may not be needed for materials that are highly
volatile or highly degradable in water. Although such properties will affect
how much of the material will get from the point of discharge through any
allowed mixing zone to some portion of the ambient water and will also affect
the size of the zone of influence in the ambient water, such properties do
not affect how much of the material aquatic life can tolerate in the zone of
influence.
-------
-13-
Th is version of the National Guidelines provides clarifications,
additional details, and technical and editorial changes from the last version
published in the Federal^ Register [3]. These modifications are the result of
comments on previous versions, experience gained during the U.S. EPA's use of
the previous versions, and advances in aquatic toxicology and related fields.
Future versions will incorporate new concepts and data as their usefulness is
demonstrated. The major technical changes incorporated into this version of
the National Guidelines are:
1. The acute data required for freshwater animals has been changed to
include more tests with invertebrate species. The taxoraomic, functional,
and probably the toxicological, diversity among invertebrate species is
greater than that among vertebrate species and this should be reflected
in the required data.
2. The Final Acute Value is now defined in terms of Family Mean Acute Values
rather than Speciee Mean Acute Values. A Family Mean Acute Value is the
geometric mean of all the Species Mean Acute Values available for species
in the family. On the average, species within a family are toxicolo-
gicaily much more similar than species in different families, and so the
use of Family Mean Acute Values will prevent data seta from being biased
by an overabundance of species in one or a few families.
3. The Final Acute Value is now calculated using a method [4] that is not
subject to the bias and anomalous behavior that the previous method was.
The new method is also less influenced by one very low value because it
always gives equal weight to the four values that provide the most
information about the cumulative probability of 0.05. Although the four
-------
-14-
values receive the most weight, the other values still have a significant
effect on the Final Acute Value (see examples in Appendix 2).
4. In order to limit (a) the average concentration, (b) the duration of
excursions over the average, and (c) the extent of excursion over the
average, the criterion consists of two numbers - the criterion average
concentration and the criterion maximum concentration.
a. The criterion average concentration is now used as a 30-day average,
rather than as a 24-hour average. Thirty days was chosen because it
appeared to be a reasonable compromise between the lengths of the
life spans of, and chronic tests with, a variety of species. Whether
used as a 24-hour average or as a 30-day average, the criterion
average concentration may exist indefinitely, but averaging over a
30-day period provides more flexibility for dealing with fluctuating
concentrations.
b. Excursions over the average are limited to allow only one episode of
acute toxicity in any 30 days. Because the vast majority of acute
toxicity tests with aquatic organisms last 96 hours, the cumulative
duration of excursions above the criterion average concentration is
limited to 96 hours in any 30 consecutive days. Allowing 96 hours
of excursion every 30 days should provide a reasonable amount of
flexibility for dealing with fluctuating concentrations without
allowing unacceptable harm to aquatic life.
c. Instead of being equal to the Final Acute Value, the criterion
maximum concentration is now obtained by dividing the Final Acute
Value by 2. The Final Acute Value is intended to protect 95 percent
of a group of diverse species, unless an important species is more
-------
-15-
sensitive. However, a concentration that would severely harm 50
percent of the fifth percentiie or 50 percent of & sensitive
important species cannot be considered to be protective of that
percentiie or that species, especially because this concentration may
exist for 96 hours on twelve different occasions every year.
Dividing the Final Acute Value by 2 is intended to result in a
concentration that will not severely adversely affect too many of the
organisms.
This new format for numerical water quality criteria is intended to be a
straightforward use of the data that are generally available concerning
the effects of a material on aquatic life and its uses. This format is
intended to be the most appropriate use of the generally available data
to provide reasonable criteria for situations of long-term, nearly
constant, continuous exposure while also providing reasonable
flexibility and protection for situations of fluctuating concentrations,
including intermittent exposures. Certainly many species can probably
tolerate higher concentrations for less than 96 hours than they can for
96 hours. On the other hand, shorter exposures to higher concentrations
are probably more likely to cause delayed effects than 96-hour exposures
to lower concentrations. Because of the great variety among aquatic
species, it seems appropriate to make only limited extrapolations of the
available data. The lengths of the time periods (96 hours and 30 days)
are related to the lengths of many acute and chronic tests, whereas the
numerical values of the criterion maximum concentration and the
criterion average concentration are based on the known sensitivities of
a variety of species to the material of concern.
-------
-16-
5. The preferred duration for acute testa with all species of aquatic
animals is 96 hours, although tests as short as 48 hours are acceptable
for freshwater cladocerans and midges, and for embryos and larvae of
saltwater barnacles, bivalve molluscs, sea urchins, lobsters, crabs,
shrimps and abalones. Use of the results of acute tests for deriving
water quality criteria is facilitated if all acute tests are of the same
duration. When necessary, teat organisms must be fed to prevent
cannibalism or stress due to starvation.
6. When available, 96-hour EC50 values based on the percentage of organisms
immobilized plus the percentage of organisms killed are used instead of
96-hour LC50 values for fish; comparable EC50 values are used instead of
LC50 values for other species. Such appropriately defined EC50 values
better reflect the total severe acute adverse impact of the test material
on the test species than LC50 values or narrowly defined BC50 values.
Acute EC50 values that are based on effects that are not severe, such as
reduction in shell deposition and reduction in growth, are not used.
7. The requirements for using the results of tests with aquatic plants have
been made more stringent.
In addition, Appendix 1 was added to aid in determining whether a species
should be considered resident in North America and its taxonomic
classification. Appendix 2 gives help in the calculation of a Final Acute
Value.
The amount of guidance in these National Guidelines has been increased,
but much of the guidance is necessarily qualitative rather than quantitative;
much judgment will usually be required to derive a water quality criterion
for aquatic life. In addition, although this version of the National
-------
-17-
Guidelines attempts to cover all major questions that have arisen during use
of previous versions, it undoubtedly does not cover all situations that might
occur in the future. All necessary decisions should be based on a thorough
knowledge of aquatic toxicology and an understanding of these Guidelines and
should be consistent with the spirit of these Guidelines—which is to make
best use of the available data to derive the most appropriate criterion.
These National Guidelines should be modified whenever sound scientific
evidence indicates that a national criterion produced using these Guidelines
would probably be significantly overprotective or underprotective of the
presence and uses of aquatic life on a national basis. Derivation of
national water quality criteria for aquatic life is & complex process and
requires knowledge in many areas of aquatic toxicology; any modification of
these Guidelines should be carefully considered to ensure that it is
consistent with other parts of these Guidelines.
-------
-18-
I. Definition of material of concern.
A. Each separate chemical that does not ionize significantly in most
natural bodies of water should usually be considered a separate
material, except possibly for structurally similar organic
compounds that only exist in large quantities as commercial
mixtures of the various compounds and apparently have similar
biological, chemical, physical, and toxicological properties.
B. For chemicals that do ionize significantly in most natural bodies
of water (e.g., some phenols and organic acids, some salts of
phenols and organic acids, and most inorganic salts and
coordination complexes of metals), all forms that would be in
chemical equilibrium should usually be considered one material.
Each different oxidation state of a metal and each different
nonionizable covalently bonded organometallic compound should
usually be considered a separate material.
C. The definition of the material should include an operational
analytical component. Identification of a material simply, for
example, as "sodium" obviously implies "total sodium", but leaves
room for doubt. If "total" is meant, it should be explicitly
stated. Even "total" has different operational definitions, some
of which do not necessarily measure "all that is there" in all
samples. Thus it is also necessary to reference or describe the
analytical method(s) that the term is intended to denote. The
operational analytical component should take into account the
analytical and environmental chemistry of the material, the
desirability of using the same analytical method on samples of both
-------
-19-
ambient water and aqueous effluents, and various practical
considerations such as labor and equipment requirements and whether
the method would require measurements in the field or would allow
measurements after samples are transported to a laboratory.
The primary requirements of the operational analytical component is
that it be appropriate for use on samples of receiving water, that
it be compatible with the available toxicity and bioaccumulation
data without making extrapolations that are too hypothetical, and
that it rarely result in underprotection of aquatic life and its
uses. Because an ideal analytical measurement will rarely be
available, a compromise measurement will usually have to be used.
This compromise measurement must fit with the general approach that
if an ambient concentration is lower than the national criterion,
adverse effects will probably not occur, i.e., the compromise
measurement must not err on the side of underprotect ion when
measurements are made on a surface water or an effluent. If the
ambient concentration calculated from a measured concentration in
an effluent is higher than the national criterion, an additional
option is to measure the concentration after dilution of the
effluent with receiving water to determine if the measured concen-
tration is lowered by such phenomena as complexation or sorption.
A further option, of course, is to derive a site-specific
criterion. Thus the criterion should be based on a cost-effective
analytical measurement, but the criterion is not rendered useless
if an ideal measurement is not available or feasible.
-------
-20-
NOTE: The analytical chemistry of the material may have to be
taken into account when defining the material or when judging the
acceptability of some toxicity tests, but a criterion should not be
based on the sensitivity of an analytical method. When aquatic
organisms are more sensitive than routine analytical methods, the
proper solution is to develop better analytical methods, not to
underprotect aquatic life.
II. Collection of data
A. Collect all available data on the material concerning (a) toxicity
to, and bioaccumulation by, aquatic animals and plants, (b) FDA
action levels [5], and (c) chronic feeding studies and long-term
field studies with wildlife.
B. All data that are used should be available in typed, dated and
signed hard copy (publication, manuscript, letter, memorandum,
etc.) with enough supporting information to indicate that
acceptable test procedures were used and that the results should be
reliable. In some cases it may be appropriate to obtain additional
written information from the investigator, if possible.
C. Questionable data, whether published or unpublished, should not be
used. For example, do not use data from tests for which no control
treatment existed, tests in which too many organisms in the control
treatment died or showed signs of stress or disease, and tests in
which distilled or deionized water was used as the dilution water
without addition of appropriate salts.
-------
-21-
D. Data on technical grade materials may be used if appropriate, but
data on formulated mixtures and emulsifiable concentrates of the
material of concern should not be used.
E. For some highly volatile, hydrolyzable, or degradable materials it
may be appropriate to only use results of flow-through tests in
which the concentrations of test material in test solutions were
measured using acceptable analytical methods.
F. Do not use data obtained using:
1. Brine shrimp, because they usually only occur naturally in
water with salinity greater than 35 g/kg.
2. Species that do not have reproducing wild populations in North
America (see Appendix 1).
3. Organisms that were previously exposed to significant
concentrations of the test material or other contaminants.
NOTE: Questionable data, data on formulated mixtures and
eraulsifiable concentrates, and data obtained with non-resident
species or previously exposed organisms may provide auxiliary
information but should not be used in the derivation of criteria.
III. Required data
A. Certain data should be available to help ensure that each of the
four major kinds of possible adverse effects receives adequate
consideration. Results of acute and chronic toxicity tests with
representative species of aquatic animals are necessary so that
data available for tested species can be considered a useful
indication of the sensitivities of appropriate untested species.
-------
-22-
Fewer data concerning toxicity to aquatic plants are required
because procedures for conducting tests with plants and
interpreting the results of such tests are not as well developed.
Data concerning bioaccumulation by aquatic organisms are only
required if relevant data are available concerning the significance
of residues in aquatic organisms.
B. To derive a criterion for freshwater aquatic life, the following
should be available:
1. Results of acceptable acute tests (see Section IV) with
freshwater animals in at least eight different families such
that all of the following are included:
a. the family Salmonidae in the class Osteichthyes
b. one other family (preferably an important warm water
family) in the class Osteichthyes (e.g., bluegill,
channel catfish, etc.)
c. one other family in the phylum Chordata (e.g., fish,
amphibian, etc.)
d. a planktonic crustacean (e.g., cladoceran, copepod,
etc.)
e. a benthic crustacean (e.g., ostracod, isopod, scud,
glass shrimp, crayfish, etc.)
f. an insect (e.g., mayfly, dragonfly, damselfly,
stonefly, caddisfly, mosquito, midge, etc.)
g. a family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or
Chordata (e.g., Rotifera, Annelida, Mollusca, etc.)
h. a family in any order of insect or any phylum not
already represented
-------
-23-
2. Acute-chronic ratios (see Section VI) for species of aquatic
animals in at least three different families provided that of
the three species:
—at least one is a fish
—at least one is an invertebrate
—at least one is a sensitive freshwater species (the
other two may be saltwater species)
3. Results of at least one acceptable test with a freshwater alga
or a chronic test with a freshwater vascular plant (see Section
VIII). If plants are among the aquatic organisms that are most
sensitive to the material, results of a test with a plant in
another phylum (division) should be available.
4. At least one acceptable bioconcentration factor determined
with an appropriate aquatic species, if a maximum permissible
tissue concentration is available (see Section IX).
C. To derive a criterion for saltwater aquatic life, the following
should be available:
1. Results of acceptable acute tests (see Section IV) with
saltwater animals in at least eight different families such
that all of the following are included:
a. two different families in the phylum Chordata
b* a family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or
Chordata
c. either the Mysidae or Penaeidae family
d. three other families not in the phylum Chordata
e. any other family
-------
-24-
2. Acute-chronic ratios (see Section VI) for species of aquatic
animals in at least three different families provided that of
the three species:
—at least one is a fish
—at least one is an invertebrate
—at least one is a sensitive saltwater species (the
other two may be freshwater species)
3. Results of at least one acceptable test with a saltwater alga
or a chronic test with a saltwater vascular plant (see
Section VIII). If plants are among the aquatic organisms
most sensitive to the material, results of a test with a
plant in another phylum (division) should be available.
4. At least one acceptable bioconcentration factor determined
with an appropriate aquatic species, if a maximum permissible
tissue concentration is available (see Section IX).
D. If all of the require data are available, a numerical criterion can
usually be derived, except in special cases. For example,
derivation of a criterion might not be possible if the
acute-chronic ratios vary greatly with no apparent pattern. Also,
if a criterion is to be related to a water quality characteristic
(see Sections V and VII), more data will be necessary.
Similarly, if all required data are not available, a numerical
criterion should not be derived except in special cases. For
example, even if not enough acute and chronic data are available,
it may be possible to derive a criterion if the available data
-------
-25-
clearly indicate that the Final Residue Value would be much lower
than .either the Final Chronic Value or the Final Plant Value.
E. Confidence in a criterion usually increases as the amount of
available pertinent data increases. Thus additional data are
usually desirable.
IV. Final Acute Value
A. Appropriate measures of the acute (short-term) toxicity of the
material to a variety of species of aquatic animals are used to
calculate the Final Acute Value. The Final Acute Value is an
estimate of the concentration of the material corresponding to a
cumulative probability of 0.05 in the acute toxicity values for the
families with which acute tests have been conducted on the
material. However, in some cases, if the Species Mean Acute Value
of an important species is lower than the calculated Final Acute
Value, then that Species Mean Acute Value becomes the Final Acute
Value to provide protection for that important species.
B. Acute toxicity tests should have been conducted using acceptable
procedures [6].
C. Except when test organisms must be fed during an acute test to
prevent cannibalism or stress due to starvation, results of acute
tests in which food was added to the test solutions should not be
used, unless data indicate that the food did not affect the results
of the test.
D. Because the embryo is often an insensitive life stage, results of
acute tests in which the embryo stage lasted for more than half the
-------
-26-
Length of the test should not be used, unless data indicate that
the embryo is not insensitive.
E. Results of acute tests conducted in unusual dilution water, e.g.,
dilution water containing high levels of total organic carbon or
particulate matter (e.g., higher than 20 mg/litre) should not be
used, unless a relationship is developed between toxicity and
organic carbon or particulate matter or unless data show that
organic carbon, particulate matter, etc., do not affect toxicity.
F. Acute values should be based on endpoints which reflect the total
severe acute adverse impact of the test material on the species and
life stage tested. Therefore, only the following kinds of data on
acute toxicity to aquatic animals should be used:
1. Tests with daphnids and other cladocerans should be started
with organisms less than 24 hours old and tests with midges
s'hould be started with second- or third-instar larvae. The
result should be the 96-hr EC50 based on percentage of
organisms immobilized plus percentage of organisms killed. If
such an EC50 is not available from a test, of the values that
are available from the test the lowest of the following should
be used in place of the desired 96-hr EC50: 48- to 96-hr EC50
values based on percentage of organisms immobilized plus
percentage of organisms killed, 48- and 96-hr EC50 values based
on percentage of organisms immobilized, and 48- to 96-hr LC50
values.
2. The result of tests with embryos and larvae of barnacles,
bivalve molluscs (clams, mussels, oysters, and scallops), sea
-------
-27-
urchins, lobsters, crabs, shrimps, and abalones should be the
96-hr EC50 based on percentage of organisms with incompletely
developed shells plus percentage of organisms killed. If such
an EC50 is not available from & test, of the values that are
available from the test the lowest of the following should be
used in place of the desired 96-hr EC50: 48- to 96-hr EC50
values based on percentage of organisms with incompletely
developed shells plus percentage of organisms killed, 48- to
96-hr EC50 values based on percentage of organisms with
incompletely developed shells, and 48- to 96-hr LC50 values.
3. The result of tests with all other aquatic animal species and
older life stages of barnacles, bivalve molluscs, sea urchins,
lobsters, crabs, shrimps, and abalones should be the 96-hr EC50
value based on percentage of organisms exhibiting loss of
equilibrium plus percentage of organisms immobilized plus
percentage of organisms killed. If such an EC50 is not
available from a test, of the values that are available from
the test the lower of the following should be used in place of
the desired 96-hr EC50: the 96-hr EC50 value based on
percentage of organisms exhibiting loss of equilibrium plus
percentage of organisms immobilized and the 96-hr LC50 value.
4. Tests whose results take into account the number of young
produced, such as most tests on protozoans, are not considered
acute tests, even if the duration was 96 hours or less.
5. If the tests were conducted properly, acute values reported as
"greater than" values and those which are above solubility of
-------
-28-
the test material are acceptable values. Usually such values
are for resistant species and not using these values will
unnecessarily lower the Final Acute Value by decreasing the
number of families for which acute values are available (see
Appendix 2).
G. If the acute toxicity of the material to aquatic animals apparently
has been shown to be related to a water quality characteristic such
as hardness or particulate matter for freshwater animals or
salinity or particulate matter for saltwater animals, a Final Acute
Equation should be derived based on that water quality
characteristic. Go to Section V.
H. Consider the agreement of the data within and between species.
Results that appear to be questionable in comparison to other acute
and chronic data available for the species and other species in the
same family probably should not be used. For example, if the acute
values available for a species or family differ by more than a.
factor of 10, rejection of some or all of the values is probably
appropriate.
I. For each species for which at least one acute value is available,
calculate the geometric mean of the results of all flow-through
tests in which the concentrations of test material were measured.
For a species for which no such result is available, calculate the
geometric mean of all available acute values, i.e., results of
flow-through tests in which the concentrations were not measured
and results of static and renewal tests based on initial total
concentrations of test material.
-------
-29-
NOTE: Data reported by original investigators should not be
rounded off. At Least four significant digits should be retained
in all intermediate calculations.
NOTE: The geometric mean of N numbers is the N root of the
product of the N numbers. Alternatively, the geometric mean can be
calculated by adding the logarithms of the N numbers, dividing the
sum by N, and taking the antilog of the quotient. The geometric
mean of two numbers is the square root of the product of the two
numbers, and the geometric mean of one number is that number.
Either natural (base e) or common (base 10) logarithms can be used
to calculate geometric means as long as they are used consistently
within each set of data, i.e., the antilog used must match the
logarithm used.
J. For each family for which one or more species mean acute value is
available, calculate the Family Mean Acute Value (FMAV) as the
geometric mean of the available species mean acute values.
K. Order the FMAVs from high to low.
L. Assign ranks (R) to the FMAVs from "1" for the lowest to "N" for
the highest. If two or more FMAVs are identical, arbitrarily
assign them successive ranks.
M. Calculate the cumulative probability (P) for each FMAV as R/(N+1).
N. Select the four FMAVs which have cumulative probabilities closest
to 0.05 (if there are less than 59 FMAVs, these will always be the
four lowest FMAVs).
-------
-30-
0. Using the selected FMAVs and Ps, calculate
<$2 , £((ln FMAV)2) - (OLdo FMAV))2/4)
T(P) - <(t(/P))2/4)
L - CEUn FMAV) - S(C(/F)))/4
A - S(/OTT05) +L
FAV • eA
(See [4] for development of the calculation procedure and Appendix
2 for an example calculation and computer program.)
NOTE; Natural logarithms (logarithms to base e, denoted as In) are
used herein merely because they are easier to use on some hand
calculators and computers than common logarithms (logarithms to
base 10). Consistent use of either will produce the same result.
P. If for an important species, such as a recreationally or commer-
cially important species, the geometric mean of the acute values
from flow-through tests in which the concentrations of test
material were measured is lower than the Final Acute Value, then
that geometric mean should be used as the Final Acute Value.
Q. Go to Section VI.
-------
-31-
V- Final Acute Equation
A. When enough data are available to show that acute toxicity to
two or more species is similarly related to a water quality
characteristic, the relationship should be taken into account as
described below or using analysis of covariance [7,8], The two
methods will usually produce very similar results, but covariance
analysis is generally considered better because it weights each
species according to the data available for the species rather than
weighting all species equally. If two or more factors affect
toxicity, multiple regression analyses should be used.
B. For each species for which comparable acute toxicity values are
available at two or more different values of the water quality
characteristic, perform a least squares regression of the acute
toxicity values on the values of the water quality characteristic.
Because the best documented relationship is that between hardness
and toxicity of metals in fresh water and a log-log relationship
best fits the available data, natural logarithms of both toxicity
and water quality are used here. For relationships based on other
water quality characteristics, such as pH or temperature, no
transformation or a different transformation may fit the data
better, and appropriate changes will be necessary throughout this
section.
C. Decide whether or not each acute slope is meaningful, taking into
account the range and number of the tested values of the water
quality characteristic and the degree of agreement within and
between species. For example, a slope based on four data points
-------
-32-
may be of limited value if it is based only on data for a narrow
range of values of the water quality characteristic. A slope based
on only two data points, however, may be meaningful if it is
consistent with other information and if the two points cover a
broad enough range of the water quality characteristic. In
addition, results that appear to be questionable in comparison
with other acute and chronic data available for the species and
other species in the same family probably should not be used. For
example, if after adjustment for the water quality characteristic,
the acute values available for a species or family differ by more
than a factor of 10, rejection of some or all of the values is
probably appropriate. If meaningful slopes are not available for
at least one fish and one invertebrate or if the available slopes
are too dissimilar or if too few data are available to adequately
define the shape of the curve, return to Section IV.H., using the
results of tests conducted under conditions and in water similar to
those commonly used for toxicity tests with the species.
D. Calculate the mean acute slope (V) as the arithmetic average of all
the meaningful acute slopes for individual species.
NOTE: An arithmetic average is used here rather than a geometric
mean because both the toxicity values and the water quality
characteristics have been transformed, if appropriate, to produce a
linear relationship. The usual assumption of techniques such as
covariance analysis is that such slopes are normally distributed.
Geometric means, rather than arithmetic means, are used in other
-------
-33-
parts of these Guidelines because the underlying distributions are
more Likely to be lognonnal than normal. The distribution of
sensitivities of individual organisms in toxicity tests on most
materials and the distribution of sensitivities of species and
families to a material are more likely to be lognormal than normal.
In addition, geometric means are used for acute chronic ratios and
bioconcentration factors because sets of ratios and quotients are
likely to be closer to lognormal than normal distributions.
E. For each species calculate the geometric mean (W) of the acute
toxicity values and the geometric mean (X) of the related values
of the water quality characteristic.
F. For each species calculate the logarithmic intercept (Y) using
Che equation: Y - In W - V(In X).
G. For each species calculate the species mean acute intercept as
the antilog of Y.
H. Obtain the Final Acute Intercept by using the procedure described
in Section IV.J-0, except insert "Intercept" for "Value".
I. If for an important species, such as a recreationally or
commercially important species, the intercept calculated only
from results of flow-through tests in which the concentrations
of test material were measured is lower than the Final Acute
Intercept, then that intercept should be used as the Final Acute
Intercept.
J. The Final Acute Equation is written as: Final Acute Value =
(V[ln(water quality characteristic)] + In Z)
e , where V =
mean acute slope and Z = Final Acute Intercept.
-------
-34-
VI. Final Chronic Value
A. Depending on the data that are available concerning chronic toxicity
to aquatic animals, the Final Chronic Value might be calculated in
the same manner as the Final Acute Value or by dividing the Final
Acute Value by the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio. In some cases it may
not be possible to calculate a Final Chronic Value.
NOTE: As the name implies, the acute-chronic ratio is a way of
relating acute and chronic toxicities. The acute-chronic ratio is
basically the inverse of the application factor, but the new term
is used because it is more descriptive and should help prevent
confusion between "application factors" and "safety factors".
Acute-chronic ratios and application factors are ways of relating
the acute and chronic toxicities of a material to aquatic
organisms. Safety factors are used to provide an extra margin of
safety beyond the known or estimated sensitivities of aquatic
organisms. Another advantage of the acute-chronic ratio is that it
should usually be greater than one; this should avoid the confusion
as to whether a large application factor is one that is close to
unity or one that has a denominator that is much greater than the
numerator.
B. Chronic values should be based on results of flow-through (except
i
renewal is acceptable for daphnids) chronic tests in which the
concentrations of test material in the test solutions were properly
measured at appropriate times during the test.
C. Results of chronic tests in which survival, growth, or reproduc-
tion in the control treatment was unacceptably low should not be
used. The limits of acceptability will depend on the species.
-------
-35-
D. Results of chronic tests conducted in unusual dilution water,
e.g., dilution water containing high levels of organic carbon or
particulate matter (e.g., higher than 20 mg/litre) should not be
used, unless a relationship is developed between toxicity and
organic carbon or particulate matter or unless data show that
organic carbon, particulate matter, etc., do not affect
toxicity,
E. Chronic values should be based on endpoints and lengths of
exposure appropriate to the species. Therefore, only the results
of the following kinds of chronic toxicity tests should be used:
1. Life-cycle toxicity tests consisting of exposures of each of
two or more groups of individuals of a species to a different
concentration of the test material throughout a life cycle.
To ensure that all life stages and life processes are
exposed, tests with fish should begin with embryos or newly
hatched young less than 48 hours old, continue through
maturation and reproduction and should end not less than 24
days (90 days for salmonids) after the hatching of the next
generation. Tests with daphnids should begin with young less
than 24 hours old and last for not less than 21 days. For
fish, data should be obtained and analysed on survival and
growth of adults and young, maturation of males and females,
eggs spawned per female, embryo viability (salmonids only)
and hatchability. For daphnids, data should be obtained and
analyzed on survival and young per female.
-------
-36-
2. Partial life-cycle toxicity tests consisting of exposures of
each of two or more groups of individuals of a. species of fish
to a different concentration of the test material through most
portions of a life cycle. Partial life-cycle tests are
conducted with fish species that require more than a year to
reach sexual maturity, so that all major life stages can be
exposed to the test material in Less than 15 months. Exposure
to the test material begins with immature juveniles at least 2
months prior to active gonad development, continues through
maturation and reproduction, and ends not less than 24 days (90
days for salmonids) after the hatching of the next generation.
Data should be obtained and analyzed on survival and growth of
adults and young, maturation of males and females, eggs spawned
per female, embryo viability (salmonids only) and
hatchability.
3. Early life-stage toxicity tests consisting of 28- to 32-day
(60 days post hatch for salmonids) exposures of the early
life stages of a species of fish from shortly after
fertilization through embryonic, larval, and early juvenile
development. Data should be obtained and analyzed on survival
and growth.
NOTE: Results of an early life-stage test are used as
estimates of results of life-cycle and partial life-cycle tests
with the same species. Therefore, when results of a life-cycle
or partial life-cycle test are available., results of an early
life-stage test with the same species should not be used.
-------
-37-
Also, results of early life-stage tests in which the incidence
of mortalities or abnormalities increased substantially near
the end of the test should not be used because results of such
tests are possibly not good estimates of the results of a
comparable life-cycle or partial life-cycle test.
F. A chronic value is obtained by calculating the geometric mean of
the lower and upper chronic limits from a chronic test. A lower
chronic limit is the highest tested concentration (a) in an
acceptable chronic test, (b) which did not cause the occurrence
(which was statistically significantly different from the control
at P a 0.05) of a specified adverse effect, and (c) below which no
tested concentration caused such an occurrence. An upper chronic
limit is the lowest tested concentration (a) in an acceptable
chronic test, (b) which did cause the occurrence (which was
statistically significantly different from the control at P = 0.05)
of a specified adverse effect and (c) above which all tested
concentrations caused such an occurrence„
NOTE: Because various authors have used a variety of terms and
definitions to report the results of chronic tests, reported
results should be reviewed carefully.
G. If the chronic toxicity of the material to aquatic animals
apparently has been shown to be related to a water quality
characteristic such as hardness or particulate matter for
freshwater animals or salinity or particulate matter for saltwater
animals, a Final Chronic Equation should be derived based on that
water quality characteristic. Go to Section VII.
-------
-38-
H. If chronic values are available for eight families as described in
Sections III.B.I or III.C.I, a species mean chronic value should be
calculated for each species for which at least one chronic value is
available by calculating the geometric mean of all the chronic
values available for the species. The Final Chronic Value should
then be obtained using the procedures described in Section IV.J-0.
Then go to Section VI.M.
I. For each chronic value for which at Least one corresponding
appropriate acute value is available, calculate an acute-chronic
ratio, using for the numerator the geometric mean of the results of
all acceptable flow-through (except static is acceptable for
daphnids) acute tests in the same dilution water and in which the
concentrations were measured. For fish, the acute test should have
been conducted with juveniles. The acute tests should have been
part of the same study as the chronic test. If acute tests were
not conducted as part of the same study, acute tests conducted in
the same laboratory and dilution water, but in a different study,
may be used. If no such acute tests are available, results of
acute tests conducted in the same dilution water in a different
laboratory may be used. If no such acute tests are available, an
acute-chronic ratio should not be calculated.
j. For each species, calculate the species mean acute-chronic ratio as
the geometric mean of all the acute-chronic ratios available for
that species.
K. For some materials the acute-chronic ratio seems to be the same for
all species, but for other materials the ratio seems to increase or
-------
-39-
decrease as the Species Mean Acute Value increases. Thus the Final
Acute-Chronic Ratio can be obtained in three ways, depending on the
data available:
1. If the species mean acute-chronic ratio seems to increase or
decrease as the Species Mean Acute Value increases, the value
of the acute-chronic ratio for species whose acute values are
close to the Final Acute Value should be used to obtain the
Final Acute-Chronic Ratio.
2. If no major trend is apparent and the acute-chronic ratios
for a number of species are within a factor of ten, the Final
Acute-Chronic Ratio should be calculated as the geometric
mean of all the species mean acute-chronic ratios available
for both freshwater and saltwater species.
3. If the most appropriate species mean acute-chronic ratios are
less than 2.0, and especially if they are less than 1.0,
acclimation has probably occurred during the chronic test.
Because continuous exposure and acclimation cannot be assured
to provide adequate protection in field situations, the Final
Acute-Chronic Ratio should be set at 2.0.
If the available species mean acute-chronic ratios do not fit one
of these cases, a Final Acute-Chronic Ratio probably cannot be
obtained, and a Final Chronic Value probably cannot be calculated.
L. Calculate the Final Chronic Value by dividing the Final Acute
Value by the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio.
M. If the species mean chronic value of an important species, such as
a commercially or recreationally important species, is lower than
-------
-40-
the Final Chronic Value, then that species mean chronic value
should be used as the Final Chronic Value.
N. Go to Section VIII.
VII. Final Chronic Equation
A. When enough data are available to show that chronic toxicity to
at least one species is related to a water quality character-
istic, the relationship should be taken into account as described
below or using analysis of covariance (7,8). The two methods will
usually produce very similar results, but covariance analysis is
generally considered better because it weights the species
according to the data available for each species rather them
weighting all species equally. Ir two or more factors affect
toxicity, multiple regression analyses should be used.
B. For each species for which comparable chronic toxicity values are
available at two or more different values of the water quality
characteristic, perform a least squares regression of the chronic
toxicity values on the values of the water quality character-
istic. Because the best documented relationship is that between
hardness and toxicity of metals in fresh water and a log-log
relationship best fits the available data, natural logarithms of
both toxicity and water quality are used here. For relationships
based on other water quality characteristics, such as pH or
temperature, no transformation or a different transformation may
fit the data better, and appropriate changes will be necessary
throughout this section. It is probably preferable, but not
-------
-41-
necessary, to use the same transformation that was used with the
acute values in Section V.
C. Decide whether or not each chronic slope is meaningful, taking
into account the range and number of the tested values of the
water quality characteristic and the degree of agreement within
and between species. For example, a slope based on four data
points may be of limited value if it is based only on data for a
narrow range of values of the water quality characteristic. A
slope based on only two data points, however, may be meaningful
if it is consistent with other information and if the two points
cover a broad enough range of the water quality characteristic.
In addition, results that appear to be questionable in comparison
with other acute and chronic data available for the species and
other species in the same family probably should not be used.
For example, if after adjustment for the water quality
characteristic, the chronic values available for a species or
family differ by more than a factor of 10, rejection of some or
all of the values is probably appropriate. If a meaningful
chronic slope is not available for at least one species or if the
available slopes are too dissimilar or if too few data are
available to adequately define the shape of the curve, return to
Section VI.H, using the results of teats conducted under
conditions and in water similar to those commonly used for
toxicity tests with the species.
D. Calculate the mean chronic slope (L) as the arithmetic average of
all the meaningful chronic slopes for individual species.
-------
-42-
E. For each species calculate the geometric mean (M) of the toxicity
values and the geometric mean (P) of the related values of the
water quality characteristic.
F. For each species calculate the logarithmic intercept (Q) using
the equation: Q * In M - L(ln P).
G. For each species calculate a species mean chronic intercept as
the antilog of Q.
H. Obtain the Final Chronic Intercept by using the procedure
described in Section IV.J-0, except insert "Intercept" for
"Value".
I. If the species mean chronic intercept of an important species,
such as a commerically or recreationally important species, is
lower than the Final Chronic Intercept, then that species mean
chronic intercept- should be used as the Final Chronic Intercept.
J. The Final Chronic Equation is written as: Final Chronic Value =
(L[ln(water quality characteristic)] + In R) , T
e , where L =
mean chronic slope and R a Final Chronic Intercept.
VIII. Final Plant Value
A. Appropriate measures of the toxicity of the material to aquatic
plants are used to compare the relative sensitivities of aquatic
plants and animals. Although procedures for conducting and
interpreting the results of toxicity tests with plants are not
well developed, results of tests with plants usually indicate
that criteria which adequately protect aquatic animals and their
uses should also protect aquatic plants and their uses.
-------
-43-
B. A plant value is the result of any test conducted with an alga or
an aquatic vascular plant.
NOTE: Algal tests on most metals should not be used if the
medium contained an excessive amount of a complexing agent like
EDTA that might affect the toxicity of the test material. Concen-
trations of EDTA above about 200 yg/1 should probably be considered
excessive.
C. Obtain the Final Plant Value by selecting the lowest result
obtained in a test on an important aquatic plant species in which
the concentrations of test material were measured and the endpoint
is biologically important.
IX. Final Residue Value
A. The Final Residue Value ia intended to (a) prevent concentrations
in commercially or recreationally important aquatic species from
exceeding applicable FDA action levels and (b) protect wildlife,
including fishes and birds, that consume aquatic organisms from
demonstrated adverse effects. The Final Residue Value is the
lowest of the residue values that are obtained by dividing maximum
permissible tissue concentrations by appropriate bioconcentration
factors. A maximum permissible tissue concentration is either (a)
an FDA action level [5] for fish oil or for the edible portion of
fish or shellfish, or (b) a maximum acceptable dietary intake based
on observations on survival, growth or reproduction in a chronic
wildlife feeding study or a long-term wildlife field study. If no
maximum permissible tissue concentration is available, go to
Section X because no Final Residue Value can be derived.
-------
-44-
B. A bioconcentration factor (BCF) ia the quotient of the
concentration of a material in one or more tissues of an aquatic
organism divided by the average concentration in the solution to
which the organism has been exposed. If a maximum permissible
tissue concentration is available for a substance (e.g. parent
material, parent material plus metabolites, etc.), the tissue
concentration used in the calculation of the BCF should be for the
same substance. Otherwise the tissue concentration used in the
calculation of the BCF should be that of the material and its
metabolites which are structurally similar and are not much more
soluble in water than the parent material.
C. 1. A BCF determined in a laboratory test should be used only if
the test was flow-through, the BCF was calculated based on
measured concentrations of the test material in tissue and in
the test solution and the exposure continued at least until
either apparent steady-state or 28-days was reached. Steady-
state is reached when the BCF does not change significantly
over a period of time, such as two days or 16 percent of the
length of the exposure, whichever is longer. The BCF used from
a test should be the highest of (a) if apparent steady-state
was reached, the higher of the apparent steady-state BCF and
the highest BCF obtained prior to apparent steady-state, (b) if
apparent steady-state was not reached, the highest BCF
obtained, and (c) the projected steady-state BCF, if
calculated.
-------
-45-
2. A BCF from a field exposure should not be used unless data are
available to show that the concentration of the material was
reasonably constant for a long enough period of time over the
range of territory inhabited by the organisms.
3. Whenever a BCF is determined for a lipophilic material, the
percent lipids should also be determined in the tissue(s) for
which the BCF was calculated.
4. A BCF obtained from a laboratory or field exposure that caused
an observable adverse effect on the test organisms may be used
only if it is similar to that obtained with unaffected
organisms of the same species at lower concentrations.
5. Because maximum permissible tissue concentrations are almost
never based on dry weights (i.e., dried at 100-120°C), a BCF
calculated using dry tissue weights must be converted to a wet
tissue weight basis. If no conversion factor is reported with
the BCF, multiply the dry weight BCF by 0.1 for plankton and by
0.2 for individual species of fishes and invertebrates [9|.
6. If acceptable BCFs from field exposures to a material are
consistently lower or higher than those from laboratory
exposures to the same material, then only those BCFs from field
exposures should be used.
7. If more than one acceptable BCF is available for a species, the
geometric mean of the available values should be used, except
that if the BCFs are from different lengths of exposure and the
BCF increases with length of exposure, the BCF for the longest
exposure should be used.
-------
-46-
D. If enough pertinent data exist, several residue values can be
calculated by dividing maximum permissible tissue concentrations
by appropriate BCFs:
1. For each available maximum acceptable dietary intake derived
from a chronic feeding study or a long-term field study with
wildlife, including birds and aquatic organisms, the
appropriate BCF is based on the whole body of aquatic species
which constitute or represent a major portion of the diet of
the tested wildlife species.
2. For an FDA action level for fish or shellfish, the appropriate
BCF is the highest geometric mean species BCF for the edible
portion (muscle for decapods, muscle with or without skin for
fishes, adductor muscle for scallops and total soft tissue for
other bivalve molluscs) of a consumed species. The highest
species BCF is used because FDA action levels are applied on a
species-by-species basis.
E. For lipophilic materials, it may be possible to calculate
additional residue values. Because the steady-state BCF for a
lipophilic material seems to be proportional to percent
lipids from one tissue to another and from one species to another
[10,11,12], extrapolations can be made from tested tissues or
species to untested tissues or species on the basis of percent
lipids.
1. For each BCF for which the percent lipids is known for the
same tissue for which the BCF was measured, normalize the BCF
to a one percent lipid basis by dividing the BCF by the percent
-------
-47-
lipids. This adjustment to a one percent lipid basis makes all
the measured BCFs comparable regardless of the species or
tissue for which the BCF was measured.
2. Calculate the geometric mean normalized BCF. Data for both
saltwater and freshwater species can be used to determine the
mean normalized BCF, unless data show that the normalized BCFs
are probably not similar.
3. Calculate all possible residue values by dividing the available
maximum permissible tissue concentrations by the mean
normalized BCF and by the percent lipids values appropriate to
the maximum permissible tissue concentrations, i.e.,
. , , (maximum permissible tissue concentration)
Residue value = — ——*•— •
(mean normalized BCF)(appropriate percent lipids)
a. For an FDA action level for fish oil, the appropriate
percent lipids value is 100.
b. For an FDA action level for fish, the appropriate percent
lipids value is 11 for freshwater criteria and 10 for
saltwater criteria because FDA action levels are applied on
a species-by-species basis to commonly consumed species.
The highest lipid contents in the edible portions of
important consuraed species are about 11 percent for both
the freshwater chinook salmon and lake trout and about 10
percent for the saltwater Atlantic herring [13].
c. For a maximum acceptable dietary intake derived from
chronic feeding study or a long-term field study with
wildlife, the appropriate percent lipids is the percent
-------
-48-
lipids of an aquatic species or group of aquatic species
which constitute a major portion of the diet of the
wildlife species.
F. The Final Residue Value is obtained by selecting the lowest of
the available residue values.
NOTE: In some cases the Final Residue Value will not be low
enough. For example, a residue value calculated from an FDA action
level should result in an average concentration in the edible
portion of a fatty species that is at the action level. Some
organisms will have BCFs higher than the mean value but no
mechanism has been devised to provide appropriate additional
protection. Also, some chronic feeding studies and long-term field
studies on wildlife identify concentrations that cause adverse
effects but do not identify concentrations which do not cause
adverse effects, but again no mechanism has been devised to provide
appropriate additional protection. These are some of the species
and uses that are not protected at all times in all places.
X. Other data
Pertinent information that could not be used in earlier sections may be
available concerning adverse effects on aquatic organisms and their
uses. The most important of these are data on cumulative and delayed
toxicity, flavor impairment, reduction in survival, growth, or
reproduction, or any other adverse effect that has been shown to be
biologically important. Especially important are data for species for
which no other data are available. Data from behavioral, biochemical,
-------
-49-
physioLogical, microcosm, and field studies may also be available.
Data may be available from tests conducted in unusual dilution water
(see IV.E and VI.D), from chronic tests in which the concentrations
were not measured (see VLB), from tests on previously exposed
organisms (see II.F) „ and from teats on formulated mixtures or
emulsifiable concentrates (see II.D). Such data may affect a criterion
if the data were obtained with an important species and the test
concentrations were measured.
XI. Criterion
A. A criterion consists of two concentrations: the Criterion Maximum
Concentration and the Criterion Average Concentration.
NOTE: Criterion concentrations should be rounded [14] to two
digits.
B. The Criterion Maximum Concentration is calculated by dividing the
Final Acute Value, or the value obtained from the Final Acute
Equation, by 2.0.
C. The Criterion Average Concentration is equal to the lowest of the
Criterion Maximum Concentration, Final Chronic Value, the Final
Plant Value, and the Final Residue Value unless other data (see
Section X) from tests in which the concentrations of test material
were measured show that a lower value should be used. If toxicity
is related to a water quality characteristic, the Criterion Average
Concentration is obtained from the Criterion Maximum Equation,
Final Chronic Equation, the Final Plant Value, and the Final
Residue Value by selecting the one that results in the lowest
concentrations in the usual range of the water quality
-------
-50-
characteristic, unless other data (see Section X) from tests in
which the concentrations of test material were measured show that a
lower value should be used.
D. The criterion is stated as: To protect (1) aquatic life and its
uses, in each 30 consecutive days:
a. the average concentration of (2) should not exceed (3);
b. the maximum concentration should not exceed (4); and
c. the concentration may be between (3) and (4) for up to 96 hours
where
1 = insert "freshwater" or "saltwater"
2 = insert name of material
3 = insert the Criterion Average Concentration
4 * insert the Criterion Maximum Concentration
XII. Final Review
A. The derivation of the criterion should be carefully reviewed by
rechecking each step of the Guidelines, Items that should be
especially checked are:
1. If unpublished data are used, are they acceptable?
2. Are the required data available?
3. Is the range of acute values for any species greater than a
factor of 10?
4. Is the range of species mean acute values for any family
greater than a factor of 10?
5. Is there more than a factor of five difference between the two
lowest Family Mean Acute Values or the two values bracketing
0.05 cumulative probability?
-------
-51-
6. Are any of the four lowest Family Mean Acute Values
questionable?
7. Is the Final Acute Value reasonable as compared to the Species
Mean Acute Values and Family Mean Acute Values?
8. For any important species is the geometric mean of the acute
values from flow-through tests in which the concentrations of
teat material were measured lower than the Final Acute Value?
9. Are any of the chronic values questionable?
10. Are chronic values available for sensitive species?
11. Is the range of acute-chronic ratios greater than a factor of
10?
12. Is the Final Chronic Value reasonable as compared to the
available acute and chronic data?
13. Is the mean chronic value for any important species below the
Final Chronic Value?
14. Are any of the other data important?
15. Do any data look like they might be outliers?
16. Are there any deviations from the Guidelines? Are they
acceptable?
B. On the basis of all available pertinent laboratory and field
information, determine if the criterion is consistent with sound
scientific evidence. If it is not, another criterion, either
higher or lower, should be derived using appropriate modifications
of these Guidelines.
-------
-52-
References
1. U.S. EPA, Federal Register, 47:49234-49252, October 29, 1982.
2. Thurston, C. E.s 1962, Physical Characteristics and Chemical Composition
of Two Subspecies of Lake Trout, 3_. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 19:39-44.
3. U.S. EPA, Federal Register, 45:79341-79347, November 28, 1980.
4. Erickson, R. J., and C. E. Stephan, Manuscript, Calculation of the Final
Acute Value for Water Quality Criteria for Aquatic Life. U.S. EPA,
Duluth, Minnesota.
5. Administrative Guidelines Manual, Food and Drug Administration.
6. For good examples of acceptable procedures, see:
ASTM Standard E 729, Practice for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests with
Fishes, Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians.
ASTM Standard E 724, Practice for Conducting Static Acute Toxicity
Tests with Larvae of Four Species of Bivalve Molluscs.
7. Dixon, W. J., and M. B. Brown, eds. 1979. BMDP Biomedical Computer
Programs, P-series, Univ. of California, Berkeley, pp. 521-539.
8. Neter, J., and W. Wasserman, 1974, Applied Linear_ Statistical Models,
Irwin, Inc., Homewood, Illinois.
9. The values of 0.1 and 0.2 were derived from data published in:
McDiffett, W, F-, 19,70, Ecology 51:975-988.
Brocksen, R. W., et ai., 1968, _J. Wildlife Management 32:52-75.
Cummins, K. W., et al., 1973, Ecology 54:336-345.
Pesticide Analytical Manual, Volume I, Food and Drug Administration,
1969.
Love, R. M. , 1957, In: The Physiology of Fishes, Vol. I, M. E. Brown,,
ed. Academic Press, New York, p. 411.
-------
-53-
Ruttner, F., 1963, Fundamentals of Limnology, 3rd ed. Trans, by D. G.
Frey and F. E. J. Fry. Univ. of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Some additional values can be found in:
Sculthorpe, C. D., 1967, The Biology of Aquatic Vascular Plants.
Arnold Publishing, Ltd., London.
10. Hamelink, J. L., et al., 1971, "A Proposal: Exchange Equilibria Control
the Degree Chlorinated Hydrocarbons are Biologically Magnified in Lentic
Environments," Trans. Am. .Fish_. Soc. 100: 207-214.
11. Lunsford, C. A., and C. R. Blem, 1982, "Annual Cycle of Kepone Residue in
Lipid Content of the Estuarine Clam, Rangia cuneata," Estuaries 5:
121-130.
12. Schnoor, J. L., 1982, "Field Validation of Water Quality Criteria for
Hydrophobia Pollutants," Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: Fifth
Conference, ASTM STP 766, J. G. Pearson, R. B. Foster, and W. E. Bishop,
Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 302-315.
13. Sidwell, V. D., 1981, Chemical and Nutritional Composition of Finfishes,
Whales, Crustaceans, Mollusks, and Their Products. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS F/SEC-11, National Marine Fisheries Service.
14. Huth, E. J.s et al., 1978, Council of Biology Editors Style Manual, 4th
Ed., p. 117.
-------
-54-
Appendix 1. Resident North American Species of Aquatic Animals Used in Toxicity Teats
introduction
These lists identify species of aquatic animals which have reproducing wild
lopulations in North America and have been used in toxicity tests. "North America"
Deludes only the 48 contiguous states, Canada, and Alaska; Hawaii and Puerto Rico are not
Included. Saltwater (i.e., estuarlne and true marine) species are considered resident in
forth America if they Inhabit or regularly enter shore waters on or above the continental
ihelf to a depth of 200 meters. Species do not have to be native to be resident. Unlisted
ipecies should be considered resident North American species if they can be similarly
sonfirmed or if the test organisms were obtained from a wild population in North America.
The sequence for fishes is taken from A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes
:'rom the United States and Canada. For other species, the sequence of phyla, classes and
lamilies is taken from the NODC Taxonomic Code, Third Edition, National Oceanographic Data
tenter, NOAA, Washington, DC 20235, July, 1981, and the numbers given are from that source
EO facilitate verification. Within a family genera are in alphabetical order, as are
ipecies in a genus.
The references given are those used to confirm that the species is a resident North
Imerican species. (The NODC Taxonomic Code contains foreign as well as North American
ipecies.) If no such reference could be found, the species was judged to be nonresident.
Jo reference is given for organisms not identified to species; these are considered resident
inly if obtained from wild North American populations. A few nonresident species are listed
In brackets and noted as "nonresident" because they were mistakenly identified as resident
In the past or to save other investigators from doing literature searches on the same
ipecies.
Freshwater Species
—— - . Species "
Class Family Common Name Scientific Name Reference
PHYLUM; PORIFERA (36)
Demospongia Spongillidae Sponge Ephydatia fluviatilis P93
3660 366301
PHYLUM; PLATYHELMINTHES (39)
Turbellaria Planariidae Planarian Planaria gonocephala [Footnote 1]
3901
[Planarian] [Pblycelis felina] [nonresident]
Dendrocoelidae Planarian Procotyla fluviatilis E334, P132,
391501 (Dendrocoelum lacteum) D63
PHYLUM; GASTROTRICHA (44)
Chaetonotoida Chaetonotidae Gastrotrich Lepidodermella squamatum E413
4402 440201
-------
-55-
Freshwater (Continued)
Class
Family
Common Name
Species
Scientific Name
Reference
PHYLUM: ROTIFERA (ROTATORIA) (45)
Bdelloidea Philodinidae
4503 450402
Monogononta Brachionidae
4506 450601
PHYLUM: ANNELIDA (50)
Archlannelida Aeolosomatidae
5002 500301
Oligochaeta Lumbriculidae
5004 500501
Tublficidae
500902
Naidldae
500903
PHYLUM: MOLLUSCA (5085)
Gastropoda
51
Viviparidae
510306
Bithyniidae
( Aranicolidae)
(Bulimidae)
(Hydroblidae)
510317
Pleuroceridae
510340
Lymnaeidae
511410
Rotifer
Rotifer
Rotifer
Worm
Worm
Tubificid worm
Tubificid worm
Worm
Worm
Snail
Snail
Snail
Snail
Snail
Snail
Snail
Philodina acuticornis
Philodina roseola
Keratella cochlearis
Aeolosoma headleyi
Lumbriculus variegatus
Limnodrilis hoffmeisteri
Tubifex tubifex
Nais sp.
Pristina sp .
Campeloma decisum
Amnicoia sp.
Goniobasis livescena
Goniobasis virginica
Leptoxis carinata
(Nitocris carinata)
(Mudalia carinata)
Nitocris ap.
Lymnaea catascopium
(Lymnaea emarginata)
Y
E487
E442, P188
E528, P284
E533, P290
E536
E536, P289
[Footnote 2]
[Footnote 2]
P731, M216
[Footnote 2]
P732
E1137
«•
X, E1137
[Footnote 2]
M328
(Stagnicola emarginata)
-------
-56-
sreshwater (Continued)
Class Family
Planorbidae
511412
Physidae
511413
Bivalvia Margaritiferidae
(Pelecypoda) 551201
55
Amblemidae
Unionidae
551202
Corbiculidae
551545
Pisidiidae
(Sphaeriidae)
551546
Common Name
Snail
Snail
Snail
[Snail]
Snail
Snail
Snail
[Snail]
Snail
Snail
Snail
Mussel
Mussel
Mussel
Mussel
Mussel
Mussel
Asiatic clam
Asiatic clam
Fingernail clam
Fingernail clam
Species
Scientific Name
Lymnaea elodes
(Lymnaea palustris)
Lymnaea st agnail 3
Lymnaea sp.
[Biomphalaria glabrata]
Gyraulus circumstriatus
Heliapma campanulatum
Aplexa hypnorum
[Physa fontinalis]
Physa gyrina
Physa heterostropha
Physa integra
Margaritifera
margaritifera
Amblema plicata
Anodonta imbecillus
Carunculina parva
(Toxolasiaa texasensis)
Cyrtonaias tampicoenis
Elliptio complanata
Corbicula fluminea
Corbicula manilensis
Eupera cubensis
(Eupera s ing ley i)
Musculium transversum
Reference
E1127, M351
E1127, P726,
M296
[Footnote 2]
[nonresident]
(M390)
P729, M397
M445
E1126, P727,
M373
[nonresident]
(M373)
E1126, P727,
M373
M378
P727
E1138, P748,
Jll
AA122
J72» AA122
J19, AA122
P759. AA122
J13
El 159
P749
E1158, P763,
G9
M160, Gil
(Sphaeriua transversum)
-------
-57-
Freshwater (Continued)
Class Family Common Name
Fingernail clam
PHYLUM: ARTHROPODA (58-69)
Crustacea Lynceidae Conchostracan
61 610701
Sididae Cladoceran
610901
Daphnidae Cladoceran
610902
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
[Cladoceran]
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Bosminidae Cladoceran
Species
Scientific Name
Sphaerium corneum
Lynceus brachyurus
Diaphanosoma sp.
Ceriodaphnia acanthina
Ceriodaphnia reticulata
Oaphnia ambigua
Daphnia carinata
[Daphnia cucullataj
Daphnia galeata mendotae
Daphnia hyalina
Daphnia longispina
Daphnia raagna
Daphnia parvula
Daphnia pulex
Daphnia pulicaria
Daphnia similis
Moina rectirostris
Simocephalua serrulatus
Simocephalus vetulus
Bosmina longirostris
Reference
G12
E580, P344
[Footnote 2]
E618
E618, P368
E607, P369
[Footnote 3]
[nonresident]
E610, P370
[Footnote 4]
[Footnote 5]
E605, P367
E611
E613, P367
A
E606, P367
E623, P370
E617, P370
E617, P370
E624, P373
Polypheraidae
610905
Cladoceran
Polyphemus pediculus
E599, P385
-------
-58-
freshwater (Continued)
Class Family
Cyprididae
(Cypridae)
611303
Diaptomidae
611818
Cyclopidae
612008
AselLidae
616302
Ganmaridae
616921
Hyalellidae
Common Name
[Ostracod]
Os traced
[Cope pod]
[Copepod]
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
[Isopod]
Isopod
Isopod
[Isopod]
Isopod
Scud
Scud
Scud
Scud
Scud
Scud
Species
Scientific Name
[Cypretta kawatai]
Cypridopais vidua
[Eudiaptomus padanus]
[Cyclops abyssorum]
Cyclops bicuspidatus
Cyclops vernalis
Cyclops viridis
(Acsnthocyclops viridis)
Eucyclops agilis
Mesocyclops leuckarti
[Asellus aquaticus]
Asellus brevicaudus
Asellus communis
[Asellus meridianus]
Aaeilua racovitzai
Crangonyx pseudogracilis
Gammarus fasciatus
Gammarus lacustris
Gammarus pseudolimnaeus
Gammarus sp.
Hyalella azteca
Reference
[nonresident]
(U)
E720, P430
[nonresident]
[nonresident]
E807, P405
E804, P405
E803, P397
P403
E812, P403
[nonresident]
(12)
E875, P447
E875, P448
[nonresident]
P449
P459
E877, P458,
E877, P458
E877, P458,
T48 •
E876, P457,
(Talitridae)
616923
Palaemonidae
617911
(Hyalella knickerbockeri) T154
[Malaysian prawn] [Macrobrachium
rosenbergii]
[nonresident]
-------
Freshwater (Continued)
-59-
Class Family Common Name
Glass shrimp
Astacidae Crayfish
618102
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Insects Heptageniidae Mayfly
62-65 621601
Mayfly
Baetidae Mayfly
621602
Mayfly
Ephemerellidae Mayfly
621702
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Caenidae Mayfly
621802
Species
Scientific Name
Palaetaonetes kadiakensis
Cambarus latimanus
Faxoneila clypeatus
Orconectes Limosus
Orconectea propinc|uus
Orconectes nais
Orconectes rustic us
Orconect.ee virilis
Paclfastacus trowbridgii
Pracanibarus acutus
Procafflbarus clarki
(Procambarus clarkii)
Procaatbarus simulans
Procarabarus sp*
Stenonema ithaca
Stenonema rubrum
Callibaetis sp.
Cloeon dip te rum
Ephemerella doddsi
Epharaerella grandis
Ephemerella subvaria
E^hemereUa ap.
Caenis diminuta
Reference
E881, P484
E897
E890
E893, P482
E894S P482
E894
E893, P482
E8945 P483
E883
P482
E885, P482
E888, P482
[Footnote 2]
S173, 0205
S178, 0205
[Footnote 2]
0173
0245
0245 *
N9, 0248,
S71
[Footnote 2]
S51, 0268
-------
-60-
Freshwater (Continued)
Class Family
Ephemeridae
622003
Libellulidae
622601
Coenagrionidae
(Agrionidae)
(Coenagriidae)
622904
Pteronarcidae
625201
Perlidae
625401
Perlodidae
625402
Dytiscidae
630506
Elmidae
(Elminthidae)
631604
Hydropaych idae
641804
Common Name
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Dragonfly
Damsel fly
Damsel fly
Stonefly
Stone fly
Stonefly
Stonefly
Stonefly
Stonefly
Stonefly
Stonefly
Beetle
Beetle
Caddisfly
Caddisf ly
Caddisfly
Caddisfly
Species
Scientific Name
Hexagenia bilineata
Hexagenia rigida
Hexagenia sp.
Pant a la hymenea
(Pantala hymenaea)
Ischnura verticalis
Ischnura sp.
Pteronarcella badia
Pteronarcys californica
Pteronarcys dorsata
Pteronarcys sp.
Acroneuria lycorias
Acroneuria pacifica
Claassenia sabulosa
Arcynopteryx parallela
Stenelmis sexlineata
Arctopsyche grandis
Hydropsyche betteni
Hydropsyche californica
Hydropsyche sp.
Reference
N9, S39,
0290
0290, S41,
N9
[Footnote 2]
N15, V603
N15
[Footnote 2]
L172
L173
E947
[Footnote 2]
N4, E953
E953, L180
E953
E954
W21
L251
N24
L253
[Footnote 2]
-------
Freshwater (Continued)
-61-
Class
Family
Brachycentridae
641815
Ceratopogonidae
650504
Chironoraidae
650508
PHYLUM: ECTOPROCTA (BRYOZOA) (78)
Phylacto-
laemata
7817
PHYLUM: CHORD ATA
Agnatha
86
Osteichthyes
8717
Pectinatelcidae
Lophopodidae
Plumatellidae
781701
(8388)
Petromyzontidae
860301
Anguillidae
874101
Salmonidae
875501
Common Name
Caddisfly
Biting midge
Midge
Midge
Midge
Midge
Bryozoan
Bryozoan
Bryozoan
Sea lamprey
American eel
Pink salmon
Coho salmon
Sockeye salmon
Chinook salraon
Golden trout
Cutthroat trout
Rainbow trout
Species
Scientific Name
Brachyeentrus ap<.
Chironomus tentans
Chironomus sp.
Tany_t£t9tjs dissimills
Pfectlnatella magnifica
Lo£ho£odeila carter!
Plumstella emarginata
Petromyzon marinus
Anguilla rostrata
Oncorhyachus S2£bu3cha
Oncorhytichus kisutch
Ojncorhynchua nerka
OncorhyiQchus tshawyjzscha
Salmo aguabonita
Salmo clarki
Salmo gairdneri
Reference
[Footnote 2]
[Footnote 2]
L423
Q
[Footnote 2]
Rll
E502, P269
E502, P271
E505, P272
Fll
F15
F18
F18
F19
F19
F19
F19
F19
(Steelhead trout)
-------
-62-
Freshwater (Continued)
Class Family Common Name
Atlantic salmon
Brown trout
Brook trout
Lake trout
Esocidae Northern pike
875801
Cyprinidae Chiselmouth
877601
Longfin dace
Central
stoneroller
Goldfish
Common carp
[Zebra danio]
[(Zebrafish)'j
Golden shiner
Pugnose shiner
Emerald shiner
Striped shiner
Common shiner
Pugnose minnow
Spottail shiner
Red shiner
Spotfin shiner
Northern
Species
Scientific Name
Salmo salar
Salmo trutta
Salve linus fontinalis
Salve linus namaycush
Esox lucius
Acrocheilus alutaceus
Agrosia chrysogaster
Campostoma anomalum
Carassius auratus
Cyprinus carpio
[Danio rerio]
[ (Brachydanio rerio)]
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Notropis anogenus
Notropis atherinoides
Notropis chryaocephalus
Notropis cornutus
Notropis emiiiae
Notropis hudsonius
Notropis lutrensis
Notropis spectrunculus
Phoxinus eos
Reference
F19
F19
F19
F19
F20
F21
F21
F21
F21
F21
[nonresident]
(F96)
F23
F23
F23
F23
F23
F24
F24
F24
F25
F25
redbelly dace
-------
Freshwater (Continued)
-63-
Class Family Common Name
Bluntnose minnow
Fathead minnow
Northern
squawf iah
Blacknose dace
Speckled dace
Bitterling
Rudd
Creek chub
Pearl dace
Tench
Catostomidae White aucker
877604
Ictaluridae Black bullhead
877702
Yellow bullhead
Brown bullhead
Channel catfish
Clariidae Walking catfish
877712
Cyprinodontidae Banded killifish
880404
Flagfish
Poeciliidae Mosquitofiah
880408
Amazon molly
Sailfin raolly
Species
Scientific Name
Pimephales notatus
Pimephales promelas
Ptyc hoch e i 1 u s
oregjonensxs
Khinichthys atratulus
Rhinichthys osculus
Rhodeus sericeus
Scardinius
ervtbrophthalmus
Seraotilus atromsculatus
Semotilus margarita
Tinea tinea
Catostomus commersoni
Ictalurus melas
Ictslurus natalis
Ictalurus nebulosus
Ictalurus punctatus
Claries batrachus
Fundulus diaphanus
Jordanella floridae
Gambusia affinis
Poecilia formosa
Poecilia latipinna
Reference
F25
F25
F25
F25
F25
F26
F26
F26
F26
F26
F26
F27
F27
F27
F27
F28
F33
F33
F33
F34
F34
-------
-64-
Freshwater (Continued)
Class Family
Gasterosteidae
881801
Percichthyidae
Centrarchidae
883516
Percidae
883520
Common Name
Molly
Guppy
Southern
platyfish
Brook
stickleback
Threespine
stickleback
Ninespine
stickleback
White perch
Striped bass
Rock bass
Green sunfish
Pumpkinseed
Orangespotted
sunfish
Bluegill
Longear sunfish
Redear sunfish
Sraallmouth bass
Largeraouth bass
Black crappie
Rainbow darter
Johnny darter
Species
Scientific Name
Poecilia sp.
Poecilia reticulata
(L,ebistes reticulatus,
Xiphophorue maculatus
Culaea inconstans
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Pungitius pungitius
Morone americana
Morone saxatilis
Ambloplites rupestris
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepomis humilis
Lepomis raacrochirus
Lepomis megalotis
Lepomis micro lophus
Micropterus dolomieui
Micropterus salmoidea
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Etheostoma caeruleum
EtheosComa nigrum
Reference
F34
Obs.)
P34
F35
F35
F35
F36
F36
F38
F38
F38
F38
F38
F38
F38
F39
F39
F39
F39
F40
-------
Freshwater (Continued)
-65-
Class Family
Sciaenidae
883544
Cichlidae
883561
Cottidae
883102
Amphibia Ranidae
89 890302
Microhylidae
890303
Bufonidae
890304
Common Name
Orangethroat
darter
Yellow perch
Walleye
Freshwater drum
Oscar
Blue tilapia
Mozambique
tilapia
Mottled sculpin
Bullfrog
Green frog
Pig frog
River frog
Leopard frog
[Frog]
Narrow-mouthed
toad
American toad
[Toad]
Green toad
Fowler's toad
Red-spotted toad
Woodhouse's toad
Species
Scientific Name
Etheostoma spectabile
Perca flavescens
Sti.KosCedi.on vitreum
vitreusn
Aplodinotus gruntiiens
Astronotus ocellatus
Tilapia aurea
Tilapia mossambica
Gottus bairdi
Ran a catesbeiana
Ran a cl ami tans
Rana grylio
Rana heckscheri
Rana £i£i£££
(Rana temper ia]
Gas t rpphr yne
carolinensis
Bufo americanus
[Bufo bufo]
Bufo debilig
Bufo fowleri
Bufo punctatus
Bufo woodhousei
Reference
F40
F41
F41
F45
F47
F47
F47
F60
B206
B206
B206
B206
B205
[nonresident]
B192
B196
«
[nonresident]
B197
B196
B198
B196
-------
-66-
Freshwater (Continued)
Class
Family
Speciea
Common Name
Scientific Name
Reference
Hylidae
890305
Pipidae
Ambystomat idae
890502
Salamandridae
890504
Northern cricket
frog
Southern gray
treefrog
Spring peeper
Barking treefrog
Squirrel
treefrog
Gray treefrog
Northern chorus
frog
African clawed
frog
Spotted
salamander
Marbled
salamander
Newt
Acris crepitans
Hyla chrysoacelis
B203
B201
Hyla crucifer
Hyla gjratiosa
Hyla squirella
Hyla versicolor
Pseudacris triseriata
B202
B201
B201
B200
B202
Xenopus laevis Z16
Ambystoma maculaturn B176
Ambystoma opacum B176
Notophthalmus viridescens B179
(Triturus viridescens)
-------
-67-
Footnotes:
1. Apparently this is an outdated name (D19, 20). Organisms identified as such should only
be used if they were obtained from North America.
2. Organisms not identified to species are considered resident only if obtained from wild
populations in North America.
3. If from North America, it is resident and should be called £. sim.ilis (C). If not from
North America, it is nonresident.
4. If from North America, it is resident and may be any one of a number of species such as
_D. laevis, E>. dubia, or ]). galiata mendota (C). If not from North America, it is
nonresident.
5. If from North America, it is resident and may be any one of a number of species, such as
I), ambigua, D. longiremis, or D. rosea (C). If not from North America, it is
nonresident.
-------
-68-
REFERENCES
Brandlova, J., Z. Brandl, and C. H. Fernando. 1972. The Cladocera of Ontario with
remarks on some species and distribution. Can. J. Zool. 50: 1373-1403.
Blair, W. F., et al., Vertebrates of the United States, 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York,
1968. —-
Brooks, J. L., The Systematics of North American Daphnia, Memoirs of the Connecticut
Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. XIII, Nov. 1957, 180 p.
Kenk, R., Freshwater Planarians (Turbellaria) of North America, Biota of Freshwater
Ecosystems Identification Manual No. 1, U.S. G.P.O. #5501-0365, 1972.
Edmondson, W. T., ed., Fresh-water Biology, 2nd Ed., Wiley, New York, 1965.
Committee on Names of Fishes, A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the
United States and Canada, 4th Ed., American Fisheries Society, Special Publication No.
12, Bethesda, MD, 1980.
Burch, J. B., Freshwater Sphaeriacean Clama (Molluscs; Pelecypoda) of North America,
Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems Identification Manual No. 3, U.S. G.P.O. #5501-0367,
1972.
Foster, N., Freshwater Pblychaetes (Annelida) of North America, Biota of Freshwater
Ecosystems Identification Manual No. 4, U.S. G.P.O. '#5501-0368, 1972.
Williams, W. D., Freshwater Isopods (Aaellidae) of North America, Biota of Freshwater
Ecosystems Identification Manual No. 7, U.S. G.P.O. #5501-0390, 1972.
Burch, J. B., Freshwater Unionacean Clams (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of North America
Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems Identification Manual No. 11, U.S. G.P.O. #5501-00588,
1973.
Kudo, R. R., Protozoology, 5th Ed., Thomas, Springfield, 111., 1966.
Usinger, R. L., Aquatic Insects of California, University of California Press, Berkeley,
1956.
The Freshwater Molluscs of the Canadian Interior Basin, Malacologia, Vol. 13, No. 1-2,
1973.
Hilsenhoff, W.L., Aquatic Insects of Wisconsin, Technical Bulletin No. 89, Dept. of
Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, 1975.
Edmunds, G. F.. Jr., S. L. Jensen, and L. Berner, The Mayflies of North and Central
America. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1976.
Pennak, R. W., Fresh-Water Invertebrates of the United States, 2nd Ed.» Wiley, New York,
1978.,
Wentsell, R-, et al., Hydrobiologia, 56: 153-156, 1977.
Johannsen, 0. A., Aquatic Diptera. Part IV. Chironomidae: Subfamily Chironominae.
Memoir 210. Cornell Univ. Agricultural Experimental Station, Ithaca, NY, Dec. 1937.
-------
-69-
S. Burks, B. D. , The Mayflies, or Ephemeroptera, of Illinois, Bulletin of the Natural
History Survey Division, Urbana, Illinois, 1953.
T. Bousfield, E. L., Shallow-Water Gammaridean Amphipods of New England, Cornell University
Press, Ithaca, New York, 1973.
U. Sohn, I. G., and L. S. Kornicker, Morphology of Cypretta kawatai Sohn and Kornicker,
1972 (Crustacea, Ostracoda), with a Discussion of the Genus. Smithsonian Contributions
to Zoology, No. 141, 1973.
V. Needhara, J. G., and M. J. Westfall, Jr. A Manual of the Dragonflies of North America.
Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, 1955.
W. Brown, H. P-, Aquatic Dryopoid Beetles (Coleoptera) of the United States, Biota of
Freshwater Ecosystems Identification Manual No. 6, U.S.G.O. #5501-0370. 1972.
X. Parodiz, J. J., Notes on the Freshwater Snail Leptoxis (Mudalia) carinata (Bruguiere).
Annals of the Carnegie Museum 33: 391-405, 1956.
Y. Myers, F. J., The Distribution of Rotifera on Mount Desert Island. Am. Museum
Novitates, 494: 1-12. 1931. ~~~
Z. National Academy of Sciences, Amphibians: Guidelines for the breeding, care, and
management of laboratory animals. Washington, D.C. 1974.
AA. Home, F. R., and S. Mclntosh. Factors Influencing Distribition of Mussels in the
Blanco River in Central Texas. Nautilus. 94: 119-133, 1979.
-------
-70-
Saltwater Species
Class
Family
Species
Common Name
Scientific Name
Reference
PHYLUM: CNIDARIA (COELENTERATA) (37)
Hydroid
Hydroid
[Hydroid]
Hydrozoa
3701
Campanulariidae
370401
Campanulinidae
370404
Campanularia flexuosa B122, E81
Phialidium sp. [Footnote 1]
[Eirene viridula] [nonresident]
PHYLUM: CTENOPHORA (38)
Tentaculata
3801
Pleurobrachiidae Ctenophore
380201
Mnemiidae
380302
PHYLUM: RHYNCHOCQELA (43)
Heteronemertea Lineidae
4303 430302
PHYLUM: ROTIFERA (ROTATORIA) (45)
Monogononta
4505
Brachionidae
450601
PHYLUM: ANNELIDA (50)
Polychaeta
5001
PhylLodocidae
500113
Nereidae
500124
Ctenophore
Pleurobrachia pileus
Mneaiopaia mccrdayi
Nemertine worm Cerebratulus fuscus
Rotifer
Polychaete worm
Polychaete worm
[Polychaete worm]
Polychaete worm
Sand worm
Brachionus plicatilis
Phyllodoce maculata
(Anaitides maculata)
(Nereiphylla maculata)
B218, E162
C39, 194
B252
B272
E334
Neanthes arenaceodentata E377
(Nereis arenaceodentata)
[Neanthes vaali]
Nereis diversicolor
(Neanthes diversicolor)
, Nereis virens
(Neanthes virens)
[nonresident]
E337, F527
B317, E337,
C58
Polychaete worm Nereis sp.
-------
-71-
Saltwater Species
Class
Family
Species
Common Name
Scientific Name
Reference
Dorvilleidae
500136
Spionidae
500143
Cirratulidae
50015Q
Ctenodrilidae
500153
Capitellidae
500160
Arenicolidae
500162
PHYLUM: MOLLUSCA (5085)
Gastropoda
51
Bivalvia
(Pelecypoda)
55
Haliotidae
510203
Calyptraeidae
510364
Muricidae
510501
Melongenidae
(Neptuneidae)
510507
Nassariidae
(Nassidae)
510508
Mytilidae
550701
Pect inidae
550905
Polychaete worm Ophryotrocha diadema P23
[Polychaete worm] [Ophryotrocha labrunica] [nonresident]
Polychaete worm Polydora websteri^ E338
Polychaete worm Cirriform!a spirabranchia G253
Polychaete wora Cteaodrilua serratus
Polychaete worm Capitella capitata
Polychaete worm Areaicola marina
Black abalone
Red abalone
Common Atlantic
slippershell
Oyster drill
Haliotis cracherodii
Haliotis rufescens
Crepidula fornicata
Urosalpinx cinerea
CUrosalpinx cinereus)
Channeled whelk Busycon canalieu1atum
Mud snai1
Blue mussel
[Mediterranean
mussel]
Bay scallop
Masaarius obsoletus
(Nassa obso leta)
(Icyanassa obsoleta)
Mytilus edulis
[Mytilus
gall^oprovinciallis]
Argopecten irradiana
G275
B358, E337
B369, E337
C88, D17
D18
C90, D141
B646, D179,
E264
B655, D223,
E264
B649, D226,
E264
B566, C101,
D428, E299
[nonresident]
D447
-------
-72-
Saltwater (Continued)
Class Family
Ostreidae
551002
Cardiidae
551522
Mactridae
551525
Tellinidae
551531
Veneridae
551547
Myidae
(Myacidae)
551701
PHYLUM: ARTHROPODA (58-69)
Merostoraata Litnulidae
58 580201
-Crustacea Artemiidae
61 610401
Calanidae
611801
Pseudocalanidae
611805
Common Name
Pacific oyster
Eastern oyster
Oyster
Oyster
[Cockle]
Brackish water
clam
Surf clam
[ Bivalve]
Quahog clam
Common Pacific
littleneck
Japanese
littleneck
Soft-shell
clam
Horseshoe crab
[Brine shrimp]
Cope pod
Cope pod
Copepod
Species
Scientific Name
Crassostrea gigas
Crassostrea virginica
Crassostrea sp.
Ostrea edulis
[Cardium edule]
Rangia cuneata
Spisula solidissima
[Tellina tenuis]
Mercenaria mercenaria
Protothaca staminea
Tapes philippinarum
Mya arenaria
Limulus polyphemus
[Artemia salina]
Calanus helgolandicus
Undinula vulgaris
Pseudocalanus minutus
Reference
C102, D456,
E300
D456, E300
[Footnote 1]
E300
[nonresident]
D491, E301
B599, D489,
E301
[nonresident]
D523, E301
D526
0527
B602, D536,
E302
B533, E403,
H30
[Footnote 2]
Q25
Q29
E447, 1155,
Q43
-------
Saltwater (Continued)
-73-
Class Family
Euchaetidae
611808
Metridiidae
611816
Pseudod iaptomidae
611819
Temoridae
611820
Pontellidae
611827
Acartiidae
611829
Harpact icidae
611910
Canthocamptidae
611929
Balanidae
613402
Mysidae
615301
Idoteidae
616202
Common Name
Cope pod
Cope pod
Cope pod
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
[Copepod]
Copepod
Barnacle
Barnacle
Barnacle
Barnacle
My 3 id
Mysid
Mys id
Mysid
Isopod
[Isopod]
[Isopod]
Species
Scientific Name
Euchaeta marina
Metridia pacifies
Pseudodiaptoraus coronatus
Eurytemora affinis
Labidocera scotti
Acartia clausi
Acartia tonsa
Tigriopus californicus
[Tigriopus japanicus]
Nitocra spinipes
Balanus balanoides
Balanus crenatus
Balanus eburneus
Balanus improvisus
Heteromysis formosa
Mysidopsis bahia
Mysidopsis bigelowi
Neomysis sp.
Idotea baltica
[idotea emarginata]
[Idotea neglecta]
Reference
Q63
X179, Y
E447, 1154,
Q101
E450, 1155,
Qlll
R157
E447
E447, 1154
J78
[nonresidentj
Q240
B424, E457
B426, E457
B424, E457
B426, E457
E513, K720
U173
«
E513, K720
[Footnote 1]
B446, E483
[nonresident]
[nonresident]
-------
Saltwater (Continued)
-74-
Class Family
Janiridae
616306
Ampeliscidae
616902
Euairidae
(Pontogeneiidae)
616920
Gammaridae
616921
Lysianassidae
616934
Euphausiidae
( Thys anopod id ae)
617402
Penaeidae
617701
Palaemonidae
617911
Pandalidae
617918
Common Name
[Isopod]
[Isopod]
[Isopod]
Amphipod
Amphipod
Amphipod
Amphipod
Amph ipod
Amphipod
Euphausiid
Brown shrimp
Pink shrimp
White shrimp
[Shrimp]
[Prawn]
Korean shrimp
Grass shrimp
Grass shrimp
Coon stripe
shr imp
Species
Scientific Name
[Jaera albifrons]
[Jaera albifrons sensu]
[Jaera nordmanni]
Ampelisca abdita
Pontogeneia sp.
Gammarua duebeni
Gammarus oceanicus
Marinogammarus obtusatus
Anonyx sp.
Euphausia pacifica
Penaeus aztecus
Penaeus duorarum
Penaeus setiferus
[Leander paucidens]
[Leander squilla]
[(Paiaeraon elegans)]
Palaemon macrodactylus
Palaeraonetes pugio
Palaemonetes vulgaris
Pandalus danae
Reference
[nonresident ]
[nonresident]
[nonresident]
E488, L136
[Footnote 1]
L56
E489, L50
L58
[Footnote 1]
Ml 5
E518, N17
E518, N17
E518, N17
[nonresident]
[nonresident]
T380 *
E521, N59
B500, E521,
N56
T306, W163
-------
-75-
Saltwater (Continued)
Class Family
Crangonidae
617922
Nephropsidae
(Nephropidae)
(Homaridae)
618101
Paguridae
618306
Cancridae
618803
Portunidae
618901
Xanthidae
( Pilumnidae)
618902
Grapsidae
618907
Common Name
Shrimp
Pink shrimp
[Sand shrimp]
Bay shrimp
Shrimp
Sand shrimp
American lobster
[Lobster]
Hermit crab
Rock crab
Dungeness crab
Blue crab
Green crab
Mud crab
Crab
Mud crab
Drift line crab
Species
Scientific Name
P and a 1 us goniurus
Pandalus montagui
[Crangon crangon]
Crangon franciscorum
(Crago franciscorum)
Crangon nigricauda
Crangon septemspinosa
Hotnarus americanus
[Homarus gammarus]
Pagurus longicarpus
Cancer irroratus
Cancer magister
Callinectes sapidus
Carcinus maenas
Eurypanopeus depressus
Leptodius floridanus
Rhithropanopeus harrisii
Sesarma cinereum
Reference
W163
B494, E522,
W163
[nonresident]
V176, W164
V176, W164
B500, E522,
N89
B502, E532
[nonresident]
B514, E537,
N125
B518, E543,
N175
T166, V185,
W177
B521, C80,
E543, N168
C80, E543
B522, E543,
N195
«•
S80
E543, N187
B526, E544,
N222
[Crab]
[Seaarma haematocheir] [nonresident]
-------
Saltwater (Continued)
-76-
Class
Family
Ocypodidae
618909
PHYLUM: ECHINODERMATA (81)
Asteroidea
8104
Ophiuroidea
8120
Echinoidea
8136
Asteriidae
811703
Ophiothricidae
812904
Arbaciidae
814701
Toxopneustidae
814802
Echinidae
814901
Echinometridae
814902
Strongy-
locentrotidae
Common Name
Fiddler crab
Starfish
Brittle star
[Sea urchin]
Sea urchin
Sea urchin
[Sea urchin]
[Echinoderm]
[Coral reef
echinoid]
Sea urchin
Species
Scientific Name
Uca pu$ilator
Asterias forbesii
Ophiothrix spiculata
[Arbacia lixula]
Arbacia punctulata
Lytechinus pictus
[Pseudocentrotus
depressuTl
[Paracentrotus lividus]
[Echinometra mathaei]
Strongylocentrotus
pur pur at us
Reference
B526, E544,
N232
B728, E578,
0392
0672, T526
[nonresident]
B762, E572
T253
[nonresident]
[nonresident]
[nonresident]
[Hawaii only]
0574, T202
814903
Dendrasteridae
815501
Sand dollar
Dendraster excentricus 0537, V363
PHYLUM: CHAETOGNATHA (83)
PHYLUM: CHORDATA (8388)
Chondrtenthyes Rajidae
8701 871304
Osteichthyes Anguillidae
8717 874101
Clupeidae
874701
Arrow worm
Sagitta hispida
[Thornback ray] [Raja clavata]
American eel Anguilla rostrata
Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus
E218
[nonresident]
A15
A17
-------
Saltwater (Continued)
-77-
Class Family
Engraulidae
874702
Salmon id ae
875501
Gadidae
879103
Cypr inodont idae
880404
Poeciliidae
880408
Atherinidae
880502
Common Name
Gulf menhaden
Atlantic herring
Pacific herring
Northern anchovy
[Nehu]
Pink salmon
Chum salmon
Coho salmon
Sockeye salmon
Chinook salmon
Rainbow trout
(Steelhead trout)
Atlantic salmon
Haddock
Sheepshead
minnow
Mummichog
Striped
killifish
Longnose
killifish
Mosquitof ish
Sailfin molly
Inland
silverside
Species
Scientific Name
Brevoortia patronus
Clupaa harengus harengus
Clupea harengus pallasi
Engraulis mordax
[Stolephorus purpureus]
Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
Oncorhynchus keta
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Oncorhynchus nerka
One o r h y_nc_h us tshawytscha
Salmo gairdneri
Salmo salar
Melanpgramnus aeglefinus
C^prinodon variegatus
Fundulus heteroclitus
Fundulus maialis
Fundulus similis
Gambusia affinis
Poecilia latipinna
Menidia beryllina
Reference
A17
A17
A17
A18
[nonresident]
[Hawaii only]
A18
A18
A18
A19
A19
A19
A19
A30
A33
A33
A33
A3 3
A33
A34
A34
-------
-78-
Saltwater (Continued)
Class Family
Gasterosteidae
881801
Syngnathidae
882002
Perc ichthy idae
Kuhliidae
883514
Car ang idae
883528
Sparidae
883543
Sciaenidae
883544
Embiotocidae
883560
Pomacentridae
883562
Labridae
883901
Mugilidae
883601
Common Name
Atlantic
silverside
Tidewater
silverside
Threespine
stickleback
Fourspine
stickleback
Northern
pipefish
Striped bass
[Mountain bass]
Florida Pompano
Pinfish
Spot
Atlantic croaker
Shiner perch
Dwarf perch
Blacksmith
Cunner
Bluehead
[Mullet]
Striped mullet
Species
Scientific Name
Men id i a men id i a
Men id i a peninsulae
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Apeltes quadracus
Syngnathus fuscus
Moron e saxatilis
[Kuhlia sandvicensis]
Trachinotus carolinus
Lagodon rhomboides
Leiostbmus xanthurus
Micropogonias undulatus
Cymatogaster aggregate
Micrometrua minimus
Chromis punctipinnis
Tautogolabrus adspersus
Thalassoma bifasciatum
[Aldrichetta forsteri]
Mugil cephalus
Reference
A34
A34
A35
A35
A36
A36
[nonresident]
[Hawaii only]
A43
A45
A46
A46
A47
A48
A48
A49
A49
[nonresident]
A49
-------
-79-
Saltwater (Continued)
Species
Class Family
Ammodytidae
884501
Gobiidae
884701
Cottidae
883102
Bothidae
885703
Common Name
White mullet
Pacific sand
lance
Longjaw mudsucker
Naked goby
Tidepool sculpin
Speckled sanddab
Scientific Name
Mugil curema
Ammodytes hexapterus
Gillichthys mirabilis
Gobiosoma bosci
Oligocottus maculosus
Citharichthys stigmaeus
Reference
A49
A53
A54
A54
A61
A64
Pleuronectidae
885704
Summer flounder Paralichthys dentatus
[Dab] [Limanda limanda]
[Plaice]
A64
[nonresident]
[Pleuronectea platessa] [nonresident]
English sole
Parophrys vetulus
Tetraodontidae
886101
Winter flounder Pseudopleuronectes
amerxcanus
Northern puffer Sphoeroides maculatus
A65
A65
A66
Footnotes:
1. Organisms not identified to species are considered resident only if obtained from wild
populations in North America.
2. This species should not be used because it may be too atypical.
-------
-80-
REFERENCES
A. Committee on Names of Fishes, A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes ftorn the
Un i ted States and Can ad a, 4th Ed., American Fisheries Society, Special Publication, No.
12, Bethesda, MD, 1980.
B. Miner, R. W. 1950. Field Book of Seashore Life. Van Rees Press: New York, New York.
C. George, D., and J. George. 1979. Marine Life; An Illustrated Encyclopedia of
Invertebrates in the Sea. Wiley-Interscience: New York, New York.
D. Abbott, R. T. 1974. American Seaahells, Second Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company;
New York, New York.
E. Gosner- K. L. 1971. Guide to Identification of Marine and Estuarine Invertebrates:
Cape Hatter as to the Bay of Fundy.Wiley-Interscience: New York, New York.
F. Hartmann, 0. 1968. At^as of the Errantiate Polychaetous Annelids from California.
Allan Hancock FoundatTon^University of Southern California: Los Angeles, California.
G. Hartmann, 0. 1969. Atlas of the Sedentariate Polychaetous Annelids from California.
Allan Hancock Foundation, University of Southern California: Los Angeles, California.
»
H. Cooley, N. R. 1978. An Inventory of the Estuarine Fauna in the Vicinity of Pensacola,
Florida. Florida Department of Natural Resources: St. Petersburg, Florida. Florida
Marine Research Publication No. 31.
I. Zingmark, R. G. (Ed.) 1978. An Annotated Checklist, of the Biota of the Coastal Zone of
South Carolina. University of South Carolina Press: Columbia, South Carolina.
J. Monk, C. R. 1941. Marine Harpacticoid Copepods from California. Trans. Aaaer. Microsc.
Soc. 60:75-99.
1C. Wigley, R. , and B. R. Burns. 1971. Distribution and Biology of Mysids (Crustacea,
Mysidacea) from the Atlantic Coast of the United States in the NMFS Woods Hole
Collection. Fish. Bull. 69(4):717~746.
L. Bousfieid, E. L. 1973. Shallow-Water Gammaridean Amphipoda of New England. Cornell
University Press: Ithaca, New York.
M. Ponoraareva, L. A. Euphausids of the North Pacific, their Distribution, and Ecology.
Jerusalem: Isreal Program for Scientific Translations. 1966,, 154 p. Translated from
the Russian by S. Nemchonok. Available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA; TT65-50098.
N. Williams, A. B. 1965. Marine Decapod Crustaceans of the Carolines. Fish. Bull.
65(l):l-298.
0. Hyman, L. H. 1955. The Invertebrates: Echinodermata. Vol. IV. McGraw-Hill: New York,
New York.
-------
-81-
P. Akeason, B. 1976. Morphology and Life Cycle of Ophryotrocha diadema, a New
Polychaete Species from California. Ophelia, 15(1) : 23-25.
Q. Wilson, C. B. 1932. The copepods of the Woods Hole Region, Massachusetts. U.S. Nat.
Mus. Bull. 158: 1-635.
R. Fleminger, A. 1956. Taxonomic and distributional studies on the epiplanktonic«j!
calanoid copepods (Crustacea) of the Gulf of Mexico. Dissertation. Harvard
University; Cambridge, 317 pp.
S. Menzel, R. W. 1956. Annotated checklist of the marine fauna and flora of the St.
George's Sound - Apalachee Bay region, Florida Gulf Coast. Fla. State Univ. Oceanogr.
Inst. Contrib. No. 61, 78 pp.
i
T. Ricketts, E. F., and J. Calvin. (Revised by Joel W. Hedgpeth) . 1968. Between Pacific
Tides. Stanford University Press: Stanford, California, pp. 1-614.
U. Price, W. W. 1978. Occurrence of Mysidopsis al-myra Bowman, H. bahia Molenock and
Bowmaniella brasiliensis Bacescu (Crustacea, Mysidacea) from the Eastern Gulf of Mexico.
Gulf Res. Reports 6(2): 173-175.
V. Light, S. F. (Revised by R. I. Smith, F. A. Pit^elka, D. A. Abbott, and F. M. Weesner) .
1961. Intertidal Invertebrates of the Central California Coast. University of
California Press, Los Angeles, California.446 pp.
W. Kozloff, E. N. 1974. Keys to the Marine Invertebrates of Puget Sound, the San Juan
Archipelago, and adjacent regions. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.
226 pp.
X. Calcofi Atlas. No. 19. California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations, State
of California Marine Research Committee, pp. 179-185.
Y. Brodskii, K. A. 1967. Calanoida of the Far Eastern Seas and Polar Basin of the U.S.S.R.
Jerusalem Series, Keys to the Fauna of the U.S.S.R. Zoological Inst., Academy Sciences,
U.S.S.R. No. 35.
------- |