GUIDELINES FOR DERIVING  NUMERICAL NATIONAL WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

        FOR THE PROTECTION  OP  AQUATIC ORGANISMS AND THEIR USES
                                  by
Charles E. Stephan, Donald  I. Mount,  David  J.  Hansen,  John H. Gentile,

                Gary A. Chapman,  and  William A.  Brunga
                 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                  OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND  DEVELOPMENT
                  ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH  LABORATORIES
                           DULUTH, MINNESOTA
                      NARRAGANSETT, RHODE ISLAND
                           CORVALLIS,  OREGON
                       KPtOOWtP IT
                       NATIONAL TECHNICAL
                       INFORMATION SERVICE
                          Hi DtPMTWDI OF COMMHCE
                            STRMCFIUO, «. Hill

-------
                                   NOTICES
This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency policy and approved for publication.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical
Information Service (HTIS), 5285 Fort Royal Road, Springfield, VA  22161.
                                     11

-------
                                   CONTESTS

                                                                          Page

Executive Summary	    iv



Introduceion   	     1

I.    Definition of Material of Concern	    19

II.   Collection of Data	K	    21

III.  Required Data	    22

IV.   Final Acute Value 	    26

V.    Final Acute Equation  	    32

VI.   Final Chronic Value  	    36

VII.  Final Chronic Equation  	    43

VIII. Final Plant Value 	    47

IX.   Final Residue Value  	    48

X.    Other Data	    54

XI.   Criterion	    54

XII.  Final Review	    55



References	    58
Appendix 1.  Resident Horth American Species of Aquatic Animals Osed
             in Toxicity and Bioconcentration Tests  	    62
Appendix 2.  Example Calculation of Final Acute Value, Computer
             Program, and Printouts 	    97
                                     1x1

-------
                              EXECUTIVE SUMMARY




     Derivation of numerical national water quality criteria for che




protection of aquatic organism* and their uaea is a complex process (Figure




1) chat uses information from many areas of aquatic toxicology.  Afcer a




decision is made that a national criterion is needed for a particular




material, all available infomation concerning toxicity to, and bioaccumula-




tion by, aquatic organisms is collected, reviewed for acceptability, and




sorced.  If enough acceptable data on acute toxicity to aquatic animals are



available, they are used to estimate the highest one-hour average concentra-




tion that should not result in unacceptable effects on aquatic organisms and




their uses.  If justified, this concentration is made a function of a water




quality characteristic such as pR, salinity, or hardness.  Similarly, data on




the chronic toxicity of the material to aquatic animals are used to estimate




the highest four-day average concentration that should not cause unacceptable




toxicity during a long-term exposure.  If appropriate, this concentration is




also related to a water quality characteristic.




     Data on toxicity to aquatic plants are examined to determine whether



plants are likely to be unacceptably affected by concentrations that should




noc cause unacceptable effects on animals.  Data on bioaccumulation by




aquatic organisms are used to determine if residues might subject edible




species to restrictions by the U.S. 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.




     If a thorough review of che percinent information indicates chat enough




acceptable data are available, numerical national water quality criteria are




derived for fresh water or salt water or boch to protecc aquatic organisms



                                     iv

-------
                       Fifura 1

Derivation of Numerical National Water Quality Critaria for tba
      Protaction of Aquatic Orf aniama and Thair Uaea












COUKT
AMD HfIBw
ftATi





























•}


















)
i






\
— 3





1
J





i
3






_,
M
Aornt
tAUUHi
TO AMUtlA






ivucm
TOJWUU





IQDUVT TO
pumi





•nimnuuii






IimnB RITA


\
j




.
*





















































	 J








>
—3






j
J





1









^»M11»^
VII llv

1
i

nHAL nnnoc
WHIM






1 nut run 1
VtfflK j~




•WAI I^^BIK

fJUDB




Lonsr
WnftQITAIJT
mromNT Tim




















































i









<
^















^













C30IBBOM
uuoyuu
^^hdd^4MA^^AVBAAA














cmadON
uwmuouB












V






































































nmv
OOMPII

OFbi
APPBtM
or at












tun
one













IfOB
ram

IA AMD
•«
•UMW^
WUB












OMAL
•ON





-------
and cbeir uses from unacceptable effaces due Co exposures to high concentra-



tions for short periods of time, lover coneenorations for longer periods of



cine, and combinations of the two.
                                     VI

-------
 Introduceion

     Of Che several poaaible  forms of criteria, the numerical  form  is  the

most common, but Che narrative  (e.g., pollutants must not be present in

harmful concentrations) and operational (e.g., concentrations  of pollutants

must not exceed one-tench of  Che 96-hr LCSO) forms can be used if numerical

criteria are not poaaible or  desirable.  If it were feasible,  a freshwater

(or saltwater) numerical aquatic life national criterion* for  a material

should be determined by conducting field tescs on a wide variety of

unpolluted bodies of fresh (or salt) water.  Ic would be necessary co add

various amounts of Che material co each body of water in order co determine

the highest concentration Chac would not cause any unacceptable long-term or

short-term effect on the aquatic organisms or their uses.  The lowest of

chese highesc concentrations would become the fresbwacer (or saltwater)

national aquacic life wacer qualicy criterion for that material, unless one

or more of che lowest concentrations were judged to be oucliers.  Because it

is not feasible to determine national criteria by conducting such field

tests, these Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality

Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses (hereafter

referred to as the National Guidelines) describe an objective, internally

consistent, appropriate, and feasible way of deriving national criteria,

which are intended co provide the same level of protection as the infeasible

field testing approach described above.

     Because aquacic ecosystems can tolerate some stress and occasional

adverse effects, protection of all species at all times and places is not
*The term "national criteria" is used herein because it is more descriptive
than che aynonomous term "section 304(a) criteria", which is used in the
Wacer Quality Standards Regulation [1].

                                      1

-------
deemed necessary.  If acceptable daca are available for a large number of



appropriate taxa from an appropriate variety of taxonomic and functional



groups, a reasonable level of protection will probably be provided if all



except a small fraction of the taxa are protected, unless a commercially or



recreationalLy important species is very sensitive.  The small fraction is




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 O.OS to calculate a Final Acute Valu* does not imply that



this percentage of adversely affected taxa should be used to decide in a



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 [1,2,3], should be based on an operational definition of



"protection of aquatic organisms and their 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 directly or indirectly, 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



macroinvertebrates in salt water.  If the kinds of species of concern cannot



be adequately monitored ac a reasonable cost, appropriate surrogate species



should 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.  Even if a



major adverse effect on appropriate surrogate species does not directly



result in an unacceptable effect on the kinds of species of concern co the



public, it indicates a high probability that such an effect will occur.



                                      2

-------
     To be  acceptable  to  the public  and useful  in  field  situations,




 protection  of aquatic  organisms  and  their uses  should be  defined  as




 prevention  of unacceptable  long-term and shore-cerrn effects  on  (1)




 commercially, recreationally, and other 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.  Monitoring programs intended to be able to detect




 unacceptable effects should be tailored to the body of water of concern  so




 that necessary samples are obtained  at enough tines and places  co 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, for substances that are residue limited, species that  are consumed




 should be monitored for contaminants to ensure that wildlife predators are



protected, FDA action  levels are not exceeded, and flavor is not  impaired.




Monitoring programs 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 ics aquatic



community.  Because most monitoring programs can only detect decreases of




more than 20 percent,  any statistically significant decrease should usually




be considered unacceptable.  The insensitivicy 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




 limited field studies  can sometimes  demonstrate that criteria are




underprotective, only high quality field studies can reliably demonstrate




that criteria are not  underprotective.



                                      3

-------
     If che purpose of water quality criteria were co protect only



commercially and recreacioaally important species, criteria specifically



derived to protect such species and their uses from the direct adverse



effects of a material would probably, in noat situations, also protect chose



species fro* indirect adverse effects due to effects of the material on other



species in the ccosystea.  For example, 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 the material on portions of the food chains.



     These Rational Guidelines have been developed on 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 aad resident aquatic species and their uses are meant to be



taken into account, except for a fev that may be too atypical, such as the



Great Salt Lake, briae shrimp, and the siscowet subspecies of lake trout,



which occurs in Lake Superior and contains up to 67% fat in the fillets [4].



Derivation of criteria specifically for the Great Salt Lake or Lake Superior



might have to take brine shrimp and siscowet, respectively, into account.



     numerical aquatic life criteria derived using these Rational Guidelines



are expressed as two numbers, rather than che traditional one number, so that



the criteria more accurately reflect toxicological and practical realities.



If properly derived and used, the combination of a maximum concentration and



a continuous concentration should provide an appropriate degree of protection



of aquatic organisms and their uses from acute and chronic toxicity to



animals, toxicity to plsnts, and bioaccunulation by aquatic organisms,

-------
 without  being as  restrictive as  a one-number criterion would have to be in



 order  co provide  the  same  degree of protection.



     Criteria produced  by  these  Guidelines  are intended to  be useful for




 developing water  quality standards, mixing  zone  standards,  effluent  limita-



 tions, etc.   The  development of  such standards and  limitations, however,



 might have to take  into account  such additional  factors as  social, legal,



 economic, and hydrological considerations,  the environmental  and  analytical



 chemistry of  the  material, the extrapolation  from laboratory  data to field



 situations, and relationships between species  for which data  are  available



 and species in the body of water  of concern.   As an intermediate  step  in the



 development of standards,  it might  be desirable  to derive site-specific



 criteria by modification of  national  criteria  co reflect such  local




 conditions as  water quality, temperature, or ecologically important  species



 [1,2,3].  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.



     Criteria should attempt co provide a reasonable and adequate amount of



 protection with only a  small possibility of considerable overprocection or



 underprotection.  It is not enough  chat a national 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.  Therefore,



 these National Guidelines specify certain data that should be available if a



numerical criterion is  to be derived.  If all  the required data are  not

-------
available, usually « criterion should not be derived.   On che ocher hand,  che




availability of all required data does not ensure that a criterion can be




derived.



     A common belief is that national criteria are based on "worst case"




assumptions and chat local considerations will raise,  but not lower,




criteria.  For example, it will usually be assumed chat if the concentracion




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 co be




derived.  If, however, the concentration of a material in a body of wacer  is




higher chan che national criterion, it will usually be assumed that a site-




specific criterion should be derived.  In order co prevent the assumption  of



the "worse case" nature of nacional criteria from resulting in che




underprotection of too many bodies of water, nacional  criteria must be




intended to protect all or almost all bodies of water.  Thus, if bodies of



water and the aquatic communities in then do differ substantially in cheir




sensicivicies co a material, national criteria should  be at least somewhat




overprotective for a majority of the bodies of wacer.   To do otherwise would



eicher (a) require derivacion of sice-specific criceria even if che sice-




specific concentration were substantially below che nacional cricerion or  (b)




cause che "worse case" assumption co result in che underprocection of




numerous bodies of water.  On che ocher hand, nacional criceria are probably




underprotective of some bodies of water.




     The two factors that will probably cause the most difference between




nacional and sice-specific criceria are che species chac will be exposed and




che characteristics of the water.  In order to ensure chac nacional criceria




are appropriately protective, the required data  for nacional criceria include



some species chac are sensitive co many macerials and nacional criceria are



                                      6

-------
specifically b«aed on ce«Ca conducted  in water  relatively  low  in  particulate



matter  and organic natter.  Thus,  the  two  factors that will usually be



considered in the derivation of site-specific criteria from national criteria



are used to help ensure that national  criteria  are appropriately  protective.



     On the other hand, some local conditions might require that  site-



specific criteria be lower than national criteria.  Some untested locally



important species night be very sensitive  to the material  of concern, and



local water quality night not reduce the toxicity of the material.  In



addition, aquatic organisms in field situations might 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 might degrade  to more toxic materials, or  some



important community functions or species interactions night be adversely



affected by concentrations lower than  those that affect individual species.



     Criteria must be used in a manner that is consistent  with the way in



which they were derived if the intended level of protection is to be provided



in the real world.  Although derivation of water quality criteria  for aquatic



life is constrained by the way* toxicity and bioconcentration tests are



usually conducted, there are still many different ways that criteria can be



derived, expressed, and used.  The neans used to derive and state  criteria



should relate, in the best possible way, the kinds of data that are available



concerning toxicity and bioconcentration and the ways criteria can be used to



protect aquatic organisms and their uses.



     The major problea is to determine the best way that the statement of a



criterion can bridge the gap between the nearly constant concentrations used



in most toxicity and bioconcentration  tests and the fluctuating concentrations



that usually exist in the real world.  A statement of a criterion  as a number



                                       7

-------
chac is noc co be exceeded any cime or place is noc accepcable because few,




if any, people who use criteria would cake it literally and few, if any,




toxicologiata would defend a literal interpretation.  Rather than cry co




reincerprec a cricerion chat is neither useful nor valid, ic is beccer co




develop a more appropriate way of stating criteria.




     Alchough SOIM materials might not exhibit thresholds, many materials




probably do.  For any threshold material, continuous exposure co any




combination of concentrations below the threshold will not cause an




unacceptable effect (as defined on pages 1-3) on aquatic organisms and cheir




uses, except chat the concentration of a required crace nucrienc mighc be coo



low.  However, ic is imporcanc Co note chac chis is a threshold of




unacceptable effect, noc a threshold of adverse effect.  Sone adverse effect,




possibly even a small reduction in the survival, growth, or reproduction of a



commercially or recreacionally imporcanc species, will probably occur ac, and




possibly even below, che threshold.  The Criterion Continuous Concencracion




(CCC) is incended co be a good estimate of this threshold of unacceptable




effect.  If maintained continuously, any concencracion above che CCC is




expecced to cause an unacceptable effect.  On che other hand, che concencra-




cion of a pollutant in a body of water can be above the CCC without causing



an unaccepcable effect if (a) che magnitudes and durations of the excursions




above the CCC are appropriately limited and (b) there are compensating




periods of time during which the concentration is below che CCC.  The higher




the concentration is above the CCC, the shorter the period of time ic can be




tolerated.  But ic is unimportant whether there is any upper limit on




concencracions chac can be coleraced inscancaneously or even for one tninuce




because concencracions outside mixing zones rarely change subscancially in




such short periods of time.



                                      8

-------
     An elegant, general approach co che problem of defining conditions (a)



and  (b) would be co integrate the concentration over tine, caking inco



account uptake and depuration rates, transport within the organism co a



critical site, etc.  Because such an approach is not currently feasible, an



approximate approach is to require that che average concentration not exceed



che CCC.  The average concentration should probably be calculated as the



arithmetic average rather than the geometric mean [5].  If a suitable



averaging period is selected, che magnitudes and durations of concentrations



above che CCC will be appropriately limited, and suitable compensating



periods below the CCC will be required.



     In the elegant approach mentioned above, the uptake and depuration rates



would determine the effective averaging period, but these rates are likely to



vary from species to species for any particular material.  Thus che elegant



approach might not  provide a definitive answer to the problem of selecting an



appropriate averaging period.  An alternative is co consider chac che purpose



of the averaging period is to allow the concentration co be above che CCC



only if che allowed fluctuating concentrations do not cause more adverse



effect than would be caused by a continuous exposure to che CCC.   For



example, if the CCC caused a 10Z reduction in growth of rainbow trout, or a



13Z reduction in survival of oysters, or a 71 reduction in reproduction of



smallaouch bass, it is the purpose of the averaging period to allow concen-



trations above the CCC only if the total exposure will not cause any more



adverse effect Chan continuous exposure to the CCC would cause.



     Even though only a few tests have compared che effects of a conscanc



concencration with che effects of che same average concencracion resulting



from a fluccuating concentration, nearly all the available comparisons have



shown that substantial fluctuations result in increased adverse effects



                                      9

-------
 [5,6],  Thus  if  the  averaging period  is  not  co  allow  increased  adverse

 effects,  ic nusc not  allow  subscancial  fluctuation*.   Life-cycle  cescs  wich

 species such  as  mysids  and  daphnids and  early life-stage  cescs  wich  wannwacer

 fishes usually last  for 20  co 30 days.   An averaging  period  chac  is  equal  co

 che  lengch of che cesc  will obviously allow  che worse  possible  fluctuations

 and  would very likely allow increased adverse effeccs.

     An averaging period of four days seems  appropriate for  use wich che CCC

 for  cwo reasons.  First, ic is subacancially shorcer  than che 20  co  30  days

 chac is obviously unaccepcable.  Second,  for some species it appears  chac  che

 resulcs of chronic cescs are due co che  existence of  a sensitive  life scage

 ac some cine  during che cesc [7], racher  than being caused by either  long-

 cerm scress or long-term accumulation of  the test material in the organism.

 The  existence of a aensicive life stage  is probably the cause of acute-

 chronic ratios chat are not much greater  than 1, and  is also possible when

 che  ratio is  substantially greater than  1.  In  addition, some experimentally

determined acute-chronic ratios are somewhat less than 1, possibly because

 prior exposure during che chronic test increased the  resistance of che

 sensitive Life stage [8],  A four-day averaging period will probably prevent

 increased adverse effeccs on sensitive life stages by  limiting  the duracions

 and oagnicudes of exceedences* of che CCC.

     The considerations applied co interpretation of  the CCC also apply co

 che CMC.  For che CMC the averaging period should again be substantially less

 than the length! of the tests it is based on, i.e., substantially less  chan
*Although "exceedence" has noc been found in any diccionary, ic is used here
because ic is noc appropriate to use "violation" in conjunction wich
criteria, no ocher word seems appropriate, and all appropriace phrases are
awkward.

                                     10

-------
46 co 96 hours.  One hour is probably an appropriace averaging period because.




high concentrations of some materials can cause death in one to.three hours.




Even when organisms do not die within the first hour or so, it is not known




how many might have died due to delayed effects of this short of an exposure.




Thus it is not appropriate to allow concentrations above the CMC to exist for




as long as one hour.



     The durations of the averaging periods in national criteria have been




made short enough to restrict allowable fluctuations in the concentration of




the pollutant in the receiving water and to restrict the length of time that




the concentration in the receiving water can be continuously above a




criterion concentrations.  The statement of a criterion could specify that




the four-day average should never exceed the CCC and that the one-hour




average should never exceed the CMC.  However, one of the most important uses




of criteria is for designing waste treatment facilities.  Such facilities are




designed based on probabilities and it is not possible to design for a zero




probability.  Thus, one of the important design parameters is the probability




that the four-day average or the one-hour average will be exceeded, or, in




other words, the frequency with which exceedences will be allowed.




     The frequency of allowed exceedences should be based on the ability of




aquatic ecosystems to recover from the exceedences, which will depend in part




on the magnitudes and durations of the exceedences.  It is important to




realize that high concentrations caused by spills and similar major evenca




are not what is meant by an "exceedence", because spills and other accidents




are not part of the design of the normal operation of waste treatment facili-




ties.  Rather, exceedences are extreme values in the distribution of ambient




concentrations and this distribution is the result of the usual variations in




the flows of both the effluent and the receiving water and the usual



                                     11

-------
variation* in che concentrations of che material of concern in both che




effluent and in che upstream receiving water.  Because exceedences are che




result of usual variation, most of the exceedences will be small and




exceedences as large as a factor of cwo will be rare.  In addition, because




chete exceedences are due co random variation, chey will not be evenly




spaced.  In fact, because many receiving waters have both one-year and




multi-year cycles and many treatment facilities have daily, weekly, and




yearly cycles, exceedences will often be grouped, rather than being evenly




spaced or randomly distributed.  If the flow of che receiving water is




usually much greater than the flow of che effluent, normal variation and che




flow cycles will result in che ambient concentration usually being below che



CCC, occasionally being near che CCC, and rarely being above che CCC.  In




addicion, exceedences chat do occur will be grouped.  On che ocher hand, if




che flow of che effluent is much greater chan che flow of che receiving




wacer, che concencracion mighc be close co che CCC much of che cime and




rarely above che CCC, with exceedences being randomly discribuced.




     The abilicies of ecosystem* co recover differ greatly, and depend on che




pollutant, che magnicude and duracion of che exceedence, and che physical and



biological feacurea of Che ecoayscem.  Documented scudies of recoveries are




few, hue som« systems recover from small scresses in six weeks whereas ocher




system* cake more than ten years co recover from severe seres* [3].  Although




mosc exceedence* are expecced co be very small, larger exceedences will occur




occasionally.  Mosc aquatic ecoayscems can probably recover from mosc




exceedences in about three year*.  Therefore, ic does not seem reasonable co




purposely design for scress above chac caused by che CCC co occur more chan




once every three years on che average, jusc as ic does noc seen reasonable
                                     12

-------
 co  require  that  these  kinds  of  stresses  only  occur  once every five or ten




 year*  on che  average.




     If  che body of water  is not  subject co anchropogenic  stress  other than




 the exceedences  of concern and  if  exceedences  as  large  as  a  factor of two are




 rare,  ic  seen* reasonable chat  most bodies of  wacer could  tolerate




 exceedences once  every three years on  che average.   In  sicuacions  in  which




 exceedences are  grouped, several  exceedences might  occur in  one or two years,




 buc chen  there will be, for  example, 10  co 20  year* during which no




 exceedences will  occur and che  concencracion will be substantially below  che




 CCC nose  of che  time.  In situations in  which  che concencracion is ofcen




 close  co  che CCC  and exceedences  are randomly  discribuced, some adverse




 effect will occur regularly,  and small additional,  unacceptable effects will




 occur about every chird year.  The relacive long-cerm ecological consequences



of evenly spaced  and grouped  exceedences are unknown, buc because most




exceedences will  probably be  small, che  long-term consequences should  be




abouc equal over  long periods of time.




     The above considerations lead co a  statement of a criterion in che




 frequency-incensicy-duration  format that is often used to describe rain and



snow fall and stream flow, e.g., how often, on the  average, does more  than




ten inches of rain fall in a week?  The numerical values chosen for




 frequency (or average recurrence interval), intensity (i.e., concencracion),




and duration (of  averaging period) are chose appropriate for nacional



criteria.  Whenever adequately juscified, a nacional criterion may be




replaced by a sice-specific criterion [1], which may include not only  sice-




specific criterion concencracions [2],  buc also sice-specific durations of




averaging periods and sice-specific frequencies of  allowed exceedences  [3].
                                     13

-------
     The coneenctat ions, duracions, and  frequencies  specified  in  criteria  are




baaed on biological, ecological, and toxicological data,  and are  designed  co




procecc aquacic organisms and cheir uses  from unacceptable  effects.   Use of




criteria for designing waste treatment facilities requires  selection  of an




appropriate wasteload allocation model.   Dynamic models  are preferred for  the




application of vacer quality criteria, but a steady-state model might have to




be used instead of a dynamic model in some situations.   Regardless of the




model that is used, Che durations of the  averaging periods  and the




frequencies of allowed exceedences muse be applied correctly if Che intended




level of protection is co be provided.  For example,  in  the criterion




statement frequency refers co che average frequency,  over a long  period of



time, of rare events (i.e., exceedences).  However,  in some disciplines,




frequency is ofcen thought of in terms of che average frequency,  over a long




period of time, of che year* in which rare events occur, without  any




consideration of how many rare events occur within each  of  those  eventful




years.  The distinction between che frequency of evencs  and che frequency  of



years is important for all chose sicuacions in which  che  rare evencs,  e.g.,




exceedences, tend co occur in groups within che evencful years.   The  two ways




of calculating frequency produce che save results in  sicuacions in which each




rare evenc occurs in a differenc year because chen che frequency  of evencs is




che same as che frequency of evencful years.




     Because fresh wacer and sale water have basically differenc  chemical




compositions and because freshwater and salcwacer (i.e., escuarine and crue




marine) species rarely inhabit the same water simultaneously, chese National




Guidelines provide for the derivation of  separace criceria  for chese  two




kinds of wacer.  For some materials sufficient data mighc noc be  available co




allow derivacion of criceria for one or both kinds of wacer.  Even chough




absolute coxicicies mighc be differenc in fresh and  sale waters,  such



                                     14

-------
relative data  as  acute-chronic  ratios  and  bioconcentration  factors  often
appear to be similar  in the two waters.  When  data  are  available  to indicate
that these  ratios and factors are  probably similar,  they  are  used inter-
changeably.
     The material for which a criterion  is desired  is usually defined  in
cerms of a  particular chemical compound  or ion, or  a group  of closely  related
compounds or ions, but it might possibly be defined  in  terms  of an  effluent.
These National Guidelines might also be  useful for deriving criteria for
temperature, dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, pH, netc.,  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 organisms is needed  for a
material, these National Guidelines do not  address the  rationale for making
that decision.   If the potential for adverse effects on aquatic organisms and
their uses  is part of the basis for deciding whether an aquatic life
criterion is needed for a material, these  Guidelines will probably be helpful
in the collection and  interpretation of  relevant data.  Such  properties  as
volatility might affect the fate of a material in the aquatic environment and
might be important when determining whether a criterion is  needed for  a
material; for example, aquatic life criteria might not be needed for
materials that are highly volatile or highly degradable in  water.  Although
such properties can 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 can also affect the size of the  zone of influence in the ambient
water, such properties do not affect how much of the material aquatic
organisms can tolerate in the zone of influence.
     This version of  the National Guidelines provides clarifications,
additional details, and technical  and editorial changes from  the previous
                                     15

-------
version [9l>  These modifications are the resulc of comments on che previous




version and subsequent drafcs [10], experience gained during che U.S. EPA's




use of previous versions and drafcs, and advances in aquaeic toxicology and




relaced fields.  Future versions will incorporate new concepts and data as




cheir usefulness is demonstrated.  The major technical changes incorporated




into this version of the National Guidelines are:




1.  The requirement for acute data for freshwater animals has been changed to




    include more tests with invertebrate species.  The caxonomic, functional,




    and probably the toxicological, diversities among invertebrate species




    are greater chan chose among vertebrate species and chis should be




    reflected in che required daca.




2.  When available, 96-hr EC50* based on che percentage of fish immobilized




    plus che percentage of fish killed are used instead of 96-hr LC50s for




    fish; comparable EC50a are used instead of LC50s for other species.  Such




    appropriacely defined ECSOs beccer reflecc che total severe acuce adverse




    impact of che cesc material on che cesc species chan do LCSOs or narrowly




    defined ECSOs.  Acuce ECSOs chat are based on effeccs chat are not




    severe, such as reduction in shell deposition and reduction in growch,




    are not used in calculating the Final Acute Value.




3.  The Final Acute Value is now defined in terms of Genus Mean Acute Values




    rather Chan Species Mean Acute Values.  A Genus Mean Acute Value is che




    geometric mean of all the Species Mean Acute Values available for species




    in the genus.  On che average, species wichin a genus are coxicologically




    much more similar chan species in differenc genera, and so che use of




    Genus Mean Acuce Values will prevenc daca sees from being biased by an




    overabundance of species in one or a few genera.
                                     16

-------
4.  The Final Acuce Value ia now calculated using a method {11] chat is noc




    subject to che bias and anomalous behavior chac che previous mechod was.



    The new aechod is also less influenced by one very low value because ic



    always gives equal weighc co che four values chac provide che tnosc



    information about che cumulative probability of 0.05.  Although the four



    values receive the most weight, the other values do have a substantial



    effect on the Final Acute Value (see examples in Appendix 2).



5.  The requirements for using the results of test* with aquatic plants have



    been made more stringent.



6.  Instead of being equal co che Final Acuce Value, che Criterion Maximum



    Concentration is now equal to one-half the Final Acute Value.  The



    Criterion Maximum Concentration is intended to protect 95 percent of a



    group of diverse genera, unless a commercially or recreationally



    important species is very sensitive.  However, a concentration that would



    severely ham 50 percent of che fifth percentile or 50 percenc of a



    sensitive important species cannot be considered to be proceccive of chac



    percentile or that species.  Dividing che Final Acute Value by 2 is



    intended to result in a concentration chat will noc severely adversely



    affect too many of che organisms.



7.  The lover of the two numbers in the criterion is now called the Criterion



    Continuous Concentration, rather than the Criterion Average Concencra-



    cion, to more accurately reflect the nature of che coxicological daca on




    which ic is based.



8.  The statement of a criterion has been changed (a) to include durations of



    averaging periods and frequencies of allowed exceedences that are based



    on what aquatic organisms and their uses can tolerate, and (b) to
                                     17

-------
    identify a specific situation in which •ice-specific criteria [1,2,3] are



    probably desirable.



In addition, Appendix 1 was added to aid in determining whether a species



should be considered resident in North Aaerica and its taxonomic classifica-



tion.  Appendix 2 explains the calculation of the Final Acute Value.



     The amount of guidance in these National Guidelines has been increased,



but auch of the guidance is necessarily qualitative rather than quantitative;



much judgment will usually be required to derive a water quality criterion



for aquatic organisms and their uses.  In addition, although this version of



the National Guidelines attempts to cover all major questions that have



arisen during use of previous versions and drafts, 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, i.e., to make best use of the available data to derive the



most appropriate criteria.  These National Guidelines should be modified



whenever sound scientific evidence indicates that a national criterion



produced using these Guidelines would probably be substantially



overprotective or underprotective of the aquatic organisms and their uses on



a national basis.  Derivation of numerical national wacer quality criteria



for aquatic organisms and their uses is a complex process and requires



knowledge in many areas of aquatic toxicology; any deviation from chese



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 chac does  noc ionise substantially 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  ionise substantially in  most natural bodies



          of water (e.g., some phenols and  organic  acids, some  salts of



          phenols and organic acids,  and moat inorganic  salts and



          coordination complexes of metals),  all forms that would be in



          chemical equilibrium should usually be considered one material.



          Bach different oxidation state of a metal and  each different



          nonionicable 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 noc necessarily measure "all  that  is  there" in all



          samples.  Thus, it is  also  necessary to reference or  describe the



          analytical method that is intended.   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 from laboratory tests, ambient  water,
                                     19

-------
and aqueous effluents, and various practical considerations, such
as labor and equipment requirements and whether the method would
require measurement in the field or would allow measurement after
samples are transported to a laboratory.
The primary requirements of the operational analytical component
are that it be appropriate for use on samples of receiving water,
that it be compatible with the available toxicity and bioaccumula-
tiott data without making extrapolations that ate too hypothetical,
and chat it rarely result in underprotection or overprocection of
aquacic organisms and their 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 lover than
the national criterion, unacceptable effects will probably not
occur, i.e., the compromise measurement must not err on the side of
underprotection when measurements are made on a surface water.
Because the chemical and physical properties of an effluent are •
usually quite different from those of the receiving water, an
analytical method that is acceptable for analysing an effluent
might not be appropriate for analysing a receiving water, and vice
versa.  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
concentration is lowered by such phenomena as complexation or
sorption.  A further option, of course, is to derive a site-
specific criterion [1,2,3].  Thus, the criterion should be based on
                           20

-------
           an appropriate analytical measurement, but the criterion ia noc




           rendered useless if an ideal measurement either is not available or




           is not feasible.




           NOTE;  The analytical chemistry of the material might 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 [12], and (c) chronic feeding studies and long-term




           field studies with wildlife species that regularly consume aquatic




           organisms.



       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 are




           probably reliable.  In some cases it may be appropriate to obtain




           additional written information from the investigator, if  possible.




           Information that is confidential or privileged or otherwise not




           available for distribution should not be used.




       C.  Questionable data, whether published or unpublished, should not be




           used.  For example, data should usually be rejected if they are






                                      21

-------
            from tests that did not cont.ain a control treatment, 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.


        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


            is probably appropriate to use only results of flow-through tests


            in which the concentrations of test material in the test solutions


            were measured often enough using acceptable analytical methods.


        F.  Data should be rejected if they were 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 thac were previously exposed to substantial


                concentration* of the test material or other contaminants.


        G.  Questionable data, data on formulated mixtures and emulsifiable
                                                                     «
            concentrates, and data obtained with non-resident Bpecies*or


            previously exposed organisms may be used to 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



                                       22

-------
     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.




     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 organisms and their



     uses, the following should be available:




     1.  Result* of  acceptable acute testa (see Section IV) with at




         least one species of freshwater animal in at  least eight differ-



         ent families such that all of the following are  included:



                a.  the  family Salmonidae  in the class Osteichthyes




                b.  a second family in the class Osteichthyes,




                    preferably a comnercially or recreationally



                    important warmwater species (e.g., bluegill, channel



                    catfish, etc.)




                c.  a third family in the phylum Chordata  (may be in the



                    class Osteichthyes or may be an amphibian, etc.)




                d.  a planktonic crustacean (e.g., cladoceran, copepod,



                    etc.)




                e.  a benthic crustacean (e.g., ostracod,  isopod,




                    amphipod, crayfish, etc.)
                                23

-------
               f.  an insect (e.g., mayfly, dragonfly, damaeifly,



                   stonefly, caddisfly, mosquito, nidge, ecc.)



               g.  a family in a phylum och«r Chan Arthropod* or



                   Chordata (e.g., Rotifera, Annelida, Molluaca, etc.)




               h.  a faaily in any order of insect or any phylum aoc



                   already represented.



    2.  Acute-chronic ratios (see Seccioa VI) with species of aquatic



        animals in et 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 an acutely sensitive freshwater



                 species (the other two may be saltwater species).



    3.  Results of at leest one acceptable test with a freshwater alga



        or vascular plant (see Section VIZI).  If plants are among ch«



        aquatic organisms thac are most sensitive to the material,



        results of a test with a plant in another phylum (division)



        should also be available.



    4.  At least one acceptable He-concentration factor determined



        with an appropriate freshwater species, if a maximum permissi-



        ble tissue concentration is available (see Section IX).



C.  To derive a criterion for saltwater aquatic organisms and their



    uses, the following should be available:



    1.  Results of acceptable acute tests (see Section IV) with at



        least one species of saltwater animal in at least eight



        different families such that all of the following are



        included:



                               24

-------
               a.  two families in che phylum Chordae*
               b.  « family in « phylum other ch«a Archropoda or
                   Chordaca
               c.  either che Mysidae or Penaeidae family
               d.  three other families not in the phylum Chordata (nay
                   include Mysidae or Penaeidae, whichever was aoc used
                   above)
               e.  any other family.
    2.   Acute-chronic ratios (tee Section VI) with species of aquatic
        animals in at least three different families provided that of
        the three species:
               --at least one is a fish
               —at lease one is an invertebrate
               —ac lease one is an acutely sensitive saltwater species
                 (the other two may be freshwater species).
    3.   Besulcs of at lease one acceptable test with a saltwater alga
        or vascular plane (see Section VIII).  If plants are among the
        aquatic organisms mose sensitive to the material, results of a
        test with a plane in another phylum (division) should also be
        available.
    4.   Ac least one acceptable bioconceneraeion factor determined
        with an appropriate saltwater species, if a maximum permissible
        tissue concentration is available (see Section IX).
0.  If all the required data are available, a numerical criterion can
    usually be derived, except in special cases.  For example, deriva-
    tion of a criterion might not be possible if the available acute-
    chronic ratios vary by more than a factor of ten with no apparent
                               25

-------
           pattern.  Also, if a criterion is to be related co 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 might be possible co derive a criterion if the available data



           clearly indicate that the Final Residue Value should 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 che



           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 che material corresponding to a



           cumulative probability of 0.05 in the acute toxicity values for the



           genera with which acceptable acute tests have been conducted on the



           material.  However, in some cases, if the Species Mean Acute Value



           of a commercially or recreationally important species is Lower than



           the calculated Final Acute Value, then that Species Mean Acute



           Value replaces the calculated Final Acute Value in order to provide



           protection for that important species.



       B.  Acute toxicity tests should have been conducted using acceptable



           procedures [13].






                                      26

-------
C.  Except for cescs wich salcwacer annelids and mysids, results of



    acute tests during which the test organisms were fed should not be



    used, unless data indicate that the food did not affecc che



    toxicicy of the test material.



D.  Results of acute tests conducted in unusual dilution water, e.g.,



    dilution wacer in which total organic carbon or particulate matter



    exceeded 5 mg/L, should not be used, unless a relationship is



    developed between acute toxicity and organic carbon or particulate



    natter or unless data show that organic carbon, particulate matter,



    etc., do noc affecc toxicity.



E.  Acute values should be based on endpoincs which reflect the total



    severe acute adverse impact of the teat material on the organisms



    used in the test.  Therefore, only the following kinds of data on



    acute toxicity to aquatic animals should be used:



    1.  Tests wich daphnids and other cladocerans should be started



        wich organism less than 24 hours old and cests with midges



        should be started wich second- or third-instar larvae.  The



        resulc should be che 48-hr ECSO based on percencage of



        organisms immobilized plus percencage of organisms killed.   If



        such an ECSO is noc available from a cesc, che 48-hr LC50



        should be used in place of che desired 48-hr ECSO.  An ECSO or



        LCSO of longer chan 48 hr can be used as long as che animals



        were noc fed and che concrol animals were accepcable ac che end



        of che cesc.



    2.  The resulc of a cesc wich embryos and larvae of barnacles,



        bivalve molluscs (clams, mussels, oysters, and scallops), sea
                               27

-------
    urchins, lobsters, crabs, shrimp, and abalones should be  the




    96-hr EC50 based on che percentage of organisms with




    incompletely developed shells plu* che percentage of organisms




    killed.  If such an ECSO is not available from a test,  the




    lover of che 96-hr ECSO based on che percentage of organisms




    with incompletely developed shells and che 96-hr LC50 should be




    used in place of che desired 96-hr ECSO.  If che duracion of



    Che cost was between 48 and 96 hr, che ECSO or LCSO at  che end



    of che test should be used.




3.  The acute values from testa with all other freshwater and




    saltwater animal species and older life stages of barnacles,



    bivalve molluscs, sea urchins, lobsters, crabs, shrimps, and




    abalones should be che 96-hr ECSO baaed on the percentage of



    organism* exhibiting loss of equilibrium plus che percentage of



    organisms immobilized plus the percentage of organisms  killed.




    If such an ECSO is not available from a test, the 96-hr LCSO



    should be used in place of the desired 96-hr ECSO.



4.  Tests with single-celled organisms are not considered acute




    tests, even if che duracion was 96 hours or less.




5.  If che tests were conducted properly, acute values reported as




    "greater than" values and those which are above the solubility



    of the test material should be used, because rejection  of such




    acute values would unnecessarily lower che Final Acute  Value by



    eliminating acute values for resistant species.
                           28

-------
F.  If Che acute toxicity of Che material  to  aquaeic  animals  apparently




    has been shown Co be related co a water quality characteristic  such




    as hardness or parciculace matter for  freshwater  animals  or



    salinity or parciculace matter for saltwater animals, a Final Acute




    Equation should be derived based on that  wacer quality




    characteristic.  Go to Section V.




G.  If the available data indicate that one or more life stages are  at




    least a factor of two more resistant than one or more other life




    stages of the same species, the data for  the more resistant life



    stages should not be used in the calculation of the Species Mean




    Acute Value because a species can only be considered protected  from




    acute toxicity if all life stages are protected.




H.  The agreement of the data within and between species should be




    considered.  Acute values that appear to be questionable  in



    comparison with other acute and chronic data for the sane species



    and for other species in the same genus probably should not be




    used in calculation of a Species Mean Acute Value.  For example, if




    the acute values available for a species or genus differ by more



    Chan a factor of 10, some or all of the values probably should not



    be used in calculations.




I.  For each species for which at least one acute value is available,



    the Species Mean Acute Value (SNAV) should be calculated as the



    geometric mean of the results of all flow-through tests in which




    the concentrations of test  material were measured.  For a species
                               29

-------
for which no such result is available, the SMAV should be




calculated as the geometric mean of all available acute values,




i.e., results of flow-through teats in which the concentrations




were not measured and results of static and renewal cests based on




initial concentrations (nominal concentrations are acceptable for



most test materials if measured concentrations are noc available)




of test material.




NOTE:  Data reported by original investigators should not be




rounded off.  Results of all intermediate calculations should be




rounded [14] to four significant digits.




NOTE;  The geometric mean of N numbers is the Ncn 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.




MOTS;  Geometric means, rather than arithmetic means, are used here




because the distributions of sensitivities of individual organisms




in toxicity tests on most materials and the distributions of sensi-




tivities of species within a genus are more likely to be lognormal




than normal.  Similarly, geometric means are used for acute-chronic




ratios and bioconcentration factors because quotients are likely to




be closer to lognormal than normal distributions.  In addition,



                           30

-------
    division of  Che geoaetric mean of  a  sec  of  numerators  by the




    geoaetric mean of  che  sec of corresponding  denominators  will  result



    in che geoaetric aean  of the sec of  corresponding  quotients.



J.  For each genus for which one or more SMAVs  are available, the G«nua



    Mean Acuce Value (GMAV) should be  calculated  as the geometric mean



    of che SMAVs available for che genus.



K.  Order che GMAVs froa high co low.




L.  Assign ranks, R, to the GMAVs froa "1" for  the lowest  co "N"  for



    Che highest.  If two or more GMAVs are identical,  arbitrarily



    assign thea successive ranks.




M.  Calculate the cuaulacive probability, P, for each  GMAV aa R/(N+l).



H.  Select the four GMAVs which have cuaulacive probabilities closest



    to 0.05 (if there are Less Chan 59 GMAVs, these will always be che



    four lowest GMAVs).



0.  Using che selected GMAVs and Ps, calculate








           32 .   «(ln CMAV)2) - ((gin CMAV))2/4)






           L " <£(ln GMAV) - S(XX/P*)))/4



           A - S(/T01) *L



           FA7 " eA
    (See [11] for developaent of che calculation procedure and Appendix



    2 for an exaaple calculation and coaputer prograa.)



    HOTE;  Natural logarithas (logarithas to base e, denoted as In) are



    used herein aerely because they are easier co use on soae hand
                               31

-------
          calculators and computers than common (base 10} logarithms.



          Consiscenc use of either will produce che same result.



      P.  If for e commercially or recreationally important species che



          geometric mean of che acuce values from flow-through ceacs in which



          che concentrations of test material were measured is lower chan che



          calculated Final Acute Value, then that geometric mean should be



          used as the Final Acute Value instead of the calculated Final Acute



          Value.



      Q.  Go to Section VI.





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 in Sections B-C below or using analysis of covariance



          [15,16].  The two methods are equivalent and produce identical



          results.  The manual method described below provides an under-



          standing of this application of covariance analysis, but



          computerised versions of covariance analysis are much *ore



          convenient for analyzing large data sets.  If two or more factors



          affect toxicity, multiple regression analysis 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 acuce



          coxicicy values on che corresponding veiues of the water qualicy



          characceriscic co obtain the slope and its 951 confidence limics



          for each species.





                                     32

-------
    HOTK;  Because ch« best documented relationship is ch«c between



    hardness and acute toxieity of metals La fresh w«cer and a log-log



    relationship fits these data, geometric means and aacural



    logarithms of bocb toxicity and water quality arc used ia cha reit



    of this section.  For relationships based on other water quality



    characteristics, such as pH, temperature, or salinity, no



    transformation or a different trans formation might fit the data



    better, and appropriate changes will be necessary throughout this



    section.



C.  Decide whether the data for each specie* is useful, 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 six data points



    might be of limited value if it is based only on data for a very



    narrow range of values of the water quality characteristic.  A



    slope based on only two data points, however, might be useful if it



    is consistent with other information and if the two points cover a



    broad enough range of the water quality characteristic.  In



    addition, acute velues that appear to be questionable in comparison



    with other acute and chronic data available for the same species



    and for other species in the same genus probably should not be



    used.  For example, if efter adjustment for the weter quelity



    characteristic, the acute values available for a species or genus



    differ by more than a factor of 10, rejection of some or all of the



    values is probably appropriate.  If useful slopes are not available



    for at least one fish and one invertebrate or if the available



                               33

-------
    slopes are coo dissimilar or if coo few data are available co



    adequately define che relationship between acucc coxicicy and che



    water quality characteristic, return to Section IV.G., using che



    result* of test! conducted under condition* and in waters similar



    to those commonly used for coxicicy tests with the species.



0.  Individually for each species calculate the geometric mean of che



    available acute values and then divide each of rhe acute values for



    a species by the Man for the species.  This normalizes che acute



    values so that the geometric mean of the normalized values for each



    species individually and for any combination of species is 1.0.



B.  Similarly normalize the values of the water quality characteristic



    for each species individually.



F.  Individually for each species perform a least squares regression of



    the normalized acute coxicity values on the corresponding



    normalized values of the water quality characteristic.  The



    resulting slopes and 95Z confidence limits will be identical co



    those obtained in Section B above.  Now, however, if the data are



    actually plotted, the line of best fit for each individual species



    will go through the point 1,1 in the center of the graph.



6.  Treec all the normalized data as if they were all for che same



    species and perform a least squares regression of all che



    normalized acute values on the corresponding normalized values of



    the water quality characteristic to obtain the pooled acute slope,



    V, and its 95X confidence limits.  If all the normalized data are



    actually plotted, the line of best fit will go through the point



    1,1 in the center of the graph.
                               34

-------
B*  For each species calculate che geometric mean, w, o£ the acuce



    toxicicy values and che geometric mean, X, of che values of che



    wacer quality characteristic.  (These were calculated in seeps D



    and E above.)



I.  For each species calculate che logarithm, Y, of che SMAV ac a



    selected value, Z, of che wacer qualicy characteristic using che



    equation:  Y • In W - V(ln X - In Z).



J.  For each species calculate the SMAV at Z using che equation: SMAV



    «*.


    HQTK;  Alternatively, che SMAVs at Z can be obtained by skipping



    step H above, using che equations in steps I and J to adjust each



    acute value individually to Z, and then calculating the geometric



    ••an of the adjusted values for each species individually.  This



    alternative procedure allows an examination of the range of the



    adjusted acute values for each species.



K.  Obtain the Final Acute Value at Z by using the procedure described



    in Section IV.J-0.


L.  If the SMAV at Z of a commercially or recreationally imporcanc



    species is Lower than the calculated Final Acute Value at Z, then



    that SMAV should be used as the Final Acute Value at Z instead of



    the calculated Final Acute Value.



M.  The Final Acute Equation is written as:  Final Acute Value •


     (V[ln(water quality characteristic)] * In A - V[ln Z])
    e                                                      ,


    where V • pooled acute slope and A • Final Acute Value at Z.



    Because V, A, and Z are known, the Final Acute Value can be


    calculated for any selected value of che wacer quality character*



    istic.


                               35

-------
VI.  Fin«l Chronic Value



       A.  D«p«adiag oo Che data chit ere available concerning chronic



           toxicity co aquatic animals, the Final Chronic Value mighc be




           calculated in the same manner aa che Final Acuce Value or by



           dividing che Final Acuce Value by che Final Acuce-Chrotlic Ratio. In



           •ome cases it nay not be possible to calculate a Final Chronic




           Value.



           NOTE:  AJ che name implies, che acuce-chronic racio (ACR) is a way



           of relacing acute and chronic toxicities.  The acuce-chronic racio



           is basically Che inverse of che application faccor, buc chis new



           name is better because ic is more descriptive and should help



           prevent confusion between "application faccors" and "safecy



           facton".  Acuce-chronic racios and applicacioa faccors are ways of



           relacing Che acuce and chronic coxicicies of a macerial co aquatic



           organisms.  Safecy faccors are used co provide an excra margin of



           safecy beyond che known or escimaced sensitivities of aquatic



           organisms.  Another advancage of che acuce-chronic racio is chac ic



           will usually be greacer chan one; chis should avoid che confusion



           as co whether a large applicacion faccor is one chac is close co



           unicy or one chac haa a denominator chac is much greater chan che




           numeracor.



       B.  Chronic values should be baaed on resulcs of flow-through (except



           renewal is accepcablc for daphnids) chronic cases in which che



           concentrations of test material  in the test solutions were properly



           measured ac appropriate times during the test.
                                       36

-------
C.  Result* of chronic teats in which survival, growth, or reproduce ion



    in the control treatment was unacceptably low should noc be used.



    Th« limits of acceptability will d«p«nd on the species.



D.  Results of chronic tests conducted in unusual dilution water,



    e.g., dilution water in which total organic carbon or particulate



    matter exceeded 5 mg/L, should not be used, unless t relationship



    is developed between chronic 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 endpoincs and lengths of



    exposure appropriate to the species.  Therefore, only results of



    the following kinds of chronic toxicity tests should be used:



    1.  Life-cycle toxicicy 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 lees 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.  Tests



        with mysids should begin with young less than 24 hours old and



        continue until 7 days past the median time of first brood



        release in the controls.  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



                               37

-------
    (salmonids only), and hatchabiiity.  For daphnids, data should



    be obcained and analysed on survival and young per female.  For



    ays ids, daca should be obtained and analysed on survival,



    grovch, and young per female.



2.  Partial life-cycle coxicicy cescs consisting of exposures of



    each of cwo or more groups of individuals of a species of fish



    co a differenc concencracion of che cesc macerial through most



    porcions of a life cycle.  Parcial life-cycle cescs are allowed



    wich fish species chat require more chan a year co reach sexual



    macuricy, so ch-ac all major life scages can be exposed co che



    c«sc macerial in less chan 15 monche.  Exposure co che cesc



    material should begin wi.cn immature juveniles at lease 2 monchs



    prior co accive gonad developmenc, concinue chrough macuracion



    and reproduccion, and end noc less chan 24 days (90 days  for



    salmonids) afcer che hacching of che nexc generacion.  Daca



    should be obcained and analysed on survival and growth of



    adulcs and young, macuracion of males  and females, eggs  spawned




    per female, embryo viability (salmonids only), and




    hacchabilicy.



3.  Early  life-acage coxicicy cescs consiscing of 28-  co  32-day



    (60 day* pose hatch  for  salmonids) exposures of che early



    life scages of  a species of  fish  from  shorcly afcer



    ferciliracion  chrough embryonic,  larval,  and early juvenile



    development.  Daca  should be obcained  and analysed on survival




    and growth.



    NOTE;  Results  of  an early  life-stage  cesc  are  used  as predic-



    tions  of  resulcs of  life-cycle  and partial  life-cycle tests



                            38

-------
        wich che same species.  Therefore, when resulcs of a life-cycle



        or partial life-cycle cesc are available, resulcs of an early



        life-stage test with the same species should not be used.




        Also, results of early life-stage cescs in which che incidence



        of morcalicies or abnormalicies increased substantially near



        che end of che cesc should noc be used because resulcs of such



        cescs are possibly noc good prediccions of che resulcs of



        comparable life-cycle or parcial lifevcycle cescs.



F.  A chronic value may be obcained by calculating che geometric mean



    of che lower and upper chronic limits from a chronic cesc or by



    analysing chronic data using regression analysis.  A lower chronic



    limit  is che highest tested concentration (e) in an acceptable



    chronic test, (b) which did not cause an unacceptable amount of



    adverse effect on any of the specified biological measurements, and



    (c) below which no tested concentration caused an unacceptable



    effect.  An upper chronic limit is the lowest tested concentration



    (a) in an acceptable chronic test, (b) which did cause an



    unacceptable amount of adverse effect on one or more of the



    specified biological measurements, and (c) above which all tested



    concentrations also caused such an effect.



    HOTB:   Because various authors have used a variety of terms and



    definitions to interpret and report results of chronic tests,



    reported results should be reviewed carefully.  The amount of



    effect that is considered unaccepcable is ofcen based on a statis-



    tical  hypothesis test, but might also be defined in terms of a



    specified percent reduction from che concrols.  A small percenc
                               39

-------
    reduction (e.g., 31) might be considered acceptable even if ic is



    statistically significantly differ«ac from cht coacrol, whereas a



    large percent reduction (e.g., 30Z) might be considered



    unacceptable even if it is not statistically significant.



G.  If the chronic toxicity of the material to aquatic animals



    apparently has been shown to be related to a veter 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.



R.  If chronic values are available for species in eight families as



    described in Sections III.B.I or III.C.I, a Species Keen Chronic



    Value (SMCV) should be calculated for each species for which at



    least one chronic value is available by calculating the geometric



    mean of all chronic values available for the sp«cies, and



    aopropriate Genus Mean Chronic Values should be calculated.  The



    Final Chronic Value should then be obtained using the procedure



    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(s) should



    have been conducted with juveniles.  The acute test(s) should have



    been psrt of the same study as the chronic test.  If acute tests



    were not conducted as part of the same study, acute teats conducted



                               40

-------
    in the same laboratory and dilution water, but in a differenc



    study, may be used.  If no such ecute tests are available, resulcs



    of acute tests conducted in the same dilution water in e differenc



    laboratory nay 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 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



    decrease as the Species Mean Acute Value (SMAV) increases.  Thus



    the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio can b« obtained in four ways,



    depending on the data available:



    1.  If the species mean acute-chronic ratio seems to increase or



        decrease as the SMAV increases, the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio



        should be calculated as the geometric mean of the acuce-chronic



        ratios for specie* whose SMAVa are close to the Final Acuce



        Value.



    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 boch



        freshwater and saltwater species.



    3.  For acute tests conducted on metals and possibly other



        substances with embryos and larvae of barnacles, bivalve



        molluscs, sea urchins, lobsters, crabs, shrimp, and abalones
                               41

-------
         (see Seccion IV.E.2),  it  it  probably  appropriate  to  assume  chac
         ch« acute-chronic racio is 2.   Chronic  tests  are  very  difficult
         co conduce with mote such species,  buc  ic  is  likely  chac  che
         sensitivities of embryos  and  larvae would  decernine  che results
         of life-cycle cescs.   Thus,  if  che  lowest  available  SMAVs were
         determined wich embryos and  larvae  of such species,  che Final
         Acute-Chronic Ratio should probably be  assumed  co be 2, so  chac
         che Final Chronic Value is equal co the Criterion Maximum
         Concentration (see Section XI.B).
    4.   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 che  chronic cesc.
         Because continuous exposure  and acclimation cannot be  assured
         to provide adequate protection  in field  situations,  che Final
         Acute-Chronic Racio should be assumed to be 2,  so chat che
         Final Chronic Value is equal to the Criterion Maximum
         Concentration (see Section XI.B).
    If the available species mean acute-chronic  ratios  do not  fie one
    of these cases, a Final Acute-Chronic Racio  probably  cannoc be
    obtained, and a Final Chronic Value probably cannot be calculated.
L.  Calculate the Final Chronic Value by dividing  the Final  Acute Value
    by che Final Acute-Chronic Ratio.   If there was a Final  Acute
    Equation rather than a Final Acute Value, see  also  Section VILA.
M.  If the Species Mean Chronic Value of a  commercially or recreation-
    ally important species is  lower than the calculated Final Chronic
    Value, then that Species Meen Chronic Value  should  be used as che
    Final Chronic Value instead of che calculated  Final Chronic Value.
                               42

-------
        B.  Go co Section VIII.






VII.  Final Chronic Equation



        A.  A Final Chronic Equation can be derived in two ways.  The procedure



            described here in Section A vill result in the chronic slope being




            the sane as che acute slop*.  The procedure described in Sections



            B-H will usually result in the chronic slope being different from



            the acute slope.



            1.  If acute-chronic ratios are available for enough species at



                enough values of the water quality characteristic to indicate



                that the acute-chronic ratio is probably the same for all



                species and is probably independent of the water quality



                characteristic, calculate the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio as the



                geosMtric mean of che available species mean acute-chronic



                ratios.



            2.  Calculate the Final Chronic Value at the selected value Z of



                the water quality characteristic by dividing the Final Acuce



                Value at Z (see Section V.M.) by the Final Acute-Chronic



                Ratio.



            3.  Use V • pooled acute slope (see section V.M.) as L » pooled




                chronic slope.



            4.  Go to Section VII.M.



        B.  When enough data are available to show that chronic toxicicy co ac



            least one species is related to a water quality characteristic, che



            relationship should be taken into account as described in Sections



            B-G below or using analysis of covariance [15,16].  The cwo methods




            are equivalent and produce identical results.  The manual method



                                       43

-------
    described below provides an understanding of this application of
    covariance analysis, but computerized versions of covariance
    analysis are much more convenienc for analysing large daca sees.
    If two or more factors affect toxicity, multiple regression
    analysis should be used.
C.  For each species for which comparable chronic toxicicy values are
    available at two or more different values of the vater quality
    characteristic, perform a least squares regression of the chronic
    toxicity values on the corresponding values of the vater quality
    characteristic to obtain the slope and its 9SZ confidence limits
    for each species.
    MOTE;  Because the best documented relationship is that between
    hardness and acute toxicity of metals in fresh water and a log-log
    relationship fits these data, geometric means and natural
    logarithms of both toxicity and vater quality are used in the rest
    of this section.  For relationships based on other vater quality
    characteristics, such as pH, temperature, or salinity, no trans-
    formation or a different transformation might fit the data better,
    and appropriate changes vill be necessary throughout this section.
    It is probably preferable, but not necessary, to use the same
    transformation that vas used vith the acute values in Section V.
0.  Decide vhether the data for each species is useful, taking into
    account the range and number of the tested values of the vater
    quality characteristic and the degree of agreement within and
    between species.  For example, a slope based on six data points
    might be of limited value if it is based only on data for a very
    narrow range of values of che vater quality characteristic.  A
                               44

-------
    • lope baaed on only two data point*, however, might be useful  if  ic



    it consistent vich ocher information and if the two poincs cover  a



    broad enough range of the vater quality characteristic.  In



    addition, chronic values chat appear to be questionable in



    comparison with other acute and chronic data available for che sane



    species and for other species in the ISM genus probably should not



    be used.  For example, if after adjustment for the water quality



    characteristic, the chronic value* available for a species or genus



    differ by more than a factor of 10, rejection of some or all of the



    values is probably appropriate.  If a useful 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 relationship between chronic toxicity and the vater



    quality characteristic, it might be appropriate to assume that the



    chronic slope is the same as the acute slope, which is equivalent



    to assuming that the acute-chronic ratio is independent of the



    vater quality characteristic.  Alternatively, return to Section



    VI.H, using the results of tests conducted under conditions and in



    waters similar to those commonly used for toxicity tests with the




    species.



1.  Individually for each species calculate the geometric mean of the



    available chronic values and then divide each chronic value for a



    species by the mean for the species.  This normalizes the chronic



    values so that the geometric mean of the normalised values for each



    species individually and for any combination of species is 1.0.



F.  Similarly normalize the values of the water quality characteristic



    for each species individually.



                               45

-------
G.  Individually for each spec!** perform • least squares regression of



    ch« normalized chronic toxicity values on the corresponding noraal-




    iced values of che water quality characteriseic.  The resulcing



    slopes and che 95Z confidence limits will be identical to those



    obtained in Section B above.  Now, however, if the data are



    actually plotted, the line of best fit for each individual species



    will go through the point 1,1 in the center of the graph.



H.  Treat all the aonsalized data as if they were all for the same



    species and perform a least squares regression of ail the normal-




    ised chronic values on the corresponding normalized values of the



    water quality characteristic to obtain the pooled chronic slope, L,



    and its 95Z confidence limits.  If all the normalized data are



    actually plotted, the line of best fit will go through the point



    1,1 in the center of the graph.



I.  For each speciea calculate the geometric mean, M, of the toxicity



    values and th* geometric mean, P, of the values of the water



    quality characteristic.  (These were calculated in steps E and F



    above.)



J.  For each species calculate the logarithm, Q, of the Species Mean



    Chronic Value ac a selected value, Z, of the water quality



    characteristic using the equation:  Q • In M - L(ln P - In Z).



    HOT1:  Although it is not necessary, it will usually be best to use



    the same value of the water quality characteristic here as was used



    in section V.I.




K.  For each speciea calculate a Species Mean Chronic Value at Z using



    the equation: SMCV • «Q.
                               46

-------
             NOTE:   Alternatively,  che Species Mean  Chronic  Values  *c  2 can  b«
             obtained  by  skipping seep J  Above,  using  che equations  in seeps J
             and K co  adjust each acute value individually to  Z  and  chen calcu-
             lating  the geometric means of the adjusted values for  each species
             individually.  This alternative procedure allows  an examination of
             the range of the adjusted chronic values  for each species.
         L.  Obtain  the Final Chronic Value at Z by  using the  procedure
             described in Section IV.J-0.
         M.  If the  Species Mean Chronic Value at Z  of a coenercially or
             recreacionally important species is lower than  the  calculated Final
             Chronic Value at Z, then chat Species Mean Chronic  Value should be
             used as the Final Chronic Value at  Z instead of the calculated
             Final Chronic Value.
         H.  The Final Chronic Equation is written as:  Final Chronic Value •
             t(L[ln(wacer quality characteristic)] * In 3 - L[ln Zl)> «here
             L • pooled chronic slope and S » Final  Chronic Value at Z.  Because
             L, S and Z are known,  the Final Chronic Value can be calculated for
             any selected value of  the water quality characteristic.

VIII.  Final Plant Value
         A.  Appropriate Measures of the toxicity of the material to aquatic
             plants  are used to compare the relative sensitivities of aquaeic
             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
             will probably also protect aquatic  plants and their uses.

                                        47

-------
       B.  A plane value is cht result of a 96-hr test conducted vich an alga




           or a chronic test conducted vich an aquacic vaacular plane.



           NOTE!  A test of che coxicity of a «ecal co a plane usually should



           not be used if the medim contained an excessive amount of a




           completing agent, such as SDTA, that night affecc the toxicity of



           the metal.  Concentrations of EDTA above abouc 200 ug/L should



           probably be considered excessive.



       C.  The Final Plant Value should be obtained by selecting the lowest



           result fro* a test with an important aquacic plant species in which



           the concentrations of test material were measured and the endpoint



           was biologically important.






IX.  Final Residue Value



       A.  The Final Residue Value is intended to (a) prevent concentrations



           in commercially or recreationally important aquacic species from



           affecting marketability because of exceedence of applicable FDA



           action levels and (b) protect wildlife, including fishes and birds,



           that consume aquacic organisms from demonstrated unacceptable



           effects.   The Final Residue Value is the lowest of the residue



           values that are obtained by dividing maximum permissible tissue



           concentrations by appropriate bioconcentration or bioaccumulation



           factors.   A maximum permissible tissue concentration is eicher (a)



           an FDA action level [12] 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
                                      48

-------
    maximum permissible tissue concentration is available, go  to



    Section X because no Final Residue Velue can be derived.




B.  Biocooceotracion factors (BCFs) and bioaccumulation  factors (BAFs)



    •re quotient* of the concentration of a material in one or more



    tissues of an aquatic organism divided by the average concentration



    in the solution in which the organism had been living.  A  BCF is



    intended to account only for net uptake directly from water, and



    thus almost has to be measured in a laboratory test.  Some uptake



    during the bioconcentration test might not be directly from water



    if the food sorbs some of the test material before it is eaten by



    the test organisms.  A BAF is intended to account for net  uptake



    from both food and water in a real-world situation.  A BAF almost



    has to be measured in a field situation in which predators



    accumulate the material directly from water and by consuming prey



    that itself could have accumulated the material from both  food and



    water.  The BCF and BAF are probably similar for a material with a



    low BCF, but the BAF is probably higher than the BCF for materials



    with high BCFs.  Although BCFs are not too difficult to determine,



    very few BAFs have been measured acceptably because it is  necessary



    to make enough measurements of the concentration of the material in



    water to show that it was reasonably constant for a long enough



    period of time over the range of territory inhabited by the



    organisms.  Because so few acceptable BAFs are available,  only BCFs



    will be discussed further.   However, if an acceptable BAF  is



    available for a material, it should be used instead of any



    available BCFs.
                               49

-------
C.  If a maximum permissible tissue concentration i* 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 chat of



    the material and its metabolites which are structurally similar and



    are not much more soluble in water thaa the parent material.



0.  I.  A BCF 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 solucion, 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)



        the apparent steady-state BCF, if apparent steady-state was



        reached, (b) the highest BCF obtained, if apparent steady-state



        was not reached, and (c) the projected steady-state BCF, if



        calculated.



    2.  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.



    3.  A BCF obtained from an exposure that adversely affected the



        test organisms may be used only if it is similar to a BCF



        obtained with unaffected organisms of the same species at lower



        concentrations that did not cause adverse effects.
                               50

-------
    4.  Because maximum permissible tissue concentrations are almost
        never baaed on dry weights, a BCF calculated using dry cissue
        weights oust be converted to a wet tissue weight basis.  If no
        conversion factor is reported with the BCF, multiply the dry
        weight BCF by O.I for plankton and by 0.2 for individual
        species of fishes and invertebrates [17].
    5.  If more than one acceptable BCF is available for a species, the
        geonetric 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.
C.  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
        fro* a chronic feeding study or a long-term field study with
        wildlife, including birds end aquatic organisms, the
        appropriate BCF is baaed 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 (raisele 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.
                               51

-------
F.  For lipcphilic material*, ic might b« possible to calculate

    additional residue value*.  Because the steady-state BCF for a

    lipophilic material seem* to be proportional co percent lipids from

    one tissue to another and from one species to another [18-20],

    extrapolations can be made from tested tissues or species co

    untested tissues or species on the basis of percent lipids.

    1.  For each BCF for which the percent lipids is known for che

        same tissue for which the BCF was measured, normalize the BCF

        to a one percent lipid basis by dividing the BCF by che percent

        lipids.  This adjustment to e one percent lipid basis is

        intended to make all the measured BCFs for a material compara-

        ble regardless of the species or tissue with which the BCF was

        measured.

    2.  Calculate the geometric mean normalized BCF.  Data for both

        saltwater and freshwater species should be used to determine

        the mean normalized BCF, unless the data show that the

        normalized BCFs are probably not similar.

    3.  Calculate all possible residue values by dividing che available

        maximum permissible tissue concentrations by the mean

        normalized BCF and by the percent lipids values appropriate co

        the maximum permissible tissue concentrations, i.e.,

            ..     .   m    (maximum permissible tissue concentration)
          •i ue va ue   (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


                               52

-------
            • «lcv«cer criteria became FDA «ccioa  levels «re applied on



            a species-by-species basis to commonly consumed species.



            The highest lipid conceacs in che edible portions of



            important consumed species are about 11 percent for both



            the freshwater chinook salmon and lake trout and about 10



            percent for the saltwater Atlantic herring [21],



        c.  For a maximum acceptable dietary intake derived from a



            chronic feeding study or a long-te.rm field study with



            wildlife* the appropriate percent lipids is that of an



            aquatic species or group of aquatic specie* which



            constitute a major portion of the diet of che wildlife



            species.



6.  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 will probably result in an average concentration  in the



    edible portion of a fatty species that is at the action level.



    Some individual organisms, and possibly some species, will have



    residue concentrations higher than the mean value but no mechanism



    has been devised to provide appropriace additional protection.



    Also, some chronic feeding studies and long-term field  studies with



    wildlife identify concentrations thac cause adverse effects but do



    not identify concentrations which do not cause adverse  effects;



    again no mechanism has been devised to provide appropriate



    additional protection.  These are some of the  species and uses chat



    are not protected at all times in all places.



                               53

-------
 X.  Other Deta



       Pertinent infonucion that could not b« used in earlier sections  might



       be available concerning adverse effects on aquatic organisms  and  their



       uses.  The nose 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 co  be



       biologically important.  Especially important are data for species  for



       which no other data are available.  Data from behavioral, biochemical,



       physiological, microcosm, and field studies might also be available.



       Daca night be available from tests conducted in unusual dilution  water



       (see IV.D and VI.0), from chronic tests in which che concentrations



       were not measured (see VLB), fro* cests with previously exposed



       organisms (see II.7), and from tests on formulated mixtures  or



       emulsifiable concentrates (see II.0).  Such data might affect a



       criterion if the data were obtained with an important species, the  test



       concentrations were measured, and the endpoint was biologically



       important.






XI.  Criterion



       A.  A criterion consists of two concentrations: the Criterion Maximum



           Concentration and che Criterion Continuous Concentration.



       B.  The Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) is equal to one-half  the



           Final Acute Value.



       C.  The Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) is equal to the  lowest




           of the Final Chronic Value, the Final Plant Value, and the Final



           Residue Value, unless other data (see Section X) show that a  lover



           value should be used.  If coxicicy is related to a water quality






                                      54

-------
            characceriacic, cne CCC i» obtained from che Find Chronic



            Equation, che Final Plane Value, and che Final Residue Value by



            •electing che one, or che combination, chac results in che lovesc



            concentrations in che usual range of che water quality



            characteristic, unless other data (see Section X) show that a lower



            value should be used.



        D.  Round [14]  both che CMC and che CCC co cvo significant digits.




        E.  The criterion is seated at:



            The procedures described in che "Guideline* for Deriving Numerical



            National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic



            Organises and Their Osee" indicate that, except possibly where  a



            locally important species is very sensitive, (1) aquatic organisms



            and their uses should not be affected unacceptably if the four-day



            average concentration of (2) does not exceed (3) -pig/L more than



            once every three years on the average and if the one-hour average



            concentration does not exceed (4) jg/L acre than once every three




            years on the average.



            where (1) • insert "freshwater" or "saltwater"



                  (2) « insert nee* of material



                  (3) • insert the Criterion Continuous 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 che Guidelines.  Items chac should be



            esoecially checked are:
                                       55

-------
1.  If unpublished daca ere used, are chey well documented?



2.  Are all required daca available?



3.  I« ch« range of acuce values for any species greacer chan a



    faccor of 10?



4.  Is che range of Species Mean Acuce Values for any genus greacer



    chan a faccor of 10?



S.  Is chere more chan a faccor of can difference between che four



    lovesc Genus Mean Acuce Values?



6.  Are any of che four lowesc Genus Mean Acuce Values



    questionable?



7.  Is che Final Acuce Value reasonable in comparison wich che



    Species Mean Acuca Values and Genua Mean Acuce Values?



8.  For any commercially or recreacionally imporcanc species, is



    che geometric Man of che acuce values from flowchrough cescs



    in which che concencracions of cesc material were measured



    lover chan che Final Acuce Value?



9.  Are any of che chronic values questionable?



10. Are chronic values available for acucely sensicive species?



11. Is che range of acute-chronic racios greacer chan a faccor of 10?



12. Is che Final Chronic Value reasonable in comparison wich che



    available acute and chronic daca?



13. Is che measured or predicced chronic value for any commercially



    or recreacionally important species below che Final Chronic



    Value?



14. Are any of che other daca important?



IS. Do any daca look like chey might be outliers?
                           56

-------
    16. Are there toy deviation* from the Guidelines?  Are chey




        •ccepcable?



B.  On the basis of all available pertinent laboratory and field



    information, determine if the criterion is consistent vich sound



    scientific evidence.  If it is not, another criterion, either



    higher or Lower, should be derived using appropriate modifications



    of these Guidelines.
                               57

-------
                                 REFERENCES




1.  U.S. EPA.  1983.  Water Quality Standards Regulation.  Federal Register



    48:51400-51413.  November 8.




2.  O.S. EPA.  1963.  Water QuaLicy Standard* Handbook.  Office of Water



    Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.



3.  U.S. EPA.  1985.  Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based



    Toxics Control.  Office of Water, Washington, DC.



4.  Thurston, C. E.  1962.  Physical Characteristics and Chemical Composition



    of Two Subspecies of Lake Trout.  J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 19:39-44.



5.  Hodson, P. V., at al.  1983.  Effect of Fluctuating Lead Exposure on Lead



    Accumulation by Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri).  Environ. Toxicol. Chem.



    2:225-238.



6.  For example, see:  Ingersoll, C. G. and R. W. Winner.  1982.  Effect on



    Daphnia pulex (De Geer) of Daily Pulse Exposures to Copper or Cadmium.



    Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1:321-327; Seim, W. K., et al.  1984.  Growth and



    Survival of Develooing Steelhead Trout (Salmo gairdneri) Continuously or



    Intermittently Exposed to Copper.  Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 41:433-438;



    Buckley, J.T., et al.  1982.  Chronic Exposure of Coho Salmon to




    Sublethal Concentrations of Copper—I.  Effect on Growth, on Accumulation



    and Distribution of Copper, and on Copper Tolerance.  Comp. Biochem.



    PhysioI. 72C:15-19; Brown, V. M., ec al.  1969.  The Acute Toxicity to



    Rainbow Trout of Fluctuating Concentrations and Mixtures of Ammonia,



    Phenol and Zinc.  J. Fish Biol. 1:1-9; Thurston, R. V., et al.  1981.



    Effect of Fluctuating Exposures on the Acute Toxicity of Ammonia to




    Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri) and Cutthroat Trout (S_. clarkii).  Water



    Res. 15:911-917.
                                     58

-------
7.  tot example, see:  Horning, W. B. and T. W. Neiheisel.  1979.  Chronic



    Bf £e«c of Copper on the Bluncnose Minnow, Pimephales nocatus



    (Rafinesque).  Arch. Environ. Concaa. Toxicol. 8:545-552.




8.  For example, see:  Chapman, G. A.  1982.  L«ccer co Charles E.  Scephan.



    U.S. EPA, Duluch, Minnesoca.  December 6; Chapman, G. A.  1975.   Toxicicy



    of Copper, Cadmium and Zinc co Pacific Northwest Salnonids.  Incerin



    Report.  U.S. EPA, CorvallU, Oregon; Spehar, R. L.  1976.  Cadmim and



    Zinc Toxicicy co Flagfish, Jordanella floridae.   J. Fish.  Res.  Board Can.



    33:1939-1945.



9.  U.S. EPA.  1980.  Water Quality Criteria Documents; Availability.



    Federal Regiacer 45:79318-79379.   November 28.



10. U.S. EPA.  1984.  Water Quality Criteria; Request for Comments.   Federal



    Register 49:4551-4554.  February 7.



11. Erickson, R. J.  and C. E.  Stephen.   1985.  Calculation of  the Final Acuce



    Value for Water  Quality Criteria  for Aquatic Organism*. National



    Technical Information Service, Springfield,  Virginia. fB^^"^/Yf'^



12. U.S. Food and Drug Administration.   1981.  Compliance Policy Guide.



    Compliance Guidelines Branch, Washington, DC.



13. For good examples of acceptable procedures,  see:



      ASTM Standard  B 729, Practice for  Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests wich



          Fishes, Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians.



      ASTM Standard  E 724, Practice for  Conducting Static Acute Toxicicy



          Tests wich Larvae of Four Species  of Bivalve Molluscs.



14. Huch, E. J., et  al.  1978.  Council  of Biology Editors Scyle Manual,  4ch



    Ed.   Council of  Biology Edicors,  Inc., Bechesda, Maryland,  p.  117.



15. Dixon, W. J. and M. B. Brown (eds.).   1979.   BMDP Biomedical Computer



    Programs, P-series.  University of California, Berkeley,  pp. 521-539.



                                     59

-------
16.  Merer, J- «d W. Wasserman.  1974.  Applied Linear Statistical Hodels.




    Irvin, IP"*-, Homevood, Illinois.



17.  The values of 0.1 and 0.2 were derived from data published in:



      McDiffecc, W. F.  1970.  Ecology 51:975-988.




      Brocksen, R. W., ec tl.  1968.  J. Wildlife Management 32:52-75.



      Cummins, K. W., ec ai.  1973.  Ecology 54:336-345.



      Pesticide Analytical Manuel, Volume I, Food and Drug Administration,




          1969.



      Love, *. M.  1957.  In: M. E. Brown (ed.). The Physiology of Fishes,



          Vol. I.  Academic Press, New York.  p. 411.



      Ruccner, F.  1963.  Fundamentals of Limnology, 3rd Ed.  Trans, by D. G.



          Frey and F. S. J. Fry.  University of Toronto Press, Toronto.



    Some additional values can be found in:



      Sculchorpe, C. D.  1967.  The Biology of Aquatic Vascular Plants.



          Arnold Publishing, Led., London.



18.  Hamelink* J. L., et al.  1971.  A Proposal: Exchange Equilibria Control



    the Degree Chlorinated Hydrocarbons are Biologically Magnified in Lentic



    Environments.  Trans. Aa. Fish. Soc. 100:207-214.



19.  Lunsford, C. A. and C. R. Blem.  1982.  Annual Cycle of Kepone Residue in



    Lipid Concent of the Escuarine Clam, Rangia cuneata.  Estuaries



    5:121-130.



20.  Schnoor, J. L.   1982.  Field Validation of Water Quality Criteria  for



    ffydrophobic Pollutants.  In: J. G. Pearson, ec al. (ede.), Aquatic



    Toxicology and Hazard Assessment.  ASTM STP 766.  American Society for



    Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,  pp. 302-315.
                                     60

-------
21.  Sidmll, V. D.  1981.  Chemical and Nutritional Composition of Finfishes,



    tittales, Cruatac«an«, Mollusks, and Their Produces.  NOAA Technical



    Memorandum NMFS F/SSC-11.  National Marine Fiaheriea Service, Southeast



    Fisheries Center, Charleston, South Carolina.
                                     61

-------
  Apoendix 1.  Resident North American Species of Aquatic Animals Used in Toxicicy and
                                 Bioconcentration Tests

Introduction

     These lists identiiy species of aquatic animals which have reproducing wild popula-
tions in North America and have been used in coxicity or bioconccntratin cescs.  "Morth
America" includea only the 48 contiguous statea, Canada, and Alaska; Hawaii and Puerto
Rico are not included.  Saltwater (i.e., eatuarine and crue'marine) apeciei are
considered resident in Morth America if they inhabit or regularly enter shore waters OR
or above the continental shelf to a depth of 200 deters.  Species do not have co be
native to be resident.  Unlisted species should be considered resident North American
species if they can be similarly confirmed 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 Name* of
Pishes from the United States and Canada.  For other species, the sequence of phyla,
classes, and families is taken from che NODC Taxonomic Code, Third Edition, National
Oceanofraphic Data Center, NOAA, Washington, DC 20235, July, 1981, and the numbers given
are froa that source co facilitate verification.  Within a family, genera are in
alphabetical order, as are species in a genus.

     The references given are those used to confirm that che species is a resident North
American species.  (The NODC Taxonomic Code contains foreign as well aa North American
species.)  If no such reference could be found, che specie* vmt judged co be nonresident.
No reference is given for organisms not identified to species; these are considered
resident only 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 sane species.
                                    Freshwater Species
  Class
               Family
                                                     Species
                   Common Name
Scientific N
Reference
PHYLUM:  PORIFERA (36)
  Demosponfia
   3660
               Sponcillidae
                366301
                   Sponge
PHYLUM:  CNIDA1IA (COELENTERATA) (37)

                                    Hydra

                                    Hydra
Hydrosoa
 3701
Hydridae
 370602
EphTdatia fluviatilis
Hydra oligactis

Hydra littoralis
P93




E318, P112

E321, P112
                                             62

-------
Freshwater (Continued)
Class Family
PHYLUM: PLATYHELMINTHES (39)
Turbellaria Planar iidae
3901
Oendroco«lidae
391501
PHYLUM: GASTROTRICHA (44)
Chaeconocoida Chaeconocidae
4402 440201
PHYLUM: ROTIFERA (ROTATORIA) (45)
Bdelloidea Philodiaidae
4503 450402
Monogononca Brachionidae
4506 450601
PHYLUM: ANNELIDA (SO)
Archi annelid* Aeoloaomacidae
5002 500301
Oligochaeca Lunbriculida*
5004 500501
Tubificidae
500902

Common Mane
Planar tan
Planar! an
Planarian
[Planarian]
Planarian
GaaCrocrich
Rotifer
Rocifer
Rocifer
Rocifer
Worm
Worm
Tubificid worm
Tubifieid worm
Tubificid worm
Species
Sciencific Name
Dugeaia. dorococephala
Dugeaia lugubris
(Pages ia polychroa)
Planar ia gonocephala
[Polycelis felina]
Prococyla fluviacilis
(Dendrocoelum lacceum)
Lepidodermella aquanacum
Philodina acucicornis
Philodina roaeola
Keracella cochlearis
Keracella ap.
Aeoloaoma head ley i
Luabriculua variegacm
Branchiura s over by 1
Limnodrilua hoffmeisceri
Quiicadrilus multisecosus
Reference
022
D24
[Foocnoce 1]
[nonresidenc
E334, P132,
D63
E413
Y
E487
E442, P188
[Foocnoce 2]
ES28, P284
E533, P290
£534, P289,
GC"
E536, GG
E535, GG
                                                     (Peloicolex mulciaecosus)
                                             63

-------
Freshwater (Continued)
cias»
Family
Naididae
500903
Hirudinea Erpobdellidae
5012 501601
PHTLOM: KOLLUSCA (5085)
Gastropoda
51
Viviparidae
510306
Bithyniidae
(Aamicolidae)
(BulUidaa)
(Hydrobiida«)
510317
Pleuroceridae
510340

Common Name
Tub i fie id worn
Tub i fie id worm
Tubificid worn
Tubificid worn
Tubificid worn
Tubificid worm
Worm
Worm
Worm
[Uech]
Snail
Snail
Snail
Snail
Snail

Scientific Ham*
Rhyacodrilus montana
Spiro«perna ferox
(Peloacolex ferox)
Spiroapema nikolskyi
(Peloacolex yanegacu«)
Stylodrilua heringianua
Tub if ex tub if ex
Varichaeta pacific*
Sail »p.
Paranaia ap.
Priacina sp.
[Erpobdella octoculata]
Campeloma deciaum
Aomicola ap.
Coniobaaia liveacena
Coniobaaia virginica
Leptoxia carinata
(Witocri'a carinata)
(Mudalia carinata)
Reference
CC
GG
E534, GG
GG
B536, P289V
GG
GG
[Footnote 2]
[Footnote 2]
[Footnote 2]
[nonresident
(BB16)
P731, M216
[Footnote 2]
P732
Eli 37
X, E1137
                                    Snail
Hitocrii ap.
(Footnote 2]
                                             64

-------
Freshwater (Continued)

Class Family Common Name
Lymnaeidae [Snail]
511410
Snail
Snail
[Snail]
Snail
Snail
Planorbidae [Snail]
511412
Snail
Snail
Snail
Physidae Snail
511413
[Snail]
Snail
Snail
Snail
Snail
Bivalvia Margar.ip.iferidae Mussel
(Pelecypoda) 551201
55
Species
Scientific Name
[Lyronaea acuminata]
Lymnaea catascopium
(Lymnaea emarginata)
(Stagnicola emarginata)
Lymnaaa elodes
(Lymnaea paluscria)
[Lymnaea luceola]
Lymnaea atagnalia
Lymnaaa sp.
[Biomphalaria glabraca]
Gyraulus circuastriatua
Beliaona canpanulacum
Helisona crivolvia
Aplexa hypnorum
[Phyaa foncinalis]
Physa gyrina
Phyaa heceroacropha
Phyta Integra
Physa sp.
Margaritifera
margaritifera
Reference
[nonresident ]
M328
E1127, M351
[nonresident]
(M266)
E1127, P726,
M296
[Footnote 2]
[nonresident]
(M390)
P729, M397
M445
P729, M452
E1126, P727,
M373
[nonresident]
(M373)
E1126, P727,
M373
M378
P727
[Footnote 2]
E1138, P748,
Jll
                Afflblcmidae
Mussel
Amblema plicaca
                                                                               AA122
                                            65

-------
Freshwater (Continued)
Class Family
Union id*e
551202
Corbiculidae
551545
Pisidiidae
(Sphaeriidae)
551546
PHYLUM: ARTHROPODA (58-69)
Crustacea Lynccidae
61 610701
Sididae
610901
Daphnidae
610902

CooRBon Mama
Mussel
Mussel
Mussel
Mussel
Asiatic clam
Asiatic clam
Fingernail clam
Fingernail clan
Fingernail clam
Conchostracan
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
[Cladoceran]
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Species
Scientific Same
Anodonta imbecillus
Carunculina parva
(Toxolasna cexasensis)
Cyrtonaias tampicoenia
Elliptic complanata
Corbicula f luninea
Corbicula mini lens is
Gupera cubensis
(Eupera singleyi)
Muscuiiua transversum
(Sphaeriua cransversun)
Sphaerium corneun
Lynceus brachyurus
Diaphanoaona sp.
Ceriodaphnia acanthina
Ceriodaptmia reticulata
Papon i a ambigua
Daphnia carinata
[Daphnia cucullata)
Daphnia galeata mendocae
Daphnia hyalina
Daphnia longispina
Reference
J72, AA122
J19, AA122
P759, AA122
J13
E1159
P749
E1158, P763,
G9
M160, Gil
G12
E580, P344
[Foocnoce 2)
£618
E618, P368
E607, F369
[Foocnoce 3]
[nonresident ]
E610, P370
[Foocnoce 4]
[Foocnoce 5 ]
                                               66

-------
Freshwater (Continued)
Class Family






Bostainidae
610903
Polyphemidae
610905
Cyprididae
(Cypridae)
611303
Diapcoaidae
611818
T«morida«
611820
Cyclopidae
612008




CoooDoti Name
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran

Cladoceran
[Otcracod]
Oscracod
[Cop«pod]
Cop«pod
(Cope pod]
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Species
Scientific Mame
Daphnia magna
Daphnia parvula
Daphnia pulex
Daphnia puliearia
Daphnia ainilis
Moina macrocopa
Moina recciroacris
Simocephalua aerrulacua
Siaocephalua veculua
Boiaina longiroacris

Rolyphemui pediculua
[Cyprecca kawacai]
Cypridopaia vidua
[Eudiaptovua padanua]

Epiachura lacuacria

[Cyclops abyaaoruml
Cyclopa bicuapidacua
Cyclopa vernalia
Cyclopa viridia
(Acanchocyclopa viridis)
Reference
E605, P367
E6L1
E613, P367
A
E606, P367
E622, P372
£623
E617, P370
E617, P370
E624, P373

E599, P385
[ nonresident]
(a)
E720, P430
[nonresident]
E751, P407
[nonresidenc]
E807, P405
E804, P405
E803, P397
                                    Copepod
Acanchocyclopa ap.
[Foocnoce 2]
                                             67

-------
Freshwater {Continued)

dug Family Common Name
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Asellidae [Isopod]
616302
Isopod
Iiopod
Isopod
Isopod
[I«opod]
Isopod
Isopod
Ceaaaridae Aaphipod
616921
Aaphipod
AflpbipOG
Amphipod
[Amphipod]
Aaphipod
Amphipod
Species
Scientific Name
Diicyclops sp.
Eucyclops agilis
Heaocyclopi Leuckarti
[A«ellu« aquae icui]
Ajelluc bicrenaca
(Caecidotea bicrenaca)
Aaellu* brevicaudus
Aaellxu coamtunit
Ajellus intermediu*
[Aj.ellua neridianut]
Ajellua racovitzai
Lirceui alabaaae
Crangonyx paeudogracilis
Garaarua fasciatua
Caaaarua lacuatrit
Gaaaarua paeudolimnaeus
(Gaomarua pulex]
Gamnarua tigrinua
Gananarua ap.
Reference
[Foocnoce 2]
P403
E812, P403
[nonresident]
(12)
KH
(11,2)
E875, P447,
I
E875, P4A8,
I
E875, P448,
I
[nonresident]
P449, I
E875, I
P459, T68,
FF28
E877, P458,
T53
E877, P458,
FT23
E877, P458,
T48~
[nonresident]
LSI, FF17
[Footnote 2]

-------
Freshwacer (Continued)
Class Family
Hyalellidae
(Talicridae)
616923
Palaemooidae
617911
Ascacida*
618102
Insecca Hepcageniidae
62-65 621601
Baecidae
621602

Common Name
Anphipod
[Prawn]
Malaysian prawn
Prawn
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Species
Scientific Name
Hyalella azceca
(Hyalella knickerbockeri)
[Macrobrachiun lamarreil
Macrobrachiuai
rosenbergii
Palaeaoneces kadiakensis
Cambarus lacimanus
Faxonella clypeacua
Orcon«cc«s immunis
Orconeccea limosus
Orconecces propinquus
Orconecces nais
Orconccces ruscicus
Orconectes virilis
Pacifascacus crowbridgii
Procaabarus acucus
ProcasKbarus clarki
(Procaabams clarkii)
Procaabarua simulana
Procambarus sp.
Sceconeaa ichaca
^^•^MMI^MMi^^l^iH^ ^^P^IB^^^M^i^
Scenonema rub rum
Callibaecis skokianus

Reference
E876, P457,
T154
[noareaidenc]
[Fooccoce 6]
£88 1, P484
E897
E890
E894, P482
E893, P482
E894, P482
E894
£893, P482
E894, P483
E883
P482
E885, P482
E888, P482
[Foocnoce 2]
S173, 0205
S178, 0205
S116, N9
                                             69

-------
Freshvacer (Continued)
Cl*«a family
Lepcophlebiidaa
621701
Epheaerellidae
621702
Caenidae
621802
Epheaeridae
622003
Libellulldaa
622601
Coenagrionidaa
(Agriouidae)
(Coenagciidae)
622904
Pteronarcidae
(Pleronarcyidae)
62S201

Common Name
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Dragonfly
Demaelfly
iDamselfly]
Oamsalfly
Damsel fly
Sconcfly
Scone fly
Scone fly
Species
Sciencific Name
Callibaecis ip.
Cloeon dipcerun
Paralepcophlebia
praepedica
•»?
Epbeaerella ~dodd«i
Ephemerella grandis
Epheverella subvaria
Epbeoerella sp.
Caenis diminuca
Ephemera simulana
Hexagenia bilineaca
Hexagenia rigida
Hexagenia «p.
Pancala hymenea
(Pancala hymenaea)
Enallagaa aapersua
[Ischnura elegana]
Ischnura vercicfStlis.
Ischnura tp.
Pceronarcella badia
Pceronarcyi californica
Pceronarcys dorsaca
Reference
[Foocnoce 2]
0173
S89, 0233
0245
0245
M9, 0248,
S71
[Foocnoce 2]
S51, 0268
S36, H9,
0283
N9, 339,
0290
0290, S41,
H9
(Foocnoce 2]
N15, V603
DO
[nonresidenc]
HIS, E918
[Foocnoce 2]
L172
L173
E947
                                             70

-------
Freshwater (Continued)
Class Family

Nemourida*
625204
Perlidav
625401


Perlodidae
625402
Nepidae
627206
Dytiscidae
630506
Elaidae
(Elminchidae)
631604
Hydrops-ychidae
641804
Lianephilidae
641807

Bracbycencridae
641815
Tipulidae
650301

Common Name
Sconefly
[Sconefly]
Sconefly
Scon* fly
Scone fly
Sconefly
Sconefly
Wacer scorpion
Beetle
Beecle
Caddis fly
Caddis fly
Caddisfly
Caddis fly
Caddisfly
Caddisfly
Caddisfly
Crane fly
Species
Scientific Name
Pceronarcys sp.
[Nemoura cinerea]

Acroneuria lycorias
AcrotUuria pacifica
Claassenia sabulosa
Heophaaganophora capicaca
(Phasganophora capicaca)
Arcynopceryx parallela
Ranacra elongaca

Scenelmis sexlineaca

Arccopsyche grand is
Hydroptyche becceni
Hydropsyche californica
Hydropsyche sp.
Cliscornia magnifica
Pfailarccus quaeris
Brachycencrus sp.
Tipula sp.
Reference
[Foocnoce 2]
[nonresident
N4, E953
E953, L180
E953
E953, CC407
E954
[nonresidenc]
[Foocnoce 2]
W21
L251, 1198
H24
L253
[Toocnote 2]
EI206
II272
[Foocnoce 2]
[Foocnoce 2]
                                             71

-------
Freshwacer (Concinued)
Class


r^Zxi-t^/L^T1
>^

Family
Caracoposonidae
650504
Culicidae
650503
Chironoaidac
(Tendipedidae)
650508
A^^ f i
i&t*& ' \
Rhagionidae
(Lepcidae)
651603

Common Name
Bicing midge
Mosquico
Moaquico
Midge
Midge
[Midge]
Midge
Midge
Midge
Snipe fly
Species
Scientific Name
-
Aadaa aegypci
Culex pipiens
Chironomua plumoaus
(Tandipes plumoaua)
Chironomus cencana
I Chironomua chuami]
Chironomua sp.
Paracanytarsua
parchenogeaec icus
Tanycarsus dissimilis
Acheriat sp.
Reference
[Foocnoce 2]
EE3
EE3
L423
Q
[nonresidenc
[Foocnoce 2]
[Foocnoce 7]
Rll
[Foocnoce 2]
PHYLOM: ECTOPROCTA (BRYOZOA) (78)
Phylacco-
1 ^sMBflP M
k «1 • ••• W •
7817
Peccinacelcidae
Lophopodidae
PlUBMC«llida*
781701
Bry ocean
Bryoxoan
Bryosoan
PeccinacalLa magnif ica
Lophopodella carceri
Plumacella emarginaca
E502, P269
E502, P271
E505, P272
PHYLOM: CHORDATA (8388)
Agnacha
86
Osceichchyaa
8717

Pecromyzoncidae
860301
Anguillidae
874101
Salmonidae
875501
Sea lamprey
American eel
Pink salmon
Coho salmon
Pecromygon marinua
Anguilla roscraca

Oncorfaynchua gorbuacha
Oncorhynchua kisucch
Fll'
F15
Fid
F18
                                              72

-------
Freshwater (Continued)

Class Family Common Name
Sockeye salmon
Chinook salmon
Mountain
whitefish
Golden trout
Cutthroat crout
Rainbow trout
(Steelhead trout)
Atlantic salmon
Brown trout
Brook trout
Lake trout
Esocidae Northern pike
875801
Cyprinidae Chiselmouth
877601
Longfin dace
Central
•toner oiler
Goldfish
COOBOQ carp
[Zebra danio]
[(Zebrafish)]
Silver jaw minnow
Golden shiner
Pugnose shiner
Species
Scientific Name
Oncorhynchus nerka
Oncorhynchus tshawycscha
Prosopium williamsoni
Salmo a^uabonita
Salmo clarki
Salmo gairdneri
Salmo salar
Salmo trutta
Salvelinus fontinalis
Salvelinus natnaycush
Esox lucius
Acrocheilus alutaceus
Agosia chrysogaater
Campostoma anomalum
Carassius auratus
Cyprinus carpio
[Danio rerio]
[(Brachydanio rerio)]
Ericymba buccata
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Motropis anogenua
Reference
; F19
F19
F19
F19
F19
F19
F19
F19
F19
F20
F21
F21
F21
F21
P21
[nonresident]
(F96)
F21
F23
F23
                                             73

-------
Freshwater (Continued)

Class Family Common Name
Emerald shiner
Scriped shiner
Common shiner
Pugnose minnow
Spoccail shiner
Red shiner
Spot fin shiner
Sand shiner
Seeelcolor
shiner
Northern
redbelly dace
Bluncnose minnow
Fathead minnow
Northern
squavfish
Blacknose dace
Speckled dace
Biccerlint
Rudd
Creek chub
Pearl dace
Tench
Species
Scientific Name
Nocropis acherinoides
Nocropis chrysocephalus
Nocropis cornucus
Hocropis eajfliae
Nocropis hudsonius
Nocropis luerensis
Nocropis spilopcerus
Nocropis scramineus
Nocropis whipplei
Phoxinus eos

Pimephales nocacus
Pimephales prone las
Ptychocheilus
oregonensis
Rhinicbchys acraculue
thinicbchya osculus
JUiodeu* sericeus
Scardinius
erychrophchalmus
Semocilus acromaculacus
Semocilus aargarica
Tinea cinca
Reference
F23
F23
F23
F24
F24
F24
F25
F25
F25
F25
F25
F25
F25
F25
F25
726
F26
F26
F26
F26
                                             74

-------
Freshwater (Concinued)
Class Family
Catostomidae
877604
Ictaluridae
877702
Clariidae
877712
Oryziidac
Cvprinodoncidae
380404
Poeciliidae
880408

Common Name
Whice sucker
Mountain sucker
Black bullhead
Yellow bullhead
Brown bullhead
Channel catfish
Walking cacfish
Medaka
Banded killifish
Flagfish
Mosquitofish
Amazon molly
Sail fin molly
Molly
Cuppy
Species
Sciencific Same
Catostomus comraersoni
Cacostomus placyrhynchus
Ictalurua me las
Iccalurus natalis
Iccalurus nebulosus
Iccalurus punctatus
Clarias batrachus
[Orytias lacipes)
Fundulua diaphanus
Jordanella floridae
G ambus i a affinis
Poecilia fonnosa
Poecilia latipinna
Poxcilia sp.
Poecilia reticulata
Reference
F26
F26
F27
F27
F27
F27
F28
[nonresident]
(F96)
F33
F33
F33
F34
F34
F34
(L«bist«s reticulacus, Obs.)
Gasterosceidae
881801
Southern
platyfiah
Brook
stickleback
Threespine
stickleback
Ninespine
stickleback
Xiphophorus aaculatus
Culaea inconstans
MMV^^MH^H ^^^^^H^^I^M^H^B^^^
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Pungitiua pungitius
F34
F35
F35
F35
                                           75

-------
Freahvacer (Concinued)

Class Family. Common Name
Percichchyidae Whice perch
Scriped baaa
Cencrarchidae Rock baaa
883516
Green sunfiah
Pumpkinaeed
Orangeapocced
aunfiah
Bluegill
Long ear aunfiah
Redear sunfiah
Saallaouch baaa
Largeaouch baaa
Whice crappie
Black crappie
Percidae Rainbow darcer
883520
Johnny darcer
Orangechroac
darcer
Tel low perch
Walleye
Sciaenidae Freshwater drum
883544
Cichlidae Oacar
883561
Species
Scientific Name
Morone aaericana
(Roccua aaericanus, Obs.)
Morone saxacilis
(Roccua saxacilis . Obs . )
AmbiopUcea.*rupescris
Lepoais cyanellua
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepoaia humilis
Lepoaia aacrochirua
Lepoaia megalocia
Lepoaia aicrolophua
Micropcerua doloaieui
Micropcerua aalaoidea
Poaoxia annul aria
Poaoxia nigrouaculacua
Echeoacoaa caeruleua
Echeoacoaa nigrua
Echeoacoaa apeceabile
Perca flaveacena
Seizoacedion vicreum
vicreua
Aplodinocus grunniens
Aacronocua ocellacua

Reference
F36
F36
F38
F38
F38
F38
F38
F38
F38
F39
F39
F39
F39
F39
F40
F40
F41
F41
F45
F47
                                          76

-------
Freshwater (Continued)
Class
Amphibia
89
Family
Cottidae
883102
Ranidae
89.0302
Hicrohylidae
890303
Bufonidae
890304
Hylidae
890305

Common Name
Blue tilapia
Mozambique
cilapia
Mottled sculpin
Bullfrog
Green frog
Pig frog
River frog
Leopard frog
Wood frog
[Frog]
Leonard frog
Narrow-mouthed
toad
American toad
[Toad]
Green toad
Fowler's toad
Red-spotted toad
Woodhouse's toad
Northern cricket
frog
Southern gray
treefrog
Spring peeper
Soecies
Scientific Name
Tilapia aurea
Tilapia nossambica
Cottus bairdi
Rana cacesbeiana
Rana clamitans
Rana grylio
Rana heckscheri
Rana pioiens
Rana sylvatica
[Rana temporia]
Rana spenocephala
Gaatrophryne
carolinensis
Bufo americanus
[Bufo bufo]
Bufo debilis
Bufo fowler i
Bufo punctatus
Bufo woodhousei
Acris crepitans
Hyla chrysoscelis
Hyla crucifer

Reference
F47
F47
F60
f
B206
B206
B206
B206
B205
B206
[nonresident
JJ
B192
B196
[nonresident
B197
B196
B198
B196
B203
B201
B202
                                        77

-------
Freshwater (Continued)

CUss Family Common Name
Barking tree frog
Squirrel
treefrog
Cray treefrog
Northern chorua
Species
Scientific Kane
Hyla gratiosa
Hyla squirella
Hyla versicolor
Pseudacris triseriata
Reference
3201
3201
B200
3202
               Pipidae
               Ambystomacidae
                890502
               Salamaodridae
                890504
  frog

African clawed
  frog

Spocced
  salamander
 Xenopua laevia            Z16
 Ambyitoaa maculaturn       B176
                                 [Mexican axolotl] [Ambyscoma nexicanum]     [nonresident]

                                                    Ambystoma opacum          B176
Marbled
  salamander

Newt
 Mocbphchalmus viridescena B179
(Tricurua virideacena)
                                           78

-------
Footnotes:

1.  Apparencly chis is an outdated name (D19, 20).  Organisms  identified as  such  should onl>
    be used if chey were obcained from North America.

2.  Organisms not idencified co species are considered residenc only  if chey were obcained
    from wild populations in Norch America.

3.  If from Norch America, ic is residenc and should be called D_. similis (C).  If noc from
    North America, it should be considered nonresident.

t*.  If from North America, it is resident and nay be any one of a number of  species such as
    I), laevis, J). dubia, or j>. galeata mendota (C).  If not^froa North America, ic should be
    considered nonresident.

5.  If from North America, it is resident and may be any one of a number of  species, such as
    £. ambigua, £. longiremis, or £. rosea (C).  If not from North America,  ic should be
    considered nonresident.

6.  This species mi^ht be established in portions of che southern United States.

7.  The taxonomy of this species and this and similar genera has not been clarified, buc
    this species should be considered resident.
                                             79

-------
                             References for Freshwater Species

A.  Brandlova, J., Z. Brandl, and C. H. Fernando.  1972.  The Cladocera of Ontario wich
    remarks on some species and discribucion.  Can. J. Zoo 1. SO: 1373-1403.

B.  Blair, W. F., et al.  1968.  Vercebraces of che Uaiced Scaces.  2nd Ed.  McGraw-Hill,
    New York.

C.  Brooks, J. 1.  1957.  The Systematics of North American Daphnia.  Memoirs of che
    Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. XIII.

0.  Kenk, R.  1972.  Freshwater Planarians (Turbeliaria) of North America.  Bioca of
    Freshwater Ecosystem* Identification Manual No. 1.  U.S. G.P.Os. #5501-0365.

E.  Edraondson, W. T. (ed.)  1965.  Fresh-water Biology.  2nd Ed.  Wiley, Nev York.

F.  Committee on Names of Fishes.  1980.  A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes
    from the United States and Canada.  4th Ed.  Special Publication No. 12.  American
    Fisheries Society.  Bethesda, MD.

G.  Burch, J. B.  1972.  Freshwater Sphaeriacean Clams (Mollusca:  Pelecypoda) of North
    America.  Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems Identification Manual No. 3.  U.S.  G.P.O.
    #5501-0367.

H.  Foster, N.  1972.  Freshwater Polychaetes (Annelida) of North America.  Bioca of
    Freshwater Ecosystems Identification Manual No. 4.  U.S. G.P.O. #5501-0368.

I.  Williams, W. D.  1972.  Freshwater Isopods (Asellidae) of Norch America.  Bioca o£
    Freshwater Ecosystems Identification Manual No. 7.  U.S. C.P.O. #5501-0390.

J.  Burch, J. B.  1973.  Freshwater Unionacean Clams (Mollusca:   Pelecypoda) of Norch
    America.  Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems Identification Manual No. 11.  U.S.  G.P.O.
    #5501-00588.

K.  Kudo, R. R.  1966.  Protozoology.  5th Ed.  Thomas, Springfield, Illinois.

L.  Usinger, R. L.  1956.  Aquatic Insects of California.  University of California Press,
    Berkeley.

M.  Clarke, A. R.  1973.  The Freshwater Hoiluces of che Canadian Interior Basin.
    Malacologia 13: 1-509.

N.  Hilsenhoff, W. L.  1975.  Aquatic Insects of Wisconsin.   Technical Bulletin No. 39.
    Depc. of Natural Resources.  Madison,  Wisconsin.

0.  Edmunds, G. F. , Jr., et al.  1976.  The Mayflies of North and Central America.
    University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

P.  Pennak, R. W.  1978.  Fresh-Water Invertebrates of the United States.  2nd Ed.  Wiley,
    New York.

Q.  Wentsell, R., et al.  1977.  Hydrobiologia 56: 153-156.


                                             80

-------
R.  Johannsea, 0. A.   1937.   Aquaeic  Dipcera.   Pare  IV.   Chironotnidae:  Subfamily
    Chironominae.  Memoir  210.   Cornell Oni'v.  Agriculcural  Experimental Scacion,  Ithaca,
    NY.

S.  Burks, B. D.  1953.  The  Mayflies, or Ephemeroptera,  of Illinois.   Bulletin of  che
    Natural Hiscory Survey Division.  Urbana,  Illinois.

T.  Bousfield, E. L.   1973.   Shallow-Wacer Gammaridean Anphipods  of  New England.  Cornell
    University Press,  Ichaca, New York.

U.  Sohn, I. C., and L. S. Kornicker.  1973.   Morphology  of Cyprccca kawacai  Sohn and
    Kornicker, 1972 (Crustacea,  Ostracoda), wich  a Discussion of  che Genus.   Smithsonian
    Concribucions to Zoology, No. 141.

V.  Needham, J. G., and M. J. Westfail, Jr.  1955.   A Manual of* che  Dragonflies of  North
    America.  Univ. of California Press, Berkeley.

W.  Brown, H. P.  1972.  Aquatic Dryopoid Beetles (Coleoptera)  of  the United  States.
    Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems Identification Manual  No. 6.   U.S.G.P.O. #5501-0370.

X.  Parodiz, J. J.  1956.  Notes on che Freshwater Snail  Lepcoxis  (Mudalia) carinaca
    (Bruguiere).  Annals of che  Carnegie Museum 33:  391-405.

Y.  Myers, F. J.  1931.  The Distribution of Roc ifera on  Mount  Desert Island.  Am.  Museum
    Novitates 494: 1-12.

Z.  National Academy of Sciences.  1974.  Amphibians:  Guidelines  for the breeding, care,
    and management of laboratory animals.  Washington, D.C.

AA. Horne, F. R., and S. Mclntosh.  1979.  Factors Influencing  Distribution of Mussels in
    the Blanco River in Central  Texas.  Nautilus 94: 119-133.

BB. Rlemm, D. J.  1972.  Freshwater Leeches (Annelida: Hirudinea)  of North America.  Biota
    of Freshwater Ecosystems  Identification Manual No. 8.   U.S.G.P.O. #5501-0391.

CC. Prison,  T. U.  1935:  The Stoneflies, or Plecoptera,  of  Illinois.   Bull.  111. Nat.
    History Survey, Vol. 20, Article 4.

DO. White, A. M.  Manuscript.  John Carroll University, University Heights, Ohio.

EE. Darsie, R. F., Jr., and K. A. Ward.  1981.  Identification  and Geographical
    Distribution of the Mosquitoes of North America, North  of Mexico.   American Mosquito
    Control Association, Fresno, California.

FF. Holsinger, J. R.  1972.  The Freshwater Anphipod Crustaceans  (Gammaridae) of Norc.h
    America.  Bioca of Freshwacer Ecosyscems Identification  Manual No.  5.  U.S.G.P.O.
    #5501-0369.

GG. Chapman, P. M., ec al.  1982.  Relative Tolerances of Selected Aquatic Oligochaetes co
    Individual Pollutants and Environmental Factors.  Aquatic Toxicology 2: 47-67.

HH. Bosnak, A. D., and E. L. Morgan.  1981.  National Speleological  Society Bull. 43:
    12-18.

                                            81

-------
II. Wiggens, G. B.  1977.  Larvae of cha Norch American Caddisfly Genera (Tricopcera).
    University of Toronco Press, Toronco, Canada.

JJ. Hall, R. J-, and D. Swine ford.  1980.  Toxic Effects of Endrin and Toxaohene on the
    Southern Leopard Frog Rana sphcnocephala.  Environ. Polluc. (Series A) 23:  53-65.
                                            82

-------
                                   Salcwacer Species
Class
PHYLOM: CNIDARIA
Hydrozoa
3701

Family Coonon Name
(COELEHTERATA) (37)
Campanulariidae Hydroid
370401
Hydroid
Hydronttduaj
Species
Sciencific Name
Campanularia flexuosa
Laomedea loveni
Phialjdium *p.

deference
B122, E81
(nonresident
[Foocnoce 1]
(E81)
                 Campanu1i n id a«
                  370404
PHYLUM;  CTEKOPHORA (38)

  Tencaculaca    Pleurobrachiidae
   3801           380201

                 Mneniidae
                  380302

PHYLUM:  RHYNCHOCOELA (43)

  Heceroaemercea Lineidae
   4303           430302

PHYLUM:  ROTIFERA (ROTATORIA) (45)
                  [Hydroid]




                   Ccenophore


                   Ccenophore
                 [Eirene viridula]
                  Hneaiopiis mecrdayi
                   Nemercine worn    Cerebraculu* fuacus
  Monogononca
   4505
Brachionidae
 450601
PHYLUM:  ANNELIDA (50)
  Polycha«ca
   5001
Phyllodocida*
 500113
                 H«rtida«
                  500124
Rotifer
Polychaece vora
 Brachionua plicacilis
 Phyllodoce mculaca
(Anaicides »«culaca)
(Mereiphylla aaculaca)
                          (nonresidenc
                  Pleurobrachia pileus      B218, E162
                           C39, 194
                                            B252
B272
E334
                   PolychMce worn   Neanchci arenaceodencaca  E377
                                   [Polychaece worm]

                                    Polychaece worm
                                    (Nereis arenaceodencaca)

                                    [Meanches vaali]

                                     Mereia diversicolor
                                    (Neanches diversicolor)
                                           [nonresidenc]

                                            E337, F527
                                             83

-------
Salcwaccr (Continued)
Class








Oligochaeca
5004

Family

Dorvillcidac
S00136
Spionidae
500143
Cirraculidae
500150
Ccenodrilidae
500153
Cap i CD 11 id aa
500160
Arcnicolida«
500162
Sabellidae
500170
Tubificidae
S0090Z


Common Name
Sand worn
Polychacce worm
Polychaece worn
[Polychaece worm]
Polychaece vom
Polychaccc worm
Polycha«cc worm
Polychaece worm
Polychaccc worm
Polychaece worm
Oligochaece worm
Oligochaccc worm

Sciencific Kame
Ncr«i« vir«05
(Ncanches virent)
Ncrcii »p.
Ophryocrocha diadena
[Ophryocrocha labrunica]
Polydora webaceri
Cirrifonaia spirabranchia
Cccnodrilus scrracua

Capiccllf capicaca
Arenicola marina
Eudiscylia vancouveri

Linmodriloid«»
v«rrueo«u«
Monopylcphorua
cuciculacm
Reference
B317, E337,
CSS
P23
[nonresident]
E338
G253
G275
8358, E337
B369, E337
DD
Z
Z
                                    Oligocha«c« norm  Tubificoido  gabriella*    Z
PHYLUM:  MOLLDSCA (5083)
  Gascropoda
   51
Haliocidac
 510203
                  Calypcraeidae
                   510364

                  Huricidac
                   510501
Black abalonc

Red abalone
Haliocia cracherodii

Haliocit rufcsceni
                   Common Aclancic   Crepidula fornicaca
                     slipperthell
                   Oyac*r drill
                  Urosalpinx cinerea
                  (Uroaalpinx cioereui)
C88T,  D17

D18

C90,  DH1
                          B646, D179,
                          £264
                                             84

-------
Saltwater (Continued)
Class






Bivalvia
(Pelecypoda)
55























Family
Melongenidae
(Nepcuneidae)
510507
Nassariidae
(Naasidae)
510508
Mytilidae
550701





Pectinidae
550905
Oscreidae
551002



Cardiidae
551522
Macridae
551525



Tellinidae
551531

Veneridae
551547

Common Name
Channeled whelk


Mud snail


Northern horse
mussel

Blue mussel

[Mediterranean
mussel]
Bay scallop

Pacific oyster

Eastern oyster
Oyster
Oyster
[Cockle]

Clan

Common rangia
Surf clam

Clam

[Bivalve]
Quahog clam

Species
Scientific Name
Busycon canaliculacura


Nassarias obsoletus
(Nassa obsoleta)
(Icyanassa obaoleta)
Modiolus modiolus


Mytilus edulis

[Mytilus
galloprovinciallis]
Argopecten irradians

Crassostrea gigas

Crassoatrea virginica
Crasaostrea sp.
Oscrea edulis
[Cardium edulel

Mulina laceralia

Rangia cuneata
Spisula solidissima

Macoma inquinata

(Tellina tenuis]
Mercenaria mercenaria

Reference
B655, 0223,
£264

B649, 0226,
£264

0434


B566, C101,
0428, E299
[nonresident

D447

C102, D456,
E300
0456, E300
[Footnote 1]
E300
[nonresident

0491

0491, E301
B599, 0489,
E301
D507

[nonresident!
D523, E301

                                             85

-------
Salcwacer (Concinued)
Class
Family
Hyidae
(Myacidae)
551701
PHYLUM: ARTHROPODA (58-69)
Meroscomaca
58
Cruscacea
61
Limulidae
580201
Artemiidae
610401
Calanidae
611801
Eucalanidae
611803
Paeudocalanidae
611805
Euchaecidae
611808
Mecridiidae
611816
Pieudodiapcomidae
611819
Temoridae
611820
Poacellidae
611827
Acarciidae
611829

Common Name
Common Pacific
liccleneck
Japanese
liccleneck
Soft-shell
clam
Horseshoe crab
[Brine shrimp]
Copepod
Cope pod
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Soecies
Sciencific Name
Procochaca scaminea
Tapes phi Li pp in arum
My a irenaria
Limulus polyphemus
[Arcemia salina]
Calanua hel^olandicus
Undinula vul^aris
Eucalanus elon^acus
Eucalanus pileacus
Pseudocalanus minucus
Euchaeca marina
Mecridia pacific a
Pseudodiapcomua
coronacua
Eurycemora affinis
Labidocera scocci
Acarcia clausi


Reference
D526
D527
8602, 0536,
E302
B533, E403,
H30
[Foocnoce 2]
Q25
Q29
AA
AA
E4A7, 1155,
Q43
Q63
X179, Y
E447, 1154,
Q101
E450, 1155,
Qlll
R157
E447
                                             86

-------
Saltwater (Continued)
Class Family
Harpaccicidae
611910
Tisbidae
611913
Can choc atnpcidae
611929
Balanidae
613402
Mysidae
615301

Idoceidae
616202

Janiridae
616306

Aapeliscidae
616902

Common Name
Cope pod
Copepod
[Cope pod]
Copepod
Copepod
Barnacle
Barnacle
Barnacle
Barnacle
Mysid
Mytld
Mysid
Mysid
Isopod
[Isopod]
[Isopod]
[Isopod]
[Isopod]
[Isopod]
Amphipod
Soecies
Scientific Name
Acarcia tonsa
Tigriopus californicus
[Tigriopus japanicus]
Tisbe holochuriae
Nitocra spinipea
Balanua balanoides
Balanus crenacua
Balanus eburneua
Balanus improvisus
Heteromysia foraosa
Hysidopsis bahia
Mysidopsis bigelowi
Heonysis sp.
Idocea balcica
[Idocea emarginaca]
[Idocea neglecca]
[Jaera albifronsl
[Jaera albifrona senau]
[Jaera nordaanni]
Ampeliaca abdica
Reference
E447, 1154
J78
[nonresident
BB
Q240
B424, E457
B426, E457
B424, E4S7
B426, E4S7
E513, K720
U173
E513, K720
[Footnote 1]
B446, E483
[nonresident]
[nonresident]
[nonresident]
[nonresident]
(nonresident ]
E488, L136
                                             87

-------
S«Uv«c«r (Coacinued)
Class Family
Eusiridae
(Poncogeneiidae)
616920
Gaoraaridae
616921




Lysianassidae
616934
Euphausiida*
(Thyianopodida*)
617402
Pena«ida«
617701



P«l«tmonid«e
617911









Common Nam«
Amph i pod


Amph i pod

Anphipod
Anphipod
( Aaphipod]
Amph i pod
Amph i pod

Euphausiid


Brown shrimp

Pinlt shrimp
Whice shrimp
Blue «hrimp
[Shrimp]

[Pr«wn]

Prawn

Korean shrimp
Grass shrimp
Grass* shrimp

Species
Sciencific Name
Poncogeneia sp.


Gannnarus duebeni

Gammaruf oceanicus
Ganmarus cigrinus
[Gammarus zaddachi]
Marinogaomiarus obcusacus
Anonyx sp.

Euphausia pacifica


Penaeut ate ecus

P«aa«us duorarun
Penaeus scciferus
Penaeua scyliroscris
[Leander paucidens]

[Ltsnder squilla]
[(Pslaeaion elegane)]
Macrobrachiua
ros«nb«rgii
Palaemon aacrodaccylua
Pala«moo«ces pugio
Palaemontces vulgaris

Reference
[Foocnoce L)


L56

E489, L50
LSI
[nonresidenc 1
L58
[Foocnoce 1)

Ml 5


E518, N17

E518, K17
E518, N17
[nonresidenc]
(nonresidenc ]

[nonresidenc]

[Foocnoce 3]

T380
E521, N59
B500, E521,
N56
                                           38

-------
Saltwater (Continued)
Class Family
Hippolycidae
617916
Pandalidae
617918
Crangonidae
617922
Nephropaidae
(Nephropidae)
(Homaridae)
618101
Pagurida*
618306
Cancridae
618803
Portuaidae
618901
Xanthidae
(Pilumnidae)
618902

Common Name
Sargassun shrimp
Coon stripe
shrimp
Shr imp
Pink shrimp
[Sand shrimp]
Bay shrimp
Shrimp
Sand shrimp
American Lobscer
[Lobster]
Hermit crab
Rock crab
Dungeness crab
Blue crab
Green crab
Hud crab
Crab
Mud crab
Soecies
Scientific Name
Latreutes fucoruo
Pandalus danae
?andalus goniurus
• *~
Pandalus montagui
[Crangon crangon]
Crangon franciscorum
(Crago Cranciacorua)
Crangon nigricauda
C rang on scptemapinosa
Homarus americanus
(Homarus g_ammarus]
Pagurus longicarpus
Cancer irroracua
Cancer magi seer
Callioectes sapidus
Carcinus maenas
Eurypanopeus depressua
Leptodiua floridanua
Rhichropanopeus harrisii
Reference
N78
T306, W163
W163
B494, E522,
W163
[nonresident
V176, W164
V176, W164
B500, E522,
B502, E532
[nonresident]
B5U, E537,
N125
B518, E543,
N175
T166, V185,
W177
B521, C80,
E543, N168
CSO, E543
B522, E543,
N195
580
E543, N187

-------
  Saltwater (Continued)
Class








Family
Craps idae
613907




Ocypodidae
618909

Common Name
Shore crab

Shore crab
Drifc line crab

[Crab]
Fiddler crab

Species
Scientific Name
Hemigrapsus nudua

Htmigrapim oregonensis
Sesarma cinereum

[Seaama haemacocheir]
Uca pugilacor

Reference
CC

cc
3526, E544,
S222
[nonresident ]
B526, E544,
N232
PHYLUM: SCHINODETIMATA (81)
Asteroidea
8104
Ophiuroidea
8120
Echinoidea
8136











Aateriidae
811703
Ophiothricidae
812904
Arbaciidae
814701

Toxopneustidae
814802


Echinida*
814901
KchinoMtrida*
814902
Stroagy-
loccntrotidaa
Starfish

Briccle scar

[S«a urchin]

S«a urchin
S«a urchin

[S«a urchin]

[Echinoderm]

[Coral reef
•chinoidl
S«a urchin

Asceriaa forbesi

Ophiochrix spiculaca

(Arbacia lixula]

Arbacia puncculaca
Lycechinus piceua

[Pseudocencrocua
depreaaua]
[Paracencrocua lividual

[EchinoiMCra •achati]

Scrongylocencrocua
purpuracua
8728, E578,
0392
0672, T526

[nonresident:]

B762, E572
T253

[nonresident]

[nonresident ]

[nonresident]
[Hawaii only]
0574, T202

                    814903

                 Dendrasteridae
                  815501
PHYLUM:  CHAETOGHATEA (83)
Sand dollar
Arrow worn
Pendratter excencricus    0537, V363
Sagitta hispida
E218
                                             90

-------
Saltwater (Continued)
Class
Family

Common Name
Species
Scientific Name
Reference
PHYLUM: CHORDATA (8388)
Chondrichthyes
8701
Osteichthyes
8717











Rajidae
871304
Anguillidae
374101
Clupeidae
874701



Engraulidae
874702
Salaonidae
875501



Gadidae
879103
Crprinodontidae
880404
[Thornback ray]
American eel
Atlantic menhaden
Gulf menhaden
Atlantic herring
Pacific herring
Herring
Northern anchovy
[Nehu]
Pink salmon
Chuoi aalmon
Coho lalnon
Sockeye salmon
Chinook saloon
Rainbow crout
(Steelhead crout)
Aclancic salmon
Atlantic cod
Haddock
Sheepshead
•innow
[Raja clavatal
Anguilla roscrata

Brevdorcia tyrannus
Brevoortia patronus
Clupea harengua harengus
Clupea harengus pallaai
Clupea harengus
Engraulis mordax
[Scolephorus purpureus)
Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
Oncorhynchus keta
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Oncorhynchus nerka
Oncorhynchus cshavycscha
Salvo gairdneri

Salmo salar
Cad us aorhua
Melanogrammus aeglefinus
Cyprinodon variegatus
[nonresident
A15
A17
A17
A17
A17
A17
A18
[nonresident I
[Hawaii only]
A18
A18
A18
A19
A19
A19
A19
A30
A30
A33
                                           91

-------
Saltwater (Continued)
Class Family
Poeciliidae
880408
At her in id «e
880502
Gasterosteidae
881801
Syngnachidaa
88Z002
Percichthyidae
KuhliidM
883514
Carangida*
883528
Sparidae
883S43
Sciaenidae
883544

Common Name
Munnichog
Scriped
killifish
Longnose
killifiah
Moaquitofish
Sailfin molly
In 1 and
lilverside
Aclancic
ailveraide
Tidevacer
jilverside
Threespine
stickleback
Fours pine
acicklebacVc
Morchern
pipefish
Scriped bass
[Mountain baas]
Florida Ponpano
Pinfiah
Spot
Species
Scientific Name
Fundulus heteroclicus
Fundulus maj[alis
Fundulus similis
Gavbuaia affinis
Poecilia latipinna
Menidia beryllina
Menidia menidia
Menidia peninsula*
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Ape 1 tea quadracua
Syngnathus fuscua
Morone saxatilis
(Roccua saxatilia, Obs . )
(Kuhlia sandvicenaisj
Trachinotus carolinus
Lagodon rhomboides
Leiostomua xanthurus

Reference
A33
A33
A3 3
A33
A34
A34
A34
A34
A35
A35
A36
A36
[nonresident]
[Hawaii only]
A43
A45
A46
                                  Atlantic croaker  Micropogoniaa undulatua   A46
                                            92

-------
Salcvacer (Continued)
Claaa Family
Embiococidae
.883560
Pomacentridae
883562
Lab r id*e
883901
Mugil idae.
883601
Ammodycidae
884501
Gobiidae
884701
CoccidM
883102
Bochidae
885703
Pl«urone£Cidae
885704
Bailee idae
886002

Common Name
Red drum
Shiner perch
Dwarf perch
Blacktaich
Gunner
Bluehead
[Mullecl
Scriped mullet
Whice nullec
Pacific *and
lance
Longjav mud sucker
Naked goby
Tide pool aculpin
Speckled aanddab
Summer flounder
(Dab)
[Plaice]
English aole
Mincer flounder
Planehead
filefish
Soecies
Sciencific Name
Sciaenopa ocellacus
Cynacogaacer aggregaca
Micromecru* minimus
Chromis punccipinnis
Taucogolabrus adspersus
Thalasaoma bifasciacum
[Aldrichecca forsceri]
Mugil cephalua
Mugil cureaa
Aamodyces hexapcerus
Cillichchya nirabilia
Gobioaona boaci
Oligococcua maculoaua
Cicharichchy-a scigmaeus
Paralichchya dencacua
(Limanda limanda]
[Pleuroneccea placeaaa]
Parophrys veculua
Paeudooleuroneccea
amencanus
Monacanchua hispidua
Reference
A46
A47
A48
A48
A49
A49
[nonreaidenc]
A49
A49
A53
A54
A54
A61
A64
A64
[nonreaidenc]
[nonreaidenc]
A65
A65
A66
                                          93

-------
  Saltwater (Concinutd)
                                                     Species
  Class          Family             Common Name       Scientific Name           Reference


                 Tetraodontidae     Northern puffer   Sphoeroides aaculacus     A66
                  886101
Footnotes:

1.   Organisms noc identified to species are considered resident rfftly 'if obtained from wild
    populations in North America.

2.   This species should not be used because it might be too atypical.

3.   This species might be established in portions of the southern United States.
                                             94

-------
                              References for Saltwater Species

A.  Committee on Names of Fishes.  1980.  A Lisc of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes
    from che United Scates and Canada.  4ch Ed.  Special Publicacion No. 12.  American
    Fisheries Society, Bechesda, MD.

B.  Miner, R. W.  1950.  Field Book of Seashore Life.  Van Rees Press, New York.

C.  George, 0., and J. George.  1979.  Marine Life:  An Illuscraced Encyclopedia of
    Invercebraces in the Sea.  Wiley-Incerscience, New York.

D.  Abbott, R. T.  1974.  American Seashells.  2nd Ed.  Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New
    York.

E.  Gosner, K. L.  1971.  Guide to Identification of Marine and Estuarine Invertebrates:
    Cape Hacteras co che Bay of Fundy.  Wiley-Incerscience, New York; Gosner, K. L.  1979.
    A Field Guide co the Atlantic Seashore.  Houghcon Mifflin, Boston.

F.  Harcmann, 0.  1968.  Atlas of the Errantiate Polychaetous Annelids from California.
    Allan Hancock Foundation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.

G.  Harcmann, 0.  1969.  Atlas of che Sedentariate Poiychaetous 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 Marine Research Publication No. 31.  Florida Department
    of Natural Resources, Sc. Petersburg, Florida.

I.  Zingmark, R. G. (ed.)  1978.  An Annotated Checklist of the Biota of the Coascal Zone
    of South Carolina.  University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina.

J.  Monk, C. R.  1941.  Marine Harvacticoid Copepods from California.  Trans. Amer.
    Microac.  Soc. 60:75-99.

K.  Wigley, R., and B. R. Burns.  1971.  Distribution and Biology of My$ ids (Cruscacea,
    Mysidacea) from che Atlantic Coast of the United States in the NMFS Woods Hole
    Collection.  Fish. Bull. 69(4):717-746.

L.  Bousfield, E. L.  1973.  Shallow-Water Gasmaridean Amphipoda of New England.  Cornell
    University Press, Ithaca, New Tork.

M.  Ponowsreva, L. A.  Euphausids of the North Pacific, their Distribution, and Ecology.
    Jerusalem:  Israel Program for Scientific Translations.  1966.  Translated from che
    Russian by S. Nenchonok,  TT65-50098.  NTIS, Springfield, VA.

N.  Williams, A. B.  1965.  Marine Decapod Crustaceans of the Carolinas.  Fish. Bull.
    65(0:1-298.

0.  Hyraan, L. H.  1955.  The Invertebrates:  Echinodermaca.  Vol. IV.  McGraw-Hill, New
    York.
                                            95

-------
P.  Akesson, 8.   1976.  Morphology and Life Cycle of Ophryotrocha diadema,  4 New
    Polychaete  Species from California.  Ophelia 15(1)- 23-25.

Q.  Wilson, C.  B.   1932.  The Copepods of che Woods Hole Region, Massachusetts.  U.S.  Mac.
    Mus. Bull.  158:  1-635.

R.  Fleainger,  A.   1956.  Taxonomic  and Distributional Scudies  on che Epiplankconic
    Calanoid Copepods (Crustacea) of che Gulf of Mexico.  Dissertation.  Harvard
    Universicy, Cambridge.

S.  Menzel, R.  W.   1956.  Annotated Checklist of che Marine Fauna and Flora of che Sc.
    George's Sound  - Apalachee Bay region, Florida Gulf Coast.  Cone rib. Mo. 61.  Fla.
    Stace Univ. Oceanogr. last.

T.  RicVcetts, E.  F., and J. Calvia.  (Revised by Joel W. Hedgpeth).  1968.  Between
    Pacific Tides.   Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

U.  Price, W. W.  1978.  Occurrence of Mysidopsis almyra Bowman, M. bahia Molenock and
    Bowmaniella braailiensia Bacescu (Crustacea, Mysidacea) from the Eastern Gulf of
    Mexico.  Gu"lf Res. Report* 6(2): 173-175.

V.  Light, S. F.  (Revised by R. I. Smith, et al.).  1961.  Intertidal Invertebrates of
    the Central California Coast.  University of California Press, Los Angeles,
    California.

W.  Kozloff, E. N.   1974.  Keys to the Marine Invertebrates of Puget Sound, che San Juan
    Archipelago,  and Adjacent Regions.  University of Washington Press, Seattle,
    Washington.

X.  Calcofi Atlas.   No. 19.  California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations,
    Stace of California-Marine Research Committee,  pp. 179-185.

Y.  Brodsfcii, K.  A.  1967.  Calanoida of che Far Eastern Seas and Polar Basin of che
    U.S.S.R.  Jerusalem Series, Keys to the Fauna of the U.S.S.R.  Zoological Insc.,
    Academy Sciences, U.S.S.R.  No. 35.

1.  Chapman, P. M. ,  et al.  1982.  Relative Tolerances of Selected Aquatic Oligochaeces co
    Individual  Pollutants and Environmental Factors.  Aquatic Toxicology 2: 47-67.

AA. Venkacaramialc,  A., et al.  1982.  Studies on Toxicity of OTEC Plant Components on
    Eucalanus sp. frost che Gulf of Mexico.  Ocean Science and Engineering.

BB. Zingmank, 1.  C.  (ed.).  1978.  An Annotated Checklist of the Biota of the Coastal Zone
    of South Carolina.  University of South Carolina Press.

CC. Thaccher, T.  0.  1978.  The Relative Sensitivity of Pacific Northwest Fishes and*
    Invertebrates to Chlorinated Sea Water.  In: R. L. Jolley, et al. (eds.), Water
    Chlorination: Environmental Impact and Health Effects.  Vol. 2.  Ann Arbor Science
    Publishers, Ann  Arbor, Michigan,  p. 341.

00. Young, J. S., et al._  1979.  Effects of Copper on the Sabelled Polychaete, Eudistylia
    Vancouver!: 1.  Concentration Limits for Copper Accumulation.  Arch. Environ. Concam.
    Toxicol. 8: 97-106.

                                            96

-------
 Appendix 2.  Example Calculation of Final Acute Value, Computer Program, and
                                 Princoucs

A.   Example calculacion

                 N • cocal number of MAVs in daca sec • 8
Rank
4
3
2
i
Sun:

MAV
6.4
6.2
4.8
0.4

-2
InMAV
1.8563
1.8245
1.5686
-0.9163
4.3331
10.0750 -
(InMAV) 2
3.4458
3.3290
2.4606
0.8396
10.0750
(4.3331)2/4
P-R/(N+1)
0.44444
0.33333
0.22222
0.11111
1.11110
k^ t •"*/.
V*"
0.66667
0.57735
0.47140
0.33333
2.04875

                 S • 9.3346

                 L • [4.3331 - (9.3346X2.04875)]/4 - -3.6978

                 A - <9.3346)
-------
B.  Example computer  program  in  BASIC  language  for calculating the FAV


    10 REM THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES THE FAV  WHEN THERE  ARE  LESS THAN
    20 REM 59 MAVS  IN THE DATA SET.
    30 X-0
    40 X2-0
    50 Y-0
    60 Y2-0
    70 PRINT "HOW MANY MAVS ARE  IN THE DATA SET?"
    80 INPUT N
    90 PRINT "WHAT  ARE THE FOUR  LOWEST MAVS?"
    100 FOR R-l TO  4
    110 INPUT V
    120 X-X+LOGCV)
    130 X2-X2+(LOG(V))*(LOG(V)>
    140 P-R/(N+1)
    150 Y2-Y2+P
    160 Y-Y+SQR(P)
    170 NEXT R
    180 S-SQR((X2-X*X/4)/(Y2-Y*Y/4»
    190 L-(X-S*Y)/4
    200 A-S*SQR(0.05)+L
    210 F-EXP(A)
    220 PRINT "FAV  -  "F
    230 END
C.  Example printouts from program

    HOW MANY MAVS ARE IN THE DATA SET?
    ? 8
    WHAT ARE THE FOUR LOWEST MAVS?
    ? 6.4
    ? 6.2
    ? 4.8
    ? .4
    FAV « 0.1998
    HOW MANY MAVS ARE IN THE DATA SET?
    ? 16
    WHAT ARE THE FOUR LOWEST MAVS?
    ? 6.4
    ? 6.2
    ? 4.8
    ? .4
    FAV - 0.4365
                                         98

-------