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
------- |