United States Office of Water EPA-823-R-13-001
Environmental Protection 4304 April 2013
Agency
Revised Deletion Process
^ for the Site-Specific
sstPA Recalculation Procedure
for Aquatic Life Criteria
-------
Revised Deletion Process for
the Site-Specific Recalculation Procedure
for Aquatic Life Criteria
April 2013
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Science and Technology
Washington, DC
11
-------
Foreword
This guidance on deriving water quality criteria provides scientific recommendations to states
and tribes authorized to establish water quality standards under the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Under the CWA, states and tribes are to establish water quality criteria to protect designated
uses. State and tribal decision makers retain the discretion to adopt appropriate approaches that
differ from those recommended here. While this updated guidance constitutes United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) scientific recommendations regarding one possible
approach for deriving site-specific criteria that protect aquatic life, this update does not substitute
for the CWA or EPA's regulations; nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it cannot impose legally
binding requirements on EPA, states, tribes, or the regulated community, and might not apply to
a particular situation based upon the circumstances. EPA may change this guidance in the
future, as new scientific information becomes available This document has been approved for
publication by the Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
Acknowledgment
This document was prepared by Charles G. Delos, Office of Science and Technology, Office of
Water. This was done in consultation with Charles E. Stephan, Midcontinent Ecology Division,
Office of Research and Development, who devised the underlying concept of the approach and
produced Appendix 2. The document was peer reviewed by Alex M. Barren, Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality, Steven P. Canton, GEI Consultants, Inc., and Jerome M.
Diamond, Tetra Tech, Inc. Submit questions to Charles Delos at: delos.charles@epa.gov .
in
-------
Purpose
The Recalculation Procedure involves editing the composition of a Species Sensitivity
Distribution of tested species used to derive a site-specific aquatic life criterion in order to allow
it to better reflect the taxonomy of species that reside at the site. This document presents a
revision of the Deletion Process of the Recalculation Procedure.
Background
U.S. EPA (1984) described three procedures that can be used to derive a site-specific aquatic life
water quality criterion: (1) the Recalculation Procedure, a taxonomic composition adjustment,
(2) the Indicator Species Procedure, a bioavailability adjustment now called the Water-Effect
Ratio Procedure, and (3) the Resident Species Procedure, a little-used approach effectively
superseded by combined application of the Recalculation and Water-Effect Ratio procedures.
The Recalculation Procedure is used to edit the taxonomic composition of the toxicity dataset
used for the Species Sensitivity Distribution (SSD) upon which a site-specific criterion is based,
in order to better match the assemblage that resides at the site. The Recalculation Procedure is
intended to provide flexibility to States to derive site-specific criteria that best reflect the species
that reside at a site.
The underlying premise of the Recalculation Procedure is that taxonomy has value in predicting
sensitivity, such that a site-specific SSD can be adjusted to reflect the taxonomy of species that
reside at a site. The core of the procedure is the Deletion Process, which involves removing
tested species from the SSD. The recommended procedure allows deletion of nonresident tested
species if and only if they are not appropriate surrogates of resident untested species - based on
taxonomy.
The use of taxonomy, while reasonable and systematically straightforward, is not the only
conceivable basis for weighing how well a tested species represents untested species at a site.
Possibly a system could be developed using ecological traits: that is, morphological, behavioral,
and functional characteristics of an organism. Although USGS (2013) offers an invertebrate trait
database, and U.S. EPA (2013) suggests some uses, no system involving its use for site-specific
criteria exists at this time.
Based on taxonomy, U.S. EPA (1994) provided the Recalculation Procedure with a step-by-step
protocol for deciding which nonresident tested species to retain or delete. For any particular
nonresident tested species, the decision process begins at the genus level: the species is either (a)
deleted, (b) retained as a surrogate for resident untested species in the genus, or (c) a decision is
postponed. If the decision is postponed, then the next higher taxonomic level is considered. For
a nonresident tested species, this hierarchical process stops once the decision to delete or retain is
made - that is, the decision to delete or retain is not reconsidered or reversed at a higher
taxonomic level.
1
-------
U.S EPA (1997) modified the procedure in response to issues raised about its behavior with a
particular configuration of tested and resident species. Likewise, the current guidance has been
prepared in response to apparent conflicts between the results of the step-by-step protocol
applied to certain datasets, and the stated goals of the 1997 procedure. Although the 1997
revision had corrected unintended behavior of the 1994 procedure at the genus and family levels,
it did not eliminate the possibility that certain data configurations could produce unintended
retention of inappropriate potential surrogates at the order, class, or phylum levels.
The purpose of this document is to update and supersede the guidance on applying the Deletion
Process of the Recalculation Procedure presented in U.S. EPA (1984, 1994, and 1997). The
principles underlying this revised procedure are identical to those applied at the genus and family
level in the 1997 revision. It now extends those principles to the order, class, and phylum levels.
Concept of the Procedure
The concept of the Recalculation Procedure remains unchanged: to create a site-specific toxicity
dataset (Species Sensitivity Distribution) that is appropriate for deriving a site-specific aquatic
life criterion, by modifying the national toxicity dataset for the pollutant of concern by
correcting, adding, and/or deleting test results. Deletion is based on taxonomic composition of
the site under consideration.
Because some tested species might be needed to represent untested species that occur at the site,
the deletion procedure does not provide for simplistic deletion of all species that do not occur at
the site. Rather the concept is to consider which tested species are most closely related to those
occurring at the site, and delete those for which another tested species would better represent the
species occurring at the site.
The Deletion Process is designed to ensure that:
• Each species, genus, family, order, class, and phylum that occurs both at the site and in
the national toxicity dataset is retained in the site-specific toxicity dataset.
• Each species, genus, family, order, class, and phylum that occurs at the site but not in the
national toxicity dataset is represented in the site-specific dataset by at least one species
most closely related to it from the national dataset.
The underlying principle of the Deletion Process has been and continues to be as follows:
1. Looking within a genus, are all of its resident species tested? (That is, are they in the
national toxicity dataset?) If so, then delete the nonresident tested species in that genus.
If not, retain them as surrogates.
2. Moving up to the family level, does every resident genus in a family contain at least one
tested species? (That is, are all of its resident genera tested?) If so, then delete the tested
-------
species in the family's nonresident genera. If not, retain them. (Note that this is not
asking whether every resident species in the family is tested. Rather it asks whether
every resident genus in the family appears in the national toxicity dataset.)
3. Moving up each subsequent level, to order, class, and phylum, the concept remains
parallel. Does every resident family in an order contain at least one tested species? Does
every resident order in a class contain at least one tested species? Does every resident
class in a phylum contain at least one tested species? In each case, if so, delete the
nonresident. If not, retain as surrogates.
It is at the order, class, and phylum levels that the exact wording of the 1997 step-by-step process
did not match the underlying concept. This revision of the guidance corrects that problem.
Review of Several Key Provisions from Previous Guidance
Because the Deletion Process is taxonomy based, it is important that one taxonomic system be
used consistently in the derivation of national and site-specific criteria. The system that U.S.
EPA uses is the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS; www.itis.gov). However, the
only ITIS taxonomic levels that are used by the Deletion Process are the traditional and
universally recognized levels of species, genus, family, order, class, and phylum. (That is,
subdivisions such as subclass, infraclass, and superorder are not used.)
Following the 1994 Recalculation Procedure guidance, the equivalent terms "resident" or "occur
at the site" includes life stages and species that:
a. are usually present at the site,
b. are present at the site only seasonally due to migration,
c. are present at the site intermittently because they periodically return to or extend their
ranges into the site,
d. were present at the site in the past, are not currently present at the site due to degraded
conditions, but are expected to return to the site when conditions improve, or
e. are present in nearby bodies of water, are not currently present at the site due to degraded
conditions, but are expected to be present at the site when conditions improve.
The terms "resident" or "occur at the site" do not include life stages and species that:
a. were once present at the site but cannot exist at the site now due to permanent alterations
of the habitat or other conditions that are not likely to change within reasonable planning
horizons, or
-------
b. are still-water life stages or species that are found in a flowing-water site solely and
exclusively because they are washed through the site by stream flow from a still-water
site.
The definition of the "site" is important when the Deletion Process is used. For example, the
number of taxa that occur at the site will generally decrease as the size of the site decreases.
However, if the site is defined to be very small, a permit limit might be controlled by a criterion
that applies outside (e.g., downstream of) the site. Use of the Recalculation Procedure does not
sidestep the need to protect downstream uses.
Resident "critical species" merit one special provision, per EPA (1994). A critical species is a
resident species that (a) is commercially or recreationally important at the site, or (b) is listed as
threatened or endangered under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act, or (c) is a species for
which there is firm evidence that its loss would yield an unacceptable impact on the site's
commercially or recreationally important species, endangered species, abundances of a variety of
other species, or structure or function. The Deletion Process should not be undertaken unless
toxicity data are available for at least one species in each class of aquatic plants or animals that
contains a critical species. Thus for example, if the site has an amphibian that fits the
designation of a critical species, the Deletion Process should not be undertaken unless toxicity
data for a species in class Amphibia are available (possibly via new testing).
Although the scope of this update is limited - to fulfill a change that was intended by the U.S.
EPA (1997) guidance - analysts experienced with application of the procedure have reported
some other issues (ERG 2013). The comprehensiveness of the list of resident species is
influenced by the quality of the biological survey of the site water body and of comparable water
bodies. Although greater or lesser comprehensiveness does not inherently bias a criterion
recalculation either upward or downward, lesser comprehensiveness increases the uncertainty in
the appropriateness of the recalculated criterion. Uncertainties in the process of identifying
species occurring at the site have been reported as impediments to the acceptance of
recalculations proposed to states (ERG 2013). It is thus important to fully document the effort
put into compiling the list of resident species.
ERG (2013) also reported issues about sites having limited diversity - for example, sites that
cannot support fish. For deriving national criteria, tests with three families offish are called for
(unless an amphibian is substituted for one of them). For site-specific recalculations, the
underlying concept of having tests for a diversity of species is more fundamental than having
tests for particular taxonomic groups that may be irrelevant to the site.
-------
Explanatory Example of the Deletion Process
The underlying concept may be illustrated through a hypothetical example. In the following
simple case, the class Actinopterygii (ray-finned fishes) has only four species to consider: two
are resident at the site, and three are tested.
Phylum
Chord.
Chord.
Chord.
Chord.
Class
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Order
Perciformes
Perciformes
Perciformes
Salmoniformes
Family
Percidae
Centrarchidae
Moronidae
Salmonidae
Genus
Etheostoma
Lepomis
Morone
Oncorhynchus
Species
nigrum
cyanellus
saxatilis
mykiss
Resident?
Yes
Yes
No
No
Tested?
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Retain?
No
Yes
Yes
No
Why?
1
2
3
4
(1) The one species in family Percidae, although resident., is not tested and so obviously
cannot be in the site-specific toxicity dataset.
(2) The one species in family Centrarchidae is both resident and tested and so is retained in
the site-specific dataset.
(3) The one species in family Moronidae is not resident but is tested. The question is
whether it should be retained as a surrogate. Here order Perciformes has two resident
families, Percidae and Centrarchidae. Of these two only Centrarchidae is tested.
Consequently, family Moronidae is retained so that it can serve along with Centrarchidae
as surrogates equally closely related to the untested resident family Percidae.
(4) Order Salmoniformes is not resident but has a tested species. Again the question is
whether to retain it as a surrogate. In this case it is deleted because the site has no resident
untested fish order needing a surrogate. That is, the only resident order, Perciformes, is
tested (that is, Perciformes contains at least one tested species), making it unnecessary for
anything in Salmoniformes to serve as a surrogate. In contrast, if the dataset had
contained an untested third order, say Cypriniformes, essentially equally closely related
to the tested Perciformes and Salmoniformes, then the tested Salmoniformes would be
retained to share the surrogacy.
The Deletion Process itself is presented in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2. These two
appendices represent two different ways of setting forth the procedure. Nevertheless, they
are logically equivalent such that they yield identical results. Appendix 3 provides a number
of examples illustrating the results of applying the Deletion Process.
-------
References
Eastern Research Group. 2013. External Peer Review Comments on the Revised Deletion
Process for the Recalculation Procedure. U.S. EPA Contract No. EP-C-12-021,Work
Assignment 0-43.
U.S. EPA. 1984. Guidelines for Deriving Numerical Aquatic Site-Specific Water Quality
Criteria by Modifying National Criteria. EPA-600/3-84-099 or PB85-121101. National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
U.S. EPA. 1985. Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. EPA 822/R-85-100 or PB85-227049.
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/index.cfmtfguide
U.S. EPA. 1994. Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of Water-Effect Ratios for
Metals. Appendix B. EPA-823-B-94-001 or PB94-140951. National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA.
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/upload/2002_06_ll_standards_handbook_ha
ndbookappxL.pdf
U.S. EPA. 1997. Modifications to Guidance Site-Specific Criteria. (Cover letter by J. Wiltse).
Office of Water, Washington, DC. (Section 2 titled "A Change in the Recalculation Procedure"
and Section 3 titled "Optional Consideration of Life Stage When the Recalculation Procedure is
Used")
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/upload/2003 08 06 standards modif-int-
wer.pdf
U.S. EPA. 2013. CADDIS Volume 4: Data Analysis; Advanced Analyses; Analyzing Trait
Data. Accessed 2013-03-01. http://www.epa.gov/caddis/da advanced 4.html
USGS. 2013. A Database of Lotic Invertebrate Traits for North America. Accessed 2013-03-01.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/dsl87/
-------
Appendix 1. Shorter Statement of the Deletion Process
This version is identical to the EPA 1997 guidance in Steps 1 and 2, and extends the concept of
Steps 1 and 2 (genus and family) to Steps 3, 4, and 5 (order, class, and phylum).
In the (possibly updated) national toxicity dataset, circle each species that either satisfies the
definition of "occur at the site". Then use the following step-wise process to determine which of
the uncircled (i.e., nonresident) species are to be deleted.
1. Does a species in the genus occur at the site?
If "No", go to step 2.
If "Yes", are there one or more species in the genus that occur at the site but are not in
the national toxicity dataset?
If "No", delete the uncircled species.*
If "Yes", retain the uncircled species.*
2. Does a species in the family occur at the site?
If "No", go to step 3.
If "Yes", are there one or more genera in the family that occur at the site but are not in
the national toxicity dataset?
If "No", delete the uncircled species.*
If "Yes", retain the uncircled species.*
3. Does a species in the order occur at the site?
If "No", go to step 4.
If "Yes", are there one or more families in the order that occur at the site but are not in
the national toxicity dataset?
If "No", delete the uncircled species.*
If "Yes", retain the uncircled species.*
4. Does a species in the class occur at the site?
If "No", go to step 5.
If "Yes", are there one or more orders in the class that occur at the site but are not in the
national toxicity dataset?
If "No", delete the uncircled species.*
If "Yes", retain the uncircled species.*
5. Does a species in the phylum occur at the site?
If "No", delete the uncircled species.*
If "Yes", are there one or more classes in the phylum that occur at the site but are not in
the national toxicity dataset?
If "No", delete the uncircled species.*
If "Yes", retain the uncircled species.*
* = Continue the deletion process by starting at step 1 for another uncircled species unless all
uncircled species in the national toxicity dataset have been addressed.
-------
Appendix 2. Longer Statement of the Deletion Process
In contrast to the Appendix 1 version, which operates on the list of tested species, comparing it
to the list of resident species, this version operates on a single combined list. Use of a single list
was found to have certain advantages, which furthered the development of an automated
spreadsheet for determining retention or deletion of tested species. Appendices 1 and 2 are
intended to yield identical results.
Steps A through J are performed sequentially so that the appropriate entry is made in the site-
specific toxicity dataset column for each species; the entry indicates whether the species is or is
not included in the site-specific toxicity dataset. This version of the Deletion Process is
organized so that, beginning with Step D, each species that does not have an entry in the site-
specific toxicity dataset column is addressed at the genus level before any species is addressed at
the family level. Then, the order, class, and phylum taxonomic levels are addressed sequentially.
The number of species that need to be addressed decreases as higher and higher taxonomic levels
are addressed.
Step A: Make a table that lists all of the species in the (possibly modified) national toxicity
dataset, all of the species that occur at the site, and all surrogates that are used for
critical species at the site in taxonomic order by species, genus, family, order, class, and
phylum using the current version of ITIS. If a surrogate species is listed in the table, the
species that it is a surrogate for should not be listed in the table. Fill in each column for
each species, except do not put anything in the last column on the right, which is titled
"In site-specific toxicity dataset?"
Step B: For each species that has a "No" in the national toxicity dataset column, enter "N-l" in
the site-specific toxicity dataset column.
1. N = "No" and means that the species is not in the site-specific toxicity database.
Step C: For each species that has a "Yes" in the "Occur at the site?" column and a "Yes" in the
national toxicity dataset column, enter "Y-2" in the site-specific toxicity dataset
column.
Each species that does not yet have an entry in the site-specific toxicity dataset column has a
"No" in the "Occur at the site?" column and a "Yes" in the national toxicity dataset column.
Step D: Look down the column titled "Genus" and every time a genus name appears more than
once, draw a circle around all of the multiple entries for that one genus. The species in
the circled genera are the only species that will be addressed in this Step D. For each
species that is in a circled genus and does not already have an entry in the site-specific
toxicity dataset column, look at the circled genus that that species is in and do one of the
following regarding the site-specific toxicity dataset column:
1. Enter "N-3" if all of the species in that genus that occur at the site are already in the
site-specific toxicity dataset.
2. Enter "Y-4" if one or more of the species in that genus that occur at the site are not
in the site-specific toxicity dataset.
-------
This step will not result in an entry for tested species in genera having no species
occurring at the site.
Step E: Look down the column titled "Family" and every time a family name appears more than
once, draw a circle around all of the multiple entries for that one family. The species in
the circled families are the only species that will be addressed in this Step E. For each
species that is in a circled family and does not already have an entry in the site-specific
toxicity dataset column, look at the circled family that that species is in and do one of
the following regarding the site-specific toxicity dataset column:
1. Enter "N-5" if all of the genera in that family that occur at the site are already
represented in the site-specific toxicity dataset.
2. Enter "Y-6" if one or more of the genera in that family that occur at the site are not
represented in the site-specific toxicity dataset.
This step will not result in an entry for tested species in families having no species
occurring at the site.
Step F: Look down the column titled "Order" and every time an order name appears more than
once, draw a circle around all of the multiple entries for that one order. The species in
the circled orders are the only species that will be addressed in this Step F. For each
species that is in a circled order and does not already have an entry in the site-specific
toxicity dataset column, look at the circled order that that species is in and do one of the
following regarding the site-specific toxicity dataset column:
1. Enter "N-7" if all of the families in that order that occur at the site are already
represented in the site-specific toxicity dataset.
2. Enter "Y-8" if one or more of the families in that order that occur at the site are not
represented in the site-specific toxicity dataset.
This step will not result in an entry for tested species in orders having no species
occurring at the site.
Step G: Look down the column titled "Class" and every time a class name appears more than
once, draw a circle around all of the multiple entries for that one class. The species in
the circled classes are the only species that will be addressed in this Step G. For each
species that is in a circled class and does not already have an entry in the site-specific
toxicity dataset column, look at the circled class that that species is in and do one of the
following regarding the site-specific toxicity dataset column:
1. Enter "N-9" if all of the orders in that class that occur at the site are already
represented in the site-specific toxicity dataset.
2. Enter "Y-10" if one or more of the orders in that class that occur at the site are not
represented in the site-specific toxicity dataset.
This step will not result in an entry for tested species in classes having no species
occurring at the site.
Step H: Look down the column titled "Phylum" and every time a phylum name appears more
than once, draw a circle around all of the multiple entries for that one phylum. The
species in the circled phyla are the only species that will be addressed in this Step H.
For each species that is in a circled phylum and does not already have an entry in the
-------
site-specific toxicity dataset column, look at the circled phylum that that species is in
and do one of the following regarding the site-specific toxicity dataset column:
1. Enter "N-ll" if all of the classes in that phylum that occur at the site are already
represented in the site-specific toxicity dataset.
2. Enter "Y-12" if one or more of the classes in that phylum that occur at the site are
not represented in the site-specific toxicity dataset.
Step I: For each species for which no entry has been made in the site-specific toxicity dataset
column, enter "N-13" because the phylum does not occur at the site.
Aspects of a completed table that are easy to review.
a. Every "N" should have an odd number after it.
b. Every "Y" should have an even number after it.
c. Every species that has "No" in the national toxicity database column should have "N-l" in
the site-specific database column.
d. Every species that has "Y-2" in the site-specific toxicity database column should have "Yes"
in the "Occur at the site?" column and in the national toxicity dataset column.
10
-------
Appendix 3. Table of Hypothetical Examples Illustrating Results of the Deletion Process
The hypothetical input data constitute all but the last column (Phyla Pa - Pi, Classes Ca - Cq, ...,
Species Sa - Sbk), as would be arranged for the procedure's "Longer Statement" (Appendix 2).
The last column shows the result of applying the Deletion Process; its numeric codes correspond
to those of Appendix 2, thereby indicating the step at which the decision was made to include
(Y) or not include (N) the species in the site-specific Species Sensitivity Distribution (SSD).
The table is intended to represent numerous individual examples rather than a single complete
dataset. It begins by examining behavior at the genus through family levels. Later portions of
the table illustrate decisions made at higher taxonomic levels. The table illustrates various cases
where tested species that do not occur at the site are either retained as surrogates for untested
species that do occur at the site, or are deleted as less representative than the tested species
retained.
Phylum
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Class
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Order
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Family
Fa
Fb
Fb
Fc
Fc
Fd
Fd
Fd
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Ff
Ff
Ff
Ff
Fg
Fg
Fg
Fg
Fh
Fh
Fh
Fi
Fi
Fi
Genus
Ga
Gb
Gb
Gc
Gc
Gd
Gd
Gd
Ge
Ge
Ge
Ge
Gf
Gf
Gf
Gf
Gg
Gg
Gh
Gi
Gj
Gk
Gl
Gm
Gn
Go
Species
Sa
Sb
Sc
Sd
Se
Sf
Sg
Sh
Si
Sj
Sk
SI
Sm
Sn
So
Sp
Sq
Sr
Ss
St
Su
Sv
Sw
Sx
Sy
Sz
Occurs at
the site?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
In national
SSD?
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Include in
site SSD?
Y-2
N-l
N-l
N-3
Y-2
N-l
Y-4
Y-2
Y-4
N-l
Y-4
N-l
N-3
Y-2
N-3
N-3
Y-2
N-3
N-l
Y-6
N-5
N-5
Y-2
Y-6
Y-6
N-l
11
-------
Phylum
Pb
Pb
PC
Pd
Pd
Pd
Pd
Pd
Pd
Pd
Pd
Pd
Pd
Pd
Pd
Pd
Pd
Pd
Pd
Pd
Pd
Pe
Pe
Pf
Pf
Pg
Pg
Pg
Pg
Pg
Pg
Ph
Ph
Ph
Ph
Pi
Pi
Class
Cb
Cc
Cd
Ce
Cf
Cf
Cf
Cf
Cf
Cf
Cf
Cf
Cf
Cf
Cf
Cf
Cf
Cf
Cf
Cg
Cg
Ch
Ci
Cj
Cj
Ck
Ck
Ck
Ck
Cl
Cm
Cn
Cn
Cn
Co
Cp
Cq
Order
Ob
Oc
Od
Oe
Of
Of
Of
Of
Of
Of
Of
Of
Of
Og
Og
Oh
Oh
Oh
Oh
Oi
Oj
Ok
01
Om
On
Oo
Oo
Oo
Op
Oq
Or
Os
Os
Os
Ot
Ou
Ov
Family
Fj
Fk
Fl
Fm
Fn
Fn
Fn
Fn
Fn
Fn
Fn
Fo
Fo
Fp
Fq
Fr
Fr
Fr
Fs
Ft
Fu
Fv
Fw
Fx
Fy
Fz
Fz
Fz
Faa
Fab
Fac
Fad
Fad
Fad
Fae
Faf
Fag
Genus
Gp
Gq
Gr
Gs
Gt
Gu
Gu
Gu
Gv
Gv
Gw
Gx
Gy
Gz
Gaa
Gab
Gab
Gab
Gac
Gad
Gae
Gaf
Gag
Gah
Gai
Gaj
Gaj
Gak
Gal
Gam
Gan
Gao
Gao
Gap
Gaq
Gar
Gas
Species
Saa
Sab
Sac
Sad
Sae
Saf
Sag
Sah
Sai
Saj
Sak
Sal
Sam
San
Sao
Sap
Saq
Sar
Sas
Sat
Sau
Sav
Saw
Sax
Say
Saz
Sba
Sbb
Sbc
Sbd
Sbe
Sbf
Sbg
Sbh
Sbi
Sbj
Sbk
Occurs at
the site?
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
In national
SSD?
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Include in
site SSD?
N-l
Y-12
N-13
N-ll
Y-2
N-l
Y-4
Y-4
Y-2
N-3
N-5
N-l
Y-6
N-l
Y-8
Y-2
N-l
Y-4
N-7
N-l
Y-10
Y-2
N-ll
Y-2
N-9
Y-2
N-3
N-5
N-9
Y-12
N-l
Y-12
Y-12
Y-12
N-l
N-13
N-l
12
------- |