>>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PB85-227049
Guidelines for Deriving
Numerical National Water Quality Criteria
for the Protection Of Aquatic Organisms
and Their Uses
by Charles E. Stephen, Donald I. Mount, David J. Hansen,
John R. Gentile, Gary A. Chapman, and William A. Brungs
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Research Laboratories
Duluth, Minnesota
Narragansett, Rhode Island
Corvallis, Oregon
-------
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 the public to through the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
Special Note
This December 2010 electronic version of the 1985 Guidelines serves to meet the requirements of Section
508 of the Rehabilitation Act. While converting the 1985 Guidelines to a 508-compliant version, EPA
updated the taxonomic nomenclature in the tables of Appendix 1 to reflect changes that occurred since the
table were originally produced in 1985. The numbers included for Phylum, Class and Family represent
those currently in use from the Integrated Taxonomic Information System, or ITIS, and reflect what is
referred to in ITIS as Taxonomic Serial Numbers. ITIS replaced the National Oceanographic Data Center
(NODC) taxonomic coding system which was used to create the original taxonomic tables included in the
1985 Guidelines document (NODC, Third Addition - see Introduction). For more information on the
NODC taxonomic codes, see http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/General/CDR-detdesc/taxonomic-v8.html.
The code numbers included in the reference column of the tables have not been updated from the 1985
version. These code numbers are associated with the old NODC taxonomic referencing system and are
simply replicated here for historical purposes. Footnotes may or may not still apply.
EPA is working on a more comprehensive update to the 1985 Guidelines, including new taxonomic tables
which better reflect the large number of aquatic animal species known to be propagating in U.S. waters.
11
-------
Table of Contents
Notices
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Figure 1
Introduction
I. Definition of Material of Concern
II. Collection of Data
III. Required data
IV. Final Acute Value
V. Final Acute Equation
VI. Final Chronic Value
VII. Final Chronic Equation
VIII. Final Plant Value
IX. Final Residue Value
X. Other Data
XL Criterion
XII. Final Review
References
ii
iii
iv
V
1
9
11
11
14
17
19
22
25
25
28
28
29
31
Appendix 1. Resident North American Species of Aquatic Animals Used in Toxicity and
Bioconcentation Tests 33
Introduction 33
Freshwater Species Table 34
Footnotes for Freshwater Species 42
References for Freshwater Species 43
Saltwater Species Table 45
Footnotes for Saltwater Species 51
References for Saltwater Species 51
Appendix 2. Example Calculation of Final Acute Value, Computer Program, and Printouts 53
A. Example Calculation 53
B. Example Computer Program in BASIC Language for Calculating the FAV 53
C. Example Printouts from Program 54
in
-------
Executive Summary
Derivation of numerical national water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organism and
their uses is a complex process (Figure 1) that uses information from many areas of aquatic
toxicology. After a decision is made that a national criterion is needed for a particular material,
all available information concerning toxicity to, and bioaccumulation by, aquatic organisms is
collected, reviewed for acceptability, and sorted. If enough acceptable data on acute toxicity to
aquatic animals are available, they are used to estimate the highest one-hour average
concentration 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 pH,
salinity, or hardness. Similarly, data on the chronic toxicity of the material to aquatic animals are
used to estimate the highest four-daily 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 not 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 the pertinent information indicates that enough acceptable data are
available, numerical national water quality criteria are derived for fresh water or salt water or
both to protect aquatic organisms and their uses from unacceptable effects due to exposures to
high concentrations for short periods of time, lower concentrations for longer periods of time,
and combinations of the two.
IV
-------
Figure 1
Derivation of Numerical National Water Quality Crtieria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their
Uses
Criterion
Maximum
Concentration
Criterion
Continuous
Concentration
Review for
Completeness
of Data and
Appropriateness
of Results
National Criterion
-------
Introduction
Of the several possible forms of criteria, the numerical form is the most common, but the
narrative (e.g., pollutants must not be present in harmful concentrations) and operational (e.g.,
concentrations of pollutants must not exceed one-tenth of the 96-hr LC50) forms can be used if
numerical criteria are not possible or desirable. If it were feasible, a freshwater (or saltwater)
numerical aquatic life national criterion for a material should be determined by conducting field
tests on a wide variety of unpolluted bodies of fresh (or salt) water. It would be necessary to add
various amounts of the material to each body of water in order to determine the highest
concentration that would not cause any unacceptable long-term or short-term effect on the
aquatic organisms or their uses. The lowest of these highest concentrations would become the
freshwater (or saltwater) national aquatic life water quality criterion for that material, unless one
or more of the lowest concentrations were judged to be outliers. Because it is not feasible to
determine national criteria by conducting 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 to
provide the same level of protection as the infeasible field testing approach described above.
Because aquatic ecosystems can tolerate some stress and occasional adverse effects, protection
of all species at all times and places is not deemed necessary. If acceptable data 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
0.05 to calculate a Final Acute Value 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
operation 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 at 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 to the public, it indicates a high probability that such an effect
will occur.
* The term "national criteria" is used herein because it is more descriptive than the synonymous term "section 304(a)
criteria", which is used in the Water Quality Standards Regulation [1].
-------
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 short-term 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 times and places to provide adequate
data on the populations of the 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 its 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 insensitivity of most
monitoring programs greatly limits their usefulness for studying the validity of criteria because
unacceptable changes can occur and not be detected. Therefore, although limited field studies
can sometimes demonstrate that criteria are underprotective, only high quality field studies can
reliably demonstrate that criteria are not underprotective.
If the purpose of water quality criteria were to protect only commercially and recreationally
important species, criteria specifically derived to protect such species and their uses from the
direct adverse effects of a material would probably, in most situations, also protect those species
from indirect adverse effects due to effects of the material on other species in the ecosystem. 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 National 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 and resident aquatic species and their uses
are meant to be taken into account, except for a few that may be too atypical, such as the Great
Salt Lake, brine shrimp, and the siscowet subspecies of lake trout, which occurs in Lake Superior
and contains up to 67% fat in the fillets 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 National Guidelines are expressed as two
numbers, rather than the 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 plants,
and bioaccumulation by aquatic organisms, without being as restrictive as a one-number criterion
would have to be in order to 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 limitations, 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 to reflect such local conditions as water quality,
temperature, or ecologically important species *' 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 to provide a reasonable and adequate amount of protection with only a
small possibility of considerable overprotection or underprotection. It is not enough that a
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 a criterion should not be derived. On the other hand, the
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 that local
considerations will raise, but not lower, criteria. For example, it will usually be assumed that if
the concentration of a material in a body of water is lower than the national criterion, no
unacceptable effects will occur and no site-specific criterion needs to be derived. If, however, the
concentration of a material in a body of water is higher than the national criterion, it will usually
be assumed that a site-specific criterion should be derived. In order to prevent the assumption of
the "worst case" nature of national criteria from resulting in the underprotection of too many
bodies of water, national criteria must be intended to protect all or almost all bodies of water.
Thus, if bodies of water and the aquatic communities in them do differ substantially in their
sensitivities to a material, national criteria should be at least somewhat overprotective for a
majority of the bodies of water. To do otherwise would either (a) require derivation of site-
specific criteria even if the site-specific concentration were substantially below the national
criterion or (b) cause the "worst case" assumption to result in the underprotection of numerous
bodies of water. On the other hand, national criteria are probably underprotective of some bodies
of water.
The two factors that will probably cause the most difference between national and site-specific
criteria are the species that will be exposed and the characteristics of the water. In order to ensure
that national criteria are appropriately protective, the required data for national criteria include
some species that are sensitive to many materials and national criteria are specifically based on
tests conducted in water relatively low in particulate matter and organic matter. 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 might be very sensitive to the material
of concern, and local water quality might 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 might 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 ways toxicity and bioconcentration tests are
usually conducted, there are still many different ways that criteria can be derived, expressed, and
used. The means 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 problem 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 that is not to be exceeded any time or place is not acceptable because few, if any,
people who use criteria would take it literally and few, if any, toxicologists would defend a literal
interpretation. Rather than try to reinterpret a criterion that is neither useful nor valid, it is better
to develop a more appropriate way of stating criteria.
Although some materials might not exhibit thresholds, many materials probably do. For any
threshold material, continuous exposure to any combination of concentrations below the
threshold will not cause an unacceptable effect (as defined on pages 1 and 2) on aquatic
organisms and their uses, except that the concentration of a required trace nutrient might be too
low. However, it is important to note that this is a threshold of unacceptable effect, not a
threshold of adverse effect. Some adverse effect, possibly even a small reduction in the survival,
growth, or reproduction of a commercially or recreationally important species, will probably
occur at, and possibly even below, the threshold. The Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC)
is intended to be a good estimate of this threshold of unacceptable effect. If maintained
continuously, any concentration above the CCC is expected to cause an unacceptable effect. On
the other hand, the concentration of a pollutant in a body of water can be above the CCC without
causing an unacceptable effect if (a) the 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 the CCC. The higher the concentration is above the CCC, the shorter the
period of time it can be tolerated. But it is unimportant whether there is any upper limit on
concentrations that can be tolerated instantaneously or even for one minute because
concentrations outside mixing zones rarely change substantially in such short periods of time.
An elegant, general approach to the problem of defining conditions (a) and (b) would be to
integrate the concentration over time, taking into account uptake and depuration rates, transport
within the organism to a critical site, etc. Because such an approach is not currently feasible, an
approximate approach is to require that the average concentration not exceed the 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, the magnitudes and durations of
concentrations above the 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 the elegant approach might not provide a definitive answer to the
problem of selecting an appropriate averaging period. An alternative is to consider that the
purpose of the averaging period is to allow the concentration to be above the CCC only if the
allowed fluctuating concentrations do not cause more adverse effect than would be caused by a
continuous exposure to the CCC. For example, if the CCC caused a 10% reduction in growth of
rainbow trout, or a 13% reduction in survival of oysters, or a 7% reduction in reproduction of
smallmouth bass, it is the purpose of the averaging period to allow concentrations above the
CCC only if the total exposure will not cause any more adverse effect than continuous exposure
to the CCC would cause.
Even though only a few tests have compared the effects of a constant concentration with the
effects of the same average concentration resulting from a fluctuating concentration, nearly all
the available comparisons have shown that substantial fluctuations result in increased adverse
effects 5'6. Thus if the averaging period is not to allow increased adverse effects, it must not
allow substantial fluctuations. Life-cycle tests with species such as mysids and daphnids and
early life-stage tests with warmwater fishes usually last for 20 to 30 days. An averaging period
that is equal to the length of the test will obviously allow the worst possible fluctuations and
would very likely allow increased adverse effects.
An averaging period of four days seems appropriate for use with the CCC for two reasons. First,
it is substantially shorter than the 20 to 30 days that is obviously unacceptable. Second, for some
species it appears that the results of chronic tests are due to the existence of a sensitive life stage
at some time during the test 7, rather than being caused by either long-term stress or long-term
accumulation of the test material in the organism. The existence of a sensitive life stage is
probably the cause of acute-chronic ratios that are not much greater than 1, and is also possible
when the ratio is substantially greater than 1. In addition, some experimentally determined acute-
chronic ratios are somewhat less than 1, possibly because prior exposure during the chronic test
increased the resistance of the sensitive life stage 8. A four-day averaging period will probably
prevent increased adverse effects on sensitive life stages by limiting the durations and
magnitudes of exceedences* of the CCC.
The considerations applied to interpretation of the CCC also apply to the CMC. For the CMC the
averaging period should again be substantially less than the lengths of the tests it is based on, i.e.,
substantially less than
48 to 96 hours. One hour is probably an appropriate 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
* Although "exceedence" has not been found in any dictionary, it is used here because it is not appropriate to use
"violation" in conjunction with criteria, no other word seems appropriate, and all appropriate phrases are awkward.
-------
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
events 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 facilities. 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
variations in the concentrations of the material of concern in both the effluent and in the
upstream receiving water. Because exceedences are the result of usual variation, most of the
exceedences will be small and exceedences as large as a factor of two will be rare. In addition,
because these exceedences are due to random variation, they 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 the receiving water is usually much
greater than the flow of the effluent, normal variation and the flow cycles will result in the
ambient concentration usually being below the CCC, occasionally being near the CCC, and
rarely being above the CCC. In addition, exceedences that do occur will be grouped. On the
other hand, if the flow of the effluent is much greater than the flow of the receiving water, the
concentration might be close to the CCC much of the time and rarely above the CCC, with
exceedences being randomly distributed.
The abilities of ecosystems to recover differ greatly, and depend on the pollutant, the magnitude
and duration of the exceedence, and the physical and biological features of the ecosystem.
Documented studies of recoveries are few, but some systems recover from small stresses in six
weeks whereas other systems take more than ten years to recover from severe stress 3. Although
most exceedences are expected to be very small, larger exceedences will occur occasionally.
Most aquatic ecosystems can probably recover from most exceedences in about three years.
Therefore, it does not seem reasonable to purposely design for stress above that caused by the
CCC to occur more than once every three years on the average, just as it does not seem
reasonable to require that these kinds of stresses only occur once every five or ten years on the
average.
If the body of water is not subject to anthropogenic stress other than the exceedences of concern
and if exceedences as large as a factor of two are rare, it seems reasonable that most bodies of
water could tolerate exceedences once every three years on the average. In situations in which
exceedences are grouped, several exceedences might occur in one or two years, but then there
will be, for example, 10 to 20 years during which no exceedences will occur and the
concentration will be substantially below the CCC most of the time. In situations in which the
concentration is often close to the CCC and exceedences are randomly distributed, some adverse
effect will occur regularly, and small additional, unacceptable effects will occur about every
-------
third year. The relative long-term ecological consequences of evenly spaced and grouped
exceedences are unknown, but because most exceedences will probably be small, the long-term
consequences should be about equal over long periods of time.
The above considerations lead to a statement of a criterion in the frequency-intensity-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., concentration), and duration (of
averaging period) are those appropriate for national criteria. Whenever adequately justified, a
national criterion may be replaced by a site-specific criterion l, which may include not only site-
specific criterion concentrations 2, but also site-specific durations of averaging periods and site-
specific frequencies of allowed exceedences3.
The concentrations, durations, and frequencies specified in criteria are based on biological,
ecological, and toxicological data, and are designed to protect aquatic organisms and their uses
from unacceptable effects. Use of criteria for designing waste treatment facilities requires
selections of an appropriate wasteload allocation model. Dynamic models are preferred for the
application of water 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, the durations of the
averaging periods and the frequencies of allowed exceedences must be applied correctly if the
intended level of protection is to be provided. For example, in the criterion statement frequency
refers to the average frequency, over a long period of time, of rare events (i.e., exceedences).
However, in some disciplines, frequency is often thought of in terms of the average frequency,
over a long period of time, of the years is which rare events occur, without any consideration of
how many rare events occur within each of those eventful years. The distinction between the
frequency of events and the frequency of years in important for all those situations in which the
rare events, e.g., exceedences, tend to occur in groups within the eventful years. The two ways of
calculating frequency produce the same results in situations in which each rare event occurs in a
different year because then the frequency of events is the same as the frequency of eventful
years.
Because fresh water and salt water have basically different chemical compositions and because
freshwater and saltwater (i.e., estuarine and true marine) species rarely inhabit the same water
simultaneously, these National Guidelines provide for the derivation of separate criteria for these
two kinds of water. For some materials sufficient data might not be available to allow derivation
of criteria for one or both kinds of water. Even though absolute toxicities might be different in
fresh and salt waters, such 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 interchangeably.
The material for which a criterion is desired is usually defined in terms 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, etc., if the kinds of data on
which the Guidelines are based are available.
Because they are meant to be applied only after a decision has been made that a national water
quality criterion for aquatic 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 version 9. These modifications are the result of
comments on the previous version and subsequent drafts 10, experience gained during the U.S.
EPA's use of previous versions and drafts, and advances in aquatic toxicology and related fields.
Future versions will incorporate new concepts and data as their usefulness is demonstrated. The
major technical changes incorporated into this version of the National Guidelines are:
1. The requirement for acute data for freshwater animals has been changed to include more
tests with invertebrate species. The taxonomic, functional, and probably the lexicological,
diversities among invertebrate species are greater than those among vertebrate species
and this should be reflected in the required data.
2. When available, 96-hr ECSOs based on the percentage offish immobilized plus the
percentage offish killed are used instead of 96-hr LCSOs for fish; comparable ECSOs are
used instead of LCSOs for other species. Such appropriately defined ECSOs better reflect
the total severe acute adverse impact of the test material on the test species than do
LCSOs or narrowly defined ECSOs. Acute ECSOs that are based on effects that are not
severe, such as reduction in shell deposition and reduction in growth, 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 than
Species Mean Acute Values. A Genus Mean Acute Value is the geometric mean of all the
Species Mean Acute Values available for species in the genus. On the average, species
within a genus are lexicologically much more similar than species in different genera,
and so the use of Genus Mean Acute Values will prevent data sets from being biased by
an overabundance of species in one or a few genera.
4. The Final Acute Value is now calculated using a method u that is not subject to the bias
and anomalous behavior that the previous method was. The new method is also less
influenced by one very low value because it always gives equal weight to the four values
that provide the most information about the cumulative probability of 0.05. Although the
four 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 tests with aquatic plants have been made more
stringent.
-------
6. Instead of being equal to the Final Acute Value, the 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 harm 50 percent of the fifth percentile or 50 percent of a sensitive important
species cannot be considered to be protective of that percentile or that species. Dividing
the Final Acute Value by 2 is intended to result in a concentration that will not severely
adversely affect too many of the organisms.
7. The lower of the two numbers in the criterion is now called the Criterion Continuous
Concentration, rather than the Criterion Average Concentration, to more accurately
reflect the nature of the toxicological data on which it 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 identify a specific situation in which site-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 America and its taxonomic classification. Appendix 2 explains the calculation
of the Final Acute Value.
The amount of guidance in these National Guidelines has been increased, but much of the
guidance is necessarily qualitative rather than quantitative; much judgment will usually be
required to derive a water quality criterion for aquatic 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 water quality criteria for aquatic organisms and
their uses is a complex process and requires knowledge in many areas of aquatic toxicology; any
deviation from these Guidelines should be carefully considered to ensure that it is consistent with
other parts of these Guidelines.
I. Definition of Material of Concern
A. Each separate chemical that does not ionize 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 various compounds and apparently have similar biological,
chemical, physical, and toxicological properties.
B. For chemicals that do ionize substantially in most natural bodies of water (e.g., some
phenols and organic acids, some salts of phenols and organic acids, and most
-------
inorganic salts and coordination complexes of metals), all forms that would be in
chemical equilibrium should usually be considered one material. Each different
oxidation state of a metal and each different nonionizable covalently bonded
organometallic compound should usually be considered a separate material.
C. The definition of the material should include an operational analytical component.
Identification of a material simply, for example, as "sodium" obviously implies "total
sodium", but leaves room for doubt. If "total" is meant, it should be explicitly stated.
Even "total" has different operational definitions, some of which do not necessarily
measure "all that is there" in all samples. Thus, it is also necessary to reference or
describe the analytical method 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, 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 bioaccumulation data without making extrapolations that are
too hypothetical, and that it rarely result in underprotection or overprotection of
aquatic 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 lower 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 analyzing an
effluent might not be appropriate for analyzing 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 an appropriate analytical measurement, but the criterion is not 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.
10
-------
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 from tests that did not contain 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 that were previously exposed to substantial concentrations of the
test material or other contaminants.
G. Questionable data, data on formulated mixtures and emulsifiable concentrates, and
data obtained with non-resident species in North America or previously exposed
organisms may be used to provide auxiliary information but should not be used in the
derivation of criteria.
Required data
A. Certain data should be available to help ensure that each of the four major kinds of
possible adverse effects receives adequate consideration. Results of acute and chronic
toxicity tests with representative species of aquatic animals are necessary so that data
available for tested species can be considered a useful indication of the sensitivities of
11
-------
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. Results of acceptable acute tests (see Section IV) with at least one species
of freshwater animal in at least eight different 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
commercially 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.)
f an insect (e.g., mayfly, dragonfly, damselfly, stonefly, caddisfly,
mosquito, midge, etc.)
g. a family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata (e.g.,
Rotifera, Annelida, Mollusca, etc.)
h. a family in any order of insect or any phylum not already
represented.
2. Acute-chronic ratios (see Section VI) with species of aquatic animals in at
least three different families provided that one 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 least one acceptable test with a freshwater alga or vascular
plant (see Section VIII). If plants are among the aquatic organisms that
are most sensitive to the material, results of a test with a plant in another
phylum (division) should also be available.
12
-------
4. At least one acceptable bioconcentration factor determined with an
appropriate freshwater species, if a maximum permissible 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:
a. two families in the phylum Chordata
b. a family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata
c. either the Mysidae or Penaeidae family
d. three other families not in the phylum Chordata (may include
Mysidae or Penaeidae, whichever was not used above)
e. any other family.
2. Acute-chronic ratios (see 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 least one is an invertebrate
• at least one is an acutely sensitive saltwater species (the other two may be
freshwater species).
3. Results of at least one acceptable test with a saltwater alga or vascular plant
(see Section VIII). If plants are among the aquatic organisms most sensitive
to the material, results of a test with a plant in another phylum (division)
should also be available.
4. At least one acceptable bioconcentration factor determined with an
appropriate saltwater species, if a maximum permissible tissue concentration
is available (see Section IX).
D. If all the required data are available, a numerical criterion can usually be derived,
except in special cases. For example, derivation of a criterion might not be possible if
the available acute-chronic ratios vary by more than a factor often with no apparent
pattern. Also, if a criterion is to be related to a water quality characteristic (see
Sections V and VII), more data will be necessary.
Similarly, if all required data are not available, a numerical criterion should not be
derived except in special cases. For example, even if not enough acute and chronic
data are available, it might be possible to derive a criterion if the available data
13
-------
clearly indicate that the Final Residue Value should be much lower than either the
Final Chronic Value or Final Plant Value.
E. Confidence in a criterion usually increases as the amount of available pertinent data
increases. Thus, additional data are usually desirable.
IV. Final Acute Value
A. Appropriate measures of the acute (short-term) toxicity of the material to a variety of
species of aquatic animals are used to calculate the Final Acute Value. The Final
Acute Value is an estimate of the concentration of the material corresponding to a
cumulative probability of 0.05 in the acute toxicity values for the 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
C. Except for test with saltwater 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 affect the toxicity of the test material.
D. Results of acute 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 a relationship is developed between acute toxicity and organic carbon or
particulate matter or unless data show that organic carbon, particulate matter, etc., do
not affect toxicity.
E. Acute values should be based on endpoints which reflect the total severe acute
adverse impact of the test 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 with daphnids and other cladocerans should be started with organisms less
than 24 hours old and tests with midges should be started with second- or third-
instar larvae. The result should be the 48-hr EC50 based on percentage of
organisms immobilized plus percentage of organisms killed. If such an EC50 is
not available from a test, the 48-hr LC50 should be used in place of the desired
48-hr EC50. An EC50 or LC50 of longer than 48 hr can be used as long as the
animals were not fed and the control animals were acceptable at the end of the
test.
2. The result of a test with embryos and larvae of barnacles, bivalve molluscs
(clams, mussels, oysters, and scallops), sea urchins, lobsters, crabs, shrimp, and
abalones, should be the 96-hr EC50 based on the percentage of organisms with
incompletely developed shells plus the percentage of organisms killed. If such an
EC50 is not available from a test, the lower of the 96-hr EC50 based on the
percentage of organisms with incompletely developed shells and the 96-hr LC50
14
-------
should be used in place of the desired 96-hr EC50. If the duration of the test was
between 48 and 96 hr, the EC50 or LC50 at the end of the test should be used.
3. The acute values from tests 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 the 96-hr EC50 based on the percentage of
organisms exhibiting loss of equilibrium plus the percentage of organisms
immobilized plus the percentage of organisms killed. If such an EC50 is not
available from a test, the 96-hr LC50 should be used in place of the desired 96-hr
EC50.
4. Tests with single-celled organisms are not considered acute tests, even if the
duration was 96 hours or less.
5. If the tests were conducted properly, acute values reported as "greater than"
values and those which are above the solubility of the test material should be
used, because rejection of such acute values would unnecessarily lower the Final
Acute Value by eliminating acute values for resistant species.
F. If the acute toxicity of the material to aquatic animals apparently has been shown to
be related to a water quality characteristic such as hardness or paniculate matter for
freshwater animals or salinity or particulate matter for saltwater animals, a Final
Acute Equation should be derived based on that water quality characteristic. Go to
Section V.
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 same 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 than 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 (SMAV) 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 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 tests in
which the concentrations were not measured and results of static and renewal tests
based on initial concentrations (nominal concentrations are acceptable for most test
materials if measured concentrations are not 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.
15
-------
NOTE: The geometric mean of N numbers is the Nth 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.
NOTE: 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 sensitivities 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, division of the geometric mean of a
set of numerators by the geometric mean of the set of corresponding denominators
will result in the geometric mean of the set of corresponding quotients.
J. For each genus for which one or more SMAVs are available, the Genus Mean Acute
Value (GMAV) should be calculated as the geometric mean of the SMAVs available
for the genus.
K. Order the GMAVs from high to low.
L. Assign ranks, R, to the GMAVs from " 1" for the lowest to "N" for the highest. If two
or more GMAVs are identical, arbitrarily assign them successive ranks.
M. Calculate the cumulative probability, P, for each GMAV as R/(N+1).
N. Select the four GMAVs which have cumulative probabilities closest to 0.05 (if there
are less than 59 GMAVs, these will always be the four lowest GMAVs).
O. Using the selected GMAVs and Ps, calculate
2 ((In GMA V)2}- ((£ In GMA V))214
O
(See u for development of the calculation procedure and Appendix 2 for an example
calculations and computer program.)
NOTE: Natural logarithms (logarithms to base e, denoted as In) are used herein
merely because they are easier to use on some hand calculators and computers than
common (base 10) logarithms. Consistent use of either will produce the same result.
16
-------
P. If for a commercially or recreationally important species the geometric mean of the
acute values from tfe@=flow-through tests in which the concentrations of test material
were measured is lower than the 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-G below or using analysis of covariance 15'16.
The two methods are equivalent and produce identical results. The manual method
described below provides an understanding of this application of covariance analysis,
but computerized versions of covariance analysis are much more 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 acute toxicity values on the corresponding values of the water
quality characteristic to obtain the slope and its 95% confidence limits for each
species.
NOTE: 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 water quality are used in the rest of
this section. For relationships based on other water quality characteristics, such as
pH, temperature, or salinity, no transformation or a different transformation might fit
the data better, and appropriate changes will be necessary throughout this section.
C. Decide whether the data for each species 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 values 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 after adjustment for the water quality 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 slopes are too dissimilar or if
too few data are available to adequately define the relationship between acute toxicity
and the water quality characteristic, return to Section IV.G., using the results of tests
17
-------
conducted under conditions and in waters similar to those commonly used for toxicity
tests with the species.
D. Individually for each species calculate the geometric mean of the available acute
values and then divide each of the acute values for a species by the mean for the
species. This normalizes the acute values so that the geometric mean of the
normalized values for each species individually and for any combination of species is
1.0.
E. 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 toxicity values on the corresponding normalized values of the water quality
characteristic. The resulting slopes and 95% 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.
G. Treat all the normalized data as if they were all for the same species and perform a
least squares regression of all the normalized acute values on the corresponding
normalized values of the water quality characteristic to obtain the pooled acute slope,
V, and its 95% 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.
H. For each species calculate the geometric mean, W, of the acute toxicity values and the
geometric mean, X, of the values of the water quality characteristic. (These were
calculated in steps D and E above.)
I. For each species calculate the logarithm, Y, of the SMAV at a selected value, Z, of
the water quality characteristic using the equation:
Y = In W - V(ln X - In Z).
J. For each species calculate the SMAV at Z using the equation: SMAV = eY.
NOTE: Alternatively, the SMAVs at Z can be obtained by skipping step H above,
using the equations in steps I and J to adjust each acute value individually to Z, and
then calculating the geometric mean 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-
O.
L. If the SMAV at Z of a commercially or recreationally important 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 = e(V[ln(water quallty charactenstic)]
+ in A-v[inZ])^ ^gj-g y = pOOie(j acute slope and A = Final Acute Value at Z. Because
18
-------
V, A, and Z are known, the Final Acute Value can be calculated for any selected
value of the water quality characteristic.
VI. Final Chronic Value
A. Depending on the data that are available concerning chronic toxicity to aquatic
animals, the Final Chronic Value might be calculated in the same manner as the Final
Acute Value or by dividing the Final Acute Value by the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio.
In some cases it may not be possible to calculate a Final Chronic Value.
NOTE: As the name implies, the acute-chronic ration (ARC) is a way of relating
acute and chronic toxicities. The acute-chronic ratio is basically the inverse of the
application factor, but this new name is better because it is more descriptive and
should help prevent confusion between "application factors" and "safety factors".
Acute-chronic ratios and application factors are ways of relating the acute and chronic
toxicities of a material to aquatic organisms. Safety factors are used to provide an
extra margin of safety beyond the known or estimated sensitivities of aquatic
organisms. Another advantage of the acute-chronic ratio is that it will usually be
greater than one; this should avoid the confusion as to whether a large application
factor is one that is close to unity or one that has a denominator that is much greater
than the numerator.
B. Chronic values should be based on results of flow-through (except renewal is
acceptable for daphnids) chronic tests in which the concentrations of test material in
the test solutions were properly measured at appropriate times during the test.
C. Results of chronic tests in which survival, growth, or reproduction in the control
treatment was unacceptably low should not be used. The limits of acceptability will
depend on the species.
D. Results of chronic tests conducted in unusual dilution water, e.g., dilution water in
which total organic carbon or paniculate matter exceeded 5 mg/L, should not be used,
unless a 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 endpoints 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 toxicity tests consisting of exposures of each of two or more groups of
individuals of a species to a different concentration of the test material throughout
a life cycle. To ensure that all life stages and life processes are exposed, tests
with fish should begin with embryos or newly hatched young less than 48 hours
old, continue through maturation and reproduction, and should end not less than
24 days (90 days for salmonids) after the hatching of the next generation. Tests
with daphnids should begin with young less than 24 hours old and last for not less
than 21 days. 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
19
-------
controls. For fish, data should be obtained and analyzed on survival and growth
of adults and young, maturation of males and females, eggs spawned per female,
embryo viability (salmonids only), and hatchability. For daphnids, data should be
obtained and analyzed on survival and young per female. For mysids, data should
be obtained and analyzed on survival, growth, and young per female.
2. Partial life-cycle toxicity tests consisting of exposures of each of two or more
groups of individuals of a species offish to a different concentration of the test
material through most portions of a life cycle. Partial life-cycle tests are allowed
with fish species that require more than a year to reach sexual maturity, so that all
major life stages can be exposed to the test material in less than 15 months.
Exposure to the test material should begin with immature juveniles at least 2
months prior to active gonad development, continue through maturation and
reproduction, and end not less than 24 days (90 days for salmonids) after the
hatching of the next generation. Data should be obtained and analyzed on
survival and growth of adults and young, maturation of males and females, eggs
spawned per female, embryo viability (salmonids only), and hatchability.
3. Early life-stage toxicity tests consisting of 28- to 32-day (60 days post hatch for
salmonids) exposures of the early life stages of a species offish from shortly after
fertilization through embryonic, larval, and early juvenile development. Data
should be obtained and analyzed on survival and growth.
NOTE: Results of an early life-stage test are used as predictions of results of
life-cycle and partial life-cycle tests with the same species. Therefore, when
results of a life-cycle or partial life-cycle test are available, results of an early life-
stage test with the same species should not be used. Also, results of early life-
stage tests in which the incidence of mortalities or abnormalities increased
substantially near the end of the test should not be used because results of such
tests are possibly not good predictions of the results of comparable life-cycle or
partial life-cycle tests.
A chronic value may be obtained by calculating the geometric mean of the lower and
upper chronic limits from a chronic test or by analyzing chronic data using regression
analysis. A lower chronic limit is the highest tested concentration (a) 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.
NOTE: 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 unacceptable is often based on a
statistical hypothesis test, but might also be defined in terms of a specified percent
reduction from the controls. A small percent reduction (e.g., 3%) might be
20
-------
considered acceptable even if it is statistically significantly different from the control,
whereas a large percent reduction (e.g., 30%) 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 water quality characteristic such as hardness or particulate matter for
freshwater animals or salinity or particulate matter for saltwater animals, a Final
Chronic Equation should be derived based on that water quality characteristic. Go to
Section VII.
H. If chronic values are available for species in eight families as described in Sections
III.B.l or III.C.l, a Species Mean 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 species, and appropriate Genus
Mean Chronic Values should be calculated. The Final Chronic Value should then be
obtained using the procedure described in Section IVJ-O. Then go to Section VIM.
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 part of the same study as the chronic test. If acute tests
were not conducted as part of the same study, acute tests conducted in the same
laboratory and dilution water, but in a different study, may be used. If no such acute
tests are available, results of acute tests conducted in the same dilution water in a
different laboratory may be used. If no such acute tests are available, an acute-
chronic ratio should not be calculated.
J. For each species, calculate the species mean acute-chronic ratio as the geometric
mean of all 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 be 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 acute-chronic ratios for species whose SMAVs are
close to the Final Acute Value.
2. If no major trend is apparent and the acute-chronic ratios for a number of
species are within a factor often, the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio should be
calculated as the geometric mean of all the species mean acute-chronic ratios
available for both freshwater and saltwater species.
3. For acute tests conducted on metals and possibly other substances with
embryos and larvae of barnacles, bivalve molluscs, sea urchins, lobsters,
21
-------
crabs, shrimp, and abalones (see Section IV.E.2), it is probably appropriate to
assume that the acute-chronic ratio is 2. Chronic tests are very difficult to
conduct with most such species, but it is likely that the sensitivities of
embryos and larvae would determine the results of life-cycle tests. Thus, if
the lowest available SMAVs were determined with embryos and larvae of
such species, the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio should probably be assumed to be
2, so that the Final Chronic Value is equal to 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
the chronic test. Because continuous exposure and acclimation cannot be
assured to provide adequate protection in field situations, the Final Acute-
Chronic Ratio should be assumed to be 2, so that the Final Chronic Value is
equal to the Criterion Maximum Concentration (see Section XI.B).
If the available species mean acute-chronic ratios do not fit one of these cases, a Final
Acute-Chronic Ratio probably cannot be obtained, and a Final Chronic Value
probably cannot be calculated.
L. Calculate the Final Chronic Value by dividing the Final Acute Value by the Final
Acute-Chronic Ratio. 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 recreationally important
species is lower than the calculated Final Chronic Value, then that Species Mean
Chronic Value should be used as the Final Chronic Value instead of the calculated
Final Chronic Value.
N. Go to Section VIII.
VII. Final Chronic Equation
A. A Final Chronic Equation can be derived in two ways. The procedure described here
in Section A will result in the chronic slope being the same as the acute slope. The
procedure described in Sections B-N will usually result in the chronic slope being
different from the actual 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
geometric mean of the 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 Acute Value at Z (see Section
V.M.) by the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio.
22
-------
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 toxicity to at least one species is
related to a water quality characteristic, the relationship should be taken into account
as described in Sections B-G below or using analysis of covariance 15'16. The two
methods are equivalent and produce identical results. The manual method described
below provides an understanding of this application of covariance analysis, but
computerized versions of covariance analysis are much more convenient for
analyzing large data sets. If two more factors affect toxicity, multiple regression
analysis should be used.
C. For each species for which comparable chronic toxicity values are available at two or
more different values of the water quality characteristic, perform a least squares
regression of the chronic toxicity values on the corresponding values of the water
quality characteristic to obtain the slope and its 95% confidence limits for each
species.
NOTE: 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 water quality are used in the rest of
this section. For relationships based on other water quality characteristics, such as
pH, temperature, or salinity, no transformation or a different transformation might fit
the data better, and appropriate changes will be necessary throughout this section. It
is probably preferable, but not necessary, to use the same transformation that was
used with the acute values in Section V.
D. Decide whether the data for each species 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, chronic values
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 after adjustment for the water quality
characteristic, the chronic 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 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 water 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 water quality
characteristic. Alternatively, return to Section VI.H, using the results of tests
23
-------
conducted under conditions and in waters similar to those commonly used for toxicity
tests with the species.
E. 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 normalized
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.
G. Individually for each species perform a least squares regression of the normalized
chronic toxicity values on the corresponding normalized values of the water quality
characteristic. The resulting slopes and the 95% 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 normalized data as if they were all for the same species and perform a
least squares regression of all the normalized chronic values on the corresponding
normalized values of the water quality characteristic to obtain the pooled chronic
slope, L, and its 95% 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 species calculate the geometric mean, M, of the toxicity values and the
geometric mean, P, of the values of the water quality characteristic. (These were
calculated in steps E and F above.)
J. For each species calculated the logarithm, Q, of the Species Mean Chronic Value at a
selected value, Z, of the water quality characteristic using the equation: Q = In M -
L(ln P - In Z).
NOTE: 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 species calculate a Species Mean Chronic Value at Z using the equation:
SMCV = eQ.
NOTE: Alternatively, the Species Mean Chronic Values at Z can be obtained by
skipping step J above, using the equations in steps J and K to adjust each acute value
individually to Z and then calculating 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-
O.
M. If the Species Mean Chronic Value at Z of a commercially or recreationally important
species is lower than the calculated Final Chronic Value at Z, then that Species Mean
24
-------
N. The Final Chronic Equation is written as: Final Chronic Value = e(L[ln(water quality
characteristic)] + In S - L [In Z» where L = poole(j chr()nic ^^ an(j g = 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.
VIM. Final Plant Value
A. Appropriate measures of the toxicity of the material to aquatic plants are used to
compare the relative sensitivities of aquatic plants and animals. Although procedures
for conducting and interpreting the results of toxicity tests with plants are not well
developed, results of tests with plants usually indicate that criteria which adequately
protect aquatic animals and their uses will probably also protect aquatic plants and
their uses.
B. A plant value is the result of a 96-hr test conducted with an alga or a chronic test
conducted with an aquatic vascular plant.
NOTE: A test of the toxicity of a metal to a plant usually should not be used if the
medium contained an excessive amount of a complexing agent, such as EDTA, that
might affect the toxicity of the metal. Concentrations of EDTA above about 200 ug/L
should probably be considered excessive.
C. The Final Plant Value should be obtained by selecting the lowest result from a test
with an important aquatic 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 aquatic species from affecting marketability because of
exceedance of applicable FDA action levels and (b) protect wildlife, including fishes
and birds, that consume aquatic 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 either (a)
10
an FDA action level for fish oil or for the edible portion offish or shellfish, or (b) a
maximum acceptable dietary intake based on observations on survival, growth, or
reproduction in a chronic wildlife feeding study or a long-term wildlife field study. If
no maximum permissible tissue concentration is available, go to Section X because
no Final Residue Value can be derived.
B. Bioconcentration factors (BCFs) and bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) are quotients 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
25
-------
D.
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 the 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.
If a maximum permissible tissue concentration is available for a substance (e.g.,
parent material, parent material plus metabolites, etc.), the tissue concentration used
in the calculation of the BCF should be for the same substance. Otherwise? the tissue
concentration used in the calculation of the BCF should be that of the material and its
metabolites which are structurally similar and are not much more soluble in water
than the parent material.
1. 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 solution, and the exposure continued at least until either apparent
steady-state or 28 days was reached. Steady-state is reached when the BCF
does not change significantly over a period of time, such as two days or 16
percent of the length of the exposure, whichever is longer. The BCF used
from a test should be the highest of (a) 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.
4. Because maximum permissible tissue concentrations are almost never based
on dry weights, a BCF calculated using dry tissue weights must be converted
to a wet tissue weight basis. If no conversion factor is reported with the BCF,
multiply the dry weight BCF by 0.1 for plankton and by 0.2 for individual
species of fishes and invertebrates 17.
26
-------
5. If more than one acceptable BCF is available for a species, the geometric
mean of the available values should be used, except that if the BCFs are from
different lengths of exposure and the BCF increases with length of exposure,
the BCF for the longest exposure should be used.
E. If enough pertinent data exist, several residue values can be calculated by dividing
maximum permissible tissue concentrations by appropriate BCFs:
1. For each available maximum acceptable dietary intake derived from a chronic
feeding study or a long-term field study with wildlife, including birds and
aquatic organisms, the appropriate BCF is based on the whole body of aquatic
species which constitute or represent a major portion of the diet of the tested
wildlife species.
2. For an FDA action level for fish or shellfish, the appropriate BCF is the
highest geometric mean species BCF for the edible portion (muscle for
decapods, muscle with or without skin for fishes, adductor muscle for
scallops, and total soft tissue for other bivalve molluscs) of a consumed
species. The highest species BCF is used because FDA action levels are
applied on a species-by-species basis.
F. For lipophilic materials, it might be possible to calculate additional residue values.
Because the steady-state BCF for a lipophilic material seems to be proportional to
percent lipids from one tissue to another and from one species to another 18> 19' 20,
extrapolations can be made from tested tissues or species to untested tissues or
species on the basis of percent lipids.
1. For each BCF for which the percent lipids is known for the same tissue for
which the BCF was measured, normalize the BCF to a one percent lipid basis
by dividing the BCF by the percent lipids. This adjustment to a one percent
lipid basis is intended to make all the measured BCFs for a material
comparable 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 the available maximum
permissible tissue concentrations by the mean normalized BCF and by the
percent lipids values appropriate to the maximum permissible tissue
concentrations, i.e.,
(maximum permissible tissue concentration)
Residue Value =
(mean normalized BCF) (appropriate percent lipids)
a. For an FDA action level for fish oil, the appropriate percent lipids
value is 100.
27
-------
b. For an FDA action level for fish, the appropriate percent lipids value
is 11 for freshwater criteria and 10 for saltwater criteria because
FDA action levels are applied on a species-by-species basis to
commonly consumed species. The highest lipid contents in the
edible portions of important 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-term field study with wildlife, the
appropriate percent lipids is that of an aquatic species or group of
aquatic species which constitute a major portion of the diet of the
wildlife species.
G. 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 appropriate additional protection. Also, some chronic feeding studies and
long-term field studies with wildlife identify concentrations that 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 that are not protected at all times in all places.
X. Other Data
Pertinent information that could not be used in earlier sections might be available
concerning adverse effects on aquatic organisms and their uses. The most important
of these are data on cumulative and delayed toxicity, flavor impairment, reduction in
survival, growth, or reproduction, or any other adverse effect that has been shown to
be biologically important. Especially important are data for species for which no
other data are available. Data from behavioral, biochemical, physiological,
microcosm, and field studies might also be available. Data might be available from
tests conducted in unusual dilution water (see IV.D and VI.D), from chronic tests in
which the concentrations were not measured (see VLB), from tests with previously
exposed organisms (see II.F), and from tests on formulated mixtures or emulsifiable
concentrates (see II.D). 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 the Criterion Continuous Concentration.
28
-------
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 lower value should be used. If toxicity is related to a
water quality characteristic, the CCC is obtained from the Final Chronic Equation, the
Final Plant Value, and the Final Residue Value by selecting the one, or the
combination, that results in the lowest concentrations in the usual range of the water
quality characteristic, unless other data (see Section X) show that a lower value
should be used.
D. Round 14 both the CMC and the CCC to two significant digits.
E. The criterion is stated as:
The procedures described in the "Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water
Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses" 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) ug/L more than once every three years on the
average and if the one-hour average concentration does not exceed (4) ug/L more
than once every three years on the average.
where (1) = insert "freshwater" or "saltwater"
(2) = insert name 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 the Guidelines. Items that should be especially checked are:
1. If unpublished data are used, are they well documented?
2. Are all required data available?
3. Is the range of acute values for any species greater than a factor of 10?
4. Is the range of Species Mean Acute Values for any genus greater than a
factor of 10?
5. Is there more than a factor often difference between the four lowest
Genus Mean Acute Values?
6. Are any of the four lowest Genus Mean Acute Values questionable?
29
-------
7. Is the Final Acute Value reasonable in comparison with the Species Mean
Acute Values and Genus Mean Acute Values?
8. For any commercially or recreationally important species, is the geometric
mean of the acute values from flow-through tests in which the
concentrations of test material were measured lower than the Final Acute
Value?
9. Are any of the chronic values questionable?
10. Are chronic values available for acutely sensitive species?
11. Is the range of acute-chronic ratios greater than a factor of 10?
12. Is the Final Chronic Value reasonable in comparison with the available
acute and chronic data?
13. Is the measured or predicted chronic value for any commercially or
recreationally important species below the Final Chronic Value?
14. Are any of the other data important?
15. Do any data look like they might be outliers?
16. Are there any deviations from the Guidelines? Are they acceptable?
B. On the basis of all available pertinent laboratory and field information, determine if
the criterion is consistent with sound scientific evidence. If it is not, another criterion,
either higher or lower, should be derived using appropriate modifications of these
Guidelines.
30
-------
References
1 U.S. EPA. 1983. Water Quality Standards Regulation. Federal Register 48: 51400-51413. Novembers.
2 U.S. EPA. 1983. Water Quality Standards 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. Ed. Canada 19:39-44.
5 Hodson, P.V., et 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 onDaphniapulex (De Geer) of Daily Pulse
Exposures to Copper to Cadmium. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1:321-327; Seim, W.K., etal. 1984. Growth and
Survival of Developing Steelhead Trout (Salmo gairdneri) Continuously or Intermittental 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. Physiol. 72C: 15-19; Brown, V.M., et 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.
7 For example, see: Horning, W.B. and T.W. Neiheisel. 1979. Chronic Effect of Copper on the Bluntnose Minnow,
Pimephales notatus (Rafinesque). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 8:545-552.
8 For example, see: Chapman, G.A. 1982. Letter to Charles E. Stephan. U.S. EPA, Duluth, Minnesota. December 6;
Chapman, G.A. 1975. Toxicity of Copper, Cadmium and Zinc to Pacific Northwest Salmonids. Interim Report.
U.S. EPA, Corvallis, Oregon; Sephar, R.L. 1976. Cadmium and Zinc Toxicity to Flagfish, Jordanellefloridae. J.
Fish. Res. Board Can. 33: 1939-1945.
9 U.S. EPA. 1980. Water Quality Criteria Documents; Availability. Federal Register 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. Stephan. 1985. Calculation of the Final Acute Value for Water Quality Criteria for
Aquatic Organisms. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. PB88-214994.
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 E 729, Practice for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests with Fishes, Macroinvertebrates, and
Amphibians.
ASTM Standard E 724, Practice for Conducting Static Acute Toxicity Tests with Larvae of Four Species of
Bivalve Molluscs.
14 Huth, E.J., et al. 1978. Council of Biology Editors Style Manual, 4th Ed. Council of Biology Editors, Inc.,
Bethesda, 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.
16 Neter, J. and W. Wasserman. 1974. Applied Linear Statistical Models. Irwin, Inc., Homewood Illinois.
31
-------
17 The values of 0.1 and 0.2 were derived from data published in:
McDiffett, W.F. 1970. Ecology 51: 975-988.
Brocksen, R.W., et al. 1968. J. Wildlife Management 32: 52-75.
Cummins, K.W., et al. 1973. Ecology 54: 336-345.
Pesticide Analytical Manual, Volume I, Food and Drug Administration, 1969.
Love, R.M. 1957. In: M.E. Brown (ed.), The Physiology of Fishes, Vol. I. Academic Press, New York, p.411.
Ruttner, F. 1963. Fundamentals of Limnology, 3rd Ed. Trans, by D.G. Frey and F.E. J. Fry. University of
Toronto Press, Toronto.
Some additional values can be found in:
Sculthorpe, C.D. 1967. The Biology of Aquatic Vascular Plants. Arnold Publishing, Ltd., London.
18 Hamelink, J.L., et al. 1971. A Proposal: Exchange Equilibria Control the Degree Chlorinated Hydrocarbons are
Biologically Magnified inLentic Environments. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 100:207-214.
19 Lunsford, C.A. and C.R. Blem. 1982. Annual Cycle of Kepone Residue inLipid Content of the Estuarine Clam,
Rangia cuneata. Estuaries 5: 121-130.
20 Schnoor, J.L. 1982. Field Validation of Water Quality Criteria for Hydrophobic Pollutants. In; J.G. Pearson, et al.
(eds.), Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment. ASTM STP 766. American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia. Pp. 302-315.
21 Sidwell, V.D. 1981. Chemical and Nutritional Composition of Finfishes, Whales, Crustaceans, Mollusks, and
Their Products. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/SEC-11. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast
Fisheries Center, Charleston, South Carolina.
32
-------
Appendix 1. Resident North American Species of Aquatic Animals
Used in Toxicity and Bioconcentation Tests
Introduction
These lists identify species of aquatic animals which have reproducing wild populations in North
America and have been used in toxicity or bioconcentration tests. "North America" includes
only the 48 contiguous states, Canada, and Alaska; Hawaii and Puerto Rico are not included.
Saltwater (i.e., estuarine and true marine) species are considered resident in North America if
they inhabit or regularly enter shore waters on or above the continental shelf to a depth of 200
meters. Species do not have to 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 Names of Fishes from
the United States and Canada. For other species, the sequence of phyla, classes, and families is
taken from the NODC Taxonomic Code, Third Edition, National Oceanographic Data Center,
NOAA, Washington, DC 20235, July, 1981, and the numbers given are from that source to
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 the species is a resident North American
species. (The NODC Taxonomic Code contains foreign as well as North American species.) If
no such reference could be found, the species was judged to 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 same species.
Special Note
This December 2010 electronic version of the 1985 Guidelines serves to meet the requirements of Section
508 of the Rehabilitation Act. While converting the 1985 Guidelines to a 508-compliant version, EPA
updated the taxonomic nomenclature to reflect changes that occurred since the tables were originally
produced in 1985. The numbers included for Phylum, Class and Family represent those currently in use
from the Integrated Taxonomic Information System, or ITIS, and reflect what is referred to in ITIS as
Taxonomic Serial Numbers. ITIS replaced the National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) taxonomic
coding system which was used to create the original taxonomic tables included in the 1985 Guidelines
document (NODC, Third Addition - see Introduction). For more information on the NODC taxonomic
codes, see http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/General/CDR-detdesc/taxonomic-v8.html.
The code numbers included in the reference column of the tables have not been updated from the 1985
version. These code numbers are associated with the old NODC taxonomic referencing system and are
simply replicated here for historical purposes. Footnotes may or may not still apply.
EPA is working on a more comprehensive update to the 1985 Guidelines, including new taxonomic tables
which better reflect the large number of aquatic animal species known to be propagating in U.S. waters.
33
-------
Freshwater Species Table
Synonyms appear after the official Scientific Name and are marked with an asterisk (*).
Non-resident species are noted in the Reference column and are marked with a dagger (
Class
Family
Species
Common Name
Scientific Name
Reference
Phylum: Porifera (46861)
Demospongiae
47528
Spongillidae
47691
Sponge
Ephydatia fluviatilis
P93
Phylum: Cnidaria (48738)
Hydrozoa
48739
Hydridae
50844
Hydra
Hydra
Hydra oligactis
Hydra littoralis
E318, P112
E321, P112
Phylum: Platvhelminthes (53963)
Turbellaria
53964
Planariidae
54502
Dendrocoelidae
54469
Planarian
Planarian
Planarian
Planarian
Planarian
Dugesia dorotocephala
Dugesia lugubris
Dugesia polychroa*
Planaria gonocephala
Polycelis felinas
Procotyla fluviatilis
Dendrocoelum lacteum'
D22
D24
i
nonresident
E334, P132, D63
Phylum: Gastrotricha (57597)
Chaetonotida
57822
Chaetonotidae
57823
Gastrotrich
Lepidodermella squamata
Lepidodermella squamatum'
E413
Phylum: Rotifera (58239)
Eurotatoria
(Formerly Bdelloidea)
654070
Eurotatoria
(Formerly Monogononta)
654070
Philodinidae
58266
Brachionidae
58344
Rotifer
Rotifer
Rotifer
Rotifer
Philodina acuticornis
Philodina roseola
Keratella cochlearis
Keratella sp.
Y
E487
E442, P188
2
Phylum: Annelida (64357)
Polychaeta
(Formerly Archiannelida)
64358
Clitellata
(Formerly Oligochaeta)
568832
Aeolosomatidae
68423
Lumbriculidae
68440
Tubificidae
68585
Worm
Worm
Tubificid worm
Tubificid worm
Tubificid worm
Tubificid worm
Tubificid worm
Tubificid worm
Tubificid worm
Aeolosoma headleyi
Lumbriculus variegatus
Branchiura sowerbyi
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
Quistadrilus multisetosus
Peloscolex multisetosus'
Rhyacodrilus montanus
Spirosperma ferox
Peloscolex ferox
Spirosperma nikolskyi^
Peloscolex variegatus'
Stylodrilus heringianus
E528, P284
E533, P290
E534, P289, GG
E536, GG
E535, GG
GG
GG
E534, GG
GG
* Synonym
§ Non-resident species
34
-------
Class
Clitellata
(Formerly Hirudinea)
568832
Family
Naididae
68854
Erpobdellidea
69438
Species
Common Name
Tubificid worm
Tubificid worm
Worm
Worm
Worm
Leech
Scientific Name
Tubifex tubifex
Varichaeta pacifica
Nais sp.
Paranais sp.
Pristina sp.
Erpobdella octoculata
Reference
E536, P289, GG
GG
2
2
2
Formerly nonresident
(BB16)
Phylum: Mollusca (69458)
Gastropoda
69459
Bivalvia
(Pelecypoda)
79118
Viviparidae
70304
Bithyniidae
(Amnicolidae)
(Bulimidae)
(Hydrobiidae)
70745
Pleuroceridae
71541
Lymnaeidae
76483
Planorbidae
76591
Physidae
76676
Margaritiferidae
79914
Unionidae
(Formerly Amblemidae)
79913
Unionidae
Snail
Snail
Snail
Snail
Snail
Snail
Snail
Snail
Snail
Snail
Snail
Snail
Snail
Snail
Snail
Snail
Snail
Snail
Snail
Snail
Snail
Snail
Mussel
Mussel
Mussel
Campeloma decisum
Amnicola sp.
Goniobasis livescens
Elimia virginica
Goniobasis virginica'
Leptoxis carinata
Nitocris carinata
Mudalia carinata
Nitocris sp.
Lymnaea acuminatar
Lymnaea catascopium
Lymnaea emerginata'
Stagnicola emerginata"
Lymnaea elodes
Lymnaea palustris
Lymnaea luteolaf
Lymnaea stagnalis
Lymnaea sp.
Biomphalaria glabrata
Gyraulus circumstriatus
Helisoma campanulatum
Helisoma trivolvis
Aplexa hypnorum
Physa fontinalis?
Physa gyrina
Physa heterostropha
Physa integra
Physa sp.
Margaritifera margaritifera
Amblema plicata
Anodonta imbecillis
P731, M216
2
P732
E1137
X, E1137
2
nonresident
M328
E1127, M351
nonresident
M266
E1127, P728, M296
2
Formerly nonresident
(M390)
P729, M397
M445
P729, M452
E1126, P727, M373
nonresident
M373
E1126, P727, M373
M378
P727
2
E1138, P748, J11
AA122
J72, AA1 22
35
-------
Class
Family
79913
Corbiculidae
81381
Pisidiidae
Sphaeriidae*
81388
Species
Common Name
Mussel
Mussel
Mussel
Asiatic clam
Asiatic clam
Fingernail clam
Fingernail clam
Fingernail clam
Scientific Name
Carunculina pan/a
Toxolasma texasensis
Cyrtonaias tampicoenis
Elliptic complanata
Corbicula fluminea
Corbicula manilensis
Eupera cubensis
Eupera singleyi'
Musculium transversum
Sphaerium transversum'
Sphaerium corneum
Reference
J19, AA122
P759, AA1 22
J13
E1159
P749
E1158, P763, G9
M160, G11
G12
Phylum: Arthropoda (82696)
Branchiopoda
(Formerly Crustacea)
83687
Ostracoda
(Formerly Crustacea)
84195
Maxillopoda
(Formerly Crustacea)
621145
Lynceidae
83769
Sididae
83834
Daphniidae
83872
Moinidae
(Formerly Daphnidae)
84162
Bosminidae
83935
Polyphemidae
83959
Cyprididae
Cypridae*
84462
Diaptomidae
85779
Temoridae
85855
Cyclopidae
88634
Conchostracan
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Cladoceran
Ostracod
Ostracod
Cope pod
Cope pod
Cope pod
Cope pod
Cope pod
Cope pod
Lynceus brachyurus
Diaphanosoma sp.
Ceriodaphnia acanthina
Ceriodaphnia reticulata
Daphnia ambigua
Daphnia carinata
Daphnia cucullatar
Daphnia galeata mendotae
Daphnia hyalina
Daphnia longispina
Daphnia magna
Daphnia parvula
Daphnia pulex
Daphnia pulicaria
Daphnia similis
Simocephalus serrulatus
Simocephalus vetulus
Moina macrocopa
Moina rectirostris
Bosmina longirostris
Polyphemus pediculus
Cypretta kawatair
Cypridopsis vidua
Eudiaptomus padanusf
Epischura lacustris
Cyclops abyssorumf
Cyclops bicuspidatus
Cyclops vernal is
Cyclops viridis
Acanthocyclops viridis'
E580, P344
2
E618
E618, P368
E607, P369
3
nonresident
E610, P370
4
b
E605, P367
E611
E613, P367
A
E606, P367
E617, P370
E617, P370
E622, P372
E623
E624, P373
E599, P385
nonresident
U
E770, P430
nonresident
E751 , P407
nonresident
E807, P405
E804, P405
E803, P397
36
-------
Class
Malacostraca
(Formerly Crustacea)
89787
Insecta
99208
Family
Asellidae
92657
Crangonyctidae
(Formerly Gammaridae)
95080
Gammaridae
93745
Hyalellidae
(Talitridae)
94022
Palaemonidae
96213
Cambaridae
(Formerly Astacidae)
97336
Heptageniidae
100504
Baetidea
Species
Common Name
Cope pod
Cope pod
Cope pod
Cope pod
Isopod
Isopod
Isopod
Isopod
Isopod
Isopod
Isopod
Isopod
Amphipod
Amphipod
Amphipod
Amphipod
Amphipod
Amphipod
Amphipod
Amphipod
Prawn
Prawn
Prawn
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Scientific Name
Acanthocyclops sp.
Diacyclops sp.
Eucyclops agilis
Mesocyclops leuckarti
Asellus aquaticusr
Caecidotea bicrenata
(Formerly Asellus bicrenata)
Asellus brevicaudus
Asellus communis
Asellus intermedius
Asellus meridionalisf
Asellus meridianus'f
Asellus racovitzai
Lirceus alabamae
Crangonyx pseudogracilis
Gammarus fasciatus
Gammarus lacustris
Gammarus pseudolimnaeus
Gammarus pulexf
Gammarus tigrinus
Gammarus sp.
Hyalella azteca
Hyalella knickerbockeri'
Macrobrachium lamarrei7
Macrobrachium rosenbergii
Palaemonetes kadiakensis
Cambarus latimanus
Faxonella clypeata
Orconectes immunis
Orconectes limosus
Orconectes propinquus
Orconectes nais
Orconectes rusticus
Orconectes virilis
Pacifastacus trowbridgii
Procambarus acutus
Procambarus dark! ^
Procambarus clarkii'
Procambarus simulans
Procambarus sp.
Maccaffertium Ithaca
Stenonema ithaca
Maccaffertium modestum
Stenonema rubrum'
Callibaetis skokianus
Reference
2
2
P403
E81 2, P403
nonresident (12)
HH
(11,2)
E875, P447, I
E875, P448, I
E875, P448, I
nonresident
P449, I
P875, I
P459, T68, FF23
E877, P458, T53
E877, P458, FF23
E877, P458, T48
nonresident
L51, FF17
2
E876, P457, T154
nonresident
b
E881 , P484
E897
E890
E894, P482
E893, P482
E894, P482
E894
E893, P482
E894, P483
E883
P482
E885, P482
E888, P482
2
5173,0205
S178, O205
S116, N9
37
-------
Class
Family
100755
Leptophlebiidae
101095
Ephemerellidae
101232
Caenidea
101467
Ephemeridae
101525
Libellulidae
101797
Coenagrionidae
Agrionidae*
Coenagriidae*
102077
Pteronarcyidae
(Formerly Pterqnarcidae)
Pleronarcyidae*
102470
Nemouridae
102517
Perlidae
102914
Perlodidae
102994
Nepidae
103747
Dytiscidae
111963
Elmidae
Elminthidae
1 1 4093
Hydropsychidae
1 1 5398
Limnephilidae
1 1 5933
Species
Common Name
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Dragonfly
Damselfly
Damselfly
Damselfly
Damselfly
Stonefly
Stonefly
Stonefly
Stonefly
Stonefly
Stonefly
Stonefly
Stonefly
Stonefly
Stonefly
Water Scorpion
Beetle
Beetle
Caddisfly
Caddisfly
Caddisfly
Caddisfly
Caddisfly
Caddisfly
Scientific Name
Callibaetis sp.
Cloeon dipterum
Paraleptophlebia praepedita
Drunella doddsii
Ephemerella doddsi'
Drunella grandis
Ephemerella grandis
Ephemerella subvaria
Ephemerella sp.
Caenis diminuta
Ephemera simulans
Hexagenia bilineata
Hexagenia rigida
Hexagenia sp.
Pantala hymenaea
Pantala hymenea'
Enallagma aspersum
Ischnura elegansf
Ischnura vertical is
Ischnura sp.
Pteronarcella badia
Pteronarcys californica
Pteronarcys dorsata
Pteronarcys sp.
Nemoura cinereaf
Acroneuria lycorias
Acroneuria pacifica
Claassenia sabulosa
Agnetina capitata
Neophasganophora capitata'
Phasganophora capitata'
Skwala americana
Arcynopteryx parallela
Ranatra elongate?
(Species cannot be confirmed in
ITIS)
-
Stenelmis sexlineata
Arctopsyche grandis
Hydropsyche betteni
Hydropsyche californica
Hydropsyche sp.
Clistoronia magnifica
Philarctus quaeris
Reference
2
O1 73
S89, O233
O245
0245
N9, 0248, S71
2
S51 , O268
S36, N9, 0283
N9, S39, O290
O290, S41 , N9
2
N15, V603
DD
nonresident
N15, E918
2
L172
L173
E947
2
nonresident
N4, E953
E953, L1 80
E953
E953, CC407
E954
nonresident
2
W21
L251, II98
N24
L253
2
II206
II272
38
-------
Class
Family
Brachycentridae
1 1 6905
Tipulidae
1 1 8840
Ceratopogonidae
127076
Culicidae
125930
Chironomidae
127917
Athericidae
(Formerly Rhagionidae)
Leptidae*
130928
Species
Common Name
Caddisfly
Crane fly
Biting midge
Mosquito
Mosquito
Midge
Midge
Midge
Midge
Midge
Midge
Snipe fly
Scientific Name
Brachycentrus sp.
Tipula sp.
-
Aedes aegypti
Culex pipiens
Chironomus plumosus
Tendipas plumosus
Chironomus tentans
Chironomus thummif
Chironomus sp.
Paratanytarsus parthenogeneticus
Paratanytarsus dissimilis
Tanytarsus dissimilis'
Atherix sp.
Reference
2
2
2
EE3
EE3
L423
Q
nonresident
2
'
R11
2
Phylum: Ectoprocta (155470)
Phylactolaemata
156688
Pectinatellidae
(Formerly
Pectinatelcidae)
156729
Lophopodidae
156714
Plumatellidae
156690
Bryozoan
Bryozoan
Bryozoan
Pectinate/la magnifica
Lophopodella carteri
Plumatella emarginata
E502, P269
E502, P2671
E505, P272
Phylum: Chordata (158852)
Agnatha
159693
Actinopterygii
(Formerly Osteichthyes)
161061
Petromyzontidae
159697
Anguillidae
161125
Salmonidae
161931
Sea lamprey
American eel
Pink salmon
Coho salmon
Sockeye salmon
Chinook Salmon
Mountain whitefish
Golden Trout
Cutthroat trout
Rainbow trout
Steelhead trout
Atlantic salmon
Brown trout
Brook trout
Lake trout
Petromyzon marinus
Anguilla rostrata
Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Oncorhynchus nerka
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Prosopium williamsoni
Oncorhynchus aguabonita
(Formerly Salmo aguabonita)
Oncorhynchus clarki
(Formerly Salmo clarki)
Oncorhynchus mykiss
(Formerly Salmo gairdneri)
Salmo salar
Salmo trutta
Salvelinus fontinalis
Salvelinus namaycush
F11
F15
F18
F18
F19
F19
F19
F19
F19
F19
F19
F19
F19
F19
39
-------
Class
Family
Esocidae
162137
Cyprinidae
163342
Catostomidae
163892
Ictaluridae
163995
Species
Common Name
Northern pike
Chiselmouth
Longfin dace
Central stoneroller
Goldfish
Common carp
Zebra danio
Zebrafish*
Silverjaw minnow
Golden shiner
Pugnose shiner
Emerald shiner
Striped shiner
Common shiner
Pugnose minnow
Spottail shiner
Red shiner
Spotfin shiner
Sand shiner
Steelcolor shiner
Northern redbelly dace
Bluntnose minnow
Fathead minnow
Northern squawfish
Blacknose dace
Speckled dace
Bitterling
Rudd
Creek chub
Pearl dace
Tench
White sucker
Mountain sucker
Black bullhead
Yellow bullhead
Brown bullhead
Channel catfish
Scientific Name
Esox lucius
Acrocheilus alutaceus
Agosia chrysogaster
Campostoma anomalum
Carassius auratus
Cyprinus carpio
Danio rerior
Brachydanio rerio f
Notropis buccatus
Ericymba buccata'
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Notropis anogenus
Notropis atherinoides
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Notropis chrysocephalus'
Luxilus corn ut us
Notropis cornutus'
Opsopoeodus emiliae
Notropis emiliae'
Notropis hudsonius
Cyprinella lutrensis
Notropis lutrensis'
Cyprinella spiloptera
Notropis spilopterus
Notropis stramineus
Cyprinella whipplei
Notropis whipplei
Phoxinus eos
Pimephales notatus
Pimephales promelas
Ptychocheilus oregonensis
Rhinichthys atratulus
Rhinichthys osculus
Rhodeus sericeus
Scardinius erythrophthalmus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Margariscus margarita
Semotilus margarita
Tinea tinea
Catostomus commersoni
Catostomus platyrhynchus
Ameiurus me/as
Ictalurus me/as*
Ameiurus natalis
Ictalurus natalis'
Ameiurus nebulosus
Ictalurus nebulosus'
Ictalurus punctatus
Reference
F20
F21
F21
F21
F21
F21
nonresident
F96
F21
F23
F23
F23
F23
F23
F24
F24
F24
F25
F25
F25
F25
F25
F25
F25
F25
F25
F26
F26
F26
F26
F26
F26
F26
F27
F27
F27
F27
40
-------
Class
Amphibia
173420
Family
Clariidae
164118
Adrianichthyidae
(Formerly Oryziidae)
165623
Cyprinodontidae
165629
Poeciliidae
165876
Gasterosteidae
166363
Percichthyidae
170315
Centrarchidae
168093
Percidae
168356
Sciaenidae
169237
Cichlidae
169770
Cottidae
167196
Ranidae
173433
Species
Common Name
Walking catfish
Medaka
Banded killifish
Flagfish
Mosquitofish
Amazon molly
Sailfin molly
Molly
Guppy
Southern platyfish
Brook stickleback
Threespine stickleback
Ninespine stickleback
White perch
Striped bass
Rock bass
Green sunfish
Pumpkinseed
Orangespotted sunfish
Bluegill
Longear sunfish
Redear sunfish
Smallmouth bass
Largemouth bass
White crappie
Black crappie
Rainbow darter
Johnny darter
Orangethroat darter
Yellow perch
Walleye
Freshwater drum
Oscar
Blue tilapia
Mozambique tilapia
Mottled sculpin
Bullfrog
Green frog
Scientific Name
Clarias batrachus
Oryzias latipef
Fundulus diaphanus
Jordan el la floridae
Gambusia affinis
Poecilia formosa
Poecilia latipinna
Poecilia sp.
Poecilia reticulata
(Lebistes reticulatus, Obs.J
Xiphophorus maculatus
Culaea inconstans
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Pungitius pungitius
Morone americana
(Roccus americanus, Obs.J
Morone saxatilis
(Roccus saxatilis, Obs.J
Ambloplites rupestris
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepomis humilis
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis megalotis
Lepomis microlophus
Micropterus dolomieui
Micropterus salmoides
Pomoxis annularis
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma nigrum
Etheostoma spectabile
Perca flavescens
Sander vitreus
Stizostedion vitreum vitreum
Aplodinotus grunniens
Astronotus ocellatus
Tilapia a urea
Oreochromis mossambicus
Tilapia mossambica
Cottus bairdi
Rana catesbeiana
Rana clamitans
Reference
F28
nonresident
F96
F33
F33
F33
F34
F34
F34
F34
F35
F35
F35
F36
F36
F38
F38
F38
F38
F38
F38
F38
F39
F39
F39
F39
F39
F40
F40
F41
F41
F45
F47
F47
F47
F60
B206
B206
41
-------
Class
Family
Microhylidae
173465
Bufonidae
173471
Hylidae
173497
Pipidae
173547
Ambystomatidae
173588
Salamandridae
173613
Species
Common Name
Pig frog
River frog
Leopard frog
Wood frog
Frog
Leopard frog
Eastern narrow-
mouthed
toad
American toad
Toad
Green toad
Fowler's toad
Red-spotted toad
Woodhouse's toad
Northern cricket frog
Southern gray treefrog
Spring creeper
Barking treefrog
Squirrel treefrog
Gray treefrog
Northern chorus frog
African clawed frog
Spotted salamander
Mexican axolotl
Marbled salamander
Newt
Scientific Name
Lithobates grylio
Rana grylio
Rana heckscheri
Rana pipiens
Rana sylvatica
Rana temporia?
Lithobates sphenocephalus
sphenocephalus
(Formerly Rana spenocephala)
Gastrophryne carolinensis
Anaxyrus americanus americanus
Bufo americanus'
Bufo bufoT
Anaxyrus debilis debilis
Bufo debilis'
Anaxyrus fowleri
Bufo fowleri'
Anaxyrus punctatus
Bufo punctatus'
Anaxyrus woodhousii woodhousii
Bufo woodhousii"
Acris crepitans
Hyla chrysoscelis
Pseudacris crucifer
Hyla crucifer
Hyla gratiosa
Hyla squirella
Hyla versicolor
Pseudacris triseriata
Xenopus laevis
Ambystoma maculatum
Ambystoma mexicanumf
Ambystoma opacum
Notophthalmus viridescens
Triturus viridescens
Reference
B206
B206
B205
B206
nonresident
JJ
B192
B196
nonresident
B197
B196
B198
B196
B203
B201
B202
B201
B201
B200
B202
Z16
B176
nonresident
B176
B179
Footnotes for Freshwater Species
1 Apparently this is an outdated name (D19, 20). Organisms identified as such should only be used if they were obtained from
North America.
2 Apparently this is an outdated name (D19, 20). Organisms identified as such should only be used if they were obtained from
North America.
3 If from North America, it is resident and should be called D. similis (C). If not from North America, it should be considered
nonresident.
4 If from North America, it is resident and may be any one of a number of species such as D. laevie, D. dubia, or D. galeate
mendoca (C). If not from North America, it should be considered nonresident.
42
-------
If from North America, it is resident and may be any one of a number of species such as D. ambigua, D. longiremis, or D. rosea
(C). If not from North America, it should be considered nonresident.
6 This species might be established in portions of the southern United States.
7 The taxonomy of this species and this and similar genera has not been clarified, but this species should be considered resident.
References for Freshwater Species
A) Brandlova, I, Z. Brandl, and C.H. Fernando. 1972. The Cladocera of Ontario with remarks on some species
and distribution. Can. J. Zool. 50: 1373-1403.
B) W. F., et al. 1968. Vertebrates of the United States. 2nd Ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
C) Brooks, J.L. 1957. The Systematics of North American Daphnia. Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of
Arts and Sciences, Vol. XIII.
D) Kenk, R. 1972. Freshwater Planarians (Turbellaria) of North America. Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems
Identification Manual No. l.U.S. G.P.O #5501-0365.
E) Edmondson, W.T. (ed.) 1965. Fresh-water Biology. 2nd Ed. Wiley, New 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) N. 1972. Freshwater Polychaetes (Annelida) of North America. Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems
Identification Manual No. 4. U.S. G.P.O. #5501-0368.
I) Williams, W. D. 1972. Freshwater Isopods (Asellidae) of North America. Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems
Identification Manual No. 7. U.S. G.P.O. #5501-0390.
J) Burch, J. B. 1973. Freshwater Unionacean Clams (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of North 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. H. 1973. The Freshwater Molluscs of the Canadian Interior Basin. Malacologia 13:1-509.
N) Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1975. Aquatic Insects of Wisconsin. Technical BulletinNo. 89. Dept. of Natural Resources.
Madison, Wisconsin.
O) 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.
R) Johannsen, O.A. 1937. Aquatic Diptera. Part IV. Chironomidae: Subfamily Chironominal. Memoir 210.
Cornell Univ. Agricultural Experimental Station, Ithaca, NY.
S) Burks, B.D. 1953. The Mayflies, or Ephemeroptera, of Illinois. Bulletin of the Natural History Survey
Division. Urbana, Illinois.
43
-------
T) Bousfield, E.L. 1973. Shallow-Water Gammaridean Amphipods of New England. Cornell University Press,
Ithaca, New York.
U) Sohn, I. G., and L. S. Kornicker. 1973. Morphology of Cypretta kcnvatai Sohn and Kornicker, 1972
(Crustacea, Ostracoda), with a Discussion of the Genus. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 141.
V) Needham, J. G., and M. J. Westfall, Jr. 1955. A Manual of the 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 the Freshwater Snail Leptoxis (Mudalia) carinata (Bruguiere). Annals of the
Carnegie Museum 33: 391-405.
Y) Myers, F.J. 1931. The Distribution of Rotifera 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) Home, F.R., and S. Mclntosh. 1979. Factors Influencing Distribution of Mussels in the Blanco River in
Central Texas. Nautilus 94: 119-133.
BB) Klemm, 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. H. 1935; The Stoneflies, or Plecoptera, of Illinois. Bull. 111. Nat. History Survey, Vol. 20, Article 4.
DD) White, A. M. Manuscript. John Carroll University, University Heights, Ohio.
EE) Darsie, R.F., Jr., and R.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 Amphipod Crustaceans (Gammaridae) of North America. Biota of
Freshwater Ecosystems Identification Manual No. 5. U.S.G.P.O. #5501-0369.
GG) Chapman, P. H., et al. 1982. Relative Tolerances of Selected Aquatic Oligochaetes to 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.
II) Wiggens, G.B. 1977. Larvae of the North American Caddisfly Genera (Tricoptera). University of Toronto
Press, Toronto, Canada.
JJ) Hall, R. J. and D. Swineford. 1980. Toxic Effects of Endrin and Toxaphene on the Southern Leopard Frog
Rana sphenocephala. Environ. Pollut. (Series A) 23: 53-65.
44
-------
Saltwater Species Table
Synonyms appear after the official Scientific Name and are marked with an asterisk (*).
Non-resident species are noted in the Reference column and are marked with a dagger (
Class
Family
Phylum: Cnidaria (Coelenterata) (48738)
Hydroza
48739
Phylum: CtenoDhora (538J
Tentaculata
53858
Campanulariidae
49470
Campanulinidae
49756
Species
Common Name
Scientific Name
Reference
Hydro id
Hydro id
Hydromedusa
Hydro id
Campanularia flexiosa
Campanularia flexuosa™
Laomedea lovenin
Phialidium sp.
Eirene viridular
B122, E81
nonresident
i
(E81)
nonresident
6)
Pleurobrachiidae
53860
Mnemiidae
53915
Phylum: Nemertea (Rhvnchocoela) (57411)
Heteronemertea
57438
Lineidae
57443
Phylum: Rotifera (Rotatoria) (58239)
Monogononta
58342
Phylum: Annelida (64357)
Polychaeta
64358
Brachionidae
58344
Ctenophore
Ctenophore
Pleurobrachia pileus
Mnemiopsis mccradyi
B218, E162
C39, I94
Nemertine worm
Cerebratulus fuscus
B252
Rotifer
Brachionus plicatilis
B272
Phyllodocidae
65228
Nereididae
(Nereidae)
65870
Dorvilleidae
66478
Spionidae
66781
Cirratulidae
67116
Ctenodrilidae
67217
Capitellidae
67413
Arenicolidae
67500
Polychaete worm
Polychaete worm
Polychaete worm
Polychaete worm
Sand worm
Polychaete worm
Polychaete worm
Polychaete worm
Polychaete worm
Polychaete worm
Polychaete worm
Polychaete worm
Polychaete worm
Phyllodoce maculata
Anaitides maculata'
Nereiphylla maculata'
Neanthes arenaceodentata
Nereis arenaceodentata'
Neanthes vaalif
Nereis diversicolor
Neanthes diversicolor
Nereis virens
Neanthes virens
Nereis sp.
Ophryotrocha diadema
Ophryotrocha labronicaf
Ophryotrocha labrunica'f
Polydora websteri
Cirriformia spirabranchia
Ctenodrilus serratus
Capitella capitata
Arenicola marina
E334
E377
nonresident
E337, F527
B317, E337, C58
P23
nonresident
E338
G253
G275
B358, E337
B369, E337
Synonym
Non-resident species
45
-------
Class
Oligochaeta
68422
Phylum: Mollusca (69458)
Gastropoda
69459
Bivalvia
(Pelecypoda)
79118
Family
Sabellidae
68076
Tubificidae
68585
Species
Common Name
Polycheate worm
Oligochaete worm
Oligochaete worm
Oligochaete worm
Scientific Name
Eudistylia Vancouver!
Limnodriloides verrucosus
Monopylephorus cuticulatus
Peloscolex gabriellae
Tubificoides gabriellae"
Reference
DD
Z
Z
Z
Haliotididae
566897
Calyptraeidae
72611
Muricidae
73236
Melongenidae
(Neptuneidae)
74069
Nassariidae
(Nassidae)
74102
Mytilidae
79451
Pectinidae
79611
Ostreidae
79866
Cardiidae
80865
Mactridae
80942
Tellinidae
81032
Veneridae
81439
Myidae
81688
Black abalone
Red abalone
Common Atlantic
slippershell
Oyster drill
Channeled whelk
Mud snail
Northern horse mussel
Blue mussel
Mediterranean mussel
Bay scallop
Pacific oyster
Eastern oyster
Oyster
Oyster
Cockle
Clam
Common rangia
Surf clam
Clam
Bivalve
Quahog clam
Common Pacific littleneck
Japanese littleneck clam
Soft-shell clam
Haliotis cracherodii
Haliotis rufescens
Crepidula fornicata
Urosalpinx cinerea
Urosalpinx cinereus"
Busycotypus canaliculatus
(Formerly Busycon canaliculatum)
Nassarius obsoletus
Nassa obsoleta'
Icyanassa obsoleta"
Modiolus modiolus
Mytilus edulis
Mytilus galloprovincialisr
Argopecten irradians
Crassostrea gigas
Crassostrea virginica
Crassostrea sp.
Ostrea edulis
Cerastoderma edulef
Cardium edule f
Mulinia lateralis
Rangia cuneata
Spisula solidissima
Macoma inquinata
Tellina tenuisr
Mercenaria mercenaria
Protothaca staminea
Tapes philippinarum
Mya arenaria
C88, D17
D18
C90, D141
B646, D179, E264
B655, D223, E264
B649, D226, E264
D434
B566, C101, D428,
E299
nonresident
D447
C102, D456, E300
D456, E300
1
E300
nonresident
D491
D491 , E301
B599, D489, E301
D507
nonresident
D523, E301
D526
D527
B602, D536, E302
Phylum: Arthropoda (82696)
Merostomata
82698
Branchiopoda
(Formerly Crustacea)
83687
Maxillopoda
(Formerly Crustacea)
621145
Limulidae
82701
Artemiidae
83689
Calanidae
85259
Eucalanidae
85299
Pseudocalanidae
85351
Horseshoe crab
Brine shrimp
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Limulus polyphemus
Artemia salinaf
Calanus helgolandicus
Undinula vulgaris
Eucalanus elongatus
Subeucalanus pileatus
Eucalanus pileatus
Pseudocalanus minutus
B533, E403, H30
2
nonresident
Q25
Q29
AA
AA
E447, 1155, Q43
46
-------
Class
Malacostraca
(Formerly Crustacea)
89787
Family
Euchaetidae
85524
Metridinidae
(Formerly Metridiidae)
593501
Pseudodiaptomidae
85847
Temoridae
85855
Pontellidae
86038
Acartiidae
86083
Harpacticidae
86329
Tisbidae
86444
Ameiridae
(Formerly
Canthocamptidae)
86999
Archaeobalanidae
(Formerly Balanidae)
89681
Balanidae
89599
Mysidae
89856
Idoteidae
92564
Janiridae
92810
Ampeliscidae
93320
Eusiridae
(Pontogeneiidae)
93681
Gammaridae
93745
Uristadae
(Formerly Lysianassidae)
621432
Euphausiidae
(Thysanopodidae)
95500
Penaeidae
Species
Common Name
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Barnacle
Barnacle
Barnacle
Barnacle
Mysid
Mysid
Mysid
Mysid
Isopod
Isopod
Isopod
Isopod
Isopod
Isopod
Amphipod
Amphipod
Amphipod
Amphipod
Amphipod
Amphipod
Amphipod
Amphipod
Euphausiid
Brown shrimp
Scientific Name
Euchaeta marina
Metridia pacifica
Pseudodiaptomus coronatus
Eurytemora affinis
Labidocera scoff/
Acartia clausi
Acartia tonsa
Tigriopus californicus
Tigriopus japanicusr
Tisbe holothuriae
Nitokra spinipes
Nitocra spinipe'
Semibalanus balanoides
Balanus balanoides
Balanus crenatus
Balanus eburneus
Balanus improvisus
Heteromysis formosa
Americamysis bahia
Mysidopsis bahia
Americamysis bigelowi
Mysidopsis bigelowi
Neomysis sp.
Idotea balthica^
Idothea baltica'
Idotea emarginataf
Idotea neglectaf
Jaera albifrons?
Jaera albifrons sensuf
Jaera nordmannir
Ampelisca abdita
Pontogeneia sp.
Gammarus duebeni
Gammarus oceanicus
Gammarus tigrinus
Gammarus zaddachif
Marinogammarus obtusatus
Anonyx sp.
Euphausia pacifica
Penaeus aztecus
Reference
Q63
X179, Y
E447, 1154, Q101
E450, 1155, Q1 11
R157
E447
E447, 1154
J78
nonresident
BB
Q240
B424, E457
B426, E457
B424, E457
B426, E457
E51 3, K720
U173
E51 3, K720
1
B446, E483
nonresident
nonresident
nonresident
nonresident
nonresident
E488, L1 36
1
L56
E489, L50
L51
nonresident
L58
1
M15
E518, N17
47
-------
Class
Phylum: Echinodermata ('
Asteroidea
156862
Ophiuroidea
157325
Echinoidea
157821
Family
95602
Palaemonidae
96213
Hippolytidae
96746
Pandalidae
96965
Crangonidae
97106
Nephropidae
(Homaridae)
97307
Paguridae
97774
Cancridae
98670
Portunidae
98689
Xanthidae
(Pilumnidae)
98748
Varunidae
(formerly Grapsidae)
621521
Sesarmidae
(formerly Grapsidae)
621520
Ocypodidae
99080
Species
Common Name
Pink shrimp
White shrimp
Blue Shrimp
Shrimp
Prawn
Prawn
Korean shrimp
Grass shrimp
Grass shrimp
Sargassum shrimp
Coon stripe shrimp
Shrimp
Pink shrimp
Sand shrimp
Bay shrimp
Shrimp
Sand shrimp
American lobster
European lobster
Hermit crab
Rock crab
Dungeness crab
Blue crab
Green crab
Mud crab
Crab
Mud crab
Shore crab
Shore crab
Drift line crab
Crab
Fiddler crab
Scientific Name
Penaeus duorarum
Penaeus setiferus
Penaeus stylirostrisr
Leander paucidensr
Leander squillaf
Palaemon elegans"f
Macrobrachium rosenbergii
Palaemon macrodactylus
Palaemonetes pugio
Palaemonetes vulgaris
Latreutes fucorum
Pandalus danae
Pandalus goniurus
Pandalus montagui
Crangon crangon?
Crangon franciscorum
Crago franciscorum'
Crangon nigricauda
Crangon septemspinosa
Homarus americanus
Homarus gammarusr
Pagurus longicarpus
Cancer irroratus
Cancer magister
Callinectes sapidus
Carcinus maenas
Eurypanopeus depressus
Leptodius floridanus
Rhithropanopeus harrisii
Hemigrapsus nudus
Hemigrapsus oregonensis
Armases cinereum
(Sesarma cinereum)
Sesarma haematocheir?
Uca pugilator
Reference
E518, N17
E518, N17
nonresident
nonresident
nonresident
'6
T380
E521 , N59
B500, E521 , N56
N78
T306, W1 63
W163
B494, E522, W163
nonresident
V176, W164
V176, W164
B500, E522
B502, E532
nonresident
B514, E537, N125
B518, E543, N175
T166, V185, W177
B521 , C80, E543,
N168
C80, E543
B522, E543, N195
S80
E543, N187
CC
CC
B526, E544, N222
nonresident
B526, E544, N232
56857)
Asteriidae
157212
Ophiothricidae
157792
Arbaciidae
157904
Toxopneustidae
157919
Echinidae
157940
Echinometridae
157955
Starfish
Brittle star
Sea urchin
Sea urchin
Sea urchin
Sea urchin
[chinoderm
Coral reef echinoid
Asterias forbesi
Ophiothrix spiculata
Arbacia lixulaf
Arbacia punctulata
Lytechinus pictus
Pseudocentrotus depressusr
Paracentrotus lividusf
Echinometra mathaeir
B728, E578, O392
O672, T526
nonresident
B762, E572
T253
nonresident
nonresident
nonresident
[Hawaii only]
48
-------
Class
Phylum: Chaetoqnatha (15
Sagittoidea
158655
Phylum: Chordata (158852
Chondrichthyes
159785
Actinopterygii
(Formerly Osteichthyes)
161061
Family
Strongylocentrotidae
157965
Dendrasteridae
158008
Species
Common Name
Sea urchin
Sand dollar
Scientific Name
Strongylocentrotus purpuratus
Dendraster excentricus
Reference
O574, T202
0537, V363
8650)
Sagittidae
158726
Arrow worm
Ferosagitta hispida
Sagitta hispida'
E218
)
Rajidae
160845
Anguillidae
161125
Clupeidae
161700
Engraulidae
5531 73
Salmonidae
161931
Gadidae
164701
Cyprinodontidae
165629
Poeciliidae
165876
Atherinidae
165984
Gasterosteidae
166363
Syngnathidae
166443
Percichthyidae
170315
Kuhliidae
168083
Carangidae
168584
Thornback ray
American eel
Atlantic menhaden
Gulf menhaden
Atlantic herring
Pacific herring
Herring
Northern anchovy
Nehu
Pink salmon
Chum salmon
Coho salmon
Sockeye salmon
Chinook salmon
Rainbow trout
(Steelhead trout)
Atlantic salmon
Atlantic cod
Haddock
Sheepshead minnow
Mummichog
Striped killifish
Longnose killifish
Mosquitofish
Sailfin molly
Inland silverside
Atlantic silverside
Tidewater silverside
Threespine stickleback
Fourspine stickleback
Northern pipefish
Striped bass
Mountain bass
Florida Pompano
Raja clavataf
Anguilla rostrata
Brevoortia tyrannus
Brevoortia patronus
Clupea harengus
Clupea harengus harengus
Clupea pallasii
Clupea harengus pallasii'
Clupea harengus
Engraulis mordax
Encrasicholina purpurea?
tolephorus purpureus f
Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
Oncorhynchus keta
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Oncorhynchus nerka
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus mykiss
(Formerly Salmo gairdneri)
Salmo salar
Gadus morhua
Melanogrammus aeglefinus
Cyprinodon variegatus
Fundulus heteroclitus
Fundulus majalis
Fundulus si mil is
Gambusia affinis
Poecilia latipinna
Menidia beryllina
Menidia menidia
Menidia peninsulae
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Apeltes quadracus
Syngnathus fuscus
Morone saxatilis
(Roccus saxatilis, Obs.J
Kuhlia sandvicensisf
Trachinotus carolinus
nonresident
A15
A17
A17
A17
A17
A17
A18
nonresident
[Hawaii only]
A18
A18
A18
A19
A19
A19
A19
A30
A30
A33
A33
A33
A33
A33
A34
A34
A34
A34
A35
A35
A36
A36
nonresident
[Hawaii only]
A43
49
-------
Class
Family
Sparidae
169180
Sciaenidae
169237
Embiotocidae
169735
Pomacentridae
170044
Labridae
170477
Mugilidae
170333
Ammodytidae
171670
Gobiidae
171746
Cottidae
167196
Bothidae
172714
Pleuronectidae
172859
Balistidae
173128
Tetraodontidae
173283
Species
Common Name
Pinfish
Spot
Atlantic croaker
Red drum
Shiner perch
Dwarf perch
Blacksmith
Gunner
Bluehead
Mullet
Striped mullet
White mullet
Pacific sand lance
Longjaw mudsucker
Naked goby
Tidepool sculpin
Speckled sanddab
Summer Flounder
Dab
Plaice
English sole
Winter flounder
Planehead filefish
Northern puffer
Scientific Name
Lagodon rhomboides
Leiostomus xanthurus
Micropogonias undulatus
Sciaenops ocellatus
Cymatogaster aggregate
Micrometrus minimus
Chromis punctipinnis
Tautogolabrus adspersus
Thalassoma bifasciatum
Aldrichetta forsteri?
Mugil cephalus
Mugil curema
Ammodytes hexapterus
Gillichthys mirabilis
Gobiosoma bosci
Oligocottus maculosus
Citharichthys stigmaeus
Paralichthys dentatus
Limanda limanda?
Pleuronectes platessa?
Parophrys vetulus
Pseudopleuronectes americanus
Monacanthus hispidus
Sphoeroides maculatus
Reference
A45
A46
A46
A46
A47
A48
A48
A49
A49
nonresident
A49
A49
A53
A54
A54
A61
A64
A64
nonresident
nonresident
A65
A65
A66
A66
50
-------
Footnotes for Saltwater Species
1 Organisms not identified to species are considered resident only if obtained from wild populations in North America.
2 This species should not be used because it might be too atypical.
3 This species might be established in portions of the southern United States.
References for Saltwater Species
A) Committee on Names of Fishes. 1980. AListof Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United
States and Canada. 4th Ed. Special Publication No. 12. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
B) Miner, R. W. 1950. Field Book of Seashore Life. Van Rees Press, New York.
C) George, D., and J. George. 1979. Marine Life: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Invertebrates in the Sea. Wiley-
Interscience, 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 Hatteras to the Bay of
Fundy. Wiley-Interscience, New York; Gosner, K.L. 1979. A Field Guide to the Atlantic Seashore. Houghton
Mifflin, Boston.
F) Hartmann, O. 1968. Atlas of the Errantiate Polychaetous Annelids from California. Allan Hancock
Foundation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
G) Hartmann, O. 1969. Atlas of the Sedentariate Polychaetous Annelids from California. Allan Hancock
Foundation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
H) Cooley, N.R. 1978. An Inventory of the Estuarine Fauna in the Vicinity of Pensacola, Florida. Florida Marine
Research Publication No. 31. Florida Department of Natural Resources, St. Petersburg, Florida.
I) Zingmark, R.G. (ed.) 1978. An Annotated Checklist of the Biota of the Coastal Zone of South Carolina.
University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina.
J) Monk, C.R. 1941. Marine Harpacticoid Copepods from California. Trans. Amer. Microsc. Soc. 60:75-99.
K) Wigley, R., and B.R. Burns. 1971. Distribution and Biology of Mysids (Crustacea, Mysidacea) from the
Atlantic Coast of the United States in the NMFS Woods Hole Collection. Fish. Bull. 69(4):717-746.
L) Bousfield, E.L. 1973. Shallow-Water Gammaridean Amphipoda of New England. Cornell University Press.
Ithaca, New York.
M) Ponomareva, L.A. Euphausids of the North Pacific, their Distribution, and Ecology. Jerusalem: Israel
Program for Scientific Translations. 1966. Translated from the Russian by S. Nemchonok. TT65-50098.
NTIS, Springfield, VA.
N) Williams, A.B. 1965. Marine Decapod Crustaceans of the Carolinas. Fish. Bull. 65(l):l-298.
O) Hyman, L.H. 1955. The Invertebrates: Echinodermata. Vol. IV. McGraw-Hill, New York.
P) Akesson, B. 1976. Morphology and Life Cycle of Ophryotrocha diadema, a New Polychaete Species from
California. Ophelia 15(1): 23-25.
Q) Wilson, C.B. 1932. The Copepods of the Woods Hole Region, Massachusetts. U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 158: 1-
635.
R) Fleminger, A. 1956. Taxonomic and Distributional Studies on the Epiplanktonic Calanoid Copepods
(Crustacea) of the Gulf of Mexico. Dissertation. Harvard University, Cambridge.
S) Menzel, R.W. 1956. Annotated Checklist of the Marine Fauna and Flora of the St. George 's Sound -
Apalachee Bay region, Florida Gulf Coast. Contrib. No. 61. Fla. State Univ. Oceanogr. Inst.
51
-------
T) Ricketts, E.F., and J. Calvin. (Revised by Joel W. Hedgpeth). 1968. Between Pacific Tides. Stanford
University Press, Stanford, California.
U) Price, W.W. 1978. Occurrence ofMysidopsis almyra Bowman, M. bahia Molenock and Bowmaniella
brasiliensis Bacescu (Crustacea, Mysidacea) from the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Gulf Res. Reports 6(2): ITS-
ITS.
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, the San Juan Archipelago, and
Adjacent Regions. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.
X) Calcofi Atlas. No. 19. California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations, State of California Marine
Research Committee. Pp. 179-185.
Y) Brodskii, K.A. 1967. Calanoida of the Far Eastern Seas and Polar Basin of the U.S.S.R. Jerusalem Series,
Keys to the Fauna of the U.S.S.R. Zoological Inst, Academy Sciences, U.S.S.R. No. 35.
Z) Chapman, P.M., et al. 1982. Relative Tolerances of Selected Aquatic Oligochaetes to Individual Pollutants
and Environmental Factors. Aquatic Toxicology 2: 47-67.
AA) Venkataramiak, A., et al. 1982. Studies on Toxicity of OTEC Plant Components onEucalanus sp. from the
Gulf of Mexico. Ocean Science and Engineering.
BB) Zingmank, R.G. (ed.). 1978. An Annotated Checklist of the Biota of the Coastal Zone of South Carolina.
University of South Carolina Press.
CC) Thatcher, T.O 1978. The Relative Sensitivity of Pacific Northwest Fishes and Invertabrates 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.
DD) Young, J.S., et al. 1979. Effects of Copper on the Sabelled Polychaete, Eudistylia vancouveri: I.
Concentration Limits for Copper Accumulation. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 8: 97-106.
52
-------
Appendix 2. Example Calculation of Final Acute Value, Computer
Program, and Printouts
A. Example Calculation
N = total number of MAVs in data set = 8
Rank
4
3
2
1
MAV
6.4
6.2
4.8
0.4
In(MAV)
1.8563
1.8245
1.5686
-0.9163
In(MAV)2
3.4458
3.3290
2.4606
0.8396
P = R / (N+l)
0.44444
0.33333
0.22222
0.11111
V?
0.66667
0.57735
0.47140
0.33333
Sum 4.3331 10.0750 1.11110 2.04875
, 10.0750 -(4.3331W4
S2= =87.134
1.11110-(2.04875)2/4
8 = 9.3346
L = [ 4.3331 - (9.3346)(2.04875)] / 4 = -3.6978
A = (9.3346) (Vo~05 ) - 3.6978 = -1.6105
FAV = e'1'6105 = 0.1998
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 = 1 TO 4
110 INPUT V
53
-------
120 X = X + LOG(V)
130 X2 = X2 + (LOG(V)) * (LOG(V))
140 P = R / (N + 1)
150 Y2 = Y2 + P
160 Y = Y + SQR((X2 - X * X / 4))
170 NEXT R
180 S = SQR((X2 - X * X / 4) / (Y2 - Y * Y / 4))
190 L = (X - S * Y) / 4
200 A = S * SQR(O.OS) + 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
54
------- |