Ambient Water Quality Criteria:Protectiveness of Threatened
and Endangered (T&E) Speciesand Aquatic-dependent Wildlife
David DeForest1, Robert Gensemer2, CarrieClaytor2, Steven Canton2, Robert Santore1
1 Windward Environmental2 GEI Consultants
Outline
• Current EPA guidance on AWQC and T&Especies
• Example: Cyanide AWQC and protectivenessof T&E species and aquatic-dependent wildlife
• Summary and further considerations
September 2015 2
1985 AWQC Guidelines
• “…if the Species Mean Acute Value of acommercially or recreationally importantspecies is lower than the calculated FinalAcute Value, then that Species Mean AcuteValue replaces the calculated Final AcuteValue in order to provide protection for thatimportant species”
September 2015 3
September 2015 4
Tanytarsus
Asellus
Physa
Pteronarcys
Carassius
Gammarus
Poecilia
Pimephales
Daphnia
Micropterus
Pomoxis
Lepomis
Perca
Salvelinus
Salmo*
FinalAcuteValue
RainbowTroutSMAV
CyanideCMC
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
10 100 1000 10000
Pe
rce
nti
le
Cyanide, µg/L
* In 1984 Salmo included rainbow trout, whichis now in the genus Oncorhynchus
Freshwater AWQC for Cyanide
EPA’s Water Quality Standards Handbook
• “A critical species is a species that is commerciallyor recreationally important at the site, a speciesthat exists at the site and is listed as threatenedor endangered under section 4 of theEndangered Species Act, or a species for whichthere is evidence that the loss of the species fromthe site is likely to cause an unacceptable impacton a commercially or recreationally importantspecies, a threatened or endangered species, theabundances of a variety of other species, or thestructure or function of the community."
September 2015 5
Freshwater AWQC for Ammonia
• Explicitly evaluates whether AWQC areprotective of “listed” T&E species
• Acute criterion dataset – 12 listed species
• Chronic criterion dataset – 3 listed species
– Plus 3 other studies with supporting chronictoxicity information
September 2015 6
Draft Freshwater AWQC for Selenium
• “An EC10 based on only one partial responsewould not ordinarily be included in the chronicdata set, but there are supporting data thatsuggest the federally-listed threatened speciesgreen sturgeon is also sensitive to selenium…Thisspecies [white sturgeon]…is listed as endangeredin specific locations, such as the Kootenai Riverwhite sturgeon in Idaho and Montana. The whitesturgeon is also a taxonomic surrogate for otherfreshwater sturgeon species (e.g., shovelnosesturgeon) that are threatened or endangered."
September 2015 7
Example of Aquatic Life T&EEvaluation for Cyanide
September 2015 8
September 2015 9
• Updated cyanide toxicitydatabase
• Proposed updates tocyanide AWQC
• Evaluated protectivenessof:– T&E aquatic life
– Aquatic-dependentwildlife
Cyanide Criteria
• Current AWQC (1984)
– Acute: 22 µg/L
– Chronic: 5.2 µg/L
• Fish more sensitive than invertebrates
– Amphibian data lacking
• Evaluation focused on T&E fish species
September 2015 10
Exposure EPA Criteria (1984) Proposed Update
Acute 22 µg/L 23 µg/L
Chronic 5.2 µg/L 4.8 µg/L
Cyanide T&E Evaluation Framework
September 2015 11
Cyanide Toxicity Data for T&E Fish Species
September 2015 12
SpeciesExposureDuration Effect
Conc.(µg CN/L) Reference
O. kisutch 24 d Growth reduction 80 Leduc 1966
O. kisutch 194 h Reduced ability toswim against current
Control (8.72 min)10 (3.80 min)30 (1.85 min)50 (1.45 min)
Broderius 1970
O. tshawytscha 2 mo Reduced biomass 20 Negilski 1973
Proposed updated acute criterion = 23 µg/LProposed updated chronic criterion = 4.8 µg/L
Cyanide T&E Evaluation Framework
September 2015 13
Cyanide Toxicity Data for T&E Surrogate Fish Species
September 2015 14
T&E Family Types of Fish Species With CN Toxicity Data Available
Ictaluridae Catfish Ameiurus melas (black bullhead); Ictalurus punctatus (channelcatfish)
Amblyopsidae Cavefish None
Cyprinidae Chub, dace, shiner,pikeminnow,woundfin
Carassius auratus (goldfish); Pimephales promelas (fatheadminnow); Rhinichthys atratulus (blacknose dace);Notemigonus crysoleucas (golden shiner)
Catostimidae Cui-ui, suckers None
Percidae Darters Perca flavescens (yellow perch)
Poecilidae Gambusia Poecilia reticulata (guppy)
Gobiidae Goby None
Cyprinodontidae Poolfish, pupfish,springfish
None
Salmonidae Salmon, trout Oncorhynchus mykiss (rainbow trout); Salmo salar (Atlanticsalmon); Salvelinus fontinalis (brook trout)
Cottidae Sculpin None
Gasterostidae Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus (threespine stickleback)
Acipenseridae Sturgeon None
Cyanide Toxicity Data for T&E SurrogateFish Species: Acute Toxicity
September 2015 15
Acute
Criterion
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Cyanide, µg/L
Cu
mu
lati
ve
Mo
rta
lity
I. punctatus
P. promelas
C. auratus
P. flavescens
Cyanide Toxicity Data for T&E SurrogateFish Species: Acute Toxicity for Salmonids
September 2015 16
Acute
Criterion
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Cyanide, µg/L
Cu
mu
lati
ve
Mo
rta
lity
S. fontinalis - Smith et al. (1978)
O. mykiss - McGeachy and Leduc (1988)
O. mykiss - Kovacs and Leduc (1982) - T = 6°C
O. mykiss - Kovacs and Leduc (1982) - T = 12°C
O. mykiss - Kovacs and Leduc (1982) - T = 18°C
Cyanide Toxicity Data for T&E SurrogateFish Species: Chronic Toxicity
September 2015 17
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0.1 1 10 100
Me
an
nu
mb
er
of
via
ble
eg
gs
sp
aw
ne
dp
er
fem
ale
Cyanide, µg CN/L
Proposed UpdatedChronic Criterion =4.8 µg CN/L
EC20 = 6.0 µg CN/L
S. fontinalisFamily: Salmonidae
Cyanide Toxicity Data for T&E SurrogateFish Species: Chronic Toxicity
September 2015 18
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Me
an
nu
mb
er
of
eg
gs
sp
aw
ne
dp
er
fem
ale
Cyanide, µg CN/L
Proposed UpdatedChronic Criterion =4.8 µg CN/L
EC20 = 6.0 µg CN/L
P. promelasFamily: Cyprinidae
Cyanide T&E Evaluation Framework
September 2015 19
Cyanide Toxicity Data for T&E SurrogateFish Species: ICE Model
September 2015 20
Estimates “the acutetoxicity (LC50/LD50) of achemical to a species,genus, or family with notest data (the predictedtaxon) from the knowntoxicity of the chemical toa species with test data(the surrogate species)”
September 2015 21
Bluegill
Largemouth bass
Yellow perch
Brook trout
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Es
tim
ate
dC
ya
nid
eL
C5
0,µ
gC
N/L
Measured Cyanide SMAV, µg CN/L
703 571
Atlantic salmon
Fathead minnow
Sheepshead minnow
Goldfish
Measured vs. Estimated Cyanide Toxicity DataUsing ICE
Cyanide Toxicity Data for T&E Surrogate FishSpecies: ICE Results
September 2015 22
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Low
er
95%
CL
Expecte
dV
alu
e
Upper
95%
CL
Low
er
95%
CL
Expecte
dV
alu
e
Upper
95%
CL
Low
er
95%
CL
Expecte
dV
alu
e
Upper
95%
CL
Low
er
95%
CL
Expecte
dV
alu
e
Upper
95%
CL
Low
er
95%
CL
Expecte
dV
alu
e
Upper
95%
CL
Low
er
95%
CL
Expecte
dV
alu
e
Upper
95%
CL
Low
er
95%
CL
Expecte
dV
alu
e
Upper
95%
CL
Low
er
95%
CL
Expecte
dV
alu
e
Upper
95%
CL
Low
er
95%
CL
Expecte
dV
alu
e
Upper
95%
CL
Razorbacksucker
Bonytailchub
Cape Fearshiner
Fountaindarter
Apachetrout
Lahontancutthroat
trout
Cohosalmon
Chinooksalmon
Atlanticsalmon
Esti
ma
ted
Cy
an
ide
LC
50
or
LC
01
,µ
gC
N/L
LC50
LC01
Dashed Line =
Recalculated
CMC
Cyanide T&E Evaluation Framework
September 2015 23
Cyanide T&E Evaluation Conclusions
• Chronic criterion appears protective of certain sublethalendpoints for salmon
• Acute toxicity data for surrogate species suggest that T&Especies are adequately protected
• Chronic cyanide toxicity data for surrogate species suggestthere could be low levels of effects at the chronic criterion,although these were statistically insignificant
• ICE model corroborates the test data showing the rainbowtrout SMAV ÷ 2 to be protective of salmonids, percids,cyprinids, and ictalurids, and predicts it will also protectcyprinodontids
• Removal of coldwater species in Recalculation Procedureshould be done with caution because those species could besurrogates for other T&E species
September 2015 24
Example of Aquatic-dependentWildlife Evaluation for Cyanide
September 2015 25
Risk-based Evaluation for Wildlife• Problem Formulation
– Sublethal cyanide doses rapidly metabolized andexcreted
– Critical exposure pathway = surface water ingestion
• Exposure Characterization– Compile BW and WIR information for suite of birds and
mammals
• Effects Characterization– Safe cyanide dose = 0.01 mg CN/kgBW-d
• Risk Characterization– Evaluate protectiveness of cyanide AWQC
September 2015 26
September 2015 27
Risk-based Evaluation for Wildlife (cont.)
5th %ile =≥32 µg CN/L
Summary and Further Considerations
September 2015 28
Incorporate Risk-based Framework forT&E Evaluations in AWQC Documents• EPA already moving toward this• Use existing EPA guidance and tools to evaluate whether
aquatic life AWQC are protective of T&E species– Ecological risk assessment guidance– ICE model– Bioavailability models (e.g., biotic ligand model)
• Should additional toxicity endpoints be considered forT&E species?– Document state-of-the-science and methodology for
evaluation in analysis plan– Support T&E consultations and site-specific criteria
development
September 2015 29
Example: Copper and OlfactoryImpairment in Listed Pacific Salmon
• EPA’s recommended freshwater AWQC forcopper based on biotic ligand model (BLM)
– BLM accounts for bioavailability of copper overwide range of water chemistry conditions
• Concerns that copper AWQC are notprotective against olfactory impairment inlisted fish species (e.g., salmon)
– Copper bioavailability generally not accounted forin olfactory protectiveness evaluations
September 2015 30
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
OlfactoryIC20
CMC CCC OlfactoryIC20
CMC CCC
Dis
so
lve
dC
op
pe
r,µ
g/L
DOC = 0.11 mg/LHardness = 30 mg/LpH =7.5
Copper AWQC and Olfactory ImpairmentOlfactory data from:McIntyre et al. 2008. ES&T 42:1352-8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
OlfactoryIC20
CMC CCC OlfactoryIC20
CMC CCC
Dis
so
lve
dC
op
pe
r,µ
g/L
DOC = 0.11 mg/LHardness = 30 mg/LpH =7.5
Copper AWQC and Olfactory ImpairmentOlfactory data from:McIntyre et al. 2008. ES&T 42:1352-8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
OlfactoryIC20
CMC CCC OlfactoryIC20
CMC CCC
Dis
so
lve
dC
op
pe
r,µ
g/L
DOC = 0.11 mg/LHardness = 30 mg/LpH =7.5
DOC = 2.76 mg/LHardness = 27 mg/LpH = 7.2
Copper AWQC and Olfactory ImpairmentOlfactory data from:McIntyre et al. 2008. ES&T 42:1352-8
Numeric Criteria and T&E SpeciesSensitivity
• No evidence that T&E species are inherentlymore sensitive to chemical stressors than non-T&E species
• Continue to develop aquatic life AWQCdesigned to be protective of aquaticcommunities
• Expand minimum phylogenetic diversityrequirements?
September 2015 34
Current Minimum Data Requirements?
September 2015 35
Requirement
Family Salmonidae in the class Osteichthyes
Second family in the class Osteichthyes, preferably a commercially or recreational importantspecies (e.g., bluegill, channel catfish, etc.)
Third family in the phylum Chordata (may be in the class Osteichthyes or may be an amphibian,etc.)
Planktonic crustacean (e.g., cladocerans, copepod, etc.)
Benthic crustacean (e.g., ostracod, isopod, amphipod, crayfish, etc.)
Insect (e.g., mayfly, dragonfly, damselfly, stonefly, caddisfly, mosquito, midge, etc.)
Family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata (e.g., Rotifera, Annelida, Mollusca, etc.)
Family in any order of insect or any phylum not already represented
September 2015 36
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Insects Crustaceans Amphibians Snails Bivalves Fish
Perc
en
tag
eo
fF
resh
wa
ter
T&
ES
pec
ies
Freshwater T&E Species by Organism Group
Numeric Criteria and T&E SpeciesSensitivity (cont.)
• Expand minimum phylogenetic diversityrequirements to include mussels, snails, and/oramphibians– Maybe?
– Or question whether mussels, snails, and/oramphibians are expected to be relatively sensitive to agiven class of contaminants
• If relevant, this could help ensure protection ofaquatic communities and closely related T&Especies
September 2015 37
How Low is Low Enough?
• Lower and lower numbers can always bederived, but what is defensible?
• Statistical endpoints?
– EC20? EC10? EC01?
• Level of protection?
– 5th percentile? Lower percentile?
September 2015 38
Recommendations for Guideline Revisions
• Explicitly recommend risk-based frameworkand available tools for T&E protectivenessevaluations
– To the extent practical, incorporate T&Eevaluations directly into AWQC documents thatreflect the state-of-the-science
• Explicitly recommend effects endpoints andstatistical endpoints
September 2015 39