Ambient Water Quality Criteria: Protectiveness of

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


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



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


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


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

Dis

so

lve

dC

op

pe

r,µ

g/L



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

OlfactoryIC20


CMC CCC

Dis

so

lve

dC

op

pe

r,µ

g/L


DOC = 2.76 mg/LHardness = 27 mg/LpH = 7.2


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