Ambient Water Quality Criteria: Protectiveness of Threatened and Endangered (T&E) and Aquatic-dependent Wildlife

David DeForest1, Robert Gensemer2, Carrie Claytor2, Steven Canton2, Robert Santore1

1 Windward Environmental 2 GEI Consultants Outline

• Current EPA guidance on AWQC and T&E species • Example: Cyanide AWQC and protectiveness of T&E species and aquatic-dependent wildlife • Summary and further considerations

September 2015 2 1985 AWQC Guidelines

• “…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”

September 2015 3 Freshwater AWQC for Cyanide 100% Tanytarsus 90% Asellus

80% Physa Pteronarcys 70% Carassius Final Gammarus 60%

e Acute l

i Poecilia t Value n

e 50% Pimephales c r

e Daphnia P 40% Rainbow Micropterus Trout 30% Pomoxis SMAV Lepomis Cyanide 20% CMC Perca Salvelinus 10% * In 1984 Salmo included rainbow trout, which Salmo* isnow in thegenus Oncorhynchus 0% 10 100 1000 10000 September 2015 Cyanide, µg/L 4 EPA’s Water Quality Standards Handbook • “A critical species is a species that is commercially or recreationally important at the site, a species that exists at the site and is listed as threatened or endangered under section 4 of the Act, or a species for which there is evidence that the loss of the species from the site is likely to cause an unacceptable impact on a commercially or recreationally important species, a threatened or endangered species, the abundances of a variety of other species, or the structure or function of the community."

September 2015 5 Freshwater AWQC for Ammonia

• Explicitly evaluates whether AWQC are protective of “listed” T&E species • Acute criterion dataset – 12 listed species • Chronic criterion dataset – 3 listed species – Plus 3 other studies with supporting chronic toxicity information

September 2015 6 Draft Freshwater AWQC for Selenium

• “An EC10 based on only one partial response would not ordinarily be included in the chronic data set, but there are supporting data that suggest the federally-listed threatened species green sturgeon is also sensitive to selenium…This species [white sturgeon]…is listed as endangered in specific locations, such as the Kootenai River white sturgeon in Idaho and Montana. The white sturgeon is also a taxonomic surrogate for other freshwater sturgeon species (e.g., shovelnose sturgeon) that are threatened or endangered."

September 2015 7 Example of Aquatic Life T&E Evaluation for Cyanide

September 2015 8 • Updated cyanide toxicity database • Proposed updates to cyanide AWQC • Evaluated protectiveness of: – T&E aquatic life – Aquatic-dependent wildlife

September 2015 9 Cyanide Criteria

• CurrentExposure AWQC EPA (1984) Criteria (1984) Proposed Update –AcuteAcute: 22 µg/L 22 µg/L 23 µg/L Chronic 5.2 µg/L 4.8 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 Cyanide T&E Evaluation Framework

September 2015 11 Cyanide Toxicity Data for T&E Fish Species

Exposure Conc. Species Duration Effect (µg CN/L) Reference O. kisutch 24 d Growth reduction 80 Leduc 1966 O. kisutch 194 h Reduced ability to Control (8.72 min) Broderius 1970 swim against current 10 (3.80 min) 30 (1.85 min) 50 (1.45 min) O. tshawytscha 2 mo Reduced biomass 20 Negilski 1973

Proposed updated acute criterion = 23 µg/L Proposed updated chronic criterion = 4.8 µg/L

September 2015 12 Cyanide T&E Evaluation Framework

September 2015 13 Cyanide Toxicity Data for T&E Surrogate Fish Species

T&E Family Types of Fish Species With CN Toxicity Data Available Ictaluridae Catfish Ameiurus melas (black bullhead); Ictalurus punctatus (channel catfish) Amblyopsidae Cavefish None Chub, dace, shiner, Carassius auratus (goldfish); Pimephales promelas (fathead pikeminnow, ); Rhinichthys atratulus (blacknose dace); woundfin 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, None springfish Salmonidae Salmon, trout Oncorhynchus mykiss (rainbow trout); Salmo salar (Atlantic salmon); Salvelinus fontinalis (brook trout) Cottidae Sculpin None Gasterostidae Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus (threespine stickleback)

AcipenseridaeSeptember 2015 Sturgeon None 14 Cyanide Toxicity Data for T&E Surrogate Fish Species: Acute Toxicity

Acute 100% Criterion 90% 80% y t i l 70% a t r

o 60% M

e 50% v i t a l 40% u

m 30% u I. punctatus C 20% P. promelas C. auratus 10% P. flavescens 0% 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Cyanide, µg/L

September 2015 15 Cyanide Toxicity Data for T&E Surrogate Fish Species: Acute Toxicity for Salmonids

Acute 100% Criterion 90% 80% y t i l 70% a t r

o 60% M

e

v 50% i t a l 40% u

m S. fontinalis - Smith et al. (1978) u 30%

C O. mykiss - McGeachy and Leduc (1988) 20% O. mykiss - Kovacs and Leduc (1982) - T = 6°C O. mykiss - Kovacs and Leduc (1982) - T = 12°C 10% O. mykiss - Kovacs and Leduc (1982) - T = 18°C 0% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Cyanide, µg/L

September 2015 16 Cyanide Toxicity Data for T&E Surrogate Fish Species: Chronic Toxicity

600 Proposed Updated

r

e Chronic Criterion = p S. fontinalis 4.8 µg CN/L d 500 e

Family: Salmonidae n w a

p EC20 = 6.0 µg CN/L s

400 s g g e e

l e a l 300 b m a e i f v

f o

r 200 e b m u n

n 100 a e M 0 0.1 1 10 100 Cyanide, µg CN/L

September 2015 17 Cyanide Toxicity Data for T&E Surrogate Fish Species: Chronic Toxicity

4000 Proposed Updated e l P. promelas a 3500 Chronic Criterion = m 4.8 µg CN/L e

f EC20 = 6.0 µg CN/L Family: Cyprinidae r

e 3000 p

d e

n 2500 w a p s 2000 s g g e

f 1500 o

r e b 1000 m u n

n

a 500 e M 0 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Cyanide, µg CN/L

September 2015 18 Cyanide T&E Evaluation Framework

September 2015 19 Cyanide Toxicity Data for T&E Surrogate Fish Species: ICE Model Estimates “the acute toxicity (LC50/LD50) of a chemical to a species, genus, or family with no test data (the predicted taxon) from the known toxicity of the chemical to a species with test data (the surrogate species)”

September 2015 20 Measured vs. Estimated Cyanide Toxicity Data Using ICE 703 571 350

Sheepshead minnow 300 L / N C

g 250 µ

, Goldfish 0 5

C Fathead minnow

L 200

e d i n

a 150 y C

d Yellow perch e t

a 100 m

i Bluegill t s

E 50 Largemouth bass Brook trout Atlantic salmon 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

September 2015 Measured Cyanide SMAV, µg CN/L 21 Cyanide Toxicity Data for T&E Surrogate Fish Species: ICE Results

400

L 350 / N C

g

µ 300

LC50 , 1

0 LC01 C L

250 r o

0 5

C 200 Dashed Line = L

e Recalculated d i CMC n

a 150 y C

d e

t 100 a m i t s

E 50

0 L L L L L L L L L e L e L e L e L e L e L e L e L e L u u u u u u u u u C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C l l l l l l l l l

a a a a a a a a a % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % V V V V V V V V V

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 d d d d d d d d d 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

e e e e e e e e e r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r t t t t t t t t t e c e c e c e c e c e c e c e c e c e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e p p p p p p p p p w w w w w w w w w p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p o o o o o o o o o x x x x x x x x x L L L L L L L L L U U U U U U U U U E E E E E E E E E Razorback Bonytail Cape Fear Fountain Apache Lahontan Coho Chinook Atlantic sucker chub shiner darter trout cutthroat salmon salmon salmon September 2015 trout 22 Cyanide T&E Evaluation Framework

September 2015 23 Cyanide T&E Evaluation Conclusions • Chronic criterion appears protective of certain sublethal endpoints for salmon • Acute toxicity data for surrogate species suggest that T&E species are adequately protected • Chronic cyanide toxicity data for surrogate species suggest there could be low levels of effects at the chronic criterion, although these were statistically insignificant • ICE model corroborates the test data showing the rainbow trout SMAV ÷ 2 to be protective of salmonids, percids, cyprinids, and ictalurids, and predicts it will also protect cyprinodontids • Removal of coldwater species in Recalculation Procedure should be done with caution because those species could be surrogates for other T&E species

September 2015 24 Example of Aquatic-dependent Wildlife Evaluation for Cyanide

September 2015 25 Risk-based Evaluation for Wildlife • Problem Formulation – Sublethal cyanide doses rapidly metabolized and excreted – 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 Risk-based Evaluation for Wildlife (cont.)

5th %ile = ≥32 µg CN/L

September 2015 27 Summary and Further Considerations

September 2015 28 Incorporate Risk-based Framework for T&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 for T&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 Olfactory Impairment in Listed Pacific Salmon

• EPA’s recommended freshwater AWQC for copper based on biotic ligand model (BLM) – BLM accounts for bioavailability of copper over wide range of water chemistry conditions • Concerns that copper AWQC are not protective against olfactory impairment in listed fish species (e.g., salmon) – Copper bioavailability generally not accounted for in olfactory protectiveness evaluations

September 2015 30 Copper AWQC and Olfactory Impairment 12 Olfactory data from: McIntyre et al. 2008. ES&T 42:1352-8

10 L /

g 8 µ

DOC = 0.11 mg/L , r Hardness = 30 mg/L e

p pH =7.5 p o

C 6

d e v l o s s

i 4 D

2

0 Olfactory CMC CCC Olfactory CMC CCC IC20 IC20 Copper AWQC and Olfactory Impairment 12 Olfactory data from: McIntyre et al. 2008. ES&T 42:1352-8

10 L /

g 8 µ

DOC = 0.11 mg/L , r Hardness = 30 mg/L e

p pH =7.5 p o

C 6

d e v l o s s

i 4 D

2

0 Olfactory CMC CCC Olfactory CMC CCC IC20 IC20 Copper AWQC and Olfactory Impairment 12 Olfactory data from: McIntyre et al. 2008. ES&T 42:1352-8

10 L /

g 8

µ DOC = 2.76 mg/L DOC = 0.11 mg/L , r Hardness = 30 mg/L Hardness = 27 mg/L e pH = 7.2

p pH =7.5 p o

C 6

d e v l o s s

i 4 D

2

0 Olfactory CMC CCC Olfactory CMC CCC IC20 IC20 Numeric Criteria and T&E Species Sensitivity • No evidence that T&E species are inherently more sensitive to chemical stressors than non- T&E species • Continue to develop aquatic life AWQC designed to be protective of aquatic communities • Expand minimum phylogenetic diversity requirements?

September 2015 34 Current Minimum Data Requirements?

Requirement Family Salmonidae in the class Osteichthyes Second family in the class Osteichthyes, preferably a commercially or recreational important species (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.) (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 35 Freshwater T&E Species by Organism Group 45%

s 40% e i c e

p 35% S

E

& 30% T

r e t

a 25% w h s

e 20% r F

f o 15% e g a t

n 10% e c r

e 5% P

0% Crustaceans Amphibians Snails Bivalves Fish

September 2015 36 Numeric Criteria and T&E Species Sensitivity (cont.) • Expand minimum phylogenetic diversity requirements to include mussels, snails, and/or amphibians – Maybe? – Or question whether mussels, snails, and/or amphibians are expected to be relatively sensitive to a given class of contaminants • If relevant, this could help ensure protection of aquatic communities and closely related T&E species

September 2015 37 How Low is Low Enough?

• Lower and lower numbers can always be derived, 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 framework and available tools for T&E protectiveness evaluations – To the extent practical, incorporate T&E evaluations directly into AWQC documents that reflect the state-of-the-science • Explicitly recommend effects endpoints and statistical endpoints

September 2015 39