Toxicological benchmarks for wildlife: 1995 revision

Abstract

ERThis report has been reproduced directly fiom the best available copy. 423-576-8401 (fax 423-576-2865).Available to the public fiom

Dispersion of Metals from Abandoned Mines and their Effect on Biota in the Methow River, Okanogan County, Washington: Final Report 2002-2003.

“…were identified by comparing the concentrations of metals to ecotoxicological benchmarks derived from primary literature by Efroymson et al (1997) and Will and Suter (1994) for the effects of soil contamination on plants and soil microbial processes, Opresko et al (1994) for the exposure of wildlife to AMD in water, Washington State groundwater criteria (WAC 173-200) for subsurface water (ARD and groundwater), and Hull and Suter (1994) for the exposure of benthic organisms to sediments.…”

Effects of Mine Waste Contamination on Fish and Wildlife Habitat at Multiple Levels of Biological Organization in the Methow River, 2001-2002 Annual Report.

“…Chemicals of potential ecological concern (COPECs) were identified by comparing the concentrations of metals in tailings, AMD, groundwater, and sediments to ecotoxicological benchmarks, which were derived from primary literature by Suter and Mabrey (1994) for the exposure of aquatic life to chemicals in water, Hull and Suter (1994) for the exposure of benthic organisms to sediments, Will and Suter (1994) for the exposure of soil invertebrates and microbial communities, and by Opresko et al (1994) for the exposure of wildlife to food, water, and soil.…”

Species for the screening assessment. Columbia River Comprehensive Impact Assessment

“…Toxicological benchmarks are being consolidated from EPA toxicological databases and other references (for example, Opresko, et al 1993, Suter and Mabry 1994, Ramamoorthy and Baddaloo 1995. Benchmarks will be obtained or derived for each species and life stage addressed in this risk assessment.…”

“…Where two species belonged to the same foraging guild and had approximately the same grand average exposure score, the smaller species was chosen for further evaluation because of the general positive correlation between exposure and body weight (Opresko et al 1993), in other words, the lower the body weight, the lower the toxicity threshold. Species that virtually never occur in the river or riparian zone were also eliminated.…”