1、Designation: E 1849 96 (Reapproved 2007)Standard Guide forFish and Wildlife Incident Monitoring and Reporting1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E 1849; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year oforiginal adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of l
2、ast revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.1. Scope1.1 State and Federal agencies as well as industry haverequested guidance for collecting, reporting, and interpretingfish
3、and wildlife incident data. This guide covers planning andcompleting a thorough investigation to determine an incidentscause. Recommendations for documenting and reporting inci-dents are provided. A summary of the information necessaryfor completing a risk assessment and information on how fishand w
4、ildlife incident data are considered for regulatory deci-sions are also provided.1.2 Several agencies collect information and maintain data-bases regarding fish and wildlife incidents. A list of thesedatabases and the types of information they contain areincluded. Agencies with regulatory authority
5、relating to fishand wildlife incidents are listed and laws pertaining to fish andwildlife incidents are summarized.1.3 For the purposes of this guide, a fish or wildlife incidentis defined as an allegation of an adverse effect on nontarget fishand wildlife species. By todays detecting standards, adv
6、erseeffects data are usually limited to mortalities. However, asbiological monitoring improves, sublethal effects data may bemore readily quantifiable and reported.1.4 This guide is arranged as follows:SectionReferenced Documents 2Terminology 3Significance and Use 4Laws and Regulations 4.1Benefits o
7、f Maintaining Records 4.2Ecological Risk Databases 4.3Ecological Risk Assessments 4.4Precautionary Steps and Safety 5Determining the Cause of the Incident 6Common Causes of Fish Mortality 6.1Common Causes of Wildlife Mortality 6.2Investigation of Incidents 7Quality Control and Standard Operating Pro
8、cedures 7.1Planning Field Investigation 7.2Interagency Coordination 7.3Chain of Custody 7.4Comprehensive and Systematic Collection of Samplesand Information7.5Analyses of Samples 7.6Analyses of Data 7.7Determining Significance of Investigation 7.8Reporting of Incidents 8Format of Report 8.1Documenta
9、tion of Information 8.2AppendixesReferences1.5 The values stated in both inch-pound and SI units are tobe regarded separately as the standard. The values given inparentheses are for information only.1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of thesafety concerns, if any, associated with its
10、use. It is theresponsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-bility of regulatory limitations prior to use. Specific precau-tionary statements are given in Section 5.2. Referenced Documents2.1 ASTM Standards:2D 4687 Guide f
11、or General Planning of Waste SamplingE 729 Guide for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests on TestMaterials with Fishes, Macroinvertebrates, and Amphib-iansE 943 Terminology Relating to Biological Effects and En-vironmental FateE 1023 Guide for Assessing the Hazard of a Material toAquatic Organisms and Th
12、eir UsesE 1192 Guide for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests onAqueous Ambient Samples and Effluents with Fishes,Macroinvertebrates, and AmphibiansE 1241 Guide for Conducting Early Life-Stage ToxicityTests with FishesE 1295 Guide for Conducting Three-Brood, Renewal Tox-icity Tests with Ceriodaphnia dubi
13、aE 1367 Test Method for Measuring the Toxicity ofSediment-Associated Contaminants with Estuarine andMarine InvertebratesE 1391 Guide for Collection, Storage, Characterization, andManipulation of Sediments for Toxicological Testing andfor Selection of Samplers Used to Collect Benthic Inver-tebrates1T
14、his guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E47 on BiologicalEffects and Environmental Fate and is the direct responsibility of SubcommitteeE47.01 on Aquatic Assessment and Toxicology.Current edition approved Oct. 1, 2007. Published October 2007. Originallyapproved in 1996. Last previous e
15、dition approved in 2002 as E184996(2002).2For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, orcontact ASTM Customer Service at serviceastm.org. For Annual Book of ASTMStandards volume information, refer to the standards Document Summary page onthe ASTM website.1Copyright ASTM Inte
16、rnational, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.E 1463 Guide for Conducting Static and Flow-ThroughAcute Toxicity Tests With Mysids From the West Coast ofthe United StatesE 1525 Guide for Designing Biological Tests with Sedi-mentsE 1705 Terminology Rela
17、ting to Biotechnology3. Terminology3.1 Definitions of Terms Specific to This StandardThewords “must”, “should”, “may”, “can”, and “might” have veryspecific meanings in this guide. “Must” is used to express anabsolute requirement, that is, to state that the action ought to bedesigned to satisfy the s
18、pecified condition, unless the purposeof the action requires a different design. “Must” is only used inconnection with factors that directly relate to the acceptabilityof the action. “Should” is used to state that the specifiedcondition is recommended and ought to be met if possible.Although violati
19、on of one “should” is rarely a serious matter,violation of several will often render the results questionable.Terms such as “is desirable,” “is often desirable,” and “mightbe desirable” are used in connection with less importantfactors. “May” is used to mean “is (are) allowed to,” “can” isused to me
20、an “is (are) able to,” and “might” is used to mean“could possibly.” Thus the classic distinction between “may”and “can” is preserved, and “might” is never used as asynonym for either “may” or “can.”4. Significance and Use4.1 Laws and RegulationsIn the United States there arefederal laws that either
21、directly or indirectly suggest the use offish and wildlife incidents in the ecological risk assessmentprocess. These laws are: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, andRodenticide Act; Endangered Species Act; Resource Conser-vation and RecoveryAct; Toxic Substances ControlAct; CleanWaterAct; Comprehensive
22、 Environmental Response, Compen-sation, and Liability Act; and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.Additionally, many states have their own laws relating to fishand wildlife incidents. This guide provides general guidancefor monitoring and reporting fish and wildlife incidents anddoes not relieve the user
23、 of additional requirements found inspecific regulations.4.2 Benefits of Maintaining Records:4.2.1 Incident reports are instrumental in identifying orconfirming ecological risks associated with a particular con-taminant. Incident reports may also help identify speciesparticularly sensitive to certai
24、n chemicals, trends in chemicals,crops, and fish and wildlife, and pinpoint geographic areasimpacted by contaminants.4.2.2 Incident data have formed the basis for the regulationof some pesticides and solid waste in the past. Instances whereincident data have affected pesticide and solid waste regula
25、tioninclude: severe restriction of the use of tributyltin, a marineantifoulant, due to reported adverse effects on Pacific oystergrowth; cancellation of diazinons use on golf courses and sodfarms due to reported bird mortalities; voluntary cancellationof carbofuran use on corn due to reported bird m
26、ortalities; andrestriction of the use of carbofuran on grapes and rice andazinphos-methyl on sugarcane due to reported bird or fishmortalities.4.2.3 Incident data have been useful to the Office of SolidWaste of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) inthe regulation of cyanide. Hundreds of b
27、ird kills have beencaused by the use of cyanide in the leaching of gold. As aresult, gold mining companies have been developing improvedleaching technology to reduce exposure to fish and wildlifespecies.4.3 Ecological Incident Databases:4.3.1 There are many databases that contain information onfish
28、and wildlife incidents. The reliability of these databasesmay benefit from the recommendations on collection, investi-gation, reporting, and interpretation techniques contained inthis guide.An outline of the databases as they currently exist orwill exist in the very near future follows:4.3.2 Ecologi
29、cal Incident Information System (EIIS)Maintained by the EPAs Office of Pesticide Programs, theEIIS is a DBASE III Plus3software package designed as anapplication tool for state and federal agencies to enter andsubmit incident data relating to pesticides. The software wasdistributed to 175 state and
30、federal agencies and industry in1993. The database includes information for location of inci-dent, species affected, magnitude of effect, pesticide(s) andformulation, application rate and method, and circumstancesunder which the incident occurred. The data are searchable byall parameters considered
31、in ecological risk assessments by theEPA.4.3.3 Fish Kills in Coastal Waters 19801989In 1991, theNational Oceanic andAtmosphericAdministration conducted asurvey of fish kills and their causes along all United Statescoastlines. The report summarizes results from across theNation to identify, report, a
32、nd assess the causes of fish kills incoastal rivers, streams, and estuarine waters between 1980 and1989. The location, extent, severity, timing, and cause of over3600 fish-kill events are documented. These data are alsoavailable in database format.4.3.4 Epizootic and Diagnostic DatabasesThe Depart-m
33、ent of Interior National Biological Service (NBS) maintainstwo databases recording avian mortalities. The first, the epi-zootic database, includes data gathered on field investigationsby the National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC) staff, diag-nostic evaluation and laboratory testing done within NWHC,
34、 aswell as verifiable reports of mortality, diagnostic evaluation, orlaboratory results from other agencies. The second, the diag-nostic database, contains information from the NWHCnecropsy and laboratory results. The information from bothdatabases represents what is observed and reported to NWHCand
35、 subsequent field investigations or diagnostic evaluationsmade on a subsample of reported events.4.3.5 Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study(SCWDS)The SCWDS maintains a database containinginformation regarding wildlife mortalities in the 14 memberstates (AL,AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MD, MO, MS,
36、NC, SC, TN,VA, WV) and Puerto Rico. Available information includesclinical history, location and extent of mortality, speciesinvolved, postmortem findings, and results of tests for toxins3A registered trademark of Borland International Inc., 100 Borland Way, ScottsValley, CA 95066.E 1849 96 (2007)2a
37、nd microbes. The data are searchable by species, diagnosis,date, and location. Information contained in the database is notintended for citation in the scientific literature. The SCWDSshould be contacted if citable information is needed.4.3.6 Individual State AgenciesA total of 102 state agen-cies c
38、ollect fish and wildlife incident data associated withpesticide poisoning. The level of reporting varies considerablyamong state agencies. A limited number of state agencies storethe information in a database. Most of the agencies store thedata as hard copy.4.3.7 The Wildlife Incident Investigation
39、SchemeTheCentral Science Laboratory, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheriesand Food (MAFF) of the United Kingdom has been recordingincident data related to vertebrate mortality in Great Britainsince 1964. Bee mortality in Great Britain has been recordedsince 1981. Over the years this scheme has widened
40、its scopeand is now able to detect animal poisonings caused by mostpesticides. The majority of the incidents that are reportedinclude vertebrate wildlife, companion animals, and beneficialinsects. Reports are published annually.4.3.8 Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health CentreThisis Canadas national
41、 organization for wildlife health servicesand surveillance. It was established in 1992 and is supported byfederal and all provincial and territorial governments, as wellas by nongovernment sources. Regional centres throughoutCanada provide services such as disease diagnosis and regionalconsultation
42、and provide data on wildlife disease occurrencesto a national database. Data come from provincial veterinarydiagnostic laboratories as well as from the regional centresthemselves. The national database uses the Paradox3relationaldatabase software. Data are entered in a total of 54 fields.Hierarchica
43、l codes are used for species and diagnoses. Diag-noses are recorded by anatomical, pathological, and etiological(causal) criteria using the system created for the OntarioMinistry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs. The data aresearchable by any field. This database and the diagnosticexamination
44、s from which the data are derived constitute thewildlife disease surveillance mechanism of the CCWHC.Surveillance is passive with respect to acquisition of speci-mens, and detection of mortality or morbidity is done byprofessional wildlife personnel and the public.4.4 Ecological Risk Assessments:4.4
45、.1 Reported fish and wildlife incidents are used inecological risk assessments by the U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency and other Federal and State agencies, such as theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Departmentof Fish and Game.4.4.2 Risk Assessments Related to PesticidesIn ord
46、er tounderstand the effects of pesticides in the environment, theEcological Effects Branch (EEB), within the Office of PesticidePrograms (OPP) of the EPA conducts risk assessments todetermine the effects of pesticides on nontarget fishes, mam-mals, birds, invertebrate, and plant species. In order to
47、 com-plete a risk assessment, the EPA must review toxicity andenvironmental fate data. Toxicity data include acute andchronic laboratory data for freshwater and marine organismsand terrestrial wildlife. Environmental fate data include pho-tolysis, hydrolysis, solubility, and field dissipation data (
48、1).4Field study and ecological incident data are also considered incompleting the risk assessment (2). According to the Ecologi-cal Fate and Effects Task Force, aquatic and terrestrial fieldstudies are no longer required, except in unusual circum-stances. The decisions will now be made based on labo
49、ratorytesting, incident data, and other information which can easilybe collected to enable the program to better characterize risk.4.4.2.1 These data are evaluated and used in a “weight ofthe evidence” approach to assess risk. For example, if the useof the pesticide is expected to exceed established OPP riskcriteria for the protection of nontarget species, based onlaboratory data, then available field data (both field studies andincident data) are evaluated. Reported incidents confirm riskthat has been previously identified by laboratory testing oridentify risk that ha
