1、Designation: E1849 96 (Reapproved 2013)Standard Guide forFish and Wildlife Incident Monitoring and Reporting1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E1849; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year oforiginal adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of las
2、t revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon () 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 and
3、 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 wild
4、life 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 rel
5、ating 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, advers
6、eeffects 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 of M
7、aintaining 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 Proced
8、ures 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 8.1Documentatio
9、n 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 use
10、. 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:2D4687 Guide for G
11、eneral Planning of Waste SamplingE729 Guide for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests on TestMaterials with Fishes, Macroinvertebrates, and Amphib-iansE943 Terminology Relating to Biological Effects and Envi-ronmental FateE1023 Guide for Assessing the Hazard of a Material toAquatic Organisms and Their Use
12、sE1192 Guide for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests on Aque-ous Ambient Samples and Effluents with Fishes,Macroinvertebrates, and AmphibiansE1241 Guide for Conducting Early Life-Stage Toxicity Testswith FishesE1295 Guide for Conducting Three-Brood, Renewal Toxic-ity Tests with Ceriodaphnia dubiaE1367 T
13、est Method for Measuring the Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Contaminants with Estuarine and Marine In-vertebrates1This guide is under the jurisdiction ofASTM Committee E50 on EnvironmentalAssessment, Risk Management and Corrective Action and is the direct responsibil-ity of Subcommittee E50.47 on B
14、iological Effects and Environmental Fate.Current edition approved March 1, 2013. Published May 2013. Originallyapproved in 1996. Last previous edition approved in 2007 as E184996(2007). DOI:10.1520/E1849-96R13.2For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, orcontact ASTM Custo
15、mer Service at serviceastm.org. For Annual Book of ASTMStandards volume information, refer to the standards Document Summary page onthe ASTM website.Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States1E1391 Guide for Collection, Storage,
16、Characterization, andManipulation of Sediments for Toxicological Testing andfor Selection of Samplers Used to Collect Benthic Inver-tebratesE1463 Guide for Conducting Static and Flow-ThroughAcute Toxicity Tests With Mysids From the West Coast ofthe United StatesE1525 Guide for Designing Biological T
17、ests with SedimentsE1705 Terminology Relating 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 ac
18、tion ought to bedesigned to satisfy the specified 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 oug
19、ht to be met if possible.Although violation 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
20、“is (are) allowed to,” “can” isused to mean “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
21、States there arefederal laws that either 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
22、 ControlAct; CleanWater Act; Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Migratory BirdTreaty Act. Additionally, many states have their own lawsrelating to fish and wildlife incidents. This guide providesgeneral guidance for monitoring and reporting fish and wildlif
23、eincidents and does not relieve the user of additional require-ments found in specific 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 identi
24、fy speciesparticularly sensitive to certain 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
25、 affected pesticide and solid waste regulationinclude: 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 car
26、bofuran use on corn due to reported bird mortalities; 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)
27、inthe regulation of cyanide. Hundreds of bird 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
28、databases that contain information onfish and wildlife incidents. The reliability of these databasesmay benefit from the recommendations on collection,investigation, reporting, and interpretation techniques con-tained in this guide. An outline of the databases as theycurrently exist or will exist in
29、 the very near future follows:4.3.2 Ecological 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. Th
30、e software wasdistributed to 175 state and federal agencies and industry in1993. The database includes information for location ofincident, species affected, magnitude of effect, pesticide(s) andformulation, application rate and method, and circumstancesunder which the incident occurred. The data ar
31、e searchable byall parameters considered 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 fro
32、m across theNation to identify, report, and 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 Epizo
33、otic and Diagnostic DatabasesThe Depart-ment of Interior National Biological Service (NBS) maintainstwo databases recording avian mortalities. The first, theepizootic database, includes data gathered on field investiga-tions by the National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC) staff,diagnostic evaluation a
34、nd laboratory testing done withinNWHC, as well as verifiable reports of mortality, diagnosticevaluation, or laboratory results from other agencies. Thesecond, the diagnostic database, contains information from theNWHC necropsy and laboratory results. The information fromboth databases represents wha
35、t is observed and reported toNWHC and subsequent field investigations or diagnosticevaluations made on a subsample of reported events.4.3.5 Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study(SCWDS)The SCWDS maintains a database containing in-formation regarding wildlife mortalities in the 14 member3A r
36、egistered trademark of Borland International Inc., 100 Borland Way, ScottsValley, CA 95066.E1849 96 (2013)2states (AL,AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MD, MO, MS, NC, SC, TN,VA, WV) and Puerto Rico. Available information includesclinical history, location and extent of mortality, speciesinvolved, postmortem find
37、ings, and results of tests for toxinsand 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 Ag
38、enciesA total of 102 state agen-cies collect 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.
39、7 The Wildlife Incident Investigation SchemeThe Cen-tral Science Laboratory, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries andFood (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.
40、 Over the years this scheme has widened 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 Wildl
41、ife Health CentreThisis Canadas national 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 dis
42、ease diagnosis and regionalconsultation 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 ent
43、ered in a total of 54 fields.Hierarchical 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. Thi
44、s database and the diagnosticexaminations from which the data are derived constitute thewildlife disease surveillance mechanism of the CCWHC.Surveillance is passive with respect to acquisition ofspecimens, and detection of mortality or morbidity is done byprofessional wildlife personnel and the publ
45、ic.4.4 Ecological Risk Assessments:4.4.1 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 A
46、ssessments Related to PesticidesIn order 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,mammals, birds, inverteb
47、rate, and plant species. In order tocomplete 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 includephotolysis, hydrolysis, solubili
48、ty, and field dissipation data(1).4Field study and ecological incident data are also consid-ered in completing the risk assessment (2). According to theEcological Fate and Effects Task Force, aquatic and terrestrialfield studies are no longer required, except in unusual circum-stances. The decisions
49、 will now be made based on laboratorytesting, 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
