Biological Evaluation

for the

Region 2 ESA Consultation on New Jersey’s 

Revised Saltwater Nickel Water Quality Standards

Prepared for:

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region II 

290 Broadway

On Behalf of Bergen County Utilities Authority

Prepared by:

1295 King Ave.

Columbus, Ohio. 43212

Phone: (614) 487-1040

Facsimile: (614) 487-1920

739 Hastings Street

Traverse City, MI 49686

Phone: (231) 941-2230

Facsimile: (231) 941-2240

E-mail: mick@glec.com

March 29, 2010
2

PREFACE

This draft analysis document presents the biological evaluation for the saltwater aquatic 

life criteria for nickel adopted by the State of New Jersey in 2006. It includes the 

presentation and analysis of the toxicity data, risk summary, and the effects determination 

for Federally-listed estuarine and marine species potentially affected by nickel at criteria 

concentrations. This analysis document was prepared according to the Draft 

Methodology for Conducting Biological Evaluations of Aquatic Life Criteria – Methods 

Manual, which contains the scientific rationale underlying the components of the 

biological evaluations (i.e., the literature search, toxicity data evaluation, risk analysis, 

and effects determination), and the step-by-step procedures currently used by EPA to 

conduct biological evaluations under the national consultations. The latest draft of the 

Methods Manual can be obtained through the Agency’s Office of Water, Health and 

Ecological Criteria Division. Attachment B contains a summary of the Methods Manual, 

including the key assumptions, steps, and calculations used in this biological evaluation.
3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 5

2.0 SCOPE OF STATE ACTION............................................................................................................ 6

2.1 DEFINITION OF STATE ACTION.......................................................................................................... 6

2.1.1 New Jersey’s Saltwater Nickel Aquatic Life Criteria ............................................................. 6

2.2 DEFINITION OF ACTION AREA........................................................................................................... 8

2.3 SPECIES STATUS AND LIFE HISTORY................................................................................................. 8

2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE............................................................................................................32

3.0 ASSESSING EFFECTS OF THE NEW JERSEY SALTWATER NICKEL CRITERIA ON 

FEDERALLY-LISTED SPECIES.............................................................................................................42

3.1 OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................................................42

3.2 DATA COLLECTION..........................................................................................................................42

3.3 TOXIC EFFECTS ON AQUATIC SPECIES .............................................................................................42

3.3.1 Aquatic Animals.....................................................................................................................42

3.3.2 Multiple Routes of Exposure..................................................................................................52

3.3.3 Aquatic Plants........................................................................................................................54

3.4 AQUATIC-DEPENDENT SPECIES .......................................................................................................55

3.4.1 Overview and Background ....................................................................................................55

3.4.2 Exposure Assessment.............................................................................................................56

3.4.3 Toxicity Assessment ...............................................................................................................57

3.4.4 Risk Analysis..........................................................................................................................60

3.5 FOOD ITEMS OF FEDERALLY-LISTED SPECIES ..................................................................................61

4.0 EFFECTS DETERMINATIONS .....................................................................................................62

4.1 NO EFFECTS–NOTES ........................................................................................................................62

4.2 MAY AFFECT–NOTES ......................................................................................................................62

4.2.1 Not Likely to Adversely Affect................................................................................................67

4.2.2 Species Requiring Further Evaluation ..................................................................................70

5.0 ASSESSING EFFECTS OF THE NEW JERSEY NICKEL CRITERIA ON DESIGNATED 

CRITICAL HABITAT................................................................................................................................70

6.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................71

APPENDIX A: INTERSPECIES CORRELATION ESTIMATES (ICE) FOR NICKEL

SALTWATER EXPOSURE.......................................................................................................................77

APPENDIX B. BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION EFFECTS ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY......78

ATTACHMENT 1 – LITERATURE SEARCH AND DATA REVIEW PROCEDURE......................92

ATTACHMENT 1.A – ECOTOX EXCLUSION CODES.......................................................................98

ATTACHMENT 1.B – COMMON GUIDELINES EXCLUSION CODES.........................................101

ATTACHMENT 1.C – BE EXCLUSION CODES.................................................................................103

ATTACHMENT 1.D – PROCESS FOR DOWNLOADING TOXICITY DATA FROM EPA’S 

ECOTOX DATABASE.............................................................................................................................105

ATTACHMENT 1.E – DIRECTIONS FOR IDENTIFYING USEFUL AQUATIC TOXICITY 

INFORMATION .......................................................................................................................................107

ATTACHMENT 2 – HISTORIC SEDIMENT NICKEL MONITORING DATA FROM 

WATERBODIES LOCATED WITHIN NICKEL ASSESSMENT UNITS.........................................109
4

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1. New Jersey Saltwater List of Federally Threatened and Endangered Species..................... 8

Table 2.2. Categorization and Rationale for the Selection of New Jersey Saltwater Listed Species 

Included in this Biological Evaluation .................................................................................... 9

Table 3.1. Saltwater Acute and Chronic Toxicity Data for Nickel.........................................................44

Table 3.2. Nickel Saltwater Toxicity Data by Taxonomic Group...........................................................47

Table 3.3. Nickel Bioconcentration Factors (BCFs) for Saltwater Aquatic Food Organisms..............57

Table 3.4. Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Nickel to Potential Surrogate Species Based on Wet Weight 

of Oral Dose..............................................................................................................................60

Table 4.1. Results of Effects Analysis for Saltwater Aquatic Listed Species.........................................68

Table 4.2. Analysis of Effects for Saltwater Aquatic-Dependent Species..............................................69

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Piping plover distribution and New Jersey 303(d) Nickel Assessment Units. ........................38

Figure 2. Roseate tern distribution and New Jersey 303(d) Nickel Assessment Units...........................39

Figure 3. Northeastern beach tiger beetle distribution and New Jersey 303(d) Nickel Assessment 

Units..............................................................................................................................................40

Figure 4. Sensitive joint-vetch distribution and New Jersey 303(d) Nickel............................................41
5

1.0 BACKGROUND

In December 1999 a nickel TMDL was completed for the Hackensack River based on 

EPAs 1986 national saltwater criteria recommendation of 8.2 μg/L to protect aquatic life 

from chronic effects. This criterion was developed using primarily freshwater 

acute/chronic ratio data because there was only one saltwater acute to chronic data set 

published at the time the criterion was issued.

The Great Lakes Environmental Center (GLEC), which represents the Bergen County 

Municipal Utilities Authority, subsequently reviewed and evaluated marine chronic 

nickel data, which were published in the peer reviewed literature subsequent to the 

issuance of the above-referenced criterion. This effort demonstrated that the 8.2 μg/L 

marine chronic water quality criterion should be updated based upon new scientific 

information. GLEC found that using the new data significantly changes the acute to 

chronic ratio, and therefore increases the resultant saltwater chronic criterion by a factor 

of nearly three. Based upon GLEC’s evaluation of the new marine data, a proposed 

saltwater chronic nickel criterion of 22 μg/L was calculated. As a result of this work, the 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP) revised its saltwater 

chronic nickel criteria based upon this new information and submitted it to EPA for 

approval as an element of the October 16, 2006 revisions to the New Jersey Surface 

Water Quality Standards (NJWQS). EPA approved these revisions to the NJSWQS, 

subject to completion of the Endangered Species Act Consultation with the Services, on 

December 20, 2006.

On November 22, 2006, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated informal 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NOAA Fisheries 

(Services) pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), regarding

all of the October 2006 revisions to the NJSWQS.

These revisions included the marine aquatic life criteria for nickel. Subsequent to the 

initiation of this consultation, it came to EPA’s attention that there is an added 

importance to completing the consultation on the marine aquatic life criteria for nickel as 

expeditiously as possible. Specifically, completion of this consultation on the nickel 

criteria would allow EPA to move forward with an action to formally withdraw New 

Jersey from the National Toxics Rule for these criteria, and allow these new, more 

scientifically defensible, criteria to become the enforceable standards for nickel.

EPA initiated informal consultation with the Services, pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, 

on the EPA’s December 20, 2006 approval of NJDEP’s adoption of marine aquatic life 

criteria for nickel into the NJSWQS on March 20, 2008. As part of this action, a 

February 15, 2008 Biological Evaluation (B.E.) and additional supporting documentation 

was provided to the Services to support EPA’s determination that its approval of these 

nickel criteria is not likely to adversely affect any applicable federally-listed aquatic or 

aquatic-dependent species under the Services jurisdiction. In a letter dated November 4, 

2008, NOAA Fisheries provided concurrence with EPA’s not likely to adversely affect 

determination.
6

2.0 SCOPE OF STATE ACTION

In order to fulfill the goals of the MOA1, which was written with the intent to provide 

efficient mechanisms for improved interagency cooperation under Section 7 of the ESA, 

EPA will consult with the Services (National Marine Fisheries Service and United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service) on newly proposed and/or revised state aquatic life criteria. 

The agencies agree that it is prudent to examine the aquatic life criteria to determine if 

they protect listed species and critical habitat, and realize the importance of conducting 

the consultations on proposed and/or revised state criteria in a timely fashion, so that any 

state-adopted aquatic life criteria are protective of that state’s listed species and their 

critical habitat.

2.1 Definition of State Action

EPA approves state-proposed aquatic life criteria for waters where state water quality 

standards specify a use protecting aquatic life and the criteria protect their use. 

Federally-listed aquatic or aquatic-dependent species that have more than limited 

exposure to these waters are assessed in this biological evaluation. Section 2.3 of this 

document presents a summary of the life history of the listed aquatic and aquaticdependent species. That section also identifies the listed species that have only limited 

exposure to waters where the State of New Jersey water quality standards specify a use 

protecting aquatic life; accordingly, such species are not addressed in this biological 

evaluation (see Table 2.2).

2.1.1 New Jersey’s Saltwater Nickel Aquatic Life Criteria

This biological evaluation addresses the final state-adopted saltwater aquatic life criteria 

for nickel cited in the New Jersey Surface Water Quality Standards, New Jersey Register, 

October 16, 2006 Amendment (38 N.J.R. 4449), which can be found at: 

http://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/

The N.J.A.C 7:9B-1.14(d) nickel criteria for saltwater aquatic life in New Jersey are 

expressed in terms of the dissolved metal in the water column as:

New Jersey Saltwater Acute Criterion = 64 g/L

New Jersey Saltwater Chronic Criterion = 22 g/L

New Jersey’s saltwater nickel criteria differ from EPA’s current recommended 304(a) 

criteria (acute and chronic criteria of 74 and 8.2 g/L, respectively) because the New 

Jersey saltwater nickel acute and chronic criteria were derived using additional data 

published since the revision of EPA’s 304(a) criteria for nickel (U.S. EPA 1986). 

Specifically, the current saltwater chronic criterion of 8.2 g/L for nickel (U.S. EPA

1986) was derived as the quotient of the final acute value (FAV) for saltwater species 

_

1

Memorandum of Agreement Between the Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service and National 

Marine Fisheries Service Regarding Enhanced Coordination Under the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act; 

Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 36/Thursday, February 22, 2001/Notices, 11202.
7

(149.2 g/L), and a final acute to chronic ratio (FACR) of 17.99. Because saltwater 

chronic toxicity data were lacking the FACR of 17.99 was derived from three pairs of 

acute/chronic tests, where two of these values were generated from pairs of tests 

conducted with freshwater species, and one value generated using a pair of saltwater tests 

(U.S. EPA 1986). The two freshwater species tested were an acutely sensitive 

invertebrate, Daphnia magna, and the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas). The 

ACRs for D. magna and the fathead minnow were 29.86 and 35.58, respectively. In 

contrast, the ACR for the mysid, Americamysis bahia was 5.478, which was the only 

ratio available for a saltwater species at that time. 

The considerable difference between the two freshwater ratios (29.86 and 35.58) and the 

single marine ratio (5.478) indicates that the use of freshwater ACRs to derive a saltwater 

chronic criterion for nickel may result in a criterion that is not reflective of the chronic 

toxicity of nickel in marine waters. Recent data from studies involving three west coast 

marine species indicate that the FACR used to derive the current chronic saltwater nickel 

criterion can no longer be scientifically justified. Combined acute and chronic toxicity 

tests with topsmelt (Atherinops affinis), red abalone (Haliotis rufescens), and the mysid 

(Mysidopsis intii) were recently published (Hunt et al. 2002). Critical life stages of the 

organisms were exposed to nickel for extended periods of time, so that both acute and 

chronic endpoints could be generated, thereby allowing the researchers to generate 

additional marine ACR values. The acute/chronic toxicity values for A. affinis, M. intii, 

and H. rufescens were 26,560/4,270, 148.60/22.09, and 145.50/26.43 g/L, respectively. 

The corresponding ACRs were similar; 6.220, 6.727, and 5.505, respectively. 

Given the three new ACRs, which include a saltwater fish species and two saltwater 

invertebrate species, one of which is the most acutely sensitive species tested to date (and 

which also happens to be a commercially important species; red abalone), the FACR was 

re-calculated to be 5.960 (the geometric mean of the four ACRs for the saltwater species). 

Using this re-calculated FACR for saltwater organisms, along with a re-calculated FAV 

(incorporating new acute toxicity data for nickel; a resultant FAV of 129.6 g/L), New 

Jersey determined that the existing chronic saltwater nickel criterion (using the same 

calculation procedure) should be increased by a factor of approximately three, from 8.2 to 

22 g/L. 

It should be noted here that the precise levels of nickel, and its various forms in saltwater 

at equilibrium, may not be easily predicted. Salinity, pH, temperature, and complexing

and adsorbing agents such as humic acids influence the oxidation state, toxicity, and 

bioavailability of the total nickel pool. Previous aquatic life criteria for nickel (U.S. EPA 

1980) were expressed as total recoverable nickel. U.S. EPA (1986) has also expressed 

nickel criteria as acid-soluble nickel in the past, but now recommends use of dissolved 

metal concentrations (operationally defined as the metal in solution that passes through a 

0.45 m membrane filter) to set and measure compliance with water quality standards 

(Prothro 1993; U.S. EPA 1993, 1994). The State of New Jersey has adopted EPA’s 

recommendation to express nickel on a dissolved chemical basis in their state water 

quality standards. Thus, all nickel concentrations used to derive the acute and chronic 

effects assessment concentrations (ECAs) reported herein are expressed in terms of the 
8

dissolved metal concentration in the water column.

2.2 Definition of Action Area

The State of New Jersey has adopted the saltwater nickel criteria for all coastal and saline 

waters of estuaries of New Jersey where water quality standards specify a use protecting 

aquatic life. These waters of New Jersey are defined in N.J.A.C. 7.9B-1.4 (Definitions) 

as ―SC‖ and ―SE‖ waters respectively.

2.3 Species Status and Life History

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists 26 federally threatened or endangered species in 

New Jersey that occur or are expected to occur in the state. Of these, 13 are saltwater 

aquatic or aquatic-dependent species (Table 2.1). The list of saltwater aquatic and 

aquatic-dependent species includes 11 animal and 2 plant species. Among the listed 

animals, there are 3 mammals, 2 birds, 4 reptiles, 1 fish and 1 insect species. A third 

aquatic-dependent bird species, the red knot (Calidris canutus rufa), is a proposed 

(candidate) species for listing under the Endangered Species Act, but is not included in 

this BE because candidate species are not yet under statutory protection.

Table 2.1. New Jersey Saltwater List of Federally Threatened and Endangered 

Species

Mammals

Right whale Eubalaena glacialis Endangered

Finback whale Balaenoptera physalus Endangered

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered

Birds

Piping plover Charadrius melodus Threatened

Roseate tern Sterna dougallii Endangered

Reptiles

Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered

Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea Endangered

Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta Threatened

Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii Endangered

Fish

Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered

Insects

Northeastern beach tiger beetle Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis Threatened

Plants

Seabeach amaranth Amaranthus pumilus Threatened

Sensitive joint-vetch Aeschynomene virginica Threatened

The following section presents a summary of each listed species’ status and life history 

for the species that are relevant (species) for the biological evaluation of New Jersey’s 

saltwater nickel aquatic life criteria, and those to which the BE does not apply (four 
9

species). The aquatic and aquatic-dependent saltwater species that are evaluated in this 

document, and the rationale for their selection, is provided in Table 2.2. 

Table 2.2. Categorization and Rationale for the Selection of New Jersey Saltwater Listed 

Species Included in this Biological Evaluation

Species Category Rationale

Relevant Saltwater Listed Species

Shortnose sturgeon Euryhaline aquatic Aquatic species

Northeastern beach 

tiger beetle

Aquatic-dependent Forages in the damp sand of the intertidal zone; prey 

species include lice, fleas, and flies. Adults also 

regularly scavenge dead crabs and fish.

Piping plover Aquatic-dependent The piping plover forages on intertidal beaches, 

washed over areas, exposed mudflats and sandflats 

and shorelines.

Roseate tern Aquatic-dependent This bird forages over shallow coastal waters, inlets, 

and in offshore seas.

Hawksbill sea turtle Aquatic-dependent Frequents rocky areas, coral reefs, shallow coastal 

areas, lagoons or oceanic islands, and narrow creeks 

and passes. 

Kemp's ridley sea turtle Aquatic-dependent Can inhabit deep or shallow estuaries, depending on 

their preferred diet.

Leatherback sea turtle Aquatic-dependent Can inhabit deep or shallow estuaries, depending on 

their preferred diet.

Loggerhead sea turtle Aquatic-dependent May be found hundreds of miles out to sea, as well 

as in inshore areas such as bays, lagoons, salt 

marshes, creeks, ship channels, and at the mouths of 

large rivers. 

Sensitive joint-vetch Aquatic plant Grows in the intertidal zone where plants are 

flooded twice daily.

Saltwater Listed Species to which this BE does not Apply

finback whale, 

humpback whale, right 

whale

Aquatic-dependent These species are largely pelagic and are expected to 

spend limited time within New Jersey’s offshore 

jurisdictional range of three miles for water quality 

criteria. Critical habitat for the right whale includes 

portions of Cape Cod Bay and Stellwagen Bank, the 

Great South Channel (each off the coast of 

Massachusetts), and waters adjacent to the coasts of 

Georgia and the east coast of Florida where they 

feed on dense populations of copepods. The near 

shore waters of New Jersey are apparently not a 

feeding area for the right whale.

Seabeach amaranth Terrestrial Plant Seabeach amaranth grows on barrier island beaches, 

where its primary habitat consists of over-washed 

flats at accreting ends of islands, and lower 

foredunes and upper strands of non-eroding beaches.
10

Unless noted, all information on these species, provided below, can be found using the 

following U.S. Fish and Wildlife web site, 

(http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/StateListingAndOccurrence.do?state=NJ).

PIPING PLOVER

Charadrius melodus

Family: Charadriidae

State - Endangered, Federal - Threatened (Atlantic Coast population)

Sources

http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end-thrtened/plover.pdf

http://ecos.fws.gov/species_profile/servlet/gov.doi.species_profile.servlets.SpeciesProfile

?spcode=B079

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/index.htm

Description

The piping plover is a small shorebird with a black neck band and a black bar across the 

forehead. The upperparts are light sandy-brown and the under parts are white, providing 

the plover with camouflage against sandy beach backgrounds. The legs are bright orange 

and, in breeding plumage, the bill is also orange with a black tip. Although males and 

females are similar in appearance, males typically have darker, more extensive neck 

bands. Juvenile and winter-plumage adults are similar in appearance. Both lack the black 

neck and forehead bands characteristic of breeding adults. Rather, there is a pale band 

around the neck. The bill is solid black and the legs are pale yellow.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution

The Atlantic Coast Population of piping plovers nest along beaches in New Brunswick, 

Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, southern Maine, Rhode Island, 

Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and 

North Carolina. These birds winter primarily on the Atlantic Coast from North Carolina 

to Florida, although some migrate to the Bahamas and West Indies. In New Jersey, the 

species has been recorded in four counties: Atlantic, Cape May, Monmouth, and Ocean.

Habitat

Piping plovers inhabit oceanfront beaches and barrier islands, typically nesting on the 

stretch of beach between the dunes and the high-tide line. Nests are often located in flat 

areas with shell fragments and sparse vegetation. The coloration of piping plovers and 

their eggs blend in remarkably with sand and broken pieces of shell. Sparse vegetation, 

such as American beach grass (Ammophila breviligulata) or sea rocket (Cakile 

endentula), is favored, as it provides cover against predators and the elements. However, 

areas with dense vegetation, such as dunes, are avoided by nesting plovers, since these 

sites provide cover for predators. During the non-breeding season, piping plovers inhabit 

coastal beaches, barrier islands, inlets, sandflats, mudflats, and dredged material islands. 

No critical habitat for the piping plover has been designated in New Jersey. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service has, however, designated 137 areas along the coasts of North Carolina, 
11

South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas as critical 

habitat for the wintering Atlantic Coast population of the piping plover. This includes 

approximately 2,891.7 kilometers of mapped shoreline and approximately 66,881 

hectares of mapped area along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts and along margins of interior 

bays, inlets, and lagoons.

Life History

Piping plovers begin returning to their Atlantic Coast nesting beaches in mid-March. 

Males establish and defend territories and court females. Eggs may be present on the 

beach from mid-April through late July. Clutch size is generally four eggs, and the

incubation period usually lasts for 27-28 days. Piping plovers fledge only a single brood 

per season, but may re-nest several times if previous nests are lost. Chicks develop fast. 

They may move hundreds of yards from the nest site during their first week of life. 

Chicks remain together with one or both parents until they fledge (able to fly) at 25 to 35 

days of age. Depending on date of hatching, flightless chicks may be present from midMay until late August, although most fledge by the end of July. Piping plovers forage on 

intertidal beaches, washover areas, exposed mudflats and sandflats, wracklines, and 

shorelines. Food consists of worms, fly larvae, beetles, crustaceans, mollusks, and other 

invertebrates (Bent 1928). In New Jersey, intertidal polychaetes are the main prey of 

plovers foraging at night (Staine and Burger 1994). The primary route of exposure to 

nickel is through contaminated prey items in the diet.

Historical Information

On December 11, 1985, the piping plover was listed Threatened (50 FR 50726-50734, 

1985, December 11) in its entire range except in the Great Lakes watershed where it was 

listed endangered. The Revised Recovery Plan for the Atlantic Coast Population was 

completed on May 2, 1996. 

Although common during the 1800s, the piping plover was on the verge of extirpation by 

the 1890s and early 1900s due to market hunting and egg collecting. Protection afforded 

by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and changing fashion trends allowed plover 

populations to gradually recover during the 1920s and 1930s. However, since the late 

1940s, coastal development and the elevated recreational use of beaches have caused 

plover population declines. Human habitation along the shore has also resulted in 

elevated populations of many mammalian and avian predators.

In 1984, the piping plover was listed as an endangered species in New Jersey. The New 

Jersey Natural Heritage Program considers the piping plover to be globally ―very rare and 

local throughout its range,‖ and ―critically imperiled in New Jersey because of extreme 

rarity‖. In 1986, the Atlantic Coast piping plover population was listed as Threatened in 

the United States. A recovery goal of 2,000 pairs was set for the Atlantic Coast 

population, including 575 pairs in New Jersey and New York region. Another goal set by 

the recovery plan is to achieve a five-year average productivity of 1.5 fledged young per 

pair. Active monitoring and management of the birds by the Endangered and Nongame 

Species Program (ENSP) are integral parts of federal recovery efforts.
12

Since its date of listing, the Atlantic Coast piping plover population has increased, 

growing from 790 pairs in 1986 to 1,386 pairs in 1999. As numbers have increased in 

New England during the 1980s and 1990s, the number of plovers nesting in New Jersey 

has remained essentially stable at around 120 pairs. Due to its precarious existence, the 

piping plover remains one of New Jersey's most endangered species. The threats that it 

faces, including increased beach recreation and predation, continue to act as serious 

impediments to the recovery of this species. Without management and intense protection 

from habitat loss and predation, it is unlikely that the piping plover would survive in New

Jersey.

Conservation Status

Atlantic coast populations experienced a 50 to 80 percent decline over the past 50 years. 

The Long Island, New York population declined from over 500 pairs (Wilcox 1939) to 

about 100 pairs in 1988 (Cairns and McLaren 1980, USFWS 1988). In 1980 the size of 

Atlantic coast populations was estimated at 910 pairs (Cairns and McLaren 1980); this 

estimate declined to 790 pairs in 1986 (550 pairs in the U.S. and 240 pairs in Canada) 

(USFWS 1988). However, many populations have increased with management attention 

since the mid-1980s. Most of the increase since 1989 has been in New England; the MidAtlantic and Canadian Atlantic populations have declined somewhat since 1989 (USFWS 

1996). The 1991-1996 international census data indicate an overall increase of 30.4 per 

cent, from about 1979 individuals to 2581 (Plissner and Haig 2000). The Canadian 

Atlantic populations declined 16.6 per cent over the same period, from about 513

individuals to 428 (Plissner and Haig 2000). Subsequently, these numbers began to 

increase again, reaching 475 in 1999 (USFWS 2002a).

Summary of Major Threats (USFWS 1996)

Habitat Destruction

Human Disturbance

Increased predation

Other Possible Threats

Oil pollution

Disease, parasites, and pathogens

Pesticides

Piping plovers dwell in sparsely vegetated beach dune areas. For the most part, plovers 

in these areas show greater success when left mostly undisturbed by humans and if 

possible, predators (MDNR 2005). Predators remain one of the most burdensome threats 

to the piping plover, and developments near beaches provide food that attracts increased 

numbers of predators such as raccoons, skunks, and foxes. Domestic and feral cats are 

also very efficient predators of plover eggs and chicks (U.S. FWS 2002b). There are 

limited reports of oil pollution from commercial or recreational watercraft affecting 

plover populations (Amirault-Langlais et al. 2006).
13

ROSEATE TERN (northeast U.S. pop.)

Sterna dougallii dougallii

Family: Laridae

Status: State - Endangered, Federal - Endangered (North Atlantic breeding population)

Sources

http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end-thrtened/roseatetern.pdf

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=B07O

http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7084.html

Description

The roseate tern is a medium-sized, light colored tern with a dark cap and long tail. In

breeding plumage, the adult has a black cap and nape, and a pale gray back and lower 

wing surface. Black tips on the outer primaries contrast with the otherwise pale upper 

surface of the wing. The tail is white and deeply forked with long streamers. On perched 

birds, the tail extends beyond the wingtips. The bill is black with a dark red base. The 

legs and feet are dark red and the iris is brownish-black. Sexes are alike in plumage. The 

non-breeding adult has brown legs, a black bill, and a white forehead with a black mask 

extending from the eye to the nape.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution

In North America, the roseate tern breeds in two discrete areas: from Nova Scotia to 

Long Island, New York (northeastern population) and around the Caribbean Sea 

(including the Florida Keys). It is believed to winter in northern South America and 

along the Brazilian coast. The total world population was estimated in 1998 at 

approximately 40,000 pairs. The northeastern population has recently fluctuated around 

3,500 pairs, with a low of 3,125 in 1992, and a high of 3,775 in 1996; including 125 pairs 

in Canada. Various estimates placed the Caribbean population at between 5,000 and 

8,500 pairs in 1993 and the Florida breeding population at about 350 pairs in 1995.

Habitat

The roseate tern is a coastal species that nests on barrier islands and salt marshes and 

forages over shallow coastal waters, inlets, and offshore seas. Nesting colonies are 

located above the high-tide line, often within vegetated dunes where dense concentrations 

of beach grasses and seaside goldenrod (Solidago sempervirens) provide cover. In 

comparison to other terns, roseate terns nest at sites with more vegetative cover. 

Infrequently, they may nest in open areas, especially when they are displaced from 

optimal sites by gulls.

Life History

Roseate terns arrive on their Atlantic coast breeding grounds in late April or early May 

and begin nesting one month later. In New York, roseate terns are always found nesting 

with common terns. The nest may be only a depression in sand, shell or gravel, and may 

be lined with bits of grass and other debris. It is usually placed in dense grass clumps, or 

even under boulders or rip-rap. Both adults incubate the eggs for about 23 days, and the

young fledge in 22- 29 days. One brood per season is typical, although two broods are 
14

sometimes produced. Migration begins in late summer. One banded individual from 

Great Gull Island, New York was 9 years old when recovered. Roseate tern is an aquaticdependent species that feeds primarily on small freshwater and marine fishes. The 

primary route of exposure to nickel is through contaminated prey items in the diet.

Historical Information

Due to severe population declines in the State, the roseate tern was listed as a threatened 

species in New Jersey in 1979. Because of a drastic worldwide decline in its population, 

the roseate tern was reclassified as an endangered species in New Jersey in 1984. The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service included the North Atlantic breeding population on its list 

of federally endangered species in 1987 because of declines resulting from human 

activity, gull competition, and predation. The New Jersey Natural Heritage Program 

considers the roseate tern to be a non-breeding species in the state and globally ―very rare 

and local throughout its range‖. The National Audubon Society included the roseate tern 

on its Blue List of Imperiled Species in 1972 and from 1979 to 1986, the final year of the 

list. Depressed roseate tern populations are evident throughout other northeastern states, 

where the species is listed as endangered (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, 

Virginia), or threatened (Maine, New Hampshire).

Conservation Status

Prior to 1890, the roseate tern nested along the New Jersey coast, although it was not 

common. From the late 1800s to the early 1900s, roseate tern populations along the 

Atlantic Coast were greatly reduced as a result of the millinery trade, in which birds were 

killed to acquire plumes for women’s hats. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 

which afforded legal protection to all migratory birds, coupled with a change in fashion 

styles, reduced the pressure on roseate terns, enabling populations to reestablish and 

increase. Nesting roseate terns were observed at Hereford Inlet and Five Mile Beach in 

the 1930s and at Brigantine in the 1940s. However, by the 1950s, populations again 

began to decline and continued to do so for several decades. Breeding roseate terns were 

documented in New Jersey in the 1970s, when nesting pairs occurred at Little Egg Inlet, 

Brigantine, Sandy Hook, Holgate, and Barnegat Bay. The last nesting pair in the State 

was recorded in 1980. The decline of this species is attributed to unchecked development 

and high levels of recreational activity along the barrier islands, which have resulted in

habitat loss and disturbance of beach-nesting birds.

The roseate tern was first listed on November 02, 1987. It is currently designated as 

endangered in the U.S.A. (Atlantic Coast south to NC), Canada (Newfoundland, Nova 

Scotia, Quebec), and Bermuda. Within the United States, this species is known to occur 

in: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Rhode 

Island, Virginia; and Canada (Newf., N.S, Queb.). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Northeast Region (Region 5) is the lead region promoting conservation of this species. 

Summary of Major Threats (USFWS 1993)

Human Disturbance

Gull Competition
15

Predation

Habitat Modification

Other Possible Threats

Pollution

Threats to the roseate tern include habitat loss on or near coastal barrier islands from 

development and disturbance from human recreation and other activities in coastal areas. 

Predation by great black-backed (Larus marinus) and herring (Larus argentatus) gulls is 

a threat in areas where human garbage provides an abundant food supply to attract and 

support these predator species (USFWS 1993). Reports of threat due to pollutants are 

extremely limited. Limited data are available for organochlorine contaminants, mercury, 

and oil pollution (USFWS 1993).

SHORTNOSE STURGEON 

Acipenser brevirostrum

Family: Acipenseridae

Status: State – Endangered, Federal – Endangered

Sources

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end-thrtened/sturgeon.pdf

http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/26012.html

Description

The shortnose sturgeon is a fish that has a short and bluntly rounded snout, wide mouth, 

barbels, numerous dorsal, lateral and ventral scutes (bony or horny plates), and a 

heterocercal tail (the upper lobe of the tail fin is larger and contains the upturned end of 

the spinal column). Typically, the body is yellowish brown to nearly black on the head, 

back and sides level to lateral plates, and whitish to yellowish below. Length at initial 

maturity for this species occurs between 45-55 cm fork length, from the snout to the 

middle of the tail (18-22 in.) for males and females. Maximum known fork lengths are 

nearly 49 in. for a female and nearly 39 in. for a male. In New Jersey, 28 tagged males 

ranged between 21 in. to nearly 35 in. fork length.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution

The shortnose sturgeon is found on the Atlantic Coast of North America where its range 

extends from the Saint John River, New Brunswick, to the St. Johns River, Florida. The 

federal recovery plan (NMFS 1998) for the species identifies 19 distinct population 

segments, each defined as a river/estuarine system in which shortnose sturgeons have 

been captured in the generation time of the species (30 years). In New Jersey, the 

sturgeon has been recorded in Burlington and Mercer counties. 

Habitat

River mouths, tidal rivers, estuaries, and bays serve as prime habitat for the shortnose 

sturgeon. In addition, individuals occasionally enter the open ocean. A significant 
16

portion of New Jersey's shortnose sturgeon occurs in the upper tidal Delaware River 

(Dadswell et al. 1984).

Life History

The shortnose sturgeon's life history is complex. Much of its spawning behavior and 

early life stages are still not fully understood. The shortnose sturgeon is anadramous, 

migrating from salt water to spawn in freshwater. In the Hudson River, it spawns from 

April to May. Adult sturgeons migrate upriver from their mid-Hudson overwintering 

areas to freshwater spawning sites north of Coxsackie. Unlike most fish species, 

spawning is not a yearly event for most shortnose sturgeon. Males spawn every other 

year and females every third year. Females lay between 40,000-200,000 eggs which 

hatch in approximately 13 days. Newly-hatched fry are poor swimmers and drift with the 

currents along the bottom. As they grow and mature, the fish move down-river into the 

most brackish parts of the lower Hudson. Shortnose sturgeon are long-lived. The oldest 

known female reached 67 years of age and the oldest known male was 32. Shortnose 

sturgeons are bottom feeders, they eat sludge worms, aquatic insect larvae, plants, snails,

shrimp, and crayfish using their barbels to locate food and their extendable mouths to 

vacuum it up. Sturgeons are exposed to nickel dissolved in the water and through 

contaminated items in their diet.

Historical Information 

The shortnose sturgeon was first listed on March 11, 1967. It is currently designated as 

endangered in the entire range. The shortnose sturgeon has been federally listed as 

endangered since the inception of the Endangered Species Act in 1973, when it was also 

considered endangered in New Jersey. The Office of Natural Land's Management ranks 

the species as "rare in NJ‖ and "either very rare and local throughout its range or found 

locally in a restricted range or because of other factors making it vulnerable to extinction 

throughout its range." This species is afforded protection under both federal and state 

Endangered Species Acts, Clean Water Acts, fishing regulations, and environmental 

review of proposed development projects.

Conservation Status

A combination of factors can be blamed for declines in shortnose sturgeon populations. 

During the 1800s and early 1900s, large tidal rivers, such as the Hudson, served as 

dumping grounds for pollutants that lead to major oxygen depletions and resulting high 

fish losses. At the same time, great demands for sturgeon eggs (caviar) and the fish's 

smoked flesh resulted in overexploitation of sturgeon stocks.

Summary of Major Threats (NMFS 1998a):

Commercial and recreational fishing

Bridge construction/demolition

Contaminants

Dams

Reduced dissolved oxygen levels

Dredging
17

Cooling water intakes/power plants

Alteration of natural river flow

Loss or manipulation of thermal refuges

Possibly – introduced species, including competitors and viruses

Shortnose sturgeons generally occupy the main stem of their natal rivers and migrate 

between freshwater and mesohaline river reaches. They will move to upper freshwater 

areas for spawning, but will occur in fresh or saline habitats for feeding and 

overwintering activities. Of primary concern are habitat loss and mortality due to 

impingement of cooling water intake screens, dredging, and accidental capture (NMFS 

1998a).

The effects of introduced species on shortnose sturgeon are unknown (NMFS 1998a). It 

is anticipated, however, that intentional or accidental introductions and transfers of 

indigenous and non-indigenous sturgeon, e.g., white sturgeon (A. transmontanus) or lake 

sturgeon (A. fulvescens), may threaten wild shortnose sturgeon populations by imposing 

genetic threats, increasing competition for food or habitat, or spreading diseases. It is 

also anticipated that rapid increases in abundance of other non-indigenous species (e.g., 

Asian clams, zebra mussels, blue and flathead catfish) in some rivers will affect sturgeon 

prey and/or introduce new predators to compete for resources of shortnose sturgeon 

(NMFS 1998a).

Shortnose sturgeons are not the main prey item of any known species, and lethal parasites 

are uncommon (NatureServe, accessed April 2008). Sturgeon species, in general, do 

however appear to be susceptible to viruses enzootic to the west coast and fish 

introductions could further spread these diseases. One such pathogen of concern is viral 

hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS). In 2005, a freshwater strain of viral hemorrhagic 

septicemia (VHS) was discovered in freshwater drum from Lake Ontario, and 

subsequently it was found in numerous freshwater species throughout much of the Great 

Lakes. It has also been found in preserved samples from as far back as 2003. Since 1988 

the virus, a finfish pathogen, was only known to exist in marine fish off both coasts 

(USDA 2006). Genetic studies have determined that the strain in the Great Lakes is most 

closely related to the North Atlantic strain (Gagné et al. 2007). Ballast water is a 

plausible vector.

High nitrogen and phosphorus loadings, or nutrient pollution, resulting in eutrophication 

and oxygen depletion is stressful to aquatic life, and presumably, sturgeon. Jenkins et al. 

(1993) found that juvenile shortnose sturgeon experienced relatively high mortality 

(86%) when exposed to dissolved oxygen concentrations of 2.5 mg/L. Older sturgeon (> 

100 days) could tolerate dissolved oxygen concentrations of 2.5 mg/L with <20% 

mortality, indicating an increased tolerance for lowered oxygen levels by older fish. 

Similarly, Campbell and Goodman (2004) reported a 24 h LC50 of 2.7 mg/L for 77-d old 

fish tested at 2 ppt salinity and 25OC; an estimated LC50 of 2.2 mg/L was obtained for 

134-d old fish tested at 4.5 ppt and 26OC. According to this latter study, shortnose 

sturgeon may be more tolerant of low dissolved oxygen levels in high ambient water 

temperatures. A test with 100-d old fish at 2 ppt and a temperature of 30 OC yielded a 24 h 
18

LC50 of 3.1 mg/L. The opposite trend was reported by Flournoy et al. (1992) where

shortnose sturgeon were less tolerant of low dissolved oxygen levels in high ambient 

water temperatures and show signs of stress in water temperatures higher than 28 OC. 

Shortnose sturgeon are not especially sensitive to ammonia among fishes; the acute 

sensitivity of shortnose sturgeon to ammonia ranks 19 of 27 among freshwater fish 

genera. The 96 h LC50 for fingerling shortnose sturgeon is 36.49 mg/L total ammonia 

nitrogen (TAN) at pH 8 (Fontenot et al. 1998, normalized to pH 8 following U.S. EPA 

1999). For nitrite (NO2), the 96 h LC50 for fingerling shortnose sturgeon is 11.3 mg/L. 

The toxicity data available evaluating the sensitivity of shortnose sturgeon, and sturgeon 

species in general, is extremely limited with regard to petroleum hydrocarbons, and nonexistent for other hydrocarbons, including animal fat-based hydrocarbons (grease). 

Several characteristics of shortnose sturgeon (i.e., long lifespan, extended residence in 

estuarine habitats, benthic predator) predispose the species to long-term and repeated 

exposure to environmental contamination from oil and oil-related derivatives (PAHs). 

Data concerning the acute sensitivity of shortnose sturgeon to metal toxicity is also

limited. A 96-h LC50 value of 80 μg/L has been reported for copper in the species 

(Dwyer et al. 2005). This value was the same as that reported for rainbow trout tested in 

the same study. Another sturgeon species tested in that study (shovelnose sturgeon,

Scaphirhynchus platorynchus) was twice as tolerant of acute copper toxicity by 

comparison, although the more closely related Atlantic sturgeon (A. oxyrhynchus) was 

slightly more sensitive: 96 h LC50s of 160 an 60 μg/L, respectively (Dwyer et al. 2005). 

Shortnose sturgeon ranked 5.5 of the 20 fish species tested, the majority of which were 

threatened or endangered species. There is no chronic copper toxicity data available for 

shortnose sturgeon. The scant evidence indicates that shortnose sturgeon is as sensitive to 

metals as rainbow trout, a sensitive salmonid fish species. In general, the relative rank 

sensitivity among fishes to heavy metal toxicity tends to be similar across the metals. 

Therefore, shortnose sturgeon may be presumed to be relatively sensitive to other heavy 

metals. 

NORTHEASTERN BEACH TIGER BEETLE

Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis

Family: Cicindelidae

Status: State – Endangered, Federal - Threatened

Sources

http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end-thrtened/nebchtgrbeetle.pdf

http://ecos.fws.gov/species_profile/servlet/gov.doi.species_profile.servlets.SpeciesProfile

?spcode=I02C

Description

A whitish tiger beetle with variable dark maculation found only along salt water beaches.
19

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution

This species is known to occur in: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, 

Rhode Island, and Virginia. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region 

(Region 5) is the lead region for this entity.

Habitat

Although there are no definable indicators of northeastern beach tiger beetle habitat, this 

species is found on long, wide, dynamic, relatively undisturbed sandy beaches of the 

Atlantic Coast or Chesapeake Bay. This species occurs from about the foredune to the 

high tide line on ocean and bay beaches only. Larvae live in burrows in the sand.

Life History

Northeastern beach tiger beetles have a full, two-year life cycle. Adults emerge in late 

June, reach peak abundance by mid-July, and decline through early September. They 

feed, mate and bask at the water's edge on warm, sunny days. Some adults are also active 

on warm, calm evenings. High body heat is necessary for maximum predatory activity. 

Mating and egg-laying occur from late-June through August. Females deposit their eggs 

in the sand after mating, higher up the beach in the dunes. Eggs hatch and larvae appear 

in late July and August. Larvae experience three developmental stages or "instars." Most 

larvae reach the second instar by September and a few reach the third instar well into 

November, when larvae are still active. Most larvae overwinter as second instars. In the 

following year, they overwinter again as third instars. Overwintering occurs high up the 

beach, avoiding storms and wave activity. Both second and third instars emerge from 

winter inactivity in mid-March. Third instar larvae emerge, pupate in the bottom of their 

burrows, and re-emerge as winged adults in June, two full years after the eggs were laid.

Larvae live in vertical burrows located in the upper intertidal to high drift zone, where 

prey is most abundant. Larvae forage from their burrows, preying on passing insects. 

Their primary food sources are beach fleas, lice, flies and ants. Larvae are regularly 

covered during high tide; sand moisture is important. Larvae lack a hard shell and are 

subject to desiccation. They avoid hot, dry conditions. During the summer months they 

are inactive, going through a period of aestivation. With each successive stage of 

development, larvae grow in size and burrow deeper, going from 4 to 6-7 to 9-14 inches 

into the sand.

Populations of tiger beetles normally experience very high larval mortality and dramatic, 

two to three fold, year-to-year fluctuations in abundance that sometimes result in local 

extinction. Weather factors such as flood tides, hurricanes, erosion and winter storms, 

mortality due to predators and parasites, and recreational beach use all contribute to the 

decline of populations. Natural enemies of adults include robber flies (Asilidae), birds 

and spiders. Larvae are preyed upon by parasitic, wingless wasps (Methocha), which lay 

their eggs on the tiger beetle larvae. The larval wasps develop by eating the larval tiger 

beetles. The primary route of exposure to nickel is through contaminated prey items in 

the diet.
20

Historical Information 

The northeastern beach tiger beetle was first listed on August 07, 1990. It is currently 

designated as threatened in the entire range. 

Conservation Status

Listed as federally threatened in 1990 and state endangered in 1991, the northeastern 

beach tiger beetle receives regulatory protection from both federal and state Endangered 

Species Acts. In addition, habitat protection is afforded through the Coastal Areas 

Facilities Review Act and other coastal regulations. The Natural Heritage Program ranks 

the species as ―critically imperiled in New Jersey because of extreme rarity".

Since 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has supported studies designed to reestablish populations of the northeastern beach tiger beetle in the Northeast. Experiments 

to establish translocation techniques were conducted at the Gateway National Recreation 

Area, Sandy Hook, New Jersey by researchers from Randolph-Macon College in 

Virginia. During these studies, tiger beetle larvae from the Chesapeake Bay area were 

translocated to several beach sites within the recreation area and routinely monitored. 

Initial results from the experiments indicated that the translocation techniques employed 

could be used to establish a population of northeastern beach tiger beetles at Sandy Hook 

and possibly at other sites in the Northeast. A program to reintroduce the species at 

Gateway National Recreation Area has been underway since 1997. 

Supposedly, oil slicks and the use of pesticides for mosquito control have contributed to 

the decline of this species, but direct evidence of the impact of these factors on the 

Northeastern beach tiger beetle does not exist. 

Summary of Major Threats (USFWS 1994):

Destruction and disturbance of natural beach habitat 

Oil slicks

Pesticides

Beach erosion caused by anthropogenic factors

Natural phenomena

- Winter beach erosion

- Flood tides

- Hurricanes

- Vegetation encroachment

The Northeastern beach tiger beetle’s northern most range is Massachusetts and southern 

range is Virginia. The Northeastern beach tiger beetle occupies the thin area from the 

foredunes to the high tide lines on ocean and bay beaches (NatureServe, accessed April 

2008). Larvae live in burrows in the sand along the same beach zone, but do build some 

burrows closer to the tidal zone. Vegetation encroachment on the sandy beaches the 

beetle utilizes during all life cycles is a concern (USFWS 1994). Invasive species that are 

transported to the area and utilize sandy soils have the potential to encroach on the 

beetles’ habitat. Furthermore, significant acreage of underwater grass beds occur in the 
21

shallow waters off-shore from the Northeastern beach tiger beetle’s habitat, which are 

critical to estuaries’ health (Shank 2004). These grass beds assist in preventing beach 

erosion and protect the habitat for the beetle. Sedimentation, low oxygen levels, pH levels 

outside of the normal ambient surface water range could potentially harm the underwater 

grass beds and negatively impact the beetles’ habitat through beach erosion.

Northeastern beach tiger beetles have few known naturally occurring predators. Those 

identified include asilid flies, birds, and spiders have been observed feeding on this insect 

(USFWS 1994). Due to the recent severe declines of Northeastern beach tiger 

populations (>99%), the beetle is vulnerable to any new predator species (NatureServe, 

accessed April 2008). Northeastern beach tiger beetles feed on a variety of food sources 

small amphipods, flies, other beach arthropods, and scavenge numerous other species 

(fish, crabs, and dead amphipods) (B. Knisley and J. Hill personal observation, as cited in 

USFWS 1994). Any sharp declines in these prey species due to competition by invasive 

species could prove harmful to the beetle.

Oil slicks have been suggested as a reason for the Northeastern beach tiger beetles 

decline (Stamatov 1972). Many of the beach locations that the Northeastern beach tiger 

beetles currently inhabit are particularly susceptible to oil spills (USFWS 1994). Oil 

spills have the potential to cause mortality in larval Northeastern beach tiger beetles 

inhabiting areas within the tidal range.

Use of pesticides is also speculated to decrease population densities of the Northeastern 

beach tiger beetle, as well as populations of their prey species when these chemicals enter 

the environment.

HAWKSBILL SEA TURTLE

Eretmochelys imbricata

Family: Cheloniidae

Status: State – Endangered, Federal - Endangered

Sources

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Eretmochelys_imbricat

a.html

http://ecos.fws.gov/species_profile/servlet/gov.doi.species_profile.servlets.SpeciesProfile

?spcode=C00E

http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/Turtle%20Factsheets/hawksbill-seaturtle.htm

Description

The hawksbill is a small to medium-sized marine turtle having an elongated oval shell 

with overlapping scutes on the carapace, a relatively small head with a distinctive hawklike beak, and flippers with two claws. General coloration is brown with numerous 

splashes of yellow, orange, or reddish-brown on carapace. The plastron is yellowish with 

black spots on the intergular and postanal scutes. Juveniles are black or very dark brown 

with light brown or yellow coloration on the edge of the shell, limbs, and raised ridges of 
22

the carapace. As an adult, the hawksbill may reach up to 3 feet in length and weigh up to 

300 pounds, although adults more commonly average about 21⁄2 feet in length and weigh 

between 95 to 165 pounds. It is the only sea turtle with a combination of two pairs of 

prefrontal scales on the head and four pairs of costal scutes on the carapace.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution

The hawksbill is found in tropical and subtropical regions of the Atlantic, Pacific, and 

Indian Oceans. The species is widely distributed in the Caribbean Sea and western 

Atlantic Ocean. In contrast to all other sea turtle species, hawksbills nest in low densities 

on scattered small beaches. The Gulf and Caribbean coasts of the Yucatán Peninsula, 

Mexico, where hawksbills nest on long expanses of beach in densities of 20 to 30 

nests/km, are exceptions. The hawksbill sea turtle has experienced global population 

declines of 80 percent or more during the past century and continued declines are 

projected. Most populations are declining, depleted, or remnants of larger aggregations. 

Only five regional populations remain with more than 1,000 females nesting annually 

(Seychelles, Mexico, Indonesia, and two in Australia). 

Habitat

Hawksbills frequent rocky areas, coral reefs, shallow coastal areas, lagoons or oceanic 

islands, and narrow creeks and passes. They are seldom seen in water deeper than 65 

feet. Hatchlings are often found floating in masses of sea plants, and nesting may occur 

on almost any undisturbed deep-sand beach in the tropics. Adult females are able to 

climb over reefs and rocks to nest in beach vegetation.

No critical habitat for the hawksbill sea turtle has been designated in New Jersey.

Life History

The hawksbill feeds primarily on sponges and is most often associated with the coral reef 

community. Hawksbill turtles are exposed to nickel dissolved in the water and through 

contaminated items in their diet.

The nesting season varies with locality, but in most locations nesting occurs sometime 

between April and November. Hawksbills nest at night and, on average, about 4.5 times 

per season at intervals of approximately 14 days. In Florida and the U.S. Caribbean, 

clutch size is approximately 140 eggs, although several records exist of over 200 eggs per 

nest. Remigration intervals of 2 to 3 years predominate. The incubation period averages 

60 days. Hawksbills are recruited into the reef environment at about 35 cm in length and 

are believed to begin breeding about 30 years later. However, the time required to reach 

35 cm in length is unknown and growth rates vary geographically. As a result, actual age 

at sexual maturity is not known.

Historical Information 

The hawksbill sea turtle was first listed on June 2, 1970. It is currently designated as 

endangered in the entire range. Within the United States, this species is known to occur 

in: Alabama, American Samoa, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Hawaii, 

Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Northern Mariana Islands, Mississippi, North 
23

Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, 

Virginia, and Virgin Islands.

Conservation Status

The decline of this species is primarily due to human exploitation for tortoiseshell. While 

the legal hawksbill shell trade ended when Japan agreed to stop importing shell in 1993, a 

significant illegal trade continues. In addition, there are serious attempts by Cuba, with 

support from other countries, to downlist hawksbills in Cuba to Appendix 2 of the 

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora in 

order to make it possible to reopen trade with Japan and possibly other countries. Other 

threats include loss or degradation of nesting habitat from coastal development and beach 

armoring; disorientation of hatchlings by beachfront lighting; excessive nest predation by 

native and non-native predators; degradation of foraging habitat; marine pollution and 

debris; watercraft strikes; and incidental take from commercial fishing operations.

KEMP’S RIDLEY SEA TURTLE

Lepidochelys kempi

Family: Cheloniidae

Status: State – Endangered, Federal - Endangered

Sources

http://ecos.fws.gov/species_profile/servlet/gov.doi.species_profile.servlets.SpeciesProfile

?spcode=C00O

http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end-thrtened/marinetrtls.pdf

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/species/turtles/kemps.html

Description

The Kemp's ridley and olive ridley sea turtles are the smallest of all extant sea turtles, 

with the weight of an adult generally being less than 45 kg and the straight carapace 

length around 65 cm. Adult Kemp's ridleys' shells are almost as wide as long. Coloration 

changes significantly during development from the grey-black carapace and plastron of 

hatchlings to the lighter grey-olive carapace and cream-white or yellowish plastron of 

adults. There are two pairs of prefrontal scales on the head, five vertebral scutes, five 

pairs of coastal scutes and generally twelve pairs of marginals on the carapace. In each 

bridge adjoining the plastron to the carapace, there are four scutes, each of which is 

perforated by a pore. This is the external opening of Rathke's gland which secretes a 

substance of unknown (possibly a pheromone) function. Males resemble the females in 

size and coloration. Secondary sexual characteristics of male sea turtles include a longer 

tail, more distal vent, recurved claws and, during breeding, a softened mid-plastron. Eggs 

are 34-45 mm in diameter and 24-40 g in weight. Hatchlings range from 42-48 mm in 

straight line carapace length, 32-44 mm in width and 15-20 g in weight. 

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution

The major nesting beach for Kemp's ridleys is on the northeastern coast of Mexico. This 

location is near Rancho Nuevo in southern Tamaulipas. The species occurs mainly in 

coastal areas of the Gulf of Mexico and the Northwestern Atlantic Ocean.
24

Habitat

Unlike land turtles from which they evolved more than 150 million years ago, sea turtles 

spend almost their entire lives in the sea. When active, they often come to the surface to 

breathe, but can remain underwater for several hours at a time while resting. Preferred 

estuarine habitat of sea turtles--deeper or shallower water--directly relates to their 

preferred diet. Adult green turtles are herbivores, or plant eaters. All the other sea turtles 

are either carnivores (meat-eaters) or omnivores that eat both plant matter and meat.

No critical habitat for the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle has been designated in New Jersey.

Life History

Neonatal Kemp's ridleys feed on the available sargassum and associated infauna or other 

epipelagic species found in the Gulf of Mexico. In post-pelagic stages, the ridley is 

largely a crab-eater, with a preference for portunid crabs. The turtles are exposed to 

nickel dissolved in seawater and through contaminated items in their diet. Age at sexual 

maturity is not known, but is believed to be approximately 7-15 years, although other 

estimates of age at maturity range as high as 35 years. 

Historical Information

The Kemp's ridley sea turtle was first listed on December 2, 1970. It is currently 

designated as endangered in the entire range. Within the United States, this species is 

known to occur in: Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, 

Massachusetts, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Rhode 

Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia; Mexico-Atlantic Coast, and tropical and 

temperate waters in Atlantic Basin.

Conservation Status

It is estimated that before the implementation of turtle exclusion devices, the commercial 

shrimp fleet killed 500-5000 Kemp's ridleys each year. Besides shrimp trawls, Kemp's 

ridleys have been taken in pound nets, trawls, gill nets, hook and line, crab traps, and 

longlines. Beginning in 1976, the U.S. and Mexican governments agreed to phase out 

U.S. shrimping in Mexican waters by 1979. U.S. shrimp vessels continued to illegally 

operate off Mexico through the mid 1980s. The Mexican shrimp fleet has declined and 

consists of only approximately 600 vessels, many of which do not operate. Also since 

1978, Mexico has closed the nearshore waters off Rancho Nuevo to fishing during the 

nesting season. However, this closure has not been strictly enforced. 

Dredging operations affect Kemp's ridley turtles through incidental take and by degrading 

the habitat. Incidental take of ridleys has been documented with hopper dredges. In 

addition to direct take, channelization of the inshore and nearshore areas can degrade 

foraging and migratory habitat through spoil dumping, degraded water quality/clarity and 

altered current flow. 
25

LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLE

Dermochelys coriacea

Family: Cheloniidae

Status: State – Endangered, Federal – Endangered

Sources

http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end-thrtened/marinetrtls.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/Turtle%20Factsheets/leatherback-seaturtle.htm

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/species/turtles/leatherback.html

Description

The leatherback is the largest, deepest diving, and most migratory and wide ranging of all 

sea turtles. The adult leatherback can reach 4 to 8 feet in length and 500 to 2000 pounds 

in weight. Its shell is composed of a mosaic of small bones covered by firm, rubbery skin 

with seven longitudinal ridges or keels. The skin is predominantly black with varying 

degrees of pale spotting; including a notable pink spot on the dorsal surface of the head in 

adults. A tooth like cusp is located on each side of the gray upper jaw; the lower jaw is 

hooked anteriorly. The paddle-like clawless limbs are black with white margins and pale 

spotting. Hatchlings are predominantly black with white flipper margins and keels on the 

carapace.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution

The leatherback turtle is distributed worldwide in tropical and temperate waters of the 

Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. It is also found in small numbers as far north as 

British Columbia, Newfoundland, and the British Isles, and as far south as Australia, 

Cape of Good Hope, and Argentina. The largest nesting populations now occur in the 

western Atlantic in French Guiana (4,500 to 7,500 females nesting/year) and Colombia 

(estimated several thousand nests annually), and in the western Pacific in West Papua 

(formerly Irian Jaya) and Indonesia (about 600 to 650 females nesting/year). In the 

United States, small nesting populations occur on the Florida east coast (35 

females/year), Sandy Point, U.S. Virgin Islands (50 to 100 females/year), and Puerto 

Rico (30 to 90 females/year).

Habitat

The leatherback is the most pelagic of the sea turtles. Adult females require sandy 

nesting beaches backed with vegetation and sloped sufficiently so the crawl to dry sand is 

not too far. The preferred beaches have proximity to deep water and generally rough 

seas.

Leatherbacks can dive to more than 3,000 feet below sea level. Preferred estuarine 

habitat of sea turtles--deeper or shallower water--directly relates to their preferred diet. 

No critical habitat for the leatherback sea turtle has been designated in New Jersey.
26

Life History

Jellyfish are the main staple of its diet, but it is also known to feed on sea urchins, squid, 

crustaceans, tunicates, fish, blue-green algae, and floating seaweed. The turtles are 

exposed to nickel dissolved in the water and through contaminated items in their diet.

In the United States, nesting occurs from about March to July. Female leatherbacks nest 

an average of 5 to 7 times within a nesting season, with an observed maximum of 11 

nests. The average inter-nesting interval is about 9 to 10 days. The nests are constructed 

at night in clutches of about 70 to 80 yolked eggs. The white spherical eggs are 

approximately 2 inches in diameter. Typically incubation takes from 55 to 75 days, and 

emergence of the hatchlings occurs at night. Most leatherbacks remigrate to their nesting 

beaches at 2 to 3-year intervals. Leatherbacks are believed to reach sexual maturity in 6 

to 10 years. No critical habitat for the leatherback sea turtle has been designated in New 

Jersey.

Historical Information

Endangered throughout its range (Federal Register, June 2, 19702). Recent estimates of 

global nesting populations indicate 26,000 to 43,000 nesting females annually, which is a 

dramatic decline from the 115,000 estimated in 1980. This is due to exponential declines 

in leatherback nesting that have occurred over the last two decades along the Pacific 

coasts of Mexico and Costa Rica. The Mexico leatherback nesting population, once 

considered to be the world’s largest leatherback nesting population (65 percent of 

worldwide population), is now less than one percent of its estimated size in 1980.

Conservation Status

The crash of the Pacific leatherback population, once the world’s largest population, is 

believed primarily to be the result of exploitation by humans for the eggs and meat, as 

well as incidental take in numerous commercial fisheries of the Pacific. Other factors 

threatening leatherbacks globally include loss or degradation of nesting habitat from 

coastal development; disorientation of hatchlings by beachfront lighting; excessive nest 

predation by native and non-native predators; degradation of foraging habitat; marine 

pollution and debris; and watercraft strikes.

LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLE

Caretta caretta

Family: Cheloniidae

Status: State – Endangered, Federal – Threatened

Sources

http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end-thrtened/marinetrtls.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/Turtle%20Factsheets/loggerhead-seaturtle.htm

_

2

Federal Register, Vol. 35, No. 106, Tuesday, June 2, 1970 - Title 50 Wildlife and Fisheries (also cited as 

35 FR 8491; June 2, 1970).
27

Description

The loggerhead is characterized by a large head with blunt jaws. The carapace and 

flippers are a reddish-brown color; the plastron is yellow. The carapace has five pairs of 

costal scutes with the first touching the nuchal scute. There are three large inframarginal 

scutes on each of the bridges between the plastron and carapace. Adults grow to an 

average weight of about 200 pounds.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution

The loggerhead sea turtle occurs throughout the temperate and tropical regions of the 

Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. However, the majority of loggerhead nesting is at 

the western rims of the Atlantic and Indian oceans. Although the major nesting 

concentrations in the United States are found in South Florida, loggerheads nest from 

Texas to Virginia. Total estimated nesting in the U.S. is approximately 68,000 to 90,000 

nests/year. About 80 percent of loggerhead nesting in the southeastern U.S. occurs in six 

Florida counties (Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, and Broward 

Counties). Adult loggerheads are known to make considerable migrations between 

foraging areas and nesting beaches. During non-nesting years, adult females from U.S. 

beaches are distributed in waters off the eastern U.S. and throughout the Gulf of Mexico, 

Bahamas, Greater Antilles, and Yucatán.

Habitat

The loggerhead is widely distributed within its range. It may be found hundreds of miles 

out to sea, as well as in inshore areas such as bays, lagoons, salt marshes, creeks, ship 

channels, and the mouths of large rivers. Coral reefs, rocky places, and ship wrecks are 

often used as feeding areas. Loggerheads nest on ocean beaches and occasionally on 

estuarine shorelines with suitable sand. Nests are typically made between the high tide 

line and the dune front. Most loggerhead hatchlings originating from U.S. beaches are 

believed to lead a pelagic existence in the North Atlantic gyre for an extended period of 

time, perhaps as long as 10 to 12 years, and are best known from the eastern Atlantic near 

the Azores and Madeira. Post-hatchlings have been found floating at sea in association 

with Sargassum rafts. Once they reach a certain size, these juvenile loggerheads begin 

recruiting to coastal areas in the western Atlantic where they become benthic feeders in 

lagoons, estuaries, bays, river mouths, and shallow coastal waters. These juveniles 

occupy coastal feeding grounds for a decade or more before maturing and making their 

first reproductive migration, the females returning to their natal beach to nest.

No critical habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle has been designated in New Jersey.

Life History

The species feeds on mollusks, crustaceans, fish, and other marine animals. The turtles 

are exposed to nickel dissolved in seawater and through contaminated items in their diet.

The United States nesting season extends from about May through August with nesting 

occurring primarily at night. Loggerheads are known to nest from one to seven times 

within a nesting season (mean is about 4.1 nests per season) at intervals of approximately 

14 days. Mean clutch size varies from about 100 to 126 along the southeastern United 
28

States coast. Incubation ranges from about 45 to 95 days, depending on incubation 

temperatures, but averages 55 to 60 days for most clutches in Florida. Hatchlings 

generally emerge at night. Remigration intervals of 2 to 3 years are most common in 

nesting loggerheads, but remigration can vary from 1 to 7 years. Age at sexual maturity 

is believed to be about 20 to 30 years.

Historical Information

Threatened throughout its range (Federal Register, July 28, 19783).

Conservation Status

Threats include loss or degradation of nesting habitat from coastal development and 

beach armoring; disorientation of hatchlings by beachfront lighting; excessive nest 

predation by native and non-native predators; degradation of foraging habitat; marine 

pollution and debris; watercraft strikes; disease; and incidental take from channel 

dredging and commercial trawling, longline, and gill net fisheries. There is particular 

concern about the extensive incidental take of juvenile loggerheads in the eastern Atlantic 

by longline fishing vessels from several countries.

Summary of Major Threats (USFWS 1992):

Incidental take by the shrimp industry has been identified as the largest source of 

mortality;

Human encroachment and access along the entire nesting area.

Management practices at Rancho Nuevo nesting area concentrates eggs from all 

of the collected nests in corrals. This concentration makes the eggs more 

susceptible to reduced viability from the manipulation, disease vectors and 

inundation.

Marine pollution (chronic, low-level oil spills and occasional massive oil spills) 

and debris;

Dredging operations (through incidental take and by degrading the habitat);

Other known or probable man-induced stresses which have yet to be fully 

quantified include the explosive removal of obsolete oil platforms, impact by the 

hulls or propellers of boats, power plant entrapment and human activities of 

various kinds on the foraging ground

Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle has the most restricted distribution of any sea turtle. They occur 

throughout much of the Gulf of Mexico and the eastern seaboard of the United States, 

depending on life stage and season. The major nesting beach where this sea turtle 

emerges in any concentration to lay eggs is on the northeastern coast of Mexico. The 

occurrence of this species in coastal areas of the Gulf of Mexico and the northwestern 

Atlantic Ocean places the Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle in waters that are heavily trafficed by 

large commercial vessels, large and small fishing vessels, and recreational vessels. Most 

_

3

Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 146, Friday, July 28, 1978 - Title 50 Wildlife and Fisheries (also cited as 

43 FR 32800; July 28, 1978).
29

sea turtle species depend upon algal beds, seagrass and/or reef habitats for food and 

refuge. The destruction or degradation of these habitats is a widespread and serious threat 

to the recovery of depleted sea turtle stocks. The general degradation of these habitats can 

be affected by eutrophication and sedimentation (NMFS 1998b). Sea turtles depend upon 

suitable beach habitat for nesting. Introduced species of exotic vegetation can displace 

native dune and beach vegetation and through shading and/or chemical inhibition (NMFS 

1998b), leading to degradation of suitable nesting habitat. Dense new vegetation shades 

nests, potentially altering natural hatchling sex ratios. Thick root masses can also 

entangle eggs and hatchlings. Environmental contamination also harms biologically 

important nearshore ecosystems, including seagrass, coral, mangrove, and algae 

communities. The declining productivity of seagrass and coral communities, in particular, 

can be hazardous to sea turtles that depend on these systems for nutrition and shelter.

The vast majority of diseases and conditions which have been identified or diagnosed in 

sea turtles are described from captive stock, either turtles in experimental headstart 

programs or mariculture facilities (NMFS 1991). One notable exception is the occurrence 

of fibropapillomas, common in the central Indian River system of Florida, Florida Bay, 

and in the Florida Keys, on green turtles, first described by Smith and Coates (1938). The 

dinoflagellate Prorocentrum, which lives on seagrasses so it is consumed by foraging 

green turtles, produces a tumor-promoting toxin (okadaic acid) that has been found in the 

tissues of Hawaiian green turtles with fibropapilloma disease (Milton et al. 2003).

Although surprisingly robust when faced with physical damage (shark attacks, boat 

strikes), sea turtles are highly sensitive to chemical insults such as oil (Milton et al. 

2003). Sea turtles are vulnerable to the effects of oil at all life stages—eggs, posthatchlings, juveniles, and adults in nearshore waters. Several aspects of sea turtle biology 

and behavior place them at particular risk, including a lack of avoidance behavior, 

indiscriminate feeding in convergence zones, and large predive inhalations. Oil effects on 

turtles include increased egg mortality and developmental defects, direct mortality due to 

oiling in hatchlings, juveniles, and adults; and negative impacts to the skin, blood, 

digestive and immune systems, and salt glands.

Exposure to heavy metals and other contaminants in the marine environment is also of 

concern. Kemp’s ridley and other sea turtles are exposed to metals dissolved in seawater 

and through contaminated items in their diet (USFWS 1992). Reptiles are prominent 

members of ecosystems and often have life history characteristics that make them 

vulnerable to mercury accumulation (e.g., long life span, high trophic level, aquatic 

habitat). 

Sea turtles are long-lived species, and occupy relatively high trophic positions in the 

marine food web. These factors predispose sea turtles to bioaccumulate contaminants. 

Rybitski (1995) reported on the tissue concentrations of organochlorine pollutants in 

juvenile loggerhead and Kemp's ridley turtles stranded in Virginia and North Carolina. 

The predominant organochlorines were polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), DDT and its 

breakdown products, DDE and DDD.
30

Keller et al. (2005) monitored the blood plasma of loggerhead turtles along the U.S. East 

Coast, and consistently found significant levels of perfluorinated compounds (PFCs). 

PFC concentrations measured in the plasma of turtles found along the coast from Florida 

to North Carolina indicated that PFCs have become a major contaminant for the species. 

Blood chemistry analyses of PFC-contaminated loggerheads suggested damage to liver 

cells and the suppression of at least one immune function which could lead to a higher 

risk of disease. Keller et al. (2005) reported that current environmental PFC exposures 

are putting marine species at enhanced risk of health problems from reduced immunity. 

SENSITIVE JOINT-VETCH

Aeschynomene virginica

Family: Fabaceae

Status: State – Threatened, Federal – Threatened

Source

http://www.ncnhp.org/Images/107.pdf

Description

Sensitive joint-vetch is an annual plant in the bean family native to the eastern United 

States. Plants typically attain heights of 1 to 2 meters in a single growing season, 

although they can grow as tall as 2.4 meters. The stems are single, sometimes branching 

near the top, and with stiff or bristly hairs. The leaves are even-pinnate, 2 to 12 

centimeters (cm) long, with entire, glad-dotted leaflets. Each leaf consists of 30 to 56 

leaflets. Leaflets are 0.8 to 2.5 cm long and 0.2 to 0.4 cm wide. The leaves fold slightly 

when touched. The yellow, irregular flowers are 1.0 to 1.5 cm across, streaked with red, 

and grow in racemes (elongated inflorescence with stalked flowers). The fruit is a loment 

with 4 to 10 one-seeded segments, turning dark brown when ripe. Fruits are 3.0 to 7.0 cm 

long and shallowly scalloped along one side.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution

Sensitive joint-vetch is known from a total of 24 extant sites, including one in Maryland, 

one in New Jersey, two in North Carolina, and 20 in Virginia. The species shows 

considerable annual fluctuation in population numbers, varying in at least one case from 

approximately 50 to 2,000 individuals over a 3-year period. Although populations do 

fluctuate, there is an apparent trend for large populations to remain large and small 

populations to remain small.

Habitat

Sensitive joint-vetch grows in the intertidal zone where plants are flooded twice daily. 

The species seems to prefer the marsh edge at an elevation near the upper limit of tidal 

fluctuation. It is usually found in areas where plant diversity is high (50 species per acre) 

and annual species predominate. Bare to sparsely vegetated substrates appear to be a 

habitat feature of critical importance to this plant. As an annual, it requires such 

microhabitats for establishment and growth. Such areas may include accreting point bars 

that have not yet been colonized by perennial species, low swales within extensive 

marshes, or areas where muskrats have eaten most of the vegetation. It is frequently 
31

found in the estuarine meander zone of tidal rivers where sediments transported from 

upriver settle out and extensive marshes are formed. The substrate may be sandy, muddy, 

gravelly, or peaty.

Life History

Plants flower from July through September and occasionally into October. In Autumn, 

senescence may be triggered by the drop in water temperature or by salinity intrusion due 

to a decrease in freshwater flow. Bumblebees have been observed pollinating the flowers. 

Fruits form shortly after the first signs of flowering in July. Although flowering continues 

until late Fall, production of vigorous fruits appears to decline significantly by midOctober. Seed maturation begins in August and continues through October. Germination 

takes place from late May to early June. Seedlings grow quickly, approximately doubling 

in size every 2 weeks during the first 6 weeks. Exposure to nickel occurs when plants 

absorb water contaminated with this metal.

Historical Information

The sensitive joint-vetch was first listed on May 20, 1992. It is currently designated as 

threatened in the entire range. The historic range for the species extended into Delaware 

and Pennsylvania, but the species has not been seen in those states for more than a 

century.

Conservation Status

The extirpation of sensitive joint-vetch from Delaware and Pennsylvania and its 

elimination from many sites in other states can be directly attributed to habitat 

destruction. Many of the marshes where it occurred historically have been dredged and/or 

filled and the riverbanks stabilized with bulkheads or riprap. Other threats include 

sedimentation, competition from exotic plant species, recreational activities, agricultural 

activities, mining, commercial and residential development with associated pollution and 

sedimentation, impoundments, water withdrawal projects and introduced insect pests.

Sedimentation inhibits seed germination, smothers seedlings, and promotes invasion of 

competing weedy species. Herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers from golf courses, lawns, 

and gardens degrade water quality. 

Summary of Major Threats (USFWS 1995):

• sedimentation

• competition from exotic plant species

• dams

• dredging and filling activities

• boating activities

• shoreline stabilization and structural development

• road and bridge construction

• commercial and residential development

• water withdrawal projects

• changes in water quality

• agricultural practices
32

• declines in muskrat populations

• sea level changes

Sensitive joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica) is a robust annual herb that can grow up 

to two meters tall. It occurs in the intertidal zone of river shores, estuarine-river marsh 

borders, and marsh interiors. The sensitive joint-vetch is a poor competitor. Bare soil or 

sparsely vegetated substrates are critical for its establishment and growth (U.S. EPA

2003, USFWS 2008). Invasive plants that form dense, monospecific stands, such as the 

common reed (Phragmites australis), have detrimental effects on this species (USFWS 

1995). Destruction and degradation of its habitat cause pronounced impacts on 

populations (USFWS 1995). While the direct effects of water pollution on the sensitive 

joint-vetch are unknown, pollution generally appears to reduce species diversity within 

marshes and may promote the encroachment of aggressive, weedy species (USFWS 

1995). Pollution or deposition of fine material can cause soil pores to become clogged or 

plugged. If soil pores are clogged, plant roots may not be able to carry out normal 

functions during periods when the plants are not inundated.

2.4 Environmental Baseline 

The quality of much of New Jersey’s surface waters, where several threatened and 

endangered species live and forage for food, has been lowered by multiple human 

activities, such as the release of toxic contaminants, and the loss and degradation of 

aquatic habitats and the surrounding vegetation. A total of 111 segments of coastal water 

bodies in New Jersey have at least one chemical or physical parameter exceeding a water 

quality standard. Note: information on impaired sites presented in this section was taken 

from U.S. EPA’s TMDL website (www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl). However, of the 111 

coastal water segments sampled in New Jersey, only 17 percent of the impairments were 

attributed to chemical contaminants. The remaining 83 percent of the 111 coastal water 

segments had impairments resulting from low dissolved oxygen, and high coliform and 

pathogen values. In most cases, impairment of a water body segment was the result of

multiple contaminants. According to New Jersey's final 2008 303(d) list of water quality 

limited waters (available at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/wms/bwqsa/generalinfo.htm#2, 

accessed February 11, 2010), nickel currently is among the causes of impairment in only 

4 coastal segments (identified in greater detail below). The established TMDL for nickel 

at a fifth coastal segment (Hackensack River, NJ) stands to be withdrawn pending 

concurrence with the findings of ―may effect, but not likely to adversely affect‖

determined in this BE.

Our concern here is with the potential adverse effects of nickel (at or near criteria 

concentrations) on listed estuarine/marine (so called saltwater) species. As a first 

assessment of the potential of such a risk, maps of the distributions of endangered species 

were overlain with maps identifying sites impaired by this contaminant. Any nickel 

impaired waters (i.e., waters containing dissolved nickel at concentrations exceeding the 

NJ saltwater nickel criteria) within the distribution range of a listed species relevant to 

this BE were considered an indicator that the species may be exposed to excessively high 

concentrations of nickel. The available data on the locations of New Jersey sites
33

considered to be impaired by nickel suggest that there is no overlap with distributions of 

the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), hawksbill sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback turtle (Dermochelys 

coriacea), and loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). In contrast, this first assessment 

(overlay of expected geographic range with maps of nickel impaired waters) suggests that

piping plover (Charadrius melodus), roseate tern (Sterna dougallii), northeastern beach 

tiger beetle (Cincindela dorsalis), and the sensitive joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica) 

may all be potentially exposed to waters currently impaired by nickel.

Note, for the purpose of this first assessment analysis, the maps provided below do not 

include the coastal segments within Essex and Hudson counties along the Hackensack 

River subject to the 1999 nickel TMDL, which was issued based on New Jersey’s 

previous saltwater criteria for the metal. Instead, focus is only on the current nickelimpaired waterbodies located in Atlantic and Ocean counties. The focus on the coastal 

waterbody segments within these two counties is justified because, aside from the heavily 

protected nesting areas for the breeding population of piping plover at the Gateway 

National Recreation Area - Sandy Hook Unit, there are no historical records (dating back 

to the last several decades) of roseate terns, Northeastern beach tiger beetle or sensitive 

joint vetch in these historically heavily urban and industrialized areas of New Jersey’s

coastline. 

Past and On-going Human and Natural Factors Leading to the Current Status of 

Select Federally-listed Species in New Jersey’s Nickel Impaired Watersheds

Piping Plovers

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/Endangered/plover.html

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/Fact%20Sheets%20PDF%20holding/Beach_

Manage_.pdf

There are no published data reporting direct effects of nickel in ambient surface waters 

(including estuarine and marine) on the current populations of piping plover in New 

Jersey or other Atlantic states. As indicated above, the number of plovers nesting in New 

Jersey has remained essentially stable through the 1980s and 1990s at around 120 pairs, 

indicating that continued exposure to heavy metal impaired waters (and other threats) has 

not led to further decline of the species.

Figure 1 provides a map overlaying the extant (present), potential (may be present) and 

historic (may still be present) species distributions in New Jersey with the nickelimpaired waterbodies identified in the current (2008) state 303(d) list, i.e., Great Egg 

Harbor River or GEHR, from Great Egg Harbor to Miry Run (state waterbody ID 

NJ2040302050130-01); GEHR from Miry Run to Lake Lenape (state waterbody ID NJ 

NJ02040302050060); Toms R Lower from Rt 166 to Oak Ridge Pkwy (state waterbody 

ID NJ02040301080060-01); and Toms River Lower below state route 166 –

(NJ02040301080090-01). The map shows overlap between the extant, potential and

historic ranges of piping plover based on county (Atlantic and Ocean) and municipality, 
34

and the four coastal waterbody segments currently impaired in New Jersey due to nickel. 

All four segments are deemed impaired based on exceedance of the aquatic life 

designated use, and include other toxic metals (cadmium, copper, lead, mercury) and 

toxic metalloids (arsenic) in addition to nickel. Parts of Great Egg Harbor and Toms 

River Lower are also impaired due to low dissolved oxygen and pathogens, respectively. 

The extant, present and historic species distributions identified by county (bounded by a 

light grey line) and municipality (bounded by green, yellow or brown based on whether 

species populations are considered extant, potential or historic , respectively) were from 

the New Jersey Field Offices’ document entitled: Federally Listed and Candidate Species 

Occurences in New Jersey by County and Municipality, available as a pdf document at 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/Endangered/munlist.pdf. 

With regard to the particular nickel-impaired watershed assessment units (NAUs) 

indicated on the map provided in Figure 1 (see labeled portions of stream reaches in bold 

red font), there are no breeding piping plover in these areas - either currently or the recent 

past (since regular intensive surveying began in 1986). Furthermore, these areas are well 

enough up the watersheds that one would not expect these waters to be within their 

foraging range either. Nor would it be expected to be a concern for migratory plovers. 

The nickel impaired waters are simply outside the normal piping plover habitat for New 

Jersey. All of the recent nesting in New Jersey has been on Atlantic Coast beaches or 

inlet systems (Todd Pover, New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, Endangered and 

Nongame Species Program, personal communication). While there has been some recent 

nesting (as recent as 2005) in the Great Egg Harbor watershed, the nests are well out on 

the coast, on the southern side of the inlet (northernmost end of Ocean City) and a site 

referred to as Sea View Harbor Marina, just inside the northern side of the inlet. But 

these areas are not within or in close proximity to the NAU. The Toms River area is a 

"dead zone" for plovers in New Jersey, as the coastal beaches to its east are heavily 

developed and thus have not had plovers present anytime in the past several decades 

according to local field biologists.

New Jersey works with the Fish and Wildlife Service, NJ Endangered and Nongame 

Species Program, and land owners and managers to develop a framework for beach 

development through beach management planning. The key elements of beach 

management are:

Applicable laws and regulations

Roles and responsibilities of each party to the plan

Management zones and natural areas

Recovery goals for listed species

Management issues

o Biological surveys and monitoring

o Predation, herbivory, and disease

o Human disturbance

o Beach management and maintenance

 Beach raking

 Refuse and large debris removal 

 Dune management
35

 Beach nourishment

 Sand scraping

 Beach access structure

o Education and outreach

The New Jersey Field office has also published a couple of documents to help protect the 

piping plover. The first, Guidelines for Managing Recreational Activities in Piping 

Plover Breeding Habitat on the U.S. Atlantic Coast to Avoid Take Under Section 9 of the 

Endangered Species Act is meant to deal with recreational activities in the areas where 

piping plovers breed. The second, Guidelines for Managing Fireworks in the Vicinity of 

Piping Plovers and Seabeach Amaranth on the U.S. Atlantic Coast deals with the direct 

and indirect effects of firework displays along the beach for these species.

EPA expects the current status of piping plover in proximity to the NAUs and along the 

New Jersey coastline in general to be contingent on the above efforts to control human 

disturbance and preserve appropriate habitat, two of the primary past and on-going 

threats to existing populations.

Roseate Terns

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/Fact%20Sheets%20PDF%20holding/Beach_

Manage_.pdf

There are no published data reporting direct effects of nickel in ambient surface waters 

(including estuarine and marine) on the current populations of roseate terns in New 

Jersey or other Atlantic states. As the last known breeding pair was recorded in 1980, it 

is not possible to evaluate the current effects of nickel to this species.

Figure 2 provides a map overlaying the historic (although currently not known to be 

present) species distributions in New Jersey with the nickel-impaired waterbodies 

identified in the 2008 state 303(d) list. The map shows overlap between the historic 

range of roseate tern based on county and watershed (from Nature Serve, accessed via

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/index.htm) and the four coastal NAUs impaired in 

New Jersey due to nickel. Whether or not roseate terns currently reside in or near these 

NAUs is not known at this time. No recent occurrence information has been reported in 

New Jersey.

As of the time of preparation of this BE, there is no information about actions taken to 

protect this species. In the Beach Management Plan mentioned above for piping plover, 

there is reference to two other tern species, and the roseate tern may be included since all 

federally and state-listed species are meant to be included, as are other species of 

concern.

Again, EPA expects the current status of roseate terns, if found to be dwelling along the

New Jersey coastline, to be contingent on the above efforts to control human disturbance 

and preserve appropriate habitat, two of the primary past and on-going threats to existing 

populations.
36

Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/Endangered/tigerbeetle.html

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end-thrtened/nebchtgrbeetle.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/Fact%20Sheets%20PDF%20holding/Beach_

Manage_.pdf

There are no published data reporting direct effects of nickel (or any other metal) in 

ambient surface waters (including estuarine and marine) on the current populations of 

Northeastern beach tiger beetle in New Jersey or other Atlantic states. 

Figure 3 provides a map overlaying the distributions of the now extirpated (no longer 

present) populations of Northeastern beach tiger beetles in New Jersey in relation to the 

four nickel-impaired NAUs. According to the recent (June 2008) document published by 

the USFWS, New Jersey Field Office, there are no past or present records of 

Northeastern beach tiger beetle in the municipalities of Egg Harbor or Toms River 

Township.

The Northeastern beach tiger beetle is included in the Beach Management Planning that 

New Jersey completes with the Fish and Wildlife Service and land owners. The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service support studies on how to re-establish the species in the 

northeastern United States. A program to reintroduce the species is underway in the 

Gateway National Recreation Area, Sandy Hook Unit. Preserving specific habitat and 

adhering to the practices and principles set forth in the Beach Management Planning

appears to be among the most viable options for on-going preservation of the species at 

this time.

Sensitive Joint-vetch

http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/ASP/CPC_ViewProfile.asp?CPCNum=35

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/Fact%20Sheets%20PDF%20holding/Beach_

Manage_.pdf

There are no published data reporting direct effects of nickel in ambient surface waters 

(including estuarine and marine) on the current populations of sensitive joint-vetch in 

New Jersey or other Atlantic states. Results of toxicity tests with other freshwater 

vascular plants suggest that metal pollutants do not represent a threat to this species. 

Vascular plants, in general, are not sensitive to toxic effects of copper, lead, nickel, zinc, 

aluminum, and other metals (U.S. EPA 2008).

Figure 4 provides a map overlaying the historic species distributions of sensitive jointvetch in New Jersey in relation to the nickel-impaired NAUs. Again, the 2008 document

containing Federally-Listed and candidate species occurrences by county and 

municipality published by the USFWS, New Jersey Field Office indicates that sensitive 

joint-vetch are historic (may still be present) in Egg Harbor Township; while there is no 

past or present record of this species in Toms River Township.
37

As a federally and state-listed species, the sensitive joint-vetch is included in the Beach 

Management Planning that New Jersey completes with the Fish and Wildlife Service and 

land owners. The Nature Conservatory in New Jersey protects sites with sensitive jointvetch and is removing the invasive species Phragmites australis near a population along 

the Manumuskin River. Many studies have been conducted, surveying for new 

populations and determining how best to repopulate the species. Practices to reduce 

competition and prevent habitat destruction appear to be among the most viable options 

for on-going preservation of the species at this time.
38

Figure 1. Piping plover distribution and New Jersey 303(d) Nickel Assessment Units.
39

Figure 2. Roseate tern distribution and New Jersey 303(d) Nickel Assessment Units.
40

Figure 3. Northeastern beach tiger beetle distribution and New Jersey 303(d) Nickel 

Assessment Units.
41

Figure 4. Sensitive joint-vetch distribution and New Jersey 303(d) Nickel

Assessment Units.
42

3.0 ASSESSING EFFECTS OF THE NEW JERSEY SALTWATER NICKEL 

CRITERIA ON FEDERALLY-LISTED SPECIES

3.1 Overview

See Appendix B in this document.

3.2 Data Collection

The acute and chronic nickel toxicity data used in this biological evaluation were 

collected from a literature search of EPA’s ECOTOX database and EPA’s Ambient 

Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for Nickel (U.S. EPA 1986). To ensure 

completeness and broad applicability of this biological evaluation, data for non-North 

American species were included.

3.3 Toxic Effects on Aquatic Species

This section presents the results of the toxic effects assessment, including the supporting 

data and analyses on Federally-listed aquatic species, their surrogates, and their food 

items. The overall process for assessing aquatic toxicity of nickel is described in detail in 

Appendix B, Section 5.

3.3.1 Aquatic Animals

This section contains the assessment results for water-column only toxicity to aquatic 

animals. The process for assessing the effects of nickel from water column exposure is 

described in Appendix B, Sections 1 through 5. Aquatic data for assessing nickel are 

presented in Table 3.1 as mean (geometric) values for a given species. These data are 

then used to derive the mean and 5th percentile values for specific levels of taxa in Table 

3.2. Several aspects of the assessment are worth noting here: (1) the no-observed effects

concentrations (NOECs) in Table 3.1 are from either (a) chronic tests where nickel in the 

exposure medium was measured, or (b) were derived from acute tests through acute-tochronic ratios for nickel; and (2) taxa in Table 3.2 are given a 5th percentile value only 

where there are four or more data points for the taxon, where an Interspecies Correlation 

Estimate (ICE) is available for the taxon, and/or where a 5th percentile value was derived 

via an alternative approach for the taxon (see Appendix B).

Measured LC50 values for nickel are available for 49 animal species: 10 fish and 39 

invertebrates; whereas measured chronic NOEC values are available for only four marine 

species: one fish and three invertebrates (Table 3.1). The remaining NOEC values in 

Table 3.1 were all estimated by dividing measured LC50 values by the mean acutechronic ratio (ACR) for nickel of 5.960, the geometric mean of the ACRs for four 

saltwater species available (see Section 2.1.1 of this BE for more details regarding the 

saltwater ACR for nickel).

No acute or chronic nickel toxicity data exist for shortnose sturgeon, A. brevirostrum

(Class Actinopterygii, Order Acipenseriformes). Although acute toxicity data exist for 10
43

other species of saltwater fish in the same class (ray-finned fishes), none are benthic 

invertivores (Table 3.1). Mean acute LC50 values for these other fishes in the class 

Actinopterygii range from a low of 5,400 ug Ni/L for sheepshead minnow, Cyprinodon 

variegatus, to greater than 148,000 ug Ni/L for mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus. The 

only available data on the chronic (sublethal) effects of nickel on fish are for the 

topsmelt, Atherinops affinis (Table 3.1). A measured, 40-d flow-through early life-stage 

chronic toxicity test with early gastrula-staged embryos exposed to nickel at 20oC and in 

full strength seawater (34 ppt) resulted in a NOEC value for survival of 3,208 ug Ni/L 

(Hunt et al. 2002). The NOEC value for embryo hatching success was nearly three times 

higher (i.e.,11,167 μg/L), and no significant growth effects were found over the range of 

nickel tested (up to 62,217 μg/L).

Since none of the fish toxicity test results are available for A. brevirostrum or for a fish in 

either the same genus or family of this listed species, we cannot perform either a direct 

toxicity evaluation or an Interspecies Correlation Estimation (ICE) model for A. 

brevirostrum in New Jersey’s coastal waters. As at least four acute toxicity values are 

available for members of the class of the listed species (Actinopterygii, ray-finned fishes), 

the approach outlined in Appendix B, Section 4 recommends that a species sensitivity 

distribution (SSD) for the family, order, class or phylum of the listed species be used to 

determine a 5th percentile acute assessment effects concentration (acute ECA value) for 

the family, order, class or phylum of the listed species. Generation of an SSD from 

toxicity data from different families, orders, classes or phyla is the sixth tier of the 

biological evaluation hierarchy for evaluating acute water quality criteria methodology

outlined.

The 5th percentile LC50 and NOEC values for the class Actinopterygii given by the SSD 

are 4,443 and 763 μg/L, respectively (Table 3.2). Dividing the 5th percentile LC50 value 

by 2.27 to obtain an acute ECA value results in a value of 1,957 μg/L. Both the acute 

(1,957 μg/L) and chronic (763 μg/L) ECA values derived from the class-level SSD for all 

marine fish species are substantially higher than the acute (CMC) and chronic (CCC) 

nickel criteria of 64 and 22 μg/L, respectively (ECA values are summarized in Table 4.1).
44

Table 3.1. Saltwater Acute and Chronic Toxicity Data Obtained Through ECOTOX and the 1986 Water Quality Criteria Document for Nickel. Unless otherwise indicated LC50 

values are from acute tests (geometric mean of all acceptable values). NOEC values are either “Measured NOEC values” from chronic tests or “Estimated NOEC

values” derived as the quotient of an acute:chronic ratio (ACR) and the mean LC50 values. An ACR of 5.960 was used. All values are dissolved nickel in μg/L. 

Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species Common Name

Mean 

LC50

Meas 

NOEC Est NOEC

Annelida Polychaeta Aciculata Nereididae Neanthes arenaceodentata Polychaete worm 48510.0 8139.3

Annelida Polychaeta Aciculata Nereididae Nereis virens Polychaete worm 24750.0 4152.7

Annelida Polychaeta Canalipalpata Ctenodrilidae Ctenodrilus serratus Polychaete worm 16830.0 2823.8

Annelida Polychaeta Scolecida Capitellidae Capitella capitata Polychaete worm 49500.0 8305.4

Arthropoda Malacostraca Amphipoda Ampeliscidae Ampelisca abdita Amphipod 8902.8 1493.8

Arthropoda Malacostraca Amphipoda Corophiidae Corophium volutator Scud 18761.4 3147.9

Arthropoda Malacostraca Amphipoda Hyalidae Allorchestes compressa Scud, Amphipod 34333.2 5760.6

Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Cancridae Cancer anthonyi Yellow crab 10000.0 1677.9

Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Cancridae Cancer magister Dungeness or edible crab 4316.4 724.2

Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Crangonidae Crangon crangon

Common shrimp, sand 

shrimp 68159.2 11436.1

Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Paguridae Pagurus longicarpus Longwrist hermit crab 46530.0 7807.0

Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Pandalidae Pandalus montagui Aesop shrimp 17140.4 2875.9

Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Penaeidae Metapenaeus ensis Greasyback shrimp 1267.2 212.6

Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Penaeidae Penaeus duorarum Northern pink shrimp 27324.0 4584.6

Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Portunidae Carcinus maenas

Green or European shore 

crab 127156.3 21335.0

Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Portunidae Portunus pelagicus Crab 1150.7 193.1

Arthropoda Malacostraca Mysida Mysidae Americamysis bahia Opossum shrimp 375.8 139.6

Arthropoda Malacostraca Mysida Mysidae Americamysis bigelowi Shrimp 627.7 105.3

Arthropoda Malacostraca Mysida Mysidae Heteromysis formosa Opossom Shrimp 150.2 25.2

Arthropoda Malacostraca Mysida Mysidae Mysidopsis intii Mysid 147.1 9.9

Arthropoda Maxillopoda Calanoida Acartiidae Acartia clausi Calanoid copepod 2655.6 445.6

Arthropoda Maxillopoda Calanoida Acartiidae Acartia tonsa Calanoid copepod 580.3 97.4

Arthropoda Maxillopoda Calanoida Pseudodiaptomidae Pseudodiaptomus coronatus Calanoid copepod 11400.7 1912.9

Arthropoda Maxillopoda Calanoida Temoridae Eurytemora affinis Calanoid copepod 10586.6 1776.3
45

Table 3.1. Saltwater Acute and Chronic Toxicity Data Obtained Through ECOTOX and the 1986 Water Quality Criteria Document for Nickel. Unless otherwise indicated LC50 

values are from acute tests (geometric mean of all acceptable values). NOEC values are either “Measured NOEC values” from chronic tests or “Estimated NOEC

values” derived as the quotient of an acute:chronic ratio (ACR) and the mean LC50 values. An ACR of 5.960 was used. All values are dissolved nickel in μg/L. 

Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species Common Name

Mean 

LC50

Meas 

NOEC Est NOEC

Arthropoda Maxillopoda Harpacticoida Ameiridae Nitocra spinipes Harpacticoid copepod 5940.0 996.6

Arthropoda Maxillopoda Harpacticoida Tisbidae Tisbe holothuriae Harpacticoid copepod 2554.2 428.6

Chordata Actinopterygii Atheriniformes Atherinidae Atherinops affinis Topsmelt 26294.4 3207.6

Chordata Actinopterygii Atheriniformes Atherinidae Menidia menidia Atlantic silverside 7878.4 1321.9

Chordata Actinopterygii Atheriniformes Atherinidae Menidia peninsulae Tidewater silverside 37620.0 6312.1

Chordata Actinopterygii Cyprinodontiformes Cyprinodontidae Cyprinodon variegatus Sheepshead minnow 5400.0 906.0

Chordata Actinopterygii Cyprinodontiformes Cyprinodontidae Fundulus heteroclitus Mummichog 148408.3 24900.7

Chordata Actinopterygii Mugiliformes Mugilidae Chelon labrosus Thick-lipped grey mullet 117117.0 19650.5

Chordata Actinopterygii Perciformes Mugilidae Liza vaigiensis Square tail mullet 46645.7 7826.5

Chordata Actinopterygii Perciformes Percichthyidae Morone saxatilis Striped bass 20790.0 3488.3

Chordata Actinopterygii Perciformes Sciaenidae Leiostomus xanthurus Spot 69300.0 11627.5

Chordata Actinopterygii Perciformes Terapontidae Terapon jarbua Tigerfish, crescent perch 19206.0 3222.5

Echinodermata Echinoidea Echinoida Strongylocentrotidae Strongylocentrotus purpuratus Purple-spined sea urchin 2475.0 415.3

Echinodermata Stelleroidea Forcipulatida Asteriidae Asterias forbesii Common starfish 148500.0 24916.1

Mollusca Bivalvia Myoida Myidae Mya arenaria Sand gaper, soft shell clam 125226.2 21011.1

Mollusca Bivalvia Mytiloida Mytilidae Mytilus edulis

Common bay mussel,blue 

mussel 882.1 148.0

Mollusca Bivalvia Ostreoida Ostreidae Crassostrea gigas Pacific oyster 345.5 19.8

Mollusca Bivalvia Ostreoida Ostreidae Crassostrea virginica

American or virginia 

oyster 1168.2 196.0

Mollusca Bivalvia Ostreoida Ostreidae Ostrea edulis

Flat, native european 

oyster 37540.8 6298.8

Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Cardiidae Cerastoderma edule Cockle 247634.6 41549.4

Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Tellinidae Macoma balthica Balthica macoma or clam 291516.0 48912.1

Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Veneridae Mercenaria mercenaria

Northern quahog or hard 

clam 661.5 111.0

Mollusca Gastropoda Archaeogastropoda Haliotididae Haliotis rufescens Red abalone 144.1 21.3

Mollusca Gastropoda Neogastropoda Nassariidae Nassarius obsoletus Eastern mud snail 71280.0 11959.7
46

Table 3.1. Saltwater Acute and Chronic Toxicity Data Obtained Through ECOTOX and the 1986 Water Quality Criteria Document for Nickel. Unless otherwise indicated LC50 

values are from acute tests (geometric mean of all acceptable values). NOEC values are either “Measured NOEC values” from chronic tests or “Estimated NOEC

values” derived as the quotient of an acute:chronic ratio (ACR) and the mean LC50 values. An ACR of 5.960 was used. All values are dissolved nickel in μg/L. 

Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species Common Name

Mean 

LC50

Meas 

NOEC Est NOEC

Nemata Adenophorea Monhysterida Monhysteridae Monhystera disjuncta Nematode 14850.0 2491.6

Haptophyta Prymnesiophyceae Isochrysidales Gephyrocapsaceae Isochrysis galbana Haptophyte 79.2

Ochrophyta Bacillariophyceae Centrales Thalassiosiraceae Thalassiosira sp. Diatom 1980.0

Ochrophyta Coscinodiscophyceae Thalassiosirales Stephanodiscaceae Cyclotella cryptica Diatom 58.1

Bacillariophyta Bacillariophyceae Bacillariales Bacillariaceae Cylindrotheca sp. Diatom 58.1

Bacillariophyta Bacillariophyceae Bacillariales Bacillariaceae Hantzschia amphioxys Diatom 58.1

Bacillariophyta Bacillariophyceae Bacillariales Bacillariaceae Nitzschia dissipata Diatom 290.5

Bacillariophyta Bacillariophyceae Bacillariales Bacillariaceae Nitzschia frustulum Diatom 58.1

Bacillariophyta Bacillariophyceae Centrales Chaetocerotaceae Chaetoceros muelleri Diatom 58.1

Bacillariophyta Bacillariophyceae Naviculales Naviculaceae Navicula acceptata Diatom 581.0

Bacillariophyta Bacillariophyceae Naviculales Naviculaceae Navicula sp. Diatom 871.6

Bacillariophyta Bacillariophyceae Naviculales Phaeodactylaceae Phaeodactylum tricornutum Diatom 990.0

Bacillariophyta Bacillariophyceae Pennales Naviculaceae Amphiprora hyalina Diatom 58.1

Bacillariophyta Bacillariophyceae Thalassiophysales Catenulaceae Amphora coffeaeformis Diatom 871.6

Bacillariophyta Coscinodiscophyceae Lithodesmiales Lithodesmiaceae Ditylum brightwellii Diatom 297.0

Chlorophyta Trebouxiophyceae Microthamniales NotAssigned Stichococcus sp. Green algae 1980.0

Phaeophycophyta Phaeophyceae Laminariales Lessoniaceae Macrocystis pyrifera Giant kelp 1980.0

Rhodophyta Rhodophyceae Gigartinales Gracilariaceae Gracilaria tenuistipitata Red algae 6054.4

Dinophyta Dinophyceae Peridiniales Peridiniaceae Cachonina hallii Dinoflagellate 49.5
47

Table 3.2. Nickel Saltwater Toxicity Data from Table 3.1 organized by Taxonomic Group. The 5th percentile value for class Actinopterygii is the basis for the effects

concentrations (ECAs) in Table 4.1 that relies on surrogate data. All values are given as dissolved nickel in μg/L.

Phylum Class Order Family Genus N

Mean 

LC50

Mean 

NOEC

5th 

LC50a

5th 

NOEC a

Annelida 4 31624.51 5306.13 12443.24 2087.8

Polychaeta 4 31624.51 5306.13 12443.24 2087.8

Aciculata 2 34649.98 5813.76

Nereididae 2 34649.98 5813.76

Neanthes 1 48509.99 8139.26

Nereis 1 24750 4152.68

Canalipalpata 1 16829.99 2823.83

Ctenodrilidae 1 16829.99 2823.83

Ctenodrilus 1 16829.99 2823.83

Scolecida 1 49499.98 8305.37

Capitellidae 1 49499.98 8305.37

Capitella 1 49499.98 8305.37

Arthropoda 22 4806.95 802.16 143.89 9.79

Malacostraca 16 5271.22 877.93 138.08 9.14

Amphipoda 3 17899.31 3003.23

Ampeliscidae 1 8902.83 1493.76

Ampelisca 1 8902.83 1493.76

Corophiidae 1 18761.41 3147.89

Corophium 1 18761.41 3147.89

Hyalidae 1 34333.19 5760.6

Allorchestes 1 34333.19 5760.6

Decapoda 9 13166.01 2209.07 1075.91 180.41

Cancridae 2 6569.93 1102.34

Cancer 2 6569.93 1102.34

Crangonidae 1 68159.2 11436.1

Crangon 1 68159.2 11436.1

Paguridae 1 46529.99 7807.05

Pagurus 1 46529.99 7807.05
48

Table 3.2. Nickel Saltwater Toxicity Data from Table 3.1 organized by Taxonomic Group. The 5th percentile value for class Actinopterygii is the basis for the effects

concentrations (ECAs) in Table 4.1 that relies on surrogate data. All values are given as dissolved nickel in μg/L.

Phylum Class Order Family Genus N

Mean 

LC50

Mean 

NOEC

5th 

LC50a

5th 

NOEC a

Pandalidae 1 17140.36 2875.9

Pandalus 1 17140.36 2875.9

Penaeidae 2 5884.3 987.3

Metapenaeus 1 1267.2 212.62

Penaeus 1 27324 4584.56

Portunidae 2 12096.23 2029.57

Carcinus 1 127156.37 21334.94

Portunus 1 1150.7 193.07

Mysida 4 268.69 43.75 169.86 15.54

Mysidae 4 268.69 43.75 169.86 15.54

Americamysis 2 485.69 121.24

Heteromysis 1 150.18 25.2

Mysidopsis 1 147.10 9.9

Maxillopoda 6 3759.19 630.74 1484.05 248.57

Calanoida 4 3693.01 619.63 1048.80 175.53

Acartiidae 2 1241.42 208.29

Acartia 2 1241.42 208.29

Pseudodiaptomidae 1 11400.67 1912.86

Pseudodiaptomus 1 11400.67 1912.86

Temoridae 1 10586.59 1776.27

Eurytemora 1 10586.59 1776.27

Harpacticoida 2 3895.12 653.54

Ameiridae 1 5940 996.64

Nitocra 1 5940 996.64

Tisbidae 1 2554.2 428.56

Tisbe 1 2554.2 428.56

Chordata 10 31441.49 5109.9 4442.76 763.05

Actinopterygii 10 31441.49 5109.9 4442.76 763.05
49

Table 3.2. Nickel Saltwater Toxicity Data from Table 3.1 organized by Taxonomic Group. The 5th percentile value for class Actinopterygii is the basis for the effects

concentrations (ECAs) in Table 4.1 that relies on surrogate data. All values are given as dissolved nickel in μg/L.

Phylum Class Order Family Genus N

Mean 

LC50

Mean 

NOEC

5th 

LC50a

5th 

NOEC a

Atheriniformes 3 19826.25 2991.22

Atherinidae 3 19826.25 2991.22

Atherinops 1 26294.41 3207.6

Menidia 2 17215.87 2888.57

Cyprinodontiformes 2 28309.1 4749.85

Cyprinodontidae 2 28309.1 4749.85

Cyprinodon 1 5400 906.04

Fundulus 1 148408.3 24900.72

Mugiliformes 1 117117.03 19650.51

Mugilidae 2 73912.13 12401.37

Chelon 1 117117.03 19650.51

Perciformes 4 33706.16 5655.39 11864.38 1990.67

Liza 1 46645.73 7826.46

Percichthyidae 1 20790 3488.26

Morone 1 20790 3488.26

Sciaenidae 1 69300 11627.52

Leiostomus 1 69300 11627.52

Terapontidae 1 19206 3222.48

Terapon 1 19206 3222.48

Echinodermata 2 19171.27 3216.66

Echinoidea 1 2475 415.27

Echinoida 1 2475 415.27

Strongylocentrotida 1 2475 415.27

Strongylocentrotus 1 2475 415.27

Stelleroidea 1 148500.03 24916.12

Forcipulatida 1 148500.03 24916.12

Asteriidae 1 148500.03 24916.12

Asterias 1 148500.03 24916.12
50

Table 3.2. Nickel Saltwater Toxicity Data from Table 3.1 organized by Taxonomic Group. The 5th percentile value for class Actinopterygii is the basis for the effects

concentrations (ECAs) in Table 4.1 that relies on surrogate data. All values are given as dissolved nickel in μg/L.

Phylum Class Order Family Genus N

Mean 

LC50

Mean 

NOEC

5th 

LC50a

5th 

NOEC a

Mollusca 10 7787.79 1158.79 115.57 13.34

Bivalvia 8 9723.72 1426.48 276.3 14.72

Myoida 1 125226.19 21011.11

Myidae 1 125226.19 21011.11

Mya 1 125226.19 21011.11

Mytiloida 1 882.09 148

Mytilidae 1 882.09 148

Mytilus 1 882.09 148

Ostreoida 3 2474.54 290.22

Ostreidae 3 2474.54 290.22

Crassostrea 2 635.31 62.3

Ostrea 1 37540.82 6298.79

Veneroida 3 36279.13 6087.08

Cardiidae 1 247634.52 41549.42

Cerastoderma 1 247634.52 41549.42

Tellinidae 1 291516.09 48912.1

Macoma 1 291516.09 48912.1

Veneridae 1 661.45 110.98

Mercenaria 1 661.45 110.98

Gastropoda 2 3204.35 504.6

Archaeogastropoda 1 144.05 21.29

Haliotididae 1 144.05 21.29

Haliotis 1 144.05 21.29

Neogastropoda 1 71279.98 11959.73

Nassariidae 1 71279.98 11959.73

Nassarius 1 71279.98 11959.73

Nemata 1 14850 2491.61

Adenophorea 1 14850 2491.61
51

Table 3.2. Nickel Saltwater Toxicity Data from Table 3.1 organized by Taxonomic Group. The 5th percentile value for class Actinopterygii is the basis for the effects

concentrations (ECAs) in Table 4.1 that relies on surrogate data. All values are given as dissolved nickel in μg/L.

Phylum Class Order Family Genus N

Mean 

LC50

Mean 

NOEC

5th 

LC50a

5th 

NOEC a

Monhysterida 1 14850 2491.61

Monhysteridae 1 14850 2491.61

Monhystera 1 14850 2491.61

a Value equals 5th

percentile estimate from the species sensitivity distribution (SSD).
52

3.3.2 Multiple Routes of Exposure

Based on the most recent available information, it is known that nickel is a nutritionally 

essential inorganic element for some aquatic species (Eisler 1998). The strongest 

evidence of nickel essentiality for aquatic species is in plants, where nickel has been 

demonstrated to be a cofactor of the enzyme urease, which metabolizes urea to 

ammonium and carbon dioxide (Muyssen et al. 2004). Various other studies have 

identified nickel as a component of as many as eight enzymes in plants (Muyssen et al. 

2004). 

Nickel is also known to be essential for normal growth of some birds and mammals (U.S.

EPA 1980, Eisler 1998). As there are no known examples of metals that are essential in 

terrestrial organisms that have not also eventually been shown to be essential to aquatic 

species (Muyssen et al. 2004), it is likely that nickel is also essential to fish and other 

aquatic biota. Circumstantial evidence for the essentiality of nickel to aquatic species is 

found in the inverse relationship between waterborne nickel concentrations and 

bioconcentration factors in both aquatic invertebrates and fish (McGeer et al. 2003). It is 

believed that such an inverse relationship is evidence of active regulation of nickel body 

burdens by aquatic species. As there are no known examples of active regulation of nonessential metals by aquatic biota (Rainbow 1996, McGeer et al. 2003), the inverse 

relationship between bioconcentration factor (BCF) and water column nickel 

concentration is indirect evidence of nickel’s essentiality. At least one study (RaynerCanham et al. 1985) has shown experimental evidence of nickel being essential to the 

tunicate Halocynthia pyriformis; however, studies that document nutritionally deficient, 

sufficient or toxic concentrations of nickel in tissues of aquatic species are generally 

lacking.

Since nickel exhibits potential to accumulate in tissues of aquatic animals, exposure of 

aquatic organisms to nickel in concentrations in excess of nutritional needs via the diet 

may pose an additional threat to listed aquatic species. It is worth noting here, however, 

that waterborne nickel is believed to be the primary source of nutritionally required 

nickel (Muyssen et al. 2004), as nickel appears to be poorly assimilated by aquatic 

species through diet (Watras et al. 1985; Eisler 1998).

For this BE, in order to be appropriately conservative, an added risk factor for exposure 

of aquatic animals via the dietary route of exposure, FR, is applied in the chronic 

assessment for nickel, as per Appendix B. The derivation of the FR for aquatic animals 

exposed to nickel via their diet is based on the dietary toxicity data for a saltwater benthic 

invertebrate, Acartia tonsa, because there is no such dietary toxicity data available for a 

saltwater fish species. The measured dietary NOEC value based on reproduction for A. 

tonsa fed for 7 days on nickel-laden diatoms was 2.34 ug Ni/g wet weight of food 

(Bielmyer et al. 2006). The aquatic NOEC value of 0.0974 ug Ni/ml of solution is an 

estimated value for Acartia tonsa from Table 3.1. The calculated potency factor 

(quotient of the aquatic NOEC and dietary NOEC) is 0.0416. The potency factor (PF)

along with a food concentration factor (CF) is used to calculate the dietary FR for aquatic 

animals according to the following equation:
53

Risk factor (FR) = 1 + (PF x Food CF)

The chronic dietary FR for aquatic animals was calculated to be 17 (see Text Box below). 

The chronic ECA values in Table 4.1 were divided by this dietary FR to obtain the ECA

values to be used for the effects determination (see footnote c in Table 4.1 and Appendix 

B, section 7 for rationale). Note here that the Food CF (380.4 ml/g) is the 84th percentile 

of BCFs determined for macroinvertebrates (see Table 3.3 below). The 84

th percentile 

approximates one standard deviation above the geometric mean, which represents the 

conservative bioaccumulation value recommended in the national BE methodology (see 

Appendix B, Section 8).

Basis for Derivation of the Dietary Risk Factor for Nickel - New Jersey Criteria

Species

Aquatic 

NOEC, 

μg/ml

Diet NOEC, 

μg/g ww

Potency 

Factor

Food 

Concentration 

Factor Risk Factor

Acartia tonsa 0.0974 2.34 0.0416 380 17

Because body burdens of chemicals in aquatic species integrate contaminant exposures 

from multiple sources, evaluation of potential risks from bioaccumulated nickel provides 

a means of identifying potential risks to listed species via exposure to criteria 

concentrations from all exposure routes combined. As the exposure durations of studies 

used to assess dietary toxicity from contaminants in food are chronic in nature, only 

residues associated with chronic effects on reproduction and growth have been compiled.

Two whole body residue effects studies are available for effects of nickel on reproduction 

and growth of saltwater aquatic species. The two residue-effect studies with marine 

species are with a sea urchin (Lytechinus pictus) and the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis). 

The normal development of L. pictus embryos was inhibited at a body burden of 26.4 mg 

Ni/kg wet weight (Timourian and Watchmaker 1972), while byssal thread secretion was 

inhibited in M. edulis with a body burden of 90 mg Ni/kg wet weight (Friedrich and 

Filice 1976). Assuming a food CF (or BCF) of 380.4 L/kg as above, and constant 

exposure to the chronic criterion (CCC) of 22 ug Ni/L, the estimated residue level is 8.37

mg Ni/kg fresh tissue (see Section 3.4.4 below), a value 3 times lower than where chronic 

effects (based on body burden) might be expected in representative aquatic invertebrates 

(there are no such data to draw such an inference from for saltwater fish species).

The toxicity of nickel in sediment was not considered a significant threat to any of the 

Federally-Listed species to which this BE applies for the following reasons:

a) Contaminated sediment is not listed as a cause of impairment in the Lower 

Toms or Great Egg Harbor River watersheds which appear on the state 303(d) list 

of impaired waters due to nickel and other factors (see 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_index.control?p_area=NJ);
54

b) Nickel is only one of several metals and metalloids (including arsenic 

cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc) identified as causes of 

impairment in these watersheds;

c) Nickel is readily displaced in sediment by the other heavy metals (zinc, 

cadmium, lead and copper) in sediment as acid volatile sulfide (AVS, principally 

iron monosulfide) is exhausted rendering nickel potentially more bioavailable in 

sediment pore/interstitial water with lower AVS (EPA/600/R-02/011); and,

d) Nickel in interstitial water is no more toxic or bioavailable than in ambient 

surface water (EPA/600/R-02/011).

Given the above, the water column-only toxicity data presented in Table 3.1 should also 

apply to nickel bioavailable to aquatic organisms via sediment, and particularly via 

sediment interstitial/pore water.

Attachment 2 provides relatively current and historic monitoring data for nickel in 

sediment at locations along impaired segments of the Great Egg Harbor River or nearby 

tributaries. The sediment nickel concentrations at these sites appear to be all well below 

10 ug Ni/g dry weight sediment. The probable effect level for aquatic organisms exposed 

to nickel in contaminated sediment is 36 ug Ni/g dry weight sediment, and the toxic 

effect threshold is estimated to be 61 ug Ni/g dry weight sediment (From U.S.EPA’s A 

Guidance Manual to Support the Assessment of Contaminated Sediments in Freshwater 

Ecosystems, Volumes III, December, 2002 - EPA-905-B02-001-C: 

http://www.cerc.usgs.gov/pubs/sedtox/guidance_manual.htm). Based on these findings, 

adverse effects to listed aquatic species from nickel in sediment is unlikely.

As of the date of this BE, there is also little evidence for maternal transfer of nickel in 

mammals (Eisler 1998). The same is presumed for other aquatic and aquatic-dependent 

animals. Above background exposures, substantial uncertainty exists regarding maternal

transfer of metals such as Ni into eggs of aquatic-dependent bird species (see Sections 

3.4.3 and 4.2 below).

3.3.3 Aquatic Plants

This section contains the assessment for water-column exposure for chronic toxicity to 

aquatic plants. In general, there are few existing data on acute toxicity to plants at criteria 

levels for most of the 304(a) criteria pollutants, and these few data indicate that plants do 

not demonstrate acute effects at criteria levels. This is particularly true for aquatic 

macrophytes. Accordingly, the assessment methodology for the listed plant species in 

this BE is based on a comparison of the chronic criterion to the most sensitive acceptable 

plant value. This methodology is in keeping with the recommendations in the Guidelines 

for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic 

Organisms and Their Uses (Stephan et al. 1985), which is founded on appropriate 

measures of chronic toxicity where: (1) the chronic values for plants (reported in Table 

3.1 as the NOEC) are from tests where the chemical in the exposure medium was 

measured, and (2) the endpoint measured was biologically significant (e.g., vegetative 

growth or reproduction). The use of this assessment methodology for plants in this BE is 
55

justified for the following reasons: (i) plants are rarely as sensitive as fish and 

macroinvertebrates, (ii) the recovery rate for phytoplankton (algae and diatoms) is 

extremely rapid, (iii) standard methods for conducting toxicity tests with aquatic plants 

are generally lacking, and (iv) there are no data available on the toxicity to higher plants.

Toxicity data for 18 plant species, which are all algal and dinoflagellate taxa, are 

available for nickel. The most sensitive of these is the dinoflagellate Cachonina hallii,

with a measured NOEC value of 49.5 μg/L (Table 3.1). The least sensitive taxa with a 

measured NOEC value of 1,980 μg/L are Thalassiosira sp. (diatom), Macrocystis

pyrifera (giant kelp) and Stichococcus sp. (green algae).

Additional data (not in the EPA’s ECOTOX database – see Attachment 1) on the toxicity 

of nickel to saltwater plants includes a value for growth inhibition of 30 μg/L for the 

marine diatom, Thalassiosira rotula, which can accumulate as much as 9 mg Ni/kg wet 

weight, according to a study by Dongmann and Nurnberg 1982 (as reported in Eisler 

1998). This plant chronic toxicity value represents the lowest for any saltwater aquatic 

plant species, yet still exceeds the chronic CCC value for nickel of 22 μg/L.

No published chronic nickel toxicity data were available for a saltwater rooted 

macrophyte. Given that the strongest evidence of nickel essentiality for aquatic species is 

in plants, where nickel has been demonstrated to be a cofactor of the enzyme urease, 

which metabolizes urea to ammonium and carbon dioxide (Muyssen et al. 2004), it is 

highly unlikely that a rooted macrophyte would be more sensitive to nickel than T. rotula, 

whether via water-only or sediment exposure.

3.4 Aquatic-Dependent Species

3.4.1 Overview and Background

In this section, we present the assessment of the eight saltwater aquatic-dependent animal 

species that have more than limited exposure to ―marine surface waters of New Jersey,‖ 

and which may be affected by the nickel saltwater aquatic life criteria. The assessment 

methodology for aquatic-dependent species is in Sections 8 and 9 of Appendix B. Effects

on aquatic-dependent animals from contaminants can be manifested directly through 

exposure to the contaminant from food and/or water intake, and indirectly through the 

elimination of their prey. This section develops the variables needed to perform an 

effects assessment for aquatic-dependent animals, namely: 

The bioconcentration/bioaccumulation factor (BCF/BAF) used to estimate 

the concentration of the contaminant in the prey tissue living in water at 

chronic criterion concentrations;

a dietary NOEC estimate for each listed aquatic-dependent animal; and 

the range of effects levels for aquatic prey species of the listed aquaticdependent species (data compiled from Table 3.1, as appropriate).
56

As indicated above, the limited available data suggest that nickel does not result in high 

levels of accumulation in aquatic organisms which may be food items for aquaticdependent animals. Similar to other metals, the low bioaccumulation potential may be 

due in part to the mechanisms for chemical uptake by aquatic organisms (e.g., passive 

diffusion, facilitated transport, and active transport), sorption affinities to biotic and 

abiotic ligands, and chemical speciation in water (U.S. EPA 2000). A few aspects worth 

noting regarding the accumulation of nickel in aquatic organisms are that BCFs generated 

for nickel, similar to other inorganic metals, appear to decrease with increasing 

concentration of the metal in water (Hall, 1982; Zaroogian and Johnson 1984, McGeer et 

al. 2003), and, at least for the freshwater cladoceran, Daphnia magna, the uptake of 

nickel directly from water was much greater than uptake from food (Watras et al. 1985). 

Based on this latter study, it is probable that simple nickel salts, as well as organic nickel 

complexes, are poorly absorbed by aquatic organisms. The latter is consistent with 

similar findings for mammals and other animals (Eisler 1998). Needless to say, there is 

no evidence that nickel biomagnifies in aquatic food webs. This statement is supported 

by the field study reported by Mathis and Cummings (1973) demonstrating that food 

chain transfer of nickel is minimal, i.e., nickel concentrations were found to decrease 

with increasing trophic level from clams, to oligochaetes, to omnivorous and carnivorous 

fish.

3.4.2 Exposure Assessment

There are only four studies available to be used to determine the bioconcentration factors 

(BCFs) for nickel for saltwater food items of aquatic-dependent species (Table 3.3). The 

available BCF data are for seven species in the class Bivalvia, and one in the class 

Polychaeta. For these eight species, the reported BCF values ranged from 2.8 to 473 

ml/g, depending on the water concentration. For assessments of fish-eating wildlife, the 

BCF values for bivalve mollusks and polychaete worms in Table 3.3 are likely to be 

conservative, as BCFs for inorganic metals are generally higher in invertebrates 

compared to vertebrates (fish).

Given the information available for assigning appropriate food partition coefficients, 

relative to natural (field) water and sediment concentrations, the partition coefficient of 

380.4 ml/g was selected for vertebrates and invertebrates, as per the methodology 

summarized in Appendix B (see Section A.8).
57

Table 3.3. Nickel bioconcentration factorsa(BCFs) for saltwater aquatic food 

organisms. BCFs are based on wet weight. Data from the ambient water 

quality criteria document for nickel (U.S. EPA 1986).

Species

Exposure 

duration

(days)

Water 

concentration 

(μg/L) BCFa Reference

Blue mussel, Mytilus edulis 84 4.4 472.7 Zaroogian and 

Johnson, 1984

Blue mussel, Mytilus edulis 84 10 328.6 Zaroogian and 

Johnson 1984

Eastern oyster, Crassostrea 

virginica

84 4.2 458.1 Zaroogian and 

Johnson 1984

Eastern oyster, Crassostrea 

virginica

84 9.2 261.8 Zaroogian and 

Johnson 1984

Bivalve mollusc, Donax serra 21 20 59 Watling and 

Watling 1983

Gastropod, Bullia rhodostoma 21 20 28.5 Watling and 

Watling 1983

Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas 21 100 4.7 Watling 1983

Oyster, Crassostrea margaritacea 21 100 2.8 Watling 1983

Mexilhao mussel, Perna perna 21 100 8.2 Watling 1983

Bivalve mollusc, Choromytilus 

meridionalis

21 100 6.5 Watling 1983

Polychaete worm, Neanthes 

arenaceodentata

21 * 47 Pesch et al. 

1995

a Bioconcentration factor: concentration measured in soft tissue in units of μg/kg fresh weight, divided 

by concentration measured in water (μg/L).

* Water concentration unavailable

3.4.3 Toxicity Assessment

Information on the acute and chronic dietary effects of nickel on potential surrogate 

aquatic-dependent species is compiled in Table 3.4. Data are primarily from U.S. EPA’s 

ECOTOX database.

The amount of data available on the oral (dietary) toxicity of nickel to surrogate aquaticdependent species is limited. Chronic dietary effects on egg fertilization of mallard duck 

and egg shell weight, and on the growth of chickens, range from 300 to 800 mg Ni/kg 

diet (Table 3.4). The 16th percentile of the five chronic dietary values is 300 mg Ni/kg, 

and represents the value that was selected as the chronic dietary effects concentration for 

the assessment of the saltwater nickel aquatic life criteria on aquatic dependent species, 
58

as per the methodology summarized in Appendix B, Section 9.

The precise mechanism of toxicity of soluble nickel to aquatic-dependent wildlife is not 

known. In mammals, nickel bound to low molecular weight proteins in blood can cross 

biological membranes where it accumulates in the nucleus and nucleolus (Sunderman et 

al. 1984, as cited in Eisler 1998). Nickel accumulated in mammalian tissues is known to 

disrupt DNA metabolism and cause cross-links and strand breaks (Kasprzak 1987, U.S. 

PHS 1993, Hartwig et al. 1994, as cited in Eisler 1998). Nickel accumulated within the 

cell can also elicit the production of reactive oxygen species such as superoxide radical 

(Novelli et al. 1995). The carcinogenicity of nickel, however, appears to be inversely 

related to its solubility in water, the least soluble, nickel carbonyl (a volatile, colorless 

liquid readily formed when nickel reacts with carbon monoxide), being the most active 

carcinogen (Sunderman 1968, Furst and Radding 1980, U.S. EPA 1980, U.S. PHS 1993).

Accordingly, nickel and soluble nickel salts are comparatively non-toxic when taken 

orally because of possible regulation of nickel metabolism and limited intestinal 

absorption (Nielsen 1977). This statement is supported by the fact that teratogenic and 

other harmful effects of nickel observed in mammals and birds appear only to be manifest 

through inhalation of insoluble nickel, or through injection of low nickel doses, 

particularly during the organogenic stages of gestation of mammals or during the early 

development of domestic chick embryos (Ridgway and Karnofsky 1952; Gilani and 

Marano (1980); Outridge and Scheuhammer 1993; Eisler 1998).

For example, Ridgway and Karnofsky (1952) injected a single dose of nickelous chloride 

(NiCl2

.

6H2O) into the yolk-sac of 4-day old White Leghorn chicken embryos (eggs) and 

reported an LD50 of 0.20 mg nickelous chloride/egg (or approximately 1 mg Ni/kg fresh 

egg content weight assuming a 50 g egg content). Applying a safety factor 10 to convert 

the LD50 to a NOEC, an appropriately protective chronic value might be as low as 0.1 

mg Ni/kg egg content (or 0.5 μg Ni/kg egg dry weight content assuming 80% moisture of 

egg contents). In the same study, when a single dose of nickelous chloride was injected 

into 8-day old chicken embryos, the LD50 was more than ten times higher than for the 4-

day old embryos. Conversely, Gilani and Marano (1980) injected 0.02 mg per egg nickel 

chloride into 1-day old White Leghorn chicken eggs and produced a 50% decrease in 

embryo survival over controls. This would result in an adverse effect concentration of 

0.099 mg Ni / kg fresh wet weight egg content. As such, this effect level is actually 

lower than the Ridgway and Karnofsky value above, without any safety factor being 

applied.

Maternal transfer of dietary nickel cannot be causally linked to chronic effects on 

eggs/embryos at this time. For instance, documented levels of nickel in addled (no longer 

viable or stale) plover eggs collected during the monitoring of nests in New Jersey in 

1990 were below method detection limits, or <0.5 mg/kg dry weight egg content (U.S. 

FWS 1991). Nationally, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Environmental 

Contaminants Data Management System (ECDMS) has records of piping plovers outside 

of New Jersey exceeding the above 0.5 mg/kg dry weight egg content (U.S. FWS 

ECDMS retrieval dated 3/23/10).
59

Given the above, acute and chronic toxicity to avian wildlife from the consumption of 

contaminated prey items is likely very low for nickel, primarily due to the low 

assimilation efficiency of nickel from the diet (Outridge and Scheuhammer 1993). This is 

reflected in the relatively high dietary toxicity values presented in Table 3.4, which are 

consistent with those reported in the extensive review by Eisler (1998). In the review, the 

author states that in order to protect birds, ―diets should contain at least 50 μg Ni/kg 

ration to prevent nickel deficiency but less than 200 mg Ni/kg ration in the case of young 

birds and less than 800 mg/kg ration in the case of adults to prevent effects (chronic) on 

growth and survival.‖ However, these values are not relatable to the concentration of Ni 

passed on to a plover hen’s egg. It is uncertain at this time (due to lack of New Jersey 

egg data) whether harmful levels from the maternal transfer of dietary nickel into 

egg/embryos occur. If so, the results of Ridgway and Karnofsky (1952) as well as Gilani 

and Marano (1980) suggest concentrations of nickel as low as 0.1 mg Ni/kg fresh weight

egg content in very young (4-day old) and (1-day old) bird eggs/embryos, respectively,

could also be potentially harmful. If New Jersey residue values exceed 0.1 mg Ni / kg 

fresh wet weight egg content or 0.5 mg Ni / kg dry weight based on future analyses, EPA 

will work with the Service to address the new data accordingly. Similarly, discovery of 

piping plover deformed embryos as well as live or dead chicks could be indicative of Ni 

effects and will be considered in any follow-up between the agencies. 
60

Table 3.4. Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Nickel to Potential Surrogate Species Based 

on Wet Weight and Oral Dosing. Data are from ECOTOX.

Species (age) Chemical

Dose Description, 

Duration, and 

Endpoint

Acute Toxicity 

LD50 

(mg/kg)

Chronic Toxicity

(mg/kg diet) Reference

Mallard duck

Anas 

platyrhynchos, 

(20 mo)

Sulfuric 

acid, 

Nickel(2+)

salt (1:1)

Diet, 51 - 114 d, 

NOEC, Egg 

Fertilization

-

800 Eastin and 

O'Shea, 1981

Bantam chicken

Gallus 

domesticus, 

(22 wk)

Sulfuric 

acid, 

Nickel(2+)

salt (1:1)

Diet, 75 d, NOEC, 

Eggshell weight

- 300 Meluzzi et al., 

1996

Bantam chicken

Gallus 

domesticus, 

(< 1d)

Nickelous 

chloride

Diet, 2 wk, LOEC, 

Growth (wt. gain)

- 400 Hill, 1979

Bantam chicken

Gallus 

domesticus, 

(1 d)

Nickel Diet, 3 wk, LOEC, 

Growth (wt. gain)

- 500 Ling and 

Leach, 1979

Bantam chicken

Gallus 

domesticus, 

(1 d)

Nickelous 

chloride

Diet, 3 wk, LOEC, 

Growth (wt. gain)

- 300 Ling and 

Leach, 1979

3.4.4 Risk Analysis

Saltwater exposure concentrations for nickel in potential prey items of aquatic-dependent 

organisms indicate a bioaccumulation potential (measured as BCFs) of approximately 

380 ml/g. For nickel chronic criteria, this produces an estimated residue level of:

Estimate Residue Level = 22 μg/L (CCC) x 380.4 L/kg (BCF) = 8.37 mg/kg

This tissue exposure concentration (8.37 mg Ni/kg prey tissue) is substantially below any

published potential chronic dietary threshold for aquatic-dependent species (300 mg 

Ni/kg diet; 200 mg Ni/kg diet as indicated in Eisler 1998). Therefore, the effects

determination for aquatic-dependent species is being made solely on the acute assessment 

effects concentration (ECA) values for the food organisms of these species listed in 

Section 3.5 of this document. In each instance, the food item effects concentration was 

derived from known toxicity values for suspected food items. As noted above, however, 

uncertainty exists regarding the potential chronic dietary threshold for aquatic-dependent 

birds due to maternal transfer into eggs, and the possibility of a subsequent low-dose 

deleterious chronic exposure to developing embryos.
61

3.5 Food Items of Federally-Listed Species

This section consists of the assessment results for water-column only toxicity to food 

items of aquatic and aquatic-dependent animals. For a description of the methodology to 

assess the effects of the N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(d) nickel saltwater aquatic life criteria on 

food items of aquatic and aquatic-dependent species, refer to Section 10 in Appendix B.

The aquatic toxicity data used for this assessment are presented in Table 3.1 as acute 

(geometric mean LC50) and chronic (geometric mean NOEC) values for each species. 

These data were then grouped into common categories (e.g., plants, insects, crustaceans, 

fish). Each respective mean LC50 value from Table 3.1 was divided by 2.27 (see 

Appendix B). The range of acute and chronic ECA values for the most common food 

items are shown in the text box below.
62

Range of Effects Concentrations for Food Itemsa

Organism Type Acute EC (μg Ni/L) Chronic EC (μg Ni/L)

Saltwater

Diatoms and Algaeb- 49.5 – 6,054c

Invertebrates 64.8 – 128,000 9.9 - 140c

Worms and soft-bodied 

animals

6,540 - 21,800 2,490 – 8,300

d

Mollusks 63.4 – 128,000 19.8 – 21.3c

Crustaceans 64.8 – 56,000 140c

Fish 2,380 – 65,400 3,210c

a Minimum and maximum values from Table 3.1. Values rounded to 3 significant figures.

b Only chronic toxicity endpoints for plants (e.g., minimum 4 day EC50 for algae were considered in 

this biological evaluation for Ni (see Section 3.3.3).

c Measured values.

d Estimated values.

With the exception of the low NOEC value for a single invertebrate species (the mysid 

shrimp Mysidopsis intii), the conservative acute and chronic effect concentrations 

estimated for ninety seven percent of the possible representative food item species listed 

in Table 3.1 are well above the acute and chronic nickel criteria for nickel. Furthermore, 

none of the most sensitive food item species to nickel are a likely source of prey for any 

of the listed species.

4.0 EFFECTS DETERMINATIONS

4.1 No Effects–Notes

See Section 2.3 of this document for a discussion on which species were selected as 

aquatic or aquatic-dependent and which species were considered to have limited 

exposure.

4.2 May Affect–Notes

This section contains the effects determinations for the species addressed in this 

biological evaluation, which are found in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 below. These effects

determinations are based on the data and analyses in Section 3 of this document, and 

were developed using the methodology described in Appendix B. The effects

determinations for nickel rely on surrogate data, and because this methodology treats 

surrogate data in a conservative manner, these estimates of the assessment effects

concentration (ECA) are conservative. 
63

The effects determinations were made on aquatic and aquatic-dependent listed species 

according to the following rationale, as given in Appendix B.

Aquatic Species: Rationale for the Effects Determination for Nickel Analysis 

Type of Criterion

If the effects

concentration is:

Then the effects determination 

is:

New Jersey saltwater nickel acute

(64 g/L)

64 g/L

<64 g/L

Not likely to adversely affect.

May affecta

New Jersey saltwater nickel chronic

(22 g/L)

22 g/L

<22 g/L

Not likely to adversely affect.

May affecta

a

Unless further evaluation or best professional judgment indicates it is reasonable to conclude not likely 

to adversely affect.

From Table 3.1 and 3.4, nickel is neither acutely nor chronically toxic to the vast majority 

of surrogate saltwater aquatic and aquatic-dependent species or their food items. Nickel 

is also relatively non-toxic to plants. Benthic aquatic invertebrates were far more 

sensitive than fish. Among the most sensitive invertebrate species, the pelagic crustacean 

M. intii and marine, deep water mullosk H. rufescens, survival and growth were the most 

sensitive chronic endpoints. Chronic no effect values for these two species (9.9 and 21.3 

ug Ni/L, respectively) were slightly below or just at the chronic criterion for nickel - 22 

μg/L. Neither of these species are likely food items of any of the listed species.

Because nickel is essential for some organisms, it is presumed to be actively regulated. 

Regulation, along with the poor assimilation of nickel through the intestinal wall, may 

explain the low levels often observed in higher trophic levels, and the lack of 

biomagnification in the food web. Because of the poor assimilation efficiency of nickel 

from the diet, waterborne nickel is believed to be the primary source of nutritionally 

required nickel (Muyssen et al. 2004).

As noted in Section 2.4, the primary risk of exposure to elevated levels of nickel in the 

water column is limited to just four watersheds (assessment units) along the New Jersey 

coastline: GEHR from Great Egg Harbor to Miry Run (state waterbody ID 

NJ2040302050130-01); GEHR from Miry Run to Lake Lenape (state waterbody ID 

NJNJ02040302050060); Toms R Lower from Rt 166 to Oak Ridge Pkwy (state 

waterbody ID NJ02040301080060-01); and Toms River Lower below state route 166 

(state waterbody ID NJ02040301080090-01). Only four of the eight listed species 

relevant for this BE (piping plover, roseate tern, northeastern beech tiger beetle, and 

sensitive joint vetch) potentially overlap with these nickel-impaired watershed

assessment units (NAUs), and of these, only the sensitive joint vetch may be presumed at 

risk simply because: 1) the habitat for the other three species lies outside the NAUs (in 

the case of the two impaired GEHR segments in particular), and because 2) theLower 

Toms River is a "dead zone" for listed species in the state, as the coastal beaches to its 

east are heavily developed and have not had such species present anytime in the past 

several decades that biologists are aware of.
64

Currently, colonization of sensitive joint-vetch in New Jersey is restricted to a segment in 

Cumberland County, although the species formerly occurred in Burlington, Camden, 

Gloucester, Salem, Atlantic, and Cape May Counties. Sensitive joint-vetch inhabits the 

intertidal zone of fresh to slightly salty (brackish) tidal river segments, typically in areas 

where sediments accumulate and extensive marshes are formed. These tidal marshes are 

subjected to a cycle of twice-daily flooding that most plants cannot tolerate. Such 

habitats occur only along stretches of river close enough to the coast to be influenced by 

the tides, yet far enough upstream that river water is fresh or only slightly brackish. Bare 

or sparsely vegetated substrate appears to be a habitat requirement for this species, which 

usually grows on river banks within 6 feet of the low water mark. The plant can also 

occur on accreting point bars and in sparsely vegetated microhabitats of tidal marsh 

interiors (http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/Endangered/jointvetch.html). The 

risk of overt nickel exposure to sensitive joint-vetch in the GEHR NAUs, if capable of 

colonization via the availability of appropriate habitat in the areas, is likely low to nonexistent because: 1) there are no facilities permitted for the discharge of nickel in these 

waters (search for nickel under parameter code name in New Jersey at 

http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs/pcs_query.html), and 2) sediment nickel 

concentrations in the GEHR NAUs do not present a scenario for concern (see discussion 

in Section 3.3.2 and data presented in Attachment 2).

Exposure of sensitive joint vetch, as well as other listed species in the GEHR NAUs, to 

potentially toxic nickelocyanide complexes is also low to non-existent because there are 

also no dischargers of cyanide in these NAUs, or the Lower Toms River NAU. As the 

New Jersey water quality standards are chemical-specific, however, consideration of 

mixtures of nickel with other metals or contaminants is not relevant to the state action 

defined herein to which this BE applies.

Previous studies have shown that while data from contaminated freshwater systems 

indicate a potential for elevated nickel in aquatic plants and animals, for all species 

collected, nickel concentrations were highly variable both between and within species 

(see Eisler 1998). Wildlife feeding in areas subjected to extensive nickel pollution 

(nickel smelters) appears to be at special risk because wildlife food items (particularly 

tolerant plants) may contain body burdens of nickel. Because of poor assimilation 

efficiency; however, wildlife feeding on highly contaminated food items usually contains

only a very small fraction of the dietary nickel concentration they were exposed to

(Eastin and O’Shea 1981). 

A concern for unfledged piping plover (and other shorebirds) exists because unfledged 

birds have limited ability to travel far from their nest sites to forage; however, as stated 

above, nesting sites are limited to habitat which lie outside the watershed assessment unit 

areas potentially affected by higher levels of nickel (see above). Indirect evidence from a 

study reported in Kraus (1989) indicates that maternal transfer of nickel may also be 

cause for concern for embryonic birds and pre-fledging juveniles. Their study indicated 

that adult Meadowlands tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) consuming midge larvae 

from contaminated sediments in the Kingsland Impoundment located in Lyndhurst, 

Bergen County, New Jersey, led to high burdens of nickel (and other metals) in the egg 
65

shells of tree swallow eggs, but not in the embryos themselves; a phenomenon reported 

for other passerine birds (Mora 2003). In the case of both of these studies, the data 

indicate that while certain metals such as nickel are bound in the shell structure 

presumably through sequestration from egg laying females, very little metal is passed 

into the embryo itself. There are no studies showing potential for teratogenic or other 

effects to early or later stage embryos from nickel (or other metals) accumulated in the 

egg shell. As noted above; however, at least one study (Ridgway and Karnosky 1952) 

suggests bird embryos can be acutely sensitive to nickel concentrations as low as 

approximately 1 mg Ni/kg fresh weight egg content when injected with nickelous 

chloride.

Indirect evidence from studies of other metals suggests that exposure via maternal 

deposition to piping plover may be quite low in the Atlantic states in general. Aluminum, 

antimony, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, lead, molybdenum, nickel, silver, tin and 

vanadium were not detected in addled piping plover eggs collected from nests (U.S. FWS 

1991). Furthermore, in a study reported by Mierzykowski and Carr (2004) where 

fourteen abandoned piping plover eggs from five coastal nesting sites in Maine were 

analyzed for presence of heavy metal (As, Cu, Hg, Se, and Zn) burdens, all piping plover 

(and tern) eggs analyzed exhibited heavy metal burdens below reproductive impairment 

thresholds and effects benchmarks. These results imply that Atlantic Coast piping plover 

populations may not be burdened with unnaturally high metals levels, or especially 

sensitive to metal contamination, albeit none of the nesting sites in Maine were heavily 

contaminated areas.

In a comprehensive review of nickel hazards to fish, wildlife and invertebrates (Eisler 

1998), the author recommended a 24-hour average value not to be exceeded for total 

recoverable nickel of 7.1 μg/L to protect marine life, and a maximum concentration not 

to be exceeded of 140 μg/L. These are values that do not reflect the latest science or 

evidence to ensure that criteria are adequately protective of marine life, having been 

previously published in EPA’s Goldbook (EPA 440/5-86-001, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/library/goldbook.pdf). The procedures used to 

derive criteria in the Goldbook preceded the current procedures used to derive ambient 

water quality criteria, including New Jersey’s new saltwater criteria for nickel. The 

current procedures were established in 1985 and published as the Guidelines for Deriving 

Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and 

Their Uses (Stephan et al. 1985). This document provided a framework for deriving 

numerical ambient water quality criteria to protect aquatic life (ALC) and established a 

set of principles that have provided uniformity and transparency in the derivation 

methodology of ALC for a large number of compounds among several classes of

chemicals. The majority of EPA’s currently recommended ALC have been derived using 

the methods outlined in the 1985 guidance document (hereafter referred to as the 

Guidelines), and the Guidelines remain the primary instrument the Agency uses to meet 

its broad objectives for the development of ALC.

It is worth noting that ALC are scientifically-derived values, derived by States, Tribes, or 

EPA, to protect aquatic life from the deleterious effects of pollutants in ambient water. 
66

States and Tribes may use EPA's section 304(a) criteria guidance in developing such 

criteria. When developing numeric aquatic life criteria, States and Tribes usually express 

two concentrations; one that protects against acute effects (effects from short term 

exposure), and one that protects against chronic effects (effects from long term exposure). 

The short-term concentration is expressed as a Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) 

and is the highest ambient concentration of a toxicant to which aquatic organisms may be 

exposed for a short time period without causing an unacceptable effect. The long-term 

concentration is expressed as a Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) and is the 

highest ambient concentration of a toxicant to which aquatic organisms can be 

continuously exposed without causing an unacceptable effect.

Water quality criteria to protect aquatic life consist of three components: magnitude, 

duration and frequency. Magnitude refers to the acceptable concentration of a pollutant. 

Duration is the period of time (averaging period) over which the ambient concentration is 

averaged for comparison with criteria concentrations. Frequency is how often the criteria 

can be exceeded to allow the aquatic community sufficient time to recover from 

excursions of aquatic life criteria and to thrive after recovery. 

The numerical aquatic life criteria are expressed as short-term and long-term 

concentrations in order that the criteria more accurately reflect toxicological and practical 

realities. The combination of a CMC, over a one-hour acute duration (a short-term 

average acute limit), and a CCC, over a four-day chronic duration (a long-term average 

chronic limit) provide protection of aquatic life and its uses. Recommended averaging 

periods are kept relatively short because excursions higher than the average can kill or 

cause substantial damage in short periods.

The frequency limitations specify that both the acute and chronic criteria may be 

exceeded once in a three-year period on the average. The recommended once in a threeyear period coupled with the 4-day chronic averaging period used for the CCC 

approximately corresponds to the historically used criterion concentrations that occur in a 

once-in-ten year seven-day-average low flow (7Q10). The once-in-three-year period 

coupled with the one-hour acute averaging period used for the CMC approximately 

corresponds to the historically used criterion concentration that occurs in a once-in-ten 

year one-day-average low flow (1Q10). Prior to 1985, the chronic averaging period for 

nickel was only 24 hours. A direct comparison of CCC values with different averaging 

periods is not possible.

The method by which EPA derives criteria is periodically updated to incorporate 

advances in the science. To overcome the limitations in the previous approaches to 

duration and frequency, a new risk assessment methodology is being developed. EPA 

expects that the new risk assessment methodology will include an approach that will 

better handle variable concentrations by use of a kinetic-based toxicity model coupled 

with a population response model. A kinetic-based toxicity model considers the speed at 

which effects appear in different individuals and at different concentrations. The kineticbased model allows prediction of the toxicity of any series of time-variable 
67

concentrations. It can predict how often effects would occur, and what fraction of 

individuals in the species would be affected.

To weigh the full impact that a particular time series of concentrations would have on the 

exposed population of a species, an additional factor is being considered: how long it 

takes to replace those individuals lost due to the toxic effects. Consideration of this 

involves the use of a population model indicating rates of recovery of different taxonomic 

groups to stresses. The intent of this part of the derivation is to allow the toxic impact to 

be portrayed as the overall average reduction in the number of individuals in a species, 

both during lethal or sublethal periods and during recovery periods, accounting for both 

partial lethality and partial recovery. A kinetic-based toxicity model for nickel has yet to 

be developed.

In addition to considering the magnitude, duration and frequency of exposure noted

above, it is also important to understand that ALC themselves (either EPA’s 

recommended criteria values or State or Tribal regulatory criteria) are neither intended to 

reflect ambient concentrations of a pollutant nor to define a level up to which a pollutant 

should be allowed to accumulate in a waterbody. Rather, ALC are intended to define 

levels of pollutants that should not be exceeded in order to ensure protection of the 

designated uses. States and authorized Tribes4often seek to control pollutant discharges 

to levels below criteria concentrations with the intent of ensuring ambient concentrations 

below the adopted water quality criteria and thereby ensuring protection of the designated 

uses. States and authorized Tribes may also adopt water quality criteria on a protective 

basis. In other words, rather than wait for a discharge of a particular pollutant to occur 

and cause a potential problem, States and authorized Tribes may adopt water quality 

criteria, often based on EPA’s recommended section 304(a) water quality criteria, so they 

have a clearly defined regulatory standard on which to base controls on discharges of that 

pollutant, should such occur from an existing or new industry. Therefore, in States or 

authorized Tribes taking this preventative approach, a criterion value and the ambient 

concentration of the pollutant in the water may have little relation.

4.2.1 Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Based on the rationale provided above, the lack of exposure in New Jersey coastal waters 

relevant to the listed species, and according to the effects analysis presented in Tables 4.1

and 4.2, a ―not likely to adversely affect‖ finding was determined for all aquatic and 

aquatic-dependent animal species.

The chronic effects concentration for plants (see Section 3.3.4) exceeds the saltwater 

CCC by at least a factor of two; thus, a ―not likely to adversely affect‖ finding was also 

determined for the sensitive joint-vetch.

_

4 Authorized tribes are those tribes found eligible to be treated in the same manner as a State (TAS) to administer the 

water quality standards program under section 518 of the Clean Water Act.
68

Table 4.1. Results of Effects Analysis for Saltwater Aquatic Listed Species (all units in g/L) (CMC = 64 g/L, CCC = 22 g/L)

Scientific Name

Saltwater v. 

Freshwater 

Exposure

Order Acute

ECA

a

(μg/L)

Chronic

ECA

b

(μg/L)

Chronic

ECA

′c

(μg/L)

Taxon

Represented

by ECA

Food Items Analysisd

Adverse 

Family Items Effects

Acute ECA

(μg/L)

Chronic ECA

(μg/L)

Shortnose Sturgeon

Acipenser 

brevirostrum SW Acipenseriformes

Acipenseridae 1957S

763S45 Actinopterygii

oligochaetes, 

aquatic insect larvae, 

plants, 

snails, 

shrimp, and crayfish

6,540 – 21,800

No data

Not applicable

63.4 – 128,000

16.8 – 56,000

2,490 – 8,300

No data

49.5 – 6,054

19.8 – 21.3

140

Not likely 

to adversely 

affect

a Acute assessment effects concentration derived using divisor of 2.27.

b Chronic assessment effects concentration based on the NOEC.

c Chronic assessment effects concentration based on the multiple routes of exposure, calculated as ECA ÷ FR (see Section 3.3.2).

d Ranges of toxicity values for food items are provided in the order the food items appear. Ranges are from text box (Section 3.5 this document). 

S

 The estimate was derived from the SSD model (5% percentile) for the Class Actinopterygii. The values were taken from Table 3.2. The 5th P LC50 was divided by 2.27 as 

per Appendix B.
69

Table 4.2. Analysis of Effects for Saltwater Aquatic-Dependent Species (Concentrations Based on Wet Weight) (Proposed New Jersey Saltwater Dissolved 

Nickel Criteria: CMC = 64 g/L, CCC = 22 g/L)

Species

BCF of food 

organism–

Saltwatera

Estimated Residue

levels in diet–

Saltwater (mg/kg)b

Chronic EC 

(Dietary Effects 

Concentration) 

(mg/kg)c

Food Items Analysisd

(all units in g/L, unless noted otherwise)

Item Adverse Effects

Acute 

ECA

Chronic 

ECA

Northeastern beach tiger 

beetle 

Cicindela dorsalis 

dorsalis

380 8.37 300

Crabs and other arthropods;

marine fish and crabs

16.8 – 56,000

2,380 – 65,400

140

3,210

Not likely to 

adversely affect

Piping plover

Charadrius melodus 380 8.37 300

marine worms;

marine mollusks;

marine crustaceans and insects

6,540 – 21,800

63.4 – 128,000

16.8 – 56,000

2,490 – 8,300

19.8 – 21.3

140

Not likely to 

adversely affect

Roseate tern

Sterna dougallii 

dougallii

380 8.37 300

freshwater and marine small 

fish and minnows

2,380– 65,400 3,210 Not likely to 

adversely affect

Hawksbill sea turtle 

Eretmochelys imbricata 380 8.37 300

jellyfish, sponges, and other

sessile organisms;

marine algae

16.8 – 128,000

Not applicable

21.3 - 140

49.5 – 6,054

Not likely to 

adversely affect

Kemp's ridley sea turtle 

Lepidochelys kempi 380 8.37 300 blue crabs and other marine crustaceans

16.8 – 56,000 140 Not likely to 

adversely affect

Leatherback turtle 

Dermochelys coriacea 380 8.37 300 jellyfish and other soft-bodied

sea animals

6,540 – 21,800 2,490 – 8,300 Not likely to 

adversely affect

Loggerhead turtle

Caretta caretta 380 8.37 300

marine sponges;

mollusks;

horseshoe crabs

No data

63.4 – 128,000

No data

No data

19.8 – 21.3

No data

Not likely to 

adversely affect

a

 BCF values were determined on a wet weight basis. The BCF of 380 is the 84th percentile of BCF determined for bivalve molluscs. The 84th percentile approximates one 

standard deviation above the geometric mean, which represents the conservative value recommended for use in the assessment (see Appendix B).

b

 The estimated residue value is the product of the BCF value for nickel and the saltwater CCC value, 22 μg/L, divided by 1000g/L, e.g., (22 g/L x 380 L/kg) x 

1mg/1000 g, assuming 1 L is approximately 1 kg (see Section 3.4.4).

c Several chronic dietary toxicity values exist for surrogate aquatic-dependent species where the dose has been expressed in the desired units of mg Ni/kg food (prey item). 

The 16th percentile value of 300 mg/kg food was selected as the NOEC value for the analysis, and approximates one standard deviation below the geometric mean, i.e., the 

conservative value recommended for use in the assessment (see Appendix B).

d The ranges of toxicity values for food items are provided in the order the food items appear. The ranges are from the text box found in Section 3.5 of this document.
70

4.2.2 Species Requiring Further Evaluation

None. No particular listed species appears to be sensitive to nickel at criterion concentrations, so 

no further evaluation is needed. 

5.0 ASSESSING EFFECTS OF THE NEW JERSEY NICKEL CRITERIA ON 

DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT

None of the listed species addressed in this biological evaluation have a critical habitat 

designated in New Jersey. 
71

6.0 REFERENCES

Amirault-Langlais DL, Thomas PW, McKnight J. 2006. Oiled piping plovers (Charadrius melodus 

melodus) in Eastern Canada. In Waterbirds. pp 271–274.

Bielmyer, GK, Grosell M, Brix KV. 2006. Toxicity of silver, zinc, copper and nickel to the 

copepod Acartia tonsa exposed via a phytoplankton diet. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40:2063-2068.

Cairns, WE, McLaren IA. 1980. Status of the piping plover on the east coast of North America. 

American Birds 34: 206-208.

Campbell JG, Goodman LR. 2004. Possible effects of eutrophication and habitat alteration on an 

endangered species and implementation of dissolved oxygen data. Office of Research and 

Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and National Health and Environmental 

Effects Research Laboratory, Gulf Ecology Division.

Dadswell, MJ, Taubert BD, Squiers TS, Marchette D, Buckley J. 1984. Synopsis of biological data 

on shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Lesueur 1818. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Technical Report National Marine Fisheries Service 14.

Dongmann G, Nurnberg HW. 1982. Observations with Thalassiosira rotula (Menier) on the 

toxicity and accumulation of cadmium and nickel. Ecotox. Environ. Saf. 6:535-544.

Dwyer FJ, Mayer FL, Sappington LC, Buckler DR, Bridges CM, Greer IE, Hardesty DK, Henke CE, 

Ingersoll CG. 2005. Assessing contaminant sensitivity of endangered and threatened aquatic species: 

Part I. Acute toxicity of five chemicals. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 48(2):143-154.

Eastin, WC Jr., O'Shea TJ. 1981. Effects of dietary nickel on mallards. J. Toxicol. Environ.

Health. 7(6):883-92.

Eisler, R. 1998. Nickel hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: A synoptic review. 

Contaminant Hazard Reviews Report No. 34. Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR-1998-

0001. April 1998. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, US Geological Survey, Laurel, MD. 95pp.

Flournoy PH, Rogers SG, Crawford PS. 1992. Restoration of shortnose sturgeon in the Altamaha 

River, Georgia. Final Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA, USA. 

Fontenot QC, Isely JJ, Tomasso JR . 1998. Acute toxicity of ammonia and nitrite to shortnose 

sturgeon fingerlings. Prog Fish Cult 60:315-318.

Friedrich, AR, Filice FP. 1976. Uptake and accumulation of the nickel ion by Mytilus

edulis. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 16:750-755.

Furst, A, Radding SB. 1980. An update of nickel carcinogenesis. Pages 585-600 in J.O. Nriagu, 

editor. Nickel in the environment. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
72

Gagné N, MacKinnon AM, Boston L, Souter B, Cook-Versloot M, Griffiths S, Olivier G. 2007. 

Isolation of viral haemorrhagic septicaemia virus from mummichog, stickleback, striped bass and 

brown trout in eastern Canada. J Fish Dis 30:213-223.

Gilani SH, M. Marano. 1980. Congenital abnormalities in nickel poisoning in check embryos. Arch. 

Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 9:17-22.

Hall, TM 1982. Free ionic nickel accumulation and localization in the freshwater zooplankter, 

Daphnia magna. Limnol. Oceanogr. 27:718-727.

Hartwig, A, Kruger I, Beyersmann D. 1994. Mechanisms in nickel genotoxicity: The 

significance of interactions with DNA repair. Toxicology Letters 72:353-358.

Hill, CH 1979. The effects of dietary protein levels on mineral toxicity in chicks. J. Nutr. 

109(3):501-7.

Hunt, JW, Anderson BS, Phillips BM, Tjeerdema RS, Puckett HM, Stephenson M, Tucker DW, 

Watson D. 2002. Acute and chronic toxicity of nickel to marine organisms: Implications for 

water quality criteria. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 21(11):2423-2430.

Jenkins WE, Smith TIJ, Heyward LD, Knott DM. 1993. Tolerance of shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser 

brevirostrum, juveniles to different salinity and dissolved oxygen concentrations. Proceedings of the 

Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Kasprzak, KS. 1987. Nickel. Advances Modern Environment. Toxicol. 11:145-183.

Keller JM, Kannan K, Taniyasu S., NYamashita N, Day RD, Arendt MD, Segars AL, Kucklick JR . 

2005. Perfluorinated Compounds in the Plasma of Loggerhead and Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtles from 

the Southeastern Coast of the United States. Environ Sci Technol 39(23):9101–9108.

Kraus, ML. 1989. Bioaccumulation of heavy metals in prefledgling tree swallows, Tachycineta 

bicolor. Bull. Environment. Contam. Toxicol. 43:407-414.

Ling, JR, Leach RM Jr. 1979. Studies on nickel metabolism: Interaction with other mineral 

elements. Poult. Sci. 58(3): 591-596.

Mathis BJ, Cummings TF. 1973. Selected metals in sediments, water and biota in the Illinois 

River. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 45:1573-1583.

McGeer JC, Brix KV, Skeaff JM, DeForest DK, Brigham SI, Adams WJ, Green A. 2003. Inverse 

relationship between bioconcentration factor and exposure concentration of metals: Implications 

for hazard assessment of metals in the aquatic environment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22:1017-

1037.

Meluzzi, A, Simoncini F, Sirri F, Vandi L, Giordani G. 1996. Feeding hens diets supplemented 

with heavy metals (chromium, nickel and lead). Arch fur Geflugelkunde 60:119-25.
73

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2005. Birds. SGCN-1 of 72. 

http://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/HuntingWildlifeHabitat/WCS/SGCN/Charadrius_me

lodus.pdf.

Milton S, Lutz P, Shigenaka G, Hoff RZ, Yender RA, Mearns AJ. 2003. Oil and Sea Turtles: 

Biology, Planning, And Response. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Ocean Service, Office of Response and Restoration. Available at 

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/35_turtle_complete.pdf.

Mierzykowski SE, Carr KC. 2004. Environmental contaminants in piping plover, least tern and 

common tern eggs from coastal Maine - 2003 nesting season. USFWS. Spec. Proj. Rep. FY04-

MEFO-1-EC. Old Town, ME, USA.

Mora MA. 2003. Heavy metals and metalloids in egg contents and eggshells of passerine birds 

from Arizona. Environment. Poll. 125:393-400.

Muyssen, BTA., Brix KV, DeForest DK, Janssen CR. 2004. Nickel essentiality and

homeostasis in aquatic organisms. Environ. Res. 12:113-131.

Nielsen, FH. 1977. Nickel toxicity. Pages 129-146 in R. A. Goyer, and M. A. Mehlman, editors. 

Advances in modern toxicology. Volume 2. Toxicology of trace elements. Hemisphere 

Publishing Corporation, London.

NMFS. 1998a. Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by the 

Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, 

Maryland. 104 pages.

NMFS and U.S. FWS. 1998b. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Loggerhead Turtle 

(Caretta caretta). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD, USA.

NMFS and U.S. FWS. 1991. Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of the Atlantic Green Turtle. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, DC, USA.

Novelli, ELB, Rodrigues NL, Ribas BO. 1995. Superoxide radical and toxicity of environmental 

nickel exposure. Human Experimental Toxicol. 14:248-251.

Outridge, PM, Scheuhammer AM. 1993. Bioaccumulation and toxicology of nickel: implications 

for wild mammals and birds. Environmental Reviews 1:172-197.

Pesch, CE, Hansen DJ, Boothman WS, Berry WJ, Mahony JD. 1995. The role of acid-volatile 

sulfide and interstitial water metal concentrations in determining bioavailability of cadmium and 

nickel from contaminated sediments to the marine polychaete Neanthes arenaceodentata. 

Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 14(1):129-141.

Plissner, JH, Haig SM. 2000. Status of a broadly distributed endangered species: results and 

implications of the second International Piping Plover Census. Can. J. Zool 78:128–139.

Prothro, MG. 1993. Office of water policy and technical guidance on interpretation and 
74

implementation of aquatic metals criteria. U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. (Memorandum from 

acting Assistant Administrator for water. U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.).

Rainbow, PS. 1996. Heavy Metals in Aquatic Invertebrates. p. 405-425 in Beyer, W.N., G.H.

Heinz and A.W. Redmon-Norwood, eds. Environmental Contaminants in Wildlife: Interpreting

Tissue Concentrations. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

Rayner-Canham, GW, Van Roode M, Burke J. 1985. Nickel and cobalt concentrations in

the tunicate Halocynthia pyriformis: Evidence for essentiality of the two metals. Inorg. Chim.

Acta 106:L37-L38.

Ridgway LP, Karnofsky DA. 1952. The effects of metals on the chick embryo: Toxicity and 

production of abnormalities in development. Ann. NY Acad. Sciences. 55: 203-215.

Rybitski MJ, Hale RC, Musick JA. 1995. Distribution of organochlorine pollutants in Atlantic sea 

turtles. Copeia 2:379-390.

Shank, R. 2004. Dameron Marsh in the morning. Virginia Mar Res Bull 36(1).

Smith GM, Coates CW. 1938. Fibro-epithelial growths of the skin in large marine turtles, Chelonia 

mydas (Linnaeus). Zoologica 23:93-98.

Stamatov, J. 1972. Cicindela dorsalis endangered on northern Atlantic coast. Cicindela 4:78.

Stephan, CE, Mount DI, Hansen DJ, Gentile JH, Chapman GA, Brungs WA. 1985. Guidelines 

for deriving numerical national water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms and 

their uses. PB85-227049. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.

Sunderman, FW Jr. 1968. Nickel carcinogenesis. Diseases of the Chest 54 (6):41-48.

Timourian, H, Watchmaker G. 1972. Nickel uptake by sea urchin embryos and their

subsequent development. J. Exp. Zool. 182:379-388.

U.S. EPA. 1980. Ambient water quality criteria for nickel. EPA-440/5-80-060. National 

Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.

U.S. EPA. 1986. Ambient water quality criteria for nickel. EPA-440/5-86-004. National 

Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.

U.S. EPA. 1993. Water quality criteria: Aquatic life criteria for metals. Federal Register. 

58(108): 32131-32133.

U.S. EPA. 1994. Water quality standards handbook, second ed. EPA-823-B-94-005b. U.S. EPA, 

Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. 1999. 1999 update of ambient water quality criteria for ammonia. EPA-822-R-99-014. 

National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, USA.
75

U.S. EPA. 2000. Methodology for deriving ambient water quality criteria for the protection of 

human health (2000). Technical support document volume 1: Risk assessment. EPA-822-B-00-

005. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA. 2003. Biological Evaluation for the Issuance of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for 

Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal 

Tributaries. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Chesapeake Bay Program 

Office. Available at http://www.epa.gov/region3/chesapeake/baycriteria/BE%20Final.pdf. Accessed 

April 2008.

U.S. EPA. 2008. Proposed Issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

Recreational Vessel General Permit (RGP) for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a 

Vessel Fact Sheet. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2006. Viral hemorrhagic septicemia: Emerging disease notice. 

Available at 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei/taf/emergingdiseasenotice_files/vhsgreatlakes.htm

U.S. FWS. 1988. Atlantic Coast piping plover recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 77 pp.

U.S. FWS. 1991. Environmental contaminants in New Jersey coast piping plover (Charadrius 

melodus) eggs. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Jersey Field Office, Pleasantville, NJ. 12

pp.

U.S. FWS and NMFS. 1992. Recovery Plan for the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). 

National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, FL, USA.

U.S. FWS. 1993. Caribbean Roseate Tern Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, 

Georgia. 40pp.

U.S. FWS. 1994. Recovery Plan: Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle (Cincindela dorsalis dorsalis 

Say). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Hadley, Massachusetts. 60pp.

U.S. FWS. 1995. Sensitive Joint-Vetch (Aeschynomene virginica). Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Services, Hadley, MA, USA.

U.S. FWS. 1996. Piping plover (Charadrius melodus), Atlantic Coast Population, Revised Recovery 

Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Hadley, Massachusetts. 258pp.

U.S. FWS. 2002a. 2000-2001 status update: U.S. Atlantic Coast piping plover population. Sudbury, 

Massachusetts. 9 pp.

U.S. FWS. 2002b. Piping Plover: Atlantic Coast Populations. Available at 

http://pipingplover.fws.gov. Accessed in April 2008. 
76

U.S. FWS. 2008. Sensitive joint-vetch in North Carolina. United States Fish and Wildlife Services. 

Available at http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/plant/sensjointv.html. Accessed on April 15, 2008.

U.S. PHS. 1993. Toxicological profile for nickel. U.S. Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia. Report TP-92/14. 158 pp.

Watling, HR. 1983. Accumulation of seven metals by Crassostrea gigas, Crassostrea 

margaritacea, Perna perna, and Choromytilus meridionalis. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 

30:317-322.

Watling, HR, Watling RJ. 1983. Sandy beach molluscs as possible bioindicators of metal 

pollution 2. Laboratory Studies. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 31:339-343.

Watras, CJ, MacFarlane J, Morel FM. 1985. Nickel accumulation by Scenedesmus and Daphnia: 

Food-chain transport and geochemical implications. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 42:724-730.

Zaroogian, GE, Johnson M. 1984. Nickel uptake and loss in the bivalves Crassostrea virginica 

and Mytilus edulis. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 13: 411-418.
77

APPENDIX A: Interspecies Correlation Estimates (ICE) for Nickel Saltwater Exposure

The ICE estimate for New Jersey’s saltwater nickel biological evaluation was conducted,

however a valid estimate could not be produced for shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum).
78

Appendix B. Biological Evaluation Effects Assessment Methodology

This biological evaluation (BE) is performed using the Draft Methodology for Conducting 

Biological Evaluations of Aquatic Life Criteria – Methods Manual, dated April 3, 2006 (U.S. 

EPA, Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division). This methodology generally 

follows the standard U.S. EPA (1998) ecological risk assessment paradigm. The ecological risk 

assessment paradigm describes a framework for evaluating the likelihood that adverse ecological 

effects are occurring to threatened and endangered aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife as 

a result of exposure to chemicals.

All ecological risk assessments are based on the results of two primary elements: 

characterization of exposure, and characterization of ecological effects. These two elements are 

evaluated within the three phases of an ecological risk assessment: problem formulation, 

analysis, and risk characterization. The problem formulation phase results in a description of the 

purpose of the risk assessment, a definition of the problem to be evaluated, and an analysis plan 

for analyzing and characterizing risk. Initial tasks performed within problem formulation 

include compiling available information on: contaminant sources, ecological effects of 

contaminants, characteristics of the ecosystems, and critical habitats and ESA species present 

within the study area. Note: the study area pertinent to this BE is all coastal and saline waters of 

estuaries of New Jersey where water quality standards specify a use protecting aquatic life (see 

Section 2.2). The final product of the problem formulation phase of the assessment is an analysis 

plan or methodology that describes how exposures and ecological effects will be evaluated. The 

analysis plan for the ecological risk assessment within this BE is given in the Methods Manual, 

but is briefly summarized here for the reader’s convenience.

During the analysis phase of the risk assessment, two primary tasks are performed: ecological 

effects assessment and exposure assessment. Within the ecological effects assessment, an 

assumption is made that Federally-listed species (hereafter referred to as listed species) are 

exposed to criteria concentrations of chemicals. Within the exposure assessment, species life 

history information and contaminant data are evaluated to determine how exposure to chemicals 

is likely to occur. If it is determined that exposure is not likely to occur for a given listed 

species, the species is not at risk from those chemicals.

Ecological effects assessment describes the potential for and types of ecological effects that 

could be expected from exposure to criteria chemicals. During water quality criteria 

development, EPA has historically focused on protection of aquatic life from ecologically 

relevant adverse effects. The design goal of EPA’s ambient water quality criteria is to protect 

95% of aquatic genera from ―adverse effects that might be biologically important‖ (Stephan et al. 

1985). Mortality, reproduction and growth were considered to be biologically important 

endpoints during criteria development. These three endpoints clearly have ecological 

significance in a risk assessment context, as do population level endpoints. Two of the purposes 

of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are to conserve the ecosystems on which endangered 

species depend, and to provide a program for the conservation of endangered species. Conserve 

is defined under ESA as methods and procedures necessary to bring any endangered species to a 

point at which measures provided within the ESA are no longer necessary.
79

The approach to discern the ecological relevance of toxicological studies evaluated in this BE is 

to consider toxicological endpoints that can be related to adverse effects on either individual 

fitness, i.e., an organism’s ability to perpetuate itself as measured by its reproductive success 

(Pianka 1983), or adverse effects at population or higher levels of biological organization. 

Toxicological endpoints meeting this ecologically relevant effect guideline are survival, 

reproduction and growth. 

Also included within the analysis phase of the risk assessment process is an evaluation of the 

uncertainties, strengths and limitations of the data on exposure, toxicity and adverse effects, as 

well as ecosystem and listed species characteristics. Uncertainty has two components: variability 

and ignorance. Variability is a component of all natural systems, often quantified with statistical 

analyses. Summary statistics such as the confidence limits around an LC50, or the standard error 

of a mean exposure concentration, are descriptors of variability. Ignorance refers to lack of 

information. Lack of information is the true unknown within a risk assessment.

The final phase of the ecological risk assessment process is the risk characterization. Risk 

characterization integrates the exposure and toxicity information in a risk estimation process. 

Included within risk characterization are discussions about assumptions used in the risk 

assessment, strengths and limitations of the analyses, and a discussion of scientific uncertainties. 

The output of the risk characterization of this BE is the description of risks to listed species. 

Risks to listed species will be expressed either as ―not likely to cause adverse effects‖ or as ―may 

affect‖.

Ecological risk assessments are often performed using a tiered approach. Tiers are predefined 

risk assessments of increasing site or species specificity, often with data analyses of increasing 

complexity and detail as one progresses from a lower to a higher tier. A decision point for 

scientific management is reached at the end of each tier. Two outcomes are possible from the 

scientific management decision point within a tier. Either a decision is made to conclude the risk 

assessment, followed by a description of the conclusions, or the rationale used to justify 

continuation to the next tier of the assessment is outlined. A risk assessment is complete when 

decision makers have sufficient information and confidence in the results of the assessment to 

make a decision they can defend.

Within this BE a single tier risk assessment approach is employed. This tier is termed a 

preliminary toxicity assessment. It is performed using conservative estimates of exposure and 

toxicity, which are used to identify saltwater aquatic and aquatic-dependent species not likely to 

be adversely affected by New Jersey’s new saltwater nickel criteria. When the preliminary 

toxicity assessment identifies species where adverse effects cannot be ruled out under the 

conservative assumptions of the assessment, those species are presumed to be at risk to criteria 

concentrations.

The basic approach for evaluating the protectiveness of water quality criteria to listed species is 

to calculate an assessment effects concentration (ECA) for each listed species. An ECA value for 

a given listed species is the chemical concentration that represents a maximum level of effect 

considered acceptable. Depending on the context (i.e., whether the listed species under 

discussion is an aquatic or aquatic-dependent species), an ECA can represent either a chemical 
80

concentration in water (expressed in units of μg/L), a chemical residue in the tissues of an 

aquatic species (expressed in units of mg/kg whole body wet weight), or a chemical 

concentration in the diet of an aquatic-dependent listed species (expressed in units of mg/kg).

The ECA for each listed species is then compared to the assessment exposure concentration (CA), 

defined as either the acute or chronic water quality criterion for aquatic species, or the tissue 

residue level bioaccumulated by prey of aquatic-dependent species that have been exposed to 

criteria concentrations of the chemical in water (termed the estimated residue level). The 

comparison is in the form of a risk ratio (R) as shown in Equation A.1:

Equation A.1:

R =

If CA < ECA (i.e., R < 1), the chemical criteria concentration is expected to be less than the 

chemical concentration expected to elicit toxicity in an listed species, and a determination of "not 

likely to cause adverse effects" is made. Alternatively, if CA > ECA (i.e. R > 1), the chemical 

criteria concentration is expected to be at or above the concentration expected to elicit toxicity, 

and a conditional "may affect" determination would be made. Species which may be affected 

per the preliminary toxicity assessment should be further evaluated in a secondary toxicity 

assessment. A secondary assessment would include a more in-depth examination of the 

toxicological information. There are no ―may effect‖ designations for the listed species 

evaluated in this document. 

Note: the determination of "not likely to cause adverse effects" for a given species in this 

preliminary toxicity assessment does not include an explicit calculation of a risk ratio, but rather 

just a simple comparison of CA and ECA. Readers of this BE familiar with hazard assessment or 

ecological risk assessment procedures will recognize the risk ratio in Equation A.1 as a safety 

factor.

B.1. Literature Review Methodology 

While the CA is set equal to the acute or chronic water quality criterion during the BE process, 

calculation of the ECA for a given listed species is dependent on the amount and type of 

toxicological information available in the literature. As is the case for the derivation of EPA’s 

national water quality criteria, the first step in the BE is to compile the available toxicological 

data for listed species and their prey. 

The literature search and data review procedure used during this BE is presented in detail in 

Attachment 1. It includes a description of how appropriate studies for inclusion in the BE are 

identified, how information (LC50s and NOECs) are summarized from individual literature 

citations, and how mean LC50s and NOECs are calculated when multiple LC50s or NOECs are 

available from different literature citations for the same species or genera. Note that in this BE 

the mean LC50 and NOEC values are compiled and presented in Table 3.1.

CA

ECA
81

B.2. Introduction to the Hierarchical Biological Evaluation Methodology for Listed Species 

Used in the Preliminary Toxicity Assessment 

The assessment effects concentration or ECA is an estimate of the highest chemical concentration 

in water (for aquatic species) or food (for aquatic-dependent species) that would cause an 

acceptably small adverse effect on listed species. For acute toxicity, this acceptably small level 

of effect is defined as an LC0 to LC10, which is as low an LC value as can usually be measured 

during laboratory toxicity tests. For chronic toxicity, the acceptably small level of effect is the 

No Observable Effects Concentration (NOEC). 

To adequately define what ECA means in terms of a "may affect" determination requires 

consideration of how the ECA is calculated relative to various sources of uncertainty. For those 

cases in which toxicity tests have been conducted using listed species, the test results provide a 

direct estimate of the true ECA value for the listed species. However, in most cases, the ECA will 

be estimated using surrogate information (tests conducted on other species and/or other 

chemicals) and methods which extrapolate this toxicity information to the listed species. When 

such surrogate information is used, there are additional uncertainties introduced, and a 

conservative screen should not simply use average values across surrogates. The goal of the BE 

methodology when surrogate species information is used to derive the ECA for a listed species is 

that there is a 95% probability that the true ECA value for the listed species of interest is above 

the estimated acute or chronic ECA. 

Since toxicity data are available for relatively few listed species, this methodology describes a 

hierarchical sequence of steps to permit evaluation of the protectiveness of water quality criteria 

without direct toxicity data for the listed species. This hierarchy involves calculating an acute or 

chronic ECA for listed species using toxicity data from test species that are progressively distant 

taxonomically from the listed species of interest. The first, most desirable and least uncertain 

tier of the hierarchy involves performing the BE with toxicity tests performed with the listed 

species themselves.

All other tiers of the BE hierarchy involve extrapolation of toxicity data for either non-listed 

species, or a listed species other than the species undergoing evaluation, to determine assessment 

effects concentrations for listed species. Two extrapolation methods are used in the hierarchy 

with toxicity data for surrogate species, regardless of whether the surrogate is a listed or nonlisted species: Interspecies Correlation Estimation (ICE) models, and species sensitivity 

distributions (SSDs). Both ICE models and SSDs can be used with toxicity data from multiple 

taxa levels, which accounts for the number of tiers in the BE hierarchy. Descriptions of these 

two methodologies and their use in this BE are presented below.

B.3. Interspecies Correlation Estimation (ICE) Methodology 

It is impractical for toxicologists to perform laboratory toxicity studies on all aquatic species 

present in North America with all chemicals to which they are exposed in the environment. This 

is particularly true for listed species, whose rarity or limited distribution in the environment 

generally precludes their use as test organisms in aquatic toxicology, except for limited research 
82

purposes. ICE models are statistical regressions that permit estimations of LC50s to be made for 

a species or higher taxa (genus, family) having no measured acute toxicity information from a 

species for which five or more LC50s have been measured. The detailed description of how ICE 

models were developed and their use to estimate LC50s for taxa for which no toxicity 

information is available is provided in Asfaw et al. (2003). 

ICE models between two taxa are linear regressions of the form shown in Equation A.2.

Equation A.2:

log X2 = a + b [log X1]

where: X1 is a measured LC50 value for an aquatic species (e.g. coho salmon, Daphnia magna)

X2 is the predicted LC50 value for the taxa (species, genus or family) without toxicity 

data

Asfaw et al. (2003) developed software to predict acute toxicity data from 4082 interspecies 

correlation models for acute toxicity, derived from toxicity data for 143 aquatic and terrestrial 

organisms using Model II least squares regression, where both the measured (X1) and predicted 

(X2) values are independent and subject to measurement error. Toxicity of a chemical to one 

species can be predicted from toxicity to another species with a known certainty, which is 

expressed as 95% upper and lower confidence intervals around the predicted LC50. Asfaw et al. 

(2003) recommend performing ICE model evaluations on species taxonomically no further apart 

than the family level. This recommendation was followed in this BE.

No ICE models were available to predict the acute toxicity of nickel to shortnose sturgeon 

(Acipenser brevirostrum) at the genus or family level. Instead, the SSD model was used to 

predict an LC50 value for A. brevirostrum at the class (Actinopterygii) level.

B.4. Species Sensitivity Distribution (SSD) Methodology 

Species sensitivity distributions are based on the assumption that available toxicity data for a 

group of taxonomically related species are representative of the response of other species for 

which toxicity data are not available. Assuming the latter, a statistical description of the toxicity 

data can thus be generated which permits calculation of the proportion of all species that would 

be adversely affected by exposure to a chemical at a given concentration. As long as the 

toxicological endpoint for each species is the same (e.g., an LC50, EC20, NOEC, etc.) an SSD 

can be generated for any toxicological endpoint and combination of species. This feature of 

SSDs is one of their great advantages relative to other endpoint estimation methodologies, in that 

they explicitly consider the results of all available toxicological information for a given 

assemblage of species.

EPA recommendations for using the SSD method are:

1. the method can be used through the class level (the water quality criteria themselves are 

derived from SSDs through the kingdom and phylum level);

2. analyses must be based on a minimum of four species within the taxonomic unit 

analyzed, and 
83

3. all SSDs should be represented by at least two species in the next lowest taxonomic unit.

If four or more surrogate species within the same taxonomic unit as the listed species of interest 

have been the subject of toxicity tests, the LC50 or NOEC values can be used to estimate the 

SSD of that taxonomic unit, and thus provide an estimate of the acute or chronic ECA for the 

listed species. To provide confidence in protecting the listed species, the 5th percentile of the 

SSD has been selected as the acute ECA value (using LC50 data) or chronic ECA value (using 

NOEC data) for the listed species. Assuming that the species within a SSD are representative of 

the response of listed species for which toxicity data do not exist, the actual ECA for the listed 

species is then highly likely to be greater than the chemical concentration estimated by the 5th

percentile.

Selection of the 5th percentile as the concentration protective of listed species is not based on 

either statistics or toxicology. Instead, it is a policy or management decision, or a value 

judgment, not a scientific decision. Although the 5th percentile of a SSD is commonly used to set 

environmental quality criteria (it is, for example, the level of protectiveness of both the 

Australian water quality guidelines and the Dutch intervention values), it is not the only 

percentile of the SSD that has been used to set criteria. Regulatory and management agencies 

must make the ultimate decision on the level of protectiveness of criteria and standards.

Multiple statistical methods are available for estimating the 5th percentile of an SSD, each of 

which likely yields a different estimated value of the 5th percentile. Estimation methods for the 

5

th percentile have been extensively studied (see discussions in Posthuma et al. 2002). Although 

no one estimation method is universally used, the most commonly used distributions to estimate 

5

th percentiles from SSDs are the log-logistic and lognormal distributions.

The method used in this BE was EPA’s recommended method based on the censored-order 

statistic. This SSD method assumes the data fit a triangular distribution. The software used for 

calculating the 5th P using this method was obtained through EPA’s ORD-Duluth (Russell 

Erickson), which was originally produced to support the ESA consultations on EPA’s national 

304(a) water quality criteria. The software was used to generate Table 3.2 in this BE using the 

core toxicity data from tests with individual species summarized in Table 3.1.

B.5. Hierarchical Biological Evaluation Methodology for Use with Acute Water Quality 

Criteria 

This methodology describes six tiers of the acute ECA calculation hierarchy. The first step is to 

obtain LC50 data for each aquatic species where toxicological data are available. Once the LC50

values are obtained, each LC50 is divided by 2.27 to calculate the acute ECA value for each 

species. The acute ECA for each listed species undergoing evaluation is compared to the acute 

water quality criterion as shown in Equation A.1 above to determine if the acute ECA is greater 

than the acute water quality criterion or CA. The value of 2.27 is intended to convert the LC50

concentration to an ―LCLOW‖ value that should result in little or no toxicity to the test species. A 

criterion based on LC50 values without this adjustment would be an underprotective criterion 

that potentially elicits toxicity to 50% of the individuals of the test species.
84

In accordance with the Guidelines, the Final Acute Value (FAV) is divided by 2.0 (or multiplied 

by 0.5 ) to calculate the acute criteria concentration or CMC. The basis for this adjustment factor 

is an analysis of data from 219 acute toxicity tests showing that the mean concentration lethal to 

0-10% of the test population was 0.44 times the LC50 or the LC50 divided by 2.27. The data 

and analysis on which the 2.27 value is based is described in the Federal Register on May 18, 

1978 (43 FR 21506-21518). Briefly, the analysis consisted of calculating the geometric mean of 

the ratios of the highest concentration (HC) affecting or killing 0-10% of organisms divided by 

the LC50 or EC50 for the same organisms in the same acute test (i.e., the geometric mean of 219 

HC/LC50 ratios from toxicity tests with a variety of chemicals). Best professional judgment was 

used to round the FAV ―adjustment factor‖ of 2.27 to 2 in revisions of the Guidelines that were

published (Stephan et al. 1985) subsequent to the 1978 Federal Register notice. The 2.27 

adjustment factor was used in this BE to add an additional degree of conservatism in assessing 

effects on listed species. The use of this value as an adjustment factor during the calculation of 

ECA values results in an ECA 11.9% lower than is calculated by dividing an FAV by two.

The six tiers of the hierarchy to calculate acute ECA concentrations for listed aquatic species are 

presented below. Each tier includes specific details of how the BE of NJ’s saltwater nickel water 

quality criteria was performed using the available toxicity data presented in Table 3.1.

First tier: Acute toxicity data are available for the listed species

Where there is only one toxicity test, use the lower 95% confidence interval of the reported 

LC50, if available. 

Where there is more than one toxicity test, use as much of the data as possible to calculate a 

SMAV, or use best professional judgment in selecting an appropriate LC50 for the listed 

species, based on data quality and weight-of-evidence.

Result of tier one analysis in this BE - Direct acute toxicity data were not available for any of 

the listed aquatic species.

Second tier: ICE models are available for the listed species

Use ICE to estimate an LC50 for the listed species based on the lower 95% confidence 

interval of the predicted LC50. The lower 95% confidence interval is generated by the ICE 

model.

Result of tier two analysis in this BE - No ICE models could be generated to estimate an LC50 

for A. brevirostrum exposed to acute lethal concentrations of nickel at the species level.

Third tier: ICE models are available for the genus of the listed species

Use ICE to estimate an LC50 for the genus of the listed species based on the lower 95% 

confidence interval of the model-predicted LC50. 

Result of tier three analysis in this BE - No ICE models could be generated to estimate an 

LC50 for A. brevirostrum exposed to acute lethal concentrations of nickel at the genus level.
85

Fourth tier: Acute toxicity test data values are available for four related species in the same 

genus of the listed species.

Use an SSD to determine a 5th percentile LC50 for the genus. This tier of the hierarchy 

follows the observation in Stephan et al. (1985) that toxicity data for species within the same 

genus are more comparable to data for other species within a given genus than they are to 

toxicity data from other genera or higher levels of taxonomic organization.

Result of tier four analysis in this BE - Acute toxicity values are not available for four species 

of fish in the genus Acipenser.

Fifth tier: ICE models are available for the family of the listed species.

Use ICE to estimate an LC50 for the family of the listed species based on the lower 95% 

confidence interval. 

Result of tier five analysis in this BE - No ICE models could be generated to estimate an LC50 

for A. brevirostrum exposed to acute lethal concentrations of nickel at the family level: 

Acipenseridae.

Sixth: Acute toxicity test data values are available for four related species in the same family, 

order, class or phylum of the listed species.

Use an SSD to determine a 5th percentile LC50 for the family, order, class or phylum. 

Result of tier six analysis in this BE - The fish SSDs in this tier of the hierarchy were 

performed at the taxonomic level of the class Actinopterygii, ray-finned fishes. The 5th

percentile LC50 value from this SSD was used to estimate the acute ECA value for A. 

brevirostrum using the data for surrogate fish species in the same class listed in Table 3.1.

B.6. Hierarchical Biological Evaluation Methodology for Use with Chronic Water Quality 

Criteria 

A seven tiered hierarchy was used to calculate chronic ECA values for listed species. Tiers 2 

through 7 of the chronic ECA hierarchy are nearly identical to the six tiers in the acute ECA

calculation methodology, but use NOEC data instead of LC50 data as the starting point of the 

evaluation. The additional tier of the chronic ECA hierarchy, which is Tier 1, is use of measured 

NOEC data generated with a listed species as a direct estimate of the chronic ECA value for the 

listed species. No NOEC values were available for saltwater listed species pertinent to this BE, 

however, at least four data values are available in the family, order, class or phylum of the listed 

species, hence, the SSD was used to determine a 5th percentile NOEC for the class 

Actinopterygii. 

The SSD was generated from estimated NOECs calculated for each species in Table 3.1 as the 

quotient of the LC50 and ACR (i.e., 5.96). The 5th percentile NOEC value from this SSD was 
86

used to estimate the chronic ECA value for A. brevirostrum using the data for surrogate fish 

species in the same class listed in Table 3.1.

B.7. Aquatic Species- Effects from Multiple Routes of Exposure 

EPA’s derivation of ambient aquatic life criteria explicitly includes only studies that expose 

aquatic species to contaminants in water. Studies that expose aquatic species to chemicals in 

sediment or their diet are specifically excluded from criteria derivation. The concern with this 

exclusion revolves around the possibility that simultaneous exposure of aquatic species to 

multiple sources of a contaminant may result in greater toxic effects than would be predicted 

from water column toxicity tests alone.

This section of the methodology describes an approach that evaluates the amount of risk that 

might occur on a chronic basis because of other routes of exposure not considered during criteria 

development, and which may not be accounted for in the analyses described in the previous 

section. Investigations of the effects of other routes of exposure such as contaminant ingestion 

from diet are much less common than water only toxicity tests, and also do not have well 

standardized methods. As such, definitive published guidance on how adverse effects from these 

other routes of exposure should be analyzed is unavailable. 

Meyer et al. (2005), after an extensive review of the toxicity of dietborne metals to aquatic 

species, concluded that the state of the science is currently not advanced enough to explicitly 

incorporate dietary metal toxicity into current regulatory frameworks. In part, this is due to the 

known differences in internal organ distributions of chemicals in aquatic species depending on 

whether the metal exposure occurs from a waterborne or dietary exposure (Clearwater et al. 

2002). Differences in the organs in which contaminants are accumulated can result in 

contaminants having different sites, modes and mechanisms of toxic action depending on the 

exposure route by which aquatic species obtain their internal contaminant dose. This is one 

explanation for the multiple modes of action of metals, including the variation in mode of action 

during short term (damage to respiratory surfaces) and long term (systemic injuries to organs and 

biochemical processes) exposures. Although the processes controlling waterborne and dietary 

contaminant uptake in aquatic species are generally independent of each other, whole body 

contaminant concentrations are integrators of tissue residues resulting from waterborne and 

dietary contaminant uptake. 

Numerous investigators have presented evidence that whole body residues are a reasonable 

surrogate for the chemical concentration at the site of toxic action (Escher and Hermens 2004, 

Connell et al. 1999, van Wezel and Opperhuizen 1995, McCarty and Mackay 1993, Cook et al. 

1992, Landrum et al. 1991). This is particularly true for organic compounds (Meyer et al. 2005), 

and has been considered a suitable assumption for making screening level predictions with 

metals (Chapman et al. 2003, Borgmann et al. 2001, Shephard 1998). If the tissue residue of a 

bioaccumulated chemical can be related to the concentration of that chemical in water, the level 

of protection water quality criteria provide from the adverse effects of chemicals obtained via 

multiple exposure pathways can be evaluated. This evaluation includes comparing the amount of 

chemical bioaccumulated from exposure to criteria concentrations to residue levels associated 

with adverse effects in aquatic species.
87

Bioconcentration factors (BCFs) relate the concentration of a chemical in the tissue of an aquatic 

organism (mg/kg) to its concentration in water (mg/L), in situations where the organism is 

exposed to the chemical through the water only. BCFs are an appropriate method of predicting 

chemical concentrations in the tissues of low trophic level (trophic levels 1 and 2) aquatic 

species. They are also appropriate for predicting tissue residues in higher trophic level (trophic 

levels 3 and 4) organisms from the concentration in water for many metals and for organics with 

low octanol-water partition coefficients. For most inorganic compounds, BCFs and 

bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) are assumed to be equivalent for all trophic levels (Appendix B 

of U.S. EPA 1995). 

In accord with the above, the approach used to evaluate toxicity to aquatic species from dietary 

nickel exposure to aquatic organisms in this BE is based on the following equation:

FR = 1 + [PF x Food CF] (Equation A.2)

where FR is a "risk factor" that represents the increased risk from the dietary route of exposure, 

and PF describes the relative potency of the chemical (nickel) in the diet or food versus water. 

The PF is calculated as the quotient of an ECW (i.e., NOEC from a water-only exposure) and ECF

(i.e., NOEC from a dietary exposure) for a listed, or surrogate, species, whereas the food 

concentration factor (Food CF) is an appropriately conservative BCF for food organisms of the 

listed species. 

The literature search procedure described in Attachment 1 was also used to identify studies 

which evaluated partition coefficients between water and other phases in natural systems. The 

partition coefficients selected were based on water concentrations near those to which these 

analyses apply, i.e., the criterion continuous concentration or CCC. Once useful estimates for 

ECW, ECF, and food CF (i.e., BCF) from the literature were obtained and summarized, relevant 

conservative values for these variables were used to estimate FR for the various taxonomic 

groups of interest. The PF and food CF (conservative BCF) were not directly available for A. 

brevirostrum, so they were derived based on studies of dietary versus water-borne exposures and 

bioconcentration in other species. The use of PFs and food CFs from surrogate species requires 

the assumption that this factor is similar in shortnose sturgeon. The results of this analysis for 

this BE are summarized in section 3.3.2 identifying the FR to use for the listed species. The 

water-only chronic ECA that is determined in the analysis for A. brevirostrum was multiplied by 

the FR to estimate ECA' to support the risk comparison for multiple-routes of exposure in Table 

4.1.

It should be noted that the units of PF and food CF depend on the units selected for CWater and 

CFood and care must be taken in making sure that the estimation and use of these variables is 

consistent. There is notable uncertainty in some of the assumptions when considering exposure 

from additional routes such as dietary. In the simple case of a chemical which approaches 

equilibrium between the water and the organism in the time frame of a chronic test, multiple 

routes of exposure might not result in greater accumulation, but rather would only hasten the 

approach to equilibrium. Moreover, if potencies are derived from separate experiments for 

different routes (such as separate water-only and diet-only exposures), this additive model can 
88

overestimate risk. For exposure via water and one other route, the maximum overestimation of 

risk is a factor of two, which will be reached only when (a) the routes are equally important to 

toxicity and (b) they are completely independent rather than additive. Because this error is not 

large and would be difficult to reduce, and because this entire procedure is intended to provide a 

conservative screen, this issue will not be further addressed here. It should also be noted that, 

unlike for models of the combined toxicity of different chemicals, synergetic actions will not be 

of concern here, and an additive model is thus adequately conservative. 

B.8. Calculation of the Aquatic-Dependent Wildlife Exposure Concentration 

Aquatic dependent wildlife species are mammals, birds and reptiles whose diet contains an 

appreciable proportion of aquatic organisms. As terrestrial wildlife move through the 

environment, they may be exposed to contamination via three pathways: oral ingestion, dermal 

contact, and inhalation. Oral exposure occurs through the consumption of contaminated food, 

water, sediment or soil. Dermal exposure occurs when contaminants are absorbed directly 

through the skin. Inhalation exposure occurs when volatile compounds or fine particulates are 

respired into the lungs. Because contaminant exposure experienced by wildlife through both the 

dermal and inhalation pathways is negligible (Sample et al. 1997), the majority of exposure is 

due to the oral ingestion pathway. 

Contaminant concentrations in soil cannot be attributed to concentrations in surface waters, thus, 

it is inappropriate to include soil exposure to contaminants in a biological assessment of water 

quality criteria. Sediment ingestion rates of many wildlife species are low, 2% or less of the total 

food ingestion rate (Beyer et al. 1994). For the purposes of this BE, we assume that the oral 

ingestion of a chemical in water can be described as the sum of its ingestion of the chemical in 

water and the chemical accumulated in its prey during the prey species exposure to water. Of 

these oral routes of exposure, the far greater contributor with regards to exposure is from the 

consumption of contaminated prey items.

If an aquatic dependent wildlife species under evaluation is known to feed on aquatic biota (the 

receptor does not have to feed exclusively on aquatic species), the concentration of the 

contaminant in its aquatic prey can be estimated from the product of a water quality criterion and 

a bioconcentration factor (or a bioaccumulation factor). If the food ingestion rates for a wildlife 

species are known or can be estimated, and if the contaminant concentration in prey is 

proportional to the concentration in the water, it is possible to calculate the exposure of a wildlife 

receptor to a contaminant from its consumption of prey.

The assessment of toxicity on aquatic-dependent listed species in this BE addresses effects 

expected from a diet of aquatic organisms because diet is expected to be the important exposure 

route for aquatic-dependent species in the vast majority of cases. As with the analysis of the 

dietary route of exposure on aquatic species, the assessment of risk to aquatic-dependent species 

is based on the same estimation of the risk ratio where R is the risk ratio, C is the exposure 

concentration (in diet) expected to occur under the constraints of the section 304(a) aquatic life 

criteria, and EC is the effects concentration (diet) estimated to be of concern for a particular 

listed species.
89

The literature search for the aquatic-dependent analysis (Attachment 1) produced estimates of the 

bioconcentration factors (BCFs), along with the exposure duration and water concentration 

associated with each BCF, of food organisms (or surrogates) for listed aquatic-dependent species 

(Table 3.3). In addition, the literature search produced estimates of dietary effects 

concentrations, including exposure duration, for listed species or their surrogates (Table 3.4). 

In this BE residue levels in the prey organisms are estimated to determine exposure 

concentrations for the dietary pathway in aquatic-dependent wildlife because fish (or other 

species) tissue is the medium for dietary exposure. Accordingly, the exposure component of this 

assessment consists of determining the likely residue level in food organisms, which was 

calculated by multiplying an appropriately conservative BCF by the chronic section 304(a) 

aquatic life criteria:

CCC * BCF = Estimated Residue Level

Since the BCFs vary by water column concentration, only those BCFs based on water column 

concentrations at or near the CCC were used. In this BE only BCFs were used because 

appropriate BAF data were limited. In addition, since there was such a large range of BCFs in 

the literature for prey organisms of aquatic-dependent species, the 84thpercentile value was 

selected as a value that approximates one standard deviation above the mean to provide sufficient 

conservatism to ensure an acceptable level of risk. For each BCF that was obtained, information 

on exposure duration, water concentration, and other important background information from the 

test was included (see Table 3.3). 

B.9. Calculation of Aquatic-Dependent Wildlife Assessment Effects Concentration

The effects component was calculated by identifying dietary toxicity values for the listed species 

or a surrogate. The dietary toxicity values of the aquatic-dependent listed species or their 

surrogates were then compared to the estimated residue levels of its food sources. Since the 

exposure durations of the dietary pathway considered in assessing exposure to aquatic-dependent 

organisms are chronic in nature, only chronic exposure were evaluated.

Initially, dietary toxic effects concentrations for the listed species or their surrogates were 

compiled. The compilation included any species for which dietary effects concentrations exist 

for the chemical of concern (i.e., nickel), the acute and/or chronic toxicity levels for those 

species, and the exposure duration. Because there was a range of dietary toxicity values in the 

literature, a point in that range that is appropriately protective for the purpose of this analysis was 

selected. The value that was selected is the 16th percentile value which approximates one 

standard deviation below the mean. Using this value in combination with one standard deviation 

above the mean of BCFs ensures an acceptable level of risk. In some cases, dietary effects 

estimates were presented as minimum toxicity values (i.e., the highest dose at which no effects 

were observed), which potentially adds conservatism to the analysis. 

Toxicity data was more limited for the aquatic-dependent analysis than for the aquatic analysis. 

Accordingly, NOEC and LOEC data was used in the same assessment. Table 3.4 in the analysis 

document indicates whether the dietary effects data are based on a measured NOEC or an LOEC.
90

B.10. Methodology for Evaluation of Indirect Effects of Water Quality Criteria on Prey of 

Listed Species 

In addition to the assessment of risk to aquatic and aquatic-dependent listed species, toxicity of 

nickel in saltwater to prey of the listed species was evaluated to determine if there might be an 

effect on the listed species due to a meaningful reduction in the number of prey species on which 

a listed species feeds. Assessment of indirect effects on listed species due to a reduction in prey 

is the most difficult endpoint to quantitatively evaluate in this BE for reasons both practical and 

of ecological theory. This assessment compiles all LC50 and NOEC values obtained for all 

aquatic species during the literature review, as all aquatic species, including listed species are 

potential prey of one or more other species. As with the analysis of toxic effects on listed 

species, the LC50s are divided by 2.27 to derive the acute ECA, which generally results in a 

concentration near or below the lethality threshold at the individual level. 

The definition of a meaningful reduction in the diet of a listed species is subjective. It is 

currently not possible to provide information regarding how many prey species can be eliminated 

from an aquatic system before a listed species is adversely affected by a reduction in its prey 

base. The rare exception is for those species that rely on a very limited prey base. 

No listed species in New Jersey is known to be an obligate feeder on only one prey species. 

Therefore, it appears reasonable to assume that numerous alternative prey species exist for listed 

species in aquatic systems, minimizing or eliminating the potential for adverse effects on listed 

species from toxic effects on any one or several of their prey species.

The range of acute and chronic ECA values for the following broad groups of prey species are 

summarized in tabular form in the text for each chemical undergoing evaluation in this BE: fish, 

invertebrates, and diatoms and algae (see text table in Section 3.5). The aquatic invertebrate 

section is further subdivided to present the range of acute and chronic ECA values for mollusks, 

crustaceans, and worms and soft-bodied animals. The above prey groups consumed by the 

Listed species in New Jersey are listed in the tables (4.1 and 4.2 respectively) summarizing the 

results of the effects analysis for nickel.

In the analysis on the effects of the water quality criteria on prey species, the acute and chronic 

ECA values of each listed species food items are compared to the acute and chronic criteria, 

respectively. No quantitative determinations are made regarding whether or not reductions in 

prey species richness may affect listed species. In only a very few instances are there acute or 

chronic ECA values below the CMC or CCC.

B.11. Multiple Lines of Evidence and Final Effect Determination Methodology 

In the effects determinations section (Section 4.0) in the analysis document a summary of the 

findings for each of the assessments is provided for the acute and chronic criterion. No ―may 

affect‖ findings were made for a species based on either the water column, prey, multiple routes 

of exposure, or wildlife-dependent assessments and the potential exposure to this pollutant was 
91

considered ―low to non-existent.‖ The effects of nickel on critical habitat did not apply in this BE 

as none of the relevant listed species have critical habitat in the State of New Jersey.
92

ATTACHMENT 1 – LITERATURE SEARCH AND DATA REVIEW PROCEDURE

The development of a BE to determine whether new or revised state water quality 

criteria/standards are likely to adversely affect any federally-listed species requires the review 

and acquisition of applicable aquatic and terrestrial toxicity and bioaccumulation data. The 

review and acquisition of applicable data for such purposes requires personnel with a high level 

of expertise in aquatic toxicology, ecotoxicology, aquatic chemistry, geochemical speciation 

modeling, statistics, and chemical bioavailability.

The basic design of the overall data review and extraction process pertinent to this BE is 

summarized in the flowchart below (Figure 1.1).

FIGURE 1.1. BE PROCESS FLOWCHART.

References are reviewed and managed concurrently throughout the literature review and data 

acquisition, extraction, and compilation process. Quality control and assurance checks and 

procedures are implemented at various points throughout the process in accordance with the 

steps below.

Reference review and acquisition

Step 1. Title and 

abstract review

Step 3. On-line 

ECOTOX review

Request reference?

QC Pt.

Data acceptable?

QC Pt.

Step 2. Requested 

reference review

Data acceptable?

QC Pt.

Data extraction 

and compilation

Enter rejection code label

no

no

no

yes

yes

yes

yes

Enter rejection code label
93

1.1 Source of Secondary Data

This procedure applies to the review and acquisition of articles selected from a literature search 

to determine which articles and the data therein meet the acceptability criteria for use in BE

documents, as described below. For the purpose of this procedure, secondary data are defined as 

any existing environmental data used in a way other than they were originally intended. 

Secondary data may be obtained from many sources, including literature, Agency reports, and 

compilations from computerized databases and information systems (see Section A7).

There are two general sources of secondary data specified for use under this procedure. Data 

from on-going EPA literature searches for maintenance of EPA’s public on-line ECOTOX 

database, and data obtained by the Great Lakes Environmental Center from previous government 

related projects. Regarding the former, EPA uses a standardized literature search strategy for 

identifying potential sources of toxicity information on aquatic life and aquatic-dependent 

wildlife for BE document development. The primary source of the literature is the ECOTOX 

literature holdings. Complete documentation on the ECOTOX literature search strategy is 

located at: http://lester.dul.epa.gov/qa/sop/#DAM. Briefly, ECOTOX is a comprehensive webbased database, compiled and maintained by EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) 

that provides information on the effects of single chemical exposures to ecologically relevant 

species (http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/). This database supports research in ORD and the broader 

scientific community, providing data to create and evaluate predictive effect models developed 

through intra- and extramural research efforts (e.g., advanced species, dose, and chemical 

extrapolation modeling). It is used by the Agency’s Regional and Program Offices, as well as 

other Federal, State, Tribal and local government agencies, and the regulated community as a 

primary source of literature on ecological effects to meet responsibilities under Agencydelegated programs and/or data submissions and analyses required by EPA. 

Literature searches conducted for the ECOTOX database do not use chemical specific terms 

because the purpose is to capture all the literature on the toxicity of anthropogenic substances to 

ecologically relevant species. Therefore, the search includes habitat terms (e.g., pond, soil), 

effect terms (e.g., mortality, reproduction, growth), species terms (e.g., bird, worm, salamander), 

general chemical terms (e.g., metal, organic, pesticide), and/or sub-file category codes within 

abstracting databases relevant to ecotoxicology.

The identification of studies that are potentially applicable to the ECOTOX database is 

accomplished through comprehensive searches of the open literature. These searches include use 

of electronic bibliographic abstracting services (e.g., STN, Science Direct, Cambridge Scientific 

Abstracts, Dialog), the manual review of bibliographies associated with summary or review 

publications, and the manual review of library holdings at EPA/ORD’s Mid-Continent Ecology 

Division, Duluth, MN. 

Secondary literature from previous relevant projects includes peer-reviewed and un-reviewed 

reports, manuscripts and publications on the chemical of interest.
94

1.2 Reference Review

Publications acquired using the general ECOTOX literature search and acquisition protocols 

have to meet five minimum data requirements to be considered eligible for inclusion in the 

database. The publication is eligible for the ECOTOX database if it reports: (1) observed 

biological responses related to an exposure to a single chemical, and the chemical’s name and 

Chemical Abstract Services Registry number can be verified in reliable chemical reference 

manuals; (2) a taxonomically verifiable test species that is an aquatic or terrestrial plant or 

animal with the exception of yeast, bacteria and viruses; (3) results based on the exposure of live, 

intact organisms; (4) a concurrent environmental chemical concentration/dose or application rate 

with the exception of concentrations reported in the sediment without concurrent pore water 

concentrations and air exposures; and (5) the duration of exposure. In addition, publications that 

are only available in a language other than English, publications that are not the primary source 

of the effects data (i.e., review or summary publications) and studies that are only available in a 

brief abstract format are not considered for inclusion in the database.

Copies of non-applicable publications, i.e., publications which do not meet the minimum data 

requirements noted above, are for the most part not acquired or retained within the ECOTOX 

literature holdings. Copies of some non-applicable publications, however, are acquired and 

retained when they are useful to the ECOTOX database effort, and these are assigned an 

ECOTOX reference number. These publications include review or summary publications that are 

not the primary source of data but are used in manual literature searches, and documents that 

present information on toxicity test protocols and procedures.

Each citation that is identified, either through the electronic literature searches or the manual 

searches, is examined to determine whether or not it is potentially applicable to the ECOTOX 

database. With the exception of review/summary and methods publications, publications that are 

clearly not relevant to the ECOTOX database effort are not ordered, and the electronic 

bibliographic record is annotated with the reason for exclusion (see Attachment 1.A of this 

attachment). If a clear decision of applicability cannot be made based on the information 

available (e.g., citation and or abstract), then the publication is acquired. All publications that are 

acquired are assessed as to relevance to the ECOTOX database based on the full publication, and 

if excluded, the citation is annotated with the reason.

The current literature holdings for the ECOTOX database include over 70,000 publications, 

which are accessible to EPA. All retained publications are assigned a unique ECOTOX reference 

number. In addition, each citation in the bibliographic file is key-worded as to the type of 

information included (e.g., terrestrial vs. aquatic; plant vs. invertebrate, vs. mammal vs. bird) and 

chemical of concern to EPA (e.g., Water Quality Criteria chemicals; registered pesticide active 

ingredients, Superfund priority pollutants). 

The BE literature review process begins with the review of references from the two primary 

sources of data, i.e., references from ECOTOX literature holdings and articles identified as 

potentially relevant from previous projects, respectively. There are two categories of references 

obtained from these two sources. Each category requires a different type and level of review. 

For example, in-house articles from previous projects are first scanned for potential applicability 
95

much like what is done for inclusion into the ECOTOX database, and those deemed potentially 

useful are selected for further review (see Figure 1.1). Data from references already reviewed 

and entered on-line in ECOTOX are screened using additional sets of acceptance criteria 

particular to BE development (see Attachment 1.B and 1.C). The majority of data from 

ECOTOX should be verified with electronic or hardcopies of the original reference as an added 

measure of quality control (QC). Articles eventually rejected for BE development are managed 

concurrently throughout the process using bibliographic software. The review of secondary data 

from the two categories of references proceeds in the following manner:

Step 1- Title and Abstract Review

All potentially relevant citations are screened for their possible use in BE documents. Each 

citation is examined using the acceptance criteria indicated above for ECOTOX (Attachment

1.A), as well as additional acceptance criteria specific to BE development (see Attachment 1.B 

and 1.C). Note that some exclusion codes, while consistent between lists, overlap in definition. 

This overlap is necessary because of the greater detail needed to assess relevance to BE 

development, e.g., see definitions for ―Effluent‖ code. The electronic bibliographic records 

provided by EPA in ECOTOX are marked for use/non-use. Records (references) not selected for 

acquisition are annotated with a reason for exclusion by manual entry. If a clear decision of 

applicability cannot be made based on the information available (e.g., citation and/or abstract), 

the publication is acquired for further review.

Step 2 – Requested Reference Review

All references selected are reviewed and assessed for their applicability to BE development 

based on the full publication. The first page of each reference is marked as accepted or not 

(including appropriate code). Data from accepted references are coded as to their ―use‖ in BE 

documents and are earmarked for future extraction and compilation (see Section 1.3). Likewise, 

publications void of data applicable to BE development are annotated with a reason for exclusion 

and removed from the accepted reference pool. Notes and calculations are written on the 

originally obtained article so that photocopies contain the information for future use. 

Step 3 - On-line ECOTOX Data Review

The literature review strategy for references in ECOTOX consists of a data screen of information 

downloaded from the ECOTOX public domain. The download of data entered for these 

ECOTOX ―on-line‖ references is accomplished following the procedure provided in Attachment 

D.

The downloaded data from references included in ECOTOX is assessed for applicability to BE 

development as above, and if excluded, the data record (and by extension, reference) is annotated 

with the reason (Attachment 1.A, 1.B and 1.C). All references with acceptable data are acquired 

for data verification, and later collated and transformed into a format suitable for entry into BE 

documents (see Section 1.3 Table Generation below). Explicit directions for sorting through and 

identifying aquatic toxicity data useful/not useful for BE development are provide in Attachment

1.D. 
96

1.3 DATA MANAGEMENT

Data accepted for use in BE development are compiled into one central spreadsheet file. 

Accepted data from the requested reference review are manually entered into the spreadsheet, 

whereas accepted data from the ECOTOX on-line data review are selected and sorted 

electronically.

The file created from the on-line data downloaded from ECOTOX serves as the primary data 

instrument for all accepted references (see Figure 1.1). Note: this file also contains 

data from references not useful for BE development. Data is extracted and compiled into a 

―core‖ data worksheet according to the following steps:

1. Within the Excel download file, add an initial column titled Acceptance Status. Under the 

Acceptance Status column, code each row as B (BE acceptable), or enter the appropriate 

rejection code under this same column (from codes in Attachment 1.A, 1.B and 1.C). Sort 

the worksheet by the Acceptance Status column and transfer all acceptable studies to a 

worksheet labeled ―core data.‖

2. If data were deemed acceptable from references acquired and reviewed under the 

requested reference review, extract and record the relevant information on a ―data 

extraction form.‖ The data extraction form must include the following information:

Relevant Information for BE Development (Aquatic Species) 

Information Comment

Chemical Name Check that it is an acceptable form of the contaminant.

Chemical Comment Notes on purity of chemical compound, etc.

Chemical Method Measured (M) or Unmeasured (U).

Scientific Name Records that do not identify genus and species not included.

Common Name Easy to find through a web search1, if not available.

Organism Comment Information on life stage.

Effect + Effect Meas. Classification of response type and response measured, respectively.

Endpt1 Classify endpoint as acute or chronic (list endpoints or add column).

Plant / Animal Not Available in Ecotox.

Media Type Freshwater (FW) or Saltwater (SW).
97

Relevant Information for BE Development (Aquatic Species) 

Information Comment

Dur + Dur Unit Duration of exposure period: value + time unit.

Concentration1 Mean Endpoint value. If necessary, convert to appropriate unit.

Concentration Unit Ecotox records values in original units.

Concentration Type Active, Dissolved, or Total (A, D, T, respectively).

Temperature + Unit

Salinity + Unit Required value if tests conducted in saltwater.

pH

Hardness + Unit Required value if criteria are expressed as a function of hardness.

Exposure Type Static, Renewal, Flow through.

ECOTOX Reference # Reference number in ECOTOX series, if available.

Author + Year

Ref. Source + Title

1

Search at www.itis.usda.gov/ or www.gbif.net/portal/index.jsp

3. Add the reference and enter the extracted data to the ―core data‖ worksheet. Add a 

column to the ―core data‖ worksheet, labeled ―Data Use.‖ Code each row according to 

the type of toxicity data to be used in BE application. BE codes are B1 (Table 3-1 – acute 

and chronic, animals and plants), B2 (Table 3-3 - bioaccumulation), B3 (dietary toxicity), 

B4 (sediment toxicity).

1.3.1 BE Table Generation

The MS Excel ―core data‖ worksheet, once completed, can be used for creating all BE tables 

exactly as they will appear in their respective documents. The tables can be copied and pasted 

from Excel into the respective BE documents. 

1.3.2 Bibliography Management

The modified downloaded ECOTOX files serve as the primary reference archive indicating use 

or non-use of references in BE documents. 
98

ATTACHMENT 1.A – ECOTOX EXCLUSION CODES

Keyword Definition

ABSTRACT study results published as an abstract only

ADDENDUM publication is a supplement to another publication and attach to that 

publication (erratum or addendum)

BACTERIA bacteria and microbes - for microbes, enter bacteria as keyword, 

Microbe in Reference Manager field 6 (Notes). Includes Microtox tests 

are bacteria organisms.

BIOLOGICAL 

TOXICANT

general biological toxicants including venoms, fungal toxins, Bacillus 

thuringiensis, and other plant, animal or microbial extracts or toxins not 

purified 

(Purified single chemicals (with CAS numbers) of biological origin may 

be applicable. See the following websites for examples of applicable 

toxicants with biological origin: 

www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/proceedings1990/v1-511.html and 

www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/ingredients/index.htm).

CAS # 

UNAVAILABLE

chemical is not verifiable, no CAS # is available

DRUG testing for drug effects and side-effects on humans (drugs used as 

environmental toxicants are applicable)

EFFLUENT includes sewage and polluted runoff

FATE chemical distribution, metabolism

HUMAN HEALTH studies with human subjects or with surrogate animal subjects for 

human health risk assessment

INCIDENT reports of animal deaths by poison, etc.; lacks usable concentration 

and/or duration (use keywords ―INCIDENT/SURVEY‖)

INCOMPLETE 

CITATION

citation is not complete; order status ARCHIVE

INCORRECT 

CITATION

citation is wrong; order status ARCHIVE

INHALE Inhalation dose route only.

IN VITRO in vitro studies, including exposure of cell cultures and excised tissues

METABOLISM what happens to the chemical rather than to the organism
99

Keyword Definition

METHODS no usable toxicity tests; describes methods for conducting tests, 

purification or determination of chemicals, etc. Some methods 

publications are ordered for the ECOTOX methods information file 

(METHFILE); documentation provided for toxicology test methods, 

experimental design, statistical methods, standard terminology, recently 

developed test methods. Methfile papers are chosen to support 

development and interpretation of coding guidelines and to assist in 

reviewer training.

MIXTURE no single chemical tests reported

MODELING modeling only, no new organism exposure data; modeling studies may 

report original toxicity tests performed as comparisons or as a basis for 

extrapolation, if so, papers are ordered

MONKEY paper reports effect data for monkey species only

NO CONC no usable dose or concentration reported after examination of the entire 

paper; includes lead shot studies lacking dose information and which 

report only the number of pellets. Concentrations reported in log units 

only are not coded.

NO DURATION no duration reported (entire publication examined)

NO EFFECT no organism effect reported, including water quality studies with no 

effect on organisms reported

NO 

QUANTIFIABLE 

TOXICITY 

RESULT

no specific data values to code, paper used general statements such as 

―the animals decreased in weight‖, used only for TERRETOX papers

NO SOURCE source of publication undetermined; order status ARCHIVE

NO SPECIES no organism present or tested, exposure of a dead organism, reviewer 

unable to verify species

NO TOX DATA - chemicals in water, sediment or soil without organism effect data

- ecological interactions with no toxicity tests

- food studies - chemicals found in foods, food safety studies

- genetics studies - including recombinant DNA and mutant strains

- physiology - effects of the level of chemicals biologically present in an 

organism, including hormones and vitamins 

- risk assessment publications (related to regulation and legislation)

- phytoremediation studies where primary purpose is to remove toxicant 

from environment
100

Keyword Definition

NO TOXICANT no chemical toxicant

- includes ambient air component chemicals (ozone, CO2, SO2) and 

pollution

-other ambient conditions including changes in conditions (other than 

chemical addition), including radioactivity, ultraviolet light (UV), 

temperature, pH, salinity, dissolved oxygen (DO), or other water, air or 

soil parameters

NOT PURSUING no order will be placed; order status ARCHIVE

NON-ENGLISH paper in a language other than English - (these papers receive ECOREF 

numbers UNLESS a second keyword is assigned); AUTH orders only 

(not ILL), if not received in 6 months, citations should be ARCHIVE

NUTRIENT in situ chemicals tested as nutrients

OIL oil and petroleum products

PUBL AS paper was published in another journal or book, ECOREF number of 

other paper listed in Reference Manager citation

Ex. PUBL AS ECOREF #####

QSAR Quantitative Structure Activity Relationships

REFS CHECKED references in a LITBIB or REVIEW have been checked

REVIEW all toxicity tests reported elsewhere; REVIEW bibliography may be 

skimmed to identify relevant citations

SEDIMENT CONC chemical concentration reported in sediment only (see applicable 

conditions)

SKIMMED used to show that publication has been skimmed for applicable sections

SURVEY measured chemical present, but lacking quantification of exposure; 

lacks usable concentration and/or duration

VIRUS virus used as a test organism

YEAST yeast used as test organism
101

ATTACHMENT 1.B – COMMON GUIDELINES EXCLUSION CODES

Reject (Unused) Code Definition

BRINE SHRIMP Test species was brine shrimp

PRIOR EXPOSURE Tests with previously exposed organisms (i.e., collected from 

contaminated field sites)

INSUFFICIENT DETAIL Inadequate test details (e.g., source of species, acclimation, or 

duration of exposure)

EFFLUENT Tests on drilling muds, effluents, mixtures, and sludges

SEDIMENT Pollutant added only to sediment or to dilution water to which 

clean sediment was added (exceptions if water conc. was 

measured and particulate and TOC were each < 5mg/L)

MIXTURE Use of formulated mixtures and emulsifiable concentrate (unless 

tests show same results as the individual pollutant)

PURITY If material is less than 80% pure (unless results same as pure 

material or impurities are much less toxic than chemical of 

interest)

INJECTION Use of injection or gavage

INAPPROPRIATE 

METHOD (FOR 

CHEMICAL)

Flow-through tests were not used for highly biodegradable, 

hydrolyzable, oxidizable, reducible, or volatile materials

CELLS/TISSUES Tests with cell cultures, enzymes, excised or homogenized tissues

NO CONTROL No control treatment

INADEQUATE # OF 

ORGANISMS

Too few test organisms 

EXCESSIVE CONTROL 

MORTALITY

Inadequate control survival (>10% mortality for acute tests, 

species-specific exceptions; >20% mortality for chronic tests, 

species-specific exceptions)

INSUFFICIENT 

ACCLIMATION

Organisms cultured/held in one water and tested in another 

without proper acclimation

DISTILLED WATER Tests in distilled or deionized water

ATYPICAL TEST 

WATER

Test water contained unusual amounts or ratios of inorganic ions

SURFACTANT Tests where an organic solvent that is not water-miscible or a 

surfactant was used to prepared stock solutions (unless used to 

show a relationship between solvent/surfactant and toxicity)

EXPOSURE 

FLUCTUATION

Data from tests or field exposures where conc. of test material 

fluctuated substantially (high was 2 times lowest) unless used to 

compare to other exposure conditions (constant, fluctuating, 

intermittent)

YOUNG WITH ADULTS Acute tests where young cannot be distinguished from adults
102

Reject (Unused) Code Definition

INAPPROPRIATE 

SOLVENT

Acute tests where water-miscible solvent was used to prepare 

stock but its conc. exceeds 0.5 ml/L (0.5%) in the test solution 

(unless data used to effect of solvent on toxicity)

CHRONIC NOT R OR FT Data from chronic tests which are not renewal or flow-through

EXCESSIVE TOC Tests in water with TOC > 5mg/L or 5mg particulate/L (must be 

flagged unless a relationship with toxicity is developed or data 

show toxicity is not affected by TOC/particulates)
103

ATTACHMENT 1.C – BE EXCLUSION CODES

Key Word/Code Definition

ACELLULAR

(Ace)

Studies of acellular organisms (protozoa) and yeast.

BIOMARKER

(Biom)

Studies reporting results for a biomarker having no reported 

association with a biologically significant adverse effect (survival, 

growth, or reproduction of an individual or population) and an 

exposure dose (or concentration)

CONTROL

(Con)

Laboratory or field studies where no control is used or where survival 

of control organisms is unacceptable.

DETAIL

(Det)

Insufficient detail regarding test methodology or statistical analysis.

FOREIGN 

LANGUAGE

(Forgn)

Studies reported in non-English publication and where results in tables 

and figures indicate the data would not likely affect findings.

FORMULATION

(Form)

Studies where the chemical is a primary ingredient in a commercial 

formulation, e.g., biocide, fertilizer, etc.

INAPPROPRIATE 

EXPOSURE

(Inapp Exp)

Chronic studies that were not flow-through, especially for those 

chemicals that are highly biodegradable, hydrolyzable, oxidizable, 

reducible, or volatile.

LETHAL TIME

(LT)

Laboratory studies reporting only lethal time to mortality, except 

under special conditions (no other applicable information is available 

for species pivotal in making a finding).

NO NOEC

(XNoec)

A plant test in which all tested concentrations produce adverse effects, 

but the lowest tested concentration is far above the criteria 

concentrations (e.g., > 1 order of magnitude). Note: vascular plant 

median response measures are not used routinely in establishing acute 

criteria, but no-effect levels for all plants are considered in chronic 

criteria. 

NOMINAL

(Nom)

Chronic and bioaccumulation studies where test concentrations were 

not measured.

NON-AQUEOUS 

MEDIUM (Notaq)

Exposure to chemical via non-aqueous or artificial-aqueous medium, 

e.g., agar or soil, hydroponic exposure.

ROUTE OF 

EXPOSURE

(EXP)

Un-natural exposure routes for aquatic chemicals, e.g., injection, 

spray, inhalation.

SECONDARY

(Sec)

Review articles or other reports or papers containing no original data 

or only data reported more completely in a primary source.
104

Key Word/Code Definition

STEADY-STATE

(Steady)

Laboratory bioconcentration studies where the exposure duration 

could not be discerned or was too short for steady-state to be reached 

in the organism.

TOXICANT

(Tox)

Inappropriate form of toxicant used or none identified in a laboratory 

or field study. Note: Inappropriate form includes mixtures.

UNRELATED

(Unrel)

Studies that are unrelated to the contaminants and receptor groups of 

interest.

UNSUITABLE BCF

(BCF)

Tissue chemical concentrations reported are not useful for BCF 

calculation, e.g., exposure concentrations used in the study were too 

high, or chemical concentrations were not measured in the whole 

animal or edible tissue. (Note: Studies where chemical concentrations 

were made only in organ tissue may be considered if enough data 

exists for the chemical to correlate the concentrations in the organ 

tissues to whole body concentrations.) 

UNUSUAL 

DILUTION WATER

(Dilut)

Laboratory or field studies where the dilution water contained unusual 

amounts or ratios of inorganic ions or was without addition of 

appropriate salts (i.e., distilled or de-ionized water).

VARIABLE 

EXPOSURE

(Var Exp)

Excessive variability in contaminant concentrations during the 

exposure period.
105

ATTACHMENT 1.D – PROCESS FOR DOWNLOADING TOXICITY DATA FROM 

EPA’S ECOTOX DATABASE

Note: The ECOTOX database is to be used in conjunction with the ECOTOX Code List 

(printable on-line at www.epa.gov/ecotox/help/codelist.htm) and Effects List (available at 

www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/ecotox_effects_browse).

1. Download ECOTOX data file for the chemical of interest using a search term or 

terms that find all appropriate forms of the chemical (e.g., the water soluble inorganic 

salts of metals). Save the file unchanged and save the amended file (below) with a 

new file name as described in the procedure below:

A. Open internet Site- www.epa.gov/ecotox

B. Click on Advanced Database Query

C. Click on Report Format

D. Select Delimited Report in Aquatic Report Formats

E. Add the fields (in Fields Available) to Fields Selected in Aquatic Lab 

Output Selections:

1. Chemical Analysis Method

2. Chemical Comment

3. Control Type

4. Document Code

5. Hardness

6. Organic Carbon Type/Value

7. Organism Comment (life stage information)

8. pH

9. Publication year

10. Salinity

11. Species Number

12. Temperature
106

F. Repeat for Aquatic Field Output Selections (Note: only field data with a 

Test Location coded FieldA (Field Artificial) will be considered (i.e., 

mesocosm studies).

G. Click on Test Results in Advanced Query Menu

H. Click on the Accumulation, Growth, Mortality, Reproduction, Population, 

Physiology and No Effect Groups, as well as Histological and Feeding 

Behavior, in Effects and Measurements

I. Click on Test Conditions in Advanced Query Menu

J. Click on:

1. Fresh Water, Salt Water, and Not Reported in Water, and 

Hydroponic and Not Reported in Artificial in Exposure 

Media; 

2. Diet, Not Reported, Flow-through, Lentic, Lotic, Renewal 

Aquatic, Static Aquatic, and Tidal in Exposure Types; 

3. Measured, Unmeasured, and Not Reported in Method of 

Chemical Analysis. 

K. Click on Chemical in Advanced Query Menu

l. Select all appropriate forms of the chemical

2. Click on Perform Query

3. Save delimited text files for aquatic species with ―.tsv‖ 

extension as ―ecotox_chemical_aq_data-month–day-yr.tsv‖ 

(e.g., ecotox_Cr3_aq_12-02-06.tsv) in a designated HECD 

WA File Folder on c:/drive.

4. Open the data into a unique Excel Workbook (.xls) file 

similarly named, e.g., ―ecotox_Cr3_aq_12-02-04.xls‖

a. Select ―delimited‖ option and click Next

b. Select ―other‖ and type ―|‖ in blank box (―|‖ key 

is above ―enter‖ key use the shift)

c. Select ―none‖ in Text qualifier box and then 

click Finish.

d. Open and save each chemical as a separate 

Excel Workbook (.xls) file.
107

ATTACHMENT 1.E – DIRECTIONS FOR IDENTIFYING USEFUL AQUATIC 

TOXICITY INFORMATION

1. Within each aquatic file uniquely identified by chemical name, label the tab for 

worksheet #1 ―All Data‖ then create two new worksheets and name each FH2O 

Core and SH2O Core, respectively.

2. Select and copy all entries in ―All Data‖ and paste into FH2O.

3. Sort data by ―Aquatic Media Type‖ and cut and paste all saltwater data (SW) for

the chemical in SH2O.

4. Perform a data sort using year of publication

5. All publications approximately 6-12 months prior to the publication date of the 

latest AWQC update are ―new.‖

6. Search the ―old‖ data and identify all papers previously cited in the AWQC 

document and check the data endpoint and concentration. Remember that some 

Table 6 data (identified as other data in the AWQC document) may be of value 

and that data from non-NA species (usually identified in the Unused List of the 

AWQC document) is not categorically rejected for BEs. These latter papers 

should be obtained and reviewed.

7. Enter values from all references cited in Tables 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the most current 

AWQC document that are not in the ECOTOX database.

8. Note all data from the AWQC document that are in the ECOTOX database, but 

do not have the same endpoint or concentration. Record any changes made to the 

ECOTOX entry based on what is reported in the AWQC document in a 

―Comments‖ column.

9. Review the remaining ―old‖ data and any ―new‖ data for potentially useful values.

10. Establish blank worksheets for rejected lines of data: a worksheet for rejected FW 

animal data, a worksheet for rejected SW animal data, a worksheet for rejected 

BCF and bioaccumulation data (coded ACC in the Effect column) and 

worksheets for rejected FW and SW plant data. Cut and paste lines of rejected 

data into the appropriate worksheet. Add rejection codes if this has not already 

been done.

11. Note and reject all tests conducted with inappropriate forms of the chemical, e.g., 

if Concentration Type indicates use of a chemical Formulation (F), unless the 

Chemical Purity and Chemical Comments columns indicate otherwise.

12. Note and reject all tests without a test duration specified (this does not necessarily 

include those rows of data where a minimum or maximum duration has been 

provided).
108

13. Note and reject all ACC data that are of too short duration for the metal of interest 

(i.e., indicating steady-state was not achieved, this will vary with chemical, but 

use 28 days as a rule of thumb).

14. Note and reject all data that are for inappropriate endpoints (e.g., this requires 

scrutiny of Effect Measurement Codes and will most likely be the Physiological 

endpoints coded PHY, possibly HIST).

15. Examine the rejected papers for those with species or endpoints that might 

provide acute LC50s for a new taxon, new ACRs, new BCFs, effect values near 

or below the AWQC criteria, and dietary effect data. Also, for chemical criteria 

that are hardness or pH dependent, to see if those required parameters values are 

absent in ECOTOX. (Note: dietary effect data for aquatic organisms should be 

relegated to a separate worksheet labeled as such). 

16. If data look otherwise okay confirm the chemical form if the CAS designation is 

ambiguous (e.g., if the CAS # provided is for the general ―Arsenic‖ element and 

not the specific salt for the desired As3 form). 

17. For new and old papers identified as potentially useful in the previous steps, and 

for papers identified in step 15, request copies of reprints and review each paper. 

Note: Although chronic and BCF tests are supposed to be used only from tests 

with measured exposure concentrations, there may be important data from tests 

with nominal exposure concentrations. Use best professional judgment based on 

the source of the data, the detail in the paper, and the consistency of the data with 

other BCF data for the chemical. Nominal chronic data can be used to determine 

if other taxa may be at risk from exposure to the CCC, and in some special cases 

might be used to establish an ACR.
109

ATTACHMENT 2 – HISTORIC SEDIMENT NICKEL MONITORING DATA FROM 

WATERBODIES LOCATED WITHIN NICKEL ASSESSMENT UNITS.

USGS Site 

Number Location

Sample 

Date

Sample 

time

Sediment Ni 

Conc 

(dw μg/g)

1411170

Great Egg Harbor R 

at Mays Landing NJ 10/4/1977 11:45 <10

1411220

South River near 

Belcoville NJ (GEH 

trib) 8/13/1999 9:30 0.26

1411208

Gravelly Run at 

Route 559 at 

Gravelly Run NJ 

(GEH trib) 8/9/2007 8:00 0.3

1411241

Gibson C at Route 

50 near Corbin City 

NJ (GEH trib) 9/9/1999 8:30 1.1

1411196

Babcock Creek near 

Mays Landing NJ 

(GEH trib) 9/1/1998 10:29 <10

1411196

Babcock Creek near 

Mays Landing NJ 

(GEH trib) 8/15/2005 11:40 0.34