United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory
P.O. Box 15027
Las Vegas NV 89114
TS-AMD-8256C
JUne 1982
Research and Development
r/EPA
Site Specfic Water
Quaility Assessment:
Tar Creek, Oklahoma
-------
TS-AMD-8256C
June 1982
SITE SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT:
TAR CREEK, OKLAHOMA
by
Jeffrey J. Janik and Susan S. M. Melancon
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Las Vegas, Nevada 89154
and
Theron G. Miller
Advanced Monitoring Systems Division
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
Cooperative Agreement No. CR808529
Project Officer
Wesley L. Kinney
Advanced Monitoring Systems Division
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89114
-------
SITE SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
Tar Creek, Oklahoma
by
Jeffrey J. Janik and Susan M. S. Melancon
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Las Vegas, Nevada 89154
and
Theron 6. Miller
Advanced Monitoring Systems Division
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89114
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tables iv
Figures v
I Introduction 1
Study Area 2
II Methods 6
Chemical 6
Water 6
Sediments 6
Biological 9
Macro-invertebrates 9
Plants 11
Periphyton 11
Macrophyte Tissues 12
Fish 13
Community Census 13
Tissues 13
Bioassays 13
III Results and Discussion 14
Chemical 14
Water Quality 14
Sediments 17
Biological . 20
Macroinvertebrates 20
Plants 25
Periphyton . 25
Macrophyte Tissues 38
Fish 38
Community Census 38
Tissues 39
Bioassay 39
IV Conclusions 41
V Recommendations 42
VI Literature Cited 43
Appendix A. Water Chemistry Summary Data . . 47
Appendix B. Macroinvertebrate Census Data 65
Appendix C. Periphyton Census Data 73
Appendix D. Tissue Metal Analysis Summary Data 81
Appendix E. Summarized Bioassay Results: Duluth 92
iii
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 1980 Study Locations, Types of Disharges, and Metals Present
in Excess of EPA Recommended Aquatic Life Criteria 3
2 Laboratory Chemical Analysis of Stream Water Quality Parameters 8
3 Summary of Biological Parameters Sampled in Tar Creek and
Associated Methods 10
4 Types of Substrates Sampled for Periphyton at Tar Creek,
Oklahoma 12
5 Comparison of Mean Total Concentrations of Selected Metals
Versus Calculated Acute Water Quality Criteria for Aquatic Life 15
6 Mean Total and Dissolved Concentrations of Selected Metals,
Grab Samples Only, at Each Station in Tar Creek, Oklahoma ... 16
7 Significance Levels of Bartlett's Test, ANOVA F-Ratios, and
Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA by Ranks for Test of Differences Between
Stations for Ambient Metal Concentrations, Tar Creek, Oklahoma . 18
8 Significant Levels of Bartlett's Test and ANOVA F-Ratios for
Test of Differences Between Stations for Sediments Samples,
Tar Creek, Oklahoma 18
9 Student-Newman-Keuls Stepwise Multiple Range Test of Total
Metal Concentrations in Sediment Samples, Tar Creek, Oklahoma . 19
10 Distribution of Macroinvertebrate Taxa, October 1980, Tar Creek,
Oklahoma 21
11 Summary of Habitat Preferences for Macroinvertebrates Collected
in Tar Creek, Oklahoma 26
12 Environmental Requirements, Including pH Range and Heavy Metal
Tolerance, of Important Periphyton Taxa Observed in Tar Creek,
Oklahoma 29
13 List of Diatom Taxa Reported in Tar Creek, Oklahoma 32
14 List of Algal Taxa Reported in Tar Creek, Oklahoma 34
15 Taxa Contributing More Than 5 Percent to Total Periphyton
Abundance in Tar Creek, Oklahoma 37
iv
-------
FIGURES
x/
Number
1 Generalized diagram of the field sampling approach ....... 4
2 Stations located on Tar Creek, Oklahoma ............ ?
3 Number of benthic taxa and total invertebrate catch at all
stations, Tar Creek, Oklahoma, October 1980 .......... 22
4 Percent composition of mac roin vertebrate groups at stations in
Tar Creek, Oklahoma ...................... "
5 Comparison of species richness in Tar Creek, mean concentrations
of total zinc and cadmium, and calculated zinc and cadmium water
quality criteria ......... ......... . ..... **
6 Comparison of periphyton species richness, mean concentrations
of total zinc and cadmium, and calculated zinc and cadmium water
quality criteria ........................ 31
7 Algal group composition in Tar Creek, Oklahoma ......... 36
-------
I INTRODUCTION
Increasing use of metals in manufacturing and chemical industries has
caused a measurable rise in ambient toxic metal concentrations in industrial
discharges (Spaulding and Ogden 1968). As a result, many of our nation's
receiving surface waters contain elevated levels of metals. Primary sources
of most toxic metals include industrial and municipal sewage treatment plant
(publicly owned treatment works) discharges, mine drainage, and atmospheric
precipitation (Spaulding and Ogden 1968; EPA 1979a).
Effluent and sludge of many publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) are
known to contain high metal concentrations (Dewalle and Chian 1980). This has
been assumed to result from industrial wastewater discharges to POTWs.
However, high metal concentrations have also been found in POTWs which do not
receive industrial wastes.
Results from recent sampling of a wide spectrum of POTW effluents (U.S.
Geological survey data; Sverdrup and Parcel and Associates, Inc. 1977; Dewalle
and Chian 1980) showed that the concentration of several toxic metals in re-
ceiving streams exceeded freshwater aquatic life criteria recommended by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA 1976). In many cases, levels
were of sufficient magnitude to suggest that the biological communities of
many of the nation's surface waters could be experiencing severe impacts.
However, undocumented reports have claimed that substantial populations of
aquatic life (fish, invertebrates, plants) exist in a healthy condition in
waters containing concentrations in excess of the recommended criteria.
Prompted by this apparent contradiction the EPA Office of Water Regula-
tions and Standards (OWRS) issued a directive to document the water and bio-
logical quality that exist in selected streams receiving POTW discharges.
Later, as other important sources of metals were identified, the program was
expanded to include the investigation of mining and industrial discharges.
The toxic metals program was based on the following study objectives:
1. To document the concentration and distribution of toxic metals in
selected streams receiving discharges from publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs), mining, and industrial wastes.
2. To determine the biological state of receiving waters when the
aquatic life criteria for toxic metals are exceeded. This included
sampling and analyzing fish, benthic invertebrates, and periphyton
communities.
3. To report the extent to which^criteria levels were observed to be
exceeded.
4. To develop explanatory hypotheses when healthy biota exist where
criteria are exceeded.
-------
The project was undertaken as a cooperative effort by EPA's Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada (EMSL-LV) and the Environ-
mental Research Laboratories at Corvallis, Oregon (ERL-Corvallis) and Duluth,
Minnesota (ERL-Duluth). EMSL-LV designed the project and supervised the field
investigation in cooperation with University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) per-
sonnel. Laboratories at ERL-Duluth and ERL-Corvallis performed static bioassay
tests to assess the toxicity of whole and filtered water samples from each
stream investigated.
From a list of approximately 200 candidate streams, 50 were selected for a
preliminary field survey. The list was then narrowed to 15 streams (Table 1)
which received mining, industrial, or municipal discharges. Streams were sel-
ected to provide broad geographical representation and a range of watershed
characteristics and uses, pollution sources, water quality characteristics,
biota, and habitats. Field sampling for biological, physical, and chemical
water quality information was conducted from July 28 to November 10, 1980.
Figure 1 illustrates the general approach to each study site. In each river,
a control site was sampled upstream from a discharge point, and transects
were established downstream from the discharge to define impact and subsequent
recovery zones.
Individual study sites were chosen according to the following criteria:
1. Toxic metal concentrations upstream from effluent .discharges were
below current water quality criteria.
2. Metal concentrations in receiving waters after complete mixing with
effluent discharge were 5 to 10 times greater than the water quality
criteria.
Data from the 1980 toxic metals project will be presented in 15 separate
reports discussing each river system; a summary project report will follow the
individual basin studies. This report addresses data collected in Tar Creek,
Oklahoma.
STUDY AREA
Tar Creek is a small, ephemeral stream located at the Kansas-Oklahoma
border that receives runoff from abandoned zinc and lead mines in the Richer
field. In 1918, approximately 230 interconnected mines existed; between 400-
900 open or partially collapsed shafts are presently scattered throughout
Ottawa County, Oklahoma, many of which are concealed (Adams 1980; Parrish
unpublished data). These abandoned mines began discharging highly mineralized
water into Tar Creek during November 1979 as a result of the rising ground-
water table in northeast Oklahoma.
Although the headwaters of Tar Creek originate in Kansas, water rarely
flows across the Oklahoma border except during wet periods when more than 5 cm
precipitation falls on the upper Tar Creek watershed (Anonymous 1981). The
creek is generally characterized by standing pools with no measurable current
and a sandy-silty substrate. Temporary stream runoff between pools seasonally
occurs as a result of overflowing seepage from chat piles. The ephemeral
-------
TABLE 1. 1980 STUDY LOCATIONS, TYPES OF DISCHARGES, AND METALS PRESENT IN
EXCESS OF EPA RECOMMENDED AQUATIC LIFE CRITERIA*
Stream
Pollution Source
Metal(s)
Prickly Pear Creek, Montana
Silver Bow Creek, Montana**
Slate River, Colorado
Tar Creek, Oklahoma
Red River, New Mexico
Industrial
Leon Creek, Texas
Little Mississinewa River, Indiana
Public Owned Treatment works (POTW)
Bird Creek, Oklahoma
Cedar Creek, Georgia
Maple Creek, South Carolina
Irwin Creek, North Carolina
Blackstone River, Massachusetts
Mill River, Ohio
Cayadutta Creek, New York
White River, Indiana
Copper, Zinc, Cadmium
Copper, Cadmium, Zinc
Copper, Zinc, Silver, Cadmium
Zinc, Cadmium, Silver, Lead
Copper, Cadmium
Chromium, Nickel
Lead, Chromium
Arsenic, Slenium
Chromium, Silver
Chromium
Chromium, Zinc, Nickel, Lead
Cadmium, Lead
Nickel
Chromium, Cadmium
Copper
* In most cases the acute criteria were exceeded (U.S. EPA 1976); chronic
criteria were exceeded in all cases.
** Also receives POTW discharges.
-------
Direction
of FlowN/
Typical Study Site
•Discharge Point
Upstaeant
Control Zone
Impact Zone
Recovery Zone
Each trantect consists of:
5 replicates for biological samples
Electrofishing 100 meters of stream reach
3 replicates for tissue, sediment and water samples
1 twenty-four hour composite water sample
8 three hour integrated water samples
Total number of samples per transect
= 37
+ 45 hydrolab measurements (9 parameters x 5 replicates)
Figure 1. Generalized diagram of the field sampling approach.
-------
streams created by this seepage were not sampled for chemical information dur-
ing this study. Field biologists, however, report Tar Creek is lined throughout
with precipitated ferric hydroxide, a red stain also visible on the lateral
stream beds reflecting past water flow.
-------
II METHODS
Five sampling stations were established in Tar Creek (Figure 2) and sam-
pled from October 29 to November 1, 1980. All stations receive runoff from
abandoned mines in the Picher field. Therefore, no samples were collected in
a true control or recovery zone. These data represent conditions during the
time interval sampled and may not be fully indicative of conditions at other
time periods. Detailed discussions of the various sampling methodologies
follow:
CHEMICAL
Water
Field Collection
To determine the water quality characteristics of Tar Creek, horizontal
and vertical profiles of pH, conductivity, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO),
and reduction/oxidation (redox) potential were measured at each station with a
Hydrolab 4041 water quality measurement system. Other field measurements in-
cluded: turbidity with a Hach nephelometer, and chlorine with a Hach field
chlorine kit. Triplicate grab samples were collected at each site mid-depth
between surface and bottom, preserved appropriately for each analysis as
specified in U.S. EPA (1979b) and APHA (1980), and shipped to EMSL-LV for
analysis. Filtering of grab samples (0.45 pm filter) for total and dissolved
metal fractions analysis was completed on site within approximately three
hours of the time of collection. All samples were acidified with Ultrex nitric
acid to a pH of <2.0, and shipped to UCLA's Laboratory of Biomedical and
Environmental Science for ICAP analysis. In addition to the manual grabs an
ISCO sampler collected 24-hour composite samples at one hour intervals for
metal analyses. Three one-hour samples of 100 ml each were composited in a
450 ml sample vessel; thus, eight three-hour composite samples were collected
at each station. Samples were acidified with Ultrex nitric acid and shipped
to UCLA for ICAP analysis.
Laboratory Analysis
Table 2 lists the parameters and methods used for laboratory analyses of
water quality in Tar Creek.
Sediments
Field Collection
Streambed sediments were collected in Tar Creek to determine the extent
to which metals entering from abandoned mines in the Picher field accumulate
in sediments. Backwater pool areas at each station were sampled. Sediment
cores were collected with a WILDCO 2" (5 cm) brass core sampler fitted with a
plastic core liner and egg shell core catcher. A series of shallow sediment
core samples was collected from the submerged root zone along the stream bank.
When necessary, several shallow core samples were collected to fill one core
-------
Tar Creek, Oklahoma
145
Disposal
Kilonwttra
Figure 2. Station locations on Tar Creek, Oklahoma.
-------
TABLE 2. LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF STREAM WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
A. Automated Analyses (Technlcon Auto Analyzer; all values 1n mg/1)
Parameter Reference
Total phosphate
Ortho phosphate
Hydrolysable phosphate
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Total Ammonia (NHd)
Nitrates + nitrite's
Total alkalinity
B. Additional Parameters (mg/1)
Total Ca + Mg hardness*
Total organic carbon (carbon
analyzer)
Total residues
Suspended residues
Total sulfate
Total cyanide
C. Metals - ICAP**
Cu, Cd, Zn, As, N1, Ag, Cr, Se,
Ca, Mg, Al, Pb (yg/l)
Total recoverable
Filtered through 0.45 urn
Composite samples from mixing zone (ISCO)
(metal analyses: ICAPwg/1)
U.S.
U.S.
U.S,
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
EPA 1979b
EPA 1979b
1979b
1979b
1979b
1979b
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
U.S. EPA 1979b
Reference
Method
Method
Method
Method
Method
Method
Method
365.1
365.1
365.1
351.1
350.1
353.1
310.2
APHA (1980) p. 195
U.S. EPA 1979b Method 415.1
U.S. EPA 1979b Method 160.3
U.S. EPA 1979b Method 160.1
U.S. EPA 1979b Method 375.1
U.S. EPA 1979b Method 335.2
Alexander and McAnulty 1981
U.S. EPA 1979b
U.S. EPA 1979b
Alexander and McAnulty 1981
* Calculations from measured Ca and Mg concentrations.
** ICAP - Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma emission spectroscopy.
8
-------
tube replicate. Three replicate core samples were collected from each of the
five stations and shipped to EMSL-LV for preparation prior to ICAP analyses.
Laboratory Analysis
It has long been known that different particle sizes have different
affinities for metals and other positive ions (Namminga and Wihlm 1977;
McDuffie et al. 1976), and that the most important particle sizes known to
sorb positive ions range from fine sand down to clay. For this reason prelim-
inary tests were conducted in the laboratory prior to final sediment analyses
to determine the particle size range sorbing the most metals and expressing
the least among replicate variability. Whole samples and 100, 250, and 400
mesh seived sub-samples from Prickly Pear Creek, Montana, sediments were pre-
viously analyzed for total recoverable metal (EPA 1981). Based on this experi-
ment, 400 mesh (64 urn) particle sizes contained the most metal per gram sample
and exhibited the least replicate variation.
Replicate core samples from Tar Creek were shipped to EMSL-LV, oven dried
at 100°C to complete dry ness, and sieved through a 400 mesh (64 ym) stainless
steel sieve. Each sample was then divided into four equal portions. A 1-gram
aliquot was then used for the acid extraction. An extraction medium of 5 mis
of HC1 and 0.5 mis H2S04 in 50 mis of water was found to be the most effective
extraction solvent (EPA 1981). These solution aliquots were then placed in
20 dram scintillation vials and sent to UCLA for ICAP analyses (Alexander and
McAnulty 1981).
BIOLOGICAL
Biological monitoring in Tar Creek met three specific goals:
1. To identify and determine the background distribution of algal,
invertebrate, and fish species;
2. To determine if biological communities exhibit measureable changes
in relation to distance from point sources; and
3. To determine metal concentrations in plant and fish tissues as an
indication of sublethal and potentially lethal impacts to the biota,
and to provide insight into the fate of various metals.
Table 3 summarizes the biological parameters measured, collection techniques,
and analytical methodologies. A more detailed description of the methods used
to sample and analyze each parameter is discussed below.
Macroi nvertebrates
Field Collection
The Standardized Traveling Kick Method (STKM) (Pollard and Kinney 1979) was
used to collect invertebrate samples in Tar Creek. Three replicates were col-
lected at each site using a 30-mesh triangular dip net with a mouth opening of
25 cm x 25 cm x 25 cm and a length of 76 cm. Kick sampling was standardized
by the investigator holding a net in the water in front of him for 30 seconds
while traveling approximately 4 meters downstream vigorously kicking the substrate.
This sampled an area approximately 0.75 x 4 meters (3 m ).
After collection, samples were washed through a 30 mesh sieve-bottom
-------
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS SAMPLED IN TAR CREEK FROM OCTOBER 29
TO NOVEMBER 1, 1980 AND ASSOCIATED METHODS
Tissue Concentrations of Toxic Metals Ecological Indicators
Aquatic Macrophytes (Representative Periphyton (Scrapes from submerged
species at each station, analyzed macrophytes, sedges, logs, and
by DC arc spectroscopy) branches)
Root tissue Species identification
Leaves and stems Relative abundance counts
Fish (Seining, electrofishing, analyzed Invertebrates (Standardized Traveling
5y DC arc spectroscopy Kick Method)
G111 Species Identification
Muscle % Relative abundance counts
Liver
Kidney Fish (Seining, electrofishing)
Gonad*
Brain* ' Species identification
Eye* Relative abundance
Whole body** Length/weight relationships
* Selected individuals from locations with extremely high metal concentra-
tions.
** Whole fish were analyzed in small specimens.
10
-------
bucket, placed in a white enamel pan, and field-sorted to major taxonomic
groups. Field extraction of animals from each sample was checked by another
field team member as a quality control measure. This QA check involved scan-
ning the sorting pan until no additional macroinvertebrates were observed for
two minutes of continuous scanning. Sorted invertebrates and any unsorted
samples were preserved in the field with approximately 10 percent formalin
and returned to EMSL-LV for final processing.
Laboratory Analysis
Collected benthic invertebrates were identified to the lowest possible
taxonomic level and counted at UNLV. Laboratory quality assurance sorting
criteria were the same as for field sorting when additional sorting was re-
quired. Some members of the order Diptera were only identified to the sub-
family level (e.g., Chironomlnae) and members of the Oligochaeta were keyed
only to class. A reference collection of identified specimens is stored at
the lab.
Macroinvertebrate data were compiled and stored in a local PDP 1170 com-
puter system where various mathematical and statistical computations were
made. Invertebrate data analyses for Tar Creek consisted of: 1) total number
of individuals (standing crop), 2) total number of taxa (species richness),
and 3) relative species abundance (percentage data).
Plants
Periphyton
Field Collection
Periphyton was collected from submerged logs, branches, and macrophytes
(Table 4). Sections of the submerged substrates were scraped with a razor blade.
Due to the wide variety of substrate types, no attempt was made to quantify the
size of the area sampled. Each of the three replicates was adjusted to a
standard volume by adding distilled water. Acid-lugols preservative was added
to each sample to produce a final concentration of 1-5 percent (V/V) depending
on the algal biomass present.
Laboratory Analysis
Counting and identification procedures included two analysis steps: a)
one subsample was acid-cleaned for diatom species identifications and propor-
tional counts, and b) the second subsample was examined with an Inverted micro-
scope to count and identify non-diatoms (greens, blue-greens, euglenoids,
cryptomonads, crysophtyes, and dinoflagellates).
A. Diatom Proportional Count
One 10-20 ml sub-sample was removed with a wide-bore pipette and placed
in a 25 ml Erlenmeyer flask to which five ml of concentrated nitric acid (HNO-)
was then added. Flasks were placed on a heating plate inside a fume hood, and
samples were mildly boiled for approximately 5 minutes or until sample color
became clear. This procedure oxidized sample organic material and broke up
gelatinous material, leaving the silica diatom frustules. Each subsample was
then centrifuged for 5 minutes. The supernatant was decanted and the centrifuge
tube refilled with distilled water. This procedure was repeated two additional
times to remove any remaining HNO-. After final centrifugat ion, one or two
drops of concentrated sample were placed on a cover glass and mounted with
Hyrax" mounting media. The edge of the slide was sealed with clear fingernail
polish.
11
-------
TABLE 4. TYPES OF SUBSTRATES SAMPLED FOR PERIPHYTON AT TAR CREEK, OKLAHOMA
Station Type of Substrate Scraped
145 Submerged logs and branches
141 Macrophytes (Typha sp.)
142 Sedges (Sdrpus sp.)
143 Macrophytes (Typha sp.)
144 Macrophytes (Typha sp.) and grasses (Granrfnaceae)
Counting Procedure
Diatoms were identified and counted at 1000X magnification (oil emersion)
with an Olympus BHT phase contrast microscope. Random strips were scanned
until at least 300 diatom cells were counted and identified (Weitzel 1979).
Samples with less than 300 cells present were scanned for one hour since long
counts of 5000-10000 diatoms or more, such as are recommended by Patrick (1977),
are far too time consuming for most water quality studies. Counting fewer dia-
toms (300) provides reliable results (Weber 1973) and compares well with longer
counts of 1000 diatom frustules (Castenholtz 1960).
B. Non-Diatom Count
A 0.05 to 2.0 ml subsample was introduced into a Wild" plate chamber.
Strips were scanned across the entire counting chamber diameter under 100-400X
magnification using an Olympus IMT inverted microscope. All non-diatoms were
counted and identified during this step as well as total viable diatom frustule
number. If excess clumping was evident, the sample was placed in a "sonifier"
unit to break up clumps and filaments.
Macrophyte Tissues
Field Collection /-
Macrophytes from the family Graminacea were collected for tissue analysis
from banks where the root zone was in contact with stream water. Random sam-
ples from the whole plant (leaves, steins, and roots) were collected in triplic-
ate from each station. These samples were frozen and shipped to EMSL-LV with
dry ice.
Laboratory Analysis
Macrophyte samples were thawed, roots and stems were separated at the soil
surface level, and each of the parts was washed three times in distilled water.
Each washing consisted of placing the sample in a 16 oz nalgene bottle, filling
to 1/3 volume, and agitating for one minute. All plant samples were oven dried
at 80°C to complete dryness, placed in plastic 20 dram vials, and homogenized
with a Model 8000 Mixer Mill (Spex Industries Inc.). Approximately 1 gm ali-
quots were then placed in 20 dram scintillation vials and sent to UCLA for
analysis by DC Arc Spectrometry (Alexander and McAnulty 1981).
12
-------
Fish
Community Census
Fish samples taken in this study were qualitative collections with
emphasis placed on presence or absence of various fish species upstream and
downstream from the primary discharge. Sampling was conducted by electrofishing
with a backpack shocker. All fish were identified, weighed, and measured in
the field.
Tissues
Field Collection
Mature sunfish (Leporois spp.) were collected from each station where avail-
able; each was frozen, and shipped with dry ice to EMSL-LV. The fish were
later thawed; liver, gill, muscle, and kidney tissues were dissected from each
fish. Brain, gonad, and eye tissues were also extracted to compare metal
accumulation in various tissues.
Laboratory Analysis
Triplicate samples of approximately 1 gm from each tissue type were
freeze dried and sent to UCLA's Laboratory of Biomedical and Environmental
Science for DC Arc Spectrometry analysis (Alexander and McAnulty 1981). At
UCLA each of 3 aliquots was individually weighed and analyzed for metal content.
Bioassays
Field Collection
Water samples from stations 142 and 143 were collected in 5 gallon cubi-
tainers, packed in ice, and shipped to ERL-Duluth for bioassay.
Laboratory Analysis
Bioassays were conducted on whole water samples. The Duluth work consisted
of experiments on: 1) an activity index of bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macro-
chirus); 2) acute toxicity to Daphnia magna; 3) immobilized enzymes; and
4) chlorophyll Ł fluorescence.
13
-------
Ill RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
CHEMICAL
Water Quality
Several publications have identified some water quality parameters which
may alter metal toxicity in controlled laboratory bioassays (Lloyd and Herbert
1962; Nishikowa and Tabata 1969; Brown et al. 1974; Shaw and Brown 1974;
Waiwood and Beamish 1978; Howarth and Sprague 1979; and Miller and Mackay 1980).
These factors include hardness, alkalinity, pH, temperature, and turbidity
from dissolved or particulate matter. An attempt was made to accurately char-
acterize water quality in Tar Creek by identifying and quantifying as many
parameters as feasible (Appendix A). Metal data from both mid-depth grab sam-
ples and ISCO 24-hour automatic collections are included in the Appendix.
Water samples were analyzed for total and dissolved metal concentrations
and compared to EPA (1980) recommended acute criteria for aquatic life (Table
5). Ambient total and dissolved metal concentrations were also compared for
key metals at all stations in Tar Creek (Table 6). The data show elevated
concentrations of metals throughout the creek. However, because of extremely
high water hardness (Ca+Mg), only zinc and cadmium exceeded recommended cri-
teria values. Metal concentrations at Station 141 were typically one-half
those at the upstream site (145), but then increased again at Station 142,
presumably due to mining runoff entering Tar Creek between the two sites. For
most key metals examined, concentrations continued to increase at the further
downstream stations (143 and 144) in the vicinity of Richer and Cardin.
It should be noted that in some cases, mean dissolved metal concentrations
apparently exceed mean total metals (Table 6). This anomaly generally occurs:
1) when metal concentrations, such as arsenic, are near instrument detection
limits; or 2) when confidence intervals around dissolved and total metal means
are overlapping, indicating there is no significant (p=0.05) difference between
them. An unexplained exception to this occurs at Station 144, where dissolved
lead, nickel, silver, and arsenic mean concentrations appear to be double the mean
totals for these metals. The total zinc mean value was reported as double the
dissolved. Total and dissolved metals throughout all other stations in Tar
Creek are quite similar. Since no striking differences in general water qual-
ity parameters (e.g., residues, pH, etc.) between Station 143 and 144 were
observed, these anomalous data at Station 144 are outliers and may be suspect.
For the key metals examined, with the exception of arsenic, an extremely high
percentage (70-100%) of total metal concentrations in Tar Creek occurs in the
dissolved fraction, with a much smaller fraction sorbed or chelated by sus-
pended particulate matter. Comparisons of nonfiltrable and total residue
values also indicate a low level of suspended particulate matter.
Except for the high chlorine and hardness values, levels of the other
general water quality parameters (Appendix A) are within the normal range of
natural streams. Reported chlorine values, however, are extremely high, rang-
ing to more than two orders of magnitude above EPA recommended criteria.
14
-------
TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF MEAN TOTAL CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED METALS VERSUS
CALCULATED ACUTE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA (U.S. EPA 1980) FOR AQUATIC
LIFE. Mean values based on grab and ISCO samples combined.
145
141
Stations
142
143
war
Hardness (mg/1)
Metal (ug/1)
451
903
1205
1030
1166
Total ^Cadmi urn
Actual (x)*
Criterion
Total Lead
Actual (x)
Criterion
Total Zinc
Actual (x)
Criterion
Total Nickel
Actual (x)
Criterion
Total Silver
Actual (x)
Criterion
Total Arsenic
Actual (x)
Criterion
110
15
439
1083
27527
1122
124
300
128
54
208
440
32
40
283
3447
10650
2468
63
618
37
278
109
~440
122
35
266
2962
27462
2226
98
562
43
224
117
440
167
41
333
3585
40628
2535
116
634
73
293
76
440
84
30
591
2521
30169
1995
171
509
180
179
283
440
* Means represent three or more analytical replicates unless otherwise indicated.
15
-------
TABLE 6. MEAN TOTAL AND DISSOLVED CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED METALS (yg/1). GRAB SAMPLES ONLY, AT EACH
STATION IN TAR CREEK, OKLAHOMA. Numbers enclosed in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals*.
en
Total
Dissolved
% Dissolved
Total
Dissolved
% Dissolved
Total
Dissolved
% Dissolved
Total
Dissolved
% Dissolved
Total
Dissolved
% Dissolved
Total
Dissolved
% Dissolved
145
113.2 (9.3)
108.7 (2.2)
96
531.2 (70.3)
421.8 (33.7)
79
24900.0 (1401.1)
25433.3 (343.0)
100
151.7 (20.7)
128.0 (10.5)
84
151.3 (41.5)
117.7 (10.4)
78
328.0 (100.1)
185.2 (82.6)
56
Station
141 142
Cadmium (Detection Limit
32.5 (2.6) 122.1 (1.2)
27.0 (2.2) 117.7 (4.3)
83 96
Lead (Detection Limit =
282.9 (27.6) 266.2 (14.0)
205.9 (34.1) 197.8 (48.6)
73 74
Zinc (Detection Limit =
10266.7 (85.9) 27462.5 (532.0)
10650.0 (109.8) 27666.7 (764.9)
100 100
Nickel (Detection Limit
63.2 (18.0) 98.5 (9.5)
53.5 (20.6) 72.5 (11.1)
85 74
Silver (Detection Limit
37.0 (11.5) 43.4 (6.7)
30.7 (4.7) 23.3 (12.0)
83 54
Arsenic (Detection Limit
108.7 (74.8) 116.6 (57.0)
31.0** (63.8) 16.0** (50.3)
28 14
143
= 7.5)
278.3 (4.0)
277.3 (3.0)
100
120)
285.8 (44.1)
240.0 (21.7)
84
9)
38033.3 (467.5)
38050.0 (268.5)
100
• 9)
113.7 (11.0)
89.7 (10.8)
79
- 12)
45.8 10.1)
50.7 (10.4)
100
= 110)
77.5 (54.4)
84.5 (65.1)
100
144
88.6 (1.7)
85.2 (2.0)
96
309.2 (20.4)
644.3 (18.6)
100
41750.0 (618.0)
27283.3 (691.2)
65
106.3 (21.5)
209.3 (22.8)
100
108.5 (14.4)
189.0 (17.5)
100
105.4 (58.6)
370.0 (45.3)
100
* Confidence intervals that overlap indicate total and dissolved metal mean concentrations are not sig-
nificantly (p = 0.051 different.
-------
These high values may be attributable to field measurement techniques rather
than actual elevated chlorine values in the area. This methodology is cur-
rently being reevaluated at EMSL-Las Vegas by comparisons of data using a
Hach chemical kit and Standard EPA Chemical Procedures (EPA 1979b).
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Bartlett's test for homogeneity of var-
iances were performed to test for significant differences between stations,
field replicates, and laboratory analytical replicates for six ambient total
metals in Tar Creek. For two of these metals (zinc and cadmium), ANOVA par-
ametric assumptions for normality and heterogeneity of variances were unable
to be met (indicated by Bartlett's test), so a Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA by ranks
(Siegel 1956) was used to test for significant (p=0.05) differences in metal
concentrations and the Student-Newman-Keuls (SNK) stepwise multiple range test
was calculated (Sokal and Rohlf 1981) to determine between which of the six
stations differences occurred. Lead was the only metal for which no signific-
ant differences between stations were statistically demonstrated (Table 7).
Although all metals except lead showed significant between-station dif-
ferences, the SNK tests for these metals did not show consistent up-to down-
stream patterns of distribution. Cadmium and zinc concentrations at all five
stations were statistically separate. Arsenic, nickel, and silver concentra-
tions were significantly (p=0.05) higher at Station 145 than at the other sites,
with the downstream sites grouped together. Results of two-way nested ANOVA
run with ambient total nickel and silver data show that the greatest percen-
tage (75-99%) of variability observed in Tar Creek samples can be attributed
to between-station differences, rather than analytical or field replicate
variation.
Sediments
Analysis of variance and Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variances
were performed to test for significant differences in seven metals in sediment
samples from all stations in Tar Creek (Table 8). In the case of zinc, a
Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA by ranks was used to test for significant differences.
When ANOVA F-ratios indicated significant differences (p=0.05) in metal con-
centrations, the SNK stepwise multiple range test was calculated to determine
between which of the five stations differences occurred (Table 9).
Metal data indicate similar distribution patterns for cadmium, lead, copper,
and nickel. For each, the furthest upstream station (145) had significantly
lower sediment metal concentrations than did the downstream sites. The four
downstream stations were generally not significantly different from one another,
although copper concentrations were higher at Station 144 than at the upstream
stations (Table 9). An SNK test was not run using zinc data.
Mean chromium concentrations were significantly higher at Station 141
than at the other four up- and downstream sites. Arsenic was also fairly homo-
genous throughout the river. The SNK test indicates that, of the seven metals
analyzed in Tar Creek sediments, only chromium was reduced to levels at the
most downstream site (144) comparable to those found furthest upstream (145).
In general, Tar Creek sediments are characterized by extremely high metal
concentrations. This is consistent with the elevated metal concentrations
17
-------
TABLET. SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS OF BARTLETT'S TEST, ANOVA F-RATIOS, AND KRUSKAL-
WALLIS ANOVA BY RANKS FOR- TEST OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN STATIONS FOR
AMBIENT WATER METAL CONCENTRATIONS, TAR CREEK, OKLAHOMA.
Metal
Z1nc
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Arsenic
Bartlett's ANOVA Kruskal-Wallis
** *
** *
NS NS
NS **
NS **
NS **
* = p=0.01
**= p=0.001
TABLE 8. SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS OF BARTLETT'S TEST, ANOVA F-RATIOS, AND KRUSKAL-
WALLIS ANOVA BY RANKS FOR TEST OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN STATIONS FOR
SEDIMENT SAMPLES, TAR CREEK, OKLAHOMA (* - 0.05, **= 0.01,
*** = 0.005, NS = non significant).
Metal
Cadmi urn
Lead
Copper
Zinc
Chromium
Nickel
Arsenic
Bartlett's ANOVA Kruskal-Wallis
NS ***
NS ***
NS ***
*** *
NS **
NS ***
NS . *
found in water samples. However, an interesting anomaly can be seen when com-
paring Stations 145 and 141. Metal concentrations in the water column (Table
5) decreased for all metals between 145 and 141 (upstream to downstream), while
sediment metal concentrations substantially increased. This was probably
attributable to the cessation of surface water discharges from abandoned mine
18
-------
TABLE 9. STUDENT-NEWMAN-KEULS STEPWISE MULTIPLE RANGE TEST OF TOTAL METAL
CONCENTRATIONS IN SEDIMENT SAMPLES, TAR CREEK, OKLAHOMA. NONSIGNIF-
ICANT (p = 0.05) SUBSETS OF GROUP MEANS ARE INDICATED BY HORIZONTAL
LINES
Metals
Cadmi urn
x (mg/kg)
SNK
Lead
x (mg/kg)
SNK
CqŁper
x (mg/kg)
SNK
Chromium
x (mg/kg)
SNK
Nickel
x (mg/kg)
SNK
Arsenic
x (mg/kg)
SNK
Station
145 141 142
4.1 177.8 70.1
40.3 1715.4 1709.2
7.1 90.2 70.4
11.6 18.7 12.2
4.6 71.1 . 37.9
• T.
17.8 32.7 50.6
143 144
136.6 106.2
2780.3 2507.8
46.7 661.0
12.3 10.4
28.9 49.3
,• . , /
49.3 48.9
19
-------
shafts in the vicinity of Station 141 because of seasonal recession of the
local groundwater table. However, there was ample opportunity to accumulate
excessive metals in the sediments during periods of active mine discharge.
This hypothesis is supported by ferric hydroxide stains in the stream sediments
in channels connecting the mine shafts with Tar Creek. It appears that the
ephemeral nature of these discharges in the upper Tar Creek watershed causes
substantial seasonal variation in stream metal concentrations, and perhaps in
the biological communities as well. However, further investigation is needed
to verify these trends.
BIOLOGICAL
Macroi nvertebrates
There were 19 macroirivertebrate taxa collected in Tar Creek during the
1980 fall sampling effort (Appendix B). Benthic populations were compared at
all stations throughout the river (Table 10).
Total combined counts collected in three kick samples increased from
three organisms at Station 145 upstream, to 878 organisms at the most down-
stream site (144). Total number of taxa increased from two species at Station
145 to 11 taxa at Station 143 (Figure 3). Total counts and number of taxa
were too low, however, to permit statistical analysis of differences between
stations.
Station 145 was the furthest upstream site in Tar Creek. Only one deer
fly and two predaceous diving beetles were collected in this isolated pool
(Figure 4). The beetle, Hydrophorus sp., was not found in samples from any
other stations.
Stations 141 and 142 were located 0.4 km apart at the Kansas-Oklahoma
state line to the west of Treece. Station 141 was characterized by caddisflies,
midges, three species of dragonflies, and two species of damselflies (Figure 4).
One dragonfly, Orthemis ferruginea. and the caddisfly, Hydropsyche sp., were
collected only at this station. Field personnel reported mining runoff enter-
ing the creek below Station 141; the potential impact of this discharge can be
seen by reduced counts and number of taxa at Station 142. The only organisms
collected at this site were one aquatic moth and 19 mosquito larvae (Aides
'SP-).
Standing crop and species richness increased downstream. Three species,
Sialis sp., Oxyethira sp., and Berosus sp., were only found at Station 143.
Dragonfly, damselfly, and midge taxa found upstream reappeared at this site.
Further downstream at Station 144, total count increased substantially. How-
ever, 86 percent of this Increased count was from oligochaetes and midges
(subfamily Chironominae). Neither this subfamily of midges nor any oligochaetes
were found at the upstream sites. This striking population shift suggests
either a change in substrate or organic input from the nearby community of
Cardin. Biting midges (ceratopogonids) and corixid bugs were also collected
only at this site.
In Tar Creek, zinc and cadmium concentrations greatly exceed EPA recom-
mended acute water quality criteria at most stations (Figure 5). These recom-
mended criteria are based upon local water hardness. The decrease in dissolved
metals at Station 141 correlates (Spearman-Rank r = 0.40; Siegel 1956) to an
increase in standing crop and species richness. Similarly, the metals increase
20
-------
TABLE 10. DISTRIBUTION OF MACROINVERTEBRATE TAXA., OCTOBER 1980, TAR CREEK,
OKLAHOMA
Taxa
145
Station
141
142
143
144
Odonata
Libel lulidae
Erythemls sp.
Celithemis sp.
Orthemi's ferruglnea
Coengrionidae
Argla sp.
Enallagma/Ischnura
compl ex
Megaloptera
Sialidae
SI alls sp.
Henri ptera
Corixidae
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae
Hydropsyche sp.
Hydroptilidae
Oxyethlra sp.
Diptera
Chironomidae
Chironomini
Orthocladiinae
Cullcidae
Aedes sp.
Ceratopogonldae
Palpomyia group
Tabanldae
Chrysops sp.
Lepldoptera
Pyralidae
Coleoptera
Dytiscldae
Rhantus/Colymbetes
compl ex
Hydrophorus sp.
Hydrophilldae
Berosus sp.
Ollgochaeta
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
21
-------
50-
ro
ro
«=c
X
o
t—«
I
Ui
CO
u.
o
10-
STATIONS
(Impact zone)
F1gure3. Number of benthlc taxa and total Invertebrate catch at all stations, Tar Creek,
Oklahoma, October 1980.
-------
80 .
to
OL
O
O
oc.
60 •
IV3
to
P 40 .
o
UJ
CD
S 20
0
(x=14)
(x=7)
(x=54)
(x=293)
-
1
Dipterans
( dee rf lies)
Beetles
Dipterans
(midges)
DragonfUes
Damsel flies
Dipterans
(mosquitoes)
Moth
<Ładd1sf!1es
Dipterans
(mosquitoes,
ml dges )
Beetles
+
Damsel files
DragonfUes
Dipterans
Worms
(Oligochaetes)
/Other
145
141
142
143
144
STATIONS
(Impact zone)
Figure 4. Percent composition of macrolnvertebrate groups at stations 1n Tar Creek, Oklahoma.
(Numbers at the top of each station Indicate mean organisms count per replicate sample.)
-------
ro
50-
40.
CO
U-
o
Cd
LU
CQ
s
30 H
20.
40,628
30,169
"Total
J468 __ __ 2226'
Zn criteria"
2535
— _ 1995
167
Total Cadmium
41
35_ __, --v
*"cd criteria
30
145
141
142
143
144
,10000
.1000
.100
to
o
,10 §
Ix
Figure 5.
STATIONS
(Impact zone)
Comparison of species richness in Tar Creek, mean concentrations of total zinc and, cadmium,
'nc . ' cadi ! wa"~
-------
at Station 142 somewhat corresponds to decreasing counts and number of taxa.
However, at Station 143, where the highest metal concentrations were found,
the greatest number of taxa and total organisms were collected and counts were
higher than at any upstream sites. When metal concentrations decreased at
Station 144, total counts increased, although species richness slightly de-
clined. The reasons for these anomalies are unknown.
No control or recovery zone sites were available in Tar Creek, since
the entire stream receives runoff from abandoned mines in Kansas and Oklahoma.
Thus, additional sampling is needed to define the extent to which macroinverte-
brate population patterns are due to metal impacts versus other ecological
factors. However, the data suggest that species distributions may largely
relate to flow and substrate characteristics of Tar Creek (Table 11). Flow
measurements indicated standing water at every station in Tar Creek except at
the shoreline of Station 144 where one reading of 6 cm/sec was recorded. Of
the 19 invertebrate taxa collected, four are strictly lentic dwellers, nine
are generally lentic with some lotic species, and all have some lentic repre-
sentatives in their group. Most organisms in Tar Creek were not keyed to the
species level, so investigation of their specific ecological requirement was
limited. Nevertheless, this type of small, slow-moving creek, characterized
by isolated ponds and no riffles could be expected to have a homogenous benthic
distribution comprised primarily of lentic species. This condition would be
expected regardless of the adverse affects of metals. Intuitively, however,
a larger standing crop would be expected in a healthy stream than was observed
in Tar Creek, and this observed reduction in species relative abundances is
most likely due to the impact of metals to the creek.
f
Actually in view of the extremely high metal concentrations it is remarkable
that any form of aquatic life exists in Tar Creek. Increased water hardness
(calcium and magnesium salts) decreases the toxicity of many trace metals,
including zinc, to aquatic organisms (Skidmore 1964; Mount 1966; Tabata 1969;
Salbe 1974; Gregory and Trial 1975; and LaBounty et al. 1975). The high
hardness in Tar Creek apparently has a substantial mitigating influence on
metal toxicity. This may partially explain observed population patterns in
this heavily impacted stream; however, sampling error of such a sparse inverte-
brate community and subtle habitat differences may also account for the vari-
ability among stations. Additional sampling is needed to clarify the causes
behind distributional patterns observed in the benthos of Tar Creek.
Plants
Periphyton
The periphyton community is an important component of the biological
structure of a stream. Periphyton is defined as the assemblage of plants
attached to or found growing on a substrate (Weitzel 1979). Terms used to
describe the type of substrate include:
Epilithic - growing on rocks
Epipelic - growing on mud or sediments
Epiphytic - growing on plants
Epizoic - growing on animals
Epidendric - growing on wood
Epipsammic - growing on sand surfaces
25
-------
TABLE 11. SUMMARY OF HABITAT PREFERENCES FOR MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED IN
TAR CREEK, OKLAHOMA (Modified from Merritt arid Cummins 1978)
Taxa
Habitat
Libellulidae
Erythemis sp.
CeI i themfs sp.
I5rtnem1s ferruginea
Coenagrionidae
Argi a sp.
Enallagma/Ischnura
Sialidae
Si ali s sp.
Corixidae
Hydropsychidae
Hydropsyche sp.
Hydroptilidae
Oxyethi na sp.
Chironomidae
Chironomini
Orthocladinae
Culicidae
Aedes sp.
Ceratopogonidae
Palpomyi a group
Tabanidae
Chrysops sp.
Pyralidae
Dytiscidae
Rhantus/Colymbetes
Hydrophorus sp.
Hydrophilidae
Berosus sp.
Oligochaeta
Lentic-littoral (silt in ponds)
Lentic-vascular hydrophytes
Lentic-littoral
Lot1c-eros1onal (sediments and detritus)
and depositional; lentic-erosional and
littoral (sediments)
Lentic-vascular hydrophytes; lotic-
depositional (vascular hydrophytes)
Lotic-erosional and depositional;
lentic-erosional (sediments)
Generally lentic-vascular hydrophytes;
lotic-depositional (vascular hydrophytes)
Lotic-erosional, some lentic-erosional
Lentic-vascular hydrophytes (with filamentous
algae); lotic-erosional and depositional
(vascular hydrophytes)
Generally lentlc-littoral and profundal;
lotic-depositional
Primarily lotic but with many lentic
representatives
Lentic (temporary ponds and pools)
Lotic-erosional and depositional (detritus);
lentlc-littoral, profundal, and occasionally
limnetic
Lentic-littoral; lotic-depositional
Generally lentic-vascular hydrophytes
Lentic-vascular hydrophytes; lotic-deposi-
tional
Lotic-depositional; lentic-vascular
hydrophytes
Lentic-littoral; lotic-depositional
Lentic; lotic
26
-------
The periphyton community may contain a vast number of species including
diatoms, blue-greens, and green algae. A diatom community may consist of
three to four hundred species living together in a relatively small area at
any point in time in the benthos of unpolluted streams (Patrick 1978).
Healthy streams usually have high species numbers, each with relatively
small populations. A stream perturbation, such as toxic metal pollution, may
alter community composition. Change may be expressed in several ways: species
richness, number of individuals, or kinds of species. Metal pollution may
reduce species diversity and increases total algae abundance, with a few species
becoming extremely common (Miller et al. 1982). Shifts in species composition
from diatoms to filamentous greens or unicellular greens and blue-green algae
have been reported (Patrick 1949). The types of shifts are dependent upon the
effects of various kinds of pollution (Patrick 1977).
The diatom community has been isolated as one of the better monitors of
water quality and stream conditions (Weitzel 1979). Diatom tolerance to heavy
metals include strains ranging from sensitive to very resistant. Metal resist-
ance of only a few algae have been studied both in the laboratory and in the
field (Whitton and Say 1975). Results of these studies have not been consist-
ent. For example, a laboratory study of Nitzschia palea (Steemann-Nielsen and
Wium-Anderson 1970) indicated that this diatom is very sensitive to soluble
copper in the absence of any chelating agent. However, Palmer (1977) included
it in a list of tolerant species 'indicative1 of copper pollution.
Diatoms are also useful indicators of water quality for the following
reasons:
1. With their secure means of attachment to substrates, diatoms may be
less subject, to. drift than ^invertebrates and are better indicators
of conditions at collection locations.
2. A short generation time allows diatoms to better reflect conditions
immediately prior to sampling, instead of integrating long-term
effects.
3. Diatoms mounts may be stored for many years, permitting re-exami nation
at any later time.
4. Ubiquitous on stream bottoms.
5. Have a wide and well documented range of environmental requirements
and pollution tolerances.
6. Easy to collect in sufficient quantity to meet statistical requirements.
Eighty-seven algal taxa were identified in Tar Creek, including 53 diatom
taxa (Bacilliariophyceae), 22 greens (Chlorophyta), 5 blue-greens (Cyanophyta),
4 cryptophytes (Cryptophyta), 2 euglenoids (Euglenophyta), 2 chrysophytes
(Chrysophyta), and 1 dinoflagellate (Pyrrhophyta) (Appendix C). This assem-
blage reflects conditions at a single point in time and may not be fully in-
dicative of the composition in all seasons. Periphyton composition and abund-
ance changes under different light, temperature, nutrient, and flow conditions.
27
-------
This diverse algal assemblage may reflect the wide variety of substrate
types sampled (Table 4). No uniform substrate existed at all station loca-
tions during the interval sampled from October 29 to November 1, 1980. There-
fore, available substrates types were sampled. The lack of similarity between
station substrates prevents a detailed statistical comparison of periphyton
community composition.
Commonly occurring taxa indicate species may exist under a wide range of
environmental conditions and metal concentrations (Table 12).
Forty-six taxa of epidendric algae (growing on wood) were identified at
Station 145 (Figure 6, Tables 13 and 14). Diatoms were most abundant, con-
tributing 83% to total relative abundance (Figure 7). The most commonly
occurring taxa within this group were Pinnularia subcapitata. Achnanthes
minutissima. and Nitzschia ignorata (Table 15). The greens contributed 15%
to the total relative abundance, with Homndium rivilare and Chlorococcum sp.
most abundant. H.. rivulare has been reported as an "indicator" of high zinc
levels in streams' (McLean and Jones 1975, Hargreaves and Whitton 1976) (Table
12). .
Blue-greens dominated at Station 141, contributing 84% relative abundance
(Figure 7), with Lyngbya, Chroococcus, Phormidiian, and Oscillatoria the most
abundant genera. The greens contributed 11% relative abundance, and Mougeotia
was the dominant taxon. Diatoms contributed only 5% to the relative abundance.
Blue-greens and greens each contributed 50% relative abundance at Station 142
(Figure 7). Achnanthes minutissima, Anomoeoneis vitrea, and Gym bell a mi nut a
var. silesiaca were the most abundant diatoms. Hormidium rivulare and UlotFrix
spp. were the common greens (Table 14)).
Greens were the dominant group at Station 143. Ohlamydomonas spp.,
Mougeotia spp. and small monads (flagellates) were the dominants. The crypto-
phyte, Cyanomonas americana. and the blue-green, Phormidium spp., were also
important.
The groups of importance at Station 144 were greens (39%), cryptophytes
Cyanomonas americana, and Achnanthes minutissima, respectively.
A summary of the periphyton community in Tar Creek reveals that diatoms
were most abundant at Station 145 and 142 and were least important in relative
abundance at Station 141 and 143. Hormidium rivulare,.which has been reported
as an "indicator" of high zinc concentrations, was found in greatest abundance
at Stations 145 and 142 at zinc concentrations of 27,000 ug/1 (Figure 6).
However, it was not important at zinc concentrations greater or less than
27,000 ug/1 Zn.
Blue-greens dominated at Station 141 where metal concentrations of 10,650
ug/1 Zn and 32 ug/1 Cd were lowest of all stations.
The two furthest downstream stations, 143 and 144, were similar in group
composition. However, except for the cryptophytes where Cyanomonas americana
was common, species composition within groups was quite different.
28
-------
TABLE 12. REPORTED ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENT, INCLUDING pH RANGE AND HEAVY
METAL TOLERANCE OF THE IMPORTANT PERIPHYTON TAXA OBSERVED IN TAR
CREEK, OKLAHOMA.
Taxa
Distribution and Environmental Requirements
Achnanthes minutissma
Pinnularia subcapitata
Greg.
Nitzschia ignorata
Krasslce
Anomoeoneis vitrea
(Grum.) Ross
Cymbella minuta var.
silesiaca (Cymbella
ventricosa Kutz.)
Cosmopolitan; one of the most ubiquitous diatoms known;
is the best indicator of high oxygen concentrations in
alkaline waters; calcium, and iron indifferent (Lowe
1974). Generally characteristic of unpolluted rivers
(Lange-Bertalot 1979 and Besch et al. 1972).
pH requirements: range 7-8 (Maillard 1959)
optimum 7.5-7.8 (Cholnoky 1968)
Heavy metal tolerance: low resistant; tolerant to
0.1-0.2 mg Zn/1 (Besch et al.
1972)
Prefers water of low mineral content (Patrick and
Reimer 1966)
"Indicator" of hydrogen sulfide presence (Palmer
1977)
Cosmospolitan; calcium indifferent (Lowe 1974); adapted
to a wide range of ecological conditions (Patrick and
Reimer 1966)
pH requirements: range 6.2-9.2
optimum 6.7 (Lowe 1974)
Cosmopolitan; oxygen saturation is optimal (Lowe 1974).
Widespread and eurytopic (Patrick and Reimer 1966)
pH requirements: range 6.2-8.5 (Lowe 1974)
optimum under 7.5
Heavy metal tolerance: "indicator" of copper (Palmer
1977)
Hormidium rivulare Kutz Common alga of acid streams.
pH requirements: range 2.5-7*0 (Hargreaves and Whitton
optimum 3.5-4.0 1976)
Heavy metal tolerance: tolerant to high levels of Zn
(4 mg/1). "Indicator" of heavy
metal pollution. (Melean and
Jones 1975). Toxiclty of zinc
is least at the optimum pH
range; toxicity increase mark-
edly at higher pH values
(Hargreaves and Whitton 1976)
Continued
29
-------
TABLE 12. Continued
Taxa Distribution and Environmental Requirements
Ulothrix spp Widely distributed (Smith 1950)
Heavy metal tolerance: relatively resistant to
zinc, copper and lead
(McLean and Jones 1975)
Ulothricales are relatively
resistant to zinc (Whltton
1970)
Blue-greens
Lyngbya spp. Heavy metal tolerance: highly tolerant to rela-
Qscillatoria spp. tively large zinc con-
centrations (Williams
and Mount 1965)
30
-------
27.527 27.462 ^^ —— — _^
50'
40
;ER OF PERIPHYTON TAXA
CO
o
I 20
ST.
i
10
0
^
1122 __
\
.__10.650^_^_ " 30,169
Total -Zinc
2468 2226 2JL3Ł
'Zn Criteria ~"~ •""" — -*
""" 32
122 167
/ Total Cadmium ^^""
.J5. ^-^.
Cd Crl erla
»84
— -»
'145 141 142 143 144
STATIONS
(Impact zone)
c • t
10000
ce.
o
1000 Ł
_i
»— •
u.
=>
1
vo
•100 §
UJ
0
8
IX
10
0
Figure 6. Comparison of perlphyton species richness, mean concentrations of total zinc and cadmium,
and calculated zinc and cadmium water quality criteria.
-------
TABLE 13. LIST OF DIATOM TAXA (BACILLARIOPHYCEAE) REPORTED IN TAR CREEK,
OKLAHOMA •
Taxa
Achnanthes lanceolate
A. linearis
A. minutlssima
Amp'hi pleura pelluclda
Anomoeonels vitr'ea
Caloneis baclllum
C. ventrlcosa vain, alpina
C. ventrlcosa var. truheatula
Cymbella minuta
C. minuta var. sllesiaca
C. slnuata
Cocconeis placentula
Cy clot el la atomus
Ł. meneghiniaria
Diatoma hlemale var. mesoden
Eunotla spp.
E. curvata
E. n'aegelii
i^ragilapia crotonensls
Frustulia rhomboides var. saxonlca
Gomphonema parvulum
Hannaea arcus var. amphioxys
Hantzschla spp.
H. amphioxys
Melosifa islandica
Jl- Italica
Iteridion circulare var.
constrlctuin
NavTcula spp.
N. arverisis
E* """""ircra
N. pelHculosa
N. piipula var. rectangularis
t»leidiiin affine
145
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Station
141 142 143
X
X
XXX
X — -X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
144
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
continued
32
-------
TABLE 13. CONTINUED
Taxa
Nitzschia spp.
N. acicularls
JN . amphibia
Ą. dissipata
N. filiformis
N. ignorata
_N , paYea
N. pseud oamphloxys
Finnularia spp.
P. ab'algehsis var. linearls
JP . major
P. microstauron
IP . stomatophora
_P. subcapitata
Su rirella angustata
Synedra spp.
^S . acus
S. rumpens
Station
145 141 142 143
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
144
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
__ spcia
S. ulna var. amphlrhynchus
x
x
33
-------
TABLE 14. LIST OF ALGAL TAXA (EXCLUSIVE OF DIATOMS) REPORTED IN TAR CREEK,
OKLAHOMA
Taxa
Chlorophyta
Vol vocal es
Carteria globosa
Chlaniydomohas spp.
Sc'buff iel di a cordl formi s
Chlorococcales
Ankyra spp.
Chlorococcum sp.
Cruclgenia tet.raped.1a
Kirchneriella spp.
Qb'cystl's spp.
Selenastrum sp.
Scenedesmus abundans
S. acunrinatus
S. bl'juga
"S". denticul atus
S. intermedlus
ju quadr'icaiid'a
Sphaerocystis schroeterl
TetrSedron spp.
Station
145 141 142 143 144
X X
X XX
X
X
X XX
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
Ulothrlchales
Hprmidlun rlvulare
Ulothrlx spp.
Oedogoniales
Oedogonium spp.
Zygnematales
Cosmarlum spp.
Mougeotia spp.
Spirogyra spp.
x
x
Pyrrhophyta
Dinokontae
Glenodlnlum spp.
Euglenophyta
Euglena acus
Trachelomonas spp.
X
X
X
X
34
continued
-------
TABLE 14. CONTINUED
Station
Taxa
145 141 142 143 144
Cryptophyta
Chilomonas spp.
Cryptomonas ovata
Cyanomonas americana
Rhodomonas minuta
Chrysophyta
Ochromonadales
Mallomonas spp.
Ochromonas spp.
Cyanophyta
Chroococcales
Chroococcus spp.
Dactylococcopsis
rhapidioidies
x
x
X X
X X
X
X
Oscillatoriales
Lyngbya spp.
Oscillatoria
Phormidiun spp.
spp,
X X
X
35
-------
CO
0-.
100
80
60
40
20
0
[}] lie-greens
Greens
Diatoms
Blue-greens
Greens
Diatoms
Greens
Diatoms
Cryptomonads
Blue-greens
Greens
Diatoms;
ELugle^plds
Cryptomonads
Blue-greens
Greens
D1 atoms
145
141
142
143
144
STATIONS
(impact zone)
Figure 7. Algal group composition (percent) In Tar Creek, Oklahoma,
-------
TABLE 15. TAXA CONTRIBUTING MORE THAN 5 PERCENT TO TOTAL PERIPHYTON ABUNDANCE IN TAR CREEK, OKLAHOMA. PERCENT
COMPOSITION SHOWN IN PARENTHESIS
Station
D1atoms
Greens
Blue-greens
Cryptomonads
CO
145
141
142
143
Pinnularla subcapltata (39)
Achnanthes mlnutisslma (19)
NUzschia Ignorata (8)
Anptnoeonels yltrea (21)
Achnanthes ml nut 1ssIma (19)
Cymbel 1 a"im1 nuta var.
sileslaca (7)
Hprm1d1um rlvulare (5)
Ch1oroco"ccum sp. (5)
Mougeotla spp. (10)
UTothrlx spp. (44)
Hormldlum rlvulare (5)
Lyngbya spp. (32)
Chroococcus spp. (24)
Phormldlum spp. (16)
Osclllatorla spp. (11)
Chlamydomonas spp. (13) Phormldlum spp. (12)
Mougeotla spp. (13)
Monads < 10 pm (15)
144 Achnanthes mlnutisslma (5) Ulothrlx spp. (29)
Cyanomonas amerlcana (22)
Cyanomonas amerlcana (29)
-------
It 1s difficult to clearly differentiate substrate and metal effects on
the periphyton community. Further testing, such as with artificial substrates,
is necessary to help understand the effects of high metal concentrations on
the periphyton community in Tar Creek.
Tissues
Grasses (Graminaceae) were collected from the banks at each station in
Tar Creek. Zinc, nickel, silver, lead, and cadmium were measured in root,
leaves and stems, and whole plant samples (Appendix D). Zinc, lead, and cad-
mium were found in excessively high concentrations; for example, root tissues
and leaves and stem tissues contained up to 30,000 ug/g of zinc.
Zinc levels were higher than any values known in the literature. White
(1976) reported that ambient zinc concentrations of 8865 ug/1 resulted in
5971 ug/g in Equisetmn roots, and 1358 ug/g in above ground parts. Potomogeton
richardsgnii exposed to 10 ug/1 and 150 ug/1 zinc resulted in zinc concentra-
tions 198 and 1790 u9/9t respectively, in rhizomes and roots, and 171 and
2878 ug/g» respectively, in leaves and stems. Since ambient water concentra-
tions in tar Creek contained up to 40,000 ug/1 zinc, it is reasonable to
expect the extremely high tissue concentrations observed in this study. This
can be compared to water samples collected from Prickly Pear Creek, Montana
(Miller et al. 1982), which contained up to 3,296 ug/1 ambient zinc concentra-
tions and resulted in up to 1,000 ug/g zinc accumulation in root tissue, and
299 u9/g in leaves and stem tissues.
Cadmium levels in Tar Creek grasses ranged from nondetectable to 92 ug/g
in root tissue, and from nondetectable to 48 ug/g in leaves and stem tissue.
These cadmium values were generally only slightly higher than values obtained
from Prickly Pear Creek even though ambient cadmium concentrations in Tar Creek
were five times higher than those in Prickly Pear. Lead concentrations in Tar
Creek grasses ranged up to 3,232 ug/g in root tissue, and up to 2,325 ug/g in
leaves and stem tissue. Water and tissue concentrations of lead were very
similar to those from Prickly Pear Creek.
Fish
Community Census
Mature fish were very sparse in Tar Creek, and were primarily collected
during this study for purposes of analysis of metal concentrations in tissues.
However, some qualitative observations were made during electroshocking. The
fish species reported in Tar Creek were: green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus),
bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus), golden
shiner (Notemogonus crysole'uc'as), and mosquitofish (Gambusia afffnTs).
It is remarkable that any fish were found in Tar Creek. The EPA recommended
acute criteria for zinc (adjusted for hardness) range from 1,122 ug/1 to 2,535
ug/1, and from 15 ug/1 to 41 ug/1 for cadmium (U.S. EPA 1980). The actual
ambient metal concentrations range from 10,650 to 40,628 ug/1 for zinc, and
from 23 to 167 u9/l for cadmium. Furthermore, the species mean acute value
(mean LC50) for zinc is 293 ug/1 (range = 108-796 ug/1) for bluegill (U.S. EPA
1980). Thus, fish collected in Tar Creek were resident in waters where the
acute criteria were exceeded by more than an order of magnitude.
The significance of this phenomenon is increased by the fact that much of
Tar Creek is characterized by a series of small pools isolated by manmade and
38
-------
natural barriers. These barriers essentially preclude upstream migration except
during periodic times of flooding. Thus, fish surviving in the stream are
often trapped for weeks or months at a time. These data present strong evidence
that at least a few individuals were able to adjust to extremely high metal con-
centrations.
Tissues
As previously mentioned, few adult fish were collected from Tar Creek.
However, as many individual fish tissues as possible were analyzed (Appendix D)
to determine susceptibility of various tissues to metal accumulation.
Since metals enter Tar Creek primarily from nonpoint sources, control,
impact, and recovery zones were not distinguishable. This situation was reflec-
ted in the tissue analysis results. Except for zinc, there was little differ-
ence observed between stations for any tissues. However, substantial accumu-
lation of zinc, cadmium, and lead did occur in some tissues. Zinc concentrations
in brain, gill, and liver tissues were above values for zinc-exposed fish reported
in the literature (Mount 1964). Muscle tissues did not demonstrate any net ac-
cumulation of zinc. Cadmium and lead accumulated in gill and liver, but were
not detectable in brain and muscle.
An interesting comparison can be made between these data and tissue data
obtained from trout in Prickly Pear Creek, Montana (Miller et al. 1982). Al-
though ambient total and dissolved concentrations of zinc, cadmium, and lead
were 2-10 times higher in Tar Creek, metal concentrations in brain, gill,
liver, and muscle tissues were generally below values obtained from Prickly
Pear Creek fish. This apparent anomaly can probably be explained by the very
high hardness levels in Tar Creek. The apparent ameliorating effect of hard-
ness on the acute toxicity of metals is also reflected in reduced tissue ac-
cumulation of metals.
Total alkalinity is low and quite similar between Prickly Pear Creek (45-
55 mg/1) and Tar Creek (55-75 mg/1). Thus, the well documented ameliorating
effect of hardness on acute metal toxicity appears to be directly related to
the calcium and magnesium hardness present in Tar Creek. Evidence for this
phenomenon has been reported elsewhere (Miller and Mackay 1980; Lloyd 1965).
Calcium induced reduction in surface membrane permeability has been suggested
as a protection mechanism against metal poisoning (Skidmore 1964).
Bioassay
Bloassays were conducted at the Duluth laboratory on water from Stations
142 and 143 (Appendix E). In these analyses, no toxic response was observed
for either station using the enzyme inhibition test. Results from the fish
ventilation index test indicated stress to organisms from the sample waters,
but this was not quantified.
For the algal toxicity tests, positive results were noted. Both samples
142 and 143 showed reduced toxicity after addition of EDTA, indicating that
metals were the source of toxicity in the water samples. For the Daphnia
tests, however, toxicity was not indicated. It was suggested that insufficient
EDTA was added to complex the high zinc levels. Thus, the results were incon-
clusive.
39
-------
It appears that water hardness in Tar Creek has a mitigating effect on
the toxicity expected from such extremely high concentrations of zinc and
cadmium, as predicted by EPA's criteria documents (U.S. EPA 1980). However,
considering the extent to which the hardness-adjusted water quality criteria
were exceeded (as much as 10-fold), a greater toxic effect was expected than
was actually observed (e.g., a positive response in the enzyme tests, or perhaps
a more quantifiable response in the activity index). This may be due to a
greater toxicity-reducing capability of hardness at high concentrations than
have been thus far tested, or to some other water chemical characteristic in
Tar Creek or sampling error; hence, quantitative data are required to further
evaluate this discrepancy.
40
-------
IV: CONCLUSIONS
1. Ephemeral runoff from abandoned zinc and lead mines in the Richer Field
delivers a significant amount of toxic metals to the Tar Creek watershed.
Since metals enter Tar Creek primarily from nonpoint sources, control,
impact, and recovery zones were not distinguishable.
2. Concentrations of cadmium, zinc, and silver exceed EPA recommended acute
criteria at all stations in Tar Creek, with zinc concentrations generally
exceeding criteria values by more than an order of magnitude.
3. Macroinvertebrate and periphyton data suggest that species distributions
may relate as much to substrate characteristics and the absence of lotic
flow as to elevated metal concentrations. The high hardness in Tar Creek
appears to have a substantial mitigating influence on metal toxicity.
4. Fish (e.g., bluegill) were collected, although in limited numbers, where
laboratory zinc LCc0 values for the respective species were exceeded by
more than an order of magnitude. Since Tar Creek fish are often trapped
in isolated pools for weeks or months at a time, 1t appears that some
animals (at least adult forms) are able to acclimate to extremely high
ambient metal concentrations.
5. The lack of control, impact, and recovery zones was reflected in tissue
analysis results, with few significant differences observed between sta-
tions for metal concentrations in tissues.
6. The apparent ameliorating effect of hardness on the acute toxicity of
metals in Tar Creek is also reflected in reduced tissue metals accumula-
tion. Data comparisons indicate that although ambient metal concentra-
tions in Tar Creek were 2-10 times higher than those in Prickly Pear
Creek, Montana, metal concentration in fish tissues from Tar Creek were
generally below Prickly Pear fish.
41
-------
V RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of this study raise several important questions concerning
acclimation, metal speciation, and biological integrity or community health.
1. Additional sampling is recommended to examine the relationship
between biological communities (macroinvertebrates, periphyton) and metal
concentrations in Tar Creek. Use of alternative sampling techniques such
as the use of artificial substrates would perhaps improve the compar-
ability of data throughout the creek.
2. Considering the extent to which hardness-adjusted acute water quality
criteria were exceeded in Tar Creek, a greater toxic effect was expected
than was actually observed in the field or laboratory bioassay tests.
This may be due to a greater toxicity-reducing capability of hardness at
high concentrations than is presently known, to some other water chemistry
characteristic in Tar Creek, or to sampling error. Additional quantita-
tive data are required to further evaluate this discrepancy.
3. Additional study to examine the mechanism of acclimation to metals
in resident fish species is needed. Since the Tar Creek fish population
appears to be comprised of a relatively few hardy individuals, concentra-
tions there may represent the upper limits of the acclimation process.
4. Human health considerations are the primary concern regarding ele-
vated metals in Tar Creek. Tar Creek flows into the Neosho River and
ultimately to Grand Lake, Oklahoma, which serves as a municipal water
supply. Ambient concentrations in these latter water bodies should be
monitored, at least for cadmium, zinc, lead, and silver. Considering the
potential for bioaccumulation in consumable fish, tissue metal concentra-
tions should also be regularly tested.
42
-------
VI LITERATURE CITED
Adams, J. C. 1980. Tar Creek Water Quality Reconnaissance Regarding Ground
Water Discharge from Abandoned Lead and Zinc Mines of Richer Field*
Ottawa ounty, Oklahoma. Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Publication #100.
Oklahoma City, OK. 30 pp.
Alexander, G. V. and L. T. McAnulty. 1981. Multielement Analysis of Plant
Related Tissues and Fluid by Optical Emission Spectrometry. J. Plant Nut.
3(l-4):51-59.
Anonymous. 1981. Summary of Data Collected by Governor's Tar Creek Task Force
Regarding Groundwater Discharge from Abandoned Lead and Zinc Mines of
Ottawa County, Oklahoma, December 1979 to March 1981. #TARCKl-Job-x,
draft report. 57 pp;
APHA. 1980. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste-Water.
15th Edition. APHA/AWWA/WPCF. Washington, D.C. 1134 pp.
Besch, W. K. , M. Ricard, and R. Cantin. 1972. Benthic Diatoms as Indicators
of Mining Pollution in the Northwest Mieamichi River System, New Brunswick,
Canada. Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. 57(l):39-74.
Castenholtz, R. 1960. Seasonal Changes in the Attached Algae of Freshwater
and Saline Lakes in the Lower Grand Coulee, Washington. Limnol . Oceanogr.
""
Cholnoky, B. J. 1968. The Ecology of Diatoms from Inland Waters. J. Cramer,
Lehre. 699 pp.
Dewalle, F. and E. Chian. 1980. Presence of Priority Pollutants and their
Removal in Sewage Treatment Plants. First Annual Report to U.S. EPA
Cincinnati, OH. 375 pp.
Gregory, R. W. and J. Trial. 1975. Effect of Zinc -Coated Culverts on Verte-
brate and Invertebrate Fauna in Selected Maine Streams. #A-033-ME.
University of Maine at Orono, Orono, ME. 10 pp.
Hargreaves, J. W. and B. A. Whitton. 1976. Effect of pH on Tolerance of
Hormidiun rivulare to Zinc and Copper. Oecologia 26:235-243.
LaBounty, J. F., J. J. Santoris, L. D. Klein, E. F. Monk, and H. A. Salman.
1975. Assessment of Heavy Metals Pollution in the Upper Arkansas River
of Colorado. #REC-ERC-75-5, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Denver, CO.
120^ pp.
43
-------
Lange-Bertalot, H. 1979. Pollution Tolerance of Diatoms as a Criterion for
Water Quality Estimation. Nova Hedwigia. Beiheif. 64:285-304.
Lloyd, R. and 0. W. W. Herbert. 1962. The effect of the Environment on the
Toxicity of Poisons to Fish. Instn. Publ. Hlth. Engr. Ł• 61:132-145.
Lloyd, R. 1965. Factors that Affect the Tolerance of Fish to Heavy Metal
Poisoning. In; Biological Problems in Water Pollution, 3rd Seminar, 1962,
pp. 181-187. Publication #999-WP-25. U.S. Public Health Service, Washing-
ton, D.C.
Lowe, R. L. 1974. Environmental Requirements and Pollution Tolerance of
Freshwater Diatoms. Environmental Monitoring Series. #EPA-670/4-74-005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. 340 pp.
Maillard, R. 1959. Florule Diatonrigue de la Region d'Evreux. Rev. A1 go!.
4:256-274.
McLean, R. 0. and A. K. Jones. 1975. Studies of Tolerance to Heavy Metals in
the Flora of the Rivers Ystwyth and Clarach, Wales. Freshwat. B1ol.
5:431-444. ~~
Merritt, R. W. and K. W. Cumtnins. 1978. An Introduction to the Aquatic
Insects of North America. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. 441 pp.
McCrady, J. K. and 6. E. Chapman. 1979. Determination of Copper Complexing
Capacity of Natural River Water, Well Water, and Artificially Reconsti-
tuted Water. Water Res. 13:143-150.
McDuffie, B., I. Al-Barbary, G. J. Hollod, and R. Tiberio. 1976. Trace Metals
in Rivers - Speciation, Transport and Fate of Sediments. Trace Subst.
Environ. Health 10:85.
Miller, T. G. and W. C. Mackay. 1980. The Effect of Hardness, Alkalinity
and pH of Test Water on the Toxicity of Copper to Rainbow Trout. Wat.
Res. 14:129-133.
Miller, T. G., S. M. Melancon, and J. J. Janik. 1982. An Evaluation of the
Effect of Toxic Metals on the Aquatic Biota in Receiving Streams: Prickly
Pear Creek, Montana. Draft report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Las Vegas, NV. 148 pp.
Mount, D. 1964. An Autopsy Technique for Zinc-Caused Fish Mortality. Trans.
Amer. Fish. Soc. 93:174-182.
Mount, D. 1966. The Effect of Total Hardness and pH on the Acute Toxicity
of Zinc to Fish. A1_r and tort. Pollut. Int. J_- 10:49-56.
Namminga, H. and J. Wilm. 1977. Heavy Metals in Water Sediments and Chiron-
omids. Jour. Wat. Poll. Control Fed. 49:1725.
Palmer, C. M. 1977. Algae and Water Pollution. Research Reporting Series.
SPA-600/9-77-036. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, OH.
132 pp.
44
-------
Patrick, R. 1949. A Proposed Biological Measure of Stream Conditions, Based
on a Survey of the Conestoga Basin, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.
Notul. Nat. CI. 227.
Patrick, R. 1977. Ecology of Diatoms-Diatom Communities. In: The Biology
of Diatoms, pp. 284-332. D. Werner, ed. University ofTalifornia Press,
Berkeley.
Patrick, R. 1978. Effects of Trace Metals in the Aquatic Ecosystem. Amer.
Sci. 66(2):185-191.
Patrick, R. and C. W. Reimer. 1966. The Diatoms of the United States.
Vol. I. Philadelphia Academy of Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
688 pp.
Pollard, J. and W. Kinney. 1979. Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Techniques in an Energy Development Area. #EPA-600/7-79-163. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, NV 26 pp.
Shannon, C. E. and W. Weaver. 1963. The Mathematical Theory of Communication.
University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 117 pp.
Siegel, S. 1956. Nonparametric Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Company. 312 pp,
Skidmore J. R. 1964. Toxicity of Zinc Compounds to Aquatic Animals, with
Special Reference to Fish. Quarterly Review of Biology* 37(3):227-248.
Sokal, R. F. and F. J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry. 2nd Edition. W. H. Freeman
and Co., San Francisco. 859 pp.
Smith, 6. M. 1950. The Fresh-Water Algae of the United States. McGraw-Hill,
New York. 719 pp.
Solbe, J. F. 1973. The Toxicity of Zinc Sulfate-to Rainbow Trout in Very
Hard Water. Water Res. 8:389-391.
Spaulding, W. M. and R. D. Ogden. 1968. Effects of Surface Mining on the
Fish and Wildlife Resources of the United States. U.S. F1sh and Wildlife
Service, Sport Fishery and Wildlife Resource Publ. #68.
Steemann-Nielsen, E. and S. Wiurn-Anderson. 1970. Copper Ions as Poison in
the Sea and in Freshwater. Mar. Biol. 6:93-97.
Sverdrup and Parcel and Associates, Inc. 1977. Study of Selected Pollutant
Parameters 1n Publicly Owned Treatment Works. Draft Report to U.S. EPA.
Contract #68-01-3287.
Tabata, K. 1969. Studies on the Toxicity of Heavy Metals to Aquatic Animals
and the Factors to Decrease the Toxicity. Bull. Tokal. Reg. Fish. Res.
Lab. 58:215-232.
U.S. EPA. 1976. Quality Criteria for Water. #EPA-440/9-76-023. Washington,
D.C. 501 pp.
45
-------
U.S. EPA. 1979a. Lead - Ambient Water Quality Criteria. Criteria and Stand-
ards Division, Office of Water Planning and Standards. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1979b. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. #EPA-
600/4-79-020. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. 440 pp.
U.S. EPA. 1980. Water Quality Criteria Documents: Availability. Federal
Register, Nov. 28, 1980, Vol. 45, No. 231.
U.S. EPA. 1981. Interim Methods for Sampling and Analysis of Priority Pollu-
tants in Sediments and Fish Tissue. #EPA-600/4-81-055. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. 460 pp.
Weber, C. I. (Ed). 1973. Biological Field and Laboratory Methods for Measuring
the Quality of Surface Waters and Effluents. #EPA-670/4-73-001. Cincinnati,
OH. 156 pp.
Weitzel, R. L. 1979. Periphyton Measurements and Applications. In: Methods
and Measurements of Periphyton Communities: A Review, pp. 3-13, Chapter 1.
R. L. Weitzel, ed. ASTM STP 690, American Society for Testing and Materials.
White, S. R. 1976. Selected Aquatic Plants as Indicator Species for Heavy
Metal Pollution. J. Environ. Sci. Health. All(12):717-725.
Whitton, B. A. 1970. Toxicity of Zinc, Copper, and Lead to Chlorophyta from
Flowing Waters. Arch. Mikrobiol. 72:353-360.
Whitton, B. and P. Say. 1975. Heavy Metals. |n: River Ecology: Studies in
Ecology, Vol. 2. pp. 286-311, Chapter 13. B. A. Whitton, ed. University
of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
wniiams, L. G. and D. I. Mount. 1965. Influence of Zinc on Periphytic
Communities. Amer. Jour. Bot. 52(l):26-34.
46
-------
APPENDIX A
WATER CHEMISTRY SUMMARY DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 82/02/01
/TYPA/AMBNT/FISH/STREAM/NONPNT/TISSUE
00010
DATE TIME DEPTH MATER
FROM OF TEMP
TO DAY FEET CENT
80/10/31 11 00 0000 10.6
11 10 0003 10.2
11 20 0004 10.6
11 30 0000
11 30 0004 10.7
11 31 0003
11 32 0004
11 33 0004
11 34 0004
11 35 0000
11 40 0000 10.7
00094 00299
CNDUCTVY DO
FIELD PROBE
MICROMHO MG/L
1310
1320
1320
1320
1310
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.6
13.6
6.37
6.40
37 01 00.0 094 51 00.0 5
MIAMI KANSAS CHEROKEE COUNTY TAR CRK
20021 KANSAS CHEROKEE
SOUTH CENTRAL LOM HISS R 100400
GRAND NEOSHO RIVER
11EPATM 810131
0001 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00 CSN-RSP 0574952-0084100
00623 00630
KJELOL N N02SN03
DISS N-TOTAL
. KG/L MG/L
00400
PH
SU
6.25
6.29
6.34
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
00500
RESIDUE
TOTAL
MG/L
00530
RESIDUE
TOT NFLT
MG/L
00612
UN-IOHZD
NH3-N
MG/L
22
867
79
0.090
0.720
47.50
21
15
15
23
22
863
886
889
848
876
62
99
107
192
145
0.090
0.090
0.110
0.070
0.080
0.750
0.810
0.820
0.810
0.730
47.00
4.80
5.00
11.80
11.00
00669
DATE TIME DEPTH PHOS-TOT
FROM OF HYDRO
TO DAY FEET MG/L P
80/10/31
11 00 0000
11 10 0003
11 20 0004
11 30 0000
11 31 0003
11 32 0004
11 33 0004
11 34 0004
11 35 0000
0.010
0.010
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
00680
T ORG C
C
MG/L
0.9
11.6
50060
CHLORINE
TOT RESD
MG/L
0.00
50064
CHLORINE
FREE AVL
MG/L
0.00
82078
TURBIDIT
Y FIELD
NTU
8.6
8.4
9.2
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 82/02/01
OTTAWA COUHTY TAR CREEK
OTTAWA
100400
/TYPA/AMBNT/FISH/STREAM/NONPNT/TISSUE
14141441
37 00 00.0 094 51 00.0 5
MIAMI OKLAHOMA
40115 OKLAHOMA
SOUTH CENTRAL LOW MISS R
GRAND NEOSHO RIVER
11EPATH 810124
0001 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00 CSN-RSP 0574617-0084090
00623 00630
KJELOL N N024N03
DISS N-TOTAL
MG/L MG/L
VO
DATE
FROM
TO
80/10/29
DATE
FROM
TO
80/10/29
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
15 00 0000
15 01 0000
15 02 0000
15 03 0000
15 04 0001
15 05 0000
15 10 0000
15 20 0000
15 30 0001
15 40 0000
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
15 00 0000
15 01 0000
15 02 0000
15 03 0000
15 04 0001
15 05 0000
15 10 0000
15 20 0000
00010
HATER
TEMP
CENT
12.2
12.2
11.7
10.7
11.7
00669
PHOS-TOT
HYDRO
MG/L P
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
|
l
00094
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
MICROMHO
2410
2420
2540
2650
2640
00680
T ORG C
C
MG/L
2.5
3.2
00299
DO
PROBE
MG/L
9.5
9.5
9.2
8.9
9.4
50060
CHLORINE
TOT RESO
MG/L
0.00
0.00
00400
PH
SU
7.68
7.70
7.66
7.64
7.75
50064
CHLORINE
FREE AVL
MG/L
0.00
0.00
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
90
91
91
87
87
87
82078
TURBIOIT
Y FIELD
NTU
5.3
5.3
5.3
00500
RESIDUE
TOTAL
MG/L
1749
1743
1726
1727
1765
1691
00530
RESIDUE
TOT NFLT
MG/L
116
150
130
5
132
122
00612
UN-IOHZD
NH3-N
MG/L
0.070
0.100
0.060
0.070
0.120
0.150
0.240
0.240
0.200
0.250
0.240
0.330
10.00
9.20
6.40
6.50
29.50
26.50
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 82/02/01
/TYPA/AMBNT/FISH/STREAH/NONPNT/TISSUE
36 59 30.0 094 51 00.0 S
MIAMI OKLAHOMA OTTAWA COUNTY TAR CREEK
40115 OKLAHOMA OTTAWA
SOUTH CENTRAL LOU MISS R 100400
GRAND NEOSHO RIVER
J1EPATM 810124
0002 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00 CSN-RSP 0574618-0084092
00623 00630
KJELDL N N021N03
DISS N-TOTAL
MG/L MG/L
DATE TIME DEPTH
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
80/10/29 13 20 0000
13 30 0000
13 31 0000
13 32 0001
13 33 0001
13 34 0001
13 35 0000
13 40 0001
13 50 0001
14 00 0000
DATE TIME DEPTH
in FROM OF
0 TO DAY FEET
80/10/29 13 20 0000
13 30 0000
13 31 0000
13 32 0001
13 33 0001
13 34 0001
13 35 0000
13 40 0001
00010
MATER
TEMP
CENT
12.3
12.0
12.8
11.7
11.8
00669
PHOS-TOT
HYDRO
MG/L P
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
00094
CHDUCTVY
FIELD
MICROMHO
2420
2590
2950
2870
2440
00680
T ORG C
C
MG/L
6.8
1.9
00299
00
PROBE
MG/L
8.0
8.1
9.8
8.7
8.6
50060
CHLORINE
TOT RESD
MG/L
0.25
0.25
00400
PH
SU
7.06
7.10
7.17
7.17
7.24
50064
CHLORINE
FREE AVL
MG/L
0.00
0.00
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
74
74
64
63
44
45
82078
TURBIOIT
Y FIELD
NTU
0.6
0.6
0.5
00500 00530
RESIDUE RESIDUE
TOTAL TOT NFLT
MS/L MG/L
1670 134
1681 49
1591 45
1596 103
70
70
00612
UN-IONZD
NH3-N
MG/L
0.050
0.060
0.060
0.060
0.060
0.090
0.310
0.270
0.310
0.250
0.200
0.230
30
30
30
30
60
1.60
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 62/02/01
/TYPA/AMBNT/FISH/STREAM/NONPNT/TISSUE
14143441
36 59 00.0 094 50 30.0
HIAMI OKLAHOMA
40115 OKLAHOMA
SOUTH CENTRAL LOW MISS R
GRAND NEOSHO RIVER
11EPATM 610124
0002 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00 CSN-RSP 0574619-0064094
OTTAWA COUNTY TAR CREEK
OTTAWA
100400
DATE
FROM
TO
60/10/30
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
09 00 0000
09 01 0001
09 02 0000
09 03 0000
09 04 0000
09 05 0000
09 10 0001
09 20 0000
09 30 0000
09 40 0000
00010
HATER
TEMP
CENT
6.6
8.5
6.3
8.3
6.6
00094
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
MICROMHO
1930
1990
2000
1930
1960
00299
DO
PROBE
MG/L
6.9
9.3
9.3
9.2
9.0
00400
PH
SU
6.56
6.55
6.55
6.52
6.43
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
56
56
54
55
24
23
00500
RESIDUE
TOTAL
MG/L
1297
1269
1306
1246
1282
1299
00530
RESIDUE
TOT NFLT
MG/L
164
159
27
3
10
3
00612
UN-IOMZO
NH3-N
MG/L
0.090
0.120
0.090
0.110
0.070
0.090
00623
KJELDL H
OISS
MS/L
0.570
0.540
0.490
0.640
0.480
0.380
00630
N02CN03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
6.90
7.10
5.90
6.00
6.90
7.00
DATE
FROM
TO
80/10/30
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
09 00 0000
09 01 0001
09 02 0000
09 03 0000
09 04 0000
09 05 0000
09 10 0001
09 20 0000
00669
PHOS-TOT
HYDRO
MG/L P
0.010
0.010
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
00680
T ORG C
c
MG/L
3.7
1.3
50060
CHLORINE
TOT RESD
MG/L
0.20
0.20
50064
CHLORINE
FREE AVL
MG/L
6.04
0.04
82078
TURBIOIT
Y FIELD
NTU
1.8
1.8
1.9
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 82/02/01
/TYPA/AMBNT/FISH/STREAM/NONPNT/TISSUE
36 58 00.0 094 50 30.0 5
MIAMI OKLAHOMA OTTAWA COUNTY TAR CREEK
40115 OKLAHOMA OTTAWA
SOUTH CENTRAL LOW MISS R 100400
GRAND HEOSHO RIVER
11EPATH 610124
0001 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00 CSN-RSP 0574620-0084097
00623 00630
KJELOL N N02&N03
DISS N-TOTAL
MG/L KG/L
CJ1
DATE
FROM
TO
80/10/30
DATE
FROM
TO
80/10/30
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
13 20 0000
13 30 0000
13 40 0000
13 41 0000
13 42 0000
13 43 0000
13 44 0000
13 45 0000
13 50 0000
14 00 0000
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
13 20 0000
13 30 0000
13 40 0000
13 41 0000
13 42 0000
13 43 0000
13 44 0000
13 45 0000
00010
MATER
TEMP
CENT
10.1
10.1
9.7
9.7
9.4
00669
PHOS-TOT
HYDRO
M6/L P
0.010
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
00094
CNOUCTVY
FIELD
MICROMHO
2230
2110
2140
2150
2160
00680
T ORG C
C
MG/L
2.3
2.9
00299
00
PROBE
MG/L
8.9
9.0
8.8
9.0
8.6
50060
CHLORINE
TOT RESD
MG/L
0.40
0.40
00400
PH
SU
6.17
6.46
6.50
6.54
6.53
50064
CHLORINE
FREE AVL
MG/L
0.02
0.02
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
59
59
62
61
48
49
82078
TURBIOIT
Y FIELD
NTU
2.2
2.5
3.2
00500
RESIDUE
TOTAL
MG/L
1526
1525
1502
1521
1564
1524
00530
RESIDUE
TOT NFLT
MG/L
96
34
35
44
53
42
00612
UN-IONZO
NH3-N
MG/L
0.060
0.080
0.180
0.220
0.080
0.090
0.450
0.390
0.430
0.440
0.570
0.580
90
90
90
4.70
3.90
4.00
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 82/03/01
/TYPA/AHBNT/FISH/STREAM/NONPNT/TISSUE
37 01 00.0 094 51 00.0 5
MIAMI KANSAS CHEROKEE COUNTY TAR CRK
20021 KANSAS CHEROKEE
SOUTH CENTRAL LOW MISS R 100400
GRAND NEOSHO RIVER
11EPATM 810131
0001 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00 CSN-RSP 0574952-0084100
01025
DATE TIME DEPTH CADMIUM
FROM OF CD.DISS
TO DAY FEET U6/L
80/10/31 11 30 0000 105
11 32 0000 111
11 34 0000 109
11 36 0000 110
11 3d 0000 109
11 40 0000 108
11 31
CP(T)-03 AVE 0000
80/10/31 13 31
12 31
CP(T)-03 AVE 0000
80/10/31 14 31
13 31
CP(T)-03 AVE 0000
J2 80/10/31 15 31
14 31
CP(T)-03 AVE 0000
80/10/31 16 31
15 31
CP(T)-03 AVE 0000
80/10/31 17 31
16 31
CP(T)-03 AVE 0000
80/10/31 18 31
17 31
CP-03 AVE 0000
80/10/31 19 31
18 31
CPm-03 AVE 0000
80/10/31 20 31
19 31
CP
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 62/03/01
/TYPA/AMBNT/FISH/STREAM/NONPNT/TISSUE
01000 01002
DATE TIME DEPTH ARSENIC ARSENIC
FROI1 OF AS.DISS AS.TOT
TO DAY FEET UG/L UG/L
60/10/31 11 30 0000 264
11 32 0000 210
11 34 0000 205
11 36 0000 149
11 33 0000 238
11 40 0000 45
11 31
CP-03 AVE 0000
80/10/31 14 31
13 31
CP(T)-03 AVE 0000
2 60/10/31 15 31
14 31
CP(T)-03 AVE 0000
60/10/31 16 31
15 31
CP(T>-03 AVE 0000
80/10/31 17 31
16 31
CP(T)-03 AVE 0000
80/10/31 18 31
17 31
CP-03 AVE 0000
80/10/31 22 31
368
335
484
308
271
202
250
207
254
173
315
174
245
119
188
68
Yl 01 00.0 094 51 00.0 5
MIAMI KANSAS CHEROKEE COUNTY TAR CRK
20021 KANSAS CHEROKEE
SOUTH CENTRAL LOU MISS R 100400
GRAND NEOSHO RIVER
11EPATM 810131
0001 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00 CSU-RSP 0574952-0084100
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 83/02/01
/TYPA/AMBNT/FISH/STREAM/NONPNT/TISSUE
01025
DATE TIME DEPTH CADMIUM
FROM OF CD.DISS
TO DAY FEET UG/L
80/10/31
CP(T)-03
80/10/31
CP(T)-03
80/11/01
80/10/31
CPm-03
80/11/01
cpm-03
80/11/01
CP(T)-03
80/11/01
cpm-03
80/11/01
CPm-03
80/11/01
CP(T)-03
80/11/01
CP(T»-03
SO/11/01
CP(T)-03
80/11/01
21 31
AVE
23 31
22 31
AVE
00 31
23 31
AVE
01 31
00 31
AVE
02 31
08 31
AVE
10 31
09 31
AVE
11 31
10 31
AVE
12 31
11 31
AVE
13 31
12 31
AVE
14 31
13 31
AVE
15 31
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
01027 01049
CADMIUM LEAD
CD,TOT PB.DISS
U6/L UG/L
104
104
104
105
109
106
104
106
109
111
14145441
37 01 00.0 094 51 00.0 5
MIAMI KANSAS CHEROKEE COUNTY TAR CRK
20021 KANSAS CHEROKEE
SOUTH CENTRAL LOW MISS R 100400
GRAND NEOSHO RIVER
11EPATM 810131
0001 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00 CSN-RSP 0574952-0084100
01051 01090 01092 01065 01067 01075 01077
LEAD ZINC ZINC NICKEL NICKEL SILVER SILVER
PB.TOT ZN.DISS ZN.TOT NI.DISS HI,TOTAL AG.DISS AS,TOT
UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L
432
443
439
422
530
496
234
119
181
160
26500
26700
26300
26700
26800
27300
34600
35100
35200
35000
121
94
134
105
155
139
39
42
76
29
135.0
134.0
124.0
126.0
167.0
162.0
12.0
27.0
38.0
44.0
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 82/02/01
in
/TYPA/AMBNT/FISH/STREAM/NONPNT/TISSUE
01000 01002
DATE TIME DEPTH ARSEMIC ARSENIC
FROH OF AS.DISS AS.TOT
TO DAY FEET U6/L UG/L
37 01 00.0 094 51 00.0 5
MIAMI KANSAS CHEROKEE COUNTY TAR CRK
20021 KANSAS CHEROKEE
SOUTH CENTRAL LOU MISS R 100400
GRAND NEOSHO RIVER
11EPATM 610131
0001 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00 CSN-RSP 0574952-0084100
80/10/31 21 31
CP-03 AVE 0000
60/10/31 23 31
22 31
CP(T)-03 AVE 0000
80/11/01 00 31
00 31
CP(T)-03 AVE 0000
80/11/01 02 31
08 31
CP(T)-03 AVE 0000
80/11/01 10 31
09 31
CPU 1-03 AVE 0000
80/11/01 11 31
10 31
AVE
CP(TI-03
80/11/01
CP
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 82/02/01
/TYPA/AMBNT/FISH/STREAM/NONPNT/TISSUE
14141441
37 00 00.0 094 51 00.0 5
MIAMI OKLAHOMA
40115 OKLAHOMA
SOUTH CEMTRAL LOM MISS R 100400
GRAND HEOSHO RIVER
11EPATM 810124
0001 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00 CSN-RSP 0574617-0084090
OTTAWA COUNTY TAR CREEK
OTTAWA
DATE
FROM
TO
80/10/29
•
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
15 00 0000
15 02 0000
15 04 0000
15 06 0000
15 08 0000
15 10 0000
01025
CADMIUM
CD.DISS
U6/L
28
27
24
25
29
29
Q1027
CADMIUM
CD. TOT
UG/L
31
30
30
34
34
36
01049
LEAD
PB.DISS
UG/L
247
209
183
156
213
228
01051
LEAD
PB.TOT
UG/L
309
271
258
292
254
315
01090
ZINC
ZN.DISS
UG/L
10200
10300
10200
10200
10300
10400
01092
ZINC
ZM.TOT
UG/L
10500
10600
10600
10700
10700
10800
01065
NICKEL
NI.DISS
UG/L
70
59
22
37
64
69
01067
NICKEL
NI. TOTAL
UG/L
76
75
43
83
45
57
01075
SILVER
AG.DISS
UG/L
35.0
32.0
35.0
29.0
30.0
23.0
01077
SILVER
AG.TOT
UG/L
27.0
40.0
27.0
53.0
29.0
46.0
01000 01002
DATE TIME DEPTH ARSENIC ARSENIC
FROM OF AS.DISS AS.TOT
TO DAY FEET UG/L UG/L
80/10/29 15 00 0000 36 143
15 04 0000 96
15 08 0000 26 87
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 62/02/01
/TYPA/AMBNT/FISH/STREAM/NOHPHT/TISSUE
DATE TIME DEPTH CADMIUM
FROM OF CD.
TO DAY FEET UG
60/10/29 13 30 0000
13 32 0000
13 34 0000
13 36 0000
13 38 0000
13 40 0000
13 42 0000
13 44 0000
14142441
36 59 30.0 094 51 00.0 5
MIAMI OKLAHOMA OTTAWA COUNTY TAR CREEK
40115 OKLAHOMA OTTAWA
SOUTH CENTRAL LOU MISS R 100400
GRAND NEOSHO RIVER
11EPATM 810124
0002 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00 CSN-RSP 0574616-0084092
25
UM
ISS
L
113
117
115
116
121
124
01027
CADMIUM
CD. TOT
UG/L
122
122
121
122
121
121
125
123
01049
LEAD
PB.DISS
UG/L
217
236
136
181
160
256
01051
LEAD
PB.TOT
UG/L
273
271
277
266
264
253
290
232
01090
ZINC
ZN.DISS
UG/L
27500
27900
26600
26900
28400
26500
01092
ZINC
ZH.TOT
UG/L
27500
27700
Ł6700
27100
26900
27100
28200
28500
01065
NICKEL
NI.DISS
UG/L
65
80
64
64
61
61
01067
NICKEL
NX. TOTAL
UG/L
92
115
87
112
69
98
107
88
01075
SILVER
AG.OISS
UG/L
42.0
23.0
16.0
17.0
11.0
31.0
01077
SILVER
AG.TOT
UG/L
35.0
48.0
47.0
39.0
54.0
36.0
53.0
35.0
Ul
00
01000 01002
DATE TIME DEPTH ARSENIC ARSENIC
FROM OF AS.DISS AS,TOT
TO DAY FEET UG/L UG/L
60/10/29 13 30 0000 20 146
13 32 0000 36
13 34 0000 145
13 36 0000 12 129
13 42 0000 127
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 82/03/01
/TYPA/AMBNT/FISH/STREAM/NONPNT/TISSUE
36 59 00.0 094 50 30.0 5
MIAMI OKLAHOMA OTTAWA COUNTY TAR CREEK
40115 OKLAHOMA OTTAWA
SOUTH CENTRAL LOW HISS R 100400
GRAND NEOSHO RIVER
11EPATM 610124
0002 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00 CSN-RSP 0574619-0084094
01025
DATE TIME DEPTH CADMIUM
FROM OF CD.DISS
TO DAY FEET U6/L
60/10/30 09 00 0000 281
09 02 0000 278
09 04 0000 273
09 06 0000 275
09 08 0000 279
09 10 0000 276
09 01
CP(T)-03 AVE 0000
60/10/30 11 01
10 01
CP(T>-03 AVE 0000
80/10/30 12 01
11 01
CP-03 AVE 0000
80/10/30 19 01
18 01
CP(TI-03 AVE 0000
80/10/30 20 01
19 01
CP(T)-03 AVE 0000
60/10/30 21 01
20 01
CPITI-03 AVE 0000
80/10/30 22 01
60/10/30 21 01
CPITI-03 AVE 0000
80/10/30 23 01
22 01
CP
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 62/02/01
on
O
/TYPA/AI1BNT/FISH/STREAM/HONPNT/TISSUE
DATE TIME DEPTH ARSENIC
FROM OF AS.
TO DAY FEET U
36 59 00.0 094 50 30.0 S
MIAMI OKLAHOMA OTTAWA COUNTY TAR CREEK
40115 OKLAHOMA OTTAWA
SOUTH CENTRAL LOU HISS R 100400
GRAND NEOSHO RIVER
11EPATM 810124
0002 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00 CSN-RSP 0574619-0084094
80/10/30
CP-03
80/10/30
CPITJ-03
60/10/30
cpm-03
80/10/30
CP(T)-03
80/10/30
cpm-03
60/10/30
cpm-03
80/10/30
cpm-03
80/10/30
cpm-03
60/10/30
cpm-03
80/10/30
cpm-03
80/10/31
09 00
09 02
09 04
09 06
09 08
09 10
09 01
AVE
11 01
10 01
AVE
12 01
15 01
AVE
17 01
16 01
AVE
18 01
17 01
AVE
19 01
18 01
AVE
20 01
19 01
AVE
21 01
20 01
AVE
22 01
21 01
AVE
23 01
22 01
AVE
00 01
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
00
IIC
ss
L
168
44
128
44
27
76
01002
ARSENIC
AS, TOT
UG/L
146
23
77
27
132
60
57
8
32
84
121
101
102
66
122
61
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 82/02/01
cn
/TYPA/AMBNT/FISH/STREAM/MONPNT/TISSUE
14144441
36 58 00.0 094 50 30.0
MIAMI OKLAHOMA
40115 OKLAHOMA
SOUTH CENTRAL LOW MISS R
GRAND NEOSHO RIVER
11EPATM 810124
0001 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00 CSN-RSP 0574620-0084097
OTTAWA COUNTY TAR CREEK
OTTAWA
100400
01025
DATE TIME DEPTH CADMIUM
FROM OF CD.DISS
TO DAY FEET UG/L
80/10/30 13 40 0000 82
13 42 0000 85
13 44 0000 84
13 46 0000 87
13 48 0000 87
13 50 0000 86
13 41
CP(T>-03 AVE 0000
80/10/30 15 41
14 41
CP(T>-03 AVE 0000
60/10/30 16 41
15 41
CPITI-03 AVE 0000
80/10/30 17 41
16 41
CP-03 AVE 0000
80/10/30 20 41
22 41
CP(T)-03 AVE 0000
80/10/31 00 41
80/10/30 23 41
CP(T>-03 AVE 0000
80/10/31 01 41
00 41
CPtTI-03 AVE 0000
80/10/31 02 41
01 41
CP(T>-03 AVE 0000
80/10/31 03 41
01027 01049
CADMIUM LEAD
CD, TOT PB.DISS
U6/L UG/L
89 616
89 660
88 648
86 631
88 658
91 654
79
77
74
76
83
84
87
85
85
85
01051 01090
LEAD ZINC
PB.TOT ZN.DISS
UG/L UG/L
313 26700
334 26700
322 26800
311 27500
279 27700
296 28300
635
637
571
620
722
763
694
707
743
729
01092
ZINC
ZN.TOT
UG/L
41500
41500
41100
42000
41600
42800
24900
25000
25700
26100
26100
26600
26900
26600
26600
27100
01065 01067 01075
NICKEL NICKEL SILVER
NI.DISS NI, TOTAL AG.DISS
UG/L UG/L UG/L
207 121 173.0
206 116 178.0
241 119 172.0
223 120 200.0
203 90 200.0
176 72 211.0
182
181
138
192
206
197
245
200
200
213
01077
SILVER
AG.TOT
UG/L
102.0
117.0
118.0
96.0
, 92.0
126.0
195.0
188.0
173.0
180.0
201.0
180.0
209.0
191.0
207.0
210.0
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 62/03/01
/TYPA/ANBNT/FISH/STREAM/HONPNT/TISSUE
01000 01002
DATE TIME DEPTH ARSENIC ARSENIC
FROM OF AS.DISS AS.TOT
TO DAY FEET UG/L U6/L
14 144441
36 58 00.0 094 50 30.0 5
MIAMI OKLAHOMA
40115 OKLAHOMA
SOUTH CENTRAL LOW MISS R
GRAND NEOSHO RIVER
11EPATH 810124
0001 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00 CSN-RSP 0574620-0084097
OTTAWA COUNTY TAR CREEK
OTTAWA
100400
80/10/30 13 40
13 42
13 44
13 46
13 48
13 50
13 41
CPITJ-03 AVE
80/10/30 15 41
14 41
CPIT1-03 AVE
80/10/30 16 41
15 41
CP(T»-03 AVE
80/10/30 17 41
16 41
CP(T)-03 AVE
80/10/30 18 41
17 41
CPITJ-03 AVE
80/10/30 19 41
18 41
CPIT)-03 AVE
80/10/30 20 41
22 41
CPITI-03 AVE
80/10/31 00 41
60/10/30 23 41
CP(T>-03 AVE
80/10/31 01 41
00 41
CPITJ-03 AVE
80/10/31 02 41
01 41
CP(T>-03 AVE
80/10/31 03 41
0000 422
0000 390
0000 390
0000 335
0000 380
0000 303
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
147
8ft
163
54
75
386
247
289
256
345
261
456
361
427
277
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 62/02/01
GJ
/TYPA/AMBNT/FISH/STREAM/NONPNT/TISSUE
01025
DATE TIME DEPTH CADMIUM
FROM OF CD.DISS
TO DAY FEET UG/L
80/10/31
CP(T)-03
60/10/31
CPCTJ-03
80/10/31
CPm-03
80/10/31
CPCTJ-03
80/10/31
CPtTI-03
80/10/31
CP-03
80/10/31
02 41
AVE
04 41
03 41
AVE
05 41
04 41
AVE
06 41
05 41
AVE
07 41
06 41
AVE
08 41
07 41
AVE
09 41
08 41
AVE
10 41
09 41
AVE
11 41
10 41
AVE
12 41
11 41
AVE
13 41
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
01027
CADMIUM
CDiTOT
UG/L
83
87
86
81
84
66
78
79
81
85
01049
LEAD
PB.DISS
UG/L
14144441
36 58 00.0 094 50 30.0 5
MIAMI OKLAHOMA OTTAWA COUNTY TAR CREEK
40115 OKLAHOMA OTTAWA
SOUTH CENTRAL LOU MISS R 100400
GRAND NEOSHO RIVER
11EPATM 810124
0001 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00 CSN-RSP 0574620-0084097
01051 01090 01092 01065 01067 01075 01077
LEAD ZINC ZINC NICKEL NICKEL SILVER SILVER
PB.TOT ZN.DISS ZN.TOT NI.DISS NI.TOTAL AG.DIS3 AG.TOT
UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L
665
707
756
660
648
669
601
658
637
699
27000
27500
27600
28000
27900
28000
26200
26500
26500
27100
212
161
198
166
177
200
184
181
166
171
208.0
220.0
218.0
197.0
230.0
220.0
192.0
205.0
198.0
212.0
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 82/02/01
/TYPA/AMBHT/FISH/STREAM/NOHPNT/TISSUE
01000 01002
DATE TIME DEPTH ARSENIC ARSENIC
FROM OF AS.DISS AS.TOT
TO DAY FEET UG/L UG/L
14144441
36 58 00.0 094 50 30.0 5
HIAHI OKLAHOMA OTTAWA COUNTY TAR CREEK
40115 OKLAHOMA OTTAWA
SOUTH CENTRAL LOW HISS R 100400
GRAND NEOSHO RIVER
11EPATM 810124
0001 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00 CSN-RSP 0574620-0084097
80/10/31 02 41
CPJT»-03 AVE 0000
80/10/31 04 41
03 41
CP(T)-03 AVE 0000
60/10/31 05 41
04 41
CP(T)-03 AVE 0000
80/10/31 06 41
05 41
CPITI-03 AVE 0000
80/10/31 07 41
06 41
CPITI-03 AVE 0000
80/10/31 03 41
07 41
CPCTl-03 AVE 0000
80/10/31 09 41
03 41
CP-03 AVE 0000
80/10/31 11 41
10 41
CP1TI-03 AVE 0000
80/10/31 12 41
11 41
CP(T)-03 AVE 0000
80/10/31 13 41
397
386
453
224
395
289
314
195
324
257
-------
APPENDIX B
MACROINVERTEBRATE CENSUS DATA
-------
en
O»
PROJECT! TOXIC NKTAL* PROJECT (T«) AREAI fa* CREEK, OAKLAHONA (u>
STATIONI i MILK N, or OAKLAMONA/VAIUA* IT. LINE* i MILK MEM or HMT «
•mien WEI to BCCONO RICK • >« NMH T«I»MGUL»P nit m
NUHBCR or »CPLIC»TCI| | rirtD BIOtOQISTl BMTkNT HEI» (941 .
NOTCl NOT ArrtlCttLC CO)
RtH OtTt
HCfERKNCC
1ST LCVfL
1«0
DIPTCKk
UBANIOAB
CMRMOM •». (1*100)
COtCOPTCRA
OVTiaCIDkC
RVDROPORUI «P. • ADULT (104)01
t - 9
t - J
0.
t.
COURT*
0.
1.
DITBl OCTOtBN IIt 1*10
lit
*.
*.
TOTAL FOR *P,
t,
1.
TOTAL rOR 9 *PECICI BT RCPLICATBl 1*9 1.
TOTAL rOR 1 REPLICATC8, 1 IPBCIMl I.
t.
-------
PROJECT I TOXIC NETALt PROJECT fTN) AREAl TAR CREEK, OAKLAHONA CM)
BTATIONl BTATELINE ROAD* I NILE KMT Or HHV •* (141)
SAMPLER TIKI IB SECOND RICK • 90 RESIt TRIANOI1LAR NET (t)
HUNBCR or REPLICATES* i MELD BIOLOOISTI CHARLIE KEENAN
•orei NOT APPLicmc co>
OATEl
OCTOBBR at. tt«0
391
RAN OATA TABLES
1ST LCVCL RBrCREHCE
JHO tCVCIi RCrSRENCE
OENOB/BPEC-IEB
OOOMATA-ARISOPTERA
LIBELbOLtDAE
ER1THEMIB BP. (4190)
CEI.ITHENI9 BP* (4B70)
ORTHEHIB PERNUOIHEA (4900)
OOONATA-tfGOPTERA
COENAGRIOMIOAE
AROIA BP. (9110)
ERALLAONA/IBCHlinRA COHPLEX (B4fO)
TPICNOPfERA
NIDROPBVCHIOAE
M1DROPBKHE BPP. (BBBO)
DIPTERA
CHIRONONIOAEt B*PAN ORTHOCLADIINAE
•AU,- (14110)
REPLICATES
COONTB
1 • 1 I. 0. I.
1-10. 1. 0.
1.9 I. 0. 1.
TOTAL FOR BP,
1:
1 • 9
1 • 9
1.
«.
1-9 0.
1*9 0.
0. 0.
I* IB.
I* 0.
1. 9.
TOTAL rod T BPCCIEB RT REPLICATEI 1-9 14,
TOTAL TOR 1 REPLICATCB, 9 BPECIEBl 49.
4.
-------
PROJECTI TOXIC METAL* PROJECT (TM) A«BA| TAR CREEK, OARLAHOHA (14)
•TATIONI 0.91 NILE! • ITATBLINK ROAO, t NILE MBIT Of NttT ft (149)
•AMPLER TTPEi 90 SECOND RICK • 10 NK8M TRIAHOULAR NET (I)
RIHftER OP RBPLICATEII I PIBtO BlOtOOItTl CHARLIE RBRNAN (Si)
UOTCI HOT APPLICABLE (0)
RAM DATA TABLES
OATEI ROVBNtBR |
•UMTAfffONl 991
| t|«
CO
1ST bCVKt
mo LEVEL
GCNUft/IPCCIES
CULICIOAK
IBDCI 8P. (HMO)
LCPIOOPTCRA
•ILL- Cl»«08)
I - 1
I • I
t. II.
0. I.
9.
0.
TOTAL ran •».
TOTAL POR 9 RPECU8 IT RBPLICATBl I • 9 I.
TOTAL POR I REPLICATE*, 9 IPECIBII 90',
9.
-------
PROJECT! TOfIC NtTAbB PROJECT ITH) MEM TAR CREEK, OARbANONA (14)
tntlONl MCHER RlOtl BCHOOb ROAO. 0.88 NlbEB NEBT Of MNT •• (HI)
8ANPLER TTPEI 10 BECODO RICK • 10 NE8H TRIANGULAR »ET (8)
•UMBER or REPMCATEBI ) FIELD Btobooiari CHARMC REENAN (Si)
NOTCl NOT APPttCABLC (0)
OATKl OCTOMR JO. 1*10
CUMTATIONi 19|
MAN DATA TABbll
cn
10
1BT btVCb
IND
OBONATA-ANIBOPTCMA
MBEtbUblDAC
CRYTHRNIS 8P. (4180)
CCblTHCNig 8P. (48TO)
ODOHATA'CTCOPTCIIA
COBNA6MIONIDAE
ARQIA 8P. (3110)
INAbbAONA/taCHNUNA COMPLEX (B4IO)
HEOALOPTEKA
BIAblOAE
SlAbIB 8P. (91<0)
TRICNOPTERA
HTDROPTIbtDAE
OITETHIRA BP. (TB70)
01PTERA
CNIRONQMIDAE
•Abb- (IQStO)
CHIRONOMfOAE* l»r*H ORTHOCbADIINAE
•Abb- (14110)
CUbtCIDAE
AEDEB IP, (1Y8]0)
CObEOPTERA
OTT1BCIDAE
i RNANTOB-CObTHBBTEB BP. (10419)
HTDROPHIUOAE
BER08UB BP. (90800)
REPblCATBB
QOONTB
TOTAb POR BP,
TOTAb POP II BPECtEB BT REPblCATEl
TOTAb POR I REPblCATEB* II 8PECIE8I
1 -
1 •
t •
1 »
1 »
t •
1 •
1 -
1 •
1 •
1 -
1 -
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
0.
9.
Ut
0.
o.
1.
t.
>•.
1.
0.
o.
41.
184.
t.
0.
5:
t.
0.
..
43.
0.
I.
It
«.
o.
It
1.
o.
o.
It
7.
41.
«t
0.
0.
S3.
It
t.
'I:
it
».
tit
ll«.
it
it
it
!
-------
PROJECT* TOXIC METAL* PROJECT
•TATIONI CARDIN ROAD AT CAROIN (144)
•AMPLER WEI 10 «eCO»0 RICK • 10 MESH TRIANGULAR N«T («)
NUMBER or REPLICATEII i rieto Biotooiari RRTANT HCSS (84)
NOTtl NOT APPLICABLE (0)
AREA I Tfcll CREEK, OAKLAHOMA (14)
OATCI OCTOBBII 10* ttIO
131
RAM DATA TARIiM
1ST LEVEt
tmi
REPLICATE!
COUNT!
TOTAt ran »P.
OOOHATA-ANIIOPTERA
tlBCLLULIDkC
ERVTHENI* tt» (4«BO)
HEHIPTERA
CORIXIOIC
•AM- (•010)
DIPTEftA
CHIRONOMIDAE
•Alt- (10J10)
CHIMONOI*IDAt« ••rANI|,T*CHIRONONINAC
•Alt- (tlllO)
CHIRONOHSOAEt ITAH OMTHOCLADI1NAE
•ALt- (1 41 10)
CULICIOAE
ACDCS IP. (ITlaO)
CERATOPOCOHIDAE
PALPONfSA CHOOP (10040)
TARANIDAE
CHuifiora IP. u»ioo)
COLEOPTERA
OVTIflOOAE
RHAMTUB»CO(,TNBETU BP. (204IB)
OLIOOCHAETA
•ALL* 169010)
t •
t •
to
1 •
t •
t •
t •
t »
t •
t •
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.
a.
o.
t.
iJ.
t.
ti.
o.
o.
215.
t.
• •.
t.
4.
IS.
9.
».
o.
t.
si.
0.
o.
0.
11*.
4,
0.
•.
1.
o.
an.
i*
».
i.
no,
41.
4.
•1.
t.
I.
9*5,
TOTAL ran to aprcics KV REPLICATED
1-1 J»«. ni.
411.
TOTAL ran i REPLICATES. 10
-------
•runout
tone "ETALB PROJECT (t«» MEM TAR CREEK* OAKLAHONA it 4)
i mte », or OAKLAHOHA/KANBAB »t, LINE* i MILE »B«T or HUT •
•AHPLER TIPEI QUALITATIVE EPIPHYTON BCRAPE <»•>
•UMBER or REPLICATEBI i MELD Biobneiatt REN MOOD
•OTEl ROT APPLICABLE (0)
DATEI OCTOBER 1|» 1MO
8U88TATIORI Bit
•AN DATA TABLE*
1ST LEVEL REPERENCE
2HD LEVEL RtrtRENCE
GENOS/BPECIEB
CHLOROPHTTA
COLONIES (10)
VOLVOCALIS
CARTERIA OLOB08A (BTO)
CHtAHfDONOMAB 8PP. (H7»)
CHLOROCOCCALEf
ARKfRA 8PP. ItOOIO)
OOCI8TI8 8PP, (IS3IO)
CROCICENIA VETRAPEOIA (11420)
•CEHEOMHU8 BIJUOA (IBB70)
SCENCDEBMU8 ACUNI«At08 (IlflO)
8CENCDEBNOB INTEKHCDIU8 (IBf40)
ULOTRICHALE*
HORMIDIUM 8PP. (JITSO)
OCDOOOHIALES
OKOOOORItfM (29100)
trCNEHATALEB
COBNARtOH IPP. (11110)
rTRRHOpHVTA
DINOKOHTAE
OltKODlNIUN 8PP. (44000)
CRIPTOPHITA
CRTPTONONAOACEAC
CTAHOHONAB AMERICANA (4I*<0)
CHKT80PHITA
OCHRONOftAOALEB
NALLONONAB 8PP, (BIOOO)
BACILLARIOPHICEAE
CENTRALEB
MRLOBIRA ITALICA (8)ISO)
NCLOBIRA IBLAHDICA («lt»0)
CYCLOTCLLA MKNCOHINIAIIA (B4tlO)
CTCLOTCLLA ATOHOB (44120)
PRAOILARIACCAE
HER10IOH C4RCULAME (70140)
REPLICATKB
COOHM
TOTAL rOR «P,
t •
1 •
1 «
t •
1 •
1 -
1 -
1 •
1 •
1 •.
1 •
t •
1 -
1 •
1 •
1 •
1 •
1 •
t •
t •
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
a«.
t*.
o.
t
,
t
t
•
BO.
0.
1.
0.
a.
a.
4.
i.
ti.
i.
a.
o.
,
•
t
*
,
,
f
o.
•I.
o,
o.
o.
o.
o.
4t
i!
11.
1.
a.
4.
IB
a
t
0
0
a
11
0
9.
4.
0.
1.
o.
..
4.
1.
H.
1.
a.
a.
4.
.!:
at.
i.
IM.
4.
I*
t.
a.
a.
;?:
i!
4.
-------
PROJECT! TOXIC NETALI PROJECT (TN)
AREA! TAR CREEK, OARtAHOMA (14)
i NILE N, or OARLAHOMA/KANBAI BT. U«E« t HILI "sat or HUV a
QUALITATIVE EPtPHYTON CCRAPE (3«)
•AMPLE* T1PEI
NUMBER or REPUCATEM l
NOTE) NOT APPLICABLE (0}
ricLO •totociati KEN Noon
OATH OCTOBER II* tMO
911
RAN DATA TABLE!
ro
UT icvei.
3ND tEVEL
oeNua/srecies
•ftCILLANIOPHYCE&E
EUNOTIACEkE
EUNOTIk CORVkTk )
t 9|
1 t
1 1
3
t
1
4
t
t
9
3
14
399
4
3
4
1
to
14
34
11
30
• t
113*
»•
a.
t.
i.
4.
t.
t.
•*
u!
m.
4.
a*
4,
i.
to.
.1:
34.
Tl.
t*
nl:
t!
3.
t.
t.
4.
t.
1.
9.
3.
14.
4!
3.
4.
i.
10.
,1:
»«.
it.
ao.
i.
I.
a.
i.
i.
i.
i*.
«.
43.
IM9,
ta,
ta.
10.
.i:
40.
I.
t -
I.
o.
3.
-------
APPENDIX C
PERIPHYTON CENSUS DATA
-------
PROJECT! TOXIC NETALE PROJECT (TN) AREAI TAR CREEK* OAKLAHONA (14)
STATION! I NILE •. Of OAKLAMOKA/MANSAS IT. LINE* I HILI "Cit Of HUT 4
•IMPLCH IVPBl OUkLITtriVC CrlPHVTOM «CMtM (l»)
NUNBKM or KEPtlMTEII I riCtD elOtOaiSTl KCH HOO* («0t
NOT &Ff>LICABtK 10)
DATE I OCtOSM Il« ItIO
•OMTATIONI Stl
MM DATA TABLM
1ST LCVKL HerCRBHCE
IND LEVCI,
CVkHOPHYTA
OaCttLkTORlftLEI
MliC
irr. («aooo)
MONADS <10UH (•••0«)
• HOLE CELLS <»»«IO>
•ErttCATES
« • I
• *
• I
COONTt
TOTAL rOM
J:
TOTAL rOM «• mciEl »t MEPLICATEI 1*1 »4«. Ml,
TOTAL raft I REPLICATE!. 49 MECIEfl 1141.
-------
PROJECT! TOXIC METAL8 PROJECT (IN) AREA! TAR CREEK, OAKLAHOMA (14)
ITATIOMI BTATELINE ROAD, I NILE HtBT Of HUT •» (141)
BANPLER TTPEi QUALITATIVE EPlPHtTON SCRAPE (»)
NUMBER Of REPLICATESI I MILD BIOLOGIST* R.EN MOOR (10)
NOTEI HOT APPLICABLE (0)
OATE| SEPTEMBER )0> IflO
•UMTtTIONi SI |
HAH DATA TABLES
•-J
Oi
1ST LEtEL REFERENCE
JND MsvEL RErcRCNCE REPLICATES
6ERUS/SPEO-IE8 ;
CHLOROPHTTA
CHLORQCOCCALEI
TETRAEORON «PP. (HMO)
RlRCHNERICLLA 8PP. (I4MO)
aCKREDEBMUS QtUORICAUDA (11110)
BCEREDEBMUS ABUKOAN8 (1B910)
tTONEMATALEB
MOUOEOIIA 8PP. (96100)
BPIROOYRA BPP. (I7I30)
C08NAR1UH BPP, (1»)30)
CRTPtOPHTTA
CRIPTOHOHAOACEkC
RHODOMONAB HINOTA TAR. RA»HOPLA«CTICA (41410)
BACILLARIOPHTCEAE
PRAOILARIACCAE
NERIDIOH C'IRCULARK »AR, CONBTRICTUN (T01SO)
rRAOILARIA CROTONENBIB (70ISO)
EOHOTIACeAe
EUNOTIA flACOCLII (TI8IO)
ACHKAHTHACEAC
ACHNANtHCS LANCEOLATA (74940)
ACHNANTHES MUtUTIBSINA (74*00)
RAVIC0LACEAE
AROMOEONEtB VITRCA (79910)
CALOMCIS fCNTMICOBA TAR. ALPMA (7*190)
REI01UH APftHE.(7*910)
PIHNUtARIA BTONATOPHORA (71*90)
PIHNUtARIA ASAIMCRBIB tAR. btHCARIB (7*910)
CTMBELLACEAE
CTNBELLA HtHIITA TAR. BtLEBIACA (B1910)
HlTEBCNtACEAE
HAHTZBCHIA BPP. (11490)
HinsCHIA BPP. (*4000)
HITtSCHlA PALEA 1*4080)
CTANOPHtTA
CHROOCOCCALE8
CHROOCOCCUB BPP. (B7990) 1*1
COUNTS
1 •
1 •
1 •
i •
t •
t •
1 •
t •
t •
t •
1 •
t •
t •
1 •
1 •
t •
1 -
t •
1 •
t •
1 •
1 •
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.
o.
0.
4.
99.
a.
0.
0.
t.
t.
1.
1.
t.
i.
i.
i.
i.
i.
i.
i.
t.
i.
«t
e.
'«
a.
•t
t.
t.
i.
t.
t.
i.
i.
t.
it
i.
i.
i.
it
it
i»
0.
it
0
0
t*
0
0
0.
It
It
It
i.
it
it
i.
t.
i.
t.
t.
i.
it
it
TOTAL FOR BP.
1.
t.
t.
4.
71.
J.
0.
I.
J.
1.
I.
I*
I:
i.
i.
S:
99.
-------
MOJCCTi TOIIC NKTkbt MOJECT (TN) APKAi
•TATIONI •nriLiNK ROA»» t nut KMT or NMT «• . (91000)
•A* 0»T» t&ILM
RKPLICkTCt
I • I
t • I
t • »
111.
49.
0.
count*
•o.
0.
TOTAb roil
40*
•0.
0%
TOT»L rOR >• CrBCIKC IV
TOTAL roil I KEPLICATM, I* •PCCIMI
i - » 111. ITff«
w1.
111.
-------
PROJECT! TOXIC NCT»U MOJCCT ITN) A*EAI Tun emu* omtkHON* (|4)
•TITIONI o.is MUM • irmuNE HOAO. t nitc KMT or NHT at ma)
IkNPtEM TTP8I OUkliimtfK BPlP«rTO» 8CMPB (at)
HUMBEM Of MPLICATE8I I riltO BIOLOOlBTt RIM HOOK (10)
NOTE! MOT APPLICABLE (0)
DATE! OCTOiM I0« IMO
•AM OUT* TABLEa
I«T LtVEL
tNO LCTBb
otMus/sPcctes
COUNTS
TOTkt
8P,
OLOT«ICH»te»
HOMM10IUM 8PP. (91110)
uiomti 8»p. tamo)
NOUQBOn* 5PP, (26100)
•kClbUMIOPHVCEtB
PflKOII.»RIkCB«e
oiATONk Himic v»«, MESOOOM ITOIIOJ
•TNEPMft ROHPCM (Tliao)
SYNEOMk »C08 CTJJ40I
HINNtEA kMCUa »»H. »HPH10Kfi (1IIJOJ
BUNOmCCAE
EOHOTI* «PP. (Tieaot
«CNMINTH»CE>e
ACHNANIHCS tkNCCOLATk (T4940)
kCHHkHIHEJ LtNEkKIf (V4S10)
KCHNkNTHEa KIHOTlflilMk C14SOO)
NkVICUtikCCkE
fcKOMOBOMEII fITRBk (TStIO)
PIHNIILkRIk BTOKkTOPHOKk (7IHOJ
COMPHONEHACEkC
GO*P*OHt*l PkMVULUM ((OSIO)
CVNBELLACCtE
CTMBCLtk HIMUTk TkN. UtEBtkCk (US20)
HITIBCHtkCBkE
HINTIiCHIk kMPHIOXVS (11410)
NtTtSCHIk OIMIPkTk (14090)
t •
1 «
1 •
1 •
1 •
1 •
1 •
1 »
1 -
t •
1 -
1 •
1 -
1 -
t -
1 •
1 •
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
9
1
1
I
1
1
1
ao.
II).
as.
i»
t!
i.
a.
i.
M.
as*.
an.
t.
t.
M.
1.
1.
79,
1011.
10.
1.
• *
1,
1,
a.
t.
M.
ast.
an.
i.
i.
ti.
t.
i*
•a.
401.
JO.
t.
1.
t.
1.
a.
i.
ast!
an.
t.
t.
ta.
t.
i.
I".
net.
•s.
I:
•*
I.
ml
•14.
It
an.
i.
TOTAIi rOM 17 SPECIE! If REPLICkTEi I • I 1149. tiao. till.
TOTAL POM 1 MEPtlCATCS. 17 8PfClE8| 419J.
-------
PROJECTS tone HBTkta PROJBCT «t»i MEM it* CRBBH, o»nt»Hon»
•TATIOHl PICKER HI OH BCHOQb R0»0, 0.44 NltEB "tit Of HMf 4» (M»)
BkHpiER TTPBI BUkbmmB EPIPHITON SCMPE (aa)
BUMPER or REPLICATKII i ruto Biotnoisn KBN HOOR i«o>
«OTCI MOT kPPLICkatB 10)
cm i
tit
ie, itto
Rk* 0»T» TftttCf
1ST LKVCb BCriRCMCE
1*0 LCVKt
CCNUS/IPBCICI
CHtO»OPH»T»
voLVocktes
CHLkHVOOHOMk* «PP. CHTO}
icouKriBboit coROiiroRMta (•110)
CMLOBOCOCC»LB5
•PHtBRoevaui fCHHofTtm it it 101
oocytTia «PP. cisato)
IP». O60IO)
MCPLICkTCa
COUHTB
MouceoTik IPP.
CUQLCMOPHVTt
00
»CU« < 17010)
CMrPTOPHYTk
CH*PTOMOH»0»Cf»B
MHOOONOHAS MIHUTft »»», HANNOPtkHCTlCt 141410)
CVkNOMOMAI kHCdtCklik (416*0)
CHMVIOPIIYTk
OCHKOHOHkOtlBS
ocHROMONks IPP. «smo)
BkCILLkMIOPHVCBftB
fRkCILkRlkCCkC
•TNCOMk SPP. (tatlO)
kCHNkNTHkCCkB
kCHNAHTHEa MI»UTI8iIHk (74600)
ClMBELUCCkB
CVHBCLLk MI IIUTk (ItStO)
CTkHOPHYTk
Ntac
PHORMIOIUH aPP. (tlOOO)
HOMkD« t.
o.
t.
»4.
1.
at.
t.
ol
aa.
•*
0.
0.
o.
*.
t.
1.
I*.
a.
t.
14.
t.
aa.
a.
o!
lorn roa ap.
ao.
it.
i.
4.
at.
4.
J.
I.
44.
aa.
4,
totfct ron it apcctcf ar
t • I
t7t.
tit.
TOTkt PQ» I MCPLICkTBB* !•
-------
TOXIC HETkLB PROJECT
STATIOHl CAROIN ROAD kT CARDIN (144}
SAMPLER TTPE| OOALirkTlTE EPIPHTTON SCRAPE (II)
NUHBBR OP REPLICATES! I PIEI<0 BIOLOOISTl KEN MOOD (BO)
MOTE! NOT APPLICABLE (01
AKEAI UK CHECK, OAKLAMOMA (|4)
DATEI SEPTENBEP 10* I«t0
SUBSTATION! 911
OUT* unit*
1ST LEVEL KCPEftENCE
mo ttm
REPLICkTIB
CODIITB
CHtOROPHIT*
VOLfOCIIiCa
CftftTCftU OLOB08* (»TO>
CHt»HTOOMO»»8 8PP. (ttTOI
\o
CHIiOMOCOCCKLCS
sceticoeaNiii §uoo»
BCCMCOKSHOS OBMTICUUTU8 (ll«00)
sceiienesNas »IUWO»NB (tB9ioi
BCCHEOCBNOB AC0NINATUB (H»JO)
ULOTMICHkLCB
ULOTHntX 8PP. (JIITO)
STONCHtTlbCB
NOUOROTt* 8PP. (21100)
COOLCNkbCB
CUOLCNA 8PP. OTOOO)
TfUCHCIiOHOBM 8PP. (11000)
CMrPTOPHITA
HONA08 *
B.
1.
IB1.
a,
i.
B.
1.
-------
PROJECT^ TOIIC NETALS PROJECT CT*»
STATION! CARDtH ROAO At CARDIN (144)
SAMPLER TTPEI QUALITATIVE EPIPHTTON SCRAPE (it)
NUHBER Or REPLICATES! I MELD BIOLOCUtl KEN MOOR
MOTCI NOT APPLICABLE (0)
AREAl TAM CREEK. OAKLAHONA 114)
DATII SEPTEMBER |t» IfflO
SUBSTATION! III
(SO)
RAH DATA TABLES
00
o
1ST LEVEL REFERENCE
|NO LEVEL RCrBREHCE
OENUI/BPIHE*
BACtttARIOPMTCEAE
rRAOILARIACEAE
•VNEORA aoei
•THEORA ULNA VAR, ANPHfRHVNCHOB (TI110)
EUNOTIACEAE
EUNOTIA CURfAffA (TltVO)
ACMNAHTHACEAE
ACHNANTHEB HINOTIBBIMA (»4«00)
MAVICULACEAE
C»lO»rIB BACILLON (T«1IO)
CAbONEU VEMTRICQBA VAR. TRUNCATUtA (1«ltO)
NAVICOLA WP. (TISaO)
NATICVU ARVENIII (77SJO)
VINNULAR1A IPP. 171110)
riHMULARIA NICROSTAUROM (TttIO)
00NPNONEHACCAE
OOMPHOIIEMA PARVULUN (10910)
NITiaCHlACEAK
NITIiCHIA BPP. (04000)
NITHCHtA ACICULAMIB (14010)
UtTtlCHIA PlblPORHft (14140)
CTANOPHVTA
CHRQOCOCCALEB
DACTVLOCOCCnPBIB RNAPIOIOIDE8 (M990)
NISC
HONIDB
-------
APPENDIX D
TISSUE METAL ANALYSIS SUMMARY DATA
-------
MEAN ZINC CONCENTRATIONS (ppm), TAR CREEK, OK, IN VARIOUS PLANT TISSUES.
MEANS ARE BASED ON THREE ANALYTICAL REPLICATES UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.
Station
145
141
142
143
/
144
Roots
3368.4
2270.7
2353.7
7285.2
11756.3
13500.0
17400.0
30700.0
18600.0
11132.8
15000.0
21708.1
M
13600.0
6382.8
19100.0
27300.0
- 4530.4
27000.0
Leaves and Stems
2603.8
30100.0
4860.8
1477.3
14000,0
1642.9
622.4
1674.6
2007.4
3562.9
2752.9
4318.8
28200.0
M
10560.0
13800.0
7750.5
2268.4
4339.9
1858.2
23800.0
Whole Plant
2063.6
6244.0
4934.3
1316.9
14300.0
23600.0
5353.4
3999.3
14800.0
21400.0
11471.7
24800.0
M
16400.0
11200.0
3924. 7
16461.2
3570.0
21900.0
17596.0
16300.0
M = Concentrations exceed maximum 1nstrumentation detection limits (of one or
more replicates).
82
-------
MEAN CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS (ppm), TAR CREEK, OK, IN VARIOUS PLANT TISSUES.
MEANS ARE BASED ON THREE ANALYTICAL REPLICATES UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.
Station
145
141
142
143
144
Roots
7.2K
6.2
4.3K
— -
8.8K
36.5
17.0
22.9
33.7
ND
92.4
ND
10.6
28.6
ND
24.7
Leaves and Stems
ND**
4.9
ND
4.7K*
ND
4.4
4.9
4.2K
ND
5.5
43.9
48.4
7.4
ND
ND**
ND*
ND
16.5
Whole Plant
3.8K
ND
ND*
ND*
11.2
13.2
ND*
4.4K
10.1
13.3
9.4
14.2
30.4
6.0
4.4K
ND**
3.9K
5. IK
ND
14.8
* = 2 repl
** = 1 repl
icates only.
icate only. .
.... — — ...
ND « not detectable.
K = value
known to be less than
Indicated.
83
-------
MEAN SILVER CONCENTRATIONS (ppm), TAR CREEK, OK, IN VARIOUS PLANT TISSUES.
MEANS ARE BASED ON THREE ANALYTICAL REPLICATES UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.
Station
145
141
142
143
144
Roots
NO**
0.2**
0.2*
0.8
Leaves and Stems Whole Plant
NO**
0.5K*
0.9
0.2
ND**
* = 2 replicates only.
** = 1 replicate only.
K = value known to be less than Indicated.
ND = not detectable.
84
-------
MEAN LEAD CONCENTRATIONS (ppm), TAR CREEK, OK, IN VARIOUS PLANT TISSUES.
MEANS ARE BASED ON THREE ANALYTICAL REPLICATES UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.
Station Roots
145 125.3
14.1
141 43.9
322.0
142 1833.7
537.4
2294.4
143 2562.5
2094.9
2966.6
207.5
1664.8
144 160.3
286.7
1631.9
3232.5M
1.8K*
2104. 9
Leaves and Stems
ND**
372.1
27.1
208.7
59.4
ND**
11.4**
1.3**
1.6K*
39.2
56.2
1334.4
1791.8
8.6
92.9
11.8
51.9
1.5K*
2325.2
Whole Plant
22.9
7.1
88.6
128.8
28.7
18.0
253.4
353.9
52.8
- 532.1
1415.8
39.8
22.4
30.5
233.6
143.8
266.0
135.6
347.2
*
**
ND
K
M
= 2 replicates only.
= 1 replicate only.
- not detectable.
= value known to be less than
indicated.
= Concentrations (of one or more replicates) exceeding
instrumentation detection 1
imits.
maximum
85
-------
MEAN NICKEL CONCENTRATIONS (ppm), TAR CREEK, OK, IN VARIOUS PLANT TISSUES.
MEANS ARE BASED ON THREE ANALYTICAL REPLICATES UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.
Station
145
141
142
143
144
Roots
8.7
1.6
2.2
5.7
18.9
11.5
23.3
17.4
16.1
4.2
47.7
40.2
10.2
14.5
16.2
0.8K*
2.3
1.6
Leaves and Stems
3.7
1.8
ND
1.3
0.9**
2.0
0.9
2.0
1.9
79.4
19.1
1.4
1.0
18.4
5.5
1.4
4.6
23.1
Whole Plant
ND*
0.9K*
1.3
1.6*
0.8K*
8.2
13.7
3.3
2.6
19.5
30.8
15.6
9.9
62.2
4.1
3.7
2.8
10.4
15.1
9.4
12.8
* s 2 replicates only.
** * I replicate only.
K = value known to be less than Indicated.
86
-------
MEAN ZINC CONCENTRATIONS (ppm), TAR CREEK, OK, IN VARIOUS FISH TISSUES. MEANS ARE BASED ON THREE ANALYTICAL
REPLICATES UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.
Station
145
141
142
143
144
Brain
79.9
168.4
131.1*
89.8
G111
313.0
977.3
911.4
643.9
Liver
183.9
1811.9
505.0
225.2
Muscle
55.6
60.7
47.8
42.9
Kidney Eyes
620.4
691.9
702.0
148.1* 417.0
i
Heart Stomach
164.0 304.7
CD
2 replicates only
-------
00
oo
MEAN CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS (ppm). TAR CREEK, OK, IN VARIOUS FISH TISSUES. MEANS ARE BASED ON THREE ANALYTICAL
REPLICATES UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.
Station
145
141
142
143
144
Brain 6111
ND** 6.9**
ND 5.8
NO \
3.8K
Liver
28.7
6.7
3.9K
13.8
Muscle Kidney
ND*
ND
ND
ND
Eyes Heart Stomach
ND*
ND 12.9 3.8K
* = 2 replicates only.
** = 1 replicate only.
ND = not detectable (concentration below minimum detection limits).
-------
oo
MEAN SILVER CONCENTRATIONS (ppm), TAR CREEK, OK, IN VARIOUS FISH TISSUES. MEANS ARE BASED ON THREE
ANALYTICAL REPLICATES UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.
Station
145
141
142
143
144
Brain Gill Liver Muscle
ND**
0.4 0.5 0.4K ND**
ND** 0.2** 0.2K ND**
0.3K 0.4* ND*
Kidney Eyes
ND*
0.5
0.4
0.2** 0.4
Heart Stomach
0.3K 0.2*
i
* = 2 replicates only.
** o i replicate only.
K - Value known to be less than Indicated.
ND - Not detectable (concentration below minimum detection limits).
-------
MEAN LEAD CONCENTRATIONS (ppm), TAR CREEK, OK, IN VARIOUS FISH TISSUES. MEANS ARE BASED ON THREE ANALYTICAL
REPLICATES UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.
Station
145
141
142
143
144
Brain Gill Liver Muscle Kidney
40.1
94.7 5.3
59.6 1.8
37.0
Eyes Heart
8.4*
5.2*
3.0*
ND** 7.0
Stomach
12.6
* - 1 repl Icate only.
-------
MEAN NICKEL CONCENTRATIONS (ppm), TAR CREEK, OK, IN VARIOUS FISH TISSUES. MEANS ARE BASED ON THREE
ANALYTICAL REPLICATES UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.
Station
145
141 !
142
143
144
Brain
0.9*
2.5
i 0.9K*
t
1.4
Gill
6.2
6.3
7.9
8.6
Liver
0.8K
1.1
1.0
1.4**
Muscle
1.3
1.4
ND*
0.8**
Kidney Eyes
2.9
2.0
2.1
i
0.8** 1.3
Heart Stomach
1.5* 1.4*
* = 2 replicates only.
** = 1 replicate only.
K = Value known to be less than Indicated.
-------
APPENDIX E
SUMMARIZED BIOASSAY RESULTS: DULUTH
-------
COMPARISON OF FOUR TOXIC RESPONSES TO 30 AMBIENT WATER SAMPLES. Sample numbers
relate to stations from 15 rivers sampled during the 1980 toxic metals project.
Tar
Creek
Sample
Number
Oil
013
021
023
034
035
042
045
051
054
061
066
073
074
081
082
092
094
012
103
111
114
121
122
132
133
142
143
161
162
Fish
Daphnia Enzyme Ventilation Algal
Toxicity Inhibition Index Toxicity
+ ND* ' +
+ ND
+ -f + +
+ ND** +
+ ND** +
+ Positive response indicated.
* No data.
** Stress evident but unable to quantify.
93
------- |