EPA 600/4-84-087
November 1984
TOXICITY PERSISTENCE IN PRICKLY PEAR CREEK, MONTANA
by
John R. Baker and Barry P, Baldigo
Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Company, Inc.
P. 0. Box 15027
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
EPA Contract 68-03-3050
Job Order 30.01
Technical Monitor
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
-------
NOTICE
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency under Contract Number
68-03-3050 by Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Company, Inc.
It has been subject to the Agency's peer and administrative review and has
been approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
'ViCaiW-m:
-------
5
ABSTRACT
Instream toxicity tests using the larval fathead minnow Pimephales
promelas and the cladoceran Cerlodaphnia reticulata were conducted on Prickly
Pear Creek, Montana waters to study toxicity persistence in a stream. The tox-
icity source was Spring Creek, a tributary of Prickly Pear Creek. Gold mining
tailing and settling ponds in the Spring Creek drainage release zinc, copper
and cadmium to Prickly Pear Creek via Spring Creek. Stream survey characteriza-
tion of flow regimes, water quality, and biotic conditions was accomplished in
conjunction with toxicity testing. The study objectives were to: 1) develop a
data base for validation of a toxicity persistence model; 2) assess the applic-
ability of data from the Prickly Pear Creek study relative to model assumptions;
and 3) assess field techniques for acquiring model input data.
Toxicity to the test organisms was primarily due to zinc and copper in
Spring Creek waters. Changes in Prickly Pear Creek toxicity downstream from
the Spring Creek confluence were primarily due to dilution and complied with
model assumptions. However, other unidentified toxicants were present in
other tributary waters, and Spring Creek was not the sole source of toxicity
in Prickly Pear Creek waters. C. reticulata was highly sensitive to toxicity
in Spring Creek waters and provTded model input data. Pimephales promelas
had a higher tolerance, and bioassay data from these organisms could not be
used for model input. In the field, test organism nutritional problems were
encountered using procedures described in bioassay protocols for both of these
organisms. The problem was eliminated in C. reticulata bioassays by using
cerophyl as food. Either a quantitative food regime should be developed for
P_. promelas or a nonfeeding test used in the future.
Hi
-------
I
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract 11i
List of Figures. vii
List of Tables vi 1 i
I. Introduction 1
II. Study Area 3
III. Methods ..... 6
Toxicity Tests. 6
Ceriodaphnia reticulata. .......... 7
Pimephales promelas. . 8
Stream Survey ........................... 8
Water quality, 8
Hydrology 8
Substrate Characterization ... 11
Biological Communities . 11
Laboratory Analyses ....... .... 12
IV. Results arid Discussion 15
Metal Concentrations. 15
Toxicity Tests. ............... ..... 15
Ceriodaphnla reticulata . . 15
Plmephalespromelas. ?6
Stream Survey 29
Water quality 29
Hydrology. 30
Biota. .. . ................... 34
Sediment and Tissue Metals ................... 34
V. General Discussion. ............ ..... 38
Effluent and Instream Toxicity Testing 38
Whole Effluent Testing, Prickly Pear Creek. ... 39
Water Quality Based Standards-to-Permit Process 40
Research Needs 40
Bioassay Protocols .......... 40
Natural Community Response ... 41
v
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
VI. Conclusions . 42
References Cited 43
Appendices
A. Ceriodaphnia reticulata bioassay data. ............. 45
B. Pimephales promelas bioassay data 52
C. Water and Sediment Metal Data 59
D. Hydro!ogical Data 71
I (
vi
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Station locations on Prickly Pear Creek, Montana, 1983, .... 4
2 Total recoverable and dissolved zinc concentrations,
Spring Creek, September 30-October 9, 1983 18
3 Total recoverable and dissolved copper concentrations,
Spring Creek, September 30-Qctober 9, 1983 . . 19
4 Percent Spring Creek water resulting in 48-hour LC-50s
and 95 percent confidence limits,
Cerlodaphnia reticulata tests ... 20
S Percent mortality In 20 percent Spring Creek Water
and Prickly Pear Creek Station 013 treatments,
Cerlodaphnia reticulata tests . . 23
6 Percent mortality 1n 10 percent Spring Creek Water
and Prickly Pear Creek Station 014 treatments,
Cerlodaphnia reticulata tests ...... .... 24
7 Percent mortality 1n 2.5 percent Spring Creek Water
and Prickly Pear station 018 treatments,
Cerlodaphnia reticulata tests . . 25
8 Percent Spring Creek water resulting in 96 hour
LC-50$ and 95 percent confidence limits,
Pimephales promelas tests 28
9 Prickly Pear Creek stream discharge, USGS gaging
Station September 30 - October 9, 1983. ..... 32
v 11
-------
\
s,
TABLES
Number Page
1 Location of Stations on Prickly Pear Creek and Spring
Creek, Montana, 1983 With a Cross Reference to
1982 Stations 5
2 Spring Creek Dilutions and Prickly Pear Creek Site
Water Used in Bioassay. 6
3 Hydro!ab Digital 8000 Water Quality Measurement
Systems Specifications. 9
4 Water Samples Collected and Treatments, Prickly
Pear Creek. 1983 10
5 Laboratory Methods, Precision, Accuracy, and Range for
Selected Water Quality Parameters 13
6 Precision, Accuracy, Sensitivity, Detection Limits, and
Optimum Concentration Range for Analyses of Selected Metals
in Water Using Atomic Absorption and and ICP Techniques .... 14
7 Total Recoverable Concentrations of Selected Metals in
Spring Creek and Prickly Pear, and U.S. EPA Calculated
Acute Criteria for Aquatic Life 16
8 Total Recoverable and Dissolved Metal Concentrations in
Tributary Streams to Prickly Pear Creek,
Montana, October 1983 17
9 Mean Number of Neonates Produced and 95 Percent Confidence
Limits, C. reticulata Tests 1 Through 9 21
10 C. reticulata Bioassay Results from Prickly Pear
Creek Tributary Streams 22
11 Mean Number of Neonates Produced and 95 Percent Confidence
Limits for Compariable Dilution and Station Treatments,
C. reticulata Tests 1 Through 9 . . . 27
12 Percent Mortality in Larval Fathead Minnows in
Prickly Pear Creek Station Treatments 29
viii
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
13 Mean Weights for Larval Fathead Minnows in Spring
Creek Dilution Treatments 30
14 Selected Water Quality Parameters Measured in
Prickly Pear Creek, Montana, September 27-29, 1983. . 31
15 Precipitation at Helena, Montana Airport, Located
Approximately 24 km North of Study Area 33
16 Stream Discharge at Prickly Pear Creek Stations
and Tributary Steams 33
17 Rhodamine WT Dye Study Prickly Pear Creek,
September 23-24, 1983 34
18 Relative Abundance Estimates for Fish Captured by
Electroshocking, Prickly Pear Creek, Montana, October 1983 . . 35
19 Mean Sediment Metal Concentrations in Spring Creek and
Prickly Pear Creek, Montana, September 27-29, 1983. ...... 35
20 Tissue Metal Concentrations in Prickly Pear Creek,
Montana, September 27-29, 1983 37
ix
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
In 1980, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Water
Regulations and Standards requested the assistance of the Environmental Monitor-
ing Systems Laboratory-Las Vegas (EMSL-LV) in documenting water and biological
quality in selected streams receiving mining, industrial, or municipal sewage
treatment plant discharges. In response to this request, a toxic metals study
was designed with four main objectives: 1) to document the concentration and
distribution of toxic metals in selected streams receiving discharges from
publicly owned treatment works, mining activities, or industrial wastes; 2) to
determine the biological state of receiving waters where the aquatic life
criteria for toxic metals were exceeded, including sampling and analyzing fish,
benthic Invertebrates, and periphyton communities; 3) to report the extent to
which criteria levels were observed to be exceeded; and 4) to develop explan-
atory hypotheses when healthy biota existed where criteria were exceeded.
Fifteen streams were originally sampled to provide a broad geographical
representation and range of watershed types and uses, pollution sources, water
quality characteristics, biota, and habitats* Results from the 1980 study
indicated that, in some cases, species of fish and Invertebrates known to be
sensitive to metal pollution existed'where EPA's acute and chronic aquatic life
criteria were exceeded (Miller et al. 1982). Analyses of preliminary data led
to two hypotheses. First, organisms are able to acclimate to sublethal metal
concentrations which allows them to tolerate potentially toxic ambient levels.
Second, metals can be chelated by organic and inorganic compounds in effluents
and receiving streams, and are thus rendered biologically unavailable.
Prickly Pear Creek, Montana typified conditions described above and inten-
sive surveys and in situ bioassays were conducted during the summers of 1981
and 1982 (Miller et al. In Press; Miller et al. 1982; La Point et al. 1983) to
test the first hypothesis. These studies characterized physical, chemical,
and biological conditions In Prickly Pear Creek. Bioassays conducted in 1981
indicated that some resident species were able to acclimate to sublethal metal
centrations (Miller et al. In Press); however, La Point et al. (1983} observed
no significant difference in sensitivity between hatchery and resident brook
trout. Relative to the second hypothesis, the present study was undertaken
to assess the downstream persistence of metal toxicity in Prickly Pear Creek.
The Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Monitoring and Data Support
Division (MDSD), 1s acutely aware of the need to examine questions relating to
persistence and degradation rates of industrial and municipal toxic wastes
discharged to streams. MDSD is seeking to identify methods most suitable for
assessing Instream persistence of whole effluent toxicity in receiving waters.
Specifically, methods are required for site-specific assessment of effluent
toxicities, both acute and chronic, prior to discharge, at the discharge point
-------
and at downstream locations where dilution, degradation, and partitioning to
other compartments result In reduced toxicant concentrations. Particular
Interest centers on validation of toxicity models designed to predict instream
toxicity persistence, and validation of methods for acquiring input data for
these models. One concept currently receiving considerable attention by EPA
deals with the conservative (not enhanced or degraded) nature of toxicity in
receiving systems. The hypothesis being tested is that toxicity in receiving
systems 1s essentially conservative, and its persistence can be explained
through application of mass-balance models. That Is, toxicity results obtained
on tests conducted on effluents diluted at various proportions with receiving
stream waters can be used to predict instream toxicity at various points down-
stream from the zone of complete mixing 1f sufficient hydrological data are
available to determine dilution rates and time of travel. Naturally, the
conservative nature of toxicity in any given discharge will depend upon the
types of pollutants and associated degradation rates and mechanisms.
A stream dilution model developed by Di Toro et al. (1982) 1s presently
being assessed. Model assumptions are: 1) toxic chemicals and toxicity itself
follow a conservative mixing behavior; 2) physical, chemical, and biological
interactions do not substantially alter toxicity at the point of complete mix-
ing; and 3) variations In effluent toxicity are reflected in varying toxicity
of the receiving waters and can be described by mass-balance relationships,
Instream toxicity testing has recently been conducted at several sites by the
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory-Las Vegas and by the Environmental
Research Laboratory-Duluth. Model validation will be based on results from
these Investigations.
The objectives of this study on Prickly Pear Creek were: 1) develop a
data base to be used for model validation; 2} assess the applicability of
Prickly Pear Creek data relative to model assumptions; and 3) assess field
techniques for acquiring model input data. The study consisted of short term
acute and chronic toxicity tests and stream survey characterization of flow
regimes, water quality, and biotic conditions.
2
-------
II. STUDY AREA
Prickly Pear Creek forms its headwaters in the Elkhorn Mountains approxi-
mately 32 km southeast of Helena, Montana {Figure 1). The stream flows north
for 64 km before entering Lake Helena and the Missouri River, Gold mining in
the Corbin and Spring Creek drainage basin began in the early 1860's. Tailing
and settling ponds remain as prominent features within these drainages and re-
lease high concentrations of zinc, copper, and cadmium which are carried into
Prickly Pear Creek via Spring Creek, Prickly Pear Creek has also undergone
extensive mining operations in the 1900's. The Montana Water Quality Bureau
(1981) reported over 75 percent of Prickly Pear Creek was subjected to stream-
bed modifications and dredging during the mining process.
The present study reach was generally characterized by continuous riffle
flow interspersed with distinct pools. The substrate was primarily cobble and
gravel throughout. Prickly Pear Creek annual discharge at the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) gaging station (Figure 1} ranged from 30 to 343 cubic feet per
second (cfsH with a mean of 55 cfs during the 1982-83 water year (unpublished
USGS data). Spring Creek discharge during this study was 1.4 cfs.
Four principal stations on Prickly Pear Creek and one station on Spring
Creek were utilized in this study {Table 1). Spring Creek was considered as an
"effluent" site. Station Oil was used as a control. Station 013 was within
a biological impact zone and stations 014 and 018 were within a biological
recovery zone downstream from Spring Creek (la Point et al. 1983).
Additional secondary stations were established on Prickly Pear Creek
downstream from each tributary and on the tributaries themselves. A number of
these had been sampled by EMSL-LV during previous years {Miller et al. In
Press; Miller et al. 1982; and La Point et al. 1983).
Icubic feet per second x 0.028317 = cubic meters per second
-------
Prickly Pear Creek, Montana
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 1 " 2 ' "3 4 5
Figure 1. Station locations on Prickly Pear Creek, Montana, 1983.
4
-------
TABLE 1. LOCATION OF STATIONS ON PRICKLY PEAR CREEK AND SPRING CREEK, MONTANA,
1983 WITH A CROSS REFERENCE TO 1982 STATIONS (La Point et al. 1983).
:«ss:ssss:sss3s.ssssss=s;=;s;
1983 1982
Station No. Description Station No.
Oil Prickly Pear Creek, 1.1 km upstream from 0111
Spring Creek confluence
Spring Creek Spring Creek, 100 m upstream from Spring 012
Creek confluence
013 Prickly Pear Creek, 300 m downstream from 0133
Spring Creek confluence
014 Prickly Pear Creek, 3.8 km downstream from 0142
Spring Creek confluence, 100 m downstream
from Dutchman Creek confluence
018 Prickly Pear Creek, 12 km downstream from 017
Spring Creek confluence, 3 km downstream
from Lump Gulch confluence
(
5
-------
III. METHODS
TOXICITY TESTS
Spring Creek toxicity and toxicity persistence in Prickly Pear Creek were
determined using static renewal bioassays designed to measure both acute and
chronic toxicity. Test organisms were the cladoceran Ceriodaphnfa reticulata1
and the larval fathead minnow Pimephales promelas. Toxicity tests were con-
ducted on water collected from September 30 to October 9, 1983. Twenty-four
hour composite samples were collected from Spring Creek {continuous pump) and
at stations 013, 014, and 018 f1-hour ISCO composite). Grab water samples
were col lei ted each day at the control station. Five Spring Creek dilutions
and three station treatments were used in the bioassays (Table 2). Spring
Creek dilutions were predetermlned in July 1983 based on range finding tests
conducted on water shipped to Las Vegas. Tripl 1cate water samples for metal
analyses were taken from all test treatments. Sample bottles (Maigene) were
prerinsed with 10-percent U1trex nitric acid and distilled water (three rinses).
TABLE 2. SPRING CREEK DILUTIONS AND PRICKLY PEAR CREEK (
SITE WATER USED IN BIOASSAY
sss===;=;;;=;;:s;s=ss;::iss5ssss5sss5=::35ssssss3ss:sssssssssssss=sss==:=====z;s
Dilution Treatments
Organisms Percent Spring Creek Station Treatments
C. reticulata 0* 1 2.5 5 10 20 013 014 018
P. promelas 0* 6.25 12.5 25 50 100 013 014 018
~Control Prickly Pear Creek Station Oil.
^Taxonomy uncertain; may be C. affinis or C. reticulata x C. affinis. From
Cerlodaphnia Workshop (U.S."EPA Region VIII) in t-ort ColITns, Colorado, March
6-7, 1984, personal communication Dr. Dorothy Berner, Museum of Comparative
Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
6
-------
Fathead minnow b1©assays were conducted on site in a mobile laboratory
trailer. All tests were initiated on the day of water collection. Renewal
water was stored in 20-liter cubitainers and maintained in a water bath at
ambient stream temperatures.
On site testing with C. reticulata was discontinued after the third day
because of high control mortality and difficulties in maintaining cultures.
These conditions were apparently related to nutritional problems associated
with using yeast as a food media {see General Discussion). Results from on
site testing with C. reticulata are not reported. Mater collected on October
1 through 9 was shipped to Las Vegas in 1-1 iter cubitainers and was maintained
at 4°C. C. reticulata bioassays were conducted on these waters in November.
Bioassay procedures are summarized in this report. For further details,
see Mount and Norberg (In Press) and Norberg and Mount (unpublished manuscript).
Ceriodaphnia reticulata
Young C, reticulata (neonates), 2 to 12 hours old, were used to initiate
the test. Testchambers were 1-ounce plastic cups (Anchor Hocking P.l.-l) con-
taining 15 ml of water and a single neonate. An additional secondary control
treatment using culture water was included in each test to evaluate Prickly Pear
Creek (station Oil) control results. Poor test results in Prickly Pear Creek
control treatments relative to culture water treatments were attributed to con-
trol water toxicity. Ten isolated neonates were used in each test treatment.
Usually, the first brood was produced by the test animals on the third or fourth
day. Production of three broods in 80 percent of the Prickly Pear Creek con-
trol animals was required for test termination. Neonates produced by the test
animals were removed daily and counted relative to brood number. Test dura-
tion was usually seven days with water renewals on days 3 and 5. Two drops of
a cerophyli supernate (15 g/1) were added to the test chambers dally as a food
medium in bioassays conducted in Las Vegas. A yeast solution (5 g/1) was used
as a food medium in the field testing. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, and
pH were measured in special test chambers (no test animals) on days 0, 3, 5,
and 7.
Acute toxicity was based on 48-hour mortality, and median lethal concen-
trations (LC-50s) were calculated using the Trimmed Spearman-Karber method
(Hamilton et al. 1977). Significant differences in LC-50s were based on 95
percent confidence limits calculated with the Trimmed Spearman-Karber method.
Mean number of neonates produced per surviving female per day were summed over
the test period and used in determining chronic toxicity. Significant differ-
ences in neonate production between control and test treatments were determined
by 95 percent confidence limits calculated using a "Boot Strap" procedure
(Hamilton 1984),
icerophyl-cereal grass leaves powder manufactured by Agritech, Inc. 434
E. 95th Street, Kansas City, Missouri.
-------
Piniephales promelas
Newly hatched fathead minnows less than 24 hours old were used In seven-
day toxicity tests. These were obtained from feggs shipped to the study site
from the EPA's Environmental Monitoring Support Laboratory-Cincinnati (EMSL-
Cin) satellite facility in Newtown, Ohio. Forty fry were used for each test
treatment except where otherwise noted. Test chambers were 2-liter aquaria
partitioned into four equal compartments (replicates) with 10 fry per compart-
ment. A sump area resulted 1n some water exchange between compartments but
allowed the aquaria to be drained via a siphon. Aquaria were drained and
renewal water was added on days 3 and 5. Any particulate material that had
accumulated on the bottom of the aquarium was removed at that time with a
siphon vacuum. A minimum of one drop of a concentrated brine shrimp nauplii
solution was added to each compartment three times a day during daylight hours.
The food regime was theoretically designed to provide an overabundance of food
and was not quantitative.
Acute toxicity was based on 96-hour mortality. Median lethal concentra
tions and significant differences were determined as described for C. reticulata.
At test termination, fish were frozen and shipped to Las Vegas where they were
oven dried (105°C) and weighed (±0.1 mg). Fish were weighed in groups for each
of the four replIcates. F1sh weights did not show a relationship to Increasing
toxicity; therefore, chronic toxicity could not be determined (see Results for
further details).
STREAM SURVEY
Physical, chemical, and biological parameters were measured and/or sampled
at the four Prickly Pear Creek stations (Figure 1). Additional physical, chem-
ical , or hydrological measurements were made at: Copper Creek, Corbln Creek,
Spring Creek upstream from Corbin Creek, Dutchman Creek, Warm Springs Creek,
Clancy Creek, and Lump Gulch (Figure 1).
Hater Quality
In situ measurements of temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and pH
were measured with a Hydro!ab 8000 Water Quality Analyzer (Table 3). Measure-
ments were made at each station in triplicate representing a cross section of
the stream. Samples for Individual chemical analyses (Table 4) were taken in
tripl1cate from a 10-1 iter grab sample collected at mid-stream. All sample
bottles were Nalgene. Bottles used for metal samples were rinsed with 10-
percent Ultrex nitric acid and distilled water (three rinses).
Hydro!ogy
Stream stages and storm event markers were established at station 011,
Spring Creek, and at Prickly Pear Creek 5 m downstream from the Spring Creek
confluence. Stream stages were fixed meter sticks and event markers were
3-centimeter diameter clear plastic tubes containing carbon black on the inner
water surface of the plastic tubes. Stream stage height was Initially read
every four hours but readings were reduced to once or twice a day after it was
8
-------
TABLE 3. HYDROLAB DIGITAL 8000 WATER QUALITY MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS
SPECIFICATIONS
¦aa>ia >»*«*»****»* *«»**¦¦•«¦
A. Ttwcerature Systews:
Method:
Range:
Resolution:
Accuracy (overall):
Precision:
Calibration:
Response t1*e (nowinal):
B. pH System:
Method:
Range:
Resolution:
Accuracy (overall):
Precision:
Csl Ibrstlon:
Response time (nominal):
C. Conductivity:
Method:
Range (3):
Resolution:
Accuracy (overall):
Precision:
Calibration:
Response tlw (no«1nal )(2):
D. Dissolved Oxygen:
Linear thernistor
(-5 to *45)*C
+0.15"C
±0.15*C
(2)
Factory calibrated (HIS traceable thermometer)
2.5 s
61 ass electrode (sealed Ag/AgCl reference)
0 to 14 pK
0.01 pH
±0-05 pH (over 4 pK interval)
(IS
Customer calibrated against buffer standards of good quality
10 s at 2Q*C
Four-electrode cell, temperature coapensated (reference: 2S*C)
(0-2K), (0-20K), {0-200X1 imhos/cm
0.051 of range selected
±0,51 of range selected
(2) 13)
Customer calibrated In freshly prepared KCL standards
Negligible to conductivity change; 2.5 $ for temperature change
Membrane covered, gold/silver polargraphic cell
(0-20) tuf/1
0.01 »g/1
±0.15 Mg/1
(2)
Customer calibrated in atmospheric air or saturated water
12 s at 20*C
Method:
Range:
Resolution:
Accuracy (overall):
Precision:
Cal ib^atlor,:
Response time (nominal):
¦ «Kx:BxsBscas*ft*SHxax«x«BSftmsttB«*«KSBafix;KttxBaEK*««aK«sfc**acs:«B v»saa»sss:««
Note: The circulator accessory should be employed at any time there 1s reason
to suspect that there is Insufficient natural circulation to maintain a
stable dissolved oxygen neasurement.
(1) Precision has not been field tested, the actual coefficient of variation 1s expected to be
within 10 percent.
(2) T1»e required for 63 percent response to step change is variable.
(3) Instructions are provided for taking into account second-order variations 1n natural water
conduct1v1ty-te*perature coefficients.
Source: Oral communication with Janes Flynn, Hydro!ab Corporation, Austin,
Texas, 3/24/83.
-------
TABLE 4. WATER SAMPLES COLLECTED AND TREATMENTS, PRICKLY PEAR CREEK, 1983
ss=£ss:s=«==========ss3s3ss5;s==s===s=ss£=s=s=sss5sszss::=ssssssss^s53sssss;
Parameter Preservative Disposition
Addition of NaOH to sample
pH > 10. Stored at 4°C.
Cyanide
Total Organic Carbon
Dissolved Organic Carbon
Alkalinity and Ammonia
Total/Dissolved Metals
Total/Free Chlorine
Turbidity
;; = ^ss = :::£ssssss5:s:ssss = :«5 = = = ? = ;== = = : = '- = = ": = : = :£::
^Includes bioassay sample.
2Some quality assurance samples taken from Spring Creek
HNO3 to a pH < 2. The dissolved fraction was filtered
Metrical fi1ters before preservation.
SBausch and Lomb spectrophotometer using Hach reagents.
^Monitek 50 nephelometer.
Addition of H9SO4 to sample
pH £ 2.
Filter through 0.4 p
Metricel filters. Addi-
tion of H0SO4 to sample
pH <2.
Stored at 4°C
Stored at 4°C
None
None
Shipped to Lockheed-
EMSCO, Las Vegas,
Nevada
Shipped to Dr. A. L.
Lingg, Moscow, Idaho
Shipped to Dr. A. L.
Lingg, Moscow, Idaho
Shipped to Lockheed-
EMSCO, Las Vegas,
Nevada
Shipped to Lockheed-
EMSCO1.2, Las Vegas,
Nevada
Analyzed at field
laboratory3
Analyzed at field
laboratory4
were preserved with
through 0.4 micrometer
established that 1 ittle or no daily variation occurred in stream stage height.
Hydrological data were also obtained from the USGS gaging station on Prickly
Pear Creek located 2 km downstream from station 018.
Stream discharge was estimated from velocity measurements taken with a
Marsh McBirney Model 57 current meter. Velocities were measured at 17 to 20
equal intervals across the stream at the six-tenth depth (USGS 1980). Dis-
charge was estimated by summing the product of depth, width, and velocity for
al1 intervals. Stream stage height did not substantially change; therefore,
stream discharge was only determined once during the study period.
10
-------
Time of travel (hydrological retention time) from the confluence of Spring
Creek to the downstream Prickly Pear stations was determined using Rhodamine
WT fluorescent dye (Wilson 1968). Dye was Injected Into Spring Creek at a
rate of 3.5 ml/min for a 2-hour period. Hand grab samples were taken at half-
mi nute Intervals from Spring Creek just upstream from the Prickly Pear Creek
confluence, Water samples at the downstream stations were taken at 2 to 20
minute Intervals with an ISCO 1680 Automatic Water Sampler. Dye concentrations
were determined with a Turner Design Model 10-field fluorometer calibrated with
Rhodamine WT standards maintained at stream temperature. Standards were peri-
odically checked during analysis but recallbratlon was not necessary. Dye
peaks at the downstream stations reached a plateau due to the continuous dye
Injection. Time-of-travel was determined by elapsed time from the beginning of
the dye injection at Spring Creek to the onset of the dye plateau at each of
the stations. Contribution of Spring Creek water to the total flow at the
downstream Prickly Pear Creek stations was determined using dye peak concentra-
tions at the downstream stations and at Spring Creek. Proportions (Spring
Creek:Prickly Pear Creek) are expressed as a percentage 1n this report.
Substrate Characterization
Station substrates were sampled by two different methods. First, an open
bottom bucket was placed at least 5 cm into the stream bottom. All rocks larger
than 0.5 cm were manually removed. The remaining sediment was scooped into a
bucket with water, agitated, and quickly poured into a one-Hter Nalgene Imhoff
Cone. Volumes of each particle size were read after S minutes. It was Impos-
sible to differentiate size differences below 1.0 mm, hence, only two size
classes were used. Very fine to coarse sands, approximately 0.1 to 1.0 mm diam-
eter, were combined into one class of "fine sand." S11t and clay particles of
size up to approximately 0.1 mm (that portion of substrate taking 5 minutes to
settle) were combined. In the second method, fifty "rocks" (larger particles
with a diameter greater than 0.5 cm) were randomly chosen, and the narrowest
width of the flattest face was measured to the nearest 0.5 cm (La Point et al.
1983). These data are not Included in this report, but will be Included in any
future report on macroinvertebrate data.
Streambed sediments were collected from the four Prickly Pear stations and
Spring Creek to ascertain metal concentrations. Samples were collected in trip-
1icate by scraping the upper 2 to 5 cm of sediments into ac1d-r1nsed, Nalgene
bottles. Samples were maintained at 4°C and shipped to Las Vegas for metal
analysis.
Biological Communities
Relative abundance and distribution of fish were determined by electro-
shocking with a Coffelt backpack shocker. Three passes were made over a
100-meter reach at each station. All captured fish were Identified, counted,
and released except for randomly selected fish which were frozen for tissue
metal analysis. Lengths and weights were measured on fishes used for tissue
analysis.
Macrolnvertebrates were collected with a Portable Invertebrate Box Sampler.
Five replicate samples were collected at each station from riffle zones of
11
-------
uniform flow and velocity. Samples were preserved in 10-percent formalin and ^
shipped to Las Vegas for future analyses. Additional invertebrate samples were
taken with a kick net at each station and frozen for tissue metal analysis.
Periphyton samples were taken at the same riffle zone where macroinverte-
brates were collected. Samples were collected from five replicate rocks selec-
ted from the riffle zones. Algae growing on or attached to the rocks were
removed with a nylon brush from a 3772 mm^ circular area delineated by a
flexible rubber ring. Samples were preserved in acid-lugols to a final concen-
tration of 1 to 5 percent and returned to Las Vegas for future analyses.
Periphyton samples for tissue metal analysis were collected and frozen. Macro-
phytes were found only at station 014, therefore, just one macrophyte sample
was collected and analyzed for metal content.
LABORATORY ANALYSES
All chemical analyses, except total and dissolved organic carbon, were
performed by Lockheed-EMSCO (Tables 5 and 6). Organic carbon analyses were
performed by Dr. A. L. L1ngg, University of Idaho, Moscow. Water samples for
metal analyses were split in the laboratory. The dissolved fraction was
filtered through 0.4-micrometer Metricel filters and the total fraction was
acid digested and analyzed for total recoverable metals (U.S. EPA 1983).
Sediment samples for metal analyses were oven dried at 100°C and a 1-gram
subsample was acid digested for total metal concentrations (U.S. EPA 1981).
Whole fish, perlphyton, and composite invertebrate samples were homogenized
for tissue analysis. Subsamples were then removed, freeze dried, weighed, and (
digested for total metal concentration (U.S. EPA 1981).
12
-------
TABLE 5. LABORATORY METHODS, PRECISION, ACCURACY, AND RANGE FOR SELECTED HATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
Parameter
Method
Precision as
Std Dev (mg/1)
Accuracy as
Bias (%)
Range
(mg/1)
Hardness, Total (as CaC03)
Organic Carbon, Total
(TOC) Dissolved (DOC)
Cyanide, Total (CN)
APHA (1980) 314A
U.S.EPA (1983)2
U.S.EPA (1983)
335.2
Chlorine, Total Dissolved Hach Kit^
Alkalinity
Ammonia
U.S.EPA (1983)
310.2
U.S.EPA (1983)
350.3
(1)
3.93^
±0.003
±0.007
±0.031
±0.094
0.3856
1.032
1.450
±0.5
±0.03810
±0.017
±0.007
±0.003
(1)
+15.272
85% recovery^
102% recovery
±54.0? ±82.468
±41.9 ±8.06
±16.0 ±18.37
100% recovery®
99% recovery
91-96% recovery11
(1)
>1.0
0.02-1.0
0-0.5
0.6-1.2
1.2-1.5
10-200
0.03-1400
dependent upon limitations of calcium and magnesium analyses.
2f}ased on results from twenty-one laboratories using distilled water containing increments of
oxidizable organic compounds of 4.9 and 107 mg/1 TOC.
3Based on EMSL-Cin test using mixed industrial and domestic waste samples at concentrations of 0.06,
0.13, 0.28, and 0.62 mg/1 CN {U.S.EPA 1983).
%ased on EMSL-Cin test using mixed industrial and domestic waste samples at concentrations of 0.28
and 0.62 mg/1 CN (U.S.EPA 1983).
^Personal communication, Larry B. Lobring, EMSL-Cin, June 23, 1982.
^Based on analyses of 16 samples with four replIcates per sample.
^Percent positive bias based on analyses of same samples using Amperometric method.
^Percent positive bias based on analyses of same sample using Colorometric method.
%ased on EMSL-Cin test of surface water samples at conc. of 31 and 149 mg/1 as CaCOg (U.S.EPA 1983).
|%ased on EMSL-Cin test of surface water samples at conc. of 1.00, 0.77, 0.19, and 0.13 mg/1 NH3-N.
"Based on EMSL-Cin test of surface water samples at conc. of 0.09 and 0.13 mg/1 NH3.
-------
TABLE 6. PRECISION, ACCURACY, SENSITIVITY, DETECTION LIMITS, AMD OPTIMUM CON-
CENTRATION RANGE FOR ANALYSES OF SELECTED METALS IN WATER USING ATOMIC
ABSORPTION (AA) AND ICP TECHNIQUES {source; U.S. EPA 1983)1
:sst»iHtsS3SSS»ssssss>M»isisss:»ss::::£a3Hi:;n:»:ss:::s3:s»:ma::=;
Metal Detection Sensitivity Precision Accuracy Optimum
(Method) Limit (pg/1) (ug/1) % Std Dev % Recovery Range (ug/1)
Arsenic
Furnace 1 92.5 ±1.6 - ±2.5 101-106 5-100
Cadmium
Furnace 0.1 0.08 ±3.2 - ±4.0 96-99 0.5-10
Calcium^
ICP 10 NA2 0.9% 99 100-5000
Copper
ICP 6 NA 1.0% 95-105 10-1000
Lead
Furnace 1 2.0 ±3.2 - ±5.2 88-95 5-100
Magnesium^
ICP 30 NA 1.0% 100 20-1000
Silver
Furnace 0.2 0.3 ±1.2 - ±1.6 94-104 1-25
Zinc
ICP 2 NA 0.8% 95-105 5-1000
sssrssaasasasaasaa2ss22assasaasssasaassi£a=a=2=s5ss5s5s55ss35ssss3ssssssas2a5aa=
^Precision and accuracy vary widely with concentration of metal. See U.S. EPA
(1983) for details.
2NA = not available.
^Calcium and magnesium are measured to provide data for calculating hardness.
14
-------
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
METAL CONCENTRATIONS
Spring Creek metal contributions caused significant increases in concen-
trations of metal in Prickly Pear Creek (Table 7). There was a consistent
decline in downstream metal concentrations with approximately a twofold decrease
between stations 013 and 018 due primarily to tributary inflow dilution. Metal
concentrations were low in all other tributary streams except Clancy Creek
(Table 8). Total recoverable copper in Clancy Creek was high and may have been
partially responsible for additional downstream toxicity in Prickly Pear Creek.
However, dissolved copper was below detection and the dissolved fraction could
not have been toxic. Spring Creek was undoubtedly the primary source of metals
to Prickly Pear Creek.
Total recoverable cadmium, zinc, and copper concentrations in Spring Creek
and Prickly Pear Creek consistently exceeded U.S. EPA (1980} recommended acute
criteria for aquatic life during the toxicity testing period (Table 7). Con-
centrations of arsenic and lead were below the aquatic life criteria at all
stations. Silver exceeded the acute criteria on October 6 at station 013, but
was well below the acute criteria for all other dates and stations Including
Spring Creek. Although cadmium exceeded the acute criteria, concentrations
were below reported toxic levels for C. reticulata (Mount and Norberg In Press)
and larval fathead minnows (Weltering 19BTT Toxicity in test organisms was
attributed to zinc and/or copper based on reported sensitivities for these
organisms (Mount and Norberg In Press; Wolterlng 1983). However, C. reticulata
Moassays indicated that another unidentified toxicant was present (see Results:
Toxicity Test). Zinc and copper concentrations in Spring Creek were variable
over the 10-day testing period (Figures 2 and 3} with peak total recoverable
concentrations on test days 1 and 5 (test numbers refer to dates, September 30
- October 9). A small storm event occurred on September 30 and resulted in the
October 1 (Test 1) peak (see Results: Hydrology). The cause of the October 5
peak in total recoverable concentrations was not determined.
TOXICITY TESTS
Ceriodaphnia reticulata
Acute and Chronic Toxicity 1n Dilution Treatments--
Spring Creek water resulted in acute effects (LC-50s) in C. reticulata
at dilution volumes of approximately 5 to 20 percent (Figure 4T. There were
no significant differences in Spring Creek acute toxicity in tests 2 through 5,
8, and 9, but toxicity was significantly higher in tests 1, 6, and 7. Higher
-------
TABLE 7. TOTAL RECOVERABLE CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED METALS IN SPRING CREEK
AND PRICKLY'PEAR, AND U.S. EPA CALCULATED ACUTE CRITERIA FOR AQUATIC LIFE.
Mean values are 10-day averages {September 30-0ctober 9 1383).
Number of days criteria were exceeded are given In parentheses. .
8s88sssssssss5ss5sssssss3ssssss38s3s2sss:ssssssss;8ss:s=s=rs:s=;;sss:;;sss8ss5:
Station
SprTffg-" ~~
Total Metals (ug/1) Oil Creek 013 014 018
Cadmium* x
Range
Criterion Range
Lead x
Range
Criterion Range
Zinc* x
Range
Criterion Range
Copper* x
Range
Criterion Range
Silver x
Range
Criterion Range
Arsenic x
Range
Criterion Range
2(6)
1-3
1.5-l.B
13(0}
7-22
74-100
100(10)
49-183
180-224
12(2)
6-13
12-15
0.6(0)
<0.2-0,9
1.2-1.9
2(0)
<0.5-11
440
7.6(9)
6-12
4.7-6.1
72(0}
44-238
291-389
2119(10)
1260-3625
464-562
84(10)
37-220
33-41
1.6(0)
0.2-3.1
8.5-12.8
27(0)
1.5-84
440
5(10) 4(5)
2-9 1-6
2.0-2.7 1.9-2.8
30(0)
20-54
108-155
580(10)
481-656
238-303
28(9)
12-47
16-20
1.9(1)
<0.2-11.2
2.1-3.5
6(0)
3-10
440
19(0)
11-26
3(6)
2-9
2.2-3.2
15(0)
8-28
103-160 121-183
236(10)
261-372
230-308
14(3)
<6-22
15-21
0.2(0)
<0.2-0.5
2.0-3.6
4(0)
3-7
440
203(0)
169-232
255-338
12(0)
7-15
17-23
0.1(0)
<0.2-4.3
2.5-4.4
10(0)
8-12
440
SS=SSSSS = SSSSS8iSSSS3!SSSSSSS:SSSS==SSS = = = = =; = 8;SSSSSSS8ISSS!SSSSSSr£ = = SI3l53S8;SSS3IS5S8
~Consistently exceeded recommended acute criteria for aquatic life.
toxicity in test 1 corresponded to high total recoverable and dissolved con-
centrations of zinc and copper in Spring Creek on that date (Figures 2 and 3).
The increase in total recoverable concentrations of these metals on October 5
had no apparent effect on toxicity. Metal concentrations generally declined
on October 6 and 7 and the increase in toxicity in tests 6 and 7 was not due
to an increase in any of the metals analyzed in this investigation (Appendix
C). There was no mortality in the controls for tests 6 and 7 (Appendix A),
indicating that mortality in the Spring Creek dilution treatments was due to
toxicity. Chemical analyses for other parameters were not possible and the
toxicant was not identified.
16
-------
TABLE 8. TOTAL RECOVERABLE AND DISSOLVED METAL CONCENTRATIONS (ug/1) IN
TRIBUTARY STREAMS TO PRICKLY PEAR CREEK, MONTANA, OCTOBER 1983.
Analysis are for a single sample.
s53;s:=:ss=sssssssss:ss:s==s;==ss=;ss=ssssss=s£=::ss:s==s==::=:=::s:==::;^3s==
Copper Creek Dutch Creek Warm Sp. Creek Clancy Creek Lump Gulch
Total Total Total Total Total
Recov. Diss. Recov. Diss. Recov. Diss. Recov. Diss. Recov. Diss.
Cadmium
1.6
0.2
0.9
0.3
2.4
0.8
1.8
1.4
0.5
0.5
Lead
12.8
3.3
9.2
5.0
10.4
8.3
31.9
7.0
8.7
7.6
Zinc
142.0
39.0
92.0
<24.0*
125.0
44.0
86.0
35.0
54.0
<24.0*
Copper
6.6
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
37.2
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
Silver
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
Arsenic
2.7
1.7
4.4
1.5
26.7
17.5
10.5
5.7
1.9
<1.0
*A concentration of 24 p.g/1 zinc was at detection limits for these samples.
Chronic toxicity, resulting in reduced neonate production, was only evi-
dent in tests 5 through 8 and occurred at dilution volumes of 5 to 10 percent
Spring Creek water (Table 9). Reduced neonate production in tests 1 through 4
and 9 (Table 9) was in part or totally due to mortality (Appendix A) and chronic
effects were not evident. Spring Creek toxicity, resulting in chronic effects,
was greatest in tests 5 through 7 with significantly lower neonate production
at dilution volumes of 5 percent Spring Creek water (Table 9). Greater chronic
toxicity in tests 6 and 7 was associated with greater acute toxicity, as pre-
viously stated, and was due to the unidentified toxicant. The increased
toxicity resulting in chronic effects in test 5 was due to either the initial
occurrence of the unidentified toxicant or to the increase in total recoverable
zinc and copper on that day (Figures 2 and 3). Overall, the relationship
between toxicity and metal concentrations was poor. This was primarily due to
the occurrence of the unidentified toxicant.
Control water toxicity was also evident in tests 1 through 3 with sig-
nificantly lower neonate production in the control treatments relative to the
culture water treatments (Table 9). Bioassays conducted on water collected
from the tributary streams on October 16 revealed a potential source of control
water toxicity {Table 10). Copper Creek, located 100 m upstream from the
control station Oil, was chronically toxic, resulting in low neonate production
and may have been a source of control water toxicity. Significant difference
was also found in test 5, but this was probably due to nutritional differences
in the culture water and control treatments, and not to control water toxicity.
The culture water supported high concentrations of algae (Closterium) and bac-
teria, and provided additional food for C. reticulata in the culture water
treatments. This resulted in higher neonate production in the culture water
treatments for almost al 1 tests.
17
-------
Spring Creek
Test Number
Figure 2. Total recoverable and dissolved zinc concentrations. Spring Creek,
September 30 - October 9, 1983.
-------
Spring Creek
Test Number
Figure 3. Total recoverable and dissolved copper concentrations, Spring Creek,
September 30 - October 9, 1983.
-------
Spring Creek Acute Toxicity
Test Number
Figure 4. Percent Spring Creek water resulting 1n 48-hour LC-50s and 95 percent
confidence limits, Cer1odaphn1a reticulata tests. Confidence limits could not
be determined for tests 3 and 4 because mortality was 100 percent in the
10 percent and 20 percent dilution treatments.
-------
TABLE 9. MEAN NUMBER OF NEONATES PRODUCED AND 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE LIMITS,
C. RETICULATA TESTS 1 THROUGH 9
Chronic Effect Concentrations are Noted for Individual Tests.
Comparisons were not made between tests.
Dilution Test
Treatment
Spring Creek
m
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Control x
m% c. l.i
13.0
(11.7-14.4)
4.2
(1.9-6.5)
17.6
(15.5-19.7)
?7.3
(21.8-32.7)
28.5
(26.2-30.8)
33.7
(31.8-35.9)
33.8
(22.8-28.71
25.7
(11.7-14.4)
28.0
(15.5-19.7)
1* x
(951 C. 1.)
10.6
(R.4-12.fi)
3.7
(2.5-4.9)
20.9
(15.1-26.5)
24.1
(21.2-27.0)
22.5
(16.7-28.4)
29.6
(26.5-32.9)
Mo
lata
25.6
(23.2-2R.1)
18.8
(14.0-23.9}
2.5* *
(95* C. L.f
in.3
{8.6-12.01
6.0
(2.5-9.4)
25.9
(23.4-28.4)
27.4
(26.6-28.2)
25.fi
(22.6-20.6)
34.2
(33.2-35.2)
28.7
(27.0-30.3)
22. B
(17.5-28.2)
23.B
(20.9-26.fi)
55 i"
(95% C. L.I
10.1
(7.3-13.0)
7.2
(5.6-0.8)
25.3
(22.0-28.5)
21.8
(18.3-25.4)
q q*
(5.2-14.4)
21.2*
(14.4-27.7)
22.9*
(20.1-28,9)
IR.4
(12.2-24.3)
18.9
(17.4-20.4)
101 x
(95* C, I.)
1.0*
(-0.5-2.5)
7.0
(4.3-9.5)
17.7
(15.6-19.B)
3.8*
13.B
f 9.6-18.0)
0
10
15.0*
(12.6-17.4)
' 13.5
(10.4-16.6)
20* x
(95* C. 1.)
0
0*
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0*
Culture "x
23.3
26.5
28.6
38.5
37.9
35.8
30.9
25.3
25.2
Water
(95* C, L.I
(20.1-26.8)
:SSS3S255S=ltJ
(22.4-30,6)
{26.8-30.5}
(32.6-44.3)
(35.1-40.7)
(34.0-37.fi}
(ZR,7-33.0)
(22.6-28.1)
(21.#-28.6)
~Significantly different from control treatment, based on 95 percent confidence limits. Indicating chronic
effect level.
-------
TABLE 10. C. RETICULATA BIOASSAY RESULTS FROM PRICKLY PEAR CREEK TRIBUTARY
STREAMS (water was collected on October 16, 1983)
======s5s=s3as£=====;s!===5!:s==ssB5S=======s=ss=:sss:==::==a==s:s:=====s3=:=ssss===:= ==== = =
Neonates
48 hour 168 hour -—-— ¦ -
Test Treatment Mortality Mortality Y 95% C. L.
Number Number
Culture water
0
0
25.3 (21.8-28.6)
Copper Creek
0
0
10.6 (8.2-13.2)
Corbi n Creek
10
10
0
Spring Creek*
1
2
5.4 (2.3-8.4)
Dutchman Creek
0
0
15.3 (13.1-17.5)
Warm Spring Creek
0
0
21.2 (17.7-24.7)
Clancy Creek
0
0
11.0 (7.0-14.9)
Lump Gulch
0
0
18.2 (12.1-24.0)
SSSSSSSSS5SSSSSSSS:=:SSSSSSS?===£==SSSSSSSS=3S=^===:S5SSS;=»=====r=S=5SSSS5SSS
1Spring Creek upstream from Corbin Creek.
Downstream Station and Dilution Treatment Comparisons--
Prickly Pear Creek station treatments were toxic to C. reticulata, and
toxicity in the Spring Creek dilution treatments and in tffe downstream Prickly
Pear Creek treatments was compared to determine if downstream changes in tox-
icity were due strictly to dilution of Spring Creek water. Validity of treat-
ment comparisons was based on d1lution volumes of Spring Creek water in the
dilution and station treatments. Dilution volumes of Spring Creek water at
the downstream stations 013, 014, and 018 were 17.3, 7.2, and 2.4 percent
respectively, (see Results: Hydrology) and were similar to dilution volumes
of Spring Creek water used in the C. reticulata dilution treatments {20, 10,
and 2.5 percent).
Mortality in dilution and station treatments having comparable Spring
Creek dilution volumes showed a high degree of similarity with differences only
in tests 2 and 9, station 013 (Figure 5); tests 2 and 8, station 014 (Figure
6); and tests 6 and 7, station 018 (Figure 7). As previously stated. Spring
Creek toxicity increased in tests 6 and 7 due to an unidentified toxicant.
High mortality in the station 018 treatment for tests 6 and 7 relative to the
comparable dilution treatment (2.5 percent) indicated that there was an addi-
tional downstream source of toxicity and that the toxicant may have been
similar in nature to the unidentified toxicant 1n Spring Creek.
22
-------
Acute Toxicity C. Reticulata (48 hr.)
4 1 5 I 6
Test Number
Figure 5. Percent mortality in 20 percent Soring Creek water and Pricey Pear Creek
station 013 treatments, Ceriodaphnia reticulata tests.
-------
Acute Toxicity C. Reticulata (48 hr.)
1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8
Tost Number
Figure 6. Percent mortality In 10 percent Spring Creek water and Prickly Pear Creek
station 014 treatments, Cerlodaphnia retlculata tests.
-------
Acute Toxicity C. Reticulata (48 hr.J
4 I 5 T 6 I 7 I 8 I 9
Test Number
Fiqure 7. Percent mortality In 2.5 percent Spring Creek water and Prickly Pear Creek
station 018 treatments, Cerlodaphnla reticulata tests.
-------
Neonate production In dilutions and station treatment comparisons also
showed no significant difference in a majority of the tests {Table 11). How-
ever, there was a trend for lower neonate production in the station treatments
in most tests. This trend in higher toxicity in the downstream treatments
resulted from either additional downstream sources of toxicity or downstream
enhancement of Spring Creek toxicity. Clancy Creek and Dutchman Creek were
chronically toxic (Table 10) and may have been responsible for increased down-
stream toxicity. However, toxicity from these tributary streams would have to
be much greater than what was measured on October 16 to have had an effect in
Prickly Pear Creek after dilutions.
Although one or both of the above processes may have occurred, differences
1n treatment comparisons were minimal and did not refute that variations in
Prickly Pear Creek toxicity were primarily due to downstream dilution of the
Spring Creek inflow. Downstream toxicity persistence, therefore, did appear
to follow a conservative distribution pattern.
Pimephales promelas
Larval fathead minnows were more tolerant to Spring Creek toxicity than
were C. reticulata. Estimated LC-50s for fathead minnows were at dilution
volumes greater than 25 percent Spring Creek water (Figure 8). Dilution
volumes of Spring Creek water at the downstream stations were less than esti-
mated acute proportions (LC-50s), and this was reflected in the downstream
station treatments having little or no mortality (Table 12).
Fathead minnow LC-50s indicated!that Spring Creek toxicity was highly
variable for this species. Minimal mortality occurred in tests 2, 8, and 9,
and acute effects were not evident for those tests (Figure 8). There was a
significant decline in toxicity in tests 6 and 7 (Figure 8) indicating that
the unidentified toxicant resulting in toxicity to C. reticulata was not at
toxic concentrations for fathead minnows. Higher toxicity 1n tests 0, 1, and
5 did correspond to higher total recoverable concentrations of zinc and copper;
however, a strong relationship for these metal concentrations and toxicity was
not clearly evident.
Part of the variability found in the fathead minnow test was probably not
inherently related to Spring Creek toxicity. High control mortality occurred
after the third or fourth day and at test termination mortality was greater
than 30 percent (Appendix B) in six of the 10 tests (0, 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8).
High control mortalities are usually indicative of procedural problems; however,
mortality declined in the lower dilution treatments with little or no mortality
at either 12.5 or 25 percent 1n all tests (Appendix 8), The consistent decline
in lower dilution treatment mortality relative to high control mortality
strongly suggested that Spring Creek water was ameliorating conditions in the
control water. This may have been due to either dilution of control water tox-
icity, or to the addition of some factor enhancing survival. Control water
toxicity was evident in C. reticulata bioassays; however, reconstituted water
(Hardness 80-90 mg/1 CaC^) controls included in fathead minnow tests 6 and 7
resulted in mortalities of 12 and 32 percent, respectively (Appendix B). The
high mortal 1ty in the reconstituted control in test 7 suggests that mortality
was not entirely due to toxicity.
26
-------
TABLE 11. MEAN NUMBER OF NEONATES PRODUCED AND 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE LIMITS
FOR COMPARABLE DILUTION AND STATION TREATMENTS, C. RETICULATA
TESTS 1 THROUGH 9.
Comparable dilution and station treatments were 20 percent and
station 013; 10 percent and station 014; and 2,5 percent and
station 018. Comparisons were not made between tests.
Treatment Treatment Treatment
Test
20% 013
10%
014
2.5%
018
1 x
(95% C.L.)
in* fi fi in i* ia 7
(-0.5-2.5) (3.8-9.3) (8.6-12.0) (12.5-16.0)
2 x 0 0 7.0* 0 6.0* 11.8
(95% C.L.) (4.3-9.5) (2.5-9.4) (9.9-13.7)
3 x 0 0 17.7 19.2 25.9 23.4
(95% C.L.) (15.6-19.8) (18.1-20.3) (23.4-28.4) (18.8-26.8)
4 x 0 0 3.8 1.0 27.4 20.3
(95% C.L.) — (26.6-28.2) (13.9-26.6)
5 x 0 0 13.8* 3.5 25.6 30.6
(95% C.L.) (9.6-18.0) (0.9-6.1) (22.6-28.6) (28.0-33.1)
6 x 0 0 0 0 34.2*
(95% C.L.) (33.2-35.2)
7 x 0 0 10 0 28.7 14
(95% C.L.) — (27.0-30.3)
8 x 0 0 15.0* 1.0 22.8 12.6
(95% C.L.) (12.6-17.4) (-0.6-2.8) (17.5-28.2) (2.9-22.3)
9 x 0 0 13.5 5.8 23.8 23.0
(95% C.L.) (10.4-16.6) (-1.3-12.9) (20.9-26.6) (14.0-32.2)
~Significant difference in comparable dilution and station treatments based
on 95 percent confidence limits.
27
-------
Test Number
Figure 8. Percent Spring Creek water resulting in 96 hour LC-50s and
95 percent confidence limits, Plmeptiales promelas tests.
-------
TABLE 12, PERCENT MORTALITY (96 HOUR) IN LARVAL FATHEAD MINNOWS
IN PRICKLY PEAR CREEK STATION TREATMENTS
£sssss:=s==s£s==:e=:sssssss:sssssssss:s:s:ss:sss;£;=^s:ss5ss:s:sss===;===ss£ = ss
Test Number
Station Treatment U I 2 3 I 5 § 7 8 5"
013
10
10
5
2
0
10
0
0
5
0
014
3
2
10
3
0
0
5
0
0
10
018
0
13
5
10
8
0
0
3
10
10
sssssss=ss:sssssssssss:ss:s=ss:=s£e=:=====:===:=======;:s;;:;s3sssssss==£====zs
The inherent growth variability in fathead minnows precluded demonstra-
ting in chronic effects. Final weights for replicate grouped fish showed no
relationship with increased dilution volumes of Spring Creek water (Table 13),
Growth was significantly increased with increased feeding in a separate feeding
experiment, Indicating test fish were probably underfed (Appendix B). However,
growth appeared to be highly variable in overfed fish. Fathead minnows raised
in the laboratory from identical egg batches showed variations in length
approaching 400 percent after 30 days. This kind of growth variability would
highly influence test results. Weltering (1983) and Lemke et al. (1983) have
also observed high varlability in growth of larval fathead minnows. A non-
feeding lethality test has been suggested by Weltering (1983) because acute
test results are usually highly correlated with chronic test results, are less
variablet and are more efficient.
STREAM SURVEY
Water Quality
Metal water quality data were presented in a previous section of this
report (Tables 7 and 8). Non-metal water quality parameters measured in the
stream survey did not reveal any other sources of toxicity or toxicants (Table
14). Total organic carbon concentrations were low, ranging from 2 to 3 pg/1,
and ammonia concentrations were below detection limits, indicating little or no
contributions from either septic tanks or domestic animals within the study
area. Cyanide and chlorine were also below detection limits. Spring Creek
ion concentrations were moderate having a conductivity of 421 pmhos/cm, 2.7
times greater than at the control station Oil. Conductivity at station 013 was
226 umhos/cm, but increased to 269 nmhos/cm at station 018 as a result of addi-
tional secondary inflow sources high in ion concentrations downstream from
Spring Creek. This was also reflected in alkalinity and hardness which showed
similar downstream trends. Turbidity in Spring Creek was higher than in
Prickly Pear Creek.; however, water clarity or suspended solids were not a water
quality problem during this investigation. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, and
29
-------
It
TABLE 13. MEAN WEIGHTS FOR LARVAL FATHEAD MINNOWS IN SPRING CREEK
DILUTION TREATMENTS
(weights are from four replicates per treatment;
standard deviations are given in parentheses)
:ss;s23:s:;s3:::::s:sss:::ss:;=;£::s::;s=!:2s::s:::=::::;:s:3:=:::::3s:::ss:s;:s
Treatment
Control 6.2M ' U.b% " ZBT b« ium
Test X SD f SD I SO X SO X SO X SO
66
(27)
68
(10)
74
(5)
62
(8)
100
-
-
-
55
(17)
56
(ii)
69
(7)
56
(8)
73
(23)
-
_
38
(18)
56
(27)
79
(2)
82
(4)
60
_
74
(10)
64
(9)
56
(8)
54
(8)
54
(8)
56
(8)
54
(8)
72
(24)
60
(9)
82
(38)
70
(9)
60
(7)
131
(25)
62
(16)
68
(7)
65
(10)
72
(6)
72
(10)
86
(11)
46 (9)
— ~ = — ——a
H
i!
tn ii
If
II
(32)
59
sssss:
(7)
63
3ss^;=
(10)
::=ssss
64
(3)
77
sssssss
(16)
sssss
Note: Weights were not determined for tests 3 through 5. These fish were sent
to Dr. Kenneth Jenkins, California State University, Long Beach for
enzyme analyses.
pH levels were typical of fall conditions for temperate streams and were
indicative of good water quality.
Hydrology
Stream flow at the USSS gaging station, located 2 km downstream from
station 018, ranged from 35 to 42 cfs (Figure 9) during the toxicity testing
period and was typical of seasonal low flows over the last 3 years fUSGS pro-
visional data water years 1981-83), The peak flow on October 2 was due to a
small rain storm that occurred on September 30 and to snow melt froi a storm
that occurred on September 18 (Table 15), Changes in stream stage height
readings of less than 1 cm at our stations were questionable and the only appre-
ciable change in Spring Creek stage height was a 1 cm increase on September 30,
which again was related to the small storm event on that date. No appreciable
changes in stage height were found at the other gaging stations on Prickly
Pear Creek (Appendix D).
Stream flow In Prickly Pear Creek Increased from 11 cfs at station Oil to
3? cfs at station 018. Measured tributary inflows accounted for 62 percent
of the Increase in flow {Table 16). Estimated unmeasured inflows between
stations 013, 014, and 018 were approximately 5 and 8 cfs, respectively. There
were no other major surface inflows and the majority of the unmeasured increase
in flow was due to groundwater inputs.
30
-------
TABLE 14. SELECTED WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS MEASURED IN PRICKLY PEAR CREEK,
MONTANA, SEPTEMBER 27-29, 1983
SSSSSSSSSSS5SS3S«--*SISSSS3SSSSS5;
Parameter
Oil
Station
Spring Creek
013
014
018
Water Temperature
(°C) 7.2
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/1) 9.8
Conductivity
(iimhos/cm) 155
pH
(std. units) 7.6
Turbidity
(NTU) 0.5
Alkalinity
(mg/1) 50
Hardness
(mg/1) 61
T. Organic Carbon
(ug/1) 2.0
D. Organic Carbon
(ng/l) 1.7
Ammonia
(ug/1) <8
Cyanide
(ng/i) <6
T. Free Chlorine
{Mg/1) <0.05
10.3
8.9
421
8.3
6.2
70
187
2.6
1.4
<8
<6
<0.05
9.0
8.6
226
7.7
1.7
58
86
2.1
<8
<6
9.5
8.8
222
7.5
0.7
55
85
3.0
2.1
<8
<8
7.2
9.5
269
7.8
1.0
78
96
2.6
<8
<6
<0.05 <0.05 <0.05
31
-------
SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER
Figure 9. Prickly Pear Creek stream discharge, USGS gaging station
September 30 - October 9, 1983.
-------
TABLE 15, PRECIPITATION AT HELENA, MONTANA AIRPORT, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY
24 KM NORTH OF STUDY AREA
=:sssss3s=:s:ss====;sss:sssssssssssss;=ss5sssss::ss:::s:ss=s:s::=;=s:s:::s:£:::
*
i
Precipitation Precipitation 1 Precipitation
Date (cm) Date (cm) Date (cm)
Sept. 18
1.75*
Oct. 1
Oct. 14
-
19
0.20
2
15
0.51
20
_
3
_
16
21
-
4
0.05
17
0.05
22
-
5
18
0.05
23
-
6
.
19
24
7
_
20
-
25
-
8
-
26
_
9
0.13
27
0.13
10
0.08
28
-
11
-
29
0.15
12
_
30
0.63
13
0.03
*13,0 cm of snow
TABLE 16. STREAM DISCHARGE AT PRICKLY PEAR CREEK STATIONS
AND TRIBUTARY STEAMS
Prickly Pear1 Discharge Prickly Pear^ Discharge
Creek Stations cfs Creek Tributaries cfs
Oil
10.9
Spring Creek
1.4
013
10.0
Dutchman Creek
3.7
014
18.2
Warm Spring Creek
3.1
018
37.3
CIancy Creek
3.5
USGS gage^
38.7
Lump Gulch
4.4
SSS35SSBSSSS5SaSS = SSSS:2Ssa£iaS£=SS5 25S:5:SS^=S£ = =.= 2 —22 =S = = = = = = St = = = = = = =
1Measured September 27-29.
^Gage located 2 km downstream from station 018
^Measured October 16.
33
-------
The volume percent of Spring Creek water to the total water volume at
the downstream stations 013, 014, and 018 were 17.3, 7.2, and 2,4 percent
respectively, based on concentrations of Rhodamine WT Injected Into Spring
Creek on September 23 {Table 17). Dye retention time from the Spring Creek
confluence to station 018 was just over 11 hours.
TABLE 17. RHODAMINE WT DYE STUDY PRICKLY PEAR CREEK SEPTEMBER 23-24, 1983
Dye Peak Dye Concentration % Spring Creek*
Station Time pg/1 Water Volume Travel Time
Spring Creek
2011
167
100
-
013
2030
29
17.3
19 mln.
014
2340
12
7.2
3
hr. 29 min.
018
sssssss===s==s==:
0720
4 2.4
5;s:;:=s:=:s:ssssssssss;«=:;==:
11
hr. 9 min.
= .22 222522
*Based on dye concentrations
Biota
Salmonid fishes were abundant at all Prickly Pear Creek stations (Table
18). However, there was a downstream shift in species abundance. Brook trout
(Salvel1nus fontinails) was the only salmonid found at station Oil. Both brook
trout and rainbow trout (Salmo gairdnerl) were abundant at stations 013 and
014, and brown trout (Salmo trutta) also occurred with the other salmonid
species at station 0181 TFe species shift in salmonids was probably not due to
metal toxicity from Spring Creek, but rather to the increased frequency of pool
habitats downstream (La Point et al, 1983),
Previous investigations have shown major reductions in both macroinverte-
brate and perlphyton numbers and diversity in the Prickly Pear Creek impact
zone, station 013 and a gradual downstream reoccurrence of these species between
stations 014 and 018, the recovery zone (Miller et al, 1982; La Point et al,
1983), Both of these studies were conducted in the summer. Quantitative
analyses of periphyton and macrolnvertebrate samples were not part of this
investigation. A superficial examination of the macrolnvertebrate samples at
the time of col lection revealed no obvious reduction in either species types or
species numbers in the impact zone. This may have been a physiological response
to lower temperatures and needs to be validated quantitatively. Water temper-
atures during this investigation were approximately 7°C compared to past summer
temperatures of 16 to 20°C (La Point et al, 1983),
Sediment and Tissue Metals
Sediment metal concentrations at station 013 were approximately an order
of magnitude higher than those found at the upstream station Oil (Table 19).
34
-------
TABLE 18. RELATIVE ABUNDANCE ESTIMATES FOR FISH CAPTURED BY ELECTROSHOCKING
PRICKLY PEAR CREEK, MONTANA, OCOTBER 1983.
Abundant (A) = >60%; very common (VC) = 31-60%; common (C) = 6-30%
occasional (0) = 1-5%; rare (R) = <1% and absent » (-).
ss==2=ssss=========;:ss:ssss:ssEss:ssssssssss5sssss:ssssi:ssss:s:£sss3ss3;;s:ss:
Station
Fish Species Oil 013 014* 018
Cottus spp, VC C C
Salvelinus fontinalis VC A VC C
Sal mo gairdneri - C VC C
Sal mo trutta - VC
Catostomus commersoni - 0
Number of individuals 45 43 43 47
Species richness 2 2 3 5
££-=£S£-SSSS£SSSSSSSSSSS5SSS5SSS5ZSSSSSS35SSS5SZ5S3S53SSSSS35 5SSSSZSSSSS--S£S=;
^Fourteen immature salmonids captured; not included in estimates.
TABLE 19. MEAN SEDIMENT METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN SPRING CREEK AND
PRICKLY PEAR CREEK, MONTANA, SEPTEMBER 27-29, 1983
No arsenic analysis
Sediment Metal Concentrations mg/kg
Station
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
Copper
Silver
Oil
3
135
502
133
1
Spring
Creek
29
3612
4975
1142
36
013
30
3240
4937
967
34
014
14
1243
2765
372
12
018
9
668
1680
202
6
35
-------
Sediment metal concentrations at Spring Creek and station 013 were similar
indicating high sediment deposition from Spring Creek in the area of station
013. Sediment concentrations decreased downstream from station 013 and were
four to five times lower at station 018. However, concentrations at station
018 were substantially higher than concentrations found at the control station
Oil, further demonstrating the extent of downstream impacts from {jpring Creek.
Sediment metals were a potential source of downstream toxicity (Fostner and
W1ttmann 1979). However, hydrologlcal conditions during the testing period were
very stable (Figure 9), and increased downstream metal concentrations (tox-
icity) , resulting from sediment resuspension, probably did not occur or was
very minimal. Sediment water interactions were not determined in this study
and should be investigated to determlne the extent sediments act as a source or
sink of metals under various hydrologlcal conditions 1n Prickly Pear Creek.
Tissue metal concentrations were highest In perlphyton fol1 owed by macro-
Invertebrates and fish (Table 20). Perlphyton and macroinvertebrate tissue
concentrations were substantially higher at station 013 and decreased down-
stream relative to ambient water and sediment concentrations. Metal uptake by
perlphyton and macrolnvertebrates represented a potential metal sink; however,
these organisms were also a source of metals when Ingested by other organisms
(Magee 1975). Fish tissue concentrations were not exceptionally high (Wilson
1981, Patrick and Loutlt 1978) and there was no substantial difference in
tissue concentrations at each of the stations. Miller et al. (1982) found
significantly higher tissue metal concentrations in most organs (kidneys,
gills, brains, heart, and gonads) from fish collected in the impact areas of
Prickly Pear Creek in 1980. However, muscle tissue did not have elevated metal
concentrations. In this Investigation, whole fish were used for tissue analyses
and the inclusion of muscle tissue probably masked metal concentrations in the
organs.
36
-------
TABLE 20. TISSUE METAL CONCENTRATIONS PRICKLY PEAR CREEK, MONTANA
SEPTEMBER 27-29, 1983
;sss = =s = !:=:s: = = = = s3?s = s5s3sssss55s===:=sss:ss3:s5srsssss:'3ssss:s= = = = =
Tissue Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Organism Station Cadmium Lead Zinc Copper Silver Arsenic
Perlphyton
Oil
1
35
285
46
1
6
013
37
1588
4640
1190
19
343
014
9
175
1615
135
2
—
Macrophyte
014
12
252
2630
330
4
61
Macroinvertebrates
Oil
1
18
326
37
1
2
013
12
165
2038
276
2
32
014
4
47
660
65
1
8
018
2
26
444
37
<1
7
Fish
Salvelinus fontinails
Oil
<1
3
70
11
<1
<1
Oil
1
7
230
20
<1
1
013
1
10
92
10
<1
<1
014
!
5
145
14
<1
<1
014
1
8
225
8
<1
1
Sal mo gairdnerl
014
1
12
255
16
<1
<1
Salmo trutta
018
1
10
220
12
<1
<1
Cottus spp.
Oil
<1
8
135
10
<1
<1
014
1
6
265
28
<1
¦ <1
018
ii
II
11
$1
fH ii
V 11
11
It
11
H
11
6
255
:sss
7
:s::sss:
<1
i srss-ss:
<1
37
-------
V. GENERAL DISCUSSION
EFFLUENT AND INSTREAM TOXICITY TESTING
Early In 1984, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Issued a policy
statement on development of water quality-based permit limitations for toxic
pollutants. EPA's approach to controlling toxic pollutants, beyond technology
based requirements to achieve compliance with water quality standards and
designated water use, utilizes an integrated strategy incorporating biological
and chemical methods. State standards that contain numerical criteria for
toxicants will be met through issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elim-
ination System permits containing limits on the quantities of toxic substances
discharged. In addition, biological techniques will be used as necessary to
achieve the general standard of "no toxic materials in toxic amounts." Where
violations of water quality standards occur, water quality based effluent
limits will be developed by the state and included in the permit. Where toxic
effects occur in receiving water, permit limits may be based on effluent tox-
icity limits.
Depending upon the type of effluent and discharge situation, chemical
testing may be more appropriate than biological, or visa versa. In some
instances, both chemical and biological testing may be required for assessment
of effluent impacts on water quality. Generally, where a discharge contains a
few, well-qua!ified pollutants, whose interactions and effects are well known,
pollutant-specific chemical analyses should be used. Pollutant-specific chemical
techniques should also be used where health hazards or bioaccumulatlon are of
concern. Where effluents are complex or combined effects of multiple pollutants
are of concern, biological techniques should be used. Testing needs, chemical
or biological, singly or in combination, will have to be determined on a case-
by-case basis depending upon the nature of a particular effluent and receiving
system.
An obvious advantage of biological effluent toxicity testing over
pollutant-specific chemical methods is that the biological approach measures
the effects of an effluent directly. On the other hand, chemical approaches
require the identification and measurement of each individual pollutant and
knowledge of how these pollutants are related, singly and in combination, to
aquatic effects. This becomes particularly significant in assessing complex
effluents containing pollutants which are not easily identified or quantified
or for which little information is available regarding biological effects.
Instream toxicity measurements (after mixing of the effluent), along with
assessments of stream communities, can provide a great deal of information about
the nature and extent of effluent impacts on resident biota. These analyses,
if properly conducted, aid in identifying needs for limiting effluent toxicity.
-------
Art Important and often overlooked aspect of effluent and instream toxicity 1s
the persistence of toxicity within a receiving system, and the potential spatial
extent and severity of impact to the biota. Obviously, pollutants that are
rapidly degraded to non-tox1c forms, lost to the atmosphere, or rendered un-
available through other processes pose far less threat to biota than the more
persistent forms.
WHOLE EFFLUENT TESTING, PRICKLY PEAR CREEK
There are various physlochemlcal processes that can degrade or enhance
metal toxicity (Duce 1975); however, conditions in Prickly Pear Creek were such
that conservative behavior In toxicity was favored. Hydrological retention
time from the Spring Creek confluence to the downstream Prickly Pear Creek
stations was relatively short (11 hours) and would limit oxidation and reduc-
tion processes, especially at stream temperatures f7°C) found during this
investigation. Suspended solids and organic compounds were also very low and
toxicity was not highly influenced by particle adsorption or by complexing
with organic compounds. Prickly Pear Creek was not acutely toxic to larval
fathead minnows, and bioassay results were not applicable to testing the fate
of Spring Creek toxicity. C. reticulata was more sensitive than fathead twin-
nows, and bioassay results "cT1d demonstrate a conservative behavior in toxicity.
However, conclusions reached from these data have to be somewhat restralned
because test waters were held for an extended period of time (approximately 30
days) before conducting the bioassays and change 1n toxicity may have occurred.
Since it was not possible to determine to what extent toxicity had changed,
these data cannot be quantified in that regard.
These data will be used in validation of a stream dilution model. C.
reticulata bioassays did Indicate control water and secondary sources of tox-
icity entering Prickly Pear Creek downstream from Spring Creek, making model
validation somewhat more difficult. Model predictions will underestimate
downstream toxicity, but this will probably not exceed significant levels in
the model based on observed differences found in dilution and station treatment
comparisons.
These bioassays supported the concept of biological whole effluent testing.
C. reticulata bioassays revealed the additional occurrence of toxicity within
The study reach; however, the toxicants were not identified by those chemical
parameters analyzed in this investigation. Impacts from these toxicants would
have been missed if a pollutant-specific chemical approach had been taken. The
effects of the unidentified toxicant were measured in Prickly Pear Creek as a
result of a biological approach, but the sources (discharges) would have to be
determined if this was a situation where effluent 1imits were being set.
Furthermore, toxicity found in both test organisms clearly paralleled past
changes In native fish and macroinvertebrate communities attributed to toxicity.
Distribution and abundance of fish and macroinvertebrates 1n Prickly Pear Creek
have been well documented for summer conditions in previous investigations
(Miller et al. 1982, La Point et al. 1983). These studies have shown that tox-
icity from Spring Creek has little or no effect on native fish, but a definite
impact zone and recovery zone were found In Prickly Pear Creek relative to
39
-------
macro1!nvertebrate community diversity and species abundance. If fathead minnows
and C. reticulata bloassays from this study were used to predict downstream
btotTc "conditions' 1n Prickly Pear Creek, Identical Impacts and/or zones would be
designated. Therefore, It does appear that these bloassays reflect summer
levels of toxicity affecting native fish and macroinvertebrate communities 1n
this system.
WATER QUALITY BASED STANDARDS-TO-PERMIT PROCESS
The work reported here, addressing toxicity persistence In a receiving
stream, represents an Initial step toward field validation of procedures for
establishing water quality based effluent limits using biological data. Al-
though the primary source of metals to Prickly Pear Creek was a tributary
stream rather than an effluent pipe, Spring Creek was treated as an effluent
for which load limits and required reductions could be established and a permit
issued. Data from this and other projects will provide information on the
conservative (or nonconservative) nature of various types of pollutants in a
range of receiving systems. Such case-history information will enable the
Office of Water Regulations and Standards to assess the validity of the mass
balance modeling approach to predicting instream toxicity persistence. An
eventual goal 1s to include in this testing all steps leading to, and including,
the issuance of permits using biological data. This will require participation
by individuals from EPA's Office of Research and Development, several program
officers, Regional offices, and the appropriate States. Analyses to be in-
cluded in these tests would consist of:
1) identification of water quality 1imited systems,
2) water body survey and assessment,
3) review of and, if necessary, revision of designated uses,
4) establishment of appropriate criteria,
5) performance of waste load allocation,
6) identification of control technology requirements.
These analyses, when completed, would result in assurance of a water quality
based permit that would allow the water quality standard to be met. Issuance
of the permit would be followed by monitoring to ensure water quality improve-
ments are being achieved.
RESEARCH NEEDS
Bioassay Protocols
Bioassay procedures used in the field tests were based on draft protocols
and nutritional problems with both test organisms were encountered. C. reticulata
cultures could not be maintained and high control mortal1ties occurred in the
f 1 eld and these tests had to be discontinued. The problem was eliminated in
the laboratory tests using cerophyl as food. At a recent workshop,1 nutritional
ICeriodaphnla Workshop (U.S. EPA Region 8) in Fort Collins, CO, March 6-7, 1984.
-------
problems associated with using yeast were further documented and a yeast
cerophyl-trout food mixture was suggested as an alternative food. Further
research needs were outlined at that workshop in standardizing the testing
procedure.
Chronic toxicity was not measured in the larval fathead minnow tests.
This was apparently related to underfeeding. The food regime described in the
protocol is not quantitative and is ill defined. A quantitative food regime
should be developed if chronic toxicity is to be measured in future testing.
Natural Community Response
Seasonal differences in toxicity were noted in the macroinvertebrate
communities in Prickly Pear Creek, based on qualitative examination. This
may be related to physiological changes in toxicity tolerance as a result of
decreased water temperature and should be examined in future investigations.
Water temperatures were maintained at 25°C in the bioassay used in this study,
and toxicity found in these test organisms appears to reflect summer toxic
effects on native community structure. Further research is needed to deter-
mine the importance of the relationship between these bioassays and changes
in biotic communities in assessing environmental impacts.
41
-------
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Metal concentrations in Prickly Pear Creek were significantly increased
downstream from Its tributary, Spring Creek, which produced elevated levels due
to gold mining tailing and settling ponds in the drainage basin. Concentra-
tions of cadmium, zinc, and copper measured over a 10-day period exceeded U.S.
EPA acute criteria for aquatic life at one or more of the downstream sampling
stations in Prickly Pear Creek. Sediments were a potential downstream source
of metals, but probably did not contribute to ambient water metal concentra-
tions due to stable hydro!ogical conditions. Elevated metal concentrations
were the only water quality problems observed in Prickly Pear Creek during this
investigation.
Spring Creek toxicity to test organisms (£. reticulata and P. promelas)
was primarily due to zinc and copper. Other unidentified toxicants were present
arid Spring Creek was not the only tributary serving as source of toxicity for
Prickly Pear Creek waters. Although there were additional sources, changes in
toxicity (persistence) in Prickly Pear Creek were primarily due to downstream
dilution of Spring Creek water. Therefore, Spring Creek toxicity did exhibit a
conservative behavior in its downstream distribution in Prickly Pear Creek and
complied with toxicity model assumptions.
Sensitivity of the two test organisms to toxicity in Spring Creek and
Prickly Pear Creek was very different. £, reticulata was highly sensitive,
and bioassay results were applicable in assessing toxicity persistence in
Prickly Pear Creek. P_. Promelas had a higher tolerance and could not be used
in assessing toxicity persistence. Although sensitivity of larval fathead
minnows and the cladoceran was different, both appeared to be highly represen-
tative of toxic effects in Prickly Pear Creek native fish and macroinvertebrate
communities found in studies.
Problems were encountered in the field bioassay procedures used for both
organisms. These problems were related to the food regimen used in each of
the bioassays. Cerophyl proved to be a better food source than yeast in
C, reticulata tests. Chronic toxicity was not measured in P. Promelas appar
ently because of underfeeding, and either a quantitative food regime should be
developed for, this test or a nonfeeding test should be used in future field
testing.
-------
\
I
REFERENCES CITED
American Public Health Association. 1980. Standard Methods for the Examina-
tion of Water and Wastewater. 15th Edition. APHA/AWWA/WPCF.
Washington, D. C. 1134 pp.
Di Toro, D. M., D. J. O'Connor, R. V. Thomann, and J. P. St. John. 1982.
Simplified model of the fate of partitioning chemicals in lakes and
streams. Pages 165-190 In: Dickson, K. L., A. W. Maki, and J. Cairns,
eds. Modeling the Fate oT Chemicals in the Aquatic Environment.
Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Duce, T. 1975. Entry, Distribution, and Fate of Heavy Metals and Organohalo-
gens in the Physical Environment. Pages 233-256. _In_: Mc In tyre, A. D.,
and C. F. Mills, eds. Ecological Toxicology Research. NATO Scientific
Affairs Division. Plenum Press, New York and London.
Fostner, I!., and G. T. W. Wittmann. 1979. Metal Pollution in the Aquatic
Environment. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidlberg, and New York. 486 pp.
Hamilton, M. A. 1984. Statistical Analysis of the Seven-Day Ceriodaphnia
reticulata Reproductivity Toxicity Test. Report Submitted to
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Research
Laboratory. Duluth, Minnesota. 39 pp.
Hamilton, M. A., R. C. Russo, and R. V. Thurston. 1977. Trimmed Spearman
Karber Method for estimating median lethal concentrations in toxicity
bioassays. Environmental Science Techno!. 11(7):714-719-
La Point, T. W., S. M. Melancon, B. P. Baldigo, J. J. Janik and M. K. Morris.
1983. Investigation of Methods for Site Specific Water Quality
Assessment: Prickly Pear Creek, Montana. No. EPA 600/x-83-051.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada. 197 pp.
Lemke, A. E., E. Durham, and T. Felhaber. 1983. Evaluation of a Fathead
Minnow Pimephales promelas Embryo-Larval Test Guideline using
Acenaphthene and Isophorone. No. EPA-600/3-83-062. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Duluth, Minnesota. 26 pp.
Magee, P. N. 1975. Uptake, Fate and Action of Heavy Metals and Organohalogen
Compounds in Living Organisms. Pages 257-283. In: Mclntyre, A. D., and
C. F. Mills, eds. Ecological Toxicology ResearcTiT NATO Scientific
Affairs Division. Plenum Press. New York and London.
43
-------
Miller, T. G., S. M. Melancon, and J. J. Janik. 1982. Site Specific Water
Quality Assessment: Prickly Pear Creek, Montana. No. EPA-600/x-82-013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada. 148 pp.
Miller, T. 6., S. M. Melancon and T. W. La Point. In Press. Use of Effluent
Toxicity Tests 1n Predicting the Effect of Metals on Receiving Stream
Invertebrate Communities. Proceeding of SETAC Conference for Hazard
Assessment of Complex Effluents. Cody, Wyoming.
Montana Water QuaHty Bureau. 1981. Prickly Pear Creek: A Report on Man's
Debilitating Impacts. WQB No. 81-2. Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences, Helena, Montana. 157 pp.
Mount, 0, I. and T. J. Norberg. In Press. A seven-day Hfe-cycle cladoceran
toxicity test. Envir. Tox. and Chem.
Norberg, T. J. and D. I. Mount. (Unpublished manuscript). A seven-day
early life stage growth test using the fathead minnow (Plmephales
promelas). Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Duluth, Minnesota.
Patrick, F. M., and M. W. Loutit. 1978. Passage of metals to freshwater
fish from their food. Water Research. 12:395-398.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Water quality criteria
documents: availability. Federal Register. 45(231):79318-79379.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1981. Interim Methods for Sampling and
Analysis of Priority Pollutants in Sediments and Fish Tissue. No. EPA
600/4-81-055. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
440 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Methods for Chemical Analysis
of Water and Wastes. No. EPA 600/4-79-020 Revised March, 1983.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 430 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1980. Surface Water. Pages 1-130. Jji: National
Handbook of Recommended Methods for Water-Data Acquisition. USGS, U.S.
Dept. of Interior, Reston, Virginia.
Wilson, D. 1981. Copper, zinc, and cadmium concentrations of resident trout
related to acid-mine wastes. Calif. Fish and Game. 67(3):176-186.
Wilson, 0. F. 1968. Fluorometrlc Procedures for Dye Tracing. U.S. Geol.
Survey Techniques Water Resources Inv. Book 3, Chap. A12. 31 pp.
Weltering, D. M. 1983. The growth in fish chronic and early life stage
toxicity tests: a critical review. Aquatic Toxicology. 4:1-21.
44
-------
*
APPENDIX A. CERIODAPHNIA RETICULATA BIOASSAY DATA
45
-------
APPENDIX A-l. CERIOOAPHNIA RETICULATA TOXICITY TEST RESULTS PRICKLY PEAR
CREEK, MONTANA 1983
3:::::ssss=:==:::£=;s:::sss:ssss:ss:s:::::::::ss:s::2:=:=::::=::::=;:s::;=:;=::
Test 48-hr 168-hr No. Reproductive Total No. of
Test Treatment Mortality Mortality Females Neonates
Culture Water
0
0
10
233
Control
0
0
10
129
1%
1
1
9
95
2.5%
1
1
9
94
5%
4
4
6
68
10%
8
8
1
2
20%
10
10
0
0
018
1
2
8
114
014
7
8
2
12
013
10
10
0
0
Culture Water
0
0
10
265
Control*
0
0
9
40
1%
0
0
10
37
2.51
0
0
10
60
51
0
0
10
57
m%
0
2
9
59
20%
6
6
0
0
018
1
1
9
106
014
10
10
0
0
013
10
10
0
0
Culture Water
0
0
10
286
Control
0
0
10
176
If
0
0
9
182
2.51
0
0
9
229
5%
0
0
10
253
10%
0
0
10
175
20%
10
10
0
0
018
0
0
10
234
014
0
1
8
154
013
10
10
0
0
Culture Water
0
0
10
385
Control
0
0
10
272
If
0
0
10
211
2.11
1
1
9
247
5%
0
0
10
197
10%
0
10
10
38
10%
10
10
0
0
018
0
4
10
142
014
2
10
1
1
013
10
10
0
0
*9 original females (continued)
46
-------
APPENDIX A-l. (Continued)
sssssssssssssssss3s55sss?5;s=ssssssssss=:ssss5ss:s=;;;sssss=£=;ssss=;;ssss===;s
Test 48-hr 168-hr No. Reproductive Total No. of
Test Treatment Mortality Mortality Females Neonates
Culture Water
0
0
10
379
Control
0
0
10
285
IS
0
0
10
225
2.5%
0
0
10
256
5%
0
0
10
99
10%
2
9
6
44
20%
10
10
0
0
018
0
2
10
228
014
3
7
4
15
013
10
10
0
0
Culture Water
0
0
10
358
Control
0
0
10
337
11
0
0
10
296
2.5%
0
0
10
341
5%
1
3
8
159
10%
10
10
0
0
20%
10
10
0
0
018
10
10
0
0
014
10
10
0
0
013
10
10
0
0
Culture Water
0
0
10
309
Control
0
0
10
338
1%**
3
10
7
29
2.5%
0
0
10
286
5%
1
1
9
203
10%
8
9
1
10
20%.
10
10
0
0
018
8
9
1
14
01#
10
10
0
0
013
10
10
0
0
Culture Water
0
0
10
253
Control
0
0
10
258
1%
0
0
10
256
2,51
0
0
9
206
5%
0
1
9
166
10%
1
8
7
81
20%
10
10
0
0
018
0
5
6
65
014
7
8
1
3
013
10
10
0
0
glnal females
(continued)
not Included In
test results
because of apparent contamination.
47
-------
APPENDIX A-l. (Continued)
sssssssssss;=:ssss3sssssss5s335;=;:s::s===£s:s=ssss==s===:£=::=5ss;;ss:=:====;=
Test 48-hr 168-hr No. Reproductive Total No. of
Test Treatment Mortality Mortality \ , Females Neonates
Culture Water
0
0
0
262
Control*
0
0
9
164
1%
0
0
0
186
2.5%
1
2
9
194
5%
0
1
9
169
10%
1
4
7
83
20%
8
0
0
0
018
0
1
9
174
014
1
7
3
20
013
5
0
0
0
*9 original females
(
48
-------
APPENDIX A-2. RANGE IN PHYSICAL CHEMICAL PARAMETERS MEASURED IN CERIODAPHNIA
RETICULATA TEST, PRICKLY PEAR CREEK, MONTANA 1983 " ~
ssssss:s:;:sss=:==ss:ssssss5ssssss535sssssf±s;===3;=55ss5s::::sssss==ss:s:5:s£
Seven Day Range
Test Test Treatment Temperature Oxygen pH
Culture Water
Control
1%
2.5%
S%
10%
201
018
013
014
22.5-24.5
22,5-24.5
22.5-24.5
23.0-24.5
23.0-24.5
23.0-24.5
23.0-24.5
23.5-24.0
23.5-24.5
6.0-6.4
6.4
6.4
5.0-6.4
6.0-6.5
6.2-6.5
4.3-6.5
5.1-6.5
Culture Water
Control
1%
2.5%
5%
101
20%
018
013
014
23.0-24.5
23.0-25.0
23.0-25.0
23.0-25.0
23.0-25.0
23.0-25.0
23.0-25,0
23.0-25.0
24.5
24.5
5.8-6.8
5.9-6.6
5.8-6.6
5.4-6.6
5.6-6.6
5.8-6.9
4.5-6.5
5.5-6.8
7.0
Culture Water
Control
1%
2.5%
5%
10%
20%
018
013
014
22.5-25.0
22.5-25.0
22.5-25.0
22.5-25.0
22.5-25.0
22.5-25.0
24.0-25.0
22.5-25.0
24.0-24.5
22.5-25.0
5.5-7.0
5.3-6.8
5.0-6.7
5.6-6.7
5.8-6.7
5.7-6.7
6.2-6.3
5.8-6.9
6,3
6.3-6.8
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.6
Culture Water
Control
1*
2.5%
5%
10%
20%
018
013
014
22.5-23.5
22.5-23.5
22.5-23.5
22.5-23.5
22.5-23.5
22.5-23.5
23.5
22.5-23.5
23.5
22.5-25.0
6.7-7.0
6.1-6.7
6.3-6.9
6.3-6.9
6.6-7.0
6.2-7.0
6.3
5.6-7.0
6.6
6.3-6.8
7.4-8
7.4-7
7.4-7
7.4-7
7.5-7
7.4-7
7.4-7.7
7.6
(continued)
49
-------
APPENDIX A-2. (Continued)
=;:==;ss2ss5:====-sss;s5=-==sszs====22======:=:=":=2:i=-=i=:====s==;=:s3s3:s:2
Seven Day Range
Test Test Treatment Temperature Oxygen pH
Culture Water
22.5-24.0
6.5-6.9
7.43-8.3
Control
22.5-24.0
5.9-6.5
7.41-7.7
1%
22.5-24.0
5.9-6.5
7.36-7.7
2.5%
22.5-24.0
6.1-6.7
7.35-7.7
5%
22.5-24.0
6.4-7.0
7.36-7.7
10%
22.5-24.0
6.0-6.9
7.41-7.7
20%
23.5
6.3
018
22.5-24.0
6.1-7.0
7.4-7.6
013
23.5
6.6
014
22.5-24.0
6.0-7.0
7.43-7.7
Culture Water
24.0-24.0
6.3-7.6
7.5-8.5
Control
24.0-26.0
6.0-7.5
7.5-8.1
1%
24.0-26.0
5.8-7.5
7.5-8.1
2.5%
24.0-26.0
5.8-7.5
7.5-8.1
5%
24.5-26.0
5.6-7.3
7.5-8.1
10%
21.5-26.0
5.8-7.6
7.5-8.1
20%
24.5
7.0
7.5
018
24.5
7.1
7.5
013
24.5
7.0
7.5
014
Culture Water
24.0-26.0
6.7-7.7
7.5-8.5
Control
24.0-26.0
5.8-7.7
7.5-8.0
1%
24.0-24.5
5.8-7.6
7.5-8.6
2.5%
24.0-26.0
5.5-7.5
7.5-8.1
5%
24.0-26.0
5.8-7.6
7.5-8.0
10%
24.0-26.0
5.8-7.6
7.5-8.0
20%
24.0-24.0
7.1
7.5
018
24.5-26.0
5.8-7.6
7.5-8.0
013
24.5
7.1
7.5
014
6.9
7.5
Culture Water
Control
1%
2.5%
5%
10%
20%
018
013
014
23.5-24.0
23.5-24.0
23.5-24.0
23.5-24.0
23.5-24.0
23.5-24.0
24.0-24.5
23.5-24.0
23.5-24.0
6.1-7.4
5.9-7.5
5.9-7.4
5.9-7.4
5.0-7.4
5.0-7.4
5.5-7.4
5.8-7.4
5.7-7.4
7.4-7.5
7.4-7.7
7.4-7.8
7.3-7.8
7.3-7.8
7.4-7.8
7.3-7.4
7.4-7.8
7.4-7.6
(continued)
50
-------
APPENDIX A-2. (Continued)
issss=s»3s5sass3ss:$ss:sss:ssssss8s88s5sss£sss;;:;;s8838:
Seven Day Range
Test
Test Treatment
Temperature
Oxygen
^ pH
9
Culture Water
23.5-24.0
4.8-7.4
7.4-7.6
Control
23.5-24,0
5.5-7.4
7.4-7.8
1%
23.8-24.0
5.5-7,3
7.4-7.7
2,51
23.5-24.0
5.5-7.4
7.4-7.7
5%
23.5-24.0
4.8-7.4
7.4-7.7
10%
23.5-24.0
5,1-7.3
7.4-7.7
20%
23.5-24.0
5.1-7.4
7.4-7.5
018
23.5-24.0
5.1-7.3
7.4-7.8
013
23.5-24.0
5.1-7.4
7.4
014
23.5-24.0
5.1-7.4
7.4-7.8
::ss=£===8s=ssssss:sssss8=
: = = s8 = =. = sssssssss8s!:
sssssss:=
51
-------
APPENDIX B. PIMEPHALES PROMELAS BIOASSAY DATA
52
-------
APPENDIX B-l. PIMEPHALES PROMELAS TOXICITY TEST RESULTS, PRICKLY PEAR
CREEK, MONTANA
:;ssssssssss
96 Hours
' 168 Hours
End Weight (tig
Treatment
No. Dead - No. Start2
No. Dead - No. Start
I
SD
Control
9-401
31-401
66
27
6.25%
2-40
9-39
68
10
12.51
0-40
1-40
74
5
25%
2-40
3-40
62
8
50%
30-40
30-40
100
0
100%
40-40
40-40
-
«»
010
0-40
2-40
70
19
014
1-40
12-40
64
6
013
4-40
4-40
72
6
Control
8-40
14-40
55
17
6.25%
4-40
10-40
56
11
12.5%
1-41
2-40
69
7
25%
4-41
4-41
56
8
50%
14-40
14-39
73
23
100%
40-40
40-40
**
-
018
5-40
22-39
83
46
014
1-42
3-42
54
5
013
4-41
5-41
60
3
Control
4-17
14-17
38
18
6.25%
0-19
3-19
56
27
12.5%
1-20
1-20
79
2
25%
0-20
0-20
82
4
50%
0-20
0-20
60
0
100%
3-20
3-20
74
10
018
1-19
7-19
67
0
014
2-20
2-20
71
6
013
1-20
1-20
52
11
Control
0-40
0-40
N/A*
N/A
6.25%
0-40
1-41
N/A
N/A
12.5%
1-40
3-41
N/A
N/A
25%
2-40
2-39
N/A
N/A
50%
15-39
15-39
N/A
N/A
100%
40-40
40-40
N/A
N/A
018
4-40
4-36
N/A
N/A
014
1-40
4-39
N/A
N/A
013
1-41
2-40
N/A
N/A
(continued)
53
-------
APPENDIX B-l. (Continued)
?5ss;=:=ssssssssssssss::ssss:ssss;=========5sssssssss:s=£:£=£ssss££=;ss3ss3sr==
96 Hours 168 Hours End Height (pg)
Test Treatment No. Dead - No. Start2 No. Dead - No. Start J SD
Control
14-42
14-42
N/A
N/A
6.25$
11-45
14-40
N/A
N/A
12.51
5-41
10-41
N/A
N/A
25%
0-42
1-42
N/A
N/A
501
7-39
7-39
N/A
N/A
100%
22-41
22-41
N/A
N/A
018
3-40
4-40
N/A
N/A
014
0-41
1-41
N/A
N/A
013
0-41
0-40
N/A
N/A
Control
2-41
2-41
N/A
N/A
6,25%
4-41
6-41
N/A
N/A
12.5%
1-40
10-40
N/A
N/A
251
13-41
13-41
N/A
N/A
SOS
34-40
34-40
N/A
N/A
100%
41-41
41-41
N/A
N/A
018
0-42
1-42
N/A
N/A
014
0-41
0-39
N/A
N/A
013
4-39
5-39
N/A
N/A
Rec Control 5
1-41
5-40
62
7
Control
4-41
5-41
64
9
6.25%
3-41
3-41
56
8
12.5%
0-40
0-40
54
8
251
1-40
1-40
54
8
50%
1-39
1-39
56
8
100%
22-39
22-39
54
8
018
0-40
0-40
59
6
014
2-41
2-41
77
10
013
0-42
0-42
57
3
Rec Control
3-42
13-41
73
18
Control
8-41
21-41
72
24
6.25%
2-41
10-41
60
9
12.5%
1-41
7-41
82
38
25%
0-41
0-41
70
9
50%
3-41
3-41
60
7
100%
29-41
29-41
131
25
018
1-40
3-40
51
28
014
0-38
0-38
52
11
013
0-41
0-41
49
27
(continued)
54
-------
APPENDIX 8-1. (Continued)
:s5s:ssssssssssssss:sss:ss=^=s=========;;ss=sss:ss:::===
96 Hours 168 Hours End Weight (tig)
Test Treatment No. Dead - No. Start^ No. Dead - No. Start
SD
96
Control
7-41
21-40
62
16
6.25$
2-40
2-40
68
7
12.5%
1-41
2-41
65
10
25%
1-41
1-41
72
6
50%
0-40
0-40
72
10
100%
9-40
10-40
86
11
018
4-42
8-42
79
7
014
0-41
2-40
68
10
013
2-41
2-39
85
10
Control
4-40
7-40
46
9
6.25%
4-41
10-41
54
32
12.5%
0-41
1-41
59
7
25%
0-40
0-40
63
10
50%
3-41
3-41
64
3
100%
15-40
15-40
77
16
018
4-41
21-38
65
6
014
4-42
15-39
69
21
013
0-40
0-40
55
4
Notes:
* One injured larvae may have produced a fungus outbreak in controls for test 0.
^ No. Start equals the number of larvae originally used minus losses due to
screen entrapment, handling injury, overlooked larvae vacuumed during
cleaning, original miscount or other reasons.
3 Only 20 £. promelas could be acquired for each dilution for test 2.
4 Weights were not determined for tests 3, 4, and 5. These fish were sent
to Dr. Kenneth Jenkins, California State University, Long Beach for
enzyme analysis.
5 Reconstituted control (Rec) water hardness was 80-90 pg/1 CaCO-j.
6 A larval fathead growth experiment, run parallel to test 9, but only for
six days resulted in mean weights of 34, 69 and 143 pg for fish fed nothing,
standard test diet, and four times the quantity of the standard test diets,
respectively.
55
-------
APPENDIX B-2. RANGE OF WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS MEASURED FROM
P. PROHELAS TOXICITY TESTS.
5SSS3S;==5SSSSS33SSSSS:SSSSSSSSSSSSSS5SSSSSSSSSSSSSSBSS==5SSSSSSSSS==5S:S=:::::=
Dissolved
Test Treatment Temperature Oxygen pH Conductivity Alkalinity
Control
22-26
6.25%
22-25
12.51
23-25
25%
23-26
SOS
23-26
100%
23
018
22-25
014
22-25
013
22-26
Control
22-26
6.25%
23-25
12.5%
23-25
25%
23-25
50%
23-25
100%
25-25
018
24-26
014
24-25
013
24-26
Control
24-27
6.25%
24-26
12.5%
23-25
25%
23-25
50%
23-26
100%
23-25
018
22-25
014
23-26
013
23-26
Control
22-25
6.25%
23-25
12.5%
23-25
25%
23-24
50%
23-24
100%
24
018
23-25
014
22-26
013
23-25
5.8-8,5 7,4-7.4
6.0-8.8 7.3-7.4
5.9-8.7 7.3
5.9-8.7 7.2-7.4
5.9-8.6 7.3-7.9
8.5 7.4
6.0-8.7 7.4-7.4
6.0-8.7 7.3-7.4
6.1-8.8 7.0-7.4
6.3-7.1 7.0-7.8
6.0-7.7 7.0-7.1
6.3-7.9 7.0-7.8
6.2-6.7 7.0-7.7
6.8-8.2 7.0
6.5-7.5 7.1
5.9-8.6 7.2-7.4
5.9-8.2 7.2-7.6
6.0-8.5 7.1-7.7
5.9-8.6 7.2-7.6
6.3-7.7 7.2-7.5
6.1-8.7 7.2-7.4
6.2-8.4 7.2-7.4
6.0-9.0 7.2-7.4
6.2-7.7 7.2-7.4
6.3-8.0 7.2-7.7
6.0-8.2 7.2-7.7
5.9-6.8 7.2-7.7
6.5-7.9 7.3-7.4
6.1-7.3 7.3-7.4
6.3-7.8 7.3-7.4
6.2-7.2 7.2-7.3
6.2-7.9 7.1-7.4
7.2
6.1-7.4 7.3-7.5
6.1-8.0 7.4-7.5
6.4-8.3 7.4-7.5
154-179
47
170-181
-
191-199
•m
226-241
301-309
421
69
257-282
80
221-241
48
226-241
51
154-160
48
173-178
•
194-195
47
249-249
_
287-314
57
260-276
73
239
58
230-239
52
135-156
45
169-175
-
195-201
49
228-243
_
276-308
63
430-471
61
254-298
70-78
217-228
50
206-238
53
151-156
170-173
-
191-195
_
228-233
-
287-300
-
255-265
217-227
205-235
-
(continued)
56
-------
APPENDIX 8-2. Continued
::ss=s=sss::s:s::::=:=:==sssss3:==3==~±s==3ss=33::3::s::::::s::::s:::::;s::s==
Dissolved
Test Treatment Temperature Oxygen pH ' Conductivity Alkalinity
Control
21-24
6.251
22-24
12.5%
21-23
25%
21-24
50%
21-24
100%
21-24
018
21-25
014
20-24
013
21-24
Control
21-24
6.25%
22-25
12.5%
21-23
25%
22-24
50%
21-23
100%
-
018
21-24
014
22-24
013
21-25
Rec Control1
22-25
Control
22-25
6.25%
22-22
12.5%
22-24
25%
22-23
50%
23-23
100%
23-24
018
22-24
014
22-24
013
21-24
Rec Control
22-25
Control
22-25
6.25%
23-25
12.5%
22-24
25%
22-24
50%
23-25
100%
22-24
018
22-24
014
23-23
013
22-24
6.5-7.7 7.2-7.5
6.5-7.8 7.2-7.6
6.9-7.7 7.2-7.4
6.2-7.8 7.1-7.4
6.5-7.1 7.1-7.3
6.9-7.2 7.0-7.4
6.1-7.8 7.3-7.4
6.3-7.8 7.3-7.4
6.7-7.6 7.3-7.4
6.2-7.4 7.2-7.4
6.2-7.4 7.1-7.4
6.4-7.4 7.0-7.4
6.2-7.2 7.0-7.5
6.5-7.7 7,0-7.4
7.7
6.0-7.8 7.2-7.6
6.3-7.8 7,2-7.6
6.5-8.0 7.1-7.5
5.8-6.6 7.1-7.5
6.3-7.8 7.2-7.8
6.8-6.9 7.0-7.6
6.3-7.9 7.0-7.9
6.7-7.8 7.0-7.7
6.6-8.2 7.0-7.5
6.3-8.3 7.1-7.5
6.3-8.1 7.2-7.5
6.6-7.8 7.1-7.5
6.2-8.0 7.0-7.6
5.9-7.0 7.2-7.6
6.0-8.5 7.2-7.6
5.9-7.7 7.4-7.7
6.4-7.5 7.3-7.7
6.5-8.2 7.3-7.7
6.2-7.7 7.3-7.5
6.3-7.6 7.2-7.5
6.4-7.5 7.3-7.6
6.4-7.5 7.4-7.7
6.3-7.8 7.3-7.6
144-155
47
163-173
194-210
218-280
-
280-308
431-442
70
255-276
226-240
-
226-238
-
149-158
40
162-176
184-195
_
228-233
*
270-304
64
431
254-222
59
222-238
.
219-234
-
330-367
69
120-155
47
166-177
-
188-199
-
221-230
47
280-294
-
395-430
69
248-276
80
223-234
-
227-244
59
360-446
90
141-161
45
177-190
-
185-206
-
223-229
38
287-308
-
420-452
85
225-282
-
220-236
56
231-254
-
(continued)
i
57
-------
APPENDIX B-2. Continued
~3S2S;
fSt
:sssssssssiss
Treatment
sssss=sss=;==s
Temperature
Dissolved
Oxygen
\
PH
3SSSS=5SSSS3E=«
Conductivity
S5SS===S==±
Alkalinity
8
Control
23-25
6.2-7.8
7.2-7.4
151-163
52
6.25%
23-25
6.3-7.9
7.2-7.7
168-177
12.5%
23-25
6.1-7.9
7.2-7.5
190-195
_
251
23-25
6.4-8.0
7.3-7.5
217-239
-
SOS
24-25
6.1-8.1
7.0-7.4
297-323
60
1001
23-25
6.4-8.0
7.0-7.3
407-431
70
018
23-24
6.2-8.0
7.1-7.5
277-287
•»
014
22-25
6.2-8.0
7.1-7.5
234-244
54
013
22-25
6.3-8.1
7.1-7.4
227-241
-
92
Control
19-24
6.4-8.9
7.2-7.8
154-164
45-49
6.25%
19-24
7.4-8.9
7.2-7.9
170-181
-
12.51
19-25
6.4-8.9
7.2-7.8
180-198
-
25%
19-24
6.1-8.9
7.2-7.7
227-235
-
501
19-25
6.2-8.8
7.1-7.7
292-303
_
1001
19-24
6.4-8.7
7.1-7.6
423-443
69-69
018
19-24
6.6-8.8
7.2-7.7
260-276
84
014
19-24
6.4-8.7
7.1-7.7
233-238
-
013
19-25
6.1-8.5
7.2-7.7
229-242
-
:=3sssssssssss=:=
22S2SSSSS52S2
=s=s==s:=====
Note 1. Reconstituted water, 80-90 pg/1 CaC03. Q
Note 2. All temperatures ranged 23-25°C, except during last 24 hours,
58
-------
APPENDIX C. WATER AND SEDIMENT METAL DATA
59
-------
APPENDIX C-l. TOTAL RECOVERABLE (T.R.) AND DISSOLVED (DIS) METAL CONCENTRATIONS (ug/1)
PRICKLY PEAR CREEK STATION Oil, SEPTEMBER 30 THROUGH OCTOBER 9, 1983
= = = === === = = === = = = = = i;;:;s3s;s5s=s:;s!:ss::sss=s== === = = = ;ssss:sssssssssst:
Cadmium Lead Zinc Copper Silver Arsenic
Date
Sample
No.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS
09-30-83
11
2,5
0.1
13.4*
17.2
183
69
14.5*
34.8
<.2*
2.0
1.9
<1.0
12
13
10-01-83
39
3.2
0.5
6.1*
7.3
100
27
<6.0*
23.1
0.2*
0.3
<1.0*
3.3
40
1,8
1.2
7.0
7.0
87
11
6.1*
19.1
<•2*
0.2
<1.0*
2.5
41
3.9
0.6
7.8*
50.8
56*
58
<6.0*
40.7
<.2*
8.2
<1.0
1.7
10-02-83
84
1.6
0.5
13.6
2.6
106
34
<6.0
<6.0
<.2
<.2
2.3
1.0
8S
1.4
0.2
8.4
1.6
127
30
<6.0
<6.0
<.2
<.2
2.7
1.6
86
1.3*
2.0
7.4
3.3
114
29
8.0
<6.0
0.2
<.2
1.3*
1.5
10-03-83
135
1.1*
7.2
37.6*
89.0
80*
222
20.8*
176.0
0.9
<.2
1.4
<1.0
136
1.7
0.2
5.9
0.7
33
24
7.0*
11.1
<.2
<.2
<1.0
<1.0
137
0.4
0.4
5.7*
12.4
65
36
12.0*
31.7
<.2*
0.3
<1.0
<1.0
10-04-83
199
2.1
2.0
19.0
<1.0
77
46
13.0
<6.0
0.7
<.2
<1.0
<1.0
200
201
10-05-83
214
1.1*
2.6
17.8
<1.0
110
48
<6.0*
6.1
1.9
<•2
2.7
1.2
215
1.0
7.6
54
<6.0
0.4
<1.0
216
1.1
15.4
49
7.6
0.3
10-06-83
241
1.9
0.2
22.3
<1.0
70
45
8.8
<6.0
<.2
<•2
<1.0
<1.0
242
243
(continued)
-------
APPENDIX C-l. (Continued)
Cadmium Lead Zinc Copper Silver Arsenic
Date
Sampie
No.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
10-07-83
299
300
301
1.5*
4.4
10.1
<1.0
160
96
13.1
<6
0.4
<.2
11.0
7.1
10-08-83
350
351
352
5.1*
5.8
8.3
4.5
113
27
20
<6
<.2*
0.2
<1.0*
1.1
10-09-83
¦ 404
305
306
:sssss;;;=:
0.6*
2.3
0.6*
9.3
2.0
12.5
8.9
4.3
2.3*
1.7 75
3.3 66
3.3- - 44
24
36
37
<6
16
<6
= = ss,=:s *s
<6
<6
<6
0.3
<.2
<.2
<.2
<.2
<.2
2sn=s = s; =
1.6*
1.0
1.0
sssstssssri:
1.7
1.0
<1.0
= =lir2S32S
*Data were not used because total recoverable concentration was less than dissolved concentration.
-------
APPENDIX C-2. TOTAL RECOVERABLE (T.R.) AND DISSOLVED (DIS) METAL CONCENTRATIONS (pg/1)
SPRING CREEK, SEPTEMBER 30 THROUGH OCTOBER 9, 1983
;z = = = := = ::£ = = : = £ = == = = ^^;s:s3sss::: = s=r==£= = = = = : = :=r = = := = = == = = = = = = = ===; = s:=ssss?;333ssss:ssss::s:::££s = =
Cadmium Lead Zinc Copper Silver Arsenic
Date
Sample
No.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS
09-30-83
26
7.6
5.2
48.1
6
2590
1880
91.3
23.6
2.3
0.2
20.4
3.2
27
28
10-01-83
66
8.1
5.9
66.7
2480
220.0
60.6
1.9
0.2
86.7
5.3
67
8.8
7.5
236.2
23.4
3600
3000
224.0
96.0
0.1
2.7
68
8.8
8.1
243.2
45.2
3650
3170
119.0
2.4
0.1
81.6
4.5
10-02-83
99
4.7
29.1
9.0
1760
1470
66.8
26.4
<.2
4.5
100
5.4
4.6
50.2
6.0
1820
1490
85.3
25.4
0.5
0.2
13.5
3.6
101
7.1
5.0
38.3
14.0
1850
1480
55.4
33.6
0.8
0.2
15.7
2.2
10-03-83
162
8.5
5.6
16.2
2.1
2010
1690
66.4
8.0
0.4
<.2
18.4
3.2
163
164
10-04-83
184
8.3
3.9
106.9
2.0
1770
59.4
<6.0
1.4
<.2
26.7
1.8
185
4.3
88.7
8.6
1527
1183
51.6
19.4
0.7
<.2
186
4.2
100.7
7.0
1626
1107
57.0
14.7
0.7
<-2
10-05-83
229
10.8
3.0
118.5
<1.0
2750
1280
126.0
<6.0
6.8
<.2
37.5
1.6
230
15.0
128.1
2561
114.8
1.7
231
9.6
120.3
2613
111.8
1.7
10-06-83
256
13.0
3.9
29.4
1.8
1560
1510
51.1
15.1
1.0
<.2
13.4
3.8
257
7.5
3.7
33.8
3.6
1708
1111
58
18.9
0.3
<-2
14.6
2.2
258
5.1
5.3
30.0
4.0
1732
1096
57
13.1
0.3
<-2
13.9
1.5
(continued)
-------
APPENDIX C-2. (Continued)
;= = : = = s: = = = :::.= 2= = = = := = s = 3 = __s3_____ = = = = = = = = = = = =
Cadmium Lead Zinc Copper Silver Arsenic
Date
Sampl e
No.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS
10-07-83
314
315
316
4.0
7.8
23.4
2.1
1260
1030
37.0
<6.0
1.0
<.2
12.2
2.3
10-08-83
365
366
367
6.2
4.9
37.4
5.0
1940
1200
61.8
<6.0
0.1
<.2
22.0
2.8
10-09-83
419
420
421
9.0
5.6*
5.0*
7.6
8.4
5.5
58.6
41.9
40.9
12.3
6.7
10.7
1990
2068
2020
1680
1164
1066
69.3
64
70
28.2
23.8
27.2
1.0
0.6
0.5
<.2
<-2
<.2
17.0
16.4
15.6
4.8
2.7
3.7
-------
APPENDIX C-3. TOTAL RECOVERABLE (T.R.) AND DISSOLVED (DIS) METAL CONCENTRATIONS (jig/1)
PRICKLY PEAR CREEK STATION 013, SEPTEMBER 30 THROUGH OCTOBER 9, 1983
: = = = ; = = ; = = = = = = = = = =. = :s;=sss=;=:3;2 = 22 === = = = = = = = = s== = :s: = = = ==================================== = === = = = === = = =
Cadmium Lead Zinc Copper Silver Arsenic
Date
Sample
No.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS
09-30-83
29
30
31
4.0
1.6
29.6
2.7
672
443
24.4
7.6
.4
<.2
8.3
0.7
10-01-83
57
58
59
3.7
4.4
3.2
2.2
2.6
1.9
28.7
20.7
23.5
4.6
3.9
17.0
677
659
633
481
503
528
23.5
19.0
19.4*
12.6
15.7
44.5
.2
.2
<.2*
<.2
<.2
0.4
5.5
5.8
6.6
<1.0
2.5
1.5
10-02-83
108
109
110
2.3
3.1
2.0
1.7
1.8
1.7
48.4
40.2
44.8
5.3
5.5
7.4
683
592
670
426
443
430
65.0
33.4
42.3
9.5
11.6
10.1
0.9
0.4
0.4
<.2
<.2
<.2
10.7
10.6
10.0
1.6
1.0
1.4
10-03-83
153
154
155
1.8
1.5
54.4
<1.0
531
378
27.2
6.8
0.7
<.2
5.8
1.3
10-04-83
202
203
204
5.9
1.6
31.0
<1.0
565
371
29.7
<6.0
0.8
<.2
6.4
1.7
10-05-83
238
239
240
3.3
3.2
19.8
1.3
41.3
29.9
30.6
4.0
641
632
641
402
32.2
27.0
34.0
<6.0
<.2*
1.1
1.4
0.2
7.4
1.5
10-06-83
262
263
264
9.4
1.5
23.2
7.2
517
375
39.6
<6.0
11.2
<.2
7.1
2.4
(continued)
-------
APPENDIX C-3. (Continued)
Cadmium Lead Zinc Copper Silver Arsenic
Sample — — ——•— ——
Date No. T.R. PIS. T.R. PIS, T.R. PIS. T.R. PIS. T.R. PIS. T.R. 01$,
10-07-83 323 3.9 1.5 20.0 8.0 567 361 22.5 <6.0 <,2 <.2 3.7 2.4
324
325
10-08-83 368 4.1 2,7 21.0 2.4 531 397 21.4 <6.0 <.2 <.2 5.4 2.0
369
370
10-09-83 422 7.6 5.6 11.7 1.3 481 390 12.0 <6.0 <.2 <.2 3.2 2.3
423
424
sss;;;==========s=s£3:3sss;;=?==========r==r:::sssss5=?===;=======rs:ss:ssssssz:s?=?===========£--sssssss
-------
APPENDIX C-4. TOTAL RECOVERABLE {T.R.) AND DISSOLVED (DIS) METAL CONCENTRATIONS (jig/1)
PRICKLY PEAR CREEK STATION 014, SEPTEMBER 30 THROUGH OCTOBER 9, 1983
Cadmium Lead Zinc Copper Silver Arsenic
Date
Sample
No.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS
09-30-83
32
33
34
1.8*
2.4
10.7
5.4
341
266
11.4*
19.1
.3
.2
3.3
1.9
10-01-83
60
61
62
11.0
1.7*
1.3
1.2
28.0
1.0
27.1*
12.8*
11.4
43.2
33.3
6.0
383
363*
370
286
393
274
33.1*
10.5*
11.4*
96.8
73.3
25.2
0.6*
<.2*
<.2*
3.9
3.5
0.2
4.2
4.4
9.4
1.5
2.6
2.9
10-02-83
105
106
107
1.2
1.2
1.2*
0.8
0.8
4.9
19.7
41.7
12.4
<1.0
<1.0
1.7
356
349
251
239
253
12.2
11.2
13.8
<6.0
<6.0
6.8
<.2
0.2
<-2
<.2
<.2
<.2
3.7
4.0
2.7
1.3
1.1
1.1
10-03-83
156
157
158
1.1
0.9
22.9
<1.0
261
202
22.1
6.7
0.3
<-2
3.3
2.1
10-04-83
205
206
207
1.4
1.3
22.5
<1.0
301
218
17.5
<6.0
0.3
<.2
4.2
2.3
10-05-83
235
236
237
11.8
1.8
1.5
1.2
31.3
14.2
12.3
4.4
358
354
309
258
8.6
8.0
6.0
<6.0
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.2
3.6
1.9
10-06-83
265
266
267
4.9
2.1
26.5
6.4
315
249
14.5
<6.0
0.5
<.2
7.0
3.3
(continued)
-------
APPENDIX C-4. (Continued)
Cadmium Lead Zinc Copper Silver Arsenic
Sample
Date No. T.R. PIS. T.R. PIS, T.R. PIS. T.R. PIS. T.R. PIS. T.R. PIS.
10-07-83 320 4.2 3.4 11.5 6.0 347 262 14.6 <6.0 <.2 <.2 4.4 2.3
321
322
10-08-83 371 9.5 7.4 14.9 3.6 341 ' 253 15.8 <6.0 <.2 <.2 4.0 2.0
372
737
10-09-83 425 3.2* 3.6 11.4 1.2 298 235 <6.0 <6.0 0.2 <.2 2.6* 2.8
426
427
en
-------
APPENDIX C-5. TOTAL RECOVERABLE (T.R.) AND DISSOLVED (DIS) METAL CONCENTRATIONS (ug/1)
PRICKLY PEAR CREEK STATION 018, SEPTEMBER 30 THROUGH OCTOBER 9, 1983
Cadmium lead Zinc Copper Silver Arsenic
Date
Sample
No.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS.
T.R.
DIS
09-30-83
35
36
37
1.9
0.8
4.9*
37.1
177
159
<6.0*
127
0.2*
1.7
7.4*
3.0
10-01-83
63
64
65
2,5
1,7
1.3*
0.6
0.5
2.4
13.1*
8.1
13.4*
40.0
<1.0
14.8
197
204
299
147
135
169
7.5
8.8*
21.4*
6.0
103.0
88.8
<.2*
<.2
<.2*
2.3
<•2
0.6
9.3
8.8
9.3
1.1
6.6
6.1
10-02-83
102
103
104
8.2
3.5
2.0
1,1
0.7
2.0
25.2
35.7
23.1
2.4
1.7
4.4
207
205
229
130
133
128
9.8
7.8
26.8
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<.2
<.2
1.3
<.2
<.2
<.2
9.0
10.0
8.6
<1.0
<1.0
6.5
10-03-83
159
160
161
1.4*
2.0
16.3
<1.0
193
129
15.4
6.7
<.2
<.2
9.4
6.0
10-04-83
208
209
210
8,7
0.5
11.6
<1.0
187
98
13.9
<6.0
0.2
<•2
10.3
6.2
10-05-83
232
233
234
1.7
1,7
2,1
1.4
11.2
12.6
11.7
8.0
192
157
158
122
14.7
7
11
<6.0
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.2
10.0
6.8
10-06-83
368
369
270
1,6
1.1
9.6
<1.0
187
149
10.2
<6.0
<.2
<.2
11.9
6.9
(continued)
-------
APPENDIX C-5. (Continued)
Cadmium Lead Z1nc Copper Silver Arsenic
Sample
Date No. T.R. DIS. T.R. DIS. T.R. DIS. T.R. DIS. T.R. DIS. T.R. DIS.
10-07-83 317 3.1 1.4 14.8 4.6 215 144 12.7 <6.0 0.2 <.2 11.0 6.7
318
319
10-08-83 374 2.8 1.5 13.5 1.8 232 122 11.1 <6.0 0.2 <.2 8.7 6.2
375
376
10-09-83 428 3.9 2.4 15.7 4.6 226 128 9.5 <6.0 0.2 <.2 7.8 6.5
429
430
:sssssss:zssiss££:s=£ = ±: = = = s = =====zi = i = i = i = i = = = = = = ===;i=;^?;s = s = ss?33ssssss:s:r= = ':== = = = = : = : = iz = i?i = ;;s^
-------
APPENDIX C-6. REPLICATE SEDIMENT METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN SPRING CREEK
AND PRICKLY PEAR CREEK, MONTANA, SEPTEMBER 27-29, 1983
Sediment Metal concentration mg/kg
Station Cadmium Lead Zinc Copper Silver
oo i
3
110
380
100
1
3
145
550
145
1
4
150
575
155
2
Spring
31
4020
4965
1110
47
Creek
27
3315
4985
1145
22
30
3500
4975
1170
40
013
28
3010
4940
970
32
31
3470
4935
1000
35
30
3240
4935
930
35
014
14
1220
2890
380
11
14
1220
2770
360
12
14
1290
2635
375
13
018
9
655
1950
200
6
9
700
1620
215
7
8
650
1470
190
6
S2S52S=== = :
: = :;;35ss:s;
70
-------
APPENDIX D. HYDROLOGICAL DATA
1
71
-------
APPENDIX D-l. STREAM STAGE HEIGHT AT PRICKLY PEAR CREEK STATIONS Oil, 1983
SSSS=SSSSBSa8SSSSSSSS5S3388BSB5SSSS=S=====SSSSSSSSSSS=SSS:=;3S3S8S=S3SSS=S8SSSS
Gage Height Gage Height
Date Time (cm) Date - Time (cm)
09-21-83
1600
21.0
10-01-83
0840
20.5
09-22-83
1030
21.0
10-01-83
2000
20.5
09-22-83
1400
23.0
10-02-83
0830
21.0
09-22-83
2400
23.0
10-02-83
1600
21.0
09-23-83
0400
22.0
10-03-83
0745
21.0
09-23-83
0700
22.0
10-03-83
1430
20.0
09-23-83
1200
21.0
10-04-83
1600
20.0
09-23-83
1800
21.5
10-05-83
0830
20.0
09-23-83
2200
21.5
10-05-83
1300
20.0
09-24-83
1230
21,5
10-05-83
2100
20,0
09-25-83
0800
21.0
10-06-83
0800
20.0
09-25-83
2000
21.0
10-06-83
1900
20.0
09-26-83
1100
21.0
10-07-83
0815
20.0
09-26-83
2000
21.0
10-08-83
0745
20.5
09-27-83
1200
21.0
10-09-83
0830
20.0
09-27-83
1600
21.0
10-10-83
0820
20.0
09-28-83
0900
21.0
10-11-83
0820
19.5
09-28-83
1600
21.0
10-12-83
0800
19.5
09-29-83
0830
20.5
10-13-83
0930
19.5
09-30-83
1100
21.0
10-14-83
1000
20,5
10-15-83
0800
21.0
3=S = SSSZSSSSSSSSS=SS== = = =: = SS=I=3SSSSSSSSZSS = : = = S= = = =:S5SSSSSS = = S£ = = = S = = = = = === = = :«
72
-------
APPENDIX D-2. STREAM STAGE HEIGHT AT SPRING CREEK STATION, 1983
SSSSSSSSS£S=SSSSSSS;S5SSS;SSS==SS?=^S3SS=S;SSS=;3SSSS33SS£==SS££SS===;SS=S3S=;S
Gage Height > Gage Height
Date Time (cm) Date - Time (cm)
09-21-83
1300
11.0 ¦
10-01-83
0840
11.0
09-21-83
1630
10.5
10-01-83
2000
11.0
09-22-83
1000
10.5
10-02-83
0800
11.0
09-22-83
1400
10.5
10-02-83
1600
11.0
09-22-83
2400
10.5
10-03-83
0745
11.0
09-23-83
0400
10.5
10-03-83
1430
11.0
09-23-83
0700
10.5
10-04-83
0745
11.0
09-23-83
1200
10.5
10-04-83
1400
10.5
09-23-83
1800
10.0
10-04-83
1700
10.5
09-24-83
1230
10.5
10-05-83
0745
11.0
09-25-83
0800
10.5
10-05-83
2100
11.0
09-25-83
2000
10.5
10-06-83
0745
11.0
09-26-83
1100
10.5
10-06-83
1900
10.5
09-26-83
2000
10.5
10-07-83
0745
11.0
09-27-83
1200
11.0
10-08-83
0830
10.5
09-27-83
1600
11.0
10-09-83
0830
11.0
09-28-83
0900
11.0
10-10-83
0800
10.5
09-28-83
1600
11.0
10-11-83
0800
10.5
09-29-83
0830
11.0
10-12-83
0730
10.5
09-29-83
1930
11.5
10-13-83
1100
12.5
09-30-83
0730
12.0
10-14-83
1000
11.0
09-30-83
1100
11.0
10-15-83
0745
11.0
-------
APPENDIX D-3. STREAM STAGE HEIGHT AT PRICKLY PEAR CREEK 5m DOWNSTREAM
FROM THE SPRING CREEK CONFLUENCE
sss;ss=====ssssssss3ss"ss:ssssssss::£ss=sssss.::sssssss:ssss:sssss£=z;;ssssr====
Gage Height Gage Height
Date Time (cm) Date Time (cm)
09-21-83
1300
37.0
10-01-83
0840
36.0
09-21-83
1630
37.0
10-01-83
2000
36.0
09-22-83
1000
37.0
10-02-83
0830
36.0
09-22-83
1400
37.0
10-02-83
1600
36.0
09-22-83
2400
37.5
10-03-83
' 0745
36.0
09-23-83
0400
38.5
10-03-83
1430
35.5
09-23-83
0700
38.0
10-04-83
1600
35.0
09-23-83
1200
37.0
10-05-83
0800
35.0
09-23-83
1800
37.0
10-05-83
2100
35.0
09-23-83
2200
37.5
10-06-83
1430
37.0
09-24-83
1230
37.0
10-06-83
1900
37.0
09-25-83
0830
37.0
10-07-83
0830
37.0
09-25-83
2000
37.0
10-08-83
0845
37.0
09-26-83
1100
37.0
10-09-83
0800
37.0
09-26-83
2000
37.0
10-10-83
0810
38.5
09-27-83
1200
37.0
10-11-83
1000
37.0
09-27-83
1600
37.0
10-12-83
1100
37.0
09-28-83
0900
37.0
10-13-83
1100
37.0
09-28-83
1600
37.0
10-14-83
1000
39.0
09-29-83
0830
36.0
10-15-83
0830
40.0
09-30-83
1100
36.0
74
------- |