Preliminary Evaluation of Potential Site-Specific Zinc and Cadmium Standards for the Upper Arkansas River, Segments 2B and 2C Technical Memorandum

SPS!IS Document ID

1052370

GEI

\X';itcr ResGi.irct.-i Lnvironniental jjiel PRELIMINARY Lxtilogical Services EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL SITE-SPECIFIC ZINC AND CADMIUM STANDARDS FOR THE UPPER ARKANSAS RIVER, SEGMENTS 2B AND 2C TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Submitted to: Resurrection Mining Company

Submitted by: GEI Consultants, Inc./ Chadwick Ecological Division 5575 South Sycamore Street, Suite 101 Littleton, Colorado 80120

September 2006 Project 062510

Iff!-' PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL SITE-SPECIFIC ZINC AND CADMIUM STANDARDS FOR THE UPPER ARKANSAS RIVER, SEGMENTS 2B AND 2C TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Submitted to: Resurrection Mining Company

Submitted by: GEI Consultants, Inc./ Chadwick Ecological Division 5575 South Sycamore Street, Suite 101 Littleton, Colorado 80120

September 2006 Project 062510

Steven Canton Project Manager Table of Contents

Section 1 - Background 3

Section 2 - Determination of the Appropriate Residential Fauna 4

Section 3 - Approaches to the Development of Site-Specific Standards 8 3.1 Potential Site-Specific Acute and Chronic Criteria for Zinc 8 3.2 Potential Site-Specific Acute and Chronic Standards for Cadmium 17 3.3 Proposed Site-Specific Zinc and Cadmium Standards 20

Section 4 - References 22

List of Tables

Table I General macroinvertebrate groups identified from benthic samples collected spring and fall (2000-2005) from the Upper Arkansas River, Segments 2b and 2c. Table 2 New acute and chronic zinc data from the literature review included in CEC et al. Table 3 Updated acute toxicity database for zinc, with genus mean acute values (GMAV) and species mean acute values (SMAV) ranked from least sensitive to most sensitive genus (all normalized to hardness = 50 mg/L by updated slope = 0.8537). Table 4 Summary of current Colorado table value standards (TVS) and updated zinc criteria at varying hardness levels using updated toxicity database, revised pooled-hardness slope, and updated acute-chronic ratio. Table 5 Site-specific acute zinc toxicity databases for the Upper Arkansas River, Segment 2b and Segment 2c. Table 6 Recalculation of the acute and chronic site-specific zinc standard for Segment 2b of the upper Arkansas River (N = 26 genera, R = sensitivity rank in database). Table 7 Colorado chronic cadmium loxicity database ranked by genus mean chronic values (GMCV) normalized to hardness = 50 mg/L as CaCO3 , with the chronic toxicity hardness slope (0.7998). Table 8 Updated cadmium acute-chronic ratio from CEC (2004c). Only bold values were used in the final acute-chronic ratio (FACR) calculation. Table 9 Summary of existing Colorado TVS and proposed site-specific zinc and cadmium standards for Segments 2b and 2c of the upper Arkansas River at varying hardness levels. All values are u.g dissolved zinc or cadmium/L.

0625ID I l-OV-05 Preliminary I-v;iluation of PolcntiaJ Site-Spec September 2006 List of Figures

Figure 1 The relationship between the species mean acute values (SMAV) and species mean acute-chronic ratios (SMACR) (log-log scale) for cadmium.

List of Appendices

Appendix A Benthic Macroinvertebrate Summary Appendix B Upper Arkansas River, Segments 2b and 2c

052510 I Ml'Mtt Preliminary EvaJualion of Potential Siie-Spec September 2006 Section 1 - Background

At the request of Resurrection Mining Co., GEI Consultants, Inc./Chadwick Ecological Division (GEI/CED) has evaluated the potential for deriving site-specific standards, in the form of hardness based equations, for zinc and cadmium for the Upper Arkansas River. These potential site-specific standards would be for Segments 2b, and 2c of the Upper Arkansas (CDPHE 2006) representing the first two segments downstream of California Gulch. Segment 2b includes the section of the upper Arkansas River from a point immediately upstream of the confluence with California Gulch to a point immediately upstream of the confluence with the Lake Fork. Segment 2c includes the section of the upper Arkansas River from immediately upstream of the confluence with the Lake Fork to a point immediately upstream the confluence with Lake Creek. Both segments presently have temporary modifications for zinc (270 ug/L and 250 ug/L, respectively), while Segment 2b also has a temporary modification for cadmium (1.3 ug/L). Temporary modifications tor these two segments expire December 2007.

While the Upper Arkansas River is classified as a cold-water, aquatic life stream, "aquatic life" is a broad designation. It is important to more appropriately characterize the aquatic life expected to be present (i.e., characterize uses that can be attained) for a specific stream segment to ensure that any proposed standards are protective of that expected "aquatic life" (Michael and Moore 1997). As such, the proposed site-specific standards derived in this effort took into consideration a number of factors, including:

1. Use of results of long-term field sampling of available habitat, fish, and benthic invertebrate communities to determine potential resident species in these segments, 2. Use of the zinc and cadmium toxicity databases underlying the current Colorado table value standards (TVS),

3. Use of more recent data, resulting in a further update of the Colorado zinc toxicity database, including unpublished data from the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW), and

4. Use of the USEPA recalculation procedure for water quality criteria (USEPA 1994).

()f)2MO 1 MW-05 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential Site-Spec September 2006 Section 2 - Determination of the Appropriate Residential Fauna

Before beginning a recalculation by deletion of non-resident taxa, one must first determine resident and potentially resident fauna for the waterbody in question. The upper Arkansas River Segments 2b and 2c provide adequate habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates and maintenance of coldwater fish communities. This has been documented with extensive biological monitoring conducted on behalf of Resurrection Mining Co., from 1994 to present (CEC 2006). These efforts have established historical resident benthic macroinvertebrate and fish species at various stations along the upper Arkansas River from the confluence of the East Fork to downstream of the confluence with Empire Gulch. The analysis in this report specifically focuses on the more recent biological data collected 2000-2005 from Segments 2b and 2c of the upper Arkansas River. Sampling sites in these segments include AR-3a and AR3b for Segment 2b and AR-4 and AR-5 (and additional fish sampling sites of the Colorado Division of Wildlife) for Segment 2c. Data collected from the sampling site immediately upstream of California Gulch (AR-2) were also taken into consideration for the determination of potentially resident species of Segments 2b and 2c that may not have been present historically due to water quality limitations. All sampling sites are described by CEC (2006).

For species that were not specifically sampled for in the long-term monitoring program (e.g. zooplankton, bryozoans, ostracods), the potential for residence was determined from analyses of appropriate habitat and literature reviews. Because Segment 2 of the Upper Arkansas River is a high altitude mountain stream, several organisms included in the updated Colorado zinc toxicity database would potentially not be expected to occur. For example, warm water fish would not be expected to occur in Segments 2b or 2c of the upper Arkansas River. In addition, based on habitat preferences and known distributions, zooplankton would not be expected to inhabit these streams as "resident" populations. The potential absence (or presence) of this taxonomic group can be important, as they often represent sensitive taxa that can drive the final criteria for a particular metal. Further discussions of these groups follow.

Planklonic Microinverlebrales - Despite their affinity for lentic (ponds, lakes) habitats, zooplankton, including cladocerans, are periodically observed in lotic (stream) systems. Many of these organisms are "accidentals," washed out of an upstream or off-channel lake, pond, or reservoir, with no means of sustaining a population within the stream system without the contribution of this downstream drift from the source population.

0625IO I I-O'MIS Preliminary Kvidualion of Potential Site-Spec September 2006 For example, Chandler (1937) studied the persistence of plankton drifting from three Michigan lakes into three low gradient, slow flowing rivers. He determined that plankton drifting into the rivers were rapidly eliminated, with Crustacea (which includes cladocerans) and Rotifera being the most quickly removed, having a pronounced decrease in density within a half mile and often within a few meters of the lake. These rates of removal are similar to results reported by Ward (1975), which determined that zooplankton, cladocerans in particular, are fairly rapidly removed from lotic systems below their lentic source. This pattern ofcladoceran removal from lotic habitats downstream of lentic "donor" habitats has been well documented (Novotny and Hoyt 1982, Phillips 1995).

Hynes (1970) concluded that zooplankton can maintain themselves against only minimal velocities of a few millimeters/second, and that swiftly flowing systems would quickly eliminate any true zooplankton. Thorp et al. (1994) studied the zooplankton community of the Ohio River, and determined that the density of plankton in the river was negatively correlated with river velocity and was probably physically controlled.

In a study of the Illinois River and its tributaries in Arkansas, Brown el al. (1989) found cladocerans comprised between 0.05 and 10.4% of the total zooplankton density in these streams. The authors note that a negative relationship was observed between plankton density and velocity, specifically when the velocity exceeded 0.05 m/sec. (0.16 ft/see). Nearly identical results were seen by Richardson (1991) in his study of a stream in southern Oklahoma.

Persistence of planktonic microinvertebrates in streams may also be related to the production of ephippa, or resting egg cases, that are common to cladocerans (Pennak 1989). However, the ephippa of many daphnids (e.g., Ceriodaphnia and Daphnid) are not adapted to cling or otherwise attach to substrates and would be easily washed downstream in lotic habitats (Vila 1989). This lack of adaptation for a lotic environment further indicates the transient nature of cladoceran populations in swiftly flowing streams and rivers.

As such, it appears that even if zooplankton were found in the Upper Arkansas River, planktonic microinvertebrates would be expected to be present only as transients from upstream or off-channel lentic habitats, such as beaver ponds or lakes/ponds. For example, despite historic water quality problems zooplankton have been observed in California Gulch downstream of the Leadville Wastewater Treatment Plant lagoons (unpublished observations), but would not be considered "resident" in California Gulch. Given their habitat requirements, these organisms would not be able to sustain populations in Segments 2b and 2c of the upper Arkansas River, which is not unexpected given the high gradients and fast velocities with low pool retention times.

As transients, planktonic microinvertebrates, including all cladocerans and copepods, would not be included in the "expected community" as resident populations for this stream and,

(Hi25IO I |.(W-05 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential She-Spec 5 September 2006 thus, are not included in recalculation of standards for either segment below. However, benthic microcrustaceans, such as ostracods, were retained in the analysis, as they may be resident at the site.

Fish - The presence of trout during all available sampling episodes in Segments 2b and 2c of the upper Arkansas River would indicate that they should remain in any site-specific zinc recalculations. Brown trout dominate the fish community at all sites in this portion of the Arkansas River, comprising an average over 94% of the density and biomass estimates (CEC 2006). Although brook, rainbow, and cutthroat trout have been found with quite low densities within and in the vicinity of Segments 2b and 2c; these species were still included in the recalculation. One other potentially resident fish species with toxicity data at the genus level is the longnose sucker (Catostomus catostonms). No data for zinc or cadmium toxicity is available for this species. Therefore, toxicity data for the white sucker (Calostomus commersoni) was retained to represent this species. All other non-resident warm water fish , as well as non-resident salmonids (e.g., Arctic graying, coho, sockeye, and Chinook salmon), were deleted from the site-specific toxicity database.

Benthic Macro invertebrates - Spring and fall macroinvertebrate data collected spring of 2000 through spring of 2005 (CEC 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004a, and unpublished data) for sites, AR-2, AR-3a, AR-3b, AR-4 and AR-5 on the Upper Arkansas River were reviewed to determine resident or potentially resident benthic macroinvertebrates communities for both segments (Appendix A). Data were evaluated at the species level and at higher taxonomic levels (Table 1). This is necessary for if the broader taxonomic level was determined resident, all species in that level were retained for recalculation. In addition, although the Order Odonata is not resident to the segment, this Order was also been retained to represent Order Coleoptera (which is resident at the site) and other resident aquatic insects not present in the toxicity database. Overall, the benthic communities in the Upper Arkansas River are fairly representative of typical streams in this region and are considered resident fauna and retained in any recalculation.

Other Potentially Resident Species- Amphipods, isopods, and gastropods have been collected rarely from sites AR-4 and AR-5 downstream of the Lake Fork. These taxa have not been collected from sites AR-2, AR3a or AR3b, which is not surprising given the distribution and habitat preferences of these taxa. Amphipods, such as Hyalella azteca and Gammarus lucustris, have been documented regionally, occurring in lentic (i.e., standing water) habitats specifically associated rooted aquatic macrophytes (i.e., ponds/lakes, below dams, backwater habitats of large, low gradient streams) (Pennak and Rosine 1976). Rooted aquatic macrophytes, which serve as the primary habitat of the amphipods, do not frequently exist in rocky-bottomed, high-gradient Rocky Mountain streams (Ward el al. 2002). Rather, aquatic macrophytes in these high elevation streams are limited to mosses, lichens and liverworts. The rooted aquatic macrophytes preferred by amphipods and isopods do not

06251(1 I l-oy-05 Preliminary Evaluation oCPolcnlial Silt-Spue September 2006 become part of the resident flora of mountain streams until further downstream at lower elevation where the gradient lessens (Ward et al. 2002).

Given these habitat preferences and only occasional occurrence in very low numbers, it is likely the amphipods and isopods collected from AR-4 and AR-5 are transients moving into the upper Arkansas River from the Lake Fork. Lake Fork receives the outfall of Turquoise Lake as well as effluent from a fish hatchery and contains habitat more similar to the preferred habitat preferences for these species. Given the uncertainty of their status, for the purposes of this analysis, it was determined that two separate site-specific equations would be derived, one equation that includes toxicity data for amphipods, isopods, and gastropods for Segment 2c downstream of the Lake Fork and another that does not include these species for Segment 2b.

TABLE 1: General macroinvertebrate groups identified from benthic samples collected spring and fall (2000-2005) from the Upper Arkansas River, Segments 2b and 2c.

Sites Macroinvcrtehratc Group AR-2*, AR-3A. AR-3B, AR-4, AR-5 Plecoplera Oligochacta Ephcmcroptcra Hydracarina Trichoptera Nemaloda Coleoptera Amphipoda** Diptcra Isopoda** Hemiptera Pclecypoda Tubellaria Gastropoda** * Upstream site located in Segment 2a **0nly sampled from Segment 2c (AR-4 or AR-5)

0(i25IO 11-IHMM Preliminary Evaluation ofl'olcmial Silo-Spec September 2006 Section 3 - Approaches to the Development of Site-Specific Standards

USEPA has provided three methods to be used in calculating site-specific water quality criteria, including the recalculation procedure (USEPA 1994, specifically, "Appendix B, The Recalculation Procedure"). This method is based on modification of the toxicity database upon which the national water quality criteria is based through: 1) addition of species to the database using new data approved by the USEPA; 2) adjustment of existing values for a species already in the database using new, USEPA-approved data; and/or 3) deletion of non- resident species from the database using the results of field studies and literature reviews. The other two methods are the water effects ratio (WER) procedure and the resident species procedure. This analysis focuses on specifically on the recalculation procedure.

3.1 Potential Site-Specific Acute and Chronic Criteria for Zinc

Update of the Colorado Zinc Toxicity Database

Prior to initiating any recalculation, it is important to first review the zinc toxicity database for completeness and inclusion of relevant data. The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission recently approved an updated zinc toxicity database as part of the approval of new zinc acute and chronic table value standards during the 2005 Basic Standards Hearing (CDPHE 2005). This updated zinc toxicity database was built upon the USEPA-approved toxicity database presented in the ;'!995 Updates" (USEPA 1996), with the addition of new toxicity data published since 1995.

We recently conducted a search of the scientific literature to determine if additional relevant toxicity data has become available since the assemblage of the Colorado zinc toxicity database as part of a review of the USEPA Recalculation procedure for the. Arid West Water Quality Research Project (CEC el al., 2006). Additional acceptable data, including a few studies published prior to acceptance of the Colorado toxicity database and unpublished aquatic insect toxicity data from the CDOW, were located and included in the analysis for the upper Arkansas River. Table 2 provides a summary of new acute and chronic data added to the Colorado zinc toxicity database.

0<"i25IO I I-09-05 Preliminary l-valualion of Potmlial Silg-Spcc September 2006 TABLE 2: New acute and chronic zinc data from the literature review included in CEC et al.

Hardness Adjusted Common Test LC50 Species Method as CaCOj LC50* Reference Name Duration (W5/L) (mg/L) (Hg/L) Anodonta imbecitis rw mussel S,M,T 39 268 331 Keller and Zam 1991 Anodonta imbecilis fw mussel S,M,T 90 438 265 K.eller and Zam 1991 Bryocamplus zschokkei (nauplius) Copepod S,M,T 100 96-hr 920 509 Brown el al. 2005 liryocamptiis zschokkei Copepod S.M/I" 100 96-hr 620 343 Brown et al. 2005 (copepodid) Bryocamplus zschokkei (adult) Copepod S,M,T 100 96-hr 2,070 1,145 Brown el al. 2005 liaetis tricaudants Mayfly F,M,D 42.3 96-hr 10,000 11,535 CDOW unpublished data liaetis tricaudatus Maylly I;,M,D 40.4 96-hr 13,200 15,835 CDOW unpublished data Cerioduphnia dubia Cladoceran S,M,D 44 48-hr 413 461 Hyne el al. 2005

(PH=6.5) Ceriodaphnia dubia Cladoceran S,M,D 44 48-hr 200 223 Hyne el al. 2005 (pH=7.5) Ceriodaphnia dubiu Cladoceran S,M,D 44 48-hr 539 601 l-lync el al. 2005 (pl-l=6.5, DOC=I.O) Ceriodaphnia dubia Cladoceran S,M,D 44) 48-hr 518 578 1-lyiie el al. 2005 (pH=6.5, DOC=0.1) Ceriodaphnia dubia Cladoceran S,M,D 44 48-hr 155 173 Hyne et al. 2005 (pH=7.5, Alk=30) Ceriodaphnia dubia Cladoceran S,M,D 374 48-hr 390 70 Hyne et al. 2005 (pH=7.5, Alk=30) Ceriodaphnia dubia Cladoceran S,M,D 44 48-hr 70 78 Hyne el al. 2005 (pH=8.4, Alk=l25) Ceriodaphnia dubia Cladoceran S,M,D 374 48-hr 160 29 Hyne el al. 2005 Daphnia magna Cladocuran S.MT 170 48-hr 1,831 644 Bairdtvn/. 1991 Daphnia magna Cladoceran S,M,T 170 48-hr 756 266 Bairdefa/. 1991 Daphnia magna Cladoceran S,M,T 170 48-hr 745 262 Bairdm;/. 1991 Daphnia magna Cladoceran S,M,T 170 48-hr 862 303 I3airdc'/o/. 1991 Daphnia magna Cladoceran S,M,T 170 48-hr 986 347 Burdetal. 1991 Daphnia magna Cladoceran S,M,T 170 48-hr 798 281 B-dirdelal. 1991 Gambusid affinis (fry) vlosquilo fish S,U 50 96-hr 50,000 50,000 Kallanagoudar and Patil 1997 Gambusia ajfinis (fry) Vlosquito fish S,U 150 96-hr 80,000 31,316 Kallanagoudar and 1'atil 1997 Gambusia affinis (fry) Mosquito fish S,U 300 96-hr 100,000 21,662 Kallanagoudar and Pali! 1997 Gambusia affinis (male/ Mosquito fish S.U 50 96-hr 115,000 115,000 Kallanagoudar and Patil 1997 Gambusia ajfinis (male) Vlosquito fish S,U 150 96-hr 140,000 54,804 Kallanagoudar and Patil 1997 Gambusia affinis (male) Vlosquito fish S,U 300 96-hr 150,000 32,493 Kallanagoudar and Patil 1997 Gambusia affinis (female) Vlosquito fish S,U 50 96-hr 90,000 90,000 Kallanagoudar and Patil 1997 Gambusia ajfinis (female) Mosquito fish S,U 150 96-hr 120,000 46,975 Kallanagoudar and Patil 1997 Gambusia affinis (female) Vlosquito fish S,U 300 96-hr 140,000 30,326 Kallanagoudar and Patil 1997 Rhilhrogenu hageni Mayily F,M,D 44.4 96-hr 50,500 55,890 CDOW unpublished data

Oc'i2510 I I-IW-05 Preliminary Rvoluation of Poicnlinl Site-Spec September 2006 TABLE 2: Continued.

Species Common name Hardness Chronic Value Reference Lelande and Pinel-Alloul Tropocyclops prasinus Copepod S,U 10 48-hr 52 205 1985 Bryocamptus zschokkei Copepod 100 379.5 Brown el at. 2005 S = static, F = flow-through, M = measured, U = unmeasured, T = total, D = dissolved * Adjusted LC.w determined using revised slope (0.8537) from Table 4.

These new data increase the acute database to 64 genera (Table 3), from the current 57 genera in the Colorado database. The updated database also provides additional information to refine the acute toxicity hardness relationship, and adds an additional species to the final acute-chronic ratio (FACR) calculation. The resulting updated zinc toxicity database was then compared to the resident species lists for the upper Arkansas River Segments 2b and 2c as part of the recalculation "deletion of non-resident taxa" procedure-

Using the updates to the acute toxicity database, an updated acute hardness slope was developed following the guidance for the determination of an acute slope described by Stephan el al. (1985). The process involves normalizing the data by taking the natural log transformation of the hardness and acute toxicity values for each species in which acute values exist for a wide range of hardness values. Hardness slopes for each species are calculated as the slope from a least squares regression of the transformed acute values on the corresponding transformed hardness values. If covariance analysis shows these individual slopes are similar, the pooled acute slope is subsequently determined by treating all normalized data as if they were from the same species and conducting a least squares regression of all the transformed acute values on the corresponding hardness values (Stephan el al. 1955). Using the latest data obtained in the literature review summarized above, including CEC et al. (2006), an updated acute hardness slope of 0.8537 was derived (Colorado slope = 0.8525). The updated slope was used to adjust acute values to a hardness of 50 mg/L for recalculation and is also used in the hardness-based final acute equation.

An updated final acute-chronic ratio (FACR) was also determined using the updated acute and chronic database. Methods followed those described by Stephan et al. (1985). New data for the copepod, Bryocamptus zschokkei, were added to the Colorado analysis. This addition slightly increases the FACR from 2.3255 to 2.3726. This updated FACR of 2.3726 was used in the derivation of the final chronic equation.

(Mi25in 11-09-05 Preliminary Rvalualion ofi'oiuntial Site-Spec 10 September 2006 TABLE 3: Updated acute toxicity database for zinc, with genus mean acute values (GMAV) and species mean acute values (SMAV) ranked from least sensitive to most sensitive genus (all normalized to hardness = 50 mg/L by updated slope = 0.8537).

Rank Species Common Name GMAV SMAV Code 64 Argia sp. Damselfly 89,488 89,488 1,2 63 I'richoptera Caddisfly 58,100 58,100 1,2 62 Rhilhrogena ha gen i Mayfly 55..890 55.890 1,2 61 Gumbusia qffinis Mosquitofish 32,370 32,370 2 60 7-ygoptera Damselfly 26,200 26,200 1,2 59 Chironomus sp. Midge 19,930 18,200 1,2 Chironomus plumosus Midge 21,825 1,2 58 Crangonyx pseudogracilis Amphipod 19,800 19,800 1,2 57 Xenopus laevis Frog 19,091 19,091 2 56 Nais sp. Worm 18,400 18,400 1,2 55 Asellus aquaiicus Isopod 18,200 18,200 1,2 54 h'undulus diuphunus Banded killifish 17,935 17,935 2 53 Aeolosoma headleyi Worm 17,362 17,362 1,2 52 Amnicola sp. Snail 16,817 16,817 1,2 51 Lepidosioma sp. Caddisfly >15,054 >15,054 1,2 50 Anguilla rostrala American eel 13,627 13,627 2 49 Bands Iricaudatus Mayfly 13,515 13,515 1,2 48 Carassius uuratus Goldfish 10,276 10,276 2 47 Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinsccd 9,967 18,778 2 Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 5,290 2 46 Lumbriculus variegalus Womi 9,744 9,744 1,2 45 Tubifex lubifex Worm 9,612 9,612 1,2 44 Isoperla sp. Stonefly >8,952 >8,952 1,2 43 Caecidolea bicrenala Isopod 8,120 5,677 1.2 Carcidolea communis Isopod 11.614 1.2 42 Cyprinus carpio Common carp 7,245 7,245 2 41 Cirardia ligrina Flalworm 7.004 7,004 1,2 40 Echinogammams libaldii Amphipod 6,788 6.788 1,2 39 h'otemigomis crysoleucus Golden shiner 6,000 6,000 2 38 Poecilia relicukua Guppy 5,926 5,926 2 37 Curb icula jlum ineu Asiatic clam 4,892 4,892 1,2 36 Mesocyclops hyalinus Copepod 4,847 4,847 1.2 35 Stenocypris malcomsoni Ostracod 4,464 4,464 1,2 34 Ganimants sp. Amphipod 4,322 8,100 1,2 Gammarux ilalicus Amphipod 2,306 1,2 33 Xiphophonis muculaliu Southern platyfish 4,308 4,308 2 32 Pimephales prometas •'athead minnow 3.808 3,808 2 31 Plychocheilus lusius Colorado pikeminnow 3.790 2,211 2 Plychocheilus oregonensis Northern pikeminnow 6.495 2

()fi?.5llt 11-09-05 Preliminary I:valuation trf Potential Silc-Spcc 11 September 2006 TABLE 3: Continued.

Rank Species Common Name GMAV SMAV Code 30 Lirceus alabamae Isopod 3,242 3,242 1,2 29 Gila elegans Bonytail 2,013 2,013 2 28 Salvelimtsfonlinalis Brook troul 1,691 1,691 1 27 Lophopodella carter! Bryozoan 1,688 1,688 1,2 26 Jordanella Jloridae Flagfish 1,673 1,673 2 25 Xyrauchen rexanus Razorback sucker 1,651 1,651 2 24 Plumatella emarginala Bryozoan 1,589 1,589 1,2 23 Helisoma campanulatum Snail •1,579 1,579 1.2 22 Cypris sp. Ostracod 1,484 1,484 1.2 21 Physa gyrimi Snail 1,354 1.686 1.2 Physci helero.iiropha Snail 1.087 1,2 20 Pectinatella magnified Bryox.oan 1,292 1.292 1,2 19 Dritnella grandis Mayfly > 1.264 > 1.264 1.2 18 I.imnodrilia hoffmeisteri Worm >l,258 >1.258 1.2 17 Ranatra elongata Water scorpion 830 830 1,2 16 Tilapia mossambica Mozambique lilapia 786 786 2 15 Oncorhynchus mykiss Rainbow troul 750 582 1 Oncorhynchm kisutch Coho salmon 1,635 1 Oncorhynchus nerka Sockeye salmon 1,510 1 Oncorhynchus Ishawyischa Chinook salmon 449 1 Oncorhynchus clarki Cutthroat trout 368 1 14 Salmo salar Atlantic salmon >647* 2,194 1 Sahno tnitta Brown trout >647 I 13 1 leliodiaptomus viduus Copepod 638 638 1,2 12 Calostontus lalipinnis Flannelmouth sucker 600* 600 2 Caiosionnis commersoni White sucker 5,263 1,2 11 Bryocamplus zschokkei Copepod 343 343 1,2 10 Moina irrusa Cladoceran 320 667 1.2 Moina macrocopa Cladoccran 153 1,2 9 Anodonta imbecillis Freshwater mussel 296 296 1.2 8 Daphnia magna Cladoceran 275 299 1,2 Daphnia pulex Cladoccran 253 1,2 7 Hyalella azteca Amphipod 241 241 1.2 6 Agosia chrysogaster Longfin dace 226 226 2 5 Tropocyclops prasinus Copepod 205 205 1.2 4 Thymallus arclicus Arctic grayling 199.2 199.2 1 3 Coitus buirdi Mottled sculpin 181. 7 181.7 1 2 Morone saxatilis Striped bass 119* 118.9 2 Morone americana White perch 13,439 2

06251(1 I l-l)')-()5 Preliminary Kvalualion or Potential Site-Spec 12 September 2006 TABLE 3: Continued.

Rank Species Common Name GMAV SMAV Code 1 Ceriodaphnia ditbia Cladoceran 94.2 175.0 1,2 Cerwdaphnia reliculata Cladoceran 50.7 1,2

1 Colclwaler species, 2 Warm water species, * Only most sensitive species was used.

The basic updated xinc criteria are then calculated using the genus mean acute values (GMAVs) for the four most sensitive genera (Thymallus, Coitus, Morone, and Ceriodaphnia). From these values, a final acute value of 172.6 u,g/L was calculated, resulting in a revised updated final acute equation of eo-«s37[in(ha«inCss)|H-i.ii82i Usjng the acute_ chronic ratio, the resulting updated chronic equation would be e°-8537 rwhardncssji+o.ws^ Tab,e 4 presents a comparison of the revised and updated acute and chronic zinc criteria to the current Colorado table value standards (TVS) at varying hardness levels.

TABLE 4: Summary of current Colorado table value standards (TVS) and updated zinc criteria at varying hardness levels using updated toxicity database, revised pooled-hardness slope, and updated acute-chronic ratio.

Mean Hardness in ing/I, CaCOj

Equations 25 50 75 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Colorado Xinc TVS Acute = o.978*e"K525"n(hilrdn':5S)l"'1"''17 44 79 112 143 203 259 313 366 417 467 Chronic = o^gG^n'SWIinih^csMux-JHw 38 69 97 124 176 224 271 317 362 405 Updated Shite-wide '/Ana Criteria Acute = o.978*e"K"7|"1(liardnL'ss)l+l "" 47 84 119 153 216 276 333 390 444 498 Chronic = 0.986*ca"53' l"*'""^"!*'' w" 40 72 101 130 183 234 283 331 378 423

Proposed Site-Specific Zinc Standards

Segment 2b of the Upper Arkansas River

Potential site-specific standards were derived for Segment 2b of the Upper Arkansas River using USEPA recalculation methods (USEPA 1994). The first general step was to determine if all species in the updated acute database must be-retained or deleted based on their status as warm or coldwater biota. To summarize our previous discussion, warm water fish, non- resident salmonids and sculpin were deleted. Second, cladocerans and copepods were deleted from the updated database, because of their transient nature in Rocky Mountain lotic systems and expected non-resident status in the Upper Arkansas River Segment 2b. Amphipods, isopods, and snails have not been documented in Segment 2b of the Upper

0(12510 11-09-03 Prcliminun [-valuation of Potential Site-Spec 13- September 2006 Arkansas River; therefore, they also have been deleted from the recalculation. These groups were included in the recalculation for Segment 2c. Bryozoans and ostracods, on the other hand, were retained for both segments since they potentially occur at the site, but were not specifically sampled for. Again, this recalculation deleted non-resident salmon data from the recalculated genus mean acute value (GMAV) for Oncorhynchus and Salmo - in other words, only keeping toxicity data for "trout" expected to occur in the Upper Arkansas River.

Following the determination of appropriate deletions, the remaining data constitute the site- specific toxicity databases for recalculation for these two stream segments (Table 5). The deletion of non-resident biota from the updated database resulted in a "cold-water" biota database of 26 genera for Segment 2b that represent at least ] 7 invertebrate families and 2 fish families (Appendix B).

TABLE 5: Site-specific acute zinc toxicity databases for the Upper Arkansas River, Segment 2b and Segment 2c.

Segment 2b Segment 2c Species Common Name GIMAV SMAV Code 26 36 Argia sp. Damsel fly 89,488 89,488 1.2 25 35 Trichoplera Cadclisfly 58.100 58,100 1.2 24 34 Rhilhrogena hageni Mayfly 55,890 55,890 1,2 23 33 Zygoplera Damselfly 26,200 26.200 1.2 22 32 Chironomus sp. Midge 19,930 18.200 1.2 Chirononnts plumosus Midge 21,825 1,2 31 Crangonyx pseudogracilis Amphipod 19,800 19,800 1,2 2! 30 Nais sp. Worm I8..400 18.400 1,2 29 Asellus aquaticus Isopod 18,200 1 8,200 1,2 20 28 Aeolosoma headleyi Worm 17,362 17,362 1,2 27 Amnicola sp. Snail 16,817 16,817 1,2 19 26 Lepidostoma sp. Caddisfly > 15,054 > 15,054 1,2 18 25 Bcietis Iricaudatus Mayfly 13,515 13,515 1,2 17 24 Lumbriculus variegatus Worm 9,744 9,744 1,2 16 23 Tubifex lubifex Worm 9,612 9.612 1.2 15 22 Isoperla sp. Stonefly >8,952 >8.952 1,2 21 Caecidolea bicrenala Isopod 8,120 5,677 1,2 Caecidotea communis Isopod 11,614 1.2 14 20 Girardia ligrina Flatworm 7,004 7,004 1,2 19 Echinogammarus tibaldii Amphipod 6,788 6,788 1.2 13 18 Caloslomns commersoni White sucker 5.263 5,263 1,2 12 17 Coi'biciilafluminea Asiatic clam 4,892 4.892 1,2 II 16 Stenocypris malcomsoni Ostracod • 4,464 4,464 1.2 15 Gctmmurus sp. Amphipod 4.322 8,100 1.2 Gammariis itaticus Amphipod 2,306 1.2 14 Lirceus ulabamae Isopod 3.242 3.242 1.2 10 13 Salve/inns fontinal is Brook trout 1.691 1.691 1

Ofi25U) I l-O'J-05 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential Site-Spec 14 September 2006 TABLE 5: Continued.

Segment 2b Segment 2c Species Common Name GMAV SMAV Code

9 12 Lophopodella carter! Bryozoan ,688 1,688 1,2 8 1! Plumatella emarginala Bryozoan ,589 1,589 ,2 10 Helisoma campanulalum Snail ,579 1,579 ,2 7 9 Cypris sp. Oslracod ,484 1,484 ,2 8 I'hysa gyrina Snail .354 1,686 .2 I'hysa heterostropha. Snail 1 .087 ,2 6 7 I'uclinatella magnified Bryozoan 1,292 1,292 ,2 5 6 Drunellu grand is Mayfly > 1,264 > 1,264 ,2 4 5 Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri Wonn >1,258 > 1,258 ,2 3 4 Ranatra elongata Water scorpion 830.3 830.3 ,2 2 3 Salmo Irulta Brown trout 646.7 646.7 1 1 2 Oncorhynchus mykiss Rainbow trout 463.1 582.3 1 Oncorhynchus clarki Cutthroat trout 368.3 1 1 Hyalella azteca Amphipod 241.3 241.3 1,2

The top four most sensitive genera in the Segment 2b database include Limnodrilus, Ranatra, Salmo, and Oncorhynchus (Table 5). The subsequent site-specific hardness-based equations for Segment 2b were calculated as summarized in Table 6. The resulting acute Segment 2b site-specific standard for dissolved zinc is o.978*ea8537t'n(hardness)1+22'78, which includes the acute USEPA conversion factor for the dissolved fraction of zinc. Using this equation and a hardness value of 100 mg/L as CaCOs, the acute zinc site-specific standard would be 458 u.g/L. Using the new acute-chronic ratio from the analysis above, the site-specific equation used to determine the hardness-based chronic standard for dissolved zinc would be 8537|ln(liardness)H20469 0.986*e° . Again, based upon a hardness of 100 mg/L as CaCO3, the chronic xinc site-specific standard for Segment 2b would be 389 |.tg/L.

Of)2510 I I-O'J-OS I'ruliminary l-vnluaiion of Polcnlial Site-Spec 15 September 2006 TABLE 6: Recalculation of the acute and chronic site-specific zinc standard for Segment 2b of the upper Arkansas River (N = 26 genera, R = sensitivity rank in database).

Rank Genus GMAV (ug/L) In GMAV (In GMAV)2 P = R/(N+1) VP

4 Limnodrilus 1258.3 7.1376 50.9447 0.1481 0.3849 3 Ranalra 830.3 • 6.7218 45.1831 0. 1 1 1 1 0.3333 2 Salmo 646.7 6.4719 41.8850 0.0769 0.2722 1 Oncoi'hynchus 463.1 6.1380 37.6753 0.0385 0.1925 Sumofcqlumns 26.4693 175.6881 0.3704 1.1828 Calculations: Acute Criterion S2 =£ dnGMAV)2 - (2lnGMAVV!/4 = 175.6881 - (26.4693)2/4 = 25.8631 S = 5.0856 SP-(lVl>)2/4 0.3704 (1.1828)2/4

1. = [ElnGMAV - S(£VP)]/4 = (26.4693 - 5.0856 (1.1828)]/4 = 5.1135 A = S (x/0.05) + L = (5.0856)(0.2236) + 5.1135 = 6.2506 Final Acule Value = 1-AV = c A = 518.3346 CMC = '/? FAV = 259.1673 Updated Pooled Slope = 0.8537

In (Criterion Maximum Intercept) = InCMC - [pooled slope x In (standardized hardness level)] = In (259.1673)-[0.8537 x In (50)] = 2.2178

Site-specific Aeute Zinc Criterion = c"K537 l'"<1""<"'K!>l f 2 2l7a

Chronic Criterion Updated Assumed Chronic Slope = 0.8537 Updated Final Acutc-to-Chronic ratio (FACR) = 2.3726

Final Chronic Value (FCV) = FAV •=• ACR = 5 1 8.3346 * 2.3726 = 2 1 8.4669

In (Final Chronic Intercept) = In FCV - [chronic slope x ln(slandardi/.ed hardness level)] = In (2 1 8.4669) - [0.8537 x In (50)] = 2.0469

Site-specific Chronic Zinc Criterion = e ''•«'" UnO""

Segment 2c of the Upper Arkansas River

The resident species list for Segment 2c is similar to the resident species list for Segment 2b, plus the inclusion of potentially resident amphipods, isopods, and gastropods. The resulting database contains toxicity data for 36 genera representing 24 different invertebrate families and 2 fish families (Appendix B). The top four most sensitive genera include Ranatra. Salmo, Oncorhynchus, and Hyalella (Table 5). Using the same methods summarized in Table 6, the resulting acute site-specific equation for dissolved zinc in Segment 2c is 0 978*e0.8537|ln(hardness)]+l.952l Usjng ^ ^ acute.chronjc radofro m thjs analysjS) thesjte . specific equation used to determine the hardness-based chronic standard for dissolved zinc in 8537lln(hardness)1+1 78n Segment 2c would be 0.986*e°- .

Ofi25IO 1 MW-05 Preliminary Evaluation or Potential Silc-Spvc 16 September 2006 3.2 Potential Site-Specific Acute and Chronic Standards for Cadmium

The Colorado cadmium toxicity database represents the most up-to-date compilation of cadmium toxicity data for aquatic life. Colorado cadmium TVS differ from /Jnc TVS in two ways that can influence the need and outcome of a recalculation. First, two acute TVS exist for Colorado, one derived with a standard 95lh percentile calculation (FAV = 3.0789) of the entire toxicity database and one where the FAV was lowered to the Salvelinus GMAV (1.9146) for the specific protection of trout. Second, chronic TVS were derived independent of acute data, rather than through the use of an ACR, since sufficient chronic cadmium data was available to meet the 8-family rule. Given these differences, site-specific standards can and will be derived in a different manner than zinc.

Acute Site-Specific Cadmium Standards

Segments 26 and 2c of the Upper Arkansas River

Following through all steps of recalculation procedure for a cadmium acute site-specific standard is not necessary for a coldwater, trout stream since Colorado has already adopted a trout-specific acute TVS. Setting the acute site-specific cadmium standard to the Colorado trout-specific TVS would result in protective standards for species expected to occur in both Segments 2b and 2c of the Upper Arkansas River.

Chronic Site-Specific Cadmium Standards

Segments 2b and 2c of the Upper Arkansas River

Deriving a chronic site-specific standard for cadmium poses more of a challenge than zinc due to chronic database limitations. The Colorado chronic cadmium database contains 16 genera representing 12 families (Table 7). While the current chronic toxicity database technically meets minimum data requirements, it is still limited. This limited database can inadvertently affect the approach to site-specific chronic criteria calculations, since using the recalculation procedure results in a database that it not longer meets the 8-family rule. Following the deletion of non-resident taxa, the chronic database would have only 6 species representing 4 families for Segment 2b and 8 species representing 6 families for Segment 2c. These species would include O. mykiss, C. tentans, S. fontinalis, S. Irutta, C. commersoni, and A. hedleyi for both segments, plus A. hypnorum and H. azieca for Segment 2c. These site-specific databases do not contain the diversity of toxicity data necessary for a direct 95th percentile calculation of chronic cadmium standards.

Od25IO 11-0';. 115 Preliminary Hvidiialion of Polcmia! Silt-Spec 17 September 2006 TABLE 7: Colorado chronic cadmium toxicity database ranked by genus mean chronic values (GMCV) normalized to hardness = 50 mg/L as CaCO3 , with the chronic toxicity hardness slope (0.7998).

Rank Species Common Name GMCV SMCV Code

16 Oreochromis aurea Blue tilapia >22.191 22.191 2 15 Aeolosoma headleyi Oligochaetc 20.422 20.422 1.2 14 Lepomis macrochirus Blucgill 15.986 15.986 2 13 Pimephales promelas Fathead minnow 15.092 15.092 2 12 Ceriodaphnia dubia Cladoceran 28.077 28.077 1, 2 11 Microplerus dolomieui Smallmouth bass 8.186 8.186 2 10 Esox Indus Northern pike 8.153 8.153 2 9 Catoslonnis commersoni White sucker 7.863 7.863 1,2 8 Salmo salar Atlantic salmon 5.589 8.283 1 Salmo trutla Brown trout 3.772 3.772 1 7 Jordanelldfloridae Flagfish 5.342 5.342 2 6 Aplexa hypnontm Snail 4.848 4.848 1.2 5 Salve/inns fontinalis Brook trout 4.658 2.663 1 Salvelinus namaycush Lake trout 8.149 1 4 Chironomus lentans Midge 2.534 2.534 1,2 3 Oncorhynchus kisutch Coho salmon 2.332 4.297 1 Oncorlivnchus mvkiss Rainbow trout 1.718 1.085 1 Oncorhynchus Ishnwylscha Chinook salmon 2.721 1 2 Daphnia mcigna Cladoceran 1.326 0.492 1,2 Daphniu pulex Cladoceran 3.573 1,2 1 Hyaletla azleca Amphipod 0.264 0.264 1.2

Given this problem, it would be necessary to derive the FCV by an alternative method; i.e., calculated by dividing the FAV by a final acute-chronic ratio (FACR) (Stephan el al. 1985). This is the method used to derive the Colorado chronic zinc TVS and many of the USEPA chronic ambient water quality criteria. Acute-chronic ratios (ACR) are calculated by dividing the acute value by the chronic value for tests that were conducted with the same dilution water and at the same hardness. For each species, a geometric mean of these ratios is calculated to obtain a species mean acute-chronic ratio (SMACR). Subsequently, the final acute-chronic ratio (FACR) is either calculated as the geometric mean of the SMACRs (if ratios are within a factor of 10) or the geometric mean of the SMACRs whose SMAVs are' close to the final acute value (if SMAVs and SMACRs increase or decrease together). An ACR is usually calculated when the chronic database does not meet minimum data requirements for chronic AWQC derivation.

0625111 1 l-O'J-05 Preliminary Evaluation of Poicniial Sile-Spcc 18 September 2006 The USEPA cadmium FACR (USEPA 2001) was updated in 2004 (CEC 2004b, 2004c). The updated FACR database includes 15 data points (increased from 10 in USEPA 2001) representing eight species (Table 8). Comparing the SMACRs to the SMAVs of this database revealed a general positive relationship between the two values that was not observed with the 2001 Cadmium Update database (Figure 1). This relationship suggests the FACR could be calculated as the geometric mean of SMACRs with SMAVs that are close to the FAV, following USEPA protocols. However, there are a couple data points in the database that require additional discussion. First, the SMACR for D. magna appears to be an outlier in the positive relationship, with a relatively high SMACR when compared its SMAV (Figure 1); therefore, the D. magna SMACR should not be included in the FACR calculation. Second, the O. ishawyischa SMACR is <1, which is biologically unrealistic. Although unrealistic, these relationships often occur in USEPA databases. These SMACRs are still considered acceptable for use in the overall mean ACR calculations since the FACR could be corrected to 2.0 if the resulting calculated FACR is < 2.0. Therefore, O. Ishcnvyslcha should be included in the FACR calculation.

TABLE 8: Updated cadmium acute-chronic ratio from CEC (2004c). Only bold values were usec in the final acute-chronic ratio (FACR) calculation.

Acute Chronic Species Reference Hardness Value Value Ratio SMAV SMACR

Jordanella floridae Spehar 1976 44.0 2,500 5.76 433.80 2.814.67 433.8018 Lepomis macrochirus Eaton 1974 207.0 21,100 49.80 423.70 6.388.6X 423.6948 Aplexa hypnomni Holcombc el at. 1984 45.3 93 5.80 16.03 102.87 20.7584 Aplexa hypnorum Holcombe et a!. 1984 45.3 93 3.46 26.88 Ceriodaphnia dubia Suedcle/o/. 1997 17.0 63.10 2.00 31.55 49.77 31.5500 Pimephales promelas Pickering and Cast 1972 201.0 5,995 45.92 130.55 28.35 13.1275 Pimephales promelas Spehar and Fiandt 1986 44.0 13.20 10.00 1.32 Daphnia magna Canton and Sloof 1982 209.2 30.00 0.67 44.78 15.49 84.4496 Daphnia magnet Chapman el al. manuscript 51.0 9.90 0.152 65.00 Daphnia magna Chapman el al. manuscript 104.0 33.00 0.212 155.88 Daphnia magna Chapman el al. manuscript 209.0 '49.00 0.437 112.10 Oncorhynchus ishawytscha Chapman 1975, 1982 25.0 1.41 1.56 0.90 4.02 0.9021 Oncorhynchus mykiss * Davics

0625111 I MW-05 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential Site-Spec 19 September 2006 Overall, the positive trend is strong enough that the concept of calculating a FACR for use in chronic cadmium criteria calculations is appropriate. The revised FACR was calculated from the three lowest SMACR values, which results in FACR of 2.7632. Dividing the Colorado trout-specific FAV by the updated FACR (1.9146 + 2.7362) results in a FCV of 0.6997 and final chronic equation of e°W8[(!n(hardness)]-3.4859_ This site.speciflc chronic equation would provide appropriate protection for both Segments 2b and 2c of the upper Arkansas River.

1000

Daphnia magna 100 a: o< 10

0.1 10 100 1000 10000

SMAV

FIGURE 1: The relationship between the species mean acute values (SMAV) and species mean acute-chronic ratios (SMACR) (log-log scale) for cadmium.

3.3 Proposed Site-Specific Zinc and Cadmium Standards Upper Arkansas River, Segments 2b and 2c

The resulting proposed zinc and cadmium site-specific standards for Segments 2b and 2c of the Upper Arkansas River used a stepwise procedure, which 1) analyzed potential resident species for each segment, 2) updated the existing Colorado zinc toxicity data base, using a recent literature review, 3) subsequently conducted technical updates of zinc criteria, and 4) utilized USEPA recalculation methods to develop site-specific zinc criteria. For cadmium, the existing trout-specific Colorado acute TVS for cadmium was applied, and modified using an acute-chronic ratio to developed trout-specific chronic cadmium criteria. Given the annual variability in hardness, these SSC should be applied as different values at varying hardness or simply through the use of the site-specific equations (Table 9).

062510 11-Oy-OS Preliminary Hv.iluniion orPoicniial Stle-Spcc 20 September 2006 TABLE 9: Summary of existing Colorado TVS and proposed site-specific zinc and cadmium standards for Segments 2b and 2c of the upper Arkansas River at varying hardness levels. All values are (.ig dissolved zinc or cadmium/L.

Mean Hardness in mg/L CaCO3 liquations 25 50 75 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Zinc Colorado TVS Acme = o.978*t""52Mln|ha'dn':ss)|MI"'" 44 79 112 143 203 259 313 366 417 467 Chronic = 0.98f).c'"(52MI"(1"'rdn':")|4"';l"1J 38 69 97 124 176 224 271 317 362 405

Upper Arkansas River: Seamen! 2h Aculc = o.978*e("-v"|l""':"d"cs:i'l+2217'' 140 253 358 458 648 828 1,001 1,170 1,335 1,496 Chronic = o.986*c"-*3-"l"""ar'"'CS!"^"w' 119 215 304 389 550 703 851 994 1,134 1,245

Upper Arkansas River: Segment 2c Acute = o.978*cl>-x537|ln(hardncss)l"')521 108 194 275 351 496 635 768 897 1,023 1,147 Chronic = o.986*c"'l'537"nl''a""*:ss"+l-""3 91 165 233 298 422 539 653 762 870 975

Cadmium Colorado TVS (acute==trout-sneciflc1

(a9lsl|lnll >|0 (M(i) AculelnM = cfn*c ^ - 0.509 0.931 1.326 1.704 2.125 3.115 3.781 4.430 5.065 5.687 Chronic = cfcV" ™* "" »°"*™n-> MS,, 0.149 0.252 0.342 0.424 0.576 0.715 0.846 0.970 1.089 1.204

Upper Arkansas River: Segments 2b and 2c Ar,.!,. _ .,(• *.,(IIWI51 |lnhardncss)|-3.r,23r.) /\CUlLIrout — LIn L 0.509 0.931 1.326 1.704 2.125 3.115 3.781 4.430 5.065 5.687 Chronic = c|-(.*c<'"w«linto

l)f>25IO 11-0',M)5 Preliminary Evaluation of I'olcniiul Site-Spec 21 September 2006 Section 4 - References

Baird, D.J., I. Barber, M. Bradley, A.M.V.M. Scares, and P. Calow. 1991. A comparative study of genotype sensitivity to acute toxic stress using clones of Daphnia magna Straus. Ecoloxicology and Environmental Safety 2 \ :257-265.

Brown, A.V.", R.L. Limbeck, and M.D. Schram. 1989. Trophic importance of zooplankton in streams with alluvial riffle and pool geomorphometry. Archivfur Hydrobiologie 114(3):349-367.

Brown, R.J., S.D. Rundle, T.H. Hutchinson, T.D. Williams, and M.B. Jones. 2005. A micro plate freshwater copepod bioassay for evaluating acute and chronic effects of chemicals. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 24(6): 1528-1531.

Canton, J.H., and W. Slooff. 1982. Toxicity and accumulation studies of cadmium (Cd2+) with freshwater organisms of different trophic levels. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safely 6:1 13-128.

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc. 2001. 1999-2000 Aquatic Biological Assessment Data for the Upper Arkansas River Basin near Leadville, Colorado. Prepared for Resurrection Mining Company, Denver, CO.

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc. 2002. 2007 Aquatic Biological Assessment Data for the Upper Arkansas River Basin near Leadville, Colorado. Prepared for Resurrection Mining Company, Denver, CO.

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc. 2003. 2002 Aquatic Biological Assessment Data for (he Upper Arkansas River Basin near Leadville, Colorado. Prepared for Resurrection Mining Company, Denver, CO.

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc. 2004a. 2003 Aquatic Biological Assessment Data for the Upper Arkansas River Basin near Leadville, Colorado. Prepared for Resurrection Mining Company, Denver, CO.

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc. 2004b. U.S. EPA Cadmium Water Quality Criteria Document- Technical Review and Criteria Update. Prepared for the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies. September 2004.

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc. 2004c. Addendum to U.S. EPA Cadmium Water Quality Criteria Document- Technical Review and Criteria Update. Prepared for the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies. December 2004.

062510 11-U9-OS Preliminary Lvalualion orPotcntial Site-Spec 22 September 2006 Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc. 2006. Evaluation of the Biological Data for the Upper Arkansas River, 1994-2005. Prepared for Resurrection Mining Company, Denver, CO. February 2006.

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc., URS Corporation, and Parametrix. 2006. Evaluation of U.S. EPA Recalculation Procedure in Arid West Effluent-Dependent Waters. Arid West Water Quality Research Project.

Chapman, G.A. 1975. Toxicity of Copper, Cadmium, and Zinc to Pacific Northwest Salmoides. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis., OR.

Chapman, G.A. 1982. Letter to C.E. Stephan. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR, December 6, 1982.

Chapman, G.A, S. Ota, and F. Recht. Manuscript. Effects of water hardness on the toxicity of metals to Daphnia magna. U.S. EPA, Corvallis, Oregon.

Chandler, D.C1 1937. Fate of typical lake plankton in streams. Ecological Monographs 7:445-479.

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Commission. 2005. The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water. Regulation No. 31. (5CCR1002-31).

Davies, P.H., W.C. Gorman, C.A. Carjson, and S.F. Brinkman. 1993. Effect of hardness on bioavailability and toxicity of cadmium to rainbow trout. Chemical Specialion and Bioavailability5(2):66-n.

Eaton, J.G. 1974. Chronic cadmium toxicity to the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus Rafincsque). Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 4:729.

Holcombe, G.W., G.L. Phipps, and J.W. Marier. 1984. Methods for conducting snail (Aplex hypnorum) embryo through adult exposures: Effects of cadmium and reduced pH levels. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 13:627.

Hyne, R.V., F. Pablo, M. Bulli, and S.J. Markich. 2005. Influence of water chemistry on the acute toxicity of copper and zinc to the cladoceran Ceriodaphnia cfdubia. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 24(7): 1667-1675.

Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The Ecology of Running Waters. University of Toronto Press.

Keller, A.E., and S.G. Zam. 1991. The acute toxicity of selected metals to the freshwater mussel, Anodonta imbed/is. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 10(4):539- 546.

23 (162511) ll-d'MIS Prcliminaiy I-valuation of I'ouminlSiu-Spcc September 2006 Leland, M., and B. Pinel-Ellul. 1986. Acute toxicity of cadmium, copper, mercury and zinc to Tropocyclops prasinus mexicanus (Cyclopoida, Copepoda) from three Quebec lakes. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 5:95-102.

Michael, G.Y., and T.F. Moore. 1997. A Suggested Framework for Conducting UAAs and Interpreting Results. Project 91-NFS-1. Water Environment Research Foundation, Alexandria, VA.

Nehring, B., and J. Goettl. 1974. Acute toxicity of a zinc-polluted stream to four species of salmonids. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 12(4):464-469.

Novotny, J.F. and R.D. Hoyt. 1982. Seasonal zooplankton concentrations in Barren River Lake and tailwater, Kentucky. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 1(6):651-662.

Pennak , R.W. and W.N. Rosine. 1976. Distribution and Ecology of Amphipoda (Crustacea) in Colorado. The American Midland Naturalist. 96(2)324-33 1.

Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-Water Invertebrates of the United Slates, Protozoa to Molluxca, 3rd Edition. Wiley & Sons, NY.

Phillips, E.G. 1995. Comparison of the zooplankton of a lake and stream in northwest Arkansas. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 10(4):337-341.

Pickering, Q.H., and M.H. Gast. 1972. Acute and chronic toxicity of cadmium to the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29:1099.

Richardson, W.B. 1991. Seasonal dynamics, benthic habitat use, and drift of zooplankton in a small stream in southern Oklahoma, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Zoology 69:748- 756.

Spehar, R.L. 1976. Cadmium and zinc toxicity to Flagfish Jordanellajloridae. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33:.l 939

Stephan, C.E., D.I. Mount, D.J. Hansen, J.H. Gentile, G.A. Chapman, W.A. Brungs. 1985. Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. Accession No. PB-85-227049. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.

Thorp, J.H., A.R. Black, K.H. Haag, and J.D. Wehr. 1994. Zooplankton assemblages in the Ohio River: seasonal, tributary, and navigation dam effects. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51:1634-1643.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. EPA Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of Water-Effect Ratios for Metals. EPA-823-B-94-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC.

24 OCi25IO 11-09-05 Preliminary' !:vnlunlion ofPolcnlial Silc-Spcc September 2006 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. 1995 Updates: Water Quality Criteria Documents for the Protection of Aquatic Life in Ambient Water. EPA-820-ES-96-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. 2001 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium. EPA-822-R-01 -001. Office of Water, Washington, DC.

Vila, P.B. 1989. The occurrence and significance of Cladocera (Crustacea) in some streams of central Indiana, U.S.A. Hydrobiologia. 171:201-214.

Ward, J.V. 1975. Downstream fate of zooplankton from a hypolimnial release mountain reservoir. Verhandlung fur Internationale Vereinigung Limnologie 19:1798-1804.

Ward, J.V., B.C. Kondratieff, and R.E. Zuellig. 2002. An Illustrated Guide to the Mountain Stream Insects of Colorado: Second Edition. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, Colorado.

Woodling. J., A. Rollings, and J. Wilson. 2005. Biological Monitoring Report for the Eagle Mine Superfund Site, Eagle County, Colorado, for the Period of April 1996 to April 2005.

25 062510 I l-0i;-05 Pieliminan h'vafuiilion of Polarinal Silc-S|WL- September 2006 Appendix A

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Summary

062510 I l-O'J-05 Prcliminaiy I: valuation or Potential Silt-Spec September 2006 TABLE A-l: Benthic macroinvertebrate summary of broad taxonomic groups sampled during spring and fall 2000-2005.

Anne Ida Crustacea M o 1 I u s c a

Site Date Plecoptera Ephemeroptera Tfichoptera Hemiptera Coleoptera Diplera Tubellaria Oligochaeta Hirudinea Nematoda Hydracarina Isopoda Amphtpoda Gasttopoda Pelecypoda A R 2 4/17/00 X X X X X X X A R 2 10/10/00 X X X X X X X X X A R 2 10/25/01 X X X X X X X X X A R 2 4/8/02 X X X X X X X X A R 2 10/30/02 X X X X X X X X A R 2 10/21/03 X X X X X X X X A R 2 4/1/04 X X X X X X X X X A R 2 10/28/04 X X X X X X X X A R 2 4/19/05 X X X X X X X X X X AR3* 4/17/00 X X X X X X X A R 3 * 10/25/01 X X X X X X X X X X AR3A 10/11/00 X X X X X X X X X AR3A 4/10/02 X X X X X X X AR3A 10/31/02 X X X X X X X X X AR3A 10/22/03 X X X X X X X X X AR3A 4/1/04 X X X X X X X X AR3A 10/28(04 X X X X X X X X X X AR3A 4/19/05 X X X X X X X X AR3B 10/11/00 X X X X X X X X X AR3B 10/25/01 X X X X X X X X X AR3B 4/9/02 X X X X X X X X X AR3B 10/31/02 X X X X X X X X AR3B 10/22/03 X X X X X X X X X X AR3B 4/1/04 X X X X X X X X AR3B 10/28/04 X X X X X X X X X AR3B 4/19/05 X X X X X X X X A R 4 4/17/00 X X X X X X X X X

062510 1) -09-05 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential Sue-Spec September 2006 .TABLE A-l: Continued.

Annelida Crustacea Molluscs

Site Date Plecoptera Ephemeioptefa Trichoptera Hemiptera Coleoptera Oiptera Tubellaria Oligochaeta Hirudinea Ne ma tod a Hydracaiina Isopoda Amphipoda Gastropoda Pelecypoda

A R 4 10/11/00 X X X X X X X X X X A R 4 10/25/01 X X X X X X X X X X A R 4 4/9/02 X X X X X X X X A R 4 10/31/02 X X X X X X X X X X A R 4 10/22/03 X X X X X X X X X X A R 4 4/1/04 X X X X X X X X X X A R 4 10/28/04 X X X X X X X X X X X A R 4 4/19/05 X X X X X X X X X X X X A R 5 4/17/00 X X X X X X X A R 5 10/11/00 X X X X X X X X X X A R 5 10/25/01 X X X X X X • x X X A R 5 4/9/02 X X X X X X X X X X X A R 5 10/31/02 X X X X X X X X X A R 5 10/22/03 X X X X X X X X X X A R 5 4/2/04 X X X X X X X X X X A R 5 10/28/04 X X X X X X X X X X A R 5 4/19/05 X X X X. X X X X X X * AR3 = AR3A

3. 062510 1 l-0*J.fi5 Preliminary Evaluation of Poicniinl Site-Spec September 2006 Appendix B

Zinc Deletion Table: Upper Arkansas River, Segments 2b and 2c

> I l-(jy.<)5 Preliminary liialunlion ofPtilcnlial Site-Slice September 2006 TABLE B-l: Upper Arkansas River Segments 2b and 2c zinc deletion tables.

Common Segment Segment Phylum Class Order Family Genus/Species Name 2b 2c Chordata Aclinoplcrygii Anguilliformcs Anguillidae Anguilla rostratu American eel D D r-'lannelmouth Chordata Actinoptcrygii Cypinifonnes Catostomidae Catostomus latipinnis D D ' sucker Calostomus Chordata Actinoptcrygii Cypini Tonnes Catostomidae White sucker G G commersonii Chordata Actinopterygii Cyprini formes Caiostomidac Xyrauchen lexamis Raxorback sucker D D Chordata Actinoptcrygii Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Agosia chrysogasler Longfln dace D D Chordata Actinoptcrygii Cyprinilbrmcs Cyprinidae Carassius auralns Goldfish D D Chordata Aclinopterygii Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Cyprimis carpio Common carp D D Chordata Actinopterygii Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Cila elegans Bony tail D D Notemigonus Chordata Actinopterygii Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Golden shiner D D crysoleucus Chordata Actinopterygii Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Pimephales promelas Fathead minnow 1) D Colorado Chordata Actinopterygii Cypriniformes Cyprinidae 1'tychocheilus Insists D D pikeminnow Ptychocheihis Northern Chordata Actinoptcrygii Cyprinifornies Cyprinidae D D oregonensis pikeminnow Chordata Actinoptcrygii Cyprinodontiformes Cyprinodontidae Jordanella floridae Flagfish D D Chordata Actinopterygii Cyprinodonti formes Fundulidae Furidulus diaphanus Banded killifish D D Chordata Actinopterygii Cyprinodontiformes Poccilidac Gambusia affinis Mosquitofish D D Chordata Actinopterygii Cyprinodontiformes Poccilidae Poecilia reticiila/a Guppy D D Xiphophonis Chorciala Actinopterygii Cyprinodonli formes Poccilidac Southern platyfish D D macula/us Chordata Actinoplcrygii Perci formes Cenlrarchidae Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinsccd D 1) Chordata Actinoptcrygii Perei formes Ccntrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus Blueglll D D Mozambique Chordata Actinopterygii I'crci formes Cichlidae Tilapia mossamhica D 1) tilapia Chordata Actinopterygii Pcrci formes Moronidac Morone saxatilis Striped bass D D Chordata Actinopterygii Pcrci formes Moronidae Morons americancf White perch D D Chordata Actinoptcrygii Salmon! formes Salmonidae Oncorhynchus mykiss Rainbow trout S S Chordala Actinoptcrygii Salmoniformes Salmonidac Oncorhynchus kisulch Coho salmon D D Chordata Aclinopterygii Salmoniformes Salmonidae Oncorhynchus nerka • Sockcye salmon D D Oncorhynchus Chordata Aclinoplerygii Salmoniformes Salmonidae Chinook salmon D D tshcnvyischa Chordata Actinopterygii Salmon! formes Salmonidae Oncorhynchus clarki Cutthroat trout S S Chordata Actinopterygii Salmoniformes Salmonidae Salmo irullci Brown trout S S Chordata Actinopterygii Salmoniformes Salmonidac Salmo salar Atlantic salmon D D Chordata Actinoptcrygii Salmoniformes Salmonidac Salvelinus fonlinatis 3rook trout S S Chordata Actinoplerygii Saimoni formes Salmonidac Thymallus arcticus Arctic grayling D D Chordata Actinoptcrygii Scorpaeni formes Collidac Callus bairdi Mottled sculpin D D African clawed Chordala Amphibia Anura Pipidac \enopus laevis D D frog

06251(1 1 l-IW-05 Preliminary Krulualion of Holmlial She-Spec September 2006 TABLE B-l: Continued.

Common Segment Segment Phylum Class Order Family Genus/Species Name 2b 2c Bryozoa Phylactolaemala Plumatcllida Lophopodidae Lophopodclla carter! Bryozoan R R Plumalella Bryozoa Phylactolaemata Plumatcllida Plumatcllidac Bryoxoan R R emarginnta Pectinatella Bryozoa Phylactolacmala Plumatcllida Pectinatclidae Bryozoan R R magnified Platyhelminthes Turbcllaria Tricladida Planariidac Girardia tigrina Flatwonn C C Annelida Clitellata Haplotaxida Naididac Nais sp. Worm P P

Annelida Clitellala l-laplotaxida Tubificidac Tubifex lubifex Worm P P I.imnodrilus Annelida Clitellata Maplotaxida Tubificidae Worm P P lioffmeisteri l.umbriculwi Annelida Clitelkita Lumbriculidae Lumbriculidae Worm P P variegatus Annelida Polychacia Acolosomalida Aeolosomatidac Aeolosoma headleyi Worm P P Freshwater Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Anodonta imbecilis D D mussel VIollusca IJivalvia Vencroida Corbiculidac Corbiculajluminea Asiatic clam 0 O Helisoma VIollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Planorbidac Snail D C campamilaium Mollusea Gastropoda Basommalophora Physidae I'hysa gyrinu Snail D C Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Physidac Physa heleroslrophu Snail D C VIollusca Gastropoda Neotaenioglossa Bithyniidac Amnicolu sp. Snail D C Arthropoda Branchiopoda Diplostraca Daphniidae Ceriocluphnia dubla Cladoceran D D Ceriodaphnia Arlhropoda Branchiopoda Diplostraca Daphniidac Cladoccran D D reticulata Arlhropoda Branchiopoda Diplostraca Daphniidae Daphnia magnet Cladoceran D D ArlJiropoda Brancliiopoda Diplostraca Daphniidae Daphnia pit! ex Cladoceran D D Arthropoda Branchiopoda Diplostraca Moinidae Moina irrasa Cladoceran D D Arlhropoda Branchiopoda Diplostraca Vloinidae Moina niacrocopa Cladoccran D D Crangonyx Arthropoda Vlalacostraca Amphipoda jammaridac Amphipod D 0 pseudogracilis Echinogammarus Arthropoda vlalacoslraca Amphipoda Gammaridae Amphipod D 0 libaldii Arlhropoda Vlalacostraca Amphipoda Gammaridac Gammants sp. Amphipod D 0 Arthropoda vlalacostraca Amphipoda Gammaridae Cammarus italicus Amphipod D 0 Arthropoda Vlalacostraca Amphipoda tyalellidae Hyalella a.tcca Amphipod D 0 Arthropoda Vlalacostraca sopoda Ascllidae Asellus aquaticus Isopod D 0 Arthropoda vlalacoslraca sopoda Asellidae Caecidotea bicrenata sopod D 0 Arthropoda vlalacoslraca sopoda Asellidac Caecidolea communis Isopod D 0 Arthropoda Vlalacostraca sopoda Ascllidae l.irceus alabamae sopod D O I'ropocyclops Artliropoda vlaxillopoda Cyclopida Cyclopidae Copcpod D D prasinus

062510 11 -d'J-05 Preliminary Kralunlion or Polcntial Silo-Spec September 2006 TABLE B-l: Continued.

Common Segment Segment Phylum Class Order Family Gcnus/Spccics Name 2b 2c Arthropoda Maxillopoda Cyclopida Cyclopidac Mesocyclops hyalimis Copcpod D D Bryocampna Arthropoda Maxillopoda Harpacticoida Canthocamptidae Copepod D D zschokkei Heliodiaplomus Arthropoda Maxillopoda Calanoide Diatomidae Copepod D D viduus Stenocypris Arthropoda Ostracoda Podocopida Cyprididac Ostracod R R malcomsoni Arthropoda Ostracoda I'odocopida Cyprididae Cypris sp. Ostracod R R Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomindae Chironomus sp. Midge 0 0 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomindae Chironvmus phimosus Midge 0 0 Arthropoda Insecta L-phemeroptera Bactidac Baelis iricaudaius Mayfly 0 0 Arthropoda Insecta Sphemeroptcra Ephemcrellidae Dnmella grandis Mayfly 0 0 Arthropoda Insccla :Lphcmeroptcra Heptageniidar Khithrogena hageni Mayfly O 0 Arthropoda Insecta rlcmiptcra Nepidae Ranatra elongata Water scorpion 0 0 Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Cocnagrionidae Argia sp. Damsel fly C C Odonata Arthropoda Insecta - sp. C C (Zygoplcra) Damsel fly

Arthropoda Insecta 'lecoptcra Pcrlodidac Isoperla sp. O O Stonetly

Arthropoda Insecta I'richoptera -- sp. 0 0 Caddisfly

Arthropoda Insecta rrichoptcra Lepodostomalidae Lepidostoma sp. 0 O Caddisfly S = Retained because ihis species occurs at the sile. 0 = Retained because there is a species in this genus that occurs at the site, but not in the national data set. •' = Retained because there is a genus in this Family that occurs at the site, but not in the national data set. O = Retained because this Order occurs at the site, and is not represented by a lower taxon. C = Retained because this Class occurs at the sile, and is not represented by a lower taxon P = Retained because this Phylum occurs at the site, and is not represented by a lower taxon. ) = Deleted because this species does not satisfy any of the requirements for retaining species. < = Non-resident species retained due to potential occurrence at the site.

062510 1 UW-<)5 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential Site-Spec September 2006