DOCSLIB.ORG

Toxicity Testing Results City of Richland Wwtp Richland, Washington

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Toxicity Testing Results City of Richland Wwtp Richland, Washington • ANALYSTS, INC. TOXICITY TESTING RESULTS CITY OF RICHLAND WWTP RICHLAND, WASHINGTON ACUTE & CHRONIC TOXICITY TESTING: AUGUST 2018 Prepared for City of Richland PO Box 190 Richland, WA 99352 Prepared by EcoAnalysts, Inc. 4770 NE View Drive PO Box 216 Port Gamble, WA 98364 NPDES Permit # WA0020419 EcoAnalysts Report ID PG1151.01 Submittal Date: September 17, 2018 Toxicity Testing Results City of Richland WWTP All testing reported herein was performed consistent with our laboratory’s quality assurance program. All results are intended to be considered in their entirety, and EcoAnalysts is not responsible for use of less than the complete report. The test results summarized in this report apply only to the sample(s) evaluated. APPROVED BY ______________________________________ Julia Baum Laboratory Manager Author(s): Julia Baum Report ID: 112117.01 ii EcoAnalysts, Inc. Toxicity Testing Results City of Richland WWTP Acute & Chronic Toxicity Testing: August 2018 CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2. METHODS 2 2.1 Sample Collection 2 2.1.1 Sample Receipt Discussion 3 2.2 Water for Bioassay Testing 3 2.3 Sample Adjustment 3 3. RESULTS 4 3.1 Water Flea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) Acute Test Results 4 3.2 Water Flea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) Chronic Test Results 6 3.3 Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) Acute Test Results 8 3.4 Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) Chronic Test Results 10 3.5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 13 3.6 Data Management and Analysis 13 4. REFERENCES 14 Report ID: PG1151.01 iii EcoAnalysts, Inc. Toxicity Testing Results City of Richland WWTP Acute & Chronic Toxicity Testing: August 2018 TABLES Table 1-1. Toxicity Test Results Summary. .................................................................................................... 1 Table 1-2. Permit Compliance Results. ......................................................................................................... 1 Table 2-1. Biological Testing Performed. ...................................................................................................... 2 Table 2-2. Sample Conditions Upon Receipt. ................................................................................................ 3 Table 3-1. Endpoint Summary for the Ceriodaphnia dubia Acute Test ....................................................... 4 Table 3-2. Test Condition Summary for Ceriodaphnia dubia Acute Test ...................................................... 5 Table 3-3. Endpoint Summary for the Ceriodaphnia dubia Chronic Test .................................................... 6 Table 3-4. Statistical Results Summary for Ceriodaphnia dubia Chronic Tests ............................................ 6 Table 3-5. Test Condition Summary for Ceriodaphnia dubia Chronic Test ................................................... 7 Table 3-6. Endpoint Summary for the Pimephales promelas Acute Test .................................................... 8 Table 3-7. Test Condition Summary for Pimephales promelas Acute Test ................................................... 9 Table 3-8. Endpoint Summary for the Pimephales promelas Chronic Test ............................................... 10 Table 3-9. Statistical Results Summary for Pimephales promelas Chronic Tests ....................................... 11 Table 3-10. Test Condition Summary for Pimephales promelas Chronic Test ............................................ 12 Report ID: PG1151.01 iv EcoAnalysts, Inc. Toxicity Testing Results City of Richland WWTP Acute & Chronic Toxicity Testing: August 2018 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACEC Acute critical effluent concentration CCEC Chronic critical effluent concentration COR City of Richland DMW Diluted Mineral Water EPA Environmental Protection Agency LC25 Lethal Concentration to 25% of test population LC50 Lethal Concentration that results in a 50% reduction in survival LOEL Lowest Observed Effect Level mg/L Milligrams per liter NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NOEL No Observed Effect Level QM Quality manual SOP Standard operation procedure TUc Chronic toxic units WDOE Washington Department of Ecology WET Whole Effluent Toxicity WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant Report ID: PG1151.01 v EcoAnalysts, Inc. Toxicity Testing Results City of Richland WWTP Acute & Chronic Toxicity Testing: August 2018 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EcoAnalysts conducted Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing on three 24-hour composite effluent samples collected by City of Richland WWTP personnel as part of the effluent characterization. The objective of this program is to assess the potential toxicity of the effluent to aquatic organisms following procedures defined under the facility’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The results of the toxicity testing are contained in this report. Statistically significant reduction in biological effect was not detected at or below the acute critical effluent concentration (ACEC) of 0.36% effluent or the chronic critical effluent concentration (CCEC) of 0.22% effluent. The LC50 values were >100% effluent for all endpoints tested in each acute and chronic test, except for the Ceriodaphnia reproduction endpoint. The sample does not exceed the defined permit requirements. Table 1-1. Toxicity Test Results Summary. NOEL LOEL LC25/EC25 LC50/EC50 Test TU (%) (%) (%) (%) Water Flea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) 100 >100 >100 >100 1 48-hour Survival Acute Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) 100 >100 >100 >100 1 96-hour Survival Water Flea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) 100 >100 >100 >100 1 7-day Survival Water Flea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) 30 100 4.5 53.9 22 7-day Reproduction Chronic Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) 100 >100 >100 >100 1 7-day Survival Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) 100 >100 >100 >100 <1 7-day Biomass NOEL = No Observed Effect Level LOEL = Lowest Observed Effect Level LC25/EC25 = Lethal/Effect Concentration to 25% of test population LC50/EC50 = Lethal/Effect Concentration to 50% of test population TU = 100/NOEL (acute/chronic survival), 100/EC25 (7-day reproduction, growth, and biomass). Table 1-2. Permit Compliance Results. No defined effluent limit for toxicity testing The Permittee must: Conduct acute and chronic toxicity testing on final effluent once in August 2018 and Permit once again in January 2020 prior to submission of the application for permit renewal. The series of Requirement concentrations must include the CCEC and the ACEC. The CCEC equals 0.22% effluent. The ACEC equals 0.36% effluent. Statistically significant reduction in biological effect was not detected at or below the acute critical Result effluent concentration (ACEC) of 0.36% effluent or the chronic critical effluent concentration (CCEC) of 0.22% effluent for all tests conducted. Page 1 of 14 Toxicity Testing Results City of Richland WWTP Acute & Chronic Toxicity Testing: August 2018 2. METHODS The sample analyzed for toxicity was tested using criteria outlined in the Washington Department of Ecology’s (WDOE) Laboratory Guidance and Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Review Criteria (WDOE WQ-R- 95-80 (2016)). These criteria are further defined through the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) most recently promulgated effluent guidance documents outlined in Section 4. Bioassay testing for this project consisted of two acute and two chronic bioassays. The tests conducted in support of this project are summarized in Table 2-1. Table 2-1. Biological Testing Performed. Test Type Test Descriptor Species Method WDOE WQ-R-95-80 (2016); EPA- Ceriodaphnia dubia 48-hour Survival 821-R-02-012 Method 2002.0; Water Flea SOP TOX004.09 Acute WDOE WQ-R-95-80 (2016); EPA- Pimephales promelas 96-hour Survival 821-R-02-012 Method 2000.0; Fathead Minnow SOP TOX017.08 WDOE WQ-R-95-80 (2016); EPA- 7-Day Survival and Ceriodaphnia dubia 821-R-02-013; Test Method Reproduction Water Flea 1002.0; SOP TOX003.08 Chronic Pimephales promelas WDOE WQ-R-95-80 (2016); EPA- 7-Day Survival and Growth 821-R-02-013; Test Method Fathead Minnow 1000.0; SOP TOX018.09 2.1 Sample Collection City of Richland WWTP personnel collected samples on August 13, 15, and 17, 2018 at 0900 hours. The samples were delivered by overnight courier (UPS) and received at the EcoAnalysts Port Gamble laboratory on the day following collection. Sample temperatures upon receipt ranged from 1.1 – 3.7°C. Page 2 of 14 Toxicity Testing Results City of Richland WWTP Acute & Chronic Toxicity Testing: August 2018 Table 2-2. Sample Conditions Upon Receipt. Sample COR WWTP Final Effluent Laboratory ID P180814.01 P180816.01 P180818.01 Date/Time Sampled 8/13/18; 0900 8/15/18; 0900 8/17/18; 0900 Date/Time Received 8/14/18; 1245 8/16/18; 1425 8/18/18; 1215 Time Between Sampling and Receipt 27 hours, 45 minutes 29 hours, 25 minutes 27 hours, 15 minutes Test Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 8.3 8.3 8.2 Recommended: >4.0 mg/L Test Temperature (°C) Upon Receipt Ideal: 4°C or <1 hour from sample: 0 – 20°C 1.3 3.7 1.1 <4 hours from sample: 0 – 12°C ≥4 hours from sample: 0 – 6°C Test pH (units) 7.4 7.5 7.3 Recommended: 6 – 9 Test Conductivity (µS/cm) 928 828 722 Hardness (mg/L CaCO3) 171 174 176 Alkalinity (mg/L CaCO3) 205 243 170 Total Chlorine (mg/L) 0.03 0.04 0.00 Total Ammonia (mg/L) 6.82 5.33 1.85 2.1.1 Sample Receipt Discussion Sample temperatures upon receipt were within the recommended temperature range of 0 - 6°C. Additional sample conditions are summarized in Table 2-2. The effluent sample was held in a walk-in cold room at 4 ± 2 °C in the dark until utilized for testing. 2.2 Water for Bioassay Testing Freshwater diluent used in this study
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Information on the NCWRC's Scientific Council of Fishes Rare
    A Summary of the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina Submitted by Bryn H. Tracy North Carolina Division of Water Resources North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC On behalf of the NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes November 01, 2014 Bigeye Jumprock, Scartomyzon (Moxostoma) ariommum, State Threatened Photograph by Noel Burkhead and Robert Jenkins, courtesy of the Virginia Division of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Southeastern Fishes Council (http://www.sefishescouncil.org/). Table of Contents Page Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 3 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes In North Carolina ........... 4 Summaries from the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina .......................................................................................................................... 12 Recent Activities of NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes .................................................. 13 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part I, Ohio Lamprey .............................................. 14 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part II, “Atlantic” Highfin Carpsucker ...................... 17 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part III, Tennessee Darter ...................................... 20 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part
    [Show full text]
  • Kansas Stream Fishes
    A POCKET GUIDE TO Kansas Stream Fishes ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ By Jessica Mounts Illustrations © Joseph Tomelleri Sponsored by Chickadee Checkoff, Westar Energy Green Team, Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism, Kansas Alliance for Wetlands & Streams, and Kansas Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Published by the Friends of the Great Plains Nature Center Table of Contents • Introduction • 2 • Fish Anatomy • 3 • Species Accounts: Sturgeons (Family Acipenseridae) • 4 ■ Shovelnose Sturgeon • 5 ■ Pallid Sturgeon • 6 Minnows (Family Cyprinidae) • 7 ■ Southern Redbelly Dace • 8 ■ Western Blacknose Dace • 9 ©Ryan Waters ■ Bluntface Shiner • 10 ■ Red Shiner • 10 ■ Spotfin Shiner • 11 ■ Central Stoneroller • 12 ■ Creek Chub • 12 ■ Peppered Chub / Shoal Chub • 13 Plains Minnow ■ Silver Chub • 14 ■ Hornyhead Chub / Redspot Chub • 15 ■ Gravel Chub • 16 ■ Brassy Minnow • 17 ■ Plains Minnow / Western Silvery Minnow • 18 ■ Cardinal Shiner • 19 ■ Common Shiner • 20 ■ Bigmouth Shiner • 21 ■ • 21 Redfin Shiner Cover Photo: Photo by Ryan ■ Carmine Shiner • 22 Waters. KDWPT Stream ■ Golden Shiner • 22 Survey and Assessment ■ Program collected these Topeka Shiner • 23 male Orangespotted Sunfish ■ Bluntnose Minnow • 24 from Buckner Creek in Hodgeman County, Kansas. ■ Bigeye Shiner • 25 The fish were catalogued ■ Emerald Shiner • 26 and returned to the stream ■ Sand Shiner • 26 after the photograph. ■ Bullhead Minnow • 27 ■ Fathead Minnow • 27 ■ Slim Minnow • 28 ■ Suckermouth Minnow • 28 Suckers (Family Catostomidae) • 29 ■ River Carpsucker •
    [Show full text]
  • Chrosomus Erythrogaster Andc. Eos (Osteichthyes: Cyprinidae) Taxonomy, Distribution) Ecology a Thesis Submitted to the Faculty O
    CHROSOMUS ERYTHROGASTER AND C. EOS (OSTEICHTHYES: CYPRINIDAE) TAXONOMY, DISTRIBUTION) ECOLOGY A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA By Gary Lee Phillips IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Pegree Granted June, 1968 FRONTISPIECE. Male Chrosomus erythrogaster in breeding color, headwaters of the Zumbro River, Dodge County, Minnesota, 4 June 1966. Photograph by Professor David J. Merrell of the University of Minnesota. 47?-a•4 V gir irck 4r4.4- 1,1! IL .1, 74ko2,4,944,40tgrAt skr#9 4.e4 riff4eotilired‘ ik tit "ital.:A-To 4-v.w.r*:ez••01.%. '.or 44# 14 46#41bie. "v1441t..4frw.P1)4iiriiitalAttt.44- Aiihr4titeec --N. 1 4r40•4-v,400..orioggit kf)f 4y 4:11 to_ r •ArPV .1 1 "11(4% tk eat'n'ik\Nthl haf ilif -7b111,6 10t 11*4 * A Aver44, wr. • 4‘4041:Nr 0141 -at 1,10,71mr--,• 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ACKNOWLEDGMENTS SYNONYMY AND NOMENCLATURE METHODS AND MATERIALS DISTRIBUTION 23 Geographical Distribution ................... 23 Ecological Distribution ......,....•.....,.. 24 Distribution in Minnesota ............. 27 VARIATION 38 Reliability of Measurements •.*****••••••** 4 • * 38 Sexual Variation •.. 53 Ontogenetic Variation •••• • • • • • •••• 61 Geographical Variation .................. ft ft. 72 Interpopulation Mean Character Differences • • * 77 Anomalies 83 REPRODUCTION 86 Schooling BehaviOr, ....................- 86 , 000,. W.4,41 , 87 .Spawning ,Behavior. , ,10041.4100 .......„......... 00 90 Breeding Color .. Breeding Tubercle ......................,. 93 Sex Ratios ... ............... ..,. 97 Sexual cycles ' , .-•,................ ... 99 ft 99 Fecundity ... ft ft ft ft 0 ft S OlkOodt*40o,OWOOsoo•O*00-Ito , 41,* 111: Hybridization 40. 0.41400**************0.0 DIET 1.28 The Digestive Tract .....................
    [Show full text]
  • Spring 2001 Pt. 1 (Pdf)
    5 American Currents Vol. 27, No. 2 A Species on the Edge: Occurrence of Pimephales vigilax (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) in the Spring River Drainage, Missouri Robert A. Hrabik Missouri Department of Conservation, Fisheries Research, Assessment, and Monitoring Section, Long Term Resource Monitoring Program, Open River Field Station, Jackson, MO 63755, [email protected] he bullhead minnow (Pimephales vigilax, Fig. 1) 1924). Fowler was reporting on a series of collections by is a wide-ranging North American cyprinid Spencer Baird, Charles Girard, and Edward Cope that had found from the Ohio River drainage in not before appeared in publication. He noted a series of 42 T Pennsylvania, the Mobile River drainage in specimens of Ceratichthys (Pimephales) vigilax from Indiana, Alabama, and the Rio Grande drainage in Texas and México Iowa, Arkansas, Texas, and Missouri-Carthage (presumably to the Mississippi River drainage in Minnesota (Lee and from Spring River). Fowler gave no dates nor did he list the Kucas, 1980). It has been introduced to the upper Rio Grande collector(s). Baird and Girard were ichthyologists working in western Texas and New Mexico, and to the Kansas River for the U.S. Fish Commission who described (and redescribed) in Kansas, where it is common (Lee and Kucas, 1980; Cross many fishes from the Midwestern United States from the and Collins, 1995). Reports from the Missouri River drainage 1850s through the 1860s, including P. vigilax. Cope, a largely in Iowa and Nebraska (Evermann and Cox, 1896), and South self-taught naturalist, specialized in several branches of biology Dakota, were misidentifications and the specimens were later and paleontology.
    [Show full text]
  • Opsopoeodus Emiliae Hay Pugnose Minnow
    Opsopoeodus emiliae Hay Pugnose Minnow State Distribution Photograph courtesy of Nature’s Images, Inc. ([email protected]) Best Survey Period Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Status: State Endangered Lake Erie. While museum records indicate that the pugnose minnow was present in the Huron River in Global and State Rank: G5/S1 Wayne County, a 1994 survey found no individuals. The only record in Michigan in the past 20 years was in the Family: Cyprinidae (Minnows) Detroit River near Grosse Isle. Synonyms: The pugnose minnow is the only member of Recognition: The pugnose minnow is a small silver the genus Opsopoeodus. In recent years, it has been minnow with a distinct black lateral band running from suggested that the pugnose minnow belongs in the genus the tail through the eye to the upturned mouth. There Notropis, with Opsopoeodus as a monotypic subgenus. are nine dorsal fin rays with faintly dark areas on the There are two recognized subspecies of the pugnose fin. The pugnose minnow is usually around two inches minnow. O.e. peninsularis occurs only in Florida, while in length. It is most often confused with the pugnose O.e. emiliae occurs throughout the rest of the range shiner (Notropis anogenus). The pugnose shiner has (NatureServe, Page and Burr 1991). eight dorsal fin rays and a caudal spot. The bluntnose minnow (Pimephales notatus), with which it may also Total Range: The pugnose minnow is found from the be confused, also has eight dorsal fin rays (Becker 1983, southern Great Lakes basin and upper Mississippi River Evers 1994).
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of Kansas Fishes
    CHECKLIST OF KANSAS FISHES From "A Checklist of the Vertebrate Animals of Kansas", second edition, 1999, by George Potts, Joseph Collins and Kate Shaw (Species marked with an asterisk * are extirpated from the wild in Kansas.) 142 Species REFERENCE: Fishes in Kansas, 2nd edition, 1995 By Frank Cross and Joseph Collins, KU Press Order of Lampreys (Petromyzontiformes) Family Petromyzontidae Chestnut Lamprey - Ichthyomyzon castaneus Order of Sturgeons and Paddlefish (Acipenseriformes) Family Acipenseridae Lake Sturgeon - Acipenser fulvescens Pallid Sturgeon - Scaphirhynchus albus Shovelnose Sturgeon - Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Family Polyodontidae Paddlefish - Polyodon spathula Order of Gars (Semionotiformes) Family Lepisosteidae Spotted Gar - Lepisosteus oculatus Longnose Gar - Lepisosteus osseus Shortnose Gar - Lepisosteus platostomus Order of Bowfins (Amiiformes) Family Amiidae Bowfin - Amia calva Order of Bony-tongued fishes (Osteoglossiformes) Family Hiodontidae Goldeye - Hiodon alosoides * Mooneye - Hiodon tergisus Order of Eels (Anguilliformes) Family Anguillidae American Eel - Anguilla rostrata Order of Herrings (Clupeiformes) Family Clupeidae Skipjack Herring - Alosa chrysochloris Gizzard Shad - Dorosoma cepedianum Threadfin Shad - Dorosoma petenense Page 1 of 5 Order of Carp-like fishes (Cypriniformes) Family Cyprinidae Central Stoneroller - Campostoma anomalum Goldfish - Carassius auratus Grass Carp - Ctenopharyngodon idella Bluntface Shiner - Cyprinella camura Red Shiner - Cyprinella lutrensis Spotfin Shiner - Cyprinella spiloptera
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Northwest Aquatic Invasive Species Profile Fathead Minnow
    Pacific Northwest Aquatic Invasive Species Profile Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) Ben Holzman University of Washington, Fish 423 Fall, 2014 Figure 1. Fathead minnow (Image source: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (http://wildlife.utah.gov)) slightly prior to spawning. Normal coloration of Diagnostic information adults is dark olive to brown above the lateral stripe with an area of white below through with a Taxonomy: black peritoneum can often be observed. During Order - Cypriniformes the breeding season males exhibit a darker overall color with banding sometimes present, an Family - Cyprinidae absence of any lateral stripe and a darkening of the head coloration to black (Becker 1983). A Genus - Pimephales golden red color morph is also found however it Species - Pimephales promelas is more common within the aquarium hobby and is rarely observed in the wild. Common names: P. promelas has been categorized into different subspecies in the past due to minor variations in Fathead minnow, blackhead minnow, a number of morphological characters. The most crappie minnow, rosy-red minnow (red color notable of these was a difference in how complete morph variant) the lateral line appeared and resulted in northern, southern, and eastern subspecies. Due to the nature of the variations and the high level of Identification Key variability, it is accepted today that P. promelas is no longer broken into subspecies. A general The fathead minnow, Pimephales description of the overall characters found on P. promelas, first described in 1820 by Rafinesque promelas fits most individuals closely enough for is a short and stout member of minnow family identification purposes. Since the morphological cyprinidae (Vandermeer 1966).
    [Show full text]
  • A Distributional Checklist of the Fishes of Kentucky
    A Distributional Checklist of the Fishes of Kentucky BROOKS M. BURR Department of Zoology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois 62901 ABSTRACT. —A compilation of records of fishes from Kentucky waters based on specimens deposited in museums, personal collecting, and accepted literature reports revealed that 229 species occur or did oc- cur in the state. A substantial amount of new distributional data is presented in the form of an annotated list including records of several species of fishes previously unreported from the state. Distributional statements in the checklist are based on individual spot maps completed for all Kentucky fishes. A list of five problematical species is included at the end of the checklist. INTRODUCTION The fish fauna of Kentucky is more diverse than that of any other in- land area of comparable size in North America except Tennessee and Alabama. Presently, 229 species are known to occur or to have occurred in Kentucky waters and only 10 or 11 are the result of introduction by man. A major factor contributing to the present completeness of our knowledge of the Kentucky fish fauna has been its rich history of ichthyological investigations going back to the time of one of North America's earliest ichthyologists, Constantine Samuel Rafinesque. Since Rafinesque's groundbreaking work on Ohio River valley fishes (1820) there have been four other reports on Kentucky fishes (Woolman 1892, Garman 1894, Evermann 1918, Clay 1975). Woolman's study is of im- mense historical value in documenting the distribution of many Ken- tucky fishes before most of the changes brought on by man took place.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of Kansas Fishes
    Common & Scientific Names of Fishes Collected During KS Dept of Wildlife & Conservation Stream Surveys Scientific Name Common Name Ambloplites rupestrus Rock Bass Amierus melas Black Bullhead Amierus natalis Yellow Bullhead Amierus nebulosus Brown Bullhead Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater Drum Campostoma anomalum Central Stoneroller Carassius auratus Goldfish Carpiodes carpio River carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus Quillback Catostomus commersoni White Sucker Ctenopharyngodon idella Grass carp Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker Cyprinella camura Bluntface Shiner Cyprinella lutrensis Red Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera Spotfin Shiner Cyprinus carpio Common carp Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad Erimystax x-punctatus Gravel Chub Etheostoma blennioides Greenside Darter Etheostoma chlorosomum Bluntnose Darter Etheostoma flabellare Fantail Darter Etheostoma gracile Slough Darter Etheostoma nigrum Johnny Darter Etheostoma punculatum Speckled darter Etheostoma spectabile Orangethroat Darter Etheostoma stigmaum Stippled Darter Etheostoma whipplei Redfin Darter Fundulus notatus Blackstripe Topminnow Fundulus zebrinus Plains killifish Gambusia affinis Western Mosquitofish Hiodon alosoides Goldeye Hybognathus hankinsoni Brassy Minnow Hybognathus placitus Plains Minnow Hypentileum nigricans Northern Hogsucker Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish Ictiobus bubalus Smallmouth buffalo Labidesthes sicculus Brook Silverside Lepisosteus occulatus Spotted Gar Lepisosteus osseus Longnose gar Lepisosteus platostomus Shortnose Gar Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish Lepomis
    [Show full text]
  • Report Title
    AWWQRP Special Studies Report: Use of the EPA Recalculation Procedure with the Copper Biotic Ligand Model and Relative Role of Sodium and Alkalinity vs. Hardness in Controlling Acute Ammonia Toxicity Prepared for Pima County Wastewater Management 201 N. Stone, 8th Floor Tucson, AZ 85701-1207 Prepared by Parametrix Environmental Research Lab 33972 Texas Street SW Albany, OR 97321-9487 541-791-1667 www.parametrix.com In Collaboration with GEI Consultants, Chadwick Ecological Division 5575 S. Sycamore St., Suite 101 Littleton, CO 80123 303-794-5530 www.geiconsultants.com April 2007 │ 07-03-P-139257-0207 CITATION Pima County Wastewater Management. 2007. AWWQRP Special Studies Report: Use of the EPA Recalculation Procedure with the Copper Biotic Ligand Model, and Relative Role of Sodium and Alkalinity vs. Hardness in Controlling Acute Ammonia Toxicity. Prepared by Parametrix, Albany, Oregon. April 2007. AWWQRP Special Studies Report Pima County Wastewater Management TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD.............................................................................................................VII REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. X EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................XI EVALUATION OF SITE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS USING BIOTIC LIGAND MODEL ADJUSTED COPPER AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA/USE OF THE USEPA RECALCULATION PROCEDURE TO DEVELOP SITE-SPECIFIC BLM-BASED COPPER CRITERIA........................XI
    [Show full text]
  • A Chronic Toxicity Assessment of an Industrial Effluent Utilizing Pimephales Promelas and Ceriodaphnia Sp
    A CHRONIC TOXICITY ASSESSMENT OF AN INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENT UTILIZING PIMEPHALES PROMELAS AND CERIODAPHNIA SP. A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences Morehead State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Biology by Sharon J. Whitaker Fugate August, 1990 Accepted by the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences, Morehead State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science Degree. Director of Thesis Master's Committee: Dr. Jerry Howell, Jr. Dr. Howard Setser Mr. Fred Busroe 7-23-90 (date) ii ABSTRACT A CHRONIC TOXICITY ASSESSMENT OF AN INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENT UTILIZING PIMEPHALES PROMELAS AND CERIODAPHNIA SP. Sharon J. Whitaker Fugate Morehead State University, 1990 Director of Thesis A chronic seven-day toxicity assessment was performed on an industrial effluent, Outfall A. Test organisms were Ceriodaphnia .§B.. (water flea), less than 24 hours old, and nine-day old Pimephales promelas (fathead minnow). All testing and quality assurance procedures were done in accordance with EPA manual 600/4-85-014. The fathead minnow test was triplicated and the daphnid test was duplicated, utilizing a control of moderately hard synthetic water and the 100% concentrated effluent. A static renewal test was employed through monitoring Ceriodaphnia for survival and reproduction. Offspring were counted daily. Thirty fathead minnows per control and outfall A were monitored for survival, and finally sacrificed for weight analysis. Statistical tests employed were Fisher's Exact, the independant one-sided t test, and Probit Analysis. The t-test was performed on iii minnow survival and growth and Ceriodaphnia reproduction The tablet value (2 df, p=0.05) for fathead minnow survival was 2.920; the calculated t value was 3.57.
    [Show full text]
  • AC Winter 2007B
    5 American Currents Vol. 33, No. 1 Pimephales: More Than Just Bait Jeremy S. Tiemann Illinois Natural History Survey, 1816 S. Oak St., Champaign, Il 61820 [email protected] imephales species are an over-looked and under- 3) Slim Minnow, P. tenellus (Girard), occurs in the respected group of fishes. They are found just about Ozarks and adjacent regions in the Red and Arkansas anywhere, don’t develop vibrant colors, and are river drainages and other tributaries of the Mississippi P commonly raised for bait; therefore, they don’t River. It predominantly lives in the midwater or near the have that “shock” value when collecting them (it’s more of a streambed of runs of mid-sized streams that have clean “ho-hum” value). However, I enjoy raising them and feel they sand/gravel bottoms and moderate flowing water. make great aquarium fishes. They are hardy, will eat about 4) Bullhead Minnow, P. vigilax (Baird & Girard), anything (both plant and animal matter), develop interesting occurs in the Mississippi River basin and Gulf Slope breeding morphological features, are fairly easy to spawn, drainages. It predominately lives in sluggish pools of and, being schooling pacifists, make nice tank-mates for my larger streams that have silty/sandy bottoms, continuous madtoms, sunfishes and darters. flow, low gradients, and spare vegetation. Pimephales can occur in the same geographic areas with- out interbreeding. They can share the same habitats but often separate by slight niche differences. There are four species of The Fish Room Pimephales (accounts from Cross, 1967; Miller and Robison, 1973; Robison and Buchanan, 1988; Page and Burr, 1991; I have been collecting and breeding Pimephales species and Pflieger, 1997): since 2000.
    [Show full text]