13.01.2013 Views

Dames & Moore, 1999 - USDA Forest Service

Dames & Moore, 1999 - USDA Forest Service

Dames & Moore, 1999 - USDA Forest Service

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

to the extrapolation to low hardnesses of bioassay data from the U.S. €PA Research Laboratory at Duluth<br />

where the hardness is approximately 45 mg CaCOA. However, review of the literature concerning the<br />

toxicity of PCOCs to trout shows that they are able to swive and reproduce in considerably higher<br />

concentrations than would be expected based upon the benchmarks given above. Recent reports from the<br />

Clark Fork Superfund Site near Butte, Montana, reveal that the water quality criteria mag substantially<br />

overpredict toxicity at lower water hardnesses (ARCO, 1996).<br />

The criteria include data for species of animals not found in Railroad Creek. Furthermore, there are many<br />

studies of cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc toxicity to salrnonid fishes conducted at low water hardness<br />

(Table 7.2.3-18) which are more appropriate for Railroad Creek fish species and water conditions. As a<br />

rule, the Salmonidae are generally considered to be the most sensitive family of fish to metals (Spry et al..<br />

1981). These Toxicity Reference Values (TRVs) include both acute and chronic endpoints and full life<br />

cycle maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) values. The mean of the tish bioassay data for<br />

each metal was considered to provide a weight of evidence that higher concentrations of metals can be<br />

tolerated by salmonid fishes in very soft waters. Because arsenic, mercury, and nickel did not exceed the<br />

screening criteria, no site-specific TRVs were developed for these metals.<br />

The chronic value for iron used in this risk assessment (1300 pg/L) is also different from the national<br />

NAWQC (1000 pg/L). This is because the federal criteria was established on the basis of a 2 1-day Daphnia<br />

magno bioassay using acid mine drainage. This is not a currently accepted method of establishing<br />

NAWQC, and daphnids are not found in flowing waters such as Railroad Creek. Therefore, for the<br />

purposes of this risk assessment, the lowest value from a rainbow trout embryo-larval bioassay (1300 p a)<br />

was used as the TRV (ORNL, 1996).<br />

These chronic values are at least an order of magnitude greater than the federal criteria modeled benchmark<br />

values listed in Table 7.2.3-1A. Since trout are the major resource to be protected in Railroad Creek, the<br />

values in Table 7.2.3-18 and the chronic value NOEC for copper (i.e., 2.3 pg/L) were used as TRVs to<br />

evaluate risk to fish.<br />

Sediment<br />

In those portions of Railroad Creek where sediments or flocculent have accumulated, toxicity to benthic<br />

invertebrates may be judged by comparison with sediment quality guidance values. Chemicals undetected or<br />

found in only trace amounts in the water column can accumulate to relatively high levels in the pore-water<br />

between sediment particles.<br />

Sediment concentrations were screened relative to appropriate benchmarks (Table 7.2.3-2A). Among<br />

available benchmarks are the marifle and estuarine sediment quality guidance values of Long et al. (1995).<br />

the freshwater guidelines of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (Persaud et al., 1993), and the<br />

Washington State (Ecology, 1997) guidelines for freshwater sediments. Because the marine and estuarine<br />

guidelines (Long et al., 1995) are baied on a much larger database than the freshwater guidelines, the<br />

potential sediment toxicity of Railroad Creek was assessed using these values.<br />

For Long et al. (1995), the effects range-low (ER-L) is defined as the lower 10th percentile and the effects<br />

range-median (ER-M) as the 50th percentile (median) of the chemical concentration data set. Based on a<br />

"preponderance of evidence," the ER-L and ER-M values define three concentration ranges that were (1)<br />

G:\~u\W~m\hoIdrn-2\n~7O0da 7-49<br />

17693-005619Uuly 21. <strong>1999</strong>,5:16 PMDRAFT FINAL RI REPORT

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!