Whitewood Creek
History of Whitewood Creek
For 100 years from 1877 to 1977, Homestake discharged at least 100 million tons of gold-mill tailings and hazardous substances. Approximately 2,700 tons of contaminated sediments from Homestake were deposited daily into Whitewood Creek from about 1900 to 1978. From 1920 to 1977, about 270,000 tons of arsenic was discharged into Whitewood Creek. Historically, gold was recovered by gravity or by amalgamation with mercury. Since the early 1900’s, cyanide was used for gold extraction. Whitewood Creek was an efficient conduit, transporting contaminated sediments into the slow, meandering Belle Fourche River, because much of Whitewood Creek’s channel downstream of Lead is steep and incised into bedrock. The EPA designated it as a Superfund Site in the early 1990’s when heavy metals were again detected in an area of the creek; clean-up was conducted, and it was deleted from the Superfund in 1999.
The Information in the preceding paragraph comes from the FINAL CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION AND COMPENSATION PLAN FOR WHITEWOOD CREEK AND THE BELLE FOURCHE AND CHEYENNE RIVER WATERSHEDS, SOUTH DAKOTA
Homestake discontinued use of mercury in the amalgamation process in 1970, and sediment discharge was discontinued not long after. The changes were noticeable almost immediately. Remediation strategies were developed by several agencies, including Homestake, who developed a strain of bacteria that could metabolize high levels of cyanide, removing it from the discharge. The new water treatment plant in Deadwood began removing sewage contaminants and other chemicals from the creek in 1979. In 1980 invertebrate life began to reappear. In 1984 finishing touches on the project were completed, and by 1985 fish were found in the stream. And for the first time in over 180 years it was considered safe for children to play in the stream.
The Whitewood Creek Project: A K-12 STEM Initiative
Children take ownership of the local environment, which as they continue to grow into adulthood and deeply investigate and collect data longitudinally in subsequent grades, will hopefully create an community-wide climate of oversight in which events like Deepwater Horizon, Fukishima Power Plant, the Sago Mine, would not happen. Local problems such as those that our community has experienced, that resulted in the placement of our creek on a Superfund list more than once over the years, would be mitigated by residents that are environmentally literate. When as global and national citizens we observe man-made environmental catastrophes that we as STEM educators see as “teachable moments”, there exists a level of abstraction that increases with the distance of the event from one’s students. Place-based science removes that abstraction, and if it’s K-12, then as children grow older, students themselves become resources- repositories of information, for the students that follow. It is capacity building in our most precious resource, our youth.
Evaluating Information Students also need to know how to look at, or analyze information that they have gathered to derive trends. It is also important to evaluate the validity or limitations of measurements, and the efficacy of the results. Science requires critical thinking in the context of evaluating the value of data. A question that seems so simple; such as, "what is the cleanliness of our water", is actually very complex because it requires an agreement on the definition of terms like 'clean', or 'polluted'.Finding SolutionsOnce students have made observations and evaluated that data, if problems are identified they should have the opportunity to develop additional questions and brainstorm solutions.Communicating ResultsIn a diverse world experimental results, and their implied implications might be relevant to many communities. Students must be able to share findings.
Our working document is from the volunteer stream management guide: http://www.epa.gov/volunteer/stream/stream.pdf
Why monitor your watershed?
Typical reasons for initiating a volunteer monitoring project include:
Some types of monitoring approaches and their application-
Physical Condition
Watershed survey
Determine land use patterns; determine presence of current and historical pollution sources; identify gross pollution problems; identify water uses, users, diversions, and stream obstructions
Habitat assessment
Determine and isolate impacts of pollution sources, particularly land use activities; interpret biological data; screen for impairments
Biological condition
Macroinvertebrate sampling
Screen for impairment; identify impacts of pollution and pollution control activities; determine the severity of the pollution problem and rank stream sites; identify water quality trends; determine support of designated aquatic life uses.
Chemical condition
Water quality sampling
Screen for impairment; identify specific pollutants of concern; identify water quality trends; determine support of designated contact recreation uses; identify potential pollution sources
What parameters or conditions will be monitored?
Determining what to monitor will depend on the needs of the data users, the intended use of the data, and the resources of the volunteer program. If the program's goal is to determine whether a creek is suitable for swimming, for example, a human-health related parameter such as fecal coliform bacteria should be monitored. If the objective is to characterize the ability of a stream to support sport fish, volunteers should examine stream habitat characteristics, the aquatic insect community, and water quality parameters such as dissolved oxygen and temperature. Alternatively, if a program seeks to provide baseline data useful to state water quality or natural resource agencies, program designers should consult those agencies to determine which parameters they consider of greatest value.
Money for test kits or meters, available laboratory facilities, help from state or university advisors, and the abilities and desires of volunteers will also clearly have an impact on the choice of parameters to be monitored. For characterization studies, EPA usually recommends an approach that integrates physical, chemical, and biological parameters.
How good does the monitoring data need to be?
Some uses require high-quality data. For example, high-quality data are usually needed to prove compliance with environmental regulations, assess pollution impacts, or make land use planning decisions. In other cases the quality of the data is secondary to the actual process of collecting it. This is often the case for monitoring that focus on the overall educational aspects of stream monitoring. Data quality is measured in five ways accuracy, precision, completeness, representativeness, and comparability
Where are the monitoring sites?
Sites might be chosen for any number of reasons such as accessibility, proximity to volunteers' homes, value to potential users such as state agencies, or location in problem areas. If the volunteer program is providing baseline data to characterize a stream or screen for problems, it might wish to monitor a number of sites representing a range of conditions in the stream watershed (e.g., an upstream "pristine" area, above and below towns and cities, in agricultural areas and parks, etc.). For more specific purposes, such as determining whether a stream is safe to swim in, it might only be necessary to sample selected swimming areas. To determine whether a particular land use activity or potential source of pollution is, in fact, having an impact, it might be best to monitor upstream and downstream of the area where the source is suspected. To determine the effectiveness of runoff control measures, a paired watershed approach might be best (e.g., sampling two similar small watersheds, one with controls in place and one without controls).
A program manager might also select one or more sites near professionally monitored sites in order to compare the quality of volunteer-generated data against professional data. It might also be helpful to locate some sites near U.S. Geological Survey gauging stations, which can provide useful data on streamflow. Certainly, for any volunteer program, safety and accessibility (both legal and physical) will be important in determining site location. No matter how sampling sites are chosen, most monitoring programs will need to maintain the same sites over time and identify them clearly in their monitoring program design.
Macroinvertebrate and chemical parameter survey methods appropriate for various needs can be found in the rest of this document at:
http://www.epa.gov/volunteer/stream/stream.pdf
The Lead-Deadwood Watershed is here- http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/huc.cfm?huc_code=10120202
Acid Mine Drainage Virtual Lab (Chemcollective)
For 100 years from 1877 to 1977, Homestake discharged at least 100 million tons of gold-mill tailings and hazardous substances. Approximately 2,700 tons of contaminated sediments from Homestake were deposited daily into Whitewood Creek from about 1900 to 1978. From 1920 to 1977, about 270,000 tons of arsenic was discharged into Whitewood Creek. Historically, gold was recovered by gravity or by amalgamation with mercury. Since the early 1900’s, cyanide was used for gold extraction. Whitewood Creek was an efficient conduit, transporting contaminated sediments into the slow, meandering Belle Fourche River, because much of Whitewood Creek’s channel downstream of Lead is steep and incised into bedrock. The EPA designated it as a Superfund Site in the early 1990’s when heavy metals were again detected in an area of the creek; clean-up was conducted, and it was deleted from the Superfund in 1999.
The Information in the preceding paragraph comes from the FINAL CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION AND COMPENSATION PLAN FOR WHITEWOOD CREEK AND THE BELLE FOURCHE AND CHEYENNE RIVER WATERSHEDS, SOUTH DAKOTA
Homestake discontinued use of mercury in the amalgamation process in 1970, and sediment discharge was discontinued not long after. The changes were noticeable almost immediately. Remediation strategies were developed by several agencies, including Homestake, who developed a strain of bacteria that could metabolize high levels of cyanide, removing it from the discharge. The new water treatment plant in Deadwood began removing sewage contaminants and other chemicals from the creek in 1979. In 1980 invertebrate life began to reappear. In 1984 finishing touches on the project were completed, and by 1985 fish were found in the stream. And for the first time in over 180 years it was considered safe for children to play in the stream.
The Whitewood Creek Project: A K-12 STEM Initiative
Children take ownership of the local environment, which as they continue to grow into adulthood and deeply investigate and collect data longitudinally in subsequent grades, will hopefully create an community-wide climate of oversight in which events like Deepwater Horizon, Fukishima Power Plant, the Sago Mine, would not happen. Local problems such as those that our community has experienced, that resulted in the placement of our creek on a Superfund list more than once over the years, would be mitigated by residents that are environmentally literate. When as global and national citizens we observe man-made environmental catastrophes that we as STEM educators see as “teachable moments”, there exists a level of abstraction that increases with the distance of the event from one’s students. Place-based science removes that abstraction, and if it’s K-12, then as children grow older, students themselves become resources- repositories of information, for the students that follow. It is capacity building in our most precious resource, our youth.
Evaluating Information Students also need to know how to look at, or analyze information that they have gathered to derive trends. It is also important to evaluate the validity or limitations of measurements, and the efficacy of the results. Science requires critical thinking in the context of evaluating the value of data. A question that seems so simple; such as, "what is the cleanliness of our water", is actually very complex because it requires an agreement on the definition of terms like 'clean', or 'polluted'.Finding SolutionsOnce students have made observations and evaluated that data, if problems are identified they should have the opportunity to develop additional questions and brainstorm solutions.Communicating ResultsIn a diverse world experimental results, and their implied implications might be relevant to many communities. Students must be able to share findings.
Our working document is from the volunteer stream management guide: http://www.epa.gov/volunteer/stream/stream.pdf
Why monitor your watershed?
Typical reasons for initiating a volunteer monitoring project include:
- Develop baseline characterization data
- Documenting water quality changes over time
- Screening for potential water quality problems
- Determining whether waters are safe for swimming
- Determining the impact of a municipal sewage treatment facility, industrial facility, or land use activity such as forestry or farming
- Educating the local community or stream users to encourage pollution prevention and environmental stewardship
- Showing public officials that local citizens care about the condition and management of their water resources
Some types of monitoring approaches and their application-
Physical Condition
Watershed survey
Determine land use patterns; determine presence of current and historical pollution sources; identify gross pollution problems; identify water uses, users, diversions, and stream obstructions
Habitat assessment
Determine and isolate impacts of pollution sources, particularly land use activities; interpret biological data; screen for impairments
Biological condition
Macroinvertebrate sampling
Screen for impairment; identify impacts of pollution and pollution control activities; determine the severity of the pollution problem and rank stream sites; identify water quality trends; determine support of designated aquatic life uses.
Chemical condition
Water quality sampling
Screen for impairment; identify specific pollutants of concern; identify water quality trends; determine support of designated contact recreation uses; identify potential pollution sources
What parameters or conditions will be monitored?
Determining what to monitor will depend on the needs of the data users, the intended use of the data, and the resources of the volunteer program. If the program's goal is to determine whether a creek is suitable for swimming, for example, a human-health related parameter such as fecal coliform bacteria should be monitored. If the objective is to characterize the ability of a stream to support sport fish, volunteers should examine stream habitat characteristics, the aquatic insect community, and water quality parameters such as dissolved oxygen and temperature. Alternatively, if a program seeks to provide baseline data useful to state water quality or natural resource agencies, program designers should consult those agencies to determine which parameters they consider of greatest value.
Money for test kits or meters, available laboratory facilities, help from state or university advisors, and the abilities and desires of volunteers will also clearly have an impact on the choice of parameters to be monitored. For characterization studies, EPA usually recommends an approach that integrates physical, chemical, and biological parameters.
How good does the monitoring data need to be?
Some uses require high-quality data. For example, high-quality data are usually needed to prove compliance with environmental regulations, assess pollution impacts, or make land use planning decisions. In other cases the quality of the data is secondary to the actual process of collecting it. This is often the case for monitoring that focus on the overall educational aspects of stream monitoring. Data quality is measured in five ways accuracy, precision, completeness, representativeness, and comparability
Where are the monitoring sites?
Sites might be chosen for any number of reasons such as accessibility, proximity to volunteers' homes, value to potential users such as state agencies, or location in problem areas. If the volunteer program is providing baseline data to characterize a stream or screen for problems, it might wish to monitor a number of sites representing a range of conditions in the stream watershed (e.g., an upstream "pristine" area, above and below towns and cities, in agricultural areas and parks, etc.). For more specific purposes, such as determining whether a stream is safe to swim in, it might only be necessary to sample selected swimming areas. To determine whether a particular land use activity or potential source of pollution is, in fact, having an impact, it might be best to monitor upstream and downstream of the area where the source is suspected. To determine the effectiveness of runoff control measures, a paired watershed approach might be best (e.g., sampling two similar small watersheds, one with controls in place and one without controls).
A program manager might also select one or more sites near professionally monitored sites in order to compare the quality of volunteer-generated data against professional data. It might also be helpful to locate some sites near U.S. Geological Survey gauging stations, which can provide useful data on streamflow. Certainly, for any volunteer program, safety and accessibility (both legal and physical) will be important in determining site location. No matter how sampling sites are chosen, most monitoring programs will need to maintain the same sites over time and identify them clearly in their monitoring program design.
Macroinvertebrate and chemical parameter survey methods appropriate for various needs can be found in the rest of this document at:
http://www.epa.gov/volunteer/stream/stream.pdf
The Lead-Deadwood Watershed is here- http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/huc.cfm?huc_code=10120202
- Social Impacts
- Chemical Parameters Virtual Labs
Acid Mine Drainage Virtual Lab (Chemcollective)
- Biological Parameters