DOCSLIB.ORG

The Alamosa River Corridor 15 Years After Remediation Began at Summitville Mine

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Alamosa River Corridor 15 Years After Remediation Began at Summitville Mine The Alamosa River Corridor 15 Years After Remediation Began at Summitville Mine A Master’s Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the College of Science and Mathematics Colorado State University-Pueblo Pueblo, Colorado In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Science in Applied Natural Science (Biology Emphasis) By Jared Romero Colorado State University – Pueblo August, 2010 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE This Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Masters of Science in Applied Natural Science (Biology Emphasis) By Jared J. Romero Has Been Accepted By the Graduate Faculty of the College of Science and Mathematics Colorado State University- Pueblo APPROVAL OF THESIS COMMITTEE: ________________________________________________________________________ Graduate Advisor (Dr. Moussa Diawara) Date ________________________________________________________________________ Committee Member (Dr. Jack Seilheimer) Date ________________________________________________________________________ Committee Member (Dr. Chad Kinney) Date ________________________________________________________________________ Graduate Director (Dr. Jeffrey Smith) Date ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A special thanks to Dr. Moussa Diawara, Dr. Jack Seilheimer, Dr. Chad Kinney, Dr. Annette Gabaldon, Dr. Jeff Smith, Jim Carsela and Dr. Richard Kreminski for assisting and guiding me through this process. I would also like to thank Dr. Marty Jones, Dr. Benita Brink, Theresa Jimenez, Martin and Ellen Romero, Jerome and Brenda Romero, Michelle Romero and Mackenzie Holdershaw for all of their assistance in this process. i TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE GRADUATE PROGRAM ACCEPTANCE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i TABLE OF CONTENTS ii ABSTRACT iii-v LIST OF FIGURES vi-ix LIST OF TABLES x-xii LIST OF EQUATIONS xiii INTRODUCTION 1-15 STUDY OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESIS 15-17 MATERIALS AND METHODS 17-30 RESULTS 30-124 DISCUSSION 124-157 LITERTURE CITED 158-165 APPENDIX (THESIS DEFENSE PRESENTATION) 166 ii ABSTRACT: THE ALAMOSA RIVER CORRIDOR 15 YEARS AFTER REMEDIATION BEGAN AT SUMMITVILLE MINE Jared J. Romero Summitville Mine lies in Rio Grande National Forest in southwestern Colorado. Summitville Mine contributed to the contamination of the Alamosa River Ecosystem by leaking acids and heavy metals into Wightman Fork an Alamosa River Tributary. The poor conditions of the Alamosa River have been well documented since 1917. However, the damaging effects caused by operations at Summitville Mine during 1985-1992 were much greater than the contamination that exists due to the volcanic geology of the area. The Alamosa River and Terrace Reservoir, an irrigation reservoir that the Alamosa River flows into, had a viable fish population, prior to Summitville Consolidated Mining Corp., Inc. beginning a cyanide heap leaching pad operation in 1985. By 1990 the Colorado Division of Wildlife had reported that a fish population no longer existed in Terrace Reservoir. In 1992 the EPA and other government agencies began studies of the affected areas and in 1994 began remediation efforts. The last collected document that analyzed sediment along the Alamosa River was in 2000 and the last study that analyzed Alamosa River water samples was in 2003. Since 2003 there have been no studies performed to our knowledge to determine the health of the Alamosa River Ecosystem and the impact of the remediation. We hypothesized that the remediation effort has been successful and that the majority of any potential heavy metal contamination was no longer coming from Summitville Mine, but rather from the volcanic geology of the Mountains. Our main objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of the remediation efforts initiated in 1992 to reduce heavy metal concentrations in Terrace Reservoir and along the Alamosa River iii corridor. Specifically we 1) compared concentrations of heavy metals in water, sediment and tree core samples collected upstream, at and downstream from the mining site; and 2) compared the concentrations of all inorganic elements (heavy metals and others) upstream, at and downstream of the mining site to the concentrations recorded in 2000 and 2003. This study determined the heavy metal concentrations in water, sediment, and tree core samples during the 2009 runoff season. This was done in order to determine if the ecosystems health has improved since remediation began in 1992. Previous reports looked at concentrations of aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, nickel and zinc. Our 2009 study included these heavy metals, however we determined the concentration of 27 heavy metals in water, sediment and tree cores using an ICP-MS. Statistical analysis was performed on heavy metals that were analyzed in previous studies as well as any heavy metal that was not in compliance with the Colorado Department of Public Health and/ Environment (CDPHE) standards in water or the Ecological Soil Screening Concentrations (ECSSL) for soil and tree cores. Concentrations of aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, nickel and zinc all decreased in 2009 water samples when compared to previously reported concentrations. However, aluminum, cadmium, copper and manganese concentrations were still above the CDPHE standards in water. Cadmium, copper, iron, nickel, and zinc concentrations all decreased in sediment samples when compared to previous year's results, but remained above ECSSL concentrations. Concentrations of aluminum, arsenic, lead and manganese concentrations all increased in 2009 when compared to previously reported data in sediment. Arsenic, lead and manganese all were above the sediment ECSSLs. Heavy metal limits in both aspen (sc. iv Populus tremuloides.) and cottonwood (sc. Populus deltoids) species were below ECSSLs; however the results indicated that heavy metals could move in between rings of the entire tree. Our study found that the majority of the heavy metal contamination is not coming from the volcanic geology. Summitville Mine still remains as the major contamination source for most of the heavy metals contamination in the Alamosa River Ecosystem, contrary to our hypothesis. v List of Figures Figure 1: An Artists Representation of the Summitville-Platoro 2 Caldera Figure 2: An Artists Rendition of the Volcanically Altered Geology 5 in the Alamosa Watershed Figure 3: Dissolved Oxygen’s (DO) Reduction Results in Pyrite 10 Oxidation by Ferric Ions Figure 4: Map of the Alamosa Watershed Marked with 2009 Field 23 Sampling Locations and GPS Coordinates Figure 5: Mean Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Values from the 2009 33 Collections Season with Their Corresponding Standards set by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Figure 6: The Number of Times the Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 34 Concentrations were Below Standards set by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Figure 7: Aluminum Concentrations (ppb) in Water Samples Along 38 the Alamosa River Figure 8: Arsenic Concentrations (ppb) in Water Samples Along the 41 Alamosa River Figure 9: Copper Concentrations (ppb) in Water Samples Along the 43 Alamosa River Figure 10: Iron Concentrations (ppb) in Water Samples Along the 46 Alamosa River Figure 11: Lead Concentrations (ppb) in Water Samples Along the 49 Alamosa River Figure 12: Selenium Concentrations (ppb) in Water Samples Along 51 the Alamosa River Figure 13: Cadmium Concentrations (ppb) in Water Samples Along 54 the Alamosa River vi Figure 14: Manganese Concentrations (ppb) in Water Samples 55 Along the Alamosa River Figure 15: Nickel Concentrations (ppb) in Water Samples Along 56 the Alamosa River Figure 16: Zinc Concentrations (ppb) in Water Samples Along the 57 Alamosa River Figure 17: Aluminum Concentrations (ppm) in Sediment Samples 63 Along the Alamosa River Figure 18: Iron Concentrations (ppm) in Sediment Samples Along 64 the Alamosa River Figure 19: Figure 19. Vanadium Concentrations (ppm) in Sediment 65 Samples Along the Alamosa River Figure 20: Arsenic Concentrations (ppm) in Sediment Samples 69 Along the Alamosa River Figure 21: Cadmium Concentrations (ppm) in Sediment Samples 72 Along the Alamosa River Figure 22: Cobalt Concentrations (ppm) in Sediment Samples 74 Along the Alamosa River Figure 23: Copper Concentrations (ppm) in Sediment Samples 77 Along the Alamosa River Figure 24: Lead Concentrations (ppm) in Sediment Samples Along 79 the Alamosa River Figure 25: Manganese Concentrations (ppm) in Sediment Samples 82 Along the Alamosa River Figure 26: Nickel Concentrations (ppm) in Sediment Samples 84 Along the Alamosa River Figure 27: Selenium Concentrations (ppm) in Sediment Samples 87 Along the Alamosa River Figure 28: Zinc Concentrations (ppm) in Sediment Samples Along 89 the Alamosa River Figure 29: Arsenic Concentrations (ppm) in Cottonwood Tree 92 vii Cores Above and Below Terrace Reservoir Figure 30: Cadmium Concentrations (ppm) in Cottonwood Tree 93 Cores Above and Below Terrace Reservoir Figure 31: Cobalt Concentrations (ppm) in Cottonwood Tree Cores 94 Above and Below Terrace Reservoir Figure 32: Copper Concentrations (ppm) in Cottonwood Tree Cores 95 Above and Below Terrace Reservoir Figure 33: Lead Concentrations (ppm) in Cottonwood Tree Cores 96 Above and Below Terrace Reservoir Figure 34: Manganese Concentrations (ppm) in Cottonwood Tree 97 Cores Above and Below Terrace Reservoir Figure 35: Nickel Concentrations (ppm) in Cottonwood Tree Cores 98 Above and Below Terrace Reservoir Figure 36: Selenium Concentrations (ppm) in Cottonwood Tree 99 Cores Above and Below Terrace Reservoir Figure 37:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Impact of the Summitville Mine on Irrigation Water, Agricultural Soils, and Alfalfa in the Southwestern San Luis Valley, Colorado
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Impact of the Summitville Mine on irrigation water, agricultural soils, and alfalfa in the southwestern San Luis Valley, Colorado By J. A. Erdman* and K.S. Smith* Open-File Report 93-616 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. *U.S. Geological Survey, DFC, Box 25046, MS 973, Denver, CO 80225 1993 Impact of the Summitville Mine on Irrigation Water, Agricultural Soils, and Alfalfa in the Southwestern San Luis Valley, Colorado J.A. Erdman and K.S. Smith Contamination from the Summitville gold mine in the San Juan Mountains has raised concerns over the effects of low pH and metal-laden surface waters carried down the Alamosa River. These waters enter the Terrace Reservoir, which provides irrigation water to the southwestern part of the San Luis Valley. The purpose of this study was to assess whether significant differences exist between the effects of two source waters on the compositions of alfalfa and the associated soils, respectively. The two source waters are Terrace Reservoir water and Rio Grande River water and (or) confined ground water. Sampling was conducted June 3-6, 1993, just prior to the first cutting of alfalfa. Irrigation water, soils, and alfalfa were collected from four sprinkler-irrigated Terrace Reservoir fields and from similarly irrigated "control" fields using a balanced one-way analysis-of-variance design.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Memorandum
    Analysis and Technical Update to the Colorado Water Plan Technical Memorandum Prepared for: Colorado Water Conservation Board Project Title: Current and 2050 Planning Scenario Water Supply and Gap Results Date: September 18, 2019 Prepared by: Wilson Water Group Reviewed by: Jacobs, Brown & Caldwell Technical Update Water Supply and Gap Results Table of Contents Section 1 : Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 10 Section 2 : Definitions and Terminology ........................................................................................................ 11 Section 3 : SWSI 2010 Water Supply Methodology....................................................................................... 12 Section 4 : Technical Update Water Supply Methodology ............................................................................ 15 4.1 Current/Baseline Water Supply Methodology .......................................................................... 15 4.1.1 CDSS Basin Water Supply Methodology ..................................................................................... 16 4.1.2 Non-CDSS Basin Water Supply Methodology ............................................................................. 19 4.2 Planning Scenario A-E Water Supply Methodology .................................................................. 21 4.2.1 Planning Scenario Water Supply Adjustments ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rio Grande and Conejos Counties, Colorado Volume II: a Natural Heritage Inventory and Assessment of Wetlands and Riparian Areas in Rio Grande and Conejos Counties
    Biological Inventory of Rio Grande and Conejos Counties, Colorado Volume II: A Natural Heritage Inventory and Assessment of Wetlands and Riparian Areas in Rio Grande and Conejos Counties Colorado Natural Heritage Program College of Natural Resources, 254 General Services Building Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Biological Inventory of Rio Grande and Conejos Counties, Colorado Volume II: A Natural Heritage Inventory and Assessment of Wetlands and Riparian Areas in Rio Grande and Conejos Counties Prepared for: Colorado Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street Room 718 Denver, Colorado 80203 Prepared by: Joe Rocchio, Denise Culver, Steve Kettler, and Robert Schorr March 2000 Colorado Natural Heritage Program College of Natural Resources 254 General Services Building Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 ii USER’S GUIDE The Biological Inventory of Rio Grande and Conejos Counties, conducted by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, consists of two essentially distinct projects that are highly integrated with respect to methodology and fieldwork. This report reflects the separate nature of the projects by being organized in a two-volume set. Both projects utilized the same Natural Heritage methodology that is used throughout North America, and both searched for and assessed the plants, animals, and plant communities on the Colorado Natural Heritage Program’s list of rare and imperiled elements of biodiversity. Each volume prioritizes potential conservation areas based on the relative significance of the biodiversity they support and the urgency for protection of the site. All information explaining Natural Heritage methodology and ranks is repeated in each volume, so that each volume can stand-alone and be used independently of the other.
    [Show full text]
  • Summitville Mine - EPA Region 8 Superfund
    Summitville Mine - EPA Region 8 Superfund Region 8 - Superfund Serving Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming and 27 Tribal Nations Contact Us | Print Version Search: EPA Home > Region 8 > Superfund > Sites > Colorado Cleanup Sites > Active NPL Sites > Summitville Mine Superfund Summitville Mine Sites Colorado, Rio Grande County, Congressional District #3, EPA ID# COD 983778432 Superfund Basics National Priorities List Remedial Action Underway Risk Assessment April 2003 CERCLIS ABOUT THE SUMMITVILLE MINE SITE . Contacts The Summitville Mine site covers about 1,400 acres of Rio Grande County. It lies some twenty miles southwest of Del Norte, high in the San Juan Mountains of southwestern Colorado. It is Congressional Reports an abandoned gold mine that was leaking cyanide, acid and metal-laden mine water into the headwaters of the Alamosa River. The pollutants killed aquatic life and threatened the irrigated Public Liaison farmland downstream. The State of Colorado, citizens of the San Luis Valley and the U.S. EPA are working together to clean up the site. BACKGROUND Mining began at Summitville in the 1870s. In the 1980s, Summitville Consolidated Mining Company, Inc. (SCMCI) started large-scale surface gold mining, using the heap-leach process. Pyritic, gold-bearing ore was mined, crushed and stacked or heaped on a multi-layered, lined pad. A solution of sodium cyanide was used to leach gold from the ore. It was sprinkled on the heaped ore and allowed to percolate down through it. Then the sodium-cyanide solution was pumped to a facility that removed the gold. The mining greatly increased the acidity and dissolved metals in the surrounding streams, damaging aquatic life.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Summarizes Water Quality Conditions in the State of Colorado
    Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report State of Colorado Prepared Pursuant to Section 303(d) and Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act 2012 Update to the 2010 305(b) Report Prepared by: Water Quality Control Division, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment From the highest sand dunes in Executive Summary North America to 54 mountain peaks over 14,000 feet, Colorado has one of the most unique and varied natural The Colorado 2012 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report summarizes water quality conditions in the State of Colorado. This landscapes in the entire nation. report fulfills Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 305(b) which requires all Throughout the state, there exist states to assess and report on the quality of waters within their State. This lush green forests, fields of report fulfills Colorado’s obligation under the Clean Water Act, and covers vibrant wildflowers, picturesque the 2010-2011 two-year period. mountain lakes, abundant grasslands and rich red rock formations. There are many This report provides the State’s assessments of water quality that were places to enjoy Colorado’s vast conducted during the past five years. Specifically, it compares the classified natural beauty, with four uses of all surface waters within the State to the corresponding standards in national parks, five national order to assess the degree to which waters are in attainment of those monuments and 41 state parks standards. The Integrated Report (IR) provides the attainment status of all waiting to be explored. surface waters according to the 5 reporting categories, defined in detail within.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado's 303(D) List of Impaired Waters
    COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 5 CCR 1002-93 REGULATION #93 COLORADO'S SECTION 303(D) LIST OF IMPAIRED WATERS AND MONITORING AND EVALUATION LIST 93.1 Authority These regulations are promulgated pursuant to section 25-8-101 et seq C.R.S. as amended, and in particular, 25-8-202 (1) (a), (b), (i), (2) and (6); 25-8-203 and 25-8-204. 93.2 Purpose This regulation establishes Colorado’s Lists of Impaired Waters. These waters include Water- Quality-Limited Segments Requiring Total Maximum Daily Loads (“TMDLs”), impaired waters that do not require a TMDL, and Colorado’s Monitoring and Evaluation List: (1) The list of Water-Quality-Limited Segments Requiring TMDLs fulfills requirements of section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act which requires that states submit to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a list of those waters for which technology-based effluent limitations and other required controls are not stringent enough to implement water quality standards. These segments are included in Section 93.3 with parameters included in the Clean Water Section 303(d) Impairment column. (2) Colorado’s Monitoring and Evaluation List identifies water bodies where there is reason to suspect water quality problems, but there is also uncertainty regarding one or more factors, such as the representative nature of the data. Water bodies that are impaired, but it is unclear whether the cause of impairment is attributable to pollutants as opposed to pollution, are also placed on the Monitoring and Evaluation List. This Monitoring and Evaluation list is a state-only document that is not subject to EPA approval.
    [Show full text]
  • U. S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey an Update on Usgs Studies of the Summitville Mine and Its Downstream
    U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AN UPDATE ON USGS STUDIES OF THE SUMMITVILLE MINE AND ITS DOWNSTREAM ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS By Geoffrey S. Plumlee1 Patrick Edelman2 Open-File Report 95-23 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U. S. Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the USGS. 1995 ^.S. Geological Survey, Branch of Geochemistry, MS 973 Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO, 80225, (303) 236-9224, FAX (303) 236-3200, email [email protected] 2 U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, Norwest Bank Building, Suite 200, 8th and Main, Pueblo, CO, 81003, (719) 544-7155, FAX (719) 544-7155, email pedelman@ws9scopbl Introduction The Summitville gold mine, located at -3800 meters (11,500 ft) elevation in the San Juan Mountains of southwestern Colorado (Fig. 1), was the focus of extensive public attention in 1992 and 1993 for environmental problems stemming from recent open-pit mining activities. Summitville catalyzed national debates about the environmental effects of modern mining activities, and became the focus of arguments for proposed revisions to the 1872 Mining Law governing mining activities on public lands. In early 1993, the State of Colorado, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Colorado State University, San Luis Valley agencies, downstream water users, private companies, and individuals began a multi-disciplinary research program to provide needed scientific information on Summitville's environmental problems and downstream environmental effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Summitville Mine Site
    RE-Powering America’s Land: Siting Renewable Energy on Potentially Contaminated Land and Mine Sites Summitville Mine, Rio Grande County, Colorado Success Story Hydroelectric plant powers contaminated water treatment at former gold mine January 2009 EPA is encouraging the development of renewable energy facilities on potentially contaminated land and mine sites. This series of stories highlights successful projects and the benefits of siting renewable energy facilities on potentially contaminated land and mine sites. Site Description The 1,400-acre Summitville Mine Superfund site is located approximately 18 miles southwest of Del Norte, Colorado. The former mine is in the San Juan Mountains at an elevation of 11,500 feet, two miles from the Continental Divide. The Wightman Fork of the Alamosa River flows from the site through forest and agricultural land. The Terrace Reservoir, used for irrigation, is on the Alamosa River 18 miles downstream from the site. Property History U.S. Forest Service owns the property and began leasing it in 1870 QUICK FACTS: for gold mining operations. The latest mining operator, Summitville Consolidated Mining Corp., Inc. operated a pit heap leach gold Location: EPA Region 8, Rio Grande County, CO mining operation, using cyanide to extract the gold, from July 1986 Property Size: 1,400 Acres through October 1991. The company abandoned the site in Site Ownership: Federal – U.S. Forest Service December 1992 after declaring bankruptcy. The site is contaminated Former Use: Heap leach gold and silver mining with heavy metals (i.e., copper, cadmium, manganese, zinc, lead, Cleanup Type: Superfund—OSRTI/OSW/Mining Team nickel, aluminum and iron) onsite.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of the Mineral Potential of Public Lands Located Within Proposed Solar Energy Zones in Colorado
    1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Colorado SEZ Mineral Assessment July 2012 CONTENTS NOTATION .............................................................................................................................. vii SIGNATURE PAGE ................................................................................................................ ix SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 1 S.1 Antonito Southeast SEZ .......................................................................................... 1 S.2 De Tilla Gulch SEZ ................................................................................................ 2 S.3 Fourmile SEZ .......................................................................................................... 3 S.4 Los Mogotes East SEZ............................................................................................ 3 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Purpose of Report ................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Legal Description of the Subject Lands .................................................................. 5 1.3 Methodology and Resources ................................................................................... 7 1.4 Locatable Minerals.................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Historical Analysis of Environmental and Energy Law in Colorado
    Volume 28 Issue 1 Article 1 5-1-2017 Clearing the Fog: A Historical Analysis of Environmental and Energy Law in Colorado Lucas C. Satterlee Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/elj Part of the Energy and Utilities Law Commons, and the Environmental Law Commons Recommended Citation Lucas C. Satterlee, Clearing the Fog: A Historical Analysis of Environmental and Energy Law in Colorado, 28 Vill. Envtl. L.J. 1 (2017). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/elj/vol28/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Villanova Environmental Law Journal by an authorized editor of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. Satterlee: Clearing the Fog: A Historical Analysis of Environmental and Ener VILLANOVA ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL VOLUME XXVIII 2017 ISSUE 1 CLEARING THE FOG: A HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY LAW IN COLORADO LUCAS SATTERLEE* I. INTRODUCTION The intersection of energy extraction and environmental issues shapes Colorado’s economy, its people, politics, and virtually every aspect of life within the state.1 Colorado boasts a diverse bounty of energy resource wealth.2 These reserves, along with other natural resources, are deeply entrenched in the state’s history.3 Ever since settlers rushed into the Rocky Mountains in search of gold in the late nineteenth century, the state’s cultural and economic identity has been “linked [closely to] the extraction of natural resources.”4 Early pioneers and boosters quickly discovered that hydrocarbons, “the buried life force of the distant past,” were capable of invigo- rating the state’s economy.5 That trend of developing fossil fuel * J.D., 2016, University of Denver Sturm College of Law, B.A., 2012, Miami University.
    [Show full text]
  • THE COLORADO MAGAZINE Published Bi-Monthly by the State Historical Society of Colorado
    THE COLORADO MAGAZINE Published bi-monthly by The State Historical Society of Colorado VOL. XI Denver, Colorado, July, 1934 No. 4 The Founding of Salida, Colorado1 RICHARD CARROLL* A party of Denver and Rio Grande Railroad engineers, work­ ing under the supervision of Gov. Alexander C. Hunt, surveyed the townsite of South Arkansas (Salida) late in April, 1880. 'Villiam Van Every, Governor Hunt's agent, made additional surYeys early in May. The original plat, which was not filed in the office of the County Clerk until 10 :30 a. m., September 21, 1880, included the following area: Front Street to Fifth Street and from D Street to L Street. The town was located, not as a result of the growth of early settlements, but in the same manner and for the same purposes as Colorado Springs, South Pueblo, and later, Durango. Land consti­ tuting South Arkansas, as it was primarily laid off, was home­ steaded by Luther Baker and J ooiah Hulbert, their dates of entry being February 16 and 18, 1880. Baker and Hulbert subsequently sold their homesteads to Governor Hunt, each receiving $500. Other land was homesteaded later and several additions were made to the town, which included the two Van Every homesteads, or the Eddy Addition on the upper mesa; George W. Haskell's homestead and addition; and D. E. Kelsey's homestead and addition. R. N. Scott homesteaded the land constituting the Babcock addition in 1879. One century prior to the founding of South Arkansas, or in 1779, Juan Bautista de Anza, Governor of New Mexico, visited this region.
    [Show full text]
  • Conejos County Hazard Mitigation Plan
    0 2016 Conejos County Hazard Mitigation Plan Conejos County Town of Antonito Town of La Jara Town of Manassa Town of Romeo Town of Sanford Draft: April 17, 2017 1 Conejos County Hazard Mitigation Plan DRAFT: April 17, 2017 (Updated from original version prepared and approved in 2010) Prepared by: Conejos County Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Lead Agency: Conejos County Emergency Management In coordination with: San Luis Valley Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee (Alamosa, Conejos, Mineral, Rio Grande and Saguache Counties) With professional planning assistance from: Robert Wold Emergency Management Planning Services 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary 6 Chapter 1 – Introduction 11 1.1 Purpose 11 1.2 Participating Jurisdictions 11 1.3 Background and Scope 11 1.4 Mitigation Planning Requirements 12 1.5 Grant Programs Requiring Hazard Mitigation Plans 12 1.6 Plan Organization 13 Chapter 2 – Community Profile 15 2.1 Geography and Climate 15 2.2 History 16 2.3 Population 17 2.4 Economy 18 2.5 Government 19 Chapter 3 – Planning Process 20 3.1 Plan Update Process 20 3.2 Multi-Jurisdictional Participation 21 3.3 10-Step Planning Process 22 3.4 Phase One: Organize Resources 22 3.5 Phase Two: Assess Risks 24 3.6 Phase Three: Develop the Mitigation Plan 25 3.7 Phase Four: Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress 26 Chapter 4 – Risk Assessment 27 4.1 Hazard Identification 28 4.1.1 Results and Methodology 28 4.1.2 Disaster Declaration History 30 4.2 Hazard Profiles 31 4.2.1 Hazard Profile Methodology 31 4.2.2 Flood 32 4.2.3 Wildfire 37 4.2.4 Hail
    [Show full text]