DOCSLIB.ORG

Rec-Erc-75-5 Assessment of Heavy Metals Pollution In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rec-Erc-75-5 Assessment of Heavy Metals Pollution In REC-ERC-75-5 ASSESSMENT OF HEAVY METALS POLLUTION IN THE UPPER ARKANSAS RIVER OF COLORADO By J. F. LaBounty J. J. Sartoris L. D. Klein E. F. Monk H. A. Salman September 1975 Applied Sciences Branch Division of General Research Engineering and Research Center Denver, Colorado UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR * BUREAU OF RECLAMATION ACKNOWLEDGMENT Funding and support for this project were provided by the Lower Missouri Region and the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project of the Bureau of Reclamation. Research was performed under the supervision of T. E. Backstrom, Head, Physical Sciences and Chemical Engineering Section; T. R. Bartley, former Head, Environmental Sciences Section, (now retired); and L. 0. Timblin, Jr., Chief, Applied Sciences Branch. This report was developed as a result of a study requested by the Bureau of Reclamation's Lower Missouri Region and Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. Dr. D. A. Hoffman, formerly of the Bureau of Reclamation; and L. M. Finnell of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, were the sources of unpublished data from 1971 to 1973 included in this report. D. L. Gallat of Colorado State University identified invertebrates collected in 1974, and calculated indices from these collections. Personnel from the Colorado Division of Wildlife and Dr. Eric Bergersen of the Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado Cooperative Fishery Unit at Colorado State University assisted in collecting fish. Special thanks to Mr. Homer Huntsinger, the property owner, and the American Sportsman Club, who lease the land, for allowing samples to be obtained at station AR-9. The information in this report regarding commercial products or firms may not be used for advertising or promotional purposes, and is not be be construed as endorsement of any product or firm by the Bureau of Reclamation. CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 1 Application 5 Historical Review .......5 Methods and Materials 8 Description of the Area ...... 8 General 8 Specific areas studied 8 Data Collection 23 Physical—chemical 23 Invertebrates 23 Fish .......................................................................................................................... 24 Methods of Analysis ......................................................................................................... 24 Water .......................................................................................................................... 24 Sediment ...................................................................................................................... 24 Fish 24 Invertebrates ............................................................................................................. 25 Results and Discussion 25 Physical and Chemical 25 Field measurements .................................................................................................... 25 Water chemistry 35 Sediment chemistry .................................................................................................... 45 Invertebrates .................................................................................................................. 47 Diversity indices 47 Heavy metal content 53 Fish 58 Numbers and species composition 58 Heavy metal content 59 Conclusions 62 Literature Cited .....62 Appendixes .......................................................................................................................... 67 Appendix A—Water Chemistry ....................................................................................... 69 Appendix B—Streamf low ................................................................................................ 87 Appendix C-1974 Invertebrate Data .............................................................................. 101 Appendix D-1971-73 Invertebrate Data 115 CONTENTS—Continued LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Upper Arkansas River flow history 7 2 Averages of heavy metal concentrations in upper Arkansas River, Colorado for April-November 1974 ..... 44 3 Sediment heavy metal concentrations between stations AR-5 and AR-6 ............................................................................................ 47 4 Monthly and mean a values for 1974 invertebrate collections ....48 5 Monthly and mean a values for 1971-73 invertebrate collections ................... 49 6 Monthly and mean TCI' values for 1974 invertebrate collections ................... 50 7 Monthly and mean e values for 1974 invertebrate collections ....50 8 1974 monthly and mean invertebrate copper content .................................. 54 9 1974 monthly and mean invertebrate iron content ...................................... 54 10 1974 monthly and mean invertebrate lead content ...................................... 55 11 1974 monthly and mean invertebrate zinc content ...................................... 55 12 1974 monthly and mean invertebrate manganese content 56 13 1971-73 mean invertebrate metal content .................................................. 56 14 Comparison of heavy metal concentrations in water, fish, and invertebrates for May-November 1974 ..... 57 15 Invertebrate types represented in collections of 1971-73 and 1974 from the upper Arkansas River, Colorado ....57 16 Average heavy metal concentration in fish collected from the upper Arkansas River, Colorado, September 18, 1974 ........................................ 61 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Map of Fryingpan-Arkansas Project 3 2 Location map of stream-survey stations ..................................................... 9 3 Aerial photo of upper Arkansas River: station AR-1 ....1 0 4 Aerial photo of upper Arkansas River: stations AR-3 and AR-4 .... 11 5 Aerial photo of upper Arkansas River: station AR-5 ....12 6 Aerial photo of upper Arkansas River: station AR-6 .... 13 7 Aerial photo of upper Arkansas River: Mt. Massive Trout Club ....14 8 Aerial photo of upper Arkansas River: station AR-9 .... 15 9 Aerial photo of upper Arkansas River: station AR-10 .................................. 16 10 Aerial photo of upper Arkansas River: stations AR-7 and AR-8 17 11 East Fork of the Arkansas River looking upstream at station EF-3 18 12 East Fork of the Arkansas River looking northwest (downstream is to the left) at station EF-5 .......................................................................................... 18 13 Arkansas River looking downstream at station AR-1 .... 19 14 Arkansas River looking downstream (left) at station AR-3 ........................... 19 15 Arkansas River looking upstream at station AR-4 below the inflow of California Gulch ..................................................................... 20 16 Arkansas River looking upstream at station AR-5 below the inflow of Lake Fork ............................................................................ 20 17 Arkansas River looking downstream at station AR-6 at Snowden Overpass .... 21 18 Arkansas River looking northeast (upstream is to the left) at station AR-9, the Pan-Ark Bridge 21 ii CONTENTS—Continued Figure Page 19 Arkansas River looking upstream at station AR-10, just below the confluence at Box Creek ................................................................. 22 20 Arkansas River looking downstream at station AR-7 just above the confluence of Lake Creek 22 21 Arkansas River looking northeast (upstream is to the left) at station AR-8 just below the confluence of Lake Creek .............................. 23 22 Upper Arkansas River and Lake Fork water temperatures, 1973 ................... 26 23 Results of physical and chemical measurements at stations EF-3, EF-5, AR-1, and AR-3-1974 ................................................................. 27 24 Results of physical and chemical measurements at stations AR-4, AR-5, AR-6, and AR-9-1974 28 25 Results of physical and chemical measurements at stations AR-10, AR-7, and AR-8-1974 ......................................................................... 29 26 Results of physical and chemical measurements in May, June, July, and August-1974 ......................................................................... 30 27 Results of physical and chemical measurements in September, October, and November-1974 ............................................................. 31 28 Results of physical measurements at the USGS gage at Canon City, Colo.-1973 32 29 Seasonal mean flow for the upper Arkansas River, Colorado-1974 ............... 34 30 Heavy metal concentrations vs. flow at sampling stations EF-3, EF-5, AR-1, and AR-3-1974 ................................................................. 37 31 Heavy metal concentrations vs. flow at sampling stations AR-4, AR-5, AR-6, and AR-9-1974 38 32 Heavy metal concentrations vs. flow at sampling stations AR-10, AR-7, and AR-8-1974 ......................................................................... 39 33 Heavy metal concentrations at Granite and Canon City-1968 and 1973, respectively ................................................................................ 40 34 Heavy metal concentrations and flow April, May, June, and July 1974 41 35 Heavy metal concentrations and flow August, September, October, and November-1974 42 36 Average heavy metal concentrations April and November-1974 ................... 43 37 Average heavy metal content sediment May through November 1974 44 38 Mean values of a- from the Arkansas River, Colorado 51 39 Results of fish sampling of the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Arkansas Valley Its Water
    BROCHURE NO. 5 THE FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS WATER PROJECT AND ITS STRUCTURE OF THE ARKANSAS VALLEY JS ITS WATER THE FUTURE OF ITS WATER IS THE SOUTHEASTERN COLORADO vVater C o n servancy Dis tric t LEGAL ACiEHCY FOR FRY - ARK WATER PROJECT P 0. BOX A40 • 905 HIWAY 50 WEST • PUEBLO COLORADO 81001 The headquarters for the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District is located ot 905 Highway 50 West in Pueblo, Colorado. The District is governed by a Boord of Directors consisting of fifteen men representing all segments of the economy in the Con­ servancy District. These Directors, in behalf of the nearly 400,000 citizens who live within the confines of the District, have assumed the responsibility of repaying a large shore of the reimbursable portion of the Project through the sale of imported Project water, storage fees for native water in the East Slope Reservoirs, and the sole of native water stored and not used within a specific period. The District, os provided by low levies on od volorem lox an­ nually which becomes port of the repayment pro­ gram. LOCATION THE PROJECT AND THE DISTRICT The Fryingpon-Arkonsas Project is located in central and southeastern Colorado. The collection and The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy diversion area is located in o mountainous and primi District , embracing the irrigable lands and munici­ tive oreo above on elevation of 10,000 feet on the polities of the Arkansas River Basin within the Proj­ headwaters of the Fryingpon and Roaring Fork ect oreo) was created in 1958 under the Colorado Rivers on the West Slope of the Continental Divide Water Conservancy District Statutes for developing in Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Leasing in the Lower Arkansas Valley
    DEVELOPMENT OF LAND FALLOWING- WATER LEASING IN THE LOWER ARKANSAS VALLEY (2002 through mid-2011) Sugar City (2011) JUNE 30, 2011 La Junta (2011) REPORT FOR THE COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD Formerly irrigated land below Colorado Canal (2011) Peter D. Nichols 1120 Lincoln Street • Suite 1600 Denver, Colorado 80203-2141 303-861-1963 [email protected] Currently irrigated land on the Ft. Lyon Canal ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people contributed to the formation of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, and subsequent incorporation of the Lower Arkansas Valley Super Ditch Company, Inc. These included Leroy Mauch (Prowers County Commissioner), Lynden Gill (Bent County Commissioner), John Singletary, Loretta Kennedy (Pueblo County Commissioner), Ollie Ridley, Bill Long (Bent County Commissioner), Bob Bauserman, Kevin Karney and Jake Klein (Otero County Commissioners), John Rose, and H. Barton Mendenhall, as well as current and former board members and staff of the District Pete Moore (current Chair), Melissa Esquibel (Secretary), Wayne Whittaker (Treasurer), Anthony Nunez (Director), Reeves Brown (Director), and Jay Winner (General Manager) and current and former Board members of the Company, John Schweizer (President), Dale Mauch (Vice‐ President), Burt Heckman (Secretary), Frank Melinski (Treasurer), Mike Barolo, Donny Hansen, Joel Lundquist, Lee Schweizer and Ray Smith. Many also contributed to the preparation of this report. Veronique Van Gheem, Esq., initially drafted Parts 2, 3 and 4 while a law student at CU, and graciously assisted in revisions after graduation. Anthony van Westrum, Esq., Anthony van Westrum, LLC; Denis Clanahan, Esq., Clanahan, Beck & Bean; and, Tom McMahon, Esq., Jones & Keller drafted the sections on the corporate organization, taxation, and antitrust issues respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Fryingpan-Arkansas Project
    Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Water Year 2014 Summary of Actual Operations Water Year 2015 Annual Operating Plans U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Great Plains Region ANNUAL OPERATING PLAN FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT WATER YEAR 2014 OPERATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. GENERAL ............................................................................................................................. 1 II. PROJECT FEATURES IN OPERATION DURING WY2014 ........................................... 2 III. HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS AND WEATHER EVENTS IN WY2014 ...................... 5 IV. SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS DURING WY2014 ........................................................ 8 APPENDIX A: WY2014 TABLES 1. Ruedi Reservoir Operations .................................................................................................. 19 2. Ruedi Reservoir Releases for Contracts .............................................................................. 20 3. Ruedi Reservoir Releases for Endangered Fish ................................................................... 21 4. Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Transmountain Diversions ...................................................... 28 5. Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Imports - Charles H. Boustead Tunnel Outlet ....................... 29 6. Turquoise Lake Operations ................................................................................................... 31 7. Twin Lakes/Mt. Elbert Forebay Operations .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Description of Water-Systems Operations in the Arkansas River Basin, Colorado
    DESCRIPTION OF WATER-SYSTEMS OPERATIONS IN THE ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN, COLORADO By P.O. Abbott U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 85-4092 Prepared in cooperation with the SOUTHEASTERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT and the U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Lakewood, Colorado 1985 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report can write to: be purchased from: Colorado District Chief Open-File Services Section U.S. Geological Survey, MS 415 Western Distribution Branch Box 25046, Denver Federal Center U.S. Geological Survey, MS 306 Lakewood, CO 80225 Box 25425, Denver Federal Center or Denver, CO 80225 Pueblo Subdistrict Chief Telephone (303) 236-7476 U.S. Geological Survey P.O. Box 1524 Pueblo, CO 81002 CONTENTS Page Glossary----------------- ---------------------------------------------- v Abstract---------------------------------------------- ----------------- i Introduction---- ------------------------------------ _________________ i Location of study area-------- ___-_________--------------_-_------ i Purpose and scope------------------------ ------ _________________ 3 Acknowledgments---------------------------------- _________________ 4 Geographic setting------- --------- ________________ _________________ 4 Population---------------------------------------------- -_-__----_ 4 Physiography and climate------------------------ ------------- --- 4 Drainage---------------------- ------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • Synthetic Cultural Resource Overview of the Bureau of Land Management’S Royal Gorge Field Office, Eastern Colorado
    Synthetic Cultural Resource Overview of the Bureau of Land Management’s Royal Gorge Field Office, Eastern Colorado by Rand A. Greubel, Jack E. Pfertsh, Charles A. Reed, Michael J. Prouty, Sara A. Millward, Jeremy Omvig, Jaclyn Mullen, Matthew J. Landt, and Jonathon C. Horn Principal Investigator: Rand A. Greubel Submitted by Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Inc. P.O. Box 2075 Montrose, Colorado 81402 (970) 249-6761 Prepared for Bureau of Land Management Royal Gorge Field Office 3028 East Main Street Cañon City, CO 81212 Order No. 1422 L14PX01241 March 2017 CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 1 Southern Rocky Mountains............................................................................................... 1 The Great Plains Province ................................................................................................ 5 Climate ............................................................................................................................... 7 The Paleoindian Stage ................................................................................................................................ 8 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 8
    [Show full text]
  • NEPA--Environmental Assessment
    United States Department of Environmental Assessment Agriculture Forest Service Tennessee Creek Project December 2013 Leadville Ranger District, San Isabel National Forest Lake County, Colorado Eagle - Holy Cross Ranger District, White River National Forest Eagle County, Colorado Mt. Zion looking towards Turquoise Lake. Photo by J. Windorski For More Information Contact: Tami Conner, District Ranger Leadville Ranger District 810 Front Street Leadville, CO 80461 719-486-0749 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Introduction .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment
    Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment A cooperative effort of the: USDI Bureau of Land Management USDI Bureau of Reclamation USDA Forest Service Colorado Department of Natural Resources Edited by Roy E. Smith and Linda M. Hill Though this document was produced through an interagency effort, the following BLM number has been assigned for tracking and administrative purposes: BLM/RS/ST-00/002+7200 Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment A cooperative effort of the: USDI Bureau of Land Management USDI Bureau of Reclamation USDA Forest Service Colorado Department of Natural Resources Edited by: Roy E. Smith and Linda M. Hill July 2000 Letter to Arkansas River Stakeholders The agencies that conducted this study and created tions, but rather, is only an information base for this report are jointly responsible, subject to exist- agency and public deliberations. The agencies ing rights, for managing the Arkansas River cor- recognize that our river management decisions are ridor and its associated reservoirs between Leadville limited by the necessity to supply water for domes- and Pueblo Reservoir. In 1993, these agencies tic, agricultural, and other uses in the basin consis- signed a memorandum of understanding with the tent with existing water rights held by water users. goal of creating a scientific foundation for river The cooperating agencies have a renewed commit- management processes. The outcome was a 6-year ment to work cooperatively with water users to study that resulted in agreement among the agen- fulfill legal entitlements to water deliveries while cies on the facts and assumptions that should be managing the river in a way that supports natural used in making river management decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Fryingpan-Arkansas Project
    Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Jedediah S. Rogers Bureau of Reclamation 2006 Table of Contents Fryingpan-Arkansas Project .....................................................2 Project Location.........................................................2 Historic Setting .........................................................3 Project Authorization.....................................................7 Construction History ....................................................15 Management and Uses of Project Water.....................................29 Conclusion............................................................32 About the Author .............................................................33 Bibliography ................................................................34 Government Documents .................................................34 Secondary Works .......................................................34 Unpublished Works .....................................................35 Index ......................................................................36 1 Fryingpan-Arkansas Project The Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, or Fry-Ark as it is popularly known, is one of Colorado’s largest and most complicated Reclamation projects, second only to Colorado-Big Thompson. Like the CBT, the Fry-Ark is a transmontane diversion project, delivering water from the snowy slopes west of the Continental Divide to the thirsty fields, municipalities, and industries of the Arkansas River Valley. The diversion of water from the western slope across
    [Show full text]
  • Opportunities for the Bureau of Reclamation, Volume I: Section One: Summary of Findings, Section Two: Case Studies
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Books, Reports, and Studies Resources, Energy, and the Environment 1996 Restoring the West's Waters: Opportunities for the Bureau of Reclamation, Volume I: Section One: Summary of Findings, Section Two: Case Studies Lawrence J. MacDonnell Teresa A. Rice Judith Jacobsen University of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/books_reports_studies Part of the Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Water Law Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Citation Information Restoring the West’s Waters: Opportunities for the Bureau of Reclamation, Volume I: Section One: Summary of Findings, Section Two: Case Studies (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 1996). RESTORING THE WEST’S WATERS: OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, VOLUME I: SECTION ONE: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, SECTION TWO: CASE STUDIES (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 1996). Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School. DRAFT DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 1996 Tate: 11:40Am REOSTG W10290 7/24MEM ORNDIR. 0 MIR TR11 IB ©1 111 MON VOLUME I SECTION ONE: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SECTION TWO: CASE STUDIES Natural Resources Law Center February 1996 locations in the basin. The legislation provides some financial incentives to encourage adoption of more efficient water use practices. While the expenditure of funds is authorized under this bill, no funds have yet been appropriated and there is some question whether they will be.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Conservation and Management Plan
    2017 Conservation and Management Plan Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District www.secwcd.com Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District 2017 Water Conservaon and Management Plan 2 Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District 2017 Water Conservaon and Management Plan INSIDE . Introduction Page 4 Water Development History Project History Pages 5-7 District History Page 7 Enterprise Projects Page 8 Fry-Ark Diversions Page 9 Municipal Allocations Page 10 Municipal Conservation Pages 11-12 Major Conduits Page 13 Agricultural Benefits Pages 14-15 District Conservation Activities Water Storage, Supply Page 16 Water, Return Flow Sales Page 17 Conservation Outreach Page 18 Ark Basin Roundtable Page 19 Invasive Species Page 20 Weather Monitoring Page 21 Cooperative Programs Pages 22-24 Colorado River Issues Page 25 Watershed Health Page 26 Resource Management Page 27 Index of Appendices Pages 28-29 Next Steps Page 30 Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District 2017 Water Conservaon and Management Plan 3 2017 WATER CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN he Southeastern Colorado Water Con- T servancy District was formed in 1958 pri- marily to develop and administer the Fryingpan- Arkansas Project. The Project is rooted deeply in the history of the region, contemplated as early as 1925 when farmers and businesses in the Arkan- sas Valley looked to the other side of the Conti- nental Divide to gain supplemental water supplies in a basin where claims to water often outstripped availability. The need to use water W wisely to sustain . W agriculture, de- velop industry, build cities, and , preserve the en- . vironment is cen- Mission statement of SECWCD Public Law 87‐590 author‐ tral to the mis- ized the Secretary of Interi‐ sion of the Dis- or to “construct, operate trict.
    [Show full text]