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: