1022089

PRELIMINARY REPORT ON

THE BIOLOGICAL DATA FOR

THE UPPER ARKANSAS RIVER,

1994-2002

Prepared for:

Resurrection Mining Company1700 Lincoln Street

Denver, Colorado 80202

F E B R U A R Y 2003

Prepared by:

CIIADVUCK ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS, INC.5575 South Sycamore Street, Suite 101

Littleton, Colorado 80120www.ChadwickEcological.com

TABLE OK CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

STUDY AREA IAquatic Biological Sampling Silcs 3

SOURCES OK DATA 3

METHODS 4Fish Populations 4Bcnthic Macroinvertebratc Populations ; 7I labiiat Characieri/ation IIFlow Characicri/.alion 12Dala Analysis 12Spaiial and Temporal Evaluation 12Identification of Potential Limiting Factors 12

RESULTS 14Fisli Populations 14Bcnthic Macroinvcrtcbraic Populations 24

CONCLUSIONS 44

LITERATURE CITED 46

APPENDIX A - Site Descriptions and MethodsAPPENDIX B - Fish Population DalaAPPENDIX C- Fish Habitat DalaAPPENDIX D - Macroinvcrtcbraic Population Data

Preliminary Report of Kinlogical Data Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.pa<Jc> I February 2003

INTRODUCTION

Aqua t i c b iological data have been collected from streams in the upper Arkansas River basin since 1994

by Chadwick Ecological Consul tants , I n c . (CEC) on behal f of Resurrection M i n i n g Company. This

information has been collected to monitor aquatic biological conditions in the basin relat ive lo historic min ing

activit ies in Cal i fornia Gulch and other locations in the Leadvi l lc area. Whi le this information has been

summari/ccl and d i s t r ibu ted in several data reports over the years (CEC 1998. 1999,200la), it has never been

collected i n to a single document. Furthermore, the in fo rmat ion over the ent i re period has not been evaluated

wi th respect to the current biological condit ions and trends. Therefore, the purpose of t h i s report is lo present

the complete set of aquat ic biological informat ion collected from 1994 through the late summer of2002, to

evaluate the current aquatic biological condition, and to identify trends in the biological populations for the

upper Arkansas River.

A q u a t i c biological sampling by CEC since 1994 has focused on fish populat ions, benthic

inacroinvcrtchratc populations, and stream hab i ta t condit ions. This report presents the collected informat ion

and evaluates the popu la t ion data o v e r t i m e . The report also looks at potent ia l re la t ionships between biological

population trends and abiotic factors such as water qua l i ty , stream habitat, and hydrology. The Yak Tunnel

and Lcadvi l le Drain water treatment plants began treating water in 1992 to remove metals from these sources

to the upper Arkansas Rjver. All of the data presented in t h i s report were collected after these two treatment

plants became operational.

STUDY AKliA

The study area is the upper Arkansas River in central Colorado, between the Sawatch and Mosquito

mountain ranges, near the town of Lcadville (Fig. I). All study sites are contained in the Southern Rocky

Mounta in ecorcgion, which extends from southern Wyoming to northern New Mexico (Omernik 1987). The

Arkansas R i v e r begins at the conllucnce of the East Fork of the Arkansas River and Tennessee Creek, just west

of Leadvil lc. Flow is charactcrixcd by high late-spring and early-summer snowmcll flows, which recede to base

flow for the remainder of the year. Elevations of the study sites range from 2,975 in (9,760 ft) at the most

upstream si te on the Arkansas River (Si te A R - I ) to 2,830 m (9,284 ft) at the most downstream site on the

Arkansas R i v e r (Site AR-5) .

Preliminary Report of Biological Data Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Fcbmarv 2003

N Benthic Invertebrate andFish Study Site

Benthic Invertebrate Study Site

Water Treatment Plant (WTP)

Road

Stream

KIGLKt 1: Sampling silcs on the upper Arkansas River 1994 - 2002.

Preliminary Report of Biological Data Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Pfjac.,' February 2003

Aquatic Biological Sampling Sites

A total of seven sites on the upper Arkansas River have been sampled since CEC began sampling in

1994 (F ig . I). Three mainsiem Arkansas River sites are located upstream o f C a l i f o r n i a Gulch (Sites A R - I ,

A R - 1 2 . and AR-2) . These three silcs serve as control, or reference sites, for t h i s e v a l u a t i o n . Four sites are

located downstream o f C a l i f o r n i a Gulch (Sites AR-.1A, AR-313, AR-4. and AR-5). A complete description of

the biological study sites can be found in Appendix A, and Site GPS coordinates are listed in Appendix A.

"fable A - 1 .

SOURCES Ol DATA

Bcnthic invertebrate data, fish population data, and fish habitat data have been collected in the upper

Arkansas River basin by CEC since 1994 (Appendix A, Table A-2) and water q u a l i t y data have been collected

by MFG. Inc. since 1994 on behalf of Resurrection Mining Company in accordance with the appl icable work

plans (Shepherd M i l l e r , Inc . and Terra Matrix, Inc. 1995; Shepherd Mi l l e r , Inc. and Terra Matrix/Montgomery

Watson 1998). Since 1997, fish sampling has been conducted according to the letter agreements with the

Colorado Div i s ion of W i l d l i f e (CDOW) dated September 27, 1996, J u l y IS, 1997, and J u l y 26, 2002. A

var ie ty of a d d i t i o n a l data exis t prior to 1994, but due to differences in methodologies, site locations, lime of

sampling, etc.. those data arc not considered in th is report. I n i t i a l analysis of the his tor ical data identif ied

problems such as substant ia l increases in benlhic invertebrate densities and number of taxa after C1£C began

monitor ing in 1994. These increases are probably a result of different sampling and laboratory analysis

methods and probably do not represent changes in benlhic invertebrate populations. Such anomalies would

have made comparisons to data collected prior to 1994 d i f f i c u l t .

The aquatic biological assessment o f lhe upper Arkansas River basin near Leadvil lc conducted in May

and October 1994 by CEC provided important information on the status of aquatic populations fol lowing the

ins ta l la t ion o f the Yak Tunnel and Leadville Drain treatment facilities in 1992. This information was included

in the baseline ecological risk assessment completed by the USEPA in 1995 (Roy S. Weston, Inc. 1995).

A q u a t i c biological data have been collected every year since the risk assessment was completed (Appendix A,

' fab le A-2) , and were summari/.cd in CEC data t r ansmi t t a l reports (CEC 1998, 1999, 200la) . This report

includes and evaluates fish popula t ion data collected through August 2002 and benlhic invertebrate data

collected through fal l 2001 for the mainstem o f t h e upper Arkansas River.

Preliminary Report of Biological Data Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Page 4 February 2003

METHODS

Methods for Held sampling of (lie aquatic biota and habitat and a detailed discussion of the aquatic

parameters analyzed are outlined briefly below. Methods are discussed in greater detail in Appendix A. Fish

and macroinvcrtebratc parameters were chosen that have been shown to be responsive to anthropogenic stress,

with emphasis on those parameters which have been shown to be sensitive to metal stress in the southern Rocky

Mountain ccorcgion.

Emphasis was placed on metal specific biological parameters because poor water quality has been

recognized as a problem in the upper Arkansas basin for some time (Roline 1988). A great deal ofpublishcd

research has taken place looking specifically at metal contamination associated with historic mining in thisarea

(Roline 1988. KilTncy and Clements 1993, Nelson and Roline 1993, Clements 1994, Clements and Rees 1997,

Medley and Clements 1998, Nelson and Roline 1999, Clements el at. 2002).

In addition to these metal specific parameters, other more genera I community parameters that are more

representative of general water and habitat quality, such as diversity, were examined. These were examined

in order to determine if metal stress was sufficient to affect less sensitive parameters, and to determine if other

stressors besides metals might be present in the basin.

Hsh and macroin vertebrate parameters were evaluated to determine: I) the extent of impact that still

exists on the Arkansas River downstream of California Gulch, 2) the natural spatial and temporal variability

of these parameters in the river, 3) if impacted sites have shown significant improvement over time, and 4) what

factors (both chemical and physical) may be limiting in the upper Arkansas River.

l-ish Populations

This report focuses on the four mainstcm Arkansas River sites which have been sampled during each

spring and late summer/fall monitoring effort (AR-I , AR-3A, AR-4, and AR-5). Fish population data were

collected in the spring and/or in the late summer or fall at various sites since 1994 (Appendix A, 'fable A-2).

In most cases fish sampling was conducted by both CEC and CDOW. CBC alone sampled fish at most sites

in spring 1994 and fall 1996 and at Site AR-I and AR- I2 in fall 1994. CDOW alone sampled Sites AR-2,

Preliminary Report of Kialogical Dam Chaclwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.PaKc 5 h'cbniary 2003

AR-3A, AR-4, and AR-5 in f a l l 1994. All of the data collected by CEC and/or CDOW since 1994 are

included in t h i s report.

Site A K - I serves as the reference site for Sites AR-3A, AR-4. and AR-5. Sites A R - 1 2 and AR-2 are

also upstream of Ca l i fo rn ia Gulch , but were not appropriate as reference sites for fish popu la t ion analys is as

there were only sampled on two occasions each (Appendix A, Table A-2).

Fish populat ions were sampled by CEC and/or CDOW using a m u l t i p l e pass removal method with

bank clcctrof ishing gear to determine species composition, density, and size structure of (lie fish community.

A more detailed description o f f i sh popula t ion methods and site locations is presented in Appendix A. This

sampling provided species l i s ts , mean length and weight, estimates of densi ty (///ha), biomass (kg/ha),

condit ion, and informat ion on age structure.

Fish Ana lys i s Parameters

Poten t ia l fish analysis parameters were chosen from previously developed indices for cold water

streams in the western U.S. (Simon and Lyons 1995, Marel 1999, Colorado Department of Public Health and

Environment and U.S. Envi ronmenta l Protection Agency [USEPA] 2002, Mebane 2002a, 2002b). Fish

analysis parameters are generally divided into five categories: I) species richness, 2) habi ta t gui lds , 3) t rophic

guilds, 4) abundance, and 5) reproduction and condit ion (Hughes and Obcrdorff 1999). The species richness,

hab i t a t guilds, and trophic guilds categories do not have useful parameters for small, high elevation, cold water

t rout streams of the southern Rocky M o u n t a i n ccoregion. The parameters in these categories (e.g., number

ol fish species, number of in to le ran t species, number o f n a t i v c species, percent omnivorcs. abundance of lot ic

ind iv idua l s , etc.) are not va l id for the upper Arkansas River basin because of the very low number of nat ive

species in these streams. Addit ionally, the stocking of trout in the basin has resulted in a fish communi ty

dominated by introduced salmonids (i.e., brown, brook, and rainbow trout). Therefore, no parameters from

the species richness, hab i t a t gui lds , or tropic gui lds categories were used in this report; only fish parameters

in the abundance category and reproduction and condi t ion category arc appropriate and were considered.

n' Report ofHiultigical Da/a Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Fcbruarv 2003

Abundance Parameters

Fish abundance parameters include measures ofdensJty, biomass, and catcli per un i t effort (CPUE).

Fish density and fish biomass were chosen to be analyzed. These parameters have been shown to decrease with

increased concentrations of metals through direct mortal i ty , chronic effects such as reproductive fa i lure , or by

avoidance (Nelson el al. 1991, Woodward ei al. 1995, Hanscn el al. 1999). These two parameters are also

t r a d i t i o n a l l y used by fish biologis ts in ihc region.

Reproduction and Condition Parameters

The only reproduction parameter examined was salmonid age structure. Fewer or missing age classes

ind ica te reproductive fa i lure , which can result from any number of stresses (Mebane 2002b), i n c l u d i n g metal

stress (Nelson ei til. 1991) . Using any measure of abundance of j u v e n i l e t rout to assess reproduction success

has been crit icized because there is a general lack of verification that a large proportion of juven i l e s results in

a strong cohort through time (Ncy 1993). Abundance of juveni le trout has been shown to be extremely variable

due to h igh mor ta l i ty rates (Pla i t s and McHenry 1988) from natura l occurrences, such as starvation and

predation (Ncy 1993). The relative abundance of yearlings was also considered as a potential analysis

parameter. Generally low values at Site AR-1, the reference sive, and highly variable values for Sue AR-3A,

however, suggested tha t it would not be useful in determining effects o fme ta l stress (CEC unpubl i shed data).

Other reproductive parameters were considered, but were not used. Some were not relevant, such as

the re la t ive abundance of hybrids. The dominant species in the study area, brown trout, do not easily hybridize

w i t h other species: no n a t u r a l hybrids have been found in the study area over the years. Other reproductive

parameters arc just var ia t ions of e x a m i n i n g age class structure (e.g., re la t ive abundance of young-of-lhe-year

[YOY], re la t ive abundance of yearlings) and would be redundant .

Condition parameters used in th is report included mean brown (rout length, mean brown trout weight,

brown trout condi t ion ( K ) , and brown trout re la t ive weight (Wr). These measures are believed to decrease with

increased meta l c o n t a m i n a t i o n as the result of reduced growth. Reduced growth can result from intake of

Prcliminarv Report ofKivlogical Data Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Paw 7 February 2003

metals in (he diet or changes in the prey (macroinvenebrate) community (Adams ei a/. 1992, Clements and

Rees 1997).

F ina l Fish Analyses Parameters

In summary a t o t a l of seven fish parameters were chosen for analysis . These seven parameters are

listed in Table I, and include two abundance parameters and five reproduction and condition parameters.

TABLE 1: Final l i s t o f f i s h analysis parameters used for evaluation of the upper Arkansas River .

Category Parameter

Abundance density

biomass

Reproduction and Condition age s t ruc ture

mean weight

mean length

condition factor

relative weight

Benthit .Macroinvertebmte Populations

Benthic macroinvcrtcbrate populat ion data have been collected by CEC in the spring and fa l l at most

sites since 1994 (Appendix A, Table A-2). Benthic macroinvenebrate data from 2002 have not been

completely analy/.cd, and arc not presented in th is report. Benlhic invertebrates were sampled q u a n t i t a t i v e l y

by t a k i n g three replicate samples from s imi la r r iff le habitats using a modified Hess sampler (Canton and

Chadwick 1984). In addi t ion , to provide supplementa l in format ion on species composition, a q u a l i t a t i v e

sample from other habitat types (e.g., submerged logs, banks, pools, etc.) was taken at all study sites using a

sweep net. This analysis provided species l ists , number o f taxa , and estimates of density (#/nr). A detailed

description of bcnlhic macroinvcrtcbrate methods is presented in Appendix A.

Preliminary Report ufHialdgical Data Chadwick Ecological Consultants. Inc.Pave 8 February 2003

The three siles upstream of California Gulch, Sites AR- I , AR-12, and AR-3, serve as reference sites

for benthic invertebrate population analysis. Three sites on the Arkansas River downstream of California

Gulch were used for analysis. Sites AR-3A, AR-4, and AR-5. Site AR-3B is also downstream of California

Gulch. However, this site has been sampled only since fall 2000 and does not yet have sufficient data for

comparison (Appendix A. Table A-2).

Macroinvcrlebraic Analyses Parameters

A total of 13 macroinvertcbrate parameters were analyzed (Table 2). These parameters were chosen

based on previous studies, which demonstrated a delectable response in these parameters from anthropogenic

disturbance, especially disturbances related to mining. All of the parameters analyzed are expected to decrease

with increased disturbance. These parameters fall into three categories: taxa richness parameters, abundance

parameters, and calculated indices ("fable 2).

TABLIi 2: Final list of benthic macroinvertebrate analysis parameters used for evaluation of the upperArkansas River.

Category Parameter

Taxa Richness total number of taxa

total number of HIT laxa

total number of Ephemcroplcra laxa

total number of Plecoplera taxa

total number offrichoptera taxa

total number of metal intolerant taxa

total number of clinger laxa

Abundance density

mayfly relative abundance (%)

hcplagcniid relative abundance (%)

mayfly relative abundance (excluding heplageniids) (%)

scraper relative abundance (%)

Calculated Index Shannon-Weaver diversity index (1-T)

Prdiminarv Report of Biological Data Chadwick Ecological Consultants. Inc.Patie 9 Febmarv 2003

Taxa Richness Parameters

Seven laxa richness parameters were analy/.cd (Table 2). The first parameter examined was the total

number of taxa. This parameter is frequently used in macroinvenebrate indices that assess the biological health

ofa stream (e.g., Lenat 1988, Kerens and Karr 1994, Barbour el al. \ 999, Clemenls et al. 2000, Fore 2000,

Jcssup and Gerritsen 2002). Declines in number of macroinverlebrate taxa have been shown lo be a consistent

indicator of various types of anthropogenic stress (Ohio EPA 1988, Kerens and Karr 1994, DeShon 1995, Fore

ei al. 1996. Karr and Chu 1999).

The second laxa richness parameter analyzed was the number of mayfly (Ephcmeroplera). slonefly

(Plccoptcra), and caddisfly (Trichoplera) laxa (collectively referred to as the EPT laxa). These insect groups

arc considered lo be sensitive to a wide range of pollutants, and are often used lo assess stream health

(Wicderholm 1989, Klemm el al. 1990, Barbour el al. 1992, Lenal and Penrose 1996, Wallace et al. 1996,

Barbour a al. 1999, Lydy ei al. 2000). Stress to aquatic systems can be evaluated by comparing the number

of EPT laxa between reference sites and potentially impacted sites (CEC 2001 b, Mebane 2001).

The individual components of EPT taxa (i.e., number of mayfly taxa, number of stonefly taxa, and

number of caddisfly taxa) have also been used instead of the pooled number of EPT taxa parameter (Karr

2000, Clements et al. 2000, Fore 2000, Jcssup and Gerritsen 2002) in order lo provide more specific

information in the assessment. Mayflies are particularly sensitive to metal stress (Clemenls e/ al. 1988,

Clemenls 1991, 1994). The number of mayfly laxa has been shown to be sensitive lo metal stress in both

descriptive and experimental studies (Clements et al. 2002). The number of slonefly taxa and caddisfly taxa

do not appear lo be as sensitive as the number of mayfly laxa to metal stress, but are generally regarded as

good indicators of water quality based on tolerances toother physical and chemical perturbations (Fore 2000).

Another taxa richness parameter that has been used lo identify streams impaired by metal

contamination is the number of metal intolerant laxa. This measure is comprised ofa subset of EPT laxa and

one diptcran laxon which have been shown lo decline in response to metals stress (Clements et al. 2000).

Based on a recent analysis of Colorado streams, including the upper Arkansas River, this parameter is

Preliminary Report of Biological Daia Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Page IQ February 2003

composed of (he mayfly genera Cinvgmnla, Dmnella, Epeortis, Paralepiophlebia, and Rhithrogena. the

stonellies Skwala, Snwallia, and Swellxa, (he caddisfly Rhyacophila, and the dipleran Pericom'a (Fore 2000).

The final taxa richness parameter used to determine po ten t i a l impai rment due to m i n i n g ac t iv i ty is the

number o f c l i n g c r laxa. Gingers are species with behavioral or morphological adaptations which al low

a t t achmen t to rock surfaces in stream fif t ies ( C u m m i n s and Mcrrit l 1996). Declines in clingcr taxa are

associated wi th increases in sed imenta t ion more than increases in metal concentrat ions, bui these two

perturbations often occur s imul t aneous ly (Fore 2000).

Ahundunci.' Parameters

A t o t a l of five abundance parameters were analy/.ed ( ' fable 2). Density o f a l l macroinverlcbraieshas

been shown to decrease in Colorado streams tha t have f a i r l y high metal concentrat ions (Clements et al. 2000,

Fore 2000). However, macroinvertebrate density is not often used as a parameter to measure disturbance,

because it can be highly variable due to sampling variability (Fore 2000). Variability due to sampling intensity,

type of sampler, and crew experience is minimized in this data set because CEC has used a standardized

sampling protocol since 1994.

"flic next three abundance parameters analyzed were all associated w i t h may fl ies. The first parameter

was the re la t ive abundance o fmay flies. Clements (1991 , 1994) and Clements et al. (1988) ind ica te tha t when

specif ical ly looking al impacts due to metals, mayfl ies are par t i cu la r ly sensitive, so mayfly re la t ive abundance

(percent of to ta l dens i ty) is of ten examined. The measure of mayfly relat ive abundance is often divided into

two measures of mayfly abundance: Heptageniid mayfl ies and mayflies (excluding heptageniids). Heptageniid

may flics are considered especial ly sensitive to metals (Ki f fney and Clements 1994, Clements el al. 2000). This

has been demonstrated in both descript ive and exper imenta l s tudies (Clements ei al. 2002). This parameter

appears to be a way to delect exposure to fa i r ly low concentrations of metals. A companion parameter, the

relative abundance of mayflies, excluding hcplageniids, has also been shown to decline with metal

concentrations in Colorado (Clements and Carlisle 1998), but is not as sensitive to metal concentrations as the

heptageniid mayfly parameter.

Preliminary Report of Biological Data Chaclwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Pa°e 11 February 2003

The final abundance parameter was the re la t ive abundance of scrapers. Scrapers arc benthic

macroinvertebratcs which feed upon attached algae (Cummins and Merril l 1996). This parameter has been

shown lo decrease due to metal con tamina t ion (Fore 2000). Whi l e this parameter may decrease wi th increased

metal concentrat ions (e i ther from contamina t ion of the periphyton i tself or sedimentation impacts often

associated wi th min ing) , this parameter could also increase due to organic enrichment or decreased shading of

a stream, two factors known to promote algal growth ( A l l a n 1995).

Calculated Index Parameter

The only ca lcu la t ed index parameter analyzed was the Shannon- Weaver divers i ty index (1-1') ("fable 2).

This index is often used to measure the effects ofstress on invertebrate communi t ies (KJemme/ al. 1990). This

index generally has values ranging from 0 to 4, wi th values greater than 2.5 indicat ive of a healthy invertebrate

community. Diversity values less than 1.0 indicate a stream communi ty under severe stress ( W i l h m 1970,

KJcmm ei al. 1990). While this metric has a long history in bioassessments. the Shannon-Weaver diversi ty

index has been shown to be less effective in detecting the effects of metals in stream macroinvertebrate

communi t ies (Chadwick and Canton 1984).

Habitat Characterization

Fish hab i t a t data were collected by CtC during fa l l since 1998 at each fish sampling site as out l ined

in the appl icable work plans. Sections of stream inventoried for fish h a b i t a t correspond wi th fish population

sites and were chosen lo be representative of the hab i ta t present in that stream reach in terms of pool/riffle

rat io , shading, bank s t ab i l i t y , etc. Two methodologies were used in assessing fish hab i t a t : 1) a modified and

abbreviated version of the U.S. Forest Service RI/R4 ( R I / R 4 ) h'ixh and h'ish Habitat Standard Inventory

Procedures Handbook (Overtoil el al. 1997), and 2) EPA's Rapid tHoassessmenl Protocol* ( R B I 1 ) for Use

in Wadeahle Streams and Rivers (\5s\rboureial . 1999). A more detailed description of habi tat characterization

methods is presented in Appendix A.

Prcliininarv Report of Biological Data Chatlwick Ecological Constiliants, Inc.Pave r Fehnmrv 2003

Flow Characterization

Flow parameters for the Arkansas River were calculated using daily mean flow values available from

the U.S. Geological Society (USGS) for Gage 07081200 on the Arkansas River near Leadville. Additionally,

flow measurements and estimates were provided by MFG, Inc. for other locations.

Data Analysis

Data analysis for this report focuses on the mainstcm Arkansas River sites. For fish, Site AR- I is the

reference site for comparison to the downstream sites. For bcnthic invertebrates, the reference sites are Site

AR-1 , AR-12. and AR-2. This report compares conditions at the three sites downstream ofCalifornia Gulch,

Sites AR-3A, AR-4, and AR-5, to the reference sites. Site AR-313 does not have enough data to be useful at

this lime because it has only been sampled since fall of 2000 (Appendix A, Table A-2).

Spatial and Temporal Evaluation

To assess potential s ta t is t ica l differences in benthic invertebrate population parameters between study

sites and between seasons, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the Tukey-Kramcr multiple

comparison lest was used. Simple linear regression was used to assess temporal trends in the data. All

statist ical tests were performed using the NCSS 2001 statistical software system (Flintze 2000). In this report,

a level of 95% (a = 0.05) was used to indicate significance.

Identification of Potential Limiting Factors

An initial list of 88 chemical and physical variables from water quality, habitat, and flow data were

identified as potential independent stressor variables, tach variable was initially screened for data suitability

and availability. If too many values were missing or "non-dctccl," the variable was dropped from

consideration. For the remaining variables, basic s tat is t ics were performed to help identify the general spread

and tendencies ofthc data, identify non-normal data sets, and help identify outliers. If necessary, non-normal

data were transformed to approximate normality. A Pearson correlation analysis (Zar 1999) was then

Preliminary lic/wri i>f Biological Data Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Pave 13 February 2003

performed on the remaining parameters to identify variables which were highly correlated. When a pair of

highly correlated variables was observed, one was removed from the parameter list.

The resulting parameters were then used in a Spearman rank correlation analysis (Zar 1999). with the

response variables to identify which physical and chemical variables best explained the patterns observed in

the biological data. The Spearman rank correlation analysis is a non-parametric procedure which measures

the fit of the data based on a rank, not the actual value. The strength of the Spearman rank correlation is

designated Rs:. opposed to simply R2 for the Pearson correlation. In general, Rs

2 values will often be higher

than R: values because they are measuring the fit of values ranked on an ordinal scale (i.e., 1,1, 3,4, etc.) and

the actual variability of the raw data is lost. This procedure was chosen because of the high number of data

sets which violated the normality assumption when data were stratified between sites and between years.

Both the initial selection of fish and macroinverlebrate analysis parameters for this report and the

selection of parameters used to identify potential limiting factors follows the general approach recommended

by others to reduce and refine the number of parameters to a more useful number. The reduction in the number

of fish and macroinvcrtcbratc parameters serves to reduce redundancy in the data analysis of dependent

variables (Angermcicr and Karr 1986, K.crans and Karr 1994, Hughes et al. 1998, Angcrmcier ci fit. 2000,

Shearer and Berry 2002). Reducing the number of.potcntial limiting factors by the same methods also helps

to reduce redundancy, but, in addition, highly correlated independent variables cannot be used together in many

stat ist ical modeling techniques (Johnson 1998, Zar 1999). Therefore, only those factors which appeared to

have the greatest influence on fish and macroinvcrtebrate parameters were carried forward in our analyses.

However, (his process docs not presume that other variables will not become important in the future with

continued monitoring. Natural variability in biological parameters, the relatively stat ic nature of habitat

variables on the Arkansas River since 1994, and some limitations ofchemistry sampling in the past may serve

to confound our analysis, even after nine years of sampling. As the database for the Arkansas River grows,

other variables may or may not begin to have more explanatory power.

Preliminary Report ofHiological DataPa us 14

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.February 2003

RESULTS

Fish Populations

A lolal of five fish species have been collected in the mainslem of the Arkansas River since 1994:

brown trout (Salmo irniia). rainbow troul (Oncorhynchits mvkiss), brook Iroul (Salvelintts fontinalis),t

cutlhroai iroul (Oncorhynchn.'iclarki), and longnoscsucker(Caioxioinuscalostomiis). Generally, oneortwo

species were found at each site. Brown iroul dominated the catch al all sites and comprised an average ofover

90% of the density and biomass estimates for all sites.

Brown trout arc the dominant, resident salmonid species in the Arkansas River. They maintain

resident, self-sustaining populations from year to year and they are not presently slocked in the study area.

They were introduced into the study area probably in the laic ISOO's or early I900's. Brook (rout were also

probably introduced around the same time and have established self sustaining populations in the tributaries.

They are less abundant in the mainslem Arkansas River itself.

The few rainbow and cutthroat trout collected over the years are a result of slocking by CDOW or

private landowners. These two species have not established resident, self-sustaining populations in the study

area. Their numbers are maintained by slocking. The cutthroat iroul collected in ihe past few years were Ihe

Snake River or Pikes Peak strains raised by the CDOW. There are no native greenback cutthroat troul present

in the study area.

Longnosc suckers arc native to the upper Arkansas River. They maintain populations at a low level

in the study area. They are much more abundant in lower portions of ihe Arkansas River downstream of the

current studv area.

Trends in Abundance Parameters - Late Summer/Fall

Four sites have been sampled for six late summer or fall sampling occasions (Site AR-5 was not

sampled in 1996). Site AR- I generally had the highest density and has been very consistent in density

estimates, except for 2002 when density estimates were more than double what had been reported previously

Preliminary Report of Biological Data • Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.15 f-'ehniarc 2003

(Fig. 2). Site AR-3A had relatively low densities through 2001 compared 10 Site AR-1, but densities increased

dramatically at Site AR-3A in 2002. Site AR-4 had fairly high densities in 1994 and 2002, but was closer to

densities observed at Site AR-3A in the intervening years (Fig. 2). Site AR-5 had relatively low densities

during all years.

Fish biomass in late summer and fall follows a very similar pattern to that seen for fish density.

Biomass at Site AR- I has been very consistent throughout the monitoring period except for an increase in 2002

(Fig. 2). Site AR-3A has historically had lower biomass compared to Site AR-1, but does appear to have had

an increasing trend over time. Site AR-3A actually had higher biomass than AR-1 in 2002. Biomass at Site

AR-4 has been more variable, but also demonstrated a large increase in 2002. Biomass at Site AR-5, like

density, has been relatively low.

Site AR-5 consistently had lower density and biomass than the upstream sites (Fig. 2). However, both

density and biomass at Site AR-5 arc more consistent with levels at three CDOVV fish monitoring sites

downstream on the Arkansas River through the Flaydcn Ranch to Granite (Nehring and Policky. 2002). This

indicates that Site AR-5 is more representative of the middle reaches of the Arkansas River than of the upper

reaches.

Fish have been sampled in late summer or fall for a total of six years, which provides sufficient data

to determine if fish density or biomass is demonstrating temporal trends. There were no statistically significant

increasing or decreasing trends in fish density or biomass at Sites AR-1 . AR-4, or AR-5. However. Site AR-

3A docs shov\. a significantly increasing trend in brown trout density (p = 0.04).

Trends in Abundance Parameters - Spring

The same four sites have been sampled all three spring sampling periods (AR-1, AR-3A, AR-4, and

AR-5). Site A R - 1 has consistently had the highest fish density in spring (Fig. 3). Sites AR-4 and AR-5 have

had similar densities across all three years. Site AR-3A was extremely low in 1994, but closer to Sites AR-4

and AR-5 in 1998 and 2000 (Fig. 3).

Preliminary Report ofHio/ugical Da/aPage 16

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Fehmarv 2003

4000

3500

-£-3000.cS.2500

^ 2000c0)Q 1500

il 1000

500

0

Late Summer/Fall

1

^ 1994 E 199913 1996 ^ 2001M 1997 i; 2002

I * Not Sampled

AR-1 AR-3a AR-4 AR-5

300

250

200

IS 150

O

</>il

100

50

0

Late Summer/Fall J m 1994 [" 1999 Ij 13 1996 m 2001 |H B 1997 W. 2002 j-\ \ * Not Sampled

AR-1 AR-3a AR-4 AR-5

I-'IGL'KI£ 2: Top: Fisli density (#/ha) from late summer/fall sampling in the Arkansas River. Botiom:Fish biomass (kg/ha) from lale summer/fall sampling in (he Arkansas River.

Preliminary Report nf Kiolngical DataPane ! 7

Chac/wick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Fehruarv 2003

AR-1 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

100

TO

AR-1 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

KIGLRL3: Top: Fish density (#/ha) from spring sampling in Ihc Arkansas River. Bottom: Fish biomass(kg/ha) from spring sampling in the Arkansas River.

Preliminary Report n/'Hiolngical Dalu Chatlwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.IH Fehniary 2003

The pattern for fish biomass in spring is somewhat different than thai for density. Site AR-I was

higher in 1998, but very similar to Sites AR-4 and AR-5 in 1994 and 2000. Site AR-3A has been consistently

low in fish biomass in spring (Fig. 3).

Not surprisingly, mean spring density and biomass were consistently lower than late summer/fall

values at all sites (Figs. 2 and 3). This seasonal difference represents such factors as sampling prior lo the

emergence of YOY fish in the spring, over-winter mortality of juveniles and adults, and decreased sampling

efficiency during the colder water temperatures in spring.

Since fish have only been sampled in spring in three years, it is difficult to assess if fish density or

biomass is demonstrating any temporal trend at any site. However, when examining Site AR-3A, directly

downstream of Cali forma Gulch, density and biomass estimates were much higher in 1998 and 2000 compared

to 1994. I) appears thai spring conditions at Site AR-3A have improved over 1994 conditions.

Trends in Reproduction and Condition Parameters - Spring and Late Summer/Fall

The analysis of the length-frequency data indicated multiple age-classes of brown trout at the four

Arkansas River sites during laic summer/ fall sampling in all years. The presence ofat least four age classes

at Sites AR-I and AR-3A and at least five age classes at Sites AR-4 and AR-5 over the years indicate the

presence of resident, self-sustaining brown trout populations in the Arkansas River (Appendix B. Figs. B-l

through B-6).

Multiple si/e-classcs of brown trout have also been collected at the four Arkansas River sites during

ihc three years of spring sampling. In 1994, only two brown trout were collected at Site AR-3A, one fish at

257 mm and one fish at 63 mm. With the exception of Site AR-3A in 1994, all other years have had four or

more age classes at all sites, indicating the presence of resident, self-sustaining brown trout populations in the

Arkansas River.

Other fish population parameters examined were mean brown troul length, mean brown trout weight,

mean brown troul relative weight, and mean brown trout condition factor (Appendix B). Mean brown troul

length and weight generally showed an increasing trend moving downstream in both spring and lale summer/fall

Preliminary Report of Biological Data Chaclwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.1 9 F e b r u a r y 2003

(Appendix 13. Figs. 13-7 and 13-8), w h i l e both cond i t ion and relat ive weight were fa i r ly constant between sites

and years (Appendix 13, Figs. 13-9 and 13-10).

The consistency of re la t ive weight and condition throughout all of the study sites suggests tha t

Cal i fo rn ia Gulch is not current ly having an adverse impact on the condition or health of fish downstream of

the confluence. For example. Site AR-3A had the lowest mean condit ion factor o f a l l spring sampling in 1998.

but was as high or h igher than all Arkansas R ive r sites in 2000 (Appendix 13. Fig. 13-9). Mean values for late

summer / fa l l i n d i c a t e dial cond i t i on factor values for Site AR-3A arc consis tent ly as high or higher than all

other sites in the watershed. Brown trout condit ion factor and relative weight are consistently higher in late

summer/fa l l than the spring (Appendix B, Figs. B-9 and B - I O ) reflecting increased feeding in summer

associated with preparation for spawning, and decreased feeding over the winter months.

Comparison to Upstream Reference Site

Site A R - I was chosen as the reference site to compare fish data with sites downstream of California

Gulch . Sites A R - I 2 and AR-2 arc also upstream of Ca l i fo rn ia Gulch but have not been sampled enough times

to be useful . Only late summer/ fa l l data were used, since inf requent fish sampling in the spring makes

comparisons between sites d i f f i c u l t . W i t h only three years of spring data, it is d i f f i c u l t to assess the true

na tu ra l v a r i a b i l i t y of the reference site.

The to t a l number of parameters used for comparison to the reference site was reduced from the in i t i a l

l i s t discussed previously. Total fish density and biomass and brown trout density and biomass were all found

to be highly correlated (R: :• 0.63 for a l l ) , so only one parameter, brown trout biomass, was carried forward

to reduce redundancy. Age class analys is was not analyx.ed because of the somewhat subjective nature of

determining the actual number of age classes from length-frequency data. Mean weight and length were

removed because of their d i s t inc t long i tud ina l trend in the Arkansas River basin. There is a general tendency

in many streams to have fish with larger mean length and weight in a downstream direction as stream size

increases. These stream size effects confound our ability to detect differences between Site AJl-1 and sites

downstream ofCal i fomia Gulch. Lastly, only relative weight was chosen from the condition indices. Relative

weight is only calculated on fish 140 mm or greater, thus reducing error that is associated w i t h weight

Preliminary Report of biological Data Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Paw 20 February 2003

measurements of very small fish. Therefore, the two parameters analyzed were brown trout biomass and

relative weight.

Brown irout biomass was substantially less at Site AR-3A than Site AR-I from 1994 through 2001.

Biomass at Site AR-3A ranged from only 16% of the biomass observed at Site AR-I in 1997 to 68% in 2001.

However, in late summer 2002, Site AR-3A actually surpassed Site AR-I, having a brown trout biomass

estimate 11.3 kg/ha (7%) greater than the estimate at Site AR-I (Appendix 13). Site AR-4 has generally had

biomass estimates that were nearly equal to or substantially greater than Site A.R-I in most years. The only

exceptions were 1996 and 1997 when Site AR-4 had approximately 70% of the biomass of Site AR- I .

Site AR-5 has consistently had lower biomass than Site AR-I. Biomass at Site AR-5 has ranged from 44%

to 83% of the biomass observed at Site AR-1.

The relative levels oflate summer/fall brown trout biomass between Sites A.R-1 and AR-3A over the

years indicate an intermediate level of impact through the 1990s. In 2001 and 2002, biomass levels at Site AR-

3A were closer to or exceeded the levels of Site AR- I . Although fish have been sampled in spring only three

years between 1994 and 2000, the spring biomass data also tend to indicate biomass levels at Site 3A are

approaching levels at Site AR-1 . The trends in biomass levels indicate that the impact of California Gulch has

decreased substantially over the last few years.

Relative weight analysis indicated that there were very few significant differences between Site AR-I

and the sites downstream of California Gulch. Site AR-3A and Site AR-5 were never stat is t ical ly less than

S i t e A R - l in terms of relative weight in any year. Site AR-4 did have significantly lower relative weight values

in 1996 and 2001 (p < 0.05), but not in any other year. The condition of brown trout does not seem to be

affected at sites downstream of California Gulch.

Identification of Potential Limiting Factors

In order to determine potential limiting factors, late summer/fall fish data for all years from all

mainstem Arkansas River sites were used. Spring data were not analyzed due to the lack of habitat data from

spring and fewer spring sampling dates. The same two parameters analyzed previously, brown trout biomass

and relative weight, were evaluated with respect to physical habitat, water quality, and flow variables. The

Preliminarv Report of Biological Data Chaclwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Page 21 February 2003

Spearman rank correlation analysis was used 10 identify the variables thai best correlated to brown trout

biomass and relat ive weight.

When (l ie si tes were analy/.cd together, brown trout biomass was s ign i f i can t ly , but weakly, correlated

(p > 0.05) 10 several variables. There was a s ign i f ican t positive correlation (R,,2 = 0.40) to pH. There were

s ign i f i can t negative correlations between brown trout biomass and RBP bank s tabi l i ty score (Rs2 = 0.23). mean

dissolved concentrations of copper (R,2 = 0.29) and zinc (Rs: = 0.20), and maximum mean monthly (peak) flow

from the previous spring (R/' = 0.19).

When each si ic was analy/cd i n d i v i d u a l l y , Siics AR-3A and AR-4 had stronger, s i g n i f i c a n t negative

correlat ions \ \ i t h peak flow ( R ^ 2 = 0.68 and 0.89. respectively). No other hab i t a t , flow, or waicr qua l i t y

var iab le demonstrated any s ign i f i can t correlations wi th brown trout biomass when the i n d i v i d u a l sites were

examined.

Addi t iona l analysis of brown trout biomass versus habi ta t , flow, and water q u a l i t y variables w i th in

i n d i v i d u a l years resulted in no significant correlations.

There were two weak correlations between re la t ive weight and hab i ta t , flow, and water q u a l i t y

var iables . Both mean depth in r i ff les and pl-l were negatively correlated to relative weight (R s2 = 0.22 and 0.29,

respectively) when all sites and years were grouped together. There were no significant correlations when the

ind iv idua l sites or i n d i v i d u a l years were analyzed separately.

Evaluation of Findings Regarding Fish Populations

Site AR-3A has general ly had lower fish density and fish biomass estimates than Sites A R - 1 and AR-4

(Figs. 2 and 3, and Appendix 13). There is evidence of improvement in fish populations since 1994, especially

in the 2002 data. Wi th continued monitoring (now scheduled to occur every year in late summer according to

the latest agreement wi th the CDOW), we w i l l have a longer, more consistent late summer sampling database

and wi l l be able to cont inue to evaluate the recovery which is occurring at Site AR-3A.

Preliminary Report of Biological Data Chaclwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.2 February 2003

The correlation analysis ident i f ied weak correlations between brown trout biomass and relative weight

and several o f thc habitat , flow, and water q u a l i t y variables. None of these variables can be chosen as the most

obvious l i m i t i n g factor. This suggests that one of several possible scenarios may be present in Ihe upper

Arkansas River . First, the l i m i t i n g factor may change from year to year. This is contradicted by the fact tha i

no significant correlations were observed when the years were analyzed individual ly . Second, the limiting

factor may change from site lo site. This is supported by the two strong negative correlations between peak

How and brown trout biomass at Sites AR-3A and AR-4. Sites A R - I and AR-5 have more stable brown trout

biomass from year to year (Fig . 2) and exhib i ted no s i g n i f i c a n t relat ionship to flow. Third, the l i m i t i n g factor

is a var iable tha t we have not yet ident i f ied or measured. This is un l ike ly as we have evaluated many of the

parameters generally used in s i m i l a r studies; the upper Arkansas R i v e r does not appear to be fundamenta l ly

different than other streams. F ina l ly , the l i m i t i n g factor may be a more complex in teract ion of sites, years, and

variables wi th a pat tern t h a i has nol yet been ident i f ied . Evidence for t h i s scenario is the few weak correlations

between brown trout populat ions and the habitat , flow, and water qual i ty parameters.

The strongest correlation wi th late summer/fall brown trout biomass was a negative relat ionship wi th

peak flow from the previous spring at Sites AR-3A and AR-4 (Fig. 4). Years with higher peak spring runoff

flows result in fewer fish. Year-to-year variabili ty in trout populations is common in the western United Slates

( H a l l and K n i g h t 1981, Scarnccchia and I3ergcrscn 1987, Pla i t s and Nelson 1988). There is frequently an

inverse re la t ionship between the t i m i n g and magni tude of spring snowmell runoff flows and fish density and

biomass (Pearsons ei al. 1992, McCul lough 1997). This suggests tha t peak flows are a l i m i t i n g factor in the

Arkansas River , at least al some sites.

Several water chemistry variables were s igni f icant ly correlated wi th brown trout biomass and relative

weight . There was a weak posit ive correlation belween biomass and pH. In general, values for pi I were

highest (>7.5) at Sites A R - I and A R - I 2, and decreased as lower pi I water enters from Ca l i fo rn ia G u l c h (pH

generally <6.2). Values for pH may s imply be a surrogate variable for general water qua l i t y . In other words,

pi I values arc highest in the least impaclcd areas ( A R - 1 ) and lowest in the more affected areas (e.g., Site AR-

3A). Brown trout biomass was weakly negatively correlated wi th mean dissolved copper (Fig. 4) and xinc from

the previous six months. This suggests that water chemistry variables are also a potential limiting factor in

the Arkansas River.

Preliminurv livpori <>/ Biological DaiuPuvu 23

Chudwick Ecological Consulianis, Inc.February 2003

(A

!H,|u.

£"co5cTO0S

E3

E'xm5

•i Ann — — — — •1 UUU

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

n

T:' A AR-1* AR-12.< AR-2

? A. * AR-3AE v AR-4

B AR-5"'---,„

•5'a---~.*._ *

~"S"~— "•:•:• A ~~""---.^. ??

"""""--•..

A """" .

B """^----... *

'~~'--^

A ~v' ~"~""

I , . , . I , , . , I , . , , I , . . ,

50 100 150 200 250

Late Summer/Fall Brown Trout Biomass (kg/ha)

300

_j"3)E,co

ro

"cu

OOL.

0)aaoo

U.U IU

0.014

0.012

0.01

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

n

''?

-,,

A AR-1* AR-12

AR-2* AR-3A•*•' AR-4PS AR-5

••-• *

"" s""" — --- V

"""~~-AH *

A A "'"•---. *

8 "•¥-_.. .__'•••' A "*~*-~,

*« ' A "•---..-__ V1 : \ ! 1 1 i 1 1 '""—-r-, — i : : 1 1

50 100 150 200 250

Late Summer/Fall Brown Trout Biomass (kg/ha)

300

FIGURE 4: Scatter plol of brown trout biomass vs. maximum mean monthly flow from the previousspring (top) and mean dissolved copper concentrations from the previous six months (bottom)for the Arkansas River, 1994-2002.

Pi-L'liininurv Report ufHinlogical Data Chaclwick Ecological Consul/ants, Inc.Puec 24 February 2003

Despite several statistically significant correlations, no single variable described a large amount of the

variance in brown trout biomass. This is due to two main factors. First, habitat data have only been collected

since 1998 and habitat variables have been relatively stable over this time period (Appendix C). Therefore,

habitat variability between sites can account for some of the differences seen in brown trout biomass, but the

effects ofhabitat changes over time within a site cannot yet be assessed. Second, water chemistry data are not

necessarily reflective of overall conditions at a site. Some sites have been sampled many times for many years

(e.g.. Sites AR-2 and AR-3A), while others have a much smaller data set (e.g., Site AR-313). Sampling for

water chemistry has also been concentrated in late spring and early summer (May and June). Other seasons

have much fewer data points. Therefore, it is difficult to assess if water quality data are providing information

truly representative of conditions at a site that would affect aquatic organisms throughout the year. The fact

that some habitat and water chemistry variables show weak, but significant, correlations to brown trout

biomass suggests thai several factors are having an effect on fish populations in the Arkansas River basin, with

spring Hows being the most important variable dictating brown trout biomass on a yearly basis downstream

of California Gulch.

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Populations

Taxa Richness Parameters - Longitudinal and Temporal Trends

Total Number of Taxa

Total number of laxa has demonstrated a fair degree ofsimilarity across the mainstem Arkansas River

sites (Fig. 5). In spring. Sites AR- I , AR-2. AR-4, and AR-5 all had similar number of taxa, with a

median of 40 laxa (range 38.5 to 41.5), while Sites AR-I 2 and A.R-3A were less with median values of 34 and

33, respectively. In fall, Site AR-I had distinctly higher number of taxa with a median of52.5. while the other

five sites were similar with approximately 40 laxa (range 39 to 42, Fig. 5).

Preliminary Report of Hiological Da/aPaw 25

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Februarv 2003

60

50

40

30

rax

o0)

1

2 20o

10

95th percentile

5th percentile

SPRING

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

60

50

40

303Z

ra 20-»o

10

roxTO

FALL

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

l-'IGLRIi 5: Box plots by site oflotal numbcrofmacroinvertebraletaxaal mainstcm Arkansas Iliver studysiies for spring (top) and fall (boilom) sampling, 1994-2001.

Preliminary Report of Biological Data Chadwick Ecological Consultants. Inc.Page 26 February 2003

' I 'oinl number of taxa has not demonstrated a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t seasonal trend at any site, w i th

the exception of Site AR-3A (Fig. 5 and Appendix D). F a l l number of taxa at Site AR-3A was s ta t i s t ica l ly

higher than the number of laxa in the spring (p < 0.05). No other site had s igni f icant differences between

seasons (p > 0.05). Several long-term trends in number of taxa have been observed at several sites. For

spring, Sites A R - I , AR-2, AR-3A, and AR-5. have shown a s ignif icant increasing trend (p<0.05) since 1994

(Appendix D, Fig. D - l ) . For f a l l number of taxa, all sites, except AR-1 , have shown s igni f icant increasing

trends (p < 0.05) since 1994 (Appendix D, Fig. D - l ) .

Number of EPT Taxa

The to t a l number of EPT laxa in the mainslem Arkansas River show very l i t t l e var ia t ion across sites

in spring sampl ing . Median values range from a h igh o f 2 3 EPT laxa at Sites AR-2 and AR-4 to a low of 19

EPT taxa at Site AR-3A (Fig. 6). Fall sampling demonstrates slightly higher variabil i ty between sites, ranging

from a high median value of 28.5 EPT laxa at Sile A R - I lo 21 EPT laxa at Sites AR-3A and AR-5.

No s ta t is t ica l ly s igni f icant differences were observed between seasons for the number of EPT taxa

at any si te, wi th the exception o f S i l c AR-3A (Fig. 6, and Appendix D). Fal l EPT laxa al Sile AR-3A were

s t a t i s t i c a l l y h igher than the number of taxa in the spr ing (p < 0.05). No other s i te had s ign i f i can t differences

between seasons (p . 0.05). Several long-term trends in EPT laxa were observed. Sites AR-2, AR-3A, AR-4,

and AR-5 showed s ign i f ican t increasing trends (p < 0.05) for both spring and fa l l data since 1994

(Appendix D, Fig. D-2). Site AR-12 showed a significant increasing trend (p < 0.05) in fa l l since 1994

(Appendix D, Fig. D-2).

\iiinher of Ephemeroplera Taxa

Looking spec i f ica l ly at the l o n g i t u d i n a l trend of the indiv idual components of the EPT, the number of

Ephcmcroptcra taxa in spring is fa i r ly constant al Sites A R - I , AR-12, and AR-2, wi th a median of seven for

ihose three sites, and a decrease lo a median value of four Ephemcroplera laxa al Sile AR-3A (Fig. 7). The

number of Ephemeroplera taxa then increases s l ight ly al Siles AR-4 and AR-5. A s imi la r pattern is observed

in f a l l . The number of Ephemeroplera laxa was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher (p< 0.05) in f a l l than in spring at Site AR-

3A (Appendix D. Fig. U-3). Ephemeroplera taxa showed a s i g n i f i c a n t increasing trend over t ime at Sites AR-

3A and AR-5. in both spring and f a l l , wh i l e Siles A R - 1 2 , AR-2 and AR-4, showed s ign i f i can t increasing

trends o v e r t i m e only in fa l l (Appendix D, Fig. D-3).

Preliminary Report o/'Hio/u^ical DataPaw: 7

Chachvick Ecological Consultants, Inc.F'ebniarv 2003

35

30

1

0. 20UJ

•555 15

£1

I 10

SPRING

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

35

30

io. 20UJ

l ie

T

FALL

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

FIGUIlb] 6: Box plots by sile of total number of El'T taxa at mainstem Arkansas River study sites forspring (lop) and fall (bottom) sampling, 1994-2001.

Preliminary Report i>J Biological DataPage 28

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Febntarv 2003

rexre

re

a.o0)Eo>.ca.

UJ

o>.QE

rexre

re

Q.OO

0).0E

rexre

2(D*-Q.

JD

E

15

12

9

6

3

SPRING

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

15

12

9

6

3

SPRING

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

15

12

SPRING

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

15

12

9

6

3

FALL

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

15

12

9

6

FALL

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

15

12

9

6

3

FALL

I

(•r±r

I

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

FIGURE 7: Box plols of total number of Ephemeroptera, Plecopiera, and Trichoptera laxa at mainstemArkansas River study sites for spring and fall sampling, 1994-2001.

Preliminary Report ttfHitilugiccil Data Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Page 29 February 2003

Number of Plecopiera and Trichoptera Taxa

The same pattern was not observed for the number of I'lecoptera and Trichoplera taxa, which showed

no decrease downstream of Ca l i f o rn i a Gulch (Fig. 7). Data from the Arkansas River seem to indica te that

metal sensit ive mayfl ies do decrease direct ly downstream o f C a l i f o r n i a Gulch, bul other po l lu t i on sensitive

taxa, sioneflics and caddisfl ics, do not.

Number of Metal Intolerant Taxa

For spring da ta , the three Arkansas River sites upstream o f Ca l i f o r n i a Gulch have higher numbers of

meta l in to lerant taxa than the three downstream sites. The same is also true for fa l l data as there is a steady

decrease in ihe number of metal i n to l e r an t taxa in a downstream direct ion (Fig. 8).

No stat is t ical ly s igni f icant differences were observed between seasons for the number of metal

in to lerant taxa at any site wi th the exception of Site AR-3A, which was s ign i f ican t ly higher in the f a l l . There

were s ign i f i can t increasing trends over l ime at most sites for both spring and f a l l sampling. Only Sites A R - 1 2

and AR-2 in spring showed no s igni f icant increasing trends (Appendix D, Fig. D-4).

Number of Clinger Taxa

For spring data in the mainstem Arkansas River, the median va lue was 17.5 c l i n g c r t a x a at Site A R - I ,

18 c l i n g c r t a x a for A R - 1 2 . A R - 2 , AR-4 , and AR-5, w h i l e Site AR-3A was s l i g h t l y lower at 15.5 c l inger taxa

(F ig . 9). Values for f a l l data were s l i g h t l y more var iab le , ranging from a low of 16 c l inger taxa at Site AR-2

10 a high of 2 1.5 c l inger laxa at Site A R - I (Fig . 9).

Abundance Parameters. Longi tud ina l and Temporal Trends

Density

Mainstcm Arkansas R i v e r sites have shown fa i r ly consistent spa t ia l trends for macroinvcrtebrate

density. Lowest densities have general ly been seen at Sites A R - 1 2 and AR-2 upstream o fCa l i fo rn ia Gulch

in both spring and fal l , while the highest densities have been observed at Site AR-4 in both spring and fall (Fig.

10). Sites A R - I , AR-3A, and AR-5 have generally had intermediate density.

Preliminary Hepiiri <>[ Hiolugical DataPaw Ml '

Chadwick Ecological Consuliunis. Inc.Fchrnarv 2003

15

roxTO

~ 12"Ero

| 9

5"S

o.

0)

E

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4

SPRING

AR-5

x(U

cro

15

12

5 9c

0)5*_ou.0>

1

AR-1

'w^i /

AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4

FALL

AR-5

FIGURE 8: Box plots by siie oflolal melal intolerant laxa at mainstem Arkansas River study sites forspring (top) and fall (bottom) sampling, 1994-2001.

Hreliminarv Report of Biological DataHave 31

Chaclwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Febrnarv 2003

35

30

x£ 251_

0>

I 20oo 15o>.Q£ 10

/ - . - . • - . Ntsm _L

SPRING

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

35

30

25

rax

I 2°Uo 15i_o>J3

10

•H J-H - -

FALL

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

KIGLR.K 9: Box plots by site of number of clingenaxa at mainstem Arkansas River study sites Tor spring(top) and fa l l (bottom) sampl ing , 1994-2001.

Prcliniinan' Report ii/'Hiological Data Chadwick Kmhgical Consultants, IncF'ebrnarv 2003

30000

25000

— 20000

c

>. 15000

10000

5000

0

SPRING

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

30000

25000

— 20000

i>. 15000

'35c

Q 10000

5000

0

FALL

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

l-'IGUKt 10: Box plois by site ofmacroinveitebrate density at mainslem Arkansas River study sites forspring (top) and fall (bottom) sampling, 1994-2001.

Preliminary Report of Biological Data Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Pave 33 February 2003

Macroinvcnebra lc densi ty has not demonstrated a strong seasonal trend at any site. Some long-term

temporal trends in densi ty have been observed at several sites. For spring macroinverlebrale density. Sites AR-

I, AR-2, and AR-3A, have shown a s igni f icant increasing trend (p< 0.05) since 1994 (Appendix D. Fig. D-5).

For Tall macroinvertebrate density, Sites AR-2, AR-3A, AR-4 and AR-5, have all shown signif icant increasing

trends (p < 0.05) since 1994 (Appendix D, Fig. D-5).

Mayfly Relative Abundance

Mayfly re la t ive abundance has demonstrated a fa i r ly stable pattern across the mainstem Arkansas

River sites (Fig. I I ) . In spring. Sites A R - I , A R - 1 2 and AR-2 al l had s i m i l a r percentages, wi th medians

ranging from 40% to 48%. Sites AR-3A. AR-4, and AR-5 had considerably lower percentages, wi th median

values ranging from 7% to 10%. In f a l l , the same pa t t e rn was observed, but percentages were generally higher

(Fig . I I ) .

Mayf ly re la t ive abundance has demonstrated a s ta t i s t i ca l ly significant seasonal trend at the majority

of sites (Fig. II and Appendix D). Fa l l relat ive mayfly abundance at Sites AR-12, AR-2 : A.R-3A. AR-4 and

AR-5. were all s t a t i s t i c a l l y h igher than mayf ly relat ive abundance in the spring (p < 0.05). Only a lew long-

term trends in relat ive mayf ly abundance were observed. Sites AR-4 and AR-5 had s ignif icant increasing

trends for both spring and fa l l sampling. Site AR-2 had a s igni f icant increasing trend (p < 0.05) since 1994

for spring data (Appendix D, Fig. D-6). For fall data, Site AR-3A had a s ignif icant increasing trend (p < 0.05)

in relative mayfly abundance since 1994 (Appendix D, Fig. D-6).

Hepittgeniid Relative Abundance

When relat ive abundance of hcptageniid mayflies is examined, vhe pattern between the three upstream

Arkansas River sites and the downstream sites is clearly evident for both spring and fall data, and similar to

the mayfly relat ive abundance noted earlier (Fig. 1 1 ) . All three downstream Arkansas River sites have median

values less than 4% (Fig. II and Appendix D). When the relat ive abundance of mayflies excluding

heptagcniids is examined, the sharp dec l ine between upstream and downstream sites is less evident, especially

in f a l l (F ig . I I). showing t h a t much of the change in re la t ive mayf ly abundance is due to the loss of heplageni id

mayflies.

Preliminary Report of Hiulugiccil Data Chudwick Ecological Consulianis. Inc.Fchniarv 2003

1 r\r\1UU

o~* «n0)uc

4S Rnc3J2< 4 n

><»*—>.ra on

n

mn

SS<uo HO

ro•oZ fin3 DU.O<

% 40C(1)O)flj ona0)X

n

-inn

i/r•a:— onc BU

0)^p O)

2 BOw a bu

a> of£ xcT* oi Anro ~' 'HJ

D— on

X

•S,n

SPRING

• pi" " VIV"™ "t T ,

1 1 t ^, J

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

SPRING

vxavma f ™* 1 mM^^^ Si'-jujiJ ^388^88^

", " \»,_ ^-AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

SPRING

1 '^ Ii "" ~: * i

mn

on

fin

4n

70

n

1 nn

onoU

enbU

AC]

on

n

mn

AH

enDU

/tn

on

n

FALL

T

"j l ^

'\2J/.::::| x T i ^

I : ~ , ^ ,[l J

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

FALL

1-u II ^ i I MT- - ^

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

FALL

T

I ;

,"X~X ^^p v__V

M '" ™ ' ""\ ' "•*•!

-^ '

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5 AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

FIGURE 11: Box plots by site of mayfly, heptageniid mayfly, and mayfly (excluding heptageniids) relativeabundance at mainstem Arkansas River study sites for spring and fall sampling, 1994-2001.

Preliminary Report nf Kinlogical Data Chadwick Ecological Consultant.'!, Inc.Pci'-'c- 35 February 2003

The re la t ive abundance of hcpiagcni id mayf l i es docs nol show as strong a seasonal trend as Ihc re la t ive

abundance of all mayfl ies . Only Sites A R - I and AK-3A have s ign i f ican t ly higher (p < 0.05) relat ive

abundance of heplageniids in fal l than in spring. Relative abundance heptageniids has shown a s ignif icant

increasing trend (p < 0.05) since 1994 at Sites AR-2 and AR-3A for fal l data, and Site AR-12 for spring data

(Appendix U, Fig. D-6).

Mayfly Relative Abundance (Excluding Heplageniids)

The re la t ive abundance of may Hies (excluding heplageniids) was s ign i f ican t ly higher (p < 0.05) in f a l l

than in spring at sites A R - I 2, AR-3A, AR-4, AR-5. Relat ive abundance of mayflies excluding heptageniids

has shown a s i g n i f i c a n t increasing trend at Sites AR-4 and AR-5 for both spring and fa l l data and at Site AR-

3 A for f a l l data ( A p p e n d i x D, Fig. D-6).

Semper Relative Abundance

In the mainstem Arkansas River , the re la t ive abundance ofscrapers actual ly increases in a downstream

direc t ion , wi th a large increase at Si te AR-5 for both spring and fa l l data (Fig. 12).

Calculated Index Parameter

Shannon- Weaver Diversity

The Shannon-Weaver d ive r s i t y index ( I I ' ) was generally over 3 .Oat al l mainstem Arkansas River sites

for both spring and f a l l data, w i t h no apparent l o n g i t u d i n a l or temporal trends (Appendix D).

Comparison to Upstream Reference Sites

The most direct way to determine if water qua l i ty downstream of Cal i fornia Gulch is impairing the

macroinvcr tcbra tc c o m m u n i t y of the Arkansas River is to compare parameters t ha t are believed 10 be good

ind ica to r s of meta l con t amina t ion from the three Arkansas River sites below Ca l i fo rn i a Gulch (Sites AR-3A,

AR-4 , and A R - 5 ) to those sites above C a l i f o r n i a Gulch (Si tes A R - I , A R - 1 2 , and AR-2) .

Preliiiiinan1 Report ofHitilagical DataPave 36

Chadwick Ecological Consultant. Inc.February 2003

100

80

0)o60

c

0>Q.

2U

CO

40

20

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4

SPRING

AR-5

inn

on

0)ocra en-Q DUcD

JZ<i- 40« w

a2oco 2Q

FALL

C

Jr v

.J8&&f$i£&&to. , ^ JliMiim "~ - i*m~i**~

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

FICLKli 12: Box plots by silc ofscraper relative abundance at mainstem Arkansas River study sites forspring (top) and fall (bottom) sampling, 1994-2001.

Prcliiui/iarv Report ofHiological Data Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Fchntarv 2003

The loial number of parameters used lor comparison was reduced from the i n i t i a l 13 parameters

discussed previously (Table 2). First , five parameters thai are believed to be less sensit ive to metal stress and

more ind ica t ive of other types ofstress, such as scdimentaiion, were removed. These included the number of

Plccoptera taxa, Trichoptera taxa, cl inger laxa, scraper re la t ive abundance, and Shannon-Weaver diversity.

For th i s section, the focus was on the remaining eight parameters which have been most closely l inked to metal

stress. These e ight parameters are: tota l number of laxa, number of EPT taxa, number of Ephemeroplcra laxa,

number of metal i n to l e r an t laxa, density, mayfly re la t ive abundance, heplagcni id re la t ive abundance, and

mayfly (excluding heptageniids) relative abundance.

Thcsceighl parameters were analyzed using a correlation analysis in order to find redundant measures.

A correlation having an R2 , 0.60 was chosen to indicate a fair ly high degree of redundancy between

parameters. Overa l l , the four laxa richness parameters showed a high degree of correlat ion (Table 3).

Add i t iona l ly , density was h igh ly correlated wi th total number of laxa and number of EPT laxa. The relat ive

abundance parameters did not exh ib i t such a high degree of correlation. Fleptageniid re la t ive abundance and

mayfly re la t ive abundance were fair ly h igh ly correlated as were mayfly relative abundance and relat ive mayfly

abundance ( exc lud ing heplageniids) (Table 3).

TABLli 3: Correlation ma t r ix (R : values) for b e n t h i c macroinverlebrate parameters from the ArkansasR i v e r , 1994-2001. L)EN = dens i ty ; T A X A = number of taxa; EPT = number of t IT taxa;E = number of Ephcmeroptera taxa; Ml = number of meta l in to lerant laxa; MAY = mayflyrela t ive abundance; M A Y 2 = mayfly re la t ive abundance (excluding heplageniids); HEP =heplagcniid relative abundance.

TAXA

EPT

E

Ml

DEN

MAY

MAY2

HEP

TAXA

1 .00

0.89

0.63

0.65

0.72

0.01

<O.OI

<O.OI

Taxa Richness

EPT

-.

1.00

0.72

0.75

0.62

0.06

0.03

0.04

Parameters

E

_ _

-

1.00

0.79

0.38

0.24

0.09

0.19

Ml

-

--

1.00

0.41

0.20

0.05

0.20

DEN

—

—

—

1 .00

<0.01

<O.OI

<O.OI

Abundance

MAY

_ _

—

--

—

-

1.00

0.55

0.60

Parameters

MAY2

--

—

—

-

-

1.00

0.02

HEP

—

—

--

-

--

--

1.00

Preliminary Rejion of Hiulngical Daia Chadwick Ecological Consul/ants, Inc.Page .i'(V February 2003

Based on th i s analysis , EPTtaxa , r e l a t ive abundance ofmayl l ics (exc lud ing heptageniicls) and relat ive

abundance of hcptageniid mayflies were (he parameters used lo compare upstream reference siles 10 the sites

on the Arkansas River downstream of Ca l i fo rn i a Gulch . The EPT taxa parameter was chosen because it is

widely accepted as being a good indicator of water qua l i ty (Wiederholm 1989, Klein m el al. 1990, Lenat and

Pcnrosc 1996. Wallace el al. 1996, Barbour el al. 1999, Lydy e.t al. 2000). The two mayfly relative

abundance parameters were chosen because they have been shown lobe sensitive to metals in Colorado streams

(Ki f fney and Clements 1994. Clementsetal. 2000), and they were not h ighly correlated with each o ihe r f fab le

3). Based on the l i terature, these three parameters also appear sensit ive to a wide range of meta l stress.

Hepiageniid mayflies appear lo be sensitive lo low levels of metal stress, mayflies (excluding heptageniids)

appear lo be sensit ive to intermediate levels of metal stress, and the number of"EPT taxa appears 10 be sensitive

to higher levels of meta l stress.

On 15 out of 16 s a m p l i n g occasions, the number of HPT ta.xa was s t a t i s t i c a l l y the same al the

downslrcam Arkansas R ive r siics and (he reference siles ( ' fable 4). Only Site AR-3A in spring 1995 was

signif icant ly lower (p < 0.05) than the reference sites.

The re la t ive abundance of mayflies (excluding heptageniids) at Site AR-3A was s ignif icant ly lower

than the reference siles on five of the 16 sampl ing occasions (Table 4). Sile AR-4 was s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower on

nine sampl ing occasions. Site AR-5 was s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower on 12 occasions.

The relative abundance of heptageniid mayflies has been s ign i f ican t ly lower than the reference sites

a l a l l three downstream sites on 12 of 16 sampling occasions since 1994 (Table 4). Only Sites AR-4 and AR-5

were s ign i f ican t ly lower in f a l l 2001, and no siles were significantly different in spring 1996, f a l l 1997, and

spring 1998.

Overall , the most sensi t ive measure o f m c i a l stress, the relat ive abundance of hcptageniid mayflies,

was s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower at the downslrcam sites 75% lo 81% of the l ime (Table 4). The relai ive abundance of

mayflies (exc lud ing hcpiageniids), the parameter that has intermediate sensi t ivi ty to metal stress, was

s ign i f i can t ly lower al ihe downstream siles 31% lo 69% of (he time. The leasl sensitive parameter, number of

EPT taxa , was s i g n i f i c a n t l y less only once (0 lo 6%). This paliern indicates t ha i metal slress at Siles AR-3A,

AR-4, and AR-5 has a low to in icrmcdia le impact on ben th ic invertebrate populat ions .

Preliminary Report of Biological Da/a Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Paw 39 February 2003

TABLIi 4: Comparison of the number of EPT taxa. relative abundance of mayflies (excludinghcptagcniids), and relative abundance of heplagcniid mayflies between Siles AR-3A. AR-4.

and AR-5 to reference sites (Sites AR-I , AR-I2, and AR-2 combined). < = sile was

slalislically less than reference siles; = = sile was not statistically less than reference sites;% different = percent of time the sile was significantly less than the reference sites.

% MayfliesEPT (Excluding Heplageniids) % Heplageniids

Ycar

1 994

1995

1996

1997

1 998

1999

2000

2001

Season 3 A 4 5

Spring =

Fall =

Spring <

hall =

Spring =

Fall =

Spring = = =

Fall =

Spring =

Fall =

Spring =

Fall =

Spring =

Fall =

Spring =

Fall =

% Different 6 0 0

3 A 4 5 3 A 4 5

— < < <! <C <C

< < < < < << < < < < <= < < << < < =

< < < < << < < < < <= <c < — = —

< < == < < << < < < < <

< < < <= < < <= < < <

< < < << < <

31 56 69 75 81 81

The number of EPT taxa parameter has shown only one significant difference with the reference sites

since monitoring began in 1994. The rclalive abundance of mayflies (excluding hepiageniids) has shown very

few differences with the reference si tes since 1999, indicating improved water quality. Only the most sensitive

measure, the relative abundance of heplagcniid mayflies, continues to be significantly lower than the reference

siles. However, Site AR-3A was nol significantly lower than the reference sites in fall sampling in 2001.

Prcliminarv Report of Biological DataPage 40

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.h'ehrnarv 2003

Identification of Potential L imi t ing Factors

The same subset of three macroinveilebrate parameters (number of El'T taxa. heptageniid relative

abundance, and mayfly [excluding hcplageniids] re la t ive abundance) used for (he comparisons above were used

to iden t i fy potential l i m i t i n g factors for the macroinverlebrale community. Physical habi ta t , waterqual i ly , and

flow variables were icsicd againsl each paramcier us ing corre la t ion analys is . K a i l and spring daia were run

separately. This was done for two reasons. First, it e l imina t e s any confounding seasonal effects. Secondly,

habitat data have not been collected in the spring, so the spring data were analyzed using a smaller set of

variables. Variables wi th s igni f icant correlations, but having Rs: values less than 0.10, are not discussed.

Correlations vr/V/? Number of EPT Taxa

For EPTtaxa in f a l l , a s ign i f i can t negative re l a t ionsh ip wi th peak How from the previous spring (R . 2 =

0.44) was (he only s igni f icant correlation. For spring data, number of EPT taxa showed no s ignif icant

correlation with any variable.

In order to determine if the effects of metals on EPT taxa arc masked by spatial or temporal var iab i l i ty ,

each site and each year were examined i n d i v i d u a l l y . When each site was examined ind iv idua l l y , no significant

negative correlations were seen wi th any mcial. One flow variable, peak flow from (he previous spring,

appeared to be the overriding var iable and was negat ively correlated at Sites A R - I , A R - 1 2 , AR-2. and AR-4

(R,- ; = 0.54, 0.57, 0.68, and 0.54, respectively) for fa l l data.

Add i t iona l ly , when each year was examined i n d i v i d u a l l y , there were three s ign i f ican t correlations

between number of EPT taxa and meta l concentrat ions. Copper was negatively correlated w i t h the number

of EPT (axa in spring of 1995 and 2000 (R, 2 = 0.71 and 0.67, respectively) wh i l e zinc was negat ively

correlated in f a l l of 1998 (R s2 = 0.80).

Pretiininurv Kc/xiri of tiiijlfigica/ Daia Chudwick Ecological Consultants. Inc.I->Uuc 4 1 February 2003

Correlations with Relative Abundance of May/lies (Excluding Heptageniids)

The re la t ive abundance o f m a y f l i e s ( exc lud ing heptageniids) was correlated vvilh numerous habitat,

flow. and waicr q u a l i t y variables. The combined data from all Arkansas River sites and all years showed a

posit ive correlat ion between the f a l l r e la t ive abundance of mayf l ies ( exc lud ing hcplagcniids) and a hab i t a t

var iable combining the sediment deposition and riff le frequency scores of the RBI ' (R/ = 0. 1 2). A s ign i f ican t

negative correlation was seen with mean maximum depth of run habitat (R s2 = 0.30). For spring data, there

were significant positive correlations with this relative abundance parameter and a lka l i n i t y from the previous

six months (R,2 = 0. 15). S igni f ican t negative correlations were seen between the spring relative abundance of

mayflies (excluding heptageniids) and cadmium and zinc correlations (R, 2 = 0.17 for both metals). All of these

s i g n i f i c a n t correlat ions were weak.

Analys is of each s i te i n d i v i d u a l l y indicated no s ignif icant negative correlations between relat ive

abundance o f m a y f l i e s (excluding heptageniids) w i t h any habi ta t , flow, or water qua l i t y variable for fall or

spring data .

When years were analy/.cd i n d i v i d u a l l y w i t h (he combined sites, there were a few strong correlations

with water q u a l i t y parameters. The relative abundance o f m a y f l i e s (exc lud ing heptageniids) was negatively

correlated wi th mean dissolved concentrations of copper from the previous six months in 1997 and 2000 Rs2

= 0.69 and 1 .00, respectively) for f a l l data. For spring data, mean dissolved concentrations of copper from

the previous six months were negat ive ly correlated in 1995 (R,2 = 1 .00).

Correlations with Heplageniid Relative Abundance

The relative abundance of heptageniid mayflies in fall was correlated with several habitat and water

q u a l i t y variables. This parameter had a s i g n i f i c a n t pos i t ive correlation with la tera l scour pool area

(R/ = 0 . 1 3 ) , and a var iable c o m b i n i n g the sediment deposition and r i ff le frequency scores of the RBP

(R, : = 0.29). S i g n i f i c a n t negative correlations were seen wi th mean m a x i m u m run depth (R,.2 = 0.47), and

mean dissolved cadmium, copper, and / inc concentrations from the previous six months (R,,2 = 0. 1 3, 0.27, and

0.3 1. respectively). However, the correlations were weak.

Preliminary Rcpori of Biological Data Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Page 42 F'chriiary 2003

For spring data, there was a significant positive correlation with pH (Rs: = 0.18) and alkalinity

(Rs2 = 0.15) and a significant negative correlation with dissolved xinc concentrations (Rs

2 = 0.54).

Examination of sites individually indicated that relative abundance of heptageniid mayflies ai Site AR-

I was ncgaiivdy corrclalcd with mean dissolved concentrations of/.inc in fall (R52 = 0.69). In spring,

relative abundance ol hcplagcniids ai Sites AR-I. AR-4, and AR-5 were negatively correlated with mean

dissolved concentration of cadmium from Ihe previous six months (Rs~ = 0.86, 0.78, and 0.60, respectively),

and Site AR-4 was also negatively correlated with mean dissolved concentrations of zinc from the previous six

months (R,: = 0.78).

When each year was analyxed separately, several significant negative correlalions wiih metals were

again observed with the relative abundance of heptageniid mayflies. Significant negative correlations were seen

with mean dissolved concentrations from the previous six months for cadmium, in fall 1995 and fall and spring

2000 (R..2 = 0.78. 1.00. and 0.89, respectively). Significant negative correlalions were seen with copper in fall

of 1996 and 2001 (Rs2 = 0.89 and 0.73, respectively). Zinc was negatively correlated with the relative

abundance of heptageniids in spring 1996, 1997, and 2000 (R52 = 0.89, 0.69, and 0.97, respectively) and fall

o l "2000(R/= 1.00).

Evaluation of Findings Regarding Macroinvertebrate Communities

As was seen with the fish data analysis, there were a few statistically significant correlalions between

macroinvcrlcbrates parameters and water quality variables. Relative abundance of heptageniids and relative

abundance of mayflies (excluding hcplageniids) showed significant, but weak, correlations with metal

concentrations when all data were pooled together (Fig. 13). However, when each site and each year were

analyxed individually, several significant correlalions were seen between metal concentrations and

macroinvertebratc parameters. In particular, zinc, cadmium, and copper were most often the metals showing

significant negative correlations, and the relative abundance of heptageniid mayflies was the macroinvertebrate

parameter which showed the greatest number of negative correlations with metal concentrations. This

corresponds to the findings of others that xinc is the primary metal of concern in the drainage (Clements 1994,

Clements el al. 2002) and heptagcniid mayflies are the most sensitive measure of metal stress in ilic system

(Clements e.i al. 2002).

Preliminary Itepnri of Biological DataPave 43

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Febmarv 2003

O)

ocN

0)

U.B

0.7

0.6

0.5

O A.H

0.3

0.2

0.1

n

s 1994-2001 Spring

^

A AR-1* AR-12- AR-2* AR-3A? AR-4K AR-5

'-~S"~ _ A

«^ ..• : _ i A A

HZ """— — . — __ *,.

•••' * j,. .-- , , ', , . . * , , I J* . . ,* I -it i, . , I .K* . "7 r-ai—.:- . » , i' i'1 ,

30 35

_)

*O)

E^™**0)aa0oT30)

"510(A

b

U.UID

0.02

0.015

O n>i.1)1

0.005

n

1994-2001 Fallis

*V

v

&

•,, ^ ,\;

..;. " — • — --Ji". ' A

* -.y g ... vi A . ' ' —-..-. „

: * ,-A- . ~i , , , i , .• , . t •;• , . , i , , , . i . r* , .

A AR-1•ft AR-12•• AR-25 AR-3A* AR-3Bv AR-4% AR-5

-ftI , . , ,

10 15 20 25 30

Relative Heptageniid Abundance35 40

_J

"3)£ucN

<u

"o(A(A

O

2

1.5

0.5

n

1994-2001 Fall. *

A AR-1* AR-12

AR-2«• AR-3A•* AR-3Bv AR-4& AR-5

**:> '

""~: "-1 — .t _:. ®™ •:;. A i j* :Sf i , , ^r • ^, •. • .&" I "T- -~.... * ,

10 15 20 25 30

Relative Heptageniid Abundance35 40

l-'IGLRIi 13: Scatter plot of spring relative abundance of hcptageniids vs. mean dissolved zinc

conccnlraiions from the previous six months (top), fall relative abundance of hcpiagcniids vs.

mean dissolved copper (middle), and zinc concentrations from the previous six months

(bottom) for the Arkansas River, 1994-2001.

Preliminary Report of biological Data Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Page 44 h'chniary 2003

Analys is o f l h e macroinverlebraie data indica tes tha t some spatial and temporal trends in the data are

complicating our ab i l i t y to determine the level of impairment in the Arkansas River downstream of California

Gulch . Signif icant increasing trends in ta.xa richness parameters and abundance parameters through t ime have

been seen throughout the watershed upstream and downstream of Cal i forn ia Gulch, especially for f a l l data.

This seems to be the result of some very low values for macroin vertebrate parameters throughout the watershed

in the mid-1990s and with average to high values in the last two years. Despite this, sites downstream of

Cal i forn ia Gulch have s t i l l shown the greatest number of s ign i f i can t increasing trends for both spring and fa l l

data.

Taxa richness and abundance parameters suggest tha t the sites downstream of Cal i fornia Gulch have

been sl ight ly to moderately impaired due to metal concentrations, as evidenced by trends in number of

Ephemeroptera taxa. re la t ive abundance of heptageniid mayflies, and metal intolerant taxa. These measures

are the most sensi t ive to metal con tamina t ion , and changes can be seen at even fairly low metal concentrations

(Clements ei ul. 2000. Clements et al. 2002). Other less metal sensi t ive measures (number of El'T laxa,

number of clingcr laxa, clc.) arc not showing adverse effects at the sites downstream of Cal ifornia Gulch.

CONCLUSIONS

Biomass and densi ty estimates have shown improvement since 1994 at Site AR-3A. and both

parameters were very h igh dur ing f a l l 2002 sampling. In 2002, biomass was h igher al Site AR-3A than al Site

A R - I . Krom 1994 through 2001, Site AR-3A consis tent ly had lower fish density and fish biomass estimates

than Sites A R - I and AR-4. Site AR-5 has also had cons is ten t ly low densi ty and biomass est imates, more

s imi l a r 10 CDOW moni tor ing sites downstream of Site AR-5 than to upstream sites.

Despite several s tat is t ical ly s ignif icant correlalions wilh habilat and waler chemistry variables, no

single variable has described a great deal of the variation seen in trout parameters. The peak of spring

snowmelt runoffappears to be the single most s i gn i f i can t f a c t o r d i c l a t i n g brown troul biomass in (he Arkansas

River , a phenomena which has been reported in trout streams by other researchers. Other faciors most l ikely

interac t in ways which have not yet been iden t i f i ed . L i m i t a t i o n s in the chemistry data set (e.g. incons is tent

sampling in t i m e and space) make finding patterns related to waler chemistry d i f f icu l t . It appears that for fish

Preliminarv Report of Biological Data Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.P a e 4 5 F e b r u a r y 2003

populations, the level ofwaierqualiiy impact is slight to moderate and otherabiolic factors, namely peak spring

runoff, arc exerting more control on the fish populations than chemical parameters.

Analysis of the bcnthic macroinvertebrate data indicate that of the 13 parameters examined, eight

appeared to be good measures to use to indicate metal stress in the Arkansas River. Density and toial number

of taxa appeared to respond only to severe metal stress, number of EPTtaxa and metal intolerant taxa appeared

to respond to intermediate levels of stress (occasional decreases downstream of California Gulch), and the four

measures associated with mayflies appeared to be very sensitive to even low levels of metal stress (consistent

declines downstream of California Gulch). Only these most sensitive indicators of metal contamination indicate

that stress is still occurring downstream of California Gulch. Three additional parameters (the number of

Plecoptcra taxa, Trichopiera taxa, clinger taxa) may be useful parameters to monitor to determine if other

stresses arc present in the basin over lime.

The effects of metal contamination appear to be more pronounced in the spring than in the fall,

suggesting that greatest impairment to the macroinverlebrate community is happening over the winter period.

I lowcvcr, seasonal effects have also been seen upstream of California Gulch.

Persistent increasing trends were seen in most macroinvertebrate parameters over time both upstream

and downstream of California Gulch. While this apparently basin wide effect confounds our ability to

determine to what level macroinvertebrale parameters have improved since 1994. it does not confound our

ability to determine how sites downs! ream from California Gulch differ from sites upstream of California Gulch

currently. In recent years (1999 to present). Site AR-3A has not differed significantly in terms ofnumberof

EPT taxa (a good measure of general water quality) or various mayfly parameters (more sensitive measures

of metal stress) as often as was seen in earlier years (1994-1998).

Based on macroinvertebrate community data, it appears that a slight to moderate level of metal stress

remains downstream of California Gulch, but is only seen in the most metal sensitive components of the

community.

Preliminary Report of Biological Data Chadwick Ecological Consul/ants, Inc.46 February 2003

L I T E R A T U R E C U E D

Adams, S.M., VV.D. Crumby, Jr . , M.S. Greeley, M.G. Ryon, and E.M. S c h i l l i n g . 1992. Re la i ionsh ipsbciwcen physiological and fish popula t ion responses in a contaminated stream. EnvironmentalToxicology and Chemistry 11 :1549-1557 .

A l l a n , J .D. 1995. Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters. Chapman & H a l l , NewYork, NY.

Anderson. R.O., and R . M . N e u m a n n . 1996. Length, weight , and associated s t ruc tura l indices. Pages 447 -482. IN: M u r p h y , 13.R., and D.W. W i l l i s (cds.). Fisheries Techniques, 2'"' Ed i t ion . AmericanFisheries Society, Belhesda, MO.

Angcnneicr, I'.L., and J .R . Karr. 1986. Apply ing an index of biotic in tegr i ty based on stream-fishcommunit ies: Considerations in sampling and interpretation. North American Journal of FisheriesManagement 6:41 8-429.

Angcrmcicr, P.L., R.A. Smogor, and J .R . Stauffer. 2000. Regional framework and candidate metrics forassessing biotic integrity in M i d - A t l a n t i c Highland streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries.Society 129:962-981.

Barbour. M.T., J .L . P l a f k i n , 13.P. Bradley, C.G. Graves, and R.W. Wisseman. 1992. Eva lua t i on of EPA'srapid bioassessment benthic metrics: Metric redundancy and var iab i l i ty among reference stream sites.Environmental Idxicologv and Chemistrv I 1:437-449.

Barbour. M.T. .J . Gcrrilsen, B.D. Snyder. and J.B. S t r i b l i ng . 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Usein Wadeable Streams and Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvei'tebrates and Fish, 2ml Edition.EPA S41-13-99-002. U.S. Envi ron incn ta l Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

Canton, S.P.. and J .W. Chadwick. 1984. A new modified Hess sampler. Progressive Fish-Cultiirisi 46:57-59.

Canton. S.P.. and J.W. Chadwick. 1988. V a r i a b i l i t y in benlhic invertebrate density estimates from streamsamples. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 4:29 I -297.

Carlandcr , K.D. 1969. Handbookof Freshwater Fisherv Biologv, Vol. I. Iowa State Universi ty Press, Ames,I A .

Chadwick, J.W., and S.P. Canton. 19S4. Inadequacy of diversi ty indices in discerning metal mine drainageeffects on a stream invertebrate community . Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 22:217-223.

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc. 1998. Aquatic Biological Assessment Data for the Upper ArkansasRiver Basin Near Leadville, Colorado (1995-1998). Prepared for Resurrection Min ing Company,Denver. CO.

Preliminary Report of 'Biological Data Chadwick Ecological Consultants. Inc.Pae 4 7 r'ehruary 2003

Chadwick Ecological Consullanls, Inc. 1999. 1998 Aquatic Biological Assessment Data for the UpperArkansas River Basin Near Leadville. Colorado. Prepared for Resurrection M i n i n g Company,Denver, CO.

Chadwick Ecological Consul tan ts , Inc. 200 la . 1999-2001 Aquatic Biological Assessment Data for theUpper Arkansas River Basin Near Leadville. Colorado. Prepared for Resurrect ion M i n i n g Company,Denver, CO.

Chadwick Ecological Consu l t an t s , Inc . 200 1 b. Evaluation of the Aquatic Biological Coitinnmilies ofThompson Creek and Squaw Creek Using the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality WaterBody Assessment Guidance Document. Prepared for Thompson Creek M i n i n g Company. Chall is , ID.

Clements. W . l l . 1991. Community responses ofslream organisms to heavy metals: A review of observationaland experimental approaches. Pages 363-39 1. IN: Newman, M.C., and A. W. Mclntosh(eds . ) . MetalEcotoxicology: Concepts and Applications. Lewis Publ i sh ing , Inc. , Chelsea, Ml.

Clements, W . l l . 1994. Benthic invertebrate community responses to heavy metals in the upper ArkansasRiver basin, Colorado. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 1 3:30-44.

Clements, W . l l . , D.S. Cherry, and .1. Cairns, Jr. 1988. Impact -of heavy metals on insect communit ies instreams: A comparison ofobscrva t iona l and exper imenta l results. Canadian Journal of Fisheries andAc/naiic Sciences 45:20 1 7-2025.

Clements. W.I I., and D.E. Rccs. 1 997. Effects of heavy meta ls on prey abundance, feeding habits , and metaluptake of brown trout in the Arkansas River , Colorado. Transactions of the American l-'isheriesSociety 126:774-785.

Clements, W.I I. and D. Carl is le . 1998. Development and Validation of a Regional Biolic Index to Assessthe Effects of Heavy Mela Is on Headwater Streams of the Southern Rockv Mountain Ecoregion.F i n a l report to the USEPA, Region 8, Denver, CO.

Clements. W . l l . , D.M. Car l is le , J .M. Lazorchak, and P.C. Johnson. 2000. Heavy metals structure benlliiccommuni t i e s in Colorado m o u n t a i n streams. Ecological Applications 10:626-638.

Clements. W.H., D.M. Carlisle, L.A. Courtney, and E.A. Harraliy. 2002. Integrating observational andexperimental approaches to demonstrate causation in stream biomonitoring studies. EnvironmentalToxicolog\: and Chemistry 2 1 : 1 138-1 1 46.

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002.Eagle Mine Supe rfund Site Approach to Defining "Healthv" Biological Community. March 2002.Public Comment Period. Colorado Department of Pub l i c Heal th and Envi ronment , Denver, CO.

Cummins, K.W., and R.W. Merr i l l . 1996. Ecology and d i s t r i b u t i o n of a q u a t i c insects. Pages 74-86. IN:Mer r i l l , R. W.. and K.W. Cummins (eds.). An Introduction to the. Aquatic Insects of North America3 r d Edit ion. Kendal l /Hunt Publishing. Dubuque, IA.

Preliminary Report of Biological Data Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Page 48 February 2003

DeShcm. J .E. 1995. Development and application oflhc invertebrate community index (ICl) . Pages 217-244.IN: Davis, W.S., and 'I'. I'. Simon (eds.). Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for WaterResource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis, Boca Raton, KL.

Everhail , W.I I., and W.D. Youngs. 1981. Principles of Fisherv Science, 2n<l Edit ion. Cornell UniversityPress, I t haca . NY.

Fore, L.S., J . K . Karr. and R.VV. Wisserman. 1996. Assessing invertebrate responses to human activities:Eva lua t i ng a l t e r n a t i v e approaches. Journal oj the North America n Ben/hological Society 15:212-231.

Fore. L.S. 2000. Development and Application of a Biological Index to Assess the Influence ofHeavv Metalson Stream Invertebrates in Mineralized Areas of Colorado. Prepared for the USEPA. Region 8,Denver. CO.

I l a l l . J.D.. and N.J . Knigh t . 1 98 I. Natural Variation in Abundance ofSalmonid Populations in Streams andIts Implications for Design of Impact Studies. A Review. EPA-600/3-81-021. Oregon StaleUnivers i ty , Department of Fisheries and Wi ld l i f e .

Hanscn, J .A., D.F. Woodward, E.E. Lit t le, J .J . DeLonay, and H.L. Bergman. 1999. Behavioral avoidance:possible mechanisms for explaining abundance and dis tr ibut ion of trout species in a metal-impactedriver. Environmental Toxicologv and Chemistrv I 8:3 I 3-3 I 7.

I l in l / . c , J . L . 2000. NCSS 21)1)1 Statistical System for Windows. Number Cruncher S t a t i s t i c a l Systems.K a y s v i l l e , UT.

Hughes, R.M.. P.R. K a u f m a n n , A.'l". H e r l i h y , T.M. Kincaid, L. Reynolds, and D.P. Larsen. 1998. A processfor developing and e v a l u a t i n g indices of fish assemblage integrity. Canadian Journal of Fisheries andAquatic Sciences 55:16 18-163 I .

Hughes, R.M., and T. Oberdorff. 1999. Appl icat ion of IBI concepts and metrics to waters outside the Uni tedStates and Canada. Pages 79-93. IN: Simon, T.P. (ed.). Assessing the Sustainability and BiologicalIntegrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

.lessup, B.. a n d . I . Gcrritsen. 2002. Stream Macroinvenebrate Index. Chapter .3. IN: Grafe, C.S. (cd.). IdahoSmall Stream Ecological Assessment Framework: an Integrated Approach. Idaho Department ofEnvironmental Quality, Boise, ID.

Johnson, D.E. 1998. Applied Mullivariale Methods for Data Analysis. Duxbury Press, Pacific Grove, CA.

Karr, J .R. , and E.W. Chu. 1999. Restoring Life in Running Waters: Belter Biological Monitoring. IslandPress, Washington, DC.

Karr. J . R . 2000. Def in ing and measuring river hea l th . Freshwater Biology 4 1 : 2 2 1 -234.

Preliminary Report of Biological Data Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Pave 49 February 2003

Kermis, B.L., a n d . l . R . Karr. 1994. Development and testing of a benthic index of biolic integrity (B-IQ1) forrivers of the Tennessee Val ley. Ecological Applications 4:768-785.

Kiflncy, P.M.. and VV.H. Clements. 1993. Bioaccumulation of heavy metals by benlhic invertebrates at theArkansas River , Colorado, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 1 2 : 1 5 0 7 - 1 5 1 7 .

Kjffney, P.M., and VV.H. Clements. 1994. Effects of heavy metals on a macroinverlebrate assemblage froma Rocky Moun ta in stream in experimental microcosms. Journal of the North American BenthologicalSociety 13 :51 1-523.

Klemm, D.J., P. A. Lewis. F. H u l k , and J .M. Lazorchak. 1990. Macroinvertebraie Field and LaboratoryMethods for Evaluating the Biological Integritv of Surface Waters. EPA/600/4-90/030. U.S.Envi ronmenta l Protection Agency.

Lenat, D.R. 1988. Water q u a l i t y assessment of streams using a q u a l i t a t i v e col lect ion method for benthicmacroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Socielv 7:222-233.

Lenai, D.R., and D.L. I'cnrose. 1996. History of EPT taxa richness metric. Bulletin of the North AmericanBenthological Society 1 3:305-307.

Lydy, M.J.. C'.G. Crawford, and J.W. Frey. 2000. A comparison ofselected diversity, s imilar i ty , and bioticindices for detecting changes in benthic-invertebrale communi ty structure and stream quali ty. Archivesof Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 39:469-479.

Maret, T.R. 1999. Characteristics o f f i s h assemblages and env i ronmenta l condit ions in streams of the upperSnake R i v e r basin in eastern Idaho and western Wyoming. Pages 273- 299. IN: Simon, T.P. (ed.).Assessing the Sustainahility and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities.CRC Press, Boca Raton, PL.

McC'ul lough. B..I. 1997. Effects of Floods on Brook Trout Populations in the Monongahela National Forest,M.S. Thesis. Pennsylvania State Universi ty , College Slalion, PA.

Mcbane, C.A. 2001. Testing bioassessinent metrics: Macroinvertebraie, sculpin, and salmonid responses tostream habi ta t , sediment, and metals. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 67:293-322.

Mcbane. C. 2002a. Stream Fish Index. Chapter 4. IN: Grafc. C.S. (cd.). Idaho Small Stream EcologicalAssessment Framework: an Integrated Approach. Idaho Department of Environmenta l Quali ty,Boise, ID.

Mebane, C. 2002b. River Fish Index. Chapter 4. IN: Grafe, C.S. (ed.). Idaho River Ecological AssessmentFramework: an integrated approach. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Boise. ID.

Medley, C.N., and W.H. Clements. 1998. Responses ofdia tom communit ies to heavy metals in streams: Theinf luence of longi tudinal variation. Ecological Applications 8:63 I -644.

Hrcliininan' Report o/'Hioliigical Da/a Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Page 50 February 2003

Nehring, R.B., and G. Pol icky. 2002. Evaluation of 16 Years of Trout Population Biometrics in the UpperArkansas River. Colorado Division of Wi ld l i f e .

Nelson, R.L. , M.L. Mel lenry, and W.S. Plans. 1991. M i n i n g . Pages 425-457. IN: Meehan, W.R. (ed.).Influences of Forest and kangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. Americanhsherics Society, Beihcsda, MD.

Nelson, S.M.. and R.A. Rol inc . 1993. Selection o f t h c mayfly Rhithrogena hageni as an indicator of metalp o l l u t i o n in the upper Arkansas River . Journal of Freshwater Ecology 8 : 1 1 1 - 1 1 9 .

Nelson, S.M., and R.A. Rol inc . 1999. Rela t ionships between metals and hyporheic invertebrate communitystructure in a r iver recovering from metals con tamina t ion . Hydrobiologia 397:21 1-226.

Ncy, J . . I . 1993. Prac t ica l use of biological s ta t i s t ics . Pages 137-158. IN: Kohler, C.C., and W.A. Hubert(cds.). Inland Fisheries Management in North America. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Ohio EPA. 1988. Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life, Volumes I - 3. EcologicalAssessment Section, D iv i s ion of Water Qual i ty Moni tor ing and Assessment. Ohio Environmenta lProtection Agency, Columbus, OH.

Omernik, J .M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous Un i t ed Stales. Annals of the Association of AmericanGeographers 11 :\ 18-125.

Overtoil, C.K., S.P. Wollrab, B.C. Roberts, and M.A. Rodko. 1997. R1/R4 (Northern/lntermoitnlainRegions) Fish and Fish Habitat Standard Inventoty Procedures Handbook. General TechnicalReport INT-GTR-346. USDA. Forest Service, I n t e r m o u n l a i n Research Station, Ogden, U"l".

Pearsons. T.N.. H.W. Li, and G.A. Lamber t i . 1992. I n f l u e n c e o f h a b i l a t complexity on resistance to Hoodingand resilience of stream fish assemblages. Transactions of the American Fisheries Societv \ 21:427-436.

Pla i t s . W.S.. and M.L. Mel lenry. 1988. Density and Biomass of Trout and Char in Western Streams.General Technical Report INT-241. U.S. Forest Service, In lcrmounla in Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Plans, W.S., and R.L. Nelson. 1988. F l u c t u a t i o n s in t rout popula t ions and their impl ica t ions for land-useeva lua t ion . North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8:333-345.

Roline, R.A. 1988. The effects of heavy metal po l lu t ion of the upper Arkansas River on the dis t r ibut ion ofaqua t ic macroinveiicbratcs. Hydrobiologia 160:3-8.

Roy S. Weston, Inc . I 995. Final Baseline Aquatic Ecological Risk Assessment California Gulch NPL Site.Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Preliminary Report of Hit/logical Data Chculwick Ecological Consultants. Inc.Pa w 51 February 2003

Scarnecchia, D.L., and E.P. Bergersen. 1987. Trout production and standing crop in Colorado's smallstreams, as related to environmental features. North American Journal of Fisheries Management7:315-330.

Shearer, J.S.. and C.R. Berry, Jr. 2002. Index ofbioiic integrity utility for the fishery of the James River ofthe Dakotas. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 17:575-588.

Shepherd Miller, Inc. and Terra Matrix, Inc. 1995. Work Plan for a Water and Aquatic Biological SamplingProgram for Upper Arkansas River/California Gulch. Prepared for Resurrection Mining Company,Denver, CO.

Shepherd Miller, Inc. and Terra Matrix/Montgomery Watson. 1998. Final Work Plan for a Water andAquatic Biological Monitoring Program for Upper Arkansas River/California Gulch. Prepared forResurrection Mining Company, Denver, CO.

Simon. T.P.. and .1. Lyons. 1995. Application of the index of biotic integrity to evaluate waier resourceintegrity in freshwater ecosystems. Pages 245-262. IN: Davis, W.S., and T.P. Simon (eds.).Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making.Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

Van Devcnler, J.S., and W.S. Platts. 1983. Sampling and estimating fish populations from streams.Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 48:349-354.

Wallace. J.B., J.W. Grubaugh, and M.R. Whiles. 1996. Biotic indices and stream ecosystem processes:results from an experimental study. Ecological Applications 6 :140-151 .

Wcge. G.J.. and R.O. Anderson. 1978. Relative weight (W,.): A new index ofcondition for largcmouth bass.Pages 79-91. IN: Novingcr, G.D., and J.G. Dillard (cds.). New Approaches to the Management ofSmall Impoundments. Special Publication 5. North Central Division, American Fisheries Society.

Wiedcrholm. T. 1989. Response ofaquaiic insects to environmental pollution. Pages 508-557. IN: Resh,V.I I., and D.M. Rosenberg (eds.). The Ecology of Aquatic Insects. Praeger Scientific, New York,NY.

Wilhm, J.L. 1970. Range of diversity index in bcnthic macroinvcrtebrate populations. Journal of WaterPollution Control Federation 42:R22 I-R224.

Woodward, D.F., J.A. llanscn, ILL. Bergman, H.E. Little, and A.J. DeLonay. 1995. Brown trout avoidanceof metals in water characteristic of the Clark Fork River. Montana. Canadian Journal of Fisheriesand Aqualic Sciences 52:203 I -2037.

Zar, J.I I. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

A P P E N D I X A

Site Descriptions and Methods

Preliminary Report o/'Hinlngical Da/a Chat/wick Ecological Consultants. Inc.Pave A - I February 2003

SITE DESCRIPTIONS

Arkansas River - Upstream of California Gulch

S i i e A R - l The upper boundary of this si te is located approximately 0.2 tan downstream of the

confluence of the East Fork wi th Tennessee Creek, near the USGS gaging station. The site

was established in May 1994, and serves to characterize the Arkansas River mainsiem

downstream of the inf low from Tennessee Creek and upstream of Ca l i fo rn i a Gulch .

Site A R - I 2 This site, added to the sampling effort in October 1994, is located immediately downstream

of the bridge crossing on Lake County Road 4 and characterizes the Arkansas River between

Sites A R - I and AR-2.

Site AR- 2 The lower boundary of t h i s si te is located a few hundred meters upstream of the Ca l i fo rn ia

Gulch confluence, just upstream o f l h e Highway 300 crossing. The site was established in

May 1994. and characterizes the Arkansas River just upstream of California Gulch .

Arkansas River - Downstream of California Gulch

Site AR-3A Si te AR-3A was established in May 1994, and is located approximately 0.5 km downstream

of Cal i fornia Gulch, representing the Arkansas River after mixing with inflow from California

G u l c h .

Site AR-313 This si te, established in October 2000, is located approximately 300 m upstream of the

confluence wi th the Lake Fork. The lower boundary of this site is jus t above an i r r iga t ion

return. This site characterizes the river downstream of the mix ing zone from Ca l i fo rn ia Gulch

before inf low of water from Lake Fork.

Site AR-4 Established in May 1994 and located approximately 0.9 km downstream of the confluence

wi th Lake Fork on the Smith Ranch, this site characterizes the river downstream of the inflows

Preliminary Report of Kit/logical Data Chadwick Ecological Cnnsitlianis. Inc.Page: A - - h'chmary 2003

from California Gulch and Lake Fork. The lower boundary of this site is located

approximately 100 m upstream of the Smith Ranch road bridge.

Site AR-5 This site was established in May 1994, and is located approximately 0.5 kin downstream of

the Highway 24 bridge crossing on the open space that was formerly the Hayden Ranch.

Along wi th Site A.R-4. th is site served to characterize the Arkansas River downstream of

C a l i f o r n i a Gulch and Lake Fork. The lower boundary of th is site is located jus t downstream

of the conf luence w i t h Empire Gulch, just upstream of the bridge leading from the parking lot

at the I l i gh Lonesome Open Space access point.

TABLL A-1: GI'S coordinates for biological monitoring sites in the Arkansas River.

Site GI'S Coordinates

A R - I N 3 9 ° I 5 ' 2 I . 8 " W106°20'42.3"

A R - 1 2 N39°14'54.0" WI06°20 '53.1"AR-2 N39°I3'22.9" WI06°2I '22 .7"

AR-3A N39°12'44.S" WI06°21 '19 .6"

AR-313 N 3 9 ° I 2 ' I 4 . I " W 1 0 6 ° 2 I ' I 3 . 6 "

AR-4 N39° l l '46 .9" W106°20'54.6"AR-5 N39°09'52.4" W106° 19' I 1 . 1 "

Prcliminarv Report nffiinlugical Da/aPage A - .?

Chadwick Ecological Cnnsuliants, inc.Febniarv 2003

N Benthic Invertebrate andFish Study Site

Benthic Invertebrate Study Site

Water Treatment Plant (WTP)

Road

Stream

IIGLRIi A-l : Sampling sites on (he Upper Arkansas River, 1994-2002.

Preliminarv Report of Biological Da/a Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Page A - 4 February 2003

TABLL A-2: Aquatic biological data collection for study sites on the Arkansas River, 1994-2002. 13 =bcnthic invertebrate sampling. F = fish population sampling, l-l = fish habitat measurements.

Season

Spring

Fal l

, Site

A K - I

A R - 1 2

A R - 2

AR-3A

AR-.113

AR-4

AR-5

A R - I

A R - 1 2

A R - 2

AR-3A

AR-3L3

AR-4

AR-5

1 994

B,-

13,

B,

-

B,

B,

B,

B,

B,

13,-

B,

B,

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

1 995

B

B

B

B

-

B

B

B

B

B

B

--

B

B

1 996

B

B

B

B

-

B

B

B, F

B, F

B

B, F

-

B, F

B

1997

B

B

B

B

-

B

B

B, F

B

B

B, F

-

B, F

B, F

1998

B, F

B

B

13, F

-

B, F

B, F

B, H

B, l-l

B, Fl

B, H

--

B, H

B, H

1999

B

B

B

B

-

B

B

B, F, H

B, H

B, l-l

B, F, l-l

-

B, F, H

B, H

2000

13, F

B

B

B, F

-

B, F

B, F

B, H

B, l-l

B , I I

B , I I

B

B, H

B, Fl

2001

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B, F, H

B, H

B , I I

B, F, H

B

B, F, Fl

B, F, l-l

2002

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B, F, H

B, Fl

B, Fl

B, F, Fl

B

B, F, Fl

B, F, Fl

FISH POPULATION METHODS

Fish populations were sampled in spring 1994, 1998, and 2000, fall 1994 and 1996, and late summer

1997, 1999, 2001. and 2002 by CT£C and/or CDOVV to determine species composition, density, and size

structure of the fish community, as outlined in the applicable work plans and letter agreements between

Resurrection and the CDOW.

The section of stream sampled for fish populations at each site was chosen to be representative of the

habitat present in that reach of stream in terms ofpool/riffle ratio, shading, bank stability, etc. Sampling was

conducted by making two sampling passes through a representative section of stream (approximately 75 - 225

m) using bank clectrofisliing gear consisting of a generator, Coffelt voltage regulator (VVP-15), and four to

five electrodes. Capture efficiency has been high and two passes have been adequate for estimating fish

populations. Natural barriers, such as riffles and beaver dams effectively block fish movement at ihese sites,

and were used as upstream and/or downstream barriers.

Preliminary Report of Hiological Daia ChadwickEcological Consul/ants, Inc.A - 5 ' February 2003

Fish captured dur ing each pass were kepi separate 10 a l l o w es t imat ion of popula t ion density ofeach

species us ing a max imum- l ike l i hood es t imator (Van Deventer and Plai ts 1983). All fish sampled were

identif ied to species , counted, measured for tota l length, weighed, and released. This sampling provided

species lists, mean length and weight , estimates ofdensi ty (///ha) and biomass (kg/ha). Biomass is usua l ly the

preferred statist ic for evalua t ing fish populations in a body of water (Ney 1993) and is used to compare study

site productivi ty. The condition or well-being of the fish was derived using two published, recognized indices,

the Kul ton- type condit ion (K.) as described by Coriander ( 1969). and the relative weight index (W r) as described

by Wcgc and Anderson (1978) and Anderson and Neumann (1996). Age structure of ihe population was

assessed by examining the length-frequency distr ibution of the recorded lengths (Everhart and Youngs 1981.

B E M H I C MACROI.N V E R T E B R A I E METHODS

Bcnthic invertebrates were sampled q u a n t i t a t i v e l y ai eacli study site since 1994 in spring and fa l l , as

o u t l i n e d in the app l i cab le work plans (Shepherd M i l l e r , Inc. and Terra Matr ix , Inc. , 1995, Shepherd M i l l e r ,

Inc . , and Terra Matrix/Montgomery Watson 1998).

Bcnthic invertebrate sampling enta i ls t a k i n g three replicate samples from s i m i l a r riffle hab i t a t s using

a modified llcss sampler (Canton and Chadwick 1984), which encloses 0.086 in2 and has a net mesh size of

500 urn. Three samples have been shown to provide re l iab le estimates of density for benlhic invertebrate

communi t ies in streams (Canton and Chadwick 1988). In add i t ion , to provide supplemental information on

species composition, a qua l i t a t ive sample from other habi ta t types (e.g., submerged logs, banks, pools, etc.)

was taken at all study sites using a sweep net (500 urn mesh net). Collected organisms were preserved in the

field with 95% ethanol and re turned to Chadwick and Associates, Inc . laboratory for analysis. In the lab,

organisms were soiled from debris, i den t i f i ed to the lowest practical laxonomic level (depending on the age

and condi t ion of each specimen), and counted. Chironomids and oligochaetes were mounted and cleared prior

10 i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and count ing. If the number of chironomids or oligochaelcs were excessive, they were

subsamplcd prior to mount ing . Voucher col lec t ions were prepared and checked by Dr. Boris Kondratieff

(Colorado Stale Univers i ty ) and Dr. Leonard Ferrington (Un ive r s i ty of Minnesota).

Preliminary Report (if biological Da/a Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Page A - 6 February 2003

'This analysis provided species l i s t s , number of taxa. and estimates ofdcns i iy (#/nr). Further ana lysis

included ca lcula t ion o f t h c Shannon-Weaver diversi ty index (H1) , which the EPA recommends as a measure

of the effects of stress on invcilebrale communit ies (Klemm el cil. 1990). This index generally has values

ranging from 0 to 4, wi th values greater t h a n 2.5 i n d i c a t i v e of a heal thy invertebrate community. Diversity

values less than 1.0 indica te a stream communi ty under severe stress (Wi l lun 1970, KJemm el al. 1990). The

presence of mayfly (Ephcmeroptera), stonefly (I'lecoptera), and caddisfly (Trichoptera) taxa (collectively

rcfciTcd to as ihc EPT taxa) can be used as an ind ica to r of water q u a l i t y . These insect groups are considered

to be sensi t ive to a wide range of po l lu tan ts (Wiederholm 1989, KJemm et al. 1990, Lenat and Penrose 1996,

Wallace ei cil. 1996, Harbour el al. 1999. Lydy el al. 2000). Stress to aquatic systems can be evaluated by

comparing the number of EI-'T taxa between unimpacted and potentially impacted sites. Impacted sites would

be expected to have fewer EPT taxa compared to unimpacted sites. Clements ( 1 9 9 1 , 1994) and Clements et

al. ( I 9 S 8 ) indica te tha i when speci f ica l ly looking at impacts due to metals, mayfl ies are p a r t i c u l a r l y sens i t ive

10 metal stress so mayf ly abundance (percent of to t a l dens i ty) is also examined. More specif ical ly , heptageniid

mayfl ies arc the most sens i t ive indicators of metal po l l u t i on (HLiffney and Clements 1994); therefore,

heptageni id mayfly density was examined as well.

HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION METHODS

l-'ish h a b i t a t data have been collected in f a l l since 1998 al each study s i te as o u t l i n e d in the appl icable

work plans (Shepherd Mi l l e r , lac. aad Terra Matrix. Inc. 1995, Shepherd Miller, Inc. 'and Terra

Matrix/Montgomery Watson 1998). Sections of stream which were inventoried for fish habitat corresponded

with fish population sites and were chosen to be representative of the habita't present in that stream reach in

terms of pool/riffle ratio, shading, bank s tab i l i ty , etc. Two methodologies were used in assessing fish habi tat :

I) a modified version of the U.S. Forest Service RI/R4 (R l /R/4) Fish and Fish Habitat Standard Inventory

Procedures Handbook (Overtoil el al. I 997), and EPA's Rapid Bioassessine.nl Protocols (R.B?) for Use in

Streams and Rivers (Barbour el al. 1998).

CEC used the same def ini t ions for habi ta t types and methodologies described in the original R1/R4

procedures (Overtoil ci al. 1997), but modified the field form and s imp l i f i ed the number of parameters

measured (CEC 1999). Field s a m p l i n g consisted of iden t i fy ing and measuring the habi ta t types present wi th in

each study reach. For the upper Arkansas River s tudy sites, hab i ta t s were divided in to six types: I)

Preliminary Report of tiioloaicul Daia Chadwick Ecological Consulianis. Inc.Pave- A -7 " February 2003

high gradient riffle [IIGR], 2) low gradient riffle [LGR], 3) run [RUN], 4) lateral scour pool [LSI'], 5) mid-

channel pool [MCP], and 6) plunge pool [PP]. Measurements made within each habitat type included length,

welted width, bank width, average depth, maximum depth, substrate type, percent surface fines, percent

undercut band, length of eroding bank, and type of bank vegetation.

Further evaluation of physical instream and riparian habitat features were performed following EPA's

RBP method (Harbour c-v at. 1999). Habitat parameters are divided into three principal categories; primary,

secondary, and tertiary. Primary parameters are expected to have the greatest direct influence on the resident

communities and include characterization of the bottom substrate and available instream cover, estimation of

cmbcddcdncss. and current velocity and depth regime. These parameters are scored on a scale of 0-20.

Secondary parameters relate to channel morphology and include sediment deposition, channel flow status,

channel alteration, and frequency of riffles. The secondary parameters are also scored on a scale of 0-20.

Tertiary parameters concentrate on the riparian zone by evaluating bank stability, bank vegetation, and width

of the riparian /.one. The tertiary parameters have a score range of 0-10 for each band (0-20 for each

category). Scores from each category were developed for each site and added for a total condition rating by

site.

A P P E N D I X B

Fish Population Data

Pivliminarv Ri-pon of Biological Duhi

/•'«£<• B - I

Chadwick Ecological Consultants. Inc.Fehruarv 2003

Sue AR-ISpring

Year

1 994

1994

1 998

1 998

2000

2000

Silt- A R - I

Species

Brown iroul

CuUhroai irot.ilBrook iroul

Brown iroulBrook iroul

Brown iroul

Number

Captured

9814

1783

83

Density

(///ha)

7796

251.244

17520

Biomass

(kg/ha)

49.8

0.81.5

88.3

1.742.9

Mean

Length

(mm)

183270159170230185

Mean

Weight

(8)64

1406171

10182

Mean Wr

79.9--

79.392.877.588.5

Mean K

0.870.711.741.070.811.03

Late Summer'Kall

Year

1994

1 994

1 996

1 996

1 997

1 997

1 999

1 999

1 999

2001

2001

2002

2002

Species

Brook IroulBrown I rout

Brook iroulBrown iroulBrook Iroul

Brown iroul

Brook iroul

Brown Iroul

Rainbow iroul

Brook iroulBrown iroul

Brook iroul

Brown iroul

Number

Captured

3155

IS136

9

1526

2161

13237

1436

Density

(///ha)

191.105

110947

671.220

331.244

672

1 .394

7

3.075

Biomass

(kg/ha)

O.I87.3

0.484.4

1 . 199.9

0.678.3

0.9O.I

100.4

0.4

1 5 3 . 1

Mean

Length

(mm)

SO194

7518883

17191

152276

651671 8 1145

Mean

Weight

(s)5

794

8916822063

1552

7259

50

Mean Wr

.

87.0--

93.198.390.198.294.667.9

--

97.896.889.0

Mean K

1.010.960.860.991.02

0.980.900.920.740.700.960.990.94

Prc/iniiiuirv ftc/Mi'i nj liiologinil Dalit

PUV.L- B - J

Chadwick Ecological Coimillanix. Inc.

Februarv 2003

Site A R - 1 2Kail

Year

1 994

1994

1 996

1996

Species

Brook iroul

Brown iroul

Brook iroul

Brown iroul

Number

Captured

i.5

62

7

75

Density

(///ha)

20

45154

632

Biomass

(kg/ha)

0.641.9

2.062.2

Mean

Length

(mm)

147

201

141

205

Mean

Weight

(8)29

93

38

98

Mean Wr

87.994.594.192.4

Mean K

0.901.030.931.01

Prt'liininarv Rujion <>/ tiiological Oak:

I'(1KL' B - .?

Clwdwick Ecological Cviisitliaiim. Inc.

Fehruarv 2003

Site AR-2Spring

Year Species

1 994 Brown trout

Site AR-2Kail

Year Spceies

1 994 Brook irom1994 Brown iron I

NumberCaptured

IS

NumberCaptured

3137

Density(///ha)

247

Density

(/(Vlia)

381 .798

Biomass(kg/ha)

14.0

Biomass(kg/ha)

1.9

107.8

MeanLength

(mm)

166

MeanLength

(mm)

1 141 7 1

MeanWeight Mean Wr

<s)57 89.9

MeanWeight Mean Wr

is)49 1 1 3 . 960 90.8

Mean K

0.94

Mean K

1 . 1 80.99

Preliminary Report of Biological Data

Page B - 4

Chadwick Ecological Consultants. Inc.February 2003

Site AR-3ASpring

Year

1994

1 994

1 998

1 99H

1 998

20(K)

2000

Species

Brook troul

Brown iroul

Brook iroul

Brown iroul

Longnose Sucker

Brook iroul

Brown iroul

Number

Capiurcd

32

1438

11036

Densirv

(///lia)

181274

2225

63225

Biomass

(kg/ha)

1.30.95.25.60.21.5

1 3 . 1

Mean

Length

(mm)

1821601 7 11 1 7157123

160

MeanWeight

is)717770253623

58

Mean Wr

87.282.994.495.2

--

7,8.087.9

Mean K.

0.830.850.810.680.930.74

0.96

Site AR-3ALate Summer/Full

Year

1 994

1 994

1 994

1 996

1 996

1 996

1 996

1 997

1 997

1 999

1 999

2001

2001

2001

2002

2002

Species

Brook iron!

Brown iron 1

Rainbow Iroul

Brook troul

Brown iroul

Cuttliroai iroul

Rainbow iroul

Brook Iroul

Brown iroul

Brook iroul

Brown iroul

Brook iroul

Brown Iroul

Rainbow iroul

Brook iroul

Brown troul

Number

Captured'

730

2

1745

16

1635

77512

1251

26265

Density

(///ha)

30130

9

98272

53385

20643

50669

7866

2052094

Biomass

(kg/ha)

4.1

16.1

3.05.2

27.9

1.410.4

6.615.7

1 . 133.8

5.168.3

O.I17.7

164.4

Mean

Length

(mm)

2022013 1 1

133186291294

1631631 13

162175174133184177

MeanWeight

(B)136124338

53103275315

77762667748722

86.278.5

Mean Wr

1 1 1.597.5

100.8105.6100.698.3

113.6101.087.8

106.397.9

100.498.8

—

105.194.6

Mean K

1.181.061 . 1 31.011.071 .121.231 .040.950.991.071.041.040.94

1.081.03

I'lvliiiiiniirv Kcfinrl a/ tiinl(i\iic'ul Dulu

I\W K - .1

Chutlwick Ecological Cnnxulianis. Inc.: 2003

Site AR-4Spring

Year

1 994

1 9981 998I99S200020002000

Sue AR--1

Species

Brown troi.ilBrook iron IBrown I routCuiihroai iroulBrook iroulBrown IroulCullliroal iroul

NumberCaplurecl

445

62I2

SOI

Density(///ha)

26817

25537

3094

Biomass(kg/ha)

46.50.3

58.60.9O.I

46.9

1. 9

MeanLength

(mm)

225I 18246322127210358

MeanWeight

(B)174

19230285

15152469

Mean Wr

83.784.986.7

-

72.987.895.0

Mean K

0.970.84

0.850.850.730.891.02

L;iie Summer'Kall

Year

1 9941 994

1 9941 9941 9961 9961 9971 9971 9971 9971 9991 9991 9992 00 12001

200 12002200220002002

Species

Brook iroulBrown iroulCutiliroal iroulRainbow iroulBrook iroulBrown iroulBrook iroulBrown iroulCullliroal iroulRainbow iroulBrook iroulBrown iroulCullliroal iroulBrook iroulBrown iroulRainbow iroulBrook iroulBrown troulRainbow iroulLongnose Suckei

NumberCaptured

I249

II4

888

I I 3Ii9

1452

10235

I

1 3869

II

Density(///ha)

51 .363

55

I 5377

27622

33

32575

735

8923

523579

44

Biomass(kg/ha)

0.05122.7

1. 62. 1O.I

56.80.5

70. 11. 20.61. 5

SI. 23.91. 6

1 65. 11. 8

4.4 1285.6

2.90.04

MeanLength

(mm)

1121813753 2 1

89

20290

1623222571291883571 2 1224382197142

413114

MeanWeight

(8)9

90422316

61 5 1

191 1 338519946

1 4 1

55646

185586

8580

7289

Mean Wr

--

92.4--

84.8

90.2

120.193.4

100.6108.2102.696.2

105.5102.59 1 .9

96.197.792.8

94.3

--

Mean K

--

1.010.80

0.960.780.951.251.011 . 1 51 .170.871.001.220.910.961.051.011.00

1.030.61

Pn'liniinarv Ke/mi'l <>/ Bio/ogicii/ Dulu Cliadwick Ecological Consultants. Inc.

Fehruaiy 2003

Site AR-5Spring

Year

1994

• 1 994

1 99S

1 998

1 998

20(X)

Site AR-5

Species

Brook troul

Brown irout

Brook iroul

Brown iroui

Cuilhroal iroul

Brown trout

Number

Captured

136

150

154

Density

(///ha)

4179

31 63

3183

Biomass

(kg/ha)

0.537.6

0.4

40.6

0.140.0

Mean

Length

(mm)

238209252264

183265

Mean

Weight

(g)

1 1 22101 18

24947

219

Mean Wr

79.989.670.7

84.3

85.0

Mean K

0.830.930.740.890.770.92

Late Summer/Fall

Year

1 994

1 994

1994

1997

1997

' 1 997

1 999

1 999

1 999

200!

2001

2001

2001

2002

2002

2002

2002

Species

Brook iroui

Brown iroui

Rainbow iroui

Brown trout

Cuttliroal trout

Rainbow trout

Brown trout

Rainbow troutLongnosc sucker

Brook iroul

Brown trout

Rainbow iroul

Longnosc sucker

Brown Iroul

Cuilhroal iroul

Rainbow troul

Longnosc sucker

Number

Captured

793

181

5I

77111

13532

12322

1

Densirv

(///ha)

223 1 5

3294

163

299334

5771 18

557994

Biomass

(kg/ha)

2.648.8

0.03

59.4

3.32.0

56.2

2.40.1

0.02

83.2

4.8O.I

67.8

1.50.7

0.05

Mean

Length

(mm)

2072 1 598.

244

26741024444216674

208304

91

1982461841 1 2

Mean

Weight

(a)1 1 9155

10202

205665188808

474

144432

8122164

7613

Mean Wr

101.295.9

--

90.479.4

88.192.085.2

---

102.196.8

--

97.698.9

109.1--

Mean K

1.051.04

—

0.980.950.961.000.94

1.030.991.081.050.961.061.101.200.93

Preliminary Report af Kiolngical DataPaKL> B - 7

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Febntan' 2003

Brown Trout- Fall 199440

35

30

25

20

1 5 -

10

5

0

AR-1

Q)*-U

_0)

"oo1_o-Q

E3

40

35

30

25

20

1 5 -

10

5

0

40

35

30

25-

20-

15

105

0

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

AR-3A

• : : I ' i : ; i i . ! i : ; • ' : i 'o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

AR-4

o o o oS o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oc o r » o o o > O i - c s j c o T t m ( O h - oo cr> o T-

oooooooooooooooooooooooooo

AR-5

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oo o oT - c ^ r o

o o o o o oT- r»j ro in to

Length (mm)

KIGLUli B-l: Length frequency histograms for brown trout on the mainstem Arkansas River, 1994.

Preliminary Report of Biological DataPage R - 8

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Febmarv 2003

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Brown Trout- Fall 1996

AR-1

1 . ; : • i i 1 \ \ :. i 'O O O O O O O O O O Q O O O O O O O O '

i i i i i i i i n i i n i n i i fO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O '

T30)

oo0)

I3

40-

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

AR-3A

• ' ; ' . ' . i i i : i ! I I i 1 , I i 1 : ; I ' : , ' ;o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

AR-4

^ • l O C O b - C O O O i - f J C O ^. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Length (mm)

KIGL'Kli B-2: Length frequency histograms for brown trout on the mainslcm Arkansas River, 1996.

Preliminary Report of Biological DataHas>e K - 9

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Fchruarv 2003

Brown Trout- Late Summer 199740

35

30

25

20

15

10

5 -

AR-1

0 ' ' [ • i r n i ' i r ^ ' • ' i r n i i n i i i i i i i r n i i r ~ i i r ,o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

40

35 AR-3A30

25

20

15

"2 10o 5

0) n _ - - - —^_ - - - - -— . ! , , i : ' TT1 I I i I I [~1 i i i T i i i > i i iQ O O O O O O O O G O O O O O O G O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O G O O O

1_ 40

-a 35 AR.4£ 3 0 M K *

* "n-15 -

10

5

0 ill jig Us* mvAO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O

40

: AR-525-

20

15

10

5

0o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

Length (mm)

I-'IGLRK B-3: Length frequency histograms for brown trout on the mainslem Arkansas River. I997.

Preliminary Report of Biological DataPave ti - 10

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Februarv 2003

Brown Trout- Late Summer 199940

35

30-

25

20

15

10

5

AR-1

T3OJ*->O

40

35

30 -

25

20

15

10

5

= 0

Oow 40-

AR-3A

: ' i i ! ! i i ~ i i l lo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

I i I I I ! I I I lo o o o o o o o o o

0)JDE3

35 -

30

25 -

20

15

10

5

AR-4

I I " i l l I I I l i ; I TO O O O O O O O G O O O G O O O O O O O O O O O O

: ' i i i i i i i i i i i iO O O O O O O O O O O O O O'

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

AR-5

O O O O O O O O O O O O G O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O- - -

Length (mm)

i B-4: Length frequency histograms for brown trout on the mainstem Arkansas River, 1999.

Preliminary Report of Kiological DataPave B- II

Chadwick Ecological Consitlianis, Inc.February 2003

Brown Trout- Late Summer 200140

35

30

25

20

15-

10

5

AR-1

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o . o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

40

35 AR-3A30

25

20

15

"O 5Q)

O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o^ j u " > y 5 i > - c o a > O T - c M f O T r i / > c o r " - c o O T o » - r N c ' ' > * t i n ( £ > r * - e o a > o * - e N i c O T t m Q £ > r ' - c o O T O * - r g r i T j m i o

I » AR-4E 30

D 25

Z 20

15

10

5

0 '] '• '• ' . '] '• ; " T " T i : i ; r i i i i"\ r i i i ni i i :"i ri i i rio o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

40

"- AR-525

20

15

10

5

0 , , , ^-, . , : , , ; p^ | | ; i ; | |—| | — ; | |—] ; p

o o o o o o o o o o o c ^ o o o o c ^ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

Length (mm)

l-'IGLRli B-5: Length frequency hisiograms for brown iroul on (he mainslem Arkansas River. 2001.

Preliminarv Report nj'Kiulngical DataHave B- 12

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Febniarv 2003

Brown Trout- Late Summer 2002180160140

120100

8060

40

20

AR-1

i : ^' r T I • I Til I I I ! I I ! I I I I I MM I M !o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

-

180160140-120

10080

"D 60<1) 40

"O 20

"oo,_ 180

<J> 160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

AR-3A

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oT r i n t o r - . c o a > o * - c M « 3 m < p ^ ( O o o T - c M M T f t n < c r ^ c o o o i ^ c M c O T t i n i 0 r ~ o o a > O T - c M f > T t i n t 0

3AR-4

Istawi^mtM M M I M I I i Mil II II II I I I I I i II M I I I I M I I i

3 O G O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

AR-5

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oi I1 Ml 1 in I I I I I I I I M I M M MG O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Length (mm)

l- 'ICLKIi B-6: Length frequency histograms for brown iroul on the mainstem Arkansas River , 2002.

Prcliminan' Report of Hiological DataPage- H - 13

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Fehniarv 2003

3001994 m 1998 $j 2000

AR-1 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

m 2002Late Summer/Fall

AR-1 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

FIGURE B-7: Mean brown iroui length from spring (lop) and lale summer/fall (boltom) sampling in iheArkansas River.

rv Report of biological DataPaw H- 14

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Fehruarv 2003

250

O)

AR-1 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

250

200

D)'« 150

3O

c

I

100

m 1994 m 1996 1997 O 1999 2001 m 2002

Late Summer/Fall

AR-1 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

FIGURE B-8: Mean brown iroul weight from spring (lop) and late summer/fall (bottom) sampling in theArkansas River.

Preliminary Report of Kiologicat DataPave R - IS

Chatlwick Eculogical Consultants, Inc.Febniarv 2003

AR-1 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

1994 m 1996 ® 1997 H 1999 ^ 2001 § 2002

AR-1 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

FIGURE B-9: Mean brown trout condition factor from spring (top) and late summer/fall (bottom) samplingin the Arkansas River.

Prcliminarv Report oftiinlogical DataPayc tt - Id

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Febniarv 2003

140

CO

AR-1 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

140

~ 130O)

'55 120

a; 110>

2 100a)1 90

2 80

I 70om eo

50

1994 m 1996 S 1997 m 1999 ^ 2001 H 2002

Late Summer/Fall

AR-1 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

FIGLKIi B-10: Mean brown iroui relative weight from spring (top) and late summer/fall (bottom)sampling in the Arkansas River.

A P P E N D I X C

Fish Habitat Data

Prcliininuiy Report of Biological Data

P(JgL' C - /

Chadwick Ecological Consultants. Inc.

Fcbniarv 2003

Site A K - 1

Ku 1 1

Parameters

Number of habitat units

'I'otal length (ft)

Total area (tr)Riffle

Number of units

Percent area

Avg. wetted width ( f t )

Avg. depth (ft)

Avg. maximum depth (ft)

Avg. % fines

Avg. % undercut

RunNumber of units

Percent area

Avg. wetted width (ft)Avg. depth (ft)

Avg. maximum depth (ft)

Avg. % fines

Avg. % undercut

PoolNumber of units

Percent area

Avg. wetted width (ft)

Avg. depth (ft)

Avg. maximum depth (ft)

Avg. % fines

Avg. % undercut

Dominant substrate

RHP Total Score

1 998

6553

15,495

367.8

280.81.5127

332.2

25.7

1.21.822

5

0--

---------

Cobble

165

1 999

6558

16,297

370.4

30.3

1.21.5

S7

329.6

241.2l.S20

5

0--

--------~

Cobble

166

2000

6555

19,137

371.830.7

0.91.7

88

328.2

26.7

1.22

177

0—

—----—--

Cobble

166

2001

6555

20,835

373.3

380.71.5

87

326.7

26.7

0.91.9158

0—

---------

Cobble

166

2002

6550

19,278

370.2

370.71.3

88

329.823.7

0.9l .S158

0—

—————

Cobble

166

Prelim/nan' Report of Biological DataPaxc C - 2

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.February 2003

Site A R- 12

Fall

Par a meters

Number of habitat unitsTotal length (ft)

Total area (fr)Riffle

Number of units

Percent area

Avg. wetted width (ft)

Avg. depth ( f t )

Avg. maximum depth (ft)

Avg. % fines

Avg. % undercut

RunNumber of units

Percent area

Avg. wetted width ( f t )

Avg. depth (ft)

Avg. maximum depth (ft)

Avg. % fines

Avg. % undercut

Pool

Number of unitsPercent area

Avg. wetted width (ft)

Avg. depth (ft)

Avg. maximum depth (ft)Avg. % fines

Avg. % undercut

Dominant substrate

RBP Total Score

1998

77 1 1

22,906

482.8

34.8

0.81.4

100

2

1326.5

11.7133

14.2

181.52.91020

Cobble

167

1 999

7708

22,334

483.3

33.8

0.71.4

80

2

1 2 . 1

25.51

1.8130 .

14.6

181.52.91010

Cobble

166

2000

9704

20,150

574.5

29.80.9

1.77

3

320.7

26.3

12

107

14.8

18l .S2.71020

Cobble

167

2001

9684

20,789

574.6

3 10.7

1.562

321.3

300.71.9105

14.1

171.42.52020

Cobble

167

2002

9684

16,976

56824

0.71.4

62

325.4

27.3

0.71.8

S5

16.6261.4

2.62520

Cobble

167

Preliminary Report of Biological Dula

Pa»c C - .?

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.

February 2003

Site AR-2

Fall

Parameters

Number of habitat units

Total length (f t)

Total area (Ir)

Riffle

Number of unitsPercent area

Avg. wetted width (f t )

Avg. depth (ft)

Avg. maximum depth (ft)

Avg. % finesAvg. % undercut

Kun

Number of units

Percent area

Avg. wetted width (ft)

Avg. depth (ft)

Avg. maximum depth (ft)

Avg. % fines

Avg. % undercut

Pod

Number of unitsPercent urea

Avg. wetted width ( f t )Avg. depth (ft)

Avg. maximum depth (ft)

Avg. % fines

Avg. % undercut

Dominant substrate

RHP Total Score

1998

13593

10.879

4

19.4

22

0.7

1.313

36

5

46.316.4

1.2

2 .1

2 1

29

4

34.3

19.8

1.6

2.7

2841

Cobble174

-

1999

13

606

11,242

4

18.4

21

0.7

1.2

1 1

36

5

43.3

15.81.4

2.3

19

32

4

38.3

20.3

1.6

2.8

2639

Cobble

175

2000

12

545

1 0,5 1 0

5

15.4

20.2

0.9

1.52

27

347.1

17

1.5

2.3

13

38

4

37.5

20.81.9

2.7

36

40

Cobble

172

2001

12

547

10,613

5

13.3

20.4

0.7

1.3

3

18

3

44.7

16

1.2

2.2

9

40

4

42

22.5

1.8

2.7

34

35

Cobble

172

2002

1 1

549

10,940

4

16 .1

20

0.7

1.4

5

18

3

41

16.7

1.2

6.5

12

42

4

42.9

23

1.8

2.8

35

35

Cobble

172

Preliminary Rcpon of Hiolu^ical Data

Page C- 4

Chatlwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.

h'ehritarv 2003

Site AR-3A

Kail

Parameters

Number of habitat units

Total length (ft)

Total area (1r)

RjffleNumber of units;

Percent area

Avg. wetted width (ft)

Avg. depth (ft)

Avg. maximum depth ( f t )

Avg. % fines

Avg. % undercut

RunNumber of units

Percent area

Avg. wetted width (ft)

Avg. depth ( f t )

Avg. maximum depth ( f t )

Avg. % fines

Avg. % undercut

PoolNumber of units

Percent area

Avg. wetted width (ft) •

Avg. depth ( f t )

Avg. maximum depth (ft)

Avg. % fines

Avg. % undercut

Dominant substrate

REP Total Score

1 998

5725

21,026

2

47.3

360.61.5153

352.7

24.7

1.42.73333

0----

--------

Cobble

164

1999

5

74022.230

2

54.2

410.61.4

10-i.)

345.8

22.3

1.32.73027

0----

--------

Cobble

166

2000

5692

2 1 , 1 6 1

2

42.9

36.5

0.82

88

357.127.7

1.4

2.63332

0----

--------

Cobble

166

2001

5720

21,646

2

54.1

390.81.9

88

345.9

23.7

1.32.9

2532

0----

--------

Cobble

166

2002

5706

1 9,249

2

50.9

35.5

0.51.2

5S

349.1

22

12.52733

0----

--------

Cobble

166

' Rc/iorl of fiitilogicul DuluC - 5

Chat/wick Ecological Consultants, Inc.h'chruarv 2003

Site AK-4

Fall

Parameters

Number of habitat units

Total length (ft)

Total area (fr)Riffle

Number of units

Percent area

Avg. wetted width ( f t )

Avg. depth (f t)

Avg. maximum depth (ft)

Avg. % fines

Avg. % undercut

Run

Number of units

Percent area

Avg. wetted width ( f t )

Avg. depth (ft)

Avg. maximum depth (ft)

Avg. % fines

Avg. % undercut

Pool

Number of unitsPercent area

Avg. wetted width (ft)

Avg. depth (ft)

Avg. maximum depth (ft)

Avg. % fines

Avg. % undercut

Dominant substrate

RMP Total Score

1 998

7

915

42.368

-,.)

40.5

58.30.9

1.7

10

0

3

53.5

39.3

2.2

3.6

15

40

16

58

I.I2

50

50

Cobble

167

1999

6

92238,674

3

34.3

57.3

0.81.6

10

0

2

58.8

41.52

3.4

13

45

16.9

58

1.5

2.6

50

50

Cobble

167

2000

6

901

44,147

3

27.852.7

1

1.8

8

3

2

65.6

51 .5

2.2

3.5

15

48

1

6.6

69

1.63

50

50

Cobble

163

2001

8

814

33,584

3

24.2

52.7

0.6

1.3

5

3

3

63.2

38.3

1.6

3.3

13

33

2

12.6

47

2.1

3.9

28

33

Cobble

163

2002

8

822

30,588

3

26.7

47.7

0.6

1.4

5

3

3

60.9

212.4

44.5

2.1

3.3

30

33

Cobble

163

Prt'liminaiy Rcpnrl oj Biological Dm a

PaxL-C- ft

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.

h'chruarv 2003

Site- AR-5

Fall

Parameters

Number of habitat units

Total length (ft)

Total area (tr)Riffle

Number of unitsI'ercent area

Avg. wetted width (ft)

Avg. depth (ft)Avg. maximum depth (ft)

Avg. % fines

Avg. % undercut

RunNumber of unitsI'ercent area

Avg. wetted width (ft)

Avg. depth (ft)Avg. maximum depth (ft)

Avg. % fines

Avg. % undercut

Pool

Number of unitsPercent area

Avg. wetted width (ft)

Avg. depth ( f t )Avg. maximum depth (ft)

Avg. % fines

Avg. % undercut

Dominant substrateRUP Total Score

1998

7712

33,103

4

40.8

55.81

1.55

10

35'). 2

41.7

1.42.8

132

0--

--

--------

Cobble

168

1 999

7722

33,523

4

41.6

561

1.65

10

358.4

411.42.8

133

0—--

--------

Cobble

168

2000

7717

31,726

4

38.5

561

1.84

9

361.5

411.93.1107

0--

--

--------

Cobble

168

2001

7718

30,803

439.1

48.9

0.61.6

5

8

360.9

39.7

1.53

138

0--

--

--------

Cobble

169

2002

7720

31,107

4

38.6

50.3

0.71.5

56

361.4

39.7

1.32.8

158

0—

--

--------

Cobble

169

A P P E N D I X D

Macroinvertebnite Population Data

Prcliminuiy Rcpon oj Biological DataPage I) - I

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.h'ehruarv 2003

Si teAR- lSpring

YEAR

Density (tt/nv)

Number of Taxa

DiversityNumber of F-PT Taxa% Mayflies

% \ lepiaycniidsNumber of

hphemcroptcra TaxaNumber of Plccoptcra

TaxaNumber of Tricoptera

Taxa

Metal Intolerant TaxaNumber of (.'linger

Taxa

% Scrapers

1994

1 ,249

313.24

16

5122

6

4

2

7

159

1995

5.60049

3.83

2742

16

1 1

8

7

9

24

14

1996

10,37041

3.44

23

25

8

s

6

7

7

174

1997

5,136

36

3.33

17

2714

5

5

3

6

124

1998

4,98242 -

3.5522

32

12

7

7

7

8

195

1 999

3,677

33

3.48

2059

17

7

5

6

9

174

2000

3,32044

4.03

20

43

28

7

6

6

10

21

6

2001

12,239

42

4.17

21

38

10

9

5

6

10

18

5

Site AR- I

Fall

YF.AR

Density (#/nv)

Number ot'TaxaDiversity

Number of KPT Taxa

% Mayflies

% HeptagcniidsNumber of

Hphemeroptera TaxaNumber of Plecnptera

TaxaNumber of Trieopiera

Taxa

Metal Intolerant TaxaNumber ot'Clinger

Taxa

% Scrapers

1 994

6,329

47

3.8529

409

9

5

1 1

9

24

3

1995

1,94030

3.27

15

5533

5

1

4

5

132

1996

7,96754

3.93

315617

10

9

1 1

10

22

3

1 997

3.34539

3.32

235327

7

7

8

8

192

1998

4,71354

3.86

335528

9

8

9

8

22

8

1999

4,28452

3.65

28

4628

7

8

9

8

21

17

2000

7,33053

3.8825

38

18

8

6

8

1 1

2 1

6

2001

1,67858

3.92

354219

8

7

10

10

23

7

Prcliininurv Report of Biological DataPage D- 2

Chaclwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.h'cbruarv 2003

Site A R - 1 2Spring

YEAR 1994

Density (H/nr)

Number ot'TaxaDiversityNumber of IvPT Taxa% Mayflies% lleptageniidsNumber of

hphemeroptera TaxaNumber of Pleeoptera

TaxaNumber of Trieoptcra

Taxa

Metal Intolerant TaxaNumber ot'Clinjjcr

Taxa(I/ (.•/o Scrapers

Site AR-12Fall

YKAK 1994

Density (tf/nr) 2,791Number of Taxa 36

Diversity 3.1.1Number of LPT Taxa 22% Mavflies 49% Heptageaiids 1 1Number of

F.phemeroptera Taxa 7Number of Plecopiera

Taxa 5Number of Tncoptera

Taxa 6

Metal Intolerant Taxa 8Number of Clinger

Taxa 20% Serapers 1

1995

4,40746

4.02

26

40

16

9

8

9

10

25

1 5

1995

1,67332

3.20

1649

36

5

4

3

6

137

1996

4,594

31

3.6817

421 1

6

6

4

5

15<l

1 996

3,07746

3.77

2342

20

6

7

7

7

204

1997

1,685

30

3.68

1829II

6

4

5

7

1.3

1997

68525

2.2314

78

5

4

1

3

4

7<l

1998

1 , 1 1 634

3.86

21

337

7

6

3

7

13

1998

3, 1 9445

3.49

23

63

13

8

4

7

8

17

9

1999

2,06929

3.51

1954

14

9

4

5

9

18

1 999

2,86040

3.77

2352

22

7

8

8

8

22

16

2000

4,50753

4.38

2544

25

7

4

8

9

1914

2000

2,41944

3.66

2559

32

9

7

7

10

19

7

2001

3,611

45

4.1822

5324

8

5

7

10

191 i

2001

3,48458

4.04315422

10

5

9

1 1

23

II

Pri'liiniiiuiy Kepnri offtinlrigic.al Duia

Pa»L- D - .?

Chadwick flculogical Cnnxullanm, Inc.

Februarv 2003

Site AR-2Spring

YHAR

Density (#/nr)

Number of TaxaDiversity

Number of KPT Taxa"/a May flies

% lleptageniidsNumber of

Ephemcroptera TaxaNumber of Plecopteru

'I'axaNumber of Trieopteni

Taxa

Metal Intolerant TaxaNumber of Clinger

Taxa

% Scrapers

1 994

6622S

3.1 114

59

21

6

4

3

7

14

6

1995

3,538

48

3.6827

47

32

10

9

5

10

24

18

1 996

1 , 1 7 1

373.41

16

48

30

4

4

3

5

1 12

1 997

5,335

37

3.6021

32

21

7

5

7

8

16

10

1 998

3,020

43

' 3.66

2749

33

10

6

7

9

22

13

1 999

2,20527

3.571954

26

8

4

6

8

1714

2000

1,543

52

4.4627

32

16

7

8

6

7

19

7

2001

10,158

46

4.3825

35

21

7

7

7

9

21

S

Site AR-2

Kail

YHAR

Density (#/nv)

Number ot'TaxaDiversity

Number of KPT Taxa

% Mayflies

% HcptageniidsNumber of

Hphemeroptera TaxaNumber of Plecopiera

'I'axaNumber of Trieoptera

Taxa

Metal Intolerant TaxaNumber of Clinger

Taxa

% Serapers

1994

93335

3.49

24

46

20

7

5

5

7

152

1995

1,13826

3 . 1 7

15

45

23

5

2

3

5

1 1

1

1996

2,38129

3.3517

5121

7

6

4

5

15

5

1997

1 ,94836

3.32

2264

32

5

6

6

6

15

6

1 998

3.92S42

3.4129

52

28

8

7

6

8

17

10

1 999

3,164

43

3.51

2863

36

12

9

6

II

22

17

2000

4,37146

3.42

27

5627

7

8

9

9

20

8

2001

3.08353

3.52

28

53

35

8

8

6

9

19

10

PrL'liminurv Rcporl of Biological Dulu Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.

Page D - 4 February 2003

Site AR-3A

Spring

YEAR

Density (#/nv)

Number of Taxa

DiversityNumber of HPT Tux a

% Mayflies% 1 le.piage.rii idsNumber of

Ephemeroptera TaxaNumber of Plecoptera

TaxaNumber of Tricoptera

'I'axa

Metal Intolerant TaxaNumber of C' linger

'I axa

% Scrapers

1994

522

37

4 .15

2 1

IS4

4

4

6

6

16

32

1995

13,24134

3.1020

1

0

3

8

7

6

IS

S

1996

2,71332

3 . 1 3

17

10<1

4

5

5

7

132

1 997

2,98632

2.8314

1

0

2

6

4

4

II1

1998

1,68332

3.17

172

0

2

7

4

5

121

1 999

3,05427

2.65

18

160

4

9

5

6

15

IS

2000

' 12,94641

3.61

23

6<l

4

8

8

6

209

2001

8.214

43

4.0022

30

5

5

8

7

7

20

16

Site A R -3 AFall

YEAR

Density (rf/m:)

Number of TaxaDiversityNumber of F.PT Taxa% Mayflies% 1 leptageniidsNumber of

Ephemeroptera TaxaNumber of Pleeoptera

'I'axaNumber of Tricoptera

"I'axa

Metal Intolerant TaxaNumber of Clinger

Taxu% Scrapers

1994

6,6863 1

3.3116

5

0

4

5

7

4

163

1995

2,331

3 1

3 .2117

20

3

6

4

7

6

155

1 996

4,90134

3.9317

26<l

5

5

5

5

13

S

1997

4,55837

3.89

2039

6

4

6

S

6

159

1998

4,03648

3.6526

15<l

6

8

S

1

2015

1999

4,93741

3.9322

47

13

5

7

7

7

1813

2000

8,68647

4.07

2544

8

7

9

7

8

20

IS

2001

7,87060

4.1826

46

15

6

S

8

8

22

21

Preliminary Rc/mrl of 'Biological Data

Page I ) - 5

Chadwick Ecological Con.iulianls, Inc.

f-'ebniarv 2003

Site AR-.113Spring

YKAR 2001

Density (£/m2 10,<)78Number ofTaxaDiversity .1 66Number of I.-PT Taxa 24

% Mayflies 27% I Icptagemids INumber ofF.phemeroptera I ax a 5Number of Plccoptera'I'axa 7Number of Trieoptera' lax a

Metal Intolerant TaxaNumber of ClingerTaxa I')% Scrapers 21

Site AR-3UFal l

YEAR 2000 2001Densiw (/J/m:) I 8,866 10.522Number of Taxa 47 51DiversityNumber of liPT Taxa 26 28"/i Mayflies 27% HeptageniidsNumber of

Ephcmeroptcra TaxaNumber of Plecoptera

TaxaNumber of TrieopteraTaxa

Metal Intolerant TaxaNumber of C'lingerTaxa% Scrapers

1820

2124

Preliminary Rcpon of Biological Dulu Chadwick Ecological Consultants. Inc.

Page' D- 6 February 2003

Site AK-4

Spring

YHAR

Density (f//nr)

Number of TaxaDiversity

Number ofllPT Taxa

% Mayflies

% HeptageniidsNumber of

Kphemeroptera TaxaNumber of Pleeoptera

TaxaNumber of Tricoptera

Taxa

Metal Intolerant TaxaNumber of Clinger

Taxa

% Scrapers

1994

9,803

403.5.1

195

<]

5

2

4

5

121 1

i 995

18.677

383.79

221 !3

6

6

8

7

218

1996

15.57839

3.762 181

6

6

7

7

189

1997

27,952

503.77

294

1

8

1 1

8

8

226

1 998

6,625

453.89

261 14

6

8

7

7

168

1999

1 0,984

433.29

25152

6

7

6

6

1713

2000

14,658

474.02

2315

1

7

7

8

8

18IS

2001

27.899

403.462314

1

6

7

8

7

193

Site AR-4

Kail

YKAK

Density (///m:)

Number of Taxa

Diversity

Number of LPT Taxau/a Mavtlies

% 1 leptageniidsNumber of

Hphemeroptera TaxaNumber of Pleeoptera

TaxaNumber of Trieopiera

Taxa

Metal Intolerant TaxaNumber of Clinger

Taxa% Scrapers

1994

9.47S36

3.66

235

<1

5

8

7

5

177

1 995

4.934

333.56

17147

5

3

6

5

133

1996

14.514

474.15

2310<l

7

7

8

7

17

5

1997

5,73838

3.79

21207

6

5

7

6

156

1998

15,14044

3.80

26141

8

9

7

8

2117

1 999

9, 1 98

343.70

20183

4

3

7

5

1428

2000

26,50160

3.95

2832

1

8

7

9

9

221 1

2001

12.97245

4.18

23194

9

4

8

9

2020

Prcliminuiy Report of Hinlo^if.ul Dulu Chadwick Ecological Cniimtliants, Inc.Pu"t- /.) - 7 February 2003

Site AK-5Spring

YhAR

Density (ti/m:)Number of TaxaDiversityNumber of !• PT Tax a% Mavtlies% lleptageniidsNumber offcphemeroptera TaxaNumber of PlecoptcraTaxaNumber of Tncoptera

'I'axa

Metal Intolerant 'I'axaNumber of Ginger

Taxa% Scrapers

1994

5,50430

2.0416

10

2

3

5

1

1215

1 995

6,04244

2.992575

5

9

7

7

2123

1 996

6.71 136

3.8419

131

4

5

7

5

159

1997

14.94345

3.61232

1

6

8

8

7

2217

1 998

4,99837

3.04204

<1

5

6

S

6

1842

1 999

4,23 138

3.8320191

6

5

6

6

1829

2000

8,65039

3.6720134

5

6

6

7

1748

2001

1 1 ,00943

3.4625101

8

7

8

9

22

32

Site AR-5Fall

YHAR

Density (tf/nr)

Number ot'TaxaDiversityNumber of liPT Taxa% Mayflies% HeptagemidsNumber ofEphemcroptera TaxaNumber of Pleeoptera

TaxaNumber of Tricoptcra

Taxa

Metal Intolerant TaxaNumber of Ginger

Taxa% Serapers

1 994

3.49222

3.0114

1

0

3

4

6

3

127

1 995

2,04831

3.761781

5

5

6

5

143

1996

13,87043

3.392114<1

4

6

7

6

172

1 997

7.44842

3.1422133

5

5

6

5

1440

1 998

6,25341

3.8526212

6

11

6

7

2117

1999

15,33435

3.3920123

4

6

S

6

1733

2000

12,75843

3.3921262

4

6

7

6

1925

2001

8,50654

3.25261 11

5

6

7

6

1734

Preliminary Report of Hit/logical DataPage D -_8

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Fcbn/arv 2003

70

ro 60xro

.aE

50

40

oj 30re.o§ 200)

- 10

SPRING

AR-1

H 1994 m 1996 m 1998 II! 2000M 1995 [1 1997 H 1999 ® 2001

AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

70

re 60xre

•S 500)

| 40

oj 30ro.Q£ 20cu

I 10

FALL

]

19941995

19961997

19981999

II 2000ID 2001

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

l- 'IGLRIi D-l : Total number of laxa by year for mainsiem Arkansas R ive r sites for spring (top) and fa l l(bottom) sampling.

Hrcliniinurv Report of Hiological DaiuPave I) - y

Chadu-ick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Fehrnarv 2003

TO

m 30

AR-1 AR-12 AR- AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

ton

35

30

o0 2012 15O

•+-»

S 10

>c 5

0

FALLm 1995 e 1997 i 1999 13

|

if i , ,n 1

i

2000

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

F I G U R E D-2: Total number ofEFf laxa by year for mainslem Arkansas Rivers i l e s for spring (top) and fa l l(bottom) sampling.

Hrcliininarr Report of Biological DataPage D - It) '

Chadwick Ecological Consultants. Inc.Februarv 2003

15SPRING

H- 12roh_<D->

Q.

2 9CDE

ID

0).0E3

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

15

12

roxra

rak_IV**Q.O0)E

uj 6>4-ol_0)

FALL M 1994 li 1998m 1995 111 1999m 1996 |;1 2000ED 1997 m 2001

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

FIGURE D-3: Total number of Ephemcropiera laxa by year for mainslem Arkansas River sites for springand f a l l sampl ing .

Preliminary Report oJ'Kiological Data Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc.Febrttarv 2003

roxro

cro

ra*-«o>

JO

E3Z

15

12

o g^^ ^

SPRING 199419951996

C3 1997

i 1998i 1999l^20pq_1 2001

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

roxra

cra

(0•*•*(U

0).aE3

15

12

O g*- «/

FALL

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2

FIGURE D-4: Total number of metal intolerant taxa by year for mainstem Arkansas River sites for spring(lop) and fall (bottom) sampling.

Prcliniinarv Report ofKiological Data Chadwick Ecological Consultants. Inc.Fehrnarv 2003

30000

25000

20000

c

Q 15000o>

4>^ro

•g 10000

- 5000

19941995

$ 1998II 1999

8 1996H 1997

20002001

SPRING

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

30000

— 25000

SJ 20000'55c

Q 150009)

-t->fO

•g 10000cO)

- 5000

m 1994Hi 1995m 1996Fj 1997

m 1998 FALLH 1999§1 2000HI 2001

"1

c

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

FIGUKtt D-5: Macroinveitebrate densities by year for mainstem Arkansas River sites for spring (lop) andfall (bottom) sampling.

Preliminary Report of HiPage n - /.V

l Dula Chadwick fcailogit:al Cnnsulianls. Inc.Febniarv 2003

1994 1995 1996 El 1997 ffl 1998 1! 1999 II 2000 El 2001

100

°" 80a>o

•8 60c=3£1< 40

re 20

100

SPRING

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

SPRING

80o>ocro

T3§ 60.0

•Si 40Co>O)J2 20Q.0)X

0

100

If"mmL.etmAR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

SPRING

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

100

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5100

80

FALL

60 |-

40

20

0

100

80

60

AR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

FALL

40 -

20 [II;

UliLilIiAR-1 AR-12 AR-2 AR-3A AR-4 AR-5

FIGURE D-6: Mayfly, heptageniid mayfly, and mayfly (excluding heptageniids) relative abundance by yearfor mainstem Arkansas River sites for spring and fa l l sampling.