U.S. Department of the Interior

Scientific Investigations Report 2006−5307

Prepared in cooperation with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the

Kansas Department of Health and Environment

Sedimentation and Occurrence and Trends of Selected

Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake,

Cherokee County, Kansas, 1905−2005

U.S. Geological Survey

Empire Lake

Galena

Baxter Springs
Sedimentation and Occurrence and Trends 

of Selected Chemical Constituents in

Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Cherokee 

County, Kansas, 1905–2005

By Kyle E. Juracek

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Prepared in cooperation with the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the

Kansas Department of Health and Environment

Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5307
U.S. Department of the Interior

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Mark D. Myers, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2006

For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

For more information about the USGS and its products:

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/

Suggested citation:

Juracek, K.E., 2006, Sedimentation and occurrence and trends of selected chemical constituents in bottom sediment, 

Empire Lake, Cherokee County, Kansas, 1905–2005: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5307, 

79 p.

Back cover: Photographs showing sediment-thickness measurement and sediment coring operations on Empire Lake, 

Cherokee County, Kansas, summer 2005.

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.
 iii

Contents

Abstract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Previous Investigations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Current Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Description of Spring River Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Measurement of Bottom-Sediment Thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Estimation of Bottom-Sediment Volume, Mass, and Constituent Mass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Sediment-Core Collection, Handling, and Processing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Physical Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Chemical Analyses, Quality Control, and Age Dating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Trend Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Sediment-Quality Guidelines and Background Information for Chemical Constituents Selected for Study . . . 13

 Nutrients and Total Organic Carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

 Trace Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Bottom-Sediment Volume and Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Age-Dating Results and Implications for Sediment Transport and Deposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Occurrence of, and Trends in, Selected Chemical Constituents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

 Nutrients and Total Organic Carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

 Cadmium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

 Lead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

 Zinc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

 Other Trace Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Variability of Trace Element Concentrations in Relation to Mining Activity and Other Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

References Cited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Supplemental Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figures

1–4. Maps showing:

1. Location of Empire Lake, Blackberry Hay Farm Lake, the Spring River system, the Cherokee 

County superfund site, and lead and zinc mined areas in the Tri-State Mining District, Kansas, 

Missouri, and Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

2. Location of transect lines, reservoir segments, bottom-sediment coring sites, and flood-plain 

soil sampling sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

3. Mean bottom-sediment thickness along transects, and within two areas, of Empire Lake, July 

and August 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4. Estimated mean bulk density of bottom sediment at coring sites in Empire Lake, 2005 . . . . . . . 19 
iv 

5. Graphs showing variation in cesium-137 activity with depth of bottom-sediment samples collected 

from coring sites E–27 and E–36 in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, and coring site BHF–1 in Blackberry Hay Farm Lake, southwest Missouri, September 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

6. Map showing cadmium concentrations for the composite cores and mean cadmium concentrations 

for the trend cores collected from Empire Lake, 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

7. Graphs showing variation in cadmium concentrations with depth of bottom-sediment samples collected from coring sites E–6, E–27, and E–36 in Empire Lake, August and September 2005 . . . . . . . . . 25

8. Graphs showing cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations with depth of bottom-sediment samples 

collected from coring site BHF–1 in Blackberry Hay Farm Lake, southwest Missouri, September 

2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

9. Map showing lead concentrations for the composite cores and mean lead concentrations for the 

trend cores collected from Empire Lake, 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

10. Graphs showing variation in lead concentrations with depth of bottom-sediment samples collected 

from coring sites E–6, E–27, and E–36 in Empire Lake, August and September 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

11. Map showing zinc concentrations for the composite cores and mean zinc concentrations for the 

trend cores collected from Empire Lake, 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

12. Graphs showing variation in zinc concentrations with depth of bottom-sediment samples collected 

from coring sites E–6, E–27, and E–36 in Empire Lake, August and September 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Tables

1. Description of geographic extent of reservoir segments used for the estimation of total bottomsediment volume in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2. Use of bottom-sediment cores collected from Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3. Chemical analyses performed on bottom-sediment samples from Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, 

Blackberry Hay Farm Lake, southwest Missouri, and soil samples from the Spring River and Shoal 

Creek flood plains, southeast Kansas, 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

4. Relative percentage differences for constituent concentrations in split-replicate samples from 

bottom-sediment cores from Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

5. Sediment-quality guidelines for selected trace elements and associated bioaccumulation 

index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

6. Estimated surface area, mean bottom-sediment thickness, and computed bottom-sediment volume 

in segments of Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, July and August 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

7. Computed bottom-sediment volume, representative bulk density, and computed bottom-sediment 

mass in segments of Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, July and August 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

8. Summary of cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations in bottom-sediment samples collected from 

Empire Lake composite and trend cores, southeast Kansas, and Blackberry Hay Farm Lake trend 

core BHF–1, southwest Missouri, 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

9. Results of trend tests on concentrations of selected trace elements in bottom-sediment samples collected from Empire Lake cores E–6, E–27, and E–36, southeast Kansas, and Blackberry Hay Farm Lake 

core BHF–1, southwest Missouri, August and September 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

A1. Latitude, longitude, depth to lakebed, depth to refusal, and estimated sediment thickness at sedimentthickness measurement sites in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, July and August 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . 40

A2. Latitude and longitude coordinates, water depth, estimated penetration depth, length of recovered 

core, and estimated recovery percentage for bottom-sediment coring sites at Empire Lake, southeast 

Kansas, and Blackberry Hay Farm Lake, southwest Missouri, 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

A3. Results of chemical analyses of reference samples and comparison to most probable values . . . . 53

A4. Cesium-137 and lead-210 activities for bottom-sediment samples collected from coring sites E–27 and 

E–36 in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, and coring site BHF–1 in Blackberry Hay Farm Lake, southwest Missouri, September 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
 v

A5. Estimated bulk density of bottom sediment at coring sites in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, 

2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

A6. Constituent concentrations for bottom-sediment samples collected from coring site E–1 in Empire 

Lake, southeast Kansas, April 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

A7. Percentage of silt and clay and constituent concentrations for bottom-sediment samples collected 

from coring sites E–2, E–4, E–8, E–10, and E–11 in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, April and August 

2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

A8. Percentage of silt and clay and constituent concentrations for bottom-sediment samples collected 

from coring site E–6 in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, August 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

A9. Percentage of silt and clay and constituent concentrations for bottom-sediment samples collected 

from coring sites E–14, E–17, E–19, and E–22 in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, August 2005. . . . . . 66

A10. Percentage of silt and clay and constituent concentrations for bottom-sediment samples collected 

from coring sites E–23, E–24, E–25, and E–26 in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, August and 

September 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

A11. Percentage of silt and clay and constituent concentrations for bottom-sediment samples collected 

from coring sites E–29, E–31, E–32, and E–33 in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, September 2005. . 68

A12. Percentage of silt and clay and constituent concentrations for bottom-sediment samples collected 

from coring site E–27 in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, September 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

A13. Percentage of silt and clay and constituent concentrations for bottom-sediment samples collected 

from coring site E–36 in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, September 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

A14. Percentage of silt and clay and constituent concentrations for bottom-sediment samples collected 

from coring site BHF–1 in Blackberry Hay Farm Lake, southwest Missouri, September 2005. . . . . . . 76

A15. Percentage of silt and clay and constituent concentrations for flood-plain soil samples collected from 

sites SCF–1 and SRF–1 near Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, August 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
vi 

Conversion Factors, Abbreviations, and Datum 

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F = (1.8 x °C) + 32.

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:

°C = (°F - 32) / 1.8.

Datum

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).

Multiply By To obtain

Length

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in.)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.)

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2)

acre 0.4047 hectare (ha)

acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km2)

square foot (ft2) 0.09290 square meter (m2)

square mile (mi2) 259.0 hectare (ha)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

Mass

gram (g) 0.03527 ounce (oz)

gram per cubic centimeter (g/cm3) 62.43 pound per cubic foot (lb/ft3)

microgram per gram (μg/g) 1.0 part per million (ppm)

microgram per liter (μg/L) 1.0 part per billion (ppb)

milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) 1.0 part per million (ppm)

percent concentration 10,000 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg)

pound (lb) 0.4536 kilogram (kg)

pound per cubic foot (lb/ft3) 16.02 kilogram per cubic meter (kg/m3)

Volume

acre-foot (acre-ft) 1,233 cubic meter (m3)

cubic centimeter (cm3) 0.06102 cubic inch (in3)

cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3)

cubic foot (ft3) 2.296 x 10-5 acre-foot (acre-ft)
Sedimentation and Occurrence and Trends of Selected 

Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, 

Cherokee County, Kansas, 1905–2005

By Kyle E. Juracek

Abstract

For about 100 years (1850–1950), the Tri-State Mining 

District in parts of southeast Kansas, southwest Missouri, and 

northeast Oklahoma was one of the primary sources of lead and 

zinc ore in the world. The mining activity in the Tri-State District has resulted in substantial historical and ongoing input of 

cadmium, lead, and zinc to the environment including Empire 

Lake in Cherokee County, southeast Kansas. The environmental contamination caused by the decades of mining activity 

resulted in southeast Cherokee County being listed on the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s National Priority List as a 

superfund hazardous waste site in 1983. To provide some of the 

information needed to support efforts to restore the ecological 

health of Empire Lake, a 2-year study was begun by the U.S. 

Geological Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. A combination of sediment-thickness mapping and bottom-sediment coring was used to investigate sediment 

deposition and the occurrence of cadmium, lead, zinc, and other 

selected constituents in the bottom sediment of Empire Lake. 

The total estimated volume and mass of bottom sediment 

in Empire Lake were 44 million cubic feet and 2,400 million 

pounds, respectively. Most of the bottom sediment was located 

in the main body and the Shoal Creek arm of the reservoir. Minimal sedimentation was evident in the Spring River arm of the 

reservoir. The total mass of cadmium, lead, and zinc in the 

bottom sediment of Empire Lake was estimated to be 

78,000 pounds, 650,000 pounds, and 12 million pounds, 

respectively.

In the bottom sediment of Empire Lake, cadmium concentrations ranged from 7.3 to 76 mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram) 

with an overall median concentration of 29 mg/kg. Compared to 

an estimated background concentration of 0.4 mg/kg, the historical mining activity increased the median cadmium concentration by about 7,200 percent. Lead concentrations ranged from 

100 to 950 mg/kg with an overall median concentration of 

270 mg/kg. Compared to an estimated background concentration of 33 mg/kg, the median lead concentration was increased 

by about 720 percent as a result of mining activities. The range 

in zinc concentrations was 1,300 to 13,000 mg/kg with an 

overall median concentration of 4,900 mg/kg. Compared to an 

estimated background concentration of 92 mg/kg, the median 

zinc concentration was increased by about 5,200 percent. 

Within Empire Lake, the largest sediment concentrations of 

cadmium, lead, and zinc were measured in the main body of the 

reservoir. Within the Spring River arm of the reservoir, 

increased concentrations in the downstream direction likely 

were the result of tributary inflow from Short Creek, which 

drains an area that has been substantially affected by historical 

lead and zinc mining. 

Compared to nonenforceable sediment-quality guidelines, 

all Empire Lake sediment samples (representing 21 coring 

sites) had cadmium concentrations that exceeded the probableeffects guideline (4.98 mg/kg), which represents the concentration above which toxic biological effects usually or frequently 

occur. With one exception, cadmium concentrations exceeded 

the probable-effects guideline by about 180 to about 1,400 percent. With one exception, all sediment samples had lead concentrations that exceeded the probable-effects guideline 

(128 mg/kg) by about 10 to about 640 percent. All sediment 

samples had zinc concentrations that exceeded the probableeffects guideline (459 mg/kg) by about 180 to about 2,700 percent. 

Overall, cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations in the bottom sediment of Empire Lake have decreased over time following the end of lead and zinc mining in the area. However, the 

concentrations in the most recently deposited bottom sediment 

(determined for 4 of 21 coring sites) still exceeded the probableeffects guideline by about 440 to 640 percent for cadmium, 

about 40 to 80 percent for lead, and about 580 to 970 percent for 

zinc. The decrease in concentrations primarily was characterized by a pronounced pre-1954 decline after which time the 

concentrations remained relatively stable. 

Above-background concentrations of cadmium, lead, and 

zinc were measured for soil samples collected from the flood 

plain adjacent to the Spring River and Shoal Creek arms of 

Empire Lake as well as for a soil sample of the submerged flood 

plain in the main body of Empire Lake. For all three trace elements, concentrations in the flood-plain soil samples were similar to or larger than the threshold-effects guidelines, which represent the concentrations above which toxic biological effects 

occasionally occur. For the submerged flood-plain soil sample, 

concentrations of all three trace elements exceeded the 
2 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

probable-effects guideline. Likewise, concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc in exceedance of the probable-effects 

guidelines were measured for recently deposited channel-bed 

sediment in the Spring River immediately downstream from 

Empire Lake. Thus, mining-related cadmium, lead, and zinc 

contamination in the vicinity of Empire Lake was not confined 

to the reservoir bottom sediment. Some of the contaminated 

sediment transported through Empire Lake will be deposited in 

downstream environments likely as far as Grand Lake O’ the 

Cherokees in Oklahoma. 

Introduction

The Spring River Basin drains most of the Tri-State Mining District (hereafter referred to as the Tri-State District) that 

includes parts of southeast Kansas, southwest Missouri, and 

northeast Oklahoma (fig. 1). For about 100 years (1850–1950), 

the Tri-State District was one of the primary sources of lead and 

zinc ore in the world (Brosius and Sawin, 2001). Until 1945, the 

area was the world’s largest producer of lead and zinc concentrates, accounting for 50 percent of the zinc and 10 percent of 

the lead produced in the United States (Gibson, 1972). In the 

Kansas part of the Tri-State District, mining began with the discovery of lead and zinc ore near Galena, Kansas (fig. 1), in the 

1870s and continued for about a century (Clark, 1970; Brosius 

and Sawin, 2001). Over time, particularly in and near the town 

of Galena, the landscape in parts of Cherokee County became 

dominated by open pits, tailings piles, and ore-smelter waste 

dumps. So disturbed was the landscape by mining activity in the 

vicinity of Galena that it came to be known as “Hell’s Half 

Acre” (Brosius and Sawin, 2001). 

Although the mining has stopped and some remediation 

has occurred, the legacy of contaminated sediments in the 

Spring River Basin, including Empire Lake, remains. The environmental contamination caused by the decades of mining 

activity resulted in southeast Cherokee County being listed on 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) 

National Priority List as a superfund hazardous waste site in 

1983 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004). Authority 

for the establishment of superfund sites was given to USEPA 

through provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA; 

U.S. Code Title 42, Chapter 103). The provisions of this act provide a means to assess injured public natural resources through 

the direction and oversight of natural resource trustees. For the 

Cherokee County superfund site, the trustees are the U.S. 

Department of the Interior (DOI) as represented by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the State of Kansas as 

represented by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) with assistance from the Kansas Department of 

Wildlife and Parks. The process by which the trustees assess 

injured resources is known as natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) (Cherokee County Trustee Council, 2004). 

CERCLA required the promulgation of regulations for 

NRDAs, and the responsibility for rule making was given to the 

DOI by Presidential Executive Order 12580 (January 23, 1987). 

DOI regulations and processes for conducting a NRDA are 

detailed in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 43, Part 11, 

which describes the following five major steps: (1) preassessment, (2) assessment planning, (3) injury determination and 

quantification, (4) pathway determination, and (5) damage 

determination and restoration (Cherokee County Trustee Council, 2004). The study described in this report was conducted to 

assist the trustees with the injury determination and quantification step of the Cherokee County superfund site NRDA. 

Concern about environmental contamination in the area 

also was evidenced by the fact that the State of Kansas, in 2004, 

established a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for the Spring 

River Valley to address sediment and water-quality issues 

caused by trace element contamination (Kansas Department of 

Health and Environment, 2004). KDHE, as part of its 2006 fishconsumption advisories, recommended not eating shellfish 

(mussels, clams, and crayfish) from the Spring River (Center 

Creek confluence to Oklahoma State line) and Shoal Creek 

(Missouri State line to Empire Lake) because of cadmium and 

lead contamination (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2006). 

The Spring River Basin is home to the Neosho madtom 

(Noturus placidus), a species of catfish listed as threatened 

under the Endangered Species Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991, 2004). Although still found in the Spring River 

downstream from Empire Lake and in upstream reaches in Missouri, the madtom apparently has been eliminated from the 

Spring River immediately upstream from Empire Lake in Kansas (John Miesner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, oral commun., 2003). The absence of the madtom may be attributable to 

habitat degradation or toxicological effects caused by increased 

concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc in water and sediment resulting from the historical mining activity (Wildhaber 

and others, 1998, 1999, 2000). Other species (for example, mussels) also are at risk (Angelo and others, 2005). 

Historical mining activity also has affected human health. 

For example, Neuberger and others (1990) reported an 

increased occurrence of several health problems for residents of 

Galena, Kansas, that was attributed to mining-related contamination. 

Empire Lake is a reservoir that was formed with the completion of a dam on the Spring River at Lowell, Kansas, in 1905 

(Cherokee County Republican, vol. XII, no. 50, January 12, 

1905) (fig. 1). Including the backwater area in the Spring River 

and Shoal Creek arms upstream from the main body of the reservoir, the surface area of Empire Lake is about 1 mi2. In 

response to a wash out believed to have occurred in 1909, a second dam, referred to as the “bypass,” was completed between 

the towns of Lowell and Riverton, Kansas, in 1913 (Duane Zerr, 

Empire District Electric Company, written commun., 2003). In 

this report, the original and bypass dams will be referred to as 

Lowell Dam and Riverton Dam, respectively. For most of its 

history, Empire Lake has served as a cooling lake for a coalfired powerplant (located on the lake’s west shore) that is currently (2006) owned and operated by the Empire District 
Introduction 3

37°20'

36°50'

37°

10'

94°50’ 40’ 30’ 20’ 94°10’

Oronogo

Carterville

Carterville

Carl Junction

Airport Drive

Joplin

Webb

City

Brooklyn Heights

Fidelity

Carthage

Reeds

Waco

Asbury

Neck City

Purcell Alba

Jasper

Golden City

Avilla

La Russell

Sarcoxie

Wentworth

Duenweg

Diamond

Neosho

Granby

Newtonia

Fairview

Ritchey

Seneca

Baxter Springs

Treece

Picher

Quapaw

Commerce

Cardin

Miami

Wyandotte

Peoria

Weir

Roseland West Mineral

Pittsburg

Columbus

Blackberry Hay

Farm Lake

North Fork Spring River

Spring River

North Fork Spring River

Spring

River Center Creek

Center Creek

Turkey Creek

Shoal Creek

Shoal Creek

Spring River

Neosho River

Grand Lake O’ the Cherokees

Tar Creek

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

MISSOURI

Tar Creek Willow Creek

Brush Creek

Brush Creek

Cow Creek

Cow

Creek

Shawnee Creek

Little Shawnee Creek

Short Creek

Empire Lake

CHEROKEE COUNTY

CRAWFORD COUNTY BARTON COUNTY

JASPER COUNTY

NEWTON COUNTY

OTTAWA COUNTY

EXPLANATION

Tri-State Mining District

Cherokee County superfund site

Lead and zinc mined areas (Brichta, 1960)

Cherokee

0

0 2 4 6 8 KILOMETERS

2 4 6 8 MILES

Empire Lake

study area Spring River

Basin

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

MISSOURI

ARKANSAS

Index map

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1987, 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Shawnee Creek

Galena

07186000 Spring River

Spring

Branch 07187000

Scammon

Stark City

Riverton

Lowell

Boundary of Spring River Basin

U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging

 station and number

07187000

Figure 1. Location of Empire Lake, Blackberry Hay Farm Lake, the Spring River system, the Cherokee County superfund site, and lead 

and zinc mined areas in the Tri-State Mining District, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.
4 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Electric Company. The lake also is used for recreation and provides habitat for fish and wildlife. 

The chemical quality of sediment is an important environmental concern because sediment may act as a sink for some 

water-quality constituents and as a source of constituents to the 

overlying water column and biota (Baudo and others, 1990; 

Zoumis and others, 2001). Once in the food chain, sedimentderived constituents may pose an even greater concern due to 

bioaccumulation. Degradation of sediment quality can result 

from various types of human activity including mining. An 

analysis of reservoir bottom sediment can provide historical 

information on sediment deposition as well as the occurrence of 

sediment-bound constituents. Such information may be used to 

partly reconstruct historical sediment- and water-quality 

records and to determine a present-day baseline with which to 

evaluate long-term changes in reservoir sediment and water 

quality, which then may be related to changes in human activity 

in the basin. 

For restoration purposes, USFWS requires several types of 

information including: (1) a determination of trace element concentrations in sediment in Empire Lake and the Spring River 

Basin; (2) a determination of the thickness, total volume, and 

total mass of contaminated sediment in Empire Lake; (3) an 

assessment of the spatial variability in trace element concentrations in sediment throughout the Spring River Basin; and (4) an 

assessment of the temporal variability of trace element concentrations in sediment that may reflect changes caused by human 

activity. Together, these types of information will be important 

for the prioritization, planning, and undertaking of restoration 

projects designed to improve the ecological health of Empire 

Lake and the Spring River Basin. 

Previous Investigations

Several previous studies have examined the effects of lead 

and zinc mining on water and sediment quality in or near 

Empire Lake. Because of potential differences in analytical 

procedures, the sediment chemistry results reported for the previous studies (with the exception of Pope, 2005) may not be 

directly comparable with the results reported in the present 

study. 

Barks (1977) investigated the effects of abandoned lead 

and zinc mines and tailings piles on water and sediment quality 

in the vicinity of Joplin, Missouri. Water from abandoned lead 

and zinc mines in the area, some of which discharges at the surface, was found to have average dissolved zinc concentrations 

of 9,400 μg/L. Mine-water discharges increased the dissolved 

zinc concentrations in receiving streams from an estimated 

background concentration of about 40 μg/L to about 500 μg/L 

during low-flow conditions. In runoff from tailings areas, dissolved zinc concentrations averaged 16,000 μg/L. Runoff from 

one tailings area during a summer storm contained maximum 

dissolved cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations of 1,400, 400, 

and 200,000 μg/L, respectively. The mining activity also 

resulted in increased zinc concentrations in stream-bottom 

sediment from an estimated background concentration of about 

100 μg/g to about 2,500 μg/g and increased lead concentrations 

in stream-bottom sediment from an estimated background concentration of about 20 μg/g to about 450 μg/g (Barks, 1977). 

The stream bottom-sediment samples, described as sandy, were 

not sieved to isolate the silt-clay fraction prior to analyses to 

determine trace element concentrations. Spring River tributaries sampled as part of the Barks (1977) study included Center, 

Short, and Turkey Creeks (fig. 1). 

An extensive study of the effects of abandoned lead and 

zinc mines on hydrology and surface- and ground-water quality 

in Cherokee County, Kansas, and adjacent areas, was completed by Spruill (1987). Water from mines located mostly in 

the vicinity of Galena, Kansas (fig. 1) had median concentrations of 180 μg/L for dissolved cadmium, 240 μg/L for dissolved lead, and 37,600 μg/L for dissolved zinc. Of the four 

sampled streams that were affected by lead and zinc mining and 

provide flow directly or indirectly to Empire Lake (that is, Center, Shoal, Short, and Turkey Creeks; fig. 1), Short Creek had 

the largest concentrations of dissolved cadmium (170 μg/L) and 

zinc (25,000 μg/L) (Spruill, 1987). 

Ferrington and others (1989) completed a study to determine the occurrence and biological effects of cadmium, lead, 

manganese, and zinc in the Short Creek/Empire Lake aquatic 

system in Cherokee County, Kansas. As part of this study, bottom sediment was sampled at multiple sites within the Spring 

River and Shoal Creek arms of the reservoir as well as the main 

body of Empire Lake. Bottom sediment throughout Empire 

Lake was found to have elevated concentrations of all four trace 

elements. The largest concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc 

were detected in two samples collected from the Spring River 

arm near the mouth of Short Creek (fig. 1). At this location, 

mean concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc were about 

129, 1,600, and 23,000 μg/g, respectively (Ferrington and others, 1989). The bottom-sediment samples were not sieved to 

isolate the silt-clay fraction prior to analyses to determine trace 

element concentrations. Overall, the results indicated substantial transport and accumulation of sediment-associated trace 

elements in Empire Lake. It was concluded that the primary biological effect of large cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations in 

the bottom sediment of Empire Lake was a reduction of benthic 

macroinvertebrate densities and, presumably, overall productivity of the reservoir system (Ferrington and others, 1989). 

A study to determine concentrations of trace elements and 

organic compounds in sediment and biota of the Spring River 

Basin, including Empire Lake, was completed by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (1992). As part of the study, two bottomsediment samples were collected from a site in both the Spring 

River and Shoal Creek arms of the reservoir upstream from the 

main body of Empire Lake (fig. 2). Cadmium concentrations in 

the bottom sediment averaged about 26 μg/g for the sampling 

site in the Spring River arm and about 23 μg/g for the sampling 

site in the Shoal Creek arm. For lead, the respective average 

sediment concentrations for the Spring River and Shoal Creek 

sites were 165 and 230 μg/g. Average zinc concentrations in the 

sediment for the Spring River and Shoal Creek sites were 
Introduction 5

3,580 and 3,300 μg/g, respectively (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992). It is uncertain if the bottom-sediment samples were 

sieved to isolate the silt-clay fraction prior to analyses to determine trace element concentrations. 

Davis and Schumacher (1992) conducted an appraisal of 

surface-water quality in the Spring River Basin of southwestern 

Missouri and southeastern Kansas using existing water-quality 

data collected from the early 1960s to September 1987 by the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and KDHE. Results indicated 

that several Spring River tributaries, including Brush, Center, 

Cow, Turkey, and Short Creeks (fig. 1), are significantly 

affected by lead-zinc or coal mining. The effect of the contaminated tributaries on the water quality of the Spring River was 

determined through a comparison of water-quality data collected at the Spring River sampling sites located near Waco, 

Missouri (upstream from the tributary inflows), and Baxter 

Springs, Kansas (downstream from the tributary inflows) 

(fig. 1). Increased median concentrations of several constituents 

were documented including an increase for dissolved zinc from 

30 to 310 μg/L. The largest single source of dissolved zinc to 

the Spring River was determined to be Short Creek (Davis and 

Schumacher, 1992). 

Angelo and others (2005) investigated the effects of historical lead and zinc mining activity on mussel populations in the 

Spring River Basin. As part of the study, mussel species diversity, densities, and concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc in 

streambed sediment and mussel soft tissue were determined at 

selected sites along the Spring River and tributary streams. 

Mussels apparently were not present in the downstream reaches 

of Center, Shoal, Short, Turkey, and Willow Creeks. Also, mussel diversity and density were substantially reduced in the 

Spring River downstream from Center and Turkey Creeks. 

Angelo and others (2005) concluded that residual effects of the 

historical lead and zinc mining activity continue to degrade the 

aquatic environment and impede the recovery or establishment 

of viable mussel populations in much of the Kansas part of the 

Spring River Basin. 

A study by Pope (2005) provided an assessment of 

streambed sediment quality along the main stem and major 

tributaries of both the Spring River and Tar Creek within the 

boundary of the Cherokee County, Kansas, superfund site 

(fig. 1). All sediment samples were collected to a depth of 

0.8 in. and sieved to isolate the less than 0.063-mm (silt- and 

clay-size particles) fraction for analysis. Concentrations ranged 

from 0.6 to 460 mg/kg for cadmium, 22 to 7,400 mg/kg for lead, 

and 100 to 45,000 mg/kg for zinc, with respective median concentrations of 13, 180, and 1,800 mg/kg. The largest concentrations were measured in the Short Creek, Tar Creek, and Spring 

Branch Creek Basins. Proceeding downstream along the 22-mi 

length of the Spring River within the study area, it was determined that sediment concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc 

increased about 18, 7, and 17 times, respectively. 

Current Study

A 2-year study by USGS, in cooperation with USFWS and 

KDHE, was begun in 2004 to investigate sedimentation in 

Empire Lake as well as the deposition of selected chemical constituents. This study represents phase II of a sediment study 

conducted by USGS. Phase I was the aforementioned assessment of sediment quality along the main stem and major tributaries of the Spring River and Tar Creek completed by Pope 

(2005). The specific objectives of the phase II study were to: 

1. Estimate the thickness, total volume, and total mass of 

bottom sediment in Empire Lake;

2. Estimate the total mass of cadmium, lead, and zinc in the 

bottom sediment of Empire Lake; 

3. Assess the spatial and temporal variability of cadmium, 

lead, and zinc concentrations in the bottom sediment of 

Empire Lake; 

4. Estimate background constituent concentrations in 

sediment in the Spring River Basin; 

5. Assess the quality of the Empire Lake bottom sediment 

with respect to available guidelines;

6. Relate, to the extent possible, any observed temporal 

trends in bottom-sediment constituent concentrations to 

documented changes in human activity in the Spring 

River Basin; and

7. Provide a baseline of information on Empire Lake 

conditions with which to compare future conditions that 

may represent a response to changes in human activity in 

the Spring River Basin. 

The purpose of this report is to present the results of the 

USGS study to estimate sedimentation and to determine the 

occurrence of, and temporal trends in, selected chemical constituents in the bottom sediment of Empire Lake. In 2005, sediment thickness was measured at 428 sites within the reservoir. 

Also, 30 sediment cores were collected and analyzed for bulk 

density and (or) selected chemical constituents. Cadmium, lead, 

and zinc concentrations in the bottom sediment of Empire Lake 

were of primary interest in this study because they are the major 

contaminants input to the environment as a result of the historical mining activity. Other constituents, including additional 

trace elements and nutrients, were analyzed to provide a more 

comprehensive assessment of sediment quality in the reservoir. 

In this report, background constituent concentrations were 

defined as sediment concentrations that were minimally 

affected by historical lead and zinc mining. 

Results presented in this report will assist USFWS in 

efforts to evaluate the ecological health of Empire Lake. Also, 

the results will assist KDHE in evaluating the implementation 

of existing TMDLs and in developing new TMDLs for constituents found to contribute to water-quality impairment in 

Empire Lake and the Spring River Basin. From a national perspective, the methods and results presented in this report provide guidance and perspective for future reservoir studies 
6 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

concerned with the issues of sedimentation and sediment and 

water quality. 

Description of Spring River Basin

Empire Lake is nested within the Spring River Basin that 

drains about 2,500 mi2

 of southwestern Missouri, southeastern 

Kansas, and northeastern Oklahoma (Seaber and others, 1987) 

(fig. 1). Principal sources of flow into Empire Lake are the 

Spring River and Shoal Creek. Additionally, important tributaries to the Spring River or Empire Lake in Cherokee County, 

Kansas, include Center Creek, Cow Creek, Shawnee Creek, 

Short Creek, and Turkey Creek. Center, Short, and Turkey 

Creeks drain areas that have been substantially affected by historical lead and zinc mining (fig. 1). 

The Spring River Basin overlaps two physiographic provinces as defined by Fenneman (1938, 1946). The southeast twothirds of the basin is located in the Springfield Plateau Section 

of the Ozark Plateaus Province. This part of the basin is underlain by limestone of Mississippian age (Fenneman, 1938). The 

northwest one-third of the basin, including the Kansas part of 

the basin located west of the Spring River, is located in the 

Osage Plains Section of the Central Lowland Province. This 

part of the basin is underlain by shale with interbedded sandstone and limestone of Pennsylvanian age (Fenneman, 1938). 

Topographically, the basin is characterized by gently rolling 

uplands dissected by streams. 

The lead and zinc ores in the Tri-State District occur in the 

cherty limestones of Mississippian age. The ores are believed to 

have resulted from hydrothermal (that is, hot, metal-bearing) 

solutions that originated from deep within the earth. As these 

solutions moved vertically into the porous and permeable 

cherty limestones, an overlying impermeable layer of shale 

forced them to migrate laterally. As they spread, the solutions 

deposited sphalerite (zinc sulfide), galena (lead sulfide), and 

other associated minerals (Brosius and Sawin, 2001). 

Several major soil associations are present within the 

Spring River Basin. Soils in the Missouri part of the basin are 

described by Allgood and Persinger (1979). Information on 

soils in the Kansas part of the basin is provided by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (1973, 

1985). 

The climate in the Spring River Basin is characterized as 

subhumid continental (Stringer, 1972). Long-term, mean 

annual precipitation at Joplin, Missouri (period of record 1948–

2004) averages about 42 in. (High Plains Regional Climate 

Center, 2005) (fig. 1). 

Land use in the Spring River Basin is predominantly a mix 

of cropland, grassland, and woodland (Davis and Schumacher, 

1992). Historically, numerous sites within the basin were mined 

for coal, lead, and zinc. The distribution of the major lead- and 

zinc-mined areas within the basin is shown in figure 1. 

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges Duane Zerr (Empire 

District Electric Company, Riverton, Kansas) for sharing his 

knowledge of the history of Empire Lake and conditions within 

the reservoir. Also, the author thanks John Miesner (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Manhattan, Kansas) for his help in completing the sediment coring for this study. 

Methods

Most of the study objectives described in this report were 

accomplished using newly collected information. The required 

information for Empire Lake was obtained through the measurement of bottom-sediment thickness and the collection and 

analysis of bottom-sediment cores. A bottom-sediment core 

from nearby Blackberry Hay Farm Lake (northwest Jasper 

County, Missouri) was collected and analyzed to provide an 

indication of background constituent concentrations. Floodplain soils also were sampled and analyzed. 

Measurement of Bottom-Sediment Thickness

To provide the information necessary for estimating the 

total volume of bottom sediment in Empire Lake, a survey was 

conducted to estimate bottom-sediment thicknesses throughout 

the reservoir. For this purpose, a series of transects were established at an approximate spacing of 500 ft within the main body 

of Empire Lake as well as upstream in the Spring River and 

Shoal Creek arms of the reservoir. Because little sediment was 

measured along the first several transects of the Spring River 

arm, the decision was made to adjust the spacing to about every 

0.5 mi upstream from the Shawnee Creek confluence (fig. 2). In 

both the Spring River and Shoal Creek arms, the survey was 

extended upstream as far as boat access would allow. In both 

cases, a shallow gravel bar eventually was encountered that was 

believed to be near where the channel reverted from a backwater to a riverine environment. 

Along each transect, multiple measurements of bottomsediment thickness were made. The spacing of the measurement 

sites depended mostly on the length of the transect and the complexity of the lakebed topography, and occasionally on the sediment thickness encountered. Typically, the spacing was either 

50 or 100 ft. Along the longer transects within the main body of 

Empire Lake, sediment thickness was measured at as many as 

12 to 15 sites. Along the transects within the Spring River and 

Shoal Creek arms, sediment thickness typically was measured 

at five to eight sites. Sediment thickness was measured at nine 

sites in both area B and area P of the reservoir (fig. 2B). Because 

of restricted boat access, thickness measurements were limited 

to the western part of area P. 
Methods 7

Short Creek

Shawnee Creek

Empire Lake

Spring River

0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 MILE

0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 KILOMETER

Base from Kansas Geological Survey digital orthophoto county data, 2002

Data Access and Support Center

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

EXPLANATION

59

400

69

ALT

Galena

94°39’

7’

37°6’

41’ 40’

68

67

64

66

65

63

59

5

6

60

61

62

E–25

SRF–1

37°8’

94°42’

Index map

Enlarged area

Empire Lake

Galena

Transect line and identifier

Coring site and identifier—Sample collected

 for chemical composite analysis

Soil sampling site and identifier

E–25

SRF–1

(A)

(A)

Spring River arm

Figure 2. Location of transect lines, reservoir segments, bottom-sediment coring sites, and flood-plain soil sampling sites. Reservoir 

segments are shown by colored areas on map and described in table 1.
8 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Galena

0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 MILE

0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 KILOMETER

Base from Kansas Geological Survey digital orthophoto county data, 2002

Data Access and Support Center

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

EXPLANATION

Riverton

Lowell

 Riverton Dam

Lowell Dam

Short Creek

Empire Lake

Shoal Creek

66

66

400

400

69

ALT

Spring River

Shoal Creek arm, downstream

Shoal Creek arm, upstream

Area B

Area P

Riverton Dam area

Main body, downstream

Main body, upstream

94°43’ 94°40’

37°5’

37°3’

4’

42’ 41’

40

38

B

A

24

22

23

15

17

19

21

26

27

25

28

29

33

31

32

34

20

18

16

14

13

12

35

36

37

P

P

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

5

6

7

8

10

9

11

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

E–30

E–33

E–31

39

E–24

E–26

SCF–1

E–11

E–27

E–22

E–18

E–15

E–14

E–1

E–21 E-32

E–9

E–8

E–7

E–6

E–5

E–4

E–3

E–2

E–29

E–20

E–23

E–19

SRF–1

30

Approximate location of submerged Spring

River channel

E–17

E–36

E–10

Transect line and identifier

Coring site and identifier—Samples collected for bulk-density

 determination and chemical composite analysis

Coring site and identifier—Samples collected for bulk-density

 determination only

 

Coring site and identifier—Samples collected for chemical

 trend analysis

Coring site and identifier—Samples collected for bulk-density

 determination and chemical trend analysis

Soil sampling site and identifier

52

E–11

E–15

E–27

E–6

SCF–1

Index map

Enlarged area

Empire Lake

(B) Galena

(B)

Spring River arm

Figure 2. Location of transect lines, reservoir segments, bottom-sediment coring sites, and flood-plain soil sampling sites. —Continued 

Reservoir segments are shown by colored areas on map and described in table 1.
Methods 9

At each site, sediment thickness was measured using a specially designed sediment pole (designed and constructed by the 

College of Engineering Shops, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin). The pole, constructed of aluminum, consists 

of multiple 8-ft connectable sections to accommodate surveys 

done in environments that vary in terms of water depth and sediment thickness. Length on the pole is marked off in increments 

of 0.1 ft. A light-weight polyvinyl chloride (PVC) shoe, 

designed to be denser than water and less dense than the bottom 

sediment, fits over the pole and rests on a lip at the bottom of 

the pole. The purpose of the shoe is to assist in detecting the sediment-water interface on the lakebed as the pole is slowly lowered from a boat. A measurement was made by lowering the 

pole vertically down to the lakebed and recording the water 

depth as indicated on the pole. Then, the pole was pushed 

through the sediment to refusal. The depth to refusal was 

recorded, and sediment thickness was estimated as refusal depth 

minus water depth. The latitude and longitude for each measurement site was obtained using global positioning system 

(GPS) technology. 

Although typically readily detectable, the depth to refusal 

was occasionally uncertain because the sediment pole did not 

stop abruptly as it was pushed into the lakebed. When encountered, this situation may be indicative of a poorly defined 

boundary between the bottom sediment and the underlying 

original pre-reservoir material. At such sites the estimated sediment thickness was of uncertain accuracy. However, the mean 

sediment thickness along individual transects and within the 

segments used to estimate the total volume of sediment in the 

reservoir (described in the following section) was believed to be 

representative. 

In all, bottom-sediment thickness was measured at a total 

of 428 sites. For each measurement site, the latitude, longitude, 

depth to lakebed (that is, water depth), depth to refusal, estimated sediment thickness, and descriptive notes (if any) are 

provided in table A1 in the “Supplemental Information” section 

at the back of this report. 

Estimation of Bottom-Sediment Volume, Mass, and 

Constituent Mass

Total bottom-sediment volume (sediment plus water and 

gases) in Empire Lake was estimated using a partitioning 

approach in which the reservoir was divided into segments as 

determined by the location of the sediment-thickness transects 

(fig. 2). Segments were delineated with the primary objective 

being to divide the reservoir into areas of relatively uniform bottom-sediment thickness. The geographic extent of the seven 

segments that were established is described in table 1 and 

shown in figure 2. 

The Spring River arm of the reservoir (located upstream 

from transect 20) (fig. 2A,B) was not included as a segment for 

bottom-sediment volume estimation because of what was interpreted to be a general lack of deposited sediment. Typically, 

along this arm (transects 5–14, 16, 18, 59–68), the bottom material encountered was bare gravel or rock. When fine sediment 

was measured, it typically was at relatively shallow sites located 

near the shore. The thickness of this nearshore material, when 

encountered, was usually substantial (table A1 at the back of 

this report). Given its location and thickness, the material in 

question was interpreted to be original channel-bank or bench 

material that was submerged when Empire Lake was completed. Likewise, the relatively thick sediment deposits measured in the Shoal Creek arm also may include some submerged 

original channel-bank or bench material at some sites. 

The evidence obtained from the bottom-sediment thickness measurements indicated that the Spring River, despite the 

backwater imposed by Empire Lake, maintains sufficient flow 

velocity to prevent sediment accumulation within its channel 

both upstream from and through the main body of the reservoir. 

Downstream from transect 20, the primary flow path of the 

Spring River is traceable by multiple sites with zero sediment 

thickness located along transects 22 through 25 and 29 through 

34 (fig. 2B, table A1). 

The bottom-sediment volume for each reservoir segment 

was computed as the total surface area multiplied by the mean 

thickness of the bottom sediment. The total surface area for 

each segment was determined using geographic information 

system (GIS) software and 2002 digital orthophotos of Cherokee County, Kansas (scale: 1:12,000) (Kansas Data Access and 

Support Center, 2006). With two exceptions, the mean sediment 

thickness for each segment was computed as the weighted average of the mean sediment thicknesses for the transects that 

defined the boundary of, or were contained within, the segment. 

Transect length was used as the weighting factor. The two 

exceptions were areas B and P (fig. 2B). In these areas, mean 

sediment thickness was computed as the average of the individual site measurements that were not collected along transects. 

The segment results then were combined to provide an estimate 

of the total volume of bottom sediment in the reservoir. 

Total bottom-sediment mass (dry weight) in Empire Lake 

was estimated using the same segments as described previously. 

For each segment, a representative bulk density was computed 

using the bulk densities that were determined from sediment 

cores (see discussion in “Physical Analyses” section). Bottomsediment mass was computed for each segment as the bottomsediment volume multiplied by the representative bulk density. 

The segment results then were combined to provide an estimate 

of the total mass of bottom sediment in the reservoir. 

With three exceptions, the representative bulk density for 

each reservoir segment was computed as the average of the 

mean bulk densities determined for the coring sites located 

within the segment. For four segments (that is, two main body 

segments and two Shoal Creek segments), the mean bulk densities for anywhere from 2 to 11 coring sites were averaged to 

provide the representative bulk density. Two of the exceptions 

were areas B and P for which the mean bulk density for a single 

coring site was used as the representative bulk density. The 

other exception was the Riverton Dam area (fig. 2B), for which 

thin or absent sediment deposits necessitated the use of a mean 

bulk density from an upstream coring site (E–10, see fig. 2B) 

believed to be in a similar depositional environment. 

The total mass of cadmium, lead, and zinc in the bottom 

sediment of Empire Lake was estimated as the median 
10 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Table 1. Description of geographic extent of reservoir segments used for the estimation of total bottom-sediment volume in Empire Lake, 

southeast Kansas. 

Reservoir segment

(fig. 2B) Description of geographic extent

Shoal Creek arm (upstream) Area between transects 50 and 56.

Shoal Creek arm (downstream) Area between transects 40 and 50.

Main body (downstream) Area between Lowell Dam and transects 23, 29, 30, 31, and 40.

Main body (upstream) Area between transects 20, 23, and the shoreline upstream from transect 15.

Area B The small pond (and connecting channel) south of Riverton Dam.

Area P The complex backwater area located between the Spring River channel and the main 

body of Empire Lake.

Riverton Dam area Area between Riverton Dam and transects 29, 30, and 31.

concentration of each trace element multiplied by the total mass 

of bottom sediment. The median concentrations were determined using the 19 cores used for chemical analysis that were 

collected within the reservoir segments used in the estimation of 

bottom-sediment volume and mass (fig. 2B). For each of the 

four trend cores (described in the following section), the trace 

element concentrations for the individual core intervals were 

averaged to provide a representative concentration for the core 

prior to the computation of the overall median using all 

19 cores. 

Sediment-Core Collection, Handling, and Processing

Bottom-sediment cores were collected in the spring and 

summer of 2005 at 30 sites (fig. 2A,B) within Empire Lake. The 

coring sites were located to provide a spatially representative 

sample of bottom sediment in the reservoir. Of the 30 cores, 

9 were used for bulk-density determinations only, 4 were used 

for chemical analysis only, and 17 were used for both bulkdensity determinations and chemical analysis (table 2). Of the 

21 cores used for chemical analysis, 17 were analyzed as composite samples. Cores E–1, E–6, E–27, and E–36 were divided 

into intervals, sampled, and analyzed to assess trends in constituent deposition over the life of the reservoir. A sample of the 

original flood-plain soil at the bottom of core E–36 also was 

collected for chemical analysis. Additionally, a surficial soil 

sample was collected for chemical analysis from the Spring 

River (site SRF–1) and Shoal Creek (site SCF–1) flood plains 

(fig. 2). The soil samples were collected to a depth of about 1 in. 

using a polished aluminum hand trowel. 

To provide an estimate of background constituent concentrations in sediment in the Spring River Basin, a reference reservoir was selected for sampling using several criteria. The reference reservoir was considered acceptable if: (1) it was located 

in the Spring River Basin (and in or near the Tri-State District); 

(2) it was located in an area underlain by Mississippian bedrock 

(that is, the formation that contains the lead and zinc ores); 

(3) there was no historical lead and zinc mining in or near the 

reservoir basin; (4) there was no urban land use in or near the 

reservoir basin; (5) the reservoir was at least 50 years old; and 

(6) the reservoir had boat access. No reservoir was found that 

satisfied all of the criteria. The available candidates were limited, in part, because few reservoirs in the Spring River Basin 

are located in an area underlain by Mississippian bedrock. 

The reference reservoir selected, Blackberry Hay Farm 

Lake, satisfied all of the criteria except for the fact that it is 

located in an area underlain by Pennsylvanian bedrock. The reservoir is located just outside of the Tri-State District in northwest Jasper County, Missouri (fig. 1). Available information 

(that is, aerial photographs and topographic maps) indicated 

that the reservoir was completed some time between 1938 and 

1954. There was no evidence of historical lead and zinc mining 

in its basin. One bottom-sediment core (BHF–1) was collected 

from this reservoir and divided into 13 intervals for sampling 

and chemical and trend analyses. Because the reservoir is 

located in an area underlain by Pennsylvanian bedrock, the constituent concentrations in the bottom sediment may provide a 

somewhat lower estimate of background concentrations than if 

the reservoir was located in an area underlain by Mississippian 

bedrock. 

With two exceptions, bottom-sediment cores for this study 

were collected from a pontoon boat using a gravity corer. The 

exceptions were cores from sites E–23 and E–24 (fig. 2B) in 

Empire Lake, where restricted access and (or) shallow water 

depth dictated that the cores be collected from a smaller boat by 

hand driving the core liners into the reservoir bottom. The liner 

used for all cores was cellulose acetate butyrate transparent tubing with a 2.625-in. inside diameter. The latitude and longitude 

for each coring site, obtained using GPS technology, are provided in table A2 in the “Supplemental Information” section at 

the back of this report. 

When using a gravity corer, a phenomenon referred to as 

“core shortening” occurs that results in a recovered sediment 

core that may be only about one-half of the actual thickness of 

sediment penetrated (Emery and Hulsemann, 1964). Core 

shortening is caused by the friction of the sediment against the 

inner wall of the core liner as the corer penetrates the sediment 

(Emery and Hulsemann, 1964; Hongve and Erlandsen, 1979; 

Blomqvist, 1985; Blomqvist and Bostrom, 1987). In “normal” 
Methods 11

lake-bottom sediment, which is characterized by uniform texture with decreasing water content at depth, core shortening 

results in a core that provides a thinned but complete representation of all of the sediment layers that were penetrated (Emery 

and Hulsemann, 1964; Hongve and Erlandsen, 1979). In this 

study, a comparison of the length of core recovered by gravity 

coring to the thickness of sediment penetrated (for all sites that 

penetration of the entire sediment thickness was achieved) indicated that core recovery was typically in the range of 70 to 

90 percent. Estimated sediment thickness, length of core recovered, and estimated recovery percentage for the coring sites are 

provided in table A2 at the back of this report. 

Upon collection, the bottom and top of each sediment core 

was covered with a plastic end cap that was secured to the liner 

with electrical tape. Both ends of each core were sealed with a 

chain-of-custody sticker. The sediment cores were transported 

to the USGS laboratory in Lawrence, Kansas, where they were 

stored vertically and refrigerated (at 4–5 oC) in a locked walkin cooler. Typically, the cores were processed within 1 month 

after collection. The core liners were cut lengthwise in two 

places 180 degrees apart. The cuts were completed with a 4-in. 

hand-held circular saw with its blade set at a depth to minimize 

penetration of the sediment cores. The cores were split in half 

by pulling a tightly held nylon string through the length of the 

cores and allowing the halves to separate. Once split, the relatively undisturbed inner parts of the cores were exposed for 

examination and sampling. On the basis of differences in moisture content, texture, and organic matter content (for example, 

root hairs, sticks, seed pods, leaves), the boundary between the 

sediment deposited in the reservoir and the underlying original 

(pre-reservoir) land-surface (or channel-bed) material was 

determined. Typically, the bottom sediment was characterized 

by higher moisture content, finer texture, and little if any visible 

organic matter as compared to the original material. 

The number of samples removed from each core was 

dependent on the length of the core, the intended use of the core, 

and the amount of material required for analyses. In all cases, 

care was taken to avoid sampling the sediment that came into 

contact with the core liner and the saw blade. For composite 

sampling purposes, an approximately uniform volume of sediment (defined as the space occupied by the sediment particles, 

water, and gases as measured in cubic units) was removed from 

the entire length of the core, homogenized, and sampled. Plastic 

utensils were used for the sediment removal, homogenization, 

and sampling. The utensils were thoroughly cleaned with tapwater and wiped dry with a clean paper towel prior to each 

reuse. The sediment was homogenized in a glass bowl that also 

was thoroughly cleaned (as previously described) prior to each 

reuse. For trend analyses, a core was divided into multiple intervals of equal length. From each interval, an approximately 

equal volume of sediment was removed lengthwise from both 

halves and combined. The combined sediment volume for each 

interval was homogenized and sampled for subsequent chemical analyses. All samples for chemical analyses were placed in 

plastic jars that were labeled and sealed with a chain-of-custody 

sticker. The samples then were packed in ice in coolers that 

Table 2. Use of bottom-sediment cores collected from Empire 

Lake, southeast Kansas, 2005.

[X, analysis performed; --, analysis not performed]

Coring site 

number

(fig. 2)

Use of bottom-sediment core

Bulk-density 

determination

Chemical 

composite 

analysis1

Chemical trend 

analysis1

1Chemical analyses performed are listed in table 3. Age dating, using 

cesium-137, only performed for trend cores E–27 and E–36.

E–1 -- -- X2

2

Three core intervals analyzed.

E–2 X X --

E–3 X -- --

E–4 X X --

E–5 X -- --

E–6 X -- X3

3Five core intervals analyzed.

E–7 X -- --

E–8 X X --

E–9 X -- --

E–10 X X --

E–11 X X --

E–14 X X --

E–15 X -- --

E–17 X X --

E–18 X -- --

E–19 X X --

E–20 X -- --

E–21 X -- --

E–22 X X --

E–23 X X --

E–24 X X --

E–25 -- X --

E–26 X X --

E–27 -- -- X4

4

Fourteen core intervals analyzed.

E–29 X X --

E–30 X -- --

E–31 X X --

E–32 X X --

E–33 X X --

E–36 -- -- X5

5

Fifteen core intervals analyzed.
12 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

were taped shut and sealed with a chain-of-custody sticker prior 

to shipment to other laboratories for analyses. 

Physical Analyses

Physical analyses included bulk-density determinations 

and particle-size analyses. A total of 26 sediment cores from 

Empire Lake were analyzed to estimate bulk density. For this 

purpose, each core was divided into one to seven intervals of 

equal length. The number of intervals was dependent on the 

length of each core. From each interval, a 1-in. thick volume of 

sediment was removed using a putty knife, weighed to the nearest 0.10 g, oven dried at about 45 o

C for 96 hours, and 

reweighed. Oven drying of the sample continued as it was 

reweighed on a daily basis until no additional moisture loss was 

observed. Bulk density was computed as follows: 

Db = m/v, (1)

where Db is the bulk density (in grams per cubic centimeter), 

m is the mass (dry weight) of the sample (in grams), and v is 

the volume of the sample (in cubic centimeters). The volume 

for a cylindrical sample was computed as: 

v = h(πd2/4), (2)

where v is the volume of the sample (in cubic centimeters), h is 

the height (length) of the sample (in centimeters), and d is the 

diameter of the sample (in centimeters) (Gordon and others, 

1992). In all, 86 bulk-density determinations were completed 

at the USGS laboratory in Lawrence, Kansas (table A5 at the 

back of this report). 

Results for all sampled intervals were averaged to compute 

the mean bulk density for each core. The bulk densities then 

were converted to pounds per cubic foot for use in subsequent 

computations. 

Particle-size analysis was performed to determine the percentage of sand (that is, particles larger than 0.063 mm in diameter) and silt and (or) clay (that is, particles smaller than 

0.063 mm in diameter) in the sediment cores. The sediment 

samples used for chemical analyses (with the exception of core 

E–1) also were used for particle-size analyses. The particle-size 

analyses were completed at the USGS Sediment Trace Element 

Partitioning Laboratory in Atlanta, Georgia, according to the 

methods presented in Guy (1969) and Grosbois and others 

(2001). 

Chemical Analyses, Quality Control, and Age Dating

The sediment and soil samples were analyzed for nutrients 

(total nitrogen and total phosphorus), organic and total carbon, 

and 26 trace elements. A complete list of the constituents for 

which analyses were performed is provided in table 3. Prior to 

the chemical analyses, the sediment and soil samples were wet 

sieved to isolate the less than 0.063-mm fraction (that is, the silt 

and clay) using a 0.063-mm polyester screen held in a polycarbonate frame. The screen was replaced between samples. 

Chemical analyses of the sediment and soil samples were performed at the USGS Sediment Trace Element Partitioning Laboratory in Atlanta, Georgia. Chain-of-custody procedures were 

followed at the laboratory during sample storage, processing, 

Table 3. Chemical analyses performed on bottom-sediment samples from Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, Blackberry Hay Farm Lake, 

southwest Missouri, and soil samples from the Spring River and Shoal Creek flood plains, southeast Kansas, 2005.

[Number in parentheses is the method reporting limit for each constituent. mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; %, percent dry weight; pCi/g, picocuries per gram]

Nutrients

Total nitrogen (100 mg/kg) Total phosphorus (50 mg/kg)

Carbon

Carbon, total organic (TOC) (0.1%) Carbon, total (0.1%)

Trace elements

Aluminum (0.1%) Cobalt (1.0 mg/kg) Molybdenum (1.0 mg/kg) Tin (1.0 mg/kg)

Antimony (0.1 mg/kg) Copper (1.0 mg/kg) Nickel (1.0 mg/kg) Titanium (0.01%)

Arsenic (0.1 mg/kg) Iron (0.1%) Selenium (0.1 mg/kg) Uranium (50 mg/kg)

Barium (1.0 mg/kg) Lead (1.0 mg/kg) Silver (0.5 mg/kg) Vanadium (1.0 mg/kg)

Beryllium (0.1 mg/kg) Lithium (1.0 mg/kg) Strontium (1.0 mg/kg) Zinc (1.0 mg/kg)

Cadmium (0.1 mg/kg) Manganese (10.0 mg/kg) Sulfur (0.1%)

Chromium (1.0 mg/kg) Mercury (0.01 mg/kg) Thallium (50 mg/kg)

Radionuclides

Cesium-137 (0.05 pCi/g)1

1

For cesium-137 and lead-210, a minimum detection concentration (MDC), rather than a method reporting limit, is reported. The MDC reported may vary 

because of several factors including the size of the sample.

Lead-210 (0.1 pCi/g)1
Sediment-Quality Guidelines and Background Information for Chemical Constituents Selected for Study 13

and analysis. Analyses of sediment and soil samples for total 

nitrogen and carbon concentrations were performed using the 

methods described by Horowitz and others (2001). Analyses for 

total phosphorus and trace elements were performed using the 

methods described by Fishman and Friedman (1989), Arbogast 

(1996), and Briggs and Meier (1999).

Quality control for the chemical analyses of sediment samples was provided by an evaluation of variability that involved 

an analysis of split-replicate samples collected from Empire 

Lake as well as an analysis of standard reference samples. Splitreplicate samples were analyzed for seven bottom-sedimentcores (E–2, E–8, E–10, E–14, E–19, E–22, and E–24). For each 

core, a representative volume of sediment was removed, 

homogenized, and sampled twice to provide the split-replicate 

samples. Both samples were analyzed for all constituents. The 

relative percentage difference (RPD) was computed as the 

absolute value of the difference in the replicate analyses divided 

by the mean and expressed as a percentage. 

The RPDs computed for the constituents detected in the 

split-replicate samples are provided in table 4. A target goal for 

variability among analyses of split-replicate samples was a 

RPD of +20 percent except when constituent concentrations 

were near or less than method reporting limits. With the exception of total nitrogen, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, and 

silver, analytical variability was minimal with mean RPDs less 

than 10 percent. Total nitrogen, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, and silver had mean RPDs of 27.5, 11.7, 16.7, 45.7, and 

20.5 percent, respectively. 

Results for the analysis of standard reference samples are 

provided in table A3 in the “Supplemental Information” section 

at the back of this report. A target goal for acceptable results of 

analysis of reference samples was within published limits for 

each constituent for each standard or +10 percent of the most 

probable value for the constituent (whichever was greater), 

except when constituent concentrations were near or less than 

method reporting limits. Of the 578 results presented in 

table A3, analytical precision could not be determined for 

168 results typically because either the reference sample concentration had not been determined for the constituent in question or it was near or less than the method reporting limit. Of the 

remaining 410 results, about 93 percent met the target goal as 

previously defined. 

Age dating of the bottom sediment was accomplished by 

determining the activity of cesium-137 (137Cs). 137Cs is a radioactive isotope that is a by-product of aboveground nuclear 

weapons testing. Measurable activity of this isotope first 

appeared in the atmosphere about 1952, peaked during 

1963–64, and has since declined (Ritchie and McHenry, 1990). 

Measurable activity in soils began about 1954 (Wise, 1980). 

137Cs is an effective marker for age dating bottom sediment in 

reservoirs constructed before 1963–64 (Van Metre and others, 

1997). It also can be used to demonstrate that the sediment is 

relatively undisturbed if the 1963–64 peak is well-defined and 

a generally uniform, exponential decrease in 137Cs activity follows the 1963–64 peak. Age dating of sediment using 137Cs was 

attempted for Empire Lake trend cores E–27 and E–36 (fig. 2B) 

and for Blackberry Hay Farm Lake (fig. 1) trend core BHF–1. 

Although analyzed, lead-210 (210Pb) was not used for agedating purposes because requisite assumptions (constant rate of 

supply of 210Pb and constant sedimentation rate) were violated 

for Empire Lake and typically are violated for reservoirs in general (Van Metre and others, 2004). Analysis of sediment samples for 137Cs and 210Pb activity was performed at the USGS 

National Water-Quality Laboratory in Denver, Colorado, using 

gamma-ray spectrometry (American Society for Testing and 

Materials, 2004). The 137Cs and 210Pb activities for trend cores 

E–27, E–36, and BHF–1 are provided in table A4 in the “Supplemental Information” section at the back of this report. 

Trend Analysis

Three sediment cores (E–6, E–27, and E–36) collected 

from Empire Lake and one sediment core (BHF–1) collected 

from Blackberry Hay Farm Lake were used for chemical trend 

analyses. The cores were analyzed for nutrients, carbon, and 

trace elements (table 3). Temporal trends in constituent concentrations (versus depth in the sediment profile) were examined 

by computing a nonparametric Spearman’s rho correlation 

coefficient. An advantage of Spearman’s rho is that, because it 

is based on ranks, it is more resistant to outlier effects than the 

more commonly used Pearson’s r correlation coefficient (Helsel 

and Hirsch, 1992). Temporal trends were considered to be significantly positive (constituent concentration increased toward 

the top of the sediment core) or negative (constituent concentration decreased toward the top of the sediment core) if the probability (two-sided p-value) of rejecting a correct hypothesis (in 

this case, no trend) was less than or equal to 0.05. In the results, 

a possible temporal trend will be considered meaningful only if 

the change in constituent concentration is beyond the variability 

that could be explained by analytical variance (defined here as 

the mean constituent concentration in the sediment core plus or 

minus 10 percent). 

Sediment-Quality Guidelines and 

Background Information for Chemical 

Constituents Selected for Study

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has 

adopted nonenforceable sediment-quality guidelines (SQGs) in 

the form of level-of-concern concentrations for several trace 

elements (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997). These 

level-of-concern concentrations were derived from biologicaleffects correlations made on the basis of paired onsite and 

laboratory data to relate incidence of adverse biological effects 

in aquatic organisms to dry-weight sediment concentrations. 

Two such level-of-concern guidelines adopted by USEPA are 

referred to as the threshold-effects level (TEL) and the probable-effects level (PEL). The TEL is assumed to represent the 
14 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Table 4. Relative percentage differences for constituent concentrations in split-replicate samples from bottom-sediment cores from 

Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, 2005.

[Location of coring sites shown in figure 2. --, not calculated because constituent was not detected in one or both of the split-replicate samples]

Constituent 

Relative percentage difference

Site

E–2

Site

E–8

Site

E–10

Site

E–14

Site

E–19

Site

E–22

Site

E–24 Mean

Nutrients

Total nitrogen 46.2 66.6 12.8 66.6 0 0 0 27.5

Total phosphorus 18.0 2.8 0 7.6 3.0 12.4 6.4 7.2

Carbon

Carbon (total organic, TOC) 6.4 0 4.6 0 0 0 6.4 2.5

Carbon (total) 16.2 0 13.4 5.2 5.4 0 0 5.7

Trace elements

Aluminum 7.2 5.6 5.2 2.0 0 11.0 0 4.4

Antimony 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arsenic 0 3.4 3.6 6.6 0 9.8 3.6 3.9

Barium 8.8 1.8 4.0 1.8 2.0 5.2 2.0 3.7

Beryllium 13.4 4.4 5.2 5.2 0 11.2 6.4 6.5

Cadmium 4.4 2.4 10.6 3.6 0 10.6 4.0 5.1

Chromium 16.6 4.6 1.4 1.6 4.6 10.0 5.4 6.3

Cobalt 10.0 0 12.6 8.0 0 17.2 0 6.8

Copper 6.2 2.6 3.8 3.8 0 8.0 0 3.5

Iron 10.6 7.4 7.6 5.2 4.2 10.0 0 6.4

Lead 0 6.0 11.2 0 0 6.0 0 3.3

Lithium 0 5.8 10.0 3.2 2.8 10.2 0 4.6

Manganese 4.6 1.4 11.4 15.6 34.2 10.2 4.8 11.7

Molybdenum -- 0 -- 0 66.6 0 -- 16.7

Nickel 13.4 4.2 7.4 4.0 4.0 13.6 0 6.7

Selenium 100 85.8 11.8 33.4 33.4 33.4 22.2 45.7

Silver -- -- -- 18.2 25.0 18.2 -- 20.5

Strontium 6.6 2.6 2.6 0 1.2 2.6 1.2 2.4

Sulfur 9.8 0 6.8 8.6 0 8.0 4.4 5.4

Thallium -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Tin 0 0 0 0 28.6 40.0 0 9.8

Titanium 10.0 4.2 6.2 0 0 6.2 4.4 4.4

Uranium -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Vanadium 10.8 2.4 6.2 0 0 9.2 1.6 4.3

Zinc 16.6 1.2 0 2.0 4.4 14.4 0 5.5
Sediment-Quality Guidelines and Background Information for Chemical Constituents Selected for Study 15

concentration below which toxic biological effects rarely occur. 

In the range of concentrations between the TEL and PEL, toxic 

effects occasionally occur. Toxic effects usually or frequently 

occur at concentrations above the PEL. 

USEPA cautions that the TEL and PEL guidelines are 

intended for use as screening tools for possible hazardous levels 

of chemicals and are not regulatory criteria. This cautionary 

statement is made because, although biological-effects 

correlation identifies level-of-concern concentrations associated with the likelihood of adverse organism response, the comparison may not demonstrate that a particular chemical is solely 

responsible. In fact, biological-effects correlations may not 

indicate direct cause-and-effect relations because sediments 

may contain a mixture of chemicals that contribute to the 

adverse effects to some degree. Thus, for any given site, these 

guidelines may be over- or underprotective (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997). 

MacDonald and others (2000) developed consensus-based 

SQGs that were computed as the geometric mean of several previously published SQGs. The consensus-based SQGs consist of 

a threshold-effect concentration (TEC) and a probable-effect 

concentration (PEC). The TEC represents the concentration 

below which adverse effects are not expected to occur, whereas 

the PEC represents the concentration above which adverse 

effects are expected to occur more often than not. An evaluation 

of the reliability of the SQGs indicated that most of the individual TECs and PECs provide an accurate basis for predicting the 

presence or absence of sediment toxicity (MacDonald and others, 2000). 

A comparison of the two SQGs indicated that the differences were generally small (table 5). The largest difference was 

for the zinc PEL and PEC. In this case, the PEC (459 mg/kg) 

was about 69 percent larger than the PEL (271 mg/kg). For this 

study, the SQGs used were selected to provide a less-stringent 

assessment. Thus, for each trace element for which SQGs were 

available, the larger of the two options for threshold effects and 

probable effects was selected for the purpose of assessing 

sediment quality (table 5). In this report, the options used to 

assess sediment quality are referred to as the threshold-effects 

guideline and the probable-effects guideline. 

Nutrients and Total Organic Carbon

Nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, are necessary 

for growth and reproduction of plants. In most freshwater environments, phosphorus is the principal limiting factor for primary production (Hakanson and Jansson, 1983). If phosphorus 

concentrations are too large, algal growth may become excessive. Such eutrophic conditions can cause taste-and-odor problems for water suppliers. Additionally, excessive algal growth 

may be detrimental to aquatic life in, as well as discourage 

recreational use of, a lake. Major human-related sources of 

nutrients include fertilizer application, livestock production, 

and sewage-treatment plants. 

Total organic carbon (TOC), an approximate determination of total organic material in a sediment sample, is important 

because various organic solutes can form complexes, which in 

turn affect trace element solubilities (Hem, 1989). The organic 

carbon content of sediment also is important because many contaminants specifically sorb to organic material (Karickhoff, 

1984).

Trace Elements

Trace elements are important determinants of sediment 

quality because of their potential toxicity to living organisms 

(Forstner and Wittman, 1981). Trace elements may be defined 

as elements that typically are found in the environment in relatively small (less than 0.1 percent) concentrations (Adriano, 

1986; Pais and Jones, 1997). Using this definition, the majority 

of the elements analyzed in this study may be considered trace 

elements. Exceptions, which are some of the abundant rockforming elements, include aluminum and iron (Adriano, 1986).

Table 5. Sediment-quality guidelines (SQGs) for selected trace elements and associated bioaccumulation index.

[Values in milligrams per kilogram. Shading represents guidelines to which sediment concentrations were compared in this report. USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; TEL, threshold-effects level; PEL, probable-effects level; TEC, threshold-effects concentration; PEC, probable-effects 

concentration; --, not available]

Trace element

USEPA (1997) MacDonald and others (2000) Bioaccumulation

index1

1

Bioaccumulation index information for trace elements from Pais and Jones (1997).

TEL PEL TEC PEC

Arsenic 7.24 41.6 9.79 33.0 moderate

Cadmium .676 4.21 .99 4.98 moderate

Chromium 52.3 160 43.4 111 moderate

Copper 18.7 108 31.6 149 high

Lead 30.2 112 35.8 128 moderate

Mercury .13 .696 .18 1.06 high

Nickel 15.9 42.8 22.7 48.6 moderate

Silver .733 1.77 -- -- moderate

Zinc 124 271 121 459 high
16 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Trace elements in sediment originate naturally from the 

rock and soil within a basin. Elevated concentrations of sediment-associated trace elements may be attributable to several 

human-related sources including fertilizers, liming materials, 

pesticides, irrigation water, animal and human wastes, coalcombustion residues, leaching from landfills, mining, metalsmelting industries, and automobile emissions (Forstner and 

Wittman, 1981; Davies, 1983; Adriano, 1986). 

The health of living organisms is dependent on a sufficient 

intake of various trace elements. Many elements, such as cobalt, 

copper, iron, manganese, and zinc, are essential for plants, animals, and humans. Other elements, such as arsenic and chromium, are required by animals and humans but are not essential 

for plants. Nonessential elements for plants, animals, and 

humans include cadmium, mercury, and lead (Adriano, 1986; 

Lide, 1993; Pais and Jones, 1997). 

Toxicity is a function of several factors including the type 

of organism, availability of a trace element in the environment, 

and its potential to bioaccumulate once in the food chain. The 

daily intake of trace elements by animals and humans may be 

classified as deficient, optimal, or toxic. Most, if not all, trace 

elements may be toxic in animals and humans if the concentrations are sufficiently large (Pais and Jones, 1997). Information 

on the bioaccumulation index (Pais and Jones, 1997) for trace 

elements with available SQGs is provided in table 5. 

Bottom-Sediment Volume and Mass

The total volume of bottom sediment in Empire Lake was 

estimated by partitioning the reservoir into segments, computing bottom-sediment volume separately for each segment, and 

then summing all segment results. The total estimated volume 

of bottom sediment in Empire Lake was 44 million ft3 or about 

1,000 acre-ft. Table 6 provides the estimated surface area, mean 

bottom-sediment thickness, and computed bottom-sediment 

volume for each reservoir segment. The mean bottom-sediment 

thickness along each transect for which bottom-sediment thickness was measured is provided in figure 3. 

Bottom-sediment mass for each reservoir segment was 

estimated as the computed bottom-sediment volume multiplied 

by the representative bulk density of the sediment. Bulk densities, estimated at 26 sites in the reservoir, ranged from a mean 

of 38.4 lb/ft3 for core samples from site E–11 to a mean of 

64.6 lb/ft3

 for core samples from site E–30 (fig. 4). A complete 

listing of the bulk-density estimate(s) for all 26 sediment cores 

is provided in table A5 in the “Supplemental Information” section at the back of this report. 

The total mass of bottom sediment in Empire Lake, estimated as the sum of the sediment mass computed for the individual reservoir segments, was 2,400 million lb. Table 7 provides the estimated bottom-sediment volume, representative 

bulk density, and computed bottom-sediment mass for each reservoir segment. 

A particle-size analysis was performed to determine the 

percentage of sand (that is, particles larger than 0.063 mm in 

diameter) and silt and (or) clay (that is, particles smaller than 

0.063 mm in diameter) in the sediment cores. Particle-size analyses were completed for 20 cores (that is, every core for which 

chemical analyses were performed with the exception of 

core E–1). Overall, the silt and (or) clay content of the sediment 

ranged from 76 percent (composite core E–10) to 98 percent 

(trend core E–36) with a mean of 92 percent. For each of the 

four trend cores (E–1, E–6, E–27, and E–36), the percentage of 

silt and (or) clay for the individual intervals was averaged to 

provide a representative percentage for the core prior to the 

computation of the overall mean using all 20 cores. The 

Table 6. Estimated surface area, mean bottom-sediment thickness, and computed bottom-sediment volume in 

segments of Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, July and August 2005.

[The computed bottom-sediment volume for each segment has been rounded to three significant figures. The total bottom-sediment 

volume has been rounded to two significant figures.]

Reservoir segment

(table 1, fig. 2B)

Estimated surface 

area

(square feet)

Mean bottomsediment 

thickness (feet)

Computed bottomsediment volume1

(cubic feet)

1

Bottom-sediment volume is computed as estimated surface area multiplied by mean bottom-sediment thickness.

Shoal Creek arm (upstream) 1,150,000 1.8 2,070,000

Shoal Creek arm (downstream) 3,070,000 4.1 12,600,000

Main body (downstream) 6,140,000 3.2 19,600,000

Main body (upstream) 3,640,000 1.7 6,190,000

Area B 279,000 .9 251,000

Area P 971,000 3.7 3,590,000

Riverton Dam area 1,590,000 .1 159,000

Total for reservoir 44,000,000
Bottom-Sediment Volume and Mass 17

Short Creek

Shawnee Creek

Empire Lake

Spring River

0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 MILE

0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 KILOMETER

Base from Kansas Geological Survey digital orthophoto county data, 2002

Data Access and Support Center

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

EXPLANATION

400

69

ALT

Galena

Transect line and identifier—Number in 

 parentheses ( ) is mean bottom-sediment

 thickness, in feet

59 (0.1’)

94°39’

7’

37°6’

41’ 40’

68 (0.1’)

67 (0.0’)

66 (0.0’)

64 (0.0’)

63 (0.8’)

62 (1.2’)

61 (0.1’)

60 (1.0’)

59 (0.1’)

5 (0.3’)

6 (0.4’)

65 (0.3’)

37°8’

94°42’

Index map

Empire Lake

Galena

Enlarged area

(A)

(A)

Spring River arm

Figure 3. Mean bottom-sediment thickness along transects, and within two areas, of Empire Lake, July and August 2005. Reservoir 

segments are shown by colored areas on map and described in table 1.
18 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Galena

0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 MILE

0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 KILOMETER

Base from Kansas Geological Survey digital orthophoto county data, 2002

Data Access and Support Center

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Index map

EXPLANATION

Transect line and identifier—Number in 

 parentheses ( ) is mean bottom-sediment

 thickness, in feet

54 (2.3’)

Riverton

Lowell

Riverton Dam

Lowell Dam

Short Creek

Empire Lake

Shoal Creek

66

66

400

400

69

ALT

Spring River

Shoal Creek arm, downstream

Shoal Creek arm, upstream

Area B

Area P

Riverton Dam area

Main body, downstream

Main body, upstream

94°43’ 94°40’

37°5’

37°3’

4’

42’ 41’

5 (0.3’)

6 (0.4’)

7 (0.7’)

8 (1.5’)

9 (1.0’)

10 (1.6’)

11 (1.1’)

12 (1.1’)

13 (2.0’)

14 (0.9’)

16 (0.3’)

18 (0.1’)

20 (0.8’)

22 (1.5’)

23 (2.4’)

29 (0.5’)

32 (0.0’)

34 (0.1’)

31 (0.0’)

38 (4.6’)

41 (5.0’)

42 (5.0’)

43 (3.0’)

44 (2.6’)

45 (4.0’)

46 (4.0’)

47 (4.8’)

48 (4.7’) 49 (4.5’)50 (3.8’)

51 (1.4’)

52 (1.7’)

53 (1.2’)

55 (1.7’) 54 (2.3’) 56 (1.2’)

B (0.9’)

39 (4.3’)

40 (4.8’)

A (2.0’)

30 (0.2’)

33 (0.0’)

P (3.7’)

15 (1.8’)

17 (1.5’)

21 (2.1’)

24 (2.1’)

26 (1.1’)

28 (0.9’)

25 (3.7’)

27 (4.6’)

35 (5.2’)

36 (5.2’)

37 (2.9’)

19 (1.3’)

Approximate location of submerged Spring

River channel

Empire Lake

Galena

Enlarged area

(B)

(B)

Spring River arm

Figure 3. Mean bottom-sediment thickness along transects, and within two areas, of Empire Lake, July and August 2005.—Continued 

Reservoir segments are shown by colored areas on map and described in table 1.
Bottom-Sediment Volume and Mass 19

0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 MILE

0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 KILOMETER

Galena

Riverton

Lowell

Base from Kansas Geological Survey digital orthophoto county data, 2002

Data Access and Support Center

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

EXPLANATION

Short Creek

Shawnee

Creek

Empire Lake

Shoal Creek

Spring River

Riverton Dam

Lowell Dam

E–33

(61.2) E–24

(53.1)

E–32

(61.5)

E–31

(53.4)

E–26

(48.4)

E–22

(58.8)

E–30

(64.6)

E–17

(51.8) E–18

(46.8)

E–15

(55.2)

E–14

(55.7)

E–11

(38.4)

Bulk-density coring site and identifier—Bulk-density

 determination only. Number in parentheses ( ) is

 computed mean bulk density, in pounds per cubic foot

Composite coring site and identifier—Bulk-density

 determination and chemical composite analysis.

 Number in parentheses ( ) is computed mean bulk

 density, in pounds per cubic foot

E–11

(38.4)

E–15

(55.2) Trend coring site and identifier—Bulk-density determination

 and chemical trend analysis. Number in parentheses ( )

 is computed mean bulk density, in pounds per cubic foot

E–6

(52.8)

E–9

(62.5) E–7

(55.9)

E–6

(52.8)

E–5

(45.9)

E–4

(47.0)

E–21

(57.4)

E–29

(62.1)

E–23

(61.0)

E–20

(52.0)

E–19

(48.6)

E–10

(40.7)

400

400

69

ALT

E–8

(54.8)

E–3

(48.1)

E–2

(52.0)

Shoal Creek arm, upstream

Shoal Creek arm, downstream

Area B

Area P

Riverton Dam area

Main body, downstream

Main body, upstream

Approximate location

of submerged Spring

River channel

94°43’

37°6’

5’

4’

37°3’

42’ 41’ 94°40’

66

66

Spring River arm

Figure 4. Estimated mean bulk density of bottom sediment at coring sites in Empire Lake, 2005. Reservoir segments 

are shown by colored areas on map and described in table 1. 
20 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Table 7. Computed bottom-sediment volume, representative bulk density, and computed bottom-sediment mass in segments 

of Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, July and August 2005.

[The computed bottom-sediment mass for each segment has been rounded to three significant figures. The total bottom-sediment mass has been 

rounded to two significant figures.]

Reservoir segment

(table 1, fig. 2B)

Computed bottomsediment volume

(cubic feet)

Representative bulk 

density (pounds per

cubic foot)

Computed bottomsediment mass1

(pounds)

1Bottom-sediment mass is computed as estimated bottom-sediment volume multiplied by representative bulk density.

Shoal Creek arm (upstream) 2,070,000 43.4 89,800,000

Shoal Creek arm (downstream) 12,600,000 52.8 665,000,000

Main body (downstream) 19,600,000 57.7 1,130,000,000

Main body (upstream) 6,190,000 48.9 303,000,000

Area B 251,000 53.1 13,300,000

Area P 3,590,000 61.0 219,000,000

Riverton Dam area 159,000 40.7 6,470,000

Total for reservoir 2,400,000,000

particle-size data for Empire Lake is provided in tables A7 

through A13 in the “Supplemental Information” section at the 

back of this report. 

Age-Dating Results and Implications for

Sediment Transport and Deposition

Age dating of the bottom sediment in Empire Lake was 

accomplished by determining the activity of 137Cs in trend 

cores E–27 and E–36. For core E–27 (fig. 5A), the absence of 

137Cs activity in the lower (older) part of the core (intervals 1 

through 9) indicated pre-1954 (date approximate) sediment that 

was deposited prior to atmospheric fallout of 137Cs. The 137Cs 

activity measured for the upper (most-recent) part of the core 

(intervals 10 through 14) indicated post-1954 sediment. The relatively uniform 137Cs activity in the upper part of the core may 

be accounted for by two possible explanations. One possibility 

is that the upper part of the core provides a complete record of 

sediment deposition since 1954. However, the lack of a welldefined 1963–64 peak is indicative of substantial postdepositional mixing (possible causes include wave action and bioturbation). A second possibility is that the upper part of the core 

only represents sediment deposition that post-dates the 1963–64 

peak. In other words, part of the depositional record at this location may have been removed (for example, by one or more 

floods). Given the relatively low level of 137Cs activity measured (compared to core BHF–1 from nearby Blackberry Hay 

Farm Lake, fig. 5C), the second possibility was considered 

more likely. 

For core E–36 (fig. 5B), the absence of 137Cs activity 

throughout most of the core (intervals 1 through 14) indicated 

pre-1954 sediment. Only the top (most-recent) interval had 

measureable 137Cs activity. At this location, it appears that most 

of the post-1954 sediment either was not deposited or was 

deposited and subsequently removed. Given the relatively shallow water depth at this location (about 4 ft, table A2 at the back 

of this report), it is possible that historic sediment deposition at 

this location only occurred until a threshold water depth was 

reached after which little additional deposition of fine-grained 

sediment particles was possible (that is, flow currents and windinduced turbulence kept the sediment in suspension until it was 

transported out of the reservoir). If suspended sediment is uniformly distributed and settles vertically, sediment deposition is 

directly proportional to water depth (Morris and Fan, 1998). 

Additional evidence in support of the interpretation that a substantial amount of sediment was transported through Empire 

Lake was the elevated concentrations of cadmium, lead, and 

zinc in recently deposited channel-bed sediment of the Spring 

River immediately downstream from Empire Lake (Pope, 

2005). 

As evidenced by the 137Cs results for cores E–27 (fig. 5A) 

and E–36 (fig. 5B), the bottom sediment in Empire Lake does 

not appear to provide a complete and undisturbed record of sediment deposition over the life of the reservoir. This contention 

is based on the fact that the 137Cs profile for both cores lacked 

a well-defined peak followed by a uniform, exponential 

decrease. Also, the limited relative thickness of post-1954 sediment in both cores, compared to the thickness of pre-1954 

sediment, indicated that post-1954 sediment is underrepresented in the reservoir. Finally, it is uncertain to what extent the 

sediment (pre- and post-1954) has been mixed. For these reasons, any trends in constituent concentrations for these two 

cores likely are not representative of changes that occurred over 

the entire history of the reservoir. 

On the basis of the 137Cs evidence, it appears that the sediment trap efficiency of Empire Lake has decreased over the life 

of the reservoir. This is the expected consequence as water-storage capacity is lost because of sedimentation (Morris and Fan, 
Age-Dating Results and Implications for Sediment Transport and Deposition 21

(bottom) 1

4

5

7

6

3

2

9

13

12

10

8

11

 (top) 14

(bottom) 1

3

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

(top) 15

(top) 13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

(bottom) 1-0.10 0 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Sediment-core interval, dimensionless (bottom to top of core)

1963-64

Cesium-137 activity, in picocuries per gram

A. Coring site E–27 (fig. 2B) (Empire Lake)

B. Coring site E–36 (fig. 2B) (Empire Lake)

C. Coring site BHF–1 (Blackberry Hay Farm Lake, fig. 1)

Figure 5. Variation in cesium-137 activity with depth of bottom-sediment 

samples collected from coring sites E–27 and E–36 in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, and coring site BHF–1 in Blackberry Hay Farm Lake, southwest Missouri, September 2005.
22 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

1998). During low-inflow periods, some sediment deposition 

may occur in Empire Lake. However, during high-inflow periods, most of the suspended-sediment load may be transported 

through the reservoir and deposited downstream. Also, the turbulence caused by the high inflows likely resuspends and transports some of the previously deposited sediment in the 

reservoir. Thus, during high-inflow periods, Empire Lake may 

be a net source of sediment. 

In contrast, the 137Cs profile for Blackberry Hay Farm 

Lake core BHF–1 (fig. 5C) had a well-defined peak followed by 

a generally uniform exponential decrease. Because this core 

indicated relatively undisturbed bottom sediment, any constituent trends may be considered representative of changes that 

occurred over the entire history of the reservoir. 

Occurrence of, and Trends in, Selected 

Chemical Constituents

This section describes the occurrence of, and trends in, 

selected chemical constituents in bottom-sediment samples collected from Empire Lake and Blackberry Hay Farm Lake 

(fig. 1). Additionally, sediment quality is assessed with reference to available SQGs for the trace elements. Throughout this 

section it is important to keep in mind that any indicated trends 

in constituent concentrations in the bottom sediment of Empire 

Lake likely are not representative of changes that occurred over 

the entire history of the reservoir, as evidenced by the 137Cs 

results for trend cores E–27 (fig. 5A) and E–36 (fig. 5B). 

Nutrients and Total Organic Carbon

Total nitrogen concentrations in the Empire Lake composite cores ranged from 1,000 to 2,500 mg/kg with most concentrations either 1,000 or 2,000 mg/kg (tables A7, A9, A10, and 

A11 at the back of this report). The trend cores indicated minimal variability in total nitrogen concentrations over time with a 

typical concentration of 1,200 mg/kg for core E–1 (table A6 at 

the back of this report) and 2,000 mg/kg for cores E–6, E–27, 

and E–36 (tables A8, A12, and A13 at the back of this report). 

Likewise, for Blackberry Hay Farm Lake, trend core BHF–1 

indicated minimal variability in total nitrogen over time with 

concentrations consistently at or near 1,000 mg/kg (table A14 at 

the back of this report). 

Total phosphorus concentrations in the Empire Lake composite cores ranged from 610 to 1,200 mg/kg (tables A7, A9, 

A10, and A11). Similarly, total phosphorus concentrations in 

the trend cores ranged from 550 to 1,300 mg/kg (tables A6, A8, 

A12, and A13). Trend cores E–1 (table A6) and E–36 

(table A13) indicated relatively uniform total phosphorus concentrations over time. However, for trend cores E–6 (table A8) 

and E–27 (table A12), a possible positive trend was indicated. 

In the case of core E–27, the trend was statistically significant 

(Spearman’s rho = 0.65, two-sided p-value = 0.011). Examination of the concentration profile for core E–27 indicated that the 

increase in total phosphorus was confined to the top (mostrecent) one-fourth of the core. For Blackberry Hay Farm Lake, 

total phosphorus concentrations ranged from 280 to 690 mg/kg 

in trend core BHF–1 (table A14). A statistically significant positive trend also was indicated for this core (Spearman’s rho = 

0.76, two-sided p-value = 0.003). Again, the increase in total 

phosphorus was confined to the top (most-recent) one-fourth 

of the core. The increased total phosphorus at the top of 

cores E–27 and BHF–1 does not appear to be due to analytical 

variance as the concentrations are not within 10 percent of the 

mean concentration for each core. 

TOC in the Empire Lake composite cores ranged from 

1.4 to 2.3 percent with most cores (12 of 17) having a TOC content of 1.6 to 1.8 percent (tables A7, A9, A10, and A11). Similarly, TOC in the trend cores ranged from 1.3 to 2.4 percent 

(tables A6, A8, A12, and A13). Trend cores E–1 (table A6) and 

E–27 (table A12) indicated relatively uniform TOC content 

over time. However, for trend cores E–6 (table A8) and E–36 

(table A13), a possible negative trend was indicated. The trend 

for core E–6 was statistically significant (Spearman’s rho = 

-0.97, two-sided p-value = 0.005). However, this trend was not 

considered to be meaningful as it could be explained by analytical variance. The trend for core E–36 also was statistically significant (Spearman’s rho = - 0.81, two-sided p-value = 0.0003). 

Examination of the concentration profile for core E–36 indicated that, with the exception of the bottom (oldest) core interval and the top (most-recent) two core intervals, the trend could 

be explained by analytical variance. Thus, this trend may not be 

meaningful. For Blackberry Hay Farm Lake, trend core BHF–1 

indicated minimal variability in TOC over time with concentrations ranging from 0.9 to 1.3 percent (table A14).

Cadmium

The Empire Lake composite cores had cadmium concentrations that ranged from 7.3 mg/kg for core E-25 to 72 mg/kg 

for core E–29 (tables 8, A7, A9, A10, and A11). For the trend 

cores E–1, E–6, E–27, and E–36, cadmium concentrations for 

the sampled intervals ranged from 18 to 76 mg/kg (tables 8, A6, 

A8, A12, and A13). Overall, using the cadmium concentrations 

for all 17 composite cores and the mean cadmium concentrations for the four trend cores (fig. 6), the respective mean and 

median cadmium concentrations for the Empire Lake sediment 

cores were 35 and 29 mg/kg. Using the median cadmium concentration for the 19 cores used for chemical analysis that were 

collected within the reservoir segments used in the estimation of 

bottom-sediment volume and mass (that is, 32 mg/kg), the total 

mass of cadmium in the Empire Lake bottom sediment was estimated to be 78,000 lb.

To provide an indication of the effects of the historical lead 

and zinc mining on trace element concentrations in the bottom 

sediment of Empire Lake, the median concentrations were compared to background conditions as represented by the median 

concentrations in core BHF–1 collected from Blackberry Hay
Occurrence of, and Trends in, Selected Chemical Constituents 23

Table 8. Summary of cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations in bottom-sediment samples collected from Empire Lake composite and 

trend cores, southeast Kansas, and Blackberry Hay Farm Lake trend core BHF–1, southwest Missouri, 2005.

[mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram]

Trace element

Empire Lake Blackberry Hay Farm Lake

Range in concentrations 

for composite cores1 

(fig. 2)

1Seventeen composite cores analyzed.

Range in concentrations 

for trend cores2 

(fig. 2)

2

Four trend cores (37 core intervals) analyzed.

Median

concentration3

3Median concentration computed using the trace element concentrations for the 17 composite cores and the mean trace element concentrations for the 4 trend 

cores.

Range in concentrations 

for trend core BHF–1

Median

concentration4

4Median concentration computed for 13-interval trend core BHF–1.

Cadmium, mg/kg 7.3–72 18–76 29 0.1–0.5 0.4

Lead, mg/kg 100–950 170–730 270 24–40 33

Zinc, mg/kg 1,300–11,000 3,100–13,000 4,900 38–120 92

Farm Lake (fig. 1). The median cadmium concentration in core 

BHF–1 was 0.4 mg/kg (tables 8, A14). 

In phase I of this study, Pope (2005) estimated the background concentration of cadmium to be 0.6 mg/kg on the basis 

of results for streambed-sediment samples collected at sites 

minimally affected by historical lead and zinc mining within the 

Cherokee County superfund site (fig. 1). For a streambed-sediment sample collected from the Spring River upstream from the 

Cow Creek confluence and near the Kansas-Missouri State line 

(fig. 1), Pope (2005) reported a cadmium concentration of 

0.9 mg/kg. Upstream from the State line in Missouri, the Spring 

River drains a basin 70 percent of which is underlain by Mississippian bedrock (that is, the formation that contains the lead and 

zinc ores) and 30 percent of which is underlain by Pennsylvanian bedrock. According to Barks (1977), about 93 percent of 

the lead and zinc mined areas within the Tri-State District are 

drained by Center, Short, and Turkey Creeks, which enter the 

Spring River downstream from Cow Creek. However, some 

lead and zinc mining also occurred within the Spring River 

Basin upstream from those three tributaries and may have 

affected trace element concentrations in the Spring River sediment. Given the location of the Spring River sampling site 

upstream from the Cow Creek confluence, it was believed that 

the small cadmium concentration reported by Pope (that is, 

0.9 mg/kg) was representative of either background sediment 

concentrations or sediment concentrations that were slightly 

elevated above background by historical lead and zinc mining 

and (or) subsequent redistribution of mining wastes. In this context, the use of 0.4 mg/kg as the background cadmium concentration was considered reasonable. Likewise, in the following 

sections, the use of the median lead and zinc concentrations for 

core BHF–1 as the background concentrations also was considered reasonable. Using 0.4 mg/kg as the background concentration, the historical mining activity increased the median concentration of cadmium in the bottom sediment of Empire Lake by 

about 7,200 percent. 

Sediment quality was assessed by comparing the trace element concentrations in the bottom sediment with available 

SQGs. For Empire Lake, all bottom-sediment samples analyzed 

had cadmium concentrations that exceeded both the thresholdand probable-effects guidelines (0.99 and 4.98 mg/kg, respectively; table 5). With the exception of composite core E–25 

(7.3 mg/kg), the cadmium concentrations exceeded the probable-effects guideline by anywhere from about 180 to about 

1,400 percent. The cadmium concentration for the top (most 

recently deposited) interval of trend cores E–1, E–6, E–27, and 

E–36 ranged from 27 to 37 mg/kg (fig. 6) (that is, about 440 to 

640 percent larger than the probable-effects guideline). In comparison, all bottom-sediment samples analyzed for Blackberry 

Hay Farm Lake core BHF–1 had cadmium concentrations that 

were less than the threshold-effects guideline (table A14). 

Temporal trend analyses, with a significance level of 0.05, 

indicated a statistically significant negative trend for Empire 

Lake cores E-6 (fig. 7A) and E–36 (fig. 7C) (table 9). Because 

most of the intervals were not within 10 percent of the mean 

cadmium concentration, the negative trend for both cores does 

not appear to be due to analytical variance. A negative trend 

also was indicated for the three-interval core E–1 (table A6). A 

statistically significant negative trend was not indicated for core 

E–27 (fig. 7B). In addition, no trend in cadmium concentrations 

was indicated for Blackberry Hay Farm Lake core BHF–1 

(fig. 8A, table 9). 

Lead

Lead concentrations in the Empire Lake composite 

cores ranged from 100 mg/kg for core E–25 to 950 mg/kg for 

core E–29 (tables 8, A7, A9, A10, and A11). For the trend cores, 

lead concentrations for the sampled intervals ranged from 

170 to 730 mg/kg (tables 8, A6, A8, A12, and A13). Overall, 

using the lead concentrations for all 17 composite cores and the 

mean lead concentrations for the four trend cores (fig. 9), the 
24 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 MILE

0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 KILOMETER

Galena

Riverton

Lowell

Base from Kansas Geological Survey digital orthophoto county data, 2002

Data Access and Support Center

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

EXPLANATION

Short Creek

Shawnee Creek

Empire Lake

Shoal Creek

Spring River

 Riverton Dam

Lowell Dam

E–3324

E–2425

E–3223

E–31

27

E–27

29 (29)

E–2632

E–22

36

E–17

29

E–1429

E–1129

E–8

43

E–6

49 (37)

E–4

60

E–2

46

E–1

47 (29)

E–36

44 (27)

E–29

72

E–2360

E–1914

E–1018

E–25

7.3

400

400

69

ALT

Shoal Creek arm, upstream

Shoal Creek arm, downstream

Area B

Area P

Riverton Dam area

Main body, downstream

Main body, upstream

Trend coring site and identifier—Chemical trend analysis only. Number is estimated mean cadmium concentration, in milligrams

 per kilogram. Number in parentheses ( ) is cadmium concentration

 for most recently deposited sediment, in milligrams per kilogram 

E–1 47 (29)

Composite coring site and identifier—Chemical

 composite analysis only. Number is estimated mean

 cadmium concentration, in milligrams per kilogram

Composite coring site and identifier—Bulk-density

 determination and chemical composite analysis.

 Number is estimated mean cadmium concentration,

 in milligrams per kilogram 

E–1129

Bulk-density and trend coring site and identifier—Bulk-density

 determination and chemical trend analysis. Number is estimated

 mean cadmium concentration, in milligrams per kilogram.

 Number in parentheses ( ) is cadmium concentration for most

 recently deposited sediment, in milligrams per kilogram

E–6 49 (37) E–25

7.3

Approximate location

of submerged Spring River channel

94°43’

37°6’

5’

4’

37°3’

42’ 41’ 94°40’

66

66

Spring River arm

Figure 6. Cadmium concentrations for the composite cores and mean cadmium concentrations for the trend cores 

collected from Empire Lake, 2005. Reservoir segments are shown by colored areas on map and described in table 1.
Occurrence of, and Trends in, Selected Chemical Constituents 25

(bottom) 1

2

3

4

 (top) 5

(bottom) 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

(top) 14

(top) 15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

(bottom) 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

post 1954

pre 1954

pre 1954

post 1954

Sediment-core interval, dimensionless (bottom to top of core)

Threshold-effects

guideline (0.99 mg/kg)

Probable-effects

guideline (4.98 mg/kg)

Threshold-effects

guideline (0.99 mg/kg)

Probable-effects

guideline (4.98 mg/kg)

Threshold-effects

guideline (0.99 mg/kg)

Probable-effects

guideline (4.98 mg/kg)

Cadmium concentration, in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)

A. Coring site E–6 (fig. 2B)

B. Coring site E–27 (fig. 2B)

C. Coring site E–36 (fig. 2B)

Figure 7. Variation in cadmium concentrations with depth of bottomsediment samples collected from coring sites E–6, E–27, and E–36 in 

Empire Lake, August and September 2005. Sediment-quality guidelines 

from MacDonald and others (2000).
26 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Table 9. Results of trend tests on concentrations of selected trace elements in bottom-sediment samples 

collected from Empire Lake cores E–6, E–27, and E–36, southeast Kansas, and Blackberry Hay Farm Lake 

core BHF–1, southwest Missouri, August and September 2005.

[--, not determined]

Trace element Spearman’s rho Trend test at 0.05 level of significance 

(two-sided p-value)

Empire Lake core E–6 (fig. 2B)

Arsenic - 0.10 no trend (0.873)

Cadmium - 1.00 negative trend (0)

Chromium .56 no trend (0.322)

Copper - .80 no trend (0.104)

Lead - 1.00 negative trend (0)

Nickel - .70 no trend (0.188)

Silver -- --

Zinc - 1.00 negative trend (0)

Empire Lake core E–27 (fig. 2B)

Arsenic - .71 negative trend (0.004)

Cadmium - .23 no trend (0.434)

Chromium .59 positive trend (0.027)

Copper - .88 negative trend (0.00003)

Lead - .78 negative trend (0.001)

Nickel .31 no trend (0.283)

Silver -- --

Zinc - .84 negative trend (0.0002)

Empire Lake core E–36 (fig. 2B)

Arsenic - .71 negative trend (0.003)

Cadmium - .77 negative trend (0.0009)

Chromium - .20 no trend (0.478)

Copper - .51 no trend (0.052)

Lead - .83 negative trend (0.0001)

Nickel - .43 no trend (0.113)

Silver -- --

Zinc - .87 negative trend (0.00003)

Blackberry Hay Farm Lake core BHF–1 (fig. 1)

Arsenic .54 no trend (0.057)

Cadmium .36 no trend (0.227)

Chromium .37 no trend (0.209)

Copper .53 no trend (0.064)

Lead - .20 no trend (0.517)

Nickel - .10 no trend (0.741)

Silver -- --

Zinc .64 positive trend (0.018)
Occurrence of, and Trends in, Selected Chemical Constituents 27

(bottom) 1

4

5

6

3

2

7

8

9

10

11

12

 (top) 13

(bottom) 1

4

5

6

3

2

7

8

9

10

11

12

 (top) 13

(bottom) 1

4

5

6

3

2

7

8

9

10

11

12

 (top) 13

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Sediment-core interval, dimensionless (bottom to top of core)

Threshold-effects

guideline (0.99 mg/kg)

Zinc concentration, in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)

Cadmium concentration, in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)

Lead concentration, in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)

A. Cadmium

B. Lead

C. Zinc

Threshold-effects

guideline (35.8 mg/kg)

Threshold-effects

guideline (124 mg/kg)

Figure 8. Cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations with depth of bottomsediment samples from coring site BHF–1 in Blackberry Hay Farm Lake, 

September 2005. Sediment-quality guidelines from U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (1997) and MacDonald and others (2000).
28 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 MILE

0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 KILOMETER

Galena

Riverton

Lowell

Base from Kansas Geological Survey digital orthophoto county data, 2002

Data Access and Support Center

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Short Creek

Shawnee

Creek

Empire Lake

Shoal Creek

Spring River

 Riverton Dam

 Lowell Dam

E–33

270

E–24

170

E–32

270

E–31

260

E–27 310 (210)

E–26

280

E–22

160

E–17

250

E–14

280

E–11

220

E–8

340

E–6

370 (230)

E–4

310

E–2

220

E–1

220 (180)

E–36 400 (200)

E–29

950

E–23

350

E–19

140

E–10

170

E–25

100

400

400

69

ALT

Shoal Creek arm, upstream

Shoal Creek arm, downstream

Area B

Area P

Riverton Dam area

Main body, downstream

Main body, upstream

EXPLANATION

Trend coring site and identifier—Chemical trend analysis only.

 Number is estimated mean lead concentration, in milligrams

 per kilogram. Number in parentheses ( ) is lead concentration

 for most recently deposited sediment, in milligrams per kilogram

E–1 220 (180)

Composite coring site and identifier—Chemical composite

 analysis only. Number is estimated mean lead concentration,

 in milligrams per kilogram

Composite coring site and identifier—Bulk-density

 determination and chemical composite analysis. Number

 is estimated mean lead concentration, in milligrams per

 kilogram

 

E–11

220 Trend coring site and identifier—Bulk-density determination

 and chemical trend analysis. Number is estimated mean lead

 concentration, in milligrams per kilogram. Number in

 parentheses ( ) is lead concentration for most recently deposited

 sediment, in milligrams per kilogram

E–6 370 (230)

E–25

100

Approximate location

of submerged Spring River channel

94°43’

37°6’

5’

4’

37°3’

42’ 41’ 94°40’

66

66

Spring River arm

Figure 9. Lead concentrations for the composite cores and mean lead concentrations for the trend cores collected 

from Empire Lake, 2005. Reservoir segments are shown by colored areas on map and described in table 1. 
Occurrence of, and Trends in, Selected Chemical Constituents 29

respective mean and median lead concentrations for the Empire 

Lake sediment cores were 290 and 270 mg/kg. Using the 

median lead concentration for the 19 cores used for chemical 

analysis that were collected within the reservoir segments used 

in the estimation of bottom-sediment volume and mass (that is, 

270 mg/kg), the total mass of lead in the Empire Lake bottom 

sediment was estimated to be 650,000 lb. 

The background lead concentration, represented by the 

median lead concentration in Blackberry Hay Farm Lake core 

BHF–1, was 33 mg/kg (tables 8, A14). Pope (2005) estimated 

the background concentration of lead to be 20 mg/kg on the 

basis of results for streambed-sediment samples collected at 

sites minimally affected by historical lead and zinc mining 

within the Cherokee County superfund site (fig. 1). Nationally, 

Horowitz and others (1991) estimated the background concentration of lead in sediment to be 23 mg/kg. Using 33 mg/kg as 

the background concentration, the historical mining activity 

increased the median concentration of lead in the bottom sediment of Empire Lake by about 720 percent. 

For Empire Lake, all bottom-sediment samples analyzed 

had lead concentrations that exceeded the threshold-effects 

guideline (35.8 mg/kg). With the exception of composite 

core E–25 (100 mg/kg), the lead concentrations also exceeded 

the probable-effects guideline (128 mg/kg) by anywhere from 

about 10 to about 640 percent. The lead concentration for the 

top (most recently deposited) interval of trend cores E–1, E–6, 

E–27, and E–36 ranged from 180 to 230 mg/kg (fig. 9) (that is, 

about 40 to 80 percent larger than the probable-effects guideline). In comparison, the bottom-sediment samples analyzed for 

Blackberry Hay Farm Lake core BHF–1 had lead concentrations that were less than or equal to 40 mg/kg, and most were 

less than the threshold-effects guideline (table A14). 

Temporal trend analyses, with a significance level of 0.05, 

indicated a statistically significant negative trend for Empire 

Lake cores E–6, E–27, and E–36 (fig. 10) (table 9). The negative trends do not appear to be due to analytical variance as all 

or most of the intervals were not within 10 percent of the mean 

lead concentration for each core. A possible negative trend also 

was indicated for the three-interval core E–1 (table A6). No 

trend in lead concentrations was indicated for Blackberry Hay 

Farm Lake core BHF–1 (fig. 8B, table 9). 

Zinc

The Empire Lake composite cores had zinc concentrations 

that ranged from 1,300 mg/kg for core E–25 to 11,000 mg/kg 

for core E–29 (tables 8, A7, A9, A10, and A11). For the trend 

cores, zinc concentrations for the sampled intervals ranged from 

3,100 to 13,000 mg/kg (tables 8, A6, A8, A12, and A13). Overall, using the zinc concentrations for all 17 composite cores and 

the mean zinc concentrations for the four trend cores (fig. 11), 

the respective mean and median zinc concentrations for the 

Empire Lake sediment cores were 5,600 and 4,900 mg/kg. 

Using the median zinc concentration for the 19 cores used for 

chemical analysis that were collected within the reservoir 

segments used in the estimation of bottom-sediment volume 

and mass (that is, 5,100 mg/kg), the total mass of zinc in the 

Empire Lake bottom sediment was estimated to be 12 

million lb. 

The background zinc concentration, represented by the 

median zinc concentration in Blackberry Hay Farm Lake core 

BHF–1, was 92 mg/kg (tables 8, A14). Pope (2005) estimated 

the background concentration of zinc to be 100 mg/kg on the 

basis of the result for a streambed-sediment sample collected at 

a site minimally affected by historical lead and zinc mining 

within the Cherokee County superfund site (fig. 1). Nationally, 

Horowitz and others (1991) estimated the background concentration of zinc in sediment to be 88 mg/kg. Using 92 mg/kg as 

the background concentration, the historical mining activity 

increased the median concentration of zinc in the bottom sediment of Empire Lake by about 5,200 percent. 

All bottom-sediment samples analyzed for Empire Lake 

had zinc concentrations that exceeded both the threshold- and 

probable-effects guidelines (124 and 459 mg/kg, respectively; 

table 5). The zinc concentrations exceeded the probable-effects 

guideline by anywhere from about 180 to about 2,700 percent. 

The zinc concentration for the top (most recently deposited) 

interval of trend cores E–1, E–6, E–27, and E–36 ranged from 

3,100 to 4,900 mg/kg (fig. 11) (that is, about 580 to 970 percent 

larger than the probable-effects guideline). For Blackberry Hay 

Farm Lake core BHF–1, all of the bottom-sediment samples 

analyzed had zinc concentrations that were less than or equal to 

120 mg/kg and less than the threshold-effects guideline (table 

A14). 

Temporal trend analyses, with a significance level of 0.05, 

indicated a statistically significant negative trend for Empire 

Lake cores E–6, E–27, and E–36 (fig. 12, table 9). The negative 

trends do not appear to be due to analytical variance as all or 

most of the intervals were not within 10 percent of the mean 

zinc concentration for each core. A negative trend also was indicated for the three-interval core E–1 (table A6). A statistically 

significant positive trend was indicated for Blackberry Hay 

Farm Lake core BHF–1 (fig. 8C, table 9). A possible explanation for the increase in zinc concentrations is increased vehicular traffic in the basin since tire wear is a known source of zinc 

(Callender and Rice, 2000). In Empire Lake, the zinc in the bottom sediment contributed by tire wear is considered negligible 

compared to the zinc contributed by historical mining activity. 

In areas with no history of mining, zinc (and other trace elements) also may originate from road and railroad beds where 

chat (mill tailings) was used. 

Other Trace Elements

In this section, the results for arsenic, chromium, copper, 

mercury, nickel, and silver are presented. Overall, the bottomsediment concentrations of arsenic and chromium in Empire 

Lake were similar to those in Blackberry Hay Farm Lake, 

whereas the concentrations of copper and nickel in Empire Lake 

were substantially larger. Silver typically was not detected in 

the bottom sediment of either reservoir. Mercury results were 
30 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

(bottom) 1

2

3

4

 (top) 5

(bottom) 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

(top) 14

(top) 15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

(bottom) 10 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000

post 1954

pre 1954

pre 1954

post 1954

Sediment-core interval, dimensionless (bottom to top of core)

Threshold-effects

guideline (35.8 mg/kg)

Probable-effects

guideline (128 mg/kg)

Threshold-effects

guideline (35.8 mg/kg)

Threshold-effects

guideline (35.8 mg/kg)

Probable-effects

guideline (128 mg/kg)

Probable-effects

guideline (128 mg/kg)

Lead concentration, in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)

A. Coring site E–6 (fig. 2B)

B. Coring site E–27 (fig. 2B)

C. Coring site E–36 (fig. 2B)

Figure 10. Variation in lead concentrations with depth of bottom-sediment 

samples from coring sites E–6, E–27, and E–36 in Empire Lake, August and 

September 2005. Sediment-quality guidelines from MacDonald and others 

(2000).
Occurrence of, and Trends in, Selected Chemical Constituents 31

0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 MILE

0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 KILOMETER

Galena

Riverton

Lowell

Base from Kansas Geological Survey digital orthophoto county data, 2002

Data Access and Support Center

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Short Creek

Shawnee

Creek

Empire Lake

Shoal Creek

Spring River

Riverton Dam

Lowell Dam

E–33

4,600

E–24

3,700

E–32

4,200

E–31

3,800

E–27 5,500 (3,600)

E–26

4,700

E–22

6,400

E–17

4,600

E–14

5,100

E–11

3,500

E–8

8,300

E–6

8,900 (4,900)

E–4

7,400

E–2

7,800

E–1

4,900 (3,100)

E–36 7,200 (4,200)

E–29

11,000

E–23

9,300

E–19

2,300

E–10

2,500

E–25

1,300

400

400

69

ALT

EXPLANATION

Trend coring site and identifier—Chemical trend analysis only.

 Number is estimated mean zinc concentration, in milligrams per kilogram. Number in parentheses ( ) is zinc concentration

 for most recently deposited sediment, in milligrams per kilogram

E–1 4,900 (3,100)

Composite coring site and identifier—Chemical composite

 analysis only. Number is estimated mean zinc concentration,

 in milligrams per kilogram

Composite coring site and identifier—Bulk-density

 determination and chemical composite analysis.

 Number is estimated mean zinc concentration, in

 milligrams per kilogram

 

E–11

3,500 Trend coring site and identifier—Bulk-density determination

 and chemical trend analysis. Number is estimated mean zinc

 concentration, in milligrams per kilogram. Number in

 parentheses ( ) is zinc concentration for most recently deposited

 sediment, in milligrams per kilogram

E–6 8,900 (4,900)

E–25

1,300

Shoal Creek arm, upstream

Shoal Creek arm, downstream

Area B

Area P

Riverton Dam area

Main body, downstream

Main body, upstream

Approximate location

of submerged Spring

River channel

94°43’

37°6’

5’

4’

37°3’

42’ 41’ 94°40’

66

66

Spring River arm

Figure 11. Zinc concentrations for the composite cores and mean zinc concentrations for the trend cores collected from 

Empire Lake, 2005. Reservoir segments are shown by colored areas on map and described in table 1. 
32 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

(bottom) 1

2

3

4

 (top) 5

(bottom) 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

(top) 14

(top) 15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

(bottom) 1 0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

14,000

15,000

Sediment-core interval, dimensionless (bottom to top of core)

Threshold-effects

guideline (124 mg/kg)

Probable-effects

guideline (459 mg/kg)

Threshold-effects

guideline (124 mg/kg)

Probable-effects

guideline (459 mg/kg)

Threshold-effects

guideline (124 mg/kg)

Probable-effects

guideline (459 mg/kg)

Zinc concentration, in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)

A. Coring site E–6 (fig. 2B)

B. Coring site E–27 (fig. 2B)

C. Coring site E–36 (fig. 2B)

post 1954

pre 1954

pre 1954

post 1954

Figure 12. Variation in zinc concentrations with depth of bottom-sediment 

samples collected from coring sites E–6, E–27, and E–36 in Empire Lake, 

August and September 2005. Sediment-quality guidelines from U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (1997) and MacDonald and others (2000). 
Variability of Trace Element Concentrations in Relation to Mining Activity and Other Factors 33

only available for a single Empire Lake core. The chemical data 

for the Empire Lake composite cores are provided in tables A7, 

A9, A10, and A11. For Empire Lake trend cores E–1, E–6, 

E–27, and E–36, the chemical data are provided in tables A6, 

A8, A12, and A13, respectively. The chemical data for Blackberry Hay Farm Lake trend core BHF–1 are provided in 

table A14. 

With the exception of trend core E–6 (table A8), arsenic 

concentrations in the bottom sediment of Empire Lake were less 

than the threshold-effects guideline (9.79 mg/kg, table 5). For 

trend core E–6, the middle three intervals had arsenic concentrations that were greater than the threshold-effects guideline 

but less than the probable-effects guideline (41.6 mg/kg, 

table 5). Statistically significant negative trends in arsenic concentrations were indicated for trend cores E–27 and E–36 

(table 9). The trend for core E–27 does not appear to be due to 

analytical variance as most of the intervals were not within 

10 percent of the mean concentration. For trend core E–36, 

about one-half of the intervals were within 10 percent of the 

mean concentration. A negative trend also was indicated for the 

three-interval core E–1. In contrast, a possible positive trend in 

arsenic concentrations (significant at the 0.06 level) was indicated for Blackberry Hay Farm Lake core BHF–1 (table 9). 

However, the positive trend may be due to analytical variance. 

 Typically, chromium concentrations in the bottom sediment of both Empire and Blackberry Hay Farm Lake were 

greater than the threshold-effects guideline (52.3 mg/kg, 

table 5) but less than the probable-effects guideline (160 mg/kg, 

table 5). A statistically significant positive trend in chromium 

concentrations was indicated for trend core E–27 (table 9). 

However, because most of the intervals were within 10 percent 

of the mean concentration, the trend may be due to analytical 

variance. In contrast, a possible negative trend was indicated for 

the three-interval core E–1. 

The results for copper were more variable. Of the 17 composite cores analyzed for Empire Lake, 11 had copper concentrations that were less than the threshold-effects guideline 

(31.6 mg/kg, table 5), whereas the remaining six cores had concentrations that were greater than the threshold-effects guideline but less than the probable-effects guideline (149 mg/kg, 

table 5). For Empire Lake trend cores E–1, E–6, and E–36, most 

or all of the intervals had copper concentrations that were 

greater than the threshold-effects guideline but less than the 

probable-effects guideline. However, for Empire Lake trend 

core E–27, 11 of 14 intervals had copper concentrations that 

were less than the threshold-effects guideline. All intervals of 

Blackberry Hay Farm Lake core BHF–1 had copper concentrations that were less than the threshold-effects guideline. 

Overall, a negative trend was indicated for copper concentrations in the bottom sediment of Empire Lake; although, only 

the trend for core E–27 was statistically significant at the 

0.05 level (table 9). For each core, the trend does not appear to 

be due to analytical variance as most of the intervals were not 

within 10 percent of the mean concentration. A negative trend 

also was indicated for the three-interval core E–1. No trend in 

copper concentrations was indicated for Blackberry Hay Farm 

Lake core BHF–1 (table 9). 

Mercury results were only available for Empire Lake 

core E–1. The top (most-recent) interval had a mercury concentration that was less than the threshold-effects guideline 

(0.18 mg/kg, table 5). The bottom (oldest) two intervals of the 

core had mercury concentrations that were greater than the 

threshold-effects guideline but less than the probable-effects 

guideline (1.06 mg/kg, table 5). 

With few exceptions, nickel concentrations in the bottom 

sediment of Empire Lake typically were greater than the threshold-effects guideline (22.7 mg/kg, table 5) but less than the 

probable-effects guideline (48.6 mg/kg, table 5). Exceptions 

included composite cores E–4 and E–8, and trend core E–6, for 

which nickel concentrations exceeded the probable-effects 

guideline. For trend core E–6, the nickel concentration in the 

top (most-recent) interval was between the two guidelines, 

whereas concentrations in the bottom (oldest) four intervals 

were greater than the probable-effects guideline. Nickel concentrations for Blackberry Hay Farm Lake core BHF–1 typically were less than the threshold-effects guideline. No statistically significant trends in nickel concentrations were indicated 

(table 9). 

Silver was not detected in 8 of 17 composite cores for 

Empire Lake. Of the remaining nine cores for which silver was 

detected, five cores had concentrations less than the thresholdeffects guideline (0.733 mg/kg, table 5), and four cores had concentrations greater than the threshold-effects guideline but less 

than the probable-effects guideline (1.77 mg/kg, table 5). For 

the trend cores, silver was not detected in all or most of the 

intervals. Although, for the top (most-recent) six intervals of 

trend core E–27, silver was detected at concentrations that were 

greater than the threshold-effects guideline but less than the 

probable-effects guideline. Silver typically was not detected in 

Blackberry Hay Farm Lake core BHF–1. 

Variability of Trace Element Concentrations 

in Relation to Mining Activity and Other

Factors

In this section, the variability of cadmium, lead, and zinc 

concentrations in the bottom sediment of Empire Lake was 

interpreted in relation to historical mining activity and other 

factors. Spatially, variability was assessed using the trace element concentrations for the 17 composite cores along with the 

mean concentrations for the four trend cores. Temporally, variability was assessed using the four trend cores. 

Spatially, several patterns were indicated in the bottom 

sediment of Empire Lake. Within the Spring River arm of the 

reservoir, three cores (in downstream order, E–25, E–19, and 

E–10) indicated increasing cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations in the downstream direction (figs. 6, 9, and 11). The downstream increase in concentrations likely was caused by tributary 
34 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

inflow from Short Creek, which drains an area that has been 

substantially affected by historical lead and zinc mining (fig. 1). 

Similarly, in phase I of this study, Pope (2005) determined that 

streambed-sediment concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc 

increased in the downstream direction along the 22-mi length of 

the Spring River sampled within the Cherokee County superfund site. Along the Spring River, the downstream increase in 

concentrations likely was caused, in part, by the successive tributary inflows from Center, Turkey, and Short Creeks, which 

drain areas that have been substantially affected by historical 

lead and zinc mining (fig. 1). Streambed-sediment samples for 

these three creeks contained concentrations of cadmium, lead, 

and zinc that were much larger than background concentrations 

(Barks, 1977; Pope, 2005). 

Within the Shoal Creek arm, five cores (in downstream 

order, E–11, E–26, E–14, E–27, and E–17) indicated uniform 

cadmium concentrations in the downstream direction (fig. 6). 

Lead and zinc concentrations increased in the downstream 

direction in the first four cores then decreased for core E–17 

(figs. 9 and 11). A possible explanation for the downstream 

increase in lead and zinc concentrations in the first four cores is 

related to the particle-size composition of the sediment. 

Because fine particles (that is, clay) are preferentially transported and deposited farther downstream in a reservoir than 

coarse particles (that is, silt) and because trace element concentrations generally increase as particle size decreases (Horowitz, 

1991), the downstream increase in lead and zinc concentrations 

may be indicative of increasing amounts of fine particles in the 

sediment. The decreased lead and zinc concentrations in 

core E–17 possibly represent an influx of compositionally different sediment from a minor tributary, shoreline erosion, and 

(or) the main body of Empire Lake. 

In terms of relative magnitude, the concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc in the Spring River arm of the reservoir 

were substantially less than concentrations in the main body and 

the Shoal Creek arm (figs. 6, 9, and 11). Results of the sediment-thickness mapping indicate that minimal bottom sediment 

was deposited within the Spring River arm. Thus, the sediment 

that was sampled may be representative of recently deposited 

material that is only stored temporarily before being remobilized and transported downstream. If this interpretation is valid, 

then the relatively small concentrations of cadmium, lead, and 

zinc in the Spring River arm may be indicative of less-contaminated sediments originating from the mining-affected areas of 

this part of the Spring River Basin (possibly due, in part, to 

remediation efforts and landscape stabilization) and (or) a relative increase in the contribution of minimally contaminated sediments from such sources as Shawnee Creek (fig. 1). 

Several lines of evidence indicate the transport of contaminated sediment downstream from Empire Lake. The evidence 

includes: (1) minimal sediment deposition in the Spring River 

arm of the reservoir; (2) underrepresented post-1954 sediment 

in Empire Lake trend cores E–27 and E–36; (3) relatively small 

concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc in the sediment sampled for the Spring River arm of the reservoir; and (4) elevated 

concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc in recently deposited 

channel-bed sediment of the Spring River immediately downstream from Empire Lake. These elevated concentrations 

typically exceeded the probable-effects guidelines (Pope, 2005) 

and were within the range of concentrations measured for the 

bottom sediment in Empire Lake. Some of the contaminated 

sediment transported through Empire Lake will be deposited in 

downstream environments likely as far as Grand Lake O’ the 

Cherokees in Oklahoma. Previously, Pita and Hyne (1975) documented increased lead and zinc concentrations in the uppermost layer of bottom sediment in Grand Lake O’ the Cherokees. 

The largest cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations were 

measured for bottom sediment in the main body of Empire Lake 

(figs. 6, 9, and 11; tables A12 and A13). As evidenced by the 

137Cs activity for trend core E–36 (fig. 5B), the bottom sediment in the main body of the reservoir does not represent a complete record of deposition. Instead, with the exception of the top 

(most-recent) interval, trend core E–36 consisted of pre-1954 

sediment. Similarly, most of trend core E–27 in the Shoal Creek 

arm of the reservoir consisted of pre-1954 sediment. The pre1954 sediment included inputs of cadmium, lead, and zinc that 

were deposited during and after the historical peak period of 

lead and zinc mining in the Kansas and Missouri parts of the 

Tri-State District. In the Kansas part, major production of lead 

and zinc concentrates occurred from about 1920 to 1950. Major 

production in the Galena area ended by about 1920, but it continued until about 1950 downstream from Empire Lake in the 

vicinity of Baxter Springs and Treece (fig. 1). In the Missouri 

part, major production occurred from about 1880 to 1920 

(Spruill, 1987). 

The occurrence of the largest cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations in the main body of Empire Lake indicated that, historically, sources contributing to the Spring River probably provided larger inputs than sources contributing to Shoal Creek. 

The probable larger historical trace element concentrations in 

the sediment delivered by the Spring River may be indicative of 

the proximity of the main stem and tributaries to areas that were 

affected substantially by lead and zinc mining. For example, the 

channel networks of Center, Turkey, and Short Creeks (tributaries of the Spring River) apparently flow through or near more 

mining-affected areas than does the channel network of Shoal 

Creek (fig. 1). However, possibly due, in part, to landscape stabilization over time as well as remediation efforts, the concentrations in the most recently deposited sediment in the main 

body of Empire Lake (core E–36) were similar to the most 

recently deposited sediment in the Shoal Creek arm of the reservoir (core E–27) (figs. 6, 9, and 11). 

Temporally, the four trend cores indicated negative trends 

for cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations (tables A6, A8, 

A12, and A13). With the exception of the cadmium trend for 

core E–27, the trends for cores E–6, E–27, and E–36 were statistically significant (table 9). However, as indicated by the 

137Cs results for cores E–27 (fig. 5A) and E–36 (fig. 5B), the 

trends likely are not representative of changes that occurred 

over the entire history of the reservoir. Instead, the trends may 

be mostly indicative of pre-1954 changes. 
Summary and Conclusions 35

Inspection of the concentration profiles for the moredetailed trend cores E–27 and E–36 (14 and 15 intervals, 

respectively) indicated that the negative trends for cadmium, 

lead, and zinc were not continuous as suggested by the lessdetailed trend core E–6 (5 intervals) (figs. 7A, 10A, and 12A). 

For trend core E–27, an initial negative trend (intervals 1–6) 

was interrupted by a period of increased concentrations (intervals 7 and 8). Then, following a pronounced decrease (interval 

9), the concentrations essentially were uniform (intervals 10–

14) (figs. 7B, 10B, and 12B). For trend core E–36, concentrations initially were variable with no well-defined trend (intervals 1–7). Then, there was a pronounced decrease (interval 8) 

after which the concentrations essentially were uniform (intervals 9–15) (figs. 7C, 10C, and 12C). The abrupt decrease in 

concentrations in the middle of trend core E–36 created a bimodal distribution consisting of larger concentrations for the older 

sediments and smaller concentrations for the more-recent sediments. 

The absence of a well-defined 137Cs profile in cores E–27 

and E–36 (figs. 5A and 5B) limited the ability to assign a date to 

the pronounced decrease in concentrations. Moreover, uncertainty as to how much sediment removal and mixing have 

occurred further restricted the ability to assign a date. However, 

given that the pronounced decrease occurred in both cores prior 

to the first detection of 137Cs activity, it appears that the 

decrease happened before 1954. With the available information 

it is not possible to assign a more exact date. Because the exact 

date is unknown, the explanation for the pronounced decrease is 

necessarily uncertain. Although, it is reasonable to propose that 

historical changes in mining activity, in part, would account for 

the pronounced decrease. As previously stated, major lead and 

zinc production in areas upstream from Empire Lake ended 

about 1920. Other factors that may affect trace element concentrations include precipitation, runoff, vegetation, remediation, 

and landscape stabilization. 

One specific possibility that could account for the pronounced pre-1954 decrease in cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations is as follows. With the end of major lead and zinc production in areas upstream from Empire Lake by about 1920, 

sediment concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc steadily 

declined. A major flood, during the period of declining concentrations, removed some of the previously deposited sediment in 

Empire Lake. The missing record in the sediment profile potentially would be evidenced by a pronounced decrease in cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations. Between 1923 and 1954, 

the largest flood measured for the Spring River near Waco, Missouri (USGS streamflow-gaging station 07186000, period of 

record 1923 to 2005) (fig. 1) occurred on May 19, 1943, with a 

peak discharge of 103,000 ft3/s. This flood was the second largest for the period of record, exceeded only by the peak of September 26, 1993 (151,000 ft3/s). The largest flood measured 

during the period of record for Shoal Creek above Joplin, Missouri (USGS streamflow-gaging station 07187000, period of 

record 1924 to 2005) (fig. 1) occurred on May 18, 1943, with a 

peak discharge of 62,100 ft3/s (U.S. Geological Survey, 2006). 

Thus, if the proposed possibility is valid, a potential date for the 

pronounced decrease in concentrations is 1943. 

To further assess temporal changes in cadmium, lead, and 

zinc concentrations over time, the most recently deposited 

pre-1954 sediment was compared with the post-1954 sediment 

in trend cores E–27 and E–36. For trend core E–27, the post1954 concentrations (intervals 10–14) generally were similar to 

the most-recent pre-1954 concentrations (interval 9) (figs. 7B, 

10B, and 12B). Likewise, for trend core E–36, the post-1954 

concentrations (interval 15) were similar to the most-recent pre1954 concentrations (interval 14) (figs. 7C, 10C, and 12C). This 

comparison indicated that cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations in the sediment deposited in Empire Lake may not have 

changed substantially over the past 50 or more years. However, 

the concentrations may have been affected by sediment removal 

and (or) mixing. 

Although the focus of this study was the bottom sediment 

in Empire Lake, three additional samples were collected to 

assess trace element contamination on the flood plain. The concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc for all three samples 

exceeded background concentrations. For the Spring River 

flood plain (site SRF–1, fig. 2A), the concentrations of cadmium 

and lead were greater than the threshold-effects guidelines 

(0.99 and 35.8 mg/kg, respectively) but less than the probableeffects guidelines (4.98 and 128 mg/kg, respectively). The zinc 

concentration was greater than the probable-effects guideline 

(459 mg/kg) (table A15 at the back of this report). For the Shoal 

Creek flood plain (site SCF–1, fig. 2B), the cadmium concentration was slightly less than the threshold-effects guideline, the 

lead concentration was slightly greater than the thresholdeffects guideline, and the zinc concentration was between the 

threshold- and probable-effects guidelines (table A15). For both 

flood-plain samples, the concentrations of cadmium, lead, and 

zinc were substantially smaller than the concentrations in the 

Empire Lake bottom sediment. This observation may be indicative of a larger percentage of coarse particles (that is, silt) in 

the samples analyzed. The sample of original flood-plain material collected from the bottom of trend core E–36 (fig. 2B) contained concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc that, although 

substantially less than the concentrations in the immediately 

overlying sediment, still exceeded the probable-effects guidelines (table A13). Concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc 

that exceeded the probable-effects guidelines also were found 

in recently deposited channel-bed sediment in the Spring River 

immediately downstream from Empire Lake (Pope, 2005). 

Thus, cadmium, lead, and zinc contamination in the vicinity of 

Empire Lake was not confined to the reservoir bottom sediment. 

Summary and Conclusions

A combination of sediment-thickness mapping and bottom-sediment coring completed in 2005 was used to investigate 

sedimentation and the occurrence of selected chemical constituents in bottom sediment of Empire Lake, a reservoir in 
36 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Cherokee County, Kansas, that has been affected by historical 

lead and zinc mining. The major results of this study are listed 

below: 

1. The total estimated volume and mass of bottom sediment 

in Empire Lake was 44 million ft3 and 2,400 million lb, 

respectively. 

2. The total estimated mass of cadmium, lead, and zinc in 

the bottom sediment of Empire Lake was 78,000, 

650,000, and 12 million lb, respectively.

3. Median cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations in the 

bottom sediment of Empire Lake were 29, 270, and 

4,900 mg/kg, respectively.

4. Cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations in the bottom 

sediment of Empire Lake were much larger than the 

estimated background concentrations.

5. Cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations in nearly all 

bottom-sediment samples from Empire Lake greatly 

exceeded the probable-effects guidelines, which 

represent the concentrations above which toxic biological 

effects usually or frequently occur. 

6. Cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations in the bottom 

sediment of Empire Lake decreased prior to 1954 and 

have remained relatively constant since.

7. Mining-related cadmium, lead, and zinc contamination in 

the vicinity of Empire Lake was not confined to the 

reservoir bottom sediment as elevated concentrations of 

the three trace elements were measured in flood-plain 

soils near the reservoir.

8. During high-inflow periods, Empire Lake may be a net 

source of contaminated sediment.

9. The presence of contaminated sediment in the Spring 

River immediately downstream from Empire Lake 

indicated that contaminated sediment that passes 

through, or originates from, Empire Lake will be 

deposited in downstream environments likely as far as 

Grand Lake O’ the Cherokees in Oklahoma. 

References Cited

Adriano, D.C., 1986, Trace elements in the terrestrial environment: New York, Springer-Verlag, 533 p. 

Allgood, F.P., and Persinger, I.D., 1979, Missouri general soil 

map and soil association descriptions: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 74 p. 

American Society for Testing and Materials, 2004, Standard 

practice for high-resolution gamma-ray spectrometry of 

water, in Annual book of ASTM standards, section 11, water 

and environmental technology: West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, ASTM, v. 11.02, D 3649–98a, p. 285–295. 

Angelo, R.T., Cringan, M.S., Chamberlain, D.L., Haslouer, 

S.G., and Stahl, A.J., 2005, Residual effects of lead and zinc 

mining on freshwater mussels in the Spring River Basin, in

Proceedings of the Tri-State Mining District Forum, Missouri Southern State University, Joplin, Missouri, April 12–

14, 2005: Information available on the Web, accessed 

August 3, 2005, at http://www.dce.siu.edu/pdfs/tristatepdf/

angelo-mussel_contaminant_study1.pdf

Arbogast, B.F., 1996, Analytical methods manual for the Mineral Resource Surveys Program: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 96–525, 248 p. 

Barks, J.H., 1977, Effects of abandoned lead and zinc mines and 

tailings piles on water quality in the Joplin area, Missouri: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 77–

75, 49 p. 

Baudo, Renato, Giesy, J.P., and Muntau, Herbert, eds., 1990, 

Sediments—chemistry and toxicity of in-place pollutants: 

Ann Arbor, Michigan, Lewis Publishers, 405 p. 

Blomqvist, Sven, 1985, Reliability of core sampling of soft 

bottom sediment—an in situ study: Sedimentology, v. 32, 

p. 605–612. 

Blomqvist, Sven, and Bostrom, Kurt, 1987, Improved sampling 

of soft bottom sediments by combined box and piston coring: 

Sedimentology, v. 34, p. 715–719. 

Brichta, L.C., 1960, Catalog of recorded exploration drilling 

and mine workings, Tri-State Zinc-Lead District—Missouri, 

Kansas, and Oklahoma: U.S. Bureau of Mines Information 

Circular 7993, 13 p. 

Briggs, P.H., and Meier, A.L., 1999, The determination of forty 

two elements in geological materials by inductively coupled 

plasma-mass spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 99–166, 15 p. 

Brosius, Liz, and Sawin, R.S., 2001, Lead and zinc mining in 

Kansas: Kansas Geological Survey Public Information Circular 17, 6 p. 

Callender, Edward, and Rice, K.C., 2000, The urban environmental gradient—anthropogenic influences on the spatial 

and temporal distributions of lead and zinc in sediments: 

Environmental Science & Technology, v. 34, p. 232–238. 

Cherokee County Trustee Council, 2004, Phase I damage 

assessment plan for Cherokee County, Kansas (draft): Cambridge, Massachusetts, Industrial Economics, Inc., 64 p. 

Clark, J.G., 1970, Towns and minerals in southeastern Kansas—a study in regional industrialization, 1890–1930: 

Kansas Geological Survey Special Distribution Publication 

No. 52, 148 p. 

Davies, B.E., 1983, Heavy metal contamination from base 

metal mining and smelting—implications for man and his 

environment, chap. 14, in Thornton, Iain, ed., Applied environmental geochemistry: New York, Academic Press, 501 p. 

Davis, J.V., and Schumacher, J.G., 1992, Water-quality characterization of the Spring River Basin, southwestern Missouri 

and southeastern Kansas: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 90–4176, 112 p. 

Emery, K.O., and Hulsemann, J., 1964, Shortening of sediment 

cores collected in open barrel gravity corers: Sedimentology, 

v. 3, p. 144–154. 
References Cited 37

Fenneman, N.M., 1938, Physiography of eastern United States: 

New York, McGraw-Hill, 714 p. 

Fenneman, N.M., 1946, Physical divisions of the United States: 

U.S. Geological Survey special map, scale 1:7,000,000, 

1 sheet. 

Ferrington, L.C., Galle, O.K., Blackwood, M.A., Wright, C.A., 

Schmidt, F.J., and Jobe, J.M., 1989, Occurrence and biological effects of cadmium, lead, manganese, and zinc in the 

Short Creek/Empire Lake aquatic system in Cherokee 

County, Kansas: Kansas Water Resources Research Institute, 

Contribution 277, 126 p. 

Fishman, M.J., and Friedman, L.C., eds., 1989, Methods for 

determination of inorganic substances in water and fluvial 

sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 5, chap. A1, 545 p. 

Forstner, Ulrich, and Wittmann, G.T.W., 1981, Metal pollution 

in the aquatic environment: New York, Springer-Verlag, 

486 p. 

Gibson, A.M., 1972, Wilderness bonanza—the Tri-State District of Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma: Norman, Oklahoma, University of Oklahoma Press, 362 p. 

Gordon, N.D., McMahon, T.A., and Finlayson, B.L. 1992, 

Stream hydrology—an introduction for ecologists: New 

York, John Wiley & Sons, 526 p.

Grosbois, C., Horowitz, A.J., Smith, J.J., and Elrick, K.A., 

2001, The effect of mining and related activities on the sediment-trace element geochemistry of Lake Coeur d’Alene, 

Idaho, USA, part III. Downstream effects—the Spokane 

River Basin: Hydrological Processes, v. 15, p. 855–875. 

Guy, H.P., 1969, Laboratory theory and methods for sediment 

analysis: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 5, chap. C1, 58 p. 

Hakanson, L., and Jansson, M., 1983, Principles of lake sedimentology: New York, Springer-Verlag, 316 p. 

Helsel, D.R., and Hirsch, R.M., 1992, Statistical methods in 

water resources: Amsterdam, Elsevier Science Publ., 529 p. 

Hem, J.D., 1989, Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water (3d ed.): U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 2254, 263 p. 

High Plains Regional Climate Center, 2005, Historical data 

summaries: Information available on the Web, accessed January 10, 2005, at http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/ 

Hongve, Dag, and Erlandsen, A.H., 1979, Shortening of surface 

sediment cores during sampling: Hydrobiologia, v. 65, no. 3, 

p. 283–287. 

Horowitz, A.J., 1991, A primer on sediment-trace element 

chemistry (2nd ed.): Chelsea, Michigan, Lewis Publishers, 

136 p. 

Horowitz, A.J., Elrick, K.A., Demas, C.R., and Demcheck, 

D.K., 1991, The use of sediment-trace element geochemical 

models for the identification of local fluvial baseline concentrations, in Peters, N.E., and Walling, D.E., eds., Sediment 

and stream water quality in a changing environment—trends 

and explanation, in Proceedings of Symposia of the 20th 

General Assembly of the International Union of Geodesy and 

Geophysics in Vienna, Austria, August 11–24, 1991: 

Oxfordshire, U.K., IAHS Publication 23, p. 339–348.

Horowitz, A.J., Elrick, K.A., and Smith, J.J., 2001, Estimating 

suspended sediment and trace element fluxes in large river 

basins—methodological considerations as applied to the 

NASQAN program: Hydrological Processes, v. 15, p. 1107–

1132. 

Kansas Data Access and Support Center, 2006, Digital orthophotos: Information available on the Web, accessed April 14, 

2006, at http://www.kansasgis.org/

Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2004, Kansas 

2004 303(d) list: Information available on the Web, accessed 

March 29, 2004, at http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/tmdl/

Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2006, Kansas 

issues new fish consumption advisories, news release issued 

January 9, 2006: Information available on the Web, accessed 

February 2, 2006, at http://www.kdheks.gov/news/ 

index.html

Karickhoff, S.W., 1984, Organic pollutant sorption in aquatic 

systems: Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, v. 110, no. 6, 

p. 707–735. 

Lide, D.R., ed., 1993, CRC handbook of chemistry and physics 

(74th ed.): Boca Raton, Florida, CRC Press, various pagination. 

MacDonald, D.D., Ingersoll, C.G., and Berger, T.A., 2000, 

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment 

quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems: Archives of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v. 39, 

p. 20–31. 

Morris, G.L., and Fan, Jiahua, 1998, Reservoir sedimentation 

handbook: New York, McGraw-Hill, various pagination. 

Neuberger, J.S., Mulhall, Margaret, Pomatto, M.C., Sheverbush, Joan, and Hassanein, R.S., 1990, Health problems in 

Galena, Kansas—a heavy metal mining superfund site: The 

Science of the Total Environment, v. 94, p. 261–272. 

Pais, Istvan, and Jones, J.B., Jr., 1997, The handbook of trace 

elements: Boca Raton, Florida, St. Lucie Press, 223 p. 

Pita, F.W., and Hyne, N.J., 1975, The depositional environment 

of zinc, lead and cadmium in reservoir sediments: Water 

Research, v. 9, p. 701–706. 

Pope, L.M., 2005, Assessment of contaminated streambed sediment in the Kansas part of the historic Tri-State Lead and 

Zinc Mining District, Cherokee County, 2004: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5251, 

61 p. 

Ritchie, J.C., and McHenry, J.R., 1990, Application of radioactive fallout cesium-137 for measuring soil erosion and sediment accumulation rates and patterns—a review: Journal of 

Environmental Quality, v. 19, p. 215–233. 

Seaber, P.R., Kapinos, F.P., and Knapp, G.L., 1987, Hydrologic 

unit maps: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 2294, 63 p. 

Spruill, T.B., 1987, Assessment of water resources in lead-zinc 

mined areas in Cherokee County, Kansas, and adjacent areas: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2268, 68 p. 
38 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Stringer, E.T., 1972, Foundations of climatology—an introduction to physical, dynamic, synoptic, and geographical climatology: San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company, 586 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 

1973, Soil survey of Crawford County, Kansas: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 50 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 

1985, Soil survey of Cherokee County, Kansas: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 105 p. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997, The incidence 

and severity of sediment contamination in surface waters of 

the United States, volume 1—national sediment quality survey: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report 823–R–

97–006, September 1997, various pagination. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004, National priority 

list sites in the Midwest: Information available on the Web, 

accessed December 21, 2004, at http://www.epa.gov/ 

region7/cleanup/npl_files/index.htm

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991, Neosho madtom recovery 

plan: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 42 p. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992, Trace elements and 

organic compounds in the Spring River Basin of southeastern 

Kansas in 1988: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Contaminant 

Report R6/505M/91, 60 p. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2004, The endangered species 

program: Information available on the Web, accessed 

December 28, 2004, at http://endangered.fws.gov/

U.S. Geological Survey, 2006, National Water Information 

System (NWISWeb): Information available on the Web, 

accessed September 8, 2006, at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/

Van Metre, P.C., Callender, Edward, and Fuller, C.C., 1997, 

Historical trends in organochlorine compounds in river 

basins identified using sediment cores from reservoirs: Environmental Science & Technology, v. 31, no. 8, p. 2339–2344. 

Van Metre, P.C., Wilson, J.T., Fuller, C.C., Callender, Edward, 

and Mahler, B.J., 2004, Collection, analysis, and age-dating 

of sediment cores from 56 U.S. lakes and reservoirs sampled 

by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1992–2001: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5184, 180 p. 

Wildhaber, M.L., Allert, A.L., Schmitt, C.J., Tabor, V.M., and 

Mulhern, Daniel, 1998, Both contaminants and habitat limit 

Neosho madtom (Noturus placidus) numbers in the Spring 

River, a Midwestern warmwater stream effected by runoff 

from historic zinc and lead mining, in Kennedy, Chris, and 

MacKinley, Don, eds., Fish response to toxic environments, 

Proceedings of the International Congress on the Biology of 

Fish, Towson University, Baltimore, Maryland, July 26–30, 

1998: Information available on the Web, accessed March 3, 

2005, at http://www.fishbiologycongress.org

Wildhaber, M.L., Allert, A.L., Schmitt, C.J., Tabor, V.M., Mulhern, Daniel, Powell, K.L., and Sowa, S.P., 2000, Natural and 

anthropogenic influences on the distribution of the threatened 

Neosho madtom in a Midwestern warmwater stream: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 129, p. 243–

261. 

Wildhaber, M.L., Schmitt, C.J., and Allert, A.L., 1999, Factors 

explaining the distribution and site densities of the Neosho 

madtom (Noturus placidus) in the Spring River, Missouri: 

U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology Program—Proceedings of the Technical Meeting, Charleston, 

South Carolina, March 8–12, 1999, volume 1 of 3: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99–

4018A, information available on the Web, accessed April 7, 

2005, at http://toxics.usgs.gov/pubs/wri99-4018/Volume1/ 

sectionD/1502_Wildhaber/

Wise, S.M., 1980, Caesium-137 and lead-210—a review of the 

techniques and some applications in geomorphology, chap. 

9, in Cullingford, R.A., Davidson, D.A., and Lewin, J., eds., 

Timescales in geomorphology: New York, John Wiley & 

Sons, 360 p. 

Zoumis, Theofanis, Schmidt, Astrid, Grigorova, Lidia, and Calmano, Wolfgang, 2001, Contaminants in sediments—remobilisation and demobilisation: The Science of the Total 

Environment, v. 266, p. 195–202. 
Supplemental Information
40 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Table A1. Latitude, longitude, depth to lakebed, depth to refusal, and estimated sediment thickness at sedimentthickness measurement sites (fig. 2) in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, July and August 2005.

Transect 

site

Latitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Longitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Depth to 

lakebed 

(feet)

Depth 

to 

refusal 

(feet)

Estimated 

sediment 

thickness 

(feet)

Notes

Transect 5 (8–1–2005)

A 37.08668 94.68768 15.0 15.6 0.6 hard bottom

B 37.08679 94.68788 19.2 19.2 0 gravel

C 37.08689 94.68802 19.8 19.8 0 gravel

D 37.08699 94.68811 20.1 20.1 0 gravel

E 37.08705 94.68829 18.3 19.3 1.0 rock bottom

Transect 6 (8–1–2005)

A 37.08574 94.68910 19.0 19.4 .4 rock under mud

B 37.08569 94.68901 21.2 21.2 0 gravel

C 37.08558 94.68884 21.3 21.3 0 gravel

D 37.08548 94.68870 21.0 21.5 .5 gravel under mud

E 37.08540 94.68858 17.7 18.8 1.1 hard bottom

Transect 7 (8–1–2005)

A 37.08404 94.68952 20.8 22.2 1.4 rock under mud

B 37.08416 94.68975 20.8 20.8 0 gravel

C 37.08428 94.68982 20.2 20.4 .2 gravel under mud

D 37.08439 94.68994 20.5 20.5 0 gravel

E 37.08446 94.69009 9.2 11.0 1.8 dense & hard bottom

Transect 8 (8–1–2005)

A 37.08329 94.69107 3.1 7.5 4.4 very dense at depth

B 37.08317 94.69096 16.9 18.0 1.1 hard bottom

C 37.08306 94.69083 20.5 21.4 .9 gravel under mud

D 37.08296 94.69073 22.0 22.0 0 gravel

E 37.08286 94.69057 21.5 22.1 .6 hard bottom

F 37.08286 94.69041 17.5 19.3 1.8 hard bottom

Transect 9 (8–1–2005)

A 37.08169 94.69134 21.1 23.6 2.5 rock under mud

B 37.08173 94.69143 24.8 24.8 0 gravel

C 37.08185 94.69163 22.4 22.4 0 gravel

D 37.08193 94.69169 21.5 21.7 .2 gravel under mud

E 37.08204 94.69187 15.8 17.8 2.0 very dense

Transect 10 (8–1–2005)

A 37.08080 94.69270 21.1 21.9 .8 gravel under mud

B 37.08063 94.69258 22.9 22.9 0 gravel

C 37.08062 94.69251 23.4 23.4 0 gravel

D 37.08045 94.69234 21.6 23.4 1.8 gravel under mud

E 37.08037 94.69227 18.8 24.2 5.4 rock under mud

Transect 11 (8–1–2005)

A 37.07918 94.69316 21.5 25.4 3.9 gravel under mud

B 37.07925 94.69329 24.9 25.4 .5 gravel under mud

C 37.07935 94.69341 25.3 25.3 0 gravel

D 37.07943 94.69357 23.8 23.8 0 rock
Supplemental Information 41

Table A1. Latitude, longitude, depth to lakebed, depth to refusal, and estimated sediment thickness at sedimentthickness measurement sites (fig. 2) in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, July and August 2005.—Continued

Transect 

site

Latitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Longitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Depth to 

lakebed 

(feet)

Depth 

to 

refusal 

(feet)

Estimated 

sediment 

thickness 

(feet)

Notes

Transect 12 (8–1–2005)

A 37.07815 94.69440 23.7 23.7 0 gravel

B 37.07793 94.69412 25.2 25.2 0 gravel

C 37.07790 94.69402 23.7 24.9 1.2 gravel under mud

D 37.07774 94.69386 12.6 15.9 3.3 very dense at bottom

Transect 13 (8–1–2005)

A 37.07631 94.69443 10.0 17.1 7.1

B 37.07634 94.69460 16.3 19.5 3.2 rock under mud

C 37.07639 94.69468 18.1 19.4 1.3 gravel under mud

D 37.07649 94.69493 21.4 21.4 0 gravel

E 37.07665 94.69505 23.1 23.1 0 gravel

F 37.07676 94.69512 23.6 24.1 .5 gravel under mud

G 37.07674 94.69519 22.6 23.9 1.3 rock under mud

H 37.07688 94.69538 7.4 9.9 2.5 rock under mud

Transect 14 (8–1–2005)

A 37.07484 94.69533 11.5 11.6 .1 gravel under mud

B 37.07502 94.69535 13.3 13.3 0 gravel

C 37.07516 94.69553 13.2 13.2 0 gravel

D 37.07532 94.69579 16.0 16.0 0 gravel

E 37.07547 94.69606 17.2 19.1 1.9 gravel under mud

F 37.07556 94.69622 10.9 14.5 3.6 very dense, may be old bank material

Transect 15 (7–11–2005)

A 37.07232 94.69261 2.3 4.7 2.4

B 37.07196 94.69208 2.8 5.2 2.4

C 37.07155 94.69159 2.9 4.9 2.0

D 37.07123 94.69111 2.3 2.8 .5

Transect 16 (7–12–2005)

A 37.07356 94.69623 18.4 18.8 .4 gravel under mud

B 37.07375 94.69647 14.9 14.9 0 gravel

C 37.07395 94.69672 16.7 16.7 0 gravel

D 37.07414 94.69692 21.4 22.1 .7 gravel under mud

Transect 17 (7–11–2005)

A 37.07118 94.69361 2.6 3.5 .9

B 37.07080 94.69307 3.0 4.7 1.7

C 37.07046 94.69259 3.1 5.6 2.5

D 37.07007 94.69212 2.8 5.0 2.2

E 37.06973 94.69163 2.0 2.2 .2

Transect 18 (7–12–2005)

A 37.07204 94.69684 14.6 14.6 0 gravel

B 37.07225 94.69704 19.5 19.5 0 gravel

C 37.07249 94.69731 22.3 22.3 0 gravel

D 37.07264 94.69754 22.1 22.1 0 rock

E 37.07272 94.69765 12.0 12.5 .5
42 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Transect 19 (7–11–2005)

A 37.07003 94.69464 2.8 3.5 0.7

B 37.06968 94.69421 3.3 3.4 .1

C 37.06928 94.69361 3.4 6.2 2.8

D 37.06886 94.69320 3.4 6.6 3.2

E 37.06851 94.69265 2.9 3.8 .9

F 37.06834 94.69243 2.3 2.4 .1

Transect 20 (7–12–2005)

A 37.06967 94.69646 9.2 10.6 1.4

B 37.06991 94.69682 21.1 21.1 0 gravel

C 37.07019 94.69711 18.5 18.5 0 gravel /rock

D 37.07036 94.69727 25.7 25.7 0 gravel/rock

E 37.07055 94.69749 23.4 23.4 0 gravel

F 37.07063 94.69766 15.0 18.2 3.2

Transect 21 (7–11–2005)

A 37.06729 94.69358 2.6 5.6 3.0

B 37.06744 94.69381 3.3 6.3 3.0

C 37.06785 94.69435 3.6 5.8 2.2

D 37.06822 94.69480 3.5 3.5 0

E 37.06860 94.69530 3.3 5.4 2.1

Transect 22 (7–11–2005)

A 37.06604 94.69445 2.2 3.6 1.4

B 37.06642 94.69497 3.0 5.9 2.9

C 37.06680 94.69546 3.0 3.8 .8

D 37.06717 94.69596 2.9 5.4 2.5

E 37.06733 94.69621 2.9 3.5 .6

F 37.06753 94.69647 2.9 8.2 5.3

G 37.06773 94.69676 2.8 3.8 1.0

H 37.06791 94.69701 18.5 20.9 2.4

I 37.06806 94.69714 22.3 23.4 1.1

J 37.06824 94.69746 14.5 14.5 0 gravel

K 37.06844 94.69767 9.4 9.4 0 gravel

L 37.06866 94.69795 7.9 7.9 0

M 37.06886 94.69821 5.2 6.7 1.5

Transect 23 (7–11–2005)

A 37.06737 94.69886 7.4 11.4 4.0

B 37.06722 94.69857 8.3 8.3 0 gravel

C 37.06704 94.69829 10.6 10.6 0

D 37.06689 94.69803 14.3 14.7 0.4

E 37.06680 94.69780 18.6 20.3 1.7

F 37.06653 94.69758 15.3 17.7 2.4

G 37.06635 94.69729 6.2 11.8 5.6

H 37.06617 94.69704 2.4 7.6 5.2

I 37.06575 94.69645 2.6 4.0 1.4

J 37.06541 94.69600 2.7 5.7 3.0

Table A1. Latitude, longitude, depth to lakebed, depth to refusal, and estimated sediment thickness at sedimentthickness measurement sites (fig. 2) in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, July and August 2005.—Continued

Transect 

site

Latitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Longitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Depth to 

lakebed 

(feet)

Depth 

to 

refusal 

(feet)

Estimated 

sediment 

thickness 

(feet)

Notes
Supplemental Information 43

Transect 23 (7–11–2005)—Continued

K 37.06506 94.69546 2.9 6.3 3.4

L 37.06470 94.69497 2.3 3.6 1.3

Transect 24 (7–11–2005)

A 37.06329 94.69553 2.4 4.4 2.0

B 37.06365 94.69607 2.4 3.3 .9

C 37.06406 94.69660 2.7 6.4 3.7

D 37.06444 94.69709 2.7 5.1 2.4

E 37.06475 94.69757 2.5 6.8 4.3

F 37.06495 94.69778 2.8 7.4 4.6

G 37.06513 94.69812 11.7 14.3 2.6

H 37.06535 94.69840 11.4 11.4 0

I 37.06550 94.69863 10.7 10.8 .1 sand/gravel

J 37.06568 94.69884 11.4 12.4 1.0 gravel under mud

K 37.06590 94.69907 9.7 13.5 3.8

L 37.06617 94.69942 8.0 8.0 0 rock?

M 37.06635 94.69975 13.6 14.9 1.3 gravel under mud

Transect 25 (7–11–2005)

A 37.06477 94.70029 9.9 9.9 0 gravel

B 37.06456 94.70006 6.8 6.8 0 gravel

C 37.06436 94.69983 6.2 6.2 0 gravel

D 37.06413 94.69962 12.6 17.8 5.2

E 37.06392 94.69943 10.4 15.6 5.2

F 37.06377 94.69911 6.3 12.5 6.2

G 37.06353 94.69893 3.3 8.6 5.3 grainy mud on pole

H 37.06314 94.69845 3.3 8.5 5.2 grainy mud on pole

I 37.06271 94.69799 3.6 7.8 4.2

J 37.06233 94.69756 3.6 7.6 4.0

K 37.06210 94.69730 3.0 7.6 4.6

L 37.06173 94.69685 1.9 6.9 5.0

Transect 26 (7–13–2005)

A 37.06093 94.69608 1.6 2.0 .4

B 37.06077 94.69587 1.9 3.7 1.8

C 37.06060 94.69558 1.6 2.8 1.2

D 37.06049 94.69546 1.2 2.3 1.1

Transect 27 (7–13–2005)

A 37.06284 94.70038 3.9 3.9 0

B 37.06274 94.70014 5.3 10.7 5.4

C 37.06232 94.69984 4.0 8.5 4.5

D 37.06193 94.69934 3.8 9.8 6.0

E 37.06154 94.69885 3.5 9.1 5.6

F 37.06116 94.69848 3.8 8.5 4.7

G 37.06069 94.69803 3.8 10.1 6.3

H 37.06033 94.69755 2.7 7.3 4.6

Table A1. Latitude, longitude, depth to lakebed, depth to refusal, and estimated sediment thickness at sedimentthickness measurement sites (fig. 2) in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, July and August 2005.—Continued

Transect 

site

Latitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Longitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Depth to 

lakebed 

(feet)

Depth 

to 

refusal 

(feet)

Estimated 

sediment 

thickness 

(feet)

Notes
44 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Transect 28 (7–13–2005)

A 37.06001 94.69722 1.9 2.8 0.9

B 37.05974 94.69707 2.0 3.2 1.2

C 37.05959 94.69680 2.0 3.1 1.1

D 37.05945 94.69666 1.6 2.2 .6

E 37.05933 94.69639 1.1 1.7 .6

Transect 29 (7–13–2005)

A 37.06640 94.70110 1.5 1.9 .4

B 37.06609 94.70123 5.9 6.1 .2

C 37.06583 94.70109 9.0 9.0 0 gravel

D 37.06565 94.70115 8.8 8.8 0 gravel

E 37.06532 94.70109 1.3 3.3 2.0

Transect 30 (7–13–2005)

A 37.06474 94.70105 3.0 4.0 1.0

B 37.06454 94.70107 10.4 10.4 0 hard pan

C 37.06431 94.70106 5.0 5.0 0 hard pan

D 37.06396 94.70105 7.5 7.5 0 hard pan

E 37.06378 94.70112 6.7 6.7 0 gravel

Transect 31 (7–13–2005)

A 37.06288 94.70102 7.0 7.0 0 hard pan

B 37.06275 94.70100 3.8 3.8 0 hard pan

Transect 32 (7–13–2005)

A 37.06592 94.70280 4.5 4.5 0 hard bed, unknown

B 37.06580 94.70277 6.0 6.0 0 gravel

C 37.06565 94.70278 4.2 4.2 0 gravel 

Transect 33 (7–13–2005)

A 37.06505 94.70279 6.1 6.1 0 gravel

B 37.06474 94.70277 7.5 7.5 0 hard bed

C 37.06449 94.70277 11.0 11.1 .1 hard bed

D 37.06422 94.70278 9.5 9.5 0 gravel

E 37.06393 94.70279 6.9 6.9 0 hard pan

F 37.06372 94.70278 8.5 8.5 0 gravel

G 37.06339 94.70273 5.4 5.5 .1 hard pan

H 37.06310 94.70274 5.2 5.2 0 hard pan

I 37.06284 94.70274 3.8 3.8 0 hard pan

J 37.06254 94.70273 3.5 3.7 .2 hard pan

Transect 34 (7–12–2005)

A 37.06215 94.70449 2.5 2.5 0 rock

B 37.06252 94.70447 1.6 1.6 0 rock

C 37.06281 94.70445 6.4 6.4 0 rock

D 37.06305 94.70446 8.0 8.1 .1 gravel under mud

E 37.06335 94.70447 9.0 9.7 .7

F 37.06361 94.70447 8.3 8.5 .2

G 37.06388 94.70448 8.5 8.5 0 gravel

Table A1. Latitude, longitude, depth to lakebed, depth to refusal, and estimated sediment thickness at sedimentthickness measurement sites (fig. 2) in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, July and August 2005.—Continued

Transect 

site

Latitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Longitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Depth to 

lakebed 

(feet)

Depth 

to 

refusal 

(feet)

Estimated 

sediment 

thickness 

(feet)

Notes
Supplemental Information 45

Transect 34 (7–12–2005)—Continued

H 37.06415 94.70450 8.0 8.0 0 gravel

I 37.06443 94.70451 7.7 7.7 0 gravel

J 37.06470 94.70450 7.5 7.8 .3

K 37.06494 94.70450 5.0 5.0 0 gravel

L 37.06522 94.70450 6.1 6.1 0 gravel

M 37.06554 94.70448 5.2 5.2 0 rock?

N 37.06185 94.70448 6.1 6.1 0 rock

O 37.06169 94.70444 1.9 1.9 0 rock

Transect 35 (7–13–2005)

A 37.06089 94.70064 1.3 1.9 .6

B 37.06052 94.70020 2.2 9.3 7.1

C 37.06015 94.69971 4.6 11.3 6.7

D 37.05975 94.69924 3.9 10.4 6.5

E 37.05934 94.69882 3.5 9.4 5.9

F 37.05890 94.69834 3.4 9.7 6.3

G 37.05854 94.69785 2.3 5.9 3.6

Transect 36 (7–13–2005)

A 37.05927 94.70111 3.0 8.9 5.9

B 37.05894 94.70062 3.4 4.2 .8

C 37.05850 94.70016 3.8 5.5 1.7

D 37.05806 94.69972 3.8 10.7 6.9

E 37.05791 94.69952 4.3 11.0 6.7

F 37.05769 94.69927 4.0 11.3 7.3

G 37.05719 94.69880 2.3 8.6 6.3

H 37.05699 94.69857 1.7 7.3 5.6

Transect 37 (7–13–2005)

A 37.05810 94.70201 1.7 4.4 2.7

B 37.05776 94.70166 3.7 8.5 4.8

C 37.05734 94.70119 5.3 7.4 2.1

D 37.05695 94.70074 5.0 6.3 1.3

E 37.05673 94.70053 3.8 4.3 .5

F 37.05654 94.70030 7.0 8.4 1.4

G 37.05631 94.70006 5.3 10.7 5.4

H 37.05611 94.69983 2.8 7.1 4.3

I 37.05590 94.69962 2.2 5.4 3.2

Transect 38 (7–13–2005)

A 37.05544 94.70140 11.7 12.1 .4 rock

B 37.05536 94.70126 13.5 19.6 6.1

C 37.05527 94.70118 14.6 20.5 5.9

D 37.05513 94.70102 15.6 20.9 5.3

E 37.05507 94.70100 16.2 20.0 3.8 rock under mud

F 37.05494 94.70076 9.0 14.9 5.9

G 37.05488 94.70066 4.2 9.3 5.1

Table A1. Latitude, longitude, depth to lakebed, depth to refusal, and estimated sediment thickness at sedimentthickness measurement sites (fig. 2) in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, July and August 2005.—Continued

Transect 

site

Latitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Longitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Depth to 

lakebed 

(feet)

Depth 

to 

refusal 

(feet)

Estimated 

sediment 

thickness 

(feet)

Notes
46 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Transect 39 (7–13–2005)

A 37.05539 94.70149 12.1 12.1 0 rock

B 37.05521 94.70147 14.9 19.4 4.5

C 37.05503 94.70147 14.1 19.4 5.3

D 37.05490 94.70145 14.5 18.4 3.9

E 37.05476 94.70149 14.0 17.9 3.9

F 37.05463 94.70150 12.1 17.6 5.5

G 37.05451 94.70154 10.7 16.5 5.8

H 37.05440 94.70155 9.1 14.8 5.7

Transect 40 (7–13–2005)

A 37.05450 94.70062 11.7 14.7 3.0

B 37.05441 94.70081 17.2 22.0 4.8

C 37.05431 94.70092 16.5 23.0 6.5

D 37.05422 94.70101 13.5 19.9 6.4

E 37.05407 94.70119 6.8 10.2 3.4

Transect 41 (7–12–2005)

A 37.05381 94.69962 9.5 14.6 5.1

B 37.05363 94.69966 13.8 19.7 5.9

C 37.05352 94.69976 12.7 17.4 4.7

D 37.05337 94.69984 9.0 12.0 3.0

E 37.05331 94.70000 6.8 11.7 4.9

F 37.05324 94.70017 4.8 11.0 6.2

G 37.05312 94.70022 3.4 8.5 5.1

Transect 42 (7–12–2005)

A 37.05289 94.69833 6.9 13.4 6.5

B 37.05278 94.69844 8.0 15.4 7.4

C 37.05274 94.69854 11.9 15.8 3.9

D 37.05252 94.69870 9.9 12.3 2.4

E 37.05233 94.69889 5.3 11.3 6.0

F 37.05244 94.69867 9.3 12.4 3.1

G 37.05225 94.69894 4.0 9.7 5.7

H 37.05215 94.69909 2.8 7.7 4.9

I 37.05207 94.69916 2.2 7.5 5.3

Transect 43 (7–12–2005)

A 37.05204 94.69688 3.5 6.6 3.1

B 37.05192 94.69701 3.5 6.2 2.7

C 37.05178 94.69713 5.9 9.5 3.6

D 37.05168 94.69721 9.5 14.5 5.0

E 37.05159 94.69734 11.3 13.7 2.4

F 37.05150 94.69744 11.3 14.6 3.3

G 37.05136 94.69761 9.4 13.0 3.6

H 37.05121 94.69773 2.4 2.4 0

Table A1. Latitude, longitude, depth to lakebed, depth to refusal, and estimated sediment thickness at sedimentthickness measurement sites (fig. 2) in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, July and August 2005.—Continued

Transect 

site

Latitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Longitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Depth to 

lakebed 

(feet)

Depth 

to 

refusal 

(feet)

Estimated 

sediment 

thickness 

(feet)

Notes
Supplemental Information 47

Transect 44 (7–12–2005)

A 37.05140 94.69541 2.4 2.9 0.5

B 37.05113 94.69561 2.5 6.1 3.6

C 37.05092 94.69587 2.9 6.8 3.9

D 37.05080 94.69602 4.0 7.4 3.4

E 37.05071 94.69614 6.5 8.0 1.5

F 37.05058 94.69623 10.0 13.0 3.0

G 37.05050 94.69633 10.7 15.4 4.7

H 37.05037 94.69641 10.7 14.1 3.4

I 37.05030 94.69654 9.5 11.2 1.7 gravel under mud

J 37.05019 94.69664 3.3 3.4 .1

Transect 45 (7–12–2005)

A 37.05061 94.69413 2.8 8.0 5.2

B 37.05047 94.69431 3.0 8.9 5.9

C 37.05037 94.69435 3.0 5.6 2.6

D 37.05020 94.69442 2.6 7.1 4.5

E 37.05015 94.69447 2.5 6.9 4.4

F 37.05002 94.69458 2.2 4.7 2.5

G 37.04989 94.69467 2.0 3.1 1.1

H 37.04979 94.69492 2.5 6.3 3.8

I 37.04964 94.69494 3.5 8.5 5.0

J 37.04958 94.69493 5.0 11.0 6.0

K 37.04952 94.69517 12.0 16.0 4.0

L 37.04942 94.69528 11.5 17.0 5.5

M 37.04926 94.69539 10.8 16.5 5.7

N 37.04907 94.69550 2.0 2.0 0 hard bottom

Transect 46 (7–12–2005)

A 37.04855 94.69405 12.0 17.4 5.4

B 37.04835 94.69413 14.3 17.7 3.4

C 37.04825 94.69415 13.8 19.2 5.4

D 37.04818 94.69426 11.0 14.3 3.3

E 37.04809 94.69437 5.2 7.9 2.7

Transect 47 (7–12–2005)

A 37.04725 94.69312 9.4 14.9 5.5

B 37.04735 94.69290 13.0 18.6 5.6

C 37.04745 94.69282 13.8 19.0 5.2

D 37.04756 94.69278 12.6 15.9 3.3

E 37.04772 94.69261 5.0 9.4 4.4

Transect 48 (7–12–2005)

A 37.04708 94.69138 7.7 13.2 5.5

B 37.04697 94.69151 10.0 14.7 4.7

C 37.04679 94.69148 9.9 13.2 3.3

D 37.04675 94.69148 9.8 14.3 4.5

E 37.04657 94.69159 8.5 13.0 4.5

Table A1. Latitude, longitude, depth to lakebed, depth to refusal, and estimated sediment thickness at sedimentthickness measurement sites (fig. 2) in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, July and August 2005.—Continued

Transect 

site

Latitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Longitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Depth to 

lakebed 

(feet)

Depth 

to 

refusal 

(feet)

Estimated 

sediment 

thickness 

(feet)

Notes
48 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Transect 48 (7–12–2005)—Continued

F 37.04637 94.69155 6.4 10.9 4.5

G 37.04636 94.69176 6.5 12.4 5.9

Transect 49 (7–12–2005)

A 37.04731 94.68737 3.6 9.1 5.5

B 37.04729 94.68729 6.3 9.4 3.1

C 37.04711 94.68726 7.4 12.5 5.1

D 37.04692 94.68724 7.4 9.6 2.2

E 37.04678 94.68724 7.5 9.2 1.7

F 37.04661 94.68722 6.9 12.5 5.6

G 37.04655 94.68722 5.9 11.9 6.0

H 37.04633 94.68718 3.7 7.8 4.1

I 37.04623 94.68717 3.1 9.3 6.2

J 37.04604 94.68712 2.1 7.5 5.4

Transect 50 (7–12–2005)

A 37.04670 94.68445 13.5 17.6 4.1

B 37.04656 94.68442 12.5 16.5 4.0

C 37.04644 94.68445 10.2 16.1 5.9

D 37.04630 94.68445 10.0 13.0 3.0

E 37.04613 94.68456 3.7 5.7 2.0

Transect 51 (7–12–2005)

A 37.04535 94.68305 4.2 4.3 .1

B 37.04542 94.68294 7.5 7.6 .1

C 37.04559 94.68281 9.6 13.8 4.2

D 37.04563 94.68263 8.9 8.9 0

E 37.04580 94.68254 6.0 6.6 .6

F 37.04582 94.68235 6.0 8.5 2.5

G 37.04597 94.68220 4.2 6.6 2.4

Transect 52 (7–12–2005)

A 37.04416 94.68169 3.2 3.8 .6

B 37.04411 94.68190 6.1 6.3 .2 gravel under mud

C 37.04407 94.68205 10.0 14.8 4.8

D 37.04401 94.68218 11.4 12.2 .8 gravel under mud

E 37.04393 94.68232 11.5 15.4 3.9

F 37.04390 94.68244 5.0 5.0 0 rock

Transect 53 (7–12–2005)

A 37.04263 94.68165 3.8 3.8 0 gravel

B 37.04280 94.68138 15.5 17.2 1.7

C 37.04287 94.68118 10.4 12.2 1.8

Transect 54 (7–12–2005)

A 37.04230 94.68015 10.5 12.2 1.7

B 37.04207 94.68018 7.5 8.9 1.4

C 37.04191 94.68014 6.8 7.1 .3

D 37.04169 94.68033 8.0 13.9 5.9

Table A1. Latitude, longitude, depth to lakebed, depth to refusal, and estimated sediment thickness at sedimentthickness measurement sites (fig. 2) in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, July and August 2005.—Continued

Transect 

site

Latitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Longitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Depth to 

lakebed 

(feet)

Depth 

to 

refusal 

(feet)

Estimated 

sediment 

thickness 

(feet)

Notes
Supplemental Information 49

Transect 55 (7–12–2005)

A 37.04161 94.67809 7.7 10.0 2.3

B 37.04171 94.67807 8.6 11.3 2.7

C 37.04190 94.67804 7.4 9.1 1.7

D 37.04204 94.67804 6.6 6.6 0 gravel

E 37.04217 94.67806 5.7 5.7 0 gravel

F 37.04230 94.67811 6.1 7.8 1.7 gravel under mud

G 37.04241 94.67812 4.9 8.1 3.2

Transect 56 (7–12–2005)

A 37.04277 94.67651 1.5 1.5 0 gravel

B 37.04257 94.67648 2.9 2.9 0 gravel

C 37.04256 94.67641 3.2 3.2 0 gravel

D 37.04240 94.67636 3.9 3.9 0 gravel

E 37.04220 94.67627 8.0 8.0 0 gravel

F 37.04207 94.67625 6.6 10.3 3.7

G 37.04197 94.67619 3.8 8.2 4.4

Transect 59 (8–19–2005)

A 37.09272 94.68311 1.3 1.3 0 gravel likely coming from Short Creek

B 37.09283 94.68325 9.4 9.8 .4 gravel under mud

C 37.09292 94.68339 11.0 11.0 0 gravel

D 37.09300 94.68353 13.5 13.5 0 gravel

E 37.09306 94.68369 14.4 14.4 0 rock

F 37.09314 94.68383 14.9 14.9 0 gravel

G 37.09322 94.68400 14.3 14.3 0 rock

Transect 60 (8–19–2005)

A 37.09831 94.67756 6.5 11.2 4.7 sediment on pole grainy; dense material, 

may be submerged original bank

B 37.09836 94.67769 13.6 14.0 .4

C 37.09850 94.67775 16.0 16.0 0

D 37.09861 94.67786 19.1 19.1 0

E 37.09872 94.67794 21.3 21.3 0

Transect 61 (8–18–2005)

A 37.10064 94.66778 9.5 10.1 .6 mud over gravel

B 37.10075 94.66786 11.3 11.3 0 gravel

C 37.10086 94.66792 12.8 12.8 0 gravel

D 37.10097 94.66800 15.4 15.4 0 gravel

E 37.10108 94.66808 18.2 18.2 0 gravel

Transect 62 (8–18–2005)

A 37.10486 94.65969 15.0 15.0 0 gravel

B 37.10500 94.65972 13.3 13.3 0 gravel

C 37.10514 94.65983 12.3 12.3 0 gravel

D 37.10522 94.65992 11.5 13.2 1.7 mud over hard bottom

E 37.10536 94.66006 5.5 10.0 4.5 mud over hard bottom

Table A1. Latitude, longitude, depth to lakebed, depth to refusal, and estimated sediment thickness at sedimentthickness measurement sites (fig. 2) in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, July and August 2005.—Continued

Transect 

site

Latitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Longitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Depth to 

lakebed 

(feet)

Depth 

to 

refusal 

(feet)

Estimated 

sediment 

thickness 

(feet)

Notes
50 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Transect 63 (8–18–2005)

A 37.10997 94.65464 17.1 17.1 0 rock

B 37.10997 94.65472 17.6 17.6 0 rock

C 37.11003 94.65486 17.9 17.9 0 rock

D 37.11006 94.65492 18.3 18.3 0 rock

E 37.11006 94.65506 11.3 15.1 3.8 mud over hard bottom

Transect 64 (8–18–2005)

A 37.11408 94.66194 10.7 10.7 0 gravel

B 37.11403 94.66194 11.9 11.9 0 gravel

C 37.11392 94.66200 14.4 14.4 0 gravel

D 37.11386 94.66206 14.5 14.5 0 rock

E 37.11375 94.66208 7.5 7.5 0 rock

Transect 65 (8–18–2005)

A 37.11900 94.66764 11.1 12.6 1.5 mud over gravel

B 37.11897 94.66775 11.7 11.7 0 gravel

C 37.11892 94.66786 11.8 11.8 0 gravel

D 37.11886 94.66797 13.2 13.2 0 rock

E 37.11878 94.66806 9.8 9.8 0 rock

Transect 66 (8–18–2005)

A 37.12514 94.67033 7.8 7.8 0 gravel

B 37.12525 94.67044 9.2 9.2 0 gravel

C 37.12525 94.67056 10.1 10.1 0 gravel

D 37.12525 94.67067 11.5 11.5 0 gravel

E 37.12522 94.67081 9.4 9.4 0 rock

Transect 67 (8–18–2005)

A 37.13275 94.66589 6.0 6.0 0 gravel

B 37.13278 94.66597 7.1 7.1 0 gravel

C 37.13281 94.66606 8.9 8.9 0 rock

D 37.13289 94.66611 12.4 12.4 0 rock

E 37.13294 94.66619 11.9 11.9 0 rock

Transect 68 (8–18–2005)

A 37.13514 94.65833 11.1 11.5 .4

B 37.13522 94.65833 9.9 9.9 0

C 37.13531 94.65833 11.4 11.4 0 gravel

D 37.13536 94.65839 12.2 12.2 0 rock

E 37.13542 94.65839 10.8 10.8 0 rock

Transect A (7–13–2005)

A 37.05693 94.69694 1.7 2.8 1.1

B 37.05702 94.69687 1.8 5.9 4.1

C 37.05719 94.69676 2.4 6.2 3.8

D 37.05736 94.69664 2.0 2.6 .6

E 37.05745 94.69651 1.5 1.8 .3

Table A1. Latitude, longitude, depth to lakebed, depth to refusal, and estimated sediment thickness at sedimentthickness measurement sites (fig. 2) in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, July and August 2005.—Continued

Transect 

site

Latitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Longitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Depth to 

lakebed 

(feet)

Depth 

to 

refusal 

(feet)

Estimated 

sediment 

thickness 

(feet)

Notes
Supplemental Information 51

Area P (7–13–2005)

A 37.07007 94.69551 1.7 6.4 4.7

B 37.07016 94.69576 1.5 6.3 4.8

C 37.07103 94.69517 1.3 5.9 4.6

D 37.07120 94.69532 1.6 5.0 3.4

E 37.07143 94.69555 2.4 6.8 4.4

F 37.07220 94.69577 1.6 4.2 2.6

G 37.07253 94.69530 2.5 3.1 .6

H 37.07384 94.69484 2.5 8.8 6.3

I 37.07161 94.69564 2.5 4.5 2.0

Area B (7–12–2005)

A 37.06046 94.70402 2.1 3.3 1.2

B 37.06005 94.70373 1.7 3.4 1.7

C 37.05966 94.70341 0.5 3.0 2.5

D 37.06016 94.70270 1.8 2.3 .5

E 37.06047 94.70274 2.5 3.0 .5

F 37.06044 94.70194 2.5 3.2 .7

G 37.06083 94.70430 2.5 2.5 0 rock

H 37.06114 94.70423 1.7 2.3 .6

I 37.06120 94.70445 2.5 2.5 0 rock

Table A1. Latitude, longitude, depth to lakebed, depth to refusal, and estimated sediment thickness at sedimentthickness measurement sites (fig. 2) in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, July and August 2005.—Continued

Transect 

site

Latitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Longitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Depth to 

lakebed 

(feet)

Depth 

to 

refusal 

(feet)

Estimated 

sediment 

thickness 

(feet)

Notes
52 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Table A2. Latitude and longitude coordinates, water depth, estimated penetration depth, length of recovered core, and estimated 

recovery percentage for bottom-sediment coring sites at Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, and Blackberry Hay Farm Lake, southwest 

Missouri, 2005.

[--, not determined]

Coring site 

number

(fig. 2)

Date cored 

(month/day/ 

year)

Latitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Longitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Water depth 

(feet)

Estimated 

penetration depth 

(feet)

Length of 

recovered core 

(feet)

Estimated 

recovery 

percentage

Empire Lake

E–1 04/01/05 37.06039 94.69606 2.5 -- -- --

E–2 08/02/05 37.07260 94.69108 2.3 2.0 1.4 70

E–3 08/02/05 37.07121 94.69240 3.0 2.8 2.4 86

E–4 08/02/05 37.06984 94.69327 3.0 3.1 2.5 81

E–5 08/02/05 37.06832 94.69375 2.8 3.9 3.4 87

E–6 08/02/05 37.06732 94.69498 2.9 2.8 2.4 86

E–7 08/02/05 37.06605 94.69563 2.7 3.7 2.8 76

E–8 08/02/05 37.06474 94.69629 2.5 3.9 3.2 82

E–9 08/02/05 37.06411 94.69791 2.7 4.6 3.5 76

E–10 04/01/05 37.06831 94.69706 22.0 -- 1.0 --

E–11 08/08/05 37.04225 94.68015 11.4 -- 1.0 --

E–14 08/08/05 37.04740 94.69299 13.3 6.1 4.4 72

E–15 08/08/05 37.05042 94.69643 10.7 5.4 4.3 80

E–17 08/08/05 37.05356 94.69971 13.6 5.6 4.3 77

E–18 08/08/05 37.05481 94.70113 16.3 6.3 4.1 65

E–19 08/08/05 37.07680 94.69522 20.5 2.9 1.7 59

E–20 08/09/05 37.06228 94.69550 1.8 3.1 2.2 71

E–21 08/09/05 37.06019 94.69644 2.0 1.8 1.2 67

E–22 08/09/05 37.05701 94.69622 1.5 4.5 3.6 80

E–23 08/19/05 37.07161 94.69564 2.5 -- 2.5 --

E–24 08/19/05 37.05981 94.70325 1.3 -- 1.5 --

E–25 09/15/05 37.10519 94.65992 11.0 1.2 1.1 92

E–26 09/15/05 37.04674 94.68456 13.4 4.5 2.6 58

E–27 09/15/05 37.04933 94.69536 11.2 5.1 3.8 75

E–29 09/15/05 37.06271 94.69899 3.0 8.3 5.7 69

E–30 09/15/05 37.06054 94.69901 4.0 8.7 7.0 80

E–31 09/15/05 37.05541 94.70093 13.6 8.9 6.9 78

E–32 09/15/05 37.05769 94.69967 4.7 8.5 6.3 74

E–33 09/16/05 37.05906 94.69948 3.9 8.2 5.9 72

E–36 09/16/05 37.06054 94.69905 3.8 7.7 5.7 74

Blackberry Hay Farm Lake

BHF–1 09/16/05 37.32275 94.59892 6.6 3.5 2.6 74
Supplemental Information 53

Table A3. Results of chemical analyses of reference samples and comparison to most probable values.

[Shading indicates values outside of published limits for each constituent or +10 percent of the most probable value, whichever is greater. MPV, 

most probable value; %, percent dry weight; mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology; --, not 

determined or not applicable; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; ?, actual value in question; <, less than]

Sample 

source

Sample 

code

Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium

Concentration

(%)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

Concentration

(mg/kg)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

Concentration

(mg/kg)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

Concentration

(mg/kg)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

NIST 2709 MPV 7.50+0.06 -- 7.9+0.6 -- 17.7+0.8 -- 968+40 --

7.4 -1.3 7.4 -6.3 19.0 7.3 1,000 3.3

7.5 0 7.3 -7.6 18.0 1.7 1,000 3.3

NIST 2711 

MT. Soil

MPV 6.53+0.09 -- 19.4+1.8 -- 105+8 -- 726+38 --

6.5 -.5 19.0 -2.1 110 4.8 760 4.7

6.4 -2.0 19.0 -2.1 100 -4.8 760 4.7

NIST 1646a MPV 2.30+0.02 -- .3 -- 6.23+0.21 -- 210 --

2.3 0 .3 0 6.0 -3.7 220 4.8

2.3 0 .3 0 6.0 -3.7 220 4.8

USGS MAG–1 MPV 8.66+0.16 -- 0.96+0.10 -- 9.2+1.2 -- 479+41 --

8.6 -.7 .9 -6.3 9.3 1.1 520 8.6

8.7 .5 .9 -6.3 8.8 -4.3 500 4.4

USGS STM–1 MPV 9.73+0.12 -- 1.66+0.15 -- 4.6+0.6 -- 560+60 --

9.6 -1.3 1.6 -3.6 4.5 -2.2 620 10.7

9.9 1.7 1.4 -15.7 5.2 13.0 600 7.1

USGS SDO–1 MPV 6.49+0.14 -- 4.1-4.8 -- 68.5+8.6 -- 397+38 --

6.4 -1.4 4.4 -- 69.0 .7 -- --

6.3 -2.9 4.3 -- 67.0 -2.2 -- --

USGS SGR–1 MPV 3.45+0.11 -- 3.4+0.5 -- 67+5 -- 290+40 --

3.5 1.4 3.1 -8.8 64 -4.5 280 -3.4

3.5 1.4 2.9 -14.7 61 -9.0 270 -6.9

USGS SCO–1 MPV 7.23+0.11 -- 2.5+0.1 -- 12.4+1.4 -- 570+30 --

7.2 -.4 2.4 -4.0 13.0 4.8 600 5.3

7.3 1.0 2.4 -4.0 11.0 -11.3 580 1.8

USGS QLO–1 MPV 8.56+0.10 -- 2.1+0.4 -- 3.5+1.8 -- 1,370+80 --

8.6 .5 1.6 -23.8 1.2 -65.7 1,500 9.5

8.5 -.7 1.7 -19.0 2.0 -42.9 1,400 2.2

USGS GSP–2 MPV 7.88+0.11 -- -- -- -- -- 1,340+44 --

7.8 -1.0 .4 -- 1.3 -- 1,400 4.5

7.9 .3 .5 -- .5 -- 1,400 4.5
54 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Table A3. Results of chemical analyses of reference samples and comparison to most probable values.—Continued

[Shading indicates values outside of published limits for each constituent or +10 percent of the most probable value, whichever is greater. MPV, 

most probable value; %, percent dry weight; mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology; --, not 

determined or not applicable; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; ?, actual value in question; <, less than]

Sample 

source

Sample 

code

Beryllium Cadmium Carbon, organic, total Carbon, total

Concentration

(mg/kg)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

Concentration

(mg/kg)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

Concentration

(%)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

Concentration

(%)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

NIST 2709 MPV -- -- 0.4 -- -- -- 1.2(?) --

5.5 -- .3 -25.0 1.1 -- 1.1 -8.3

5.6 -- .4 0 1.1 -- 1.1 -8.3

NIST 2711 MT. 

Soil

MPV -- -- 41.70+0.25 -- -- -- 2.0 --

2.4 -- 40 -4.1 1.7 -- 1.7 -15.0

2.2 -- 40 -4.1 1.7 -- 1.8 -10.0

NIST 1646a MPV <1 -- .2 -- -- -- -- --

.9 -- .1 -- .5 -- 2.0 --

.9 -- .1 -- .6 -- 0.6 --

USGS MAG–1 MPV 3.2+0.4 -- 0.2+0.1 -- -- -- 2.15+0.40 --

3.2 0 .2 -- 2.2 -- 2.3 7.0

2.9 -9.4 .2 -- 2.2 -- 2.3 7.0

USGS STM–1 MPV 9.6+0.6 -- 0.27+0.05 -- -- -- 0 --

10.0 4.2 .3 11.1 <.1 -- <.1 --

9.3 -3.1 .2 -- .1 -- <.1 --

USGS SDO–1 MPV 3.3+0.6 -- -- -- -- -- 9.95+0.44 --

3.3 0 .1 -- 9.3 -- 9.8 -1.5

3.0 -9.1 <.1 -- 9.6 -- 9.5 -4.5

USGS SGR–1 MPV 1.06+0.16 -- 0.93+0.05 -- 24.8 -- 28.0 --

1.1 3.8 1.1 18.3 25.0 0.8 27.0 -3.6

1.0 -5.7 1.1 18.3 27.0 8.9 27.0 -3.6

USGS SCO–1 MPV 1.84+0.20 -- .14 -- -- -- 0.81+0.12 --

1.8 -2.2 .1 -- 1.0 -- 1.0 23.5

1.7 -7.6 .1 -- 1.0 -- 1.0 23.5

USGS QLO–1 MPV 1.89+0.17 -- .05? -- -- -- <.01 --

2.0 5.8 <.1 -- <.1 -- <.1 --

1.7 -10.1 <.1 -- .1 -- <.1 --

USGS GSP–2 MPV 1.5+0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1.6 6.7 <.1 -- .1 -- .1 --

1.5 0 <.1 -- .1 -- .1 --
Supplemental Information 55

Table A3. Results of chemical analyses of reference samples and comparison to most probable values.—Continued

[Shading indicates values outside of published limits for each constituent or +10 percent of the most probable value, whichever is greater. MPV, 

most probable value; %, percent dry weight; mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology; --, not 

determined or not applicable; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; ?, actual value in question; <, less than]

Sample 

source

Sample 

code

Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron

Concentration

(mg/kg)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

Concentration

(mg/kg)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

Concentration

(mg/kg)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

Concentration

(%)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

NIST 2709 MPV 130+4 -- 13.4+0.7 -- 34.6+0.7 -- 3.5+0.11 --

120 -7.7 13 -3.0 33 -4.6 3.5 0

120 -7.7 14 4.5 34 -1.7 3.6 2.9

NIST 2711 MT. 

Soil

MPV 47 -- 10 -- 114+2 -- 2.89+0.06 --

45 -4.3 9 -10.0 110 -3.5 2.8 -3.1

44 -6.4 10 0 110 -3.5 2.8 -3.1

NIST 1646a MPV 41+2 -- 5 -- 10+0.34 -- 2.00+0.04 --

39 -4.9 4 -20.0 9 -10.0 1.9 -5.0

41 0 5 0 10 0 2.0 0

USGS MAG–1 MPV 97+8 -- 20.4+1.6 -- 30+3 -- 4.75+0.21 --

100 3.1 22 7.8 28 -6.7 4.9 3.2

99 2.1 21 2.9 27 -10.0 4.8 1.1

USGS STM–1 MPV 4.3+2.6 -- 0.90+0.15 -- 4.6+2.0 -- 3.65+0.07 --

2.7 -37.2 <1 -- 4 -13.0 3.6 -1.4

5 16.3 <1 -- 4 -13.0 3.6 -1.4

USGS SDO–1 MPV 66.4+7.6 -- 46.8+6.3 -- 60.2+9.6 -- 6.53+0.15 --

70 5.4 49 4.7 55 -8.6 6.4 -2.0

64 -3.6 46 -1.7 53 -12.0 6.3 -3.5

USGS SGR–1 MPV 30+3 -- 11.8+1.5 -- 66+9 -- 2.12+0.10 --

33 10.0 11 -6.8 62 -6.1 2.0 -5.7

31 3.3 11 -6.8 60 -9.1 2.0 -5.7

USGS SCO–1 MPV 68+5 -- 10.5+0.8 -- 28.7+1.9 -- 3.59+0.13 --

72 5.9 11 4.8 28 -2.4 3.6 .3

67 -1.5 11 4.8 27 -5.9 3.5 -2.5

USGS QLO–1 MPV 3.2+1.7 -- 7.2+0.5 -- 29+3 -- 3.04+0.10 --

3 -6.3 7 -2.8 26 -10.3 3.0 -1.3

4 25.0 7 -2.8 26 -10.3 2.9 -4.6

USGS GSP–2 MPV 20+6 -- 7+1 -- 43+4 -- 3.43+0.11 --

16 -20.0 7 0 44 2.3 3.4 -.9

21 5.0 7 0 43 0 3.3 -3.8
56 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Table A3. Results of chemical analyses of reference samples and comparison to most probable values.—Continued

[Shading indicates values outside of published limits for each constituent or +10 percent of the most probable value, whichever is greater. MPV, 

most probable value; %, percent dry weight; mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology; --, not 

determined or not applicable; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; ?, actual value in question; <, less than]

Sample 

source

Sample 

code

Lead Lithium Manganese Molybdenum

Concentration

(mg/kg)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

Concentration

(mg/kg)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

Concentration

(mg/kg)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

Concentration

(mg/kg)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

NIST 2709 MPV 18.9+0.5 -- -- -- 538+17 -- 2.0(?) --

19 0.5 54 -- 530 -1.5 2 0

20 5.8 55 -- 530 -1.5 2 0

NIST 2711 MT. 

Soil

MPV 1,162+31 -- -- -- 638+28 -- 2 --

1,200 3.3 28 -- 640 .3 2 0

1,100 -5.3 26 -- 620 -2.8 2 0

NIST 1646a MPV 12+1 -- 17 -- 234+3 -- 2 --

12 0 17 0 230 -1.7 2 0

11 -8.3 17 0 230 -1.7 2 0

USGS MAG–1 MPV 24+3 -- 79+4 -- 760+70 -- 1.6+0.6 --

28 16.7 81 2.5 720 -5.3 1 --

26 8.3 78 -1.3 700 -7.9 1 --

USGS STM–1 MPV 17.7+1.8 -- 32+8 -- 1,700+120 -- 5.2+0.9 --

18 1.7 37 15.6 1,600 -5.9 5 -3.8

16 -9.6 36 12.5 1,600 -5.9 5 -3.8

USGS SDO–1 MPV 27.9+5.2 -- 28.6+5.5 -- 325+39 -- 134+21 --

25 -10.4 32 11.9 310 -4.6 150 11.9

23 -17.6 29 1.4 300 -7.7 140 4.5

USGS SGR–1 MPV 38+4 -- 147+26 -- 267+34 -- 35.1+0.9 --

42 10.5 130 -11.6 230 -13.9 34 -3.1

41 7.9 130 -11.6 230 -13.9 34 -3.1

USGS SCO–1 MPV 31+3 -- 45+3 -- 408+30 -- 1.37+0.16 --

33 6.5 46 2.2 380 -6.9 1 --

31 0 43 -4.4 380 -6.9 1 --

USGS QLO–1 MPV 20.4+0.8 -- 25+2 -- 721+49 -- 2.6+0.3 --

21 2.9 27 8.0 680 -5.7 3 15.4

21 2.9 25 0 680 -5.7 2 -23.1

USGS GSP–2 MPV 42+3 -- 36+1 -- 320+20 -- 2.1+0.6 --

44 4.8 36 0 300 -6.3 2 -4.8

40 -4.8 34 -5.6 300 -6.3 2 -4.8
Supplemental Information 57

Table A3. Results of chemical analyses of reference samples and comparison to most probable values.—Continued

[Shading indicates values outside of published limits for each constituent or +10 percent of the most probable value, whichever is greater. MPV, 

most probable value; %, percent dry weight; mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology; --, not 

determined or not applicable; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; ?, actual value in question; <, less than]

Sample 

source

Sample 

code

Nickel Nitrogen, total Phosphorus Selenium

Concentration

(mg/kg)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

Concentration

(%)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

Concentration

(mg/kg)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

Concentration

(mg/kg)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

NIST 2709 MPV 88+5 -- -- -- 620+50 -- 1.57+0.08 --

85 -3.4 0.07 -- 650 4.8 1.6 1.9

85 -3.4 .10 -- 630 1.6 1.6 1.9

NIST 2711 MT. 

Soil

MPV 20.6+1.1 -- -- -- 860+70 -- 1.52+0.14 --

21 1.9 .10 -- 880 2.3 .9 -40.8

19 -7.8 .10 -- 810 -5.8 1.6 5.3

NIST 1646a MPV 23 -- -- -- 270+10 -- 0.19+0.03 --

22 -4.3 .10 -- 280 3.7 .1 --

21 -8.7 .06 -- 280 3.7 .2 --

USGS MAG–1 MPV 53+8 -- -- -- 710+90 -- 1.16+0.12 --

50 -5.7 .30 -- 760 7.0 1.0 -13.8

45 -15.1 .30 -- 690 -2.8 1.2 3.4

USGS STM–1 MPV 3.0+1.6 -- -- -- 690+60 -- 0.008+0.002 --

3 0 <.01 -- 730 5.8 .1 --

2 -33.3 <.1 -- 680 -1.4 <.1 --

USGS SDO–1 MPV 99.5+9.9 -- 0.35+0.04 -- 480+31 -- 1.9-6.8 --

97 -2.5 .30 -14.3 500 4.2 2.1 --

92 -7.5 .40 14.3 450 -6.3 2.2 --

USGS SGR–1 MPV 29+5 -- -- -- 1,430+290 -- 3.5+0.28 --

29 0 1.00 -- 1,200 -16.1 3.5 0

26 -10.3 .90 -- 1,200 -16.1 3.8 8.6

USGS SCO–1 MPV 27+4 -- -- -- 900+90 -- 0.89+0.06 --

26 -3.7 <.01 -- 960 6.7 .8 -10.1

24 -11.1 .06 -- 860 -4.4 .9 1.1

USGS QLO–1 MPV 5.8+3.6 -- -- -- 1,110+70 -- 0.009+0.002 --

3 -48.3 <.01 -- 1,200 8.1 <.1 --

2 -65.5 <.1 -- 1,100 -.9 <.1 --

USGS GSP–2 MPV 17+2 -- -- -- 1,300+100 -- -- --

16 -5.9 <.01 -- 1,300 0 .1 --

15 -11.8 <.1 -- 1,200 -7.7 .1 --
58 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Table A3. Results of chemical analyses of reference samples and comparison to most probable values.—Continued

[Shading indicates values outside of published limits for each constituent or +10 percent of the most probable value, whichever is greater. MPV, 

most probable value; %, percent dry weight; mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology; --, not 

determined or not applicable; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; ?, actual value in question; <, less than]

Sample 

source

Sample 

code

Silver Strontium Sulfur, total Thallium

Concentration

(mg/kg)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

Concentration

(mg/kg)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

Concentration

(%)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

Concentration

(mg/kg)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

NIST 2709 MPV 0.41+0.03 -- 231+2 -- 0.089+0.02 -- 0.74+0.05 --

<.5 -- 240 3.9 .08 -- <50 --

<.5 -- 240 3.9 .08 -- <50 --

NIST 2711 MT. 

Soil

MPV 4.63+0.39 -- 245.3+0.7 -- 0.042+0.001 -- 2.47+0.15 --

5.0 8.0 250 1.9 .04 -- <50 --

5.0 8.0 250 1.9 .04 -- <50 --

NIST 1646a MPV <.3 -- 68 -- 0.35+0.04 -- <.5 --

<.5 -- 72 5.9 .34 -2.9 <50 --

<.5 -- 72 5.9 .32 -8.6 <50 --

USGS MAG–1 MPV .08 -- 146+15 -- 0.39+0.07 -- 0.590+? --

<.5 -- 160 9.6 .36 -7.7 <50 --

<.5 -- 140 -4.1 .32 -17.9 <50 --

USGS STM–1 MPV .08 -- 700+30 -- <.01 -- 0.260+0.050 --

<.5 -- 690 -1.4 <.01 -- <50 --

<.5 -- 700 0 <.01 -- <50 --

USGS SDO–1 MPV 0.1-0.2 -- 75.1+11 -- 5.35+0.44 -- 8.3? --

<.6 -- 85 13.2 5.10 -4.7 <50 --

<.5 -- 79 5.2 4.90 -8.4 <50 --

USGS SGR–1 MPV 0.01-0.20 -- 420+30 -- 1.53+0.11 -- 0.330+? --

<.5 -- 400 -4.8 1.40 -8.5 <50 --

<.5 -- 390 -7.1 1.40 -8.5 <50 --

USGS SCO–1 MPV .13 -- 174+16 -- 0.063+0.009 -- 0.72+0.13 --

<.5 -- 190 9.2 .06 -- <50 --

<.5 -- 170 -2.3 .06 -- <50 --

USGS QLO–1 MPV .06 -- 336+12 -- <.01 -- 0.220+0.040 --

<.5 -- 340 1.2 <.01 -- <50 --

<.5 -- 320 -4.8 <.01 -- <50 --

USGS GSP–2 MPV -- -- 240+10 -- -- -- 1.1 --

<.5 -- 250 4.2 .04 -- <50 --

<.5 -- 250 4.2 .04 -- <50 --
Supplemental Information 59

Table A3. Results of chemical analyses of reference samples and comparison to most probable values.—Continued

[Shading indicates values outside of published limits for each constituent or +10 percent of the most probable value, whichever is greater. MPV, most probable value; %, 

percent dry weight; mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology; --, not determined or not applicable; USGS, U.S. Geological 

Survey; ?, actual value in question; <, less than]

Sample 

source

Sample 

code

Tin Titanium Vanadium Uranium Zinc

Concentration

(mg/kg)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

Concentration

(%)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

Concentration

(mg/kg)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

Concentration

(mg/kg)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

Concentration

(mg/kg)

Percent 

difference 

from MPV

NIST 2709 MPV -- -- 0.342+0.024 -- 112+5 -- 3 -- 106+3 --

3 -- .34 -0.6 110 -1.8 <50 -- 110 3.8

2 -- .34 -.6 110 -1.8 <50 -- 110 3.8

NIST 2711 MT. 

Soil

MPV -- -- 0.306+0.023 -- 81.6+2.9 -- 2.6 -- 350.4+4.8 --

4 -- .31 1.3 82 .5 <50 -- 360 2.7

4 -- .30 -2.0 79 -3.2 <50 -- 360 2.7

NIST 1646a MPV 1 -- 0.46+0.02 -- 45+1 -- 2 -- 49+2 --

2 100.0 .46 0 44 -2.2 <50 -- 49 0

<1 -- .44 -4.3 43 -4.4 <50 -- 49 0

USGS MAG–1 MPV 4 -- 0.450+0.040 -- 140+6 -- 2.7+0.3 -- 130+6 --

3 -25.0 .43 -4.4 140 0 <50 -- 140 7.7

4 0 .41 -8.9 130 -7.1 <50 -- 140 7.7

USGS STM–1 MPV 6.8+1.2 -- 0.081+0.007 -- 8.7+5.2 -- 9.06+0.13 -- 235+22 --

8 17.6 .08 -1.2 3 -65.5 <50 -- 250 6.4

8 17.6 .08 -1.2 3 -65.5 <50 -- 240 2.1

USGS SDO–1 MPV 3.7+1.2 -- 0.426+0.019 -- 160+21 -- 48.8+6.5 -- 64.1+6.9 --

3 -18.9 .41 -3.8 160 0 51 4.5 70 9.2

2 -45.9 .41 -3.8 150 -6.3 <50 -- 70 9.2

USGS SGR–1 MPV 1.9+0.6 -- 0.152+0.015 -- 128+6 -- 5.4+0.4 -- 74+9 --

2 5.3 .15 -1.3 120 -6.3 <50 -- 81 9.5

1 -- .14 -7.9 120 -6.3 <50 -- 75 1.4

USGS SCO–1 MPV 3.7+0.8 -- 0.376+0.039 -- 131+13 -- 3.0+0.2 -- 103+8 --

4 8.1 .35 -6.9 130 -.8 <50 -- 110 6.8

3 -18.9 .33 -12.2 120 -8.4 <50 -- 100 -2.9

USGS QLO–1 MPV 2.3+0.1 -- 0.374+0.020 -- 54+6 -- 1.94+0.12 -- 61+3 --

2 -13.0 .38 1.6 50 -7.4 <50 -- 65 6.6

2 -13.0 .35 -6.4 48 -11.1 <50 -- 60 -1.6

USGS GSP–2 MPV -- -- 0.40+0.01 -- 52+4 -- 2.4 -- 120+10 --

7 -- .40 0 53 1.9 <50 -- 120 0

6 -- .39 -2.5 50 -3.8 <50 -- 120 0
60 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Table A4. Cesium-137 and lead-210 activities for bottom-sediment samples collected from coring sites E–27 and E–36 in Empire Lake 

(fig. 2B), southeast Kansas, and coring site BHF–1 in Blackberry Hay Farm Lake (fig. 1), southwest Missouri, September 2005. 

[All activities in picocuries per gram. <, less than; --, not applicable]

Sediment core 

interval

Coring site E–27 Coring site E–36 Coring site BHF–1

Cesium-137 Lead-210 Cesium-137 Lead-210 Cesium-137 Lead-210

1 (bottom) <0.05 1.42 <0.05 0.69 0.23 1.73

2 <.05 1.22 <.05 .76 <.05 1.47

3 <.05 1.44 <.05 .96 .20 .59

4 <.05 1.01 <.05 1.09 .20 1.52

5 <.05 1.62 <.05 .91 .85 1.84

6 <.05 1.54 <.05 1.07 .64 1.96

7 <.05 1.01 <.05 .77 .51 2.23

8 <.05 1.62 <.05 .84 .27 1.27

9 <.05 1.51 <.05 1.00 .30 2.32

10 .14 2.09 <.05 .80 .25 2.34

11 .15 3.26 <.05 .95 .25 1.87

12 .13 3.92 <.05 1.01 .20 3.12

13 .17 3.85 <.05 .96 .22 3.87

14 .15 3.80 <.05 1.05 -- --

15 (top) -- -- .09 1.53 -- --
Supplemental Information 61

Table A5. Estimated bulk density of bottom sediment at coring sites in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, 2005.

[lb/ft3, pounds per cubic foot; --, not applicable]

Coring site 

number

(fig. 2)

Depth interval 

(inches)

Estimated bulk 

density (lb/ft3

)

Computed mean

bulk density1

(lb/ft3)

Coring site 

number

(fig. 2)

Depth interval 

(inches)

Estimated bulk 

density (lb/ft3

)

Computed mean

bulk density1

(lb/ft3)

E–2 0–7.25 46.0 -- E–17 0–11.5 42.9 --

7.25–14.5 58.1 52.0 11.5–23.0 48.5 --

23.0–34.5 56.2 --

E–3 0–9.0 44.7 -- 34.5–46.0 59.6 51.8

9.0–18.0 51.2 --

18.0–27.0 48.4 48.1 E–18 0–11.5 40.3 --

11.5–23.0 45.2 --

E–4 0–9.0 43.9 -- 23.0–34.5 45.3 --

9.0–18.0 47.5 -- 34.5–46.0 56.2 46.8

18.0–27.0 49.6 47.0

E–19 0–9.5 45.2 --

E–5 0–11.0 43.2 -- 9.5–19.0 52.0 48.6

11.0–22.0 47.7 --

22.0–33.0 46.9 45.9 E–20 0–11.0 52.2 --

11.0–22.0 51.8 52.0

E–6 0–10.5 49.6 --

10.5–21.0 56.0 52.8 E–21 0–11.0 57.4 57.4

E–7 0–10.7 55.3 -- E–22 0–9.5 47.0 --

10.7–21.4 54.0 -- 9.5–19.0 63.5 --

21.4–32.1 58.4 55.9 19.0–28.5 62.0 --

28.5–38.0 62.9 58.8

E–8 0–10.7 55.7 --

10.7–21.4 55.3 -- E–23 0–7.0 58.4 --

21.4–32.1 53.3 54.8 8.0–14.0 63.6 61.0

E–9 0–10.5 65.3 -- E–24 0–9.0 53.1 53.1

10.5–21.0 61.6 --

21.0–31.5 58.4 -- E–26 0–10.0 45.7 --

31.5–42.0 64.6 62.5 10.0–20.0 44.6 --

20.0–30.0 54.8 48.4

E–10 0–12.0 40.7 40.7

E–29 0–11.0 64.5 --

E–11 0–8.0 38.4 38.4 11.0–22.0 58.1 --

22.0–33.0 56.7 --

E–14 0–12.4 44.9 -- 33.0–44.0 58.8 --

12.4–24.8 46.5 -- 44.0–55.0 67.1 --

24.8–37.2 64.9 -- 55.0–66.0 67.6 62.1

37.2–49.6 66.6 55.7

E–30 0–10.7 59.8 --

E–15 0–12.0 46.4 -- 10.7–21.4 65.5 --

12.0–24.0 59.7 -- 21.4–32.1 68.3 --

24.0–36.0 57.6 -- 32.1–42.8 63.6 --

36.0–48.0 57.2 55.2 42.8–53.5 65.6 64.6
62 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Table A5. Estimated bulk density of bottom sediment at coring sites in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, 2005.—Continued

[lb/ft3, pounds per cubic foot; --, not applicable]

Coring site 

number

(fig. 2)

Depth interval 

(inches)

Estimated bulk 

density 

(lb/ft3

)

Computed mean

bulk density1

(lb/ft3)

Coring site 

number

(fig. 2)

Depth interval 

(inches)

Estimated bulk 

density 

(lb/ft3

)

Computed mean

bulk density1 

(lb/ft3)

1

Mean bulk density computed as the average of the bulk densities for the individual depth intervals for each core.

E–31 0–11.4 43.3 -- E–33 0–11.4 58.9 --

11.4–22.8 50.8 -- 11.4–22.8 57.3 --

22.8–34.2 49.5 -- 22.8–34.2 63.3 --

34.2–45.6 57.6 -- 34.2–45.6 64.9 --

45.6–57.0 53.1 -- 45.6–57.0 60.5 --

57.0–68.4 56.7 -- 57.0–68.4 62.4 61.2

68.4–79.8 62.6 53.4

E–32 0–12.0 49.2 --

12.0–24.0 58.7 --

24.0–36.0 65.6 --

36.0–48.0 67.4 --

48.0–60.0 62.0 --

60.0–72.0 66.0 61.5
Supplemental Information 63

Table A6. Constituent concentrations for bottom-sediment samples collected from coring site E–1 (fig. 2B) in Empire 

Lake, southeast Kansas, April 2005. 

[mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; %, percent dry weight; <, less than; --, not determined]

Constituent and unit of measurement

Constituent concentration

Interval 1

(bottom of core)

Interval 2

(middle of core)

Interval 3

(top of core)

Nutrients

Total nitrogen (TN), mg/kg 1,200 1,200 1,300

Total phosphorus (TP), mg/kg 620 630 580

Carbon

Carbon (total organic, TOC), % 1.3 1.3 1.4

Carbon (total), % 1.6 1.6 1.8

Trace elements

Aluminum, % 4.5 3.9 3.2

Antimony, mg/kg .7 .7 .5

Arsenic, mg/kg 6.2 4.5 3.3

Barium, mg/kg 490 470 450

Beryllium, mg/kg 1.7 1.4 1.1

Cadmium, mg/kg 61 52 29

Chromium, mg/kg 77 74 48

Cobalt, mg/kg 18 13 9.1

Copper, mg/kg 47 36 21

Iron, % 1.9 1.6 1.3

Lead, mg/kg 240 230 180

Lithium, mg/kg 30 26 21

Manganese, mg/kg 500 410 380

Mercury, mg/kg .22 .29 .12

Molybdenum, mg/kg .8 <1.0 <1.0

Nickel, mg/kg 42 39 24

Selenium, mg/kg .9 .9 .7

Silver, mg/kg <.5 <.5 <.5

Strontium, mg/kg 73 68 67

Sulfur, % .22 .17 .09

Thallium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50

Tin, mg/kg -- -- --

Titanium, % .45 .42 .39

Uranium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50

Vanadium, mg/kg 61 51 40

Zinc, mg/kg 7,200 4,500 3,100
64 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Table A7. Percentage of silt and clay and constituent concentrations for bottom-sediment samples collected from coring sites E–2, E–4, 

E–8, E–10, and E–11 (fig. 2B) in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, April and August 2005. 

[mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; %, percent dry weight; <, less than; --, not determined]

Constituent and unit of measurement

Constituent concentration

Site E–2 Site E–4 Site E–8 Site E–10 Site E–11

Percentage of silt and clay 77 96 96 76 88

Nutrients

Total nitrogen (TN), mg/kg 1,000 1,800 2,000 2,500 2,000

Total phosphorus (TP), mg/kg 730 730 740 1,200 1,100

Carbon

Carbon (total organic, TOC), % 1.5 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.3

Carbon (total), % 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.6

Trace elements

Aluminum, % 4.3 5.7 5.6 5.6 4.3

Antimony, mg/kg .8 1.0 .9 1.0 .7

Arsenic, mg/kg 5.8 8.3 9.2 8.3 4.5

Barium, mg/kg 470 510 540 500 490

Beryllium, mg/kg 1.6 2.2 2.3 1.9 1.6

Cadmium, mg/kg 46 60 43 18 29

Chromium, mg/kg 65 72 65 67 61

Cobalt, mg/kg 21 23 16 15 9

Copper, mg/kg 33 44 38 26 24

Iron, % 2.0 2.6 2.8 2.5 1.7

Lead, mg/kg 220 310 340 170 220

Lithium, mg/kg 30 41 36 38 26

Manganese, mg/kg 900 710 670 820 450

Mercury, mg/kg -- -- -- -- -

Molybdenum, mg/kg 1 <2 1 3 1

Nickel, mg/kg 48 55 49 26 23

Selenium, mg/kg .2 .9 1.0 .9 .3

Silver, mg/kg <.5 <1.0 <.5 .9 1.2

Strontium, mg/kg 78 79 79 77 67

Sulfur, % .32 .34 .24 .15 .15

Thallium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

Tin, mg/kg 4 4 3 3 3

Titanium, % .42 .47 .49 .50 .45

Uranium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

Vanadium, mg/kg 59 81 82 78 58

Zinc, mg/kg 7,800 7,400 8,300 2,500 3,500
Supplemental Information 65

Table A8. Percentage of silt and clay and constituent concentrations for bottom-sediment samples collected from coring site E–6 (fig. 2B) 

in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, August 2005. 

[mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; %, percent dry weight; <, less than; --, not determined]

Constituent and unit of measurement

Constituent concentration

Interval 1

(bottom of core) Interval 2 Interval 3 Interval 4

Interval 5

(top of

core)

Percentage of silt and clay 95 98 98 95 96

Nutrients

Total nitrogen (TN), mg/kg 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,000 2,000

Total phosphorus (TP), mg/kg 820 830 730 1,300 940

Carbon

Carbon (total organic, TOC), % 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.7

Carbon (total), % 2.3 2.2 1.9 1.8 2.3

Trace elements

Aluminum, % 5.9 6.3 6.0 5.8 4.8

Antimony, mg/kg 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 .8

Arsenic, mg/kg 8.7 12 11 16 6.0

Barium, mg/kg 560 560 550 560 520

Beryllium, mg/kg 2.7 2.9 2.4 2.1 1.7

Cadmium, mg/kg 71 51 48 39 37

Chromium, mg/kg 70 70 67 84 72

Cobalt, mg/kg 24 22 23 23 15

Copper, mg/kg 59 65 35 48 34

Iron, % 3.2 3.3 2.8 2.9 2.2

Lead, mg/kg 620 430 290 270 230

Lithium, mg/kg 37 40 38 38 33

Manganese, mg/kg 1,500 790 490 700 970

Mercury, mg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Molybdenum, mg/kg 1 1 1 2 1

Nickel, mg/kg 56 71 63 51 33

Selenium, mg/kg 1.4 1.2 .9 .8 .5

Silver, mg/kg <.5 <.5 <.5 .5 .9

Strontium, mg/kg 83 80 79 83 84

Sulfur, % .30 .23 .32 .30 .18

Thallium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

Tin, mg/kg 2 3 4 5 6

Titanium, % .50 .47 .52 .53 .45

Uranium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

Vanadium, mg/kg 90 93 89 86 64

Zinc, mg/kg 13,000 11,000 9,500 6,100 4,900
66 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Table A9. Percentage of silt and clay and constituent concentrations for bottom-sediment samples collected from coring 

sites E–14, E–17, E–19, and E–22 (fig. 2B) in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, August 2005. 

[mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; %, percent dry weight; <, less than; --, not determined]

Constituent and unit of measurement

Constituent concentration

Site E–14 Site E–17 Site E–19 Site E–22

Percentage of silt and clay 97 94 93 96

Nutrients

Total nitrogen (TN), mg/kg 1,000 1,000 2,000 1,000

Total phosphorus (TP), mg/kg 810 790 970 610

Carbon

Carbon (total organic, TOC), % 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.4

Carbon (total), % 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.6

Trace elements

Aluminum, % 4.9 4.6 5.2 4.3

Antimony, mg/kg .8 .8 .8 .8

Arsenic, mg/kg 6.3 5.6 7.4 5.8

Barium, mg/kg 570 530 490 560

Beryllium, mg/kg 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.7

Cadmium, mg/kg 29 29 14 36

Chromium, mg/kg 62 68 65 57

Cobalt, mg/kg 13 12 14 16

Copper, mg/kg 27 31 20 24

Iron, % 2.0 1.8 2.3 1.9

Lead, mg/kg 280 250 140 160

Lithium, mg/kg 31 29 34 28

Manganese, mg/kg 760 610 630 840

Mercury, mg/kg -- -- -- --

Molybdenum, mg/kg 1 1 2 1

Nickel, mg/kg 26 24 26 41

Selenium, mg/kg .7 .5 .7 .7

Silver, mg/kg .6 .5 .7 .5

Strontium, mg/kg 71 70 80 77

Sulfur, % .11 .13 .13 .24

Thallium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50

Tin, mg/kg 4 5 4 3

Titanium, % .49 .46 .49 .47

Uranium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50

Vanadium, mg/kg 70 64 76 62

Zinc, mg/kg 5,100 4,600 2,300 6,400
Supplemental Information 67

Table A10. Percentage of silt and clay and constituent concentrations for bottom-sediment samples collected from coring 

sites E–23, E–24, E–25, and E–26 (fig. 2B) in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, August and September 2005. 

[mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; %, percent dry weight; <, less than; --, not determined]

Constituent and unit of measurement

Constituent concentration

Site E–23 Site E–24 Site E–25 Site E–26

Percentage of silt and clay 90 88 86 96

Nutrients

Total nitrogen (TN), mg/kg 1,000 1,000 2,000 2,000

Total phosphorus (TP), mg/kg 830 610 1,100 760

Carbon

Carbon (total organic, TOC), % 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8

Carbon (total), % 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.0

Trace elements

Aluminum, % 5.1 4.2 5.4 4.5

Antimony, mg/kg .9 .7 .9 .8

Arsenic, mg/kg 9.1 5.6 7.2 4.7

Barium, mg/kg 510 520 530 520

Beryllium, mg/kg 2.2 1.5 1.9 1.8

Cadmium, mg/kg 60 25 7.3 32

Chromium, mg/kg 66 73 65 56

Cobalt, mg/kg 16 12 16 11

Copper, mg/kg 49 28 20 25

Iron, % 2.6 1.7 2.5 1.7

Lead, mg/kg 350 170 100 280

Lithium, mg/kg 34 29 36 28

Manganese, mg/kg 1,100 620 1,100 530

Mercury, mg/kg -- -- -- --

Molybdenum, mg/kg 1 <1 1 1

Nickel, mg/kg 39 32 33 22

Selenium, mg/kg 1.0 .5 .8 1.0

Silver, mg/kg .8 <.5 <.5 .8

Strontium, mg/kg 78 77 84 69

Sulfur, % .33 .23 .10 .13

Thallium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50

Tin, mg/kg 3 3 3 6

Titanium, % .47 .45 .49 .47

Uranium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50

Vanadium, mg/kg 75 59 79 62

Zinc, mg/kg 9,300 3,700 1,300 4,700
68 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Table A11. Percentage of silt and clay and constituent concentrations for bottom-sediment samples collected from coring 

sites E–29, E–31, E–32, and E–33 (fig. 2B) in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, September 2005. 

[mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; %, percent dry weight; <, less than; --, not determined]

Constituent and unit of measurement

Constituent concentration

Site E–29 Site E–31 Site E–32 Site E–33

Percentage of silt and clay 95 97 95 94

Nutrients

Total nitrogen (TN), mg/kg 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

Total phosphorus (TP), mg/kg 820 880 730 730

Carbon

Carbon (total organic, TOC), % 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6

Carbon (total), % 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.9

Trace elements

Aluminum, % 5.6 5.0 4.5 4.7

Antimony, mg/kg 1.1 .8 .8 .9

Arsenic, mg/kg 10 5.8 6.0 7.2

Barium, mg/kg 490 530 530 540

Beryllium, mg/kg 2.4 1.8 1.8 1.8

Cadmium, mg/kg 72 27 23 24

Chromium, mg/kg 69 71 62 63

Cobalt, mg/kg 13 13 12 13

Copper, mg/kg 56 41 27 31

Iron, % 2.9 2.0 1.9 2.1

Lead, mg/kg 950 260 270 270

Lithium, mg/kg 34 30 28 30

Manganese, mg/kg 490 690 670 670

Mercury, mg/kg -- -- -- --

Molybdenum, mg/kg 1 1 1 1

Nickel, mg/kg 42 25 26 30

Selenium, mg/kg 1.7 .9 .6 1.0

Silver, mg/kg <.5 <.5 <.5 .5

Strontium, mg/kg 75 68 70 71

Sulfur, % .40 .10 .10 .10

Thallium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50

Tin, mg/kg 3 4 3 3

Titanium, % .44 .47 .48 .46

Uranium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50

Vanadium, mg/kg 80 64 66 69

Zinc, mg/kg 11,000 3,800 4,200 4,600
Supplemental Information 69

Table A12. Percentage of silt and clay and constituent concentrations for bottom-sediment samples collected from coring site E–27 

(fig. 2B) in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, September 2005. 

[mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; %, percent dry weight; <, less than; --, not determined]

Constituent and unit of measurement

Constituent concentration

Interval 1

(bottom of core) Interval 2 Interval 3 Interval 4 Interval 5

Percentage of silt and clay 98 100 100 99 99

Nutrients

Total nitrogen (TN), mg/kg 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

Total phosphorus (TP), mg/kg 680 700 710 710 570

Carbon

Carbon (total organic, TOC), % 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.6

Carbon (total), % 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.7

Trace elements

Aluminum, % 5.0 5.0 5.6 5.4 4.5

Antimony, mg/kg .9 .9 1.1 .9 .8

Arsenic, mg/kg 5.5 6.3 6.9 7.2 5.7

Barium, mg/kg 570 580 620 650 590

Beryllium, mg/kg 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.1 1.7

Cadmium, mg/kg 40 38 28 29 18

Chromium, mg/kg 54 54 55 54 50

Cobalt, mg/kg 13 12 14 16 13

Copper, mg/kg 42 43 33 30 26

Iron, % 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.3 1.8

Lead, mg/kg 590 560 330 240 260

Lithium, mg/kg 30 30 32 32 27

Manganese, mg/kg 370 610 820 1,500 1,300

Mercury, mg/kg -- -- -- -- -

Molybdenum, mg/kg 1 1 1 1 1

Nickel, mg/kg 23 24 24 24 18

Selenium, mg/kg 1.2 1.3 1.0 .8 .8

Silver, mg/kg <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Strontium, mg/kg 67 68 67 67 66

Sulfur, % .17 .13 .07 .07 .09

Thallium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

Tin, mg/kg 2 3 3 2 2

Titanium, % .48 .49 .51 .54 .50

Uranium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

Vanadium, mg/kg 70 72 76 76 63

Zinc, mg/kg 8,500 8,900 6,500 6,600 4,100
70 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Table A12. Percentage of silt and clay and constituent concentrations for bottom-sediment samples collected from coring site E–27 

(fig. 2B) in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, September 2005.—Continued 

[mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; %, percent dry weight; <, less than; --, not determined]

Constituent and unit of measurement

Constituent concentration

Interval 6 Interval 7 Interval 8 Interval 9 Interval 10

Percentage of silt and clay 66 98 99 97 93

Nutrients

Total nitrogen (TN), mg/kg 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

Total phosphorus (TP), mg/kg 650 770 700 640 710

Carbon

Carbon (total organic, TOC), % 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.7

Carbon (total), % 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.9

Trace elements

Aluminum, % 5.3 5.5 4.8 4.7 4.3

Antimony, mg/kg 1.0 .8 1.0 .9 .8

Arsenic, mg/kg 7.0 7.1 5.6 4.7 4.5

Barium, mg/kg 630 630 580 560 530

Beryllium, mg/kg 2.0 2.3 2.1 1.8 1.6

Cadmium, mg/kg 22 33 36 21 27

Chromium, mg/kg 54 55 58 54 57

Cobalt, mg/kg 14 16 14 12 11

Copper, mg/kg 27 31 31 26 24

Iron, % 2.1 2.3 1.9 1.9 1.7

Lead, mg/kg 240 310 400 280 260

Lithium, mg/kg 31 33 30 29 27

Manganese, mg/kg 900 1,000 820 560 420

Mercury, mg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Molybdenum, mg/kg 1 1 1 1 <1

Nickel, mg/kg 22 28 23 21 25

Selenium, mg/kg .8 1.0 .6 .8 .9

Silver, mg/kg <.5 <.5 <.5 1.2 1.4

Strontium, mg/kg 67 67 65 66 66

Sulfur, % .08 .10 .11 .09 .12

Thallium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

Tin, mg/kg 3 4 3 3 3

Titanium, % .52 .50 .50 .50 .46

Uranium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

Vanadium, mg/kg 74 79 71 66 57

Zinc, mg/kg 5,000 8,000 6,900 4,100 3,800
Supplemental Information 71

Table A12. Percentage of silt and clay and constituent concentrations for bottom-sediment samples collected from coring 

site E–27 (fig. 2B) in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, September 2005.—Continued 

[mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; %, percent dry weight; <, less than; --, not determined]

Constituent and unit of measurement

Constituent concentration

Interval 11 Interval 12 Interval 13 Interval 14

(top of core)

Percentage of silt and clay 76 96 97 94

Nutrients

Total nitrogen (TN), mg/kg 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

Total phosphorus (TP), mg/kg 780 950 1,100 1,100

Carbon

Carbon (total organic, TOC), % 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.3

Carbon (total), % 2.0 2.3 2.4 2.5

Trace elements

Aluminum, % 4.1 4.5 4.5 4.5

Antimony, mg/kg .8 .7 .7 .7

Arsenic, mg/kg 4.9 3.8 4.9 4.4

Barium, mg/kg 510 530 530 540

Beryllium, mg/kg 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.7

Cadmium, mg/kg 26 29 30 29

Chromium, mg/kg 52 61 60 63

Cobalt, mg/kg 9 10 11 9

Copper, mg/kg 22 24 24 23

Iron, % 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8

Lead, mg/kg 220 230 230 210

Lithium, mg/kg 25 28 28 27

Manganese, mg/kg 410 450 540 630

Mercury, mg/kg -- -- -- --

Molybdenum, mg/kg 1 1 1 1

Nickel, mg/kg 23 25 26 24

Selenium, mg/kg 1.0 1.1 1.2 .9

Silver, mg/kg 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.6

Strontium, mg/kg 65 70 71 71

Sulfur, % .12 .14 .16 .14

Thallium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50

Tin, mg/kg 3 3 2 3

Titanium, % .45 .45 .45 .46

Uranium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50

Vanadium, mg/kg 53 59 61 59

Zinc, mg/kg 3,200 3,600 3,700 3,600
72 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Table A13. Percentage of silt and clay and constituent concentrations for bottom-sediment samples collected from coring 

site E–36 (fig. 2B) in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, September 2005. 

[mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; %, percent dry weight; <, less than; --, not determined]

Constituent and unit of measurement

Constituent concentration

Interval 0

(original floodplain material)

Interval 1 

(bottom of core) Interval 2 Interval 3

Percentage of silt and clay 82 100 98 99

Nutrients

Total nitrogen (TN), mg/kg 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

Total phosphorus (TP), mg/kg 500 710 760 630

Carbon

Carbon (total organic, TOC), % 1.6 2.2 2.0 1.9

Carbon (total), % 1.6 2.4 2.4 2.2

Trace elements

Aluminum, % 4.2 5.5 5.5 5.1

Antimony, mg/kg .7 1.0 1.2 .9

Arsenic, mg/kg 4.9 8.1 9.6 8.5

Barium, mg/kg 480 500 460 470

Beryllium, mg/kg 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.1

Cadmium, mg/kg 12 51 73 76

Chromium, mg/kg 47 61 66 57

Cobalt, mg/kg 9 16 16 13

Copper, mg/kg 17 43 53 45

Iron, % 1.7 2.7 3.1 2.6

Lead, mg/kg 380 580 730 530

Lithium, mg/kg 26 32 32 30

Manganese, mg/kg 170 730 650 410

Mercury, mg/kg -- -- -- --

Molybdenum, mg/kg <1 1 1 1

Nickel, mg/kg 18 33 40 41

Selenium, mg/kg .6 1.3 1.5 1.2

Silver, mg/kg <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Strontium, mg/kg 67 72 71 70

Sulfur, % .04 .31 .44 .30

Thallium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50

Tin, mg/kg 2 3 3 2

Titanium, % .43 .45 .43 .43

Uranium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50

Vanadium, mg/kg 58 76 77 71

Zinc, mg/kg 1,700 8,400 12,000 12,000
Supplemental Information 73

Table A13. Percentage of silt and clay and constituent concentrations for bottom-sediment samples collected from coring 

site E–36 (fig. 2B) in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, September 2005.—Continued 

[mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; %, percent dry weight; <, less than; --, not determined]

Constituent and unit of measurement

Constituent concentration

Interval 4 Interval 5 Interval 6 Interval 7

Percentage of silt and clay 99 100 97 99

Nutrients

Total nitrogen (TN), mg/kg 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

Total phosphorus (TP), mg/kg 720 620 550 650

Carbon

Carbon (total organic, TOC), % 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.9

Carbon (total), % 2.1 2.2 1.9 2.1

Trace elements

Aluminum, % 5.8 5.3 4.4 5.4

Antimony, mg/kg 1.0 1.0 .9 .9

Arsenic, mg/kg 9.1 7.9 6.6 8.1

Barium, mg/kg 500 480 490 520

Beryllium, mg/kg 2.6 2.1 1.8 2.0

Cadmium, mg/kg 71 75 41 60

Chromium, mg/kg 64 61 50 57

Cobalt, mg/kg 14 13 10 13

Copper, mg/kg 48 39 41 41

Iron, % 3.1 2.5 2.0 2.4

Lead, mg/kg 590 550 530 530

Lithium, mg/kg 35 32 26 32

Manganese, mg/kg 450 420 580 480

Mercury, mg/kg -- -- -- --

Molybdenum, mg/kg 1 1 1 1

Nickel, mg/kg 46 41 27 38

Selenium, mg/kg 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.2

Silver, mg/kg <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Strontium, mg/kg 74 72 65 69

Sulfur, % .27 .33 .20 .27

Thallium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50

Tin, mg/kg 3 2 2 2

Titanium, % .46 .44 .43 .46

Uranium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50

Vanadium, mg/kg 81 73 61 74

Zinc, mg/kg 10,000 11,000 8,100 9,900
74 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Table A13. Percentage of silt and clay and constituent concentrations for bottom-sediment samples collected from coring 

site E–36 (fig. 2B) in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, September 2005.—Continued 

[mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; %, percent dry weight; <, less than; --, not determined]

Constituent and unit of measurement

Constituent concentration

Interval 8 Interval 9 Interval 10 Interval 11

Percentage of silt and clay 100 100 96 100

Nutrients

Total nitrogen (TN), mg/kg 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

Total phosphorus (TP), mg/kg 640 610 690 610

Carbon

Carbon (total organic, TOC), % 1.9 1.8 2.0 1.7

Carbon (total), % 2.1 2.0 2.1 1.8

Trace elements

Aluminum, % 5.9 5.6 6.1 5.3

Antimony, mg/kg .8 .9 .9 .9

Arsenic, mg/kg 8.5 7.2 7.9 6.4

Barium, mg/kg 520 530 540 520

Beryllium, mg/kg 2.2 2.0 2.2 2.0

Cadmium, mg/kg 35 25 25 23

Chromium, mg/kg 60 57 63 57

Cobalt, mg/kg 16 14 14 14

Copper, mg/kg 27 24 28 25

Iron, % 3.0 2.6 3.0 2.6

Lead, mg/kg 250 170 250 220

Lithium, mg/kg 35 34 35 32

Manganese, mg/kg 510 450 540 630

Mercury, mg/kg -- -- -- --

Molybdenum, mg/kg 1 1 1 1

Nickel, mg/kg 48 41 40 37

Selenium, mg/kg .9 .9 1.0 1.0

Silver, mg/kg <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Strontium, mg/kg 73 73 73 71

Sulfur, % .16 .13 .14 .16

Thallium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50

Tin, mg/kg 3 3 3 4

Titanium, % .47 .50 .49 .49

Uranium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50

Vanadium, mg/kg 78 76 83 74

Zinc, mg/kg 5,000 4,700 4,600 4,400
Supplemental Information 75

Table A13. Percentage of silt and clay and constituent concentrations for bottom-sediment samples collected from coring 

site E–36 (fig. 2B) in Empire Lake, southeast Kansas, September 2005.—Continued 

[mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; %, percent dry weight; <, less than; --, not determined]

Constituent and unit of measurement

Constituent concentration

Interval 12 Interval 13 Interval 14 Interval 15 

(top of core)

Percentage of silt and clay 96 99 97 86

Nutrients

Total nitrogen (TN), mg/kg 2,000 2,000 1,000 1,000

Total phosphorus (TP), mg/kg 610 590 570 770

Carbon

Carbon (total organic, TOC), % 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4

Carbon (total), % 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.6

Trace elements

Aluminum, % 5.1 5.0 5.3 4.5

Antimony, mg/kg 1.0 .8 .8 .7

Arsenic, mg/kg 5.8 5.0 7.9 6.9

Barium, mg/kg 540 510 520 470

Beryllium, mg/kg 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.5

Cadmium, mg/kg 22 28 26 27

Chromium, mg/kg 54 53 58 69

Cobalt, mg/kg 13 15 15 12

Copper, mg/kg 26 25 38 51

Iron, % 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.9

Lead, mg/kg 350 250 230 200

Lithium, mg/kg 30 30 32 28

Manganese, mg/kg 670 590 340 300

Mercury, mg/kg -- -- -- --

Molybdenum, mg/kg 1 1 1 1

Nickel, mg/kg 28 35 31 30

Selenium, mg/kg 1.1 .7 .8 .7

Silver, mg/kg .6 <.5 <.5 <.5

Strontium, mg/kg 68 67 71 67

Sulfur, % .09 .14 .13 .19

Thallium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50

Tin, mg/kg 3 3 4 2

Titanium, % .48 .46 .50 .42

Uranium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50

Vanadium, mg/kg 69 67 70 58

Zinc, mg/kg 4,200 5,200 4,300 4,200
76 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Table A14. Percentage of silt and clay and constituent concentrations for bottom-sediment samples collected from coring site BHF–1 in 

Blackberry Hay Farm Lake (fig. 1), southwest Missouri, September 2005. 

[mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; %, percent dry weight; <, less than; --, not determined]

Constituent and unit of measurement

Constituent concentration

Interval 1

(bottom of core) Interval 2 Interval 3 Interval 4 Interval 5

Percentage of silt and clay 93 82 84 48 71

Nutrients

Total nitrogen (TN), mg/kg 1,000 800 1,000 1,000 1,000

Total phosphorus (TP), mg/kg 430 280 340 340 410

Carbon

Carbon (total organic, TOC), % 1.2 .9 1.1 1.0 1.3

Carbon (total), % 1.2 .9 1.2 1.1 1.2

Trace elements

Aluminum, % 4.7 3.4 4.0 4.1 4.8

Antimony, mg/kg .9 .8 1.0 .9 .9

Arsenic, mg/kg 6.7 5.9 6.1 5.9 7.2

Barium, mg/kg 470 380 440 490 460

Beryllium, mg/kg 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.5

Cadmium, mg/kg .4 .1 .3 .4 .4

Chromium, mg/kg 56 42 49 50 57

Cobalt, mg/kg 9 10 11 10 11

Copper, mg/kg 13 8.8 11 11 13

Iron, % 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.7 2.1

Lead, mg/kg 33 24 37 33 36

Lithium, mg/kg 32 24 28 30 34

Manganese, mg/kg 400 400 290 330 450

Mercury, mg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Molybdenum, mg/kg 1 1 1 1 1

Nickel, mg/kg 27 12 14 14 16

Selenium, mg/kg .7 .5 .6 .6 .4

Silver, mg/kg .6 .6 <.5 <.5 <.5

Strontium, mg/kg 73 57 65 69 73

Sulfur, % .07 .02 .03 .04 .06

Thallium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

Tin, mg/kg 2 1 2 2 2

Titanium, % .50 .43 .47 .49 .50

Uranium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

Vanadium, mg/kg 74 58 65 63 73

Zinc, mg/kg 99 38 66 82 92
Supplemental Information 77

Table A14. Percentage of silt and clay and constituent concentrations for bottom-sediment samples collected from coring site BHF–1 in 

Blackberry Hay Farm Lake (fig. 1), southwest Missouri, September 2005.—Continued 

[mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; %, percent dry weight; <, less than; --, not determined]

Constituent and unit of measurement

Constituent concentration

Interval 6 Interval 7 Interval 8 Interval 9 Interval 10

Percentage of silt and clay 98 98 98 96 95

Nutrients

Total nitrogen (TN), mg/kg 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

Total phosphorus (TP), mg/kg 450 450 450 420 420

Carbon

Carbon (total organic, TOC), % 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1

Carbon (total), % 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.2

Trace elements

Aluminum, % 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.1 4.9

Antimony, mg/kg 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Arsenic, mg/kg 7.9 7.7 7.4 6.4 6.5

Barium, mg/kg 500 510 530 520 500

Beryllium, mg/kg 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6

Cadmium, mg/kg .5 .4 .3 .2 .3

Chromium, mg/kg 60 59 61 58 56

Cobalt, mg/kg 11 12 11 10 11

Copper, mg/kg 13 13 14 13 13

Iron, % 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0

Lead, mg/kg 40 38 37 34 33

Lithium, mg/kg 36 35 36 34 33

Manganese, mg/kg 480 460 420 380 360

Mercury, mg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Molybdenum, mg/kg 1 1 1 1 1

Nickel, mg/kg 18 18 17 16 16

Selenium, mg/kg .6 .7 .8 .7 .8

Silver, mg/kg <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 .6

Strontium, mg/kg 75 76 78 78 76

Sulfur, % .05 .05 .07 .08 .07

Thallium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

Tin, mg/kg 2 2 2 2 2

Titanium, % .52 .49 .52 .54 .51

Uranium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

Vanadium, mg/kg 80 80 83 79 77

Zinc, mg/kg 100 100 86 82 88
78 Sedimentation and Occurrence of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake, Kansas, 1905–2005

Table A14. Percentage of silt and clay and constituent concentrations for bottom-sediment samples 

collected from coring site BHF–1 in Blackberry Hay Farm Lake (fig. 1), southwest Missouri, September 

2005.—Continued 

[mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; %, percent dry weight; <, less than; --, not determined]

Constituent and unit of measurement

Constituent concentration

Interval 11 Interval 12 Interval 13

(top of core)

Percentage of silt and clay 94 91 95

Nutrients

Total nitrogen (TN), mg/kg 1,000 1,000 1,000

Total phosphorus (TP), mg/kg 480 590 690

Carbon

Carbon (total organic, TOC), % 1.1 1.1 1.1

Carbon (total), % 1.2 1.1 1.3

Trace elements

Aluminum, % 4.9 4.6 4.6

Antimony, mg/kg .9 .9 .9

Arsenic, mg/kg 7.1 7.4 8.1

Barium, mg/kg 500 480 470

Beryllium, mg/kg 1.6 1.5 1.5

Cadmium, mg/kg .4 .5 .5

Chromium, mg/kg 61 56 55

Cobalt, mg/kg 12 11 11

Copper, mg/kg 13 13 13

Iron, % 2.1 2.1 2.2

Lead, mg/kg 33 31 30

Lithium, mg/kg 34 31 31

Manganese, mg/kg 400 500 680

Mercury, mg/kg -- -- --

Molybdenum, mg/kg 1 1 1

Nickel, mg/kg 16 14 14

Selenium, mg/kg .6 .5 .7

Silver, mg/kg .6 <.5 <.5

Strontium, mg/kg 76 73 74

Sulfur, % .07 .04 .03

Thallium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50

Tin, mg/kg 2 2 2

Titanium, % .53 .49 .49

Uranium, mg/kg <50 <50 <50

Vanadium, mg/kg 79 74 75

Zinc, mg/kg 110 110 120
Supplemental Information 79

Prepared by the Lawrence Publishing Service Center.

Edited by Lanna Combs.

Table A15. Percentage of silt and clay and constituent concentrations for flood-plain 

soil samples collected from sites SCF–1 and SRF–1 (fig. 2B) near Empire Lake, 

southeast Kansas, August 2005. 

[mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; %, percent dry weight; <, less than; --, not determined]

Constituent and unit of measurement

Constituent concentration

Site SCF–1 Site SRF–1

Percentage of silt and clay 70 48

Nutrients

Total nitrogen (TN), mg/kg 1,600 1,400

Total phosphorus (TP), mg/kg 480 650

Carbon

Carbon (total organic, TOC), % 1.4 1.2

Carbon (total), % 1.4 1.3

Trace elements

Aluminum, % 2.9 3.9

Antimony, mg/kg .8 .8

Arsenic, mg/kg 3.8 5.1

Barium, mg/kg 450 430

Beryllium, mg/kg 1.0 1.3

Cadmium, mg/kg .9 4.3

Chromium, mg/kg 35 48

Cobalt, mg/kg 6 9

Copper, mg/kg 12 13

Iron, % 1.1 1.6

Lead, mg/kg 36 68

Lithium, mg/kg 20 27

Manganese, mg/kg 490 520

Mercury, mg/kg -- --

Molybdenum, mg/kg 1 1

Nickel, mg/kg 9 15

Selenium, mg/kg .2 .4

Silver, mg/kg <.5 <1.0

Strontium, mg/kg 59 69

Sulfur, % .02 .04

Thallium, mg/kg <50 <100

Tin, mg/kg 1 1

Titanium, % .43 .46

Uranium, mg/kg <50 <100

Vanadium, mg/kg 42 57

Zinc, mg/kg 200 750
Graphics by Jeff Hartley.

Layout and design by Kristi Hartley.

For more information concerning the research described 

in this report, contact:

U.S. Geological Survey

4821 Quail Crest Place

Lawrence, KS 66049

(785) 842-9909

http://ks.water.usgs.gov
Juracek, K.E.—Sedimentation and Occurrence and Trends of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Empire Lake,

Cherokee County, Kansas, 1905−2005—Scientific Investigations Report 2006−5307

Printed on recycled paper