oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory
P.O. Box 15027
Las Vegas NV89114
EPA-600/7-80-151
September 1980
Research and Development
Assessment of Energy
Resource Development
Impact on Water Quality
The Yam pa and
White River Basins
Interagency
Energy-Environment
Research
and Development
Program Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad categories
were established to facilitate further development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously planned to foster
technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields. The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGYENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the effort
funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and Development
Program. These studies relate to EPA'S mission to protect the public health and welfare
from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy systems. The goal of the Pro-
gram is to assure the rapid development of domestic energy supplies in an environ-
mentally-compatible manner by providing the necessary environmental data and
control technology. Investigations include analyses of the transport of energy-related
pollutants and their health and ecological effects; assessments of, and development of,
control technologies for energy systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range
of energy-related environmental issues.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
-------
EPA-600/7-80-151
September 1980
ASSESSMENT OF ENERGY RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
ON WATER QUALITY
The Yampa and White River Basins
by
S. M. Melancon
Biology Department
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Las Vegas, Nevada 89154
and
B. C. Hess and R. W. Thomas
Integrated Monitoring Systems Branch
Advanced Monitoring Systems Division
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89114
/.S. Fnvsro;ปr~antel Protection Agency
i-'''te;i-.'ri V, >.iS.T.?y
<*} ou*'; ?_}.;ป D'--n street
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
US3. iisivironmental Protection Agency
-------
FOREWORD
Protection of the environment requires effective regulatory actions
based on sound technical and scientific data. The data must include the
quantitative description and linkiny of pollutant sources, transport
mechanisms, interactions, and resulting effects on man and his environment.
Because of the complexities involved, assessment of exposure to specific
pollutants in the environment requires a total systems approach that
transcends the media of air, water, and land. The Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory at Las Vegas contributes to the formation and enhancement
of a sound monitoring-data base for exposure assessment through programs
designed to:
develop and optimize systems and strategies for moni-
toring pollutants and their impact on the environment
demonstrate new monitoring systems and technologies
by applying them to fulfill special monitoring needs
of the Agency's operating programs
This report presents an evaluation of surface water quality in the Yampa
and White River Basins and discusses the impact of energy development upon
water quality and water availability. The water quality data collected to
date and presented in this report may be considered baseline in nature and
used to evaluate future impacts on water quality. This report was written for
use by Federal, State, and local government agencies concerned with eneryy
resource development arid its impact on western water quality. Private
industry and individuals concerned with the quality of western rivers may also
find the document useful. This is one of a series of reports funded by the
Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development Program. For further
information contact the Advanced Monitoring Systems Division, Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory.
Director
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada
-------
SUMMARY
Development of fossil fuel, uranium, and other energy reserves located in
the western United States is considered essential. These resources are
located primarily in the Northern Great Plains and the Colorado Plateau.
Because of our national dependence upon oil and gas, conversion of coal to
these liquid and gaseous forms is anticipated.
Development of these resources cannot be accomplished without some
environmental impact. The potential for serious degradation of air, land, or
water quality exists. Pollution may occur during any or all stages of the
extraction, refining, transportation, conversion, or utilization processes.
Secondary impacts resulting from increased population pressures, water
management, and development of supportive industries are expected. Potential
contamination of ground-water supplies from in situ coal and oil shale
conversion facilities, and nonpoint pollution from sources such as stack
emissions, airborne dust, and localized "spills," are of particular concern in
the Yampa and White River Basins. Of special concern in the White River Basin
are additional impacts associated with the oil shale industry, including
disposal of large volumes of solid wastes and leaching of trace elements or
organics from spent shale piles. With careful planning and regulation, such
impacts can be minimized and held within tolerable levels.
The primary objective of this report is to evaluate the existing water
quality monitoring network in the Yampa and White River Basins and to
recommend needed modifications to the present sampling program. As a basis
for these recommendations, present and planned developments are discussed and
available data examined. The impact of developers on water quality and
quantity is defined, particularly related to coal strip ruining activities in
the vicinity of Craig and oil shale activities in the Piceance Creek Basin.
A monitoring network designed to detect trends in surface water quality is
proposed on the basis of our present knowledge. Such a network minimizes the
number of observations at the expense of the number of stations in order to
provide statistically valid data. This network consists of 13 stations:
USGS Station # Description
09236000 Bear River near Toponas, Colo.
09244410 Yampa River below diversion, near Hayden, Colo.
09247600 Yampa River below Craig, Colo.
09251000 Yampa River nearMaybell, Colo.
09260000 Little Snake River near Lily, Colo.
09260050 Yampa River at Deer Lodge Park, Colo.
09303000 North Fork White River at Buford, Colo.
iv
-------
USGS Station #
Description
09304500
09304800
09306222
401022108241200
09306500
09306900
White River near Meeker, Colo.
White River below Meeker, Colo.
Piceance Creek at White River, Colo.
White River below Yellow Creek, Colo.
White River near Watson, Utah
White River at mouth near Ouray, Utah
A similar network for ground-water monitoring needs to be implemented,
particularly in the Piceance Basin; however, presently available data are
insufficient to adequately determine specific station locations.
Those biological, physical, and chemical parameters likely to be affected
by energy resource development activities were determined. Salinity and
suspended sediment concentrations are already a problem in both study basins,
and nutrient levels are sufficiently high in the downstream White River that
any reservoir construction associated with energy development would likely
result in excessive algal growth conditions. Physical and chemical parameters
recommended as top priority for monitoring are:
Total alkalinity
Total aluminum
Total ammonia
Total arsenic
Total beryllium
Bicarbonate
Total boron
Total cadmium
Dissolved calcium
Chloride
Total chromium
Specific conductance
Total copper
Total cyanide
Flow
Total mercury
Total molybdenum
Total nickel
Nitrate-nitrite
Dissolved oxygen
Pesticides
Petroleum hydrocarbons
pH
Total phosphorus
Dissolved potassium
Total selenium
Dissolved sodium
Dissolved sulfate
Susended sediments
Temperature
-------
Fluoride Total dissolved solids
Total iron Total organic carbon in bottom sediments
Total lead Biochemical oxygen demand in bottom sediments
Dissolved magnesium
Total manganese
Biological monitoring is considered to be presently the most feasible
method of assessing the impact of the introduction of an extensive number of
organic chemicals into the environment such as may result from in situ coal
conversion activities. These biological analyses recommended as having top
priority for monitoring water quality in the Yampa and White River Basins
include:
Macroinvertebrates - Counts and identifications, biomass
Periphyton - Biomass, growth rate, identification, and relative
abundance determinations
Fish - Identification and enumeration, toxic substances in tissue
Macrophytes - Species identification and community association
Zooplankton (lentic only) - Identification and count
Phytoplankton (lentic only) - Chlorophyll a_, identification, and
enumeration
Microorganisms - Total fecal coliform
To obtain sufficient data for trend analyses, collection of physical/
chemical parameters on a weekly basis at the Yampa River station at Maybell
and White River station near Watson is recommended. If resources permit,
continuous monitoring in the White River downstream from the Colorado oil
shale tracts in Yellow and Piceance Creek confluences, and in the Yampa River
downstream from the cluster of mining developments below Craig, would be
desirable. All other priority stations should collect physical/chemical data
on a monthly basis to provide spatial distribution data. Suspended sediment
samples should be collected on a monthly basis, and biological samples on a
seasonal or semiannual basis (except for monthly bacteriological analyses).
Semiannual water samples for organic analyses are recommended. There is an
additional need for establishment of intensive source specific monitoring,
particularly at the coal mine sites in the Yampa Basin. Such source
monitoring would determine which pollution control methods need to be
implemented at each mining site, and whether those control procedures already
implemented are effective.
VI
-------
In both the Yampa and White River Basins, economic considerations aside,
water availability will be the major factor limiting future developments. The
oil shale industry in particular will consume a tremendous volume of water.
Interbasin transport of water from sources in the Colorado River Basin,
expanded use of regional ground-water resources in the Piceance Basin, and
reallocation of existing irrigation water rights, are mechanisms expected to
assume increasing importance in meeting anticipated industrial water demands
in the study area. A large number of additional storage facilities have also
been proposed for both study basins to meet anticipated water requirements.
If constructed, these impoundments will drastically alter seasonal streamflow
patterns, fisheries, and water quality of the basins. Of particular concern
is the impact such reservoir construction would have on several threatened and
endangered fish species endemic to the area. Establishment of enforceable
mini muni instream flow requirements in both basins is recommended. It should
be noted, however, that in the White River Basin, declaration of an interstate
water compact between Utah and Colorado will be necessary before large scale
withdrawals or watershed modifications will be feasible.
VI1
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword Ill
Summary iv
Figures xi
Tables xii
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 3
3. Recommendations 5
4. Study Area 7
Geography 7
Water resources 19
Water uses 24
Fish and wildlife resources 26
Mineral resources 30
5. Energy Resource Development 31
Active development 31
Future development 52
Transportation of energy resources 53
6. Other Sources of Pollution 56
Erosion 56
Mine drainage 57
Urban runoff 58
7. Water Requirements 59
Water rights 59
Water availability 60
Yampa and White River withdrawals 62
Exportation of water 68
Water availability versus demand 69
8. Water Quality 70
Sources of data 70
Summary of physical and chemical data 70
Impact of development on surface water 70
Impact of development on yround water 96
IX
-------
Page
9. Assessment of Energy Resource Development 100
Impact on water quantity 100
Impact on water quality 101
10. Recommended Water Quality Monitoring Parameters 103
Physical and chemical parameters 103
Biological parameters Ill
11. Assessment of Existing Monitoring Network 116
References 119
Appendices
A. Conversion Factors 127
B. Chemical and Physical Data 128
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1. Location of the Yanipa and White River Basins 8
2. Structural geologic provinces in the Yampa and White
River Basins 11
3. Generalized surface outcrops of the geologic formations in the
Yampa and White River Basins 16
4. Major land use areas of the Yampa and White River Basins 21
5. Use and ownership of land resources in the Yampa and White
River Basins 22
6. Mean monthly discharges, Yampa River at Steamboat Springs 23
7. Oil and gas fields and pipelines in the Yampa and
White River Basins 32
8. Location of coal mines in the Yampa and White River Basins 36
9. Stratigraphic section of coal bearing formations of north-
western Colorado 37
10. Oil shale development activities in the Green River formation. ... 46
11. Variability in flow discharge, Yampa and White River Basins,
1905-75 63
12. Location of selected U.S. Geological Survey water quality
sampling stations in the Yampa and White River Basins 73
13. Possible sediment yields under normal and disturbed conditions
in the oil shale region of the White River in Colorado 93
14. Diagrammatic section across the Piceance Creek Basin, Colorado ... 97
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1. Summary of Total Projected Annual Energy Production Levels
From Advanced Sources 2
2. Elevations of Major Mountains Contributing to Runoff in the
White and Yarnpa River Basins 9
3. Generalized Stratigraphic Section of the Yarnpa and
White River Basins 12
4. Current and Projected Population for the White and
Yampa River Basins 17
5. Employment Distribution in the White and Yampa River
Basins, 1970 18
6. Total Land Use in the Yampa and White River Basins, 1964 20
7. Water Bearing Characteristics of Geologic Formations in the
White and Yampa River Basins 25
8. Fish Installations and Big Game Management Areas
in the Yampa and White River Basins 27
9. Critical Habitat and Spawning Period Criteria for Some Fish
Species Found in the White and Yampa River Basins 28
10. Oil and Gas Fields in the White and Yampa River Basins,
Colorado 33
11. Oil and Gas Production in the Yampa and White River Basins 35
12. Coal Mines Currently Operating in the Yarnpa and White River
Basins 39
13. Proposed Coal Mines for the White and Yampa River Basins 40
14. Projected Oil Shale Activities in the Green River Formation,
July 1978-85 48
15. Potential Environmental Concerns Associated with the
Oil Shale Industry 49
xn
-------
Number Page
16. Summary of Potential Water Pollution Problems Caused by Spent
Oil Shale Residues 50
17. Total Projected Coal-Related Transportation Development in the
Yampa and White River Basins 54
18. Erosion Rates in the Piceance and Yellow Creek Watersheds 56
19. Predicted Impact on the White and Yampa River Basins as a
Result of Accelerated Erosion Associated with Energy
Development 57
20. Estimated Annual Consumptive Use of Surface Waters, by State,
in the Yampa and White River Basins, 1975-76 61
21. Contingent Water Consumption Forecasts for a Mature Shale
Oil Industry 64
22. Major Point Sources and Associated Sewage Treatment Facilities
in the White and Yampa River Basins 67
23. U.S. Geological Survey Sampling Stations in the Yampa River
Basin 71
24. U.S. Geological Survey Sampling Stations in the White River
Basin 72
25. Water Quality Parameters at Selected Stations in the
White and Yampa River Basins 75
26. Concentrations of Salts and Trace Elements in Coal and
Overburden 77
27. Water Quality Data, May 1974, from Edna Mine, Trout Creek,
Colorado 78
28. Water Quality Criteria Recommended by the National Academy of
Sciences 80
29. Sawyer's Classification of Water According to Hardness Content ... 81
30. Total Dissolved Solids Hazard for Irrigation Water 82
31. U.S. Geological Survey Stations at Mine and Oil Shale Sites in
the Yarnpa and White River Basins with Reported Sodium Absorption
Ratios in Excess of Recommended Limits 83
32. Total Dissolved Solids Hazard for Water Used by Livestock 84
xm
-------
Number Page
33. Maximum Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations of Surface Waters
Recommended for Use as Sources for Industrial Water Supplies ... 85
34. Parameters Exceeding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or
National Academy of Sciences Water Quality Criteria, 1970-78,
at U.S. Geological Survey Stations in the White and Yampa
River Basins 86
35. Proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Colorado 89
36. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Drinking Water
Regulations for Selected Radionuclides 91
37. Suspended Sediment Concentrations Recommended for Maintenance
of Freshwater Fisheries 92
38. Dissolved Solids and Trace Elements in Selected Wells, Streams,
and Mine Pits in the Yampa River Basin 99
39. Priority I, Must Monitor Parameters for the Assessment of Energy
Development Impact on Water Quality in the Yampa and
White River Basins 105
40. Priority II, Parameters of Major Interest for the Assessment
of Energy Development Impact on Water Quality in the
Yarnpa and White River Basins 108
41. Priority III, Parameters of Minor Interest Which Will Provide
Little Useful Data for the Assessment of Energy Development
Impact on Water Quality in the Yampa and White River Basins. . . . 109
42. Priority I Biological Parameters Recommended for Monitoring
Water Quality in the Yampa and White River Basins 114
43. Priority II Biological Parameters Recommended for Monitoring
Water Quality in the Yampa and White River Basins 115
44. U.S. Geological Survey Stations Recommended to Have the Highest
Sampling Priority for Monitoring Energy Development in the
Yampa and White River Basins 118
xiv
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This report is part of a multiagency study involving the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA) under various interagency agreements. The
primary objective of this study is to evaluate the existing water quality
monitoring network in the Yaiupa and White River Basins of Utah, Wyoming, and
Colorado and to recommend needed modifications to the present sampling program
design.
As a basis for monitoring strategies recommended in this report, present
and planned energy developments are defined, and available baseline data on
the Basins are examined. For assessment of these monitoring strategies, the
impact of ongoing and anticipated energy development on both water quality and
quantity in the western energy basins is considered. Future documents will
present more detailed analyses of potential impacts from various energy
technologies, sampling methodologies and frequency requirements, and site
alternatives in light of updated information regarding water right
allocations.
Throughout the 1950's the United States was effectively energy
selfsufficient, satisfying its needs with abundant reserves of domestic fuels,
such as coal, oil and gas, and hydroelectric power. However, energy
consumption has been increasing during the past 10 years at an annual rate of
4 to 5 percent, a per capita rate of consumption eight times that of the rest
of the world (Federal Energy Administration 1974). The Federal Energy
Administration (1974) in the "Project Independence" report gives the following
statistics:
By 1973, imports of crude oil and petroleum products accounted
for 35 percent of total domestic consumption.
Domestic coal production has not increased since 1943.
Exploration for coal peaked in 1956, and domestic production of
crude oil has been declining since 1970.
Since 1968, natural gas consumption in the continental United
States has been greater than discovery.
The United States now relies on oil for 46 percent of its energy needs,
while coal, our most abundant domestic fossil fuel, serves only 18 percent of
1
-------
our total needs (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 1977). Because we have only a few
years remaining of proven oil and gas reserves, and to reduce our vulnerable
dependency upon foreign oil, the Federal government is promoting the
development of untapped national energy resources in anticipation of up-coming
energy requirements. Included among these resources are the abundant western
energy reserves. Over half of the Nation's coal reserves are located in the
western United States, as well as effectively all the uranium, oil shale, and
geothermal reserves. Table 1 shows the projected national annual production
levels for some recently expanding energy sources through the year 2000.
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF TOTAL PROJECTED ANNUAL ENERGY PRODUCTION LEVELS FROM
ADVANCED SOURCES (1015 joules per year) (modified from Hughes
et al. 1974)
Source 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Solar
Geothermal
Oil shale
Solid wastes
Total
0
1.8
0
0
1.8
0
14
0
10
24
0
72
610
55
737
400
180
2,000
300
2,880
2,500
360
2,700
950
6,510
4,000
720
3,400
3,000
11,120
12,000
1,400
4,000
10,000
27,400
U.S. demand 70,000 83,000 98,000 120,000 140,000 170,000 200,000
Percent of U.S.
demand filled
by above
sources 3xlQ-3 3xlO~2 0.8 2 5 6 13
In the Yampa and White River Basins, energy resource development will
primarily be oil shale development and increased strip mining of coal with
construction of associated coal gasification, coal-fired powerplants and
transportation facilities. Development of uranium reserves, oil and gas
fields, and other resources will occur, but to a much lesser extent. It is
difficult to assess the extent and severity of degradation in environmental
quality that can be expected from this development. However, one of the
biggest impacts will undoubtedly result from competition for water resources
created by growing demands of municipal, industrial, agricultural, and
reclamation projects. Energy development, which requires large amounts of
water during extraction, transportation, and conversion of resources to a
usable form, can potentially have a great impact on water quality in the
Basins.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
1. Water availability in the study area will be the major factor limiting
future growth and development patterns, including development of energy
resources. Surface discharge in both river systems is highly variable and
cannot be relied upon to provide year-round flow for anticipated consumptive
use without creation of additional storage facilities. Many reservoirs have
been proposed for the study basins to meet projected industrial requirements.
Constructions of these impoundments would drastically alter seasonal stream
flow patterns, fisheries, and water quality of the basins.
2. Interbasin transport of water from sources in the Colorado River, as well
as expended use of regional ground-water resources and real location of
existing irrigation water rights, are mechanisms expected to assume increasing
importance in meeting anticipated industrial demands for water in the Yampa
and White River Basins. In particular, there are large reserves of ground
water underlying the Piceance Basin, although their high salinity will
restrict large-scale usage for many industrial needs.
3. Water quality throughout the Yampa and White River Basins is variable and
strongly influenced by episodic high runoff and mineralized ground-water
supplies forming the baseflow of intermittent tributaries. Salinity and
suspended sediment concentrations are already problems in both basins, and
nutrient levels are sufficiently high in the downstream White River that any
reservoir construction associated with energy development is likely to result
in excessive algal growth conditions. Existing water quality, particularly
around the mining activities at Hayden and the oil shale tracts of Piceance
Basin, can be expected to deteriorate as availability of water is reduced with
increasing regional development. The parameters most likely to be affected by
increased activities in the basins are elemental toxic substances, salinity,
suspended sediments, and nutrients. Pollutants from surface mines are
expected to move primarily in conjunction with local storm events.
4. Irrigation is, and will continue to be, the major consumer of surface
water in the Yampa and White River Basins. Regional high salinity already
restricts the variety of crops grown in the area, and increasing salinity,
particularly in conjunction with reductions in flow, would have a major impact
on this important user.
5. There are a number of fish species endemic to the study area which are on
the threatened or endangered lists of Colorado. At present, the Yampa and
White River Basins, because they are unaltered by high dams, provide habitat
-------
for these species. Additional reservoir construction associated with energy
development in the area could have a major detrimental impact on the
distribution of these species.
6. Waterborne point source discharges of pollutants from coal mining and coal
conversion sites in the basins should be localized and should not pose a
problem to overall water quality in the basins if discharge restrictions are
strictly enforced. Rather, nonpoint pollution such as stack emissions, air-
borne dust, and subsurface drainage will be the major contributions. Runoff
of effluents released from evaporation ponds to ground water or through
overflow during storms poses an additional water quality threat, and regular
monitoring for potential violations from energy development operation sites
should be monitored.
7. Although point source dishcarges for traditional energy developments are
not likely to pose surface water quality problems, the potential for direct
contamination of ground-water supplies from in situ coal and oil shale
conversion activities is substantial. Organic pollutants from this source are
of particular concern due both to the lack of available data regarding their
nature and quantity, and to the high costs associated with organic analyses.
For many of the organic species likely to be emitted, no water quality
regulations presently exist, and the synergistic hazards of their release into
the aquatic environment are not well understood.
8. The oil shale industry in the White River Basin will involve processing
and disposal of large volumes of waste solids, for which massive amounts of
disposal lands must be available. Leaching of trace elements or trace
organics from these spent shale piles will be another potential source of
ground water contamination in the study area.
9. Pollution impacts of secondary development are likely to become a major
contributing problem to water quality in the Yarnpa and White River Basins. In
particular, increases in total dissolved solids (IDS) and sediment levels from
urban runoff, hydrologic modifications, and erosion resulting from
construction of additional transportation systems are expected.
10. In addition to the long-term trends, increased numbers of pollution
"episodes" (spills, etc.) are expected due to the increased transport of
energy products in the area and the likelihood of flood runoffs from waste
disposal, cooling systems, or mining sites. These brief but massive events
could cause both short- and long-term effects that would be disasterous to
both the ecology and the economy of the area.
11. Surface water quality monitoring stations presently operated by the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) are abundant and generally well situated to monitor
energy resource development impact. However, they are not sampled frequently
enough to permit meaningful data evaluations, nor do they monitor a number of
water quality parameters that are considered necessary for monitoring energy
activities in the basins. Thirteen USGS sampling stations have been selected
as having the highest sampling priority for energy monitoring throughout the
basins examined in this report. Priorities have also been established for
detecting water quality parameters necessary to monitor impacts from energy
development in these watersheds.
4
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Expansion in the number of parameters regularly monitored to assess the
impact of energy development on surface water quality in the Yampa and White
River Basins is recomnended. In particular, most trace elements and
nutrients, which are presently collected only irregularly, should be
incorporated into a systematically scheduled sampling program. Pesticides,
oil and greases, and organics such as phenols are other parameters that should
be incorporated into a regular, if occasional, monitoring effort. Increased
use of biological monitoring as a tool for measurement of long-term surface
water quality trends is recommended.
2. The following U.S. Geological Survey stations are recommended for the
highest sampling priority in the Yampa and White River Basins for monitoring
energy development impact on surface waters:
Bear River near Toponas, Colorado
Yampa River below diversion, near Hayden, Colorado
Yampa River below Craig, Colorado
Yampa River near Maybell, Colorado
Little Snake River near Lily, Colorado
Yampa River at Deer Lodge Park, Colorado
North Fork White River at Buford
White River near Meeker, Colorado
White River below Meeker, Colorado
Piceance Creek at White River, Colorado
White River below Yellow Creek, Colorado
White River near Watson, Utah
White River at mouth near Ouray, Utah
3. The present surface-water monitoring network should be restructured. The
Yampa River station at Maybell and the White River station near Watson should
be sampled on a weekly basis in order to permit meaningful trend analyses.
The other 11 priority stations should be monitored on at least a monthly basis
to provide spatial distribution data. If funds permit, continuous monitoring
in the White River downstream from the Colorado oil shale tracts (below Yellow
and Piceance Creeks) and in the Yampa River downstream from the cluster of
mining developments (below Craig), would be desirable. There is an additional
need to establish intensive source specific monitoring, particularly at the
coal mine sites in the Yampa Basin. Such source monitoring would determine
which pollution control methods need to be implemented at each mining site,
and whether the controls already implemented are effective.
-------
4. The following water quality parameters are recommended for at least
monthly sampling at the 13 priority stations in order to assess energy
development impact in the Yampa and White River Basins:
Total alkalinity Total cyanide Petroleum hydrocarbons
Total aluminum Flow pH
Total ammonia Fluoride Total phosphorus
Total arsenic Total iron Dissolved potassium
Total beryllium Total lead Total selenium
Bicarbonate Dissolved magnesium Dissolved sodium
Total boron Total manganese Dissolved sulfate
Total cadmium Total mercury Suspended sediments
Dissolved calcium Total molybdenum Temperature
Chloride Total nickel Total dissolved solids
Total chromium Nitrate-nitrite Total organic carbon in
Specific conductance Dissolved oxygen bottom sediments
Total copper Pesticides Biochemical oxygen demand
in bottom sediments
5. Development of improved techniques for monitoring of ground-water supplies
is recommended. Development of field monitors (automatic or continuous) that
would provide detailed analyses of trace elements and trace organics in both
surface and ground-water supplies under ambient conditions would be
invaluable.
6. Periodic intense field surveys are recommended to determine the nature and
extent of pollution discharges, especially from developing in situ oil shale
and coal conversion facilities, which will create many potentially harmful
organic compounds. The exact nature and degree of escape of these compounds
is presently unknown. Development of additional and more inexpensive
analytical procedures to identify organics is also needed.
7. Definition of the amounts of water needed to establish enforceable minimum
in-stream flow requirements in the Yampa and White River Basins is
recommended, particularly in light of the tremendous potential impact to
fisheries and recreation areas from proposed reservoir construction in the
basins.
8. Declaration of an interstate water agreement between Utah and Colorado
regarding water allocations of the White River Basin is recommended. Large
scale proposals to develop the oil shale industry in both states make an
agreement, more specific to this Basin than the Colorado River Compact,
ultimately mandatory, and the sooner it is accomplished the sooner realistic
estimates can be made on the availability of surface waters for the industry
in both states.
-------
SECTION 4
STUDY AREA
GEOGRAPHY
Location and Size
The White and Yampa River Basins are located along the border region of
the State of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (Figure 1). The area encompasses
approximately 37,943 km2 in the following counties: Moffat, Rio Blanco,
Garfield, Routt (Colo.), Sweetwater, Carbon (Wyo.)> and Uinta (Utah). It is
bordered by the Roan Plateau and Flat Top Mountains to the south, the
Continental Divide and Colorado River to the east, the Red Desert Basin to the
north, and the Green River to the west.
Most major tributaries to the Yampa River Basin (24,683 km2) originate in
the Park Range and White River Plateau areas along the east and southeastern
edges of the drainage area (U.S. Economic Research Service et al. 1969). The
basin is approximately 206 km long from east to west, and averages 121 km wide
as the river flows to its confluence with the Green River in Dinosaur National
Monument. Elevations in the basin range from 3,808 rn on Flat Top Mountain
(Table 2) in the southeast to 1,524 m near the confluence point with the Green
River. Major tributaries include the Williams Fork, Little Snake, and Elk
Rivers.
The North Fork White River (13,260 km2) has its headwaters near Trappers
Lake on the White River Plateau in northwestern Colorado and flows westward
through the towns of Meeker and Rangely across the Utah-Colorado border to its
confluence with the Green River. The Basin is approximately 172 km long and
averages 56 km wide. Elevations vary from 3,657 m on Shingle Peak in the Flat
Tops of the White River Plateau to 1,466 m at the White River's confluence
with the Green River. The Piceance Creek is the only major perennial
tributary in the Basin.
Climate
The climate of the study area is characteristic of its highly variable
physiography, being generally semi arid with relatively warm summers and cold
winters. Temperature variations are largely related to the wide range of
exposures and elevations; temperature extremes of -42ฐC to 39ฐC have been
reported at Meeker in the White Basin, and -48ฐC at Steamboat Springs to 38ฐC
at Craig in the Yampa Basin (U.S. Economic Research Service et al. 1966,
1969).
-------
109
00
109
108C
107ฐ
Figure 1. Location of the Yampa and White River Basins.
-------
TABLE 2. ELEVATIONS OF MAJOR MOUNTAINS CONTRIBUTING TO RUNOFF
IN THE WHITE AND YAMPA RIVER BASINS
Mountain
Flat Top Mountain
Sheep Mountain
Mt. Orno
Shingle Peak
Trappers Peak
Marvine Peak
Pagoda Peak
Sleepy Cat Peak
Hahns Peak
Gore Mountain
Elevation
(meters)
3,808
3,732
3,690
3,657
3,654
3,619
3,431
3,306
3,299
3,257
Mountain
Bear Ears Mountain
Welba Peak
Diamond Peak
Buffalo Mountain
Pilot Knob
Uranium Peak
McAlpine Mountain
Pinnacle Mountain
Colorow Peak
Elevation
(meters)
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
249
200
178
163
001
850
798
514
2,438
.Precipitation in the study area is fairly evenly distributed throughout
the year. In the lowland regions, precipitation averages 23 to 30 cm per
year, while in the higher alpine elevations along the Continental Divide,
annual rainfall averages 127 cm/year (U.S. Department of Interior 1973).
Winter snow accumulation during December to April is the principal source of
surface runoff in the basins. Warm moist air masses from the Gulf of Mexico,
and Pacific air masses originating on the coasts of Southern California (lorns
et al. 1965), commonly bring summer storms. These summer showers, however,
contribute very little to overall water supplies in the basins except during
episodic cloudbursts that result in flooding and short-term peak flow.
Evaporation rates in the lower elevations often exceed the total annual
precipitation (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1978).
Geology
The structural history of the area is one of repeated coastal and marine
deposition in shallow seas followed by emergence and erosion. Shallow
epicontinental seas spread eastward and southeastward from the Cordilleran
Geosyncline. Deposition of marine sediments probably was continuous through
Ordovician and Silurian time (Haun and Kent 1965). In late Silurian, and well
into the Devonian, emergence occurred, and much of the sedimentary record was
destroyed. In late Devonian, shallow seas again advanced into the area and
the Chaffee formation was deposited (Curtis 1962). This general pattern was
repeated throughout the Late Paleozoic and Early Mesozoic Eras. During the
Jurassic age, seas advanced from the northwest into two embayments formed by
the White River Uplift (Curtis 1962). The Morrison formation of latest
Jurassic age begins a new tectonic and sedimentary pattern characterized by
mudstones, sandstones, conglomerates, and freshwater limestones of continental
origin. Geanticlinal mountains arose and migrated eastward providing a
sediment source. During Cretaceous time, sediments were deposited into a
marine trough that developed east of the mountain belt. Deposition of the
9
-------
interfingered, coarse continental elastics on the west with marine shales and
limey shales toward the east (Dakota Sandstone, Mancos Shale, Mesaverde
Sandstones, Lewis Shale, Fox Hills Sandstone, and Lance formation) record the
various advances of western land at the expense of eastern seas. Late
Cretaceous time brought a general elevation of northwestern Colorado (Curtis
1962).
In latest Cretaceous and Cenozoic time, pulses of Laramide orogeny caused
differential elevation throughout the region. The Park Range and the
Uncompahgre-Douglas Creek uplifts had begun (Curtis 1962). In Eocene time,
the area between the Park and Uncompahgre trends sank forming a shallow lake
basin. In its waters the kerogen-bearing marlstones and calcareous shales of
the Green River formation were deposited, while around its edges the fluvial
and deltaic Wasatch formation was formed. Many of the present-day structural
features were formed during the period of orogeny from Late Cretaceous to
early Tertiary times (Quigley 1965). During the Oligocene, uplift and
smoothing to a low order relief apparently occurred. During the Miocene,
deposition of the Browns Park formation was followed by volcanism. The area
continued to be raised as a unit, but the eastern end of the Uinta Arch
remained stable, and in Pliocene time it collapsed relative to its
surroundings (Curtis 1962). The structural geology of the area is generalized
in Figure 2. Intensified erosion produced a superposition of stream patterns
with intrenched meandering rivers crossing prominent structural and
topographic high areas. The moist Pleistocene period further strengthened
stream erosion and produced vigorous mountain glaciation in the region.
The sediment types have been very important in the accumulation of gas and
oil after the Laramide orogeny. Virtually all the oil and gas in the
Paleozoic age rocks has been produced from the Weber Sandstone. In the Weber
Sandstone, intergranular porosity and permeability alone are insufficient to
support commercial production. Folding and fracturing have been all important
in establishing commercial reserves. Accumulations of Cretaceous and Tertiary
oil and gas are similarly controlled (Quigley 1965). Production of oil has
been from the Wasatch, Mancos, Dakota, Morrison, Entrada (Sundance),
Shinarump, Moenkopi, and Weber formations. The relative geologic positions of
these and other strata are shown in Table 3. In 1962 these formations had
produced 64 billion liters (403 million barrels), most of this (49 billion
liters) from the Rangely Field (Weber) (Piro 1962). The Green River
formation, particularly the Evacuation Creek* and Parachute Creek members, is
the host rock for oil shale. Coal reserves exist in the Green River, the Fort
Union, and Lance formations, and in the Mesaverde Group. The most important
are those of the Williams Fork formation of the Mesaverde Group where beds in
excess of 4 meters thick are common. Underlying coal beds in the lies
formation are also important (Hancock 1925). Coal resource development, as
expected, closely follows the surface outcrop patterns (Figure 3) of the Green
River, Fort Union, William Fork, and lies formations.
In present nomenclature, Evacuation Creek member is included as a part of
the Parachute Creek member (Cashion and Donnell 1974). The order
nomenclature is used throughout this report.
10
-------
109ฐ
108ฐ
107ฐ
41
Elkhead
Mountains
Sand Wash Basin
3 White River Plateau
3 X 1
<
109
108ฐ
107ฐ
Figure 2. Structural geologic provinces in the Yarnpa and White River Basins,
(modified from Quigley 1965, and Beebe 1962)
-------
TABLE 3. GENERALIZED STRATIGRAPHIC SECTION OF THE YAMPA AND
WHITE RIVER BASINS (modified from Greene 1962)
E t/t
03 OJ Q.
*J Z3
in l- o
>i OJ i-
Formation General Description Thickness
kecunt
Pleistocene
TERTIARY Inuaternary
PALEOCENE EOCENE MIOCENE
GREEN RIVER FORMATION
CRETACEOUS
UPPER CRETACEOUS
MESAVERDE GROUP
Recent unaifferentiateu
Al luviur.. Seuiment
Browns
Park
Bishop_ Cgl .
(D Evacuation
Creek member
Parachute
Creek member
2 Garden
Gulch member
0 Douglas
Creek member
todsatch
Fort
Union
Lance
Fox Hills
Sandstone
Lewis
Mil liams
Fork
Sandstone and Conglomerates with thin 1 imestone
layers
Boulders and pebbles of sandstone and
quartzite
Sandstone, interbedded claystone, marlstone
black with oil stain
Marlstone, petroliferous, interbedded thin
layers of nacholite, claystone
Shale, interbedded dolomitic and argillaceous
marl stones and limestones
Interbedded siltstone, shale, and sancty
1 imestone
Sandstone
Claystone
Coaly shale
Limestone
Shale
Interbeaded siltstones, shale and sanastones
Claystone
Interueddea claystone, coaly streaks, siltstone,
and sanastones
Claystone^Cl^y nodules
Claystones, shales, thin coals
Sandstone
Coals
Sandstones
Interbedded carbonaceous shales
Carbonaceous shale
Sandstone, siltstone and coal
Shale and siltstone
Sandstone trace coals
Shale and siltstone
Interbeaded shale and sandstone
Siltstone
Shale
Bentonite
Shale
Sandstone with interbedaed shale
Thin coal layers
Sanastone, interbedded
Shale ana coal
Shale and coal
Coal
0-1800'
0-300'
0-700'
0-1600'
0-500'
0-1100'
0-650C'
0-1300'
C-2200'ฑ
5000 'ฑ
Iconti nueci)
12
-------
TABLE 3. (Continued)
E l/l
- r:
t/l S_ O
>- OJ S-
1X1 ฐฐ ^ Formation General Description Thickness
Recent
Pleistocene
on
3
C LU
1
LU
c
*r> m
(S)
>- C c 0.
_J O O 3
a: - o
<: r c s.
LJJ o ro c:
C_3
Recent Undifferentiatcd
Alluvium Seoinrent
Trout Creek
SS. member
lies
Mancos
Morapos SS.
member
Meeker SS.
member
Nioorara
Frontier
Mowry
Dakota 3;
Brushy
Basin
member
Salt Wash
member
Curtis Fm.
Entrada SS.
Carmel
ftavajo SS.
(i^u^get)
Sanastone
Shale
Shale, siltstone
Coal layers
Sanastone and siltstone with coal partings
Shale, interbedded siltstone
Shale
Sandstone
Sandstone
Shale
Shale
Shale
Sanostone, interbeddea shales
Shale
Shale
Sanostone
Claystone
Sandstone - small conglomerate
Claystone and thin limestone
Thin sandstone
Limestone
Claystone
Sandstone
Interbedded Claystone and shale
Si Itstone
Shdle
Sandstone
Sandstone
Sandstone ana shale
Sandstone
1600'ฑ
5COO'ฑ
5000 'ฑ
100-200'
70-150'
0-120'
0-90'
200-800'
0-200'
0-300'
0-50'
0-800'
(continued)
13
-------
TABLE 3. (Continued)
E t/i
O QJ r~
4-J -i -
(/I 1- O
>> OJ Sป
00 CO C?
Recent
Pleistocene
c_;
i - UJ
!
V) <.
J
to
-
_j
Cฃ CฃL
ฃ:
-1 i
>-
UJ
on o
LU
Cu
-c
C
O rt3
S- ^^
s- o
O 4^
1C c. > ^i C
LU ^ CD O O
s ^ 1 = i
0 11 0 O
i-. S -i- *J w
งO > -i- fO
1 O C E;
Cl T3 rt3 C
a: t- s: o
o o u.
Formation
Recent
Al luviui.i
Chinle
Shinarump
Moenkopi
Park City
<--- . ilarxwn
-=Cl3m^oon
Weber ~~"^^>-
.
Upper
Morgan
Middle
Morgan
Lower
Morgan
Molas
"D" Zone
"C" Zone
"B" Zone
"A" Zone
D>er mei.iDer
(Ouray)
Parting trieruber
(Elbert)
Tie Gulch
Dolomite
Dead Horse
Conglomerate
General Description
Undifferentiated
Sedii,,ent
Siltstone
Shale
Claystone
Sandstone ana conglomerate
Siltstone
Interbedded shale
Sandstone
Linestone
Siltstone
Sandstone
Sandstone
Interbedded limestone and sandstone
Limestone and dolomite
Sandstone
Shale
Limestone
Sandstone
Shale
Sandstone
Shale, Siltstone, sandstone
Limestone
Chert
Shale
Limestone
Chert
Limestone
Dolomite
Chert
Limestone
Dolomite, with shale and chert partings
Limestone
Shale, quartzite, sancij/ dolomite
Dolomite, sandy
Limestone
Limestone conglomerate
Interbedded shale
Thickness
0-450'
0-850'
0-300'
C-12001
0-2000'
500-1400'
C-700'
200-270'
80-155'
(continued)
14
-------
TABLE 3. (Continued)
e <"
2 .2 %
% ซ ฃ
^ Formation General Description Thickness
Recent Recent Unciiffereritiated
Pleistocene Alluvium Sediment
CAMBRIAN
Upper
Cambrian
ฎ
Dotsero
Clinetop
Algal LS.
Glenwood
Canyon
Sawatch
ง J
cฃ :z
ca
2: ic a.
< +J 3
0 -T- 0
UJ C i-
o: no
Q-
Limestone, white algal
Limestone conglomerate
Dolomite
Sandstone
Dolomite
Quartzite, sanastone
Quartzite
In northern part of area quartzitic aria
conglomeratic sanastones
In White River uplift, Upper Cambrian strata lie
on metamorphic and igneous Precanibriari
100'
0-520'
In no one area would this entire composite section be present.
Oil and Gas shows
CD Bridger Formation overlies Green River in portions of Sand Wash and Piceance Basins
ฉ Anvil Points member in Piceance Basin
O Dakota is subdivided regionally into the Dakota, Fuson, and Dakota near Wyoming. In Utah the
unit is called Dakota, Cedar flountain, Buckhorn. In the southern portion the Cedar
Mountain, and Bullhorn is referred to as Burro Canyon.
Sin the absence of the Clinetop Algal limestone bed the Manitou and the Dotsero cannot be
separated and is called the Dotsero.
Population and Economy
The population of the Yampa and White River Basins is primarly distributed
throughout a number of small rural communities. In the Yampa drainage area,
year-round population in 1976 was estimated at 18,000 persons, with the
communities of Craig and Steamboat Springs together accounting for over half
the total basin population (Steele et al. 1976). This region receives large
seasonal influxes during the summer and winter recreation month of persons who
are not included in the population estimate. Approximately 7,000 individuals
reside in the White River Basin; more than 90 percent of those are in Rio
Blanco County (U.S. Economic Research Service et al. 1966). Populations in
some parts of the study area are expected to more than double by the 1990's
(Table 4).
The economic base for the White and Yampa River Basins is traditionally
agricultural, dominated by cattle and sheep ranching and by production of
crops including corn, wheat, oats, barley, rye, hay, and potatoes. The retail
trade industry employs approximately 20 percent of the regional workforce, and
15
-------
QT - Undlfferentiated Quaternary and Tertiary
Tbp = Browns Park Formation
Tbr = Bridger Formation
Tui - Uintah Formation
Tgr - Green River Formation
Tw = Wasatch Formation
Tfu = Fort Union Formation
Kl = Lance Formation
KIs = Lewis Shale
Kmv = Mesa Verde Group
Kwf = Williams Fork Formation
Ki ~ lies Formation
Kmc = Mancos Shale
Kd = Dakota Shale
JTr - Jurassic Triassic Undivided
PWu = Permian and Pennsylvanian Undivided
ffmo ~ Morgan Formation
Mu = Mississippian Undivided
u = Cambrian and Precambrian
Kmv
107C
Figure 3. Generalized surface outcrops of the geologic formations
in the Yampa and White River Basins.
16
-------
TABLE 4. CURRENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION FOR THE WHITE
AND YAMPA RIVER BASINS*
Communities 1975 1980 1985 1990
Moffat County
Craig
Dinosaur
Other areas
Rio Blanco County
Meeker
Rang ley
Other areas
Routt County
Hay den
Oak Creek
Steamboat Springs
Yampa
Other areas
Carbon County
Baggs
Dixon
8,336
5,426
311
2,599
5,349
1,986
1,792
1,571
9,858
1,338
780
3,013
370
4,357
16,745
250
47
10,154
8,945
408
801
11,171
5,672
3,356
2,143
14,492
2,212
1,868
8,089
408
1,915
11,234
9,320
947
967
16,978
6,629
7,838
2,511
17,005
2,520
2,224
9,631
498
2,132
13,547
11,373
975
1,199
18,541
7,353
8,094
3,094
17,704
2,533
2,287
9,885
600
2,399
*Modified from U.S. Bureau of Land Management (1976a) and U.S. Department
of Commerce (1977a, 1977b).
timber production is important in some regions of the Yampa Basin (Table 5).
Increasingly, however, mineral production (particularly of petroleum and coal)
and associated conversion facilities, are gaining in significance to the local
economy. The U.S. Economic Research Service et al. (1969) reported "mining is
by far the most important economic activity in northwestern Colorado." In the
Yampa Basin, the population is expected to more than double in the next 15
years (Steele 1976) in response to the growing coal industry. The communities
of Craig and Hayden have already experienced rapid population increases since
1973 as a result of construction of a new coal-fired power generating plant
near Craig, and addition of a second unit to the existing Hayden facility.
The community of Meeker is undergoing population expansion due to increasing
focus on development of oil shale reserves in the Piceance Creek Basin.
Renewed interest in oil and gas exploration in Rangely could also affect
population growth in the White River Basin.
17
-------
00
TABLE 5. EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION IN THE WHITE AND YAMPA RIVER BASINS, 1970
(modified from U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1976a)
Labor force
Unemployed
Total empl oyed
Agriculture
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Trans po rt at ion, c ommun i cat i ons
and utilities
Wholesale, and retail trade
Finance, insurance, and
real estate
All other private services
Public administration
Moffat
County
2,622
119
2,503
351
124
294
42
185
628
54
689
136
Rio Blanco
County
1,981
35
1,946
294
280
152
42
94
272
56
603
153
Routt
County
2,607
80
2,527
362
175
232
95
228
541
73
711
110
Region
Total
7,210
234
6,976
1,007
579
678
179
507
1,441
183
2,003
399
Percent of
Total*
3.25
14.44
8.30'
9.72
2.57
7.27
20.66
2.62
28.71
5.72
State
Percent*
3.3
4.63
1.72
6.41
14.83
7.33
22.27
5.63
30.45
6.73
National
Percent*
4.9
4.67
0.84
4.57
26.13
6.07
20.14
4.98
15.68
16.93
*Percent unemployed is percent of labor force. Percents by sectors are percents of total employed.
-------
Land Ownership and Usage
The White and Yampa Rivers drain nearly 38,000 km2 and include portions of
Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. Over 60 percent of the land is Federally owned,
most of it Bureau of Land Management or Forest Service lands (Table 6). The
Yampa Basin drains portions of Medicine Bow and Routt National Forests. Most
of the Basin downstream from the Little Snake River lies within Dinosaur
National Monument (Figure 4). The headwaters of the White River drain
portions of the Routt and White River National Forests. The interior
stretches of both basins are dominated by Bureau of Land Management property
in the west, and by state lands, such as the Rio Blanco Lake and Lake Avery
State Recreation Areas, in the east.
Approximately 30 percent of the total land area in the White and Yampa
River Basins is privately owned (U.S. Economic Research Service et al. 1966
and 1969). The confluence of the White and Green Rivers is located on Uinta
and Ouray Indian Reservation land, the only tribally owned acreage in the
study area.
The primary usage of land in the White and Yampa River Basins is
agriculture (Figure 5), with an estimated 74 percent being used for grazing,
and 4 percent for cropland. Cropland production in the basins is comprised of
corn and alfalfa, as well as winter wheat, oats, barley, and other small
grains.
Industrial utilization of land, such as mining and urban development, is
relatively slight at present, particularly in light of the regional economic
benefits to be derived from the exploitation of its mineral resources.
However, mining of valuable fuel reserves, along with development of power
supply facilities, is expected to increase in future years and to use
increasing amounts of land. The oil shale industry in particular may have a
large land impact since solid wastes and spent shale will probably be handled
on the land surface (Jones et al. 1977). Recreation, including fishing,
hunting, boating, camping, and general vacation activities, is also an
important usage of basin lands. Care must be taken to ensure that these
recreational uses are not needlessly sacrificed as a result of the explosive
development of energy resources in the basins.
WATER RESOURCES
Lotic Waters
Surface water supplies in the White and Yampa Rivers, both of which arise
on the north edge of the White River Plateau in Garfield County, are derived
primarily from the melting of winter snowpacks accumulated in the higher basin
elevations. Peak flows in the rivers occur during April, May, and June
(Figure 6); about 50 percent of the White River surface runoff and 80 percent
of the annual Yampa River discharge occur during these months (McCall-
Ellingson and Morrill, Inc. 1974). River flows rapidly diminish after
snowmelt. This, compounded by irrigation diversions throughout the growing
season, produce annual low flows in August and September, particularly in the
lower portions of the basins.
19
-------
TABLE 6. TOTAL LAND USE (km2) IN THE YAMPA (Colorado and Wyoming) AND WHITE (Colorado only)
RIVER BASINS, 1964 (modified from U.S. Economic Research Service et al. 1966 and 1969)
Cropland
Ownership
Private land
State land
State and local
government
Game, fish, and
parks department
ro
0
Federal land
BLM
Forest Service
National Park
Service
Percent of total
(Total = 34,548.1)
Irrigation
538.2
0.8
8.9
0
0
0
1.6
Dryfarm
870.5
31.2
0
0
0
0
2.6
Grazing
8,131.5
1,311.6
88.6
15,616.8
573.0
0
74.4
Timber and
Grazing
543.9
55.4
10.5
257.4
2,312.0
0
9.2
Timber
113.7
18.6
0
103.2
1,629.3
0
5.4
Wilderness
0
0
0
0
450.4
0
1.3
Recreation
27.5
0
7.3
48.2
2.8
592.9
1.9
Other
382.8
98.3
60.3
428.2
234.3
0
3.5
-------
109ฐ
108ฐ
107ฐ
ro
109
108ฐ
107ฐ
Figure 4. Major land use areas of the Yampa and White River Basins.
-------
White River Basin
Land
Colorado Area: 9,862 Km2
Land Use
Land
Ownership
Irrigated Cropland
Dry Cropland
Miscellaneous
Wilderness
Timber
Timber and Grazing
PO
ro
6-
a
c
<0
V)
3
O
4-
2-
1 Private Lands
Colo. Game, Fish and
Parks Commission
'State and Local
Government Lands
Grazing
, Bureau of Land
' Management Lands
National Forest
Yampa River Basin
Land
Irrigated Cropland
Dry Cropland
Miscellaneous
Wilderness
Timber
Timber and Grazing
Land Use
Grazing
Private Lands
State and Local
Government Lands
National Park Service
Bureau of Land
Management Lands
o
C
(0
in
3
O
National Forest
Figure 5. Use and ownership of land resources in the White River Basin (Colorado)
and the Yampa River Basin (Colorado and Wyoming), (modified from U.S. Economic
Research Service et al. 1966, 1969)
-------
Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept.
Figure 6. Mean monthly discharges, Yampa River at Steamboat Springs.
(modified from Bauer et al. 1978)
Approximately 94 percent of the White River flow comes from only 27
percent of the total basin area, i.e., that portion of the basin upstream from
Meeker (U.S. Economic'Research Service et al. 1966). What additional runoff
does occur in the lower basin is primarily a result of intense localized
summer thunderstorms and a sustained ground-water baseflow in the watershed.
It is estimated that 20 percent of the Yampa River headwaters area produces 58
percent of the total surface discharge (McCall-Ellingson and Morrill, Inc.
1974).
Lentic Waters
There are only five major (>6.2 million m3 storage capacity) reservoirs in
the study area. These include Steamboat Lake (Upper Willow Creek Reservoir),
Pearl Lake, Lester Creek Reservoir, and Stillwater Reservoir in the Yampa
Basin, and Lake Avery in the White River Basin near Buford. The largest of
23
-------
these is Steamboat Lake with a storage capacity of 22.9 million m3 (Wentz and
Steele 1976). Hundreds of other impoundments, including stock watering ponds
and erosion control structures, exist in the basins to satisfy irrigation,
industrial, recreational, and livestock demands, but these are substantially
smaller in size. There are also a large number of small natural lakes in the
basins. The largest of these are Trapper, Rio Blanco, McAndrews, and Hog
Lakes.
Although both the White and Yampa River Basins are essentially unaltered
by major reservoirs, they are substantially affected by irrigation diversions
during the summer months. If energy development activities in this region are
to progress as anticipated, additional storage facilities will be necessary to
sustain year-round industrial operations, particularly in the summer months.
Development of a number of large reservoirs has, in fact, been proposed for
the Yampa and White River Basins. Total storage capacities of these impound-
ments would total 2.9 billion m3 in the Yampa Basin alone; approximately 1.5
times the long-term mean annual streamflow discharged from the Basin (Wentz
and Steele 1976). The potential impact of these developments on seasonal
streamflow patterns, fisheries, and downstream water quality should be
carefully examined before implementation is allowed to take place.
Ground Water
Ground-water supplies exist throughout the White and Yampa study basins.
However, value of these supplies is restricted by the low yields of wells and
often poor water quality, which is typical of the low permeability rocks of
the region (Table 7). In general, ground-water resources of the area fall
into four categories: those areas underlaid by crystalline rocks, areas
underlaid by thick marine shales, areas underlaid by other sedimentary rocks
(including all the coal-producing formations), and alluvium along the streams
(U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1976a).
Those fractures in crystalline rocks yield good quality water (total
dissolved solids <500 mg/liter) at an average rate of 0.01 to 0.04 m3/min
(U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1976a). The thick marine shales yield only
poor quality waters at a rate of <0.01 to 0.02 m3/rnin, although if sandstone
members of these formations are encountered within 61 m of the surface, water
will be of acceptable quality for livestock. Water derived from other
sedimentary rocks, including saturated sandstones within 305 m of the surface,
is generally of fair to good quality. Yields from this region depend on the
thickness of the saturated rock penetrated (U.S. Bureau of Land Management
1976a); a shallow well might produce at a rate of only 0.01 to 0.04 m3/min,
whereas a very deep well could pump at a rate several hundred times faster.
Finally, the alluvium along steams typically yields small quantities of highly
mineralized water. There are some isolated sites that produce water up to
5.68 m3/min, but these are rare and cannot sustain the high yield for long.
WATER USES
Ground water in the study area is used for mainly livestock and rural
domestic supplies (Steele et al. 1976b), and if industrial activities in
24
-------
TABLE 7. WATER BEARING CHARACTERISTICS OF GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS IN THE
WHITE AND YAMPA RIVER BASINS (modified from U.S. Bureau
of Land Management 1976a, 1976c)
Formation
Yield (m3 x lCr3/min) Dissolved Solids (rug/liter)
Minimum Median Maximum Minimum Median Maximum
Alluvium, young gravels
and young glacial drift 13.9 189.2 5,677.5
Eolian deposits, old gravels and
old glacial drift 3.8 7.6 37.8
Basalt of bimodal volcanic suite,
volcanic rocks and upper tertiary
intrusive rocks 7.6 18.9 189.2
Fort Union formation, Moen Kopi
formation 7.6 18.9 189.2
Sedimentaries, Bridger formation,
Unita formation, Green River
formation, Wasatch formation,
Browns Park formation
Lance formation
Lewis shale
Mesa Verde group, lies formation,
Williams Fork formation
Mancos shale
Dakota sandstone
Morrison formation, Curtis
formation, Entrada and Carmel
formations, Sundance and Glen
Canyon Formations 3.8 37.8 757.0
Chinle formation, Chugwater
7.6
7.6
3.8
3.8
3.8
7.6
37.8
75.7
7.6
37.8
7.6
37.8
75.7
378.5
75.7
1,135.5
75.7
378.5
20
20
20
20
300
100
300
50
50
2,000
2,000
200
200
30
200
600
200
600
100
1,500
800
4,000
1,000
4,000
1,000
20,000
3,000
10,000
8,000
10,000
10,000
1,000 10,000
formation
Park City formation
Mississippian, Devonian, and
Cambrian rocks
Devonian
Granitic rocks and quartzite
3.8
3.8
18.9
3.8
3.8
18.9
18.9
378.5
37.8
18.9
378.5
378.5
7,570.0
189.2
189.2
500
500
1,000
200
20
1,500
2,000
5,000
500
50
10,000
20,000
20,000
2,000
200
the region increase, ground-water reserves could become significantly more
valuable. Its development is mostly limited to small capacity wells and
springs. According to the Bureau of Land Management (1976a), of the estimated
370 million m3 annual recharge to ground water in the region drained by the
Yampa River above Maybell, only about 370 thousand m3 is currently developed.
The Bureau also reports, "There are no known ground-water sources that are
capable of the sustained high yields that would be required for municipal
supplies, power plant cooling, coal gasification, or slurry pipelines.
25
-------
However, possible high yield source is the aquifer under the oil shale
area of Piceance Creek Basin, which overlies the most significant quantities
of ground water in the region (Kinney et al. 1979). The University of
Wisconsin (1976) estimates that between 3,000 and 31,000 million m3 of water
is in reserve under the Piceance and Yellow Creek drainages. Kinney et al.
(1979) report total dissolved solids concentrations in this water ranges from
2,000 to 63,000 mg/liter. The EPA (1977) has suggested that groundwater
aquifers may supply future oil shale developments with 12 billion m3 of water,
enough to satisfy a 159-miHion-1iter-per-day industry for 50 years.
The surface water resources of the Yampa and White River Basins serve a
variety of needs. Streams in the basins provide water for such uses as
municipal water supplies, irrigation, recreational activities (including
fishing and other sports), industrial needs, livestock watering, governmental
uses, and limited generation of electricity.
FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES
The White and Yampa River Basins support an abundance of fish and
wildlife. A number of areas of the basins, including all of the Elk River,
the Yampa River upstream of Craig, and the north and south forks of the White
River from their sources to Buford, are unaltered by any project construction
and are considered high quality trout streams (Upper Colorado Region
State-Federal Inter-Agency Group 1971c). The Little Snake River and Williams
Fork, as well as some of the smaller Yampa Basin tributaries such as Bear,
Trout, Fish, Morapos, Slater, and Savery Creeks, provide excellent
small-stream fishing. Numerous fishing impoundments have been constructed
throughout the study basins (Table 8). Stream fishing pressure averages
57,000 fisherman days annually in the White River Basin and 111,250 fisherman
days annually in the Yampa Basin (U.S. Economic Research Service et al. 1966
and 1969).
Fisheries in the study basins change from cold-water distribution near the
headwaters to warm-water distribution farther downstream. Blue-ribbon trout
fisheries dominate the upstream stretches of the basins; in the western,
downstream segments catfish, carp, sunfish, bass, crappie, and pike are the
major species. Lentic fisheries in the basins are generally two-story
combinations of warm- and cold-water species. In Ralph White Reservoir, for
example, major species are the green sunfish, bullhead catfish, channel
catfish, rainbow trout, and northern pike (U.S. Bureau of Land Management
1976a).
There are several fish species on the threatened and endangered species
list of Colorado that occur in the White and Yampa Basins study area
(Table 9). These endangered native fishes are slowly being eliminated from
the Colorado Basin both due to the large numbers of reservoirs that have been
constructed, and from competition with exotic fish species which have been
introduced into the watershed. The Bureau of Land Management (1976a) reports
"The Yampa River . . . remains free flowing and unaltered by construction of
high dams. It is thus a significant habitat for these four endangered species
[endangered and threatened species indicated in Table 9], and any development
26
-------
TABLE 8. FISH INSTALLATIONS AND BIG GAME MANAGEMENT AREAS IN THE
YAMPA AND WHITE RIVER BASINS*
Hatcheries and Rearing Units Big Game Management Areas
Buford (Bel Aire) Rearing Unitt Big Beaver Management Area
Finger Rock Rearing Unit Cathedral Bluffs Management Area
Indian Run Management Area
Little Hills Management Area
Fishing Impoundments Meeker Pasturage Management Area
Missouri Creek Management Area
Bailey Lake
Divide Creek Reservoir
Freeman Reservoir
Hahns Peak Reservoir
Lake of the Woods
Lester Creek (Pearl) Reservoir
Little Causeway Lake
McGinnis Lake
Meadows Creek Reservoir
Pearl Lake
Peterson Draw Reservoir
Ralph White (Fortification) Reservoir
Rio Blanco Lake
Skinny Fish Lake
Steamboat Lake
Swede Lake
Upper Stillwater (Yampa) Reservoir
Vaugn (Poose) Lake
*Modified from Upper Colorado Region State-Federal Inter-Agency Group
(1971c), and U.S. Economic Research Service et al. (1969).
tClosed in the early 1970's.
on the Yampa River drainage that alters the present environment might
eliminate one of the last refuge areas of these species."
The wildlife of the Yampa and White River Basins varies with habitat type.
The mountain regions provide a home to elk, deer, bear, mountain sheep,
mountain lion, beaver, snowshoe rabbits, coyote, chipmunks, squirrels, and
various waterfowl. Wildlife is still plentiful in the lower elevation
foothills, canyons and deserts, which supply homes for sage and sharptailed
grouse, jack and cottontail rabbits, coyotes, bobcats, pheasants, ground
squirrels, waterfowl, and others (U.S. Economic Research Service et al. 1966
and 1969). These communities could be substantially affected by industrial
development during the next 15 years, particularly by strip mining and
reclamation activities, and reservoir construction.
27
-------
TABLE 9. CRITICAL HABITAT AND SPAWNING PERIOD CRITERIA FOR SOME FISH SPECIES FOUND IN
THE WHITE AND YAMPA RIVER BASINS*
IN5
00
Common Flame
Scientific Name
Habit Preferences
Spawning Period
Status of Species
in Analysis Areat
Rainbow trout
Brook trout
Cutthroat trout
Brown trout
Sal mo yairdneri
Water temperature of 10-16ฐC; can adapt
to almost any coldwater environment;
exhibits best growth in wanner, richer
lakes and streams at lower elevations
Salvelinus fontinalis Water temperature of 13-16ฐC; mountain
streams and lakes above 2,743 meters
Salmo clarki
Sal mo trutta
Mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsom
Hannelmouth sucker Catostomus latipirmis
Lonynose sucker Catostomus catostomus
White sucker Catostomus commersoni
Bluehead sucker
Catostomus discobolus
Colorado "squawfish^ Ptychocheilus lucius
Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus
Carp
Bonytail^
Cyprinus carpio
Gila eleyans
Prefer colder water than their near
relative, the rainbow; typically found
in headwaters of high mountain streams
and in mountain lakes
Most versatile of trouts; can adjust to
almost any cold water habitat
Larger rivers with good pools, three or
four feet deep with riffle areas and
gravel bottoms
High lakes, reservoirs and streams
Lakes and reservoirs; pools in streams
where there is much cover from bank
vegetation
Historically, larger streams in Colorado
River Basin
Warm water rivers and reservoirs
Warm shallow water with plenty of aquatic
vegetation
Historically, larger streams in the
Colorado River Dasin
Spring, April to June
Fall, generally October
Spring, April to June
Fall, normally October
Fall
Late spring
Spring and early summer
Early spring
Late spring or early
summer
Late May to early June
Late June to early July
Host abundant game fish in
analysis area, frequently
stocked in both lakes and
streams by Colorado Division
by wildlife on an annual basis
Coninon; mainly in lakes and
small, clear streams at high
elevation
Only trout native to Colorado;
abundance has been greatly
reduced; usually present at
higher elevations
Present, generally in larger
streams and lakes at lower
elevations
Present in larger drainages
such as the Yampa anil Elk
Rivers
Present in major drainages
Abundant in reservoirs, lakes,
and tributary streams
Present in Yampa and White
Rivers
Present in lower, warm
reaches of larger streams
and in warm water lakes
Present in Little Snake,
Yampa, and White Rivers and
Rio Blanco Lake
Present in Yampa and White
liivers
(continued)
*Modified iroiii'U.b". Department of Agriculture (1974) and U.S. Bureau of Land Management (1976d), coi.nnon and scientific names
of fishes are from Bailey, et al. (1970).
-------
TABLE 9. (Continued)
ro
Common Name
Red Side Shiner
Humpback chub*
Humpback sucker?
Mottled sculpin
Green sunfish
Black bullhead
Northern pike
Yellow perch
Black crappie
Laryemouth bass
Kokanee salmon
Speckled dace
tAbundant = species
Scientific Name
Richardsonius baltaetus
Gil a cypha
Xyrauchen texanus
Cottus bairdi
Lepomis cyanellus
Ictalurus melas
Esox lucius
Perca flavescens
Pomoxis nigromalulatus
Micropterus salmoides
Oncorhynchus nerka
Rhiriichthys osculus
is plentiful in analysis
Habit Preferences
Historically, canyon areas of Urge
streams in the Colorado River Basin
Historically, in slack waters of large
rivers or impoundments of the Colorado
River system
Small mountain trout streams
Warm water fisheries habitats
Warm water fisheries habitats
Warm water lakes and reservoirs
Warm water fluctuating reservoirs
Clear, weedy lakes
Warm water, fluctuating, heavily
vegetated reservoirs
Large, fluctuating mountain
reservoirs
Small to moderate-sized swift streams
area; common = species is found regularly
Spawning Period
Not known
March to June
Spring
June to mid-August
Late spring or early
summer
Early spring
Spring
Spring
Late May through June
Mid-October to late
December
Spring
in analysis area; present =
. Status of Species
in Analysis Areat
Present in Yampa and White
Rivers
Present in Yampa and White
Rivers
Common in trout streams
Present in Axial Basin,
Ralph White, and Rio
Blanco Reservoirs
Present in Axial Basin,
Ralph White, and Rio
Blanco Reservoirs
Present in Ralph White and
Rio Blanco Reservoirs
Present in Axial Basin
Reservoir
Present in Axial Basin
Reservoir
Present in Axial Basin
Reservoir
Present in Crosho Lake
Common in trout streams
species is found occasionally
in analysis area.
^Colorado list of endangered species.
^Colorado list of threatened species.
-------
MINERAL RESOURCES
Fossil fuel resources are located throuhgout the Yampa and White River
Basins. The area contains reserves of petroleum, natural gas, coal, and oil
shale alony with the nonfossil resources of gold, copper, uranium, zinc, iron,
vanadium, lead, molybdenum, fluorite, silver, and sand and gravel (U.S.
Economic Research Service et al. 1966 and 1969). Dawsonite and nahcolite, two
sodium minerals, are also present in commercial quantities. These are found
in, or associated with, the oil shales of the Piceance Basin. Dawsonite
contains aluminum and is a potential source for that ore. Nahcolite can
readily be recovered during the crushing step necessary for surface retorting
of oil shale and recovered as soda ash (U.S. Department of Interior 1973).
Gilsonite, a tar-like substance, is also mined in the area. Although it is a
potential oil source, it presently finds wide application for other purposes.
Since 1950, Rio Blanco County (which includes most of the White River
Basin) has been the largest producer of natural gas and oil in the state of
Colorado (U.S. Economic Research Service et al. 1966). Of greatest potential
significance to the basin, however, are the oil shale deposits occurring in
the Green River Formation that underlies the Piceance Creek drainage area and
are the largest known deposits of shale in the world. Development of a mature
industry in the White River Basin could produce 159 million liters (1 million
barrels) of shale oil per day (Kinney et al. 1979), and would substantially
augment existing domestic petroleum supplies. In the Yampa River Basin,
petroleum, natural gas, coal, and sand and gravel are the most important
minerals produced (U.S. Economic Research Service et. al. 1969).
30
-------
SECTION 5
ENERGY RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVE DEVELOPMENT
Oil and Gas
Production of domestic oil and gas is a major industry in the White and
Yampa River Basins (Figure 7). In 1973, there were a large number of
producing oil and gas fields in Moffat, Rio Blanco, and Routt Counties
(Table 10), with an annual production of 3.5 billion liters (22 million
barrels) crude oil and 1,551 m3 natural gas (Table 11). These three counties
accounted for 60 percent of the Colorado state total petroleum yield, and 30
percent of the natural gas production: value of this oil and gas amounted to
120 million dollars in 1973, compared to only 20 million dollars from 1973
coal production in the study area (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1976a).
Oil and gas production in the Yampa Basin is primarily from the western
Powder Wash and Hiawatha fields; the Rangely and Wilson fields are the largest
producers in the White Basin (U.S. Economic Research Service et al. 1966 and
1969). Exploration activity in the study area is heavy, and it is expected
that oil and gas operations in northwestern Colorado should continue for
another 40 years (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1976a). Such predictions,
however, are based upon discovery of new and improved recovery methods as well
as additional sources. In particular, extraction of gas using various gas
stimulation techniques such as advanced hydrofracturing and nuclear fracturing
has been considered. Project Rio Blanco in the Piceance Creek was conducted
by the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration to test the
feasibility of nuclear fracturing for the release of gas from low permeability
reservoirs that could not be recovered economically by conventional means
(U.S. Atomic Energy Commission 1972). Such methodology, however, is still in
the investigative stages. Previous fracturing experiments in the San Juan
Basin in 1967 and in Garfield County in 1969 were unsuccessful at yielding
desired amounts of gas, and resulted in numerous irreversible environmental
impacts to the surrounding area. These impacts include: architectural damage
resultant from surrounding ground motion, the release of low levels of
radioactivity during periods of testing to air and water supplies, and
deposition of radioactive materials onto bedrock (U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission 1972).
It should be noted that extensive oil and gas development can at times
conflict with potential uranium exploration and coal mining operations (U.S.
Bureau of Land Management 1976a). For example, in many locations, oil or gas
occurs below coal beds, and simultaneous operation of a coal mine and
producing oil or gas field is difficult. Careful planning is necessary if
31
-------
Sweetwater 1 \ s Baxter Basm
Carbon
Worm Cr
Wyoming
A
(j '
Deep Creek
Potter Mt
Canyon Cr
Middle Mt. Q
Trail
*
I. Hiawatha
Dagget
Clay Basin
L>' Uinta *ซซ
Utah
Ashley Cr
Red Wash
Moffat
I Hiawatha Ov
(J Shell Cr \)
Sugar Loaf
State L|ne| \^ Baggs
i-^C^f CgsTBaggs
VJ Little Snake I I Slater
Savery
erDome\SRoutt
. .
Service Pipeline Company I
I
^ElkSprgs .Danforth Hills
^TernpleCan
Winter Valley Maudlin
Gulch
Walker
Hollow
Chapita Wells
S/lSouthhan
V) Canyon
Ute'
Trail
Bitter
Creek
_._ . ^*~
RranH San Ar
Harley
QCisco Spgs
) Cisco Dome
ป E Cisco
Rio Blanco ซ_
Douglas
Creek
X
N. Craig
~ *J
Craig f""
Bell Rock Baxter Pass pซO ซ^'*
s Pass
Q Castle
^
Key
Oil Fields
Gas Fields
^^ Oil Lines
Gas Lines
- New Castle
>""*S Canyon
"ฐ" "'^j C^ Prairie Can ~ ^ |
^J ^rbonera& ^Garmesa^ ^ ^^ ^ CT^ ^ ^ ^ __ _f> _ ซ_ |
iterO W.\rSiBarX ^-JVIesa (~~> Hunters & Coon Divide Crf ^J . ,-
Bar X VOT CP \ ' Canyon Hollow - ^ S->O V P'tkln
is W I .._L^7 V-l r. . . _ Buzzard.^ /~V ป.
(s W ) Highlme
Canal
O Asbury Cr
MackCr
Shire ,
Gulch
AG>
(\ Plateau
Sheep Cr ,S^
\ - S V-
\ f Delta *ซ^ **
V f\Nickelson-Govt
># Grand Junction ,**^^.^*
Figure 7. Oil and gas fields and pipelines in the Yampa and White
River Basins, (modified from Beebe 1962).
32
-------
TABLE 10. OIL AND GAS FIELDS IN THE WHITE AND YAMPA RIVER BASINS, COLORADO
(modified from Brainerd and Carpen 1962, and Turner 1962)
Field Name
Ace
Baygs, South
Battlement
Baxter Pass
Baxter Pass, South
Bell Rock
Biy Gulch
Buck Peak, Mesaverde-Mancos
Niobrara
Shinarump
Ueber
Castle
Cathedral Creek
Colo row
Craig
Craig, North
Crosho Lake
Currier
Curtis
Danforth Hills and North
Debeque
Douglas Creek
Douglas Creek, North and West
Dragon Trail
Elk Springs
Elkhorn
Fawn Creek
Four Mile Creek
Grand t-iesa
Grassy Creek
Hells Hole
Hiawatha and Uest
Hidden Valley
Horse Draw, Lower
Horse Gulch
lies
Indian Run
Lay Creek
Little Snake
Maul din Gulch
Missouri Creek
Moffat, Niobrara
' Dakota
Morrison
Entrada
Shinarump
Weber
Year of
Discovery
1958
1959
1930
1960
1957
1957
1957
1932
1956
1958
1954/58
1943
1956
1959
1947
1960
1959
1958
1959
1952
1927/56
1957
1961
1927
1956
1947
1924
1954
1959
Producing Formation
Fort Union, Wasatch
Wasatch, Fort Union, Lewis
Mesaverde
Dakota, Morrison
Burro Canyon or Buckhorn, Morrison
Mesaverde
Mesaverde, Frontier
Hesaverde, Mancos
Niobrara
Shinarump
Weber
Wasatch
Mancos
Niobrara
Mesaverde (Mancos, Frontier, Entrada,
Shinarumpjt
Lewis
Shinarump
Mesaverde
Niobrara
Morrison, Entrada, Moenkopi, Weber
Mesaverde
Mancos, Dakota, Burro Canyon or Buckhorn
Mesaverde-Mancos, Weber*
Mesaverde (Emery)
Dakota, Weber
Niobrara
Green River, Mesaverde
Lance, Lewis
Mesaverde
Niobrara
Mesaverde
Fort Union, Wasatch, Lance, Mesaverde
Niobrara
Mesaverde
Niobrara
Mowry, Morrison, Entrada, (Weber)
Dakota
Wasatch, Fort Union, Lance
Wasatch, (Fort Union)
Morrison, Entrada, Weber
Morrison
Niobrara
Dakota
Morrison
Entrada
Shinarump
Weber
Oil*
m
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
m
in
M
M
m
M
m
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Gas*
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
m
M
M
M
M
M
m
rn
m
M
M
M
M
M
M
m
M
M
M
m
M
M
M
M
(continued)
33
-------
TABLE 10. (Continued)
Field Name
Oak Creek
Overland Reservoir
Pagoda
Piceance Creek
Piceance Creek, South
Pi nnacle
Powder Wash
Powell Park
Rangely, Shale
Dakota
Shinarump
Weber
Rangely, Southeast
Sage Creek
Sage Creek, North
Scandard Draw
Seely Dome
Shell Creek
Slater
State Line
Sugar Loaf
Sulfer Creek
Sulfer Creek, South
Taylor Creek
Temple Canyon, Miobrara
Morrison
Thornburg
Tow Creek
Twin Buttes
Webster Nil 1
White River
Williams Park
Willow Creek
Wilson Creek
Winter Valley
Wolf Creek
Year of
Discovery
1949/62
1948
1930
1955
1957
1931
1957
1902
1933
1959
1960
1958
1955
1954
1958
1953
1959
1959
1953
1925/55
1924
1951
1960
1956
1938
1956
1961
Producing Formation
Shinarump
Mesaverde
Shinarump
Wasatch, Green River, Mesaverde
Wasatch
Dakota, Shinarump
Fort Union, Wasatch
Lance, Lewis
Niobrara, Mancos
Dakota
Shinarunip, (Entrada, Morrison)
Weber
Dakota
Niobrara
Niobrara
Mesaverde
Niobrara
Fort Union, Uasatch
Mesaverde-Mancos
Dakota, Morrison
Lewis, Mesaverde
Fort Union, Green River, Mesaverde
Green River, Wasatch, Mesaverae
Dakota
Niobrara
Morrison (Dakota)
Dakota, Entrada, Weber
Niobrara
Morrison
Mesaverde
Wasatch, Mesaverde
Frontier, Niobrara, Dakota
Wasatch, Mesaverde
Morrison, Entrada, Weber
Dakota, Weber
Mesaverde
Oil*
M
M
W
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
rn
M
Gas*
M
M
M
Ml
m
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
m
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
*m = minor product, M = major product.
t(formation) - indicates formation, contains minor shows or is currently sub-commercial.
^Mesaverde - Mancos indicates transition zone, either Mesaverde or Mancos.
all mineral resources are to be extracted from a common field with a minimum
of permanent environmental impact.
Coal
Substantial amounts of fossil fuels must be extracted in the near future
in order for the United States to both satisfy increasing energy demands and
achieve energy self-sufficiency. Coal, 1000 kg of which is equivalent to
34
-------
TABLE 11. OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION IN THE YAMPA AND WHITE RIVER BASINS
(modified from U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1976a)
Moffat
County
Rio Blanco
County
Routt
County
Total
Number of producers wells
183
572
12
767
1973 Production:
Oil (million liters)
Gas (thousand cubic meters)
164.7
752.5
3,303.2
793.4
10.0
35.4
3,477.9
1,581.3
Cumulative Production to 1-1-74:
Oil (million liters) 8,046.1 90,304.4
Gas (thousand cubic meters) 11,194.1 27,215.5
650.2 99,000.7
14,411.1 52,820.7
the heating value of 788 liters of oil, is the most likely candidate to be
used to offset shortages in domestic gas and liquid fuel production. This is
particularly true since coal is the nation's most abundant and widely
distributed fuel resource, with total existing reserves estimated at over
1,415 trillion kg (Grim and Hill 1974). Already coal is gaining in importance
in the generation of western electrical power, and the decline of natural fuel
supplies has also promoted research into conversion of coal to gas and liquid
fuels through gasification and hydrogenation. It is estimated that the
national projected need for coal will rise from a 1974 level of 547 billion kg
to 1.2 trillion kg in 1980 and 1.9 trillion kg in 1985 (Atwood 1975).
Most of the coal resources in the United States (72 percent) are found in
the Rocky Mountain and Northern Great Plains States (Atwood 1975). This coal
is particularly attractive because 43 percent is located in thick seams
(2-40 m), and is close enough to the surface to strip mine (Atwood 1975). The
size of western coal fields is also well suited to the establishment of large
adjacent gasification and liquefaction plants.
In the Yampa and White River Basins, coal development is primarily
centered in the state of Colorado (Figure 8), which ranked eighth in the
nation in bituminous coal reserves (Speltz 1976). Coal production in Moffat
County in 1977 was almost double that of 1976 due to increasing surface
and underground mine development, and in 1977 Routt County was the largest
coal producing county in the state (Colorado Division of Mines 1977). It is
estimated that over 900 billion kg of strippable coal exist in the study area
(Speltz 1976). Those coal beds of greatest economic interest occur in the
lies and Williams Fork formations of the Mesaverde Group, and the Lance, Fort
Union, and Wasatch formations (Figure 9). Heat content for coal in this area
35
-------
109C
108ฐ
107ฐ
GO
01
Company
Mine
Colowyo Coal Company
Empire Energy Corporation
Utah International, Inc.
Sewanee Mining Company, Inc.
Energy Fuels Corporation
Pittsburg & Midway Coal
Mining Company
Seneca Coals Ltd.
Sun Coal Company, Inc.
Sunland Mining Corporation
Jim Tatum
Yampa Mining Company
Rock Castle Coal Company
Colowyo Strip
Williams Fork Strip
Eagle #5
Eagle #9
Trappers Strip
Rienau #2
Energy Strip #1
Energy Strip #2
Energy Strip #3
Location
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Edna Strip 10
Seneca Strip #1 11
Meadows Strip #1 12
Apex #2 13
Blazer. 14
Hayden Gulch Strip 15
Mine #1 Strip 16
4* Primary areas of development
Existing Coal Mines
D Proposed Coal Mines
-40ฐ
109C
108C
107C
Figure 8. Location of coal mines in the Yampa and White River Basins.
-------
White Sand
Hiawatha Coal
Seymour Coal
Kimberly Coal
Lorelle Coal
Dry Creek Coal t Upper Coal Group
wadge coal V Middle Coal Group
WoH Cr Coal
|No 3 Coals!
,NO 2 coaisl Lower Coal Group
[No 1 Coals
Vertical Scale
914
- 610
- 305
Gas shows of Tow
Creek
Main Oil Zone
Of Tow Creek
L0
(Meters)
en
k.
Q>
40
5
_c
M
10
0)
c
Figure 9. Stratigraphic section of coal bearing formations of northwestern
Colorado. (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1976a)
37
-------
ranges from 26,116 joules/gm to 31,721 joules/gm (Speltz 1976). Sulfur
content is low, ranging from 0.2 to 2.8 percent, with most samples containing
less than 1 percent.
Annual coal production in northwestern Colorado is expected to reach more
than 18 billion kg by 1990, a five-fold increase over 1974 production levels
(Steele et al. 1976a). At present, most of this coal (85 percent) is
transported out of the study basins by unit train, with the remainder used in
local conversion to electric power (14 percent) and marketing for heating
(Steele 1976). There are 16 coal mines currently operating in the study area
(Table 12), but a number of additional mines and expansions to existing
facilities are planned (Table 13) to meet projected production levels. A
brief discussion of the existing mining operations follows below.
W. R. Grace and Company--
The W. R. Grace Coal Company began operations at Colowyo Mine in 1976 but
was not the first company to mine the area. The area was first mined in 1914
by the Coll urn Coal Company which changed names several times in the course of
its history. The current operation is located in the Danforth Hills coal
field approximately 40 km southwest of Craig. The company has estimated its
recoverable reserves to be near 149 billion kg; in 1978 the mine produced over
775 million kg (Table 12). During the thirty year life of the mine,
approximately 77 billion kg are expected to be removed and 6.1 km2 disturbed
(U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1976b).
At present, the coal mined at the W. R. Grace site is distributed to
various consumers throughout the state, including the city of Colorado Springs
for use in the Martin Drake Power Plant. W. R. Grace has plans also for
construction of an additional railroad spur to transport coal from the mine to
a loading facility to be constructed 40 km away south of the Yampa Project
generating station (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1976b).
The potential environmental impacts of the Colowyo Mine and associated
developments are well defined by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (1976b).
However, runoff from potential impact areas, particularly in the Good Spring
Creek drainage, should be closely monitored to assure that both surface and
ground-water resources are not adversely affected.
Empire Energy Corporation--
Three mines in the study area, the Williams Fork strip mine, and the Eagle
#5 and the Eagle #9 (both underground) mines are owned and operated by the
Empire Energy Corporation. The three mines are located in Moffat County
within 3 krn of each other. The Corporation began mining in 1969 and currently
total operations for all three mines cover 37 km2 of land (Personal
communication, 1979, S. Langley, Empire Energy Corporation, Denver, Colorado).
Coal from all three facilities is shipped to the Union Electric Power Company
in Rushtower, Missouri, and to the Iowa Electric Power Company in Crandic,
Iowa.
The Eagle #5 (Wise Hill #5) mine was opened in 1969; in 1978 the mine
produced approximately 417.6 million kg of coal from its underground
facilities during the first 10 months (Table 12). The mine, located near the
38
-------
TABLE 12. COAL MINES CURRENTLY OPERATING IN THE YAMPA AND WHITE RIVER BASINS*
County
Company
Mine
Jan-Oct
1978 Production
(million kg)
to
IO
Moffat
Rio Blanco
Routt
W. R. Grace and Company
Empire Energy Corporation
Utah International, Inc.
Sewanee Mining Company, Inc.
Energy Fuels Corporation
Pittsburgh & Midway Coal Mining Co.
Peabody Coal Company
Sun Coal Company, Inc.
Sunland Mining Corporation
Jim Tatum
H-G Coal Company
Rock Castle Coal Company
Colowyo Strip
Williams Fork Strip
Eagle #5 (=Wise Hill #5)
Eagle #9 (=Wise Hill #9)
Trappers Strip
Rienau #2
Energy Strip #1
Energy Strip #2
Energy Strip #3
Edna Strip
Seneca Strip #1
Meadows #1
Apex #2
Blazer
Hayden Gulch Strip
Mine #1 Strip
775.6
189.4
417.6
66.7
1,800.Ot
17.7
2,250.0
189.8
191.1
703.4
1,046.1
153.2
13.1
3.2*
5.0
*Personal communication 1979, A. Deborski, Colorado Division of Mines, Denver, Colorado, and
D. Eubanks, H-G Coal Company, Hayden, Colorado.
tProduction to date.
*Total 1978 production.
-------
TABLE 13. PROPOSED COAL MINES FOR THE WHITE AND YAMPA RIVER BASINS (modified from Corsentino 1976)
Mine Name
and Location
Unnamed, 32 km west of
Steamboat Springs,
Routt County
Unnamed, 5 km north of
Pagoda, Routt County
Unnamed, SW of Steamboat
Springs, Routt County
Unnamed, 14 km north of
Meeker, Rio Blanco
County
Unnamed, 16 km west of
Steamboat Springs,
Routt County
Unnamed, 19 km west of
Steamboat Springs,
Routt County
Unnamed, 13 km north-
west of Rangely, Rio
Blanco County
Unnamed, Savery area,
Moffat County
Unnamed, 6 km west of
Rangely, Moffat
County
Wilson Creek Mine, 40
km south of Craig,
Moffat County
Unnamed, (2 mines) 32
km south of Craig,
Moffat County and 22
km east of Steamboat
Springs, Routt County
Gordon Mine, 16 km east
of Rangely, Rio Blanco
County
Operator
Coal Fuels,
Rollinsville,
Colo.
American
Electric Power
(AEP) Systan
Morgan Coal
Company
Consolidation
Coal Company
Denver, Colo.
Merchants
Petroleum
Company
Thomas C.
Woodward,
Casper, Wyo.
Midland Coal
Company
Kemmerer Coal
Co. , Kemmerer, Wyo.
Blue Mountain
Coal Company
Utah International,
Inc. , San Francisco,
Calif.
Paul S. Coupey
Moon Lake Electric
Company, Roosevelt,
Utah
Planned Annual Production
Mine Type (million kg in year) Planned Markets Remarks
Underground
Strip
Strip
Underground
and Strip
Strip
Strip
Strip
Underground
Stri'p and
underground
Strip
Strip
Underground
1,814-1980
907-1980, 1,270-1985
unknown
See remarks
3,991-1980 (includes
Consolidation Coal
Company, and T. C.
Woodward)
See remarks
181-1980, 272-1985
unknown
unknown
unknown
907-1980
1,360-1980
2,086-1985
3,356-1990
Start-up in 1977. Plans and markets
unknown.
AEP powerplants, Start-up in 1981. Operation and plans
eastern United are unknown.
States
Proposed mine. Plans are unknown.
Exploratory drilliny began in 1974. Plans
are unknown. Employment and productions
estimates included in Merchant Petroleum
production below. Start-up planned for
1981.
Employment and production estimate includes
Consolidation Coal Company niine above and
Woodward mine below. Company leased
21.4 km2 in Koutt County with 91-249
billion kg of reserves. / Start-up in 1980.
Operator of mine unknown. Employment and
production estimates included in Merchants
Petroleum estimate above. Start-up in 198U.
Start-up in 1981. Markets and plans are
unknown.
Proposed mine. In planning staye. Dependent
upon ULM lease approval. Plans unknown.
Export Proposed mine. Completed exploration in
late 1974. Old mining operation closed.
Plans unknown.
Export and Craig Prospecting completed. Have existing
powerplant leases. Plans unknown.
unknown Mine operators unknown. Proposed mines.
Plans unknown.
Mine-mouth power- Adjacent to old Staley Mine. Market for
plant for oil potential 1,000 MW power complex in late
shale development 1900's.
-------
Williams Fork River, pumps 115 liters per minute of ground water for domestic
consumption, cooling, and dust control (Personal communication 1979, S.
Langley, Empire Energy Corporation, Denver, Colorado). Coal from the mine is
also shipped by rail from Craig to Colorado Springs for use in the Martin
Drake Power Plant.
The Eagle #9 (Wise Hill #9) underground mine was opened in 1977, and is
now producing 68 million kg/year (Personal communication 1979, S. Langley,
Empire Energy Corporation, Denver, Colorado). The mine is situated 2 km from
the Eagle #5 mine just south of Craig. Water use at the mine site is
restricted, with only 57 liters/min ground water pumped for limited usage in
fire prevention, domestic consumption by mine personnel, and dust control
(Personal communication 1979, S. Langley, Empire Energy Corporation, Denver,
Colorado).
The Williams Fork Mine opened in July 1974 and is scheduled to close as
soon as an additional 45-54 million kg of coal have been mined (approximately
three months). The mine is located south of Craig approximately 91 m off the
Yampa River on state and private coal leases but does not divert surface
waters for mine use. The Williams Fork Mine has disturbed approximately 121
km2 land since its opening, and in 1978 mined over 189 million kg coal
(Table 12).
Utah International, Inc.
The Trapper Mine, operated by Utah International, Inc., opened in May
1977, approximately 8 km south of Craig, Colorado. Since 1977, mining
activities at the strip mine have disturbed approximately 4.7 km2 of land and
produced over 1.8 billion kg of coal. Annual production is estimated at 2.3
billion kg/year, and impacts approximately 0.81 km2/year (Personal
communication 1979, F. Natter, Trapper Mine, Craig, Colorado).
The Trapper Mine receives its water supply from a pipeline diversion of
1.7 mVmin from the Yampa River above the Craig Power Plant. This water is
used for both potable and dust control purposes. Any drainage is channeled
into storage impoundments, where sediment may settle and treatment for the
removal of the many effluent salts can be completed (Personal communication
1979, F. Natter, Trapper Mine, Craig, Colorado).
Of the 2.3 billion kg of coal produced annually at the Trapper Mine, 15
percent is shipped to power generation facilities in the midwest such as St.
Louis, Missouri. The remaining 85 percent is transported to the Craig Power
Plant for power generation.
Sewanee Mining Company, Inc.--
The Rienau #2 Mine is a small underground operation located on federal
lease land approximately 2.4 km north of Meeker, Colorado (U.S. Bureau of Land
Management 1978a). The Sewanee Coal Company has owned and operated the site
since 1977 when it assumed ownership from American Fuels Corporation. In
1978, the mine produced over 17 million kg of coal (Table 12). Sewanee Coal
is currently expanding its facilities to modernize the underground mine and
begin surface extraction of coal (Colorado Division of Mines 1977a).
41
-------
Energy Fuels Corporation--
The Energy Fuels Corporation operates three coal surface mines in the
Yampa River Basin, and is currently the largest producer of coal in the State
of Colorado (Personal communication 1979, A. Deborski, Colorado Division of
Mines, Denver, Colorado). The three sites are located in the east-central
part of the Yampa Basin near Fish, Foidel, and Middle Creeks. In 1978, yearly
production for the three sites exceeded 3.1 billion kg, and the company
predicts that production may ultimately surpass 4.5 billion kg/year. If this
goal is achieved, as much as 1.4 km2 of land will be stripped and reclaimed
annually by the corporation.
Energy #1 began operations in 1962 and today is the largest of the three
mines, with a 1978 production of 2.6 billion kg of coal (Personal
communication 1979, A. Deborski, Colorado Division of Mines, Denver,
Colorado). The mine, situated on Federal and private lease lands, is located
near two other coal operations, the Apex Mine (Sunland Mining Corporation) and
the Edna Strip Mine (Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining Company). The Energy
#1 facility is a potential source of pollution to nearby Foidel Creek;
already, sediment concentrations in the vicinity of the mine are increasing to
the point where annual water temperatures are borderline for many of the cold
water species that exist there (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1976b).
Energy #2 began operations in 1972, and during 1978 produced 0.23 billion
kg of coal (Personal communication 1979, A. Deborski, Colorado Division of
Mines, Denver, Colorado). The mine parallels Fish Creek in the Yampa Basin.
The Energy #3 Mine opened in 1974, and in 1978 produced 0.3 billion kg of
coal. In each of the three Energy Fuels mines the majority of the coal
production is distributed to nearby coal-fired generating plants at Hayden and
Craig.
Each of the three Energy Fuels coal mines are planning expansions for the
future, provided they receive the necessary mineral rights and federal leases.
The proposed mining activity for the mines may disturb as much as 21 km2 of
land in the Trout Creek watershed during the next 15 years and could cause
considerable degradation to the Fish and Foidel Creek watersheds as well.
Data at a USGS water quality station (STORET #09244100) in Fish Creek near
Milner have already reported cadmium, lead, mercury and iron concentrations in
excess of recommended criteria (see Section 8, Table 28), and elevated
sediment and total dissolved solids concentrations as well (U.S. Bureau of
Land Management 1976b). Excessive concentrations of these parameters are
common in areas of coal development (Wachter and Blackwood 1978) and may
partially be a result of runoff from the Energy Fuels facilities. However,
further investigation is needed to determine the extent to which mining
activities are contributing to these pollutant levels in the Yampa Basin.
Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining Company
The Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining Company is a subsidiary of Gulf Oil
Corporation and currently operates the Edna surface coal mine. The mine site
is located just north of Oak Creek in Routt County on federal, state and
private leases, and extracts coal from the Wadge seam in the Williams Fork
formation. The mine has operated since 1946, although Pittsburg and Midway
have owned the mine only since 1961 (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1976a).
42
-------
Annual production at the mine was 1.1 billion kg/year in 1976, but
production is expected to drop to 0.9 billion kg/year during 1979, and will
continue to decline until the close of the mine in 1991 (U.S. Bureau of Land
Management 1976a). Total production on Federal coal leases alone is expected
to amount to 1.3 billion kg and will disturb some 6.0 km2 of land (McWhorter
et al. 1975). Over 90 percent of the coal produced at the Edna mine is being
consumed by Colorado users, with the majority of that applied to industrial
activities (63 percent) and utilities (35 percent) (U.S. Bureau of Land
Management 1976a).
Peabody Coal Company--
The Peabody Coal Company opened the Seneca strip mine in 1964 and has
since (1974) made application to expand their operations (U.S. Bureau of Land
Management 1976a). Current production is approximately 1.3 billion kg/year,
and disturbs approximately 0.4 km2 of land annually with mine operations. The
mine is located on the northeast slopes of the Williams Fork Mountains near
Hayden and currently supplies coal to the Hayden Power Plant Unit#l.
Additional private and state leases are expected to increase coal production
by 816 million kg per year in 1980, and will supply coal to the Hayden #2
facility.
Development of the proposed Seneca 2-W Mine site would destroy as much as
0.9 additional km2 per year and construction of haul roads and surface
facilities may require the rerouting of Hubberson Gulch. The Wadge, Wolf and
Sage Creek watersheds are also expected to be impacted through the expansion.
Although removal of vegetation in the mined area will increase the potential
for runoff, increasing absorption by mine spoils and surface drainage into
mine pits could actually result in a net decrease in surface flows (U.S.
Bureau of Land Management 1976b).
Sun Coal Company, Inc.--
Sun Coal Company, Inc. opened the Meadows#1 strip mine in August, 1977.
The Company plans to operate this site until some time in 1980 at which time
it will begin to mine other coal reserves in the area. Current production
from the mine is approximately 327 million kg/year (Personal communication
1979, D. Ellison, Sun Coal Company, Milner, Colorado), and mining operations
disturb 0.11 km2 of land annually. However, Sun Coal is investigating the
feasibility of converting its new operations into an underground facility,
which would impact substantially less land in the future. Coal from the
existing mine is shipped via train to Denver, and ultimately to Illinois.
At the mine site, two wells supply 0.13 million m3 of water annually which
is used for dust control, treatment of coal, and domestic purposes (Personal
communication 1979, D. Ellison, Sun Coal Company, Milner, Colorado). Ground
water runoff from the facilities is channeled into large sedimentation holding
ponds for evaporation. Any additional runoff from the mine generated by
precipitation crosses the Seneca strip mine and ultimately flows into Grassy
Creek.
Sunland Mining Corporation--
The Apex #2 Mine, owned and operated by the Sunland Mining Corporation, is
an underground facility located near Oak Creek in the upper Yampa River Basin.
43
-------
The 1978 coal production at the site was approximately 13 million kg, most of
which was used for domestic heating (Personal communication 1979, A. Deborski,
Colorado Division of Mines, Denver Colorado). Presently, however, the mine
has ceased production.
Jim Tatum
The Blazer Mine, which is located near Deep Creek, to the north of Hayden,
was purchased by Jim Tatum in 1976, but has been closed down since that time
(Personal communication 1979, A. Deborski, Colorado Division of Mines, Denver,
Colorado). The mine is not expected to begin operation in the near future,
and presently poses little threat to water quality in the Yampa Basin.
However, should mining activities resume, monitoring activities to assess
environmental impacts associated with the facility should be reactivated.
H-G Coal Company--
The Hayden Gulch Strip Mine was opened in July of 1978 by the H-G Coal
Company. Total 1978 production was 3.2 million kg, all of which was
transported out of state to the Celanese Textile Company in Texas (Personal
communication 1979, D. Eubanks, H-G Coal Company, Hayden, Colorado). H-G Coal
has submitted plans for disruption of 5.7 km2 of land during the projected
nine year life of the mine. To date, approximately 0.5 km2 have been
disturbed as a result of development of both the mine and associated
transportation facilities.
The Hayden Gulch Mine is located 23.3 km south of Hayden, in the Williams
Fork Mountains. Loading facilities for mining operations are situated
approximately 15 to 18 km north of the mine; during maximum production, coal
is shipped from the site every four days via a 73 car unit train (Personal
communication 1979, D. Eubanks, H-G Coal Company, Hayden, Colorado).
Currently, however, the mine is not transporting any coal, although shipments
to the Celanese Textile Company are expected will resume in July of 1979.
Wastewaters from the mine operations are discharged into settling ponds.
Water needed at the mine is provided from two ground-water wells, and is
released at a rate of 0.04 to 0.06 m3/min for treatment and cleaning of coal,
dust control, and domestic use. At the loading facilities north of the mine
as much as 0.57 m3/min is pumped to satisfy water requirements (Personal
communication 1979, D. Eubanks, H-G Coal Company, Hayden, Colorado).
Rock Castle Coal Company--
The Rock Castle Company owns and operates Mine #1 (Grassy Creek Mine), one
of the newest coal mines in the study area. The company began operations in
1978 and during that year produced over 5 million kg of coal (Table 12).
Plans are underway to enlarge mining operations in the near future.
Reclamation
Successful rehabilitation of the existing and proposed mining areas in the
Yampa and White River Basins rests not only on the physical potential of the
land but also upon an effective administrative policy. In past years,
reclamation of surface mines in the study area ranged from nothing to very
little, with any rehabilitation attempts carried out subsequent to cessation
44
-------
of mining activities (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1976a). Modern day coal
leases, however, generally require concurrent reclamation of mine sites, which
is a more cost-efficient means of restoring the mine sites to original
condition (Grim and Hill 1974). Reclamation activities include making the
reclaimed site safe and acceptable in appearance (including regrading soils to
approximate original terrain, and replacing topsoil and vegetation), and
returning the site to a productive status (that would benefit livestock/
wildlife or recreational users).
Mine sites throughout the area are required to evaluate their proposals in
an environmental impact statement that should include determination of the
various plant species established in the environment, and which method of
rehabilitation is appropriate for the region. One of the major factors
determining the quality of an area for rehabilitation is the amount of
precipitation and the subsequent potential for erosion runoff. Reclamation of
stripped areas is difficult in regions of low precipitation where sufficiently
large quantities of water are not available to allow for plant cover necessary
for long-term stability of the surface. In the downstream stretches of the
Yampa and White River Basins, where precipitation is below 25 cm per year, the
likelihood of having land that is difficult to restore is much greater than in
the higher elevations upstream where precipitation may be greater than 50 cm
per year.
Administrative planning for rehabilitation activities is not only the
responsibility of the mining developer but also that of the state and federal
government. In Colorado, the Mined Land Reclamation Act of 1976 outlined the
state regulations that developers must meet before being granted a lease to
mine (Personal communication 1979, B. Campbell, Colorado Departmment of
Natural Resources, Denver, Colorado). It contains a clause that insures money
will continue to be available to implement reclamation, even if the operating
company should have no capital at the end of the life of the mine (Personal
communication 1979, B. Campbell, Colorado Department of Natural Resources,
Denver, Colorado). The Utah Mined Land Reclamation Act of 1975 outlines
similar rules that will affect the developers in Utah (Personal communication
1979, R. Daniels, Utah Department of Natural Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah).
In August of 1977, Congress passed the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act in response to accumulated concern over the extensive environmental impact
caused by strip coal mining. This Act outlines the proper procedures for
restoration of Federal, State or private lands, and provides information to be
used as a basis for predictions regarding the suitability of impacted lands
for rehabilitation activities (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1978).
Oil Shale
Oil shale is defined as "a fine grained rock that contains varying amounts
of organic material called kerogen which upon pyrolysis, or retorting, yields
a synthetic oil and gas" (U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration
1977). Oil shale deposits are found throughout the United States but the
richest reserves exist in the Green River Formation in Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming (Figure 10). Of the high grade shale in the formation (i.e., that
which yields greater than 0.1 liter/kg of rock), approximately 80 percent is
located in the Piceance Basin (Gold and Goldstein 1978). It is estimated that
45
-------
-------
In the early 1970's a federal prototype oil shale leasing program was
created which would assess the anticipated environmental impact of development
and operation of a small-scale industry using various mining and processing
technologies (Kinney et al. 1979). To this end, four tracts of public land,
two in the Piceance Basin in Colorado (C-a, C-b), and two in the White Basin
in Utah (U-a, U-b) were leased by industry from the Federal government in
1974. Attempts to lease two additional tracts in the less oil-rich Wyoming
shale area were unsuccessful (University of Wisconsin 1976). Each of the four
lease tracts are 6.1 km2 in size; if small scale development activities
ongoing here (Table 14) prove environmentally acceptable, it is hoped that a
mature commercial industry may evolve. Full discussion of the lease
provisions, which include mandatory self-monitoring by industry prior to,
during, and subsequent to developmental activities, is available from the U.S.
Department of Interior (1973).
A mature oil shale industry in the study basins would produce 159 million
liters (1 million barrels) per day of oil. Detailed explanation of the
various retorting processes in developmental stages can be found in Jones et
al. (1977), Shin et al. (1976), and in the environmental impact statement for
the prototype oil shale leasing program (U.S. Department of Interior 1973).
However, in general, there are three retorting processes being investigated to
produce the shale oil: surface or above ground, in situ, and modified in
situ. Each of these potentially could severely impact the environment during
the mining, crushing, conveying, retorting and ugrading stages of operation
(Table 15). In particular, considerable potential exists for contamination of
ground water by oil shale activities, a serious problem in light of the
existing high salinity of regional ground-water resources, especially in the
Piceance Basin (University of Wisconsin 1976). Development of the oil shale
industry would involve massive solids handling problems: approximately 66.7
million kg/day of raw oil shale containing 114 liters of oil per ton of shale
must be extracted to support a small 7.9 million liters (50,000 barrels)/day
industry (Jones et al. 1977). Disposal of these massive volumes of spent
shale, which occupy a larger volume than the raw ore before oil extraction, is
one of the biggest environmental problems associated with the industry; up to
2.0-4.0 km2 of mesa land or canyon fill could be required annually for
disposal of spent shale in a mature industry (Harbert and Berg 1978).
Stabilization and revegetation of these shale disposal sites also produce
environmental difficulties of their own (Table 16).
If extraction of the regional shale oil should prove to be environmentally
and economically acceptable on a prototype scale, the single factor that will
eventually limit commercial industry size will be water availability (Kinney
et al. 1979). Virtually all phases of the industry consume water, with
disposal of the processed shale and oil upgrading having the greatest
consumptive use requirements. Water use requirements for a mature industry
would range from 149 to 233 million m3/year (Kinney et al. 1979). In 1978 the
Bureau of Reclamation stated, "Unless there are breakthroughs in technology,
shale oil is not expected to be competitive with oil and gas until their
prices rise considerably above current levels. Even then, shale development
might not be competitive because historically increases in prices have tended
to lag behind increases in cost." Slawson and Yen (1979) estimate that by
1985, shale oil probably will still account for only about 1 percent of total
47
-------
TABLE 14. PROJECTED OIL SHALE ACTIVITIES IN THE GREEN RIVER FORMATION, July 1978-85
(personal communication 1978, T. Thoem. EPA. Denver, Colo.)
00
Projects
Occidental ,
Loijan Uash
and Tract C-b
Project Rio Blanco
(Tract C-a)
Union Oil
(Coiiiiiiercial
module)
Paraho
(Commercial
modulu)
Colony-Tosco
(Davis Gulch)
Development of
I.aval Ui 1 Shale
Keserves (NUSR)
USl'.M Experimental
beep lime
Geokinetics, Inc.
(Uinta Basin)
Equity Oi 1
(Piceance Basin)
LlKC-UOt {other"
field projects)
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1980
Burn
retort
Mine
rubblize
retorts
#7, #8
Burn retorts #7, #U
Mine, rubblize #9,
mo
Burn
retorts #9, #10
Construct initial retorts
on C-b
Test burn
initial retorts
Sink shafts, construct facilities on Tract C-b
Shaft sinkimj
Mining experimental
retort
Rubblize, burn small retorts
2 I #3 I #4 I #5
Design and engineering
Construct experimen tal mine and plant
Complete
100,000
barrels
(15.9
mil lion
liters)
for llavy
Break-in
operation
Module design
and engineering
Construct module plant
Construct retort
cluster A-2
Construct
commercial mine
Rubblize, burn commercial prototype
reports #6, #7, etc.
Begin commercial mine development,
ancillaries
Experimental plant operation
Test, burn
cluster A-2
Break-in
operation
Construct and pre-test one or more (Operate commercial modules
commercial modules
Management plans; engineering
analyses; baseline environmental
studies
Economic, legal studies
baseline environmental
studies
Analyze
techniques;
CIS; environ-
mental studies
Operate
nodule plant
Construct
full-scale plant
Complete E1S,
technical
studies;
costs
Design full-scale^
plant
Operate ful1-scale
plant
Initiate actual development of
NOSR (schedule unknown)
Tour levels: Level #1 (274 rn deep)-mining experiments, including rubbiization, Level #2 (512 m deep)-saline zone flow
studies, Level #3 (558 m deep)-further hydro studies (nahcolite), Level #4 (610 m deep)-rock mechanics,
etc. (dawsonite)
Small
retorts
Site
prepa-
ration
Drill, blast,
retort 6-8
retorts
(24 x 9 x 24 m)
Drill, blast, retort 2-5 retorts
(37 x 15 x 76 m)-evaluate
design
Operation of superheated steam injection projec!
in leached zone
Design commercial operation
(schedule unknown)
Ulnte Mountain, etc. "7
Schedule in new DOJ. 50-year plan
T?T"
White Kivtr Shale
Project
(Tracts Ud-Ub)
Schedule unknown pending litigation
-------
TABLE 15. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH THE OIL SHALE INDUSTRY
(modified from U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration 1977)
Phase
Oil Shale
Processes
Physical
Disturbances
Pollutant
Discharges
Affected Resources
Physical
Socioeconomic
Extraction
through
retorting
Surface
retorting
True
in situ
10
Modified
in situ
Upgrade
through
end-use
All
processes
Aquifer local interruption
Land disconf iguration
(stripmining)
Roof collapse
Noise (drilling, retorting)
Retorted shale waste piles
Land subsidence
Waste water holding ponds
Work site disturbance
Subsidence or uplift
Noise (drilling, fracturing)
Aquifer local interruption
Heat
Aquifer local interruption
Subsidence or uplift
Noise (drilling, fracturing)
Raw shale waste piles
Heat
Land disturbances for
facilities, roads/other
transportation
Physical plants
Runoff or leachate (metals
organics, salts) from retorted
shale pile
Dust from mining, crushing and
grinding
Fugitive emissions and off-gases
from retort (venting to air)
Contaminated retort water
(metals, organics, salts) in
settling ponds
Mineralized water from
dewateriny operations
Leachate (metals, organics,
salts) from retorted shale into
aquifer
Fugitive emissions and off-
gases from retorting (venting to
air)
Contaminated retort water
(metals, organics, salts) in
containment ponds
Leachate (metals, organic,
salts) from retorted shale
into aquifer
Runoff or leachate (mainly salts)
from raw shale piles
Dust from mining/fracturing
Fugitive emissions and off-gases
from retorting (venting)
Contaminated retort water (metals,
organics, salts) in settling
ponds
Evaporation and emissions of
crude oil volatiles, during
storage, upgrading and refining
Accidental spillage
Water for dust control
process cooling and
vegetation and community
use
Secondary recovery of
minerals
Water for community
use and process cooling
Financing
Labor force
Community
services
Water fer community
use, processing, and
vegetation of raw shale
Power
Equipment
Water for upgrade/and
use stages and community
use
-------
TABLE 16. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS CAUSED BY SPENT OIL SHALE RESIDUES
(modified from Slawson 1979)
Source Area
Spent shale
disposal area
Source
Priority
Rankiny
Hiyhest
Potential
Pollution
Source
Spent shale
Hiyhest
IDS, Na, SO,,, As, Se, F,
oryanics (PAH,
Potential Pollutant Rankiny
Intermediate
Ca, My, In, Cd, Hg, B,
oryanics (phenols, etc.)
Lowest
Pb, Cu, Fe
CJl
o
Intermediate
Lowest
Hiyh TUS waste water
Sour water
Retort water
Spent catalysts
Stormwater runoff
Water treatment
plant sludges
Miscellaneous
landfill materials
Sulfur byproducts
Oily waste waters
Spent filters
Sewaye sludye
Mine water
Sanitary waste water
Surface disturbance
carcinogens)
TDS
Ammonia, phenols
As, Cl, S, organics (POM,
carboxylic acids, phenols)
As, Mo
TDS, organics, As, Se
TDS
Sulfides, oryanics
Sulfides, sulfates
Oryanics
Oryanics, As
Oryanics
TDS, oil and yrease
Oryanics
Calcium salts, TDS
Organics
TDS, organics (amines
etc.)
Zn, Ni
Na, Ca, SO,,, HC03,
organics
Major macroinorganics
Sulfides
Trace metals
Trace metals
Nutrients
Trace metals, organics
Nutrients
Macroinoryanics
Carbonates, PO,,, N03
Fe, Cu, Co
Zn, Cd, Hy
Trace metals
Macroinoryanics
Macroinorganics
-------
oil consumption in the United States. However, in 1979 the President's energy
program set a goal of producing 63.6 million liters of oil per day from oil
shale by 1990, and the Government is expected to provide substantial funding
to achieve that goal (Personal communication, L. McMillion, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada).
Power Plants
The number of existing coal-fired power plants in the Yampa and White
River Basins is small; presently, only 14 percent of the coal produced in the
Yampa Basin is converted to electric power within the basins (Steele 1976).
However, the potential for such development is high. Currently, the only two
power plants in the study area are in the Yampa Basin: the Hayden Plant has
two units with a total generating capacity of 450 MW, and the Craig Power
Plant will have a total capacity of 760 MW from two units upon completion of
construction in 1979 (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1976a). Both plants are
operated by the Colorado-Ute Electric Association. The company also has plans
to construct two supplementary units at the Craig Station, that will add an
additional 760 MW to that facility when full commercial operation is achieved.
The only other power facility for the area has been proposed by the Moon Lake
Electric Association which is considering the installation of a mine-mouth
generating plant (total capacity 1,000 MW) at Hatch Flats, northeast of
Rangely (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1976a). This facility will depend
upon development of the oil shale industry in the Piceance Creek area.
Suggestions have been made to the BLM (1976a) for the construction of a plant
on the Williams Fork River (Yampa Basin), and for four coal conversion plants
in Utah near Bonanza (Personal communication 1979, J. S. Merrill, Deserett
Generation and Transmission Cooperative, Sanby, Utah).
All of the above power facilities (with the exception of the Hayden #1
Unit, which began operation in 1965) are a result of the Yampa Project. The
Yampa Project was created in 1969 when the Colorado-Ute Electric Association,
the Public Service Company of Colorado, and the Salt River Project
Agricultural Improvement and Power District began cooperative planning for
construction of power generating facilities to meet the area's existing and
anticipated electrical demands. Colorado-Ute is based in Montrose, Colorado,
and supplies power to various consumers, including agricultural, recreational,
residential, industrial and mining facilities. The company currently operates
the Hayden facilities, as well as three 13 MW coal-fired generating stations
outside the study area at Nucla Station (U.S. Bureau of Land Management
1976a). The second of the large distributors, the Salt River Project (based
in Phoenix, Arizona), had also contracted for power from Hayden Plant. Other
large companies involved with the Yampa Project are the Tri State Generation
and Transmission Association, Inc. based in Denver, and the Platte River
Municipal Power Association, based in Fort Collins. The Yampa Project was
responsible for construction of Elkhead Reservoir, that provides water storage
for the operation of the Hayden and Craig Plants during low flow periods. The
Trappers strip coal mine provides coal for the existing power generation
facilities.
51
-------
The operation of the existing and proposed power plants should be
maintained under the careful scrutiny of state-of-the-art energy conservation
requirements. It is estimated that 1.8 billion kg/year of coal would be
neccessary to suport 7,200 MW of electrical power generation in the area. If
the coal were utilized in mine-mouth power generation, substantial quantities
of water could be conserved in transportation and processing. The anticipated
maximum annual water consumptive requirements for the Craig station plant will
be 23 million m3, although average consumptive needs will be substantially
less (Stearns Rogers, Inc. and Utah International, Inc. 1974). At present,
the Hayden power plants divert and consume an estimated 8.6 million m3/year:
the Hayden #1 plant consumes 2.4 million m3/year, and the Hayden #2 plant
consumes 6.2 million m3/year (Personal communication 1978, S. Mernitz,
Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Denver, Colorado). The majority of
these consumptive use demands result from evaporative cooling of the
condensers; both facilities use surface water from the Yarnpa River to satisfy
water requirements (Steele et al. 1976b).
Uranium
Although uranium mineralization is widespread throughout the study area,
the major reserves in the Yampa and White River Basins lie in the Brown Park
formation near Lay and Maybe!!, west of Craig (U.S. Economic Research Service
et al. 1969), and north of Rangely near the Colorado-Utah state line. Minor
deposits occur in the Precambrian rocks of the Park Range near Steamboat
Springs, and in the Dakota sandstone east of Meeker (U.S. Bureau of Land
Management 1976a).
Low grade uranium ore is presently extracted by the Union Carbide
Corporation through a leaching process using materials mined near Maybell
during past operations. The Midnight Mine, east of Meeker near Uranium Peak,
has also been producing some uranium ore during the summer and fall months.
In 1977, Moffat County uranium production was approximately 26 thousand kg of
U308, and production from Rio Blanco County was 2,900 kg (Colorado Division of
Mines 1977b).
Although there are presently no formal proposals for new uranium mines in
the study area, substantial exploration activities are ongoing in the western
portion of the region. Particularly if the price of uranium increases in the
near future, potential for accelerated mining will increase dramatically (U.S.
Bureau of Land Management 1976a). Most of the uranium in the basins overlies
principle coal-bearing beds which must be extracted with underground
techniques. Differences in depth of the two minerals is sufficient that
extraction of one should not interfere with later mining activities of the
other (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1976a).
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
Coal Gasification and Liquefaction Plants
Coal conversion by gasification or liquefaction processes could become a
significant future industry in the Yampa and White River Basins. There are
52
-------
currently no gasification facilities in the study area, and none proposed for
development. However, Steele (1976) states that in the Yampa Basin "natural
gas reserves in the region are declining and coal gasification may be
proposed ... to supply the existing gas-pipeline network."
Present coal reserve data indicate that sufficient strippable coal exists
in the Yampa coalfield in Routt and Moffat Counties to support gasification
and liquefaction facilities (Lindquist 1977). One limiting factor to this
development is the widespread distribution of coal reserves in the study area.
As a result, two or more mines will be required to supply the necessary feed
for a basic coal conversion plant. Other disadvantages to development in the
basins include remoteness from existing gas markets, opposition to the
development, on environmental and economic grounds and restrictions on water
availability (Lindquist 1977). Total water circulation requirements for a
standard-sized coal gasification complex are approximately 750 million m3/
year, which is equivalent to nearly 40 percent of the mean annual flow from
the Yampa River (Steele 1976). Although water consumption from such a plant
would be more than an order of magnitude less, these circulation requirements
are a major consideration to development in the semi arid study region.
Hydroelectric Power
At present there are no hydroelectric power plants in the Yampa and White
River Basins. Currently, most hydro-generated electricity in the study area
is imported from the upper Colorado River region, but future power demands and
economic restrictions on development of alternative energy resoures may
dictate that hydroelectric power be implemented locally.
There are presently three hydroelectric sites proposed in the basins. The
White River hydroelectric plant is planned by the Uinta County Water District
in Utah and will have a capacity of 3 MW (Corsentino 1976). The Juniper
Project, designed primarily to provide power for irrigation of lands in the
Maybell and Sunbeam areas, will be located on the Yampa River downstream from
Craig and will have a generation capacity of 30 MW (U.S. Economic Research
Service et al. 1969). The third and largest of the three proposed facilities
is the Flattops Project, that will be located on the South Fork of the White
River and may generate up to 51 MW electrical power (Upper Colorado Region
State-Federal Inter-Agency Group 1971d).
TRANSPORTATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES
Transportation of energy resources from the Yampa and White River Basins
is an important part of the total environmental impact of energy development.
Colorado and Utah are major exporters of coal, natural gas, and oil. In the
Yampa drainage area, 85 percent of the coal is transported from the basin by
unit train (Steele 1976). Development of oil shale in the White Basin will
necessitate expansion of transportation facilities. These western
transportation developments present some unique problems, however, since
materials must frequently be moved large distances, and power generation lines
and railroad routes may require hundreds of square kilometers of right-of-way.
53
-------
Transportation facilities in the Yampa and White Basins will have to be
enlarged to handle increases in coal and oil shale mining operations (Steele
et al. 1976b). At present, the Yampa Valley is serviced by a line of the
Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad, which has its western terminus at Craig.
This line is the major link between the Yampa mining region and Denver, which
is the primary market for coal in the area (U.S. Economic Research Service et
al. 1969). There are numerous highways and roads used by local mining
operations which cross the study area, with the greatest intensity of truck
routes centered in the vicinity of Craig, Meeker, Hayden and Rangely. A great
number of gas and electrical power transmission lines are also located
throughout the study region.
Increasing transportation developments in the study area involve expansion
of old systems (pipeline, rail and power transmission), and creation of new
systems. Any proposal for development must consider mode of transport, water
requirements, environmental impacts such as increased soil erosion and
hydrological modifications to local watersheds, and total cost. In the Yampa
and White River Basins, a number of transportation developments for regional
coal activities have been proposed (Table 17). The anticipated environmental
impacts associated with these developments have been defined in other sources
(U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1976a, 1976b).
TABLE 17. TOTAL PROJECTED COAL-RELATED TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT
IN THE YAMPA AND WHITE RIVER BASINS (modified from U.S. Bureau
of Land Management 1976a)
Development Activities
Cumulative kg coal produced (billions)
Kilometers of new railroads
Kilometers of new road
Kilometers of new powerline
1976-80
36.4
37
24*
121
Year
1976-85
109.7
42
80*
322
1976-90
205.0
137
145*
563
* Includes coal exploration trails, access roads, and haul roads.
The primary mode of coal transportation to power generation facilities
will be by 100 car unit trains, each train capable of carrying 91 thousand kg
of coal (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1976b). Several plans for railroad
construction have been proposed, among them a plan submitted by W. R. Grace
Corporation for construction of a railroad between Craig and Axial, Colorado.
The use of slurry pipelines for coal transport has been discussed because,
54
-------
under optimum conditions, slurry lines can provide service at lower costs than
rail or waterways. However, large volumes of water are needed for operation
of a slurry line (1 liter water per 1 kg coal). Because of the inadequate
surface and ground-water supplies in the Yampa and White River Basins, and the
distance of existing coal slurry lines from the White-Yampa coal fields,
railway transportation is generally favored over coal slurry development in
this region. There is, however, a small slurry line that serves to transport
gilsonite from the lower White River Basin to Grand Junction, where it is
processed into gasoline and asphalic products (lorns et al. 1965).
55
-------
SECTION 6
OTHER SOURCES OF POLLUTION
EROSION
Much of the White and Yampa River Basins study area is subject to moderate
erosion damage, with the greatest impact occuring in the lower, arid
elevations where vegetation cover is sparse and over grazing is common.
Insufficient vegetative ground cover results in poor soils that contain little
organic matter and are susceptible to wind erosion. Sediment comes largely
from crop and range lands in the basins; the Bureau of Land Management (1976a)
reports that a third of the dry crop land in the study area is maintained with
adequate erosion control. Severe range and watershed abuse by early settlers
produced loss of the limited and fragile original top soil in the area, and
heavy grazing has restricted recovery of this damage (U.S. Bureau of Land
Management 1978).
Summer storms and flash floods generally cause severe erosion and subject
receiving waters to elevated suspended sediment loads. Local soils that are
derived from the Mancos and Lewis shales and shaley portions of other
formations are subject to gullying, particularly around streambanks (U.S.
Bureau of Land Management 1976a). These soils are rich in silt and clays and
go into suspension easily during episodic runoff. Erosion in the study area
has been reported to be more than 1.1 million kg/km2 year, although the bulk
of the sediment is deposited along the way and never reaches the main streams
(U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1976a). The oil shale region of the White
River Basin has a particularly high sediment yield (Table 18).
TABLE 18. EROSION RATES IN THE PICEANCE AND YELLOW CREEK WATERSHEDS
(modified from University of Wisconsin 1976)
Area Yield
(m3/km2) (thousand kg/km2)
All of C-b tract 0-190.5 0-291.4
Ryan Gulch and Yellow Creek 142.9-381.0 215.1-582.7
Northwest part of C-a 190.5-381.0 291.4-582.7
East of C-b on upper Piceance 238.1-476.2 358.6-717.2
Eastern half of C-a 238.1-714.4 358.6-1,075.8
Mouth of Yellow Creek 619.1-952.5 941.3-1,434.4
56
-------
Future energy development in the study basins may contribute substantially
to existing erosion problems. Construction of power lines, strip coal mines,
open pit mines, roads, and refineries or retort facilities will disturb the
established soil surface and the watershed through erosion (Table 19). It is
estimated that oil shale development will increase erosion three-fold in the
White River watershed, and six-fold in the Colorado River Basin (University of
Wisconsin 1976). Disturbance of land in the oil shale area will cause
immediate problems that will continue as long as construction activities go
on. Nevertheless, industrial erosion in the study basins will probably
continue to be small compared to erosion associated with agriculture.
TABLE 19. PREDICTED IMPACT ON THE WHITE AND YAMPA RIVER BASINS AS A RESULT
OF ACCELERATED EROSION ASSOCIATED WITH ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
(modified from University of Wisconsin 1976)
Gullying: destruction of agricultural lands
increased costs of leveling land for construction
Loss of fertile topsoil: increase in surface runoff
decrease vegetation and crop yields
extensive drought damage
increased flood damage
Reduced capacity of downstream channels and reservoirs
Increased costs for a suitable water supply
Degradation of fish and wildlife habitats and recreational areas
Decreased potential for water power
Reduced carrying capacity and increased costs of maintenance of
irrigation systems
Increased costs of road and highway maintenance
Increased damage to flooded cities and homes
Increased costs to industry of maintaining cooling and power facilities
57
-------
MINE DRAINAGE
The impact of mine effluents on water quality will be of growing concern
in the White and Yampa River Basins as the number of energy development
facilities increase. Potential sources of water quality contamination
associated with mining activities include loading, crushing and screening
facilities, access and hauling roads, equipment maintenance and building
areas, leakage of fuels from mine machinery, overburden removal and
deposition, retortion of oil shale, construction of water control facilities,
stream diversions, and population influx due to increased availability of
jobs. Each of these sources pose a specific environmental threat to the water
quality of the basins.
The acid mine drainage from coal extraction, common in the eastern United
States, is not a problem in the Yampa and White River Basins, where the sulfur
content of coal is generally less than 1 percent and soils are akaline. In
this area, total dissolved solids and suspended solids from erosion of the
disturbed areas are the most obvious potential pollutants. Pollution from
ground-water aquifers may result when they are intercepted during mining
operations, producing a net inflow and accumulation of water in the active
pit. Surface runoff, or shallow ground water such as that from irrigation
return flows, may percolate through mine spoil areas resulting in increased
salts, especially sulfates or heavy metals. Mining operations may also
directly discharge toxic substances into surrounding surface water supplies.
To date, there have not been any major pollution impacts associated with
mining effluents to the White and Yampa River Basins. However, as the number
and size of these energy developments increase, the potential for major spills
and contamination will also increase. Careful on-site monitoring should be
established to reduce the prospect of serious pollution from future mine
drainage.
URBAN RUNOFF
There may be rapid population growth associated with increased industrial
development in the Yampa and White River Basins. An influx of people would
increase the likelihood of urban runoff and augment the consumptive water
demands and burden on existing sewage facilities in the basins. The area
surrounding Craig, Hayden, Steamboat Springs, Rangely, Meeker, Yampa, and the
Piceance Creek drainage are expected to experience the greatest growth from
the expanding mining industry within the study area.
Nonpoint urban runoff is produced by precipitation that washes a
population center, flushing a variety of city wastes into the nearest water
system. This runoff is greatest during episodic heavy rainfall and is high in
nutrients and suspended sediments. Storm and domestic sewer overflow is a
common urban source of organic pollution to the aquatic ecosystem. Animal
wastes, fertilizers, pesticides, and litter are other urban pollutants.
58
-------
SECTION 7
WATER REQUIREMENTS
WATER RIGHTS
The appropriation of water rights in the Western States, including
Colorado, has traditionally been governed by the doctrine of "first in time,
first in right," which specifies that the first individual to divert water to
a beneficial use establishes a dated and quantified right to first use of the
water (Knudsen and Daniel son 1977). All stream users thus establish dated
rights, and as water supplies decrease, those bearing latter priority dates
are shut off until senior rights are met. In light of population growth and
water demands in the Colorado River Basin, however, Federal and State
regulations to control use have been established; it is probable that legal
rights to use water will become a major factor in regional decisions regarding
future energy development.
The Colorado River Compact of 1922 and the Upper Colorado River Basin
Compact of 1948 are the primary federal laws governing distribution of surface
waters in the study area. The former law specifies that the Upper Colorado
Basin (upstream from Lee Ferry) is allowed beneficial consumptive use of 9.2
billion m3/year of Colorado River water, but the Upper Basin States must
insure that the flow of the river at Lee Ferry is not depleted below a
aggregate of 92.5 billion m3 for any period of 10 consecutive years
(University of Wisconsin 1976). The Upper Colorado River Basin Compact
allocates water to the Upper Basin States on a percentage basis: Colorado is
entitled to 51.75 percent of the Upper Basin (Utah is authorized 23 percent;
Wyoming, 14 percent; and New Mexico, 11.25 percent). The 1948 Compact also
states that the Upper Basin States must curtail water consumption and meet a
demand for water by Lower Basin waters in the event of a "compact call"
(University of Wisconsin 1976).
There are two stipulations in the 1948 Compact regarding the Yampa River
Basin. One specifies that Colorado must not cause the flow of the Yampa River
at Maybell to be depleted below an aggregate of 6.2 billion m3 for any
consecutive 10-year period (Knudsen and Danielson 1977). This is equivalent
to a minimum average flow of 0.62 billion m3/year, which has been met in all
years except one during the entire 1917-76 water year period of record for
that site (James and Steele 1977). A second stipulation requires water
administration in the Little Snake River Sub-basin, and differentiates between
water allocations assigned prior to signing of the Compact and those rights
initiated after the Compact. For rights approved prior to the Compact, water
which is above the confluence of the Little Snake River and Savery Creek shall
59
-------
be administered without regard to diversions below the confluence. Those
waters diverted below the confluence must comply with interstate regulations
prepared by the Upper Colorado Commission (Knudsen and Daniel son 1977). Any
necessary curtailment of diversions associated with rights approved after the
1948 Compact will be made on an equitable basis for each square kilometer
irrigated.
The White River Basin is presently unregulated by any interstate agreement
(University of Wisconsin 1976). The 1948 Compact included no statement
specifying what amount of water the State of Colorado must deliver from the
White River to the State of Utah (University of Wisconsin 1976). Furthermore,
Ute Indians in Utah claim usage of 2.3 m3/seconds from the White River for
irrigation of reservation lands based on the reserved rights doctrine. Final
decisions regarding both the Indian claims and allocation rights of the State
of Utah from the White River must yet be decided in the courts. As reported
by Gold and Goldstein (1978), "the absence of any agreement on the disposition
of White River water almost guarantees an eventual clash between the states of
Colorado and Utah when an attempt is made in either state to put a large
amount of water to use." Other federal acts which affect water allocations in
the Upper Colorado Basin, and thus, in the White and Yampa River Basins,
include federal treaties with Mexico, and the Upper Colorado River Storage
Project Act. This Act contains provisions that authorized construction of the
major reservoirs in the Upper Basin and associated reclamation projects
(including the Savery-Pot Hook project on the Little Snake River, which was
never completed). Establishment of wild and scenic rivers by Federal water
policy is another consideration affecting water availability, since such a
designation greatly restricts development along such a river in order to
maintain its natural qualities. Parts of the Yampa River Basin, including the
Little Snake River, are under consideration for such a designation (Gold and
Goldstein 1978).
WATER AVAILABILITY
It is estimated that the State of Colorado has been authorized consumption
of 3,926.2 million m3/year from the Upper Colorado River Basin, including
allowable depletions from the Yampa and White River drainages (Slawson and Yen
1979). However, the University of Wisconsin (1976) states it is "apparent
that anyone seeking firm estimates of water availability must be doomed to
disappointment." The problem is partially a factor of provisions of the
Colorado River Compact, which left many questions of interpretation
unresolved, particularly regarding to what extent the Upper and Lower Basins
are responsible for meeting the Mexican obligation. The problem is
complicated both by the variability of the Colorado River flow, and the fact
that, although the Basin is already overappropriated by conditional decrees,
many of these proposed developments will never be realized due to economic and
political restrictions (University of Wisconsin 1976). For example,
increasing emphasis on minimum instream flow requirements may complicate the
transfer of water rights. For these reasons, estimates of water availability
in the White and Yampa Rivers must be recognized as tentative and subject to
change with future interpretation of water rights legislation in the
controversial area.
60
-------
The average annual discharge from the White River near Watson is 628.3
billion m3; the maximum recorded runoff during 52 years of record was 1,550.4
million m3 in 1934 (Colorado State University and Colorado Division of Water
Resources 1977). Flows have been reported as high as 231.1 m3/seconds (in
1929) and as low as 0.3 mVsecond (reported in 1972 as a result of river
freeze-up). The average annual discharge of the Yampa River at the mouth is
1,850.2 million m3; the maximum recorded runoff during 54 years of record was
3,577.1 million m3, and the minimum recorded annual discharge was 561.2
million m3 (James and Steele 1977).
The mean annual consumptive use of surface waters in the Yampa River Basin
during 1975-76 was 75.2 million m3, and in the White River Basin was 123.3
million m3 (Table 20). The predominant consumptive use of water in both
basins is from irrigation of croplands and stock watering.
TABLE 20. ESTIMATED ANNUAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF SURFACE WATERS,
BY STATE, IN THE YAMPA AND WHITE RIVER BASINS, 1975-76 (modified from
Colorado Department of Natural Resources 1979)
Consumptive Use (million m3)
Fish and Municipal
State/ Wildlife Mineral and
Basin Thermal Agriculture (Recreation) Development Industrial Export
Colorado*
White 8.6 98.7 7.4 1.2 2.5 0
Yampa - 45.6 2.5 3.7 1.2 0
Wyoming*
Yampa - 13.6 0 0 0 8.6
Utaht
White - 4.9 0 0
Totals: 8.6 162.8 9.9 4.9 3.7 8.6
Total Yampa Basin consumption - 75.2
Total White Basin consumption - 123.3
* Average annual depletion
t 1975 depletion
61
-------
The average annual consumptive use of surface waters for both basins is
well under their respective minimum recorded annual discharges. However,
there is such great variability in streamflow from year to year (Figure 11)
and from month to month that future developers cannot be assured of the
stable, dependable quantity of water required for most proposed activities.
Certainly there will be times when adequate water supplies will exist to
satisfy all consumptive demands. However, the University of Wisconsin (1976)
reports "One obvious implication is that there can be little water resource
development without storage." There are few reservoirs at present in the
study area, but as many as 30 have been proposed for the Yampa Basin alone
(Steel e 1978).
YAMPA AND WHITE RIVER WITHDRAWALS
Energy Resource Development
Increased energy development in the Yampa and White River Basins will have
a significant environmental impact, particularly on water resources of the
region. Surface mining of the enormous coal reserves requires approximately
0.07 to 0.08 liters of water per kg of coal mined (Adams 1975). Conversion of
coal into electricity or into natural gas and crude oil requires large
quantities of water, particularly if gasification and liquefaction processes
are implemented. It has been estimated that as much as 4.3 million m3/year of
water may be ultimately demanded for coal processing operations in the Yampa
Basin alone (James and Steele 1977). At maximum anticipated levels of coal
production, as much as 136 million m3/year of Yampa River water could be
consumed as cooling water for mine-mouth power generation facilities (James
and Steele 1977). A single 1,200 mw power plant, using once-through cooling
without some sort of impoundment-recycling system, could annually divert as
much as 60 percent of the mean annual flow of the entire Yampa Basin (Steele
1976).
Transport of coal to power plants, if done by coal slurry line can require
an additional 2.5-3.7 million mVyear of water to provide slurry to a 1,000 mw
electric generating plant (Adam 1975). Natural gas production is responsible
for consumption of large quantities of water. In the Rangely field, 12,241 m3
of White River water is injected and consumed daily in the gas extraction
process (Radian Corporation 1977). The oil shale industry will be another
large consumer of water. Although projected water requirement estimates vary
depending on the rate of shale oil production and the mining techniques
utilized, the most likely water use requirements for a mature shale industry
range between 149.9-233.2 million mVyear (Table 21). All of these water
demands are immense since many streams in the Yampa-White resource area are
dry much of the year, and high quality ground-water supplies must be carefully
pumped to avoid depletion of usable aquifers at a rate in excess of recharge
capacity.
62
-------
Annual Flow in Millions of m3
01
co
Mean-Annual Discharge,
in Cubic Meters per Second
-------
TABLE 21. CONTINGENT WATER CONSUMPTION FORECASTS FOR A MATURE (1 million barrels/day) SHALE OIL
INDUSTRY (modified from Kinney et al. 1979)
CT)
Range of Consumption (million m3/yearl
Requirements
Processing:
Mining and crushing
Retorti ng
Shale oil upgrading
Processed shale disposal
Power
Revegation
Sanitary use
Subtotals
Associated urban:
Domestic use
Domestic power
Subtotals
Ancillary development:
Nahcol ite/dawsonite
Grand Totals
Lower Range
7.4
11.1
21.0-25.9
29.6
12.3
0
1.2
82.6-87.5
11.1-13.6
0
11.1-13.6
___
93.7-101.1
Most Likely
7.4-9.9
11.1-14.8
35.8-54.3
58.0-86.3
18.5-28.4
0-14.8
1.2-1.2
132.0-209.7
16.0-21.0
1.2-2.5
17.4-23.5
___
149.4-233.2
Upper Range
9.9
14.8
54.3
103.6
45.6-55.5
22.2
1.2
251.6-261.5
21.0
2.5
23.5
39.5-78.9
314.6-363.9
-------
Irrigation
Over 70 percent of the total water consumption in the White and Yampa
River Basins is due to depletions for irrigation (U.S. Bureau of Land
Management 1976a). Less than 1 percent of this irrigation water consumed is
from ground-water supplies (U.S. Economic Research Series et al. 1969).
In the study basins during 1975-76, approximately 162.8 million m3 of
water was consumed for agricultural purposes, including irrigation and
consumption by livestock (Colorado Department of Natural Resources 1979).
This value, derived from 112.2 million m3/year depletion in the Yampa Basin
and 50.6 million m3/year depletion in the white, is an increase over
consumptive levels reported in the study area during-1943-60. In that time
period, approximately 142.4 km2 of land in the White Basin was irrigated, and
36.1 million m3 of water annually was consumed for irrigation requirements
(U.S. Economic Research Service et al. 1966). In the Yampa Basin, including
the Vermillion Creek drainage, 323.8 krn2 of land was irrigated between
1943-60, and 88.1 million m3/year of water was consumed (U.S. Economic
Research Service et al. 1969). More than 95 percent of the total regional
irrigation water requirements are used for production of hay and irrigated
pasture.
One of the greatest problems in the Yampa and White River Basins is the
need for a reliable irrigation water supply throughout the growing season. To
meet this need, there exist numerous private irrigation diversions throughout
the study area built on small storage facilities.- There are a number of
additional large irrigation projects which have been proposed for the area
including the Yellow Jacket Project (develop waters of the White and Yampa
Basins), the Juniper (Lower Yampa) and Yampa Valley Projects, and the Savery-
Pot Hook Project on the Snake River (Knudsen and Daniel son 1977). The Savery-
Pot Hook is the only one of these projects which has been federally
authorized; however, it is not likely that it, or any of these strictly
agricultural-purpose projects, will be funded unless national priorities
change (University of Wisconsin 1976).
Some proposals exist to shift irrigation water rights over to satisfy
energy development needs in the study area, particularly in the arid
downstream stretches of the basins (Colorado Department of Natural Resources
1979). However, it is not likely that sufficient water could be obtained from
reallocation of irrigation rights to satisfy anticipated industrial
requirements, especially of the oil shale industry. The University of
Wisconsin (1976) reports, "On the White River, irrigation rights will probably
play an insignificant role in present company water strategies. Only 30,000 AF
(37.0 million m3) is presently consumed by irrigation in the White River
Basin. Purchase of these rights would seem to serve little purpose at a time
when the river is still relatively undeveloped."
Municipal and Industrial
There are additional requirements for water in the Yampa and White River
Basins. These include domestic, manufacturing, governmental, and commercial
65
-------
needs. Although there are many municipal and industrial users in the study
area (Table 22), surface water consumption related to these systems is
relatively minor. The Upper Colorado State-Federal Inter-Agency Group (1971b)
reports that in 1965, water withdrawals related to municipal and industrial
demands in the Colorado portion of the study basins were only 6.4 million m3,
and total consumption was 1.8 million m3. This depletion represented
approximately 1 percent of the total consumptive use of the study areas. In
1972, diversions for the Yampa and White region for municipal purposes
amounted to approximately 14.2 million mVyear (McCall-Ellingson and Morrill,
Inc. 1974).
The major municipalities in the study area are population centers having
less than 10,000 persons. Most of the smaller communities satisfy domestic
and municipal needs with ground water, since this source is generally cheaper,
readily available in the small quantities needed, and requires less treatment
prior to use than the surface water supplies (U.S. Economic Research Service
et al. 1969). The larger communities, including Craig, Yampa, Steamboat
Springs, Hayden, Meeker, Rangely, Oak Creek and Dinosaur, require a greater
volume of water and must use surface supplies to meet municipal and industrial
needs. Present annual municipal and industrial water demands from the study
basins are not known, although the Upper Colorado State-Federal Inter-Agency
Group (1971b) projected in the Colorado portion of the basins, municipal and
industrial users would withdraw up to 20.6 million mVyear and consume 8.3
million m3 annually by the year 2020.
In addition to the consumptive impact on usable water, a large proportion
of municipal and industrial diversions are returned to nearby streams and
pollutants from these return flows can substantially impact downstream users.
The Bureau of Land Management (1976a) reports that "adequacy of water
treatment facilities varies widely in the study region," and that the
communities of Craig and Yampa have the only treatment facilities with
sufficient capacity to meet anticipated use demands associated with expanding
populations. Most of the other municipal users, in fact, already have
difficulty meeting peak flow demands. Bauer et al. (1978) report effluent
discharges from mine waste water treatment plants are the major source of
organic pollution in the Yampa River. Plans exist to install a regional water
quality treatment plant in the Steamboat Springs area that would combine
advanced treatment with either land disposal or extended aeration (Bauer et
al. 1978). Industrial dischargers within the basin areas are predominantly
associated with the mining industries and they must also treat effluents to
prevent contamination of surface and ground-water supplies with salts and
toxic elements.
Although surface water withdrawal requirements are presently low in the
study basins, future water requirements may increase due to population growth,
especially in those areas with rapidly expanding energy development activities
such as around Meeker, Craig, and Hayden. Traditionally, real location of
existing irrigation water rights, in combination with addition of storage,
have been the methods most commonly used to meet increasing urban needs.
However, the simple act of cities condemning or buying irrigation water for
urban use has come under serious criticism (Anderson and Wengert 1977), and
66
-------
TABLE 22. MAJOR POINT SOURCES AND ASSOCIATED SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES
IN THE WHITE AND YAMPA RIVER BASINS (modified from McCall-Ellings
and Morrill, Inc. 1974)
Point Source
Treatment
White River
Meeker Well
Meeker sewage treatment plant
Rangely sewage treatment plant
California Oil Camp
Texas Oil Camp
Dinosaur National Monument sewage treatment plant*
Dinosaur sewage treatment plant*
Yampa River
Morrison Creek District sewage treatment plant
Timber sewage treatment plant
Oak Creek sewage treatment plant
Abandoned Coal Mine
Siegrist Construction Gravel
Mt. Werner District sewage treatment plant
Fish Creek Park sewage treatment plant
Bear Pole Ranch sewage treatment plant
Mineral Springs at Steamboat Springs
Whiteman School sewage treatment plant
Steamboat Springs sewage treatment plant
KOA Campground sewage treatment plant
Sleepy Bear Park sewage treatment plant
Steamboat Springs II sewage treatment plant
Yampa Valley Industries Gravel Pit
Steamboat Lake District sewage treatment plant
Bear River Gravel Pit*
Colorado Ute Electric-Hayden Station
Hayden Water Treatment Plant
Hayden sewage treatment plant
Craig, Sand and Gravel*
Craig waste treatment plant
Big Country Meats sewage treatment plant
Craig sewage treatment plant
Silengo Coal Mine
Juniper Hot Springs
Dixon, Wyo., sewage treatment plant
Baggs, Wyo., sewage treatment plant
extended aeration
aerated lagoon
lagoon
lagoon
lagoon
stabilization pond
extended aeration
aerated lagoon
activated sludge
settling pond
aerated lagoon
extended aeration
extended aeration
extended aeration
aerated lagoon
extended aeration
extended aeration
extended aeration
settling pond
extended aeration
settling pond
settling pond
clarifer sludge
aerated lagoon
settling pond
clarifer sludge
aerated lagoon
aerated lagoon
none
stabilization pond
stabilization pond
discharge
67
-------
environmental considerations may limit the addition of future impoundments in
both the Yampa and White River Basins.
Fish and Wildlife
Water requirements for fish and wildlife activities in the Yampa and White
River Basins include management of refuge wetlands, fish hatcheries, various
impoundments and the maintenance of instream flows. The areas of greatest
water use in the study area include the Browns Park National Refuge, the
Finger Rock rearing fishery, Buford fishery (now closed but still diverting
water) and the National Forest areas to the east and south of the basins.
Water consumption related to fish, wildlife, and recreation requirements
in the basins (including reservoir evaporation losses) is approximately 9.9
million mVyear (Colorado Department of Natural Resources 1979). The Finger
Rock rearing facility diverts water at a rate of 0.17 m3/second, and the
Buford facility diverts 0.05 m3/second (Personal communication 1978, C.
Sealing, Colorado Department of Wildlife, Grand Junction, Colorado). These
are the only water diversion allocations for fish and wildlife in the region;
however, if areas are considered which have specified minimum stream flow
requirements, or which have been dedicated to the preservation of cutthroat
trout, such as the upper reaches of the Little Snake River, millions of cubic
meters of surface waters in the basins have been allocated to fish and
wildlife resources. These waters, however, are largely unconsumed and may be
available for downstream diversions and consumptive uses.
Livestock
Livestock requirements are a substantial portion of the agricultural water
diversions in the Yampa and White River Basins. There are presently more than
1,000 stock watering ponds in the study area (U.S. Bureau of Land Management
1976a). Agricultural-related water consumption in the basins is approximately
162.8 million m3/year (Colorado Department of Natural Resources 1979); what
portion of this can be attributed to consumptive and evaporative losses
associated with livestock facilities is not known. However, data presented
for the entire Green River Subregion in 1965 indicated that less than 2
percent of the total agricultural-related water consumption in the area could
be attributed to stockpond evaporation and livestock use (Upper Colorado
Region State-Federal Inter-Agency Group 1971a).
EXPORTATION OF WATER
There are two diversions through which water is exported out of the Yampa
and White River Basins. The Egeria Creek diversion, in 1974, exported
approximately 716.6 thousand m3 from the Bear River (Upper Yampa Basin) to
Egeria Creek in the Colorado River Basin via the Stillwater ditch (U.S. Bureau
of Land Management 1976a). The Hog Park Diversion has .been exporting
approximately 9.6 million m3/year from the Little Snake River to the North
Platte River Basin at Cheyenne, Wyoming, since 1967. Other potential
interbasin exports proposed for the study area include: the High Mountain
68
-------
Water Line Company export, expected to ultimately divert 49.3 million m3/year
from the Yampa River for use in Boulder, Adams, Weld, and Larimer Counties in
Colorado; the South Fork Williams Fork Division, which will divert 4.1 million
rnVyear to the White River Basin (to the proposed Lost Park Reservoir); and
the Rawlins Diversion, which will export 986.8 thousand m3/year from the Yampa
Basin for use near Rawlins, Wyoming (U.S. Economic Research Service et al.
1969).
WATER AVAILABILITY VERSUS DEMAND
As part of the 1948 Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, the State of
Colorado must not cause the flow of the Yampa River at Maybell to be depleted
below an aggregate of 6.2 billion m3 for any consecutive 10-year period. The
White River Basin is currently unregulated by an interstate agreemment. At
present, both basins have adequate surface and ground-water supplies to
satisfy existing demands. However, the expansion of industry, particularly in
the oil shale area of Piceance Creek and the coal mining regions around Craig,
will put increasing stress on the existing water resources of both basins.
Average annual water consumption in the White River Basin could rise to 264.1
million m3/year by the year 2020, a figure over 5.5 times the amount of water
consumed in the basin between 1943-60 (U.S. Economic Research Service et al.
1966). Total annual depletions in the Yampa Basin could reach 485.4 million
m3/year by 2020 (U.S. Economic Research Service et al. 1969).
It can be expected that additional storage to regulate the highly variable
flows of both the Yampa and White Rivers will be necessary to provide a level
of reliable water sources required by the growing energy industry, as well as
to insure the maintenance of a minimum baseflow to meet regional fish and
wildlife demands. There are over 30 potential surface-water impoundments
which have been proposed in the Yampa River Basin in Colorado (Knudsen and
Daniel son 1977). It should be noted, however, that specification of minimum
instream flows as a water right is an issue that will become controversial as
industrial claims to the surface resources increases. Although all of the
states in the Upper Colorado Basin recognize the right of a private individual
to divert water for fish and wildlife requirements (such as to a fish pond or
to flood a marsh), none of these states recognize private rights to flows left
in a stream (Colorado Department of Natural Resources 1979). Colorado passed
legislation in 1973 which authorized the state to purchase water rights for
establishment of minimum flows in areas where the natural environment is
threatened by ongoing development. However, appropriations obtained through
this recent law are very junior water rights which could be sacrificed in case
of a compact call or during a low water year. More senior rights can only be
obtained through purchase of existing rights from willing sellers (Colorado
Department of Natural Resources 1979), most of whom are irrigation and
industrial developers.
69
-------
SECTION 8
WATER QUALITY
SOURCES OF DATA
Available water quality information was used to assess the impact of
existing energy developments and irrigation projects in the Yampa and White
River Basins and to provide baseline data for determining the impact of
proposed developments. Most of the water quality data contained in this
report were obtained through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
computer-oriented system for STOrage and RETrievel of water quality data
(STORET). Other sources of information include government documents,
environmental impact statements, and private consulting firms. Physical and
chemical data evaluated were primarily from U.S. Geological Survey stations
(Tables 23 and 24, Figure 12), although data generated from in-house sampling
efforts and some miscellaneous sources available in STORET were also
considered.
SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL DATA
Summarized data for selected parameters are included in Appendix B. Data
are organized by parameters, station, number, and year for the period
1971-1978. Station number assignments in the appendix tables, as well as on
figures in this report, are generally based upon the middle four numerals of
the station STORET code unless otherwise indicated (Tables 23 and 24).
In Appendix B, data from 24 US6S stations in the Yampa River, and from 24
USGS stations in the White River Basin, are presented. In general, for any
given parameter, the annual arithmetic mean for that parameter at each station
is presented, along with the annual minimum and maximum values and number of
samples collected. It should be noted that no attempt was made to verify data
retrievals from STORET; all parameter measurements were accepted at face value
with the exception of those data that were obviously impossible (e.g., pH =
42) and were thus deleted. No summary tables were prepared from the limited
miscellaneous data sources available in STORET for this area.
IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON SURFACE WATER
Salinity
The Salinity Problem--
Salinity, the total concentration of ionic constituents, is a major water
70
-------
TABLE 23. U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE YAMPA RIVER BASIN
Station
Number
Station Name
Latitude/Longitude
09236000
09239500
09241000
09243700
90243900
09244100
402330107082000
09244300
09244410
402522107134100
402918107094400
09245000
09246550
09247600
09249000
09249200
401857107243500
09249750
09251000
09257000
405937107462500
09259700
09260000
09260050
Bear River near Toponas, Colo.
Yampa River at Steamboat Springs, Colo.
Elk River at Clark, Colo.
Middle Creek near Oak Creek, Colo.
Foidel Creek at mouth, near
Oak Creek, Colo.
Fish Creek near Milner, Colo.
Grassy Creek at Grassy Gap, Colo.
Grassy Creek near Mt. Harris, Colo.
Yampa River below diversion,
near Hayden, Colo.
Sage Creek near Mt. Harris, Colo.
Sage Creek near Hayden, Colo.
Elkhead Creek near Elkhead, Colo.
Yampa River below Elkhead Creek, Colo.
Yampa River below Craig, Colo.
East Fork Williams Fork
near Pagoda, Colo.
South Fork Williams Fork near
Pagoda, Colo.
South Fork Williams Fork near
Pagoda, Colo.
Williams Fork at mouth near
Hamilton, Colo.
Yampa River near Maybell, Colo.
Little Snake River near Dixon, Wyo.
Little Snake River above Thornburgh
near Baggs, Wyo.
Little Snake River near Baggs, Wyo.
Little Snake River near Lily, Colo.
Yampa River at Deer Lodge Park, Colo.
4000310017107ฐ04'00"
40ฐ29'01'7106ฐ49'54"
40ฐ43'03I7106ฐ54I55"
40ฐ23I08I7106ฐ59'33"
40ฐ23'2517106ฐ59'39"
40ฐ20'10i7l07ฐ08l20"
40023'30I7107ฐ08I20"
40026'45I7107ฐ08'38"
40ฐ29'18I7107ฐ09I33"
40025'22'7107ฐ13141"
40ฐ29'18I7107009'44"
40040'15I7107ฐ17'10"
40ฐ29'50I7107ฐ30'34"
40ฐ29I04I7107ฐ36I23"
40ฐ18'45I7107ฐ19I10"
40ฐ12I44'7107ฐ26'31"
40ฐ18'57I7107ฐ24'35"
40ฐ26'14I7107ฐ38'50"
40ฐ30I10'7108001'45"
41ฐ01'42'7107032'55"
40059I3717107ฐ46'25"
41000I00'7107ฐ55I10"
40032'50I7108ฐ25I25"
40ฐ27I02I7108ฐ31'20"
quality parameter of concern in the Yampa and White River Basins. Two
processes contribute to increases in salinity: salt loading and salt
concentration. Salt loading, the addition of salts to the water system,
occurs through irrigation return flows, natural sources, abandoned wells, and
municipal and industrial wastes. Salt concentrating, reduction of the amount
of water available for dilution of the salts already present in the river
system, results from consumptive uses of water and from evaporation and
transpiration losses.
71
-------
TABLE 24. U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE WHITE RIVER BASIN
Station
Number
09303000
09304000
09304200
09304500
09304800
09306007
09306061
09306175
09306200
09306210
09306222
09306230
09306244
09306248
09306250
09306255
401022108241200
09306300
09306380
09306400
09306500
09306600
09306700
09306900
Station Name
North Fork White River at Buford, Colo.
South Fork White River at Buford, Colo.
White River above Coal Creek, Colo.
White River near Meeker, Colo.
White River below Meeker, Colo.
Piceance Creek below Rio Blanco, Colo.
Piceance Creek above Hunter Creek,
Colo.
Black Sulfur Creek near Rio Blanco,
Colo.
Piceance Creek below Ryan Gulch near
Rio Blanco, Colo.
Piceance Creek near White River, Colo.
Piceance Creek at White River, Colo.
Stake Springs Draw near Rangely, Colo.
Corral Gulch at 84 Ranch, Colo.
Duck Creek at Upper Station, Colo.
Duck Creek near 84 Ranch, Colo.
Yellow Creek near White River, Colo.
White River below Yellow Creek, Colo.
White River above Rangely, Colo.
Douglas Creek at Rangely, Colo.
White River above Hells Hole Canyon,
Utah
White River near Watson, Utah
White River above Southam Canyon near
Watson, Utah
White River below Asphalt Wash near
Watson, Utah
White River at rnouth near Ouray, Utah
Latitude/Longitude
39059'15"/107036'50"
39ฐ58'28"/107ฐ37I29"
40000I18"/107ฐ49'29"
40002I01"/107ฐ51'42"
40ฐ00I48"/108ฐ05'33"
34ฐ49'34"/108ฐ10'47"
39051102"/108ฐ15'30"
39ฐ52I17"/108ฐ17'13"
39ฐ55'16'7108017'49"
39ฐ56120"/108ฐ17'20"
40004I29"/108ฐ14'08"
34ฐ55'37"/108ฐ25l14"
39056I02"/108025I35"
39ฐ58I5517108ฐ27'10"
39058'4917108ฐ24127"
40ฐ10I0717108ฐ24'02"
40ฐ10122I7108ฐ24I12"
40006I26'7108042I44"
40ฐ05'15'7108046I32"
39ฐ58'2617109ฐ07I49"
39ฐ58'46'7109010I41"
39057I15'7109ฐ15'28"
39ฐ55'32'7109017130"
40003'54I7109ฐ38I06"
Ambient Levels--
Total dissolved soilds (TDS) concentrations and conductivity levels
provide an indication of the dissolved constituents present in water. Values
for these two parameters (Appendix B), as well as concentrations of each of
the major cations (calcium, sodium, magnesium, potassium) and anions
(bicarbonate sulfate, chloride) generally increased from upstream to
downstream in both the Yampa and White River Basins. In the former,
conductivity levels during 1977 increased from 239 pmho/cm to 488 ymho/cm
between the Yampa sites at Steamboat Springs and near Maybell. In the White
River, surface water samples in the South Fork White at Buford, Colorado, and
72
-------
109
oo
7^ v r"^ i
ฃ3069 X_ 3065' /
/ i?04if"/r3064 V
/ { T 30661 '
( \ A V ' 30623V"
X V W \' 306244 I
V \ >/ \306248 f
^ ho6250j/
\' I 30623yv /
V1 306244 I "/
I 306248 [/>)
ho6250.T //
fV- I '
>\ \v_~ A
109
108ฐ
107C
Figure 12.
Location of selected U.S. Geological Survey water quality samplii
stations in the Yampa and White River Basins.
-------
at the mouth of the White near Ouray, Utah, showed an increase in average IDS
concentrations from 172 mg/liter to 653 mg/liter and an average conductivity
increase from 276 ymho/cm to 976 ymho/cm during 1977 (Table 25).
In the upstream stretches of the White River, calcium is the major cation
followed by magnesium, sodium and potassium. Downstream, sodium becomes the
dominant, followed by calcium and magnesium. The most abundant anion in the
basin is bicarbonate, followed by sulfate and chloride; however, sulfate
concentrations increase substantially at the downstream stations. A similar
pattern of upstream and downstream ion distribution is found in the mainstem
Yampa River as is observed in the White (Table 25).
The concentrations and composition of dissolved solids in the study
tributaries alter with stream discharge, source of salinity impact, and
evaporation rates. Fluctuations in flow are a major factor for the large
seasonal variations in dissolved solid concentrations observed in the basins.
Dissolved solid levels tend generally to be high during low runoff times and
low during periods of high flow. During fall and winter periods of low
runoff, baseflow in the rivers is largely from ground-water discharges, and
chemical composition closely resembles regional rock chemistry. Since ground
water in this region is generally high in salt content, water quality in the
basin seasonally deteriorates (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1976b). For
example, during the water years 1959-1963, mean TDS concentrations in the
Yampa River at Maybell, the Little Snake at Lily, and the White River at
Watson during low discharge months were 317, 532, and 601 mg/liter,
respectively (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1971). These values
can be compared to mean concentrations of 112, 147, and 303 mg/liter,
respectively, at the same sites during high runoff months of the same time
frame (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1971).
Fox (1977) states, "A large effort is currently underway by the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Forum (1975) to mitigate these impacts (of high salinity)
in the Colorado River Basin," including the White and Yampa River Basins.
Approximately 5 percent of the annual TDS load, or 408 million kg/year, of the
Upper Colorado River is contributed by the Yampa River Basin (Wentz and Steele
1976). Average annual TDS loading from the White River at Watson has been
reported at 300 million kg/year (U.S. Economic Research Service et al. 1966).
Naturally saline ground-water seeps are contributing total dissolved
solids in both the White and Yampa Basins. McCall-Ellingson and Morrill, Inc.
(1974) state that "the aquifer that gives the White River its excellent base
flow also appears to be high in TDS." Underlying the Piceance and Yellow
Creek drainages is an artesian aquifer which likewise releases warm,
mineralized water to the surface. Impact from this source is greatest during
late summer and winter when less dilution is available from snowmelt (U.S.
Economic Research Service et al. 1966). In the Yampa Basin at Steamboat
Springs, approximately 22 thermal springs discharge a total of 0.2 mVsecond
of saline water to the surface. This discharge, which contains average TDS
concentrations of 5,000 to 6,000 mg/liters (lorns et al. 1965), contributes
an estimated 8 million kg of dissolved solids to the basin annually (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency 1971). The spring water is primarily
74
-------
TABLE 25. WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS AT SELECTED STATIONS IN THE WHITE AND
YAMPA RIVER BASINS, 1975 AND 1977
in
South Fork White
at
Buford
Parameter 1975
Conductivity
(ymho/cm) 284
TDS (nig/liter) ---
Calcium
(mg/liter)
Sodium
(mg/liter)
Magnesium
(mg/liter)
Potassium
(mg/liter)
Bicarbonate
(mg/liter)
Sulfate
(mg/liter)
Chloride
(mg/liter)
1977
276
172
42
3
9
1
141
30
1
White
below
Meeker
1975
554
384
69
34
19
2
178
128
29
1977
701
471
80
44
23
2
197
164
42
White Yampa Yampa
at mouth at below
near Ouray Steamboat Springs Craig
1975
742
484
63
67
25
2
228
167
32
1977
976
653
71
110
30
3
267
240
51
1975
269
187
36
11
12
2
148
34
4
1977 1975
239 323
187
29
20
10
2
115
50
9
1977
345
377
30
181
10
2
141
65
6
Yampa
near
Maybe! 1
1975
474
332
40
43
20
4
176
110
16
1977
488
415
33
153
16
3
176
89
34
-------
comprised of sodium, bicarbonate and chloride, but also contains significant
levels of fluoride and boron.
Erosion from shale outcrops throughout the study area is also a
significant nonpoint source of salinity loading. Particularly in the western
arid stretches of the basins, where vegetation cover is poorly developed,
large quantities of salts are released from erosion of shale formations during
summer thunderstorms.
Sources
Man's industrial activities increase IDS levels primarily through salt
loading processes. Abandoned oil fields are a source of salinity increases in
both the White and Yampa River Basins. In the Yampa Basin, release of saline
water from the lies Dome oil field near Lloyd, Colorado, has been reported
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1971) to contribute 15 thousand kg of
salt/day (5.6 million kg/year). Saline contributions have also been recorded
from the now abandoned Williams oil field. Fox (1977) reported that the
greatest incremental increase in IDS levels in the White River occurs between
Buford and Meeker. This stretch of river includes Meeker Spring (Meeker
Dome), an abandoned well that was historically a major source of highly saline
ground water and surface runoff. Before the well was plugged in 1968, it
discharged over 143 thousand kg of dissolved residue per day (Kinney et al.
1978). Flows from the well were reduced from 0.1 m3/second to 0.04 m3/minute
after plugging. However, by 1969 saline seeps had already developed in the
surrounding area and the Bureau of Reclamation (1976) estimated that brine
flow from the region contributes 52 million kg of salt to the White River
annually.
Mining and milling activities can increase IDS levels both through salt
loading and salt concentrating effects. The coal industry can contribute
salts through seepage from waste holding ponds, tailings piles, and direct
discharge of process wastes (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1971).
Opportunity for IDS loading from mining areas will be greatest during episodic
summer rainfall as a result of erosion of overburden, and runoff through
spoils and coal layers high in salts and trace elements (Table 26). Some
pollution of streams could result as ground water is pumped out of mine pits
and discharged to surface drainages. Studies done at mines presently operated
by Energy Fuels Corporation in the Yampa Basin (U.S. Bureau of Land Management
1976b) have shown that "water in Foidel Creek below the influx of water from
the mining pits was measured to be higher in TDS than water upstream from the
influent," and "chemical quality of water could conceivably cause a
deterioration in yields from irrigated crops." Water quality data for the
Edna Mine on Trout Creek shows a similar trend (Table 27). It is expected
that by 1990 leaching of mine spoils from coal areas in the Yampa Basin will
produce 4.5 million kg/year of dissolved solid load, resulting in a TDS
increase of approximately 1 mg/liter in the Colorado River below Hoover Dam
(U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1976a). Although not substantial in itself,
even this small increase could be of great significance to water consumers in
the lower Colorado Basin, where salinity levels are already borderline for
many beneficial uses.
76
-------
TABLE 26. CONCENTRATIONS OF SALTS AND TRACE ELEMENTS IN COAL AND OVERBURDEN
(modified from Rusek et al. 1978)
Element
Arsenic
Barium
Bismuth
Bromine
Boron
Cadmi urn
Calcium
Cerium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Fl uorine
Gal lium
Germanium
Iodine
Iron
Lanthanum
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Coal
(mg/liter)
0.30
69
0.2
0.30
42
0.19
4,000
13
130
4.5
2.3
25
5.7
8.7
0.33
0.20
1,600
5.8
3.9
4,500
30
3.0
Overburden
(mg/liter)
1.8
425
0.2
10.0
60
100
25
55
15
1.5
30
13
950
1.5
Element
Coal Overburden
(mg/liter) (mg/liter)
Neodymi urn
Nickel
Niobium
Phosphorus
Potassium
Praseodymi urn
Rubidium
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium
Silver
Sodi urn
Strontium
Sulfur
Tell urium
Titanium
Uranium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Zinc
Zirconium
8.3
2.7
20
380
410
4.7
3.0
1.7
1.3
0.32
0.22
5,000
100
6,100
0.25
620
1.9
12
7.7
10
76
28
75
20
90
22
375
135
33
70
165
Blanks indicate data not reported in reference.
Other energy developments may potentially affect salinity levels in the
study area. Water withdrawals for activation of the proposed Craig Station
powerplant will produce an increase of 1 mg/liter TDS in the Yampa River at
Maybell (Utah International, Inc. 1974). Kinney et al. (1979) estimated that
withdrawals for development of a 159 million liter (1 million barrel)/day oil
shale industry in the White Basin could ultimately increase TDS levels at
Hoover Dam by 10 to 27 mg/liter depending on the quality of water used.
Salinity impact from this development would be more gradual than from a salt
loading source; however, as surface water withdrawals increase and usable
quality ground-water supplies decrease, the salinity effects of the industry
would become more pronounced.
77
-------
TABLE 27. WATER QUALITY DATA, MAY 1974, FROM EDNA MINE, TROUT CREEK, COLORADO
(modified from McWhorter et al. 1975)
Station*
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C3
CP1
Runoff
Temperature
(ฐC)
4.0
5.0
12.0
9.5
14.0
9.0
8.0
10.0
-
-
>>
r- O
l- TO IT
i O dj
.*: d -i-
ea; ~^f
90
96
68
120
140
120
280
130
220
-
s_
yi O
1/1 <->
0) -r-
c: .
S- 01
3 -
89
96
1,700
330
2,000
250
2,400
300
1,700
-
ry
7.9
7.9
7.6
8.1
7.9
8.1
7.6
3.2
7.8
-
Conductivity
(iiinho)
208
209
2,450
528
3,160
541
5,360
650
2,680
-
VO
a
^_
130
140
2,120
340
2,760
400
4,690
480
2,500
3,100
i_
<"
5 ฃ
50
50
480
100
440
98
470
130
450
440
QJ GJ
-o *->
O \
, crป
J= E
t_j
1.7
1.0
2.5
1.9
2.7
1.8
7.8
2.2
3.8
2.4
'otassium
my/1 iter)
4
4
13
6
52
10
410
18
16
18
lagnesium
^mg/liter)
10
10
150
27
240
25
230
31
200
290
S-
01
Z3 i
-5 Cl
0 E
4
4
13
6
52
10
410
13
16
18
CD
O 4->
la
13
160
130
190
130
190
150
170
-
*C1 = Surface water sample from Trout Creek above all active mining on the water shed.
C2 = Surface water sample from Trout Creek immediately abo-ve the Edna Mine.
C3 = -Water sample from surface and subsurface drainage tributary to Trout Creek near the southwest
limit of spoil area.
C4 = Surface water sample from Trout Creek below the south mined area and immediately above the
active north mined area.
Co = Water sample from surface and subsurface drainage tributary to Trout Creek between the south
and north mined area.
C6 = Surface water sample from Trout Creek near the downstream limit of mining ana immediately
above irrigation diversion.
C7 = Ground-water sample from seepage face immediately below the north mined area.
C8 = Surface sample from Trout Creek at the downstream limit of mining activity.
CP1 = Ground-water sample from ouservation well near station G4.
Runoff = Direct surface runoff from a spoil bank in the south mined area.
Irrigation activities also increase salinity levels in the basin. Wentz
and Steele (1976) state that "the trend in increasing salinity for the Yampa
River is attributed to increasing demands using surface water for agricultural
and municipal purposes." A large percentage of total water applied for
irrigation may be lost to evapotranspiration, particularly in the summer
months. Since this lost water is salt free, the net effect of this
concentration can be two-fold or greater increases in salt levels in the
irrigation return flow. Irrigation runoff in the Yampa River Basin
contributes approximately 93 thousand kg of dissolved solids per day (34
million kg/year); approximately 18 thousand kg are added daily (6.7 million
kg/year) to the White River drainage from irrigation return flows (U.S. Bureau
of Land Management 1976a).
78
-------
Impact--
The EPA water quality criteria for both chlorides and sulfates (Table 28)
in domestic water supplies is 250 nig/liter (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency 1976b). The sulfate criterion was imposed due to the anion's cathartic
effect especially when associated with magnesium and sodium. Chloride levels
in excess of the 250 mg/liter criterion, particularly in association with
calcium and magnesium, tend to produce problems in corrosiveness. Both
cations affect water taste when in concentrations in excess of 300-500
mg/liter (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1976b).
The sulfate cirterion has been exceeded between 1971-78 at most USGS
stations examined in the White River Basin downstream from Meeker. In the
Yampa Basin, the criterion was exeeded at a few tributary sampling sites, and
in the mainstream Yampa River immediately below the Little Snake River at a
site maintained by the Colordo State Health Department. The maximum sulfate
value reported in the two basins was 1,700 mg/liter, observed in Sage Creek at
the mouth (Yampa Basin), and at the mouth of Douglas Creek (White Basin).
Chloride levels in excess of the EPA drinking water criterion have been
reported at the mouth of Piceance Creek. The maximum recorded excess value
during the study period was 1,000 mg/liter, reported during summer, 1971. It
should be noted that no excessive value for chloride has been observed at that
site since 1973. However, chloride concentrations are consistently higher at
this site and at the mouth of Yellow Creek than at any other stations examined
in the White or Yampa Basins.
Tables of water hardness in the study basins are presented in Appendix B.
Sawyer's classification of water according to hardness content (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency 1976b) is given in Table 29. Although water
hardness is not a direct indicator of water quality, it is a factor in the
toxicity of various metals in aquatic life (Fox 1977) and should be carefully
monitored in regions expected to receive increasing impact from trace elements
such as from mine or oil shale areas.
In the White River Basin, all the mainstem stations, as well as the site
on the South Fork White River, have mean annual hardness values which are
considered moderately hard, to hard by Sawyer's classification. The stations
examined in the Douglas, Yellow and Piceance Creek drainages are all very
hard, with the exception of three sites in the Yellow Creek drainage which are
in the moderately hard category. These latter three sites, however, were
sampled once or twice during 1971-78, and are not necessarily representative
of annual chemical conditions in the area. In the Yampa River Basin, stations
examined generally fell into the moderately hard, to hard categories. Only
four sites, those on Foidel, Middle, Fish and South Fork Williams Creeks, were
classified as very hard. It should be noted that these hardness
classifications are based on mean annual values, but within a given stream
there are frequently large variations in hardness content across time. This
variability is most likely associated with changes in ion dominance resulting
from periods of high runoff.
79
-------
TABLE 28. WATER QUALITY CRITERIA REDCOMMENDED BY THE NATIONAL ACADEMY
OF SCIENCES (1973)*
Criteria For:
Parameter
(total form)
Al umi num
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chi orides
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Dissolved oxygen
Fl uoride
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nitrate nitrogen
Nitrite nitrogen
pH
Selenium
Silver
Sul fates
Vanadium
Zinc
Drinking Water
(mg/liter)
0.05t
l.Ot
O.Olt
250*
o.ost
1.0*
0.2
--
1.4-2.4t
0.3*
O.OBt
0.05*
0.002t
--
--
10. Ot
1.0
5.0-9.0
O.Olt
0.05t
250*
5.0*
Livestock
(mg/liter)
5.0
0.2
__
5.0
0.05
_ _
1.0
0.5
__
--
2.0
__
0.05-0.1
__
0.01
--
100.0
10.0
__
0.05
__
0.1
25.0
Aquatic Life
(mg/liter)
mm mm
__
0.011-1.100*
__
0.0004-0.012*
_ ซ
0.1*
AF
0.005*
5.0
1.0*
0.03
__
__
0.05 pg/1
AF
--
--
6.5-9.0
__
AF
Irrigation
(mg/liter)
5.0
0.1*
0.1-0.5*
0.75*
0.01
__
0.1
0.2
_ _
1.0
5.0
5.0
2.5
0.2
iter*
0.01
0.2
--
_ _
0.02
__
__
0.1
2.0
* Those parameters for which drinking water regulations (1975) or quality
criteria (19765) have been established by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency are specially indicated, and in this table replace
the older NAS recommended levels.
t U.S. EPA (1975)
* U.S. EPA (1976b)
AF Application Factor. Indicates criterion for this parameter must be
separately established for each water body.
80
-------
TABLE 29. SAWYER'S CLASSIFICATION OF WATER ACCORDING TO HARDNESS CONTENT
(modified from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1976b)
Concentration
of CaCo3 (mg/liter) Description
0-75 Soft
75 - 150 Moderately hard
150 - 300 Hard
300 and up Very hard
High salinity concentrations and hard water have several adverse effects
on municipal water supplies aside from drinking water considerations. If
water softening is not practiced, soap and detergent consumption increases
resulting in increased nutrients and other environmental pollution, and higher
treatment costs in the community. Where water softening is practiced,
treatment costs rise with the degree of hardness. Dissolved solids and
hardness also play a role in corrosion, scaling of metal water pipes and
heaters, and acceleration of fabric wear (U.S. Environmental Protection Agnecy
1976b).
Description of the impact of total dissolved solid concentrations on
irrigation waters in arid and semiarid areas is presented in Table 30 (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency 1976b). In the Yampa River Basin, mean annual
TDS values at most of the stations were less than 500 mg/liter for the time
period 1971-78. Those sites which exceeded this limit, Foidel Creek at the
mouth, Fish Creek near Milner, and occasionally Williams. Fork at mouth, and
the Little Snake River near Baggs and near Lily, were all within the second
impact category, i.e., water which can have detrimental effects on sensitive
crops. In the White River Basin, the mainstem stations examined generally
contained mean annual TDS concentrations less than 500 mg/liter, although mean
values at the mouth near Ouray were double those in the headwater stretches
and occasionally did surpass the recommended value. Mean TDS levels in
Douglas, Yellow and Piceance Creeks were consistently in excess of this
recommended value, with the highest concentrations in the basin observed at
the mouth of Yellow Creek (mean range = 2,374 mg/liter to 3,070 mg/liter).
However, information at a number of stations, particularly in the intermittent
Yellow Creek drainage, is based on limited data which may not be
representative of normal salinity conditions.
Excessive salinity in irrigation water reduces corp yields, limits the
types of crops grown in an area, and can affect soil structure, permeability
81
-------
TABLE 30. TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS HAZARD FOR IRRIGATION WATER
(modified from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1976b)
Description TDS (mg/liter)
Water from which no detrimental effects will
usually be noticed 500
Water which can have detrimental effects on
sensitive crops 500-1,000
Water that may have adverse effects on many crops
and requires careful management practices 1,000-2,000
Water that can be used for tolerant plants on
permeable soils with careful management practices 2,000-5,000
and aeration. Salt adversely impacts plants primarily by decreasing osmotic
action and thereby reducing water uptake. The effects of salinity on
irrigation are determined not only by the total amount of dissolved soilds
present, but also by the individual ion composition of the water (Utah State
University 1975). Certain plants are sensitive to high concentrations of
sulfates and chlorides. Large amounts of calcium can inhibit potassium
uptake. Sodium causes plant damage at high concentrations because it
increases osmotic pressure and is toxic to some metabolic processes. It can
also affect soils adversely by breaking down granular structure, decreasing
permeability, and increasing pH values of those of alkaline soils. In 1954
the U.S. Salinity Laboratory proposed that the sodium hazard in irrigation
water be expressed as the sodium absorption ratio (SAR), SAR = Na/7%(Ca + Mg)
where Na, Ca, and Mg are expressed as concentrations in milliequivalents per
liter of water (McKee and Wolf 1963).
In the Yampa River Basin sodium levels were generally low. The National
Academy of Sciences (1973) suggested 270 mg/liter as the maximum recommended
sodium level in drinking water supplies. Mean annual sodium values never
exceeded this recommended limit in the Yampa Basin, although occasionally
excessive maximum values were observed in the Yampa River below Craig and near
Maybell, at the mouth of Williams Fork, and at the mouth of the Little Snake
River. Sodium data, however, were not collected during the 1971-78 study
period at 8 of the 24 Yampa River Basin stations examined for this report, and
collected only once during that time frame at 5 other locations. In the White
River Basin, mean annual sodium concentrations at the mouths of the Piceance
and Yellow Creeks were consistently in excess of the 270 mg/liter recommended
limit. Sodium absorption ratios are generally low throughout the basins: the
two maximum values reported in STORET at USGS tributary stations was 22 in
Sand Creek near Baggs, Wyoming (Yampa Basin), and 15 in a tributary to
Piceance Creek (White Basin). The U.S. EPA (1976b) states that 8 to 18 is
82
-------
considered the usable SAR range for general crops and forages. However,
special USGS sampling at several coal mine and oil shale locations in both
basins (Table 31) has reported SAR values well in excess of the recommended
range.
TABLE 31. U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY STATIONS AT MINE AND OIL SHALE SITES IN THE
YAMPA AND WHITE RIVER BASINS WITH REPORTD SODIUM ABSORPTION RATIOS
(SAR) IN EXCESS OF RECOMMENDED LIMITS
Latitude/Longitude STORET Description SAR
40001'32"/108015'38" Superior RB-ST #14 620
40025'55iyi07ฐ39'00" Wi se Hil 1 #5 (UC=12) 52
40ฐ51I45"/107ฐ50'55" Sewanee Coal Co. (UC=11) 39
Throughout many of the intermittent flowing tributaries in the study
basins, water is used largely for stock watering purposes. Total dissolved
solid concentrations in the basins are not generally restrictive in livestock
(Table 32).
Industrial users may be severely affected through use of water for cooling
or washing purposes which is high in total dissolved solids. Such water may
result in corrosion and encrustation of the metallic surfaces of pipes,
condensers, or other machinery parts. However, industrial reuqirements for
purity of water vary considerably (Table 33). Examination of TDS levels
throughout most of the Yampa and White River Basins (Appendix B) indicate that
most industrial needs could be met in those areas without any water treatment
efforts. However, at stations at the mouths of Piceance and Yellow Creeks,
mean annual TDS levels tend to be greater than 1,500 mg/liter and some form of
deionization would be required for some industrial uses. Oil shale
development in the Piceance Basin is likely to produce further degradation in
water quality. This factor could be limiting to future industrial advancement
in these regions of the study basins.
The impact of salinity on fish and wildlife is highly variable. Many
fish, for example, tolerate a wide range of total dissolved solid
concentrations; the whitefish can reportedly survive in waters containing TDS
levels as high as 15,000 mg/liter, and the stickleback can survive in
concentrations up to 20,000 mg/liter. Fish reproduction and growth may be
significantly affected during stress periods at considerably lower TDS
concentrations, however. The EPA (1976b) reports that generally water systems
with TDS level's greater than 15,000 mg/liter are unsuitable for most
83
-------
TABLE 32. TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS HAZARD FOR WATER USE BY LIVESTOCK
(modified from National Academy of Sciences 1973)
TDS in Water
(mg/liter) Comment
<1,000 Relatively low level of salinity. Excellent for all
classes of livestock and poultry.
1,000-2,999 Very satisfactory for all classes of livestock and poultry.
May cause temporary and mild diarrhea in livestock not
accustomed to these salinity levels or watery droppings
in poultry.
3,000-4,999 Satisfactory for livestock, but may cause temporary
diarrhea or be refused at first by animals not accustomed
to such salinity levels. Poor waters for poultry, often
causing watery feces, increased mortality, and decreased
growth, especially in turkeys.
5,000-6,999 Can be used with reasonable safety for dairy and beef
cattle, for sheep, swine, and horses. Avoid use for
pregnant or lactating animals. Not acceptable for poultry.
7,000-10,000 Unfit for poultry and probably for swine. Considerable
risk in using for pregnant or lactating cows, horses,
or sheep, or for the young of these species. In general, use
should be avoided although older ruminants, horses,
poultry, and swine may subsist on them under certain
conditions.
>10,000 Risks with these highly saline waters are so great that
they cannot be recommended for use under any conditions.
fresh-water fish. In the White and Yampa River Basins, TDS levels are well
below this recommended maximum figure.
Toxic Substances
Trace Elements--
Total mercury concentrations in surface water samples from 1971-78
exceeded the EPA's recommended standard for aquatic life (Table 28) in the
White River below Meeker, above Rangely, and the mouth near Ouray. The EPA
(1976b) aquatic life standard of 0.05 yg/liter for mercury in water was
established to insure safe levels in edible fish. Total mercury levels in
excess of the criterion were reported at 10 of the 24 Yampa River Basin
84
-------
TABLE 33. MAXIMUM TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS OF SURFACE WATERS
RECOMMENDED FOR USE AS SOURCES FOR INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLIES
(modified U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1976b)
Maximum Concentration
Industry/Use (mg/liter)
Textile 150
Pulp and paper 1,080
Chemical 2,500
Petroleum 3,500
Primary metals 1,500
Copper mining 2,100
Boiler makeup 35,000
stations examined for this report, including most of the mainstem Yampa River
below Elkhead Creek (4.5 yg/liter), in the White River at mouth (2.5
pg/liter), and in the White River above Rangely (1.5 pg/liter). In the White
River Basin, dissolved mercury concentrations exceeding the criterion have
been reported at every station examined downstream from Meeker with the
exception of several sites in the Piceance Creek drainage and at the mouth of
Douglas Creek. Some of these dissolved concentrations were quite high: 1.6
yg/liter in Black Sulfur Creek near Rio Blanco, and 1.1 yg/liter in the White
River above Rangely. The stations in the Yampa River below Elkhead Creek, and
in the White River at Ouray were also in excess of the recommended EPA
criterion for mercury levels in drinking water. Those beneficial uses
impacted by mercury and other trace element levels in excess of recommended
criteria throughout the Little Missouri and Belle Fourche River Basin are
presented in Table 34.
Concentrations of iron in waters of the study area are highly variable.
Nevertheless, between 1971 and 1978 total iron levels were reported in excess
of the recommended criteria for drinking water and aquatic life at 17 of the
24 Yampa River Basin stations. Many of these reported excesses are in streams
draining areas of active coal mining or past metal-mining sites (Wentz and
Steele 1976). In the White River Basin, 14 of the 24 stations contained
either total or dissolved iron concentrations in excess of the recommended
criteria. The EPA drinking water criteria for iron was established to prevent
objectionable taste and laundry staining (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
85
-------
TABLE 34. PARAMETERS EXCEEDING U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (1976c)
OR NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (1973) WATER QUALITY CRITERIA, 1970-78 AT
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY STATIONS IN THE WHITE AND YAMPA RIVER BASINS
Station
Number
Yampa River
2360
2395
2410
2437
2439
2441
2000
2443
2444
4100
4400
2450
2465
2476
2490
2492
3500
2497
2510
2570
2500
2597
2600
26005
White River
3030
3040
3042
3045
3048
3060
30606
3061
3062
30621
30622
30623
30624
306248
30625
306255
1200
3063
30638
3064
3065
3066
3067
3069
2476
2600
Cadmium
DU ,AL , 1
DW.AL.I
DW.AL.I
DW.AL.I
DW ,AL , I
DW.AL.I
DW ,AL , I
DW.AL.I
DW.AL.I
DW.AL.I
DW ,AL , I
DW.AL.I
DU ,AL , I
DW.AL.I
DW ,AL , I
DW.AL.I
DW ,AL , I
DW.AL.I
DW ,AL , I
DW.AL.I
DW.AL.I
DW.AL.I
DU ,AL , I
DU.AL.I
DW.AL.I
DW ,AL , I
AL*
AL*
AL*
AL*
AL*
AL*
DW*,L*,AL*,I*
DW.AL.I
DW ,AL , I
AL*
AL*
AL
AL*
Lead
DU.AL.L
DW.AL.L
DW,AL,L
DW.AL.L
DU.Al.il.
DW.AL.L
DW.AL.L
DW.AL.L
DW.AL.L
DW.AL.L
OW.AL.L
DW,AL,L
DW.AL.L
DW.AL.L
DW.AL.L
OW.AL.L
DW.AL.L
DW.AL.L
OW.AL.L
DW.AL.L
DW.AL.L
DW.AL.L
DW.AL.L
DW.AL.L
DW.L.AL
AL*
DW.L.AL
DW.L.AL
DW.L.AL
DW.L.AL
DW.L.AL
Iron
DW.AL
DU ,AL
DU ,AL
DW
DW.AL
DW.AL
DU
DW.AL
DW.AL
DW.AL
DW.AL.I
DU ,AL
DU.AL.I
DW,AL,1
DW
DW
DU ,AL , I
DU*
DW,AL,DW*,AL*
DW*
DW*
DW
DW.L.AL
DW*
DW*
DW.AL
DW.AL.I
DU
DU*,AL*
DW ,AL , I
AL
Manganese Mercury
DW
DW,I
DW,DW*,I*
DW.I
OW.I
DW*
DW
DW.I
DW.I
DU
DW
DW.I
DW.I
DU
DU.I
DW.DW*
DW*,I*
DW*,I*
DW*
DW*,I*
DW*,I
DW.I
DW,DW*,I*
DW*.I*
DW
DW.I
DW*
DW.I
AL
AL*
AL
AL
AL ,AL*
AL
DW.AL
AL
AL
AL.AL*
AL
AL
AL*
AL*
AL*
AL*
AL*
AL*
AL*
AL*
AL
AL*
AL*
AL
AL*
DW.AL
Sul fates Copper
DW
DW L,I,L*I*
DW
I
DW L.I
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW I
DW
DW
DW
DW I*
DW I,DW*.AL*,I*
DW.L.I DW.AL.I
(continued)
86
-------
TABLE 34. (Continued)
Station
Number
3048
3060
3061
30606
3062
30621
30622
30624
30625
306255
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3069
Cyanide
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
DW.AL
Fluoride
I*
OW*,I*
I*
DW.L.I
DW*,L*,I*
DW*,L*,I*
I*
Dissolved
Oxygen Beryllium Molybdenum Arsenic Chromium
AL
DW*,AL*,I*
I*
I*
I*
AL
AL 1,1*
AL I
I.I*
AL DW.I DW.AL.I
AL
AL
AL DU.I DW.AL.I
Selenium
Chloride ฃH
Al urni num
Boron
Nickel
2443 DW.I
4400 DW.L.I DW.AL
30606
3061
30622 DW
306255
3063 L.I
3069 L,I
I*
I*
I*
I
I
Note: Full station descriptions are given in Tables 23 and 24. Beneficial use codes are designated as
follows: AL = aquatic life, DU = drinking water, L = livestock, I = irrigation. For cadmium
and lead, most observed concentrations are below detection range; minimum detection value,
however, exceeds indicated criteria.
*Dissolved value; when total concentrations for a given parameter were listed in STORET, and
in excess of recommended criteria, data on dissolved forms were not recorded here regardless
of whether these data were available.
1976b). Iron levels in the Yampa River below Craig and near Maybell, Little
Snake River near the mouth, Williams Fork at the mouth, Piceance Creek at the
White River, and the White River above Rangely and at the mouth near Ouray
also periodically exceeded the recommended criterion for irrigation waters.
Iron criteria violations were greatest at the mouth of the Little Snake River
(maximum total value = 480,000 yg/liter) and in the White River above Rangely
(maximum total value = 240,000 yg/liter). High concentrations of iron can be
fatal to aquatic organisms. Mine drainage, ground water, and industrial
wastes are major sources of iron pollution.
Manganese concentrations were also highly variable. Similar to iron,
manganese levels, in either the total or dissolved forms, frequently exceeded
the recommended criteria for irrigation and domestic water supplies throughout
87
-------
both study basins. Excessive total manganese concentrations in the Yampa
River Basin ranged from 80 yg/liter in the South Fork Williams Fork to 19,000
vig/liter in the Little Snake River at mouth. In the White River Basin, total
manganese concentrations exceeding the recommended criteria ranged from 90
yg/liter in the White River below Meeker to 7,000 yg/liter in the White River
above Rangely. The 50.0 yg/liter criterion for drinking water was established
by the EPA to minimize staining of laundry and objectionable taste effects.
These undesirable qualities of manganese may increase when in combination with
even low concentrations of iron (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1976b).
Lead was reported at levels in "excess" of recommended drinking water,
aquatic life and livestock criteria throughout the Yampa River Basin and at a
number of stations in the White River Basin. Maximum concentrations were
highest in the Little Snake River at the mouth (900 yg/liter), the White River
above Rangely (400 yg/liter), and the Yampa River at Hayden and the White
River at Ouray (300 yg/liter). However, there are problems in interpretation
for much of the data on total lead as a result of interferences in analytical
methods. In many cases, data points are reported as "known to be less than
100." Since the EPA criteria for drinking water, aquatic life and livestock
are under this minimum detection value, it is impossible to determine in those
cases whether recommended limits have been exceeded or not.
Cadmium values equal to or in excess of criteria for aquatic life,
drinking water and irrigation were frequently reported at these same stations;
however, there are similar problems of interpretation with cadmium data as
with lead data due to limitations in analytical methods. Maximum
concentrations of several trace elements and salts, including selenium,
beryllium, copper, arsenic, chromium, cyanide, fluoride, molybdenum, boron,
nickel and aluminum were occasionally in excess of recommended levels
throughout the two study basins. Unusually high concentrations of chromium
have been recorded in bottom sediments of the Yampa River below Craig (Wentz
and Steele 1976) which were associated with industrial discharge from that
community. Stations in the White River above Rangely, and at the mouth near
Ouray, at times contained especially high levels of trace elements: total
cyanide concentrations of 9,000 yg/liter, and total aluminium concentrations
of 220,000 yg/liter have been reported at the latter site. It should be noted
that the EPA alumium criterion of 5,000 yg/liter was established for waters
used for irrigation and livestock. Bioassay tests have suggested that
considerably lower concentrations (<1,000 yg/liter) may be necesary for
adequate maintenance of aquatic life (Fox 1977). The Colorado Department of
Health has recommended establishment of a state aluminum standard of 100
yg/liter (Table 35).
Fox (1977) observed temporal trends in the concentrations of many trace
elements in the White River. Chromium, lead, and zinc were generally reported
higher during "low flow," suggesting these elements are largely contributed
through ground-water discharges to the river. Aluminum, cadmium, and iron
were generally higher during the "high flow" events, reflecting a combination
of natural erosive actions and runoff from active or abandoned mining and oil
shale sites. Both arsenic and cadmium, which are highly toxic in excessive
concentrations, are common constituents of rocks in the area, and Kinney
88
-------
TABLE 35. PROPOSED WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE STATE OF COLORADO
(modified from Fox 1977)
Parameter
Units
Proposed Standard*
Temperature
pH
Dissolved oxygen
Total suspended sediments
Magnesi urn
Chloride
Al umi n urn
Arsenic
Cadmi urn
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Boron
Fluoride
Ni tratem
Total phosphorus
ฐC
S.U.
mg/liter
mg/1 iter
mg/liter
mg/liter
yg/liter
yg/liter
yg/liter
yg/liter
yg/liter
yg/liter
yg/liter
yg/liter
" yg/liter
yg/liter
yg/liter
yg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter as N
mg/liter as P
30
6.5-9.0
5.0
25(maximum allowed
due to man' s
activities)
125
250
100
10
0.4
50
10
500 '
4
200
10
0.1
50
750
2
4 ("alert" level)
0.1
* Values shown are based on the most restrictive water use and water
hardness encountered in the White River study area.
et al. (1979) report they may be released to the aquatic ecosystem through
weathering of the exposed bedrock, or as leachates from spent shale. Data
collected during 1975 from Sage Creek at the mouth (Yampa Basin) also
contained very high concentrations of cooper, lead, and vanadium (Wentz and
Steele 1976). Wentz and Steele suggested these elevated values were a result
of cooling tower blowdown being released from the power plant near Hayden.
However, subsequent data did not show this phenomenon, perhaps due to a
curtailment of plant-effluent discharges since that time.
Pesticides--
Data on pesticides in the study area covered by this report are limited.
Pesticide concentrations in those samples that have been collected by the USGS
in the study basins were never reported in excess of EPA recommended criteria
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1976b).
89
-------
It might be expected that additional pesticides will be contributed to the
river system as a result of expanding irrigation activities. Since many of
these widely used chemicals are highly resistant to degradation and frequently
persist in toxic form, this potential pollution source should be carefully
monitored. Kinney et al. (1979) have stated,"In the Colorado River Basin,
pesticides may constitute the greatest potential hazard of all toxic
substances of nonpoint source origin." Deleterious impact from pesticides may
be immediately produced as a result of localized spills, or more gradual
through residual accumulation in the aquatic environment. An update of
information and an expansion of stations being tested in both the White and
Yampa River Basins is needed before an accurate evaluation of conditions can
be made.
Organic Compounds
The EPA (1976b) has recommended that total phenolic compounds should not
exceed 1 yg/liter in waters used for domestic water supplies and to protect
against fish flesh tainting. Virtually every station in the White and Yampa
River Basins at which total phenols were sampled occasionally either equalled
or exceeded this recommended limit. These criterion excesses were greatest in
Evacuation Creek in the White Basin, where total phenol concentrations reached
a maximum of 25 yg/liter. The EPA (1976b) reports that lowered dissolved
oxygen concentrations, increased salinity, and increased temperatures all
enhance the toxicity of phenolic compounds. In the White and Yampa River
Basins this phenomenon is apparently a wide scale and natural one, certainly
associated with open stretches of exposed crude oil shale, such as are found
in the Evacuation Creek drainage. An expansion of the number of stations
being monitored for phenolic compounds is recommended, particularly in light
of proposed mine and oil shale development in this area already high in
organic chemical content.
Radioactive Substances--
Radioactive elements are being monitored occasionally by the US6S at a
number of stations throughout the study area. Based on these limited data, it
appears that radioactivity is not a problem in surface waters of this region,
since concentrations are generally below the EPA (1976a) Drinking Water
Regulations for radionuclides (Table 36). However, more data are necessary
before a reliable assessment of radioactivity levels in the White and Yampa
River Basins can be made.
It should be noted that high levels of radioactive elements have been
reported at some sites in the Upper Colorado Basin. Kinney et al. (1979)
report that maxiumum gross alpha readings of 40 picocuries/liter (pCi/liter),
with a mean concentration of 12 pCi/liter, have been recorded in the Green
River near Green River, Utah. Greatest potential for releases of natually
occurring radionuclides exists in development of the oil shale industry in the
White River Basin, either through atmospheric emissions expected from the
mining, retorting, and upgrading operations, or through leaching of the spent
shale piles which still contain most of the uranium and radium inherent to the
ore (Kinney et al. 1979).
90
-------
TABLE 36. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
FOR SELECTED RADIONUCLIDES (modified from U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency 1976a)
Allowable Level*
Radionuclide (pCi/liter)
Tritium (H3) 20,000
Strontium-90 8
Radium-226,228 (combined) 5
Gross alpha (excluding radon and uranium) 15
No specific limits for allowable concentrations have been set for
radionuclides not shown on this table. For those, it is merely
specified that their combined dose should not exceed 4 mrem per
year to the whole body or to any internal organ.
Suspended Sediments
Suspended sediments are those organic and mineral materials which are
released to a watershed from a combination of channel erosion and overland
runoff, and which are maintained in suspension by turbulent currents or
through colloidal suspension. During periods of high flow, bank erosion is
escalated and greater water velocities provide increased energy for scouring
and transport of sediments. Many inorganic elements such as trace metals are
absorbed and adsorbed onto moving sediment particles making suspended
sediments an important transport mechanism. Sediment levels are also
important because of their potential impact on light penetration, water
temperature and chemical solubility, and aquatic biota (such as abrasive
action on aquatic life or the elimination of benthic habitats and spawning
areas by settleable solids which blanket the streambeds). In the Yampa and
White River Basins, suspended sediment data are relatively sparse (Appendix B)
and concentrations appear to vary substantially from drainage to drainage.
However, the limited data indicate that suspended sediment levels in areas of
the study basins, especially in the Piceance, Yellow, and downstream Snake
River drainage, exceed the limits recommended for the maintenance of
freshwater fisheries (Table 37).
The mean annual sediment load to the Yampa River at Maybell between 1950
and 1958 was reported at 272 million kg (U.S. Bureau of Land Management
1976a). lorns et al. (1965) estimated that 1.6 billion kg/year of sediment is
contributed annually by the entire Yampa Basin. Subsequent studies indicate
91
-------
TABLE 37. SUSPENDED SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR MAINTENANCE OF
FRESHWATER FISHERIES (modified from Kinney et al. 1979)
Suspended Sediment
in Water (mg/liter) Comment
<25 Concentrations not expected to have any harmful
effects on fisheries.
25-80 Possible to maintain good or moderate fisheries
in waters with this level of supsended sediments.
However, yields of fish from these waters may be
lower than those yielded from lower sediment
concentrations.
80-400 Unlikely to support good freshwater fisheries,
although fisheries may be found at the lower
concentrations within this range.
>400 At best, only poor fisheries can be expected
from waters that typically contain these levels
of suspended sediments.
that the suspended sediment load from the Yampa Basin is approximately 20
percent higher than originally estimated by lorns et al. (Wentz and Steele
1976) and that the Yampa River contributes 1.5 percent of the suspended
sediments in the upper Colorado Basin (Fox 1977). Suspended sediment
discharge in the Upper White River at Buford is approxiamtely 30 million
kg/year U.S. Economic Research Service et al. 1966) and is certainly much
greater than this downstream at the mouth.
The vast majority of this loading is attributable to agricultural runoff,
although municipal, industrial, and transportation activities also contribute
suspended sediments to the basins. Sediment loading in the study area is
cyclic, being highest during spring runoff, and lowest during summer and fall
periods of low flow. In the Yampa Basin, mean annual sediment contributions
from the Little Snake River are an order of magnitude greater than in the
Yampa mainstem (Wentz and Steele 1976). Even though the Little Snake
contributes less than 30 percent of the Yampa Basin streamflow, it provides
nearly 69 percent of the sediment load (Andrew 1978). Most of the natural
sediments are contributed from drier, lower elevations of the basins where
insufficient ground cover exists to fully protect arid soils from erosion
(U.S. Bureau of Land Managment 1976a). The problem of erosion is intensified
by heavy livestock grazing that further depletes the vegetation cover.
92
-------
In the Yampa River Basin, most of the coal development proposed is in
upstream higher elevations that receive greater amounts of rainfall and
support sufficient vegetation that erosion is presently not a problem (U.S.
Bureau of Land Management 1976a). Mining and related activities including
construction of haul roads and railways, population increases, and
construction of power plants and mine facilities, all create a potential for
an increase in sediment yield from these presently low yield areas. Energy
developments in the Yampa Basin are expected to contribute 27 million kg of
sediment per year by 1990 and could destroy much of the aquatic habitat at the
impact locale (U.S. Bureau of Land Mangement 1976a). However, the
significance of this increase sediment loading will vary depending on where
within the basin it enters the stream channel. Sediment increases from
projected mining activities in the Yampa Basin will be equivalent to 2 percent
of the present total basin sediment load; however, the same increase would
elevate the sediment load of the upstream Yampa River as much as 30 percent
(Andrews 1978). In the White River Basin, oil shale development around
Piceance and Yellow Creeks is expected will as much as triple sediment
loadings to that drainage (Figure 13).
(0
o
T-
X
(M
0)
o
.2
Sediment
^9
7200-1
6750-
6300-
5850-
5400-
4950-
4500-
4050-
3600-
3150-
2700-
2250-
1800-
1350-
900-
450-
Normal
Disturbed
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982
Year
Figure 13. Possible sediment yields under normal and disturbed conditions
in the oil shale region of the White River in Colorado.
(modified from University of Wisconsin 1976)
93
-------
Nutrients
Nutrient levels in the study area are generally low except during periods
of high runoff from snowmelt and storms. In both basins, agricultural runoff
and sewage are the major sources of nutrient loadings. Phosphorus
concentrations in the White River tend to increase downstream; Fox (1977)
reports that downstream phosphorus levels are "in sufficient concentrations to
warrant concern over excessive algal growth should the waters in the lower
White River be impounded." In the Yampa River Basin nutrients are largely
contributed from sewage treatment discharges at Steamboat Springs, Hayden, and
Craig (Utah International Inc. 1974), and from spring snowmelt when "runoff is
rich in nitrogen, and probably phosphate, as it drains areas where cattle and
sheep have been feeding during the winter" (U.S. Bureau of Land Management
1976b).
Any future irrigation projects will contribute additional nutrients to the
study area. Nutrients may also be contributed by the oil shale industry in
the White River Basin through runoff from raw and spent shales, commercial
fertilizers, stack emissions, and ground-water discharges (Kinney et al.
1979). Increased sewage and urban runoff, a result of the expected population
expansion from proposed irrigation projects and energy developments, could
further increase nutrient concentrations in the rivers if they are not
carefully controlled. McCal1-Ellingson and Morrill, Inc. (1974) have reported,
"The major pollution that lowers stream water quality in the [Yampa] basin is
inadequately treated municipal sewage." Nutrient contamination to
ground-water supplies from septic tank effluents around the communities of
Yampa, Phippsburg, Milner, Maybe11, Buford, and Rid Blanco has been reported
as one of the top five nonpoint discharges that affect water quality in the
analysis area (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1976a).
Temperature
Temperature is a significant parameter for stable aquatic systems. It
controls the geographical dispersal of biotic communities, is related to
ambient concentrations of dissolved gases, and affects the distribution of
chemical solutes in lentic water bodies through the phenomenon of
stratification.
In general, raw data trends in the study basins indicate that water
temperature increases gradually as one moves downstream, and is highest in
July, August, and September and lowest in December, January, and February.
Wentz and Steele (1976) noted similar annual cyclic temperature patterns in
the Yampa Basin; diurnal temperature variability in the White River has been
studied by Fox (1977) and Bauer et al. (1978).
It should be noted that elevated stream temperatures have been reported in
the Yampa River downstream from Sage Creek (Bauer et al. 1978). These
increased temperatures were attributed to thermal-heated effluent discharges
that were released to Sage Creek from the Hayden Powerplant until 1976, when a
cooling tower/evaporation and pond system was installed. Presently, there are
94
-------
no thermally heated waters being discharged into Sage Creek from the plant
(Bauer et al. 1978).
Dissolved Oxygen
Waters in the Yampa and White River Basins study region are generally well
aerated (Appendix B). The dissolved oxygen minimum established by the EPA
(1976b) for maintaining healthy fish populations is 5.0 mg/liter. Dissolved
oxygen values in the Yampa Basin from 1971-78 maintained this minimum level;
Bauer et al. (1978) reported DO concentrations in the upper basin are
generally within ฑ5 percent of saturation. USGS stations examined in the
White River Basin dropped below this level at six locations: Piceance Creek
near the White River (1.0 mg/liter minimum value), Piceance Creek at the White
River (4.9 mg/liter minimum), Corral Gulch at 84 Ranch (4.4 mg/liter minimum),
White River above Southam Canyon near Watson (2.4 mg/liter minimum). White
River below Asphalt Wash near Watson (3.8 mg/liter minimum), and White River
at mouth near Ouray (2.2 mg/liter minimum). For all six stations, dissolved
oxygen concentrations below the recommended criterion were observed in the
summer months between May and September.
Fox (1977) reported that dissolved oxygen levels in Yellow Creek were
generally lower than those observed throughout the rest of the White River
Basin, averaging 4.0 mg/liter. Those five USGS stations in the Yellow Creek
drainage examined in this report, for which dissolved oxygen data were
available between 1971 and 1978, do not support these findings, with mean
concentrations ranging from 7.4 to 10.9 mg/liter (Appendix B).
pH and Alkalinity
The ionic composition of water and, therefore, biological systems are
affected by pH. Waters in the study area are basically alkaline with pH
values usually between 7 and 9 (Appendix B). There are a few exceptions to
this: several stations in the White River Basin had minimum pH values ranging
from 6.3 to 6.9, and several maximum values recorded in the Yampa Basin ranged
from 9.1 to 9.3. In Sage Creek near Hayden (Yampa Basin) a single pH value of
2.1 was reported during September 1975; it is not known whether this highly
acidic reading was erroneous, or due to an episodic discharge from the
upstream coal-fired electric powerpi ant.
Alkalinity indicates the ability of water to resist wide fluctuations in
pH due to the addition of acids which may be detrimental to the aquatic
environment. It is influenced primarily by carbonate and bicarbonate but may
also be affected by phosphates, hydroxides, and other substances to a lesser
degree (Briggs and Ficke 1977). Waters in the study area are well buffered
and mean alkalinity values were generally greater than 100 mg/liter throughout
both basins. The EPA has not established any recommended upper limits for
alkalinity. However, waters containing concentrations greater than 500-600
mg/liter as CaCOs are highly mineralized and may be unsuitable for some uses
(Fox 1977). In general, alkalinity mean values in the White River Basin,
particularly in the Piceance and Yellow Creek drainages where oil shale
95
-------
development is ongoing, were much higher than in the Yampa Basin (Appendix B),
and commonly exceeded 500 mg/liter.
IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON GROUND WATER
Ambient Levels
Ground-water quality throughout the Yampa and White River Basins is highly
variable (Table 7) and dependent upon the geological composition of rocks
surrounding each aquifer (Colorado Department of Natural Resources 1979).
Ground-water aquifers derived from thick marine shales are of poor quality,
although better water (i.e., suitable for livestock watering) is found in
those sandstone members of shale formations which are within 61 m of the
surface (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1976a). Wells from the Glen Canyon
Sandstone and Entrada Sandstone yield good quality water in the Yampa River
Basin around Dinosaur, but near Rangely (White Basin), water from these same
rocks is saline. Ground water from fractures in crystalline rocks is of good
quality, with TDS levels generally less than 500 mg/liter. The alluvium along
streams in the study area yields small amounts of fair to poor quality water.
Ground water obtained from other sedimentary rocks (which includes the
coal-bearing formations) is good in some locations, but generally fair to poor
(U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1976a). It is Madison limestone that yields
saline water at McCoy and Meeker Dome. Dissolved solids content in these
aquifers is usually acceptable for livestock consumption, and can be used for
domestic purposes if no other water source is available. It is, however,
unacceptable for irrigation except if applied to well-drained soils and
salt-tolerant crops (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1976a).
Salinity content is one of the greatest water quality constraints to
ground-water development in the region. The Piceance and Yellow Creek Basins,
are of particular interest, as availability there of relatively fresh ground
water is crucial to large-scale development of the oil shale industry.
Quality of ground-water aquifers in the sedimentary formations of the Piceance
Basin has been extensively studied:
"The hydrologic system consists generally of an upper aquifer,
above the confining Mahogany Zone, and a lower aquifer below
the Mahogany Zone. Most water in the upper aquifer contains
less than 2,000 mg/liter of dissolved solids; the water in the
lower aquifer contains as much as 30,000 mg/liter of dissolved
solids in the northern part of the basin, as well as undesirable
quantities of flouride and boron throughout the basin. Various
wells and test holes show that methane and hydrogen sulfide
gases exist in some places." (Colorado Department of Natural
Resources 1979).
The relation of these aquifers to important strata are indicated in Figure 14.
The lower aquifer has been reported to contain high concentrations of barium
and lithium. Ground water has also been investigated in the Utah oil shale
96
-------
IQ
8000'n
7000'-
6000'-
5000'-
4000'-
-2500
y-2000
3000'
Alluvium
i I ^^r^
Uinta Formatfori
Garden Gulch Member
Feet
Vertical Exaggeration x 20
20246
Miles
Datum is Mean Sea Level
Explanation
Sand and gravel and,
or. conglomerate
Sandstone and,
or, siltstone
Marlstone, contains
shale and little
or no kerogen
Marlstone, contains High resistivity zone
shale and kerogen,
and saline minerals
in structurally lowest
part of basin
Figure 14. Diagrammatic section across the Piceance Creek Basin, Colorado.
(Kinney et al. 1979)
-------
tracts (U-a, U-b), and found to be of poor quality, with IDS concentrations
frequently in excess of 2,500 mg/liter (Slawson 1979).
Man's Impact
There is a variety of industrial activities anticipated or ongoing in the
Yampa and White River Basins, and virtually all of this development has the
potential to severely impact regional ground-water resources. The oil and gas
extraction industry is a major potential ground-water pollution source
(Everett 1979). Water quality problems associated with coal mining include
acidity, increased salt content, higher heavy metal concentrations, and
greater sediment loads (Warner 1974). Steele (1978) reports in the Yampa
Basin "adverse ground-water quality changes may be anticipated from
infiltration of water that percolates through mine spoil piles, from
evaporation-pond seepage at a plant site, and from pit disposal of fly and
bottom ash from powerplants." Explosives, sewage effluents, associated road
construction, and pit discharges are all potential sources of ground-water
pollution associated with strip mining activities. Mines remain pollution
sources even after closure, complicating pollution control. Dissolved solids
and trace element concentrations in some wells, streams, and mine pits in the
coal mining area of the Yampa Basin are presented in Table 38.
The oil shale industry is a potential pollutant source with regard to
ground-water resources in the White River Basin. During shale mining,
relatively good ground water above the shale layer can be contaminated by
saline ground water if connection with the saline strata occurs (Slawson and
Yen 1979). If in situ processes are used, ground water which reenters
(black-floods) the retort site after development can become contaminated as it
contacts the retorted oil shale and newly exposed minerals (U.S. Energy
Research and Development Administration 1977).- Contamination can also occur
through aquifer exposure to substances used in well site drilling for retort
operations (Slawson and Yen 1979). Jones et al. (1977) state, "there is
considerable potential for contamination of ground water by both coal
conversion and oil shale facilities, and the monitoring needs are greatest in
this area."-
98
-------
TABLE 38. DISSOLVED SOLIDS AND TRACE ELEMENTS IN SELECTED WELLS, STREAMS,
AND MINE PITS IN THE YAMPA RIVER BASIN (modified from U.S.
Bureau of Land Management 1976d)
Parameter
Calcium (mg/liter)
Magnesium (my/liter)
Potassium (mg/liter)
Sodium (rng/1 iter)
Bicarbonate (mg/liter)
Chloride (mg/liter)
Fluoride (mg/liter)
Sulfate (mg/liter)
HO 2 + N03 (mg/liter)
Silica (my/liter)
IDS (mg/liter)
Arsenic (ug/liter)
Cadmium (yg/1 iter)
Cobalt (us/liter)
Copper (ug/liter)
Iron (ug/liter)
Lead (ug/liter)
flanyanese (ug/liter)
Mercury (ug/liter)
Molybdenum (ug/liter)
Nickel (uy/liter)
Selenium (uy/liter)
Vanadium (ug/1 Iter)
Zinc (ug/liter)
Conductivity (umho/cm)
pH
SAR
Water Temperature (ฐC)
Energy 1
Pit
410
180
6
64
217
7
0.3
1,500
18
54
2,360
0
1
0
3
40
0
20
0.0
1
9
47*
0.0
20
2,350
7.6
0.7
18.5
Foidel Creek
Hear Tipple
71
35
3
19
313
4
0.3
84
0.00
8.8
380
2
0
0
3
110
0
70
0.0
0
4
0
0.0
10
600
7.8
0.5
23.3
Foidel Creek
near
Foidel School
140
71
3
36
305
6
0.3
430
1.4
5.3
848
1
0
0
4
90
0
110
10.2
0
2
3
0.0
8
1,200
8.1
0.6
22.0
Energy 2
Pit
75
29
3
44
314
7
0.3
80
13
11
462
0
1
1
5
60
0
80
0.0
3
3
0
0.0
4
740
7.8
1.1
25.0
Monitor
Jell P-2
64
77
4
76
518
4
0.1
220
0.00
14
720
0
0
0
0
2,000
0
50
0.1
0
1
0
0.0
2,200*
1,500
6.9
1.5
10.0
Seneca 2
Pit
250
170
10
160
416
18
0.4
1,300
5.0
5.8
2,140
0
1
0
0
30
1
70
0.0
1
14
5
0.0
30
2,420
7.5
1.9
16.0
Seneca 2
Shop Well
200
77
4
31
557
21
0.3
420
0.07
14
1,050
0
4
0
250*
90
0
17
0.0
0
0
4
0.3
20
1,450
7.5
0.5
20.5
*Excessive value (probably due to contamination of sample).
99
-------
SECTION 9
ASSESSMENT OF ENERGY RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT ON WATER QUANTITY
In the Yampa and White River Basins, surface water availability is
expected to be the major factor limiting growth and development including
development of energy resources. Surface water supplies in both basins are
highly erratic and vary substantially from season to season and from year to
year. The mean annual consumptive use of water during 1975-76 was 75.2
million m3 in the Yampa Basin, and 123.3 million m3 in the White Basin. Over
70 percent of this depletion is related to agriculture including irrigation
and livestock watering.
The average annual consumptive use of surface waters in both the Yampa and
White Basins is well under minimum recorded annual discharges. However, there
is great variability in stream flow and future industrial developers cannot be
assured of the stable, dependable quantity of water required year-round for
most proposed activities. Energy development, particularly surface mining and
the subsequent conversion of coal into electricity, requires enormous amounts
of water. Large quantities of water are also needed for reclamation projects
to restore mined areas and for planned transportation of coal out of the
vicinity if a coal slurry line is used. The oil shale industry is another
large consumer that uses water in virtually every stage of operation. This
fact is significant since many of the streams in the shale-rich region of the
Piceance Basin and the Utah oil shale tracts are dry much of the year. Water
consumption for industry in the White River Basin is complicated by the
absence of an interstate agreement as to what quantity of water the State of
Colorado must annually deliver to the State of Utah, or to what quantity of
water Indian users are entitled for irrigation of tribal lands. Ground-water
supplies in both basins are generally inadequate for sustenance of the
long-term high yields that would be required for most projected industrial
activities and cannot be expected to be of much value in supplementing
regional surface water diversions for an extended period of time. An
exception to this is the ground-water supplies in reserve under the Piceance
and Yellow Creek drainages. These reserves could assist future oil shale
developers in satisfying annual water requirements, assuming cost-effective
methods of purifying this highly mineralized water source are found in the
near future.
It is sometimes assumed that all water not otherwise consumed is available
for diversion and energy utilization. This attitude overlooks the many
ecological needs for the "unused" water: instream flow maintenance for the
100
-------
preservation of critical wetlands and riparian habitats, conservation of the
native environment of endangered species, etc. The Yampa and White River
Basins, because they are essentially unaltered by high dams, provide the last
remaining significant breeding habitat for a number of fish species in the
Upper Colorado River found on the Colorado Threatened or Endangered lists.
Parts of the Yampa Basin, including the Little Snake River, are also being
considered for wild and scenic river designation. If accepted, maintenance of
instream flows in that region would then become of primary importance, for a
designation that greatly restricts future development in order to maintain the
region's desirable natural qualities. Thus, an obvious conflict of interest
arises. It is clear that in both the Yampa and White River Basins, the
development of additional storage facilities, and perhaps diversion of water
from the Colorado River, will be necessary to assure-that sufficient water
will be available to meet anticipated energy development, irrigation, and
recreational demands. Local decisions must be made regarding priorities for
preservation of natural habitats threatened by additional water impoundment
and flow regulation.
IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY
Surface water quality in the Yampa and White River Basins is highly
variable. Tributaries throughout the study region are ephemeral, and in these
areas, water quality is dependent on seasonal variations in the primary source
of flow (whether ground water or precipitation) and the quantity of discharge.
In general, water quality is adequate for most irrigation, livestock watering,
municipal, and industrial needs of the region. There exist, however,
geographically localized problem areas, as well as some specific parameters
which are of concern throughout the entire study area.
At present, salinity levels are a major concern to the White and Yampa
Rivers and to the entire Colorado River Basin. Some of the salinity impact to
the basins is unavoidable, because of regional rock chemistry, which is highly
erodable in this semiarid geographic region. Thermal springs and naturally
saline ground-water seeps contribute total dissolved solids to the Yampa and
White Basins. During low discharge periods, flows in the basins are comprised
to a greater extent of ground-water discharges, which are usually high in
salt. However, man's industrial activities have the potential to increase
natural salinity substantially. Abandoned oil fields, including sizeable
contributions from Meeker Dome on the White River, are a major source of
salinity in both of the study basins. Coal mining activities around Hayden
contribute to elevated salt concentrations, particularly chloride, sodium, and
sulfate, in the Upper Yampa River. The development of the oil shale industry
in the White River Basin could ultimately increase TDS concentrations at
Hoover Dam by 10 to 27 mg/liter, depending on the source and quality of water
used by the developers.
Sediment loading is a problem in much of the study area, particularly in
the Little Snake River, which contributes only 3 percent to the Yampa Basin
stream flow but over 60 percent of the total basin sediment yield. The vast
majority of this loading is attributable to agriculture runoff. However,
increases in sediment-related problems can be expected as a result of growing
101
-------
resource development in the Yampa and White River Basins, particularly around
Hayden, Meeker, and Rangely, where expanded coal mining and oil shale
activities are expected. Any future industrial and agricultural projects will
intensify problems with erosion through construction activities, transport
roads and removal of over-burden for mining. Sediment contributions from
projected coal mining activities in the Yampa Basin will be equivalent to 2
percent of the present total basin load; oil shale development on the Piceance
and Yellow Creeks will triple existing sediment loads. In the Piceance,
Yellow and Little Snake drainages, sediment concentrations already exceed the
limits recommended for maintenance of fresh water fisheries.
Some increases in nutrient and trace element concentrations can also be
expected as a result of flow reductions associated with energy development
activities in the study area. Population expansion and accompanying
construction could increase nutrient loading to the rivers if not carefully
controlled. Nutrient contamination for ground-water supplies from septic tank
effluents around the communities of Yampa, Phippsburg, Milner, Maybell,
Buford, and Rio Blanco has been reported as one of the most significant
impacts affecting water quality in the area. Most of the trace elements have
been periodically reported in excess of recommended criteria throughout both
the Yampa and White Basins. Potential for future trace element contamination
to the region, particularly from the in situ oil shale and coal mining
industries, is great, if proper pollution control techniques are not
implemented. The effect of the planned energy developments on temperature,
pH, and alkalinity are not expected to be substantial and will, in all
probability, be a result of reduced flows or hydrological modifications
produced by supplemental reservoir construction.
The quality of ground water in the basins is fair to poor due to high
concentrations of dissolved solids. Much of the low quality water is natural
to the basins, with dissolved solids and the major ions leaching into the
ground-water systems form the overlying shale. However, energy developments
can intensify the problem. In addition to reducing the ground-water levels to
supplement variable surface water flows, contamination of the aquifers is
possible, particularly as a result of the oil shale industry if in situ
conversion processes are used. Contamination from organic pollutants are of
particular concern, both due to the lack of available data regarding their
nature and quality, and the high costs associated with organic analyses.
102
-------
SECTION 10
RECOMMENDED WATER QUALITY MONITORING PARAMETERS
An objective of water quality monitoring in the Yampa and White River
Basins should be to assess the impact of energy resource development,
irrigation projects, and associated developments. Toward this end, a
determination of those parameters which would provide meaningful data is
needed. The nature and type of possible pollutants from the major activities
in the basins were inventoried. The possible effects of these, as well as
those parameters that are already being monitored, were reviewed and a
proposed priority list of parameters of interest in the Yampa and White River
Basins were prepared.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
The selection of which water quality parameters should be routinely
monitored in the Yampa-White study area is not obvious. Physical data provide
information on temperature, quantity (flow), osmotic pressures (salinity,
conductivity), and other factors that affect both the biota and the chemistry.
The utility of these data must then be considered when selecting which
parameters to measure. Similarly, the ambient level of a chemical and its
effect upon the biota and interactions with other chemicals present must be
known if a cost-effective monitoring network is to be implemented.
In addition to assessing the quality throughout the water column, the
monitoring of substrate composition is also necessary. Many organic and
inorganic pollutants are adsorbed onto sediment particles or organic debris.
Other pollutants, such as iron, may form flocculants or precipitates, or may
sink of their own accord. These materials may be deposited in areas of slower
moving water or left as evaporites in the dry washes of the area. They may,
however, be resuspended during periods of erosion or be released as dissolved
parameters following a change in environmental conditions. The depositied
sediments, therefore, represent both a pollutant sink and a potential
pollution source. It is necessary to monitor bottom sediment composition in
order to obtain a full picture of environmental pollution.
As a means of identifying and giving priority to those parameters most
appropriate for monitoring energy development, each potential pollutant
previously addressed is evaluated in terms of the projected impact on ambient
water quality with respect to beneficial water use criteria. Also evaluated
are those "indictor parameters" that, although not in themselves pollutants,
either provide a direct or indirect measurement of environmental disturbances
or are required for the interpretation of water quality data. The following
103
-------
symbols are used for identifying those beneficial water uses affected by
existing or projected increases in parameter ambient levels:
Symbol Beneficial Water Uses
I = Irrigation
D = Drinking water (public water supplies)
A = Aquatic life and wildlife
W = Industrial uses
L = Livestock drinking
Three priority classifications were developed based on criteria given
below. These are:
Priority I (must monitor parameters) -- should be collected
regularly at energy development assessment monitoring stations
(Table 39)
Priority II (major interest parameters) -- would be desirable
to monitor in addition to Priority I parameters if resources
permit (Table 40)
Priority III (minor interest parameters) -- are presently
being monitored by the existing network but which will provide
little useful data for monitoring energy development impacts on
water quality in the Yampa and White River Basin (Table 41).
This classification represents an attempt to (a) identify those parameters
that will effectively monitor the impact of energy development in the Yampa
and White River Basins, or (b) permit the detection of increases in parameter
levels that may be deleterious to designated beneficial water uses.* This
classification scheme is not intended to preclude monitoring of low priority
or unmentioned parameters for special studies or for purposes other than
assessment of energy development impact. Neither does it require the
elimination of those parameters already being collected for baseline data
which are very inexpensive to monitor. The priority does not attempt to
address sampling frequency. However, monitoring frequency is discussed
briefly in Section II and will be addressed in greater detail in subsequent
documents in this energy series.
*A11 assessments relative to beneficial water uses are based on U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (1976b) criteria or drinking water
regulations (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1975). In those cases
where EPA established criteria have not presently been defined, National
Academy of Sciences (1973) recommended criteria are used.
104
-------
TABLE 39. PRIORITY I, MUST MONITOR PARAMETERS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT ON
WATER QUALITY IN THE YAMPA AND WHITE RIVER BASINS
Parameter*
Primary Reason for Monitoring
Category and
Beneficial Water
Use Codet
O
en
Alkalinity, total (as CaC03)
Aluminum, total
Ammonia, total as N
Arsenic, total*
Beryl 1 ium, total
Bicarbonate ion
Biochemical oxygen demand of
sediments, 5-day*
Boron, total
Cadmium, total
Carbon, total organic in
sediments*
Calcium, dissolved
Chloride
Chromium, total*
Needed for interpretation of water quality data. 1
Periodically exceeded recommended criteria for irrigation and livestock in 21,L
downstream White River.
Exceeded recommended levels for aquatic life, expected to increase. 2A;3A
Periodically equalled or exceeded recommended criteria for drinking water, livestock, 2D,I,L;3L),I,L
and irrigation in the White and Little Snake Rivers, may increase with oil shale
development.
Values occasionally reported in excess of aquatic life criterion in Yampa and 2A
White Rivers, and Yellow Creek at mouth.
Dominant anion in basins, may be affected by energy development. 4
Measure of pollution increases in the basins, sediment serves as an integrative 4
accumulator.
Exceeded irrigation criterion in Piceance and Yellow Creek drainages. 2J
Reported equal to or in excess of criteria for drinking water, irrigation and aquatic 2A,U,I,L;
life throughout study area, and in excess of livestock criterion in the headwaters 3A,D,I,L
of Little Snake River; may increase as a result of oil shale development.
Provides indication of organic contamination, many elements and compounds .are 4
preferentially absorbed onto organic debris.
Dominant cation in upstream White and Yampa Basins, may be affected by energy 4
development.
Periodically exceeded EPA criterion for drinking water at mouth of Piceance Creek, 2D;3D,I
increased levels anticipated from mine spoil drainage.
Levels reported in excess of drinking water criterion in upstream Piceance Creek, 2A,D,I
and in excess of irrigation and aquatic life criteria as well in the Little Snake
at mouth and downstream White River. Unusually high concentration in sediments
of Yampa River below Craig have been reported which are attributable to industrial
discharges from that community.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 39. (Continued)
Parameter*
Primary Reason for Monitoring
Category and
Beneficial Water
Use Codet
o
en
Specific conductance,
at 25ฐC
Copper, total
Cyanide, total*
Dissolved oxygen
Flow
Fluoride
Iron, total*
Lead, total*
Magnesium, dissolved
Manganese, total*
Mercury, total*
Molybdenum, total
Nickel, total
Nitrate-nitrite-N
Useful indicator of IDS, affects overall water chemistry. 4
Exceeded irrigation water criterion in Yampa River at Maybel1, and lower White River. 2U,I,L
Exceeded livestock criterion in Little Snake at mouth, Sage Creek at mouth, and
drinking water criterion in the White River at mouth.
Levels have exceeded aquatic life criterion in the Yampa River below Little Snake 2A,D
River (Colorado State Health Department Station) and throughout the White River
Basin. One excessively high value (9.0 mg/liter) exceeding drinking water
criterion reported in 1976 in the White River at mouth.
Necessary for maintenance of aquatic life and affects water chemistry. At some 1;2A;4
stations in the White River, levels during summer months (May-September) have
been less than EPA recommended criterion for aquatic life.
Needed for interpretation of water quality data. 1
Reported in excess of drinking water, livestock, and irrigation criteria throughout 2D,I,L
White River Basin, with greatest value (7.0 mg/liter) at the mouth of Piceance Creek.
Levels have frequently exceeded recommended criteria for aquatic life, drinking water, 2A.D.I;
and irrigation throughout the study basins, may increase with expanding mining 3A.D.I
activities.
Exceeding drinking water, livestock, and aquatic life criteria throughout the study 2A.D.L
basins.
Important cation in study basins, may be affected by energy development. 4
Frequently exceeded EPA criteria for drinking water and irrigation. 2D,I
Frequently exceeded EPA criterion for aquatic life and periodically criterion for 2A,D;3A,D
drinking water, possible contribution from powerplants.
Exceeded irrigation water criterion in White River basin. 21
Periodically exceeded irrigation water criteria in the White River at mouth and 21
above Douglas Creek.
Primary nutrient, expected to increase, could approach health limits in the future. 3D,L;4
(continued)
-------
TABLE 39. (Continued)
Parameter*
Primary Reason for Monitoring
Category and
Beneficial Water
Use Codet
Pesticides
Petroleum hydrocarbons
(includes benzene, toluene,
oil and grease, napthalene,
phenols, olefins,
tinophenes, and cresols)
PH
Phosphorus, total*
Potassium, dissolved
Selenium, total*
Sodium, dissolved
Sulfate, dissolved
Suspended sediments
Tanperature
Total dissolved solids
From available data, no pesticides were reported at levels exceeding criteria for
aquatic life. However, with increasing agricultural activity, levels of
pesticides/herbicides may be expected to increase.
Can be expected to increase throughout the basin, total phenol regularly exceeded
EPA recommended criteria throughout study area.
Needed for interpretation of water quality data, value observed in Sage Creek'at
mouth more acidic than EPA recommended criteria for drinking water and aquatic life.
Primary nutrient contributing to algae and macrophyte growth, expected to increase.
Important cation in study area, may be affected by energy development.
Reported levels exceeded drinking water and irrigation criteria in Grassy Creek at
mouth, and livestock criterion as well in Sage Creek at mouth (Yampa Basin),
levels may increase as a result of stack emissions.
Dominant cation in downstream stretches of White and Yampa Basins, increased levels
anticipated from mine spoil drainage and increased use of water conditioners. Sodium
absorption ratios presently reported excessively high in some mine and oil shale
development sites.
Important anion throughout study basins, particularly during periods of low surface
flow, commonly exceeded EPA criterion for drinking water throughout White Basin and
in tributaries to Yampa River; may be affected by energy development.
Major transport mechanism, indicator parameter, expected to increase with energy
development.
Needed for interpretation of water quality data, could increase with development.
Indicator parameter; downstream salinity problems anticipated with increasing
irrigation and energy development, already a problem in some areas of study basins.
2A;3A,U
2A,D;3A,D
1;ZA,D;4
3A,D;4
4
ZD,I,L;3D.I,L
,3D,I;4
2D;4
1;3A,I;4
1;3A;4
2D,I;3D,1,L,W;4
*Unmarked parameters are determined in water samples only; marked parameters include both water samples and bottome sediments, unless
specified for bottom sediments only.
tFor full explanation of category codes, see symbols listed in Section 10.
-------
TABLE 40. PRIORITY II, PARAMETERS OF MAJOR INTEREST FOR THE ASSESSMENT
OF ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY IN THE
YAMPA AND WHITE RIVER BASINS
Parameter*
Primary Reason for Monitoring
Category and
Beneficial Water
Use Codet
Biochemical oxygen
demand, 5 day
Cobalt dissolved,
low level
Total hardness, CaCOa
Kjeldahl - N, total
Sediment size
distribution
Turbidity
May provide basic information on 7
increased pollution.
May provide an indication of pollution 7
by oxygen consuming substances.
Of interest to both industry and public, 6D,I,W;7
not a problem at present but may become
so as water consumption, irrigation
runoff, and trace element contributions
from mining and oil shale activities
increase.
Primary nutrient, expected to increase 7
with development limits in the future.
Provides data on stream velocity, stream 7
habitat, sediment sources.
Easy to measure, provides quick data about 7
suspended sediment, etc.
*Parameters are determined in water samples only (except for sediment
size distribution).
tFor full explanation of category codes, see symbols listed in Section 10.
Parameters for use in the rapid detection of short duration events such as
spills, monitoring for permit discharge purposes, and intensive survey or
research projects are not considered in this report. These concerns are
important and should not be neglected, but they require considerations that
are beyond the scope of this report.
The reasons for monitoring each parameter listed on Tables 39 through 41
are categorized by the following classification scheme:
Priority I - Must Monitor Parameters
Category Code
1. Parameters essential for the interpretation of other water
quality data. This consideration includes parameters, such as
108
-------
TABLE 41. PRIORITY III, PARAMETERS OF MINOR INTEREST WHICH WILL PROVIDE LITTLE USEFUL DATA FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY IN THE YAMPA AND WHITE RIVER BASINS
Parameter*
Primary Reason for Monitoring
Category and
Beneficial Water
Use Codet
Antimony, total
Barium, dissolved
Bismuth, dissolved
Carbonate
Cobalt, dissolved
Gal lium, dissolved
Germanium, dissolved
Lithium, dissolved
Nitrate-N and
Nitrite-N
Nitrogen, total
Phosphorus, dissolved
ortho
Sediment mi neral ogy
Sil ica
Sil ver, total
Strontium, dissolved
Tin, dissolved
Titanium, total
Vanadium, total
Zinc, dissolved
Zirconium, dissolved
Recorded values are very low (maximum 7 yg/liter).
Difficult to measure, does not approach critical limits (maximum 800 uy/liter in
Piceance Creek).
Recorded values are low (maximum 100 pg/liter).
Generally low levels in basin, usually of little significance in alkaline waters.
Levels low in basins (maximum 150 ug/liter), has few adverse effects at high levels.
Values low (maximum 40 pg/liter).
Values low (maximum 170 yg/liter).
Values low (maximum 150 yg/liter).
Monitored simultaneously by NOj-NOa- If NOj-NQs-N levels begin to approach 10,000
then the N02 form would become a "must monitor" priority for health reasons.
Provides little practical information.
Total phosphorus considered best measure of potential phosphorus available for
biological utilization.
May provide sediment source data.
Generally low throughout basins.
Levels very low (maximum 30 uy/liter).
Maximum levels quite high in White Basin (6,000 pg/liter in Piceance Creek), but has little
biological effect.
Low levels (maximum 100 pg/liter), little adverse effect.
Reported levels moderate (maximum 2,000 yg/liter), not expected to increase.
Reported values very low (maximum 33 pg/liter).
Reported values moderate, but less than recommended limits (maximum 1,400 pg/liter).
Reported values low (maximum 170 pg/liter).
*Paraineters are determined in water samples only (except for sediment mineralogy).
tFor full explanation of category codes, see symbols listed in Section 10.
-------
temperature, pH, and flow that are necesary to determine load-
ings, chemical equilibria, biological response, or other factors
affecting other parameters.
2. Parameters commonly exceeding existing water quality criteria.
Consideration is of EPA water quality criteria for beneficial
water uses (see codes presented earlier). In cases where EPA
established criteria have not presently been defined, criteria
recommended by the National Academy of Sciences (1973) are
used.
3. Parameters expected to increase to levels exceeding water
quality criteria, unless extreme care is taken. This category
includes organic chemical compounds that are expected to be
present in future discharges from energy developments, and that
could reach lethal, mutagenic, or carcinogenic levels unless
extreme care is taken. The beneficial use symbols for water
quality criteria expected to be exceeded are used here.
4. Parameters that are useful "trace" or "indicator" parameters.
These include parameters that, although not causing substantial
impact to the aquatic environment themselves, are used to
define pollution sources, estimate other parameters of concern,
or provide general data on the overall quality of the water.
An example would be conductivity, which reflects highly saline
springs.
5. Parameters expected to be altered by energy development
activities so as to present a threat to a rare or endangered
species. These include parameters that do not normally affect
aquatic life at encountered levels but that, under unique
circumstances, may affect a threatened or endangered species.
In the Yampa and White River Basins this category situation is
not known to exist at present.
Priority II - Major Interest Parameters
6. Potential pollutants of concern. Parameters whose reported
levels in the Yampa and White River Basins are presently
within acceptable limits for beneficial water uses, but
whose ambient levels could be altered by planned regional
developments to levels that impair those uses. This
differs from category 3 in that, while category 3 parameters
are expected to produce problems (either environmental or
abatement/disposal), category 6 are those that might be
a problem if unrestricted development were permitted.
7. Marginal "trace" or "indicator" parameter. These include
parameters that may be used to provide general data on overall
quality of the water, locate pollutant source areas, or estimate
other parameters. Such parameters are not presently routinely
110
-------
monitored or provide little advantage over other measurements
being made.
Priority III - Minor Interest Parameters
8. Parameters that are presently at very low levels and are
unlikely to be significantly changed by planned regional
development, are fairly easily monitored but have little
effect on beneficial water uses at encountered levels,
or provide little useful data for monitoring energy or
other development. Many of these parameters are currently
being monitored on a regular basis in the Yampa-White
River study area; however, for purposes of monitoring
energy impact development, these parameters are not
necessary.
Priorities are arranged alphabetically within Tables 39 through 41. The
order of their appearance is not intended to suggest a ranking of relative
importance.
Although frequency of measurement is not addressed by the prioritized
listings, whenever possible at least monthly collection is recommended for
most water quality parameters. Standard analytical techniques should be
utilized and the data should be processed and entered into data bases as soon
as possible after collection. It should also be stressed that changing
conditions within the study area may cause some changes in the priority
listings, especially addition of currently unmonitored compounds for which
little data are available.
Analysis of bottom sediment samples on an annual or semi-annual basis
should be performed. Total organic carbon, BOD, grain size, and elemental
data should be determined. Because extensive organic extractions and analyses
from sediment samples are expensive, it is not recommended that analysis for
specific toxic organic compounds be performed on a routine basis. These
analyses should be performed as special studies rather than on a routine
monitoring basis at the present time. Bottom sediment parameters of interest
are included on Tables 39 through 41; prioritization of parameters for
sediment samples followed the same considerations used in establishing
priorities for the water column.
BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS
The collection of biological data in the Yampa and White River Basins
would be an effective complementary tool for assessing the impact of energy or
irrigation development. Biological investigations are of special significance
in water quality monitoring programs because they offer a means of identifying
areas affected by pollution and of assessing the degrees of stress from
111
-------
relatively small changes in physical-chemical parameters. Aquatic organisms
act as natural monitors of water quality because the composition and structure
of plant and animal communities are the result of the biological, chemical,
and physical interactions within the system. When only periodic physical -
chemical data are collected, an episodic event such as a flash flood or spill
may go undetected. The biota affected by an occasional event may require
weeks or months to recover. In addition, many biological forms that
accumulate various chemicals preferentially serve as both an integrative and
concentration mechanism that may permit detection of pollutants not detected
in the water itself. Finally, because biota are affected by all materials and
conditions present in the system, they could be the first indication of a
major hazard posed by some unsuspected, unmonitored compound.
Biological monitoring should be initiated in a regular fashion within the
Yampa and White River systems. It should not be viewed as an alternative to
other monitoring but as a complementary tool for improving the efficiency of
physical/chemical monitoring programs. A comprehensive biological monitoring
program is recommended to gather baseline data and permit the eventual
refinement of techniques. Such a monitoring effort should be designed to
obtain standardized, reproducible data that may be compared from station to
station across time. Sampling methods and sites will obviously differ for the
different biological communities or parameters. However, for a given
community and parameter, sites should be selected that have similar
characteristics and the same sampling device and technique used for collection
efforts. Replicate samples should be routinely collected and analyzed
separately for quality assurance purposes. Of primary interest in biological
monitoring is the assessment of changes in community structure over time and
space; for such comparisons a minimum of a single year of baseline data is
necessary and the accumulation of several years data is generally required to
demonstrate natural temporal variations in the Basin's communities.
It should be noted that there have been a number of biological monitoring
programs developed in the study area, particularly around the Utah and
Colorado oil shale tracts in the White River Basin. Baumann and Winget (1975)
and VTN Colorado, Inc. (1976) collected fish and macrobenthos data from the
Utah tracts in 1974 and 1975; VTN also gathered periphyton data as part of
their sampling efforts. The EPA (Hornig and Pollard 1978; Kinney et al. 1978;
Pollard and Kinney 1979) has also been collecting seasonal baseline
macrobenthic and periphyton data in the White River since fall of 1975. The
above sampling efforts have largely been designed to provide a generalized
inventory of the principle components of lotic communities in the oil shale
areas. However, the majority of the data have not been sufficient to permit
assessment of community changes across time or to relate these changes to
causative factors (Kinney et al. 1978). Biological data collection efforts
are complicated in this region by the sparse and patchy distribution of fauna
generally encountered, the highly variable flow and discharge rates of the
rivers, and the large suspended sediment load which is characteristic of the
area, particularly downstream. Biological monitoring techniques traditionally
used in eastern regions of the country are not necessarily well suited for use
in the semi-arid western river systems (Pollard and Kinney 1979). Development
and testing of new, innovative sampling methodologies in these specialized
aquatic systems (Hornig and Pollard 1978; Pollard and Kinney 1979) is
112
-------
necessary before large scale implementation of biological monitoring for point
source detection can be achieved.
Taxonomic groups considered appropriate for biological monitoring in the
Yampa and White River Basins are discussed below.
Macroi nvertebrates
These larger forms are relatively easy to collect, quantify, and identify
to a meaningful taxonomic level. Being relatively stationary, they are unable
to escape oncoming waste materials, and their life cycles are sufficiently
long to prevent an apparent recovery to periodic relief from pollution.
Seasonal sampling (based on stream temperature and flows) should be conducted
although annual or semiannual records could be benefic.ial. Care must be taken
to allow sufficient time between sampling of identical areas to permit
disturbed populations to reestablish themselves. Macroinvertebrate sampling
in lakes should be investigated to determine if sufficient macrobenthos exist
to make monitoring them worthwhile.
Periphyton
The periphyton, like the macrobenthos, are unable to escape pollution
events. Widespread, rapidly growing, and easy to sample, they are the primary
producers in flowing systems and provide basic data on the overall quality of
streams and lakes.
Fish
These represent the top of the aquatic food chain and respond to the
cumulative effects of stresses on lower forms. In addition, they represent an
element of intense public concern. Unlike the previous communities, fish have
considerable mobility and may be able to escape localized pollution events.
Fish are readily sampled, and toxonomic identification is not difficult in
most cases.
Phytoplankton
Present in nearly all natural waters, these plants are easily sampled and
can provide basic data on productivity, water quality, potential or occurring
problems, etc. Phytoplankton sampling is recommended in lakes and ponds but
is not recommended for stream monitoring in these basins since populations in
streams are very low and separation from suspended debris is nearly
impossible.
Zooplankton
Zooplankton include organisms that graze upon phytoplankton and in turn
provide a major food supply for higher forms. The Zooplankton can be
responsible for unusually low phytoplankton levels as a result of their
grazing activities. These forms may provide basic information on
environmental regimes and, because of their relatively short life spans and
fecundity, may be the first indication of sub-acute pollution hazards.
Zooplankton sampling is also recommended for lentic waters in the study
basins.
Microorganisms
Coliforma bacteria are generally considered to be indicative of fecal
contamination and are one of the most frequently applied indicators of water
113
-------
quality. Criteria exist for bathing and shellfish harvesting waters (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency 19765). Other microbiological forms may be
useful in the study basins, but these have not been identified and are not
discussed.
An annotated list of parameters (Tables 42 and 43) is recommended for
monitoring the impact of energy resource development in the Yampa and White
River Basins. The priority I category includes those parameters that
generally demonstrate an observable response to the type of stress conditions
anticipated as a result of increased energy development activities and for
which effective monitoring techniques have been developed. It is recommended
that Priority I parameters be incorporated into any aquatic biological
monitoring program in the basins. The Priority II parameters are those that
may be of value to the basins but that are not generally considered to be as
likely to provide useful data as those in the Priority I category and should
only be collected in addition to Priority I parameters if time and money are
available.
It should be noted that the count and biomass determinations in the
following discussion are not productivity measurements. Rather they are
expressions of standing crops and, although indicative of general
productivity, are really quite different. Productivity data are expressed in
units of mass per volume (or area) per unit time.
TABLE 42. PRIORITY I BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS RECOMMENDED FOR MONITORING
WATER QUALITY IN THE YAMPA AND WHITE RIVER BASINS
Taxonomic Group
Parameters
Expressed as:
Reason for Sampling
Macrolnvertebrates
Periphyton
Fish
Zooplankton
.Counts and
identification
Biomass
Biomass
Growth rate
Identification
and estimation
of relative
abundances*
Identification
and
enumeration
Toxic
substances
in tissue
Identification
and count
Total number/taxon/
unit sampling area
or unit effort
Weight/unit sampling
area or unit effort
Weight/
unit substrate
Weight/unit
substrate/time
Taxon present
Species presentt
Weight/substance/
unit tissue weight
(by species)
Species present
Total unit volume
or biomass number/
species/unit
volume
Provides data on species present, community composition,
etc., which may be related to water quality or other
environmental considerations.
Provides data on productivity.
Provides data on productivity.
Provides data on productivity.
Indicative of community composition that may be related
to water quality rate of recovery from a biological
catastrophe, etc.
Provides data on water quality, environmental
conditions, and, possibly, water uses. Different
species respond to different stresses.
Indication of biological response to toxic pollutants,
may provide an "early warning" of pollutants not
detected in the water, may pose a health hazard in
itself.
Provides basic data on environmental condition.
Provides data on community composition, environmental
conditions, and available food size ranges.
(continued)
114
-------
TABLE 42. (Continued)
Hacrophytes
Phytoplankton
Microorganisms
Species
Identification
and community
association
Chlorophyll ฃ
Identification
and
enumeration
Total
fecal coliform
Areal coverage
and
community
ng/liter
Number/taxon/uni t
volume total
number/sample (unit
volume) or biomass
Number/ unit
volume
Indication of stream stability, sedimentation, and other
factors; spread of phreatophytes could be a problem in
the basin because of their effect on water quality;
initial survey and thereafter occasional examination
of stream (lake) side plants is recommended.
Indication of overall lake productivity; excessive
levels often indicate enrichment problems.
The presence of specific taxon in abundance is often
indicative of water quality and may in itself pose'
a biological problem.
Indicative of fecal contamination of water supplies
and probable presence of other pathogenic organisms.
*6ross estimates of the quantity or percent of each taxon should be made rather than specific count data/unit area.
tCount data should be provided for each species.
TABLE 43. PRIORITY II BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS RECOMMENDED FOR MONITORING
WATER QUALITY IN THE YAMPA AND WHITE RIVER BASINS
Taxonomic Group
Parameters
Expressed as:
Reason for Sampling
Macroinvertebrates Toxic substances Weight substance/
in tissue unit tissue weight
Periphyton
Fish
Zooplankton
Chlorophyll ฃ Unit substrate
area
Taxonomic Number/taxon/unit
counts substrate area
Biomass Total weight/
sampling effort
or unit volume
Flesh tainting Rating scale
(by species)
Size Length, weight/
individual, or
range and average
size/species
Condition factor Weight/length
(by species)
Growth rate
Biomass
Eggs, instars,
etc.
Age/length
(by species)
Weight/
unit volume
Species present
Toxic substances Weight/unit
in tissue tissue (by species)
Indicative of biological response to toxic pollutants
may provide an "early warning" of pollutants not
detected in the water itself.
Indicative of productivity of area and general health
of the periphyton comnunity.
Provides additional data on periphyton conmunity
composition.
Indicative of secondary productivity of the water body.
Indicative of high levels or organic compounds; likely
to be noticed by public; could indicate pollution
from several sources to be due to other causes.
Provides an'indication of the age of the community,
breeding potential, and secondary productivity rates.
Indicative of general health of fish community and
availability of food.
Provides data on overall health of the fish ccmmunity
and environmental conditions; could indicate the
presence of subacute pollutants.
Basic data on abundance and overall productivity.
Provides basic data on age distribution, presence of
seasonal foras, or the existence of cyclic pollution
events.
May serve as bioconcentrator for specific compounds.
115
-------
SECTION 11
ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING MONITORING NETWORK
Estimations can be made regarding the possible impact of proposed
developments on water quality, but only after operation can the actual impact
be assessed. A well developed sampling network for the monitoring of
environmental parameters is helpful not only in controlling and assessing
pollution from existing projects, but also in providing valuable information
for evaluating future projects.
Forty-eight U.S. Geological Survey sampling stations in the Yampa and
White River Basins were analyzed to evaluate trends in surface water quality
(Tables 23 and 24). There are literally hundereds of surface water quality
stations which have been established by miscellaneous sources in the study
area, including private consulting firms such as VTN Colorado, Inc., and state
and federal agencies such as the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and
the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Several ground-water investigations have
also been conducted in the study basins (Steele el al. 1976a; Ficke, Weeks and
Welder 1974; Weeks and Welder 1974). Water quality and hydrological data are
particularly abundant in the oil shale tract areas of Piceance Basin (Ficke,
Weeks and Welder 1974; Weeks and Welder 1974), and in the coal development
region of the upstream Yampa Basin (Giles and Brogden 1978).
However, a good number of the stations selected in this report for
incorporation into a energy monitoring network are not regularly sampled.
Many of the abundant monitoring sites existing in the Yampa and White River
Basins were established as part of a short term, specialized survey which did
not include measurement of some parameters considered in this project to have
a high sampling priority. Frequency of measurement for each parameter and
station is quite variable from year to year, particularly in the Yampa Basin
where data are sparse for most of the parameters except for conductivity,
temperature, and dissolved oxygen (Appendix B). Most of the parameters
considered to have the highest selection priority for monitoring of energy
development impact, particularly the trace elements and nutrients, are sampled
only intermittently or infrequently. At many of the stations in the study
area, trace element data are not gathered at all, and in the Yampa Basin, even
data for the major anions and cations are sparse. Where data for important
parameters, such as the salts, are regularly sampled, frequently the data are
not collected on similar dates across the stations, making spatial or temporal
comparisons difficult. A few other Priority I parameters, such as phenols
(natural levels of which already commonly exceed recommended concentrations
for domestic water supplies), oils, and greases are almost completely lacking
from the sampling network or are sampled only rarely. Data on pesticides,
116
-------
which have been considered by some to be the most significant potential
pollution hazard in the basins (Kinney et al. 1979), are sparse. These
problems are aggravated by the unavoidable episodic nature of many of the
tributaries flowing through the study area, especially in the energy
development portions of the basins.
Fairly good baseline data are available from the USGS stations at Maybell
in the Yampa River Basin, and in the White River near Watson, and these
locations should be considered for weekly sampling of top priority parameters.
More intensive sampling of the stations at the mouth of Piceance Creek and in
the Yampa River near Hayden should be attempted as these stations are well
situated for observation of water quality degradation due to mining and oil
shale activities.
If data at many of the USGS stations examined in this report are
inadequate for characterizing ambient water quality and depicting long-term
trends because of sporadic sampling, they certainly are insufficient to permit
assessment of short-term episodic pollution events. The ability to detect
short-term variability in water quality is very important in these semi arid
western streams, particularly when monitoring those tributaries with
anticipated energy impact. Kinney et al. (1978) examined data in the White
River at Watson (09306500) and calculated the number of samples required for
the annual sample mean to be within 5 percent of the true mean. They found
that, in general, a prohibitively high number of samples was necessary to
characterize water quality with a high degree of confidence. Only three
samples per year were needed to adequately characterize pH in the water
system. However, other parameters required from 29 samples per year
(carbonate) to 743 samples per year (chloride). It can be seen that data used
for defining physical/chemical parameters in a water body, but which are
collected in varying sample sizes, are of questionable value and, in fact, it
may not even be possible to sample some parameters in most monitoring networks
with desired frequency.
If program restrictions on funding and/or personnel necessitate, the
number of stations regularly sampled in the basin for purposes of monitoring
the impact of energy resource development could be substantially reduced. The
USGS stations indicated on Table 44 are recommended as having the highest
sampling priority in the Yampa and White River Basins for monitoring of energy
development activities. Of the 13 priority stations recognized in the study
area, sites in the Yampa River below Craig, and in the White River below
Yellow Creek (both of which are situated immediately downstream from major
mining and oil shale developments), are well located for the maintenance of
any continuous monitoring activities. It should be noted, however, that most
of the modifications recommended for the existing monitoring network in the
Yampa and White River Basins are directed towards establishing a statistically
viable baseline data collection program for the energy development areas.
There is an additional need as well for establishment of regular source
specific monitoring at the energy sites, particularly at the coal mines in the
Yampa Basin, which are not so well studied as the oil shale tracts in the
White Basin. Such source monitoring would determine which pollution control
methods need to be implemented at each mining site, and whether those control
117
-------
TABLE 44. U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY STATIONS RECOMMENDED TO HAVE THE
HIGHEST SAMPLING PRIORITY FOR MONITORING ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
IN THE YAMPA AND WHITE RIVER BASINS
STORET
Number Station Name
09236000 Bear River near Toponas, Colo.
09244410 Yampa River below diversion, near Hayden, Colo.
09247600 Yampa River below Craig, Colo.
09251000 Yampa River near Maybell, Colo.
09260000 Little Snake River near Lily, Colo.
09260050 Yampa River at Deer Lodge Park, Colo.
09303000 North Fork White River at Buford, Colo.
09304500 White River near Meeker, Colo.
09304800 White River below Meeker, Colo.
09306222 Piceance Creek at White River, Colo.
401022108241200 White River below Yellow Creek, Colo.
09306500 White River near Watson, Utah
09306900 White River at mouth near Ouray, Utah
procedures already implemented are effective. Everett (1979) states that even
where monitoring at mining sources does occur, frequently it is still directed
towards assessing background water quality levels, and "once pollutants show
up in background quality monitoring systems, in many cases it is too late to
institute controls." As with the baseline monitoring network, any source
specific monitoring would do well to limit quantity of stations in lieu of
more frequent sampling.
118
-------
REFERENCES
Adams, W. 1975. (draft report) Western Environmental Monitoring
Accomplishment Plan. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas,
Nevada. 48 pp.
Anderson, R. L. and N. I. Wengert. 1977. Developing Competition for Water in
the Urbanizing Areas of Colorado. Water Resources Bulletin 13(4):
769-773.
Andrews, E. D. 1978. Present and Potential Sediment Yields in the Yarnpa
River Basin, Colorado and Wyoming. USGS Water-Resources Investigations
#78-105. U.S. Geological Survey, Lakewood, Colorado. 38 pp.
Atwood, G. 1975. The Strip-mining of Western Coal. Scientific American
223(6):23-29.
Bailey, R. M., J. E. Fitch, E. S. Herald, E. A. Lachner, C. C. Lindsey, C. R.
Robins, and W. B. Scott. 1970. A List of Common and Scientific Names of
Fishes From the United States and Canada. Third Edition. Amer. Fish.
Soc. Special Publication #6. 150 pp.
Bauer, D. P., T. D. Steele, and R. D. Anderson. 1978. Analysis of Waste-Land
Assimilative Capacity of the Yampa River, Steamboat Springs to Hayden,
Routt County, Colorado. USGS Water Resources Investigation #77-119. U.S.
Geological Survey, Lakewood, Colorado. 76 pp.
Baumann, R. W. and R. N. Winget. 1975. Aquatic Macroinvertebrate, Water
Quality and Fish Population Characterization of the White River, Uinta
County, Utah. Center for Health and Environmental Studies, Provo, Utah.
55 pp.
Beebe, B. W. 1962. Subsurface Exploration in Northwestern Colorado. In:
Exploration for Oil and Gas in Northwestern Colorado. C. L. Amuedo and
M. R. Mott (eds.). Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, Denver,
Colorado, pp. 49-52.
Brainerd, A. E. and T. R. Carpen. 1962. History of Exploration in
Northwestern Colorado. In: Exploration for Oil and Gas in Northwestern
Colorado. C. L. Amuedo and M. R. Mott (eds.). Rocky Mountain Association
of Geologists, Denver, Colorado, pp. 23-28.
119
-------
Briggs, J. C. and J. F. Ficke. 1977. Quality of Rivers in the United States,
1975 Water Year -- Based on the National Stream Quality Accounting Network
(NASQAN). USGS Open-File Report #78-200. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston,
Virginia. 436 pp.
Cashion, W. B. and J. R. Donnell. 1974. Revision of the Nomenclature of the
Upper Part of the Green River Formation, Piceance Creek Basin, Colorado,
and Eastern Uinta Basin, Utah. USGS Bulletin #1394-G. pp.
Colorado Department of Natural Resources. 1979. Upper Colorado River Region
Section 13(a) Assessment: A Report to the U.S. Water Resources Council.
(draft report) Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8. Denver, Colorado. 119 pp.
Colorado Division of Mines. 1977a. A Summary of Mineral Industry Activities
in Colorado-1977. Part I: Coal. Department of Natural Resources,
Denver, Colorado. 45 pp.
Colorado Division of Mines. 19775. A Summary of Mineral Industry Activities
in Colorado-1977. Part II: Metal-Nonmetal. Department of Natural
Resources, Denver, Colorado. 124 pp.
Colorado State University and Colorado Division of Water Resources. 1977.
Analyses of Methods for the Determination of Water Availability for Energy
Development. #FEA/G-77/059. Federal Energy Administration. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 118 pp.
Corsentino, J. S. 1976. Projects to Expand Fuel Sources in Western States:
Survey of Planned or Proposed Coal, Oil Shale, Tar Sand, Uranium, and
Geothermal Supply Expansion Projects, arid Related Infrastructure, in
States West of the Mississippi River (as of May 1976). U.S. Bureau of
Mines Information Circular #8719. Department of Interior, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 208 pp.
Curtis, B. F. 1962. The Geologic Development of Northwestern Colorado. In:
Exploration for Oil and Gas in Northwestern Colorado. C. L. Arnuedo and
M. R. Mott (eds.). Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, Denver,
Colorado, pp. 15-22.
Everett, L. G. 1979. Groundwater Quality Monitoring of Western Coal Strip
Mining: Identification and Priority Ranking of Potential Pollution
Sources. #EPA-600/7-79-024. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las
Vegas, Nevada. 264 pp.
Federal Energy Administration. 1974. Project Independence Blueprint Final
Task Reoort. Coal. 175 DD.
Task Report. Coal. 175 pp
Ficke, J. F., J. B. Weeks, and F. A. Welder. 1974. Hydrologic Data from the
Piceance Basin, Colorado. Colorado Water Resources Basic-Data Release
#31. Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Denver, Colorado. 246 pp.
120
-------
Fox, R. L. 1977. Report of Baseline Water Quality Investigations on the
White River in Western Colorado, September-October, 1975 and May-June,
1976. #EPA-908/2-7-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Denver,
Colorado. 88 pp.
Giles, T. F. and R. E. Brogden. 1978. Selected Hydrologic Data, Yampa River
Basin and Parts of the White River Basin, Northwestern Colorado and
South-Central Wyoming. USGS Open File Report #78-23. U.S. Geological
Survey, Denver, Colorado. 91 pp.
Gold, H. and D. J. Goldstein. 1978. Water-related Environmental Effects in
Fuel Conversion: Volume I. Summary. #EPA-600/7-78-1978a. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
232 pp.
Greene, J. 1962. "Composite Log.-Northwest Colorado."
Grim, E. C. and R. D. Hill. 1974. Environmental Protection in Surface Mining
of Coal. #EPA-670/2-74-093. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio. 277 pp.
Hancock, E. T. 1925. Geology and Coal Resources of the Axial and Monument
Butte Quadrangles, Moffat County, Colorado. USGS Bulletin #757. U.S.
Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 134 pp.
Harbert, H. P. and W. A. Berg. 1978. Vegetative Stabilization of Spent Oil
Shales: Vegetation, Moisture, Salinity, and Runoff - 1973-1976.
#EPA-600/7-78-021. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio. 169 pp.
Haun, J. D. and H. C. Kent. 1965. Geologic History of Rocky Mountain Region.
In: Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
49(11):1781-1800.
Hornig, C. E. and J. E. Pollard. 1978. Macroinvertebrate Sampling Techniques
for Streams in Semi-Arid Regions: Comparison of the Surber Method and a
Unit-effort Traveling Kick Method. #EPA-600/4-78-040. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Las Vegas, Nevada. 28 pp.
Hughes, E. E., E. M. Dickson, and R. A. Schmidt. 1974. Control of
Environmental Impacts from Advanced Energy Sources. #EPA-600/2-74-002.
Stanford Research Institute for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D. C. 326 pp.
lorns, W. V., C. H. Hembree, and G. L. Oakland. 1965. Water Resources of the
Upper Colorado River Basin - Technical Report. USGS Professional Paper
#441. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 370 pp.
121
-------
James, I. C. and T. D. Steele. 1977. Application of Residuals Management
for Assessing the Impacts of Alternative Coal-Development Plans on
Regional Water Resources. Paper presented June 27-29, 1977, at: Third
International Symposium in Hydrology, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, Colorado. 23 pp.
Jones, D. C., W. S. Clark, J. C. Lacy, W. F. Holland, and E. D. Sethness.
1977. Monitoring Environmental Impacts of the Coal and Oil Shale
Industries - Research and Development Needs. #EPA-600/7-77-015. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada. 191 pp.
Kinney, W. L., A. N. Brecheisen, and V. W. Lambou. 1979. Surface Water
Quality Parameters for Monitoring Oil Shale Development.
#EPA-600/4-79-018. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas,
Nevada. 156 pp.
Kinney, W. L., J. E. Pollard, C. E. Hornig, A. N. Brecheisen, H. M. Lowry, and
L. W. Scarburgh. 1978. (draft report) Evaluation of Nonpoint Source
Monitoring Procedures: Assessment of Techniques Tested in the White
River, Utah Oil Shale Area. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las
Vegas, Nevada. 278 pp.
Knudsen, W. I. and J. A. Danielson. 1977. A Discussion of Legal and
Institutional Constraints on Energy-Related Water Development in the Yampa
River Basin, Colorado. Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Division
of Water Resources. 20 pp.
Lindquist, A. E. 1977. Siting Potential for Coal Gasification Plants in the
United States. U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular #8735. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 43 pp.
McCall-Ellingson and Mo.rrill, Inc. 1974. Water Quality Management Plan for
the Green River Basin. Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality
Control Division, Denver, Colorado. 548 pp.
%
McKee, J. E. and H. W. Wolf. 1963. Water Quality Criteria. Resources Agency
of California State Water Quality Control Board, Publication #3A, Second
Edition. Sacramento, California. 548 pp.
McWhorter, D. B., R. K. Skogerboe, and G. V. Skogerboe. 1975. Water Quality
Control in Mine Spoils Upper Colorado River Basin. #EPA-670/2-75-048.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 108 pp.
National Academy of Sciences. 1973. Water Quality Criteria, 1972.
#EPA-R3-73-033. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
594 pp.
Piro, F. J. 1962. Summary of Oil Productive Formations of Northwestern
Colorado. In: Exploration for Oil and Gas in Northwestern Colorado.
C. L. Amuedo and M. R. Mott (eds.). Rocky Mountain Association of
Geologists, Denver, Colorado, pp. 144-147.
122
-------
Pollard, J. E. and W. L. Kinney. 1979. Assessment of Marcroinvertebrate
Monitoring Techniques in an Energy Development Area: A Test of the
Efficiency of Three Macrobenthic Sampling Methods in the White River.
#EPA-600/7-79-163. U..S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas,
Nevada. 26 pp.
Quigley, M. D. 1965. Geologic History of Piceance Creek-Eagle Basins. In:
Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
49(11):1974-96.
Radian Corporation. 1977. Emissions of Producing Oil and Gas Wells.
#EPA-908/4-77-006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Denver,
Colorado. 132 pp.
Rusek, S. J., S. R. Archer, R. A. Wachter, and T. R. Blackwood. 1978.
Source Assessment: Open Mining of Coal - State of the Art.
#EPA-600/2-78-004x. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio. 87 pp.
Shih, C. C., C. H. Prien, T. D. Nevens, and J. E. Cotter. 1976. Supplement
to the Fifth Quarterly Report: Technological Overview Reports for Eight
Shale Oil Recovery Processes. Denver Research Institute,
TWR/Environmental Engineering Division, Denver, Colorado. 129 pp.
Slawson, G. C. 1979. Groundwater Quality Monitoring of Western Oil Shale
Development: Identification and Priority Ranking of Potential Pollution
Sources. #EPA-600/7-79-023. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las
Vegas, Nevada. 240 pp.
Slawson, G. C. and T. F. Yen. 1979. Compendium Reports on Oil Shale
Technology. #EPA-600/7-79-039. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las
Vegas, Nevada. 224 pp.
Speltz, C. N. 1976. Strippable Coal Resources of Colorado - Location,
Tonnage, and Characteristics of Coal and Overburden. U.S. Bureau of Mines
Information Circular #8713. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C. 70 pp.
Steams-Roger, Inc. and Utah International, Inc. 1974. Yampa Project
Environmental Analysis. 834 pp.
Steele, T. D. 1976. Coal Resources Development Alternatives, Residuals
Management, and Impacts on the Water Resources of the Yampa River Basin,
Colorado and Wyoming. Paper presented September 7-8, 1976, at the
Symposium on Water Resources and Fossil Fuel Production, International
Water Resources Association, Dusseldorf, Germany. 14 pp.
123
-------
Steele, T. D. 1978. Assessment Techniques for Modeling Water Quality in a
River Basin Affected by Coal-Resource Development. Paper presented
September 11-15, 1978 at: Symposium on Modeling the Water Quality of the
Hydrological Cycle. International Association of Hydrological Sciences
and International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Baden, Austria.
16 pp.
Steele, T. D., D. P. Bauer, D. A. Wentz, and J. A. Warner. 1976a. An
Environmental Assessment of Impacts of Coal Development on the Water
Resources of the Yampa River Basin, Colorado and Wyoming -- Phase I Work
Plan. USGS Open File Report #76-367. U.S. Geological Survey, Lakewood,
Colorado. 16 pp.
Steele, T. D., I. C. James, and D. P. Bauer. 1976b. An Environmental
Assessment of Impacts of Coal Development on the Water Resources of the
Yampa River Basin, Colorado and Wyoming -- Phase II Work Plan. USGS Open
File Report #76-368. U.S. Geological Survey, Lakewood, Colorado. 31 pp.
Turner, D. S. 1962. Controls of Oil and Gas Accumulation. In: Exploration
for Oil and Gas in Northwestern Colorado. C. L. Amuedo and M. R. Mott
(eds.). Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, Denver, Colorado, pp.
29-33.
University of Wisconsin. 1976. Oil Shale Development in Northwestern
Colorado: Water and Related Land Impacts - Water Resources Management
Workshop. IES Report #48. Water Resources Management Program, Institute
for Environmental Studies, Madison, Wisconsin. 254 pp.
Upper Colorado Region State-Federal Inter-Agency Group. 1971a. Upper
Colorado Region Comprehensive Framework Study. Appendix V: Water
Resources. Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Committee, Water Resources
Council. 66 pp.
Upper Colorado Region State-Federal Inter-Agency Group. 1971b. Upper
Colorado Region Comprehensive Framework Study. Appendix XI: Municipal
and Industrial Water. Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Committee, Water
Resources Council. 62 pp.
Upper Colorado Region State-Federal Inter-Agency Group. 1971c. Upper
Colorado Region Comprehensive Framework Study. Appendix XIII: Fish and
Wildlife. Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Committee, Water Resources
Council. 108 pp.
Upper Colorado Region State-Federal Inter-Agency Group. 1971d. Upper
Colorado Region Comprehensive Framework Study. Appendix XIV: Electric
Power. Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Committee, Water Resources Council.
92 pp.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. 1972. Rio Blanco Gas Stimulation Project, Rio
Blanco County, Colorado. Environmental Statement #WASH-1519. 258 pp.
124
-------
U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1976a. Final Environmental Statement -
Northwest Colorado Coal. Volume I: Regional Analysis. Department of
Interior, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 372 pp.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1976b. Final Environmental Statement -
Northwest Colorado Coal.. Volume II: Site Specific Analyses - Ruby
Construction Company, Peabody Coal Company, W. R. Grace and Company,
Energy Fuels Corporation Mine and Reclamation Plans, and W. R. Grace and
Company Railroad Plan. U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 467 pp.
U.S. Bureau of Land Mangement. 1976c. Final Environmental Statement -
Northwest Colorado Coal. Appendices B (Map Foldouts), C (Glossary and
Bibliography), and D (Other Support Material). U.S. Department of
Interior, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 530 pp.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1978. Draft Environmental Statement -
Federal Coal Management Program. U.S. Department of Interior, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 698 pp.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1976. Colorado River Water Quality Improvement
Program. Draft Environmental Statement #INTDES 76-9. Department of
Interior, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 750 pp.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1977. El Paso Coal Gasification Project, San
Juan County, New Mexico. Final Environmental Statement #INTFES 77-03,
Vol. 1. U.S. Department of Interior. 550 pp.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1977a. 1973 (revised) and 1975 Population
Estimates and 1972 (revised) and 1974 Per Capita Income Estimates for
Counties and Incorporateed Places in Colorado. Population Estimates and
Projections, Series P-25, #654. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 15 pp.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1977b. 1973 (revised) and 1975 Population
Estimates and 1972 (revised) and 1974 Per Capita Income Estimates for
Counties and Incorporated Places in Wyoming. Population Estimates and
Projections, Series P-25, #698. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 11 pp.
U.S. Department of Interior. 1973. Final Environmental Impact Statement for
the Prototype Oil Shale Leasing Program (Six Volumes). Volume I:
Regional Impact of Oil Shale Development. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 698 pp.
U.S. Economic Research Service, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Soil
Conservation Service. 1966. Water and Related Land Resources, White
River Basin in Colorado. Denver, Colorado. 92 pp.
U.S. Economic Research Service, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Soil
Conservation Service. 1969. Water and Related Land Resources, Yampa
River Basin, Colorado and Wyoming. Denver, Colorado. 164 pp.
125
-------
U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration. 1977. Oil Shale -
FY 1977: Environmental Development Plan. #EDP/F-01(77). Office of
Assistant Administrator for Environment and Safety, Washington, D.C.
49 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. The Mineral Quality Problem in
the Colorado River Basin, Appendix A: Natural and Man Made Conditions
Affecting Mineral Quality. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 168 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Water Programs: National
Interim Primmary Drinking Water Regulatons. Federal Register 40(248):
59566-59574.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976a. National Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations. #EPA-570/9-76-003. Office of Water Supply,
Washington, D.C. 159 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976b. Quality Criteria for Water.
#EPA-440/9-76-023. Washington, D.C. 501 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Oil Shale and the Environment.
#EPA-600/9-77-033. Cincinnati, Ohio. 29 pp.
Utah International, Inc. 1974. Yampa Project Environmental Analysis. San
Francisco, California. 820 pp.
Utah State University. 1975. Colorado River Regional Assessment Study.
Part II: Detailed Analyses: Narrative Description Data, Methodology and
Documentation. Utah Water Resources Laboratory. Logan, Utah. 479 pp.
VTN Colorado, Inc. 1976. First Year Environmental Baseline Report. Vol. 1.
Federal Prototype Oil Shale Leasing Program. Tracts U-a and U-b, Utah,
White River Shale Project.
Wachter, R. A. and T. R. Blackwood. 1978. Source Assessment: Water
Pollutants from Coal Storage Areas. #EPA-600/2-78-004. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 105 pp.
Warner, D. L. 1974. Rationale and Methodology for Monitoring Ground Water
Polluted by Mining Activities. #EPA-680/4-74-003. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada. 76 pp.
Weeks, 0. B. and F. A. Welder. 1974. Hydrologic and Geophysical Data from
the Piceance Basin, Colorado. Colorado Water Resources Basic-Data Release
#35. Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Denver, Colorado. 121 pp.
Wentz, D. A. and T. D. Steele. 1976. Surface-Water Quality in the Yampa
River Basin, Colorado and Wyoming an Area of Accelerted Coal
Development. From: Proceedings of Engineering Foundation Conference on
Water For Energy Development, Pacific Grove, California. 28 pp.
126
-------
APPENDIX A
CONVERSION FACTORS
In this report, metric units are frequently abbreviated using the
notations below. The metric units can be converted to English units by
multiplying by the factors in the following list:
To convert
metric unit
Centimeters (cm)
Cubic meters (m3)
Cubic meters/sec (cms)
Hectares (ha)
Liters/kilogram (liters/kg)
Kilograms (kg)
Kilograms (kg)
Kilometers (km)
Liters
Liters
Meters (m)
Square kilometers (km2)
Square kilometers (km2)
Multiply by
0.3937
8.107 x IQ-*
35.315
2.471
239.64
2.205
1.102 x 10-3
0.6214
6.294 x 10-3
0.2642
3.281
247.1
0.3861
To obtain
English unit
Inches
Acre-feet
Cubic feet/sec
Acres
Gallons/ton
Pounds
Tons (short)
Miles
Barrels (crude oil)
Gallons
Feet
Acres
Square miles
127
-------
APPENDIX B
CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL DATA
Full descriptions of station locations are given in Table 23; only- the
station number is shown in the tables of Appendix B. The x values in these
tables represent the mean for all samples; the range is given in parentheses;
n indicates the total number of samples collected.
Table No.
Page
B-l. Flow (m3/sec), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the Yampa River Basin 131
B-2. Dissolved Solids, Sum of Constituents (mg/liter), 1971-78,
at U.S. Geological Survey Sampling Stations in the Yampa
River Basin 132
B-3. Conductivity (ymho/cm at 25ฐC), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological
Survey Sampling Stations in the Yampa River Basin 133
B-4. Dissolved Calcium (mg/liter), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological
Survey Sampling Stations in the Yampa River Basin 134
B-5. Dissolved Sodium (mg/liter), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological
Survey Sampling Stations in the Yampa River Basin 135
B-6. Dissolved Magnesium (mg/liter), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological
Survey Sampling Stations in the Yampa River Basin 136
B-7. Dissolved potassium (mg/liter), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological
Survey Sampling Stations in the Yampa River Basin 137
B-8. Bicarbonate ion (mg/liter), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological
Survey Sampling Stations in the Yampa River Basin 138
B-9. Dissolved Sulfate (mg/liter), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological
Survey Sampling Stations in the Yampa River Basin 139
B-10. Chloride (mg/liter), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the Yampa River Basin. . . 140
B-ll. Dissolved Silica (mg/liter), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological
Survey Sampling Stations in the Yampa River Basin 141
128
-------
Table No. Page
B-12. Total Hardness (mg/liter), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the Yampa River Basin 142
B-13. Total Iron (yg/liter), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the Yampa River Basin 143
B-14. Total Manganese (pg/liter), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological
Survey Sampling Stations in the Yampa River Basin 144
B-15. Temperature (ฐC), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the Yampa River Basin 145
B-16. Dissolved Oxygen (mg/liter), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological
Survey Sampling Stations in the Yampa River Basin 146
B-17. pH, 1971-78, at U.S. Geological Survey Sampling Stations
in the Yampa River Basin 147
B-18. Total Alkalinity (mg/liter as CaCO ), 1971-78, at U.S.
Geological Survey Sampling Stations in the Yama River Basin . . 148
B-19. Suspended Sediments (mg/liter), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological
Survey Sampling Stations in the Yampa River Basin 149
B-20. Flow (m3/sec), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological Survey Sampling
Stations in the White River Basin 150
B-21. Dissolved Solids, Sum of Constituents (mg/liter), 1971-78,
at U.S. Geological Survey Sampling Stations in the White
River Basin 151
B-22. Conductivity (ymho/cm at 25ฐC), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological
Survey Sampling Stations in the White River Basin 152
B-23. Dissolved Calcium (mg/liter), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological
Survey Sampling Stations in the White River Basin 153
B-24. Dissolved Sodium (mg/liter), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological
Survey Sampling Stations in the White River Basin 154
B-25. Dissolved Magnesium (mg/liter), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological
Survey Sampling Stations in the White River Basin 155
B-26. Dissolved Potassium (mg/liter), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological
Survey Sampling Stations in the White River Basin 156
B-27. Bicarbonate Ion (mg/liter), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological
Survey Sampling Stations in the White River Basin 157
129
-------
Table No. Page
B-28. Dissolved Sulfate (mg/liter), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological
Survey Sampling Stations in the White River Basin 158
B-29. Chloride (mg/liter), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the White River Basin 159
B-30. Dissolved Silica (mg/liter), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological
Survey Sampling Stations in the White River Basin 160
B-31. Total Hardness (mg/liter), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological
Survey Sampling Stations in the White River Basin 161
B-32. Total Iron (yg/liter), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the White River Basin 162
B-33. Total Manganese (yg/liter), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the White River Basin 163
B-34. Temperature (ฐC), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the White River Basin 164
B-35. Dissolved Oxygen (mg/liter), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological
Survey Sampling Stations in the White River Basin 165
B-36. pH, 1971-78, at U.S. Geological Survey Sampling Stations
in the White River Basin 166
B-37. Total Alkalinity (mg/liter as CaC03), 1971-78, at U.S.
Geological Survey Sampling Stations in the White River Basin. . 167
B-38. Suspended Sediments (mg/liter), 1971-78, at U.S. Geological
Survey Sampling Stations in the White River Basin 168
130
-------
Station
2360
2395
2410
2437
2439
2441
2000
2443
2444
4100
4400
2450
2465
2476
2490
2492
3500
2497
2510
2570
2500
2597
2600
26005
TABLE B-l. FLOW (m /sec), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING
STATIONS IN THE YAMPA RIVER BASIN
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Number x (min-roax) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (nin-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
2.6(2.3-3.1)5 13.0(2.0-58.0)15
0.01(-)2 0.03(0.03-0.04)2
0.1(0.001-0.2)4
19.0(2.1-69.1)4
8.8(7.5-10.3)3 37.6(2.9-145.5)9
54.5(4.9-223.4)23 31.3(3.2-105.9)24 79.1(6.4-322.8)17 76.3(3.1-257.1)8
2.8(1.9-3.3)3 11.7(0.1-52.1)11 21.7(1.2-102.2)8
23.3(1.1-127.4)10 7.5(2.8-14.6)5 118.4(-)1
28.4(0.3-138.2)23 14.7(0.02-36.8)24 35.3(0.7-161.1)17 29.4(0.4-109.6)8
-------
TABLE B-2. DISSOLVED SOLIDS, SUM OF CONSTITUENTS (mg/liter), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE YAMPA RIVER BASIN
Station 1971 1972 1973
Number x" (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
2360
2395
2410
2437
2439
2441
2000
2443
2444
,_. 4100
co
ro 4400
2450
2465
2476
2490
2492
3500
2497
2510 284(89-410)12 274(84-401)12 258(70-425)10
2570
2500
2597 225(83-314)6 292(264-321)3 135(-)1
2600 357(108-612)12 424(135-858)12 337(95-572)10
26005
1974 1975
x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
187(-)1
43(-)l
468(462-473)2
523(-)l
-
157(49-212)7
.-
134(-)1
177(58-231)7
187(82-259)6
117(-)1
_-
376(-)l
249(121-334)6
316(87-505)9 332(99-497)9
260(-)1
-
255(79-416)4 218(69-422)4
368(99-770)9 381(105-772)10
1976
x fnrin-max) n
--
372(222-503)9
845(651-1020)5
--
-
179(38-280)12
214(48-374)12
222(44-393)11
--
--
--
280(103-421)11
299(65-467)12
177(-)1
--
167(69-250)5
385(93-702)12
--
1977
x (min-max) n
396(321-465)6
646(391-827)3
--
156(40-206)12
--
--
120(49-407)13
377(90-1930)11
--
--
503(140-2250)10
415(92-1670)13
192(-)1
--
566(-)l
664(216-2100)14
--
1978
x (min-max) n
--
--
377(278-561)5
635(607-663)2
--
154(37-272)6
174(108-209)3
144(48-276)8
--
228(96-353)7
361(177-704)4
192(-)1
--
261(127-413)4
--
-------
TABLE B-3. CONDUCTIVITY (ymho/cm at 25ฐC), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE YAMPA RIVER BASIN
CO
co
Station 1971 1972 1973
Number x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
2360
2395
2410
2437
2439
2441
2000
2443
2444
4100
4400
2450
2465
2476
2490
2492
3500
2497
2510 458(130-682)23 436(127-640)24 398(112-680)17
2570
2500
2597 405(122-630)10 471(432-516)5 197(-)1
2600 570(160-980)23 631(208-1292)24 488(153-889)17
26005
1974 1975
x {min-max) n x (min-max) n
140(100-200)8
269(90-380)18
125(65-180)5
810(740-850)4
879(-)l
547(380-850)3
840(830-850)2
1600(-)1
297(70-380)19
730(700-760)2
1758(530-6000)10
228(180-260)3
324(90-430)8
323(100-440)7
230(210-250)2
427(400-480)3
532(440-625)2
397(220-540)7
512(142-790)9 474(144-720)11
390(340-440)2
615(-)1
408(129-682)4 845(-)l
579(156-1220)9 615(175-1190)11
460(-)1
1976
x (min-max) n
104(80-140)8
288(55-390)24
112(55-140)7
678(410-800)14
1205(980-1400)6
543(385-745)3
1858(515-3200)2
2250(1400-3100)2
334(80-480)22
737(640-790)3
752(305-1000)3
219(130-300)8
359(100-650)12
364(78-610)11
197(140-240)3
292(160-430)8
395(175-530)3
443(175-580)12
494(120-720)16
258(R5-325)4
-
--
586(160-1100)14
445(-)l
1977
x" (min-max) n
97(70-110)8
239(65-320)7
106(60-200)8
583(430-725)16
962(560-1260)7
265(60-360)29
200(120-300)3
319(80-625)13
345(105-570)12
247(200-340)3
490(220-860)13
488(177-1100)19
300(-)1
-
920(-)1
795(330-1850)17
1978
x (min-max) n
--
--
518(300-840)5
930(900-960)2
.
237(60-444)6
278(185-340)3
234(80-420)8
--
--
--
350(128-550)7
560(295-1200)4
330(-)1
--
--
398(200-600)4
--
-------
TABLE B-4. DISSOLVED CALCIUM (mg/1iter), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE YAMPA RIVER BASIN
co
Station 1971 1972 1973
Number X (min-max) n X (min-max) n x (min-maxj n
2360
2395
2410
2437
2439
2441
2000
2443
2444
4100
4400
2450
2465
2476
2490
2492
3500
2497
2510 37(14-50)12 35(14-45)12 33(12-47)10
2570
2500
2597 38(17-51)6 45(41-51)3 26(-)l
2600 46(19-73)12 51(21-90)12 42(17-60)10
26005
1974 1975
x (m1n-tnax) n X (min-max) n
36(-n
9(-)l
81(79-84)3
..
75(-)l
26(8-33)8
..
29(-n
28(9-37)7
29(13-39)6
26(-)l
59(-)l
42(28-50)6
41(15-58)9 40(15-50)9
45(-)l
..
40(20-55)4 32(13-50)4
50(18-73)9 46(18-60)10
1976
x (m1n-max) n
-
66(40-84)11
127(95-150)5
28(7-40)12
26(-)l
32(8-47)12
32(7-47)11
--
45(21-60)11
37(11-56)12
35(-)l
--
27(12-40)5
49(17-79)12
--
1977
x (m1n-max) n
70(62-80)6
106(69-103)3
25(8-31)12
--
30(10-44)13
30(11-43)11
43(1-61)11
33(2-49)13
36(-)l
--
46(-)l
47(2-75)14
1978
x (min-max) n
68(49-93)5
100(91-110)2
25(7-35)6
29(19-35)3
23(10-38)8
--
41(20-58)7
45(27-80)4
39(-)l
--
31(22-39)4
-------
TABLE B-5. DISSOLVED SODIUM (mg/liter), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE YAMPA RIVER BASIN
Station 1971 1972 1973
Number x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
2360
2395
2410
2437
2439
2441
2000
2443
2444
4100
4400
2450
2465
2476
2490
2492
3500
2497
2510 34(6-54)12 37(6-58)12 34(6-59)10
2570
2500
2597 28(6-45)6 37(32-46)3 10(-)1
2600 60(10-110)12 72(15-160)12 58(10-110)10
26005
1974 1975
x (min-max) n X (min-max) n
ll(-)i
2(-)l
36(34-38)3
25(-)l
15(3-22)8
10(-)1
18(6-25)7
20(9-29)6
4(-)l
24(-)l
16(6-24)6
39(6-67)9 43(6-67)9
25(-)l
30(5-60)4 28(4-77)4
57(8-160)9 67(10-220)10
1976
x (min-max! n
--
25(11-38)11
60(48-79)5
--
18(2-28)12
9(-)l
24(3-42)12
26(3-46)11
~
--
17(4-26)11
39(5-65)12
14(-)1
17(5-35)5
63(9-130)12
1977
x (min-max) n
27(17-36)6
51(31-70)3
17(3-28)12
24(4-66)13
181(11-1700)11
--
--
170(8-1600)11
153(11-1400)13
16(-)1
--
120(-)1
240(28-1800)14
1978
x (min-max) n
26(17-42)5
42(31-53)2
15(2-31)6
15(7-23)3
15(3-35)8
--
--
--
13(3-24)7
44(13-93)4
15(-)1
50(13-120)4
--
-------
TABLE B-6. DISSOLVED MAGNESIUM (mg/liter), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE YAMPA RIVER BASIN
Station 1971 1972 1973
Number x (min-max) n if (min-max) n x (min-max) n
2360
2395 _ --
2410
2437
2439
2441
2000
2443
2444
h-- 4100
co
^ 4400
2450
2465
2476
Z490
2492
3500
2497
2510 18(4-28)12 16(4-25)12 14(3-26)10
2570
2500 -- :
2597 8(2-12)6 12(10-14)3 5(-)l
2600 12(4-20)12 13(5-22)12 12(4-18)10
26005
1974 1975 1976
X (min-max) n x (min-max) n 5! (min-max) n
--
12(-)1
2(-)l
33(31-34)3 27(16-36)11
60(44-73)5
63(-)l
9(2-12)8 10(2-18)12
--
8(-)l 8(-)l
10(3-13)7 12(2-24)12
10(3-15)6 13(2-25)11
7(-)l
37(-)l
21(9-30)6 23(6-36)11
20(5-34)9 20(5-37)9 19(4-31)1?
16(-)1 10(-)1
12(0-26)4 10(3-16)4 9(3-14)4
14(4-23)9 13(4-17)10 14(4-23)12
1977
x (min-max) n
__
__
__
28(23-34)6
43(23-57)3
__
8(2-10)12
11(2-22)13
10(0-18)11
__
__
24(0-53)11
16(0-26)13
9(-)l
..
2K-)1
13(0-24)14
1978
x (min-max) n
..
27(20-39)5
48(47-49)2
__
9(2-18)6
_-
..
10(6-12)3
8(2-16)8
..
18(6-29)7
24(12-50)4
9(-)l
__
8(5-12)4
--
-------
TABLE B-7. DISSOLVED POTASSIUM (mg/1iter), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE YAMPA RIVER BASIN
co
Station 1971 1972 1973 1974
Number x (min-max) n x (min-max) n X (min-max) n i< (min-max) n
2360
2395
2410
2437
2439
2441
2000
2443
2444
4100
4400
2450
2465
2476
2490
2492
3500
2497
2510 2.4(1.1-4.5)12 2.6(1.1-4.1)12 2.3(0.8-3.4)10 2.7(1.2-4.4)9
25/0 \x
2500
2597 2.1(0.9-3.6)6 2.5(2.0-2.8)3 2.1(-)1 3.2(0.7-2.8)4
2600 2.4(0.7-4.4)12 2.9(1.2-5.3)12 2.4(0.6-4.2)10 2.7(0.8-6.7)9
26005
1975 1976 1977 1978
% (min-max) n X (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
_.
1.8(-)1
0.8(-)1
4.4(3.7-5.1)2 3.4(2.4-6.0)10 4.0(3.4-5.0)6 3.2(2.7-4.4)5
7.5(3.0-16.0)5 5.2(3.4-7.3)3 3.0(2.1-4.0)2
3.5(-)l
2.2(0.9-3.2)7 2.4(0.7-3.3)12 2.3(0.8-3.2)12 1.8(0.6-2.6)6
1.8(-)1 1.6(-)1
3.4(1.1-9.3)7 2.8(0.8-5.3)12 2.4(0.9-3.5)13 2.4(2.1-2.9)3
2.3(1.0-4.1)6 2.4(0.7-3.7)11 2.5(0-3.8)11 1.8(0.7-3.1)8
0.8(-)1
--
3.0(-)1
1.8(0.9-3.2)6 2.0(0.9-4.3)11 2.6(1.5-5.1)11 1.5(0.7-2.1)7
4.1(2.6-7.8)9 2.7(0.8-5.1)12 2.9(1.3-6.0)13 3.5(1.9-7.0)4
3.4(-)l 2.4(-)l 2.4(-)l 2.5(-)l
_.
1.9(0.9-3.5)4 2.1(0.9-2.8)5 4(-)l
3.0(0.7-6.2)10 3.4(0.7-5.7)12 3.4(1.6-7.3)14 1.7(0.6-3.0)4
..
-------
TABLE B-8. BICARBONATE ION (mg/1 iter), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE YAMPA RIVER BASIN
Station 1971 1972 1973
Number x (min-maxj n x (min-max) n i! (min-max) n
2360
2395
2410
2437
2439
2441
2000
2443
2444
i-. 4100
CO
00 4400
2450
2465
2476
2490
2492
3500
2497
2510 161(64-236)12 154(64-204)12 148(51-200)10
2570
2500
2597 148(59-207)6 177(154-201)3 76(-)l
2600 191(86-311)12 184(95-266)12 182(71-244)10
26005
1974 1975
x (min-max) n X (min-max) n
148(-)1
35(-)l
340(336-344)3
370(-)1
--
112(33-143)8
128(-)1
155(39-157)7
115(46-156)6
117(-)1
282(-)l
180(97-219)6
168(59-255)9 176(60-223)9
230(-)1
176(61-310)4 132(53-220)4
189(75-290)9 199(79-254)10
-
1976
it (min-max) n
275(164-372)11
322(205-417)5
-.
115(24-159)12
__
127(32-172)12
126(27-169)11
__
195(84-266)11
161(40-269)12
157(-)1
120(47-210)5
193(67-312)12
1977
3? (min-max) n
281(248-330)6
308(184-380)3
__
111(27-150)12
127(33-190)153
141(72-220)11
__
--
222(110-330)10
176(66-250)13
160(-)1
..
250(-)1
218(130-305)14
1978
it (min-max) n
..
__
266(160-320)5
240(190-290)2
--
__
85(25-120)6
--
..
104(73-140)3
86(32-140)8
..
165(82-230)7
165(100-280)4
150(-)1
148(47-310)24
136(88-180)3
-------
TABLE B-9. DISSOLVED SULFATE (ing/liter), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE YAMPA RIVER BASIN
CJ
VO
Station 1971 1972 1973
Number X (min-max) n X (min-max) n X (min-max) n
2360
2395
2410
2437
2439
2441
2000
2443
2444
4100
4400
2450
2465
2476
2490
2492
3500
2497
2510 91(18-140)12 82(16-150)12 76(13-180)10
2570
2500
2597 54(14-83)6 82(63-120)3 38(-)l
2600 107(14-240)12 148(27-380)12 98(15-210)10
26005
1974 1975 1976
X (min-max) n X (min-max) n x (min-max) n
34(-)l
6(-)l
130(-)1 103(50-150)10
406(330-480)5
160(-)1
-
34(7-57)8 44(6-110)12
130(-)1
1700(-)1
15(-)1
43(9-61)7 62(8-170)12
50(11-76)6 71(10-180)11
6(-)l
100(-)1
63(19-100)6 81(17-150)11
105(18-230)9 110(18-210)9 99(15-200)12
43(-)l 23(-)l
64(7-110)4 62(8-140)4 36(13-75)5
114(16-310)9 115(18-280)10 127(15-280)12
--
1977
X (m1n-max) n
112(73-140)6
270(150-370)3
29(6-40)12
-
50(9-150)13
65(27-120)11
--
122(26-500)11
89(24-200)13
29(-)l
200(-)1
185(52-610)14
--
1978
x (min-max) n
--
105(74-210)5
300(260-340)2
44(5-100)6
--
49(26-76)3
38(6-91)8
57(14-110)7
115(55-210)4
36(-)l
72(28-120)4
-------
TABLE B-10. CHLORIDE (mg/liter), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING
STATIONS IN THE YAMPA RIVER BASIN
Station 1971
Humber x (min-max) n
2360
2395
2410
2437
2439
2441
2000
2443
2444
4100
| '
.pป
O 4400
2450
2465
2476
2490
2492
3500
2497
2510 13(4-26)12
2570
2500
2597 9(2-19)6
2600 23(4-43)12
26005
1972 1973 1974 1975 1976
x (min-max) n x (rain-max) n x (rain-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
4(-n
0(-)1
7(5-8)2 4(2-6)9
11(8-21)5
4(-)l
7(2-10)7 9(1-15)12
..
2(-)l
8(2-13)7 10(1-13)12
9(3-12)6 9(1-15)11
!(.)!
-
4<-)l
3(1-4)6 4(2-6)11
14(3-23)12 12(2-18)10 13(1-30)9 16(5-25)9 15(1-25)12
5(-)l 3(-)l
10(9-10)3 4(-)l 6(2-13)4 7(2-20)4 4(2-8)5
30(6-72)12 17(3-39)10 20(2-72)9 22(2-77)10 20(2-54)12
1977
x (min-max) n
4(3-6)6
9(7-11)3
10(1-15)12
-
11(2-22)13
12(6-16)11
--
6(3-16)11
27(3-130)13
4(-)l
--
42(-n
53(8-170)14
--
1978
5! (min-max) n
4(3-6)5
6(5-7)2
--
6(1-10)6
6(2-11)3
6(1-14)8
--
4(1-6)7
34(4-110)4
4(-)l
--
16(3-42)4
-------
TABLE B-ll. DISSOLVED SILICA (rag/liter), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE YAMPA RIVER BASIN
Station 1971 1972 1973
Number >? (min-max) n Jt (min-max) n X (min-max) n
2360
2395
2410
2437
2439
2441
2000
2443
2444
4100
4400
2450
2465
2476
2490
2492
3500
2497
2510 9(4-12)12 8(3-14)12 10(4-16)10
2570
2500
2597 14(10-22)6 16(10-20)3 12(-)1
2600 14(11-23)12 15(9-20)12 14(11-20)10
26005
1974 1975 1976
x" (min-nax) n i! (min-max) n 5! (min-max) n
..
15(-)1
7(-)l
8(7-9)3 9(7-11)10
7(3-9)5
9(-)l
8(5-12)8 10(6-15)12
5(-)l 8(-)l
7(6-10)7 8(3-12)12
7(4-9)6 7(3-12)11
13(-)1
-.
10(-)1
12(10-15)6 10(6-13)11
10(4-14)9 9(5-14)9 7(2-10)12
9(-)l 12(-)1
12(7-15)4 12(10-16)4 12(7-15)5
15(12-20)9 15(11-21)10 13(9-18)12
1977
x (min-max) n
--
--
9(7-12)6
7(6-8)3
9(2-16)12
8(4-15)13
6(0-12)11
--
--
10(1-15)11
5(2-9)13
16(-)1
--
8(-)l
14(8-21)14
1978
x" (min-max) n
--
--
8(6-10)5
5(3-7)2
--
--
--
11(7-16)6
--
10(10-11)3
9(7-10)8
--
--
12(10-14)7
8(2-10)4
13(-)1
12(10-14)4
-------
TABLE B-12. TOTAL HARDNESS (mg/liter), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE YAMPA RIVER BASIN
ro
Station 1971
Number x (mln-raax) n
2360
2395
2410
2437
2439
2441
2000
2443
2444
4100
4400
2450
2465
2476
2490
2492
3500
2497
2510 165(53-240)12
2570
2500
2597 124(49-170)6
2600 160(63-260)12
26005
197Z 1973 1974 1975
if (mln-max) n x (min-nax) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
..
140(-)1
29(-)l
340(330-350)3
450(-)1
..
102(29-130)8
110(-)1
112(36-150)7
118(46-160)6
94(-)l
300(-)1
192(110-250)6
152(52-210)12 143(44-220)10 183(58-280)9 186(60-280)9
180(-)1
167(150-180)3 87(-)l 150(50-240)4 121(46-190)4
180(71-320)12 151(58-220)10 184(63-280)9 169(63-220)10
--
1976
;? (min-max) n
--
274(170-360)11
568(420-680)5
111(24-170)12
98(-)l
130(30-220)12
132(25-220)11
207(79-300)11
170(43-260)12
130(-)1
105(42-150)4
177(58-290)12
1977
x (min-max) n
293(260-340)6
443(270-560)3
95(27-120)12
120(32-200)13
116(35-180)11
208(2-340)11
147(6-230)13
130(-)1
200(-)1
172(60-270)14
1978
x (min-max) n
282(200-390)5
450(420-480)2
98(24-160)6
111(73-130)3
91(37-160)8
176(74-260)7
215(120-410)4
130(-)1
--
--
112(75-150)4
-------
TABLE B-13. TOTAL IRON (yg/liter), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE YAMPA RIVER BASIN
Station 1971 1972
Number x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
2360
2395
2410
2437
2439
2441
2000
2443
2444
4100
4400
2450
2465
2476
2490
2492
3500
2497
2510
2570
2500
2597 64(0-140)5
2600
26005
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978
X (min-max) n X (min-max) n X (min-max) n 5! (min-max) n X (min-max) n X (min-max) n
180(-)1
280(250-310)2 1297(410-3000)3
120(-)1
2300(-)1
1600(-)1
320(130-510)2 583(320-750)3
1395(690-2100)2 980(660-1300)2
2810(820-4800)2 2100(1100-3100)2
135(70-200)2 372(210-680)5 507(320-670)3
375(210-540)2 590(30-1300)3
1565(630-2500)2 210(80-300)3
70(-)1
135(70-200)2 740(150-2300)5 720(470-1100)3
250(70-530)3 1908(240-5000)4 700(-)1
145(140-150)2 517(110-1000)3
30(-)1
410(380-440)2 1140(660-2100)3
263(120-440)3 2275(240-5600)4 2200(-)1
625(340-910)2 240(110-510)4 4473(170-13000)3 500(230-720)3 1700(-)1
335(190-480)2 430(200-660)2 400(-)1
150(-)1
110(-)1
18120(880-63000)4 6285(230-20000)4 * 68000(-)1
250(-)1
*Aberrant data point
-------
TABLE B-14. TOTAL MANGANESE (yg/liter), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE YAMPA RIVER BASIN
Station 1971
Number x (min-max) n
2360
2395
2410
2437
2439
2441
2000
2443
2444
4100
4400
2450
2465
2476
2490
2492
3500
2497
2510
2570
2500
2597
2600
26005
1972 1973 1974 1975
X (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n X (min-max) n
20(-)1
40(30-50)2
0(-)1
550(-)1
170(-)1
40(30-50)2
235(70-400)2
580(570-590)2
35(30-40)2
70(40-100)2
320(-)1
O(-)
35(20-50)2
50(40-60)3
5(0-10)2
0(-)1
45(30-60)2
30(-)1
30(20-40)2 20(-)4
55(40-70)2
80(-)1
30(-)1
155(30-340)4
20(-)1
1976 1977 1978
x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
63(10-120)3
--
--
47(40-50)3
225(180-270)2
350(300-400)2
46(20-80)5 43(40-50)3
77(20-150)3
317(30-600)3
58(20-110)5 60(50-70)3 360(-)1
88(40-170)4 70(-)1 140(-)1
27(20-40)3
--
53(30-80)3
78(20-120)4 90(-)1 230(-)1
130(20-350)3 43(40-50)3 130(-)1
90(20-150)3
--
--
158(10-460)4 4852(120-19000)4 4000(-)1
-------
TABLE B-15. TEMPERATURE (ฐC), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING
STATIONS IN THE YAMPA RIVER BASIN
tn
Station 1971 1972 1973
Number x (min-max) n x (min-max) n * (min-max) n
2360
2395
2410
2437
2439
2441
2000
2443
2444
4100
4400
2450
2465
2476
2490
2492
3500
2497
2510 8.2(0-24.5)23 10.5(0-24.0)24 8.5(0-22.0)17
2570 3.5(0-9.0)3 4.7(0-13.0)8 7.8(0-24.0)8
2500
2597 8.2(0-20.0)10 2.0(0-8.0)5 11.5(-)1
2600 6.6(0-18.5)23 8.7(0-18.5)24 7.5(0-20.0)17
26005
1974 1975
x (min-max) n >? (min-max) n
7.5(-)l 4.5(0-10.5)11
9.4(0-17.0)20
4.4(1.0-11.0)5
6.8(1.0-18.0)4
14.0(-)1
9.0(0-18.0)3
9.8(2.0-17.5)2
5.0(1.0-9.0)2
10.3(0-15.0)20
9.0(1.0-17.0)2
14.5(7.0-19.5)10
9.3(0-17.0)3
11.8(0-20.0)8
11.4(0-19.0)7
5.5(0-11.0)2
6.9(0-18.0)4
11.8(0-23.5)2
11.6(1.0-22.5)2
9.1(0-22.5)9 8.3(0-21.0)11
14.9(2.5-21.0)4 11.6(0-20.0)9
18.5(-)1
12.1(2.0-21.0)4 10.6(6.0-15.5)5
9.0(0-23.5)9 8.5(0-25.5)11
* 17.5(-)1
1976
it (min-max) n
4.4(0-12.0)11
5.1(0-19.0)26
5.2(0-15.5)12
5.8(0-22.0)15
6.5(0-17.0)6
9.0(0-14.0)3
7.2(0-14.5)2
13.3(0-26.5)2
5.9(0-19.0)28
11.0(0-16.5)3
11.3(2.0-21.5)3
7.2(0-21.0)10
7.9(0-22.0)12
9.3(0-22.0)11
8.5(0-15.5)3
7.5(0-23.0)10
8.5(0-16.0)3
9.0(0-24.0)13
8.5(0-24.0)16
12.8(0-25.0)11
13.4(6.0-22.0)6
8.0(0-22.0)15
15.0(-)1
1977
x (min-max) n
6.0(0-13.0)8
7.1(0-17.5)7
5.4(0-14.0)8
9.6(0-20.0)16
6.9(0-11.5)7
6.6(0-20.5)29
11.7(9.0-13.0)3
6.4(0-20.5)13
9.5(0-24.0)12
11.2(1.0-17.0)4
--
9.2(0-26.0)14
9.4(0-24.0)20
14.4(0-27.0)8
--
14.5(-)1
9.7(0-26.5)17
16.2(15.0-17.5)2
1978
x (min-max) n
--
11.2(0.5-17.5)5
14.5(7.0-22.0)2
5.3(0-16.5)6
--
6.2(1.0-11.0)3
7.6(1.0-16.0)8
--
8.6(1.0-21.0)7
11.5(5.5-18.5)4
5.0(-)1
14.0(7.0-26.0)4
-------
TABLE B-16. DISSOLVED OXYGEN (ing/liter), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE YAMPA RIVER BASIN
Station 1971 1972 1973
Number x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
2360
2395
2410
2437
2439
2441
2000
2443
2444
4100
4400
2450
2465
2476
2490
2492
3500
2497
2510 9.9(7.8-12.2)11 10.0(8.0-13.8)12 9.5(7.4-11.8)9
2570
2500
2597 9.4(8.7-10.4)4 10.5(10.4-10.5)2
2600 9.1(7.2-10.4)11 9.0(7.1-11.0)12 8.7(6.1-10.8)9
26005
1974 1975
x (min-max) n X (min-max) n
7.8(-)l
8.5(7.2-9.9)10
8.1(-)1
8.3(7.2-9.8)4
6.0(-)1
9.2(8.0-10.6)3
8.6(8.4-8.9)2
9.6(5.9-13.4)2
8.6(6.8-12.6)15
10.1(8.8-11.3)2
7.2(6.8-7.5)9
8.8(-)l
9.2(7.2-12.2)7
9.1(8.2-10.6)4
9.9(8.8-11.0)2
7.6(-)l
8.6(6.0-11.2)2
9.6(8.0-13.2)5
9.3(8.0-11.1)8 9.0(6.8-10.6)10
9.8(8.6-11.0)2
8.9(-)l
8.8(-)l
9.0(7.2-12.2)8 8.8(6.8-11.1)6
7.6(-)l
1976
X (min-max) n
11.2(6.5-13.0)12
10.0(6.4-13.2)9
8.5(6.8-11.4)6
9.8(9.2-10.7)3
8.8(8.5-9.0)2
8.2(5.8-10.5)2
9.3(7.0-15.3)12
10.4(9.5-11.6)3
10.1(8.8-11.1)3
8.8(6.0-15.0)12
10(8.0-12.9)11
9.4(8.1-11.1)3
9.4(7.8-11.2)3
10.2(8.3-12.0)11
9.4(7.9-11.8)12
8.2(6.1-11.1)4
9.1(-)1
8.5(6.1-10.9)12
7.4(-)l
1977
x (min-max) n
9.3(6.8-11.2)6
7.8(5.0-10.2)3
9.6(7.5-12.6)13
9.7(5.9-13.0)12
9.5(6.9-11.1)11
..
9.6(6.7-11.3)10
10.7(6.9-15.7)13
10.8(-)1
--
9.8(-)l
8.8(5.3-11.2)13
7.5(7.4-7.6)2
1978
x (min-max) n
__
--
10.6(-)1
--
--
--
10.5(8.5-11.5)5
--
--
9.8(8.3-11.1)3
9.7(8.0-10.8)7
__
--
9.5(7.3-11.0)5
8.9(7.0-10.4)3
10.0(-)1
--
7.4(6.6-8.2)2
--
-------
TABLE B-17. pH, 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING STATIONS IN
THE YAMPA RIVER BASIN
Station 1971 1972 1973 1974
Number x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
2360
2395
2410
2437
2439
2441
2000
2443
2444
4100
4400
2450
2465
2476
E490
2492
3500
2497
2510 8.0(7.4-8.7)23 8.0(7.3-8.7)23 7.8(7.1-8.7)17 8.0(7.7-8.9)8
2570
2500
2597 8.0(7.6-8.4)10 7.9(7.8-8.0)5 8.0(-)1 8.0(7.8-8.2)4
2600 7.6(7.0-8.1)23 7.8(7.3-9.3)23 7.7(7.1-8.4)17 8.0(7.4-8.4)9
26005
1975
x (m1n-max) n
8.2(-)l
8.5(7.7-9.0)10
8.0(-)1
8.5(8.4-8.8)4
7.7{-H
8.3(8.0-8.7)3
8.2(7.9-8.6)2
8.1(8.1-8.1)2
8.2(7.8-8.6)14
8.4(8.3-8.6)2
7.2(2.1-8.3)9
8.3(-)l
8.2(7.5-8.7)7
8.1(7.4-8.8)7
8.3(8.2-8.4)2
8.6(-)l
8.2(8.2-8.3)2
8.4<8.0-8.7)
8.3(7.3-9.1)10
8.4(8.3-8.4)2
8.4(-)l
8.5(-)l
8.1(7.5-8.6)9
8.4(-)l
1976
x (m1n-max) n
7.4(6.8-8.7)12
8.0(7.4-8.5)11
7.9(7.4-8.2)6
8.4(8.1-8.6)3
8.1(7.7-8.4)2
8.2(8.1-8.4)2
7.8(7.4-8.4)11
8.5(8.3-8.7)3
8.1(7.7-8.5)3
8.5(-)l
8.1(7.3-9.2)12
8.2(7.6-8.9)11
8.4(8.2-8.7)3
8.3(8.1-8.5)3
8.2(7.6-8.6)11
8.0(7.5-8.4)13
7.8(7.6-8.0)4
7.8(-)l
8.0(7.1-8.5)12
8.6(-)l
1977
x (min-max) n
--
~
7.7(7.2-8.1)6
8.1(7.8-8.5)3
--
7.7(7.0-8.3)13
7.6(7.3-8.2)13
7.8(7.1-8.3)12
8.4(7.6-8.3)11
8.2(7.8-8.7)14
8.1(-)1
8.6(-)l
7.9(7.5-8.4)14
8.5(8.4-8.6)2
1978
x (min-max) n
--
8.2(7.4-8.5)5
8.2(8.2-8.3)2
7.7(7.2-8.3)6
7.6(7.4-7.8)3
7.8(7.2-8.8)8
8.0(7.1-8.5)7
8.2(7.7-8.9)4
8.2(-)l
8.0(7.7-8.3)4
-------
TABLE B-18. TOTAL ALKALINITY (mg/liter as CaCO ), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL
SURVEY SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE YAMPA RIVER BASIN
00
Station 1971
Number x (min-max) n
2360
2395
2410
2437
2439
2441
2000
2443
2444
4100
4400
2450
2465
2476
2490
2492
3500
2497
2510 132(53-194)12
2570
2500
2597 121(48-170)6
2600 156(71-255)12
26005
1972 1973 1974 1975
x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
I2i(-)i
ป(-)!
279(277-282)3
..
303(-)1
..
92(27-117)8
105(-)1
97(32-129)7
99(38-134)6
99(-)l
-
231(-)1
151(80-191)6
130(53-170)12 124(42-164)10 138(48-209)9 147(49-183)9
189(-)1
145(126-165)3 62(-)l 144(50-254)4 108(43-180)4
151(78-218)12 152(58-200)10 156(62-238)9 164(65-208)10
-
1976
x (min-max) n
--
228(135-305)11
264(168-342)5
26(20-135)12
105(26-141)12
104(22-139)11
161(69-218)11
133(33-221)12
129(-)1
--
98(39-172)5
158(55-256)12
1977
x (min-max) n
230(200-270)6
253(150-310)3
91(22-120)12
104(27-160)13
115(34-180)11
..
--
188(90-270)11
147(54-210)13
130(-)1
210(-)1
180(110-250)14
1978
* (min-max) n
--
218(130-260)5
200(160-240)2
70(21-98)6
84(60-110)3
70(26-110)8
136(67-190)7
140(82-230)4
120(-)1
116(72-150)4
-------
TABLE B-19. SUSPENDED SEDIMENTS (mg/liter), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL
SURVEY SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE YAMPA RIVER BASIN
10
Station 1971 1972 1973
Number x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
2360
2395
2410
2437
2439
2441
2000
2443
2444
4100
4400
2450
2465
2476
2490
2492
3500
2497
2510
2570 11(7-14)3 108(7-506)11 236(9-1180)9
2500
2597
2600
26005
1974 1975
x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
15(6-29)3
27(-)l
16(-)1
33(7-105)4
134(-)1
9(5-12)2
48(10-104)3
58(8-180)4
36(31-42)2 194(2-588)5
117(8-516)6 128(8-294)7
1944(55-4560)6
1976 1977 1978
x (min-max) n x (min-max) n 5! (min-max) n
..
41(6-96)7
14(5-30)6 4(-)l
143(21-748)9 50(21-146)6
..
117(13-400)8
113(24-234)7
45(0-184)22 37(6-100)7
..
100(5-668)10
91(1-288)5
28(-)l
50(12-113)6
220(8-545)4
145(15-748)10 56(5-93)8
696(492-900)2
152(4-931)8 34(5-139)8 84(-)l
244(-)l
--
-------
TABLE B-20. FLOW (m /sec), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING
STATIONS IN THE WHITE RIVER BASIN
Station
Number
3030
3040
3042
3045
3048
3060
30606
3061
3062
I-1 30621
Ui
0 30622
30623
30624
306248
30625
306255
1200
3063
30638
3064
3065
3066
3067
3069
1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978
x (min-max) n x ^min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (m1n-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
4.1(-)1 3.4(3.1-3.9)6
3.3(-)l 2.7(2.2-3.2)4
11.3(7.6-15.1)2 34.6(7.7-85.0)3
9.9(9.1-10.8)2 32.1(8.1-78.2)3
30.7(11.9-77.3)5 3.7(0.01-7.4)2 8.5(7.2-9.5)3 8.3(6.4-9.4)3
0.3(0.04-1.0)17 0.3(-)1
0.4(0.1-0.9)16 0.2(-)1
0.2(0.2-0,3)3
0.6(0.2-3.5)23 0.3(0.1-1.3)24 0.9(0.3-2.3)17 0.6(0.1-0.9)8 ~ 0.7(0.3-1.2)10
0.6(0.2-3.5)23 0.3(0.1-1.3)24 0.9(0.3-2.6)17 0.6(0.2-1.0)7 ~ 0.8(0.3-1.2)6
0.8(0.04-4.8)23 0.9(0.03-11.8)25 1.0(0.3-2.1)20 0.8(0.2-1.1)9 -- 1.3(0.6-1.9)3 1.1(-)1
0.02(0-0.04)10
<0.01(-)5 0.01(-)1
0.01(<0.01-0.04)9
0.06(0.05-0.08)10 0.8(-)1 0.7(-)1
22.9(9.5-70.2)10 17.2(11.0-51.3)10 -- 15.3(11.8-21.2)3 9.9(-)l 9.2(6.6-13.1)6
19.6(8.5-49.8)21 18.8(5.6-61.7)24 25.0(8.4-98.3)21 79.2(15.0-251.7)4
25.5(4.9-63.2)8
-------
TABLE B-21. DISSOLVED SOLIDS, SUM OF CONSTITUENTS (nig/liter), 1971-78, AT
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE WHITE RIVER BASIN
cn
Station
Number
3030
3040
3042
3045
3048
3060
30606
3061
3062
30621
30622
30623
30624
306248
30625
306Z55
1200
3063
30638
3064
3065
3066
3067
3069
1971 1972 1973
X (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (mln-max) n
261(244-278)2
327(305-349)2
1064(392-1340)12 1151(527-1550)12 1077(851-1330)10
1129(420-1520)12 1268(529-1930)12 1132(892-1460)10
1916(378-3400)11 2705(869-5280)12 1495(1040-2146)12
3070(-)1
403(224-553)12 432(203-534)12 528(206-713)12
1974
x (m1n-max) n
224(116-269)5
274(124-353)3
323(146-462)3
722(578-829)25
948(736-1090)25
1178(964-1630)10
1211(944-1720)10
1602(1260-2010)10
2374(1740-2590)12
528(469-618)8
530(229-710)16
544(470-718)8
564(473-868)8
524(199-712)15
1975
X (min-max) n
194(130-259)2
384(168-459)7
685(502-761)22
866(639-1010)21
1098(998-1200)8
1024(901-1220)11
1097(996-1320)7
1385(1120-1950)13
1321(1210-1390)11
260(-)1
2477(2250-2870)22
497(448-617)4
442(226-578)19
469(213-661)23
456(250-665)20
465(217-607)20
484(212-650)23
1976
X (m1n-max) n
220(213-232)3
174(157-192)2
369(186-503)11
642(528-741)11
873(584-1080)11
1116(945-1270)10
1138(862-1420)10
1167(693-1600)6
1508(874-2610)9
154(-)1
1283(1210-1380)9
149(-)1
172(-)1
2634(2240-2860)10
461(222-575)11
--
442(244-522)6
492(220-613)18
366(228-571)3
495(262-635)10
539(269-736)16
1977
X (min-max) n
234(176-257)9
172(120-209)11
471(181-734)12
722(659-827)8
976(877-1080)12
1192(1120-1370)11
1143(994-1330)12
1813(1310-3200)13
367{-)l
1253(1170-1300)3
2772(2650-2850)4
591 (-)l
574(430-858)11
1274(662-3170)8
576(275-913)10
590(377-851)4
653(391-1170)14
1978
X (mfn-max) n
238(237-239)2
163(157-169)2
ซ
365(184-504)7
684(566-819)5
828(650-948)6
1251(1150-1380)8
1088(769-1420)5
1960(1020-2980)4
--
2690(-)1
466(219-621)5
492(405-578)2
461(267-567)3
508(263-589)7
-------
TABLE B-22. CONDUCTIVITY (ymho/cm at 25ฐC), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL
SURVEY SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE WHITE RIVER BASIN
Ol
ro
Station
Number
3030
3040
3042
3045
3048
3060
30606
3061
3062
30621
30622
30623
30624
306248
30625
306255
1200
3063
30638
3064
3065
3066
3067
3069
1971 1972 1973 1974
x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (tnin-max) n
..
401(378-424)2 353(191-418)4
330(174-486)2 451(207-577)3
575(248-780)6
1126(900-1270)27
1975
x (rain-max) n
272(160-380)8
284(175-625)8
316(200-400)5
240(-)1
554(220-750)13
1070(825-1410)22
1425(1140-1660)25 1283(950-1500)21
1532(560-2040)23 1640(790-2240)24 1498(1150-1910)17 1767(1480-2210)9
1598(620-2210)23 1816(780-2800)24 1600(1300-2040)17 1814(1530-2450)9
2906(560-5440)23 3843(1250-7240)24 2136(1460-3070)19 2640(2030-4640)10
--
--
3860(3800-3920)2 3900(-)1 3463(2410-4000)13
--
720(-)1
822(725-900)8
661(360-891)22 696(328-857)23 805(340-1160)19 848(382-1450)18
855(690-1100)8
916(650-1650)8
778(340-1100)16
1550(1350-1800)9
1532(1300-1900)11
1567(1300-2100)6
2089(1550-3000)13
1858(1700-2000)10
380(-)1
3710(3000-5000)22
574(210-790)19
696(365-927)19
747(330-1010)23
701(360-1000)20
714(320-962)20
742(360-1000)23
1976
x (min-max) n
316(175-400)10
298(180-420)13
413(400-430)3
675(625-750)3
621(300-900)14
1038(850-1210)11
1297(940-1550)12
1600(1380-1830)12
1623(1320-2000)10
1960(1440-2400)4
2203(1330-3600)9
348(180-650)4
1791(1700-1600)11
135(50-220)2
320(-)1
3732(2300-4500)12
723(300-970)24
--
692(435-863)6
758(360-900)19
581(370-897)3
768(440-970)10
840(400-1055)19
1977
x (min-max) n
336(240-380)26
276(225-320)24
401(290-480)8
852(450-1350)10
701(260-1100)29
1059(960-1220)8
1366(1250-1520)14
1632(1520-1860)12
1625(1350-2000)13
2660(1900-4400)13
602(-)1
1700(1520-1800)3
--
4092(3720-4250)4
920(830-1010)2
911(470-1730)50
1781(820-4000)14
858(445-1290)10
744(554-1200)5
976(660-1600)15
1978
x (min-max) n
364(362-365)2
251(245-257)2
573(335-775)7
1038(825-1250)6
1162(875-1500)6
1629(1450-1850)7
1480(1150-1700)5
2725(1500-3800)4
--
3800(-)1
--
738(360-974)5
--
700(550-830)3
--
670(380-800)4
789(450-1090)7
-------
TABLE B-23. DISSOLVED CALCIUM (mg/llter), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE WHITE RIVER BASIN
C71
co
Station 1971 1972 1973
Number x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
3030
3040
3042 -- 60(58-62)2
3045 -- - 67(63-71)2
3048
3060
30606
3061
3062 77(41-88)12 76(51-89)12 86(79-100)10
30621 76(42-88)12 71(47-83)12 84(76-94)10
30622 52(23-72)12 44(18-71)12 68(34-82)12
30623
30624
306248
30625
306255 -- 10(-)1
1200
3063
30638
3064
3065 62(45-82)12 65(38-100)12 66(26-83)12
3066
3067
3069
1974
x (min-max) n
--
--
53(28-65)5
57(29-73)3
61(33-83)3
71(51-77)27
78(59-87)25
84(50-93)10
86(74-92)10
60(16-79)11
--
36(15-130)13
69(61-78)8
70(39-120)16
71(65-83)8
72(61-79)8
65(34-86)15
1975
x (min-ntax) n
48(33-62)2
69(39-80)7
68(54-79)22
79(63-88)21
102(94-110)10
84(51-96)12
85(74-93)7
70(59-84)13
117(110-140)11
29(-H
32(7-45)22
73(65-92)4
62(38-83)19
63(35-76)23
62(40-82)20
64(36-83)20
63(31-76)23
1976
x (min-max) n
52(51-55)3
43(39-47)2
--
66(37-92)11
63(22-75)11
73(16-85)12
100(90-110)11
89(78-100)10
75(56-87)6
58(22-79)9
26(-)l
104(84-110)9
20(-)1
22(-)l
25(7-39)11
67(41-83)11
62(42-79)6
67(37-81)18
53(39-71)3
69(42-81)10
68(43-90)16
1977
x (min-max) n
55(42-61)10
42(31-54)11
80(43-110)12
70(51-81)8
83(71-91)12
103(96-110)12
85(69-92)13
59(27-78)13
100(99-100)3
--
31(21-39)4
50(-)1
78(63-94)11
94(59-150)8
72(48-94)10
~
72(56-82)4
71(30-94)14
1978
ฃ (min-max) n
56(55-56)2
39(38-40)2
65(40-82)7
72(67-78)5
71(42-84)6
106(100-120)8
84(78-89)5
64(44-83)4
--
35(-)l
--
66(43-77)5
--
--
70(66-73)2
--
68(49-80)3
67(47-81)7
-------
TABLE B-24. DISSOLVED SODIUM (mg/liter), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE WHITE RIVER BASIN
cn
Station 1971
Number x (m1n-max) n
3030
3040
3042
3045
3048
3060
30606
3061
3062 186(66-250)12
30621 204(70-300)12
30622 617(76-1400)12
30623
30624
306248
30625
306255
1200
3063
30638
3064
3065 49(18-88)12
3066
3067
3069
1972 1973
X (m1n-max) n x (min-max) n
-
5(4-5)2
20(18-21)2
--
207(81-310)12 172(120-210)10
251(85-440)12 191(140-250)10
885(180-2000)12 358(200-580)12
-
1000(-)1
-
-
-
52(14-75)12 78(20-150)12
-
1974
x (min-max) n
4(3-5)5
17(4-25)3
23(7-33)3
130(88-160)27
162(120-200)25
208(150-380)10
212(150-370)10
474(280-1100)11
--
725(500-800)13
75(57-110)8
82(22-180)18
77(60-130)8
83(54-180)8
77(18-120)15
1975
x (min-max) n
4(3-6)2
34(8-50)7
120(75-140)22
140(100-170)21
143(91-160)10
167(140-210)12
180(160-240)7
325(250-540)13
183(170-200)11
48(-)l
762(680-870)22
--
62(54-81)4
--
57(21-84)19
63(17-110)23
60(21-100)20
61(22-90)20
67(20-99)23
1976
x (min-max) n
3(3-3)3
2(2-2)2
32(13-49)11
115(47-150)11
146(97-190)12
146(120-170)11
194(130-270)10
225(120-330)6
389(150-840)9
17(-)1
187(170-200)9
18(-)1
25(-)l
832(640-940)11
--
57(18-86)11
53(22-70)6
62(21-91)18
42(19-78)3
59(26-89)10
76(23-110)16
1977
x (min-max) n
4(3-6)10
3(1-4)11
44(3-83)12
131(120-150)8
159(140-180)13
159(120-190)11
199(150-320)13
498(290-1100)13
177(170-180)3
875(800-950)4
110(-)1
78(57-140)11
207(72-580)8
--
81(32-150)10
--
86(45-140)4
110(58-230)14
1978
x (m1n-max) n
4(-)2
2(2-2)2
--
31(8-49)7
114(80-140)5
135(91-190)6
166(150-190)8
186(120-270)5
--
538(220-970)4
__
830-(-)l
61(15-99)5
--
68(46-90)2
55(23-74)3
40(23-110)7
-------
TABLE B-25. DISSOLVED MAGNESIUM (rag/liter), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE WHITE RIVER BASIN
tn
en
Station 1971 1972 1973
Number x (min-max) n x (m1n-ntax) n x (min-max) n
3030
3040
3042 - - 12(11-12)2
3045 ~ - 14(12-15)2
3048
3060
30606
3061
3062 80(21-100)12 86(34-110)12 84(66-110)10
30621 83(23-110)12 88(34-120)12 86(67-110)10
30622 82(18-100)12 83(47-96)12 86(66-110)12
30623
30624
306248
30625
306255 120(-)1
1200
3063
30638
3064
3065 21(13-26)12 22(11-28)12 26(11-34)12
3066
3067
3069
1974
x (min-max) n
--
11(6-13)5
13(6-17)3
16(8-24)3
47(38-57)27
71(47-88)25
91(77-110)10
90(76-120)10
91(80-110)11
-
109(50-140)13
27(24-31)8
27(12-39)16
28(24-36)8
28(24-36)8
27(10-37)15
1975
x (min-max) n
9(6-11)2
19(9-24)7
46(34-56)22
64(46-83)21
95(84-110)10
80(74-91)12
85(74-100)7
84(72-100)13
106(90-120)11
7(-)l
114(96-130)22
23(20-26)4
23(13-32)19
25(12-34)23
24(14-35)20
24(11-34)20
25(9-35)23
1976
x (min-max) n
10(10-11)3
10(9-11)2
--
19(10-28)11
45(33-52)11
67(44-84)12
95(84-110)11
91(70-110)10
85(48-120)6
81(56-100)9
7(-)l
105(97-110)9
6(-)l
6(-H
107(97-120)11
24(11-31)11
24(14-31)6
26(12-36)18
20(12-30)3
27(14-35)10
27(14-36)16
1977
x (min-max) n
10(7-11)10
9(7-11)11
23(9-40)12
48(43-57)8
76(67-89)12
103(94-120)12
92(78-110)13
90(56-110)13
106(98-110)3
114(85-130)4
28(-)l
29(20-48)11
81(26-225)8 '
29(14-49)10
30(16-48)4
30(10-47)14
1978
X (min-max) n
10(10-11)2
10(9-11)2
17(9-26)7
45(38-52)5
63(47-78)6
110(97-120)8
86(58-110)5
~
95(63-110)4
140(-)1
23(12-31)5
24(21-28)2
23(15-29)3
26(15-36)7
-------
TABLE B-26. DISSOLVED POTASSIUM (mg/liter), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE WHITE RIVER BASIN
Station 1971 1972 1973
Number x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
3030
3040
3042 1.2(-)2
3045 - - 1.4(1.4-1.5)2
3048
3060
30606
3061
3062 3.4(2.4-4.8)12 3.8(2.9-4.8)12 3.1(2.5-3.7)10
30621 3.5(2.5-4.9)12 3.6(2.6-4.7)12 3.2(2.5-3.8)10
0> 30622 4.2(3.0-6.6)12 5.2(3.6-8.3)12 4.0(3.0-6.2)12
30623
30624
306248
30625
306255 - 4.6(-)l
1200
3063
30638
3064
3065 2.2(1.1-4.5)12 2.0(1.3-3.2)12 2.4(1.3-4.1)12
3066
3067
3069
1974
x" (min-max) n
1.2(0
.9-1.8)5
1975
x (min-max) n
;
1976
x (min-max) n
1.1(1
.1-1.2)3
x
1
0
1977
(min-max) n
.1(0
.9(0
.9-1.3)10
.7-1.3)11
1978
i? (min-max) n
1.0(0
0.8(0
.9-1.0)2
.8-0.9)2
1.5(1.1-2.0)3
1.6(1
3.5(2
3.8(1
3.7(2
3.6(2
4.8(2
4.4(3
2.2(0
2.4(1
2.4(1
2.6(1
2.3(1
.2-2.2)3
.4-5.7)27
.2-6.4)25
.3-8.4)12
.0-5.1)10
.6-7.5)11
.6-6.2)13
.9-3.8)8
.0-4.2)16
.1-5.0)8
.1-6.1)8
.2-3.3)15
1.8(1
4.0(2
3.4(2
2.5(1
3.6(2
4.0(2
4.5(3
3.0(1
4.2(-
4.3(3
2.8(1
2.2(1
2.0(1
2.1(1
2.0(1
2.1(1
.3-2.3)7
.3-19)22
.5-5.0)21
.9-3.8)10
.4-8.4)12
.5-7.8)7
.1-6.8)13
.9-4.4)11
--
)1
.5-7.4)22
.6-5.3)4
.3-4.0)19
.3-2.6)23
.3-2.8)20
.3-3.2)20
.4-3.1)23
2.2(1
3.0(2
3.0(2
2.5(1
3.5(2
4.0(3
5.0(2
5.4(-
2.8(2
15 .0(
13.0(
4.8(3
2.4(1
2.1(1
2.4(1
1.7(1
2.6(1
2.4(1
.2-6.0)11
.2-3.7)12
.4-4.0)12
.8-3.5)11
.4-4.6)10
.1-5.2)6
.9-8.8)9
)1
.3-3.1)9
-)1
-)1
.9-7.0)11
--
.3-6.4)11
.4-3.2)6
.4-3.8)18
.4-2.2)3
.4-5.0)10
.4-4.4)16
2
2
2
2
3
4
2
4
2
2
7
2
3
3
.0(0
.8(2
.8(2
.0(1
.0(2
.1(3
.7(2
.5(4
K-
.4(1
.9(4
.7(1
.0(1
.1(1
.8-3.6)12
.2-3.4)8
.2-3.7)12
.7-2.4)12
.3-3.9)13
.0-6.5)13
.3-3.0)3
.2-5.0)4
)1
.6-4.5)11
.7-12.0)8
.7-4 .9)10
.8-4.7)4
.5-6.7)14
1.7(1
3.1(2
3.3(2
2.8(2
3.8(2
5.1(3
5.2(-
2.0(1
.0-2.4)7
.7-3.8)5
.4-4.5)6
.0-5.0)8
.6-5.4)5
.6-6.7)4
)1
.2-2.7)5
--
1.9(1.8-2.0)2
2.2(1
1.9(1
.6-2.9)3
.4-2.7)7
-------
TABLE B-27. BICARBONATE ION (mg/liter), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE WHITE RIVER BASIN
Station
Number
3030
3040
3042
3045
3048
3060
30606
3061
3062
30621
30622
30623
30624
306248
30625
306255
1200
3063
30638
3064
3065
3066
3067
3069
1971 1972 1973
x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (mln-max) n
136(116-156)2
154(130-177)2
_.
..
632(258-811)12 686(327-933)12 625(523-750)10
661(280-920)12 743(327-1080)12 652(546-802)10
1310(292-2740)12 2011(583-4690)12 964(701-1460)12
1690(-)1
..
209(158-270)12 202(132-250)12 238(148-314)12
..
..
1974
x (min-max) n
--
128(93-148)5
144(97-180)3
157(107-205)3
540(436-617)26
599(443-690)25
680(559-902)10
687(575-961)10
1038(748-1310)11
--
--
1408(843-1760)12
245(225-266)8
234(146-288)16
249(223-295)8
248(227-280)8
238(132-306)15
1975
x (min-max) n
--
122(104-139)2
178(116-217)7
510(390-602)22
554(460-678)21
548(448-585)10
595(525-684)12
630(563-742)7
881(639-1260)13
617(519-658)11
115(-)1
1488(596-1930)72
220(199-238)4
--
209(145-266)19
220(131-280)23
217(153-267)20
218(125-277)20
228(138-280)23
1976
x (min-max) n
107(102-112)3
142(128-155)2
166(119-228)11
444(317-526)11
490(309-610)11
509(324-567)10
604(458-780)10
630(412-756)6
893(459-1880)9
139(-)1
588(518-638)9
131(-)1
164(-)1
1460(596-1990)10
215(140-266)11
211(143-280)6
222(133-266)18
183(141-239)3
228(149-270)10
240(155-321)16
1977
x (min-max) n
112(90-122)9
141(110-170)11
~
-
197(140-320)12
546(460-630)8
585(520-690)12
539(150-620)12
619(546-740)12
1168(859-2100)13
614(588-633)3
1878(1730-2060)4
350(-)1
251(200-340)11
331(150-825)8
236(140-300)10
236(170-280)4
267(190-360)15
1978
x (min-max) n
104(97-110)2
125(120-130)2
156(130-180)7
512(400-610)5
518(420-580)6
609(570-650)8
644(490-810)5
1295(680-2180)4
--
1830(-)1
218(140-270)5
215(200-230)2
207(150-240)3
224(150-290)7
-------
TABLE B-28. DISSOLVED SULFATE (mg/llter), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE WHITE RIVER BASIN
01
00
Station 1971
Number x (min-max) n
3030
3040
3042
3045
3048
3060
30606
3061
3062 369(110-470)12
30621 399(120-540)12
30622 390(50-570)11
30623
30624
306248
30625
306255
1200
3063
30638
3064
3065 138(61-200)12
3066
3067
3069
1972 1973
x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
..
92(83-100)2
104(99-110)2
..
..
403(170-550)12 388(290-500)10
446(170-710)12 412(300-570)10
453(240-570)12 435(300-580)12
660(-)1 590(-)1
..
..
146(52-200)12 168(51-260)12
1974
x (min-max) n
72(19-96)5
84(22-120)3
107(30-170)3
170(140-200)27
303(220-380)25
423(330-570)10
444(310-630)10
455(350-540)10
566(400-750)13
175(160-210)8
195(59-360)18
179(160-220)8
178(160-210)8
185(51-280)15
1975
3 (min-max) n
~
57(23-91)2
128(38-180)7
160(110-190)22
271(170-350)21
458(400-510)10
364(310-450)12
3911360-480)7
404(300-540)13
565(510-600)11
80(-)1
557(470-660)22
182(150-280)4
147(59-210)19
160(59-250)23
155(66-260)20
159(63-220)20
167(55-250)23
1976
x (min-max) n
83(75-91)3
32(26-39)2
119(46-160)11
164(140-190)11
298(190-390)12
480(370-580)11
428(320-550)10
422(240-610)6
428(260-560)9
17(-)1
554(490-610)9
12(-)1
1H-)1
568(490-630)11
158(59-210)11
152(70-200)6
174(59-230)18
124(63-220)3
175(77-240)10
191(71-260)16
1977
x (min-max) n
89(61-100)10
30(15-40)11
164(34-260)12
166(150-190)8
332(280-380)12
506(450-610)12
442(360-540)13
455(370-570)13
530(480-560)3
558(510-590)4
160(-)1
196(140-310)11
666(330-1700)8
210(75-360)10
215(130-340)4
240(2-570)14
1978
x (min-max) n
96(92-99)2
28(27-30)2
130(43-190)7
164(140-210)5
265(200-320)6
532(480-600)8
370(230-500)5
515(270-740)4
--
--
580(-)1
158(59-220)5
170(130-210)2
164(73-210)3
175(75-230)7
-------
TABLE B-29. CHLORIDE (mg/liter), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING
STATIONS IN THE WHITE RIVER BASIN
tn
to
Station 1971 1972 1973
Number x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
3030
3040
3042 - 2(2-2)2
3045 - - 24<22-25)2
3048
3060
30606
3061
3062 17(10-24)12 18(11-25)12 14(12-17)10
30621 18(11-25)12 22(13-32)12 15(12-19)10
30622 158(11-1000)12 150(31-370)12 44(16-75)12
30623
30624
306248
30625
306255 180(-)1
1200
3063
30638
3064
3065 28(8-83)12 35(8-54)12 54(11-140)12
3066
3067
3069
1974
x (min-max) n
~
2(2-3)5
21(3-33)3
23(5-33)3
15(10-17)27
14(11-16)25
15(9-22)10
16(12-27)10
52(37-78)10
120<93-140)13
43(32-68)8
41(10-87)18
49(33-120)8
64(34-230)8
36(8-56)15
1975
x (min-max) n
2(2-2)2
29(ซ-38)7
15(9-24)22
13(11-16)21
9(8-11)10
14(12-16)12
15(13-18)7
40< 28-61)13
20(17-23)11
12(-)1
126(100-150)22
--
30(27-32)4
30(8-45)19
32(10-48)23
31(9-47)20
32(9-58)20
32(8-48)23
1976
x (min-max) n
1(1-1)3
1(1-1)2
30(8-38)11
14(10-19)11
14(11-16)12
9(8-11)11
15(11-19)10
20(13-26)6
49(14-130)9
4(-)l
18(16-20)9
5(-)l
4(-)l
149(130-200)11
33(11-44)11
30(10-44)6
35(11-51)18
21(11-35)3
34(13-45)10
41(10-75)16
1977
x (min-max) n
1(1-3)10
1(1-3)11
42(1-66)12
15(12-18)8
14(12-18)12
9(8-11)12
16(12-32)13
66(33-170)13
1K-)1
18(15-21)3
145(110-170)4
38(-)l
50(34-75)11
37(13-82)8
50( 24-89) W
52(29-81)4
51(32-86)14
1978
X (min-max) n
1(0-1)2
1(1-1)2
28(5-49)7
13(10-17)5
15(10-27)6
10(8-12)8
18(15-23)5
84(33-160)4
120(-)1
--
35(8-46)5
--
38(29-46)2
33(15-48)3
38(14-58)7
-------
TABLE B-30. DISSOLVED SILICA (mg/1iter), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE WHITE RIVER BASIN
Station 1971 1972 1973
Number x (min-max) n ii (min-max) n x (min-max) n
3030
3040
3042 17(16-18)2
3045 17(16-18)2
3048
3060
30606
3061
3062 18(11-20)12 17(13-21)12 18(15-20)10
30621 18(10-20)12 17(10-21)12 18(15-20)10
30622 14(8-18)12 13(6-19)12 18(15-20)12
30623
30624
306248
30625
306255 - - 3(-)l
1200
3063
30638
3064
3065 16(13-19)5 14(11-19)9 14(11-18)12
3066
3067
3069
1974
!! (min-max) n
15(10-18)5
9(4-12)3
13(10-15)3
16(13-18)26
17(12-20)25
--
17(1-20)10
17(3-20)10
17(9-20)11
10(7-17)13
13(11-14)8
13(10-16)16
13(11-15)8
13(11-15)8
13(10-16)15
1975
x (min-max) n
13(10-16)2
15(10-16)7
15(12-18)22
16(13-20)21
18(16-19)8
17(14-19)11
18(15-28)7
17(13-23)13
--
18(15-21)11
13(-)1
10(0-20)22
--
13(12-15)4
13(9-17)19
13(9-17)23
13(8-17)20
13(9-17)20
13(10-16)23
1976
x (min-max) n
16(16-17)3
14(13-15)2
14(7-17)11
14(13-17)11
15(13-18)12
18(16-20)11
17(6-20)10
16(8-20)6
15(13-17)9
5(-)l
19(17-22)9
5(-)l
6(-)l
9(3-14)11
--
12(11-15)11
--
13(11-16)6
12(9-16)18
12(11-13)3
13(12-17)10
12(9-15)16
1977
if (min-max) n
18(17-21)10
15(10-18)11
15(6-20)12
15(12-17)8
16(11-19)12
18(16-19)12
16(1-18)13
16(8-21)13
17(16-19)3
--
10(5-13)4
14(-)1
14(10-17)11
9(5-18)8
14(11-16)10
--
14(13-15)4
12(0-17)14
1978
x (rain-max) n
19(19-19)2
16(-)1
14(12-15)7
16(13-18)5
16(11-19)6
18(15-20)8
16(14-19)5
._
14(12-16)4
-*
--
12(-)1
--
13(12-14)5
--
--
13(11-14)2
11(7-14)3
13(12-16)7
-------
TABLE B-31. TOTAL HARDNESS (mg/liter), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE WHITE RIVER BASIN
Station 1971
Number x (min-max) n
3030
3040
3042
3045
3048
3060
30606
3061
3062 522(190-610)12
30621 533(200-630)12
30622 467(160-530)12
30623
30624
306248
30625
306255
1200
3063
30638
3064
3065 242(170-310)12
3066
3067
3069
1972 1973
x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
..
-
195(190-200)2
225(210-240)2
544(270-650)12 563(470-700)10
538(260-660)12 562(470-690)10
454(350-540)12 523(410-640)12
--
-
..
520(-)1
..
~
-
-
252(140-340)12 271(110-340)12
-
1974
x (min-max) n
177(96-210)5
196(98-250)3
220(120-310)3
370(320-420)27
486(370-570)25
584(530-640)10
587(530-680)10
525(420-620)11
--
539(420-670)13
285(260-320)8
285(150-460)16
292(260-340)8
295(250-330)8
276(130-350)15
1975
x (min-max) n
--
155(110-200)2
250(130-300)7
359(290-400)22
460(350-550)21
646(590-730)10
540(460-610)12
566(520-640)7
521(440-580)13
733(650-800)11
100(-)1
548(440-650)22
278(260-310)4
250(150-320)19
262(140-330)23
256(160-340)20
260(140-320)20
260(110-330)23
1976
x (min-max) n
173(170-180)3
145(130-160)2
245(130-350)11
343(270-390)11
460(340-530)12
646(580-730)11
594(500-700)10
538(340-690)6
476(370-540)9
94(-)l
696(660-730)9
73{-)l
78(-)l
504(450-590)11
--
267(150-320)11
258(160-330)6
275(140-340)18
217(150-300)3
283(170-340)10
280(170-370)16
1977
Z (min-max) n
180(140-200)10
144(110-180)11
-
297(140-440)12
375(330-440)8
520(470-580)12
689(640-780)12
595(530-680)13
522(360-620)13
190(-)1
687(650-710)3
545(400-610)4
260(-)1
317(240-430)11
572(270-1300)8
300(180-440)10
~
302(210-400)4
302(110-400)14
1978
x (min-max) n
185(180-190)2
140(130-150)2
233(140-310)7
368(330-410)5
438(380-520)6
725(670-800)8
570(440-680)5
555(440-610)4
..
670(-)1
262(160-320)5
275(250-300)2
267(180-310)3
274(180-350)7
-------
TABLE B-32. TOTAL IRON (ng/liter), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING
STATIONS IN THE WHITE RIVER BASIN
Station
Number
1971
1972
1973
x (min-max) n
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
x (min-max) n x (mln-max) n x (min-max) n x (m1n-max) n X (rain-max) n x (mln-max) n * (min-max) n
(S3
3030
3040
3042
3045
3048
3060
30606
3061
3062
30621
30622
30623
30624
306248
30625
306255
1200
3063
30638
3064
3065
3066
3067
3069
5000(-)1
240(70-410)2 433(170-580)3 765(330-1200)2
280(-)1
240(-)1
2800(-)1
1445(250-2900)4 2745(290-5200)2
5550(1800-9300)2 4050(3200-4900)2 2850(70-7800)4 5600(1600-8100)3 26000(-)1
-------
TABLE B-33. TOTAL MANGANESE (jig/liter), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING
STATIONS IN THE WHITE RIVER BASIN
Station
Number
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
if (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n X (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (mln-nax) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
to
3030
3040
3042
3045
3048
3060
30606
3061
3062
30621
30622
30623
30624
306248
30625
306255
1200
3063
30638
3064
3065
3066
3067
3069
5000(-)1
35(20-50)2 50(30-90)3 53(40-80)3 30(-)1
7000(-)1 52(20-90)4 123(60-230)3
110(30-190)2 3445(90-6800)2 80(10-210)4 137(40-200)3 720(-)1
-------
TABLE B-34. TEMPERATURE (ฐC), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING STATIONS
IN THE WHITE RIVER BASIN
CD
Station 1971
Number x (min-max) n
3030
3040
3042
3045
3048
3060
30606
3061
3062 5.6(0-14.5)23
30621 5.6(0-14.5)23
30622 5.5(0-15.0)23
30623
30624
306248
30625
306255
1200
3063
30638
3064
3065 10.6(0-24.0)21
3066
3067
3069
1972 1973
x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x
.-
7.5(4.5-10.5)2 4.
1974
(min-max) n
0(0-8.0)5
x
8
8
5
1975
(min-max) n
.4(1.0-12.0)8
.9(1.5-13.0)8
.4(2.0-10.0)5
7.8(4.5-11.0)2 6.0(0-10.0)3 11.0(-)1
10
11
13
.4(1.0-18.0)7
.5(0-22.0)27
.9(2.5-23.0)25
7.3(0-14.0)24 6.4(0-14.0)17 9.8(0-21.0)10
7.3(0-15.0)24 6.0(0-14.0)17 9.
6.8(0-15.0)24 7.9(0-20.0)19 10
4(0-25.0)10
.2(0-23.5)11
6
.6(0-16.0)14
11.0(0-22.0)25
8
8
8
8
8
.6(0.5-21.1)21
.4(1.0-17.0)10
.0(0-17.0)13
.3(3.0-15.0)7
.1(0-17.5)5
x
5.
4.
5.
3.
6.
10
1976
(min-max) n
5(0-16.0)13
4(0-12.5)14
2(0-10.0)4
3(0.5-9.0)3
5(0-22.5)16
.1(0.5-21.5)15
9.8(2.5-18.0)14
11
12
16
12
.4(1.0-19.0)15
.0(0-22.0)10
.0(7.0-23.0)5
.8(0.5-26.0)8
x
6.
8.
9.
1977
1978
(min-max) n
5(0-16.0)28
8(0-16.0)26
x (min-max) n
1.5(1.
2.5(2.
0-2.0)2
0-3.0)2
6(0.5-19.5)8
9.9(0.5-18
9.
9.
10
7.
8.
10
.5)11
7(0-25.0)31
0(0,5-25
.2(0-19.
2(0.5-16
6(0.5-22
.7(0-24.
.0)8
5)19
.5)13
.5)23
5)17
8.2(1.
8.4(1.
6.1(2.
6.1(1.
11.9(1
14.4(8
--
0-15.0)7
0-17.0)6
0-13.0)6 ,
5-12.0)7
.5-21.5)5
.0-22,0)4
2.0(1.0-3.0)4
..
..
17.0(-)1 26.0(-)1 15
--
.6(0.5-26.0)13
13
11
9
.2(6.0-23.0)11
.8(10.5-13.0)2
.8(0-23.5)22
11
0.
0.
15
.8(1.0-23.0)15
7(0.5-1.0)3
5(-)l
.9(0-28.0)12
7.
7.
2(6.0-8.
5)3
-
-
-
4(0.5-22.0)10 21.0(-)1
9.0(9.0-9.
2.2(0-4.5)2 9.1(0.5-20.5)10 15
.1(6.5-21.0)5
12.0(0-24.0)23
10.4(0-22.5)36
17
.8(0-22.
0)2
5)50
6.2(0-14.0)4
7.0(-)1 13.5(0.5-23.5)6
8.
10.7(0-22.0)24 10.4(0-25.0)21 10
7.
9.
9.
5(0-18.0)8
.7(0-28.5)17
7(0-18.0)8
8(0-19.0)7
1(0-21.5)20
8
.7(0-21.0)19
10.7(0-22.0)22
9
9
9
.3(0-22.0)20
.2(0-21.0)20
.9(0-23.5)31
16
.4(10.5-25.0)7
10.9(0-24.0)23
13.3(0-26.
0)18
12.3(0.5-22.0)3
13.0(10.0-15.0)4
11
.2(0-23.5)10
12.5(0-26.5)26
11.9(0-22.
15.8(0-32.
0)5
0)31
8.1(1.
,5-19.4)4
9.2(0-23.0)8
-------
TABLE B-35. DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/llter), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING
STATIONS IN THE WHITE RIVER BASIN
Station
Number
3030
3040
3042
3045
3048
3060
30606
3061
3062
i-- 30621
CTi
01 30622
30623
30624
306248
30625
306255
1200
3063
30638
3064
3065
3066
3067
3069
1971 1972 1973 1974
x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
9.9(8.6-11.2)2 11.7(11.4-12.1)5
1975
1976
x (min-max) n
9.8(9.8-9.8)2
X (min-max)
n
11.2(11.1-11.4)2
ll.K-U
1977
x (min-max)
9.6(5.
8.9(5.
4-12.
4-12.
n
1)7
6)8
1978
x (min-max) n
11.1(10.4-11.7)2
11.8(11.5-12.1)2
10.6(9.5-11.6)2 11.9(11.8-12.2)3
10.9(9
9.9(7.
9.9(6.
9.8(8.0-11.0)11 10.1(8.8-11.4)12 10.1(8.4-11.6)9 10.0(8
9.0(1.0-11.2)11 10.1(8.5-11.6)12 10.1(8.2-11.8)9 11.0(9
9.8(7.5-11.2)11 9.9(7.8-11.8)12 9.8(7.9-11.6)9 9.6(7.
.4-12.1)6
0-13.0)26
8-16.0)24
-
.8-12.4)7
.4-12.3)6
9-11.6)5
9.4(6.9-12
9.7(6.9-12
9.5(6.4-12
9.7(6.0-11
.5)8
.4)19
.8)18
.4)8
8.3(6.9-9.8)5
9.7(8.7-11.0)3
9.5(6.8-12.2)7
10.2(4.4-18.1)8
9.5(6.
..
8.4(8.
9.5(7.5-11.9)9 8.6(6.6-11.4)12 7.4(5.3-10.4)11 7.9(7.
8.2(-]
8.2(-]
9.2(6.
,9-11.9)12
,0-8.7)2
,0-9.2)6
11
11
.1-12.2)10
--
9.9(7.4-12
9.1(6.0-12
--
8.6(6.0-11
9.5(6.4-15
8.1(2.4-11
8.5(3.8-11
8.9(6.2-11
.5)21
.5)4
.1)13
.0)17
.7)14
.9)14
.8)23
9.6(6.
10.1(9
10.9(8
9.7(8.
9.6(7.
7.2(6.
8.5(4.
9.7(5.
8.5(5.
9.3(6.
7.7(-]
8.9(6.
7.8(-]
9.0(7,
8.6(5,
5-12.
.0-11
.9-12
2-12.
2-13.
6)10
.2)11
.4)11
5)11
0)10
1-9.7)4
9-12.5)8
1-13.
--
4)10
.6-12.6)11
--
.0-12.7)10
11
.4-12.2)12
11
10.3(7
9.1(7.
9.5(7.
8.7(7.
9.9(7.
9.4(6.
10.9(8
.0-12
0-10.
5-12.
6-10.
7-11.
4-12.
.5-12
--
.6)11
5)8
9)14
2)11
9)11
7)9
.3)3
10.9(7.9-13.6)7
9.3(6.8-10.8)6
9.6(8.1-10.6)6
9.1(6.2-11.3)7
11.6(9.4-12.3)5
12.7(11.2-14.2)3
--
10.0(9.2-10.8)2 7.4(-)l
9.4(9.
9.1(6.
7.8(5.
4-9.4)2
,2-11,
,8-10.
--
,8)10
,4)6
9.2(6.5-11.9)8
10.9(9.2-13.4)5
--
--
8.9(7.4-11.4)3
.0-11.7)5
,7-11.5)20
8.2(2,
,2-11,
.4)14
9.1(6.9-11.0)6
-------
TABLE B-36. pH, 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE WHITE RIVER BASIN
Station 1971 1972 1973
Number x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
3030
3040
3042 8.4(8.1-8.8)2
3045 8.5(8.2-8.8)2
3048
3060
30606
3061
3062 8.1(7.4-8.8)23 8.1(7.0-8.8)23 7.9(7.3-8.4)17
30621 8.2(7.6-8.9)23 8.1(6.0-9.1)24 7.8(7.2-8.4)17
! *
ง} 30622 8.1(7.3-9.1)23 8.2(7.4-9.0)24 7.9(7.1-8.4)19
30623
30624
306248
30625
306255 8.7(-)l 9.0(-)1
1200
3063
30638
3064
3065 7.6(6.6-8.2)22 7.6(6.6-8.3)21 8.0(7.1-8.4)12
3066
3067
3069
1974
x (min-max) n
8.3(7
8.0(7
7.9(6
8.2(6
8.2(7
8.0(7
8.1(7
8.2(8
8.5(8
8.1(7
8.0(7
8.2(7
8.3(7
7.9(7
.9-8
.9-8
.3-8
.9-8
.6-8
.5-8
.9-8
.0-8
.0-8
.8-8
.5-8
.9-8
.9-8
.1-8
.8)5
.3)3
.4)6
.7)27
.7)25
.3)10
.3)10
.6)7
.8)13
.4)5
.4)13
.5)5
.6)5
.6)14
x
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
1975
(min-max) n
.,;
.2(7.1-8.6)11
.4(8.0-8.7)18
.3(7.5-9.2)20
.5(7.8-9.0)9
.3(7.1-9.0)11
.4(7.9-8.7)7
.4(8.0-8.8)13
--
.2(7.5-8.6)11
M-n
.6(8.1-9.4)20
.4(8.3-8.5)4
.3(7.9-8.6)13
.3(7.4-8.8)19
.1(7.2-8.8)14
.1(7.6-8.5)11
.3(7.9-8.8)20
1976
x (min-max) n
8.3(8
8.1(7
8.3(7
8.3(7
8.3(8
8.3(8
8.4(8
8.4(8
8.6(8
8.4(-
8.1(7
8.2(8
8.7(-
8.6(8
8.3(7
8.0(7
8.2(7
8.1(8
7.9(7
8.3(7
.2-8.4)3
.7-8.4)2
.9-8.5)11
.9-8.6)11
.1-8.5)11
.1-8.4)11
.2-8.8)10
.1-8.6)4
.3-8.9)9
)1
.4-8.4)10
.2-8.3)2
)1
.2-8.9)12
--
.4-8.7)11
.7-8.3)6
.5-8.8)17
.0-8.3)2
.6-8.2)9
.9-8.7)20
1977
X (min-max) n
8.1(7
8.1(7
8.2(7
8.2(8
8.2(8
8.1(7
8.4(8
8.3(7
8.4(8
8.7(8
8.4(8
8.3(7
8.3(7
8.0(7
7.5(6
8.2(7
.0-8
.6-8
--
.7-8
.1-8
.0-8
.9-8
.1-8
.7-8
.2-8
.4-9
.4-8
.9-8
.8-8
.3-8
.5-8
.4-8
.6)10
.6)11
.5)13
.3)8
.4)14
.3)12
.9)13
.7)13
.6)3
.0)4
.4)2
.5)13
.5)7
.4)8
.4)5
.6)15
1978
x (min-max) n
7.9(7.7-8.1)2
8.5(8.2-8.8)2
8.3(7.9-8.8)7
8.2(7.9-8.4)6
8.2(7.8-8.5)6
7.9(7.7-8.2)7
7.8(7.1-8.4)5
--
7.8(7.4-8.2)4
--
8.9(-)l
8.2(8.1-8.4)4
--
7.8(7.0-8.6)4
8.2(7.9-8.1)6
-------
TABLE B-37. TOTAL ALKALINITY (rag/liter as CaCO ), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL
SURVEY SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE WHITE RIVER BASIN
CD
Station 1971 1972
Number x (mln-raax) n x (min-max) n
3030
3040
3042
3045
3048
3060
30606
3061
3062 518(212-665)12 563(268-765)12
30621 542(230-755)12 613(268-886)12
30622 1113(239-2630)12 1774(478-3850)12
30623
30624
306248
30625
306255
1200
3063
30638
3064
3065 171(130-221)12 165(108-205)12
3066
3067
3069
1973
x (min-max) n
--
120(113-128)2
134(122-145)2
513(429-615)10
536(448-658)10
799(575-1200)12
-
-
1920(-)1
--
--
196(121-258)12
1974
X (min-max) n
107(76-121)5
118(80-148)3
130(88-172)3
443(358-506)26
492(363-566)25
558(459-740)10
564(472-788)10
953(614-2060)11
1332(894-1520)12
--
202(185-228)8
192(120-236)16
205(183-242)8
204(186-230)8
198(108-253)15
1975
X (min-max) n
100(85-114)2
147(95-178)7
422(320-494)22
459(377-556)21
451(384-480)10
488(431-561)12
519(462-609)7
729(551-1030)13
506(426-540)11
94(-)l
1437(1220-1660)22
183(163-195)4
174(119-218)19
181(107-230)23
179(126-219)20
179(103-227)20
191(113-239)23
1976
x (min-max) n
88(84-92)3
116(105-127)2
141(98-205)11
367(280-431)11
415(257-500)11
420(296-465)10
497(376-640)10
529(338-693)6
797(460-1540)9
114(-)1
482(425-523)9
107(-)1
135(-)1
1560(1280-1670)10
177(115-218)11
173(117-230)6
184(109-218)18
152(116-201)3
188(122-221)10
201(127-283)16
1977
x (min-max) n
92(74-100)9
116(90-140)11
163(121-260)12
447(377-520)8
480(430-570)12
442(123-510)12
510(450-610)12
1027(705-2060)13
120(-)1
503(480-519)3
1715(1620-1830)4
300(-)1
206(160-280)11
276(120-677)8
195(110-250)10
193(140-230)4
223(160-310)15
1978
x (min-max) n
85(80-90)2
109(98-120)2
130(110-150)7
418(330-500)5
425(340-480)6
500(470-530)8
526(400-660)5
1062(560-1790)4
--
1600(-)1
178(110-220)5
175(160-190)2
170(120-200).*
190(120-260)7
-------
TABLE B-38. SUSPENDED SEDIMENTS (mg/liter), 1971-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE WHITE RIVER BASIN
Station 1971
Number x (min-max) n
3030
3040
3042
3045
3048
3060
30606
3061
3062
^ 30621
Ch
00 30622
30623
30624
306248
30625
306255
1200
3063
30638
3064
3065
3066
3067
3069
1972 1973 1974 1975
x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
100(-)1
57(-)l
524(22-1880)4
551(192-910)2
142(23-470)9
635(100-2040)11
118(71-165)2 549(263-1590)9
323(245-415)3
36(-)l 757(452-1200)7
--
--
16820(7840-25800)2
648(44-2560)9
--
179(36-641)10 222(73-848)10 301(75-909)4 455(17-2430)23
--
289(223-328)3 3177(131-13100)15
1976
x (min-max) n
12(6-18)2
9(8-11)2
23(-)l
--
64(11-149)6
2703(842-6500)4
2183(219-4600)3
842(339-1270)5
849(-)l
--
13168(2840-23900)7
190(37-410)5
133(-)1
2179(442-4790)5
-.
319(34-1020)28
__
152(80-288)3
--
__
1289(48-5220)16
1977 1978
x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
15(5-46)9
25(1-142)9
92(2-389)11
1670(928-3390)7
16419(478-50199)5
1589(500-5730)10
1235(28-2190)7
,_
1584(308-2860)2
--
505(200-850)6
--
318(20-2910)29
--
1475(133-5310)8 754(-)l
--
-
5627(71-51700)25 3150(-)1
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-80-151
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
ASSESSMENT OF ENERGY RESOURCE DEVELOMENT IMPACT ON
WATER QUALITY: The Yampa and White River Basins
5. REPORT DATE
September 1980
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
S. M. Melancon*, B. C. Hess, and R. W. Thomas
*University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO,
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Biology
Department, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
INE625
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyLas Vegas, NV
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final to 1979
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/07
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The Yampa and White River Basins are key areas in the Nation's search for untaped
resources to supplement increasing energy demands. The basins contain vast beds of
low-sulfur, strippable coal that potentially will support a large number of
coal-fired powerplants as well as some of the richest oil shale deposits in the
United States. However, conversion of these energy resources into commercially
usable power and fuel is expected will have considerable impact on water resources in
the Yampa and White River Basins, especially if maximumm levels of expansion are
realized. It appears unlikely that there are sufficient surface or ground-water
supplies to meet projected needs in the area,without creation of additional reservoir
storage or diversion of surface water from other sources. Decreased flows from
energy developments will accompany increased salt and sediment loadings. The
resultant lowered water quality will further reduce water usability for municipal,
industrial, and irrigation purposes and will have adverse impacts on the aquatic
ecosystem. Water quality monitoring needs in the basins are addressed with priority
listings of parameters for measurement to detect changes in water quality as a result
of energy resource development, and through definition of those U.S. Geological
Survey sampling stations that are best situated for monitoring activities.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COS AT I Field/Group
Water resources
Water pollution
Monitoring
Yampa River Basin
White River Basin
Coal Strip Mining
Oil shale development
08H
13B
17B
48A
68D
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMEN1
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
22. PRICE
UNCLASSIFIED
EPA Form 22201 (Rev. 477) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
------- |