AND
-------
EPA-908/2-77-001
REPORT OF BASELINE WATER QUALITY INVESTIGATIONS ON THE
WHITE RIVER IN WESTERN COLORADO
SEPTEMBER - OCTOBER, 1975
AND
MAY - JUNE, 1976
by
Robert L. Fox
TECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS BRANCH
SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS DIVISION
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VIII
MAY, 1977
Document 1s available to the public from the National Technical Information
Service, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Sjirlngfleld, VA 22161
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Surveillance and Analysis
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, and approved
for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The stream flow data provided by the U.S. Geological Survey comprises
an important part of this report. Grateful acknowledgement is due
Mr. Vernon W. Norman and his staff in the Meeker Subdi strict Office of
the U.S.G.S. for their assistance in supplying this important data.
The author also wishes to acknowledge the useful work of the consult-
ing firm Nelson, Haley, Patterson, Quirk, Inc. in its development of
several helpful documents on water quality in the study area for the
Colorado West Area Council of Governments. These documents contributed
substantially in the effort of analyzing the water quality data collected
during this study.
The large amount of chemical data presented herein could not have been
produced without the cooperation of the staff of the Laboratory Services
Section of the EPA Technical Investigations Branch. Acknowledgement for
the long hours of analytical work is hereby given.
This project was conducted under the supervision and direction of
C.E. Runas, Chief, Water Quality Investigations Section. Field work was
conducted by C.E. Runas, William A. Warner, and Robert L. Fox.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No,
ABSTRACT ii
LIST OF FIGURES iii
LIST OF TABLES iv
CONVERSION FACTORS v
INTRODUCTION 1
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 2
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA 4
STUDY METHODS 8
RESULTS OF STUDY 11
REFERENCES 47
APPENDIX A - DATA FROM THE FALL, 1975 "LOW FLOW" STUDY A-l
APPENDIX B - DATA FROM THE SPRING> 1976 "HIGH FLOW" STUDY .... 8-1
-------
ABSTRACT
Baseline water quality conditions in the White River and Milk Creek
drainages in Western Colorado were documented by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency during the Fall "low flow" period in 1975 and the Spring
"high flow" period of 1976. A total of 35 water quality parameters were
measured at 19 sampling locations covering a stream reach of approximately
200 km (125 mi).
Pollution parameter values exceeding recommended criteria and/or
proposed stream standards were found at several locations, with the
largest number of violations occurring in the downstream reach of the White
River between Meeker and Rangely, Colorado. Excessive concentrations of
several parameters were also measured in three White River tributary
streams - Yellow Creek, Coal Creek, and Little Beaver Creek. The param-
eters most frequently in violation included TDS, TSS, total iron, total
zinc, and total phosphorus. There was no clear indication that either
the lower or higher flow rates produced the greater number of pollution
problems.
ii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page No.
1 Map of Study Area 5
2 Flow Profile 19
3 Temperature Profile 20
4 pH Profile 22
5 Dissolved Oxygen Profile 23
6 Hardness Profile 24
7 Alkalinity Profile 26
8 IDS Profile 27
9 TSS Profile 29
10 Sodium Profile 31
11 Chloride Profile 32
12 Aluminum Profile 33
13 Copper Profile 34
14 Iron Profile 35
15 Manganese Profile 36
16 Zinc Profile 37
17 Boron Profile 41
18 Fluoride Profile 42
19 Total Kjehldal Nitrogen Profile 43
20 Nitrite + Nitrate Nitrogen Profile 45
21 Total Phosphorus Profile 46
iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page No.
1 White River Study - Station Locations 6
2 Water Quality Parameters Measured 9
3 Comparison of Physical and Chemical Data From the 12
Low Flow (Fall, 1975) and High Flow (Spring, 1976)
Studies of the White River in Western Colorado
4 Recommended Water Quality Criteria and Proposed 16
Standards
5 Comparison of Measured Stream Flows with Historical 18
7-Day, 10-Year Flows
6 Comparison of Dissolved vs. Total Parameters 40
iv
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS
Kilometers x 0.6214 = miles
Meters x 3.281 = feet
Liters x 0.946 = quarts
Cubic meters/sec (m3/s) x 35.315 = cubic feet/sec (cfs)
Kilograms x 2.205 = pounds
Metric tons x 2205 = pounds
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Bureau of Reclamation has initiated a comprehensive study of the
White River in Western Colorado to develop information relative to the
Yellow Jacket Project, a proposed multi-purpose water development project
for irrigation, municipal, industrial, and energy-related water uses (BOR,
1968). This development must be accomplished within an environmentally-
sound framework, which requires that the existing baseline enyironmental
conditions be determined prior to any major development activity.
The environmental studies initially planned by the Bureau of Reclama-
tion focused primarily on biological investigations, both aquatic and
terrestrial. These studies were1 contracted with the Colorado Division
of Wildlife (Burkhard, 1976). In order to complement the aquatic biolog-
ical study, and produce a more comprehensive appraisal of existing stream
characteristics, the Region VIII EPA office in Denver was asked to conduct
an intensive water quality investigation concurrently with the Colorado
Division of Wildlife study.
The purpose of the study was to document the current baseline
conditions of water quality present in the White River during both
"low flow" and "high flow" periods. This report presents the results
of those studies conducted during the Fall of 1975 and the Spring of 1976.
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The Grand Junction office of the Bureau of Reclamation requested that
EPA provide technical assistance in the form of baseline physical and
chemical water quality data for the White River drainage and Milk Creek
in Western Colorado to be used in evaluating potential impacts from a
proposed multi-purpose water development project. In fulfillment of that
request EPA conducted water quality studies on 200 km (125 mi) of the
White River plus selected tributaries and Milk Creek during a "low flow"
period in the Fall of 1975 and during a "high flow" period in the Spring
of 1976.
Stream flows during the two studies were considered to be representa-
tive of average "low flow" and "high flow" conditions. "High" flows
were as much as ten times greater than "low" flows at some locations.
Because the two studies were essentially "baseline" investigations,
all results were compared with recommended criteria and/or proposed
stream standards (criteria/standards) to Identify existing or potential
water quality problems. The selected criteria/standard values were the
most restrictive levels specified for the protection of various water uses,
such as drinking water supply, aquatic life/wildlife, irrigation, and
livestock. Although sampling in the lower portion of the White River
drainage (particularly near Rangely) indicated numerous violations of
criteria/standards, the upper drainage (upstream from Meeker) contained
water that, with few exceptions, was of generally high quality.
Most of the problems identified in the mainstem White River, including
the North Fork, occurred at the furthest downstream station at Rangely,
Colorado at RM 78.2. Values exceeding the criteria/standards were observed
for TDS (557 mg/1), TSS (620 mg/1), aluminum (9780 mg/1), iron (12500 mg/1),
copper (20 wg/1), manganese (295 pg/1), zinc (75 yg/1) and total phos-
phorus (0.630 mg/1 as P). All of the mainstem stations between Meeker
and Rangely also contained concentrations of TSS, iron, and total phos-
phorus in excess of the criteria/standards. In the upper White River
drainage between Meeker and Trappers Lake, only iron and zinc concentrations
were measured in excess of the criteria/standards, with zinc occurring in
greater concentrations near the headwaters than in the downstream area.
Of the various parameters discussed above, only TDS and total phosphorus
concentrations were considered to be directly influenced by man's activities
in the drainage area. These two parameters exceeded the criteria/standards,
at least partially, because of return flows from irrigated lands bordering
the White River. If impoundments of water are planned in the lower White
River basin, the algal growth potential of the nutrient-rich water should
be evaluated by conducting algal assays.
Of the six tributary streams sampled during these studies, Yellow
Creek contained numerous parameters in excess of recommended criteria/
standards, including dissolved oxygen (4 mg/1), alkalinity (1589 mg/1 as
CaC03), TDS (2710 mg/1), TSS (91 mg/1), sodium (868 mg/1), iron (1750 yg/1),
-------
molybdenum (45 yg/1), selenium (16 ug/1), boron (1025 ug/1), and fluoride
(2.34 mg/1). Other tributaries containing excessive parameter concentrations
include the following: Little Beaver Creek (IDS- 752 mg/1, TSS- 52 mg/1,
iron- 1200 yg/1, selenium- 25 yg/1, and total phosphorus- 0.419 mg/1 as
P), Coal Creek (TSS-203 mg/1, iron- 4700 yg/1, and total phosphorus- 0.250
mg/1 as P), Miller Creek (IDS- 728 mg/1), Big Beaver Creek (IDS- 527 mg/1),
and Lost Creek (iron- 560 yg/1 and zinc- 80 ug/1). Except for irrigation
return flows contributing IDS and phosphorus in Coal Creek, Miller Creek,
and Little Beaver Creek, these excessive parameter concentrations all
appear to be due to natural hydrochemical stream characteristics.
The South Fork of the White River was found to be of very high quality
except for slightly high concentrations of zinc (70 yg/1) due to natural
causes.
The Milk Creek drainage, located approximately 30 km (19 mi) northeast
of Meeker, is the site for a proposed reservoir development. Samples were
collected upstream and downstream from the proposed reservoir, and the
following parameters were measured at concentrations in excess of recommended
criteria/standards: TDS (1115 mg/1), TSS (210 mg/1), and total phos-
phorus (0.183 mg/1 as P). Concentrations of the common minerals (calcium,
sodium, magnesium, and potassium) were also at levels indicative of
highly mineralized water.
-------
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
The White River has its headwaters near Trappers Lake in Northwest
Colorado, and from this high mountain source flows westward to its junction
with the Green River in Eastern Utah. The upper White River drainage is
characterized by high mountain forests and scattered meadows utilized
for livestock grazing. Further downstream ranching and farming practices
become more intensive with the large scale use of irrigation in the river
bottoms. A major tributary, the South Fork White River, flows northward
from the Flattops Wilderness Area and joins the North Fork White River
at Buford. From the confluence at Buford the White River flows westward
through Rio Blanco County and the towns of Meeker and Rangely. Both towns
are expected to undergo significant growth due to the development of coal
and oil shale resources in the area. Two federal oil shale lease sites
are located in the Piceance Creek drainage approximately 40 km (25 mi)
southwest of Meeker, while coal development is occurring at numerous
locations throughout northwestern Colorado. Piceance Creek was not sampled
during these studies because it is being extensively studied by oil shale
developers and the US6S.
The White River study area included a stream reach of approximately
200 km (125 mi) with nine water quality sampling stations located on the
mains tern and eight stations located on tributary streams (the South Fork
White River is considered a tributary for purposes of this study).
These stations were located at points of reasonable access which would
produce representative physical and chemical water quality data. Addi-
tional sampling was conducted at two locations on Milk Creek, a tributary
of the Yampa River located approximately 30 km (19 mi) northeast of
Meeker. The segment of Milk Creek sampled during these studies flows
through an area of intensive fanning and ranching similar to the lower
White River drainage, and has been proposed as a possible future reservoir
site. The station locations (and water quality parameters) were selected
and approved prior to the study by representatives of the Bureau of
Reclamation, Colorado Division of Wildlife, and the Environmental Protection
Agency. The location of all stations is shown on the map in Fig. 1 and
described in Table 1.
-------
STUDY
AREA
LEGEND
POTENTIAL
RESERVOM
SITE
FIGURE I
MAP OF STUDY AREA
-------
Table 1
White River Study
Station Locations
Station No.
WR-1
WR-2
YC-3
WR-4
WR-5
WR-6
CC-8
LBC-9
MC-10
WR-11
BC-12
SF-13
SF-14
NF-15
LC-16
RM*
78.2
100.8
111.0
116.1
134.1
144.3
152.6
-
160.6
168.4
168.6
169.1
-
170.6
180.8
RK**
125.9
162.3
178.7
186.9
215.9
232.3
245.7
-
258.6
271.1
271.4
272.2
-
274.7
291.1
Description
White River downstream from Rangely, Bridge on
Hwy. 64
White River near Angora, old steel bridge North
of Hwy. 64
Yellow Creek at gaging station, at Hwy. 64 bridge.
White River near Blair Mesa, South bank near
Hwy. 64, near Smizer Gulch
White River at USGS gaginq station near Kendall
Gulch, off Hwy. 64
White River downstream from Meeker, at Hwy. 13/789
bri dge
Coal Creek near mouth, bridge on road east off
Hwy. 132
Little Beaver Creek near mouth, bridge on road
east off Hwy. 132
Miller Creek at USGS gaging station
White River, immediately downstream from confluence
with Big Beaver Creek, bridge off Hwy. 132
Big Beaver Creek upstream from Avery Reservoir,
at footbridge
South Fork White River at USGS gaging station
near mouth
South Fork White River at South Fork Campground,
at footbridge
North Fork White River at Buford, bridge off Hwy.
132, upstream from Bel -air fish hatchery
Lost Creek at USGS gaging station near mouth,
bridge on Hwy. 132
-------
Table 1 - continued
Station No. RM RK Description
NF-17 187.1 301.2 North Fork Hhite River approx. 1 mile upstream
from North Fork Campground
NF-18 192.6 310.1 North Fork White River upstream from Big Fish
Creek, 2 miles upstream from Himes Peak Campground
MC-19 19.6 31.6 Milk Creek at bridge located approximately 1 mile
upstream from Thornburgh Historical Site
MC-20 4.8 7.7 Milk Creek near lies Mountain, bridge on Hwy.
13/789
* River mileages were obtained from a consultants report (NHPQ, 1976b).
** River kilometers
-------
STUDY METHODS
Water quality samples were collected from all 19 stations during
both the "low flow" study in Sept.-Oct., 1975 and the "high flow" study
in May-June, 1975. The 200 km (125 mi) stream reach was divided into
three segments because of the long distances involved, and each segment
was sampled on four consecutive days during each study. Segment I
covered the lower White River, including stations 1-5, Segment II included
stations 6-10 plus the two Milk Creek stations, and Segment III included
the remaining stations in the upper White River drainage (Fig. 1).
During the "low flow" study sampling progressed downstream from Segment III
during the first week to Segment I during the third week. The sampling
pattern was reversed during the following "high flow" study, with sampling
occurring first in Segment I and then progressing upstream. This arrange-
ment provided the greatest possibility for sampling at the desired flow
conditions while minimizing the adverse impact of winter weather conditions.
The water quality parameters measured during this investigation are
listed in Table 2. Although an attempt was made to include a wide range
of parameters, it is realized that these parameters are not all-inclusive
and may not satisfy the needs of everyone concerned with water quality in
the White River area.
At each sampling site field measurements were made for temperature,
pH, specific conductance (conductivity), and occasionally, flow.
Sampling stations had been located, wherever possible, at flow measuring
stations operated by the Geological Survey (GS). Mean daily flow rates
from these stations were utilized in this study whenever possible. The
instantaneous flows determined by EPA were obtained by standard stream
gaging methods utilizing a Marsh-McBirney electromagnetic current meter
with direct velocity readout.
Water samples were collected at each site for immediate analysis
(within 4 hours) in the temporary field office for the following
parameters: turbidity, total alkalinity, hardness, and dissolved oxygen.
The dissolved oxygen samples were collected in 300 ml glass BOD bottles -
all other samples were collected in 0.95 I (1 qt.) polyethylene cubi-
tainers. When required, samples were kept chilled in ice chests until
analyzed. A Hach Turbidimeter with formazin liquid standards was used
for the turbidity measurements. Total alkalinity was determined potentio-
metrically while hardness was determined by the EDTA Titrimetric method.
Dissolved oxygen measurements were obtained by the Winkler titration
method employing field fixing with the appropriate powder reagents.
Additional water was collected from each site for analysis for
chloride, fluoride, boron, total dissolved solids (TDS), total suspended
solids (TSS), and metals. The TSS samples were collected by a dip-and-
take method after comparison with the recommended depth-integration method
showed that in the rapidly flowing streams sampled in this study there
8
-------
Table 2
Water Quality Parameters Measured
General Parameters
Flow Alkalinity
Temperature Conductivity
pH Total Dissolved Solids
Dissolved Oxygen Total Suspended Solids
Hardness Turbidity
Common Minerals
Cal ci urn
Magnesium
Potassium
Sodium
Chloride
Metals and Related Elements*
Aluminum Iron Molybdenum
Arsenic Lead Selenium
Cadmium Lithium Silver
Chromium Manganese Zinc
Copper
Non-Metals
Boron Fluoride
Nutrients**
Total Kjehldal Nitrogen (TKN)
Nitritite & Nitrate Nitrogen (NOg + N03)
Ammonia Nitrogen (NHs)
Total Phosphorus (T-P)
Ortho Phosphorus (0-P)
* All metals are "total" metals
** These nutrient parameters were measured only during the spring
"high flow" study
-------
were no apparent differences between the two methods. The samples for
total metals were placed in 0.95 a (1 qt.) polyethylene cubitainers, pre-
served with HN03, and transported to the EPA laboratory for analysis at
the conclusion of each 4-day sampling period. On one occasion (station WR-1
on 5/26/76), water samples for dissolved metals analysis were filtered
in the field using a 0.45y membrane filter and then preserved with HN03.
All total metal samples were prepared by the digestion procedure
established in the EPA Methods Manual (1974). After digestion, all metal
analyses were performed by flame atomic absorption, except for the following
variations: arsenic and selenium were determined using the graphite furnace
technique with the nickel matrix modification as outlined by Ediger (1975);
lead was determined in the graphite furnace with the use of ammonium nitrate
to volatalize excess sodium chloride (Ediger, 1975); molybdenum was deter-
mined in the graphite furnace with no modifications; and lithium and
potassium were both analyzed by flame emission spectrometry. All other
parameters were analyzed according to approved procedures.
During the Spring "high flow" study water samples were collected from
all stations for nutrient analysis. These grab-type samples were placed
in 0.95 SL (1 qt.) polyethylene cubitainers, preserved with 40 mg HgClg per
liter, and held on ice until analyzed at the end of each four-day sampling
period.
With the exception of TKN, all nutrient samples were analyzed using
the Technicon Auto Analyzer II with the Digital Printer Module in accord-
ance with approved methods (EPA, 1973a). The specific methods employed
in the nutrient analysis were the following: ammonia- automated colori-
metric phenol ate; nitrite + nitrate- automated cadmium reduction; ortho-
phosphorus- automated colorimetric ascorbic acid reduction; and total
phosphorus- digestion with sulfuric acid-ammonium persulfate, followed
by automated colorimetric ascorbic acid reduction.
The procedure used for TKN analysis was a semi-automated version of
the standard TKN digestion and colorimetric method. The digestion pro-
cedure utilized the Technicon Block Digestor in which as many as forty
samples at a time were digested under controlled conditions. The digestion
converted all organic nitrogen to ammonia which was measured by the auto-
mated colorimetric phenol ate method.
10
-------
RESULTS OF STUDY
Introduction
An inventory of the complete set of water quality data collected
during the "low flow" and "high flow" studies is presented in Appendices
A and B, respectively. This large mass of raw water quality data (4940
discrete measurements) has been summarized in Table 3 to facilitate an
easier and more meaningful analysis. Table 3 shows the four-day average
value for each parameter measured at each sampling station during each
intensive study period. These average values are shown graphically on
profile maps for the White River and selected tributaries and for Milk
Creek in the following section of this report. River miles are plotted
as the "x" axis while parameter concentration serves as the "y" axis.
Scale values may change from one profile to the next, giving the impression
of a value of greater magnitude upon first viewing than is actually the
case. Sol id*lines are used to connect the Fall "low flow" average values
while dashed lines connect the Spring "high flow" values. These lines
should not be interpreted as indicating the parameter concentration
at any intermediate point between sampling stations.
In order to evaluate the presence of water quality problems in the
study area, the data has been compared against recommended water quality
criteria and proposed standards. Although the terms "criteria" and
"standards" are often used interchangeably, there is an important
distinction. "Criteria" are recommended parameter concentrations which,
if not exceeded, will afford reasonable protection to aquatic life or
designated water uses, whereas "standards" are legally-enforceable para-
meter limits adopted to protect unique features of specific water bodies.
A more detailed explanation may be found in Quality Criteria for Water
(EPA, 1976). The recommended criteria and proposed standards utilized
in this report are listed in Table 4. The criteria were obtained from
EPA criteria documents (EPA, 1973b; EPA, 1976) while the proposed standards
were obtained from a Colorado Department of Health document (CDH, 1976).
It is very important to realize that these proposed State standards are
only in the development stage at this writing and may undergo change following
intensive public review. The numerical values are shown here only for
comparison purposes so that potential water quality problems may be
identified in advance should the proposed standards be adopted. The
more restrictive of the recommended criteria and proposed standards are
shown, where applicable, on the water quality profile maps.
General Parameters
Flow
One of the major purposes of this study was to collect water samples
during both "low flow" and "high flow" periods. In order to determine
11
-------
Table 3
Comparison of Physical and Chemical Data From the Low Flow (Fall, 1975)
and High Flow (Spring, 1976) Studies of the White River In Western Colorado
INS
HR-1
Parameter
Temp.
XT
r*[2
I*1
Flow
DO
Conduct.
Turbidity
Units
9C
5,3/s
mg/t
u mhos/en
FTU
Alkalinity mg/t as CaCO,
Hardness ma/t
TOS
na/t
TDS Metric Tons/pay
TSS ng/t
TSS Metric Tons/Day
Tot. Chloride na/t
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead ,
Tot. L1th1umJ
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodlun
Tot. Zinc
TKN
H02 + N03 - K
NH3 - N
Total P
Ortho P
Total P
ng/t
wg/t
wg/t
ug/t
ug/t
vg/t
wg/t
ug/t
pg/»
eg/1
vg/t
vg/t
WO/t
wg/t
ng/t
mg/t
mg/i
mg/t
mg/t
kg/day
Fall
11.5
8.1
13.31
9.2
760
17
175
254
557
640
45
52
29
0.30
<5
1250
210
<5
58000
<15
<8
1020
23000.
494
2400
<5
48000
25
-
-
Spring
13.0
7.3
45.42
8.5
430
151
146
169
235
922
620
2432
11
0.15
<10
9780
170
10
31500
<15
20
12500
10
25
19000
295
4200
<5
<5
20000
75
1.93
0.18
0.01
0.630
0.043
1.23
UR-2
Fall
10.5
8.1
13.31
.9.8
790
9.4
183
265
468
538
30
37
28
0.28
<5
810
120
<5
58000
<10
6
760
<5
<25
22000
28
2100
<5
<5
44000
70
-
-
-
Spr1nq
12.5
7.1
43.89
8.7
410
59
122
156
217
823
172
652
11
0.14
<5
3545
110
<7
27500
<10
10
3800
<5
15
13000
95
2100
<5
5
17500
45
0.86
0.14
0.02
0.209
0.036
0.39
YC-3
Fall
10.5
8.7
0.034
3.8
3800
40
1530
530
2680
7.9
91
0.3
139
1.85
<5
2560
720
<5
20000
<10
7
1750
<5
130
108000
45
45
5800
16
<5
868000
50
-
-
-
Soring
18.0
8.6
0.045
4.0
4150
29
1589
566
2710
10.9
78
0.3
151
2.34
10
1700
1025
12
19000
<10
10
1200
<5
220
109000
30
25
12000
<5
75*4000
5
1.92
0.17
<0.02
0.080
0.016
<0.01
UR-4
Fall
10.5
8.0
13.59
9.5
730
7.9
175
253
458
538
23
27
27
0.30
<5
560
250
<5
59000
<15
<6
620
<25
23000
28
2000
<5
<5
42000
40
-
-
Spring
12.0
7.6
45.39
8.9
400
48
119
157
251
984
121
474
10
0.14
<5
2850
120
<6
27500
<10
2800
<5
15
12000
45
1900
<5
<5
16000
<25
0.68
01 *i
.12
0.01
0.132
0.035
0.26
WR-5
Fall
9.5
7.8
13.02
10.3
630
5.1
142
235
402
452
14
15
26
0.28
<5
550
300
<5
60000
<10
<5
420
<2S
17000
28
1 r\
<\(J
2100
<5
f
<5
23000
4C
25
-
"
Sorlna
11.0
7.5
44.97
9.2
350
26
106
145
212
824
76
295
9.2
0.11
<5
1800
115
26000
<10
1950
<5
10
10200i
1600
<5
<5
9000 .
07O
/o
012
oioi
0.115
0.027
0.22
1 All values shown are 4-day arithmetic averages unless otherwise noted.
2 The pH values are logarithmic averages; all other averages are arithmetic.
5 The limit of detection for lltMun was 25 ug/i for the fall samples and 10 ug/t for the spring samples.
4 This average concentration omits one high value thought to be spurious.
-------
Table 3 (con't.)
WR-6
Parameter
Temp.
PH
Flow
00
Conduct.
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Hardness
TDS
TDS
TSS
TSS
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluflinun
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadriun
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead ,
Tot. Lithlun3
Tot. Hagneslua
Tot. Manganese
Units
>0C
SU
ra3/s
ng/t
umhos/cm
FTU
ng/t as CaC03
ng/t
mg/t
Metric Tons/Day
«ig/t
Metric Tons/Day
nig/l
mg/t
ug/t
ug/t
u9/t
ug/t
ug/t
ug/t
ug/t
ug/t
ug/t
ug/t
ug/t
Fall
12.5
7.7
9.06
9.6
640
6.4
154
254
422
330
22
17
25
0.28
-------
Table 3 (con't.)
BC-12
Parameter
T
pH
Flow
DO
Conduct-
Turbidity
Units
°C
su
mg/t
unhos/on
FTU
Alkalinity mg/t as CaCO,
Hardness mg/t
TDS
mg/t
TDS He trie Tons/Day
TSS
mg/t
TSS Metric Tons/Day
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. A! ml nun
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead ,
Tot. Lithium3
Tot. Hagneslui
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenlta
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Uric
TBt
ffi-MP'"
Total P
Ortho P
Total P
mg/t
pg/t
pg/t
pg/t
pg/t
pg/t
pg/t
pg/t
pg/t
pg/t
pg/t
pg/t
pg/t
pg/t
pg/t
pg/t
pg/t
mg/t
3/*
mq/t
mg/t
ng/t
kg/day
Fall
11.0
7.5
0.110
9.6
800
0.86
164
377
527
5.0
3.2
*0.1
1.4
0.50
<5
<200
<120
<5
9X00
10
<6
140
<8
<25
24000
28
<10
1800
<5
<5
4600
80
-
-
_
-
-
Spring
15.0
7.3
0.45
8.5
380
4.0
120
176
241
9.1
9.2
0.4
1.6
0.15
<5
200
130
<6
45000
<10
<10
310
<5
10
11000
22
<10
1000
<5
<5
3800
0.29
0.01
0.01
0.022
0.010
<0.01
SF-13
Fall
11.5
7.3
3.96
8.7
330
2.2
120
141
208
71
7.8
2.6
<1.1
<0.12
<5
<300
110
<5
37000
10
<6
200
<8
<25
10400
17
1200
<5
<5
2200
70
.
.
.
_ .
-
_
Spring
8.0
7.2
35.82
9.5
180
5.0
80
70
102
316
17
53
1.2
<0.10
<5
600
95
<6
21000
<10
<5
600
<5
<10
5600
14
600
<5
<5
1800
<10
0.34
0.06
0.01
0.052
0.012
0.08
SF-14
Fall
7.5
7.2
3.40
9.1
230
0.66
104
101
142
42
2.6
0.7
<1 .0
<0.14
<6
<200
80
<5
22000
*<5
105
<6
<25
8500
10
900
<5
<5
1900
70
_
.
.
.
-
Spr1n(,
7.0
7.1
34.32
9.8
160
2.4
72
73
86
255
7.5
22
0.9
<0.10
<5
300
90
<6
18000
<6
250
<5
<10
5000
<9
600
<5
<5
1900
<15
0.65
0.06
<0.01
0.029
0.010
0.04
NF-15
Fall
8.0
7.2
6.23
9.3
370
1.4
90
149
233
125
7.7
4.2
<1
<0.16
<6
<200
90
<5
38000
<15
8
210.
<5*
<25
10200
18
<10
1200
<5
<5
2700
60
.
_
_
-
.
Spring
9.0
6.9
21.52
9.4
180
5.6
56
77
120
223
23
43
1.5
<0.10
<5
750
105
<6
20000
<10
<9
810
<5
<10
5000
22
<10
900
<5
<5
2500
10
0.43
0.05
0.01
0.065
0.018
0.06
Fall
14.
7.
0.
8.
460
1.
148
186
291
Z.
3.
cfl.
<-] .
<0.
<8
<200
140
<5
48000
10
10
no
6
<2S
13200
2!
10
1400
<5
».5
8000
80
.
_
.
-
.
LC-16
Spring
0 10.0
5 6.8
091 0.74
8 9.0
190
3 8.8
74
91
122
3 7.8
3 14
1 1.0
1 1.5
14 <0.10
<5
400
100
7
21000
<10
<9
560
<5
<10
4600
10
<10
800
'5
<5
3£00
<10
0.38-
0.01
0.01
0.035
0.015
<0.01
? The pH values are logarithmic averages; all other averages are arithmetic.
> TJie Horit of detection for lithium was 25 ng/t for the fall samples and 10 pg/t for the spring samples.
4 This average concentration omits one high value thought to be -spurious.
-------
Table 3 (con't.)
HF-17
HF-18
ME-19
HC-ZO
Parameters
Tern.
nH
Flow
DO
Conduct.
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Hardness
TOS
IDS
TSS
TSS-
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead ,
Tot. Lithium3
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Units
°C
SU
nrVs
mg/i
unties/cm
FTU
mg/t as CaCOq
mg/t
mg/i
Metric Tons/Day
mg/t
Metric Tons/Day
mg/i
mg/t
vgft
vg/t
vg/i
wg/t
wg/i
wg/i
ug/i
vglt
wg/i
wg/l
yg/i
Fall
7.5
7.1
3.68
8.8
310
5.2
78
127
Z15
68
21
6.7
Spring
8,
6
9.
150
4.
47
60
96
-
18
-
.0
.6
.3
.4
Fall
5.5
7.3
0.88
8.6
130
0.56
56
49
123
9.1
2.6
0.2
Spring
8.0
6.6
6.23
8.7
90
1.4
40
35
59
32
5
2.7
<1 1.2 <1 <1.0
0.14
<5
700
90
<5
33000
<20
7
770
7
<25
8400
22
<0.10
<5
550
100
<6
15000
<10
<10
610
<5
4000
16
<0.10
<5
<200
60
<5
12000
<15
<6
130
6
<25
5000
16
<0. 1
<5
<150
60
«6
8600
<10
<7
190
<5
2900
16
Fall
13.E
7.6
0.025
7.1
730
24
212
310
474
1.0
38
0.1
5.2
0.23
<5
1150
240
<5
69000
<15
8
1180
<5
35
25000
109
Spring
10.0
6.9
1.44
8.7
410
55
129
181
252
32
128
16
3.5
0.12
<10
2750
170
<6
41000
<10
<10
3150
<5
20
132000
59
Fall
14.5
7.9
0.093
8.2
1400
4.7
331
662
ins
9.0
15
0.1
Spring
13.5
7.1
0.
42
8.2
620
78
172
271
388
14
210
7.
7
<1.4 5.1
0.56
<5
300
<230
<5
82000
<15
<8
370
<5
60
85000
84
0.
<10
4050
220
6
60000
<10
10
5150
<5
35
24000
100
16
Tot. Molybdenum pg/i <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Z1nc
TKM
NOz + N03 - H
HH^ - N
Total P
Ortho P
Total P
wg/i
vg/i
vg/t
iig/i
ug/i
tag/t
mg/t
mq/t
rag/i
mg/i
kg/day
1200
<5
<5
2600
100
-
-
.
.
-
-
800
<5
<5
2600
15
0.
0.
<0.
0.
0.
-
35
04
01
056
017
1100
<5
<5
1800
75
.
-
.
-
.
-
700
<5
<5
1800
<10
0.89
0.06
0.01
0.028
0.019
0.01
3200
<5
<5
20000
45
-
-
-
-
-
-
2200
<5
<5
9800
30
0.76
0.05
0.01
0.112
0.024
U.01
5200
<5
<5
66000
25
-
-
-
-
-
-
3800
<5
<5
19000
30
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
<0.
77
09
02
183
025
01
The pH values are logarithmic averages; all other averages are arithmetic.
» The Unit of detection for lithium was 25 yg/t for the fall samples and 10 ug/i for the spring samples.
-------
Table 4
lee Liided Hater Quality Criteria and Froposed Standards
Parameter
Units
CT>
Temperature
pH
0.0.
Hardness
Alkalinity
IDS
TSS
Magnesium
Sodium
Chloride
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium"
Chromium
Copper"
Iron
Leadd
Manganese
Molybdenum
Selenium
Silver*
Zinc"
Boron
Fluoride*
Nitrate
Total Phosphorus
°C
s.u.
mg/1
mg/1 as
r»g/l as
CaCO,
mg/1 3
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
M9/1
vg/1
H9/1
ng/1
vg/i
wg/i
ng/l
M9/1
M9/1
ug/l
mg/l
mg/1 as N
mg/1 as P
RecDimended EPA
Criteria (EPA. 1976)
6.5-9.0
>20n
Proposed CoAowto
Standards (CDH. 1976)*
20, 30
6.5-9.0
5.0, 7,0
Effective Co\orado
Standards (CDH, 1974)
20. 32
6.0-9.0
5.0, 6.0
i -median
-
270
250,
50001 (EPA, 1973b)
50
0.4
50
C
1000
30 (EPA, 1973b)6
200
10 (EPA, 1973b)
IQ£
50C
c
750
2 (EPA. 1973b)
10
O.I
25b
125
.
250
100
10
0.4
50
10
500
4
200
.
10
0.1
50
750
Z,
4f
0.1
a The values shum are based upon the most restrictive water use and water hardness encountered in the White River study area.
b Tills concentration represents the nattimuR allowed due to wan'* icUvftle*.
c A 96-hour LCso bioassay test Is recommended 1n order to establish a limit for the particular water body 1.1 question.
d Criteria limits vary according to water hardness. The rost restrictive limit for the softest water found in the White
River drainage (less than 100 ng/1 total hardness) Is shown.
* Flunrlde criteria for drinking water are dependent upon ambient air temperatures at the monitoring site.
This value Is an "alert" level only; the proposed standard Is 10 mq/I.
9 Water having concentrations of 70S In excess of the stated value may have detrimental effects when used in Irrigation.
Although no upper Unit Is recommended, concentrations In excess of 500-600 mg/1 as CaCOi indicate highly mineralized water
which nay be unsuitable for sore uses.
' This value applies to water used for livestock watering. Bioassay research Indicates that considerably lower concentrations
(<1 mg/1) nay be required to protect aquatic life (Everhart and freeman, 1973).
-------
whether flows measured during these studies were representative of typical
"low" and "high" flow periods, the measured flows were compared to the
historical 7-day 10-year low and high flows at several stream gaging stations.
This comparison is shown in Table 5. It is evident that neither the "low
flows" nor the "high flows" measured during these studies approach the
7-day average low or high flows expected to occur once each ten years at
the various stations. This indicates that the measured flows were neither
extremely lower nor higher than what might be considered an average flow
rate for each study period. This conclusion is supported by the fact that
the recurrence interval, indicating the most probable elapsed time period
before .a flow similar to the measured flow occurs, averaged only slightly
more than one year for both the "low flow" and "high flow" rates. If
determination of baseline water quality at truly "low flow" and "high flow"
conditions is desired, the recurrence interval should probably be at least
ten years or more.
As shown by the profile map in Fig. 2, flows measured during the
Spring, 1976 "high flow" study generally averaged from three to ten times
higher than flows measured during the "low flow" study in the Fall of 1975.
Exceptions to this range of flows were observed at several sampling stations
located on streams affected by irrigation diversions and return flow (CC-8,
LBC-9, MC-19) or by other undetermined natural hydrologic characteristics
(YC-3, MC-10).
Temperature
Temperature profiles for the White River are presented in Fig. 3.
The profiles show that water temperatures during the Spring runoff period
averaged approximately 2° C higher than during the Fall sampling period.
The colder water temperatures observed during the Fall study were simply
due to colder weather present during the late September - early October
sampling period. Past records show that the warmest stream temperatures
are usually recorded during July, August, and early September. The
temperature profiles also show the gradual increase in water temperature
in the downstream direction. The reason for the relatively high average
temperature recorded during the Fall study at station WR-6 (RM 144.3)
near Meeker is because these measurements were made during warmer weather
two weeks earlier than any of the downstream measurements.
The dependence of water temperature upon the time of day during which
samples were collected is also an important consideration in evaluating
temperature data. For example, in Appendix A, water temperatures at
WR-4 (RM 116.1) varied from 7.5° C at 0915 on 10/2/75 to 14.0° C at 1515
on 9/29/75. In summary, all of the measured water temperatures were less
than the cold water criterion of 20° C during the two study periods.
PH
pH measurements were generally within the acceptable range of 6.5-9.0
standard units (S.U.) except for one measurement of 6.4 recorded at the
17
-------
Table 5
Comparison of Measured Stream Flows
With Historical 7-Day, 10-Year Flows
Flow, m-Vs
CO
Station
EPA
WR-5
WR-6
SF-13
NF-15
LC-16
MC-19
Numbers
USGS
09304800
09304500
09304000
09303000
09302450
09250000
7-Day, 10-Year
Low Flow
5.32
5.41
2.04
3.17
*
0.008
Ave. Flow
Fall, 1975
13.021
9.061
3.961
6.23
0.0911
0.0252
Re cur ranee
Interval
Years
<1.01
1.13
<1.01
1.01
*
2.4
7-Day, 10- Year
High Flow
96.64
108.62
59.52
50.94
*
10.34
,Ave. Flow
Spring, 1976
44. 971
67. 961
35.82T
21. 521
0.741
1.443
.Recurrance
Interval
Years
^1.05
-1.3
-'l.l
1.15
*
~1
* Insufficient data to compute 7-day, 10-year low flow
1 These values represent the 4-day average of mean daily flows recorded by the USGS on the same day that
sample collection occured. These values are based upon preliminary flows only.
2 This value represents a single flow measurement made by EPA, but it is considered to be representative
of flow at this location during the 4-day sampling period
3 Average of two instantaneous flow measurements made by EPA during the 4-day sampling period
-------
FIGURE 2
FLOW PROFILE
Little Beaver Creek
^M »- _. .
140
3O
^
- 2O
1
10
0
^~ °Pfia»
jjl
*
^ .
J<
1
§
Fall
60 90 i
0 10 20
Kilometers i 5
Fall Saaplee B. 1'°
v 8
V Sprint Samples ~t r c
bu ' '
0
C.2
0.1
0
,^_
0
oo
V
» _ 4
A
2.0 1.0
_^
"" ~
T
?<
*!.
110 120 *
a
0 "> 1.0
5.
0.1 . °-5
^
«n
0 o
4
' 1
3.0 2.0
T 130
>1
h
O
jr
-*'
~-~~~^^
^^-~^,
«
1.0
9 67.96
t
<
1
! g
6 I
o <7
O at
CU CO
s ?
1
<
,
t.
*o
9
»
fr
<
0.5 1.0
PlflTO
t
1
1
i ii
^^
"s.
1^"
^_ ,
^ ^It
M
X *>
§1 ^ i__
*°0.59 V0.7*
0.5<« J»0.0t
UtO 150 160 '
River Miles - White River
w- ~~ "*" "
0
5 in
l c
1.5 ^
1.0 "-
o ?.Q
**
10
0
o
iflo
.
o.u
<.
0-3 -1
o.? J5
0.1
0
-
*
'
f
V
^^ >^
^^
^^*^^
»1 7>»
190
a
30
?°
10
~* . *o
20
. 10
Strean Miles - Milk Creek
: 10
S;uth Fork White River
-------
FIGURE 3
TEMPERATURE PROFILE
Little Beaver Creek
ro
O
15
10
* ;
9
» ,
k
o"
15 | 15
|
10 I 10
5 5
1
V
A
3.0 1.0
3.0 2.0 1.0
15
10
I
0.5 1.0
60
10O
110
120
130
UtO 150
River Milet - White River
160
10 20
Kilcneter*
10
^ Spring
15
10
15
10
10
10 15
Strean Mile* - HiIk Creek
20
0 5 10
Sooth Fork White River
-------
furthest upstream station on the White River (RM 192.6) during high flow.
As shown in Fig. 4, pH values during the Fall exhibited a smooth trend
of increasing pH in the downstream direction with lowest values near the
headwaters (RM 187.1, pH = 7.1) and highest values downstream near Rangely
(RM 78.2, pH = 8.1). During Spring runoff, this trend was much more
irregular, with highest pH measurements occurring in the intermediate stream
reach near Piceance Creek. The pH measurements made during "low flow"
ranged from 0.2 to 1.0 SU higher than measurements made during "high flow".
Dissolved Oxygen
As shown in Fig. 5 most dissolved oxygen measurements averaged greater
than 7.0 mg/1. The only exceptibn' was Yellow Creek, which averaged approx-
imately 4 mg/1 D.O. during both study periods. These concentrations were
well below the minimum criteria/standard values of 5-6 mg/1. However, some
difficulties were encountered in field preserving these water samples
because of the foaming action caused by the reaction of the preservative
reagents with the minerals in the water (TDS~4000 mg/1). The measured
D.O. concentrations may, therefore, not be truly representative of the
actual in-stream D.O. in Yellow Creek. Published data for D.O. concentra-
tions at this location have been generally higher (7-9 mg/1) for these
same time periods (GS, 1974).
The dissolved oxygen profiles shown in Fig. 5 for the mainstem White
River indicate similar concentrations in the upstream reach during both
study periods, while downstream concentrations were consistently higher
during the Fall "low flow" study. These higher D.O. concentrations during
"low flow" are probably related to the colder water temperatures measured
during the Fall study in the lower White River drainage.
Hardness
Hardness of surface waters 1s composed primarily of calcium and magnesium
ions. Other metal ions, such as iron, manganese, and strontium may con-
tribute to water hardness if they are present in appreciable amounts.
Although not necessarily an indicator of water quality itself, the amount
of hardness present in stream water has been shown to be a significant
factor in the toxicity of various metals to aquatic life.
Profiles of water hardness in the White River, in selected tributaries,
and in Milk Creek are shown in Fig. 6. Hardness concentrations ranged
from 35 mg/1 to 265 mg/1 in the mainstem White River while tributary
concentrations greater than 500 mg/1 were measured in Yellow Creek (566 mg/1),
Little Beaver Creek (500 mg/1), and Miller Creek (514 mg/1). These measure-
ments are indicative of very hard water and are due primarily to high
concentrations of calcium and magnesium ions.
Water hardness was significantly greater during the "low flow" study
due at least partially to the presence of higher concentrations of
dissolved minerals (see Fig.'8" for the TDS profile). Hardness concentra-
tions also showed a steady increase in the downstream direction in all
21
-------
FIGURE 4
pH PROFILE
Little Beaver Creek
9-0
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.5
7.0
6.5
*
> 1
7.5 g 7.5
a
7-0 7.0
6.5 6.5
I
»
*
1
A
1.0
3.0 2.0 1.0
a
fr
$
0.5 1.0
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
T9.o
8.5
8.0
7-5
7.0
fi
7.0
6.5
!
6.5
ao
100
110
120
O ID 20
Kilnetera
ft
130
I"* IjO 160
River Mlleg - White River
« Fall Sanplea
T Spring Sables
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
8.0
S 7.5
7.0
180
190
10
Stream Miles - Milk Creek
15
6.0
7-5
7.0
20
5 10
Sooth Fork White River
-------
FIGURE 5
DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE
Little Beaver Creek
1
. *
*
.
10 _
9 B-
8 5
1
7 g
a
o
A
\
10 *
9
8
7
2.O
1.0
3.0
2.0 1.0
0.5 1.0
10
»
e
'I
6 I
ro
OJ
12
to
V
i
Colorado Standard
*>
5C
Jo
12
10
80
100
10 SO
Kilometer*
V Spring
no
120
130
River
9
8
7
6
150 160
- White River
5 10 15
Stream Miles - Milk Creek
180
190
10
9
8
7
5 10
South Fork White River
-------
I
FIGURE 6
HARDNESS PROFILE
Little Beaver Creek
600
500
uoo
300
20O
, »
,
. ,
i
500 < 500
uoo | uao
300 * 300
20O 200
* .
2.0 _ 1,0 0
3-0 2.0
1.0
UOO
300
200
100
O.5 1.0
500
UOO
300
200
100
500
UOO
ff
300
ro A 200
-C* "
100
80
ID
100
UO
120
130
1UO 150 160
River Mile* - White Riv«r
i-l
60O
Fall Swplei!
^ Spring Saaplea
UOO
200
600
UOO
200
150
£ 100
|
Si 50
180
190
150
100
50
0
10 15
Stress Miles - Milk Creek
5 10
South Fork White River
-------
streams. During the Spring runoff study when suspended solids concentrations
were relatively high, the calcium and magnesium concentrations together were
not equal to the total hardness determined in the field by EDTA titration
(see Table 3). The higher hardness values obtained by titration are likely
due to the presence of significant concentrations of the other hardness-
producing metals (especially iron) associated with the suspended solids.
This explanation is especially plausible since no inhibitors were used in
the EDTA titration procedure.
Alkalinity
Alkalinity is a measurement of the buffering capacity of the carbonate-
bicarbonate system present in surface waters. It is important that sufficient
alkalinity exist in streams to prevent wide fluctuations in pH which may
be harmful to the aquatic environment. Stream measurements indicated a
widespread range of total alkalinity concentrations as CaC03, ranging from
40 mg/1 near the headwaters to 175 mg/1 near Rangely, Colorado (see the
profiles in Fig. 7). Alkalinity measurements were generally highest
during the "low flow" period. The lower Milk Creek station (MC-20)
exhibited an average alkalinity concentration of 331 mg/1 as CaCOo, while
Yellow Creek (YC-3) contained an average alkalinity of more than 1500 mg/1
as CaC03 during each study.period.
Salinity
High salinity (TDS) concentrations may produce adverse effects in
drinking water supplies and in irrigated crops. A large effort is currently
underway by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Forum (1975) to mitigate
these impacts by reducing salinity in the Colorado River basin, including
the White River. As shown in Fig. 8 the White River in its lower reaches
becomes a significant carrier of salinity, a fact shown most clearly by
the salinity increases measured during "low flow". At that time (Fall,
1975) the salinity near the headwaters averaged 123 mg/1, while in the 200 km
(125 mi) reach downstream to Rangely this concentration increased by more
than four times to 557 mg/1. Mean TDS concentrations exceeded the criteria
of 500 mg/1 in the White River near Rangely (RM 78.2), and in Yellow Creek,
Little Beaver Creek, Miller Creek, Big Beaver Creek, and Milk Creek. The
greatest incremental increase in salinity concentrations in the White River
1,80%) occurred in the 38.8 km (24.1 mi) reach between Buford (WR-11)
and Meeker (WR-6), which includes the tributaries Miller Creek and Coal
Creek/Little Beaver Creek. This stream reach also includes the tributaries
Curtis Creek and Flag Creek (which were not sampled), and the "Meeker
Dome" area which has been previously documented as a significant source
of .highly-saline groundwater and surface runoff (EPA, 1972). Unfortunately,
the scope of the present study did not allow an intensive investigation of
the non-point sources of salinity in this area. The data from the Fall
"low flow" study does show, however, that only approximately 50% of the
increase in salinity load in the White River between stations WR-11 and
WR-6 (58 metric tons per day) could be attributed to tributary loads
(excluding Flag Creek, which was not sampled, and Curtis Creek, which
25
-------
FIGURE 7
ALKALINITY PROFILE
Little Beaver Creek
250,
2OO
150
100
50
3
I
ft ft
200 o" 200
u
150 3 150
"5
100 . 100
50 1"
0 * 0
1
V
.
ft
2.0
1.0
3.0
2.O
1.0
200 o"
150 9
100 '
41
50 3
0.5 1.0
290
200
3
H 150
$ 100
I
< vi
200
150
100
50
80
100
110
120
10 20
Kilcwten
M
aL
-
130
Fall
V 3prli«
too
300
200
100
0
IkO 150 l£0
River Mllea - White River
»UOO
150
300
200
100
160
190
150
1OO
50
0
" 10
Sooth Pork Hhlte
St
10
KLle - Kilk Creek
15
20
-------
FIGURE 8
IDS PROFILE
1000
750
tx>
250
Little Beaver Greet
1000
750
2.0 i.o
imo
02680
250 25O
1
Criteria
3-0 2.0 1.0
Criteria
i «
750
=00 ^
8
25
0.5 1.0
1250
1250
100O
75°
500
250
t\3
1000
750
500
. 250
80
00
0 10 20
KilaMeri
100
UO
120
a
130
ll»0 150
River Miles - White River
Fall Sa^lm
V Spring SU3>la>
100O
jOO
1OOO
500
<.
f
JOO
20°
100
10 15
Stream Miles - Kilk Creek
20
180
190
5 10-
South ?Drk White River
.300
200
100
-------
was observed to have a negligible flow). The remaining 58 metric tons per
day were due to saline groundwater inflows, irrigation return flow, and
other non-point contributions (see Table 3).
Although TDS concentrations at most sampling locations were generally
twice as high during the "low flow" period as during the "high flow"
period, the greatest salinity load in the White River occurred at "high
flow" during Spring runoff (Table 3). During this period, the salinity
load increased from 32 metric tons per day near the headwaters (NF-18) to
922 metric tons per day at Rangely (WR-1). This great increase is due
primarily to leaching of dissolved minerals from the exposed river banks
during periods of "high flow". Sampling on Milk Creek revealed these
same general trends during each flow period.
Specific conductance (conductivity) measurements were made at all
locations and can be compared with TDS concentrations for each location.
Except for Yellow Creek, conductivity values in the White River drainage
averaged generally less than 1000 ymhos/cm, ranging from 90 ymhos/cm near
Trappers Lake to 790 nmhos/cm near Rangely.
Suspended Solids
Total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations and loads were, as
expected, much greater during Spring runoff than during the "low flow"
study (see Table 3 and Fig. 9). Concentrations averaged generally two to
ten times higher during Spring runoff (maximum concentration of 620 mg/1
at WR-1), while loadings were as much as 50 times higher during runoff than
during the "low flow" period (maximum load of 2432 metric tons per day at
WR-1). Part of the reason for the high suspended solids concentration and
load at Rangely (WR-1) during Spring runoff was that Douglas Creek was
contributing approximately 1.42 m3/s of extremely muddy water to the White
River just upstream from Rangely. However, since Douglas Creek was not
included in the sampling program, no chemical samples were obtained.
The recommended mean TSS criterion of 25 mg/1 for fish and wildlife
protection was exceeded during Spring runoff at all sampling locations on
the White River below Meeker and in Yellow Creek, Little Beaver Creek,
Coal Creek, and Milk Creek. During "low flow", TSS concentrations still
averaged above the criterion level in all these streams and in the White
River below Yellow Creek (RM 111.0). The data in Table 3 appears to show
good correlation between measured turbidity values and TSS concentrations,
as would be expected.
Common Minerals
Concentrations of the common minerals (calcium, magnesium, sodium,
potassium, and chloride) were generally highest during the "low flow"
period when groundwater recharge constituted a larger portion of the total
river flow. The profiles for sodium and chloride concentrations shown in
28
-------
FIGURE 9
TSS PROFILE
Little Beaver Creek
250
200
200
150
100
*
, *
^ A
200 20C
150 ~j£ 150
100 | 100
50 50
0 o
J
^
.
o
£
e
15
10
1W> 150 160
River Milee - White River
10 15
i Miles - Milk Creek
5 10
South Fork White River
-------
Figs. 10 and 11 serve as an example of the trend of increasing mineral
concentration in the downstream direction which was observed for each of
the common minerals. The highest mean concentrations of common minerals
were generally found in Yellow Creek, Little Beaver Creek, and Coal Creek
(see Table 3). Yellow Creek contained mean concentrations of sodium in
excess of the recommended criteria of 270 mg/1, which was sufficient sodium
to produce Sodium Adsorption Ratios (SAR) of 17 during "high flow" and
15 during "low flow". Ratios of this magnitude indicate that the water
may adversely affect sodium-sensitive plants if used for irrigation
(NAS, 1972).
Metals and Related Elements
A total of 13 parameters were included in this grouping, and all
results are discussed in terms of the total metal. Profiles for five of
these metals (aluminum, copper, iron, manganese, and zinc) are shown in
Figs. 12 through 16. The remaining metals were not profiled because
they either exhibited little variation throughout the stream reach or they
were present in concentrations below the analytical detection limit.
The five "profiles", in combination with the metals data in Table 3,
indicate significant variabilities in metal concentrations when comparing
"low flow" measurements to "high flow" measurements. Mean concentrations
of chromium, lead, and zinc were generally higher during "low flow", while
concentrations of aluminum, cadmium, copper, and iron were generally higher
during "high flow". Except for manganese, the remaining metals (arsenic,
molybdenum, selenium, and silver) did not show appreciable differences in
concentration between the "low flow" and "high flow" periods. Manganese
concentrations averaged higher during "high flow" in the White River
downstream from Meeker (see Fig. 15), but at other locations there was no
apparent relationship between concentration and flow. Lithium concentrations
measured during the two different flow periods could not be compared since
the detection limit was reduced from 25 pg/1 during the "low flow" study
to 10 yg/1 during the "high flow" study.
In order to evaluate the relative magnitude of the various metal concen-
trations, the measured values have been compared to the recommended criteria
and proposed standards shown in Table 4. It should be clearly understood
that the numbers shown in Table 4 are not absolute" limits, but rather
are intended to serve as "alert level" indicators. There clearly is a great
need for additional metal toxicity research in order to fully justify
specific numerical criteria and standards such as these.
The comparison of the metals data with the recommended criteria and
proposed standards (criteria/standards) leads to several observations,
as follows:
1. The criteria/standard concentrations for several metals (aluminum,
cadmium, lead, and silver) shown in Table 4 are below the detection
limit achieved by EPA during one or both of the study periods.
30
-------
FIGURE 10
SODIUM PROFILE
Little Beaver Great
UO
30
20
10
*
I
» 1
'
-
30 < 30
a
20 | 20
00
1C 10
0 0
,
I
.
2.0 1.0
o
SO
I
0.5 1.0
* I
0
eo
90
100
110
12O
130
0 10 20
Kllcwten
IkO 150 160
River Miles - White River
Fall Sanplea
V Spring Samples
60
r-t
? Uo
5 20
60
UO
20
0
5 10 15
Stream Miles - MilX Creek
2O
180
190
0 '7 10
South F3rk White Biver
50
-------
FIGURE 11
CHLORIDE PROFILE
Little Beaver Creek
20
15
10
5
0
T
15 * 15
1
10 o 10
e
5 5
n n
k
v
'
2.0
i' *
I
10 20
KilcBBtera
Pall
V Spring Staples
"I*«» ttan" Value
I
130
.6
>
- U
3
Is
1UO 150 160
River Miles - White River
6
I
| »
G 1
5 10 15
Strean Miles - Milk Creek
180
190
10
7'
0 5 10
South Fork White River
-------
FIGURE 12
ALUMINUM PROFILE
Little Beaver Creek
100O
500
\
\
, V
A
,£_ 6000
1000*
1 1*000
500 |
3 2000
° 0
]
V
2.0 l.o
3.0 2.0 1.0
300
100
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
80
IX)
20
150
River Miles - tfclte Ri\rer
Fall Sanpln
Spring Saaplea
"Leaa Than" Value
^ uooo,
I
2000 .
0
5 10
Stream Milea - Milk Creek
*
-2*
<<000
2000
600
1<00
200
0
600
itoo
. 200
5 10
Sooth Park Whit* Hirer
-------
FIGURE 13
COPPER PROFILE
Uttle Bearer Creek
25
*15
* i
K 10
80
20
15
10
5
.
V
k *
. .
15 ^ 15
a
10 j; 10
1
5 5
0
]
*
t
2.0
1.0
3.0 2.0
X
6
I
«
3
%
I
>,
i
. 15
T
T
0.5 1.0
100
110
120
130
lUO
150
T
0 10 20
KiloBeters
Fall Samplm
Spring Smples
"Less nm" Values
15
10
5
River Miles - White River
15
10
25
2O
15
10
160 /
15
M
"« 10
3
It
u
0
iflo 190
I T
15
10
5
5 10 15
Stream Miles - Milk Creek
o ; 10
South Pork White River
-------
FIGURE 14
IRON PROFILE
Little Beaver Creek.
12500
300QT
2500
2000
a
g
1000
509
f
1000
*« uooo
500 8 2000
o °
»
* ,
2.0 1.0
TO 270
1.0
V3800
u »
o
i
>>
I
A
0.5 i.o
300
200
100
I
3000
2500
2000
1300
1000
500
Bo
90
100
110
IfO
160
River Miles - White River
10
Kilometers
Fall Samples
V Spring Samples
60OO
.-4
~» "»000
q
2 2000
0
6000
I4OOO
cOOO
600
- iiOO
200
180
190
600
. ItOO
200
-Jo
5 10
Stream Mile - Kilk c-reek
5 10
Sooth FDrK White River
-------
FIGURE 15
MANGANESE PROFILE
Little Beaver Creek
125
100
- 75
50
10 20
Kllonetera
100
50
V
A *
150 ^ 1^0
a
100 I 100
50 J 50
0
I
»
*
0
A
2.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
J4
f)
o
I,
i
a
m
\o
">
i
t.
g a
I *
I
A
0.5 1.0
i»0
30 ^
20
10 .
Q
Fan Saaplee
V Spring Samples
"Lees Than" Value
1*0
150
River KilcE - White River
120
60
^ 30
20
10
10 15
Strean V-iles - Milk Creek
190
10
South Fsrk White River
3O
20
10
0
-------
FIGURE 16
ZINC PROFILE
Little Beaver Creek
80
60
uo
20
0
t
.
w
. ,r *
BO cO
60 ^ 60
oc
UO o" UO
20 20
0 0
*
2.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
T
60
60|
UO o
0.5
1.0
CO
100
75
50
125
100
75
25
80
90
100
UO
12O
10
*
20
fall Sanplea
Spring Samples
less Than" Values
60
^H
~M UO
3
5 20
111
130
llrt 150 160
River Miles - White River
.60
UO
20
0
5 10 15
Stream Miles - Milk Creek
20
100
75
50
25
0
180
190
100
75
50
25
0
5 10
South Fork White Siver
-------
However, except for aluminum, these metals were found in only very
trace amounts* with the maximum average concentrations reported
as follows: cadmium, 12 yg/1 at YC-3; lead, 10 yg/1 at WR-1; and
silver, 5 ug/1 at WR-2 and YC-3.
2. Mean concentrations of aluminum and iron ranged as high as
9780 yg/1 and 12,500 ug/1, respectively, in the lower White River
drainage at Rangely. As shown in the profiles in Figs. 12 and 14,
these concentrations were measured during Spring runoff when sus-
pended sediment concentrations were also high. The recommended
EPA criteria of 5000 yg/1 for aluminum was exceeded at only one
location (RM 78.2) whereas the proposed Colorado standard of 100
yg/1 was exceeded at most locations. The proposed Colorado standard
for iron (500 yg/1) was exceeded at 15 of the 19 sampling sites,
as shown in Fig. 14.
3. The criteria/standard concentrations for three metals {copper,
manganese, and molybdenum) were exceeded at only one station
each. Yellow Creek contained mean concentrations of molybdenum
which were approximately four times above the criterion of
10 yg/1, while the White River near Rangely (RM 78.2) contained
concentrations of copper (20 yg/1 - Fig. 13) and manganese
(295 yg/1 - Fig. 15) in excess of the criteria/standard limits
of 10 yg/1 and 200 yg/1, respectively.
4. Selenium concentrations in excess of the criteria/standard value
of 10 yg/1 were measured in Yellow Creek and Little Beaver Creek.
The selenium concentrations in these streams averaged 16 yg/1 during
"low flow" at YC-3 and 25 yg/1 during "high flow" at LBC-9.
5. Measurements for zinc at the 17 stations in the White River drainage
indicated that 8 stations had mean concentrations in excess of the
proposed standard value at the measured water hardness (the pro-
posed zinc standards are a function of water hardness, CDH, 1976).
As shown in Fig. 16, zinc concentrations were generally higher
during "low flow" with the highest concentration (100 yg/1)
reported near the headwaters of the White River at RM 187.1.
6. Mean concentrations of chromium were all less than 20 yg/1, which
is significantly less than the criteria/standard limit of 50 yg/1.
7. The arsenic standard of 10 yg/1 proposed by Colorado was equaled
at the Yellow Creek station, but all other stations reported mean
arsenic concentrations less than 10 yg/1.
8. Mean concentrations of total metals at the two sample stations in
the Milk Creek drainage were above the criteria/standard levels
for only iron and aluminum (Figs. 12 and 14). As was true for
stations in the White River drainage, concentrations of these
metals were highest during Spring runoff when the suspended solids
load was quite high.
38
-------
9. Although there are no numerical criteria shown for lithium, this
metal was measured at all of the stations, generally occurring
at concentrations of less than 25 yg/1. Excursions above this
concentration occurred at Yellow Creek (220 yg/1), Little Beaver
Creek (40 yg/1), and Milk Creek (60 yg/1).
In order to determine the effect of high suspended solids on metal
concentrations, filtered and unfiltered samples were collected from the
White River at Rangely (RM 78.2) on 5/26/76. This sample was extremely
muddy (turbidity of 150 FTU and TSS of 600 mg/1) because of high Spring
runoff flows. The dissolved and total analyses shown in Table 6 reveal
the extent to which the metallic ions adhered to the suspended solids in
the water. For example, aluminum,1 iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium,
and zinc were all much more concentrated in the total form than in the
dissolved form. The significant difference in the potassium concentrations
may be due to a large amount of suspended illite clay which contains
appreciable amounts of potassium and is a chief constituent of many
shales (Jumikis, 1962; Leonards, 1962). After filtration through a 0.45y
membrane filter, metal concentrations were reduced by as much as 100 times,
in the case of aluminum. Concentrations of less common trace metals, such
as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, lithium, molybdenum, selenium,
and silver were not significantly different in either the dissolved or total
form. The calcium concentrations show that the dissolved form was greater
than the total form, and the only possible explanation appears to be related
to sample contamination.
Non-Metals
Profiles of boron and fluoride concentrations are depicted in Figs. 17
and 18, which show that both of these parameters were usually present at higher
concentrations during "low flow" than during "high flow". Concentrations
of boron averaged well below the criteria/standard limit of 750 yg/1, except
for Yellow Creek, which averaged 1025 yg/1 during the "high flow" study.
Yellow Creek also contained the highest mean fluoride concentration
(2.34 mg/1), which was slightly in excess of the criteria/standard limit
of 2.0 mg/1. No other station contained mean fluoride concentrations
greater than 0.6 mg/1.
Nutrients
The nutrient parameters included in this study were total kjehldal
nitrogen, nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, total phosphorus,
and ortho phosphorus. These parameters were analyzed during the "high flow"
study but were not included (they had not been requested) in the earlier
"low flow" study. The organic fraction, as measured by TKN, comprised the
majority of the nitrogen at each sample location with the highest concentra-
tions generally being measured in the lower reach of the White River
(see Fig. 19). The highly variable TKN concentrations observed at station
NF-18 are thought to be due to analytical difficulties. The profile of
39
-------
Table 6
Comparison of Dissolved vs. Total Parameters
Station No. HR-1 Hhite River at Rangely, Colorado
Date: 5/26/76
Parameter
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Zinc
Units
yg/l
yg/l
yg/1
ug/1
yg/l
yg/1
yg/1
yg/l
yg/l
yg/l
yg/l
yg/l
yg/l
yg/l
yg/l
yg/l
yg/l
Dissolved
<100
5
<5
38500
<10
<5
175
<5
15
13000
5
1600
<5
<5
21000
20
Total
10050
10
8
31500
10
15
13000
10
25
20000
320
4500
<5
5
21000
70
40
-------
FIGURE 17
BORON PROFILE
Little Beaver Creek
= 00
200
100
V
T
1
,
1
300 300
POO B- 200
1
100 100
0
I
t
m
1.0
l.C
£
w
i.o-
100 g
£
50
?oo
POO
100
rX r- 1
500
MX)
300
200
100
eo
90
0 10 20
KlloBttera
Pall Samples
Spring Samples
100
30C
1 200
100
110
1«0 I'-O
River Kiles - White River
160
T
30O
?00
100
5 10 V;
Stream Miles - KilX Creek
150'
w
3 IOC
§
a. 50
180
190
10
South Park White Hiver
150
100
-------
FIGURE 18
FLUORIDE PROFILE
Little BeaverCreek
C.8
0.6
o.u
D.2
,
V
o.e 3.8
^-*
C.6 1" 0.6
«
o> H o.u
o
3
fc,
0.2 0.2
0 n
J
f,
2-0 f 1.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
j
t|
0 6
0> ^
0.2 £
0.5 1.0
0.5
0.5
O.U
0.1
Fall
O.U
0.3
0.2
0.1
8O
90
0 1O 20
Kiloneters
1CX>
HO
120
130
v I v
S|£
ft. * O
1UO 150
River Miles - White River
160
Fall Samples
V Spring Sa&ples
T
Less Than" Value
o.o-;
1=
180
190
Stream Kile - Milk Creek
= 10
Sauth 7ark White River
0.15
0.10
0.05
0
-------
FIGURE 19
TOTAL KJEHLDAL NITROGEN PROFILE
Little Beaver Creek
!
.-*
§
?
s 1-5
1
g i.o
5
3
& 0.-
o
^
S
.
80
o
^ Spring
I
^^
Xv xjfc
"*^
^,
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
°
90 100
10 20 i 5
Kllcneters ^
Samples ^
There were no Fall Samples 0.5
. C
»
2.0 1.0 0
? 0 " 0
1.5 ~j» 1.5
6
g
1.0 R 1.0
0.5 0.5
O 0
3
JS
g
"
^1
~- ~" ~-~T
" f
110 120 j 1 130
S IS
i
V
.0 2.0
~~T~"--^
'
1.0
|
x °
Su
i
5 I
*rt
I 3
a
x£>
s s
1
^
>
Ll
V
I
X
L.
|
a a
0.5 i.o
1 1 1
* a * s
~< *>
£
-~.« » 3
T ~~
ii»o 150 160
River Miles - White River
1.5
<1''
1.0 *
*"
0.5
0.5
0 0
180
' "
m
O.i»
0.3
^^
?
0.2 -
E
0.1
0
4
"
T
/
S
2.0
1.5
1.0
O.5
190
. 1.0
V
- ~~ '0.5
o
10 15
Stream Miles - Milk Creek
5 1C
South Fork White River
-------
nitrite + nitrate concentrations in Fig. 20 shows a general increase in
concentrations in the downstream direction similar to the TKN profile.
Phosphorus levels generally tended to follow the same pattern of increasing
concentrations in the downstream direction, as shown in Fig. 21. Mean
total phosphorus concentrations in excess of the criteria/standard limit
of 0.1 mg/1 were measured in Little Beaver Creek (0.419 mg/1), Coal Creek,
(0.250 mg/1), Milk Creek (0.183 mg/1) and at all White River sampling
stations downstream from Meeker (maximum of 0.630 mg/1 at RM 78.2).
These measurements indicate the presence of nutrients in sufficient concen-
trations to warrent concern over excessive algal growth should the waters
in the lower White River basin be impounded. Of course, further study in
the form of algal assays and additional stream sampling would be required
in order to fully evaluate this possiblity. Irrigation return flows were
the likely cause of elevated levels of phosphorus in the three creeks,
but, as shown in Table 3, the phosphorus load from these tributaries
(a total of <0.01 kg/day) did not contribute significantly to the total
phosphorus load in the White River.
44
-------
FIGURE 20
NITRITE + NITRATE NITROGEN PROFILE
Proposed "Alert Level" = It
0.5
Little Beaver Creek
0.6
0.6
o.u
0.2
0.0
0.6
S3
O.B
0.6
o.u srf o.i*
+
0.2 0.2
2-0
1-0
0.0
0.0
3
2.0
1.0
0.5 1.0
O.Ob
0.03 £
5"
o.oa S 8
tc
a
0.4
01£
0.2
I
I
I*
a
0.5
O.I.
0.3
O.2
0.1
80
90
100
110
10
KUcaetere
-4 s
20
130
0.15,
There nere no Tall Sables
0.00
1NO 150 160
River Milea - White River |
0.15 | 0-15
KK
o.io Is °-10
180
190
0.1O
0.05
0.00
5 10 15
Stream Kiles - Milk Cr»k
a
$
: o.oo
o.oo
20
5 10
South Fork White Hiver
-------
FIGURE 21
JOTAL PHOSPHORUS PROFILE
Little aeaver Creek
CM
s
0.630 V 1
\
*
0-
0 i
9
K,
3
»>..
o i
0
1
!
.K
1 )
t
F ^^
\
\
>
\
\
\
v'
0.3
"
-
0.1
V_
^
'
,
,
3
~^ ^
0." "JS C.-
0 ' ! 0 ,
S
0.2 o 0 ?
K
0.1 «! 0.1
?.0 l.o o "
5
1
,
a
\ 0 ? "*
Rec iiinded Criteria ^ _
r
1
^
s
1 I
° £
S ^*
in ?
1
t.
»4
v »
a T
s
£
«
^ >
<
0.5 1.0
t
Jl *
i i
1 1
LI C
3
vl
. , * a
O.Oli «,
3
0 0' ^
g-
0.02 J;
JC
a
C .01 g
1
0 <>
'
""-----^ - *^_
80
k*«
0
V Spring
There were
°0 100
10 20
Kll^tera ? 0.3
§,*
Samples | ^ D'2
no Fall Samples 3 ~f?
*> O.I
«
110 120 gr 130
9L
SK
^'R
1UO
i?o 160
Plver Miles - White Hiver
3
T
.
0
; 10 1=
2C
'".^ j 0.06
o.? £* o.si.
^i § o.o?
160
190
0.5
O.U
0.3
0.?
0.1
0
~~~~-*
0.06
o.ofc
Q.O?
Stream Miles - Mil* Creek
South F=rk White Plver
-------
REFERENCES CITED
Bureau of Reclamation. 1968. Yellow Jacket Project - Feaslblity Report.
Region 4, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Burkhard, Walter T. 1976. Aquatic Inventory - Yellow Jacket Project -
Preliminary Report. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Grand Junction,
Colorado.
Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Commission. 1974.
Water Quality Standards and Stream Classifications. Denver,
Colorado.
Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Commission. 1976.
Proposed Water Quality Standards for Colorado. Denver, Colorado.
Colorado River Basin Salinity Forum. 1975. Proposed Water Quality
Standards for Salinity Including Numeric Criteria and Plan of
Implementation for Salinity Control - Colorado River System.
(A supplement is also available). Salt Lake City, Utah.
Ediger, R.D. 1975. Atomic Absorption Analysis With the Graphite
Furnace Using Matrix Modification. Atomic Absorption Newsletter,
14(5):127.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1972. The "Meeker Well" and other
Phenomena in the Vicinity of the Meeker Dome, Rio Blanco County,
Colorado - A Summary Report on .the Feasibility of Control of Seepage
of Saline Ground Water. Region VIII, Denver, Colorado. SA/TSB-15.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1973(a). Guidelines Establishing
Test Procedures for Analysis of Pollutants. Federal Register,
38(199, part II):28758-28760.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1973(b). Proposed Criteria for Water
Quality. Vol. I. Washington, D.C.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes. Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA-625-/6-74-003.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality Criteria for Water.
Washington, D.C.
Everhart, W., and R.A. Freeman. 1973. Effects of Chemical Variations
in Aquatic Environments: Volume II, Toxic Effects of Aqueous Alumi-
num to Rainbow Trout. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. EPA-R3-73-011b.
47
-------
Geological Survey. 1974. Water Resource Data for Colorado, Part 2:
Water Quality Records. Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado.
Jumikis, A.R. 1972. Soil Mechanics. D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc.,
Princeton, New Jersey.
Leonards, G.A., editor. 1972. Foundations Engineering. McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc., New York, New York.
National Academy of Sciences - National Academy of Engineering. 1972.
Water Quality Criteria. Washington, D.C.
Nelson, Haley, Patterson, Quirk, Inc. 1976(a). Water Quality Criteria
and Standards. (Prepared for Colorado West Area Council of Govern-
ments). Grand Junction, Colorado.
Nelson, Haley, Patterson, Quirk, Inc. 1976(b). Existing Water Quality
Data Base (An Interim Draft Report Prepared for Colorado West Area
Council of Governments). Grand Junction, Colorado.
48
-------
APPENDIX
DATA FROM THE FALL, 1975
"LOW FLOW" STUDY
A-l
-------
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Station No. WR-1
Parameter
Units
9/29/75
9/30/75 10/1/75 10/2/75
Time
Temperature
pH
Flow* (USGS)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)***
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/1
u mhos/cm
FTU
CaC03) mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
wg/i
ug/l
ug/i
ug/i
ug/i
ug/i
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
1430
14.5
8.5
(468)
9.4
790
18
180
256
454
55
_
29
0.26
<5
1000
330
<5
55,000
15
10
850
<5
<25
24,000
40
<10
2200
<5
<5
56,000
15
0950
11.0
7.8
(468)
9.0
760
20
160
250
484
53
48
29
0.36
<5
1400
140
<5
58,000
15
12
1150
<5
155**
23,000
1260**
<10
2800
<5
<5
46,000
15
0955
10.0
8.3
(474)
9.3
710
16
180
260
460
40
_
29
0.32
<5
1300
190
<5
53,000
<10
<5
1000
<5
<25
23,000
74
<10
2200
<5
<5
46,000
25
1030
10.0
8.2
(468)
9.3
760
15
180
252
830
32
22
29
0.27
<5
1300
190
<5
65,000
10
6
1100
<5
<25
23,000
32
<10
2200
<5
<5
44,000
40
* Flow data from USGS, measured at gaging station located 4.7mi. upstream
from Range 1 y, Col orado No jf 1 ow i n .Douglas Creek.
** These values are considered s_p_urjous. and unrepresentative due to an
unknown cause.
AH TSS (comp.) results are depth-Integrated total suspended solids, not
time-composited solids.
A-2
-------
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Station NO. WR-2
Parameter
Units
9/29/75
9/30/75 10/1/75 10/2/75
Time
Temperature
pH
Flow* (US6S)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/1
v mhos/cm
FTU
CaC03) mg/i
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
yg/1
yg/1
ug/1
yg/1
ug/1
yg/1
yg/1
yg/1
yg/1
yg/1
yg/1
yg/1
ug/1
yg/1
yg/1
yg/l
yg/1
yg/1
1350
13.5
8.3
(468)
10.1
'820
10
192
260
488
31
33
28
0.24
5
700
100
<5
58,000
10
8
720
<5
<25
23,000
26
<10
2200
<5
<5
47,000
20
1035
11.0
8.3
(468)
9.3
790
7.1
180
288
472
40
_
27
0.24
<5
950
110
<5
60,000
<10
6
910
<5
<25
23,000
30
<10
2100
<5
<5
45,000
15
1105
9.5
7.8
(474)
9.9
720
12
180
260
454
28
38
28
0.33
5
850
180
<5
53,000
<10
6
710
<5
<25
22 ,000
30
<10
2000
<5
<5
45,000
175
1000
8.0
8.3
(468)
9.8
820
8.5
w w
180
252
456
22
29
0.33
<5
750
110
<5
61,000
10
6
690
<5
<25
22,000
26
<10
2000
<5
<5
41,000
60
* Flow was not measured due to the proximity of this station with the
USGS gaging station located 4.7mi. upstream from Rangely. Flows shown
are those measured at the USGS station, and are assumed to be fairly
representative of the flow at this station (WR-2).
A-3
-------
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Station No. YC-3
Parameter
Units
9/29/75
9/30/75 10/1/75 10/2/75
Time
Temperature
pH
Flow (USGS)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as Ca
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/1
u mhos/cm
FTU
iCO 3) mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
1330
19.0
8.8
0.2)
Invalid
3815
48
1580
516
2590
119
_
138
2.22
<5
3400
760
5
18,000
10
8
2050
<5
125
110,000
50
45
5900
12
<5
900,000
25
1100
12.5
8.8
(1.2)
Invalid
3815
25
1400
528
2590
62
_
138
1.64
<5
1100
760
5
20,000
10
8
1050
<5
130
105,000
32
40
5400
15
<5
850,000
10
1130
7.
8.
0.
5.
3815
72
1620
532
2940
147
_
141
1.
<5
4600
700
5
22,000
6
3150
<5
125
105,000
68
45
6400
20
<5
870,000
110
0935
0 3.5
7 8.7
8*11.2} (1.1)
4 2.2
3815
15
1520
544
2620
37
_
140
92 1.62
<5
1150
680
<5
22,000
5
700
<5
140
110,000
30
w IJ
45
5400
*_ *.>£>*
15
-------
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Station No. WR-4
Parameter
Units
9/29/75
9/30/75 10/1/75 10/2/75
Time
Temperature
pH
How* (USGS)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/1
u mhos/cm
FTU
CaC03) mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
yg/l
yg/l
yg/l
yg/1
ug/1
yg/l
yg/l
yg/l
yg/1
yg/l
yg/1
yg/1
yg/1
yg/1
yg/1
yg/l
yg/1
yg/l
1515
14.0
8.1
(488)
10.1
720
9
180
244
448
23
_
27
0.32
<5
650
220
<5
58,000
<10
<5
590
<5
<25
23,000
28
<10
2000
<5
<5
41,000
10
1125
10.5
7.8
(496)
9.9
740
9.5
160
256
452
27
_
27
0.24
<5
<200
320
<5
55,000
15
6
760
<5
<25
23,000
30
<10
2000
<5
<5
44,000
10
1155
9.5
7.9
(491)
8.5
740
6,8
180
256
462
22
27
0.33
<5
650
130
<5
60,000
<10
<5
560
<5
<25
23,000
30
<10
2000
<5
<5
42,000
95
0915
7.5
8.1
(482)
9.6
730
6.3
180
256
468
19
28
0.33
<5
750
320
<5
63,000
10
<5
58a
<5
<25
22,000
26
<10
2000
<5
<5
41,000
45
* Flow assumed similar to flow at WR-5 plus flow from Piceance Cr.
A-5
-------
Station No. WR-5
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Parameter
Units
9/29/75
9/30/75 10/1/75 10/2/75
Time
Temperature
PH *
Flow* (USGS)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as CaCO
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.J
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/1
u mhos/cm
FTU
3) mg/1
6 mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
uS/1
ug/1
ug/l
ug/l
pg/i
yg/l
yg/l
yg/l
yg/l
yg/l
yg/l
yg/l
ug/l
yg/l
yg/l
ug/i
ug/l
wg/l
1245
11.0
7.6
(460)
10.6
630
5.5
148
236
400
14
.
26
0.26
<5
650
300
<5
60,000
<10
<5
410
<5
<25
18,000
28
<10
1700
<5
<5
26,000
10
1155
10.5
7.7
(456)
10.0
630
5.3
140
240
410
14
15
26
0.28
<5
450
350
<5
58,000
<10
<5
380
<5
<25
18,000
24
<10
1800
<5
<5
23,000
5
1220
9.0
8.1
(460)
10.9
640
5.0
140
232
408
12
27
0.33
<5
500
240
<5
60,000
<10
<5
360
<5
<25
17,000
26
<10
1800
<5
<5
22,000
60
0855
6.5
8.2
(448)
9.8
610
4.8
140
232
392
14
14
26
0.25
<5
600
320
<5
61,000
<10
<5
540
<5
<25
16,000
32
<10
3000
<5
<5
22,000
25
* Flow data from USGS.
A-6
-------
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Station No. WR-6
Parameter
Units
9/15/75 9/16/75 9/17/75 9/18/75
Time
Temperature
pH
Flow* (USGS)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/1
y mhos/ cm
FTU
CaC03) mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
Mg/1
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ng/i
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
1420
13.0
8.0
(329)
10.4
650
5.0
154
260
430
23
_
24
0.26
<5
350
390
<5
60,000
10
6
355
<5
<25
19,000
25
<10
1900
5
<5
17,000
15
1025
12.0
8.0
(319)
9.7
650
6.7
156
256
422
16
_
25
0.24
5
450
140
<5
61,000
<10
<5
440
<5
<25
20,000
26
<10
1800
<5
<5
17,000
35
1005
12.5
7.8
(316)
.9.5
630
7.0
156
256
406
24
_
25
0.31
<5
500
<100
<5
60,000
10
<5
510
5
<25
19,000
32
<10
1700
<5
<5
19,000
100
0925
12.5
7.4
(304)
8.7
600
7.0
150
244
432
25
25
0.31
<5
850
<100
<5
61,000
10
6
650
<5
<25
19,000
30
<10
1800
<5
<5
20,000
65
* Flow assumed to be similar to USGS flow measurements at station located
2.5mi. upstream from Meeker.
A-7
-------
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Station No. CC-8
Parameter
Units
9/15/75
9/16/75 9/17/75 9/18/75
Time
Temperature
pH
Flow*(EPA)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as C<
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/1
u mhos/cm
FTU
JC03) mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
pg/l
pg/l
pg/i
pg/l
pg/l
pg/l
pg/l
pg/l
pg/l
pg/l
pg/i
pg/i
pg/i
pg/i
pg/l
pg/i
pg/l
pg/l
1510
13.0
8.0
-
8.4
590
9.6
142
248
392
26
_
3.4
0.11
<5
550
130
<5
58,000
<10
<5
700
5
<25
19,000
30
<10
1800
<5
<5
9500
60
1055
13.0
7.7
7.9
"570
11
148
252
392
25
_
3.4
<0.1
<5
650
100
<5
61,000
15
<5
740
<5
<25
20,000
34
1800
<5
<5
9700
35
0910
13.0
7.4
15.9
8.1
560
13
144
248
402
34
_
3.7
<0.1
<5
1000
190
<5
63,000
10
<5
890
<5
<25
21,000
18
1800
<5
<5
10,100
45
0855
13.0
7.3
7.9
530
17
140
232
350
53
_
2.9
<0 1
<5
1300
100
<5
53,000
10
18
1050
<5
<25
19,000
24
tm~
1700
<5
<5
8400
25
* Flows did not vary significantly from day to day.
A-8
-------
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Station No. LBC-9
Parameter
Units
9/15/75
9/16/75 9/17/75 9/18/75
Time
Temperature
pH
Flow* (EPA)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot, Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot, Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/1
y mhos/ cm
FTU
CaC03) mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
jg/l
yg/l
ug/l
yg/1
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
Mg/1
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
1500
14.5
7.5
_
8.0
1040
LI
204
476
734
24
_
13
0.34
<5
650
280
<5
89,000
10
5
810
<5
30
46,000
75
<10
3700
10
<5
24,000
30
1045
11.5
7.7
_
8.4
1040
10
204
520
766
22
_
12
0.26
<5
650
210
<5
88,000
15
14
630
<5
30
46,000
80
<10
2800
10
<5
25,000
35
0925
11.5
7.3
3.2
7.5
1040
12
214
532
788
25
«.
13
0.32
<5
750
300
<5
90,000
15
6
730
<5
30
48,000
92
<10
2800
20
<5
26,000
45
0845
10.5
7.3
_
6.8
930
16
194
472
722
32
11
0.29
<5
1000
<100
<5
82,000
15
6
950
15
25
46,000
90
fV
<10
2300
10
<5
20,000
25
* Flows did not vary significantly from day to day.
A-9
-------
Station No. MC-10
UHITE RIVER STUDY
Parameter
Units
9/15/75
9/16/75 9/17/75 9/18/75
Time
Temperature
PH
Flow (USGS)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/1
u mhos/cm
FTU
CaCC>3) mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
ug/l
ug/l
ug/1
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/T
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/i
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
1535
12.5
7.7
(20)
8.7
1040
3.9
176
516
718
14
_
1.1
0.51
<5
400
200
<5
124,000
20
14
280
<5
<25
22,000
40
<10
1200
<5
<5
3100
35
1115
12.0
7.8
(20)
9.3
"940
3.1
184
504
720
14
I.I
0.66
<5
300
210
<5
134,000
10
<5
270
<5
<25
22,000
16
<10
1100
<5
<5
3000
45
0825
9.
7.
26.
8.
9 80
3.
184
524
732
17
1.
0.
<5
300
500
<5
124,000
20
6
280
<5
<25
21,000
36
<10
1100
<5
<5
3200
35
0825
0 8.5
3 7.4
2119) (18)
8 8.9
970
2 2.5
190
512
744
14
1 1.1
60 0.60
<5
400
300
<5
124,000
<10
5
240
<5
<25
22,000
36
<10
1100
<5
<5
3100
20
* EPA flow measurement.
A-10
-------
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Station No. WR-11
Parameter
Units
9/8/75 9/9/75
9/10/75
9/11/75
Time
Temperature
Flow* (USGS)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot, Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/1
M mhos/cm
FTU
CaCOa) mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
ug/l
Mg/1
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/i
wg/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
1550
11.0
(355)
8.6
370
0.81
110
156
250
_
4.0/5.
<1
0.14
13
<200
70
<5
52,000
10
6
105
8
<25
11,000
14
<10
1200
<5
<5
2700
35
1040
8.0
(349)
9.1
370
1.0
108
156
240
4.8
2
1.0
0.14
11
200
90
<5
40,000
15
<5
125
6
<25
10,000
14
<10
1200
<5
<5
2500
25
1100
9.0
7.2
(380)
8.8
370
5.5
106
152
220
17/17
_
<1
0.28
<5
<200
90
<5
39,000
15
14
720
<5
<25
11,000
22
<10
1300
<5
<5
2600
65
0850
6.5
7.2
(379)
9.1
370
2.1
104
156
228
9.0
_
<1
0.14
<5
<200
120
<5
40,000
10
<5
265
8
<25
10,000
16
<10
1200
5
<5
2600
150
* No flow measurement made. Flow would be approximately equal to the
combined flows at BC-12, SF-13, and NF-15.
A-ll
-------
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Station No. BC-12
Parameter
Units
9/8/75 9/9/75 9/10/75 9/11/75
Time
Temperature
pH
Flow* (EPA)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Camp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/1
u mhos/cm
FTU
CaC03) mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
ug/1
ug/l
ug/l
ug/1
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
1615
15.0
7.8
-
9.8
760
0.92
152
364
524
2.6
_
1.2
0.56
6
200
<100
<5
95,000
15
<5
180
8
<25
24,000
28
<10
2000
<5
<5
4800
30
1015
10.0
7.7
3.9
9.8
820
0.69
162
380
530
4.4
_
1.3
0.56
<5
200
160
<5
95,000
15
6
160
8
25
25,000
24
<10
1800
<5
<5
4700
35
1040
11.5
7.3
9.9
780
0.96
170
372
496
1.2
1.9
0.48
<5
<200
110
<5
86,000
10
<5
95
<5
<25
24 ,000
28
<10
1700
<5
<5
4400
95
0835
8.0
7.4
8.7
820
0.87
172
392
558
4.4/5.2
1.4
0.40
5
<200
130
<5
95,000
10
6
130
10
<25
24,000
30
<10
1700
<5
<5
4700
155
* Flows did not vary significantly from day to day.
A-12
-------
Station No. SF-13
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Parameter
Units
9/8/75 9.9.75 9/10/75
9/11/75
Time
Temperature
pH
Flow* (USGS)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/1
u mhos/cm
FTU
CaCO,) mg/1
6 mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
1415
10.5
7.7
(139)
8.7
'340
0.52
120
148
214
3.0
_
<1
0.14
<5
<200
80
<5
42,000
10
6
85
8
<25
11,000
16
<10
1500
<5
<5
2300
20
1055
9.0
7.4
(137)
8.5
340
1.5
122
140
218
4.8
_
1.3
<0.1
<5
200
140
<5
36,000
<10
<5
115
8
<25
11,000
18
<10
1100
<5
<5
2100
15
1220
10.0
7.2
(143)
8.7
330
5.3
116
136
190
17
_
<1
0.14
<5
400
120
<5
35,000
10
6
470
<5
<25
9600
26
<10
1100
<5
<5
2100
105
1030
8.5
7.4
(135)
8.8
330
1.3
120
140
208
6.4
1.2
<0.1
<5
<200
100
<5
35,000
15
<5
130
10
<25
10,000
8
<10
1000
<5
<5
2200
150
* Flow data from USGS
A-13
-------
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Station No. SF-14
Parameter
Units
9/8/75
9/9/75 9/10/75
9/11/75
Time
Temperature
pH
Flow* (EPA)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/1
u mhos/cm
FTU
CaC03) mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
yg/l
yg/l
yg/l
yg/l
yg/l
ug/i
yg/l
ug/l
vg/l
wg/l
yg/l
yg/l
yg/l
yg/l
yg/1
yg/1
yg/l
yg/l
1500
9.0
7.7
-
9.1
240
0.36
102
104
150
_
1.4
1.1
<0.1
9
<200
120
<5
26,000
20
<5
100
<5
<25
10,000
12
<10
1000
<5
<5
1900
20
1130
8.0
7.7
119
9.1
240
0.84
98
92
136
3.0
<1
<0.1
<5
<200
50
<5
22,000
<10
<5
80
6
<25
8400
16
<10
900
<5
<5
1900
15
1145
7.0
6.9
_
9.0
240
0.84
116
116
148
4.0
<1
0.24
<5
<200
70
<5
20,000
<10
<5
120
<5
<25
7600
10
<10
900
<5
<5
1800
150
0930
6.0
7.2
9.3
220
0.59
102
92
134
2.2
<1
<0.1
<5
<200
80
<5
22,000
<10
6
125
8
<25
8000
2
<10
1000
<5
<5
2000
100
* Flows did not vary significantly from day to day.
A-14
-------
Station No. NF-15
Parameter
Units
WHITE RIVER STUDY
9/8/75 .9/9/75 9/10/75 9/11/75
Time
Temperature
PH
Flow* (USGS)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/1
p mhos/cm
FTU
CaC03) mg/1
mg/1
Ing/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
ug/1
i»g/i
pg/l
pg/l
pg/l
pg/l
wg/l
pg/i
ug/i
vg/l
wg/i
pg/l
pg/l
pg/i
pg/l
pg/l
yg/i
yg/l
1350
9.5
7.1
(212)
8.9
370
1.1
88
152
246
_
7.2/7.2
<1
0.14
7
<200
70
<5
40,000
15
8
175
20**
<25
11,000
22
<10
1200
<5
<5
2800
30
1000
7.0
7.4
(208)
10.0
390
1.5
92
148
226
8.4/8.6
_
<1
0.26
<5
200
100
<5
37,000
10
10
185
<5
<25
11,000
20
<10
1200
<5
<5
2700
20
1020
8.0
7.2
(233)
9.0
360
1.1
90
148
230
6.6
_
<1
0.12
<5
<200
100
<5
39,000
15
6
200
6
<25
9600
18
<10
1200
<5
<5
2700
100
1040
7.5
7.2
(240)
9.3
360
1.8
90
148
230
8.6
<1
<0.1
<5
250
100
<5
37,000
10
10
275
8
<25
9200
14
<10
1300
<5
<5
2700
80
* Flow data from USGS
** High value possibly due to contaminated glassware
A-15
-------
Station No. LC-16
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Parameter
Units
9/8/75
9/9/75 9/10/75
9/11/75
Time
Temperature
pH
Flow* (USGS)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as.
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot/Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/1
y mhos/ cm
FTU
CaC03) mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/1
Mg/1
yg/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
1645
12.5
7.9
(2.4)
9.0
480
0.85
146
188
304
1.4
_
<1
0.26
13
<200
130
<5
50,000
10
6
95
6
<25
14,000
16
<10
1400
<5
<5
8000
25
0925
8.0
7.5
(2.6)
8.8
500
1.2
154
204
282
4.8
_
<1
0.12
7
200
160
<5
51,000
10
10
90
6
<25
14,000
28
<10
1500
<5
<5
8300
15
0955
9.0
7.3
(3.4)
<8.5
460
0.88
150
188
338
1.8/2.2
-.
<1
<0.1
<5
<200
120
<5
50,000
15
16
105
6
<25
13,000
22
<10
1400
<5
<5
8000
180
1105
9.5
7.6
(4.3)
8.9
400
2.3
140
164
238
5.0
1.4
0.10
<5
<200
130
<5
40,000
10
6
160
6
<25
12,000
18
<10
1400
<5
<5
7700
110
* Flow data from USGS
A-16
-------
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Station No. NF-17
Parameter
Units
9/8/75
9/9/75 9/10/75
9/11/75
Time
Temperature
pH
Flow* (EPA)
DO
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/1
Conductivity u mhos/cm
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as CaCOa)
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
FTU
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
1700
10.0
7.3
8.5
3ZO
18
78
124
200
67
_
<1
0.14
<5
2000
60
<5
37,000
45
8
2500
8
<25
9000
44
<10
1400
<5
<5
2700
35
0855
6.0
6.9
129
9.1
320
0.85
76
128
208
6.6
_
<1
0.20
<5
200
120
<5
31,000
<10
10
190
<5
<25
8800
18
<10
1100
<5
<5
2500
15
0930
6.0
7.2
8.9
320
0.77
82
128
198
5.0
-
<1
0.12
<5
<200
100
<5
33,000
10
6
195
8
<25
8000
14
<10
1100
<5
<5
2500
145
1120
8.0
7.3
8.8
300
1.1
76
128
254
_
<1
0.10
<5
450
70
<5
31,000
<10
<5
205
8
<25
8000
12
<10
1100
<5
<5
2700
210
* Flows did not vary significantly from day to day.
A-17
-------
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Station No. NF-18
Parameter
Units
9/8/75
9/9/75 9/10/75
9/11/75
Time
Temperature
pH
Flow* (EPA)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/1
M mhos/cm
FTU
CaC03) mg/i
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
Mg/l
Mg/l
Mg/l
Mg/l
yg/l
ug/l
Mg/l
Mg/l
yg/1
ug/l
Mg/l
Mg/l
Mg/1
Mg/l
Mg/l
Mg/l
Mg/l
Mg/l
1735
6.0
7.5
-
8.3
150
0.72
58
48
90
2.4
_
<1
<0.1
<5
<200
60
<5
12,000
20
6
125
6
<25
5600
14
<10
1100
<5
<5
1800
25
0800
5.0
7.3
30.8
8.6
120
0.35
54
48
196
2.0/2.8
_
<1
<0.1
<5
200
50
<5
10,000
<10
<5
110
<5
<25
4800
22
<10
1100
<5
<5
1700
20
0900
5.0
7.2
8.4
120
0.53
56
52
96
2.4
_
<1
<0.1
<5
<200
70
<5
12,000
10
6
135
10
<25
4800
14
<10
1000
<5
<5
1700
180
1200
6.0
7.3
8.6
140
0.65
56
48
110
3.0
«.
<1
<0.1
<5
<200
70
<5
12,000
<10
<5
150
6
<25
4800
12
<10
1100
<5
<5
1800
70
* Flows did not vary significantly from day to day.
A-18
-------
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Station No. MC-19
Parameter
Units
9/15/75 9/16/75 9/17/75
9/18/75
Time
Temperature
pH
Flow* (EPA)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as Ce
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/1
u mhos/cm
FTU
10)3) mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/l
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/l
1255
12.0
7.6
-
7.3
750
26
208
296
468
46
5.3
0.31
<5
1250
220
<5
70,000
10
- 8
1240
5
35
24,000
155
-------
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Station No. MC-20
Parameter
Units
9/15/75 9/16/75 9/17/75
9/18/75
Time
Temperature
pH ^
Flow* (EPA)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/1
u mhos/ cm
FTU
CaCOo) mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
ug/l
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/l
ug/1
ug/1
ug/l
ug/l
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/l
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/l
1330
20.0
7.8
_
7.8
1420
3.7
322
636
1110
12
_
1.8
0.52
<5
250
280
<5
81,000
<10
10
310
<5
85
85,000
70
<10
5700
<5
<5
64,000
30
0925
13.0
7.8
-
8.3
1200
7.3
336
676
1070
26
_
1.3
0.52
<5
350
290
<5
82,000
25
12
560
<5
60
85,000
94
<10
5200
<5
<5
61,000
25
1100
12.0
8.0
3.3
8.0
1470
4.3
328
652
1110
11
.
1.3
0.59
<5
200
<100
<5
83,000
10
<5
300
5
55
85,000
80
<10
5100
<5
<5
64,000
30
1010
12.5
8.0
8.7
153Q
3.5
336
684
1170
9.6
<1
0.59
<5
300
250
<5
82,000
<10
6
340
<5
50
85,000
92
<10
4900
<5
<5
75,000
10
* Flows did not vary significantly from day to day.
A-20
-------
APPENDIX B
DATA FROM THE SPRING, 1976
"HIGH FLOW" STUDY
B-l
-------
Station No. WR-1
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Parameter
Units 5/24/76
5/25/76
5/26/76
Time
Temperature
PH
Flow*
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
TKN
N02 + N03 - N
NH3 - N
Total -P
Ortho-P
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
nig/ &
umhos/cm
FTU
CaC03) mg/a
mg/Ji
rag/ A
mg/a
mg/£
mgA
mg/£
yg/£
yg/£
ygA
ygA
yg/*
yg/*.
vg/a
ygA
ygA\
ygM
wg/A
ygM
yg/£
ygA
ygM
ygA
yg/5.
ygA
mg/Ji
mg/£
mg/s.
mg/a
mg/a
1420
14.5
7.1
1814
8.4
400
165
151
160
242
680
-
10
0.15
5
10250
170
6
33500
10
20
13000
10
35
18000
295
<10
4000
<5
<5
18000
130
2.32
0.20
0.01
0.772
0.043
0925
12.0
7.5
1714
8.6
415
160
149
164
154
672
-
11
0.14
10
11550
170
14
31500
15
25
13000
15
20
18000
335
<10
4200
<5
5
18000
60
1.37
0.18
0.01
0.542
0.051
0905
12.0
7.6
1484
8.7
450
150
139
176
270
600
_
11
0.15
10
10050
190
8
31500
10
15
13000
10
25
20000
320
<10
4500
<5
5
21000
70
2.16
0.16
0.01
0.768
0.034
0915
13.5
7.0
1404
8.4
460
130
147
176
274
528
532
12
0.16
10
7300
150
10
28500
10
20
11500
10
20
19000
235
<10
3900
<5
<5
23000
35
1.86
0.16
0.02
0.440
0.043
*Flow equals White River flow measured by USGS at gaging station located
4.7 miles upstream from Rangely, Colorado plus flow contribution from Douglas
Creek (54 cfs measured by EPA on 5/27/76).
B-2
-------
Station No. WR-2
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Parameter
Units
5/24/76
Time
Temperature
pH
Flow* (USGS)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
TKN
N02 + N03 - N
NH3 -N
Total -P
Ortho-P
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
nig/ fc
pmhos/cm
FTU
CaC03) mg/£
mg/£
mg/fc
mg/£
mg/«,
mg/£
mg/a
yg/«.
ygA
yg/£
yg/£
ug/i
yg/£
ygA
ygA
ygA
ygA
yg/A
yg/£
ygA
yg/A
ygA
wg/fc
yg/*
yg/£
mg/a
mg/£
mg/£
mg/£
mg/z
1500
13.0
7.1
(1760)
8.7
370
78
114
148
220
222
_
10
0.13
<5
4650
125
6
23500
<10
20
5000
<5
20
12000
125
<10
2200
<5
<5
15000
110
1.69
0.15
0.01
0.268
0.041
1035
11.0
7.1
(1660)
8.8
400
53
120
156
136
174
_
11
0.13
<5
3100
no
8
23500
10
10
3500
5
15
13000
100
<10
1900
<5
10
17000
50
1.00
0.15
0.02
0.191
0.038
1025
12.0
7,2
(1430)
8.9
430
54
123
156
256
147
_
11
0.14
<5
3625
100
8
23500
<10
5
3750
<5
15
13000
85
<10
2300
<5
<5
19000
5
0.18
0.14
0.01
0.184
0.030
1050
13.5
7.0
(1350)
8.5
440
52
133
164
256
146
12
0.14
5
2800
100
<5
40000
<10
10
2950
<5
15
13000
75
<10
1900
<5
<5
19000
15
0.56
0.12
0.02
0.194
0.034
*Flow was not measured due to the proximity of this station with the USGS
gaging station located 4.7 miles upstream from Rangely. Value shown is
USGS measurement at the station located 4.7 miles upstream from Rangely
B-3
-------
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Station No. YC-3
Parameter
Units
5/24/76
5/25/76
5/26/76
Time
Temperature
PH
Flow* (USGS)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as Ca
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
TKN
NOo + N03 - N
NH3 - N
Total-P
Ortho-P
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/a
umhos/cm
FTU
C03) mg/£
mg/a
mg/a
mg/a
mg/a
mg/a
mg/a
vg/a
vg/a
jig/ a
yg/n
vg/a
yg/a
vg/a
vg/a
vg/a
vg/a
vg/a
vg/a
vg/a
vg/a
vg/a
vg/a
vg/a
vg/a
mg/£
mg/a
mg/i
mg/a
mg/a
1520
18.5
8.5
(1.7)
2.8
4000
43
1595
568
2648
111
-
152
2.35
10
2400
975
12
16000
<10
10
1700
5
240
110000
45
24
13000
<5
<5
715000
10
2.82
0.01
0.02
0.121
0.021
1105
18;5
8.7
(1-6)
4.1
4100
33
1555
556
2646
94
-
152
2.30
10
2000
1035
14
18000
<10
10
1350
<5
200
110000
35
22
11000
<5
5
728000
5
1.78
0.17
<0.01
0.079
0.015
1045
16.0
8.75
(1.5)
5.2
4400
18
1575
576
2818
59
-
172
2.35
10
1100
1095
12
17000
<10
10
800
<5
220
1 10000
20
26
12000
<5
5
755000
<5
1.71
0.26
<0.01
0.058
0.014
1115
20.0
8.5
(1.4)
3.8
4100
23
1630
564
2730
50
-
128
2.35
10
1250
1000
12
24000
<10
10
850
<5
230
105000
30
28
12000
<5
10
820000
<5
1.35
0.23
0.02
0.064
0.016
*Flow data from USGS.
B-4
-------
Station No. WR-4
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Parameter
Units
5/24/76
5/25/76
5/26/76
5/27/76
Time
Temperature
pH
Flow* (USGS)
DO
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/a
Conductivity pmhos/cm
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as CaC03)
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
TKN
NO? + NOs - N
NH3 - N
Total-P
Ortho-P
FTU
mg/a
mg/a
mg/a
mg/a
mg/£
mg/a
mg/a
yg/Jl
ugM
ug/£
yg/£
~ j*
vg/£
~ j§ "
vigA
vg/a
ygM
pgM
pg/&
yg/fc'
vg/i
vg/£
yg/£
ygA
yg/£
^ w*
yg/£
yg/£
mg/i
mg/a
mg/a
mg/a
mg/a
1535
11.0
7,2
(1752)
8.8
370
81
114
W
176
-
10
0.12
<5
4000
140
6
22500
<10
10
4100
5
15
11000
80
<10
2000
<5
5
14000
20
0.75
0.14
0.02
-
0.045
1125
11.5
, 7<8
(1607)
8.6
395
39
118
160
287
116
-
11
0.13
<5
2500
105
<5
23500
10
10
2600
<5
15
12000
65
<10
1800
<5
5
14000
10
1.18
0.12
0.01
0.146
0.035
1100
11.0
7.8
(1538)
9.3
420
38
122
160
254
93
-
9.2
0.15
5
3150
125
6
23500
<10
5
2300
<5
15
12000
55
<10
1900
<5
5
18000
<5
0.34
0.12
0.01
0.127
0.029
1130
13.5
7.6
(1516)
8.9
405
35
123
168
238
100
-
11
0.14
<5
1850
100
<5
40000
<10
<5
2150
<5
15
12000
55
<10
1800
<5
<5
17000
70
0.44
0.10
0.01
0.123
0.033
*Flow assumed equal to the sum of USGS-measured flows at Station WR-5 plus
flow in Piceance Creek.
B-5
-------
Station No. WR-5
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Parameter
Units 5/24/76
5/25/76 5/26/75
5/27/76
Time
Temperature
PH
Flow* (USGS)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as Ca
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
TKN
N02 + N03 - N
NH3 - N
Total -P
Ortho-P
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mgA
vmhos/cm
FTU
C03) mg/fc
mg/£
mg/2
mg/2
mg/£
mg/£
vg/a
vg/fc
ug/£
u9/&
lag/ A
yg/£
yg/£
ug/£
ug/t
ugA
ug/£
yg/&
ygA
yg/(,
ygA
ygA
iig/£
mg/£
mg/ii
mg/£
fng/n
mg/s,
1605
10.0
7.25
(1740)
8.9
340
23
100
148
202
72
-
8.2
0.10
<5
1800
125
12
23000
10
10
2050
<5
15
9800
50
<10
1600
<5
5
9000
5
0.66
0.14
0.01
0.117
0.027
1155
11.0
7.4
(1590)
9.2
350
26
108
148
214
86
-
8.2
0.11
<5
1650
140
6
22000
<10
10
1950
5
15
10400
50
<10
1600
<5
<5
8100
20
0.46
0.12
0.01
0.123
0.028
1130
10.0
7.7
(1520)
9.6
360
27
110
148
228
71
-
9.5
0.12
<5
1750
115
6
21500
<10
<5
1900
<5
10
10600
40
<10
1600
<5
<5
10000
10
0.46
0.12
0.01
0.106
0.026
1155
12.5
7.5
(1500)
9.1
340
26
106
136
204
76
-
11
0.11
<5
1950
80
6
38000
10
<5
1900
<5
10
9900
45
<10
1700
5
<5
9000
<5
1.54
0.10
0.01
0.115
0.028
*Flow data from USGS
B-6
-------
Station No. WR-6
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Parameter
Units
5/31/76
6/1/76
6/2/76
6/3/76
Time
Temperature
PH
Flow* (USGS)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp. )
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
TKN
N0? + N03 - N
NH3 - N
Total -P
Ortho-P
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/£
ymhos/cm
FTU
CaC03) mg/A
mg/Ji
mg/A
mgA
mg/£
mg/£
mg/£
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
ug/A
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
mg/A
mg/£
mg/A
mg/£
mg/£
1240
10.5
7.4
(2360)
9.4
290
17
94
124
180
44.5
7.4
<0.10
<5
1300
130
6
30500
<10
5
1200
<5
10
8800
30
<10
1100
<5
<5
6400
20
0.82
0.13
0.01
0.084
0.022
0825
9.0
7.0
(2260)
9.3
300
8.6
94
120
162
47.5
8.5
<0.10
<5
1450
175
6
30500
10
<5
1300
. <5
10
8800
40
<10
1400
<5
<5
6400
20
0.52
0.10
0.02
0.086
0.022
1000
10.0
7.2
(2480)
9.2
280
22
90
116
156
83
7.2
<0.10
5
2550
80
<5
28500
<10
10
2500
<5
10
8600
50
<10
1500
<5
<5
5500
10
0.16
0.09
0.01
0.123
0.023
1010
10.0
7.2
(2500)
9.5
270
17
88
112
160
54
7.2
<0.10
<5
1600
125
<5
28500
10
5
1550
<5
10
8000
40
<10
1000
<5
<5
6700
10
0.56
0.10
0.01
0.113
0.024
*F1ow assumed to be similar to USGS flow measurements at station located
2.5 miles upstream from Meeker, Colorado.
B-7
-------
Station No. CC-8
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Parameter
Units
5/31/76
6/1/76
6/2/76
6/3/76
Time
Temperature
pH
Flow (EPA)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
TKN
N0£ + N03 - N
NH, - N
Total -P
Ortho-P
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/&
ymhos/cm
FTU
CaC03) mg/£
mg/&
mg/2.
mg/Ji
mg/2.
mg/d
mg/£
yg/2,
yg/&
yg/Jl
yg/a
yg/£
yg/*
yg/Jl
yg/Jl
yg/Jl
yg/Jl
yg/£
yg/£,
yg/JJ,
yg/&
yg/A
yg/£
yg/A
yg/&
mg/A
mg/A
mg/A
mg/A
nig/Ji
1215
12.0
7.3
-
8.4
510
89
141
216
338
318
.
7.7
0.13
5
5900
65
6
65000
10
20
6250
5
25
21000
135
<10
3000
10
<5
12000
30
1.31
0.40
0.02
0.285
0.058
1120
12.5
7.4
17.3
8.4
500
84
143
220
300
282
_
6.2
0.11
15
5300
225
6
46000
10
10
5250
5
25
21000
120
<10
2900
5
<5
11000
25
1.05
0.31
0.02
0.286
0.057
1100
16.0
7.2
_
8.3
550
64
153
244
346
65
_
6.7
0.12
10
3400
170
6
50000
10
10
3800
<5
25
23000
80
<10
2900
10
<5
13000
20
0.45
0.30
0.01
0.212
0.059
1115
13.5
7.3
16.0
8.2
555
62
157
244
350
148
_
6.9
0.12
5
3050
165
8
50000
<10
5
3450
<5
25
23000
85
<10
2600
10
<5
13000
20
0.81
0.32
0.01
0.219
0.080
B-8
-------
Station No. LBC-9
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Parameter
Units
5/31/76 6/1/76
Time
Temperature
pH
Flow* (EPA)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
TKN
NO? + N03 - N
NH3 - N
Total-P
Ortho-P
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/£
umhos/cm
FTU
CaC03) mg/£
ing/ A
mg/£
mg/a
mg/a
mg/a
mg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
mg/A
mg/A
mg/£
mg/£
mg/£
1200
15.0
7.0
_
8.6
1040
15
198
492
717
20
_
15
0.18
5
650
270
6
120000
10
10
850
<5
55
49000
85
<10
5300
30
<5
30000
10
1.43
0.84
0.18
0.313
0.242
1105
14.0
7.3
3.1
8.4
1000
24
198
456
646
68
_
15
0.18
10
1150
320
8
105000
<10
10
1250
<5
45
41000
115
<10
5400
30
<5
28000
10
2.17
1.16
0.64
0.648
0.408
1050
15.0
7.2
8.2
820
25
170
364
538
72
-
12
0.17
10
1150
250
8
97500
15
10
1350
<5
40
33000
80
<10
5000
20
5
22000
25
1.92
0.53
0.26
0.376
0.260
1100
16.
7.
6.
8.
740
26
157
324
506
50
-
10
0.
5
1250
200
8
68000
<10
5
1300
<5
35
28000
60
<10
3700
15
<5
19000
15
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
2
5
0
15
34
31
13
340
235
*Variable irrigation diversions and return flows affect flow at this location.
B-9
-------
Station No. MC-10
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Parameter
Units
5/31/76
6/1/76
6/2/76
6/3/76
Time
Temperature
PH
Flow* (USGS)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/£
^mhos/cm
FTU
CaC03) mg/i
mg/a
mg/i
mg/i
mg/i
mg/i
mg/i
y9/£
yg/s,
yg/&
yg/&
yg/&
yg/£
yg/£
yg/£
yg/£
yg/£
ug/i
1315
14.0
7.6
(21)
8.6
720
3.1
159
372
490
25
1.3
0.28
<5
400
290
8
100000
<10
15
350
<5
15
14000
10
1230
13.5
7.5
(20)
8.9
760
2.5
161
396
500
11
1.5
0.28
10
300
210
6
110000
<10
10
300
<5
15
14000
10
1120
12.0
7.5
(18)
9.1
790
2.4
165
408
527
16
_
1.8
0.28
5
250
205
6
140000
<10
15
300
<5
15
15000
10
1145
14.0
7.6
(17)
8.9
800
2.1
170
428
562
6.8
_
2.0
0.30
<5
250
190
6
140000
<10
<5
150
<5
15
16000
10
Tot. Molybdenum ug/& <10 <10 <10 <10
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
TKN
N02 + N03 - N
NH3 - N
Total -P
Ortho-P
yg/&
yg/£
yg/£
yg/&
yg/£
mg/ a
mg/a
rng/£
mg/a
mg/i
1000
<5
<5
1100
5
0.14
0.56
0.01
0.021
0.007
1000
5
<5
1500
<5
0.04
0.54
<0.01
0.016
0.009
1100
<5
<5
2400
5
0.67
0.52
<0.01
0.016
0.001
800
<5
<5
2900
<5
0.31
0.49
<0.01
0.012
0.003
*Flow data from USGS.
B-10
-------
Station No. WR-11
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Parameter
Units
6/7/76
6/8/76
6/9/76
6/10/76
Time
Temperature
PH
Flow* (USGS)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp. )
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
TKN
NO? + N03 - N
NHi - N
yj
Total -P
Ortho-P
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/«,
ymhos/cm
FTU
CaCOa) mg/A
mgA
mg/a
mg/i
mg/a
mg/z
mg/£
pgA
wg/A
pgA
pg/£
pgA
vg/t
pgA
pgA
pgA
pgA
vgA
pg/£
wg/*
pg/£
pg/£
yg/A
pgA
pgA
mg/£
mg/Ji,
mg/£
mg/ji,
mg/ji
1240
9.5
7.2
-
9.5
190
4.1
82
96
-109
19
_
1.0
<0.1
<5
750
75
6
21500
<10
5
775
<5
<10
6200
15
<10
700
<5
5
1500
15
0.83
0.07
0.01
0.046
0.011
1115
9.0
7.35
(2108)
9.6
185
4.2
80
80
134
19
1.5
<0.1
<5
600
90
8
19500
<10
5
650
<5
<10
5600
15
<10
800
<5
<5
2400
10
0.16
0.06
0.01
0.054
0.014
1100
9.0
7.4
9.6
185
5.2
78
84
104
18
0.8
<0.1
<5
550
155
8
21000
<10
5
525
5
<10
5800
15
<10
600
<5
<5
1500
5
0.47
0.06
0.01
0.046
0.012
1100
8.5
7.1
(1848)
9.6
180
5.9
76
76
no
20
1.3
<0.1
<5
650
80
<5
21000
<10
10
700
<5
<10
5400
10
<10
800
<5
<5
1500
5
0.58
0.05
0.01
0.054
0.015
*No flow measurement made. Flow is assumed to be approximately equal to
the combined flows at BC-12, SF-13, and NF-15.
B-ll
-------
Station No. BC-12
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Parameter
Units
6/7/76
6/8/76
6/9/76
6/10/76
Time
Temperature
PH
Flow (EPA)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
TKN
NO? + N03 - N
NH3 - N
Total -P
Ortho-P
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mgA
pmhos/cm
FTU
CaC03) mgA
rogA
mg/£
mg/£
mgA
mgA
mg/£
ygA
ygA
ygA
yg/ ^
jig/ A
ygA
ygA
ygA
ygA
ugA
ygA
ygA
ygA
ygA
ygA
ygA
ygA
mg/£
mg/£
mgA
mgA
fngA
1225
15.5
7.0
-
8.3
360
4.5
116
168
230
11
-
1.6
0.14
<5
250
no
5
405000
<10
<5
325
<5
10
10200
25
<10
900
<5
<5
4400
10
0.12
0.01
0.01
0.021
0.009
1140
15.0
7.4
17.4
8.9
340
5.2
104
148
210
12
_
1.0
0.14
5
300
125
6
38500
<10
<5
375
<5
10
8800
25
<10
1000
<5
<5
3400
30
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.031
0.011
1115
14.5
7.3
7.9
410
3.6
126
184
250
8
-
2.1
0.16
<5
100
135
8
45000
<10
10
325
<5
15
11000
20
<10
1200
<5
<5
3700
10
0.55
0.01
0.01
0.021
0.010
1120
15.0
7.4
14.4
9.0
430
2.7
134
204
274
6
-
1.5
0.16
<5
200
155
6
55000
-------
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Station No. SF-13
Parameter
Units
6/7/76
6/8/76
6/9/76
6/10/76
Time
Temperature
PH
Flow* (USGS)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as Ca
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
TKN
N02 + N03 - N
NH3 - N
Total -P
Ortho-P
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/£
pmhos/cm
FTU
C03) mg/A
mg/£
mg/£
mg/£
mg/5,
mg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
pg/A
mg/£
mg/£
mg/A
mg/A
mg/A
1245
8.5
7.2
(1450)
9.3
190
4.1
82
48
106
16
0.3
<0.1
<5
600
90
<5
21000
<10
<5
550
<5
<10
6000
15
<10
800
<5
<5
3200
15
0.09
0.07
0.01
0.048
0.010
1105
8.0
7.2
(1330)
9.5
180
4.1
82
80
107
17
_
1.8
<0.1
<5
450
100
<5
20500
-------
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Station No. SF-14
Parameter
Units
6/7/76
6/9/76
6/10/76
Time
Temperature
PH
Flow* (US6S)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
TKN
NOz + N03 - N
NHs - N
Total -P
Ortho-P
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/x,
ymhos/cm
FTU
CaC03) mg/Ji
mg/£
mg/it
mg/fc
mg/x,
mgA
mg/£
yg/2.
pg/A
yg/«.
ug/fc
yg/X,
yg/£
yg/4
yg/2.
\ig/i
ug/i
yg/fc
ygA
ug/t
yg/«.
yg/2.
yg/fc
yg/£
wgA
wgA
mg/£
nig A
mgA
mg/n
1325
8.5
7.1
(1240)
9.4
165
2.5
76
76
82
8
0.3
<0.1
<5
300
60
<5
18500
<10
<5
225
<5
<10
5400
5
<10
600
<5
<5
2200
15
0.14
0.06
0.01
0.027
0.008
1025
6.5
7.1
(1220)
9.9
160
2.3
74
72
90
8
0.5
<0.1
<5
250
90
6
17500
<10
<5
275
5
<10
4800
5
<10
700
<5
<5
2100
10
0.51
0.07
0.01
0.036
0.010
1015
6.0
7.0
(1200)
lo:o
155
2.8
70
80
87
6
1.3
<0.1
<5
300
100
6
17500
<10
10
200
<5
<10
5200
<5
<10
700
<5
<5
1900
15
0.47
0.08
0.01
0.025
0.012
1015
6.3
7.1
(1190)
10.0
150
2.2
70
64
86
8
1.5
<0.1
<5
300
95
<5
17500
<10
<5
275
5
<10
4800
20
<10
600
<5
<5
1500
<5
1.47
0.05
0.01
0.028
0.011
*Flow measured by USGS at gaging station located 5.6 miles southeast
of Buford, Colorado.
B-14
-------
Station No. NF-15
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Parameter
Units
6/7/76
6/8/76
Time
Temperature
pH
Flow* (USGS)
DO
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/A
Conductivity umhos/cm
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as 3003)
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
TKN
N09 + NO. - N
NH. - N
Total-P
Qrtho-P
FTU
ng/Ji
mg/£
mg/£
mg/£
mg/fc
mg/Ji
mg/£
vg/£
ng/£
vg/fc
ug/£
ug/£
ug/£
ug/Ji
yg/A
ug/&
vgA
ug/£
ygM
yg/s.
wg/£
vig/A
ug/A
pg/A
pg/A
mg/a
mg/£
mg/fi.
mg/jt
mg/A
1210
10.5
6.7
(747)
9.2
180
5.4
56
76
122
24
-
1.0
<0.1
<5
750
60
<5
19500
<10
<5
750
<5
<10
5200
25
<10
800
<5
<5
1500
10
0.62
0,05
0.01
0.066
0.018
0950
8.0
7.0
(761)
9.4
185
5.3
56
80
121
25
_
1.3
<0.1
<5
800
105
<5
19500
<10
10
950
5
<10
4600
25
<10
900
<5
<5
2800
5
0.24
0.05
0.01
0.057
0.016
0940
9.0
6.9
(761)
9.4
180
6.1
56
76
112
22
«
2.1
<0.1
<5
800
115
6
19500
<10
15
800
<5
<10
5000
20
<10
1000
<5
<5
3100
5
0.55
0.05
0.01
0.067
0.017
0935
8.0
7.0
(754)
9.4
185
5.8
56
76
124
21
_
1.5
<0.1
<5
700
140
<5
20000
<10
<5
750
5
<10
5000
20
<10
800
<5
<5
2700
10
0.52
0.05
0.01
0.068
0.019
*Flow data fram USGS.
B-15
-------
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Station No. LC-16
Parameter
Units
6/7/76
6/8/76
6/9/76
6/10/76
Time
Temperature
PH
Flow* (USGS)
DO
Conductivity
Turbi di ty
Alkalinity (as Ca
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
TKN
N02 + N03 - N
NHs - N
Total -P
Ortho-P
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/a
ymhos/cm
FTU
C03) mg/a
mg/a
mg/a
mg/a
mg/a
mg/a
mg/a
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
yg/A
mg/A
mg/a
mg/a
mg/a
mg/a
1145
12.0
6.8
(30)
8.6
185
9.1
74
120
116
15
-
1.4
<0. 1
<5
450
110
6
20000
<10
<5
575
<5
<10
4600
10
<10
900
<5
<5
3800
10
0.39
0.01
0.01
0.039
0.014
0920
9.0
6.9
(27)
9.2
190
8.2
74
84
124
14
-
0.2
<0.1
<5
300
115
8
20500
<10
5
550
5
<10
4400
10
<10
700
<5
<5
3300
5
0.25
0.01
0.01
0.034
0.014
0915
9.51
6.8
(26)
8.8
190
8.8
72
80
118
14
2.1
<0.1
<5
450
90
8
21000
<10
20
550
5
<10
4600
10
<10
1000
<5
<5
3900
<5
0.46
0.01
0.01
0.035
0.016
0910
8.5
6.8
(22)
9.2
190
9.1
74
80
132
11
2.4
<0.1
<5*
450
80
6
21000
<10
<5
575
<5
<10
4600
10
<10
800
<5
<5
3500
5
0.40
<0.01
0.01
0.033
0.016
*Flow data from USGS.
B-16
-------
Station No. NF-17
MITE RLVEfl STUDY
Parameter
Units
6/7/76
6/8/76
6/9/76
Time
Temperature
PH
Flow*
DO
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/£
Conductivity pmhos/cm
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as CaCOs)
Hardness
TDS
TSS(Grab)
TSS (Comp. )
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
TKN
N02 + N03 - N
NHq - N
Total -P
Ortho-P
FTU
mg/a
mg/i
mgA
mg/£
mg/£
mg/a
mg/&
yg/s,
yg/£
yg/£
wg/&
yg/£
ug/&
yg/£
yg/£
yg/£
yg/£
yg/£
yg/J,
yg/&
yg/&
yg/£
yg/&
jjg/£
yg/£
mg/£
mg/A
mg/£
mg/£
mg/fi,
1130
10.0
6.5
-
9.0
145
5.2
48
60
98
20
-
0.8
<0. 1
<5
550
100
<5
15500
<10
<5
725
<5
<10
4400
20
<10
900
<5
<5
2000
10
0.35
0.04
0.01
0.056
0.016
0910
7.5
6.7
_
9.4
150
4.1
46
60
96
20
-
1.3
<0. 1
<5
550
100
6
15000
<10
10
600
5
<10
3800
15
<10
700
<5
<5
2800
10
0.37
0.05
<0.01
0.057
0.018
0905
8.0
6.7
_
9.3
150
3.5
48
60
94
16
-
1.5
-------
Station No. NF-18
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Parameter
Units
6/7/76
6/8/76
6/9/76
6/10/76
Time
Temperature
pH
Flow (EPA)
DO
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/x,
Conductivity ymhos/cm
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as CaC03)
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
TKN
NO? + N03 - N
NH3 - N
Total-P
Ortho-P
FTU
mg/x,
mg/x,
mg/x,
mg/x,
mg/*
mg/£
mg/£
yg/ft
ygA
yg/H
yg/fc
yg/^
yg/&
ygA
ygA
yg/s.
yg/£
yg/x,
yg/K,
yg/£
yg/£
yg/£.
yg/£
yg/£
mg/£
mg/R,
mg/£
rog/s.
mg/A
1100
8.5
6.8
-
8.6
100
0.75
40
36
64
6
_
<0.10
<0.1
<5
100
45
6
8750
<10
<5
200
<5
<10
2800
10
<10
900
<5
<5
1500
10
1.78
0.08
0.01
0.036
0.026
0825
7.0
6.5
216
8.8
95
1.3
42
36
62
6
_
1.0
<0.1
<5*
150
90
6
8500
<10
10
200
<5
<10
3000
20
<10
600
<5
<5
2200
5
0.36
0.06
0.01
0.026
0.017
0835
8.0
6.4
-
8.7
90
2.4
42
36
52
4
_
1.3
<0.1
<5
<100
65
<5
9000
<10
5
200
<5
<10
3000
5
<10
600
<5
<5
1900
10
1.40
0.05
0.01
0.026
0.018
0820
8.0
6.6
228
8.7
90
1.3
38
32
58
4
-
1.8
<0.1
<5
150
30
6
8000
<10
5
175
<5
<10
2800
30
<10
700
<5
<5
1500
5
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.023
0.016
B-18
-------
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Station No. MC-19
Parameter
Units
5/31/76
6/1/76
6/2/76
6/3/76
Time
Temperature
pH
Flow (EPA)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
TKN
NOg + N03 - N
NH3 - N
Total -P
Ortho-P
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/£
ymhos/cm
FTU
CaC03) mg/Jt
mg/ £
mg/Jt
mg/£
mg/£
mg/s,
mg/Ji
yg/&
yg/&
pg/i
yg/Jl
pg/a
yg/j.
yg/Jt
yg/&
yg/&
yg/2.
yg/£
pgA
pg/n
yg/Jt
yg/£
yg/fc
pg/«.
mg/£.
mg/jz.
mg/A
irg/£
mg/£.
1130
11.0
6.7
-
8.7
400
40
125
172
236
105
_
3.3
0.13
5
1750
170
<5
41000
<10
5
2300
<5
20
13000
40
<10
2200
5
<5
9500
50
0.61
0.06
0.01
0.084
0.024
1005
10.0
7.4
52
8.9
400
58
129
176
248
144
_
3.3
0.12
10
2950
195
6
41500
<10
15
3200
<5
20
13000
50
<10
1500
<5
<5
8500
15
0.38
0.06
0.02
0.111
0.025
0830
9.5
6.9
-
8.6
400
76
125
176
252
153
-
3.3
0.12
5
3650
110
<5
42000
10
10
4050
<5
25
13000
65
<10
2800
<5
<5
10000
25
1.42
0.05
0.01
0.145
0.027
0820
10.0
6.8
49.5
8.5
430
46
137
200
274
108
-
4.1
0.13
<5
2600
190
6
41000
<10
5
3050
<5
25
14000
80
<10
2300
<5
<5
11000
20
0.65
0.04
0.01
0.106
0.019
B-19
-------
Station No. MC-20
WHITE RIVER STUDY
Parameter
Units
5/31/76
6/1/76
6/2/76
6/3/76
Time
Temperature
PH
Flow* (EPA)
DO
Conductivity
Turbidity
Alkalinity (as
Hardness
TDS
TSS (Grab)
TSS (Comp.)
Tot. Chloride
Tot. Fluoride
Tot. Arsenic
Tot. Aluminum
Tot. Boron
Tot. Cadmium
Tot. Calcium
Tot. Chromium
Tot. Copper
Tot. Iron
Tot. Lead
Tot. Lithium
Tot. Magnesium
Tot. Manganese
Tot. Molybdenum
Tot. Potassium
Tot. Selenium
Tot. Silver
Tot. Sodium
Tot. Zinc
TKN
NOg + N03 - N
NHs - N
Total -P
Ortho-P
Mtly
Cent
SU
cfs
mg/£
ymhos/cm
FTU
CaC03) mg/A
mg/i
mgA
mg/ a
mg/ a
mg/ a
mg/£
ygA
yg/£
ygA
-vg/i
ygA
ygA
ygA
ygA
ygA
ygA
ygA
ygA
ygA
mgA
mgA
mgA
mg/£
mg/£
1055
13.0
6.9
-
8.5
550
85
153
240
320
244
-
4.3
0.15
5
4500
165
8
50000
10
15
5750
5
35
21000
150
<10
3900
5
<5
16000
30
0.61
0.09
0.05
0.209
0.030
0915
13.0
7.2
36.2
8.1
600
75
170
260
378
208
-
4.4
0.15
10
3750
255
6
41250
15
10
5000
5
30
23000
75
<10
3800
<5
<5
16000
25
0.37
0.10
0.01
0.176
0.024
0900
14.0
7.2
_
8.1
650
88
180
284
416
234
-
5.8
0.18
5
4450
220
6
72000
10
15
5500
5
40
27000
100
<10
3800
<5
5
22000
30
0.86
0.09
0.01
0.197
0.025
0900
13.5
7.2
22.3
8.0
690
66
186
300
440
154
-
5.9
0.17
5
3500
235
6
75000
<10
5
4350
<5
35
27000
75
<10
3700
<5
<5
21000
30
1.23
0.09
0.01
0.151
0.022
Variable irrigation diversions and return flows affect flow at this location.
B-20
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-908/2-77-001
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
Report of Baseline Water Quality
Investigations on the White River in Western Colorado
September - October, 1975 and May - June, 1976
5. REPORT DATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORIS)
Robert L. Fox
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
S&A/TIB-31
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
1O. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Technical Investigations Branch
Surveillance & Analysis Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII
^Denver. Colorado
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABS1
Baseline water quality conditions in the White River and Milk Creek
drainages in Western Colorado were documented by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency during the Fall "low flow" period in 1975 and the Spring
"high flow" period of 1976. A total of 35 water quality parameters were measured
at 19 sampling locations covering a stream reach of approximately 200 km
(125 mi).
Pollution parameter values exceeding recommended criteria and/or proposed
stream standards were found at several locations, with the largest number of
violations occurring in the downstream reach of the White River between Meeker
and Rangely, Colorado. Excessive concentrations of several parameters were also
measured in three White River tributary streams - Yellow Creek, Coal Creek,
and Little Beaver Creek. The parameters most frequently in violation included
TDS, TSS, total iron, total zinc, and total phosphorus. There was no clear
indication that either the lower or higher flow rates produced the greater
number of pollution problems.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS |c. COSATI Field/Group
g7 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to the Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
_28_
22. PRICE
fft. Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |