DOCSLIB.ORG

Report 2012–5214

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report 2012–5214 Prepared in cooperation with Routt County, the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and the City of Steamboat Springs Water-Quality Assessment and Macroinvertebrate Data for the Upper Yampa River Watershed, Colorado, 1975 through 2009 Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5214 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey COVER: Yampa River at Steamboat Springs, Colorado, looking downstream. Steamflow is an estimated 104 cubic feet per second. Photograph by Nancy J. Bauch, U.S. Geological Survey, taken February 10, 2011. Water-Quality Assessment and Macroinvertebrate Data for the Upper Yampa River Watershed, Colorado, 1975 through 2009 By Nancy J. Bauch, Jennifer L. Moore, Keelin R. Schaffrath, and Jean A. Dupree Prepared in cooperation with Routt County, the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and the City of Steamboat Springs Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5214 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Bauch, N.J., Moore, J.L., Schaffrath, K.R., and Dupree, J.A., 2012, Water-quality assessment and macroinvertebrate data for the Upper Yampa River watershed, Colorado, 1975 through 2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5214, 129 p. iii Contents Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2 Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................4 Study Area..............................................................................................................................................4 Hydrology and Water Resources ..............................................................................................6 Geology ..........................................................................................................................................9 Methods of Data Compilation, Review, and Analysis ..............................................................................9 Data Sources and Water-Quality Database ...................................................................................11 Data Quality Assurance .....................................................................................................................11 Data Aggregation ................................................................................................................................13 Censored Values .................................................................................................................................13 Water-Quality Standards ...................................................................................................................16 Temporal Trend Analysis ...................................................................................................................17 Water-Quality Assessment .........................................................................................................................18 Streams.................................................................................................................................................18 Physical Properties ...................................................................................................................18 Dissolved Solids and Major Ions .............................................................................................38 Nutrients ......................................................................................................................................41 Trace Elements and Uranium ...................................................................................................45 Coliform Bacteria .......................................................................................................................55 Suspended Sediment ................................................................................................................55 Lakes and Reservoirs .........................................................................................................................56 Groundwater ........................................................................................................................................61 Physical Properties ...................................................................................................................61 Dissolved Solids and Majors Ions ...........................................................................................67 Nutrients ......................................................................................................................................73 Trace Elements ...........................................................................................................................76 Macroinvertebrate Data .............................................................................................................................83 Synthesis of Water-Quality Data in the Upper Yampa River Watershed ............................................85 Summary........................................................................................................................................................87 Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................................90 References Cited..........................................................................................................................................91 Appendix 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency STORET edit-checking procedure of low and high values for selected water-quality properties and constituents from the Upper Yampa River watershed water-quality database. ..................................................95 Appendix 2. Selected Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment in-stream water-quality standards for stream segments in the Upper Yampa River watershed, Colorado. ..........................................................................................................................................97 Appendix 3. Description of selected stream sampling sites in the Upper Yampa River watershed, Colorado, with type of water-quality data collected, period of water- quality record, and number of samples collected, 1975 through 2009.. ..............................100 Appendix 4. Description of selected lake and reservoir sampling sites in the Upper Yampa River watershed, Colorado, with type of water-quality data collected, period of water-quality record, and number of sample days, 1985 through 2009... ............................110 iv Appendix 5. Description of selected groundwater sampling sites in the Upper Yampa River watershed, Colorado, with geologic unit description, type of water- quality data collected, period of water-quality record, number of samples collected, and constituents with exceedances of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment water-quality standards for groundwater, 1975 through 1989 and 1998.... ............................................................................................................................112 Appendix 6. Description of stream sites in the Upper Yampa River watershed, Colorado, that have macroinvertebrate data, and period of water-quality record and number of sample days, 1975 through 2008 ............................................................................................126 Figures 1. Location of the Upper Yampa River watershed, Colorado .....................................................3 2. Land cover in the Upper Yampa River watershed, Colorado, 2001 .......................................5 3. Location of selected stream-water sampling sites and active, water year 2010, streamgage stations, Upper Yampa River watershed, Colorado ..........................................7 4. Mean monthly streamflow for 2005 through 2008 for selected streamgage stations in the Upper Yampa River watershed, Colorado ......................................................9 5. Geology of the Upper Yampa River watershed, Colorado ....................................................11 6. Distribution of specific conductance, pH, acid neutralizing capacity, and concentrations of dissolved sulfate and dissolved manganese in stream water, by subwatershed, Upper Yampa River watershed, Colorado,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Classification of Riparian Wetland Plant Associations of Colorado a Users Guide to the Classification Project
    A Classification of Riparian Wetland Plant Associations of Colorado A Users Guide to the Classification Project September 1, 1999 By Gwen Kittel, Erika VanWie, Mary Damm, Reneé Rondeau Steve Kettler, Amy McMullen and John Sanderson Clockwise from top: Conejos River, Conejos County, Populus angustifolia-Picea pungens/Alnus incana Riparian Woodland Flattop Wilderness, Garfield County, Carex aquatilis Riparian Herbaceous Vegetation South Platte River, Logan County, Populus deltoides/Carex lanuginosa Riparian Woodland California Park, Routt County, Salix boothii/Mesic Graminoids Riparian Shrubland Joe Wright Creek, Larimer County, Abies lasiocarpa-Picea engelmannii/Alnus incana Riparian Forest Dolores River, San Miguel County, Forestiera pubescens Riparian Shrubland Center Photo San Luis Valley, Saguache County, Juncus balticus Riparian Herbaceous Vegetation (Photography by Gwen Kittel) 2 Prepared by: Colorado Natural Heritage Program 254 General Services Bldg. Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 [email protected] This report should be cited as follows: Kittel, Gwen, Erika VanWie, Mary Damm, Reneé Rondeau, Steve Kettler, Amy McMullen, and John Sanderson. 1999. A Classification of Riparian Wetland Plant Associations of Colorado: User Guide to the Classification Project. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 80523 For more information please contact: Colorado Natural Heritage Program, 254 General Service Building, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523. (970)
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix I - Watershed Tables
    Appendix I - Watershed Tables An inventory of major disturbances, Watershed Disturbance Inventory, was completed for this plan revision. Disturbances have been identified and recorded by watershed. Road miles, timber harvest areas, and geologic hazards have been totaled using a Geographical Information System (GIS) to overlay watershed boundaries with these other layers. All disturbances identified have been totaled and for a total for each watershed calculated. The Forest Service recognizes that all disturbances have not been identified for this FEIS. For example, there are nonsystem travelways on the Forest that are not recorded in GIS. Because the plan revision is a large-scale, programmatic analysis, more detailed watershed analyses will be completed at the project level. These site-specific analyses will consider disturbances not covered during the forest plan revision. This appendix contains six tables and one map. They are: Figure l-1: Watersheds of Concern. This map identifies the locations of the watersheds of concern. Table I-1: Reference Stream Reaches. This lists the undisturbed reference stream reaches. This table is used to compare streams in areas of activity with a similar stream in an area with no activity to help determine if impacts are occurring (see water section in Chapter 3 for more detail). Table I-2: Watershed Health Assessment. This is the summary of disturbances and geologic hazard ratings for each watershed on the Forest. This table summarizes disturbances and categorizes watersheds into low, medium, or high "disturbance risk potential" categories. Table I-3: List of Watersheds of Concerns. This table lists watersheds and subwatersheds which have a high disturbance risk potential rating as identified in Table I-2.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Streamflow and Water Quality in the Upper Yampa River Basin, Colorado, 1992–2018
    Prepared in cooperation with Upper Yampa River Watershed Group, Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Yampa-White- Green Basin Roundtable, Mount Werner Water and Sanitation District, Routt County, Colorado, and the city of Steamboat Springs, Colorado Assessment of Streamflow and Water Quality in the Upper Yampa River Basin, Colorado, 1992–2018 By Natalie K. Day i Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 9 Purpose and Scope ................................................................................................................................. 12 Previous Studies ...................................................................................................................................... 12 Description of the Study Area .................................................................................................................. 13 Hydrology and Water Use.................................................................................................................... 15 Approach and Methods ................................................................................................................................ 17 Data Compilation and Quality Assurance ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Yampa River Basin, Colorado and Wyoming- a Preview to Expanded Coal-Resource Development and Its Impacts on Regional Water Resources
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WYOMING GEOLOGICAL SURVEY COLORADO THE YAMPA RIVER BASIN, COLORADO AND WYOMING- A PREVIEW TO EXPANDED COAL-RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND ITS IMPACTS ON REGIONAL WATER RESOURCES ^'^v^bSvi'--" WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS 78-126 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA 1. Report No. 2. 3. Recipient's Accession No. SHEET 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date THE YAMPA RIVER BASIN, COLORADO AND WYOMING A PREVIEW TO September 1979 EXPANDED COAL-RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND ITS IMPACTS ON 6. REGIONAL WATER RESOURCES 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Rept. T. D. Steele, D. P. Bauer, D. A. Wentz, and J. W. Warner No- USGS/WRI 78-12 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division Box 250^6, Denver Federal Center, Mail Stop *H5 11. Contract/Grant No. Lakewood, CO 80225 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report & Period U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division Covered Box 250^6, Denver Federal Center, Mail Stop ^15 Final Lakewood, CO 80225 14. 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstracts Expanded coal production and conversion in the Yampa River basin, Colorado and Wyoming, may have substantial impacts on water resources, environmental amenities, and socioeconomic conditions. Preliminary results of a 3-year basin assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey are given for evaluation of surface- and ground-water resources using available data, modeling analysis of waste-load capacity of a Yampa River reach affected by municipal wastewater-treatment plant effluents, and semiquantitative descriptions of ambient air and water-quality conditions. Aspects discussed are possible constraints on proposed development due to basin compacts and laws regulating water resources, possible change; in environmental-control regulations, and policies on energy-resource leasing and land use that will influence regional economic development.
    [Show full text]
  • Yampa River Basin Aquatic Wildlife Management Plan
    YAMPA RIVER BASIN AQUATIC WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN October 2010 Colorado Division of Wildlife Aquatic Wildlife Section 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 YAMP A RIVER BASIN AQUATIC WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL AND LOCATIONS Bill Atkinson, Aquatic Area Biologist, Upper Yampa River Drainage, Steamboat Springs F. Boyd Wright, Aquatic Area Biologist, Lower Yampa River Drainage, Meeker Jennifer Logan, Aquatic Wildlife Conservation Biologist, Glenwood Springs Sherman Hebein, Senior Aquatic Biologist, Grand Junction Plan Approved: »:: ock1<i-t..- .;2~(2£>/ rlich, State Aquatic Manager Date TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................................................... 6 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Purpose and Objectives .............................................................................................................................................. 16 Guidance from CDOW Policies, Regulations, Plans ................................................................................................. 17 CDOW Personnel by Fish Management Units .......................................................................................................... 19 Upper Yampa Basin Hydrounit Summary ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CDNST Potential Addition Final Environmental Statement
    TABLE 0 F CONTENTS Page I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................ 1 Introduction ............................................. 1 Trail Alignments ......................................... 2 Trail Standards .......................................... 5 Trail Facilities ......................................... 6 Rights-of-Way Land Acquisition ............................ 8 Trail Access ............................................. 9 Trail Establishment ...................................... 10 Trail Administration...................................... 13 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT ............................ 14 General .................................................. 14 Fish and Wildlife ........................................ 30 Land Ownership ........................................... 32 Land Use ................................................. 35 History .................................................. 28 III. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .......... 41 Impact on Fish and Wildlife .............................. 41 Disturbance of Soil and Vegetation ........................ 42 Increased Recreation Use ................................ 43 Economic and Social Impacts............................... 46 IV. MITIGATING MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION . 48 V. ANY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD THE PROPOSAL BE IMPLEMENTED ................ 49 VI. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USE OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
    [Show full text]
  • State of the Yampa River Watershed
    The Upper Yampa River Watershed Group 2014 State of the Watershed Report Jackie K. Brown With the assistance of Lyn Halliday, Environmental Solutions, LLC. This report was produced in collaboration with the members of the Upper Yampa River Watershed Group (UYRWG) Technical Committee: Liz Schnackenberg, US Forest Service Ben Beall, Municipalities Kelly Heaney, Industry Mike Zopf, Routt County Lyn Halliday, Environment Geoff Blakeslee, Recreation Kevin McBride, Upper Yampa Water Brian Hodge, Fisheries Conservancy District Bill Badaracca, Agriculture Thanks to Lyn Halliday (Environmental Solutions, LLC) for her work on the “What is A Watershed” and “Factors that Influence Water Quality” sections; Brian Hodge (Trout Unlimited) for authoring the “Fisheries & Aquatic Life” section; and Elizabeth Frick (U.S. Forest Service) for her research on the “Mean Daily Streamflow” and “Reservoir Storage Capacity” data as well as the “Geology” section. Thanks also to Gary Keeling, Bill Chace Riverkeeper, Todd Hagenbuch, Bill Atkinson, Lori Jazwick, Dennis Jones, Nancy Bauch, Marsha Daughenbaugh, Jean Ray, Karin Utterback-Normann, and Michelle Dickson for providing information and comments that led to an improved report. Finally, thanks to the Colorado Water Conservation Board (Colorado Healthy Rivers Fund), Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, Environmental Protection Agency, Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District, City of Steamboat Springs, The Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, Routt County, the Town of Oak Creek, and the Routt County
    [Show full text]
  • Sites of Biodiversity Significance
    A Natural Heritage Assessment of Wetlands and Riparian Areas in Routt County, Colorado Report Submitted to: the Colorado Department of Natural Resources December 1996 Prepared by: Denise Culver, Assistant Wetland Ecologist John Sanderson, Wetland Ecologist The Colorado Natural Heritage Program General Services Building Room 254 Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 REPORT ORGANIZATION This report is divided into 3 sections. Each section contains a table of contents, list of tables, and list of figures (when necessary). The first section (red tabs) presents the executive summary, recommendations, and sites of biodiversity significance. The second section (blue tabs) presents the project’s background, wetland definitions and regulations, methods, major impacts, Colorado Natural Heritage Program description, wetland functions and values, and the hydrogeomorphic approach. The third section (green tabs) contains characterization abstracts of the wetland/riparian communities, plants, amphibians, birds, and invertebrates associated with Routt County wetlands. The literature cited and field form examples are located at the end of the report. It is hoped that this organization will be helpful to all who will use this report. 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Financial support for this study was provided by a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region VIII, through the Colorado Department of Natural Resources (DNR), with in-kind services provided by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. We greatly appreciate the support and assistance of Doug Robotham and Deborah Mellblom of the Department of Natural Resources. We appreciate the work of Bruce Gordon and Project Lighthawk for their help with an aerial reconnaissance. We greatly appreciated the accommodations at the Carpenter Ranch provided by Geoff Blakesly and The Nature Conservancy.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Interdisciplinary Paleoflood Approach to Assess Extreme Flood Potential
    WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, VOL. 36, NO. 10, PAGES 2957-2984, OCTOBER 2000 Regional interdisciplinary paleofiood approach to assess extreme flood potential Robert D. Jarrett U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Denver, Colorado Edward M. Tomlinson Applied Weather Associates,Monument, Colorado Abstract. In the past decade,there has been a growinginterest of dam safetyofficials to incorporatea risk-basedanalysis for design-floodhydrology. Extreme or rare floods,with probabilitiesin therange of about10 -3 to 10-7 chanceof occurrenceper year, are of continuinginterest to the hydrologicand engineeringcommunities for purposesof planningand designof structuressuch as dams [NationalResearch Council, 1988]. The National ResearchCouncil stressesthat as much information as possibleabout floods needsto be usedfor evaluationof the risk and consequencesof any decision.A regional interdisciplinarypaleoflood approach was developedto assistdam safetyofficials and floodplainmanagers in their assessmentsof the risk of large floods.The interdisciplinary componentsincluded documenting maximum paleofloods and a regionalanalyses of contemporaryextreme rainfall and flood data to complementa site-specificprobable maximumprecipitation study [Tomlinson and Solak, 1997]. The cost-effectiveapproach, which can be usedin many other hydrometeorologicsettings, was applied to Elkhead Reservoirin ElkheadCreek (531 km 2) in northwesternColorado; the regional study area Was10,900 km 2. Paleoflood data using bouldery flood deposits and noninundation surfaces for 88 streamswere used to documentmaximum flood dischargesthat have occurred during the Holocene.Several relative datingmethods were usedto determinethe age of paleoflooddeposits and noninundationsurfaces. No evidenceof substantialflooding was foundin thestudy area. The maximum paleoflood of 135m 3 s-1 for ElkheadCreek is about13% of thesite-specific probable maximum flood of 1020m 3 s-1. Flood-frequency relationsusing the expectedmoments algorithm, which better incorporatespaleoflood data, were developedto assessthe risk of extremefloods.
    [Show full text]
  • ROUTT NATIONAL FOREST Barber Basin, (5,500 Acres)
    ROUTT NATIONAL FOREST Barber Basin, (5,500 acres) ............................................................................................................. 3 Black Mountain, (22,700 acres) ...................................................................................................... 4 Bunker Basin, (12,800 acres) .......................................................................................................... 5 Bushy Creek, (11,300 acres) ........................................................................................................... 6 Chatfield, (11,300 acres) ................................................................................................................. 7 Chedsey Creek, (1,000 acres) ......................................................................................................... 8 Dome, (2,100 acres) ........................................................................................................................ 9 Dome Peak, (35,700 acres) ........................................................................................................... 10 Elkhorn, (10,500 acres) ................................................................................................................. 12 Gold Creek, (3,200 acres) ............................................................................................................. 13 Grizzly Helena, (6,100 acres) ....................................................................................................... 14 Kettle Lakes,
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Yampa River Watershed Plan Executive Summary May 2016
    Upper Yampa River Watershed Plan Protecting and Managing Long Term Health A Collaboration of the Upper Yampa Technical Committee, Watershed Group and Constituents Lead Author: Lyn Halliday, Environmental Solutions Unltd, LLC Steamboat Springs, Colorado Upper Yampa River Watershed Plan Executive Summary May 2016 Upper Yampa River Watershed Plan Executive Summary May 2016 Upper Yampa River Watershed Plan - Protecting and Managing Long Term Health Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Chapter 1. Overview Chapter 2. Understanding Existing and Potential Water Quality Issues in the UYRW Chapter 3. Overarching Goals and Objectives Chapter 4. Watershed-wide Known and Potential Stressors and Solutions to Water Quality Threats Chapter 5. Assessing Watershed-wide Data Gaps Chapter 6. Sub-basin Water Quality Classifications and Identified Water Quality Concerns Chapter 7. Action Plan and Matrix by Objective Chapter 8. Outreach and Education Chapter 9. Ongoing Water Quality Monitoring Commonly Used Abbreviations Appendices A. Upper Yampa State of the Watershed Report 2014 B. Best Management Practices for Fisheries C. Best Management Practices for Riparian Areas D. Best Management Practices – Land Management a. Tier 1 Examples – Non-Point Source Runoff Upper Yampa River Watershed Plan Executive Summary May 2016 Upper Yampa River Watershed Plan Protecting and Managing Long Term Health May 2016 Executive Summary What The Upper Yampa River Watershed Plan (WP) is the culmination of decades of collaborative efforts to protect and enhance the health of the Upper Yampa River Watershed (UYRW). The Upper Yampa Watershed Group (UYRWG) initiated the development of the Plan in 2013 and is committed to maintaining and improving the physical, chemical, and biological health of the upper Yampa River and its tributaries.
    [Show full text]
  • USGS Yampa River Study
    Prepared in cooperation with Routt County, the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and the City of Steamboat Springs Water-Quality Assessment and Macroinvertebrate Data for the Upper Yampa River Watershed, Colorado, 1975 through 2009 Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5214 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey COVER: Yampa River at Steamboat Springs, Colorado, looking downstream. Steamflow is an estimated 104 cubic feet per second. Photograph by Nancy J. Bauch, U.S. Geological Survey, taken February 10, 2011. Water-Quality Assessment and Macroinvertebrate Data for the Upper Yampa River Watershed, Colorado, 1975 through 2009 By Nancy J. Bauch, Jennifer L. Moore, Keelin R. Schaffrath, and Jean A. Dupree Prepared in cooperation with Routt County, the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and the City of Steamboat Springs Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5214 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text.
    [Show full text]