DOCSLIB.ORG

Hydrogeology and Quality of Ground Water in the Upper Arkansas River Basin from Buena Vista to Salida, Colorado, 2000–2003

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hydrogeology and Quality of Ground Water in the Upper Arkansas River Basin from Buena Vista to Salida, Colorado, 2000–2003 Hydrogeology and Quality of Ground Water in the Upper Arkansas River Basin from Buena Vista to Salida, Colorado, 2000–2003 By Kenneth R. Watts Prepared in cooperation with the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5179 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2005 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services Box 25286, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Watts, K.R., 2005, Hydrogeology and quality of ground water in the upper Arkansas River Basin from Buena Vista to Salida, Colorado, 2000–2003: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5179, 61 p. iii Contents Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1 Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................2 Hydrologic Setting ................................................................................................................................2 Climate and Runoff ......................................................................................................................2 Population, Water Supply, and Wells .......................................................................................2 Water Rights and Augmentation Plans ....................................................................................4 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................5 Methods...........................................................................................................................................................5 Water-Level Measurements ...............................................................................................................5 Sample Collection and Processing ....................................................................................................5 Hydrogeology..................................................................................................................................................5 Geologic Setting ....................................................................................................................................6 Bedrock .........................................................................................................................................6 Basin-Fill Deposits .......................................................................................................................6 Glacial Outwash and Till .............................................................................................................8 Alluvial Deposits...........................................................................................................................8 Hydrogeologic Setting .........................................................................................................................8 Hydrologic Properties ..........................................................................................................................8 Estimated Specific Yield .............................................................................................................8 Specific Capacity of Wells .......................................................................................................10 Alluvial-Outwash Aquifer .........................................................................................................10 Till Aquifer ...................................................................................................................................12 Basin-Fill Aquifer........................................................................................................................12 Bedrock Aquifer .........................................................................................................................12 Preliminary Conceptual and Cross-Sectional Models of Ground-Water Flow .........................13 Conceptual Model .....................................................................................................................13 Cross-Sectional Models ...........................................................................................................13 Water Levels ........................................................................................................................................15 Alluvial-Outwash and Till Aquifers ..........................................................................................21 Basin-Fill Aquifer........................................................................................................................28 Bedrock Aquifer .........................................................................................................................28 Configuration of the Water Table .....................................................................................................28 Depth to Water ...........................................................................................................................30 Direction of Ground-Water Flow .............................................................................................30 Effects of the 2002 Drought on Water Levels ........................................................................32 Age of Ground-Water Recharge ......................................................................................................32 Sustainability of Ground-Water Supplies .......................................................................................37 Ground-Water Storage .............................................................................................................40 Potential Effects of Increased Ground-Water Use ..............................................................42 Estimated Withdrawals and Consumptive Use by Domestic and Household Wells, 2003–2030 .......................................................................................................................42 Well Density and Well Interference .......................................................................................42 iv Water Quality ................................................................................................................................................44 Alluvial-Outwash Aquifer...................................................................................................................46 Physical Properties and Chemical Characteristics .............................................................46 Water Type ..................................................................................................................................47 Indicators of Anthropogenic Effects on Water Quality .......................................................49 Basin-Fill Aquifer.................................................................................................................................50 Physical Properties and Chemical Characteristics .............................................................50 Water Type ..................................................................................................................................54 Indicators of Anthropogenic Effects on Water Quality .......................................................54 Comparison of Water Quality between the Alluvial-Outwash and Basin-Fill Aquifers ...........55 Summary........................................................................................................................................................55 References Cited..........................................................................................................................................56 Glossary .........................................................................................................................................................59 Figures 1. Map showing location of the study area, water-level and water-quality monitoring networks, and selected stream gages ..................................................................3 2. Graph showing population and estimated number of domestic and household wells in Chaffee County, Colorado, 1980–2000, and projected population and number of domestic and household wells, 2010–2030 ...........................................................4 3. Map showing generalized surficial geology and altitude and configuration of the water table, September 2003 ...............................................................................................7
Load more

Recommended publications
  • History of Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District by Ken Baker
    History of Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District By Ken Baker Note: Ken Baker was Chaffee County Attorney in 1977 and became one of the original organizers of the UAWCD, its first General Manager and attorney, and later a Board Consultant. I. ORIGINAL DISTRICT The Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District (UAWCD and sometimes “Upper District” or “the District”) was officially authorized on April 27, 1979 by Decree signed by the Hon. Max Wilson, District Court Judge in Division 11, sitting in Fremont County, Colorado. The Upper District comprised the territory within Chaffee County and that portion of Fremont County included within School District R-32-J and School District RE-3. The territory included in the District encompasses School District RE-3, School District R-32-J and School District R-31. The Upper District was organized under the “Water Conservancy Act” of the State of Colorado. The Act requires the districts formed under this Act to have specifically described territory, thus the selection of legally existing and legally described governmental agencies (the School Districts) as the “territory” within the District. The original directors, all of whom were active participants in the promotion and organization of the District, were: Denzel Goodwin RE-3 Fremont County Thomas Young RE-3 Fremont County Glenn Everett R-32-J Chaffee County Wendell Hutchinson R-32-J Chaffee County Roy Bowen R-31 Chaffee County Franklin Springer R-31 Chaffee County Verl Freek At Large Directors Goodwin, Hutchinson, Everett and Springer were appointed for three- year terms beginning June 1, 1979 and ending June 1, 1983.
    [Show full text]
  • Decision Memo Monarch Pass U.S. Forest Service San Isabel National Forest Salida Ranger District Chaffee County, Colorado
    Decision Memo Monarch Pass U.S. Forest Service San Isabel National Forest Salida Ranger District Chaffee County, Colorado BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE & NEED Background: Beginning in the early 2000’s in the Weminuche Wilderness of southern Colorado, a spruce beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis) epidemic began expanding north. During stand exam field procedures in 2012, within the Monarch Mountain Ski area, active spruce beetle infestation was discovered on several plots. Further reconnaissance discovered scattered spruce beetle populations in the Monarch Mountain Ski area, Old Monarch Pass and Monarch Park areas. Prior to this time no active spruce beetle infestation had been observed in these areas. Since 2012, spruce beetle activity has increased and is now at epidemic levels across the Monarch Pass area. In some stands, mortality of the mature overstory is approaching 75 percent. In Colorado, spruce beetle has affected over 1.7 million acres since 1996. Figure 1. Example of forest conditions in the Monarch Pass area (early spring 2017). Photo by A. Rudney. — Decision Memo — Page 1 of 23 Figure 2. Example of trees killed by spruce beetle. Photo by A. Rudney. Western balsam bark beetle (Dryocoetes confusus) has been affecting stands within the ski area and across the Monarch Pass area since the early 2000’s. Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) forests in the area are at high risk for mountain pine beetle infestation (Dendroctonus ponderosae) due to mature age, tree size and density. In addition, increased snag (dead standing trees) levels within the ski area have exposed visitors to a higher risk of falling trees. The increase in mortality is leading to increased fuel loading and higher risks for firefighters attempting initial or extended attack on wildland fires within the project area.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Salida Source Water Protection Plan
    City of Salida Source Water Protection Plan Chaffee County, Colorado January 31, 2018 Written by: Colleen Williams Source Water Specialist Colorado Rural Water Association For the Water Provider: City of Salida: ID # CO0108700 Cover photo by www.salidacouncilofarts.org 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................. 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 6 OVERVIEW OF COLORADO’S SWAPP PROGRAM ........................................................................ 7 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 8 Purpose of a Source Water Protection Plan .................................................................. 8 Protection Plan Development ........................................................................................ 9 Stakeholder Participation in the Plan Process ............................................................. 10 WATER SUPPLY SETTING ........................................................................................................... 11 Location and Description ............................................................................................ 11 Physical Characteristics ................................................................................................ 12 Geology ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents Table of Contents
    Table of Contents Table of Contents................................................................................................................1 Chapter I: Introduction .......................................................................................................3 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................................................3 Scope of plan..........................................................................................................................................................3 Goals of Plan..........................................................................................................................................................3 Recommendations..................................................................................................................................................3 Public Process ........................................................................................................................................................3 Chapter II: Chaffee County Overview................................................................................4 A. Chaffee County Information.............................................................................................................................4 B. Trails in Chaffee County...................................................................................................................................4 United
    [Show full text]
  • Chaffee County, Colorado, and Incorporated Areas
    CHAFFEE COUNTY, Chaffee County COLORADO, AND INCORPORATED AREAS VOLUME 1 OF 2 COMMUNITY COMMUNNITY NAME NUMBER BUENA VISTA, TOWN OF 080030 CHAFFEE COUNTY (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) 080269 PONCHA SPRINGS, TOWN OF 080220 SALIDA, CITY OF 080031 Effective: December 7, 2017 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 08015CV001A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. Part or all of this FIS report may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of this FIS report may be revised by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials and to check the community repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Initial Countywide FIS Date: December 7, 2017. TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume 1- December 7, 2017 Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose of Study 1 1.2 Authority and Acknowledgments 1 1.3 Coordination 3 2.0 AREA STUDIED 5 2.1 Scope of Study 5 2.2 Community Description 12 2.3 Principal Flood Problems 17 2.4 Flood Protection Measures 20 3.0 ENGINEERING METHODS 21 3.1 Hydrologic Analyses 21 3.2 Hydraulic Analyses 22 3.3 Vertical
    [Show full text]
  • Appraising Surface Water Quantity and Quality in the Upper Arkansas River Basin in Chaffee County, Colorado
    Hydrology Days 2011 Appraising Surface Water Quantity and Quality in the Upper Arkansas River Basin in Chaffee County, Colorado G. H. Steed1, T. K. Gates, J. D. Niemann and J. W. Labadie Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado State University Abstract. The Arkansas River, one of four major rivers that begin in Colorado, has the largest drainage basin in the state and serves as a vital source of water. At peak flows, the Arkansas River swells by 70% through Chaffee County, in the heart of the Rockies, and only increases by 20% before exiting the mountains onto the high plains near Pueblo. The production of this discharge depends on a complex natural system of snowmelt and groundwater-stream interactions, as well as on numerous human interventions. The Arkansas valley in Chaffee County, from Granite to Salida, is characterized as an intermountain, high altitude, agricultural, small-municipal, and recreational region. Increasing demands on the stream-aquifer system have necessitated more up- to-date, integrated, and technology-driven data to assist water users, managers, and decision makers in moving toward optimal overall water use. Monthly synoptic measurements and triannual water sampling over July 2009 – January 2011 at 19 river and tributary sites provide data on discharge; dissolved oxygen; pH; specific conductance; oxidation reduction potential; temperature; and major dissolved ions, uranium, selenium, and other select minerals. Data analysis for the range of hydrologic conditions during the study period reveals flow conditions similar to long-term averages. Relationships of specific conductance and total dissolved solids derived from field samples yields equations useful for estimation of mass loading in the river system.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix B Consideration of Comments Monarch Pass Vegetation Management Project San Isabel National Forest
    APPENDIX B CONSIDERATION OF COMMENTS MONARCH PASS VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FOREST The comment period was conducted from May 8, 2017 to June 9, 2017. A total of nine comment letters were received. Below are the consideration of comments received. Index of Letters: Letter No. Author Organization Date 2 Burton, Chuck PSI – RAC 2017.05.15 5 Goodwin, Neilie Western Area Power Administration 2017.06.08 4 Hardgrave, Kathryn Colorado State Forest Service 2017.06.06 1 Lange, Damon Colorado State Forest Service 2017.05.08 6 Maxwell, Kent Colorado Firecamp 2017.05.09 7 Myers, Karl Tri-State Generation and Transmission 2017.06.09 Association, Inc. 3 Pressly, Scott Monarch Mountain 2017.05.24 9 Sailor, Rand 2017.06.23 8 Sobal, Tom Quiet Use Coalition 2017.06.09 COMMENT COMMENT CONSIDERATION OF COMMENT SUBJECT D.Lange1 Looks like a very fine project. Supportive comment. Project C.Burton1 This email is in support of your proposed spruce beetle management Supportive comment. Project efforts, i.e. sanitation and salvage of the trees in the Monarch Pass area. S.Pressly1 I am writing on behalf of Monarch Mountain in support of the proposed Supportive comment. Project Monarch Pass Vegetation Management Project. While these tactics are helping to protect our infrastructure, a larger plan such as the Monarch Pass Vegetation Management Project must be considered for the overall health of the forest and improved margin of safety for our operations here on Monarch Pass. The proposed project is an excellent step towards mitigating the beetle infested tree issues here on the pass and helping to maintain a viable ski area business here at Monarch.
    [Show full text]
  • Parks and Recreation Master Plan
    Parks and Recreation Master Plan Town of Poncha Springs, Colorado December 2011 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Adoption Resolution Adoption Resolution i Parks and Recreation Master Plan Acknowledgments Acknowledgments Acknowledgments The Poncha Springs Parks and Recreation Master Plan would not have been possible without time generously donated by members of the community, Poncha Springs’ Board of Trustees, Planning & Zoning Commission and Staff members. The following participants are individually recognized for their participation in this planning process: Board of Trustees Planning & Zoning Commission Mark Thonhoff, Mayor Ken MacNicol Aaron Kroschel, Mayor Pro-Tem Ben Scanga Rick Roberts, Trustee Steve Rust Galen Angelo, Trustee Mark Thonhoff Darrell Donahoo, Trustee Bret Collyer Ron Slaughter, Trustee Becky Massey, Alternate Bret Collyer, Trustee Town Administrator Jerry L’Estrange Staff Dee Miller, Director of Planning Diana Heeney, CMC/Treasurer Greg Smith, Director of Public Works Wendel Stephen, Public Works Crew Brian Martinez, Public Works Crew Brad Redmiles, Town Attorney Consultant Team Matt Farrar [email protected] Kelly Zappia [email protected] ii Parks and Recreation Master Plan Table of Contents Table of Contents Adoption Resolution........................................................................................................................................................................ i Acknowledgments...........................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Upper Arkansas River Valley Region, North-Central Colorado
    Geologic Map of the Upper Arkansas River Valley Region, North-Central Colorado Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3382 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover front. View toward the southwest from the valley of the Arkansas River to Mount Elbert (middle skyline), the highest peak in the Sawatch Range as well as the highest in the State of Colorado. Sagebrush-covered terraces barely visible at the bottom of the photograph are underlain by outwash gravel of the Bull Lake glaciation. The tree-covered area, near the western margin of photograph, includes moraines composed of tills of the Pinedale, Bull Lake, and pre-Bull Lake age. Photograph by Ralph R. Shroba, September 18, 2011. Cover back. Bighorn sheep on a large outcrop of Langhoff Gulch Granite, about 5 km north of the town of Granite, Colo. Photograph by K.S. Kellogg, July 2013. Geologic Map of the Upper Arkansas River Valley Region, North-Central Colorado By Karl S. Kellogg, Ralph R. Shroba, Chester A. Ruleman, Robert G. Bohannon, William C. McIntosh, Wayne R. Premo, Michael A. Cosca, Richard J. Moscati, and Theodore R. Brandt Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3382 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior RYAN K. ZINKE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey William H. Werkheiser, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2017 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 https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.
    [Show full text]
  • South Arkansas River Stream Health Assessment Executive Summary This Study Is a Holistic Stream Health Assessment of the South Arkansas River
    South Arkansas River Stream Health Assessment Executive summary This study is a holistic stream health assessment of the South Arkansas River. It builds upon prior work by the South Arkansas County Road 107 to confluence Watershed Coalition to identify conservation and restoration potential on the 1.9 km reach through Salida from County Road December 18, 2020 107 downstream to the confluence with the Arkansas. This reach is highly modified for past and current land and water uses. Flow regime is significantly diminished due to upstream water diversions. The stream is channelized and often deeply Central Colorado Conservancy, Salida entrenched. Most of stream corridor was converted for ranching and agriculture in the 1800s which is also when the major Trout Unlimited, Collegiate Peaks Chapter roads, and rail lines were built across it. Nowadays, the 150-year-old valley-bottom ranching uses are giving way to urbanization. EcoMetrics, Buena Vista Most of the riverscape has become incrementally constrained by infrastructure and development, leaving less room for Round River Design, Salida ecosystem function. In its static and greatly simplified state, with a shrunken corridor, narrowed floodplain, and diminished Supported by: Gillilan and Associates, Buena Vista flows, riverscape health and resilience are waning. Composite stream health scores on the reach range from C (significantly impaired) to D+ (severely impaired). Purpose and scope Opportunities to improve stream health and resilience depend upon the ability to reverse or mitigate these impacts, the causes of impairment, to restore natural ecosystem processes and give back some space where these processes can operate. The best This study is a holistic riverscape health assessment of a 1.9 km reach of the South Arkansas River from prospect for meaningful improvement is on the segment of the old Vandeveer Ranch owned by the City of Salida plus the County Road 107 to the confluence with the Arkansas River east of Salida.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Land Trust of the Upper Arkansas Grant Amount
    LAND TRUST OF THE UPPER ARKANSAS GRANT AMOUNT - $3,837 PROJECT FINAL REPORT (12/1/13 to 8/1/15) INITIAL MONITORING OF WATER QUALITY ON THE SOUTH ARKANSAS RIVER INTRODUCTION The purpose of this grant was to provide support for sampling water quality along the South Arkansas River in Chaffee County, Colorado. The South Arkansas River is a major tributary of the Upper Arkansas River that flows through Bighorn Sheep Canyon into the plains near Pueblo, Colorado. The South Arkansas River starts from the higher elevations of the Collegiate Peaks Range at Monarch Pass and flows through the Town of Poncha Springs and then the City of Salida before merging with the Upper Arkansas River. As of 2013, the South Arkansas River had not been the focus of water quality evaluation or any major protection or restoration work. The Land Trust of the Upper Arkansas (LTUA) has committed its resources and begun work to change this picture. In partnership with the Collegiate Peaks Anglers Chapter of Trout Unlimited, LTUA created the South Arkansas Watershed Coalition to help restore in- stream, riparian, and water quality characteristics important for people and wildlife. The coalition found funding and contracted for a watershed assessment of the South Arkansas River, including preliminary measurements of water quality. The present grant helped the coalition continue water quality data gathering for 18 additional months. The data collected provide a baseline against which to evaluate changes in water quality over time as well as any changes resulting from river restoration projects. Overall, the data collection supported by this grant has helped the Land Trust prepare to evaluate the results of restoration projects; and, the data will be used as input on additional needs for work on the South Arkansas River and its environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Code of Colorado Regulations
    DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Division of Wildlife CHAPTER 0 - GENERAL PROVISIONS 2 CCR 406-0 [Editor’s Notes follow the text of the rules at the end of this CCR Document.] ARTICLE I - DEFINITIONS #000 - The following definitions supplement the statutory definitions found in the Wildlife Act including, but not limited to, those definitions found in section 33-1-102, C.R.S. A. General Definitions Including Manner of Take Definitions 1. "Aggregate" when applied to bag and possession limits, means the total number of species which are covered by such bag and possession limits. Any combination of the species may be possessed up to the total number established as the aggregate bag and possession limits. 2. "Archery" means the use of a hand-held bow. 3. "Bag Limit" means the maximum number of wildlife which may be taken in a single day during an established open season. This includes any wildlife which are consumed or donated during the same day they were legally taken. The terms "bag limit," "daily bag" and "bag" are considered to have the same meaning. 4. "Baiting" means the placing, exposing, depositing, distributing, or scattering of any salt, mineral, grain, or other feed so as to constitute a lure, attraction or enticement for wildlife. 5. "Crossbow" means a bow which is attached at a right angle to a stock with a mechanical mechanism for holding the bow string in a cocked position and fired from the shoulder. 6. “Feral Hog” means any species or hybrid of species from the family Suidae (European boar, Eurasian boar, Russian boar, feral hog) or the family Tayassuidae (Javelina and peccary), which possesses one or more morphological characteristic distinguishing it from domestic swine including, but not limited to, an elongated snout, visible tusks, muscular shoulders with small hams and short loins, coarse hair, or a predominant ridge of hair along its back.
    [Show full text]