DOCSLIB.ORG

Ambient Surface Water Quality of Rivers and Streams in the Upper Gila Basin Water Year 2000

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ambient Surface Water Quality of Rivers and Streams in the Upper Gila Basin Water Year 2000 Ambient Surface Water Quality of Rivers and Streams in the Upper Gila Basin Water Year 2000 By Doug McCarty, Steve Pawlowski, and Patti Spindler Maps by Lisa Rowe and Doug McCarty Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Open File Report 02-04 Water Quality Division Hydrologic Support and Assessment Section Surface Water Monitoring and Standards Unit 1110 W. Washington St. Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Credits Watershed Sample Planning: Steve Pawlowski, Lee Johnson, Kyle Palmer, and Roland Williams Field Sampling: Lee Johnson, Doug McCarty, Kyle Palmer, and Roland Williams Technical Advisory: Susan Fitch, Patti Spindler, and Douglas Towne Report Review: Lin Lawson, Kyle Palmer, Steve Pawlowski, Patti Spindler, Linda Taunt, and Douglas Towne Photo Compilation: Rebecca Followill Editorial Assistance: Steve Franchuk TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT: Ambient Surface Water Quality of Rivers and Streams in the Upper Gila Basin, Water Year 2000 ..........................................7 1.0 ADEQ SURFACE WATER MONITORING PROGRAM .......................................9 1.1 Purpose and Scope .........................................................9 1.2 SWMSU Monitoring Programs...............................................10 1.3 Sampling Sites ............................................................10 1.4 Monitoring Duration and Frequency .......................................... 11 1.5 Sample Collection......................................................... 12 1.6 Sample Analysis and Target Analytes ......................................... 13 1.7 Quality Assurance ......................................................... 14 2.0 THE REGION: UPPER GILA RIVER BASIN ............................................... 16 2.1 Physiographic Provinces and Ecoregions ....................................... 16 2.2 Hydrography............................................................. 17 2.3 Climate ................................................................. 18 2.4 Geologic Characterization................................................... 18 2.5 Land Ownership .......................................................... 19 2.6 Land Uses............................................................... 19 2.7 Cities and Towns.......................................................... 20 3.0 PREVIOUS WATER QUALITY STUDIES ................................................ 24 4.0 WATER DISCHARGE AND QUALITY CHARACTERIZATION .................................. 26 4.1 Flow Conditions in the Upper Gila Basin, Water Year 2000 ........................ 26 4.2 General Water Chemistry................................................... 31 4.3 General Water Quality of the Main Stem Gila River .............................. 36 4.3.1 Chemical Differences Between Solomon and Calva ...................... 36 4.4 Selected Physical Parameter Ranges by Stream.................................. 38 4.5 Nutrients................................................................ 38 4.6 Water Quality Standards Violations ........................................... 40 5.0 ANALYSES ..................................................................... 42 5.1 Parameter Level Covariation ................................................ 42 5.2 Statistical Analysis of Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids Data................... 44 5.2.1 Soil Hydrologic Groups ............................................ 44 5.2.2 Average Soil Erodibility Factor ...................................... 47 5.2.3 Upper Layer Soil Erodibility Factor ................................... 49 5.2.4 Conclusions...................................................... 49 5.3 Statistical Analysis of Geologic Setting and General Water Chemistry................ 52 5.4 Statistical Analysis of Land Use and Water Quality Data .......................... 54 6.0 BIOASSESSMENTS IN THE UPPER GILA RIVER BASIN ..................................... 58 6.1 Introduction .............................................................. 58 6.2 Results.................................................................. 59 6.2.1 Spring Bioassessments ............................................. 59 6.2.1.1 Geographic analysis of spring samples, 1992-2000 ............... 60 6.2.2 Fall Bioassessments ............................................... 63 6.3 Causes and Sources ........................................................ 64 6.4 Sediment impacts to cold water macroinvertebrate community structure .............. 65 6.5 Discussion............................................................... 66 7.0 SUMMARY ...................................................................... 68 8.0 REFERENCES .................................................................. 71 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. San Francisco River near Martinez Ranch north of Clifton............................9 Figure 2. Site Establishment on the Blue River ........................................... 11 Figure 3. Bonita Creek riparian corridor. ................................................ 16 Figure 4. Water Quality Monitoring Sites, Upper Gila Basin WY 2000 ........................ 21 Figure 5. Geologic map of Upper Gila Watershed.......................................... 22 Figure 6. Land Ownership in the Upper Gila River Basin ................................... 23 Figure 7. Gila River near Duncan, March 2000. ........................................... 28 Figure 8. Gila River near Duncan, September 2000. ....................................... 28 Figure 9. Monthly flow averages vs. WY2000 flow for the Blue River near Clifton. .............. 29 Figure 10. Monthly flow averages vs. WY2000 flow for the San Francisco River near Clifton . ..... 29 Figure 11. Monthly flow averages vs. WY2000 flow for the Gila River near Clifton. ............. 30 Figure 12. Monthly flow averages vs. WY 2000 flow for the Gila River near Solomon. ........... 30 Figure 13. Piper trilinear diagram of water chemistry for the Upper Gila watershed, WY 2000. ..... 32 Figure 14. Water Chemistry Types, Upper Gila Basin sampling sites.......................... 34 Figure 15. Median Water Hardness by site, Upper Gila basin WY 2000. ....................... 35 Figure 16. Upper Gila Nutrient Dot Density Diagram. ..................................... 39 Figure 17. Exceedances as a percentage of total samples .................................... 40 Figure 18. Metal Detections as percentage of all metals sampled, Upper Gila WY 2000 ........... 40 Figure 19. Number of Metal Detections by Analyte........................................ 40 Figure 20. Metals Exceedances as Percentage of All Metals Sampled, Upper Gila WY 2000 ........ 41 Figure 21. Bonita Creek down-cutting near Gila confluence.................................. 44 Figure 22. State Soils Geographic Database Soils by Hydrologic Group ........................ 45 Figure 23. State Soil Geographic Database Soils by K (Soil Erodibility) Factor. ................. 46 Figure 24. Stream turbidity and the role of soils........................................... 47 Figure 25. State Soils Geographic Database by Upper Layer K (Soil Erodibility) Factor. .......... 48 Figure 26. Upper Gila turbidity exceedances, WY 2000 .................................... 51 Figure 27. Forest uses land-use classification. ............................................ 55 Figure 28. Number and percent of warm water IBI scores in each scoring category for Upper Gila River Basin sites, spring 1992-2000. ......................................................... 59 Figure 29. Number and percent of cold water IBI scores in each scoring category, spring 1992-2000. 5 9 Figure 30. IBI warm water scoring categories, spring 1992-2000 . ............................ 61 Figure 31. IBI cold water scoring categories, spring 1992-2000 .............................. 62 Figure 32. Number and percent of warm water IBI scores in each category, Fall 1996-98. .......... 63 Figure 33. Number and percent of cold water IBI scores in each category, Fall 1996-98. ........... 63 Figure 34. Causes of impairment of Upper Gila macroinvertebrate samples, spring 1992-2000. .... 64 Figure 35. Sources of impairment to Upper Gila macroinvertebrate samples, spring 1992-2000. .... 64 Figure 36. Comparison of macroinvertebrate community structure in cold water, unimpacted versus sediment impacted streams from the Upper Gila, spring 1992-2000. ..................... 66 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Water chemistry types for Upper Gila sampling sites. .............................33 Table 2. Comparison of Median Values of Major Ionic Species and Selected Other Parameters for USGS Calva and Solomon Sites. ..................................................37 Table 3. Kruskal-Wallis Statistical Test Results for Geologic Significance ....................53 Table 4. Kruskal-Wallis Statistical Test Results for Land Use Classifications ...................57 Table 5. Scoring categories for warm water and cold water IBI scores in Arizona. ................ 58 Table 6. Ranges and means of index of biological integrity scores for warm and cold water macroinvertebrate samples collected from the Upper Gila River Basin across various seasons and years, 1992-2000. ............................................................ 60 Table 7. Mean metric scores for seven cold water metrics at sediment impaired and at unimpaired sites in the Upper Gila River Basin, 1992-2000. ........................................... 65 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Upper Gila Water Quality Sampling Sites ................................... 75 Appendix B. QC Data
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dolores River Restoration Partnership: a Private/Public Collaboration Dolores River Restoration Partnership
    DOLORES RIVER RESTORATION PARTNERSHIP: A PRIVATE/PUBLIC COLLABORATION DOLORES RIVER RESTORATION PARTNERSHIP • TIMELINE OF PARTNERSHIP • VISION AND GOALS OF PARTNERSHIP • WHY HAS THE DRRP BEEN SUCH A SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIP? • WHY THIS PARTNERSHIP HAS BEEN IMPORTANT TO THE BLM ORIGINS AND HISTORY OF DRRP • INITIAL RIPARIAN WORK ON SAN MIGUEL RIVER IN EARLY 2000’S – LED BY TNC, PRECURSOR TO THE DRRP. • 2009 – TNC AWARDED CONTRACT TO TAMARISK COALITION TO DEVELOP A STRATEGY FOR THE DOLORES RIVER (DR-RAP) • 2010 - DR-RAP FINALIZED • 2010 - FIRST MOU SIGNED • 2010 – FIRST BLM ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT • 2012 – AGO BLUE RIVERS DESIGNATION • 2015 – TRANSITION PLAN FINALIZED • 2015 – DOLORES RIVER HEALTHY LANDS FOCAL AREA • 2015 – SECOND MOU SIGNED • 2016 – SECOND BLM ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT DOLORES RIVER RESTORATION ACTION PLAN (DR-RAP) 1. IDENTIFIED A VISION: “A THRIVING DOLORES RIVER SYSTEM THAT IS ECOLOGICALLY, SOCIALLY, AND ECONOMICALLY SUSTAINABLE IN A MULTIUSE CONTEXT.” “A DOLORES RIVER WATERSHED DOMINATED BY NATIVE VEGETATION, WHERE THE THREATS FROM TAMARISK AND OTHER ASSOCIATED INVASIVE SPECIES HAVE BEEN MITIGATED AND THE RIPARIAN AREAS OF THE WATERSHED CONTINUE TO BECOME MORE NATURALLY FUNCTIONING, SELF-SUSTAINING, DIVERSE, AND RESILIENT OVER TIME.” DRRP MANAGEMENT GOALS Significantly increase the number of sustainable, healthy riparian plant Ecologic communities while reducing those dominated by tamarisk and other invasive, non-native plant species. Develop a professional, competitive, and efficient work force; improve Social aesthetic enjoyment;
    [Show full text]
  • The Lower Gila Region, Arizona
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HUBERT WORK, Secretary UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, Director Water-Supply Paper 498 THE LOWER GILA REGION, ARIZONA A GEOGBAPHIC, GEOLOGIC, AND HTDBOLOGIC BECONNAISSANCE WITH A GUIDE TO DESEET WATEEING PIACES BY CLYDE P. ROSS WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1923 ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAT BE PROCURED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. AT 50 CENTS PEE COPY PURCHASER AGREES NOT TO RESELL OR DISTRIBUTE THIS COPT FOR PROFIT. PUB. RES. 57, APPROVED MAT 11, 1822 CONTENTS. I Page. Preface, by O. E. Melnzer_____________ __ xr Introduction_ _ ___ __ _ 1 Location and extent of the region_____._________ _ J. Scope of the report- 1 Plan _________________________________ 1 General chapters _ __ ___ _ '. , 1 ' Route'descriptions and logs ___ __ _ 2 Chapter on watering places _ , 3 Maps_____________,_______,_______._____ 3 Acknowledgments ______________'- __________,______ 4 General features of the region___ _ ______ _ ., _ _ 4 Climate__,_______________________________ 4 History _____'_____________________________,_ 7 Industrial development___ ____ _ _ _ __ _ 12 Mining __________________________________ 12 Agriculture__-_______'.____________________ 13 Stock raising __ 15 Flora _____________________________________ 15 Fauna _________________________ ,_________ 16 Topography . _ ___ _, 17 Geology_____________ _ _ '. ___ 19 Bock formations. _ _ '. __ '_ ----,----- 20 Basal complex___________, _____ 1 L __. 20 Tertiary lavas ___________________ _____ 21 Tertiary sedimentary formations___T_____1___,r 23 Quaternary sedimentary formations _'__ _ r- 24 > Quaternary basalt ______________._________ 27 Structure _______________________ ______ 27 Geologic history _____ _____________ _ _____ 28 Early pre-Cambrian time______________________ .
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior U.S
    United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021-4951 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 FAX: (602) 242-2513 In Reply Refer To: AESO/SE 22410-2007-F-0196 January 29, 2009 Memorandum To: Field Manager, Yuma Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, Yuma, Arizona From: Field Supervisor Subject: Biological Opinion for the Yuma Field Office Resource Management Plan Thank you for your request for formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544), as amended (Act). Your request for formal consultation regarding effects of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Yuma Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) was dated November 26, 2007, and received by us on November 27, 2007. At issue are impacts that may result from the RMP on the following federally-listed species: • razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) and its critical habitat; • desert tortoise – Mohave Desert population (Gopherus agassizii); • Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis); and, • southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). We concur with your effects determination of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” for the Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americanus sonoriensis). Our rationale is presented in Appendix A. The November 26, 2007, memorandum also requested concurrence regarding your determination that implementation of the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to contribute to the need to list the candidate western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). Other than the applicable conservation measures included in the proposed action (Appendix B), this species is not addressed in this biological opinion (BO).
    [Show full text]
  • Figure 12B-01. Mountainous Volcanic Region
    108°W 106°W F Ancestral ron t Rang LARIMER Uinta Sand Upl e ift Little Snake River Wash Ba North Platte River MOFFAT s Yampa River in JACKSON Park-Gore Range Axial ROUTT Ba s in Up li h ft rc as A ek e Dougl Cr White River GRAND 40°N Whi EXPLANATION RIO BLANCO 40°N te Ri Neogene Volcanics ver Upli Neogene Sediments ft Paleogene Volcanics Eagle River Blue River Paleocene-Cretaceous Intrusives Piceance Basin Roaring ForkCentral River Colorado TroughEAGLE Cretaceous Seaway Sediment GARFIELD Eagle River Sawatch Range Aquifers SUMMIT Mesozoic Sediment Aquifers Ancestral Rockies Basins Colorado River Precambrian Basement PITKIN Arkansas River East Muddy Creek Mountainous Region MESA LAKE PARK Unc Mountainous Valleys ompa ghre Up Colorado Plateaus Region lif DELTA t Laramide Basin Outlines Laramide Uplift Axis Uncompaghre Uplift G un Taylor River CHAFFEE nison Laramide Basin Axis GUNNISON Upl Ancestral Rockies Uplift Axis Uncompahgre River South Arkansas River ift Ancestral Rockies Basin Axis Paradox Basin FREMONT MONTROSE San Lui CUSTER s OURAY Up San Miguel River li ft 38°N SAN MIGUEL SAGUACHE 38°N Animas River HINSDALE DOLORES SAN JUAN Rio Grande MINERAL ag Dolores River n S West Dolores River ua J RIO GRANDE ALAMOSA e San MONTEZUMA n Dom Jua Archuleta Anticlinorium San Los Pinos River LA PLATA COSTILLA San Juan Piedra River Basin CONEJOS Tusas Uplift COSTILLA ARCHULETA COSTILLA 108°W 106°W 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Geology modified from Tweto (1979); structural features from Hemborg (1996). 0 10 20 30 40 50 Kilometers Figure 12b-01.
    [Show full text]
  • Roundtail Chub Repatriated to the Blue River
    Volume 1 | Issue 2 | Summer 2015 Roundtail Chub Repatriated to the Blue River Inside this issue: With a fish exclusion barrier in place and a marked decline of catfish, the time was #TRENDINGNOW ................. 2 right for stocking Roundtail Chub into a remote eastern Arizona stream. New Initiative Launched for Southwest Native Trout.......... 2 On April 30, 2015, the Reclamation, and Marsh and Blue River. A total of 222 AZ 6-Species Conservation Department stocked 876 Associates LLC embarked on a Roundtail Chub were Agreement Renewal .............. 2 juvenile Roundtail Chub from mission to find, collect and stocked into the Blue River. IN THE FIELD ........................ 3 ARCC into the Blue River near bring into captivity some During annual monitoring, Recent and Upcoming AZGFD- the Juan Miller Crossing. Roundtail Chub for captive led Activities ........................... 3 five months later, Additional augmentation propagation from the nearest- Department staff captured Spikedace Stocked into Spring stockings to enhance the genetic neighbor population in Eagle Creek ..................................... 3 42 of the stocked chub, representation of the Blue River Creek. The Aquatic Research some of which had travelled BACK AT THE PONDS .......... 4 Roundtail Chub will be and Conservation Center as far as seven miles Native Fish Identification performed later this year. (ARCC) held and raised the upstream from the stocking Workshop at ARCC................ 4 offspring of those chub for Stockings will continue for the location. future stocking into the Blue next several years until that River. population is established in the Department biologists conducted annual Blue River and genetically In 2012, the partners delivered monitoring in subsequent mimics the wild source captive-raised juvenile years, capturing three chub population.
    [Show full text]
  • Akimel O'odham
    Akimel O’odham - Pee Posh OUR COMMUNITY OUR FUTURE Governor Lieutenant Governor William Rhodes Jennifer Allison-Ray ANew Direction CONTENTS www.gric.nsn.us | FALL 2007 4 Community Profi le 13 Tribal Government + Executive Offi ce 5 History + Legislative Offi ce + Judicial Offi ce + Pre-History + Early Contact 16 Community Portfolio + 19th and 20th Centuries 9 Water Settlement 17 Tribal Enterprises 10 Tribal Culture 23 Tribal Community 27 Tribal Districts View of Sacaton Mountains from Olberg Gila River farms - District 2, Blackwater Bridge District 2 A MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR We welcome you to experience the rug- ged, awe-inspiring vistas of the South- west and the rich heritage of the Akimel O’odham (Pima) and Pee-Posh (Mari- copa). Historically, the strength of our culture has been the community spirit, industriousness, and maintaining our traditions and languages. Today, we con- tinue to face the challenge of preserving these core values while also meeting the demands of a rapidly changing world. Throughout Gila River’s history, our tribe has made innumerable contribu- tions and will continue to play an inte- gral role in the decades ahead. Governor William R. Rhodes 5 COMMUNITYFACTSHEET COMMUNITY PROFILE The Gila River Indian Community is located on 372,000 acres in south-central Arizona, south of Phoenix, Tempe, and Chandler. The reservation was established by an act of Congress in 1859. The Tribal administrative offi ces and departments are located in Sacaton, and serve residents throughout the seven community districts. The Gila River casinos are both owned and managed by the Gila River Indian Com- munity.
    [Show full text]
  • WATER USE Flow Regimes for In-Basin Water Users Are Reviewed
    Water Users and Recreation Appendix D WATER USE Flow regimes for in-basin water users are reviewed in this appendix. Water users include irrigators, municipalities and industry, and recreationalists. Flows include a wide range of parameters, affected by a wide range of uses and in some cases, such as recreation, may be somewhat subjective. The following sections include parameters, and approaches or methods to estimate these flow requirements. Much of the information presented herein was developed and presented in the Upper Colorado River Basin Study, Phase II, Final Report, May 29, (HRC 2003), herein referred to as the ‘UPCO Report’. WATER USE BY MUNICIPALITIES, INDUSTRY AND IRRIGATORS Water use as a parameter for this analysis and in terms of stream flow management focuses on two issues. The first is the physical limitations associated with stream flow that may affect the ability of a local water user to retrieve or use water. The second issue is the water user’s impact on flows in the stream relative to maintaining recommended flows. These issues are discussed in the following sections. Physical Limitations Irrigators: In general, most users are experiencing some difficulty in retrieving or using water, especially during the recent drought years. Many irrigators are constructing make-shift cobble dams to divert flows. In 2002 it was reported that the KB ditch was shut down voluntarily because the diversion was taking the majority of flows out of the Colorado River, leaving it in a dewatered condition. Pumping for irrigation is also limited by the available supply as well as by nuisance clogging from algae growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Pinal County, Arizona
    Profile: Pinal County, Arizona Pinal County was formed from portions of Maricopa and Pima counties on Feb. 1, 1875, in response to the petition of residents of the upper Gila River Valley, as "Act #1" of the Eighth Territorial Legislature. Florence, established in 1866, was designated and has remained the county seat. The county encompasses 5,374 square miles, of which 4.5 are water. In both economy and geography, Pinal County has two distinct regions. The eastern portion is characterized by mountains with elevations to 6,000 feet and copper mining. The western area is primarily low desert valleys and irrigatedagriculture. The communities of Mammoth, Oracle, San Manuel, and Kearny have traditionally been active in copper mining, smelting, milling and refining. Arizona City, Eloy, Maricopa, Picacho, Red Rock and Stanfield have agriculture based-economies. Apache Junction, Arizona City, Coolidge, Eloy, and particularly Casa Grande have diversified their economic base to include manufacturing, trade and services. This expansion and diversification has been facilitated by their location in the major growth corridor between Phoenix and Tucson near the junction of I-10 and I-8, except for Apache Junction, which is to the east of burgeoning Mesa. Most of the southern ¾ of Pinal County and a small area in Apache Junction are designated as Enterprise Zones. The county is home to many interesting attractions, including the Old West Highway 60, Casa Grande Ruins National Monument, Picacho Peak State Park, Picacho Reservoir, Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum, Oracle State Park and Columbia University’s Biosphere II, McFarland State Park, Lost Dutchman State Park, Skydive Arizona, the world’s largest skydiving drop-zone, and the Florence Historical District, with 120 buildings on the National Register.
    [Show full text]
  • Issues Concerning Phreatophyte Clearing, Revegetation, and Water Savings Along the Gila River, Arizona William L
    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Faculty Publications Geography, Department of 4-1-1984 Issues Concerning Phreatophyte Clearing, Revegetation, and Water Savings Along the Gila River, Arizona William L. Graf University of South Carolina - Columbia, [email protected] Duncan T. Patten Bonnie Turner Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.sc.edu/geog_facpub Part of the Geography Commons Publication Info 1984, pages Cover-69. This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Geography, Department of at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ISSUES CONCERNING PHREATOPHYTE CLEARING, REVEGETATION, AND WATER-SAVINGS ALONG THE GILA RIVER, ARIZONA W.... LGraf Duncan T. Patten Bonnie Turner Submitted by the Forum In partial fu1fliiment of U. S.. Army Corps of Engineer. Contract DACW09-83-M-2823 April 1984 -------- ISSUES CONCERNING PHREATOPHYTE CLEARING, REVEGETATION, AND WATER SAVINGS ALONG THE GILA RIVER, ARIZONA William L. Graf Department of Geography Duncan T. Patten Center for Environmental Studies Bonnie Turner Center for Environmental Studies Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona 85287 A report submitted in partial fulfillment of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Contract DACW09-83-M-2623. April 1984 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A detailed analysis of the published results of the U. S. Geological Survey Phreatophyte Project conducted in the area of interest for the Corps of Engineers Camelsback Dam study provides the following results. It appears that the figure of 18.53 inches per year for water savings from phreatophyte clearing along the Gila River in southeast Arizona should not be used for predicting potential water salvage because of large sampling errors, measurement errors, and the inherent variability of the natural processes of evapotranspiration.
    [Show full text]
  • Stakeholders Finalize Management Plan for Upper Colorado River
    News Release BLM Colorado, Colorado River Valley Field Office, Kremmling Field Office U.S. Forest Service, White River National Forest July 20, 2020 Contacts: Roy Smith, Bureau of Land Management, (303) 239-3940 Kay Hopkins, White River National Forest (970) 945-3265 Stakeholders finalize management plan for Upper Colorado River GLENWOOD SPRINGS, Colo. – The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service have formally accepted the final plan from a group of Upper Colorado River stakeholders that seeks to protect recreational fishing- and boating-related values along the Upper Colorado River from Gore Canyon to lower Glenwood Canyon. The Upper Colorado River Wild and Scenic Stakeholder Group Management Plan represents more than twelve years of work by 26 entities with diverse interests on the Upper Colorado River, from municipal water providers to recreationists. “This diverse group, with seemingly different views for managing the Upper Colorado River, rolled up their sleeves and developed a plan that balances protection of the river with flexibility for water users. The work of this group serves as a model for other flow management efforts across the state,” said White River National Forest Supervisor, Scott Fitzwilliams. “The final plan addresses an arena where federal agencies have very limited authority,” said Larry Sandoval, Colorado River Valley Field Office Manager. “When our federal land management authorities are combined with this cooperative flow management effort, all of the important natural and social values in the river corridor are proactively managed.” In 2008, the stakeholder group formed as the BLM was revising its land use plans to include studies that determined which stretches of the Colorado River had specific values that make them “eligible” for protection under the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Classifications and Numeric Standards for Upper Colorado River Basin and North Platte River
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. November 12, 2020 Regulation No. 33 - Classifications and Numeric Standards for Upper Colorado River Basin and North Platte River Effective March 12, 2020 The following provisions are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes with these few exceptions: EPA has taken no action on: • All segment-specific total phosphorus (TP) numeric standards based on the interim value for river/stream segments with a cold water aquatic life classification (0.11 mg/L TP) or a warm water aquatic life classification (0.17 mg/L TP) • All segment-specific TP numeric standards based on the interim value for lake/reservoir segments with a warm water aquatic life classification (0.083 mg/L TP) Code of Colorado Regulations Secretary of State State of Colorado DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Water Quality Control Commission REGULATION NO. 33 - CLASSIFICATIONS AND NUMERIC STANDARDS FOR UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN AND NORTH PLATTE RIVER (PLANNING REGION 12) 5 CCR 1002-33 [Editor’s Notes follow the text of the rules at the end of this CCR Document.] 33.1 AUTHORITY These regulations are promulgated pursuant to section 25-8-101 et seq. C.R.S., as amended, and in particular, 25-8-203 and 25-8-204.
    [Show full text]
  • Report No. REC-ERC-90-L, “Compilation Report on the Effects
    REC-ERC-SO-1 January 1990 Denver Office U. S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation 7-2090 (4-81) Bureau of Reclamation TECHNICAL REEPORT STANDARD TITLE PAG 3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG ~0. 5. REPORT DATE Compilation Report on the Effects January 1990 of Reservoir Releases on 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE Downstream Ecosystems D-3742 7. AUTHOR(S) 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION E. Cheslak REPORT NO. J. Carpenter REC-ERC-90-1 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. Bureau of Reclamation Denver Office 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. Denver CO 80225 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS Same 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE DIBR 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Microfiche and/or hard copy available at the Denver Office, Denver, Colorado. Ed: RDM 16. ABSTRACT Most of the dams built by the Bureau of Reclamation were completed before environmental regulations such as the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Protection Act, or Toxic Substances Control Act existed. The management and operation of dams was instituted under conditions where the ecology of the downstream habitat was unknown and largely ignored. Changing or modifying structures, flow regimes, and land use patterns are some of the efforts being pursued by the Bureau to reconcile or mitigate the effects of impoundment to comply with these environmental policies and to maximize the potential for recreation, fisheries, and water quality in tailwater habitats for the water resource users. The purpose of this report is to provide a reference document intended to aid in the management, compliance, and problem solving processes necessary to accomplish these goals in Bureau tailwater habitats.
    [Show full text]