REP24228 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-8- are available on Figure 21 and in Table 33 are not useful for analysis of stream gains/losses and the seasonal variations thereof within the stream reaches that are monitored, and adequate flow data is not available for comparison with upstream and downstream water quality. However, Empire Energy Corporation has entered into an agreement with the USGS to take over the operation of all surface water gaging stations. Monitoring was begun by the USGS in February 1984, and the 1984 Annual Hydrologic Report should contain a more complete description and record of flows in these rivers. 2.2 Surface Water Quali 2.2.1 Williams Fork River Water quality monitoring was conducted at upstream and downstream monitoring sites (Sites WF-1 and WF-2, respectively) on the Williams Fork River during 1983. A summary of the 1983 field parameters for these sites is presented in Table 34. Summaries of the 1983 full suite water quality analyses and cumulative summaries of water quality parameters are presented in Tables 39 through 42. From the data presented in these tables, no significant changes are evident in overall water quality from upstream to downstream sample sites or with time. Water quality of The Williams Fork River is generally good with mean TDS concentrations at both upstream and downstream sites only slightly greater then 300 mg/L. 2.2.2 Yampa River Water quality monitoring of the Yampa River was conducted upstream and downstream of the confluence with the Williams Fork River (Sites Y-2 and Y-l, respectively) during 1983. A summary of the 1983 field parameters for these sites is presented in Table 34. Summaries of the 1983 full suite water quality analyses and cumulative summaries of water quality parameters are presented in Tables 35 through 38. Again, little change in overall water quality is noted from upstream to downstream sampling sites or with time. The slight increase in mean TDS concentration over the period of record from upstream to downstream sites (243 mg/L to 263 mg/L in Tables 35 and 37, respectively) may be due to the influence of mixing with Williams Fork River water, which is slightly more saline as described above.