U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5048

Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation

Dissolved-Solids Load in Henrys Fork Upstream from 

the Confluence with Antelope Wash, Wyoming, 

Water Years 1970–2009
Cover.
Dissolved-Solids Load in Henrys Fork 

Upstream from the Confluence with 

Antelope Wash, Wyoming, 

Water Years 1970–2009

By Katharine Foster and Terry A. Kenney

Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5048

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: 2010

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, product, or firm names 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:

Foster, K., and Kenney, T.A., 2010, Dissolved-solids load in Henrys Fork upstream from the confluence with Antelope 

Wash, Wyoming, water years 1970–2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5048, 16 p.
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................3

Description of the Study Area ............................................................................................................3

Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................................3

Hydrologic Framework................................................................................................................3

Previous Studies ...................................................................................................................................4

Estimation of Dissolved-Solids Load ..........................................................................................................4

A Case Study Using the Upper Colorado River Basin SPARROW Model, Henrys Fork, 

Wyoming and Utah...........................................................................................................................6

Adjustment of Predicted Dissolved-Solids Load from SPARROW Model for 

Henrys Fork near Manila, Utah .............................................................................................9

Determination of Dissolved-Solids Load for Upper Henrys Fork Basin.....................................12

Distribution of Dissolved-Solids Load by Source at Selected Locations in 

Henrys Fork Basin .................................................................................................................12

Summary........................................................................................................................................................14

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................15

Figures

1. Map showing location of the study area and irrigated lands in the 

upper Henrys Fork Basin, Wyoming and Utah.........................................................................2

2–3. Graphs showing:

2. Daily mean streamflow and discrete values of dissolved-solids 

concentration during water-quality sampling at U.S. Geological 

Survey streamflow-gaging station 09229500, Henrys Fork near 

Manila, Utah, water years 1970–2009...............................................................................5

3. Annual streamflow and annual dissolved-solids load at 

streamflow-gaging station 09229500, Henrys Fork near Manila, 

Utah, water years 1970–2009 .............................................................................................8

Tables

1. Annual streamflow and annual dissolved-solids load at U.S. Geological 

Survey streamflow-gaging station 09229500, Henrys Fork near Manila, 

Utah, water years 1970–2009 ......................................................................................................7

2. Ranked annual streamflow and annual dissolved-solids load from 

streamflow-gaging station 09229500, Henrys Fork near Manila, Utah, 

water years 1970–2009.................................................................................................................9

3. Predicted and adjusted dissolved-solids load from SPARROW model for 

selected locations in the Henrys Fork Basin, Wyoming, water year 1991 ........................10
iv

Conversion Factors and Datums

Multiply By To obtain

Area

acre 0.4047 hectare (ha)

acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km2)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume

acre-feet (acre-ft) 1,233 cubic meter (m3)

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

Mass

ton 0.9072 metric ton

ton per day (ton/d) 0.9072 metric ton per day

tons per year 0.9072 metric tons per year

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Concentrations of dissolved solids in water are given in milligrams per liter (mg/L).

Water year is the 12-month period from October 1 through September 30 and is designated 

by the year in which it ends. For example, the water year ending September 30, 2008, is called 

water year 2008.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AMLE Adjusted Maximum Likelihood Estimation

BOR Bureau of Reclamation

LOADEST LOAD ESTimator computer program

NWIS National Water Information System

ROE residue on evaporation at 180 degrees Celsius

R2 coefficient of determination

S-LOADEST LOAD ESTimator computer program run as an add-on in S-Plus

SOC sum of constituents

SPARROW Spatially Referenced Regression On Watershed attributes

S-PLUS computer-based statistical package

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

4. Dissolved-solids concentration and estimated mean dissolved-solids load 

in streamflow from Antelope Wash, Wyoming, August 2004 to September 2009............11

5. Dissolved-solids concentration and estimated daily dissolved-solids load 

in Peoples Canal, Wyoming, June 2004 to September 2009 ................................................13

6. Estimated dissolved-solids load in Peoples Canal, Wyoming, June 2004 to 

September 2009...........................................................................................................................14
Dissolved-Solids Load in Henrys Fork Upstream from the 

Confluence with Antelope Wash, Wyoming, Water Years 

1970–2009

By Katharine Foster and Terry A. Kenney

Abstract

Annual dissolved-solids load at the mouth of Henrys 

Fork was estimated by using data from U.S. Geological 

Survey streamflow-gaging station 09229500, Henrys Fork 

near Manila, Utah. The annual dissolved-solids load for 

water years 1970–2009 ranged from 18,300 tons in 1977 to 

123,300 tons in 1983. Annual streamflows for this period 

ranged from 14,100 acre-feet in 1977 to 197,500 acre-feet in 

1983. The 25-percent trimmed mean dissolved-solids load for 

water years 1970–2009 was 44,300 tons per year at Henrys 

Fork near Manila, Utah.

Previous simulations using a SPAtially Referenced 

Regression On Watershed attributes (SPARROW) model for 

dissolved solids specific to water year 1991 conditions in the 

Upper Colorado River Basin predicted an annual dissolvedsolids load of 25,000 tons for the Henrys Fork Basin upstream 

from Antelope Wash. On the basis of computed dissolvedsolids load data from Henrys Fork near Manila, Utah, together 

with estimated annual dissolved-solids load from Antelope 

Wash and Peoples Canal, this prediction was adjusted to 

37,200 tons. As determined by simulations with the Upper 

Colorado River Basin SPARROW model, approximately 

56 percent (14,000 tons per year) of the dissolved-solids load 

at Henrys Fork upstream from Antelope Wash is associated 

with the 21,500 acres of irrigated agricultural lands in the 

upper Henrys Fork Basin.

underground shale formations (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2006). Deep percolation can mobilize salts 

found naturally in soils. Therefore, one of the most important 

water-resource issues in the Colorado River Basin is control of 

dissolved solids as water moves downstream though the basin 

(U.S. Department of the Interior, 1999). The term “dissolved 

solids” is synonymous with the terms “salinity” and “salt.” 

Natural processes and anthropogenic activities contribute to 

the dissolved-solids load in Colorado River Basin streams. 

Natural sources of salt include soils, geologic formations, and 

stream channels and banks (U.S. Department of the Interior, 

2003). Agricultural, municipal, and industrial activities are 

potential anthropogenic sources of salt introduced into surface 

water. Agricultural irrigation practices can accelerate the 

dissolution of soluble materials that are present and concentrate salts in soils as plants consume water (Colorado River 

Basin Salinity Control Forum, 2002).

Following the Colorado River Salinity Control Act of 

1974 (Public Law 93–320, amended as Public Law 98–569, 

104–20, 104–127, and 106–459), the Colorado River Basin 

Salinity Control Forum has coordinated the implementation 

of Federal, State, and local salinity control projects (Colorado 

River Basin Salinity Control Forum, 1975). Irrigated agriculture has been the focus of many of these projects because 

changes to infrastructure and irrigation practices can yield 

substantial reductions in the transport of dissolved solids to 

streams (Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, 2002). 

Because of ongoing efforts to assess and control salinity from irrigated lands, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) 

needs to determine dissolved-solids loading to the Henrys 

Fork upstream from the confluence with Antelope Wash for 

irrigated areas of agriculture in Wyoming and Utah (fig. 1). 

To address this need, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 

in cooperation with the BOR, conducted an investigation to 

estimate the mean annual dissolved-solids load associated 

with irrigated agricultural lands in the upper Henrys Fork 

Basin. About 21,500 acres of irrigated lands are in the upper 

Henrys Fork Basin (David Eckhart, Bureau of Reclamation, 

written commun., 2006). Of this total, about 15,900 acres 

are in Sweetwater and Uinta Counties in Wyoming, 

about 4,100 acres are in Summit County, Utah, and about 

1,500 acres are in Daggett County, Utah (fig. 1). 1

Water movement and losses below the root zone of the crop.

Introduction

Irrigated agriculture represents the largest use of water in 

the Colorado River Basin (fig. 1) and contributes the second 

largest amount of dissolved solids to the surface-water system 

following natural sources (Iorns and others, 1965; U.S. 

Department of the Interior, 2003; Kenney and others, 2009). 

The primary cause of salt loading from irrigated lands is deep 

percolation1 of irrigation water through salt-bearing soils and 
8 MILES

0 2 4 6

0 2 4 6

8 KILOMETERS

110°20′ 110°10′ 110°00′ 109°50′ 10

41°10′41°00′40°50′

Geographic features from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 TIGER/Line Files, 2001, 1:100,000Map imagery from Natural Resources Conservation ServiceUniversal Transverse Mercator projectionZone 12North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) 

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

OREGON IDA

Ma

EXPLANATION

Study area boundaryStreamflow-gaging station and number

Irrigated land from Jeff Lewis (Natural  Resources Conservation Service,  written commun., 2007)

WYOMING

UTAH

WYOMING

UTAH

Daggett County

Summit County

Sweetwater County

Uinta County

Duchesne County

Daggett County

Summit County

Sweetwater County

Duchesne County

Lonetree

Burntfork

Lonetree

Burntfork

09229500

Water-quality sampling site and number

Antelope

Wash

Henrys

Fork

Henrys

Fork

Henrys

Fork

Henrys

Fork

Uinta County

Uinta

Mountains

Uinta

Mountains

Manila Manila

Peoples Canal Antelope Wash Peoples Canal Antelope Spring Antelope Spring

Antelope Hollow Lucerne Valley Antelope Hollow

South Valley South LucerneValley Valley

410233109440

410244109454901

410233109440

410244109454901

410044109405601 Figure 1. Location of the study area and irrigated lands in the upper 

Henrys Fork Basin, Wyoming and Utah.
Introduction 3

Purpose and Scope

This report presents the results of data analysis used to 

determine the dissolved solids contributed to Henrys Fork 

from the portion of the basin upstream from the confluence 

with Antelope Wash. Estimates of dissolved-solids load based 

on data from USGS streamflow-gaging station 09229500, 

Henrys Fork near Manila, Utah, for water years 1970–2009 

were compared with predicted dissolved-solids load from a 

SPAtially Referenced Regression On Watershed attributes 

(SPARROW) model specific to the Upper Colorado River 

Basin to determine dissolved-solids load and sources of 

dissolved-solids load in the study area.

Description of the Study Area

In this report, the study area is referred to as the upper 

Henrys Fork Basin (fig. 1) and is defined as the basin area of 

Henrys Fork upstream from the confluence of Antelope Wash. 

The study area encompasses parts of Sweetwater and Uinta 

Counties in Wyoming, and Daggett and Summit Counties in 

Utah. The towns of Lonetree and Burntfork, in southwestern 

Wyoming, are in the upper Henrys Fork Basin. Much of the 

climate, geology, surface water, and groundwater have been 

described by Lowham and others (1985), Mason and Miller 

(2004), and Gerner and others (2006).

Geology and Soils

The study area is underlain by sediments that make up 

the early Tertiary-age Wasatch, Green River, and Bridger 

Formations (Love and Christiansen, 1985). These formations 

consist of varied amounts of limestone (marls), shale, sandstone (partly tuffaceous), and mudstone that were deposited in 

lacustrine (Green River Formation) and fluvial (Wasatch and 

Bridger Formations) environments. Most of the land in the 

Wyoming portion of the study area is underlain by the Bridger 

Formation, which weathers into badlands, such as the area 

north of Henrys Fork (Koenig, 1960). Irrigated lands south of 

Henrys Fork are underlain by the Laney Member of the Green 

River Formation (Mason and Miller, 2004). Quaternary-age 

alluvium and colluvial deposits also are present along the 

flood plain of Henrys Fork as well as along smaller tributary 

drainages throughout the study area. These deposits consist 

primarily of sand and gravel that have been transported downstream from the Uinta Mountains.

Soils in the study area are derived from a variety of rock 

types, including shale, sandstone, and mudstone (Schwarz 

and Alexander, 1995). The most common soils in the study 

area are classified within the Luhon-Evanston complex. These 

soils are on 3- to 30-percent slopes, are in the shallow loamy 

ecological site2 and have a slightly sodic horizon (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2004b). Where the Bridger Formation 

crops out, the soils are classified within the Roto-RockinchairRencot complex and the Blazon thin solum-Blazon-Lilsnake 

complex. The Roto-Rockinchair-Rencot complex is derived 

mainly from limestone and sandstone parent material, is on 

1- to 10-percent slopes, and is in the shallow loamy to loamy 

ecological sites. The Blazon thin solum-Blazon-Lilsnake 

complex is derived from weathered shale and sandstone, is on 

2- to 40-percent slopes, and is in the shale and shallow loamy 

ecological site. Both complexes have a slightly sodic horizon 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2004b). Along the flood 

plain of the upper Henrys Fork, soils derived from the alluvial 

sediments are part of the Hagga-Cowestglen association. 

These soils are on 0- to 2-percent slopes. The Hagga component is in the subirrigated ecological site and has a slightly 

sodic horizon, whereas the Cowestglen component is in the 

lowland ecological site and does not have a sodic horizon 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2004b). Therefore, soils 

developed from the Green River and Bridger Formations can 

contribute to salinity loading (Schwarz and Alexander, 1995).

Hydrologic Framework

The surface waters of the study area originate in the 

Uinta Mountains in the southwestern part of the basin and 

flow generally south to north to Henrys Fork then east through 

the study area and eventually discharge into Flaming Gorge 

Reservoir (fig. 1). Because precipitation in the study area is 

low, many streams in the study area are intermittent or ephemeral, with most flows resulting from local and regional snowmelt and rainfall runoff (Mason and Miller, 2004). Henrys 

Fork has the largest flow of any stream in the study area, and 

moderate to large flows are a result of runoff from snowmelt 

in mountainous areas in the northern and southwestern parts 

of the basin (Mason and Miller, 2004). Annual streamflow 

values for the period of record (water years 1929–2009) at 

Henrys Fork near Manila, Utah, range from 11,900 acrefeet (acre-ft) in 1934 to 197,500 acre-ft in 1983. The median 

annual streamflow for the period of record is 51,000 acre-ft, 

and the median annual streamflow for the study period (water 

years 1970–2009) is 49,300 acre-ft. There is a break in the 

period of record from 1994 to 2001 at Henrys Fork near 

Manila, Utah, when the streamflow-gaging station was not in 

operation (USGS National Water Information System, NWIS; 

http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov).

2

An ecological site is distinctive kind of land with specific soil and physical 

characteristics that differs from other kinds of land in its ability to produce 

distinctive kinds and amounts of vegetation, and in its ability to respond 

similarly to management actions and natural disturbances (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 2004a).
4 Dissolved-Solids Load in Henrys Fork Upstream from the Confluence with Antelope Wash, Wyoming

Snowmelt runoff, groundwater inflows, springs, or a 

combination of these sources maintain streamflows throughout most years in perennial reaches; whereas ephemeral 

reaches exist where streamflows generally are less than water 

losses to seepage, evaporation, diversions, or a combination 

of these factors. Antelope Wash originates from Antelope 

Spring in Antelope Hollow and then flows northeast to join 

Henrys Fork (Gerner and others, 2006; fig. 1). Peoples Canal 

diverts streamflow from Henrys Fork and delivers it to the 

Lucerne Valley for irrigation. Although Antelope Wash and 

Peoples Canal are not within the study area, the dissolvedsolids load contributed to Henrys Fork from Antelope Wash 

and the dissolved-solids load diverted into Peoples Canal are 

described in subsequent sections of this report.

Previous Studies

The most recent study of dissolved solids in the Henrys 

Fork Basin was an investigation to determine the amount of 

dissolved solids contributed to Flaming Gorge Reservoir from 

Lucerne Valley, South Valley, Antelope Hollow, and lower 

Henrys Fork near Manila, Utah (Gerner and others, 2006). The 

report includes a description of the occurrence and distribution 

of dissolved solids in water resources in or near the agricultural lands near Manila, Utah, downstream from the confluence of Henrys Fork and Antelope Wash. Some results from 

that study are used in this report.

Kenney and others (2009) documented the methods 

and data used to develop a SPAtially Referenced Regression 

On Watershed attributes (SPARROW) model for dissolved 

solids in the Upper Colorado River Basin for water year 1991. 

Published results include estimates of dissolved-solids load for 

all defined stream reaches in the basin with incremental catchments ranging from less than 1 square mile (mi2

) to 78 mi2. 

The report describes the model-generated coefficients specific 

to their role in calculating dissolved-solids input and stream 

transport, and the applicability of the SPARROW model 

results to other time periods. Limitations and uncertainties 

associated with the model results and interpretation are also 

described.

Estimation of Dissolved-Solids Load

The USGS program LOADEST (Runkle and others, 

2004), which can be run as an add-on program to a computerbased statistics package, S-PLUS (TIBCO Software, Inc., 

2008), was used for estimating dissolved-solids load at 

USGS streamflow-gaging station 09229500, Henrys Fork 

near Manila, Utah, on the basis of data obtained from the 

NWIS (http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov). When the LOADEST 

program is run as an add-on to S-PLUS, it is referred to 

S-LOADEST. The S-LOADEST program is a menu-driven 

version of the LOAD Estimator (LOADEST) FORTRAN 

computer program of Runkel and others (2004) and uses 

values of streamflow and constituent concentration to develop 

regression models in nine different predefined formulations. 

The user then selects the most appropriate model formulated 

by LOADEST by evaluating statistical parameters that relate 

to model performance. The formulated regression model for 

estimating dissolved-solids load from a time series of streamflow data is then used to estimate daily dissolved-solids loads, 

which are aggregated into an annual dissolved-solids load. The 

calibration and estimation procedure used within S-LOADEST 

to estimate dissolved-solid load in Henrys Fork is based on the 

Adjusted Maximum Likelihood Estimation (AMLE) method 

(Cohn, 1988).

Data from Henrys Fork near Manila, Utah, used to 

calibrate the model included daily mean streamflow for water 

years 1970–93 and 2002–09, and 188 discrete water-quality 

samples collected intermittently from October 24, 1969, to 

November 20, 2008 (fig. 2). During water years 1994–2001, 

the streamflow-gaging station at Henrys Fork near Manila, 

Utah, was not in operation (fig. 2). Dissolved-solids concentrations in water-quality samples were analyzed at the USGS 

National Water Quality Laboratory in Lakewood, Colorado, using two analytical methods: (1) sum of constituents 

(SOC) and (2) residue on evaporation at 180 degrees Celsius 

(ROE). The standard analytical techniques for both methods 

are described in Fishman and Friedman (1989). Because of 

the widespread use of ROE analysis for samples collected 

in the Upper Colorado River Basin, ROE was the preferred 

dissolved-solids concentration analysis for this study. When 

ROE data were not available, SOC data were used. Because 

the relation between streamflow and water-quality data 

generally is not linear, S-LOADEST uses natural logarithm 

transformations to improve the model fit and normality of the 

residuals. The selected dissolved-solids regression model for 

Henrys Fork near Manila, Utah, is given by equation 1:

1n L = 4.16 + 0.749 1n Q – 0.127 sin(2πdtime) + 0.072 cos(2πdtime), (1)

where

	 L represents the daily dissolved-solids load, in 

tons per day;

	 Q represents daily mean streamflow, in cubic 

feet per second; and

	 dtime represents decimal time, which is computed 

by dividing the day of the year, numbered 

1 through 365, by 365.

The model in equation 1 is an appropriate model because 

the estimated dissolved-solids load had a large coefficient of 

determination (R2) value and small values of residual variance 

and root mean square error. On the basis of water-quality and 

streamflow data from station 09229500, the R2 value for equation 1 is 0.9699, the estimated residual variance3

 is 0.036, and 

3

Estimated residual variance is the adjusted maximum likelihood estimation 

variance corrected for the number of observations and number of parameters 

in the regression model.
Figure 2. Daily mean streamflow and discrete values of dissolved-solids concentration during water-quality sampling at U.S. Geological Survey 

station 09229500, Henrys Fork near Manila, Utah, water years 1970–2009.

1970 2000 

WATER YEAR

0

250500750

1,0001,250

1500

1,7502,0002,2502,5002,750

Daily mean streamflow (cubic Discrete value of dissolved-so (milligrams per liter)

DAILY MEAN STREAMFLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, AND DISSOLVED-SOLIDS CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

No data

Median (1970–2009)68 cubic feet per second
6 Dissolved-Solids Load in Henrys Fork Upstream from the Confluence with Antelope Wash, Wyoming

the root mean square error is 17 percent. The model shown in 

equation 1 was determined to be the most appropriate model 

for the available data because the period of dissolved-solid 

load estimation (October 1, 1969, to September 30, 1993, 

and May 1, 2001, to November 20, 2008) was extended 

substantially beyond the period containing calibration data 

(October 24, 1969 to July 9, 1986 and May 19, 2008 to 

November 20, 2008). Therefore, no models with annual time 

terms were considered.

Estimated annual dissolved-solids load from the 

S-LOADEST program for each water year are shown in 

table 1 and figure 3. The mean annual mean daily dissolvedsolids load for water years 1970–2009 is 133 tons. The 

95-percent confidence interval for this value ranges from 

127 to 139 tons. The mean annual dissolved-solids load for 

water years 1970–2009 is 48,700 tons, and the median annual 

dissolved-solids load for the same period is 45,400 tons 

(table 1; fig. 3). Annual streamflow ranged from 14,100 acre-ft 

in 1977 to 197,500 acre-ft in 1983.

The annual dissolved-solids load decreased from water 

years 1970–93 to water years 2002–09 (fig. 3). This decrease 

probably is because the period 2002–09 is characterized by 

dry years, whereas the period 1970–93 is characterized by 

wet and dry years (fig. 2). The median streamflow for water 

years 1970–93 is 76 cubic feet per second (ft3/s), whereas 

the median streamflow for water years 2002–09 is 47 ft3/s, 

which is less than the median streamflow of 68 ft3/s for water 

years 1970–2009. Other possible reasons for the decrease in 

dissolved-solids load include changes in land management 

practices, changes in water use, or a combination of these and 

unknown factors.

When data are highly varied, calculation of mean values 

can be more valid when several of the largest and smallest 

values are “trimmed.” The most common method of trimming 

is removing 25 percent of the largest and smallest values, 

resulting in a “trimmed mean” or “25-percent trimmed mean” 

(Helsel and Hirsch, 2002). Values for the annual dissolvedsolids load data were first ranked largest to smallest (table 2). 

The 25-percent trimmed mean was then computed on the 

middle 50 percent of the values. This approach resulted in 

the best estimate of annual load because such estimates are 

not influenced by the most extreme (and perhaps anomalous) 

values (Helsel and Hirsch, 2002). The calculated 25-percent 

trimmed mean is 44,300 tons per year and is used as the 

best estimate of annual dissolved-solids load for water years 

1970–2009.

A Case Study Using the Upper Colorado 

River Basin SPARROW Model, Henrys 

Fork, Wyoming and Utah

The USGS, in cooperation with the BOR and the 

Bureau of Land Management, developed a dissolved-solids 

SPARROW model specific to the Upper Colorado River 

Basin (Kenney and others, 2009). The SPARROW model 

uses a mass-balance approach to examine the production and 

transport of instream constituent mass, or flux, on the basis 

of a nonlinear weighted least-squares regression technique. 

Coefficients for defined contaminant sources, landscape transport characteristics, and aquatic transport characteristics are 

determined through iterative calibration with contaminant load 

from streamflow and water-quality data at stream-monitoring 

sites. The coefficients represent an average condition of the 

role each source term and characteristic play throughout the 

basin of interest, assuming an unbiased distribution of the 

monitoring sites used in model calibration (Kenney and others, 

2009). These coefficients are then applied to the SPARROW 

model, and contaminant load estimates can be generated for 

each of the incremental stream reaches that describe the basin 

of interest.

The SPARROW model was calibrated by using 

dissolved-solids load for water year 1991 at 218 streammonitoring sites throughout the Upper Colorado River Basin 

(Kenney and others, 2009). The prediction error is approximately 51 percent (Kenney and others, 2009). The 11 defined 

sources for the model were 7 geologic source groups, 3 irrigated agricultural land groups, and 1 point-source associated 

with 7 large saline springs and 6 reservoirs. Six landscape 

transport characteristics and terms associated with climate, 

soils, vegetation, and elevation were found to be statistically 

significant in describing the transport of dissolved solids to 

streams in the Upper Colorado River Basin (Kenney and 

others, 2009).

Simulation results from the SPARROW model for the 

Upper Colorado River Basin include estimates of dissolvedsolids load for water year 1991 at more than 10,000 unique 

stream reaches throughout the Upper Colorado River Basin. 

In the model, the 520 mi2 of the Henrys Fork drainage is 

represented by 57 unique stream reaches. Although the Henrys 

Fork drainage basin was included in the SPARROW model, 

estimated dissolved-solids load results for reaches in that basin 
Table 1. Annual streamflow and annual dissolved-solids load at U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station 09229500, 

Henrys Fork near Manila, Utah, water years 1970–2009.

Water year

Annual 

streamflow 

(acre-feet)

Dissolved-solids load

Lower 95-percent 

confidence limit for the 

estimated mean daily load 

(tons/day)

Estimated mean 

daily load 

(tons/day)

Upper 95-percent 

confidence limit for the 

estimated mean daily load 

(tons/day)

Estimated annual 

load 

(tons)

1970 61,900 144 150 156 54,900

1971 98,000 190 199 208 72,600

1972 64,600 138 144 151 52,800

1973 115,000 221 232 243 84,600

1974 54,800 129 135 140 49,100

1975 114,100 195 207 219 75,400

1976 33,400 93 97 101 35,500

1977 14,100 48 50 52 18,300

1978 47,500 99 104 109 38,000

1979 19,100 58 60 63 22,000

1980 55,000 122 127 133 46,700

1981 35,400 92 96 100 35,000

1982 55,100 132 138 144 50,200

1983 197,500 319 338 358 123,300

1984 132,600 258 271 284 99,000

1985 63,400 156 162 169 59,200

1986 88,300 182 190 199 69,400

1987 75,600 168 175 182 63,900

1988 47,600 116 121 126 44,200

1989 19,700 62 65 67 23,600

1990 28,200 73 76 79 27,700

1991 55,900 125 130 136 47,600

1992 51,000 123 128 134 47,000

1993 47,600 116 120 125 44,000

2002 16,300 53 55 58 20,200

2003 34,100 83 87 90 31,600

2004 20,600 64 67 70 24,500

2005 54,200 133 138 144 50,400

2006 30,800 88 91 95 33,400

2007 33,400 90 93 97 34,100

2008 35,400 96 100 104 36,600

2009 45,000 111 115 120 42,100 

Mean 57,700 127 133 139 48,700

Median 49,300 119 124 129 45,400

A Case Study Using the Upper Colorado River Basin SPARROW Model, Henrys Fork, Wyoming and Utah 7
Figure 3. Annual streamflow and annual dissolved-solids load at streamflow-gaging station 09229500, Henrys Fork near Manila, Utah, 

water years 1970–2009.

1970

1980

1985199020002005197519952009

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

ANNUAL DISSOLVED-SOLIDS LOAD, IN TONS

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

ANNUAL STREAMFLOW, IN ACRE-FEET

Annual dissolved-solids load (tons)

Annual streamflow (acre-feet per year)

No data

Median estimated annual dissolved-solids load, 

water years 1970−93 and 2002−09 = 45,400 tons

8 Dissolved-Solids Load in Henrys Fork Upstream from the Confluence with Antelope Wash, Wyoming

were not included in the final report by Kenney and others 

(2009). Those results are published as part of this report and 

are shown in table 3. All methods for determining the model 

results are described in Kenney and others (2009).

The dissolved-solids load predicted by using the 

SPARROW model for Henrys Fork near Manila, Utah, for 

water year 1991 was 29,600 tons. Considering the prediction 

error (51 percent) associated with the model, the predicted 

dissolved-solid load has a range of uncertainty of 14,500 tons 

to 44,700 tons (table 3). The results generated by the model 

represent basin-averaged conditions. Water developments and 

local point sources of dissolved solids, such as springs, can 

cause differences between predicted dissolved-solids load 

and actual dissolved-solids load because local influences on 

dissolved-solids loading to streams are not represented in the 

model at finer scales (Kenney and others, 2009).
Table 2. Ranked annual streamflow and annual dissolvedsolids load from streamflow-gaging station 09229500, Henrys 

Fork near Manila, Utah, water years 1970–2009.

Rank Water year

Annual 

streamflow 

(acre-feet)

Annual 

dissolved-solids 

load 

(tons)

1 1983 197,500 123,300

2 1984 132,600 99,000

3 1973 115,000 84,600

4 1975 114,100 75,400

5 1971 98,000 72,600

6 1986 88,300 69,400

7 1987 75,600 63,900

8 1985 63,400 59,200

75th percentile 55,900

9 1970 61,900 54,900

10 1972 64,600 52,800

11 2005 54,200 50,400

12 1982 55,100 50,200

13 1974 54,800 49,100

14 1991 55,900 47,600

15 1992 51,000 47,000

16 1980 55,000 46,700

50th percentile (median) 45,400

17 1988 47,600 44,200

18 1993 47,600 44,000

19 2009 45,000 42,100

20 1978 47,500 38,000

21 2008 35,400 36,600

22 1976 33,400 35,500

23 1981 35,400 35,000

24 2007 33,400 34,100

25th percentile 33,900

25 2006 30,800 33,400

26 2003 34,100 31,600

27 1990 28,200 27,700

28 2004 20,600 24,500

29 1989 19,700 23,600

30 1979 19,100 22,000

31 2002 16,300 20,200

32 1977 14,100 18,300

25-percent trimmed mean 44,300

A Case Study Using the Upper Colorado River Basin SPARROW Model, Henrys Fork, Wyoming and Utah 9

Adjustment of Predicted Dissolved-Solids Load 

from SPARROW Model for Henrys Fork near 

Manila, Utah

Consideration of local hydrology is needed to reasonably compare results generated by the model with observed 

dissolved-solids load. Two features, Antelope Springs in 

Antelope Wash and Peoples Canal, which diverts water from 

Henrys Fork, were not represented in the SPARROW model 

and needed to be considered in order to compare results generated by the model with observed dissolved-solids load.

The dissolved-solid load associated with Antelope 

Springs was evaluated by using monitoring data collected in 

Antelope Wash. Water-quality data were collected in Antelope Wash (site 410244109454901) from August 2004 to 

September 2009 and analyzed as described by Gerner and 

others (2006). These data may be obtained from the NWIS 

(http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov). Ten samples were analyzed 

for dissolved-solids concentrations using the ROE method. A 

regression equation between ROE and specific conductance 

was determined by using the results from the 10 samples. 

This equation was then used to estimate the dissolved-solids 

concentrations in the remaining 20 samples for which only 

specific-conductance data were available. On the basis of these 

sampling results, the annual dissolved-solids load discharged 

from Antelope Wash was estimated to be 9,200 tons (table 4).

The annual dissolved-solids load for Antelope Wash 

was predicted to be 2,700 tons by using the SPARROW 

model (table 3). The SPARROW model underestimated the 

dissolved-solids load in this reach because the effect of the 

point-source dissolved-solids load associated with Antelope 

Springs was not represented in the model. The predicted 

dissolved-solids load (2,700 tons) for Antelope Wash was 

subtracted from the estimated annual dissolved-solids load 

(9,200 tons) determined from sampling in Antelope Wash. The 

difference of 6,500 tons, representing the contribution from 

Antelope Springs, was added to the SPARROW prediction of 

29,600 tons for the Henrys Fork near Manila, Utah, resulting in an adjusted dissolved-solids load of 36,100 tons for the 

Henrys Fork near Manila, Utah, for water year 1991.

In contrast to Antelope Springs, the Peoples Canal 

diverts water and therefore dissolved-solids load from Henrys 

Fork. Water is diverted upstream from the streamflow-gaging 

station on Henrys Fork near Manila, Utah. Because Peoples 

Canal was not represented in the SPARROW model, the 

predicted dissolved-solids load for Henrys Fork includes the 

dissolved-solids load associated with the canal. In order to 

make the comparison with the dissolved-solids load estimated 

for Henrys Fork near Manila, Utah (site 09229500), from 

the LOADEST program, the SPARROW results need to be 
Table 3. Predicted and adjusted dissolved-solids load from SPARROW model for selected locations in the Henrys Fork Basin, Wyoming, water year 1

[LOADEST, LOAD ESTimator computer program; NA, not applicable; SPARROW, SPAtially Referenced Regression On Watershed attributes]

Henrys Fork upstream from 

Antelope Wash Antelope Springs, Antelope Wash, and Peoples Canal Henrys Fork near Ma

Predicted 1991 

dissolvedsolids load, 

from 

SPARROW 

model 

(tons)

Adjusted 

mean 

annual 

dissolvedsolids load1

(tons)

Predicted 

1991 dissolvedsolids load 

for Antelope 

Wash, from 

SPARROW 

model 

(tons)

Annual 

dissolvedsolids load for 

Antelope Wash 

(tons)

Adjusted 

dissolvedsolid load for 

Antelope 

Springs2

(tons)

Annual 

dissolvedsolids load 

diverted into 

Peoples Canal 

(tons)

Predicted 

1991 

dissolvedsolids loads, 

from SPARROW 

model 

(tons)

Adjusted 

1991 

dissolvedsolid load, 

from 

SPARROW 

model3

(tons)

E

19

d

so

fro

Prediction with 

51-percent positive error4

37,800 56,200 4,100 NA NA NA 44,700 41,100 

Actual, predicted, 

estimated or adjusted value

25,000 37,200 2,700 9,200 6,500 8,900 29,600 27,200 

Prediction with 

51-percent negative error4

12,200 18,200 1,300 NA NA NA 14,500 13,300 

125-percent trimmed mean annual dissolved-solids load adjusted by using the percent difference (84 percent) between SPARROW-model predicted dissolved-solids loads at H

and Henrys Fork upstream from Antelope Wash.

2The difference between annual dissolved-solids load for Antelope Wash and the 1991 predicted dissolved-solids load from the SPARROW model for Antelope Wash.3Adjusted SPARROW-model predicted dissolved-solids load with the addition of Antelope Springs dissolved-solids load and the subtraction of Peoples Canal dissolved-solids 4Standard error of estimate from Kenney and others (2009).
Table 4. Dissolved-solids concentration and estimated mean dissolved-solids load in streamflow from Antelope Wash, Wyoming, 

August 2004 to September 2009.

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; °C, degrees Celsius; ROE, residue on evaporation at 180°C; mg/L, milligrams per liter; 

--, no data]

Date

Streamflow,

 instantaneous 

(ft3/s)

Specific conductance 

(μS/cm at 25°C)

Dissolved-solids 

concentration, ROE 

(mg/L)

Estimated daily 

dissolved-solids 

concentration1

(mg/L)

Estimated daily 

dissolved-solids load2

(tons)

8/10/2004 4.3 3,640 3,580 3,580 15,150 

9/14/2004 3.0 4,160 4,080 4,080 12,000 

10/26/2004 4.1 4,140 -- 4,120 16,600 

11/22/2004 3.8 4,320 4,450 4,450 16,600 

1/19/2005 2.6 4,150 -- 4,130 10,600 

2/24/2005 2.3 4,030 4,080 4,080 9,200 

4/5/2005 1.6 4,560 -- 4,490 7,100 

6/1/2005 1.3 4,470 4,250 4,250 5,400 

6/13/2007 1.9 3,690 -- 3,720 7,000 

7/10/2007 1.2 3,670 -- 3,700 4,400 

8/14/2007 2.2 3,840 3,950 3,950 8,600 

9/27/2007 2.2 3,860 -- 3,870 8,400 

11/8/2007 2.1 4,100 -- 4,080 8,400 

12/13/2007 1.5 4,310 -- 4,270 6,300 

2/13/2008 1.4 3,930 3,970 3,970 5,500 

3/19/2008 1.9 3,750 -- 3,770 7,100 

4/10/2008 1.6 3,870 -- 3,880 6,100 

5/20/2008 1.0 4,180 -- 4,150 3,900 

6/9/2008 1.4 4,200 -- 4,010 5,500 

7/17/2008 3.4 3,460 3,450 3,450 11,500 

8/25/2008 3.1 3,750 -- 3,770 11,500 

9/30/2008 1.8 3,900 3,990 3,990 7,100 

12/3/2008 2.5 4,020 -- 4,010 9,900 

2/19/2009 1.5 4,190 4,090 4,090 6,000 

4/6/2009 3.1 3,810 -- 3,830 11,700 

5/20/2009 1.2 4,220 -- 4,190 4,900 

6/4/2009 1.6 3,980 -- 3,980 6,300 

7/9/2009 7.5 2,890 -- 3,010 22,200 

8/4/2009 4.2 3,270 -- 3,350 13,800 

9/3/2009 2.3 3,720 -- 3,750 8,500 

Mean 2.5 3,900 9,200 

1

Values were determined from analysis of residue on evaporation at 180°C (ROE) or by using regression equation developed from relation between ROE 

and specific conductance (SC): Dissolved solids concentration = 0.8881SC + 441.9.

2

Individual average dissolved-solids concentrations (DSconc) were extrapolated to average daily dissolved-solids load (DSload) values by using the equation 

DSload = DSconc x 0.002697 x streamflow x 365, where streamflow is the instantaneous streamflow.

A Case Study Using the Upper Colorado River Basin SPARROW Model, Henrys Fork, Wyoming and Utah 11
12 Dissolved-Solids Load in Henrys Fork Upstream from the Confluence with Antelope Wash, Wyoming

adjusted to remove the dissolved-solids load associated with 

the canal.

The dissolved-solids load associated with Peoples Canal 

was determined from monitoring data. Water-quality data were 

collected at two sites on the canal (site 410233109440901 and 

410044109405601) from June 2004 to September 2009 and 

analyzed as described in Gerner and others (2006). These data 

may be obtained from the NWIS (http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.

gov). The ROE method was used for dissolved-solids analysis 

of 11 of the 23 samples collected during water years 2004–09. 

A regression equation was determined for the relation between 

ROE and specific conductance. This equation was then used 

to estimate dissolved-solids concentrations for the remaining 

12 samples for which only specific conductance data were 

available (table 5).

On the basis of monitoring data, the annual dissolvedsolids load for Peoples Canal was estimated to be 8,900 tons 

(table 6). This value was subtracted from the adjusted 

dissolved-solids load (36,100 tons) determined for the Henrys 

Fork near Manila, Utah. The final adjusted dissolved-solids 

load (27,200 tons) determined for the Henrys Fork near 

Manila, Utah (using the SPARROW model and monitoring 

data for Antelope Wash and Peoples Canal) was similar to 

the original dissolved-solids load of 29,600 tons predicted 

by using the SPARROW model. These data indicate that the 

inclusion of Antelope Springs point source and water diversion 

in Peoples Canal did not substantially change the SPARROW 

prediction; therefore, the SPARROW predictions of dissolvedsolids load were used for further analysis as discussed in 

subsequent sections of this report.

The dissolved-solids load (29,600 tons) determined by 

using the SPARROW model for Henrys Fork near Manila, 

Utah, is 38 percent less than the estimated dissolved-solids 

load from the LOADEST model (47,600 tons) for the 

streamflow-gaging station at Henrys Fork near Manila, Utah 

(site 09229500) for water year 1991 (table 3). These data 

indicate that overall the SPARROW model underpredicted 

the dissolved-solids load by about 38 percent. Models like 

SPARROW are valuable for large-basin analyses and predicting dissolved-solids load in ungaged reaches; however, 

site-specific data are important for local managers and 

decision-making with regard to small watersheds.

Determination of Dissolved-Solids Load for 

Upper Henrys Fork Basin

A principle objective of this investigation was to estimate 

the annual dissolved-solids load for normal (mean) conditions in the upper Henrys Fork Basin, the 485-mi2

 drainage 

upstream from the confluence with Antelope Wash (fig. 1). 

Dissolved-solids and streamflow monitoring data do not exist 

for this location, and Henrys Fork near Manila, Utah, is the 

nearest monitoring site. SPARROW model simulations for the 

Upper Colorado River Basin were used to predict dissolvedsolids loads for water year 1991 at 57 locations throughout 

the Henrys Fork Basin, including Henrys Fork upstream 

from Antelope Wash. The dissolved-solids load predicted by 

using the SPARROW model for the Henrys Fork upstream 

from Antelope Wash (25,000 tons) for water year 1991 was 

84 percent of the dissolved-solids load predicted by using 

the SPARROW model for Henrys Fork near Manila, Utah 

(29,600 tons) for water year 1991. The application of this 

coefficient (0.84) to the 25-percent trimmed mean of the 

annual dissolved-solids load at Henrys Fork near Manila, 

Utah, estimated by LOADEST (44,300 tons), yielded an estimated annual dissolved-solids load in Henrys Fork upstream 

from Antelope Wash of 37,200 tons (± 2,800 tons at the 

95-percent confidence level; table 3).

The 25-percent trimmed mean was used because it represents a mean value less affected by extremes. The scientific 

objective for this study was to estimate the dissolved-solids 

load for the study area for mean conditions. By adjusting, 

and later comparing, the SPARROW results to the trimmed 

mean, a dissolved-solids load more representative of the 

mean dissolved-solids load was obtained. If the objective 

had been to compare SPARROW results for water year 1991, 

then the dissolved-solids load representative of 1991 rather 

than the mean dissolved-solids load would be presented. 

The 25-percent trimmed mean of the LOADEST estimated 

annual dissolved-solids load for Henrys Fork near Manila, 

Utah, of 44,300 tons is within the range of uncertainty of the 

SPARROW model prediction of 29,600 tons for the Upper 

Colorado River Basin.

Distribution of Dissolved-Solids Load by Source 

at Selected Locations in Henrys Fork Basin

In addition to providing estimates of dissolved-solids 

load at locations of interest, the SPARROW model for the 

Upper Colorado River Basin apportions the total dissolvedsolids load associated with each of the 11 defined sources. An 

objective of this investigation was to estimate the dissolvedsolids load associated with irrigated agricultural lands in the 

upper Henrys Fork Basin. As determined by the SPARROW 

model simulations, approximately 56 percent (14,000 tons) of 

the dissolved-solids load at Henrys Fork upstream from Antelope Wash (25,000 tons) is associated with the 21,500 acres of 

irrigated agricultural lands (fig. 1). For comparison, at Henrys 

Fork near Manila, Utah, the 24,800 acres of irrigated agricultural lands in this 520-mi2

 drainage area (David Eckhart, 

Bureau of Reclamation Remote Sensing and Geographic 

Information Group, written commun., September 28, 2006) 

contribute approximately 47 percent (17,000 tons) of the 

adjusted dissolved-solids load (36,100 tons) for the Henrys 

Fork near Manila, Utah, after adding in the contribution 

of Antelope Springs, which was not represented in the 

SPARROW model. No adjustments were made to the contributions of the 11 defined sources predicted by using the 

SPARROW model, except for the addition of the dissolvedsolids load from Antelope Springs.
Table 5. Dissolved-solids concentration and estimated daily dissolved-solids load in Peoples Canal, Wyoming, June 2004 to September 2009.

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; °C, degrees Celsius; ROE, residue on evaporation at 180°C; mg/L, milligrams per liter; --, no data]

Site number Site name Sample date Streamflow, instantaneous (ft3/s) Specific conductance (μS/cm at 25°C) Dissolved-solids concentration, ROE (mg/L) Estimated d

dissolved-so

concentrati

(mg/L) 

410233109440901 Peoples Canal at Henrys Fork 6/29/2004 50.0 1,130 808 808 410233109440901 Peoples Canal at Henrys Fork 7/22/2004 40.0 1,100 -- 827 410233109440901 Peoples Canal at Henrys Fork 8/10/2004 23.0 1,110 802 802 410233109440901 Peoples Canal at Henrys Fork 9/14/2009 24.0 1,540 1,210 1,210 410233109440901 Peoples Canal at Henrys Fork 10/26/2004 24.0 1,080 -- 811 410233109440901 Peoples Canal at Henrys Fork 11/22/2004 1.6 1,210 904 904 410233109440901 Peoples Canal at Henrys Fork 6/1/2005 41.0 390 265 265 410044109405601 Peoples Canal at Washam, WY 7/10/2007 4.8 1,190 -- 901 410044109405601 Peoples Canal at Washam, WY 8/14/2007 13.0 1,040 772 772 410044109405601 Peoples Canal at Washam, WY 9/27/2007 20.0 1,210 -- 917 410044109405601 Peoples Canal at Washam, WY 10/16/2007 27.0 902 661 661 410044109405601 Peoples Canal at Washam, WY 11/7/2007 2.6 840 -- 615 410044109405601 Peoples Canal at Washam, WY 5/20/2008 39.0 463 326 326 410044109405601 Peoples Canal at Washam, WY 6/10/2008 40.0 641 -- 452 410044109405601 Peoples Canal at Washam, WY 7/17/2008 28.0 1,060 784 784 410044109405601 Peoples Canal at Washam, WY 8/25/2008 15.0 1,460 1,170 1,170 410044109405601 Peoples Canal at Washam, WY 9/30/2008 14.0 1,250 -- 950 410044109405601 Peoples Canal at Washam, WY 4/29/2009 7.2 796 -- 579 410044109405601 Peoples Canal at Washam, WY 5/19/2009 24.0 357 -- 220 410044109405601 Peoples Canal at Washam, WY 6/5/2009 32.0 537 368 368 410044109405601 Peoples Canal at Washam, WY 7/9/2009 26.0 932 -- 690 410044109405601 Peoples Canal at Washam, WY 8/4/2009 25.0 1,270 -- 966 410044109405601 Peoples Canal at Washam, WY 9/1/2009 21.0 1,420 -- 1,089 

1Values were determined from analysis of residue on evaporation at 180°C (ROE) or by using regression equation developed from relation between ROE and specific conduct

concentration = 0.8176SC – 72.19.

2Individual average dissolved-solids concentrations (DSconc) were extrapolated to average daily dissolved-solids load (DSload) values by using the equation DSload = DSconc x 0.

streamflow is the instantaneous streamflow.
Table 6. Estimated dissolved-solids load in Peoples Canal, Wyoming, June 2004 to September 2009.

[No samples were collected during December through March. --, not applicable]

Period Number of samples1

Estimated mean daily 

dissolved-solids load2

(tons)

Estimated mean dissolvedsolids load for period3

(tons)

April 15–30 1 11 180

May 2 24 740

June 4 55 1,650

July 4 52 1,600

August 4 47 1,400

September 4 56 1,700

October 2 50 1,550

November 1–15 2 4 60

April 15 – November 15 -- -- 8,900

1

Samples collected at either U.S. Geological Survey site 410233109440901 or 410044109405601.

2

Values were determined from the mean value for the period from the estimated daily dissolved-solids load in table 5.

3

Value was determined by multiplying days in period by the estimated mean daily dissolved-solids load in tons.

14 Dissolved-Solids Load in Henrys Fork Upstream from the Confluence with Antelope Wash, Wyoming

Summary

The Colorado River Salinity Control Forum has a goal of 

reducing dissolved-solids load in the Colorado River drainage 

system, including Henrys Fork. Irrigated agriculture has been 

the focal point of many projects because changes to infrastructure and irrigation practices can yield substantial reductions in 

dissolved-solids load. The Henrys Fork Basin upstream from 

Antelope Wash (drainage area of 485 square miles) includes 

about 21,500 acres of irrigated lands. The U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation, conducted an investigation to estimate the dissolvedsolids load associated with irrigated agricultural lands 

upstream from Antelope Wash. Streamflow and water-quality 

data collected at Henrys Fork near Manila, Utah (USGS 

streamflow-gaging station 09229500), downstream from Antelope Wash were used to estimate annual dissolved-solids loads 

that were then compared to the dissolved-solids load for water 

year 1991 estimated by the SPAtially Referenced Regression 

On Watershed attributes (SPARROW) model for the Upper 

Colorado River Basin.

Annual dissolved-solids loads at Henry Fork near 

Manila, Utah, were estimated by using the LOAD ESTimator 

(LOADEST) computer program run as an add-on to S-PLUS. 

The annual dissolved-solids load for water years 1970–2009 

ranged from 18,300 tons in 1977 to 123,300 tons in 1983. 

Annual streamflows for this period ranged from 14,100 acrefeet in 1977 to 197,500 acre-ft in 1983. The estimated mean 

annual dissolved-solids load for water years 1970–2009 was 

48,700 tons, and the estimated median annual dissolvedsolids load for the same period was 45,400 tons. The annual 

dissolved-solids loads were ranked from largest to smallest, 

and 25 percent of the highest and lowest values were removed. 

Then the 25-percent trimmed mean of 44,300 tons was used as 

the best estimate of annual dissolved-solids load.

The predicted dissolved-solids load from the Upper 

Colorado River Basin SPARROW model at Henrys Fork 

near Manila, Utah, was 29,600 tons for water year 1991. 

Two features, Antelope Springs in Antelope Wash and 

Peoples Canal, which diverts water from Henrys Fork, were 

not represented in the SPARROW model and needed to 

be considered in order to compare results generated by the 

model with observed dissolved-solids load. The dissolvedsolids load associated with Antelope Springs (6,500 tons) was 

added to the SPARROW prediction and the dissolved-solids 

load diverted by Peoples Canal (8,900 tons) was subtracted 

from the SPARROW prediction for an adjusted dissolvedsolids load of 27,200 tons for water year 1991. The final 

adjusted dissolved-solids load (27,200 tons) determined for 

the Henrys Fork near Manila, Utah (using the SPARROW 

model prediction and monitoring data for Antelope Wash 

and Peoples Canal), was similar to the original SPARROW 

predicted dissolved-solids load of 29,600 tons. Therefore, the 

SPARROW predictions of dissolved-solids load were used for 

subsequent analyses.

A principle objective of this investigation was to estimate the annual dissolved-solids load in the upper Henrys 

Fork Basin for mean conditions. The dissolved-solids load 

predicted by using the SPARROW model for Henrys Fork 

upstream from Antelope Wash (25,000 tons) was 84 percent 

of the dissolved-solids load predicted by using the SPARROW 

model for Henrys Fork near Manila, Utah (29,600 tons). The 

application of this coefficient (0.84) to the 25-percent trimmed 

mean of annual dissolved-solids load at Henrys Fork near 
References Cited 15

Kenney, T.A., Gerner, S.J., Buto, S.G., and Spangler, L.E., 

2009, Spatially referenced statistical assessment of 

dissolved-solids load sources and transport in streams of 

the Upper Colorado River Basin: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5007, 70 p., accessed 

August 17, 2009, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5007.

Koenig, K.J., 1960, Bridger Formation in the Bridger Basin, 

Wyoming, in McGookey, D.P., and Miller, D.N., Jr., eds., 

Overthrust belt of southwestern Wyoming and adjacent 

areas: Wyoming Geological Association, 15th Annual Field 

Conference Guidebook, p. 163–168.

Love, J.D., and Christiansen, A.C., 1985, Geologic map of 

Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Map, scale 1:500,000.

Lowham, H.W., Peterson, D.A., Larson, L.R., Zimmerman, 

E.A., Ringen, B.E., and Mora, K.L., 1985, Hydrology of 

area 52, Rocky Mountain coal province, Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho, and Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 83–761, 96 p.

Mason, J.P., and Miller, K.A., 2004, Water resources of Sweetwater County, Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2004–5214, 188 p.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2006, Plan and 

environmental assessment, Manila-Washam project area of 

the Colorado River Salinity Control Program, final draft, 

Sweetwater and Daggett Counties: United States Department of Agriculture, 112 p.

Runkel, R.L., Crawford, C.G., and Cohn, T.A., 2004, Load 

estimator (LOADEST)—a FORTRAN program for estimating constituent load in streams and rivers: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques and Methods, book 4, chap. A5, 69 p.

Schwarz, G.E., and Alexander, R.B, 1995, State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) data base for the conterminous United 

States: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95–449, 

digital map, scale 1:250,000, accessed September 16, 2009, 

at http://water.usgs.gov/lookup/getspatial?ussoils.

TIBCO Software, Inc., 2008, TIBCO Spotfire S+ 8.1 for Windows: Palo Alto, Calif., TIBCO Software, Inc., 572 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2004a, Ecological site 

descriptions, Agricultural Research Service, accessed January 29, 2010, at http://usda-ars.nmsu.edu/esd/esdIntro.html.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2004b, Soil survey of Henrys 

Fork Area, Utah-Wyoming—Part of Daggett and Summit Counties, Utah and Sweetwater and Uinta Counties, 

Wyoming: Natural Resource Conservation Service, 282 p., 

accessed January 7, 2010, at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.

gov/Survey.aspx?State=WY.

Manila, Utah, estimated by LOADEST (44,300 tons) yielded 

an estimated annual dissolved-solids load in Henrys Fork 

upstream from Antelope Wash of 37,200 tons (± 2,800 tons at 

the 95-percent confidence level).

The SPARROW model predicted that approximately 

56 percent (14,000 tons per year) of the dissolved-solids load 

for water year 1991 at Henrys Fork upstream from Antelope 

Wash (25,000 tons) is associated with the 21,500 acres of irrigated agricultural lands. For comparison, at Henrys Fork near 

Manila, Utah, the 24,800 acres of irrigated agricultural lands 

in this 520-square-mile drainage area contributes approximately 47 percent (17,000 tons per year) of the adjusted 

dissolved-solids load (36,100 tons), after adding in the contribution of Antelope Springs, which was not represented in the 

SPARROW model.

References Cited

Cohn, T.A., 1988, Adjusted maximum likelihood estimation of 

the moments of lognormal populations from type I censored 

samples: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 88–350, 

34 p.

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, 1975, Proposed 

water quality standards for salinity including numerical 

criteria and plan of implementation for salinity control, 

Colorado River system: Denver, Colo., 134 p.

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, 2002, 2002 

Review of water quality standards for salinity—Colorado 

River System: Denver, Colo., 188 p.

Fishman, M.J., and Friedman, L.C., 1989, Methods for 

determination of inorganic substances in water and fluvial 

sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 5, chap. A1, 545 p.

Gerner, S.J., Spangler, L.E., Kimball, B.A., and Naftz, 

D.L., 2006, Characterization of dissolved solids in 

water resources of agricultural lands near Manila, Utah, 

2004–05: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2006–5211, 36 p.

Helsel, D.R., and Hirsch, R.M., 2002, Statistical methods in 

water resources: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 4, chap. A3, 510 p.

Iorns, W.V., Hembree, C.H., and Oakland, G.L., 1965, Water 

resources of the Upper Colorado River Basin—technical 

report: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 441, 

370 p.
16 Dissolved-Solids Load in Henrys Fork Upstream from the Confluence with Antelope Wash, Wyoming

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1999, Quality of water—

Colorado River Basin: Bureau of Reclamation Progress 

report no. 19, 93 p. plus appendix.

U.S. Department of the Interior, 2003, Quality of water—

Colorado River Basin: Salt Lake City, Utah, Progress 

Report 21, 95 p.

Publishing support provided by:

Denver Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning this publication, contact:

Director, Wyoming Water Science Center

U.S. Geological Survey

2617 East Lincolnway, Suite B

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001

(307) 778-2931

Or visit the Wyoming Water Science Center Web site at:

http://wy.water.usgs.gov/
Cover.
Foster and Kenney—Dissolved-Solids Load in Henrys Fork Upstream from the Confluence with Antelope Wash, Wyoming—SIR 2010–5048