U.S. Department of the Interior 2019

QUALITY OF WATER

COLORADO RIVER BASIN 

Progress Report No. 26
ii 

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AF acre feet

ACEC Area of critical environmental concern

AMD acid mine drainage

ARC Application Review Committee

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BSP Basin State Program

CFS Cubic feet per second

CRB Colorado River Basin 

CWP Colorado Parks and Wildlife 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program

FLPMA Federal Land Management Policy Act of 1976

FOA Funding Opportunity Announcement

Forum Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum 

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service

GLCA Glen Canyon Recreation Area

GKM Gold King Mine

MAF million acre feet

MWD Metropolitan Water District

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

PCR Polymerase Chain Reaction

PPM Parts per Million

Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation

Review 2014 Review, Water Quality Standards for Salinity, Colorado River 

System

RFP Request for Proposal 

SCP Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program 

Secretary Secretary of Interior

TDS Total Dissolved Solids (salinity) 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

UCRB Upper Colorado River Basin 

UDAF Utah Department of Agriculture and Food 

USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDI United States Department of Interior

USGS United States Geologic Survey

WMIDD Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation & Drainage District

WWDC Wyoming Water Development Commission 
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MISSION STATEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................... i

SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................................................ 1

CHAPTER 1 – SALINITY CONDITIONS.................................................................................................................... 4

CAUSES OF SALINITY .............................................................................................................................................. 4

ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF SALINITY .................................................................................................................... 6

HISTORIC SALINITY CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 7

FACTORS INFLUENCING SALINITY .................................................................................................................... 8

Streamflow.......................................................................................................................................................... 8

Reservoir Storage............................................................................................................................................. 8

FUTURE WATER DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................................... 12

COMPLIANCE WITH THE SALINITY STANDARDS ...................................................................................... 15

SALINITY CONTROL............................................................................................................................................... 16

CHAPTER 2 – TITLE I SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM................................................................................. 17

Updates for TItle I Projects since last Progress Report..........................................................18

Coachella Canal Lining................................................................................................................................. 18

Protective and Regulatory Pumping....................................................................................................... 18

Yuma Desalting Plant.................................................................................................................................... 18

Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District (WMIDD) ....................................................... 18

CHAPTER 3 - TITLE II SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM................................................................................ 20 

U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................ 21

Program Administration.............................................................................................................................. 22

Basinwide activities........................................................................................................................................ 22

State Activities Report.................................................................................................................................. 23

Colorado RIver Basin BLM Salinity Risk Assessment and Mapping ........................................... 37 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA/NRCS) ........................................................................ 39 

Program History ............................................................................................................... 40 

Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................................... 40

Status of Planning and Evaluation.......................................................................................... 40

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION ....................................................................................... 44
iv

Deseret Lake Monitoring ............................................................................................... 44 

TDS Forecast Modeling .................................................................................................. 44 

Colorado River Simulation System (CRSS).............................................................. 45 

Economic Impacts Model .............................................................................................. 45 

Science Team...................................................................................................................... 46 

Basinwide Salinity Control Program (Basinwide Program)............................... 46

Basin States Program (BSP)........................................................................................... 50 

Paradox Valley Unit.......................................................................................................... 54

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program Summary Data..................... 57

CHAPTER 4 - OTHER WATER QUALITY RELATED ISSUES ......................................... 62 

Lake Powell Sediment............................................................................................................ 62 

Dreissenid Mussels .................................................................................................................. 62 

REFERENCES CITED .............................................................................................. 63

GENERAL REFERENCES ........................................................................................ 67

APPENDIX A – SALINITY MONITORING STATION INFORMATION................ 73

APPENDIX B - SALT LOAD 2018 UPDATE FOR THE 20 STATIONS ................. 77

APPENDIX C - REGRESSION STATISTICS FOR 2018 SLOAD ............................ 85

APPENDIX D - 20 STATION FLOW AND TDS OVER TIME.............................. 125
v 

TABLES

Table 1 - Quantified Sources of Salt Loading ........................................................................ 5 

Table 2 - Upper Basin Total Projected Depletion Projection Demand Scenarios... 13 

Table 3 - Lower Basin Depletion Projections......................................................................... 14 

Table 4 - Salinity Control Requirements and Needs through 2035............................. 16 

Table 5 - WMIDD Irrigation Efficiency......................................................................................19

Table 6 - List of Sediment Retention and Erosion Control Features............................27

Table 7 – Implementation Status ............................................................................................... 43 

Table 8 - Paradox Well Injection Evaluation ................................................. ............... 55 

Table 9 - Summary of Federal Salinity Control Programs................................................58

Table 10 - Summary of Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program Funding..59

Table A1 – Characteristics of the 20 Salinity Monitoring Stations .............................. 74 

FIGURES

Figure 1 - Colorado River Salinity below Hoover Dam ....................................................... 4 

Figure 2 - Salinity Sources............................................................................................................... 5 

Figure 3 - Salinity Damages............................................................................................................ 6 

Figure 4 - Colorado River Numeric Criteria Location........................................................... 7 

Figure 5 - Mainstem Flow and Salinity....................................................................................... 8 

Figure 6 - Salinity below Glen Canyon Dam............................................................................ 9 

Figure 7 - Lake Powell TDS over Time......................................................................................10

Figure 8 - Lake Powell Inflow and Outflow Salt Loading and Flow ............................. 10 

Figure 9 - Lake Powell Inflow and Outflow TDS...................................................................11

Figure 10 - Upper Basin Annual Consumptive Use and Projected Demands ..........12

Figure 11 - Title I Salinity Control Projects ............................................................................ 17 
vi

FIGURES (Continued)

Figure 12 - Title II Salinity Control Projects............................................................................ 20 

Figure 13 - Flat Top Dike #9......................................................................................................... 24 

Figure 14 - Correlation between Cross Sectional Area and Downstream Distance

.................................................................................................................................................................. 26 

Figure 15 - Current Lop and Scatter Project..........................................................................29

Figure 16 - 2016 Teb Sagebrush Treatment..........................................................................29

Figure 17 - Previous and Post Teb Treatment ......................................................................29

Figure 18 - Recently Installed Silt Trap ....................................................................................29

Figure 19 - Bradley Road Washed Out....................................................................................29

Figure 20 - Previous Bradley Road ............................................................................................ 30 

Figure 21 - New Bradley Road with Improvements............................................................ 30 

Figure 22 - Eight Mile Impoundment....................................................................................... 30 

Figure 23 - Telegraph Flat and Finn Little Wash Salinity Control.................................. 31 

Figure 24 - Telegraph Flat (1) ...................................................................................................... 31 

Figure 25 - Telegraph Flat (2) ...................................................................................................... 31 

Figure 26 - Kimble Valley Salinity Control Structures ........................................................ 32 

Figure 27 – Photo of Buckskin Salinity Control Structures .............................................. 33 

Figure 28 – Photo of Paria Town area Salinity Control Structures................................ 33 

Figure 29 – Photos of House Rock Valley Salinity Control Structure .......................... 34 

Figure 30 – Grazing Exclosure ..................................................................................................... 35 

Figure 31 – Savery Creek Stabilization.....................................................................................37

Figure 32 – New Surface Soil EC Map for UC Watershed ................................................39

Figure 33 – USDA on Farm / near Farm Allocations........................................................... 41 

Figure 34 - Paradox Valley and Schematic of Paradox Project ..................................... 54 
vii

FIGURES (Continued)

Figure 35 - UCRB Salinity Control Summary ......................................................................... 61 

Figure A1 - Colorado River Basin 20 Stream Gage Locations ....................................... 73 

Figure A2 - Salinity Project Locations....................................................................................... 75 

Figure A3 - Colorado River Flow and Salinity........................................................................ 76 

Figure D1 - Flow and TDS over time for sites 1-4 ...........................................................126 

Figure D2 - Flow and TDS over time for sites 5-8 ...........................................................127 

Figure D3 – Flow and TDS over time for sites 9-12 ......................................................... 128

Figure D4 – Flow and TDS over time for sites 13-16....................................................... 129

Figure D5 – Flow and TDS over time for sites 17-20.......................................................130 
1 

SUMMARY

The Colorado River and its tributaries provide water to about 35 - 40 million people and 

irrigation water to nearly 4.5 million acres of land in the United States (Moving Forward, 

2015). The river also serves about 3.3 million people and 500,000 acres in Mexico (Cohen, 

2011). The effect of salinity is a major concern in both the United States and Mexico. Salinity 

damages in the United States are presently estimated to be about $454 million per year at

2017 salinity concentrations. This biennial report on the quality of water in the Colorado 

River Basin is required by Public Laws 84-485, 87-483, and the Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Act (Salinity Control Act) (Public Law 93-320, as amended by Public Laws 98-569, 

104-20, 104-127, and 106-459).

The Salinity Control Act authorizes the Secretaries of the U.S. Department of the Interior 

(Interior) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to enhance and protect the quality of 

water available in the Colorado River for use in the United States and the Republic of 

Mexico. 

Salinity damages to municipal water pipe. Salinity damages to crop production. 

Title I of the Salinity Control Act authorized the construction and operation of a desalting 

plant, brine discharge canal, and other features to enable the United States to deliver water to 

Mexico having an average salinity no greater than 115 parts per million (ppm) plus or minus 

30 ppm over the annual average salinity of the Colorado River at Imperial Dam. The Title I 

program (administered by the Bureau of Reclamation [Reclamation]) continues to meet the 

requirements of Minute No. 242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission, 

United States and Mexico. Title II of the Salinity Control Act authorizes the Secretary of 

the Interior (Secretary) and the Secretary of Agriculture to implement a broad range of 

specific and general salinity control measures in an ongoing effort to prevent further 

degradation of water quality to meet the objectives and standards set by the Clean Water 

Act. 

In 1995, Public Law 104-20 authorized an entirely new way of implementing salinity control. 

Reclamation’s Basinwide Salinity Control Program opened the program to competition 

through a “Request for Proposal” process, which greatly reduced the cost of salinity control 
2 

by selecting the most cost-effective projects. However, the price of salinity control is 

expected to increase in the future as the more cost-effective projects are completed. 

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Water Act, prepared the “2017 Review, Water Quality Standards 

for Salinity, Colorado River System” (Review). The Review reported the Forum would 

pursue a salinity control program designed to remove at least 1.66 million tons of salt 

annually by the year 2035 to minimize downstream economic damages while the Upper 

Basin States continue to develop their Compact apportioned water supplies. The Review 

shows that the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program (Program) is currently 

controlling over 1,336,000 tons of salt annually. In order to meet the 1.66 million tons of salt 

removal under the plan of implementation, it will be necessary to fund and build potential 

new measures that ensure the removal of an additional 330,000 tons by 2035. The Forum 

stated that in order to achieve this level of salt reduction, the federal departments and 

agencies would require the following capital funding: Reclamation appropriation - $17.5 

million per year (bringing the total Reclamation program with $7.5 million cost-sharing to 

$25 million per year); and USDA EQIP appropriation - $13.8 million per year (bringing the 

total on-farm program to $19.7 million per year with Basin states parallel program). 

Beginning in 2005, BLM began a comprehensive program to minimize the salt loading from 

BLM lands in the Colorado River basin. BLM salinity funding from Congress began in FY 

2006. 

With the reported existing salt controlled, and assuming no reduction of the existing salinity 

control projects, then nearly 18,300 tons of new or additional controls will need to be 

implemented each year to meet the Program goal. This Program goal is the combined target 

for the participating agencies within Interior and USDA. 

The Upper Colorado River Basin regularly experiences significant year to year hydrologic 

variability, but overall is still in drought conditions. During the 18 year period 2000 to 2019 

the unregulated inflow to Lake Powell, which is a good measure of hydrologic conditions in 

the Colorado River Basin, was above average in only 5 out of 20 years and had the lowest 

average annual (water year) unregulated inflow volume of any 20 year period since the 

closure of Glen Canyon Dam in 1963, with an average unregulated inflow of 8.76 MAF, or 

80% of the 30-year average (1981-2010), which is 10.83 MAF. The unregulated inflow 

during the 2000-2019 period has ranged from a low of 2.64 MAF (24% of average) in water 

year 2002 to a high of 15.97 MAF (147% of average) in water year 2011. The water year 

2019 unregulated inflow volume to Lake Powell was 12.95 MAF (120% of average). At the 

beginning of water year 2020, total system storage in the Colorado River Basin was 31.62 

MAF (52% of 59.6 MAF total system capacity). Since the beginning of water year 2000, total 

Colorado Basin storage has experienced year to year increases and decreases in response to 

wet and dry hydrology, ranging from a high of 94% of capacity at the beginning of 2000 to a 

low of 50% of capacity at the beginning of water year 2005. One wet year can significantly 

increase total system reservoir storage, just as persistent dry years can draw down the system 

storage.

Salinity concentration has varied during this time period (with a downward trend) but has 

not exceeded the numeric salinity criteria on the Colorado River below Hoover Dam, Parker 

Dam and at Imperial Dam; 723, 747 & 879 mg/L respectively. Reclamation’s future salinity 
3 

modeling scenarios indicate that the numeric salinity criteria should be maintained over the 

next three years even with additional years of drought. The numeric salinity criteria could 

have been exceeded in 2007 without the salinity control program and other salt reductions. 

Reclamation prepared this report in cooperation with State water resource agencies and 

other Federal agencies involved in the Salinity Control Program. This Progress Report 26 is 

the latest in a series of biennial reports that commenced in 1963. 

The authorization for these reports and the legal aspects can be found in Chapter 1 of prior 

Progress Reports http://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/salinity/pdfs/PR24final.pdf
4 

CHAPTER 1 – SALINITY CONDITIONS

CAUSES OF SALINITY 

The Colorado River basin has locations which contain areas of high salt concentrations. Historically 

at the USGS gauge below Hoover Dam, between 1940 and 1980, an annual average of 

approximately 9.4 million tons of salt was carried down the river. From 2000 to the present, an 

annual average load of approximately 7.6 million tons of salt have been measured in the river at this 

gage. The trend of the salinity, both load and concentration, below Hoover has been trending down 

over time, while over the last 17 years, from 2000 to present, the salinity appears to be leveling off as 

seen in figure 1 below. The flow of the river dilutes this salt, and depending upon the quantity of 

flow, salinity concentration can be relatively dilute or concentrated. Since climatic conditions directly 

affect the flow in the river, salinity in any one year may double (or halve) due to extremes in runoff. 

Because this natural variability is virtually uncontrollable, the seven Basin States adopted a nondegradation water quality standard. 

Figure 1 - Colorado River Salinity below Hoover Dam

Nearly half of the salinity concentration in the Colorado River System is from natural sources. Saline

springs, erosion of saline geologic formations, and runoff all contribute to this background salinity. 

The EPA (EPA, 1971) estimated that the natural salinity in the Lower Colorado River at Imperial 

Dam is 334 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Irrigation, reservoir evaporation, and municipal and 

industrial (M&I) sources make up the balance of the salinity in the Colorado River Basin. Figure 2 

shows the relative amount each source contributes to the salinity of the Colorado River, as estimated 

by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1973. Table 1, on the following page, quantifies 

the salinity from several of the known sources.
5 

Figure 2 – Salinity Sources

Table 1 – 1971 Quantified Sources of Salt Loading

Values listed are pre salinity control project loading

Source Type of Source

Salt Loading

(tons per year)

Paradox Springs Springs / point 205,000

Dotsero Springs Springs / point 182,600

Glenwood Springs Springs / point 335,000

Steamboat Springs Springs / point 8,500

Pagosa Springs Springs / point 7,300

Sinbad Valley Springs / point 6,500

Meeker Dome Springs / point 57,000

Other minor springs in the Upper Basin Springs / point 19,600

Blue Springs Springs / point 550,000

La Verkin Springs Springs / point 109,000

Grand Valley Irrigation / non-point 580,000

Big Sandy Irrigation / non-point 164,000

Uncompahgre Project Irrigation / non-point 360,000

McElmo Creek Irrigation / non-point 119,000

Price-San Rafael Irrigation / non-point 258,000

Uinta Basin mostly irrigation / non-point 240,000

Dirty Devil River Area Irrigation / non-point 150,000

Price-San Rafael Area Irrigation / non-point 172,000

Other, non-regulated areas Various 5,200,000

Total 8,724,000
6 

Salinity of the Colorado River has increased due to the development of water resources in two major 

ways: (1) the addition of salts from water use and (2) the consumption (depletion) of water. The 

combined effects of water use and consumption have had a significant impact on salinity in the 

Colorado River Basin. The basin-wide drought, since 2000, has also had an influence on the present 

salinity of the Colorado River. 

Any potential health concerns from the salinity levels in the Colorado River have previously been 

addressed in the health section of Progress Report 21 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/salinity/pdfs/PR21.pdf 

ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF SALINITY 

Salinity related damages are primarily economical and due to reduced agricultural crop yields, 

corrosion, and plugging of pipes and water fixtures in housing and industry. Figure 3 breaks down 

the percentage of total damages estimated at 2017 with 1.79 million tons of salt controlled. The 

seven Basin States have agreed to limit this impact and adopted numeric criteria, which require that 

salinity concentrations not increase (from the 1972 levels) due to future water development. Salinity 

levels measured in the river may be low or high due to hydrologic conditions, but the goal of the 

Water Quality Criteria for the Colorado River Basin and the Salinity Control Program is to offset 

(eliminate/reduce) the salinity effects of additional water development. 

Reclamation has developed an economic model that calculates damages for a given level of salt. The 

Salinity Economic Impact Model (SEIM) estimates the quantitative damages that are incurred in the 

metropolitan and agricultural areas in the lower Colorado Basin that receive Colorado River water. 

The model estimates the impacts from salinity levels greater than 500 mg/L TDS on household 

water using appliances, damages in the commercial sector, industrial sector, water utilities, and 

agricultural crop revenues. It also estimates the additional costs related to meeting statewide water 

quality standards for ground water and recycled water use in the Colorado River service area. The 

SEIM was last run for the 2017 Review and results and information on the SIEM can be found at 

http://www.coloradoriversalinity.org/documents.php?ctgy=Reviews. 

Figure 3 - Salinity Damages
7 

HISTORICAL SALINITY CONDITIONS

Salinity in the Colorado River is monitored at 20 key stations throughout the Colorado River Basin. 

A map of station location is presented in Appendix A. Salt loads and concentrations are calculated 

from daily conductivity and flow records using methods developed jointly between Reclamation and 

USGS (Liebermann et al., 1986), Appendix B provides a methods summary. Historical annual 

streamflow, and salinity concentrations from 1940 through 2017 are included in graphical form in

Appendix C. Monthly and annual data may be obtained by request from Reclamation, Salt Lake City, 

Utah or by going to Reclamation’s Upper Colorado Regional Office Salinity Program web page; 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/salinity/index.html. 

The salinity of the 3 lower basin numeric criteria locations (Hoover, Parker and Imperial Dams) 

since 1940 is shown in Figure 4. As Figure 4 shows, the last time the TDS exceeded or reached the 

salinity criteria at any of the numeric criteria locations, was in 1972 – the year that the salinity 

standard was established for the Colorado River. 

Figure 4 - Colorado River Numeric Criteria Locations

FACTORS INFLUENCING SALINITY

Stream flow, reservoir storage, water resource development, salinity control, climatic conditions, and 

natural runoff directly influence salinity in the Colorado River Basin. Before water development, the 

salinity of spring runoff was often below 200 mg/L throughout the Colorado River Basin. However, 

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

TDS (mg/L)

Colorado River TDS @ Numeric Criteria Locations

Below Hoover Below Parker At Imperial

Hoover Criteria Parker Criteria Imperial Criteria
8 

salinity in the lower mainstem was often well above 1,000 mg/L during the low flow months (most 

of the year), since no reservoirs existed to catch and store the spring runoff.

Streamflow

Streamflow directly influences salinity. For the most part, higher flows (or reservoir releases) dilute 

salt concentration. The left graph in Figure 5 shows streamflow at two key points in the mainstem. 

In 1983, Lake Powell (Glen Canyon Dam) filled for the first time and spilled.

Figure 5 - Colorado River Flow and TDS

This spill went through Lake Mead (Hoover Dam) and on downstream through Imperial Dam. In 

1983 and on through 1987, flows in the system were again extremely high and sustained, reducing 

salinity to historic lows. As shown in the right graph of Figure 5, returning to average flows in the 

system after 1987 returned the salinity in the reservoir system to average levels.

Reservoir Storage 

The Colorado River Storage Project Reservoirs produce not only major hydrologic modifications 

downstream, but they also significantly alter the salinity variability of the downstream river. The 

overall long-term salinity effects of the reservoirs are beneficial and have greatly reduced the salinity 

peaks and annual fluctuation (Figure 6). The high concentration low flow waters are mixed with low 

concentration spring runoff, reducing the month-to-month variation in salinity below dams (Mueller 

et al., 1988). At Glen Canyon Dam, the pre and post dam peak monthly salinity has been reduced by 

nearly 600 mg/L, with a pre dam range of 1,106 mg/L and a post dam range of 694 mg/L. Similar 

effects can be seen below Flaming Gorge, Navajo, and Hoover Dams, greatly improving the quality 

of water during the summer, fall and winter.

Large reservoirs like Lake Powell selectively route less saline water while holding more saline waters 

during low inflow periods. The poorer quality waters are then slowly released after the inflows have 

begun to increase, which helps to prevent exceeding the salinity criteria during drought years. The 
9 

large reservoirs selectively retain higher salinity winter inflows in the bottom of the pool and route 

lower salinity overflow density currents from the spring runoff. The seasonal and long-term effects 

of this selective retention and routing of salt has been shown below Glen Canyon Dam in Figure 6. 

Figure 7 further displays this retention. Figure 7 is a long-term depth vs. time profile of salinity in 

the forebay of Glen Canyon Dam and is an illustrated history of the salinity. The Y (vertical) axis is 

depth in the water column and the X axis is time in years. The color scale is the change in salinity.

Figure 6 -Salinity below Glen Canyon Dam

Figures 6, 7 and 8 illustrate that Glen Canyon Dam causes Lake Powell to selectively retain higher 

salinity water during drier years of drought, and then routes it out with the increased mixing and 

shorter hydraulic retention times of wetter cycles as seen particularly in 1983, 1999 and 2011. During 

these wetter cycles there is a significant mixing and dilution of these previously stored salts.

There are 4 periods or trends, with regards to salt loads and concentration, which can be seen in the 

Colorado River salinity for the inflow to and outflow from Lake Powell shown in Figures 8 & 9 

(yellow dash trend lines are the outflow and the green dash trend lines are the inflow). The overall 

inflow (red lines) in Figures 8 & 9 is calculated from the salinity at the inflow stations to Lake 

Powell; Colorado River at Cisco, Green River at Green River, UT, San Rafael River near Green 

River and San Juan River near Bluff. The overall outflow (blue line) comes from the salinity at Lees 

Ferry. 

The 4 periods seen begin with the pre dam period, 1950 – 1964. The average salinity concentration 

in the river was increasing with divergence between the average annual inflow and outflow TDS 

concentrations while the salt loading was seen to be on a decreasing trend. This difference between 

outflow and inflow may be impacted by the beginning hydraulic conditions, since the actual annual 

levels appear to track each other closely.

Next there was the dam filling period where Lake Powell and the Upper Basin reservoirs were 

completed and filling, 1965-1983. The average annual salinity during this time decreased with a 

convergence occurring between the inflow and outflow concentrations. The salt loading converged 
10

during this time while the river flow stayed fairly constant, possibly due to the reservoir storing the 

salinity.

Figure 7 - Lake Powell Forebay TDS over Time

Figure 8 - Lake Powell Inflow and Outflow Salt Loading and Flow
11

Figure 9 - Lake Powell Inflow and Outflow TDS

Then there was the period, 1983 to 2017, when the basin hydrology went through both wet and dry 

periods and the salinity control projects in the upper basin were coming online. The declining trend 

of the average annual salinity concentration and load during this time is seen to be constant between 

the inflow and outflow stations. The outflow for both the concentration and loading is seen to be a 

little higher than that of the inflow, possibly due to the release of some of the stored salt from the 

reservoir.

 The last period, since 2000, covers the basinwide drought. The trend shows that the inflow TDS 

has declined, while the outflow TDS from Lake Powell has stayed constant with the 1983 to present 

TDS trend. The salinity loading during this time is shown to be slightly increasing possibly due to 

the higher than average flows in 2011.

Lake Powell (and other reservoirs in the basin) went through an initial filling salt leach out which 

actually began with temporary water retention behind the coffer dam during construction in the mid 

1950’s. Long-term linear regression trend lines on the inflow and outflow salinity concentrations at 

Lake Powell indicate that internal salt leaching seems to have declined to a minimum by the mid1990’s suggesting a long-term salinity leach out which is approaching a dynamic equilibrium (Figures 

8 & 9, red and blue trend line). Overall, there is seen to be a decreasing trend of salt concentration 

and loading in the Colorado River. 

The natural variation in salinity as well as the agricultural sources, energy development, and the 

municipal and industrial use impacts on salinity have been discussed in a prior Progress Report 24 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/salinity/pdfs/PR24final.pdf
12

FUTURE WATER DEVELOPMENT 

Tables 2 and 3 summarize projected future total depletions by water uses that are input into 

Reclamation’s Colorado River System Simulation (CRSS) model. The schedules presented below 

were used in the CRSS modeling in support of the 2017 Review. 

Table 2 summarizes the projected future depletions by water uses in the Upper Colorado River 

Basin as adopted for planning purposes by the Upper Colorado River Commission in December 

2007. Figure 10 illustrates the historical annual consumptive use by water uses in the Upper Basin as 

reported in Reclamation’s Colorado River System Consumptive Uses and Losses Reports (CUL), 

and the projected future total depletions from the CRSS model. 

The annual depletions for the Lower Colorado River Basin shown in Table 3 include only depletions 

resulting from the use of water from the mainstem of the Lower Colorado River. Reclamation’s 

CRSS model does not model or include as input consumptive uses made from tributaries to the 

Colorado River within the Lower Colorado River Basin. More detailed data on historical Colorado 

River Basin consumptive uses and losses (including tributary uses in the Lower Basin and reservoir 

evaporation losses) may be found in Reclamation’s Colorado River System Consumptive Uses and Losses 

Reports or on the web at: www.usbr.gov/uc/library/envdocs/reports/crs/crsul.html 

Figure 10 – Upper Basin Annual Consumptive Use and Projected Demands, includes CRSP Reservoir

Evaporation
13

Table 2 - Upper Basin Total Projected Depletion Demand Scenarios (1000 AF/year) 

Note 1: This depletion schedule does not attempt to interpret the Colorado River Compact, the Upper Colorado 

River Basin Compact, or any other element of the "Law of the River." This schedule should not be construed as an 

acceptance of any assumption that limits the Upper Colorado River Basin's depletion. 

Note 2: This depletion schedule is for planning purposes only. This estimate does not constitute an endorsement of 

the Bureau of Reclamations 2007 Hydrologic Determination and should not be construed as in any way limiting the 

Upper Division States use of Colorado River water in accordance with the commission's resolution of 6/5/06. 

Note 3: "Shared CRSP Evap." refers to the total and individual state portions of evaporation from the major 

Reservoirs constructed under the Colorado River Storage Project Act. These projects include Flaming Gorge, the 

Aspinall Unit Reservoirs and Glen Canyon. 

UPPER BASIN 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Arizona 

Total scheduled depletion 50 50 50 50 50

State share of 2007 Hydro-Det Amount (6.01 MAF) 50 50 50 50 50

Remaining available 0 0 0 0 0

Percent of State share available 0 0 0 0 0

Colorado

Total scheduled depletions 2,842 2,891 2,919 2,955 2,955

Critical Period CRSP Shared Evap. (% of 0.25 MAF) 129 129 129 129 129

Total 2,971 3,020 3,048 3,084 3,084

State share of 2007 Hydro-Det Amount (6.01 MAF) 3,084 3,084 3,084 3,084 3,084

Remaining available 113 64 36 0 0

Percent of State share available 4 2 1 0 0

New Mexico

Total scheduled depletions 608 635 642 642 642

Critical Period CRSP Shared Evap. (% of 0.25 MAF) 28 28 28 28 28

Total 636 663 670 670 670

State share of 2007 Hydro-Det Amount (6.01 MAF) 670 670 670 670 670

Remaining available 34 7 0 0 0

Percent of State share available 5 1 0 0 0

Utah

Total scheduled depletions 955 1,032 1,118 1,163 1,163

Critical Period CRSP Shared Evap. (% of 0.25 MAF) 58 58 58 58 58

Total 1,013 1,090 1,176 1,221 1,221

State share of 2007 Hydro-Det Amount (6.01 MAF) 1,371 1,371 1,371 1,371 1,371

Remaining available 358 281 195 150 150

Percent of State share available 26 20 14 11 11

Wyoming

Total scheduled depletions 621 719 735 750 763

Critical Period CRSP Shared Evap. (% of 0.25 MAF) 35 35 35 35 35

Total 656 754 770 785 798

State share of 2007 Hydro-Det Amount (6.01 MAF) 834 834 834 834 834

Remaining available 178 80 64 49 36

Percent of State share available 21 10 8 6 4
14

Table 3 - Lower Basin Depletion Projections (1000 MAF/year) 

LOWER MAINSTEM 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Nevada

Southern Nevada Water Authority 287 287 287 287 287

Laughlin Area 4 4 4 4 4

Mohave Steam Plant 0 0 0 0 0

Fort Mohave Indian Reservation 9 9 9 9 9

Total 300 300 300 300 300

Arizona

Lake Mead NRA 1 1 1 1 1

Marble Canyon Co 0 0 0 0 0

Fort Mohave Indian Reservation 73 73 73 73 73

Mohave Valley I&D District 24 24 25 25 25

Havasu NWR 5 5 5 5 5

Lake Havasu City & Other Users 32 35 39 44 47

Central Arizona Project 1372 1362 1351 1346 1343

Parker & Other Users 10 10 10 10 10

Cibola & Imperial NWR 4 4 4 4 4

Cibola Valley I&DD 8 8 8 8 8

Colorado River Indian Reservation 463 463 463 463 463

Gila Gravity Main Canal 774 770 776 776 776

Gila & Yuma Users 15 15 15 15 15

Fort Yuma Reservation 1 1 1 1 1

Other Users 20 29 29 29 29

Total 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800

California

Fort Mohave Indian Reservation 9 9 9 9 9

City of Needles 1 1 1 1 1

Havasu NWR 0 0 0 0 0

Chemehuevi Indian Reservation 8 8 8 8 8

Other Users & misc. present perfected rights 2 2 2 2 2

Metropolitan Water District 847 854 854 854 854

Colorado River Indian Reservation 39 39 39 39 39

Palo Verde Irrigation District 366 366 366 366 366

Imperial Irrigation District 2645 2608 2608 2611 2611

Coachella Valley Water District 429 459 459 456 456

All American Canal (Yuma Project) 54 54 54 54 54

Total 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400

Unassigned

Phreatophytes & Native Vegetation 632 632 632 632 632

Yuma Desalting Plant 109 109 109 109 109

Total 741 741 741 741 741

Note: In the LC Basin, depletions are from mainstem diversions of the Colorado River only. Does not include 

depletions from diversions of Colorado River tributaries or evaporation from mainstem reservoirs. The Figures 

represent measured diversions less measured and estimated, unmeasured return flow that can be assigned to a

specific project.
15

COMPLIANCE WITH THE SALINITY STANDARDS

Reclamation and the Basin States analyzed the effects on the salinity of the River for the 2017 

Review. As part of the triennial review process, Reclamation used the Colorado River Simulation 

System (CRSS) model to evaluate whether enough salinity control measures are in place to offset the 

effects of development. The information provided in the next two sections of the report was used to 

evaluate compliance with the water quality standards.

In response to the Clean Water Act, the States have adopted water quality (salinity) criteria for the 

Colorado River Basin and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved them at all 

three locations in the Lower Colorado River Basin. The standards call for maintenance of flowweighted average annual salinity concentrations (numeric criteria) in the lower mainstem of the 

Colorado River and a plan of implementation for future controls. 

The water quality standards are based on the Water Quality Standards for Salinity, Including Numeric 

Criteria and Plan of Implementation for Salinity Control, Colorado River System, prepared by the Colorado 

River Basin Salinity Control Forum, June 1975. The document was adopted by each of the Basin 

States and approved by EPA. A summary of the report follows:

The numeric criteria for the Colorado River System are to be established at levels corresponding to 

the flow-weighted average annual concentrations in the lower mainstem during calendar year 1972. 

The flow-weighted average annual salinity for the year 1972 was used. Reclamation determined these 

values from daily flow and salinity data collected by the USGS and Reclamation. Based on this 

analysis, the numeric criteria are 723 mg/L below Hoover Dam, 747 mg/L below Parker Dam, and 

879 mg/L at Imperial Dam.

It should be recognized that the river system is subject to highly variable annual flow. The 

frequency, duration, and availability of carryover storage greatly affect the salinity of the lower 

mainstem; and, therefore, it is probable that salinity levels will exceed the numeric criteria in some 

years and be well below the criteria in others. However, under the above assumptions, the average 

salinity will be maintained at or below 1972 levels. 

Periodic increases above the criteria as a result of reservoir conditions or periods of below normal 

long-time average annual flow also will be in conformance with the standards. With satisfactory 

reservoir conditions and when river flows return to the long-time average annual flow or above, 

concentrations are expected to be at or below the criteria level.

The standards provide for temporary increases above the 1972 levels if control measures are 

included in the plan. Should water development projects be completed before control measures, 

temporary increases above the criteria could result and these will be in conformance with the 

standard. With completion of control projects, those now in the plan or those to be added 

subsequently, salinity would return to or below the criteria level.

The goal of the Salinity Control Program is to maintain the flow-weighted average annual salinity at 

or below the numeric criteria of the salinity standards. The Program is not, however, intended to 

counteract the salinity fluctuations that are a result of the highly variable flows caused by climatic 

conditions, precipitation, snowmelt, and other natural factors. 
16

SALINITY CONTROL

Existing salinity control measures prevent nearly 1.33 million tons of salt per year from reaching the 

river. In 2017 the Salinity Control Program for Reclamation has controlled approximately 550,000

tons of salt, while the NRCS program has reduced around 610,000 tons of salt, and the BLM has 

controlled an estimated 126,000 tons of salt per year from entering the Colorado River. In the 2017 

Review it was determined that salinity control units will need to prevent nearly 1.66 million tons of 

salt per year from entering the Colorado River by 2035, in order to meet the standard and keep the 

economic damages minimized. To reach this objective, as shown in Table 4, the Salinity Control 

Program needs to implement 330,000 tons of new controls beyond the existing 1,330,000 tons of 

salinity control presently in place (2017) as reported by Reclamation, NRCS & BLM. On average 

about 18,300 tons per year of new salinity control measures must be added each year if the program 

is to meet the cumulative target of 1,660,000 tons per year by 2035, assuming no degradation of 

existing salinity projects. However, due to expected funding limitations in future years, more tons of 

salt will be controlled sooner than later.

To achieve this goal, a variety of salinity control methods are being investigated and constructed. 

Saline springs and seeps may be collected for disposal by evaporation, industrial use, or deep-well 

injection. Other methods include both on-farm and off-farm delivery system and irrigation 

improvements, which reduce the loss of water and reduce salt pickup by improving irrigation 

practices and by lining canals, laterals, and ditches.

Table 4 - Salinity Control Requirements and Needs Through 2035

Measures in place (2017) 1,330,000 tons

Potential Salinity Control Available (2018-2035) 1,272,100 tons

Annual Plan of Implementation Target a 74,830 tons

a. This value is the amount of salt required on an annual basis to meet the potential 

available salt to control over the next 17 years. 
17

CHAPTER 2 – TITLE I SALINITY CONTROL 

PROGRAM 

The Salinity Control Act, as amended, authorized the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to proceed 

with a program of works of improvement for the enhancement and protection of the quality of 

water available in the Colorado River for use in the United States and the Republic of Mexico. Title 

I enables the United States to comply with its obligation under the agreement with Mexico of 

August 30, 1973 (Minute No. 242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission, United 

States and Mexico [Minute No. 242]), which was concluded pursuant to the Treaty of February 3, 

1944 (TS 994).

Figure 11 - Title I Salinity Control Projects

These facilities enable the United States to deliver water to Mexico with an average annual salinity 

concentration no greater than 115 parts per million (ppm) plus or minus 30 ppm (United States 

count) over the average annual salinity concentration of the Colorado River water at Imperial Dam.

The background and history of the Title I projects (Coachella Canal Lining, Protective and 

Regulatory pumping, Yuma Desalting Plant, Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation & Drainage District) can be 

found in Progress Report 22, chapter 4 at; 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/salinity/pdfs/PR22.pdf
18

Updates for the Title I Projects since last Progress Report: 

Coachella Canal 

No new activity.

Protective and Regulatory Pumping

No new activity. 

Yuma Desalting Plant

No new activity.

Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District (WMIDD)

Total crop acres have remained relatively stable since the early 1970’s because more acreage is 

double-cropped than when the program was initiated. More vegetable crops are being grown in the 

district than in the past, with lettuce (iceberg and romaine) now the major crop. Irrigation efficiency 

levels and return flow levels for 1991-2017 are shown in Table 5. Efficiency values do not include a 

leaching fraction.

With the use of monthly groundwater table monitoring using observation well measurements as well 

as input from land users, WMIDD can maintain a drainage-pumping program that sufficiently 

maintains the agriculture root zone. Land users continue to maintain water efficient farming 

techniques with the use of sprinkler, drip, dead level, high heads, and short runs. 
19

Table 5 - WMIDD Irrigation Efficiency

Year

Drainage

Return Flow 

(acre-feet) Irrigation Efficiency, %

1991

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

144,900

116,200 

8,970 

49,820 

121,500 

119,600 

91,695 

98,972 

94,869 

110,287 

107,908 

119,410 

116,477 

106,002 

110,770 

103,810 

112,910 

120,190 

105,482 

111,170 

108,140 

115,630 

107,860 

111,390 

106,170 

99,130 

101,064 

68.8

70.4 

68.8 

65.4 

64.3 

60.4 

62.2 

61.9 

63.0 

59.7 

60.9 

61.2 

57.8 

63.3 

64.6 

62.3 

62.6 

63.0 

62.7 

66.1 

64.9 

64.1 

67.5 

64.6 

63.9 

67.6 

66.6 

 Note: data provided by WMIDD
20

CHAPTER 3 - TITLE II SALINITY CONTROL 

PROGRAM 

Title II of the Salinity Control Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) and the 

Secretary of Agriculture to implement a broad range of specific and general salinity control measures 

in an ongoing effort to prevent further degradation of water quality in the United States. These 

efforts are shown on the map below. The NRCS, Reclamation and BLM have a combined goal of 

controlling an additional 330,000 tons of salt by the year 2035. These federal agencies are required 

to work together under the Salinity Control Act, as amended; with Reclamation being the lead 

federal agency. The Salinity Control Act also calls for periodic reports on this effort. The report is 

to include the effectiveness of the units, anticipated work to be accomplished to meet the objectives 

of Title II with emphasis on the needs during the 5 years immediately following the date of each 

report, and any special problems that may be impeding an effective salinity control program. Title II 

also provides that this report may be included in the biennial Quality of Water Colorado River Basin, 

Progress Report. New activities since the last progress report as well as ongoing and active projects 

are listed in this chapter. 

Figure 12 - Title II Salinity Control Projects
21

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

The BLM administers about 53 million acres of public lands in the Colorado River Basin (CRB) 

above Yuma, Arizona. Substantial portions of these public lands are ecologically classified as arid 

or semiarid rangelands. Point sources of salt on public lands include saline springs, seeps from 

marine sedimentary formations, abandoned flowing wells, discharge from abandoned mines, and 

discharge of waters from authorized activities such as oil and gas production or mining. Nonpoint 

sources of salt include surface runoff, soil erosion, stream sediments, and groundwater discharge to 

streams. Salts can be transported in solution or with solids such as soils or coarse fragments. Past 

studies have indicated that salt loading in rangelands is closely associated with sediment loading and 

that wind transport is the dominant mechanism of sediment movement across semi-arid and arid 

rangelands. Salt concentrations on public lands tend to be highest in areas underlain by marine 

sedimentary rocks such as shales and mudstones that receive less than 8 inches of annual 

precipitation.

Although salt concentrations can be very high in runoff from these lands, the frequency and 

volume of runoff is low because of the low precipitation and ephemeral nature of stream systems. 

Runoff from areas with highly saline soils in the upper basin is estimated to contribute about onethird of the annual salt load from BLM public lands. 

The greatest volume of salt contributed from BLM-administered lands, however, is sourced from 

areas with moderate to low salt concentrations in soils that are relatively well-covered with 

perennial vegetation and receive more than 12 inches of annual precipitation. Although salt 

concentrations in runoff from these lands are low, total loading is relatively large because of higher 

water yields. These areas comprise about 67 percent of BLM-administered lands in the upper 

basin. Runoff from these areas is estimated to contribute more than half of the annual salt load 

from BLM-administered lands in the upper basin. 

The BLM attempts to reduce these impacts to help maintain land-health standards by utilizing 

best-management practices; including terms, conditions, and stipulations in land-use 

authorizations; and requiring actions to restore lands upon completion of authorized activities. 

BLM also engages in many activities to restore degraded ecosystems that contribute excessive 

sediment and salts to CRB watersheds. These activities include constructing and maintaining 

grade-control structures, spreader dikes, and retention structures; emergency stabilization and 

rehabilitation efforts following wildfires; removal of invasive plant species, channel stabilization, 

and other riparian enhancements; maintaining road culverts; remediation of abandoned mine 

lands, and fire fuels reduction treatments. 

Salinity reductions for many of these activities continue to be difficult to quantify and report to 

the Forum because of factors such as the lack of adequate understanding about mobilization 

and transport of salts from rangelands and inability to conduct effectiveness monitoring for all 

projects. Reports from BLM State Offices (see below) reference many of these activities and 

the BLM is engaged in efforts with partner agencies to improve future ability to quantify salinity 

reductions from these efforts. To address these challenges, the BLM is co-developing a system 

of tools/models: RHEM-APEX-AGWA ((Rangeland Hydrology and Erosion Model; AlHamdan et al., 2011); (Agricultural Policy Extender model; Sharpley and Williams, 1990); 

(Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment Tool; Hernandez et al, 2000)). The integration 

and linking of these tools/models were completed during FY2015. The collection of physical 
22

data to model parameter value justification is still being conducted on BLM CRB rangelands as 

previously funded by the Basin States Program and continued by the BLM. 

Program Summary and Administration

The 2017 budget included a total allocation of $1,500,000 for Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 

projects funded through the Soil, Water & Air Management Program. The Salinity Coordinator (SC) 

is placed administratively at the National Operation Center (NOC). Water resource specialist and 

soil, water, air program lead positions were filled at the Washington Office in fall of 2016. State soil, 

water, air program leads assist BLM field offices with support for salinity control projects and 

reporting. The present accounting method for BLM salt control is under review, so specific saltcontrolled numbers are not reported here just the reported projects.

Basin Wide Activities

The BLM is not able to report reductions accomplished through many of these efforts to the Forum 

because of technical and programmatic issues but is working to develop approaches needed to 

quantify reductions. However, included in the $1.5 million funded projects is the BLM contracted 

work with USDA ARS for multiple rainfall sediment and salinity transport projects (final report to 

be ready summer, 2018). Data are being collected from New Mexico through October 2017. This 

data collected becomes the physical data that the RHEM-APEX model will use for simulations from 

small to large scale rangeland questions, as a policy tool, and for evaluating better procedures. The 

APEX tool will be used to detect sediment deposition and erosion in wind, water, and terrestrially 

through a less expensive method to answer the public’s questions regarding salinity. 

Fuels Treatment Effectiveness Monitoring Program 

Since 2003, BLM has accomplished millions of acres of fuels management treatments including 

prescribed fire, seeding, thinning, mastication, and lop and scatter. Vegetation left on the ground 

from treatments such as lop and scatter, inhibits the transport of sediment and salts. Initially there 

may be increased erosion; however, overall per acre burned there is 1 cubic yard of sediment 

retained. Central to the success of the program is assessing the efficacy of those treatments. The 

BLM’s Fuels Treatment Effectiveness Monitoring Program focuses on areas that are likely to 

intersect with wildfires leading to the destruction of vegetation and leaving paths for sediment and 

salinity surficial movement. Utilizing the Fuels Treatment Effectiveness Monitoring database 

(FTEM), field offices will complete a fuels treatment effectiveness assessment and input appropriate 

information into FTEM for all wildfires which start in, burn into, or burn through any portion of a 

fuel treatment area that has been completed. For example, since 2010, the Utah BLM Fuels 

Treatment Program has impacted sediment transport on over 260,000 acres resulting in more than 

18,000 cu yd of sediment retained on BLM land with about half of it within the CRB Utah 

boundaries (approximately 8,900 cu yd of sediment retained = 2,450 tons retained).

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Program (ES&R)

ES&R is another BLM program that impacts sediment and salinity transport. Ten wildfires that 

have burned more than 10,000 acres, as addressed by the BLM, were identified for our modelling 

purposes. These fires included the Rattle Fire Complex, the State Fire, the Lakeside Fire, the 

Dallas Canyon Fire, the Patch Springs Fire, the Faust Fire, the Grease Fire, the Clay Springs Fire, 

the Woods Hollow Fire, the Wolf Den Fire and the Baboon Fire. An example of what is being 

accomplished to gain the sediment retained on BLM land is the Rattle Fire Complex that burned a 

total of 94,519 acres of which 50,000 acres was on BLM land. The ES&R report provides enough 
23

detail of the area and treatment as well as the related costs. That information is combined with 

existing vegetation, land use, soil, slope and climate data to compare pre-burn conditions to postburn and post-rehabilitation conditions. Once approved by the BLM ES&R Program, the results 

will be added to sediment retained on BLM lands total.

Recreation-OHV (Off Highway Vehicle) Program

Within the entire CRB, we have calculated that the Recreation-OHV Program contains 89,700 

miles of dirt roads that contribute to sediment transport. Based on a pound of soil having an 

average of 3 percent salt and that an average of 2 cubic yards are retained per mile of road 

maintained and it is assumed that a BLM OHV road has been maintained at least one time since it 

was built. It can then be estimated that a minimum of 20,560 tons of sediment with at least 3 

percent salt have been retained on BLM land due to road maintenance on OHV dirt roads. 

State Reports

BLM State Offices submitted the following reports describing activities related to salinity

Control programs on BLM-administered lands. State reports include descriptions of projects 

conducted with designated Salinity Program funding through the SWA sub activity as well as

summaries of activities conducted through other programs and permitted users that reduce the 

transport of sediment and salt to the Colorado River. Vegetation left on the ground inhibits the 

transport of sediment and salts. The BLM’s Fuels Treatment Effectiveness Monitoring Program 

manages areas that are likely to intersect with wildfires leading to the destruction of vegetation and 

leaving paths for sediment and salinity surficial movement.

Within the FTEM and per IM-2015-001 which states that “offices will complete a fuels treatment 

effectiveness assessment and input appropriate information into FTEM for all wildfires which start 

in, burn into, or burn through any portion of a fuel treatment area that has been completed and 

reported in the Hazardous Fuels Module of the National Fire Plan Operations and Reporting 

System from FY2003 to present.” Utah has 171 records where a record for example would be the 

Scipio Summit Wildfire in which there is 90 days to report it into the FTEM database. The records 

for Utah account for 21 percent of all of BLM’s records. Since 2003, BLM has accomplished 

millions of acres of fuels management treatments including thinning, mastication, and lop and 

scatter. Wildfires have intersected many of these fuel treatments therefore, demonstrating fuels 

program effectiveness for a minimum of 17,363 acres (70.3 km2

) burned in Utah. 

Another BLM Program that impacts sediment and salinity transport is the Emergency Stabilization 

and Rehabilitation (ES&R). Plans after the Toquerville Fire, Utah, in FY2012 were approved for 

reseeding to minimize soil erosion at a cost of $478,000 over a 4-year period; it burned 113 acres of 

public land. The action plan would not only establish a desired plant community but also suppress 

invasive annuals that can create a burn/re-burn cycle. The plan investigates understory and recovery 

to minimize erosion and reestablishment, fences, monitoring, soil stabilization, and road/trail 

diversions. The White Rock fire in Utah was approved for $1,636,000 in the BLM ES&R Program. 

Its plan of actions over three years was to apply a seed mix aerially, then use chaining to cover the 

seed. All livestock needed to be removed for two growing seasons so that the seeding could take 

effect. Based on site characterization of slope, topography, and ecology no additional measures 

were needed. The BLM was treating an area of 3,542 acres that included 263 State acres and 212 

private acres for a total of 4,017 acres for a total cost of $950,000. This area also included the 

possibility of sage grouse and pygmy rabbit.
24

ARIZONA

Across the Arizona Strip Field Office there are hundreds of erosion control structures which have 

been built to slow down erosional runoff, salinity, and valuable soil loss which would eventually end 

up in the Colorado River system. Over 200 of these structures are in the 1,000,000-acre Fort Pearce 

flood and salinity control sub-basin. Many of these structures have deteriorated or have been 

breached by heavy runoff. Without maintenance, these structures fill up over time with saline silt 

causing them to lose their holding and functional capacity. This project would inventory and 

maintain many of these structures which range from 50 feet to over a quarter mile in length. The 

structures would be inventoried, assessed for needed repairs, and prioritized for maintenance and 

repair work to be completed. In the past few years, increases in runoff have occurred across the unit 

due to the encroachment of pinyon and juniper which has out competed the understory soil holding 

vegetation. This has allowed increased flows in nearly all drainages causing soil loss and salinity 

movement across the landscape. The purpose of this project was to slow the flow by repairing and 

maintaining the existing structures. 

Current project: work in progress. 

Figure 13 - Flat Top Dike #9; South view of repairs. All photos in this section provided by BLM

COLORADO

Colorado River Salinity Summary of Monitoring Activities-WRFO (2008-2017)

The Colorado River Salinity funding (CRS Funds) for the White River have been used to augment 

existing USGS Streamflow monitoring sites, support USGS reports based on data collected, 

purchased equipment for BLM monitoring, and hire seasonal personal for field work. This funding 

resulted in an unprecedented amount of baseline data being collected and analyzed for the White 

River, Piceance Creek, and Yellow Creek drainages. The reports and data generated can be used to 

contributions of anthropogenic impacts to salinity in surface waters specifically, the salinity loads 

from the White River. The BLM funded a data repository to collect and assess existing water 

resource information http://rmgsc.cr.usgs.gov/cwqdr/Piceance/). Data from the repository is 
25

being migrated to the Colorado Data Share Network (http://www.coloradowaterdata.org/).

Accomplishments are similar to 2016 FAR.

USGS Yellow Creek Streamflow Site

Establishment of a new USGS streamflow site above Crooked Wash to bracket an area on the White 

River (White River Dome and Piceance and Yellow Creeks) known to be responsible for increasing 

salinity loads in the White River. Summary of all data available and funded by BLM is available at 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/nwisman/?site_no=09306224&agency_cd=USGS. 

Mancos Shale Oil and Gas Monitoring -CRVFO

The USGS in cooperation with the BLM will study the distribution, storage, and release of sediment, 

salinity, and selenium in area of Mancos Shale under two different land uses. The study will include 

2 basins in Stinking Water Gulch near Rangely, CO, where one basin is dominated by oil and gas 

land use (Basin A) and the other basin is dominated by grazing/ranching land use (Basin B). The 

two basins are of similar size (~1.4 square miles) and similar slopes (~16 percent). This approach 

will provide insight into how different land uses effect the distribution, storage, and release of 

sediment, salinity, and selenium in surface-water systems.

Stinking Water Gulch-Grand Junction- UFO

The USGS, in cooperation with the BLM, is completing a study of four basins on BLM managed 

lands that are geographically similar and represent different land use histories on areas of Mancos 

Shale. This study will help resource managers gain insight on how different land uses may affect 

sediment, salinity, and selenium distribution and storage in Mancos Shale landscapes. The objectives 

of the project are to (1) characterize sediment, salinity, and selenium distribution and storage in four 

basins in Stinking Water Gulch under differing land uses (energy development and rangeland 

grazing); and (2) to evaluate the role of land use (energy development and rangeland grazing) and 

watershed processes that may increase sediment, salinity, or selenium inter-basin flux. Project is 

being updated and combined with additional projects.

Project Tasks and progress status through calendar year 2017: 

The study includes four basins in Stinking Water Gulch near Rangely, Colorado. Two basins are 

dominated by energy development (Basin A1 and A2) and the other two basins are dominated by 

rangeland grazing (Basin B1 and B2). The basins in each basin group (A and B) include basins of 

similar size, aspects, soils, and slope. A comparison of sediment, salinity, and selenium storage 

characteristics between these two basin groups is used to evaluate the homogeneity of each system 

as well as to test for significant differences between the two groups. This approach aims to provide 

insight into how different land uses affect the distribution, storage, and release of sediment, salinity, 

and selenium in surface-water systems. Results were presented as part of a peer reviewed publication 

in calendar year 2017. The methods, background, and maps have been provided in the 2016 FAR. 

Task 3. Laboratory results are expected in September 2017. Identification of the age of 

geomorphic surfaces within the basins will aid in interpretation of the timing and correlation of 

incision of the stream channel observed in the basins. Task 4. An assessment of hillslope erosion 

potential was begun December 2015, using the USDA developed Water Erosion Prediction Project 

(WEPP) model (USDA, 1995). Comparisons of erosion predictions from the WEPP interface 

between the two basin groups and results of simulations using WEPP:Road will provide a 

comparison of the hillslope processes and transport rates of these two systems and can aide in 

understanding potential sediment inputs and erosion attributable to road and well pad disturbances 
26

associated with land uses in the area. Task 5. A determination of the release rate for sediment, 

salinity, and selenium is being done through an assessment of volume changes within the channels 

of each basin in conjunction with annual load estimates from the WEPP analysis in 2017. The 

cross-section data is used with age dating to estimate channel incision rates and to evaluate total 

channel volume change through time (inter-basin sediment flux). Geomorphic surface present in 

the study area were identified, and cross-sectional area at these locations were related to basin 

morphology to determine the erosional volume. Correlations between cross sectional area and 

downstream distance in each basin were determined (and example is shown in figure 5). Volume 

estimates were related to bulk density of soils in the areas (USDA, 2017). The volumes of each 

basin and along multiple points within each basin are used to compare sediment storage between 

basins and basin groups. 

Soil chemistry indicated varying concentrations of salts at locations sampled within a basin and 

between basins. Concentrations for salts showed a general decrease in concentration from higherelevation terrace, lower-elevation terrace, and stream bed samples; whereas, selenium concentrations 

showed a general increase in concentration along this same progression of geomorphic surfaces. 

Task 6. Release of findings will be done in FY 2018 after receiving the remaining OSL-sample 

results and completion of the analysis. Water-quality data will be stored and available to the public 

through the USGS National Water Information System Web Interface 

(https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). Results of this study will be published in a peer reviewed 

publication with applicable data sets in calendar year 2018.

Piceance Basin Salinity Groundwater Monitoring

In 2017, the USGS, in cooperation with the BLM, continued groundwater-monitoring efforts which 

began in 2008 in an areas of energy development in the Piceance Basin (Uinta and Green River 

Formations). Results from this monitoring effort indicate that (1) shallow aquifers are vulnerable to 

dramatic changes in water-levels and water quality (salinity) which may be the result of solution 

mining or drilling activities including hydraulic fracturing; and (2) verified that plug and abandoned 

wells on BLM lands can act as conduits for the migration of gases and fluids from deeper sources to 

shallow, freshwater aquifers.

Figure 14 - Correlation between cross sectional area (volume of sediment removed below identified 

geomorphic surface) and downstream distance along study basin, Rio Blanco County, Colorado
27

NEW MEXICO

San Juan River Basin Erosion Reduction

Focus is on noxious weed removal that threatens native riparian habitat, cutting trees, and showing 

lack of understory plant growth leading to loss of topsoil due to rain/snowmelt events that lead to 

surface products in the stream. Sediment fences are being built, Youth Conservation Corps are 

involved to restore native vegetation and soil erosion and salinity will be reduced. Work is 

progressing. 

La Manga Canyon Watershed Improvement - Degraded rangelands including sagebrush 

grasslands and pinyon and juniper woodlands are on steep hillsides. The trees have minimal 

understory and excessive soil erosion. Sediment retention dams are being built to hold sediment on 

the watershed.

Road Improvements - Roads have been regularly maintained and reconstructed to meet road 

standards. BLM’s Civil Engineering technician developed the San Juan Public Roads Committee. 

This committee includes oil and gas producers, members of the local ranching community, and the 

Forest Service. The Committee has greatly improved the conditions of the local unpaved roads and 

has helped reduce the amount of sediment reaching the river systems from the road network. The 

Surface Protection staff at the BLM-FFO has completed several road and sediment retention 

upgrades for the fiscal year on BLM managed lands. Table 6 has a list of sediment retention and 

erosion control features installed or maintained for roads in FY17.

Road name/Area

Miles of road 

improvement 

# of sediment 

retention

structures built 

# of retention 

structures 

cleaned

# of 

culverts 

installed 

# of 

sediment 

ponds 

built

Truby Road/Largo 

Canyon

2 miles 3 0 0 0

Bradly Road/Carrizo 

Canyon 

0.75 mile 2 0 5 3

Newberry Road/Heartly 

Springs

0.5 mile 2 2 3 0

Simon Canyon 

Roads/Simon Canyon

25 miles 0 2 4 1

Cabin Canyon 

Road/Hart Canyon

1.5 miles 0 0 4 3

Carrizo Road/Carrizo 

Canyon

0.25 miles 0 0 3 1

La Plata Roads/La Plata 

River 

1 mile 3 1 3 0

Hart Canyon Road/Hart 

Canyon

0.125 mile 1 0 2 0

Rodeo Development 

Unit 

1 mile 1 0 4 0

Total 32.125 Miles 12 5 28 8

Vegetation Treatments - Approximately 2,500 acres of Federal land that was infested with weeds 

were sprayed to promote native vegetation recovery. Approximately 3000 acres of weed treatment 

Table 6 - List of sediment retention and erosion control features installed or maintained for roads in FY17
28

areas were monitored to establish the effectiveness of treatment. Farmington plans on applying 

Tebuthiuron (Teb) to approximately 13,300 acres of sagebrush/grassland that had become 

unhealthy due to excessive densities of sagebrush. The project will begin in the fall when chemical 

applications are most effective. Funding has been allocated through the BLM/NMACD agreement 

for this project. Sagebrush in high densities tends to dominate the available soil moisture causing a 

loss of grass species and an increase in bare ground resulting in increased soil erosion. Tebuthiuron 

is applied at an appropriate rate to thin the sagebrush but not to eliminate it. Reducing sagebrush 

densities generally results in increased water availability for grass and forb species which typically 

increase ground cover and reduce soil erosion. 

Pinyon and juniper lop and scatter projects are beneficial to multiple resources on the landscape. 

Reestablishing a grass understory in project area increases infiltration rates and decreases runoff and 

erosion during high flow precipitation events. Slash created by the project is used to protect seeded 

areas and decrease sheet runoff in the project areas. Seed mixes used include a wildlife forb 

component. Approximately 35 acres of lop and scatter/ seeding have been completed with three 

types of Southwest Conservation Corps crews with an additional 500 acres planned and funded for 

the fall. This amount may vary based on availability of contractors.

Silt Traps- 83 Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) have been approved this year so far. Oil 

and gas operators have been granted an exemption from storm water runoff by the EPA. A 

common Best Management Practice (BMP) associated with the building of these well pads are the 

construction of silt traps to contain sediment runoff associated within the disturbance from the well 

pad. Each location generally had a minimum of one silt trap associated with it. For this fiscal year 

an estimated 83 silt traps were constructed, assuming 1 silt trap per well pad. Approximately 640 silt 

traps have been built to help curtail sediment and salt loading and improve water quality in the San 

Juan Basin.

San Juan River Watershed Salinity Reduction and Vegetation Management 

Rangeland areas have been identified for vegetation treatments to increase native understory 

recovery. The funding for this project has been allocated through an agreement with NMACD to 

conduct aerial treatment of 13,300 acres of decadent sagebrush communities lacking sufficient 

understories. Approximately 35 acres of pinyon and juniper encroachment have been thinned and 

seeded; an approximate 500 acres of pinyon and juniper encroachment in the Simon Canyon 

Watershed and Middle Mesa are being treated using heavy equipment. 

The 300 acres of a previously treated area on Pump Canyon Mesa has been reseeded to ensure the 

success of the project Approximately 40 acres of thinning projects in La Manga Canyon are being 

reseeded to ensure project success. There is also a project planned to mow approximately 300 acres 

of Tamarix (salt cedar) within Gobernador Canyon. NEPA compliance for the project is in the final 

stages. The salt cedar leaf beetle biocontrol has eliminated most of the salt cedar communities in the 

canyon, and this project is designed to seek and eradicate the remaining clusters with small 

equipment. 

San Juan River Watershed Integrated Salinity Reduction

Funding for this project has been allocated to purchase materials used for sediment capture fences. 

Two major structures in Largo Canyon and La Manga Canyon are planned to have maintenance and 

upgrades. 
29

Figure 15 - Current Lop and Scatter Project (SCC/USJW); La Manga Project Area (Two years posttreatment); Previous La Manga Project (one-year post-treatment) W/ Native Grass

Figure 16 - 2016 Teb Sagebrush 

Treatment 1. Photos provided by BLM

Figure 17 - Previous Teb Treatment (Posttreatment)

Figure 18- Recently Installed Silt Trap

(Simon Canyon)

Figure 19 - Previous Bradley Road (completely 

impassible-eroded by Carrizo Wash)
30

Figure 20 - Previous Bradley Road Ripped and 

Reseeded with Erosion Control Structure

Figure 21 - New Bradley Road Complete with 

Culverts and Sediment Retention Ponds

UTAH

Sediment Collection and Salinity Reduction on the GSENM Eight Mile Salinity Control 

Structure

In 2013 and 2014 the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument repaired the Eight Mile 

Salinity Control Structure. In 2013 and 2014, the dam was extended approximately 150 feet, the 

spillway was repaired and armored with geotextile material and riprap, and approximately 13,000-

15,000 yd3 of salt-laden sediment was excavated from the control structure’s primary settling pond 

to restore the holding capacity of the reservoir.

Figure 22 - Eight Mile Impoundment with water July 1, 2016 (Impoundment is approximately 5 acres)

In 2017 the Eight Mile Salinity Control Structure collected sediment and water during the summer 

2016 monsoon rains. As of July 1, 2017, the pond was inundated with water, so it was not possible 

to measure the depth of sediment that accumulated during the previous year. Work was completed 

during summer 2017 to repair a large washout in the Eight Mile dam and to lower the spillway and 

install culverts that will prevent water from flowing over the dam in the future.
31

Telegraph Flat and Finn Little Wash Salinity Control Structures

In 2016, five salinity control structures were cleaned and repaired on Telegraph Flat (Telegraph Flat 

1-4 and Finn Little: (see map below), north of Hwy 89 at the southern end of the Monument. From 

August 2016 to July 1, 2017, the Telegraph Flat salinity control structures captured approximately 

21.7 yd3 of sediment. 

The Finn Little structure was breached by flooding shortly after being repaired in 2016 and did not 

collect sediment for the year.

Figure 23 - Google Map Imagery of Telegraph Flat and Finn Little Wash Salinity Control Structures

Figure 24 - Telegraph Flat 1 - Photos show wetted area where sediment collected in 2016-2017. 

Figure 25 - Photos of Telegraph Flat 2 (a), 3 (b) & 4 (c) showing the wetted area where sediment collected 

in 2016/2017.
32

Paria Town Area, Kimble Valley 1, & Kitchen Corral 1 Salinity Control Structures

Three salinity control structures near the Old Paria Town were cleaned and repaired in the summer 

of 2016. Approximately 7,155 yd3 of sediment was removed from the structures and used to 

maintain and repair the adjacent dams. 

Kimble Valley 1 was cleaned in the spring of 2017. Approximately 18,252 yd3 of sediment was 

removed from the structure and used to maintain and repair the adjacent dam. At Kitchen Corral 1 

(see Paria Town area map), a small amount of material from the salinity control structure was used 

to repair a hole in the dam. The pond was not cleaned because it was full of water.

Kimble Valley Salinity Control Structures 

Three salinity structures (Kimble Valley 2, 3, and 4) were cleaned in the Kimble Valley area of the 

Monument, north of Hwy 89 (see Kimble Valley Area Map), in 2014, but were not documented in 

the 2016 report. Over the last 3 years, the ponds collected approximately 2,800 yd3 of sediment. 

Figure 26 - Photos of Kimble Valley salinity control structures in 2017. Kimble valley 2 (a), 3 (b) & 4 (c).

Salinity Control Structures Cleaned and Repaired

Buckskin Area Salinity Control Structures Four salinity control structures north of Buckskin 

Mountain were cleaned and repaired in the spring of 2017 in the area south of Hwy 89 (see Buckskin 

area map). Approximately 22,593 yd3 of sediment was removed from the structures and used to 

maintain and repair the adjacent dams. The last clean-out dates are not known. 
33

Figure 27 - Photos of Buckskin salinity control structures cleaned in spring 2017. Photos provided by BLM.

Figure 28 - Photos of Paria Town area (a, b and c), Kimble Valley 1 (d), and Kitchen Corral 1 (e) Salinity 

Control Structures.

Summary: GSENM Salinity Work 2016 – 2017 In summary, salinity control structures cleaned 

and repaired prior to July 1, 2017 collected 3,268 yd3 of sediment. From July 1, 2016 to July 1, 2017, 

15 additional structures were cleaned and repaired on the Monument. A total of 114,010 yd3 of 

sediment was removed from these structures and used to repair and maintain the dams.
34

Five-Mile and House Rock Valley Area Salinity Control Structures

Four salinity control structures along House Rock Valley Road, south of Hwy 89 were cleaned and 

repaired in the spring of 2017 (see House Rock Valley area map; names are 5-Mile 1 & 2 and House 

Rock Valley 1 & 2). Approximately 17,031 yd3 of sediment was removed from the structures and 

used to maintain and repair the adjacent dams. The last clean-out dates are unknown. 

Figure 29 - Photos of House Rock Valley salinity control structures cleaned in Spring 2017. Five mile 1 (a), 

Five mile 2 (b), House Rock Valley 1 (c), and House Rock Valley 2 (d). Big Flat Grazing Allotment. Photos 

provided by BLM.

The Big Flat Grazing Allotment has a new grazing strategy due to the recent permit renewal process. 

In order to better manage a large area of moderately saline soils, a new grazing pasture has been 

delineated allowing a shorter period of use on these soils. Salinity funding was used to construct the 

multiple mile long pasture fence.

Progress- The fence is under construction, figure 30. The extent of the fence will be known once 

all funds from all sources are utilized. The total fence length will be 5-miles long, creating a new 

pasture about 15,000 acres in size. The new pasture has 90 percent moderately to highly saline soils, 

and 90 percent of the saline soils are Chipeta soils. 
35

Figure 30 - A grazing exclosure on right, in the new pasture area.

WYOMING

The following information is an estimate of the amount of salt retained on the landscape because of 

actions taken by the Rock Springs, Rawlins, Kemmerer, and Pinedale Field Offices in FY2017.

Nonpoint Sources

Nonpoint sources are addressed through regular maintenance of BLM roads and facilities as well as 

reclamation of well pads and other disturbances. Salt savings from nonpoint sources are estimates 

only. The exact amount, location, and duration of surface disturbance and the associated sediment 

and salt concentrations are unknown. With the increase in soil data availability and improvements in 

GIS mapping, more accurate estimates are anticipated but as of this time are unavailable.

There have been increased levels of stream bank erosion associated with rain events. At the same 

time, broad scale vegetation cover has improved, which reduces nonpoint erosion and aids in 

grazing distribution. It is unknown which process dominates. The Wyoming Lands Conservation 

Initiative (WLCI) http://www.wlci.gov/ and Jonah Interagency Office (JIO) 

http://www.wy.blm.gov/jio-papo/index.htm provided funding for several projects 

http://www.wy.blm.gov/jio-papo/whatsgoingon.htm in the area that, while not focused on direct 

salt reductions, have the potential to reduce salt volumes by improving wildlife habitat and thus 

focus primarily on vegetation, which also benefits salinity. The volume and cost savings of these 

projects is unknown. 

A variety of activities occurred as part of normal operations in FY 2016 that had the secondary 

impact of reducing non-point erosion on public lands. Because of these activities and monitoring, 

exact volumes of salt saved and the efficiency of each activity yielded general estimates with a wide 

range of uncertainty. All of the figures below are for the Green River Basin located in the 

southwestern corner of Wyoming and falls within the Rock Springs, Kemmerer, Pinedale, and 

Rawlins Field Offices. A portion of these activities occurred outside the Colorado River Catchment, 

but much of the activity occurred within the area of interest.

The standard practices of road maintenance and grazing management help to reduce potential 

erosion. The costs and salt savings vary widely. Though not specific to salt savings, these practices 
36

are key to broad scale erosion reduction and salt retention. The following assumptions were made 

for the calculations below:

1. Road Maintenance and Reclamation (Approximately the same as 2006 to 2017)

350 miles of road maintained; Assumption: 2 cu yd of sediment retained per mile of road 

maintained. 

2. One Reservoir Repair RFO 1000 cu yd of soil retained over life of project = 4,467,000 

pounds sediment. Structures mentioned in previous reports for this area are still operating and have 

not required any maintenance expenditures. Given that they are still preventing the upstream 

advancement of channel drops (headcuts), these structures could be highly cost efficient in 

preventing salinity contributions.

3. Grazing Management (Same as 2006-2017); 28,000 acres of land managed; Assumptions: 

3 cu ft of soil retained for each acre properly managed. 

Cottonwood Creek Headcut Repair This project plans to stabilize a headcut on Cottonwood Creek, 

which is an intermittent tributary to Lower Muddy Creek. In 2011, this reach of Cottonwood Creek 

failed PFC Assessments due to channel instability. A headcut is in Section 6 of T13, R91 and is

actively moving at an approximate rate of 10 feet per year. As the headcut migrates up gradient, it 

continues to contribute large amounts of sediment and salinity to down gradient reaches. 

Management actions such as grazing rotations, are currently in-place to allow for better growth of 

stabilizing riparian vegetation; however, the head cut is continuing to migrate. Efforts to repair or 

stabilize the headcut involve installing gradient control structures at the current headcut location.

The Cottonwood Creek Headcut Repair project was planned to go to construction in August of 

2016. NEPA has been completed along with preliminary site visits with RFO operations staff. 

Boulders and rocks located on the hill slopes near the project area were used to construct the 

gradient control structures. NEPA analysis has been completed along with a Free Use permit for 

the boulders. 

Muddy Creek Watershed Stabilization

Muddy Creek is a major tributary to the Little Snake River within the CRB. Cooperative efforts by 

BLM, WGFD, TU, USFWS, local conservation districts and landowners began in 2010 to restore 

degraded stream channels and improve riparian and aquatic habitat across the watershed. Efforts 

continue with 2 stream restoration projects planned for 2017 and 2018. One project is on East 

Muddy Creek (Phase II) while the other is on Littlefield Creek; both streams are tributaries to 

Muddy Creek. Engineered stream restoration designs will be implemented on both stream channels 

to restore natural channel stability, reduce in-channel erosion. Implementation of these projects will 

reduce in-channel erosion, which will in turn reduce sediment and salinity loadings to Muddy Creek. 

The Muddy Creek watershed encompasses 471 km2 and is a major tributary to the Little Snake River 

within the Colorado River Basin. 
37

Figure 31 - Savery Creek Stabilization

The Savery Creek project is a multi-year project (approximately 4 stream miles) that will be 

completed in 3 to 4 phases. Reaches of Savery Creek below High Savery Reservoir exhibit unstable 

channel characteristics including mass wasting on outside bends, excessive in-channel erosion and 

sedimentation and large width to depth ratios. All these factors are contributing large amounts of 

sediment to downstream waterbodies within the CRB. The Savery Creek is a major tributary to the 

Little Snake River, located within the Upper Colorado River watershed. 

This project proposed to implement natural channel design techniques on the target reaches that 

would reduce in-channel erosion, sedimentation and salinity loadings. Phase 1 is planned to go to 

construction in 2018. Preliminary surveys and conceptual engineered designs have been completed. 

Construction was initially planned for 2017, however, the complexity of permitting and designing a 

restoration project of this scale and consideration of the numerous concerns of all involved 

cooperators have delayed construction of Phase 1 to 2018. Conceptual plans have been completed 

which allows for the fund raising and permitting phases to begin. 

Colorado River Basin BLM Salinity Risk Assessment and Mapping

Identifying where moderate to high saline soils occur is critical for mitigating potentially deleterious 

impacts of land-use on Colorado River salinity in conjunction with erosive soils that could be more 

readily transported from public lands to the Colorado River and its tributaries. The soil survey 

geographic (SSURGO) database in the CRB is incomplete and where it is complete is often coarse in 

scale, making it difficult for land managers to fully address these erosion prone areas.

The objective of this work is to identify saline soils in the upper Colorado River Basin (CRB) at high 

risk of erosion. This is being accomplished using digital soil mapping (DSM) strategies and soil 

erosion modelling applied within geographic information systems. Recent research has 

demonstrated increasing DSM success in mapping regional to global scale soil maps (including areas 

previously unmapped) from archived soil survey field observations (Hengl et al., 2017; Nauman and 

Duniway 2016) and from original soil survey maps (Chaney et al. 2016). These efforts all utilize 

extensive environmental raster datasets (e.g. Landsat imagery, digital elevation models) to extend the 

inference of the soil observations available. The state of Utah has 9,368 field soil observations of 

varying detail available that can be leveraged in different ways to help map salinity using a DSM 

framework. The location of saline soils relative to drainages, as well as the local conditions that 

control erosion risk, are important factors to consider when designing salinity control management 
38

actions. Primary erosion risk factors include soil texture, slope steepness and length, and proportion 

of the soil surface exposed (not protected by rocks, lichens, litter, plants, and other protective 

armoring).

This work is being done in collaboration with the BLM SC and is funded by the BLM Salinity 

Program with in-kind contributions from the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area. The MUSLE 

erosion equation is likely to be used for the region based on NRCS suggestion and SC modeling 

experience with the region.

Electrical Conductivity (EC) 

We chose to map at 30-meter resolution using a suite of raster environmental mapping layers 

(terrain, landform, landscape position, and geologic indices, see Nauman and Duniway 2016). We 

employed a machine learning algorithm using the 3D mapping strategy employed by Tomislav 

Hengl for the SoilGrids.org project using approximately 292 pedons (857 horizons) from the NRCS 

national laboratory database to train this model.

Risk Mapping

To create salinity risk maps, we will overlay erosion predictions and the new soil EC map to identify 

areas with saline soils that are in moderate to high risk of erosion. Using the sediment loss 

(mass/area) and estimates of potential total dissolved solids (TDS) based on soil EC, we can then 

estimate potential mass of TDS contributed from each 30-m pixel. Finally, by overlaying salinity risk 

maps and CRB hydrology layers (flow accumulation and stream networks), we can further refine 

saline risk mapping by identifying those areas with moderate to high saline soils that are more likely 

to contribute salts to perennial river and stream tributaries to the CO River.

Progress to date includes a hydrologically consistent D-infinity flow accumulation map for the entire 

upper UCRB for use hydrologic and erosion modelling; a new surface soil EC map of UCRB that 

will be used to identify saline soils (Fig. , RMSE = 1.8%); Soil erodability (K-factor) map of UCRB 

for erosion modelling (not shown, RMSE = 0.006%); a rainfall-runoff erosivity factor (R-factor) 

map of UCRB for erosion modelling (not shown); a bare ground (BG) exposure map of UCRB for 

erosion modelling (Fig. , RMSE = 12.5%); and a cover (C) factor map of upper CRB calculated 

from bare ground (BG) layer (C = [%BG]/[100+[100-%BG]]).

Deliverables

September 30, 2017. The following will be submitted to the BLM SC for review and comments: 

New salinity soil maps of UCRB along with metadata, accuracy reporting, and uncertainty analysis 

identifying any potential accuracy gaps; New maps of bare ground of the UCRB based on remote 

sensing; Salinity risk maps, depicting relative risk of lands contribution of TDS to the UCRB surface 

waters based on soil salinity, hydrological cost-path analysis, and bare ground; March 31, 2018. Peer 

reviewed publication(s) documenting research approach and resulting risk mapping. 
39

Figure 32 - New surface soil EC map in dSm-1 for Upper Colorado watershed (RMSE=1.8%)

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) – Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS)

The NRCS of the USDA conducts Colorado River Basin salinity control activities primarily under 

the authorities of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). EQIP was authorized by 

the 1985 Food Security Act (1985 Farm Bill) but received its first appropriation with passage of 

PL104-127, Federal Agricultural Improvement Act of 1996, a.k.a. “1996 Farm Bill.”

EQIP has been reauthorized in each “farm bill” through 2018. Through EQIP, NRCS offers 

voluntary technical and financial assistance to agricultural producers, including Native American 

tribes, to reduce salt mobilization and transport to the Colorado River and its tributaries. Within the 

12 approved salinity project areas, producers may be offered additional financial incentives to 

implement salinity control measures with the primary goal of reducing offsite and downstream 

damages and to replace wildlife habitat impacted as a result of the salinity measures.

In FY 2017, about $12.0 million of appropriated-EQIP financial assistance funding was obligated 

into new EQIP contracts for salinity control and wildlife habitat as follows: 

Obligation

Colorado - $5,959,221

Utah - $6,003,188

Wyoming - $78,853

Totals $12,041,262
40

Program History

Progress in implementing the various projects is controlled primarily by annual federal 

appropriations. The Salinity Control Act provides funds for additional implementation from the 

Basin States Salinity Program. From the 1970s through 1986, the Agricultural Conservation 

Program (ACP) administered by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) 

provided financial assistance (cost share) to land users through long term agreements (LTAs) and 

the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) provided the technical assistance to plan, design, and certify 

practice implementation. From 1987 through 1996, the Colorado River Salinity Control Program 

(CRSCP) received dedicated annual funding, again with the ASCS administering the financial 

assistance and SCS providing the technical assistance. In 1995, Public Law 103-354 authorized the 

reorganization of several agencies of USDA. The ASCS was reorganized as the Farm Service 

Agency. The SCS was reorganized as the NRCS. Financial administration of the CRSCP was 

transferred to the NRCS where it has remained to the present.

The Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act (FAIRA) of 1996 (Public Law 104127) 

combined four existing programs including the CRBSCP into the newly authorized EQIP. 

Since 1996, EQIP has been reauthorized through four consecutive farm bills and is currently 

authorized through FY 2018. 

In FY 1997, Reclamation began on-farm cost sharing from the Basin States funds that would parallel 

and supplement the EQIP.

Monitoring and Evaluation

NRCS personnel from project and area offices monitor and evaluate the effectiveness and quantity 

of salinity control, wildlife habitat, and economic trends in order to improve overall performance 

and management of the program. The program continues to function effectively and economically, 

though the nominal cost per ton of salt control is escalating in some areas. 

Status of Planning and Implementation

USDA-NRCS continues to provide technical and financial assistance to landowners and operators to 

implement on-farm salinity control measures in twelve approved project areas in three Upper Basin 

states.
41

Figure 23 - USDA On-farm / Near - farm Allocations

Grand Valley, Colorado

Implementation has been underway in this unit since 1979 and NRCS considers that the salt control 

measures of the project have been successfully completed as planned. In 2010, a status report was 

compiled from field visits and observations. The report indicated that at least 12,000 irrigated acres 

are no longer in agricultural production. Approximately 44,700 acres remain in production. This 

project is considered complete and has contracted no new projects in 2017.

Lower Gunnison Basin, Colorado

This project, which began in 1988, encompasses the irrigated farmland in the Gunnison and 

Uncompahgre River valleys. With the expansion into the upper headwaters of the Uncompahgre 

River in 2010, implementation continues in Delta, Montrose, and Ouray Counties. Nearly 60 

percent of the salt control goal has been achieved.

Interest remains high in the project area particularly in those service areas that were awarded 

Reclamation grants for irrigation infra-structure improvements. Nearly $4.8M of EQIP was 

obligated into 58 new contracts with plans to control an additional 4,711 tons of salt on 2,004 acres. 

Four new wildlife projects on 535.1 acres were funded in the Lower Gunnison Project area at a cost 

of $237,305.
42

Mancos Valley, Colorado

This project, near the town of Mancos, Colorado, was initiated and approved for funding and 

implementation by USDA-NRCS in April 2004. An additional 6 new EQIP contracts were 

developed in 2017 to control 14 tons of salt on 17 acres at a cost of $153,501.

McElmo Creek, Colorado

Implementation was initiated in this unit in 1990. Application of salinity reduction and wildlife 

habitat replacement practices continue to be implemented in this area with sprinkler systems, 

underground pipelines, and gated pipe being installed. In 2017, 20 new contracts were developed 

for $577,387. These contracts will provide 391 tons of salt control when fully implemented. 

Silt, Colorado

In 2017, 6 new EQIP contracts were developed for $187,310 to control 186 tons of salt on 263 

acres. One wildlife project was also contracted on 5.8 acres at a cost of $19,020.

Green River, Utah

There was one new contract in the project area in 2017 for $35,402. When implemented, this 

contract will control about 21 tons on 13 acres.

Significant new lands are being brought under irrigation on the bench east of the Green River. As 

many as 200 center pivots may eventually be installed. None of these practices receive incentives 

from the salinity control program.

Manila-Washam, Utah

Two new contracts were developed in 2017 for $25,990 that will control 35 tons of salt on 16 acres.

Muddy Creek, Utah

There were two new contracts in the project for 2017 for $353,577 that will control 306 tons of salt 

on 214 acres.

Price-San Rafael, Utah

In 2017, 28 new contracts on 1,173 acres were either approved or pre-approved for a sum of about 

$2.3M. When implemented, these measures will control about 3,375 tons. The installation of the 

next phase of the Cottonwood Creek Irrigation Company’s pipeline projects has generated quite a 

few new applications for the EQIP. One new wildlife contract was planned on 2 acres which will 

cost about $2,500. 

Uintah Basin, Utah

Implementation began in this unit in 1980. The original salt control goal was reached several years 

ago but about 60,000 acres might still be improved. This project obligated more contracts than 

other projects in Utah. Producer participation is exceeding the original projections. In 2017 there 

were 48 new contracts on 1,803 acres for a sum of about $3.3M to control approximately 1,433 tons 

of salt. One new wildlife contract was planned on 20 acres at a cost of about $14,771.
43

Big Sandy River, Wyoming

Implementation has been underway in this unit since 1988. Approximately 13,650 acres of the 

planned 15,700 acres have been treated (87 percent) and about 70 percent of the salt control goal 

has been reached. Producers also report that the water savings from improvements in irrigation 

systems now allows a full irrigation season of water for the entire irrigation district. There was one 

new contract in 2017 to install 1,430 ft of pipeline at a cost of $11,228 that will reduce about 57 tons 

of salt per year.

Henrys Fork (of the Green River), Wyoming

The Henrys Fork Project was officially adopted with the issuance of the Record of Decision, June 

2013. In 2017, one new project was funded in the Henrys Fork Project Area for a cost of $67,625. 

This new 40-acre sprinkler irrigation system will provide about 35 tons of new salt control at an 

annualized cost of $178 per ton. 

San Juan Basin, New Mexico and Arizona

The San Juan River Dineh Water Users, Inc. (SJRDWU, Inc.) provides irrigation water to Navajo 

Nation farmers along the San Juan River from Farmington past Ship Rock, New Mexico. The 

SJRDWU, Inc. has been aggressive in seeking funding to upgrade its delivery system. While NRCS 

has never designated this area a salinity control project there is hope that the improvement of 

delivery infrastructure will spur on-farm irrigation improvements.

Areas Beyond Current Project Boundaries

Even though some relatively high salt loading basins exist in both Colorado and New Mexico, local 

sponsors have not yet been inclined to pursue a salinity project designation. In 2017 there were no 

new salinity contracts in areas outside of current project boundaries.

Table 7 - Implementation Status (October 1, 2017) 

Location

Irrigated

Acres

Treated 

Acres

EIS

Goal

(tons)

On-Farm

Controls

(tons)

OffFarm

Controls

(tons)

Total Tons

Controlled

Indexed

Initial 

Cost

per ton 

$

Nominal

2017

Cost per 

ton $

Colorado Grand Valley 1977 44,600 43,151 132,000 137,055 6,768 143,823 52 90

Lower Gunnison 1982 171,000 69,942 186,000 101,013 21,483 122,496 88 84

McElmo Creek 1989 29,000 16,706 46,000 27,681 2,454 30,135 100 98

Mancos Valley 2004 11,700 2,798 11,940 2,480 2,113 4,593 68 62

Silt 2005 7,400 1,784 3,990 1,461 865 2,326 94 N/A

Utah Uintah Basin 1982 226,000 159,901 140,500 140,498 9,152 149,650 179 227

Price-San Rafael 1997 66,000 36,090 146,900 85,930 1,553 87,483 36 69

Manila-Washam 2005 8,000 3,900 17,430 8,299 0 8,299 54 68

Muddy Creek 2004 6,000 328 11,677 366 6 372 97 233

Green River 2009 2,600 818 6,540 2,643 0 2,643 105 27

Wyoming Big Sandy River 1988 18,000 13,663 83,700 58,293 57 58,350 40 18

Henrys Fork 2013 20,700 143 6,540 124 0 124 238 178

Tier II (all) --- 0 34 0 6,602 966 7,568 0 81
44

Bureau of Reclamation - Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 

Program

Desert Lakes Monitoring

The monitoring of the Huntington Cleveland Project drainage basins has been completed this year. 

The salinity project, the pressurization of irrigation water in a high salinity soil, is complete. The 

monitoring of surface waters and groundwater’s was reduced to once per quarter and end 

completely in calendar year 2016.

Over the salinity project’s build, the elevation of the groundwater in these three basins has dropped 

thus causing an increase in TDS in the groundwater. The salt does not reach the surface as often 

since the water table is now lower. In the case of one area, Shoemaker Wash, the surface water has 

been all but eliminated as it now seldom flows, and the canal is dry except when a large storm.

Over the course of the project, it was determined from monitoring locations along the canals and 

the adjacent wells that the groundwater flows from the surface water to the groundwater. The 

amount of surface water in the system has decreased due to lower runoff water amounts. The Salt 

transport that occurred with flood irrigation, decreased. The elevation of the groundwater system 

has also decreased over time due to the lack of water infiltration from the flood irrigation.

The monitoring program was set up to monitor the drainage basins as well as the Desert Lake 

Complex under the assumption that improved water going in would result in improved water 

leaving the system and entering the Price River system and improve it. At the present time, that has 

not been the case. Desert Lake Complex is a dynamic entity that is under the influence of weather, 

natural disasters-forest fires, inflow from irrigation runoff and precipitation, and human 

manipulation. It was therefore determined that measurements from the individual washes would be 

more reliable in monitoring of the project rather than the downstream location below the Desert 

Lake Complex.

The TDS levels through the various surface flumes has declined overall. Various individual 

components of TDS are currently being analyzed and will be included in a monitoring report that is 

in the process of completion. 

TDS Forecast Modeling

The Water Operations Group of Reclamation publishes a 24-month forecast for Lake Powell. This 

forecast includes a minimum, most likely, and maximum hydrology scenarios for the next 24-month

period. The three scenarios (min, most, and max) are published in January, April, August, and 

October. The remaining months consist of a most likely hydrology scenario.

The Water Quality Group takes the forecasts and uses them to run the two-dimensional model, CeQual W2. This model is used to forecast temperatures, TDS, and occasionally DO (Dissolved 

Oxygen). In FY 2017 (WY 2017), the model has been run each month. The model continues to be 

done in version 3.6 and the standardized Meteorological data file has been updated with each run. 

The various regressions (EC to TDS) used for the inflows to Lake Powell have also been updated 

for the most recent samples sent to the lab. 
45

Colorado River Simulation System (CRSS)

In FY 2017 Reclamation continued modeling studies for the 2017 Triennial Review. Reclamation 

worked with USDA and BLM to refine salinity control projections from 2017-2035 under 4 

scenarios. The revised salinity control scenarios include: 

1. No Additional Controls beyond 2017 (1.33M tons control) 

2. No Additional Controls beyond 2020 (1.39 M tons control)

3. Controls based on available funding by 2035 (1.66 M tons control) 

4. Controlling 1.82M tons by 2035 (1.79M tons control) 

Based on these salinity control scenarios revised Colorado River Simulation System (CRSS) results 

were presented to the Salinity Control Forum workgroup in February and September 2017. 

Presented results included average annual flow weighted salinity concentration and the probability of 

exceeding the numeric criteria at each of the three criteria stations.

Reclamation also provided additional data and figures required for the 2017 Review to document 

recent extensions to the historical record since the 2014 Review for salinity concentration 

throughout the 20-gauge monitoring network including the 3 numeric criteria location, below 

Hoover and Parker Dams and above Imperial Dam.

Reclamation has worked with CADSWES through FY17 to further enhance the CRSS salinity 

algorithms. A recent study completed by CADSWES developed new rules to estimate local inflow 

salt concentration when using the new multi-layered and - segmented reservoir user method for 

Lake Powell. This study was required to ensure the local salt inflow above Powell considered the 

impacts of changes in temporal routing of salt due to Lake Powel’s new salt mass balance algorithm. 

During FY 2018 Reclamation will continue to test and evaluate the new multi-layered and -

segmented reservoir user method.

Economic Impacts Model

In FY 2017 Reclamation continued to work with the Salinity Damages Task Force. Reclamation 

released multiple updates to the Salinity Economic Impacts Model (SEIM) throughout the year with 

the latest released version dated 09/29/17. This latest model includes updated model data provided 

from the Lower Basin States and requested changes based on reviews from the SEIM committee 

and Reclamation personnel completed during FY2017. 

Reclamation and the SEIM committee worked together to draft a new 2017 Review Appendix F – 

Salinity Economic Impact Model Executive Summary, which presents a brief description of the 

steps recently completed to improve and verify the data and methods in this latest SEIM. Salinity 

damages estimates based on this latest SEIM were included in Appendix F and the main 2017 

Review report.

Reclamation and the SEIM committee worked with Reclamation’s Lower Colorado Region 

personnel to draft and complete a new request for proposals to choose a contractor in FY2018 who 

will update Reclamation’s SEIM, including the Arizona, California, and Nevada areas. Key project 

objectives include: 

• Review, validate, and update the existing impact functions. Evaluate the applicability of the 

existing impact functions to model areas outside of the original areas for which they were 
46

developed. 

• Update cost and other input values applied to existing impact functions for the following 

categories: residential, commercial, agricultural, water and wastewater utilities, industrial, 

groundwater, and water recycling.

• Identify and create new impact functions not currently considered in the existing SEIM and 

indicate the applicability of the new impact functions to all or any specific subareas.

• Update the existing SEIM to include the new input data and impact functions, and test the 

model ensuring all updates are functioning as intended. 

• Prepare a report documenting the data analyses and methodology used to update the SEIM, 

including references to where the data are obtained and prepare a SEIM User Manual.

• Provide Model training. 

The contract is projected to run from Nov 1, 2017 through Oct 31, 2019.

Science Team

To further improve and expand our knowledge of salinity control methods, data, and modeling 

within the Colorado River basin, the Salinity Science Team was created. This team incorporates 

technical experts and coordinators from each Federal agency (Reclamation, USDA, NRCS, BLM, 

and USGS) that provides salinity data and/or modeling and the Forum’s Executive Director. 

The following are some of the topics that were addressed by the Science Team during meetings held 

in January and August 2017:

 

1. Funding/contract update of approved Research, Studies, and Investigations (SIRs) 

2. 2017 FOA

3. Review of Basins assessment ranking discussion; SPARROW II 

4. Review of SIR proposals for funding and recommending to the Advisory Council’s 

Technical Advisory Group (TAG) which proposals should receive funding. 

5. Update on Paradox Valley Unit Groundwater model and simulations

6. Pah Tempe Study, Desert Lakes Monitoring

7. New areas for salinity studies

8. Economic Damages Model – Matching funds with Reclamation’s Southern California Area 

Office to hire contractor to collect inputs. Solicitation out in FY18, looking for award in 

February 2018.

9. Future science direction, needs, priorities, and funding 

Basinwide Salinity Control Program (Basinwide Program)

Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA)

Applications to reduce salinity contributions to the Colorado River are being solicited through a 

FOA for both the Basinwide Program and Basin States Program (BSP). The FOA was released on 

August 4, 2017 and closed on November 14, 2017.

Applications will be selected through a competitive process under the evaluation criteria set forth in 

the FOA. Applications will be evaluated and ranked by an Application Review Committee (ARC). 

It is anticipated that $30-40 million will be awarded in the Basinwide Program and $5-10 million in 

the Basin States Program.
47

Price – San Rafael River Basins, Utah

Huntington Cleveland Irrigation Company (HCIC) Project (Project): The Project is in

northern Emery County, in and around the towns of Huntington, Lawrence, Cleveland, and Elmo. 

The Project was selected in the 2004 Request for Proposals (RFP) and awarded a cooperative 

agreement in September 2004. A new cooperative agreement was executed in November 2006 and

was modified again in September 2009. Approximately 350 miles of open earthen canals and laterals 

are being replaced with a pressurized pipeline distribution system (Distribution System) to 

accommodate sprinkler irrigation on about 16,000 acres. Funding for this project is being shared 

between Reclamation’s Basinwide Program, HCIC, NRCS’s EQIP, the Parallel Program, and Rocky 

Mountain Power, formally known as Utah Power and Light. The last of Reclamation’s share of 

$17,116,336 for the Off-farm Distribution System was obligated in 2008. Reclamation can provide 

up to an additional $6,000,000 in funding equally 50/50 with HCIC funds for completion of the 

Distribution System. Since 2009, Reclamation has provided over $4,000,000 in additional funding. 

The Project was completed in the first quarter of 2017 resulting in the annual reduction of 59,000 

reportable tons of salt in the Colorado River at an anticipated cost of approximately less than 

$100/ton. Of the 59,000 tons of salt, 13,000 are attributed to the Off-Farm Distribution System 

and 46,000 tons are attributed to the On-Farm Distribution System and the on-farm salinity control 

measures (sprinklers).

Blue Cut/Mammoth Unit, Cottonwood Creek Consolidated Irrigation Company Salinity

Project: The $5,500,000 Blue Cut/Mammoth Unit, Cottonwood Creek Irrigation Company 

Irrigation Project was selected from the applications received in the 2012 FOA. A cooperative

agreement was executed in August 2013. This project will replace approximately 45.6 miles of 

earthen canals and laterals with a pressurized pipeline system resulting in the reduction of 3,789 

reportable tons per year of salt in the Colorado River at an anticipated cost of approximately $67.57 

per ton of salt. The pressurized pipeline will serve 5,680 acres resulting in additional on farm salt

savings. Pipeline construction was complete as of September 8, 2016. Approximately 55 percent of 

the served acreage is under contract for on-farm improvements. The recipient continues to add 

valves and meters as those systems come online. It will take 2 to 3 more years for NRCS to contact 

the remainder of the acreage and the last canals can be taken out of service.

Manila-Washam Salinity Area, Utah

South Valley Lateral Salinity Project: This project is in Daggett County south of the town of 

Manila, Utah. It was selected from the applications received in the 2012 FOA and was submitted by 

the Sheep Creek Irrigation Company. A cooperative agreement was executed in May of 2013, for 

$4,026,264.75. This project replaced approximately 27,400 feet of earthen laterals with irrigation 

pipe resulting in the annual reduction of 3,373 reportable tons of salt in the Colorado River at an 

anticipated cost of approximately $55.57 per ton of salt. The project began in the fall of 2014 and

went into service for the 2015 irrigation season ahead of schedule and under budget. The recipient 

was approved to use unexpended funding to make improvements to their Antelope Wash Lateral. 

That construction was completed in early 2017 and went into service for the 2017 irrigation season. 

Big Sandy Project, Sweetwater County, in the vicinity of Farson and Eden, Wyoming

Eden Valley, Farson/Eden Pipeline Project: This project was selected in the 2008 FOA. A 

Cooperative Agreement was executed in February of 2009, for $6,453,072. This project will 

replace approximately 24 miles of earthen laterals with irrigation pipe resulting in the annual 

reduction of 6,594 reportable tons of salt in the Colorado River at an anticipated cost of 
48

approximately $52.57 per ton of salt. Laterals E-7, E-8, and E-13 are completed, and work on the 

West Side Canal was completed and operational in the spring of 2014. Due to some pipeline leaks 

the Recipient is withholding retainage funds through the end of the 2016 irrigation season to 

ensure all leaks had been addressed. That retainage was paid in December of 2016 allowing closeout of the project.

West Blacks Fork Salinity Area, Wyoming

Austin/Wall Off-Farm Irrigation Project: This project is in Uintah County in the vicinity of 

Lyman, Wyoming. It was selected from the applications received in the 2012 FOA and was 

submitted by the Austin/Wall Irrigation District. A cooperative agreement was executed in May 

2013, for $1,350,000. This project will replace approximately 32,000 feet of earthen canal and 

laterals with irrigation pipe resulting in the annual reduction of 1,092 reportable tons of salt in the 

Colorado River at an anticipated cost of approximately $57.55 per ton of salt. The project began 

construction in the fall of 2016 and was completed and went into service in the spring of 2017. 

Gunnison Basin, Colorado

UVWUA Phase 8 – ESL: As a result of the 2012 FOA, the UVWUA was selected to be awarded 

a $3.5 million cooperative agreement for Phase 8 of the ESL. This phase involves piping an 

additional 14.1 miles of laterals off the South Canal, East Canal and Loutzenhizer, resulting in an 

expected annual salt reduction of 3,307 tons, at a cost effectiveness of $49.86 per ton. The 

cooperative agreement was executed in FY 2014. Construction began in the summer of 2015 and 

will be complete in 2018.

Cattleman's Harts, Hart/McLaughlin, Rockwell, Poulsen Ditches: Selected in the 2012

FOA, this project involves piping a portion of the Cattleman’s Ditch, operated by the Cedar 

Canon tributary to the Gunnison River near Crawford, Colorado. In July 2013, Reclamation 

entered into an agreement to provide up to $2.01 million to pipe 6.3 miles of existing laterals with 

an expected salt load reduction of about 1,855 tons/year, at a cost effectiveness of $47.72 per ton. 

Construction began in the fall of 2015 and will be completed in the spring of 2018.

Cattleman’s Ditch Salinity Control – Phase 2: Selected under the 2015 FOA, the Cedar 

Canon Iron Springs Ditch and Reservoir Company was awarded a $2.67 million cooperative grant 

to pipe approximately 6.0 miles of existing, unlined earthen irrigation canal and laterals located 

near Crawford, Colorado and along Alkali Creek, a tributary to the Gunnison River. This will 

result in an annual salt load reduction of approximately 2,183 tons to the Colorado River, at a cost 

effectiveness of $51.00 per ton. The piping project will consist of buried HDPE, PVC, and 

gravity flow pipe. The cooperative agreement was executed in April 2016, and construction will 

begin in October of 2017. It is expected to be completed in the spring of 2019. 

Clipper Center Lateral Pipeline Project: Selected under the 2015 FOA, the Crawford Clipper 

Ditch Company was awarded a $3.15 million cooperative grant to pipe approximately 4.3 miles of 

existing, unlined earthen irrigation canals located near Crawford, Colorado and along Cottonwood 

Creek, a tributary to the Gunnison River. This will result in an annual salt load reduction of 

approximately 2,606 tons to the Colorado River, at a cost effectiveness of $50.43 per ton. The 

piping project will consist of buried PVC and HDPE pipe. The cooperative agreement was

executed in March 2016, and construction will begin in 2018. It is expected to be completed in

2019.
49

North Delta Canal – Phase 1: Selected under the 2015 FOA, the North Delta Irrigation 

Company was awarded a $5.56 million cooperative grant to pipe approximately 5.97 miles of 

existing, unlined earthen irrigation canals located near Delta, Colorado and along the north side of

the Gunnison River. This will result in an annual salt load reduction of approximately 4,383 tons 

to the Colorado River, at a cost effectiveness of $52.92 per ton. The piping project will consist of 

1.41 miles of buried HDPE pipe and 3.02 miles of gravity flow pipe (piping is providing a 1.54-mile

shortcut). The cooperative agreement was executed in April 2016, and construction will begin in 

2018. It is expected to be completed in the spring of 2020.

Orchard Ranch Ditch Piping Project: Selected under the 2015 FOA, the Orchard Ranch 

Ditch Company was awarded a $1.28 million cooperative grant to pipe approximately 2.0 miles of 

existing, unlined earthen irrigation canals located near Orchard City, Colorado and along Surface 

Creek, a tributary to the Gunnison River. This will result in an annual salt load reduction of 

approximately 1,004 tons to the Colorado River, at a cost effectiveness of $53.16 per ton. The 

piping project will consist of buried HDPE pipe. The cooperative agreement was executed in 

April 2016, and construction will begin in 2018. It is expected to be completed in 2019.

Fire Mtn. Canal Salinity Reduction Piping Project: Selected under the 2015 FOA, the Fire 

Mountain Canal and Reservoir Company was awarded a $2.95 million cooperative grant to pipe or 

abandon approximately 4.24 miles of existing, unlined earthen irrigation canals located near 

Hotchkiss, Colorado and along the north side of the North Fork of the Gunnison River. This will 

result in an annual salt load reduction of approximately 2,365 tons to the Colorado River, at a cost 

effectiveness of $52.07 per ton. A portion of the project is funded by the USDA, NRCS, through 

the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) in the amount of $1.32 M. The 

cooperative agreement was executed in September 2017, and construction will begin in 2018. It is 

expected to be completed in the spring of 2019.

UVWUA Phase 9 – ESL: As a result of the 2015 FOA, the UVWUA was selected to be 

awarded a $5.4 million cooperative agreement for Phase 9 of the ESL. This phase involves piping 

or abandoning an additional 21.6 miles of laterals from the Selig and East Canals, resulting in an 

expected annual salt reduction of 6,030 tons, at a cost effectiveness of $37.07 per ton. A portion 

of the project is funded by the USDA, NRCS, through the RCPP. The cooperative agreement 

was executed in September 2017. Construction is expected to begin in 2018 and will continue to 

2021.

Grand Valley, Colorado

Grand Valley Irrigation Company (GVIC) Canal Improvement Grant 2012: As a result of 

selection under the 2012 FOA, the GVIC was selected to be awarded a $4.9 million cooperative 

grant to line about 2.4 miles of their main canal within the Grand Valley. A salt loading reduction 

of approximately 4,001 tons annually is expected, at a cost effectiveness of $53.31 per ton. The 

canal lining will consist of a PVC membrane with a shotcrete cover. The cooperative agreement 

was executed in FY 2014 and construction began in December 2014. It is expected to be 

completed in the spring of 2018.

Grand Valley Irrigation Company (GVIC) Canal Improvement Grant 2015: Selected under 

the 2015 FOA, the GVIC was awarded a $2.8 million cooperative grant to line approximately 1.65
50

miles of their main irrigation canal within the Grand Valley. This will result in a salt load

reduction of approximately 2,363 tons annually at a cost effectiveness of $49.64 per ton. The 

canal lining will consist of a 30-mil PVC membrane with 3-4 inches of shotcrete cover. The 

cooperative agreement was executed in August 2016, and construction will begin in January 2018. 

It is expected to be completed in 2020.

Grand Valley Water Users Association (GVWUA) Government Highline Canal – Reach 1A 

Middle: Selected under the 2015 FOA, the GVWUA was awarded a $3.6 million cooperative grant 

to line approximately 0.97 miles of their main irrigation canal within the Grand Valley. This will 

result in a salt load reduction of approximately 2,583 tons annually at a cost effectiveness of $58.63 

per ton. The canal lining will consist of a 30-mil PVC membrane with 3-4 inches of shotcrete cover. 

The cooperative agreement was executed in April 2016, and construction began in November of 

2016. It is expected to be completed in December 2018.

Basin States Program (BSP) 

Public Law 110-246 amended the Act creating the BSP to be implemented by the Secretary of 

Interior through Reclamation. Section 205(f) of the Act was amended to provide that cost share 

obligations be met through an up-front cost share from the Basin Funds. The amendment also 

authorizes Reclamation to expend the required cost share funds through the BSP for salinity control 

activities established under Section 202(a)(7) of the Act.

Reclamation has determined that agencies within the upper Basin states to be appropriate partners 

and has executed cooperative agreements to utilize the services of these state agencies to assist in 

seeking and funding cost-effective activities to reduce salinity in the Colorado River system. 

Activities will also benefit the upper Basin states by improving water management and increasing 

irrigation efficiencies.

Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (UDAF)

The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food received two projects from Reclamation’s most 

recent FOA. One project is with Sheep Creek Irrigation Company, Manila, Utah and is a canal 

piping project that will retain 1,474 tons of salt per year at a cost of $1,947,929.99. The project is 

titled “Antelope and North Laterals Salinity Project” and will pipe two laterals of the Sheep Creek 

Canal. The other project is in the Vernal area and will pipe the Rock Point Canal retaining 740 tons 

of salt with a total project cost of $1,422,849.00, with $976,549.00 coming from Basin States 

Program funds. 

During the 2016-2017 winter construction season, Sheep Creek Irrigation Company substantially 

completed the piping of the Antelope and North laterals. Both new pipelines were put in use during 

the 2017 irrigation season. During the fall of 2017 Sheep Creek Irrigation Company intends to 

complete its project.

Rock Point Irrigation Company has hired an engineering firm, procured final design, and purchased 

pipe for their project. The pipe is stored at previously approved storage sites not requiring Cultural 

Resource or NEPA clearance. Rock Point Irrigation Company has obtained all easements and is 

awaiting NEPA clearance to begin construction. They intend to start construction late fall of 2017. 

Because Steinaker Dam will be drained, Rock Point Irrigation Company will need to adjust their 
51

construction timeline and method of water delivery until Steinaker is refilled.

UDAF, at the direction of the Advisory Council and Reclamation, continues to employ the Uintah 

basin salinity coordinator using BSP funds. The value of this coordinator has been demonstrated by 

the success of obtaining four 2015 FOA projects. These projects were competitive because of the 

coordinator’s efforts to confederate historically opposing companies into accepting unified systems 

that improve each company and the significant cost share match being provided by local funding 

sources to buy down the cost per ton of salt control. Improvements with the Ute Tribe have also 

been made and it is anticipated that in future FOA’s the tribe will submit applications. UDAF feels 

that using BSP funds for this position has greatly benefited the salinity control program in the 

Uintah Basin area. The coordinator has also been successful in helping entities submit applications 

with the NRCS Regional Conservation Partnership Program. 

Colorado Department of Agriculture - Colorado State Conservation Board (CSCB)

In Colorado, the Basin States Program (BSP) has been delivered through six local Conservation 

Districts that operate within the boundaries of the approved salinity control areas in the state. These 

salinity control areas include the Silt Mesa, Grand Valley, Lower Gunnison, McElmo Creek and 

Mancos River salinity areas. The Bookcliff, Mesa, Delta, Shavano, High Desert (formerly Dolores), 

and Mancos Conservation districts receive funds from the Colorado Department of Agriculture 

(CDA) which, prior to 2017, had received projects to implement based upon the agreement with 

Reclamation. There is an active agreement in place, however, due to no new BSP projects being 

assigned to CDA, administrative funding for a CDA salinity coordinator was insufficient so this 

position remained vacant.

Historically, the projects were planned, designed and certified by NRCS or Conservation District 

employees. Eleven District employees were paid from BSP Technical Assistance (TA) funding 

earned by NRCS in Colorado and provided to the Conservation Districts through CDA. Due to 

staffing constraints and an unusually high EQIP workload, the NRCS withdrew future participation 

in the BSP and will no longer administer Salinity Technicians under this agreement after remaining 

funds are spent. 

Over the last year, the Work Group explored the value of State Agriculture Agency participation for 

implementing the BSP, coordinating with ditch companies to apply for the FOA, and assisting in 

local oversight/implementation of some FOA projects. Because of NRCS’ EQIP workload 

demands and unusually high staff vacancies, the Colorado State NRCS office elected not to screen 

and submit new EQIP ineligible applications. Historically, applications have been funded in order 

of cost effectiveness and any future applications will be treated similarly. In the future, applications 

that are strategic in nature and result in less than $150/ton would be eligible for the BSP, so long as 

NRCS is not expected to provide NEPA or engineering documentation and provided the 

applications are awarded through a competitive process. The NRCS formula is used to calculate cost 

effectiveness and salt loading data.

All projects have been and will continue to be planned, designed and certified based upon current 

NRCS Standards and Specifications. Each participant signs an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) 

agreement to remain in effect for the life of the irrigation and wildlife improvements installed 

(usually 25 years). Each participant is required to perform proper Irrigation Water Management on 
52

the fields in which irrigation improvements were installed. The projects are planned and contracted 

using the current NRCS EQIP payment schedule.

BSP Projects

Reclamation provided $6,000,000 in a five-year funding agreement for Colorado in 2016 that 

continues from the former agreement that expired in April 2017. In 2015, $1,300,000 was obligated 

for eight EQIP-like BSP projects and one wildlife habitat replacement project. Some of those 

projects were completed and two were cancelled. The previous report indicated that five BSP 

EQIP-ineligible projects are behind schedule, awaiting cultural resource inventories to be completed 

by NRCS. The Duke Ditch NEPA was approved and is presently being designed by NRCS and is 

now targeted for spring construction. The Delta Duck Club Wildlife Habitat project incurred 

numerous Endangered Species Act challenges due to the presence of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo on 

the site. Alternative measures were considered but the cooperator decided to cancel the project. 

Two Grand Valley (Ward HL275, Lateral 110) projects and one Silt (Johnson) project area pipelines 

met NEPA compliance and have completed engineering plans. One Grand Valley project, ML47 

pipeline continues to be delayed until NRCS can complete the engineering and NEPA compliance. 

Excepting the ML47, the applicants either have selected or are selecting contractors for construction 

to occur after the irrigation season, this fall. 

Other Projects Completed

The Sanchez Wildlife Habitat project construction was completed last winter. The Crawford 

Clipper – Zanni lateral Basin States FOA project was completed in March and was functional for the 

2017 irrigation season. 

Lower Gunnison Basin Salinity Program Coordinator

The Lower Gunnison Basin Salinity Program Coordinator continues to be an important resource for 

off-farm irrigation system improvement projects, assisting interested ditch companies to secure 

funding for planning and implementing delivery system piping projects, and informing their water 

users of NRCS Salinity, and LGB-RCPP funding available for on-farm improvements. She provided 

grant application assistance to BSP and Basinwide Salinity Program participants, Conservation 

Districts, and other ditch companies to complete financing for salinity control related projects. The 

LGB Salinity Coordinator cost $70,000 per year (salary, benefits and operational costs) and secured 

over $3,300,000 in additional State grant funding to support Salinity Program projects. The Forum 

authorized the LGB Salinity Coordinator to help other salinity areas prepare for FOA processes, as 

time allows. The Coordinator has assisted two ditch companies in the Mancos River salinity area. 

Grand Valley Wildlife Project: 

CDA contracted with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) in 2013 to fund approximately 491 acres 

of wildlife improvements along the Colorado River in the Grand Valley. Additional weed 

management work was accomplished in 2017 to complete the Grand Valley wildlife habitat 

replacement obligation. A similar project (C 1⁄2 Road) was approved for state wildlife land near the 

main project.
53

Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC)

In August 2015, a new BSP agreement was put in place with the WWDC that will end in 2020. The 

new BSP agreement is like the agreements with Utah and Colorado. The agreement has a value of 

$2,800,000 for construction and salinity studies in Wyoming. Projects can either be a FOA pass-off, 

EQIP pass-off or through a solicitation that meets Reclamation’s requirements.

The WWDC provides state funding through grants and loans for water studies, master plans, and 

construction projects across Wyoming. WWDC project funding is provided to a public entity for 

projects including, but limited to, transmission pipelines, storage, reservoirs, irrigation 

improvements, canal to pipe conversions, and system improvements. Day-to-day operations are 

managed by the Wyoming Water Development Office (WWDO) staff. The WWDO construction 

division will be administering the construction and study components of the Wyoming BSP 

program.

Eden Valley, Farson/Eden Pipeline Project: 

Currently, WWDC has one BSP project that came through Reclamation’s 2015 FOA process. The 

project is for a canal to pipeline conversion project with the Eden Valley Irrigation and Drainage 

District (EVIDD). The project will convert approximately 6 miles of irrigation canal to pipeline. 

The project includes piping the Farson F-2, F-3, F-4 and F-5 laterals. The project budget is 

$4,390,413 with funding provided by the WWDC of $2,366,000 and the WY BSP of $2,024,413. 

The project will result in salt control of 1,619 tons and a cost effectiveness of $52.11/ton.

Currently, the project has secured the services of an engineer and has entered the design phase of 

the project. The project is currently finalizing the design, securing necessary permits, and 

conducting necessary reviews. The project is anticipated to go to construction in the fall of 2018. 

The project will connect to a project being managed by Reclamation using MOA funds. 

Reclamation’s MOA project has experienced delays, resulting in delays for the WY BSP and WWDC 

project.

Reclamation

In the 2015 FOA, two projects were selected for BSP funding that are being administered by 

Reclamation. The two projects are:

Minnesota L-75 Lateral Salinity Control Project: Selected under the 2015 FOA, the Minnesota 

L-75 Lateral Company was awarded a $153,412 cooperative grant to pipe approximately 3,100 feet 

of existing, unlined earthen irrigation ditch located near Paonia, Colorado and along the south side 

of the North Fork of the Gunnison River. This will result in an annual salt load reduction of 

approximately 129 tons to the Colorado River, at a cost effectiveness of $49.57 per ton. The piping 

project will consist of buried PVC pipe. The cooperative agreement was executed in March 2016, 

and construction will begin in the winter of 2017-18. It is expected to be completed in the spring of 

2018.

Whiterocks and Mosby Canals Rehabilitation Project: This project was selected from the 2015 

FOA. A cooperative agreement was executed in September 2016 for $2,412,462. This project, 

located in Uintah County, will replace approximately 13.7 miles of earthen canals with a pressurized 
pipeline system resulting in the annual reduction of 1,635 reportable tons of salt in the Colorado 

River at an anticipated cost of approximately $61.50 per ton of salt. The project is anticipated to 

begin construction in the fall of 2017. 

Paradox Valley Unit (PVU), Colorado

The Paradox Valley Unit was authorized for investigation and construction by the Salinity Control 

Act. The unit is in southwestern Colorado along the Dolores River in the Paradox Valley, formed 

by a collapsed salt dome (Figure 34). Groundwater in the valley meets the top of the salt formation 

where it becomes nearly saturated with sodium chloride. This project intercepts extremely saline 

brine (260,000 mg/l total dissolved solids) before it reaches the Dolores River and disposes of the 

brine by deep well injection (injection interval about 14,000 feet below ground surface). As of 

calendar year 2018 the project continued to intercept and dispose of 95,000+ tons of salt annually 

(Table 8).

Figure 34 - Paradox Valley with Schematic of Paradox Project 

Induced seismicity and the pressure necessary to inject the brine into the disposal formation at

14,000 feet have been the limiting factors of the project. Since injection rate reductions in 2013 and 

2017 have substantially reduced the injection pressure, seismicity is now the main concern.

Although the projected life of the well was estimated to be 3 to 5 years, new geomechanical and flow

modeling is now being conducted to determine the injection well life based on seismicity and well

performance.

Alternatives Study

An Alternatives Study/EIS process to evaluate alternative methods for salt disposal at Paradox is

continuing with three alternatives and a “no action” alternative being evaluated. The three action

alternatives are a second injection well, evaporation ponds, and zero liquid discharge technologies. 

As these alternatives have been developed and an EIS prepared, Reclamation has continued to have

related meetings and discussions with the BLM, EPA, Colorado Department of Public Health and 

Environment, and other stakeholders. A draft EIS is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2019, 

a Final EIS in July 2020, and a ROD issued in August 2020.

54
55

Injection 

Month

Avg 

Injection 

Pressure

Monthly 

Pressure 

Change

Tons of 

Salt 

Injected1

Tons 

Injected 

in the 

Past 12 

Months

Estimated 

Salt Load

in tons2

Estimated 

Salt Load 

in tons in 

Past 12 

Months

Estimated 

Salt Load 

Plus 

Injected 

Total in 

tons in 

Past 12 

Months

# of 

Induced 

Seismic 

Events 

M ≥ 0.53

Max 

Mag of 

Seismic 

Events 

No. of 

Seismic 

Events in 

Past 12 

Months, 

M ≥ 0.5 Comments

Jan-16 4610 -128 8,671 8,671 3,341 3,341 4 1.6 4 No significant down time

Feb-16 4589 -21 7,824 16,495 9,505 12,846 9 2.1 13 No significant down time

Mar-16 4636 47 8,655 25,150 5,033 17,879 5 1.5 18 No significant down time

Apr-16 4641 5 8,367 33,517 3,542 21,421 2 1.1 20 No significant down time

May-16 4647 6 8,655 42,172 3,175 24,595 4 1.4 24 No significant down time

Jun-16 4643 -4 8,163 50,335 4,024 28,619 3 1.4 27 No significant down time

Jul-16 4662 19 8,704 59,039 1,285 29,904 4 1.4 31 No significant down time

Aug-16 4663 1 8,485 67,524 937 30,841 2 0.7 33 Seismic event count for August may be

under-represented

Sep-16 4677 14 8,376 75,900 967 31,808 2 1.2 35 Seismic event count for September may be

under-represented

Oct-16 4689 12 8,844 84,744 1,155 32,964 3 1.1 38 No significant down time

Nov-16 4684 -5 8,225 92,969 1,904 34,867 8 1.3 46 No significant down time

Dec-16 4655 -29 8,540 101,509 4,482 39,349 140,858 8 1.6 54 PLC problems - plant down 4 hours

Jan-17 4672 17 8,566 101,404 8,209 44,217 5 1.1 55 No significant down time

Feb-17 4687 15 7,760 101,340 7,882 42,594 1 0.3 47 No significant down time

Mar-17 3377 -1,310 3,021 95,706 4,021 41,581 7 2.9 49 Plant down from 3/12 to 3/31 for M 2.9 earthquake

Apr-17 3178 -199 6,088 93,427 504 38,543 11 1.8 58 Plant down from 4/1 to 4/7 for M 2.9 earthquake;

Injection resumed on 4/7 at 176 gpm and 6 hour

weekly shutdowns

May-17 4510 1,332 8,182 92,954 2,836 38,204 4 1.4 58 No significant down time

Jun-17 4565 55 7,848 92,639 1,956 36,137 3 1.5 58 No significant down time

Jul-17 4596 31 8,103 92,038 1,590 36,441 2 0.6 56 No significant down time

Aug-17 4613 17 8,144 91,697 2,104 37,609 15 2.5 69 No significant down time

Table 8 – Paradox Well Injection Evaluation
56

Sep-17 4628 15 7,850 91,171 2,559 39,200 15 2.6 82 Reinstalled 2" and 2-1/8" plungers in two injection

pumps on 9/20 to continue operation due to 1-7/8" 

plunger problems. Changed shutdown schedule to 

compensate for increased rate.

Oct-17 4670 42 8,112 90,439 2,706 40,751 3 0.9 82 Changed individual pump shutdown schedule to 

accommodate different plunger sizes. At least one 

pump operating at all times.

Nov-17 4680 10 7,884 90,098 3,975 42,822 7 1.4 81 No significant down time

Dec-17 4686 6 8,135 89,693 5,738 44,078 133,771 9 2.9 82 No significant down time

Jan-18 4706 20 8,138 89,265 6,673 42,543 4 2.5 81 No significant down time

Feb-18 4700 -6 7,343 88,848 9,880 44,541 3 1.2 83 No significant down time

Mar-18 4711 11 8,138 93,965 6,819 47,340 11 2.3 87 No significant down time

Apr-18 4464 -247 6,751 94,628 4,759 51,595 0 0.4 76 Plant down from 4/16 to 4/20 for SCADA/PLC upgrade

May-18 4631 167 8,044 94,490 3,291 52,050 5 1.8 77 No significant down time

Jun-18 4685 54 7,739 94,381 2,458 52,551 1 1.5 75 No significant down time

Jul-18 4689 4 8,159 94,437 1,604 52,566 4 0.9 77 No significant down time

Aug-18 4693 4 8,190 94,483 464 50,926 4 1.5 66 No significant down time

Sep-18 4694 1 7,881 94,514 408 48,776 15 1.8 66 No significant down time

Oct-18 4723 29 8,127 94,529 266 46,336 7 1.2 70 No significant down time

Nov-18 4739 16 7,880 94,525 939 43,300 7 1.7 70 No significant down time

Dec-18 4753 14 8,138 94,528 3,440 41,002 135,530 3 0.6 64 No significant down time

1

Tons of salt injected based on 260,000 mg/l. PVB density varies slightly due to seasonal and environmental fluctuations.

2 Salt load is estimated based on regression equations developed by USGS (Ken Watts, USGS Administrative Report - "Estimates of Dissolved Solids Load of the Dolores River in Paradox 

Valley, Montrose County, Colorado, 1988 through 2009, dated August 5, 2010") and provisional data provided by USGS. Some daily EC and streamflow discharge values are estimates. 

See Salt Load Notes tab.
57

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program Summary Data 

The following tables and figure summarize the salinity control program and funding 

using the latest available data. 
58

Table 9 – Summary of Federal Salinity Control Programs (2017)

Salinity Unit

 

Tons / year

Removed

MEASURES IN PLACE BY RECLAMATION

Basinwide Program 223,700

Basin States Program 1/ 18,200

Meeker Dome 48,000

Las Vegas Wash Pitman 3,800

Grand Valley (stage 1 & 2) 122,300

Paradox Valley 2/ 100,900

Lower Gunnison Winter Water (USBR) 41,400

Dolores (McElmo Ck) 23,000

Reclamation Subtotal 581,000

MEASURES IN PLACE BY NRCS/BSP 3/

Grand Valley 143,600

Price-San Rafael 88,200

Uinta Basin 157,200

Big Sandy River 59,600

Lower Gunnison 124,200

Dolores (McElmo Ck) 30,600

Henry”s Fork, WY 400

Mancos 4,700

Muddy Creek 600

Manila 8,400

Silt 2,400

Green River 1,600

Tier 2 4/ 7,500

NRCS/BSP Subtotal 621,000

MEASURES IN PLACE BY BLM

Nonpoint Sources 5/ 113,400

Well-Plugging 14,600

BLM Subtotal 128,000

Measures in Place Total 1,330,000

GOALS TO REACH TARGET

Reclamation Basinwide Program 182,100

NRCS Program 118,700

BLM 32,500

Goals Subtotal 330,000

Target Total (Measures in Place + Goals) 1,660,000

Target by 2035 6/ 1,660,000

1/ Off-farm projects funded by the BSP

2/ Paradox injection well capacity estimated to decline beginning in 2020; assumed continuation of well or alternative 

 control after methods after 2020

3/ May include off-farm controls that were not goaled.

4/ Measures in areas outside approved projects.

5/ BLM non-point source are estimates. of implementation

6/ Based on the 2017 Triennial Review Plan 
59

Table 10 – Summary of Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program Appropriations and Cost Share 

from the Basin Funds 2008 thru 2018 

Total Program ($1,000)

Appropriations Expended ($1,000)

Unit 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Subtotal

Grand Valley O&M 1,125 1,757 1,021 1,373 1,289 1,515 1,885 2,247 2,494 1,609 2,416 18,731 

Paradox Valley O&M 3,621 3,121 3,764 3,660 3,236 3,124 3,501 3,575 4,994 4,439 4,079 41,114 

Lower Gunnison O&M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

McElmo Creek (Dolores) O&M 559 603 676 491 480 563 479 576 528 621 745 6,321 

USBR Basinwide Program 11,406 24,686 9,577 12,104 11,854 12,399 10,021 10,419 13,279 12,882 14,853 143,480 

Subtotal (USBR Program) 16,711 30,167 15,038 17,629 16,860 17,600 15,887 16,816 21,295 19,550 22,093 209,646 

USDA Program 22,803 23,346 20,833 23,403 22,121 19,077 20,697 21,751 18,655 21,790 23,774 238,250 

BLM (no Basin Funds) 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 1,000 1,500 9,700 

Total 40,314 54,313 36,671 41,832 39,781 37,477 37,384 39,367 40,751 42,340 47,367 457,597 

Unit 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Subtotal

Grand Valley O&M 844 1,318 766 1,030 967 1,133 1,414 1,685 1,734 1,116 1,812 13,819 

Paradox Valley O&M 2,716 2,341 2,823 2,745 2,427 2,343 2,626 2,681 3,732 3,329 3,059 30,822 

Lower Gunnison O&M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

McElmo Creek (Dolores) O&M 391 422 473 344 336 394 335 403 321 434 524 4,377 

USBR Basinwide Program 7,984 17,280 6,704 8,473 8,298 8,679 7,015 7,293 9,391 8,547 10,374 100,038 

Subtotal (USBR Program) 11,935 21,361 10,766 12,592 12,028 12,549 11,390 12,062 15,178 13,427 15,769 149,056 

USDA Program 15,962 16,342 14,583 16,382 15,485 13,354 14,488 15,226 11,791 15,319 17,618 166,550 

 Total 27,897 37,703 25,349 28,974 27,513 25,903 25,878 27,288 27,770 29,745 34,888 318,908 
60

Upper Basin Fund Cost Share Payments ($1,000)

Lower Basin Fund Cost Share Payments ($1,000)

Unit 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Subtotal

Grand Valley O&M 42 66 38 52 48 57 71 94 119 74 91 752 

Paradox Valley O&M 136 117 141 137 121 117 131 212 189 166 153 1,620

Lower Gunnison O&M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

McElmo Creek (Dolores) O&M 25 27 30 22 22 25 22 26 31 28 30 288

USBR Basinwide Program 513 1,111 431 545 533 558 451 469 583 650 700 6,544 

Subtotal (USBR Program) 716 1,321 641 756 725 757 675 713 922 919 973 9,204 

USDA Projects 1,026 1,051 937 1,053 995 858 931 979 1,005 778 897 10,510 

 Total Payment 1,743 2,371 1,578 1,809 1,720 1,616 1,606 1,692 1,928 1,696 1,870 19,629 

Unit 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Subtotal

Grand Valley O&M 239 373 217 292 274 325 401 477 641UCR 418 513 4,170

Paradox Valley O&M 770 663 800 778 688 664 744 760 1,072 943 867 8,749 

Lower Gunnison O&M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

McElmo Creek (Dolores) O&M 142 154 172 125 122 144 122 144 176 158 191 1,650 

USBR Basinwide Program 2,908 6,295 2,442 3,087 3,023 3,162 2,555 2,657 3,305 3,684 3,779 36,897 

Subtotal (USBR Program) 4,060 7,485 3,631 4,281 4,107 4,294 3,822 4,037 5,194 5,204 5,350 51,466

USDA Projects 5,815 5,953 5,312 5,968 5,641 4,865 5,278 4,291 5,859 5,694 5,259 59,935 

 Total 9,874 13,438 8,944 10,249 9,748 9,159 9,100 8,328 11,053 10,898 10,609 111,400 
61

Figure 34 - UCRB Salinity Control Summary
62

CHAPTER 4 - OTHER WATER QUALITY 

RELATED ISSUES

Lake Powell Sediment

The USGS is involved with a study of the Colorado and San Juan river inflow sediment in Lake 

Powell. This study will try and determine the history of any contaminants which may have been

deposited in Lake Powell from the inflow waters. The Utah USGS office contracted with a drilling 

company to have a barge mounted drill rig drill and recover sediment columns in the inflow deltas

down to bedrock. The USGS will analyze the sediment cores for presence of heavy metals or other 

contaminants which may be found in the sediment core profile. This study will be used to 

determine any movement or accumulation of contaminants from upper basin activities, primarily 

from mining or gas and oil drilling, throughout the Lake Powell sediment deposition timeline. 

Dreissenid Mussels in the Upper Colorado River Basin 

The dreissenid (quagga) mussels have become well established throughout Lake Powell. As the 

water level of the reservoir has dropped the mussels have become more visible on the walls, rocks 

and beaches. With the quagga mussel population as robust as it is, boats on the water for less than 1⁄2 

day have been found to have mussels attached.

The issue with the quagga is now not how to keep them out of Lake Powell but how to keep them 

from being transported out of Lake Powell into other bodies of water upstream of Lake Powell on 

the Colorado River or other water bodies within the basin. Throughout the boating season at some 

inspection stations, during pre-launch inspection, boats have been found with quagga mussels in 

northern Utah (Willard Bay, Hyrum Reservoir) after leaving Lake Powell. These boats were 

decontaminated or quarantined prior to being allowed to launch. 

Agreements have been established with state partners to help with the inspection, interdiction and 

decontamination of boats prior to their launching, to try and stop any movement of mussels into 

new waters in the Colorado River basin or other river basins such as the Columbia River basin. The 

state of Utah is working to make sure boats leaving Lake Powell are dewatered and decontaminated 

prior to launching at other waters (cleaned, drained and dried). As of this report, no new waters in 

the Upper Colorado River basin (above Lake Powell) have been found to contain quagga or zebra 

mussels. 
63

REFERENCES CITED

Amrhein, C. and M.A. Anderson. 2005. Geochemistry of the Salton Sea and Agricultural 

Evaporation Basins. International Salinity Forum Conference, April 25-28, 2005. Riverside, CA.

Anderson, J.C., and A.P. Kleinman. 1978. Salinity Management Options for the Colorado River. Water 

Resources Series Planning Report No. P-78-003, Utah Water Resources Laboratory, Logan, Utah.

Bolke, E.L. and K.M. Waddell. 1975. Chemical Quality and Temperature of Water in Flaming Gorge

Reservoir, Wyoming and Utah, and the Effect of the Reservoir on the Green River. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 2039-A. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC.

Bolke, E.L. 1979. Dissolved-Oxygen Depletion and Other Effects of Storing Water in Flaming 

Gorge Reservoir, Wyoming and Utah. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2058. US 

Government Printing Office, Washington DC. 

Bureau of Reclamation. 1999. Salinity management study final report: Long term strategy & 

recommended action plan. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

Bureau of Reclamation. 2012. Upper Colorado River Basin Consumptive Uses and Losses Report 

2006-2010. Upper Colorado Regional Office, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Bureau of Reclamation. 2012. Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study. Technical Report C – 

Water Demand Assessment. Lower Colorado Regional Office, Boulder City, NV. 

Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Geological Survey. 2012. 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program Federal Accomplishments Report for Fiscal Year 2012. Upper 

Colorado Regional Office, Salt Lake City, UT. 

Bull, R.J. and F.C. Kopfler. 1991. Health Effects of Disinfectants and Disinfection By-products. 

AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association. 

Butler, D.L., 2001. Effects of Piping Irrigation Laterals on Selenium and Salt Loads, Montros 

Arroyo Basin, Western Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 01-

4204, 14p. 

Butler, D.L. 1996. Trend Analysis of Selected Water-Quality Data Associated with Salinity-Control 

Projects in the Grand Valley. In the Lower Gunnison River basin, and at Meeker Dome, Western 

Colorado. Water Resources Investigation Rep. No. 95–4274, United States Geological Survey, 

Denver.

Cohen, M.I. June 2011. Municipal Deliveries of Colorado River Basin Water. Pacific Institute, Oakland, 

CA.

Holdren, G.C. and A. Montano. 2002. Chemical and Physical Limnology of the Salton Sea, 

California – 1999. Technical Memorandum No. 8220-03-02, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO.
64

Iorns, W.V., C.H. Hembree, and G.L. Oakland. 1965. Water Resources of the Upper Colorado River 

Basin - Technical Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 441.

Kleinman, A.P., and B.F. Brown. December 1980. Colorado River Salinity, Economic Impacts on 

Agricultural, Municipal, and Industrial Users. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, 

Colorado River Water Quality Office, Denver, Colorado.

Kurtzweil P. 1995. Scouting for sodium and other nutrients important to blood pressure. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA Consumer. 

Laronne, J.B. 1977. Dissolution Potential of Surficial Mancos Shale and Alluvium. Unpublished Ph.D. 

dissertation, Department of Earth Resources, Colorado State University. 

Liebermann, T.D., Middelburg, R.F., Irvine, S.A. 1987. User’s Manual for Estimation of DissolvedSolids Concentrations and Loads in Surface Water. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources 

Investigations Report 86-4124.

Liebermann, T.D., and B.D. Nordlund. 1986. Estimates of Dissolved Solid and Major Constituents 

for 70 Streamflow-Gaging Stations in the Upper Colorado River Basin. U.S. Geological Survey draft 

report.

Lohman, L.C., et al. 1988. Economic Impacts of Salinity of the Colorado River. Bureau of Reclamation, 

Denver, Colorado. 

McWhorter, D.B., J.W. Rowe, et al. 1979. Surface and Subsurface Water Quality Hydrology in Surface 

Mined Watersheds, Part I. Text Interagency Energy/Environment R&D Program Report, 

EPA-600/7-79-193.

Midgley JP, Matthew AG, Greenwood CMT, Logan AG. 1996. Effect of reduced dietary sodium 

on blood pressure. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 275:1590-1597.

Mueller, D.K., and L.L. Osen. 1988. Estimation of Natural Dissolved-Solids Discharge in the Upper Colorado 

River Basin, Western United States. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigation Report 87-

4069.

Mueller, D.K., and T.D. Liebermann. 1988. Extension of Streamflow and Dissolved Solids Records at 

Selected Sites in the Colorado River Basin: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and 

Wyoming, 1940-83. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 87-4203.

Parker, R.S., and J.M. Norris. 1983. Simulated Effects of Anticipated Coal Mining on Dissolved Solids in 

Selected Tributaries of the Yampa River, Northwestern Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources 

Investigation Report 83-4084, Lakewood, Colorado. 

Ponce, S.L. 1975. Examination of a Non-Point Source Loading Function for the Mancos Shale Wildlands of the 

Price River Basin, Utah. Ph.D. Thesis, Utah State University, Logan, Utah.

Prairie, J., Rajagopalan, B., Fulp, T., and Zagona, E., (2005). "Statistical Nonparametric Model for 

Natural Salt Estimation." Journal of Environmental Engineering, 131(1), 130-138.
65

Riley, J.P., et al. 1982. Potential of Water and Salt Yields from Surface Runoff on Public Lands in the Price 

River Basin. Water Resources Planning Series UWRL/P-82/01, Utah Water Research Laboratory, 

Logan, Utah, 94 pp. 

Reclamation. 1982. Grand Valley Salt Pickup Calculations. Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 

Project, Colorado. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Grand Junction, Colorado. June 1982.

Riley, J.P., et al. 1982. Salt Uptake in Natural Channels Traversing Mancos Shales in the Price River Basin, 

Utah. Water Resources Planning Series UWRL/P-82/02, Utah Water Research Laboratory, Logan, 

Utah, 194 pp.

Sacks FM, Svetkey LP, Vollmer WM, Appel LJ, Bray GA, Harsha D, Obarzanek E, Conlin PR, 

Miller ER III, Simons-Morton DG, Karanja N, Lin PH. 2001. Effects on blood pressure of 

reduced dietary sodium and the dietary approaches to stop hypertension (DASH) diet. New 

England Journal of Medicine 344(1):53-55.

Schumm, S.A., and D.I. Gregory. 1986. Diffuse-Source Salinity: Mancos Shale Terrain. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Technical Note No. 373, Denver Service 

Center, Denver, Colorado.

Sowers, JR, Lester M. 2000. Hypertension, hormones and aging. Lab Clin Med 135:379-386.

Stephens, D.W., B. Waddell, L. Peltz, J. Miller. 1992. Detailed Study of Selenium and Selected 

Elements in Water, Bottom Sediment, and Biota Associated with Irrigation Drainage, in the Middle 

Green River Basin, Utah, 1988 – 1990. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 92-4084.

Svetkey LP, Sacks FM, Obarzanek E, Vollmer WM, Appel LJ, Karanja N, Harsha D, Bray GA, 

Aickin M, Proschan M, Windhauser MM, Swain JF, McCarron PB, Rhodes DG, Laws RL. 1999. 

The DASH diet, sodium intake and blood pressure trial (DASH-Sodium): rationale and design. J 

Am Diet Assoc 99:S96-S104.

Taubes, G. 1998. The (political) science of salt. Science 281:898-907.

Treuman, D. 1995. Land Retirement – Alternative for salinity control. Bureau of Reclamation.

Uintex Corp. 1982. A Study of Runoff and Water Quality Associated with the Wildlands of the 

Price River Basin, Utah. Bureau of Land Management Contract No. YA553-CT1-1064.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1976. Grand Valley Salinity Study, Investigation of 

Sediment and Salt Yields in Diffuse Areas. Soil Conservation Service, Memorandum, March 5, 

1976. Mesa County, Colorado. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2000. Nutrition and your health: Dietary guidelines for 

Americans, 5th ed. Home and Garden bulletin No. 232. U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1984. Status Report, Bureau of Land Management, Technical 

Note No. 364, Denver Service Center, Denver, Colorado.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1985. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, James Creek Coal, 

Preference Right Lease Application. Bureau of Land Management, Craig District, Colorado. 
66

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1990. Colorado River Damage Estimate Program. Bureau of 

Reclamation, Chief, Analysis, Contracts, and Lands Division, Denver Office, Memorandum, 

October 25, 1990, Denver, Colorado.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1971. The Mineral Quality Problem in the Colorado 

River Basin, Summary Report, EPA Regions VIII and IX. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Health effects from exposure to sulfate in 

drinking water workshop. Office of Water. Washington, DC. EPA 815-R-99-002.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2012. Salt Load 2012 Update for the 20 Stations. USGS, Water 

Science Center, Western Colorado Office, Grand Junction, CO.

Vaill, J.E., and Butler, D.L. (1999). “Streamflow and Dissolved-Solids Trends, Through 1996, in the 

Colorado River basin Upstream from Lake Powell- Colorado, Utah, Wyoming.” Water Resources 

Investigation Rep. No. 99-4097, United States Geological Survey, Denver.
67

GENERAL REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Service. 1982. Minimizing Salt in Return Flow through Irrigation Management. 

Report No. PUB-744; EPA-600/2-82-073, 181 pp.

Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs. 1982. Western Oil-Shale Development: A Technological Assessment. Vol. 

6: Oil-Shale Development in the Piceance Creek Basin and Potential Water- Quality Changes. Department of 

Energy, Report No. PNL-3830-VO2.6, 22 pp. 

Bentley, R.G., K.O. Eggleston, and E.B. Janes. 1980. Salinity Status Report, 1978-79, Control of Salinity 

from Point Sources Yielding Groundwater Discharge and from Diffuse Surface Runoff in the Upper Colorado River 

Basin. Report No. BLM-YA-TR-80-01, Bureau of Land Management, Denver Service Center, 

Denver, Colorado, 37 pp. 

Bowles, D.S., et al. 1982. Salt Loading from Efflorescence and Suspended Sediments in the Price River Basin. 

Water Resources Planning Series UWRL/P-82/05, Utah Water Research Laboratory, Logan, Utah, 

142 pp.

Brenniman, G.R. 1981. Relationship Between High Sodium Levels in Municipally Softened Drinking Water 

and Elevated Blood Pressures. Water Resources Center, Illinois University, Research Report 158, NTIS 

PB81-212615, 27 pp.

Bulke, E.L., and K.M. Waddell. 1975. Chemical Quality and Temperature of Water in Flaming Gorge 

Reservoir, Wyoming and Utah, and the Effect of the Reservoir on the Green River. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Water Supply Paper 2039-A.

Burdge, Irelan. 1971. Salinity of Surface Water in the Lower Colorado River, Salton Sea Area. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Professional Paper 486-E.

Bureau of Land Management. 1978. The Effects of Surface Disturbance on the Salinity of Public Lands in the 

Upper Colorado River Basin, 1977 Status Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Denver Service 

Center, Denver, Colorado, 208 pp. 

Bureau of Reclamation. 1981. Saline Water Use and Disposal Opportunities: Colorado River Water Quality 

Improvement Program. Special Report, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, 167 pp. 

Bureau of Reclamation. 1981. Water Assessment for the Lower Colorado River Region, Emerging Energy 

Technology Development. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, Nevada, 170 pp.

Bureau of Reclamation. 2012. Upper Colorado River Basin Consumptive Uses and Losses Report 

2006- 2010. Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Bureau of Reclamation. 1984. Development, Verification, and Use of Methods to Model Chemical and 

Thermal Processes for Lakes Powell and Mead. Engineering and Research Center, Colorado River Water 

Quality Office, Denver, Colorado.

Bureau of Reclamation. May 1985. Colorado River Simulation System Documentation System Overview.

USBR Engineering and Research Center, Denver, Colorado. 
68

Bureau of Reclamation. 1986. Etiwanda Ion-Exchange Pilot-Plant Testing. Denver, Colorado. CH2M Hill. 

1982. Salinity Investigation of the Price-San Rafael River Unit, Colorado River Water Quality 

Improvement Program. Bureau of Reclamation, Contract No. 1-07-40-51637, Utah Projects Office, 

Provo, Utah.

Cissell, Jeffery A., V. Dean Adams, Joel E. Fletcher, Daniel S. Filip, and Dennis B. George. 1982. 

Water Requirements and Pollutant Potential in the Gasification of Carbonaceous Shales. Report Nos. 

UWRL/Q-82/04; W83-02211; OWRT-A-043-UT(1), Utah Water Research Laboratory, Logan, 

Utah, 68 pp. 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum. 2011. 2011 Review. Water Quality Standards for Salinity 

Colorado River System.

Colorado Water Resources Research Institute. 1981. A Five Year Plan for Water Research in Colorado. 

Office of Water Research and Technology, Report No. W82-05531, 133 pp.

Cowan, Michael S., R. Wayne Cheney, and Jeffrey C. Addiego. 1981. Colorado River Simulation System: 

An Executive Summary. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver, Colorado, 

19 pp. 

Dean, A.V. and Lamarra, V.A. (editors). 1981. Aquatic Resources Management of the Colorado River 

Ecosystem (Proceedings of the Symposium). Ann Arbor Science Publication, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 697 pp. 

DeLon, L.L. 1982. Water Quality of Streams and Springs, Green River Basin, Wyoming. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 82-4008.

Eisenhauer, R.J. 1983. Characterization of Glenwood Springs and Dotsero Springs Water. Bureau of 

Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Report No. 83-10, Denver, Colorado, 58 pp. 

Eisenhauer, R.J. 1986. Characterization of Glenwood Springs and Dotsero Springs Source Aquifers. Bureau 

of Reclamation, REC-ERC-86-1, Denver, Colorado. 

Eisenhauer, R.J. 1987. Characteristics of Big Sandy River Drainage Basin Water and of Salty Aquifer Water. 

Bureau of Reclamation, REC-ERC-87-2, Denver, Colorado.

Evans, R.G., W.R. Walker, and G.V. Skogerboe. 1982. Defining Cost-Effective Salinity Control Programs. 

Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil 

Engineers, vol. 108, No. 4, pp. 265-272.

French, Richard H. (Ed.). 1984. Salinity in Watercourses and Reservoirs. Proceedings of the 1983 

International Symposium on State-of-the-Art Control of Salinity, July 13-15, 1983, Salt Lake City, 

Utah, Butterworth Publishers, Stoneham, Massachusetts.

Gloss, S., and D.E. Kidd. Application of the Nutrient Loading Concept and Effects of Nutrient Perturbations 

on Phytoplankton Productivity. Lake Powell Research Project, Bulletin No. 59.

Green, S.L. 1981. Water Resources Investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey in Wyoming, 

Fiscal Year 1980. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 81-201, 118 pp.

Haselhoff, Donald A. 1983. Water for Las Vegas Metropolitan Area, Journal of Environmental 

Engineering, vol. 109, No. 3, pp. 700-715.
69

Holburt, M.B. 1982. Colorado River Water Allocation. Water Supply and Management, vol. 6, No. 1-2, 

pp. 63-73.

Howells, L., et al. 1987. Base of Moderately Saline Groundwater in the Uinta Basin, Utah. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Open-File Report 87-397.

Hyatt, M.L., J.P. Riley, M.L. McKee, and E.K. Israelson. 1970. Computer Simulation of the 

Hydrologic-Salinity Flow System Within the Upper Colorado River Basin. PRWG54-1. Utah Water Research 

Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, 255 pp. 

Israelsen, C. E., et al. 1980. Use of Saline Water in Energy Development. Water Resources Planning 

Series UWRL/P-80/04, Utah Water Research Laboratory, Logan, Utah, 128 pp.

Jackson, W.L., R.G. Bentley, and S. Fisher. 1984. Results of BLM Studies on Public Lands in the Upper 

Colorado River Basin. BLM Technical Note YA-PT-84-008-4340, Bureau of Land Management, 

Denver Service Center, Denver, Colorado. 

Johnson, D.H., C.M. Leboeuf, and D. Waddington. 1981. Solar Pond-Driven Distillation and Power 

Production System. Solar Energy Research Institute, Report No. SERI/TR-631-1248, Department of 

Energy, Golden, Colorado, 24 pp. 

Johnson, R.K., and S.A. Schumm. 1982. Geomorphic and Lithologic Controls of Diffuse-Source Salinity, 

Grand Valley, Western Colorado. National Technical Information Service, PB82-256587, 99 pp.

Kidd, D.E., E. Hansmann, and S. Gloss. Trophic Status Investigations at Lake Powell Reservoir. Lake 

Powell Research Project Bulletin No. 60.

Koch, R.W., T.G. Sanders, and H.S. Morel-Seytoux. 1982. Regional Detection of Change in Water 

Quality Variables. Water Resources Bulletin, vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 815-821.

Laronne, J.B., and S.A. Schumm. l977. Evaluation of the Storage of Diffuse Sources of Salinity in the Upper 

Colorado River Basin. Environmental Resources Center, Colorado State University, Completion 

Report Series No. 79, 111 pp.

Laughlin, J.K. 1984. Appraisal Study of Saline Water Use Equipment for Power Plant Cooling. Bureau of 

Reclamation, Denver, Colorado. 

Laughlin, J.K. 1985. Final Report - Study of Saline Water Use at Jim Bridger Power Plant. Bureau of 

Reclamation, Denver, Colorado.

Laughlin, J.K. 1986. Final Report - Study of Saline Water Use at Harry Allen Generating Station. Bureau 

of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado. 

Laughlin, J.K. 1987. Final Report - Study of Saline Water Use at the Etiwanda Generating Station. Bureau 

of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado.

Law, J.P., Jr., and A.G. Hornsby. 1982. The Colorado River Salinity Problem. Water Supply and 

Management, vol. 6, No. 1-2, pp. 87-104.

Liebermann, T.D., et al. 1987. User’s Manual for Estimation of Dissolved-Solids Concentrations and Loads in 

Surface Water. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 86-4124. 
70

Liebermann, T.D., D.K. Mueller, J.E. Kircher, A.F. Choquette, and R.A. Bell. 1986. Characteristics 

and Trends of Dissolved Solids in the Upper Colorado River Basin, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and 

Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 87-568. 

Lindskov, K.L., and B.A. Kimball. Quantity and Quality of Streamflow in Southeastern Uinta Basin, Utah 

and Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 2224.

Martin, R.G., and R.H. Stroud. 1973. Influence of Reservoir Discharge Location on Water Quality, Biology,

and Sport Fisheries of Reservoirs and Tailwaters, 1968-71. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterway 

Experiment Station, Contract No. DACW31-67-C-0083.

Mayer, L.M. 1977. The Effect of Lake Powell on Dissolved Silica Cycling in the Colorado River. Lake Powell 

Research Project Bulletin No. 42.

Maynard, D.P., and Caputo, R. 1982. Assessment of Saline Water Use in Coal Transport and Multipurpose 

Systems. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Report No. JPL-D-425, Pasadena, California, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver, Colorado, 156 pp. 

Merritt, D. and Johnson, N. 1977. Advective Circulation in Lake Powell, Utah-Arizona. Lake Powell 

Research Project Bulletin No. 61, Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University of 

California, Los Angeles, California, 72 pp. 

Miffin, M.D. 1983. Reuse Versus Return Flows: Considerations for Selecting a Water Supply Strategy. 

University of Nevada, Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada.

Miller, J.B., D.L. Wegner, and D.R. Bruemmer. 1980. Salinity and Phosphorus Routing Through the 

Colorado River/Reservoir System. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Moody, C.D., and D.K. Mueller. 1984. Water Quality of the Colorado System: Historical Trends in 

Concentration, Load, and Mass Fraction of Inorganic Solutes. Bureau of Reclamation, Report No. 

EC-ERC-84-9.

Mueller, D.K., and L.L. Osen. 1988. Estimation of Natural Dissolved Solids Discharge in the Upper 

Colorado River Basin, Western United States. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations 

Report 87-4069.

Mundorff, J.C. 1972. Reconnaissance of Chemical Quality of Surface Water and Fluvial Sediment in the Price 

River Basin, Utah. Utah Department of Natural Resources Technical Publication 39.

Mundorff, J.C., and K.R. Thompson. 1980. Reconnaissance of the Quality of Surface Water in the San 

Rafael River Basin, Utah. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 80-574.

Narayanan, R., and D.R. Franklin. 1982. An Evaluation of Water Conservancy Techniques in the Upper 

Colorado River Basin. Water Resources Planning Series UWRL/P-82/07, Utah Water Research 

Laboratory, Logan, Utah.

Paulson, L.J. 1981. Nutrient Management with Hydroelectric Dams on the Colorado River System. Technical 

Report No. 8, Lake Mead Limnological Research Center, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada, 

39 pp. 
71

Paulson, L.J., and J.R. Baker. 1981. The Effects of Impoundments on Salinity in the Colorado River: 

Proceedings of the Symposium on the Aquatic Resources Management of the Colorado River Ecosystem, November 

16-19, 1981, Las Vegas, Nevada. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

Paulson, L.J., and J.R. Baker. 1983. The Limnology in Reservoirs on the Colorado River. Technical Report 

No. 11, Lake Mead Limnological Research Center, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Paulson, L.J., J.R. Baker, and J.E. Deacon. 1980. The Limnological Status of Lake Mead and Lake 

Mohave Under Present and Future Powerplant Operation of Hoover Dam. Technical Report No. 1, Lake 

Mead Limnological Research Center, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Prentki, R.T., L.J. Paulson, and J.R. Baker. 1981. Chemical and Biological Structure of Lake Mead 

Sediments. Technical Report No. 6, Lake Mead Limnological Research Center, University of Nevada, 

Las Vegas, Nevada, 89 pp. 

Rittmaster, R.L., and D.K. Mueller. 1985. Solute Loading Sources in the Dirty Devil River Basin, Utah. 

Bureau of Reclamation, REC-ERC-85-5, Denver, Colorado. 

Robson, S.G., and G.J. Saulnier, Jr. 1981. Hydrogeochemistry and Simulated Solute Transport, Piceance 

Basin, Northwestern Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1196, 65 pp.

Sandberg, G.W., and L.G. Sutlz. 1985. Reconnaissance of the Quality of Surface Water in the Upper Virgin 

River Basin, Utah, Arizona, and Nevada, 1981-82. Utah Department of Natural Resources, Technical 

Publication No. 83.

Schumm, S.A., and D.I. Gregory. 1986. Diffuse-Source Salinity: Mancos Shale Terrain. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Technical Note 373, Denver Service 

Center, Denver, Colorado.

Seiler, R.L., and R.L. Baskin. 1987. Hydrology of Alkali Creek and Castle Valley Ridge Coal-Lease Tracts, 

Central Utah, and Potential Effects of Coal Mining. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources 

Investigations Report 87-4186.

Shacklette, H.T., and J.G. Boerngen. 1984. Element Concentrations in Soils and Other Surficial Materials of 

the Conterminous United States. U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1270.

Shen, H.W., et al. 1981. Role of Sediment in Non-Point Source Salt Loading Within the Upper Colorado River 

Basin. Colorado Water Resources Research Institute Completion Report No. 107, 213 pp.

Skogerboe, G.V., and G.E. Radosevich. 1982. Future Water Development Policies. Water Supply and 

Management, vol. 6, No. 1-2, pp. 221-232.

Skogerboe, G.V., W.R. Walker, and R.G. Evans. 1982. Salinity Control Measures for Grand Valley. 

Water Supply and Management, vol. 6, No. 1-2, pp. 129-167.

Trueman, D.P. 1998. Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, 1998 Review. Proceedings of the 

Shared Rivers Conference, U.S. Committee on Irrigation and Drainage, Park City, Utah.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1984. Aquatrain Corridor Study Report. Bureau of Reclamation, 

Denver, Colorado. 
72

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. l971. The Mineral Quality Problem in the Colorado River Basin. 

Summary Report. Regions VIII and IX, 65 pp. 

Warner, J.W., and F.J. Heimes. 1979. A Preliminary Evaluation of Groundwater Contributions to 

Salinity of Streams in the Upper Colorado Basin in Colorado and Adjacent Parts of Wyoming and 

Utah. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado, contract to Bureau of Land Management.

Water Resources Council. 1981. Synthetic Fuels Development in the Upper Colorado Region: Section 13(a) 

Water Assessment Report. Technical Report, 138 pp. 

Whittig, L.D., et al. 1983. Salinity Investigations in West Salt Creek, Colorado. California Water 

Resources Center Completion Report, University of California, Davis, California, 161 pp.

Yahnke, J. 1982. Fryingpan River and Rued Reservoir Water Quality Studies. Part I, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Working Paper, Engineering and Research Center, Denver, Colorado. 
73

APPENDIX A

SALINITY MONITORING STATION INFORMATION

Figure A1 - Colorado River Basin 20 Stream Gage Locations
74

Table A1 - Characteristics of the 20 Salinity Streamflow-gaging Stations in the Colorado River Basin

[Latitude and Longitude datum: NAD83; Elevation datum: NGVD29.]

U.S. Geological 

Survey 

streamflowgaging station 

number

U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging 

station name

Site short name Latitude, in 

decimal 

degrees

Longitude, in 

decimal 

degrees

Elevation, 

in feet 

above sea 

level

Drainage 

area, in 

square 

miles

09217000 Green River near Green River WY GRWY 39.5589 -107.2909 5,760 4,556

09234500 Green River near Greendale, UT GDALE 39.2391 -108.2662 4,814 7,986

09251000 Yampa River near Maybell, CO YAMPA 38.9833 -108.4506 4,628 7,923

09302000 Duchesne River near Randlett, UT DUCH 38.7972 -109.1951 4,165 4,580

09306500 White River near Watson, UT WHITE 38.8105 -109.2934 4,090 24,100

09315000 Green River at Green River, UT GRUT 41.5164 -109.4490 6,060 14,000

09328500 San Rafael River near Green River, UT SANRAF 40.9083 -109.4229 5,594 19,350

09071750 Colorado River above Glenwood Springs, CO GLEN 40.5027 -108.0334 5,900 3,383

09095500 Colorado River near Cameo, CO CAMEO 40.2103 -109.7814 4,756 3,790

09152500 Gunnison River near Grand Junction, CO GUNN 39.9789 -109.1787 4,947 4,020

09180000 Dolores River near Cisco, UT DOLOR 38.9861 -110.1512 4,040 44,850

09180500 Colorado River near Cisco, UT CISCO 38.8583 -110.3701 4,190 1,628

09355500 San Juan River near Archuleta, NM ARCH 36.8019 -107.6986 5,653 3,260

09379500 San Juan River near Bluff, UT BLUFF 37.1469 -109.8648 4,048 23,000

09380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry, AZ LEES 36.8647 -111.5882 3,106 111,800

09402500 Colorado River near Grand Canyon, AZ GRCAN 36.1014 -112.0863 2,419 141,600

09415000 Virgin River at Littlefield, AZ VIRGIN 36.8916 -113.9244 1,764 5,090

09421500 Colorado River below Hoover Dam, AZ-NV HOOVER 36.0153 -114.7386 675 171,700

09427520 Colorado River below Parker Dam, AZ-CA PARKER 34.2956 -114.1402 301 182,700

09429490 Colorado River above Imperial Dam, AZ-CA IMPER 32.8837 -114.4674 183 188,500
75

Figure A2 – Salinity Project Locations
76

Figure A3 - Colorado River Flow and Salinity
77

APPENDIX B

SALT LOAD 2018 UPDATE FOR THE 20 STATIONS

(Updates calendar years 2014 through 2017)

STATION CLASSIFICATIONS

U.S. Geological Survey

Colorado Water Science Center

Western Colorado Office August 01, 2018
78

INTRODUCTION

Methodology

Three Statistical Analyses System (SAS) computer programs, FLAGIT, DVCOND, and SLOAD are 

used to estimate dissolved-solids concentrations and loads from existing data. The program 

FLAGIT retrieves data from the daily-values (DV) file and water-quality file (QW) of the U.S. 

Geological Survey's National Water Data Storage and Retrieval System (WATSTORE) (Hutchinson, 

1975), examines the data, deletes incomplete observations, and flags possible errors in the remaining 

observations. FLAGIT also produces the data base used by the programs DVCOND and SLOAD. 

The program DVCOND fills in missing values in the daily specific-conductance record by linear 

interpolation. DVCOND needs to be used only when the flow at a streamflow-gaging station is 

extensively regulated. 

The program SLOAD derives regression relations from water-quality data, modeling dissolved solids 

and six major ions as functions of specific conductance and discharge (Q). SLOAD then applies 

these relations to the daily specific conductance and discharge data and computes daily loads of 

dissolved solids and the other six major ions. The computed daily loads are summed by month and 

by year. Monthly and annual dissolved-solids and major ion concentrations are computed from the 

monthly and annual loads and streamflow. Monthly, annual, and seasonal concentrations and loads, 

in addition to regression statistics, are printed and saved on SAS data sets. Separate versions of 

SLOAD enable annual summation either by water year (WY) or calendar year (CY) (Lieberman and 

others, 1987). 

The computerized method can be used for streamflow-gaging stations that have a complete record 

of DV Q and periodic QW analyses. The reliability of the estimate is considerably increased if DV 

specific conductance (SC) also is available. Water-quality analysis that includes total dissolved solids 

(TDS) with major ion analysis (also referred to as sum of constituents or SOC/SUM; herein referred 

to as SOC) is preferred over residue on evaporation at 180 degrees Celsius (ROE). SOC enables 

SLOAD calculations of the 8 major constituents normally present in natural streams: Calcium (Ca2+), 

magnesium (Mg2+), sodium (Na+), potassium (K+), silica (Si), chloride (Cl-), sulfate (SO4

2-), and 

carbon, expressed as carbonate equivalent (Liebermann and others, 1987). 

Classification Criteria

The 20 stations are classified A, B, or C, according to the quantity and quality of available data for 

the salt-load computations. Optimal data collection at each station includes daily mean streamflow, 

daily mean SC, and at least 6 water quality samples per WY which include TDS. SC may be 

monitored continuously with an instrument (daily mean) or sampled once per day by an observer 

(instantaneous). Continuous monitoring for daily mean SC by instrument is the preferred method. 

Types of Specific Conductivity

Specific Conductivity at the sites is classified into several types:

• Daily – mean daily SC collected by instrumentation. To be considered “daily”, the record 

may have up to 60 missing days of SC per water year which are spread out in small groups 

over the year.
79

• Intermittent – mean daily SC which has more than 60 missing days per water year spread out 

over the water year.

• Seasonal – mean daily SC has been continuously shut off during the winter (November 

through March typically), with more than 60 missing days.

• Instantaneous – single SC values which have been manually collected by an observer. Usually 

spaced several days apart and may be missing during winter months. 

CLASS A 

For Class A, adequate data must be available for salt-load computation using SLOAD. Site data 

includes: 

• 6 or more QW samples per WY which include some type of TDS (ROE, SOC, or 

Calculated). SLOAD automatically discards QW records without any type of TDS. 

• Daily Q (SLOAD allows no days with missing Q). 

• Mean daily SC from instrumentation. The SC record must be “daily” and must have no 

more than 60 total days of missing values for the WY. 

CLASS B 

Salt-load computation is possible using SLOAD, but limited data availability could be contributing 

to error in salt load estimate. Even though the site has daily Q and daily SC, if there are fewer than 6 

QW observations, the site will be Class B. Site data includes:

• There are fewer than 6 QW samples per WY which include some type of TDS. 

• Daily Q (SLOAD allows no days with missing Q). Missing Q values may be interpolated 

from surrounding values. 

• SC may be mean daily (with up to 60 missing days), seasonal, intermittent (more than 60 

missing days), instantaneous from observers, or non-existent. 

CLASS C 

Inadequate data exists for SLOAD salt-load computation. Site data includes:

• Some QW records may exist, but none have TDS, hence they are not usable. 

• SC may or may not exist but is not used. 

• Salt concentration and load are calculated from regression analysis of old data (Q and TDS). 

Improvements and Declines in Class

The classification is shown by year for each site in the tables. This is helpful to see the trend in 

classifications. 

A judgment call must be made for the final year classification. The final year has incomplete data, 

and the data have not been finalized by USGS. The final year classification will be shown as 

“provisional” if the criteria for the class are being met as of the cutoff date for the data. For 

example, if enough QW records exist to suggest that 6 observations will be made by the end of the 

WY, and if daily SC is being recorded, then A (provisional) will be given. The pattern of QW 
80

observations for the previous years is taken to project the QW for the final year. The final year will 

not be shown as provisional if no daily SC is being recorded, (the class is clearly B), or, if no QW 

records are available, (the class is clearly C).

#1 GRWY - STATION 09217000 Green River near Green River, WY 

Water Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (thru 5-31)

QW Observations 12 11 12 9 4 (thru 5-31)

Daily Q Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing)

SC Seasonal (132 

missing)

Seasonal (142 

missing)

Seasonal (166 

missing)

Seasonal (141 

missing)

Seasonal (156 

missing)

ROE TDS samples 12 11 12 9 4

SOC TDS samples 12 11 12 9 4

Class by Year B B B B B (provisional)

Classify Notes Missing SC>60/year Missing SC>60/year Missing SC>60/year Missing SC>60/year Missing SC>60/year

Operation is by USGS for daily Q, daily SC, and periodic QW. 

#2 GDALE - STATION 09234500, Green River near Greendale, UT

Water Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (thru 5-31)

QW Observations 9 10 11 8 5 (thru 5-31)

Daily Q Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing)

SC Daily (10 missing) Daily (22 missing) Daily (3 missing) Daily (17 missing) Daily (3 missing)

ROE TDS samples 9 10 11 8 5

SOC TDS samples 8 10 11 8 5

Class by Year A A A A A (provisional)

Classify Notes Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year

Operation is by USGS for daily Q, daily SC, and periodic QW. 

#3 YAMPA – STATION 09251000, Yampa River near Maybell, CO 

Water Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (thru 5-31)

QW Observations 6 6 5 6 2

Daily Q Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing)

SC Daily (25 missing) Daily (17 missing) Daily (6 missing) Daily (11 missing) Daily (26 missing)

ROE TDS samples 0 0 0 0 0

SOC TDS samples 6 6 5 6 2

Class by Year A A B A A (provisional)

Classify Notes Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year; 

5 QW samples

Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year

Operation is by USGS for daily Q, daily SC, and periodic QW. 

#4 DUCH – STATION 09302000, Duchesne River near Randlett, UT

Water Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (thru 5-31)

QW Observations 9 9 11 8 5

Daily Q Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing)

SC Daily (20 missing) Daily (13 missing) Daily (13 missing) Daily (4 missing) Daily (5 missing)

ROE TDS samples 9 9 11 8 5

SOC TDS samples 9 9 11 8 5

Class by Year A A A A A (provisional)

Classify Notes Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year

Operation is by USGS for daily Q, daily SC, and periodic QW. 
81

#5 WHITE – STATION 09306500, White River near Watson, Utah

Water Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (thru 5-31)

QW Observations 9 9 10 8 5

Daily Q Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing)

SC None None None None None

ROE TDS samples 9 9 10 8 5

SOC TDS samples 9 9 10 8 5

Class by Year B B B B B (provisional)

Classify Notes No SC No SC No SC No SC No SC

Operation is by USGS for daily Q and periodic QW. 

#6 GRUT – STATION 09315000, Green River at Green River, UT

Water Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (thru 5-31)

QW Observations 8 8 8 9 4

Daily Q Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing)

SC None None None None None

ROE TDS samples 9 8 8 9 4

SOC TDS samples 9 8 8 9 4

Class by Year B B B B B (provisional)

Classify Notes No SC No SC No SC No SC No SC

Operation is by USGS for daily Q and periodic QW. 

#7 SANRAF – STATION 09328500, San Rafael River near Green River, UT

Water Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (thru 5-31)

QW Observations 8 7 10 8 6

Daily Q Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing)

SC None None Intermittent (186 

missing)

Intermittent (82 

missing)

Intermittent (3 

missing)

ROE TDS samples 8 7 10 8 6

SOC TDS samples 8 7 10 8 6

Class by Year B B B B A (provisional)

Classify Notes No SC No SC Missing SC>60/year Missing SC>60/year Missing SC<60/year

Operation is by USGS for daily Q and periodic QW. 

#8 GLEN – STATION 09071750, Colorado River above Glenwood Springs, CO

This station has an SC monitor but no stream gage. Flow is computed as the difference between station 09085100 (Colorado River 

below Glenwood Springs, CO) and station 09085000 (Roaring Fork River at Glenwood Springs, CO). 

Water Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (thru 5-31)

QW Observations 6 6 6 6 3

Daily Q Estimated (0 

missing)

Estimated (0 

missing)

Estimated (0 

missing)

Estimated (0 

missing)

Estimated (0 missing)

SC Daily (2 missing) Daily (17 missing) Daily (46 missing) Daily (4 missing) Daily (0 missing)

ROE TDS samples 0 0 0 0 0

SOC TDS samples 6 6 6 6 3

Class by Year A A A A A (provisional)

Classify Notes Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year

Operation is by USGS for estimated Q, daily SC and periodic QW. 
82

#9 CAMEO - STATION 09095500, Colorado River near Cameo, CO

Water Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (thru 5-31)

QW Observations 5 5 5 5 2

Daily Q Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing)

SC Daily (5 missing) Daily (53 missing) Daily (0 missing) Daily (0 missing) Daily (12 missing)

ROE TDS samples 0 0 0 0 0

SOC TDS samples 5 5 5 5 2

Class by Year B B B B B (provisional)

Classify Notes QW observations < 6 QW observations < 

6

QW observations < 

6

QW observations < 

6

QW observations < 

6

Operation is by USGS for daily Q, daily SC, and periodic QW. 

#10 GUNN - STATION 09152500, Gunnison River near Grand Junction, CO

Water Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (thru 5-31)

QW Observations 9 9 10 9 5

Daily Q Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing)

SC Daily (9 missing) Daily (16 missing) Daily (0 missing) Daily (1 missing) Daily (3 missing)

ROE TDS samples 0 0 0 0 0

SOC TDS samples 9 9 10 9 5

Class by Year A A A A A (provisional)

Classify Notes Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year

Operation is by USGS for daily Q, daily SC, and periodic QW. 

#11 DOLOR - STATION 09180000, Dolores River near Cisco, UT

Water Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (thru 5-31)

QW Observations 9 8 8 9 5

Daily Q Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing)

SC Daily (10 missing) Daily (14 missing) Daily (21 missing) Daily (17 missing) Daily (0 missing)

ROE TDS samples 9 8 8 9 5

SOC TDS samples 9 8 8 9 5

Class by Year A A A A A (provisional)

Classify Notes Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year

Operation is by USGS for daily Q, daily SC, and periodic QW. 

#12 CISCO - STATION 09180500, Colorado River near Cisco, UT

Water Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (thru 5-31)

QW Observations 9 8 7 8 4

Daily Q Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing)

SC Daily (36 missing) Daily (12 missing) Daily (1 missing) Daily (0 missing) Daily (4 missing)

ROE TDS samples 9 8 7 8 4

SOC TDS samples 9 8 7 8 4

Class by Year A A A A A (provisional)

Classify Notes Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year

Operation is by USGS for daily Q, daily SC, and periodic QW.
83

#13 ARCH - STATION 09355500, San Juan River near Archuleta, NM

Water Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (thru 5-31)

QW Observations 3 3 3 3 1

Daily Q Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing)

SC None None None None None

ROE TDS samples 3 3 3 3 1

SOC TDS samples 3 3 3 3 1

Class by Year B B B B B (provisional)

Classify Notes No SC No SC No SC No SC No SC

Operation is by USGS for daily Q and periodic QW. 

#14 BLUFF - STATION 09379500, San Juan River near Bluff, UT

Water Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (thru 5-31)

QW Observations 8 9 9 9 5

Daily Q Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing)

SC Daily (18 missing) Daily (16 missing) Daily (38 missing) Daily (15 missing) Daily (4 missing)

ROE TDS samples 8 9 9 9 5

SOC TDS samples 8 9 9 9 5

Class by Year A A A A A (provisional)

Classify Notes Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year

Operation is by USGS for daily Q, daily SC, and periodic QW. 

#15 LEES - STATION 09380000, Colorado River at Lees Ferry, AZ

Water Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (thru 5-31)

QW Observations 13 14 14 14 10

Daily Q Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing)

SC Daily (0 missing) Daily (0 missing) Daily (14 missing) Daily (0 missing) Daily (0 missing)

ROE TDS samples 13 14 14 14 10

SOC TDS samples 13 14 14 14 10

Class by Year A A A A A (provisional)

Classify Notes Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year Missing SC<60/year

Operation is by USGS for daily Q, daily SC, and periodic QW. 

#16 GRCAN - STATION 09402500, Colorado River near Grand Canyon, AZ

Daily Q only. Salt loads are computed with a special version of SLOAD by using the load at station 09380000 (Colorado River at Lees 

Ferry, AZ) and the flow difference between the 2 stations. 

Water Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (thru 5-31)

QW Observations None None None None None

Daily Q Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing)

SC None None None None None

ROE TDS samples 0 0 0 0 0

SOC TDS samples 0 0 0 0 0

Class by Year C C C C C (provisional)

Classify Notes No SC or QW No SC or QW No SC or QW No SC or QW No SC or QW

Operation is by USGS for daily Q. 
84

#17 VIRGIN - STATION 09415000, Virgin River at Littlefield, AZ

Water Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (thru 5-31)

QW Observations 3 5 4 4 2

Daily Q Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing)

SC None None None None None

ROE TDS samples 3 5 4 4 2

SOC TDS samples 3 5 4 4 2

Class by Year B B B B B (provisional)

Classify Notes No SC, TDS samples 

< 6

No SC, TDS samples 

< 6

No SC, TDS samples 

< 6

No SC, TDS samples 

< 6

No SC, TDS samples 

< 6

Operation is by USGS for daily Q and periodic QW. 

#18 HOOVER – STATION 09421500, Colorado River below Hoover Dam, AZ-NV 

Water Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (thru 5-31)

QW Observations 17 17 17 23 17

Daily Q Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing)

SC Daily (0 missing) Daily (0 missing) Daily (0 missing) Daily (0 missing) Daily (0 missing)

ROE TDS samples 17 17 17 23 17

SOC TDS samples 17 17 17 23 17

Class by Year A A A A A (provisional)

Classify Notes Includes BOR data Includes BOR data Includes BOR data Includes BOR data Includes BOR data

Operation is by USGS for daily Q and periodic QW and by BOR for daily SC and periodic QW. 

#19 PARKER - STATION 09427520, Colorado River below Parker Dam, AZ-CA

Daily SC data provided by BOR was available for the first time for the 2014 update.

Water Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (thru 5-31)

QW Observations 31 24 25 25 16

Daily Q Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing)

SC Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing)

ROE TDS samples 31 24 25 25 16

SOC TDS samples 31 24 25 25 16

Class by Year A A A A A (provisional)

Classify Notes Includes BOR data Includes BOR data Includes BOR data Includes BOR data Includes BOR data

Operation is by USGS for daily Q and periodic QW and by BOR for daily SC and periodic QW. 

#20 IMPER - STATION 09429490, Colorado River above Imperial Dam, AZ-CA

Water Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (thru 5-31)

QW Observations 25 25 27 25 18

Daily Q Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing) Yes (0 missing)

SC Daily (0 missing) Daily (0 missing) Daily (0 missing) Daily (0 missing) Daily (0 missing)

ROE TDS samples 25 25 27 25 18

SOC TDS samples 25 25 27 25 18

Class by Year A A A A A (provisional)

Classify Notes Includes BOR data Includes BOR data Includes BOR data Includes BOR data Includes BOR data

Operation is by USGS for daily Q and quarterly QW, and by BOR for daily SC and additional periodic QW. 

References

Liebermann, T.D., Middelburg, R.F., Irvine, S.A. 1987. User’s Manual for Estimation of DissolvedSolids Concentrations and Loads in Surface Water. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources 

Investigations Report 86-4124.
85

APPENDIX C

REGRESSION STATISTICS FOR 2018 SLOAD 

 (Updates CY 2014-2017) 

1. STATION 09217000 (GRWY) Green River near Green River, WY 

STATION 09217000 Green River near Green River, UT UPDATE 2018

SUMMARY OF QW OBSERVATIONS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUP

 

Obs

WATER

YEAR

# OF QW

OBSV.

% P70300 

SUBST.

% P00060 

SUBST.

1 2014 35 0.0 0.0

2 2015 35 0.0 0.0

3 2016 32 0.0 0.0

4 2017 25 0.0 0.0

5 2018 25 0.0 0.0

 

STATION 09217000 Green River near Green River, UT UPDATE 2016

REGRESSION STATISTICS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUPS

REGRESSION #1: VARIABLE = e**A * DISCHARGE**B

REGRESSION #2: VARIABLE = e**C * DISCHARGE**D * COND**E

VARIABLE=(mg/L), except for SALT LOAD (tons/day)

DISCHARGE=(CFS) COND=(uMHOS/cm)

GROUP=2014

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

1 SALT LOAD 35 0.90090 0.14178 0.82508 0.84031 32 0.99719 0.02524 -7.3900 1.00802 1.15650

2 Calcium 35 0.01188 0.14056 4.05750 -0.03030 32 0.81250 0.06397 -3.3654 0.12527 1.03953

3 Magnesium 35 0.15893 0.13013 3.56406 -0.11119 32 0.86438 0.05473 -3.4415 0.03336 0.98408

4 Chloride 35 0.27432 0.21962 3.28360 -0.26542 32 0.90875 0.08218 -8.7492 -0.02261 1.69758

5 Sulfate 35 0.36952 0.23855 6.93830 -0.35898 32 0.94495 0.07446 -6.4996 -0.08611 1.89369

6 Carbonate 35 0.04861 0.09520 4.80720 -0.04230 32 0.68098 0.05676 0.3084 0.05196 0.63002

7 Sodium +K 35 0.56417 0.17106 6.02711 -0.38257 32 0.89056 0.09099 -2.4195 -0.21831 1.20004
86

GROUP=2015

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

1 SALT LOAD 35 0.90090 0.14178 0.82508 0.84031 32 0.99719 0.02524 -7.3900 1.00802 1.15650

2 Calcium 35 0.01188 0.14056 4.05750 -0.03030 32 0.81250 0.06397 -3.3654 0.12527 1.03953

3 Magnesium 35 0.15893 0.13013 3.56406 -0.11119 32 0.86438 0.05473 -3.4415 0.03336 0.98408

4 Chloride 35 0.27432 0.21962 3.28360 -0.26542 32 0.90875 0.08218 -8.7492 -0.02261 1.69758

5 Sulfate 35 0.36952 0.23855 6.93830 -0.35898 32 0.94495 0.07446 -6.4996 -0.08611 1.89369

6 Carbonate 35 0.04861 0.09520 4.80720 -0.04230 32 0.68098 0.05676 0.3084 0.05196 0.63002

7 Sodium +K 35 0.56417 0.17106 6.02711 -0.38257 32 0.89056 0.09099 -2.4195 -0.21831 1.20004

GROUP=2016

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

1 SALT LOAD 35 0.90090 0.14178 0.82508 0.84031 32 0.99719 0.02524 -7.3900 1.00802 1.15650

2 Calcium 35 0.01188 0.14056 4.05750 -0.03030 32 0.81250 0.06397 -3.3654 0.12527 1.03953

3 Magnesium 35 0.15893 0.13013 3.56406 -0.11119 32 0.86438 0.05473 -3.4415 0.03336 0.98408

4 Chloride 35 0.27432 0.21962 3.28360 -0.26542 32 0.90875 0.08218 -8.7492 -0.02261 1.69758

5 Sulfate 35 0.36952 0.23855 6.93830 -0.35898 32 0.94495 0.07446 -6.4996 -0.08611 1.89369

6 Carbonate 35 0.04861 0.09520 4.80720 -0.04230 32 0.68098 0.05676 0.3084 0.05196 0.63002

7 Sodium +K 35 0.56417 0.17106 6.02711 -0.38257 32 0.89056 0.09099 -2.4195 -0.21831 1.20004

GROUP=2017

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

1 SALT LOAD 35 0.90090 0.14178 0.82508 0.84031 32 0.99719 0.02524 -7.3900 1.00802 1.15650

2 Calcium 35 0.01188 0.14056 4.05750 -0.03030 32 0.81250 0.06397 -3.3654 0.12527 1.03953

3 Magnesium 35 0.15893 0.13013 3.56406 -0.11119 32 0.86438 0.05473 -3.4415 0.03336 0.98408

4 Chloride 35 0.27432 0.21962 3.28360 -0.26542 32 0.90875 0.08218 -8.7492 -0.02261 1.69758

5 Sulfate 35 0.36952 0.23855 6.93830 -0.35898 32 0.94495 0.07446 -6.4996 -0.08611 1.89369

6 Carbonate 35 0.04861 0.09520 4.80720 -0.04230 32 0.68098 0.05676 0.3084 0.05196 0.63002

7 Sodium +K 35 0.56417 0.17106 6.02711 -0.38257 32 0.89056 0.09099 -2.4195 -0.21831 1.20004
87

2. STATION 09234500 (GDALE) Green River Near Greendale, UT

STATION 09234500 Green River near Greendale, Utah, UPDATE 2018

SUMMARY OF QW OBSERVATIONS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUP

Obs

WATER

YEAR

# OF QW

OBSV.

% P70300

SUBST.

% P00060

SUBST.

1 2014 30 3.3 0.0

2 2015 30 3.3 0.0

3 2016 29 0.0 3.4

4 2017 24 0.0 8.3

5 2018 24 0.0 8.3

STATION 09234500 Green River near Greendale, Utah, UPDATE 2018

REGRESSION STATISTICS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUPS

REGRESSION #1: VARIABLE = e**A * DISCHARGE**B

REGRESSION #2: VARIABLE = e**C * DISCHARGE**D * COND**E

VARIABLE=(mg/L), except for SALT LOAD (tons/day)

DISCHARGE=(CFS) COND=(uMHOS/cm)

GROUP=2014

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

1 SALT LOAD 30 0.99018 0.064658 0.20349 0.97292 30 0.99877 0.023303 -7.17496 0.98936 1.13730

2 Calcium 29 0.06134 0.048313 4.17858 -0.01855 29 0.68401 0.028566 -0.55902 -0.00940 0.73201

3 Magnesium 29 0.04761 0.063466 3.18594 -0.02131 29 0.85953 0.024838 -3.86919 -0.00769 1.09010

4 Chloride 29 0.01756 0.083928 2.82191 -0.01685 29 0.69129 0.047943 -5.54597 -0.00069 1.29293

5 Sulfate 29 0.07058 0.097163 5.22697 -0.04021 29 0.82642 0.042790 -5.32248 -0.01984 1.63001

6 Carbonate 29 0.02324 0.047395 4.62311 -0.01098 29 0.41360 0.037422 1.01573 -0.00401 0.55738

7 Sodium +K 29 0.02965 0.088072 3.97000 -0.02312 29 0.82402 0.038221 -5.62409 -0.00460 1.48240

GROUP=2015

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

8 SALT LOAD 30 0.99018 0.064658 0.20349 0.97292 30 0.99877 0.023303 -7.17496 0.98936 1.13730

9 Calcium 29 0.06134 0.048313 4.17858 -0.01855 29 0.68401 0.028566 -0.55902 -0.00940 0.73201

10 Magnesium 29 0.04761 0.063466 3.18594 -0.02131 29 0.85953 0.024838 -3.86919 -0.00769 1.09010

11 Chloride 29 0.01756 0.083928 2.82191 -0.01685 29 0.69129 0.047943 -5.54597 -0.00069 1.29293

12 Sulfate 29 0.07058 0.097163 5.22697 -0.04021 29 0.82642 0.042790 -5.32248 -0.01984 1.63001

13 Carbonate 29 0.02324 0.047395 4.62311 -0.01098 29 0.41360 0.037422 1.01573 -0.00401 0.55738

14 Sodium +K 29 0.02965 0.088072 3.97000 -0.02312 29 0.82402 0.038221 -5.62409 -0.00460 1.48240
88

GROUP=2016

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

15 SALT LOAD 29 0.99286 0.062313 0.01999 0.99559 29 0.99920 0.021194 -7.38605 0.99302 1.16554

16 Calcium 29 0.01522 0.057132 4.10771 -0.00962 29 0.68006 0.033185 -1.81091 -0.01167 0.93145

17 Magnesium 29 0.00921 0.064697 3.08030 -0.00846 29 0.84737 0.025877 -4.42229 -0.01105 1.18074

18 Chloride 29 0.02768 0.087013 2.54816 0.01990 29 0.52236 0.062148 -5.27704 0.01719 1.23151

19 Sulfate 29 0.01676 0.088775 5.01253 -0.01571 29 0.74799 0.045800 -4.64007 -0.01905 1.51910

20 Carbonate 29 0.00386 0.050689 4.51167 0.00428 29 0.49448 0.036798 0.02646 0.00272 0.70587

21 Sodium +K 29 0.00955 0.082282 3.69880 0.01095 29 0.74866 0.042239 -5.26305 0.00785 1.41039

GROUP=2017

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

22 SALT LOAD 24 0.99446 0.054418 -0.09270 1.00783 24 0.99906 0.022951 -6.88120 0.99643 1.08195

23 Calcium 24 0.00764 0.058461 4.07951 -0.00709 24 0.70983 0.032356 -2.65332 -0.01841 1.07308

24 Magnesium 24 0.00184 0.057172 3.02102 -0.00339 24 0.69204 0.032504 -3.48792 -0.01433 1.03740

25 Chloride 24 0.13918 0.075054 2.37704 0.04173 24 0.29139 0.069699 -1.94390 0.03447 0.68867

26 Sulfate 24 0.00963 0.077769 4.76590 0.01060 24 0.69096 0.044465 -4.06551 -0.00424 1.40755

27 Carbonate 24 0.00606 0.048324 4.50891 0.00522 24 0.52166 0.034313 -0.25634 -0.00279 0.75949

28 Sodium +K 24 0.05773 0.068160 3.57438 0.02333 24 0.72543 0.037659 -4.28106 0.01013 1.25200
89

3. STATION 09251000 (YAMPA) Yampa River near Maybell, CO

STATION 09251000 Yampa River near Maybell, CO UPDATE 2018

SUMMARY OF QW OBSERVATIONS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUP

Obs

WATER

YEAR

# OF QW

OBSV.

% P70300 

SUBST.

% P00060 

SUBST.

1 2014 17 0.0 0.0

2 2015 17 0.0 0.0

3 2016 17 0.0 0.0

4 2017 13 0.0 0.0

5 2018 13 0.0 0.0

STATION 09251000 Yampa River near Maybell, Colorado SLOAD UPDATE 2018

REGRESSION STATISTICS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUPS

REGRESSION #1: VARIABLE = e**A * DISCHARGE**B

REGRESSION #2: VARIABLE = e**C * DISCHARGE**D * COND**E

VARIABLE=(mg/L), except for SALT LOAD (tons/day)

DISCHARGE=(CFS) COND=(uMHOS/cm)

GROUP=2014

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

1 SALT LOAD 17 0.85273 0.42187 1.37608 0.72639 17 0.99968 0.02034 -7.31670 1.03431 1.11546

2 Calcium 17 0.41251 0.33686 4.88705 -0.20198 17 0.97837 0.06690 -1.93248 0.03959 0.87508

3 Magnesium 17 0.42777 0.47250 4.73184 -0.29231 17 0.99752 0.03217 -4.99353 0.05218 1.24796

4 Chloride 17 0.80048 0.41210 6.02110 -0.59064 17 0.98807 0.10429 -2.22162 -0.29866 1.05771

5 Sulfate 17 0.36958 0.61368 6.55477 -0.33621 17 0.99482 0.05758 -6.05186 0.11035 1.61768

6 Carbonate 17 0.61135 0.26535 5.75078 -0.23813 17 0.95759 0.09073 0.58459 -0.05513 0.66293

7 Sodium +K 17 0.55673 0.50200 5.94146 -0.40255 17 0.98767 0.08668 -4.26844 -0.04089 1.31014
90

GROUP=2015

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

8 SALT LOAD 17 0.85273 0.42187 1.37608 0.72639 17 0.99968 0.02034 -7.31670 1.03431 1.11546

9 Calcium 17 0.41251 0.33686 4.88705 -0.20198 17 0.97837 0.06690 -1.93248 0.03959 0.87508

10 Magnesium 17 0.42777 0.47250 4.73184 -0.29231 17 0.99752 0.03217 -4.99353 0.05218 1.24796

11 Chloride 17 0.80048 0.41210 6.02110 -0.59064 17 0.98807 0.10429 -2.22162 -0.29866 1.05771

12 Sulfate 17 0.36958 0.61368 6.55477 -0.33621 17 0.99482 0.05758 -6.05186 0.11035 1.61768

13 Carbonate 17 0.61135 0.26535 5.75078 -0.23813 17 0.95759 0.09073 0.58459 -0.05513 0.66293

14 Sodium +K 17 0.55673 0.50200 5.94146 -0.40255 17 0.98767 0.08668 -4.26844 -0.04089 1.31014

GROUP=2016

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

15 SALT LOAD 17 0.84367 0.46813 1.06824 0.76136 17 0.99933 0.03171 -7.37065 1.03861 1.11984

16 Calcium 17 0.30023 0.39026 4.67296 -0.17896 17 0.97793 0.07174 -2.26522 0.04898 0.92070

17 Magnesium 17 0.30912 0.53667 4.36523 -0.25132 17 0.99672 0.03825 -5.30711 0.06645 1.28352

18 Chloride 17 0.76663 0.42970 5.68518 -0.54525 17 0.97396 0.14858 -1.63172 -0.30487 0.97095

19 Sulfate 17 0.26556 0.67367 6.08786 -0.28360 17 0.99604 0.05120 -6.04966 0.11516 1.61065

20 Carbonate 17 0.47200 0.33123 5.57479 -0.21925 17 0.95707 0.09777 -0.16060 -0.03082 0.76109

21 Sodium +K 17 0.49964 0.50622 5.55388 -0.35415 17 0.97713 0.11203 -3.37982 -0.06065 1.18551

GROUP=2017

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

22 SALT LOAD 13 0.80513 0.53840 0.98834 0.77923 13 0.99923 0.03547 -7.40305 1.04143 1.12090

23 Calcium 13 0.23785 0.45014 4.67730 -0.17905 13 0.99322 0.04452 -2.32108 0.03962 0.93482

24 Magnesium 13 0.21118 0.61654 4.24058 -0.22715 13 0.99677 0.04137 -5.36805 0.07309 1.28350

25 Chloride 13 0.70144 0.47170 5.57539 -0.51481 13 0.97561 0.14141 -1.48367 -0.29424 0.94293

26 Sulfate 13 0.16614 0.76689 5.89070 -0.24374 13 0.99618 0.05447 -6.05811 0.12962 1.59609

27 Carbonate 13 0.39623 0.38476 5.59419 -0.22194 13 0.96934 0.09094 -0.25994 -0.03901 0.78198

28 Sodium +K 13 0.39126 0.56694 5.44019 -0.32364 13 0.98433 0.09540 -3.29891 -0.05057 1.16735
91

4. STATION 09302000 (DUCH) Duchesne River near Randlett, UT 

 

STATION 09302000 Duchesne River near Randlett, UT UPDATE 2018

SUMMARY OF QW OBSERVATIONS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUP

Obs

WATER

YEAR

# OF QW

OBSV.

% P70300

SUBST.

% P00060

SUBST.

1 2014 29 0.0 0.0

2 2015 29 0.0 0.0

3 2016 28 0.0 3.6

4 2017 24 0.0 8.3

5 2018 24 0.0 8.3

STATION 09302000 Duchesne River near Randlett, UT UPDATE 2018

REGRESSION STATISTICS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUPS

REGRESSION #1: VARIABLE = e**A * DISCHARGE**B

REGRESSION #2: VARIABLE = e**C * DISCHARGE**D * COND**E

VARIABLE=(mg/L), except for SALT LOAD (tons/day)

DISCHARGE=(CFS) COND=(uMHOS/cm)

GROUP=2014

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

1 SALT LOAD 29 0.81469 0.23702 2.90052 0.55003 29 0.99745 0.02832 -6.97198 1.00094 1.09254

2 Calcium 29 0.63885 0.21614 5.95152 -0.31816 29 0.93555 0.09305 -2.26506 0.05712 0.90929

3 Magnesium 29 0.70063 0.24891 5.90590 -0.42144 29 0.97145 0.07833 -4.02354 0.03207 1.09884

4 Chloride 29 0.79488 0.26114 6.51281 -0.56894 29 0.98576 0.07011 -4.05285 -0.08638 1.16925

5 Sulfate 29 0.72998 0.29603 8.35441 -0.53869 29 0.98923 0.06025 -3.81126 0.01695 1.34631

6 Carbonate 29 0.68453 0.18750 6.46326 -0.30568 29 0.85864 0.12790 0.62091 -0.03884 0.64654

7 Sodium +K 29 0.76079 0.27571 7.36594 -0.54418 29 0.97860 0.08404 -3.66811 -0.04022 1.22108
92

GROUP=2015

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R475square

#1

Std.

Error

A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error

C D E 

8 SALT LOAD 29 0.81469 0.23702 2.90052 0.55003 29 0.99745 0.02832 -6.97198 1.00094 1.09254

9 Calcium 29 0.63885 0.21614 5.95152 -0.31816 29 0.93555 0.09305 -2.26506 0.05712 0.90929

10 Magnesium 29 0.70063 0.24891 5.90590 -0.42144 29 0.97145 0.07833 -4.02354 0.03207 1.09884

11 Chloride 29 0.79488 0.26114 6.51281 -0.56894 29 0.98576 0.07011 -4.05285 -0.08638 1.16925

12 Sulfate 29 0.72998 0.29603 8.35441 -0.53869 29 0.98923 0.06025 -3.81126 0.01695 1.34631

13 Carbonate 29 0.68453 0.18750 6.46326 -0.30568 29 0.85864 0.12790 0.62091 -0.03884 0.64654

14 Sodium +K 29 0.76079 0.27571 7.36594 -0.54418 29 0.97860 0.08404 -3.66811 -0.04022 1.22108

GROUP=2016

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

15 SALT LOAD 28 0.82187 0.27984 3.00855 0.53212 28 0.99867 0.02463 -6.73161 0.98800 1.06784

16 Calcium 28 0.75666 0.22734 6.17051 -0.35489 28 0.96719 0.08513 -1.21714 -0.00911 0.80993

17 Magnesium 28 0.73849 0.30302 6.10026 -0.45078 28 0.98877 0.06403 -4.25649 0.03396 1.13544

18 Chloride 28 0.77913 0.34727 6.57448 -0.57740 28 0.98930 0.07796 -5.26047 -0.02348 1.29749

19 Sulfate 28 0.76838 0.35132 8.49674 -0.56647 28 0.99160 0.06824 -3.55252 -0.00251 1.32099

20 Carbonate 28 0.72679 0.22244 6.58681 -0.32117 28 0.91381 0.12741 0.15725 -0.02024 0.70489

21 Sodium +K 28 0.77990 0.33696 7.44641 -0.5152 28 0.98641 0.08539 -3.95676 -0.02781 1.25016

GROUP=2017

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

22 SALT LOAD 24 0.83670 0.27489 2.97979 0.53720 24 0.99852 0.02674 -6.77104 0.99290 1.06914

23 Calcium 24 0.75467 0.23175 6.16243 -0.35093 24 0.96378 0.09114 -1.46174 0.00538 0.83596

24 Magnesium 24 0.74571 0.30712 6.13155 -0.45406 24 0.99248 0.05405 -4.64900 0.04976 1.18204

25 Chloride 24 0.79262 0.34587 6.61876 -0.58377 24 0.98659 0.09001 -5.30058 -0.02673 1.30691

26 Sulfate 24 0.78484 0.33980 8.45260 -0.56029 24 0.99156 0.06890 -3.41565 -0.00564 1.30131

27 Carbonate 24 0.72321 0.23222 6.62162 -0.32407 24 0.93685 0.11353 -0.64803 0.01567 0.79709

28 Sodium +K 24 0.79653 0.32183 7.35984 -0.54975 24 0.98955 0.07466 -3.80947 -0.02776 1.22467
93

5. STATION 09306500 (WHITE) White River near Watson, UT

STATION 09306500 White River near Watson, UT SLOAD UPDATE 2018

SUMMARY OF QW OBSERVATIONS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUP

Obs

WATER

YEAR

# OF QW

OBSV.

% P70300 

SUBST.

% P00060 

SUBST.

1 2014 28 0.0 0.0

2 2015 28 0.0 0.0

3 2016 27 0.0 3.7

4 2017 23 0.0 8.7

5 2018 23 0.0 8.7

STATION 09306500 White River near Watson, UT UPDATE 2018

REGRESSION STATISTICS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUPS

REGRESSION #1: VARIABLE = e**A * DISCHARGE**B

REGRESSION #2: VARIABLE = e**C * DISCHARGE**D * COND**E

VARIABLE=(mg/L), except for SALT LOAD (tons/day)

DISCHARGE=(CFS) COND=(uMHOS/cm)

GROUP=2014

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

1 SALT LOAD 28 0.90228 0.14533 2.13766 0.66872 27 0.99669 0.02779 -7.0458 1.00335 1.10589

2 Calcium 28 0.75153 0.08941 5.65867 -0.23548 27 0.89309 0.05997 1.4165 -0.07945 0.50901

3 Magnesium 28 0.65853 0.15291 5.10288 -0.32158 27 0.94086 0.06595 -3.8578 0.00438 1.07978

4 Chloride 28 0.69835 0.28045 6.35179 -0.64620 27 0.96506 0.09886 -10.6354 -0.02805 2.04670

5 Sulfate 28 0.72432 0.20790 8.14266 -0.51032 27 0.97044 0.07063 -4.5124 -0.05055 1.52569

6 Carbonate 28 0.49037 0.11376 5.68907 -0.16899 27 0.77478 0.07749 0.2521 0.03027 0.65326

7 Sodium +K 28 0.57320 0.28479 6.75812 -0.49978 27 0.92493 0.12382 -9.9025 0.10624 2.00767
94

GROUP=2015

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error

A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error

C D E 

8 SALT LOAD 28 0.90228 0.14533 2.13766 0.66872 27 0.99669 0.02779 -7.0458 1.00335 1.10589

9 Calcium 28 0.75153 0.08941 5.65867 -0.23548 27 0.89309 0.05997 1.4165 -0.07945 0.50901

10 Magnesium 28 0.65853 0.15291 5.10288 -0.32158 27 0.94086 0.06595 -3.8578 0.00438 1.07978

11 Chloride 28 0.69835 0.28045 6.35179 -0.64620 27 0.96506 0.09886 -10.6354 -0.02805 2.04670

12 Sulfate 28 0.72432 0.20790 8.14266 -0.51032 27 0.97044 0.07063 -4.5124 -0.05055 1.52569

13 Carbonate 28 0.49037 0.11376 5.68907 -0.16899 27 0.77478 0.07749 0.2521 0.03027 0.65326

14 Sodium +K 28 0.57320 0.28479 6.75812 -0.49978 27 0.92493 0.12382 -9.9025 0.10624 2.00767

GROUP=2016

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

15 SALT LOAD 27 0.86353 0.16621 2.01725 0.68819 26 0.99720 0.02477 -6.9735 1.00330 1.09451

16 Calcium 27 0.49404 0.11956 5.38730 -0.19447 26 0.83868 0.06868 0.0706 -0.00589 0.64449

17 Magnesium 27 0.60184 0.15702 5.10372 -0.31777 26 0.95237 0.05644 -2.9596 -0.03645 0.98318

18 Chloride 27 0.63930 0.29673 6.41028 -0.65027 26 0.97057 0.08800 -9.1560 -0.10661 1.89734

19 Sulfate 27 0.61620 0.23537 8.02120 -0.49091 26 0.97677 0.06015 -4.4644 -0.05506 1.52210

20 Carbonate 27 0.46345 0.10683 5.66378 -0.16343 26 0.91410 0.04382 0.3471 0.02411 0.64577

21 Sodium +K 27 0.48931 0.31919 6.85859 -0.51428 26 0.92634 0.12592 -9.3088 0.05053 1.97041

GROUP=2017

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

22 SALT LOAD 23 0.84572 0.17539 1.98308 0.69136 22 0.99836 0.01898 -7.0415 1.00083 1.10691

23 Calcium 23 0.50761 0.12519 5.50725 -0.21401 22 0.84884 0.07138 0.2034 -0.03046 0.64838

24 Magnesium 23 0.53565 0.16908 5.00413 -0.30574 22 0.93943 0.06398 -3.1762 -0.02603 1.00442

25 Chloride 23 0.57788 0.31728 6.26928 -0.62502 22 0.95913 0.10356 -9.3736 -0.09103 1.92186

26 Sulfate 23 0.57654 0.24954 7.99955 -0.49022 22 0.98463 0.04984 -4.7077 -0.05606 1.56069

27 Carbonate 23 0.43110 0.11006 5.63179 -0.16131 22 0.91910 0.04271 0.4329 0.01824 0.63603

28 Sodium +K 23 0.43115 0.33982 6.71504 -0.49810 22 0.93374 0.12144 -9.8517 0.06880 2.03356
95

6. STATION 09315000 (GRUT) Green River at Green River, UT 

STATION 09315000 Green River at Green River, UT UPDATE 2018

SUMMARY OF QW OBSERVATIONS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUP

Obs

WATER

YEAR

# OF QW

OBSV.

% P70300

SUBST.

% P00060

SUBST.

1 2014 24 0.0 0.0

2 2015 24 0.0 0.0

3 2016 25 0.0 0.0

4 2017 21 0.0 0.0

5 2018 21 0.0 0.0

STATION 09315000 Green River at Green River, UT UPDATE 2018

REGRESSION STATISTICS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUPS

REGRESSION #1: VARIABLE = e**A * DISCHARGE**B

REGRESSION #2: VARIABLE = e**C * DISCHARGE**D * COND**E

VARIABLE=(mg/L), except for SALT LOAD (tons/day)

DISCHARGE=(CFS) COND=(uMHOS/cm)

GROUP=2014

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

1 SALT LOAD 24 0.88040 0.17029 2.49107 0.71044 23 0.99459 0.03701 -7.16332 1.01700 1.09972

2 Calcium 24 0.39976 0.15623 5.63577 -0.19605 23 0.73748 0.10830 -1.23903 0.02356 0.78122

3 Magnesium 24 0.52757 0.18297 5.51944 -0.29732 23 0.68171 0.15743 -0.47315 -0.10796 0.68393

4 Chloride 24 0.64458 0.21950 6.67609 -0.45454 23 0.89073 0.12727 -4.06765 -0.11099 1.22038

5 Sulfate 24 0.46030 0.24465 7.90047 -0.34743 23 0.95573 0.07348 -5.68688 0.08405 1.54767

6 Carbonate 24 0.59646 0.12920 6.55446 -0.24153 23 0.77763 0.10053 1.59546 -0.08486 0.56601

7 Sodium +K 24 0.53315 0.21962 7.01035 -0.36089 23 0.92671 0.09125 -4.72585 0.01251 1.33580
96

GROUP=2015

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

8 SALT LOAD 24 0.88040 0.17029 2.49107 0.71044 23 0.99459 0.03701 -7.16332 1.01700 1.09972

9 Calcium 24 0.39976 0.15623 5.63577 -0.19605 23 0.73748 0.10830 -1.23903 0.02356 0.78122

10 Magnesium 24 0.52757 0.18297 5.51944 -0.29732 23 0.68171 0.15743 -0.47315 -0.10796 0.68393

11 Chloride 24 0.64458 0.21950 6.67609 -0.45454 23 0.89073 0.12727 -4.06765 -0.11099 1.22038

12 Sulfate 24 0.46030 0.24465 7.90047 -0.34743 23 0.95573 0.07348 -5.68688 0.08405 1.54767

13 Carbonate 24 0.59646 0.12920 6.55446 -0.24153 23 0.77763 0.10053 1.59546 -0.08486 0.56601

14 Sodium +K 24 0.53315 0.21962 7.01035 -0.36089 23 0.92671 0.09125 -4.72585 0.01251 1.33580

GROUP=2016

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

15 SALT LOAD 25 0.92225 0.15233 2.63180 0.69743 24 0.99563 0.03632 -6.92268 1.00217 1.08152

16 Calcium 25 0.58113 0.14133 5.88032 -0.22130 24 0.82227 0.09625 -1.08809 0.00155 0.78792

17 Magnesium 25 0.63523 0.16700 5.55110 -0.29297 24 0.83234 0.11842 -2.23782 -0.04572 0.88339

18 Chloride 25 0.76270 0.18982 6.71534 -0.45239 24 0.90481 0.12519 -2.88752 -0.14491 1.08526

19 Sulfate 25 0.61432 0.22183 8.13222 -0.37217 24 0.95796 0.07663 -5.43578 0.06142 1.53460

20 Carbonate 25 0.63767 0.12970 6.49703 -0.22873 24 0.81558 0.09677 0.74714 -0.04637 0.65237

21 Sodium +K 25 0.72973 0.17763 7.25591 -0.38800 24 0.94723 0.08199 -3.03354 -0.05961 1.16440

GROUP=2017

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

22 SALT LOAD 21 0.92797 0.14332 2.76927 0.68039 20 0.99637 0.03235 -6.96207 1.00146 1.08803

23 Calcium 21 0.74307 0.10380 5.97457 -0.23348 20 0.96629 0.03967 -0.82076 -0.00865 0.75885

24 Magnesium 21 0.68479 0.15577 5.65930 -0.30366 20 0.94822 0.06672 -4.17241 0.02016 1.10007

25 Chloride 21 0.84654 0.15595 7.02176 -0.48444 20 0.97587 0.06512 -2.76675 -0.16288 1.09646

26 Sulfate 21 0.70838 0.19134 8.29650 -0.39443 20 0.97938 0.05373 -4.62961 0.03299 1.44384

27 Carbonate 21 0.72634 0.10918 6.56929 -0.23527 20 0.95890 0.04472 -0.28214 -0.01040 0.76777

28 Sodium +K 21 0.78304 0.16850 7.54830 -0.42339 20 0.98309 0.04961 -3.74527 -0.05037 1.26210
97

7. STATION 09328500, San Rafael River near Green River, UT 

 

STATION 09328500 San Rafael River near Green River, UT UPDATE 2018

SUMMARY OF QW OBSERVATIONS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUP

Obs

WATER

YEAR

# OF QW

OBSV.

% P70300

SUBST.

% P00060

SUBST.

1 2014 25 0.0 0.0

2 2015 25 0.0 0.0

3 2016 25 0.0 0.0

4 2017 24 0.0 0.0

5 2018 24 0.0 0.0

STATION 09328500 San Rafael River near Green River, UT UPDATE 2018

REGRESSION STATISTICS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUPS

REGRESSION #1: VARIABLE = e**A * DISCHARGE**B

REGRESSION #2: VARIABLE = e**C * DISCHARGE**D * COND**E

VARIABLE=(mg/L), except for SALT LOAD (tons/day)

DISCHARGE=(CFS) COND=(uMHOS/cm)

GROUP=2014

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

1 SALT LOAD 25 0.92541 0.38508 2.24679 0.80043 25 0.99809 0.06305 -6.10748 1.00147 0.98963

2 Calcium 25 0.09693 0.61583 5.76349 -0.11907 25 0.79186 0.30230 -6.10993 0.16666 1.40650

3 Magnesium 25 0.49304 0.54755 5.61903 -0.31866 25 0.91221 0.23297 -5.32401 -0.05532 1.29629

4 Chloride 25 0.67221 0.61330 5.51777 -0.51829 25 0.87520 0.38693 -5.08979 -0.26303 1.25655

5 Sulfate 25 0.27213 0.65504 7.66644 -0.23636 25 0.95083 0.17408 -6.23569 0.09818 1.64682

6 Carbonate 25 0.60551 0.30918 5.69765 -0.22605 25 0.63539 0.30393 3.82757 -0.18105 0.22153

7 Sodium +K 25 0.64542 0.50688 6.72019 -0.40357 25 0.72190 0.45899 1.54608 -0.27906 0.61292
98

GROUP=2015

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

8 SALT LOAD 25 0.92541 0.38508 2.24679 0.80043 25 0.99809 0.06305 -6.10748 1.00147 0.98963

9 Calcium 25 0.09693 0.61583 5.76349 -0.11907 25 0.79186 0.30230 -6.10993 0.16666 1.40650

10 Magnesium 25 0.49304 0.54755 5.61903 -0.31866 25 0.91221 0.23297 -5.32401 -0.05532 1.29629

11 Chloride 25 0.67221 0.61330 5.51777 -0.51829 25 0.87520 0.38693 -5.08979 -0.26303 1.25655

12 Sulfate 25 0.27213 0.65504 7.66644 -0.23636 25 0.95083 0.17408 -6.23569 0.09818 1.64682

13 Carbonate 25 0.60551 0.30918 5.69765 -0.22605 25 0.63539 0.30393 3.82757 -0.18105 0.22153

14 Sodium +K 25 0.64542 0.50688 6.72019 -0.40357 25 0.72190 0.45899 1.54608 -0.27906 0.61292

GROUP=2016

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

15 SALT LOAD 25 0.88349 0.39621 2.44127 0.73747 25 0.99629 0.07234 -6.11360 0.98936 0.99364

16 Calcium 25 0.27684 0.56018 6.06789 -0.23428 25 0.82968 0.27797 -4.68019 0.08218 1.24838

17 Magnesium 25 0.42113 0.55419 5.69956 -0.31950 25 0.94386 0.17646 -5.85693 0.02076 1.34227

18 Chloride 25 0.60572 0.59096 5.53809 -0.49510 25 0.89484 0.31205 -5.56691 -0.16813 1.28983

19 Sulfate 25 0.37695 0.64616 7.97441 -0.33972 25 0.95739 0.17279 -5.71156 0.06324 1.58961

20 Carbonate 25 0.37107 0.30089 5.56643 -0.15622 25 0.50407 0.27319 2.53012 -0.06682 0.35266

21 Sodium +K 25 0.56505 0.49783 6.75699 -0.38354 25 0.77635 0.36500 -0.85740 -0.15934 0.88440

GROUP=2017

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

22 SALT LOAD 24 0.87423 0.41475 2.44757 0.73569 24 0.99583 0.07727 -6.18139 0.99152 1.00052

23 Calcium 24 0.25798 0.57560 6.03354 -0.22834 24 0.83425 0.27844 -4.69946 0.08986 1.24448

24 Magnesium 24 0.40962 0.57785 5.72538 -0.32383 24 0.94322 0.18342 -5.89853 0.02079 1.34778

25 Chloride 24 0.59585 0.60430 5.53344 -0.49366 24 0.88896 0.32420 -5.35572 -0.17083 1.26259

26 Sulfate 24 0.36682 0.66737 7.98007 -0.34175 24 0.95840 0.17508 -5.66907 0.06291 1.58261

27 Carbonate 24 0.36349 0.31211 5.58176 -0.15868 24 0.51235 0.27961 2.38809 -0.06400 0.37030

28 Sodium +K 24 0.56041 0.51317 6.79962 -0.38982 24 0.77916 0.37228 -0.85999 -0.16274 0.88813
99

8. STATION 09071750 (GLEN) Colorado River above Glenwood Springs CO 

 

STATION 09071750 Colorado River above Glenwood Springs, CO UPDATE 2018

SUMMARY OF QW OBSERVATIONS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUP

Obs

WATER

YEAR

# OF QW

OBSV.

% P70300 

SUBST.

% P00060 

SUBST.

1 2014 18 0.0 0.0

2 2015 18 0.0 0.0

3 2016 18 0.0 0.0

4 2017 15 0.0 0.0

5 2018 15 0.0 0.0

STATION 09071750 Colorado River above Glenwood Springs, CO UPDATE 2018

REGRESSION STATISTICS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUPS

REGRESSION #1: VARIABLE = e**A * DISCHARGE**B

REGRESSION #2: VARIABLE = e**C * DISCHARGE**D * COND**E

VARIABLE=(mg/L), except for SALT LOAD (tons/day)

DISCHARGE=(CFS) COND=(uMHOS/cm)

GROUP=2014

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

1 SALT LOAD 18 0.96621 0.08280 3.2838 0.53406 18 0.99852 0.017909 -8.9139 1.12854 1.23474

2 Calcium 18 0.90402 0.08135 6.0811 -0.30114 18 0.98700 0.030919 -5.3143 0.25423 1.15353

3 Magnesium 18 0.81070 0.12393 4.5599 -0.30934 18 0.93445 0.075320 -10.5353 0.42634 1.52804

4 Chloride 18 0.99143 0.07149 11.0997 -0.92732 18 0.99183 0.072079 8.7632 -0.81345 0.23651

5 Sulfate 18 0.88860 0.12155 7.2965 -0.41409 18 0.95977 0.075446 -7.3399 0.29924 1.48160

6 Carbonate 18 0.75446 0.09690 5.5320 -0.20487 18 0.89749 0.064661 -5.6094 0.33812 1.12781

7 Sodium +K 18 0.97775 0.09511 9.5529 -0.76049 18 0.98817 0.071625 -0.2532 -0.28257 0.99264
100

GROUP=2015

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1 

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

8 SALT LOAD 18 0.96621 0.08280 3.2838 0.53406 18 0.99852 0.017909 -8.9139 1.12854 1.23474

9 Calcium 18 0.90402 0.08135 6.0811 -0.30114 18 0.98700 0.030919 -5.3143 0.25423 1.15353

10 Magnesium 18 0.81070 0.12393 4.5599 -0.30934 18 0.93445 0.075320 -10.5353 0.42634 1.52804

11 Chloride 18 0.99143 0.07149 11.0997 -0.92732 18 0.99183 0.072079 8.7632 -0.81345 0.23651

12 Sulfate 18 0.88860 0.12155 7.2965 -0.41409 18 0.95977 0.075446 -7.3399 0.29924 1.48160 

13 Carbonate 18 0.75446 0.09690 5.5320 -0.20487 18 0.89749 0.064661 -5.6094 0.33812 1.12781

14 Sodium +K 18 0.97775 0.09511 9.5529 -0.76049 18 0.98817 0.071625 -0.2532 -0.28257 0.99264

GROUP=2016

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

15 SALT LOAD 18 0.93959 0.07692 3.6830 0.48348 18 0.99635 0.019533 -8.0117 1.07975 1.14918

16 Calcium 18 0.88729 0.07757 6.4403 -0.34691 18 0.98639 0.027843 -4.9691 0.23481 1.12115

17 Magnesium 18 0.74397 0.12956 4.9015 -0.35200 18 0.89216 0.086842 -10.5591 0.43628 1.51924

18 Chloride 18 0.98982 0.05936 11.1722 -0.93274 18 0.99177 0.055112 7.0944 -0.72482 0.40071

19 Sulfate 18 0.90268 0.09783 7.7707 -0.47486 18 0.96094 0.064012 -4.1019 0.13047 1.16666

20 Carbonate 18 0.60204 0.10546 5.5681 -0.20674 18 0.79138 0.078861 -5.8417 0.37501 1.12119

21 Sodium +K 18 0.97164 0.08464 9.8038 -0.78962 18 0.98684 0.059544 0.0842 -0.29405 0.95510

GROUP=2017

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

22 SALT LOAD 15 0.94922 0.06192 4.0012 0.43935 15 0.99489 0.020436 -7.3846 1.04270 1.09275

23 Calcium 15 0.92937 0.06397 6.6836 -0.38084 15 0.98143 0.034145 -3.9651 0.18345 1.02200

24 Magnesium 15 0.84214 0.10612 5.2690 -0.40225 15 0.89672 0.089337 -6.8306 0.23892 1.16125

25 Chloride 15 0.98693 0.06457 11.0871 -0.92093 15 0.99346 0.047527 2.2345 -0.45182 0.84962

26 Sulfate 15 0.93998 0.07730 7.9485 -0.50208 15 0.96742 0.059280 -2.1864 0.03498 0.97269

27 Carbonate 15 0.71207 0.09778 5.8929 -0.25236 15 0.82077 0.080293 -5.7567 0.36496 1.11805

28 Sodium +K 15 0.98008 0.07165 10.0607 -0.82490 15 0.99164 0.048317 -0.5222 -0.26410 1.01568
101

9. STATION 09095500 (CAMEO) Colorado River near Cameo, CO 

STATION 09095500 Colorado River near Cameo, CO UPDATE 2018

SUMMARY OF QW OBSERVATIONS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUP

Obs

WATER

YEAR

# OF QW

OBSV.

% P70300 

SUBST.

% P00060 

SUBST.

1 2014 15 0.0 0.0

2 2015 15 0.0 0.0

3 2016 15 0.0 0.0

4 2017 12 0.0 0.0

5 2018 12 0.0 0.0

STATION 09095500 Colorado River near Cameo, CO UPDATE 2018

REGRESSION STATISTICS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUPS

REGRESSION #1: VARIABLE = e**A * DISCHARGE**B

REGRESSION #2: VARIABLE = e**C * DISCHARGE**D * COND**E

VARIABLE=(mg/L), except for SALT LOAD (tons/day)

DISCHARGE=(CFS) COND=(uMHOS/cm)

GROUP=2014

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

1 SALT LOAD 15 0.98321 0.04796 4.8284 0.41934 15 0.99582 0.024915 -6.77533 1.01938 1.02185

2 Calcium 15 0.98515 0.03718 6.8108 -0.34602 15 0.98992 0.031878 0.92564 -0.04169 0.51826

3 Magnesium 15 0.95500 0.08061 5.9643 -0.42432 15 0.95912 0.079973 -0.84497 -0.07220 0.59964

4 Chloride 15 0.98990 0.08458 12.3632 -0.95658 15 0.99245 0.076115 0.49550 -0.34288 1.04510

5 Sulfate 15 0.97630 0.07477 8.9056 -0.54831 15 0.98608 0.059644 -4.50532 0.14519 1.18100

6 Carbonate 15 0.90654 0.06871 6.2079 -0.24450 15 0.91927 0.066465 -0.87302 0.12166 0.62356

7 Sodium +K 15 0.99147 0.06852 11.1917 -0.84405 15 0.99358 0.061858 1.66845 -0.35159 0.83864
102

GROUP=2015

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

8 SALT LOAD 15 0.98321 0.04796 4.8284 0.41934 15 0.99582 0.024915 -6.77533 1.01938 1.02185

9 Calcium 15 0.98515 0.03718 6.8108 -0.34602 15 0.98992 0.031878 0.92564 -0.04169 0.51826

10 Magnesium 15 0.95500 0.08061 5.9643 -0.42432 15 0.95912 0.079973 -0.84497 -0.07220 0.59964

11 Chloride 15 0.98990 0.08458 12.3632 -0.95658 15 0.99245 0.076115 0.49550 -0.34288 1.04510

12 Sulfate 15 0.97630 0.07477 8.9056 -0.54831 15 0.98608 0.059644 -4.50532 0.14519 1.18100

13 Carbonate 15 0.90654 0.06871 6.2079 -0.24450 15 0.91927 0.066465 -0.87302 0.12166 0.62356

14 Sodium +K 15 0.99147 0.06852 11.1917 -0.84405 15 0.99358 0.061858 1.66845 -0.35159 0.83864

GROUP=2016

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

15 SALT LOAD 15 0.96647 0.06107 5.0376 0.39301 15 0.99495 0.024657 -7.01266 1.02792 1.04721

16 Calcium 15 0.96122 0.06029 6.9184 -0.35983 15 0.98990 0.032027 -4.18115 0.22499 0.96460

17 Magnesium 15 0.92825 0.09944 5.9960 -0.42875 15 0.94864 0.087570 -5.35175 0.16915 0.98617

18 Chloride 15 0.98932 0.08652 12.7047 -0.99814 15 0.99404 0.067258 0.38652 -0.34911 1.07050

19 Sulfate 15 0.97547 0.08087 9.3903 -0.61134 15 0.99266 0.046050 -5.10282 0.15228 1.25951

20 Carbonate 15 0.89566 0.07471 6.3491 -0.26239 15 0.90408 0.074558 1.80612 -0.02302 0.39480

21 Sodium +K 15 0.98716 0.08488 11.5802 -0.89199 15 0.99449 0.057876 -2.14909 -0.16862 1.19313

GROUP=2017

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

22 SALT LOAD 12 0.96973 0.05311 5.2695 0.36532 12 0.99825 0.013448 -6.18190 0.98064 0.97859

23 Calcium 12 0.95904 0.06415 7.0578 -0.37724 12 0.99171 0.030430 -5.66604 0.30645 1.08733

24 Magnesium 12 0.93054 0.10153 6.1774 -0.45162 12 0.95056 0.090289 -5.92914 0.19890 1.03458

25 Chloride 12 0.98764 0.09190 12.7249 -0.99833 12 0.99361 0.069668 -1.45822 -0.23623 1.21204

26 Sulfate 12 0.97421 0.08499 9.5702 -0.63476 12 0.99434 0.041969 -7.10768 0.26139 1.42523

27 Carbonate 12 0.90125 0.07480 6.4544 -0.27464 12 0.90402 0.077736 3.67201 -0.12513 0.23777

28 Sodium +K 12 0.98552 0.09119 11.7671 -0.91439 12 0.99359 0.063964 -3.35372 -0.10190 1.29217
103

10. STATION 09152500 (GUNN) Gunnison River near Grand Junction, CO 

STATION 09152500 Gunnison River near Grand Junction, Co UPDATE 2018

SUMMARY OF QW OBSERVATIONS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUP

Obs

WATER

YEAR

# OF QW

OBSV.

% P70300 

SUBST.

% P00060 

SUBST.

1 2014 28 0.0 0.0

2 2015 28 0.0 0.0

3 2016 28 0.0 0.0

4 2017 24 0.0 0.0

5 2018 24 0.0 0.0

STATION 09152500 Gunnison River near Grand Junction, Co UPDATE 2018

REGRESSION STATISTICS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUPS

REGRESSION #1: VARIABLE = e**A * DISCHARGE**B

REGRESSION #2: VARIABLE = e**C * DISCHARGE**D * COND**E

VARIABLE=(mg/L), except for SALT LOAD (tons/day)

DISCHARGE=(CFS) COND=(uMHOS/cm)

GROUP=2014

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

1 SALT LOAD 28 0.67698 0.19886 4.3309 0.46927 28 0.99771 0.017093 -7.15272 1.00997 1.11865

2 Calcium 28 0.63147 0.21774 7.9778 -0.46460 28 0.97412 0.058849 -4.18991 0.10831 1.18528

3 Magnesium 28 0.79174 0.18481 7.7070 -0.58739 28 0.97803 0.061220 -2.42285 -0.11043 0.98678

4 Chloride 28 0.87980 0.13701 6.4062 -0.60421 28 0.96444 0.075991 -0.25684 -0.29048 0.64906

5 Sulfate 28 0.72953 0.24647 10.5021 -0.65981 28 0.99022 0.047796 -3.52092 0.00047 1.36602

6 Carbonate 28 0.68153 0.13482 6.8332 -0.32148 28 0.94394 0.057684 -0.25888 0.01245 0.69086

7 Sodium +K 28 0.82942 0.17990 8.6674 -0.64663 28 0.97155 0.074920 -0.84948 -0.19853 0.92707
104

GROUP=2015

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

8 SALT LOAD 28 0.67698 0.19886 4.3309 0.46927 28 0.99771 0.017093 -7.15272 1.00997 1.11865

9 Calcium 28 0.63147 0.21774 7.9778 -0.46460 28 0.97412 0.058849 -4.18991 0.10831 1.18528

10 Magnesium 28 0.79174 0.18481 7.7070 -0.58739 28 0.97803 0.061220 -2.42285 -0.11043 0.98678

11 Chloride 28 0.87980 0.13701 6.4062 -0.60421 28 0.96444 0.075991 -0.25684 -0.29048 0.64906

12 Sulfate 28 0.72953 0.24647 10.5021 -0.65981 28 0.99022 0.047796 -3.52092 0.00047 1.36602

13 Carbonate 28 0.68153 0.13482 6.8332 -0.32148 28 0.94394 0.057684 -0.25888 0.01245 0.69086

14 Sodium +K 28 0.82942 0.17990 8.6674 -0.64663 28 0.97155 0.074920 -0.84948 -0.19853 0.92707

GROUP=2016

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

15 SALT LOAD 28 0.55832 0.18531 4.8643 0.39584 28 0.99464 0.020822 -7.12029 1.00569 1.11826

16 Calcium 28 0.67112 0.19598 8.4667 -0.53191 28 0.96670 0.063598 -3.62294 0.08328 1.12806

17 Magnesium 28 0.79352 0.17720 8.2426 -0.65999 28 0.96854 0.070538 -2.37277 -0.11981 0.99050

18 Chloride 28 0.90834 0.10998 6.7802 -0.65777 28 0.95639 0.077364 1.59921 -0.39413 0.48343

19 Sulfate 28 0.74549 0.23371 11.2309 -0.75995 28 0.99360 0.037780 -3.78410 0.00410 1.40102

20 Carbonate 28 0.68138 0.12262 6.9670 -0.34068 28 0.94037 0.054096 -0.22645 0.02536 0.67121

21 Sodium +K 28 0.83930 0.16763 9.2615 -0.72783 28 0.96683 0.077668 -0.45503 -0.23340 0.90663

GROUP=2017

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

22 SALT LOAD 24 0.50964 0.19216 4.7412 0.40994 24 0.99423 0.021341 -7.27348 1.01409 1.13108

23 Calcium 24 0.55957 0.21527 8.2614 -0.50774 24 0.96373 0.063224 -4.70846 0.14444 1.22100

24 Magnesium 24 0.75095 0.17735 8.1175 -0.64441 24 0.96727 0.065804 -2.27803 -0.12168 0.97866

25 Chloride 24 0.90406 0.10701 7.0017 -0.68735 24 0.94679 0.081566 2.51011 -0.46149 0.42285

26 Sulfate 24 0.67770 0.23943 10.9607 -0.72650 24 0.99259 0.037150 -3.92420 0.02197 1.40129

27 Carbonate 24 0.66779 0.11767 7.0120 -0.34911 24 0.94405 0.049426 0.26293 -0.00973 0.63537

28 Sodium +K 24 0.78801 0.17695 9.1460 -0.71387 24 0.95943 0.079232 -0.86149 -0.21065 0.94213
105

11. STATION 09180000 (DOLOR) Dolores River near Cisco, UT 

 

STATION 09180000 Dolores River near Cisco, UT UPDATE 2018

SUMMARY OF QW OBSERVATIONS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUP

Obs

WATER

YEAR

# OF QW

OBSV.

% P70300 

SUBST.

% P00060 

SUBST.

1 2014 25 0.0 0.0

2 2015 25 0.0 0.0

3 2016 25 0.0 0.0

4 2017 22 0.0 0.0

5 2018 22 0.0 0.0

STATION 09180000 Dolores River near Cisco, UT SLOAD UPDATE 2018

REGRESSION STATISTICS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUPS

REGRESSION #1: VARIABLE = e**A * DISCHARGE**B

REGRESSION #2: VARIABLE = e**C * DISCHARGE**D * COND**E

VARIABLE=(mg/L), except for SALT LOAD (tons/day)

DISCHARGE=(CFS) COND=(uMHOS/cm)

GROUP=2014

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

1 SALT LOAD 25 0.58485 0.28502 3.9499 0.38360 25 0.97891 0.06569 -6.16375 0.98079 0.98199

2 Calcium 25 0.62006 0.28358 6.7597 -0.41078 25 0.69767 0.25864 2.09159 -0.13515 0.45325

3 Magnesium 25 0.80454 0.23083 6.1363 -0.53104 25 0.92941 0.14183 -0.58370 -0.13424 0.65248

4 Chloride 25 0.67148 0.62642 10.1741 -1.01551 25 0.79376 0.50749 -3.74516 -0.19362 1.35150

5 Sulfate 25 0.68750 0.39872 9.0510 -0.67061 25 0.75873 0.35822 2.11774 -0.26122 0.67318

6 Carbonate 25 0.61003 0.14636 5.5333 -0.20757 25 0.73765 0.12274 2.48401 -0.02751 0.29607

7 Sodium +K 25 0.72343 0.46249 9.1490 -0.84818 25 0.91417 0.26343 -4.83988 -0.02218 1.35825
106

GROUP=2015

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

8 SALT LOAD 25 0.58485 0.28502 3.9499 0.38360 25 0.97891 0.06569 -6.16375 0.98079 0.98199

9 Calcium 25 0.62006 0.28358 6.7597 -0.41078 25 0.69767 0.25864 2.09159 -0.13515 0.45325

10 Magnesium 25 0.80454 0.23083 6.1363 -0.53104 25 0.92941 0.14183 -0.58370 -0.13424 0.65248

11 Chloride 25 0.67148 0.62642 10.1741 -1.01551 25 0.79376 0.50749 -3.74516 -0.19362 1.35150

12 Sulfate 25 0.68750 0.39872 9.0510 -0.67061 25 0.75873 0.35822 2.11774 -0.26122 0.67318

13 Carbonate 25 0.61003 0.14636 5.5333 -0.20757 25 0.73765 0.12274 2.48401 -0.02751 0.29607

14 Sodium +K 25 0.72343 0.46249 9.1490 -0.84818 25 0.91417 0.26343 -4.83988 -0.02218 1.35825

GROUP=2016

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

15 SALT LOAD 25 0.71169 0.30176 3.7347 0.42929 25 0.99091 0.05479 -5.82893 0.96337 0.94392

16 Calcium 25 0.72162 0.22850 6.2737 -0.33311 25 0.78967 0.20308 2.63541 -0.12993 0.35909

17 Magnesium 25 0.88089 0.20150 5.9527 -0.49615 25 0.95579 0.12551 0.80691 -0.20879 0.50788

18 Chloride 25 0.79572 0.59125 10.6708 -1.05659 25 0.94286 0.31972 -5.48929 -0.15413 1.59498

19 Sulfate 25 0.80320 0.31257 8.3996 -0.57177 25 0.84703 0.28177 3.64897 -0.30647 0.46888

20 Carbonate 25 0.71084 0.12878 5.4178 -0.18283 25 0.87835 0.08541 2.26128 -0.00655 0.31155

21 Sodium +K 25 0.79458 0.48719 9.4332 -0.86759 25 0.96418 0.20801 -4.82308 -0.07145 1.40707

GROUP=2017

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

22 SALT LOAD 22 0.68665 0.30081 4.1537 0.37361 22 0.98764 0.06128 -5.63725 0.95617 0.92081

23 Calcium 22 0.71809 0.24241 6.2289 -0.32462 22 0.76277 0.22815 3.02410 -0.13393 0.30141

24 Magnesium 22 0.90050 0.20100 6.0412 -0.50733 22 0.96068 0.12963 0.84978 -0.19845 0.48823

25 Chloride 22 0.86646 0.54690 11.5199 -1.16882 22 0.95868 0.31210 -3.57382 -0.27074 1.41952

26 Sulfate 22 0.79663 0.33366 8.2722 -0.55408 22 0.82184 0.32041 4.37062 -0.32194 0.36694

27 Carbonate 22 0.74262 0.13095 5.4509 -0.18663 22 0.88975 0.08793 2.16290 0.00901 0.30923

28 Sodium +K 22 0.86056 0.46839 10.2464 -0.97629 22 0.97380 0.20831 -3.77153 -0.14222 1.31834
107

12. STATION 09180500 (CISCO) Colorado River near Cisco, UT 

STATION 09180500 Colorado River near Cisco, UT UPDATE 2018

SUMMARY OF QW OBSERVATIONS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUP

Obs

WATER

YEAR

# OF QW

OBSV.

% P70300 

SUBST.

% P00060 

SUBST.

1 2014 24 0.0 0.0

2 2015 24 0.0 0.0

3 2016 23 0.0 0.0

4 2017 19 0.0 0.0

5 2018 19 0.0 0.0

STATION 09180500 Colorado River near Cisco, UT UPDATE 2018

REGRESSION STATISTICS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUPS

REGRESSION #1: VARIABLE = e**A * DISCHARGE**B

REGRESSION #2: VARIABLE = e**C * DISCHARGE**D * COND**E

VARIABLE=(mg/L), except for SALT LOAD (tons/day)

DISCHARGE=(CFS) COND=(uMHOS/cm)

GROUP=2014

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

1 SALT LOAD 24 0.68705 0.18507 5.5049 0.40612 24 0.98739 0.03802 -6.57190 0.99693 1.03232

2 Calcium 24 0.61579 0.22870 8.0742 -0.42881 24 0.89734 0.12100 -4.96670 0.20917 1.11473

3 Magnesium 24 0.85032 0.15880 7.9364 -0.56056 24 0.97481 0.06668 -1.71022 -0.08863 0.82460

4 Chloride 24 0.94077 0.16459 12.6204 -0.97152 24 0.96992 0.12005 4.92878 -0.59524 0.65748

5 Sulfate 24 0.69649 0.28755 10.8582 -0.64514 24 0.96042 0.10629 -7.00314 0.22866 1.52679

6 Carbonate 24 0.85367 0.08418 6.9900 -0.30115 24 0.93552 0.05720 2.79602 -0.09597 0.35850

7 Sodium +K 24 0.92240 0.16516 11.5847 -0.84334 24 0.98193 0.08158 1.94865 -0.37194 0.82369
108

GROUP=2015

Obs VARIABLE 

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

8 SALT LOAD 24 0.68705 0.18507 5.5049 0.40612 24 0.98739 0.03802 -6.57190 0.99693 1.03232

9 Calcium 24 0.61579 0.22870 8.0742 -0.42881 24 0.89734 0.12100 -4.96670 0.20917 1.11473

10 Magnesium 24 0.85032 0.15880 7.9364 -0.56056 24 0.97481 0.06668 -1.71022 -0.08863 0.82460

11 Chloride 24 0.94077 0.16459 12.6204 -0.97152 24 0.96992 0.12005 4.92878 -0.59524 0.65748

12 Sulfate 24 0.69649 0.28755 10.8582 -0.64514 24 0.96042 0.10629 -7.00314 0.22866 1.52679

13 Carbonate 24 0.85367 0.08418 6.9900 -0.30115 24 0.93552 0.05720 2.79602 -0.09597 0.35850

14 Sodium +K 24 0.92240 0.16516 11.5847 -0.84334 24 0.98193 0.08158 1.94865 -0.37194 0.82369

GROUP=2016

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

15 SALT LOAD 23 0.71616 0.14398 5.6890 0.38309 23 0.98645 0.03224 -6.08856 0.97264 0.99073

16 Calcium 23 0.65063 0.18984 8.1073 -0.43394 23 0.85491 0.12536 -4.06069 0.17515 1.02357

17 Magnesium 23 0.85718 0.13939 8.0418 -0.57201 23 0.97245 0.06274 -2.45522 -0.04656 0.88301

18 Chloride 23 0.92148 0.17603 12.9555 -1.01013 23 0.94982 0.14420 4.09147 -0.56642 0.74564

19 Sulfate 23 0.76301 0.22847 11.1743 -0.68666 23 0.94324 0.11457 -5.52656 0.14933 1.40488

20 Carbonate 23 0.81487 0.08079 6.8475 -0.28390 23 0.91636 0.05564 1.83355 -0.03292 0.42177

21 Sodium +K 23 0.92829 0.14458 11.8147 -0.87132 23 0.97683 0.08421 1.84386 -0.37221 0.83875

GROUP=2017

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

22 SALT LOAD 19 0.68998 0.14016 5.8043 0.36825 19 0.98313 0.03370 -6.57242 1.00055 1.02639

23 Calcium 19 0.63675 0.19043 8.1790 -0.44402 19 0.86784 0.11840 -5.61361 0.26062 1.14382

24 Magnesium 19 0.84245 0.14109 8.0606 -0.57458 19 0.96472 0.06882 -3.22640 0.00205 0.93602

25 Chloride 19 0.92555 0.16969 13.3252 -1.05366 19 0.94793 0.14628 4.87715 -0.62207 0.70059

26 Sulfate 19 0.75390 0.22865 11.3105 -0.70480 19 0.93282 0.12314 -6.39390 0.19969 1.46821

27 Carbonate 19 0.82730 0.07068 6.7414 -0.27242 19 0.90793 0.05319 2.35588 -0.04837 0.36369

28 Sodium +K 19 0.93178 0.13677 11.9498 -0.89017 19 0.97497 0.08540 2.06745 -0.38530 0.81953

 
109

13. STATION 09355500 (ARCH) San Juan River near Archuleta, NM

STATION 09355500 San Juan River near Archuleta, NM UPDATE 2018

SUMMARY OF QW OBSERVATIONS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUP

Obs

WATER

YEAR

# OF QW

OBSV.

% P70300 

SUBST.

% P00060 

SUBST.

1 2014 9 0.0 0.0

2 2015 9 0.0 0.0

3 2016 9 0.0 0.0

4 2017 7 0.0 0.0

5 2018 7 0.0 0.0

STATION 09355500 San Juan River near Archuleta, NM UPDATE 2018

REGRESSION STATISTICS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUPS

REGRESSION #1: VARIABLE = e**A * DISCHARGE**B

REGRESSION #2: VARIABLE = e**C * DISCHARGE**D * COND**E

VARIABLE=(mg/L), except for SALT LOAD (tons/day) 

DISCHARGE=(CFS) COND=(uMHOS/cm)

GROUP=2014

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

1 SALT LOAD 9 0.99624 0.05132 -0.46214 0.93899 9 0.99843 0.035811 -4.24506 0.97495 0.64132

2 Calcium 9 0.39386 0.05779 3.74939 -0.05235 9 0.57841 0.052058 0.67043 -0.02308 0.52198

3 Magnesium 9 0.28778 0.05564 1.91482 -0.03974 9 0.75329 0.035368 -2.42813 0.00155 0.73626

4 Chloride 9 0.40990 0.05669 1.43173 -0.05309 9 0.62429 0.048860 -1.86764 -0.02173 0.55934

5 Sulfate 9 0.61285 0.10115 4.64336 -0.14301 9 0.87514 0.062046 -3.39545 -0.06659 1.36282

6 Carbonate 9 0.41615 0.02567 4.07913 -0.02435 9 0.77732 0.017123 2.12974 -0.00582 0.33048

7 Sodium +K 9 0.46817 0.06541 3.22279 -0.06897 9 0.67777 0.054996 -0.74219 -0.03127 0.67218
110

GROUP=2015

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

8 SALT LOAD 9 0.99624 0.05132 -0.46214 0.93899 9 0.99843 0.035811 -4.24506 0.97495 0.64132

9 Calcium 9 0.39386 0.05779 3.74939 -0.05235 9 0.57841 0.052058 0.67043 -0.02308 0.52198

10 Magnesium 9 0.28778 0.05564 1.91482 -0.03974 9 0.75329 0.035368 -2.42813 0.00155 0.73626

11 Chloride 9 0.40990 0.05669 1.43173 -0.05309 9 0.62429 0.048860 -1.86764 -0.02173 0.55934

12 Sulfate 9 0.61285 0.10115 4.64336 -0.14301 9 0.87514 0.062046 -3.39545 -0.06659 1.36282

13 Carbonate 9 0.41615 0.02567 4.07913 -0.02435 9 0.77732 0.017123 2.12974 -0.00582 0.33048

14 Sodium +K 9 0.46817 0.06541 3.22279 -0.06897 9 0.67777 0.054996 -0.74219 -0.03127 0.67218

GROUP=2016

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

15 SALT LOAD 9 0.99796 0.04821 -0.67581 0.96698 9 0.99877 0.040493 -4.08376 0.97662 0.60738

16 Calcium 9 0.24440 0.05620 3.56649 -0.02895 9 0.35464 0.056105 1.15325 -0.02212 0.43010

17 Magnesium 9 0.11293 0.03985 1.71276 -0.01288 9 0.50978 0.032002 -1.28382 -0.00440 0.53406

18 Chloride 9 0.16847 0.05892 1.21792 -0.02402 9 0.44001 0.052226 -2.56697 -0.01331 0.67456

19 Sulfate 9 0.51734 0.08473 4.18718 -0.07945 9 0.80295 0.058478 -3.13987 -0.05872 1.30585

20 Carbonate 9 0.19843 0.03061 3.98509 -0.01379 9 0.36031 0.029535 2.43876 -0.00942 0.27559

21 Sodium +K 9 0.20261 0.07757 2.95443 -0.03541 9 0.36470 0.074785 -0.97688 -0.02429 0.70065

GROUP=2017

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

22 SALT LOAD 7 0.99943 0.02981 -0.79674 0.98168 7 0.99956 0.029222 -2.82892 0.98086 0.37162

23 Calcium 7 0.29237 0.03970 3.49795 -0.02000 7 0.40246 0.040783 1.27980 -0.02089 0.40563

24 Magnesium 7 0.08332 0.04144 1.68964 -0.00979 7 0.46672 0.035337 5.48628 -0.00827 -0.69428

25 Chloride 7 0.07429 0.03084 1.07663 -0.00685 7 0.19395 0.032171 -0.49407 -0.00748 0.28723

26 Sulfate 7 0.67998 0.04979 4.00555 -0.05688 7 0.72100 0.051973 1.48028 -0.05789 0.46179

27 Carbonate 7 0.00227 0.03273 3.87901 -0.00122 7 0.42836 0.027697 0.84901 -0.00243 0.55409

28 Sodium +K 7 0.17632 0.04364 2.78754 -0.01583 7 0.17817 0.048739 2.49452 -0.01594 0.05358
111

14. STATION 09379500 (BLUFF) San Juan River near Bluff, UT

STATION 09379500 San Juan River near Bluff, UT UPDATE 2018

SUMMARY OF QW OBSERVATIONS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUP

Obs

WATER

YEAR

# OF QW

OBSV.

% P70300

SUBST.

% P00060

SUBST.

1 2014 26 0.0 0.0

2 2015 26 0.0 0.0

3 2016 27 0.0 0.0

4 2017 23 0.0 0.0

5 2018 23 0.0 0.0

STATION 09379500 San Juan River near Bluff, UT UPDATE 2018

REGRESSION STATISTICS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUPS

REGRESSION #1: VARIABLE = e**A * DISCHARGE**B

REGRESSION #2: VARIABLE = e**C * DISCHARGE**D * COND**E

VARIABLE=(mg/L), except for SALT LOAD (tons/day)

DISCHARGE=(CFS) COND=(uMHOS/cm)

GROUP=2014

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

1 SALT LOAD 26 0.80010 0.28282 2.16184 0.70799 26 0.99808 0.02833 -6.81560 0.99617 1.07551

2 Calcium 26 0.55246 0.21098 6.28568 -0.29331 26 0.84598 0.12643 0.83576 -0.11837 0.65291

3 Magnesium 26 0.48126 0.31817 5.30336 -0.38348 26 0.66258 0.26213 -0.69677 -0.19087 0.71882

4 Chloride 26 0.67240 0.26403 5.93997 -0.47332 26 0.92585 0.12832 -1.46766 -0.23553 0.88744

5 Sulfate 26 0.38075 0.38281 7.82374 -0.37560 26 0.98857 0.05313 -4.27347 0.01272 1.44926

6 Carbonate 26 0.63076 0.11551 5.63335 -0.18892 26 0.84534 0.07637 2.82449 -0.09875 0.33650

7 Sodium +K 26 0.16290 0.46466 5.73349 -0.25649 26 0.86894 0.18781 -7.87799 0.18044 1.63067
112

GROUP=2015

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

8 SALT LOAD 26 0.80010 0.28282 2.16184 0.70799 26 0.99808 0.02833 -6.81560 0.99617 1.07551

9 Calcium 26 0.55246 0.21098 6.28568 -0.29331 26 0.84598 0.12643 0.83576 -0.11837 0.65291

10 Magnesium 26 0.48126 0.31817 5.30336 -0.38348 26 0.66258 0.26213 -0.69677 -0.19087 0.71882

11 Chloride 26 0.67240 0.26403 5.93997 -0.47332 26 0.92585 0.12832 -1.46766 -0.23553 0.88744

12 Sulfate 26 0.38075 0.38281 7.82374 -0.37560 26 0.98857 0.05313 -4.27347 0.01272 1.44926

13 Carbonate 26 0.63076 0.11551 5.63335 -0.18892 26 0.84534 0.07637 2.82449 -0.09875 0.33650

14 Sodium +K 26 0.16290 0.46466 5.73349 -0.25649 26 0.86894 0.18781 -7.87799 0.18044 1.63067

GROUP=2016

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

15 SALT LOAD 27 0.84051 0.23374 2.73349 0.62446 27 0.99686 0.03348 -6.82577 0.99994 1.07284

16 Calcium 27 0.70539 0.18177 6.52981 -0.32733 27 0.90899 0.10311 0.28829 -0.08216 0.70049

17 Magnesium 27 0.63599 0.27699 5.67834 -0.42609 27 0.84413 0.18499 -2.97301 -0.08627 0.97095

18 Chloride 27 0.74888 0.27823 6.55334 -0.55916 27 0.97625 0.08732 -4.38233 -0.12961 1.22732

19 Sulfate 27 0.64546 0.31550 8.64443 -0.49542 27 0.98357 0.06931 -4.08203 0.00447 1.42830

20 Carbonate 27 0.73415 0.10305 5.70979 -0.19930 27 0.88910 0.06793 2.46010 -0.07165 0.36471

21 Sodium +K 27 0.46081 0.40859 6.96097 -0.43960 27 0.88251 0.19467 -7.96461 0.14667 1.67511

GROUP=2017

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

22 SALT LOAD 23 0.83291 0.25456 2.62432 0.63840 23 0.99741 0.03247 -6.75977 0.99997 1.06124

23 Calcium 23 0.64221 0.20322 6.37168 -0.30582 23 0.89650 0.11200 0.00655 -0.06058 0.71982

24 Magnesium 23 0.68576 0.26552 5.82133 -0.44058 23 0.89288 0.15885 -2.18741 -0.13201 0.90570

25 Chloride 23 0.71574 0.30256 6.40282 -0.53928 23 0.97440 0.09303 -4.32005 -0.12614 1.21264

26 Sulfate 23 0.62060 0.33871 8.56989 -0.48659 23 0.98691 0.06446 -3.79527 -0.01017 1.39836

27 Carbonate 23 0.69223 0.11011 5.60705 -0.18548 23 0.89128 0.06706 2.31721 -0.05873 0.37204

28 Sodium +K 23 0.44253 0.43121 6.85994 -0.43155 23 0.91321 0.17434 -7.86113 0.13564 1.66479
113

15. STATION 09380000 (LEES) Colorado River at Lees Ferry, AZ

STATION 09380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry, AZ UPDATE 2018

SUMMARY OF QW OBSERVATIONS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUP

Obs

WATER

YEAR

# OF QW

OBSV.

% P70300 

SUBST.

% P00060 

SUBST.

1 2014 41 0.0 0.0

2 2015 41 0.0 0.0

3 2016 42 0.0 0.0

4 2017 38 0.0 0.0

5 2018 38 0.0 0.0

STATION 09380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry, AZ UPDATE 2018

REGRESSION STATISTICS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUPS

REGRESSION #1: VARIABLE = e**A * DISCHARGE**B

REGRESSION #2: VARIABLE = e**C * DISCHARGE**D * COND**E

VARIABLE=(mg/L), except for SALT LOAD (tons/day)

DISCHARGE=(CFS) COND=(uMHOS/cm)

GROUP=2014

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

1 SALT LOAD 41 0.89736 0.08081 1.17122 0.90843 41 0.99281 0.021666 -6.72912 0.99474 1.06181

2 Calcium 41 0.03466 0.07740 4.77924 -0.05576 41 0.66392 0.046267 -1.55574 0.01345 0.85142

3 Magnesium 41 0.06902 0.07792 3.84824 -0.08066 41 0.80320 0.036292 -3.16611 -0.00403 0.94273

4 Chloride 41 0.10185 0.11739 5.36242 -0.15028 41 0.90698 0.038273 -5.90479 -0.02720 1.51431

5 Sulfate 41 0.06594 0.09521 6.19750 -0.09617 41 0.91652 0.028835 -3.01242 0.00444 1.23781

6 Carbonate 41 0.10476 0.05282 5.07686 -0.06870 41 0.80194 0.025170 0.35148 -0.01707 0.63509

7 Sodium +K 41 0.09085 0.08911 5.26518 -0.10709 41 0.84144 0.037699 -2.94235 -0.01743 1.10309
114

GROUP=2015

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

8 SALT LOAD 41 0.89736 0.08081 1.17122 0.90843 41 0.99281 0.021666 -6.72912 0.99474 1.06181

9 Calcium 41 0.03466 0.07740 4.77924 -0.05576 41 0.66392 0.046267 -1.55574 0.01345 0.85142

10 Magnesium 41 0.06902 0.07792 3.84824 -0.08066 41 0.80320 0.036292 -3.16611 -0.00403 0.94273

11 Chloride 41 0.10185 0.11739 5.36242 -0.15028 41 0.90698 0.038273 -5.90479 -0.02720 1.51431

12 Sulfate 41 0.06594 0.09521 6.19750 -0.09617 41 0.91652 0.028835 -3.01242 0.00444 1.23781

13 Carbonate 41 0.10476 0.05282 5.07686 -0.06870 41 0.80194 0.025170 0.35148 -0.01707 0.63509

14 Sodium +K 41 0.09085 0.08911 5.26518 -0.10709 41 0.84144 0.037699 -2.94235 -0.01743 1.10309

GROUP=2016

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

15 SALT LOAD 42 0.94726 0.07053 0.12975 1.01396 42 0.99537 0.021159 -6.68346 1.00664 1.03756

16 Calcium 42 0.00843 0.07343 4.00802 0.02297 42 0.58183 0.048292 -1.63931 0.01689 0.86001

17 Magnesium 42 0.01214 0.05910 2.82473 0.02223 42 0.76933 0.028922 -2.40827 0.01660 0.79691

18 Chloride 42 0.00006 0.10550 3.86936 0.00286 42 0.90011 0.033767 -6.25336 -0.00802 1.54155

19 Sulfate 42 0.00833 0.08157 4.99100 0.02536 42 0.88698 0.027889 -2.77497 0.01701 1.18265

20 Carbonate 42 0.00739 0.04599 4.53259 -0.01346 42 0.73618 0.024010 0.54732 -0.01775 0.60690

21 Sodium +K 42 0.00463 0.08345 4.01370 0.01930 42 0.76840 0.040766 -3.37954 0.01135 1.12589

GROUP=2017

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

22 SALT LOAD 38 0.93354 0.06654 0.22699 1.00130 38 0.99520 0.018139 -6.72039 1.02390 1.01882

23 Calcium 38 0.01091 0.07145 3.92282 0.03013 38 0.69922 0.039960 -2.53830 0.05115 0.94751

24 Magnesium 38 0.01095 0.06480 2.76829 0.02738 38 0.54125 0.044761 -2.37564 0.04411 0.75435 

25 Chloride 38 0.00184 0.10717 4.03864 -0.01846 38 0.91611 0.031510 -7.08020 0.01770 1.63055

26 Sulfate 38 0.00009 0.07409 5.22310 -0.00281 38 0.88738 0.025218 -2.34294 0.02180 1.10954

27 Carbonate 38 0.01289 0.04426 4.60041 -0.02030 38 0.70355 0.024597 0.58748 -0.00725 0.58849

28 Sodium +K 38 0.00192 0.07873 4.03302 0.01387 38 0.75776 0.039338 -3.39405 0.03803 1.08916

 
115

16. STATION 09402500 (GRCAN) Colorado River Near Grand Canyon, AZ - NO 

REGRESSION STATS

No QW since late 1980’s. Alternate method from Mueller calculates GRCAN load from Lees Ferry load and the flow 

difference between GRCAN and LEES. See no.15 STATION 09380000 (LEES) Colorado River at Lees Ferry, AZ

COLORADO RIVER NEAR GRAND CANYON-09402500- MONTHLY Q, LOAD, TDS DATA, JAN 2015-DECEMBER 

2017

Obs YEAR MONTH WMONTH GCQ GCLOAD MTDS

1 2013 10 Oct 502,480 386,263 565 

2 2013 11 Nov 722,946 544,575 554 

3 2013 12 Dec 620,002 466,342 553 

4 2014 1 Jan 833,863 624,369 551 

5 2014 2 Feb 636,307 523,094 605

6 2014 3 Mar 541,119 475,771 647 

7 2014 4 Apr 534,573 476,634 656 

8 2014 5 May 525,508 457,743 641 

9 2014 6 Jun 634,938 527,075 611 

10 2014 7 Jul 843,583 669,007 583

11 2014 8 Aug 859,054 677,217 580 

12 2014 9 Sep 658,105 519,886 581 

13 2014 10 Oct 655,130 504,499 566 

14 2014 11 Nov 804,329 617,166 564 

15 2014 12 Dec 911,736 645,751 521

16 2015 1 Jan 908,641 606,866 491 

17 2015 2 Feb 634,958 482,340 559 

18 2015 3 Mar 696,982 556,110 587 

19 2015 4 Apr 635,394 509,283 589 

20 2015 5 May 737,069 544,454 543

21 2015 6 Jun 826,921 588,320 523 

22 2015 7 Jul 1,109,372 751,896 498 

23 2015 8 Aug 858,260 598,218 513 

24 2015 9 Sep 758,292 533,128 517 

25 2015 10 Oct 664,770 469,112 519
116

26 2015 11 Nov 605,106 431,602 525 

27 2015 12 Dec 885,831 582,017 483 

28 2016 1 Jan 901,302 580,623 474

29 2016 2 Feb 745,598 528,132 521 

30 2016 3 Mar 743,416 569,566 563 

31 2016 4 Apr 712,870 564,111 582 

32 2016 5 May 741,631 561,109 556 

33 2016 6 Jun 835,450 599,846 528

34 2016 7 Jul 988,973 690,004 513 

35 2016 8 Aug 956,047 668,179 514 

36 2016 9 Sep 742,821 527,732 523 

37 2016 10 Oct 638,846 460,327 530 

38 2016 11 Nov 782,292 558,465 525

39 2016 12 Dec 949,382 608,553 471 

40 2017 1 Jan 945,138 612,042 476 

41 2017 2 Feb 782,689 554,330 521 

42 2017 3 Mar 793,598 598,246 554 

43 2017 4 Apr 669,392 516,334 567

44 2017 5 May 687,560 509,836 545 

45 2017 6 Jun 787,053 562,736 526 

46 2017 7 Jul 907,055 630,033 511 

47 2017 8 Aug 969,733 669,039 507 

48 2017 9 Sep 695,514 490,965 519

49 2017 10 Oct 659,772 464,526 518 

50 2017 11 Nov 643,507 447,247 511 

51 2017 12 Dec 759,482 498,523 483 
117

17. STATION 09415000 (VIRGIN) Virgin River at Littlefield, AZ

STATION 09415000 Virgin River at Littlefield, AZ UPDATE 2018

SUMMARY OF QW OBSERVATIONS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUP

Obs

WATER

YEAR

# OF QW

OBSV.

% P70300 

SUBST.

% P00060 

SUBST.

1 2014 12 0.0 0.0

2 2015 12 0.0 0.0

3 2016 13 0.0 0.0

4 2017 10 0.0 0.0

5 2018 10 0.0 0.0

STATION 09415000 Virgin River at Littlefield, AZ UPDATE 2018

REGRESSION STATISTICS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUPS

REGRESSION #1: VARIABLE = e**A * DISCHARGE**B

REGRESSION #2: VARIABLE = e**C * DISCHARGE**D * COND**E

VARIABLE=(mg/L), except for SALT LOAD (tons/day)

DISCHARGE=(CFS) COND=(uMHOS/cm)

GROUP=2014

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2 

Std.

Error C D E 

1 SALT LOAD 12 0.92015 0.09488 2.91801 0.75637 8 0.99397 0.025760 -5.51678 0.97353 0.91872

2 Calcium 12 0.69367 0.09301 7.26140 -0.32870 8 0.98680 0.023072 -1.15531 -0.11324 0.91864

3 Magnesium 12 0.79976 0.07262 6.11737 -0.34083 8 0.96011 0.036880 0.96765 -0.21562 0.56554

4 Chloride 12 0.11008 0.12877 6.41765 -0.10636 8 0.79480 0.072883 -3.12191 0.12905 1.04472

5 Sulfate 12 0.69235 0.10630 8.58081 -0.37451 8 0.96074 0.045176 -0.63287 -0.13808 1.00447

6 Carbonate 12 0.19915 0.06360 4.70886 0.07448 8 0.38670 0.062585 3.97279 0.12743 0.05629

7 Sodium +K 12 0.12356 0.12099 6.26189 -0.10669 8 0.94775 0.036013 -4.22724 0.15825 1.14548
118

GROUP=2015

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

8 SALT LOAD 12 0.92015 0.09488 2.91801 0.75637 8 0.99397 0.025760 -5.51678 0.97353 0.91872

9 Calcium 12 0.69367 0.09301 7.26140 -0.32870 8 0.98680 0.023072 -1.15531 -0.11324 0.91864

10 Magnesium 12 0.79976 0.07262 6.11737 -0.34083 8 0.96011 0.036880 0.96765 -0.21562 0.56554

11 Chloride 12 0.11008 0.12877 6.41765 -0.10636 8 0.79480 0.072883 -3.12191 0.12905 1.04472

12 Sulfate 12 0.69235 0.10630 8.58081 -0.37451 8 0.96074 0.045176 -0.63287 -0.13808 1.00447

13 Carbonate 12 0.19915 0.06360 4.70886 0.07448 8 0.38670 0.062585 3.97279 0.12743 0.05629

14 Sodium +K 12 0.12356 0.12099 6.26189 -0.10669 8 0.94775 0.036013 -4.22724 0.15825 1.14548

GROUP=2016

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

15 SALT LOAD 13 0.91998 0.08563 2.94445 0.75252 9 0.99509 0.018025 -5.34869 0.93601 0.92091

16 Calcium 13 0.65370 0.08735 7.17396 -0.31105 9 0.97632 0.024831 -2.05267 -0.06440 0.99832

17 Magnesium 13 0.76510 0.06596 5.95988 -0.30855 9 0.97612 0.020586 -0.15780 -0.13203 0.65299

18 Chloride 13 0.14787 0.11163 6.51519 -0.12053 9 0.81401 0.061582 -0.46419 -0.04362 0.82373

19 Sulfate 13 0.68714 0.10084 8.64257 -0.38737 9 0.96631 0.037054 -1.13067 -0.15801 1.07719

20 Carbonate 13 0.17698 0.06659 4.68813 0.08004 9 0.29325 0.070879 3.07089 0.16333 0.14791

21 Sodium +K 13 0.14822 0.10878 6.33281 -0.11762 9 0.92331 0.039365 -3.01770 0.05443 1.06032

GROUP=2017

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

22 SALT LOAD 10 0.85476 0.08435 3.11602 0.71281 10 0.97540 0.037108 -5.63107 0.98351 0.92420

23 Calcium 10 0.53942 0.08814 7.26313 -0.33227 10 0.94785 0.031705 -2.18058 -0.04001 0.99781

24 Magnesium 10 0.72837 0.05917 6.10125 -0.33750 10 0.95118 0.026815 0.00432 -0.14881 0.64419

25 Chloride 10 0.31784 0.09752 7.04283 -0.23187 10 0.66156 0.073430 -0.83301 0.01186 0.83215

26 Sulfate 10 0.44401 0.12059 8.53293 -0.37538 10 0.75416 0.085720 -1.71456 -0.05825 1.08273

27 Carbonate 10 0.09048 0.07553 4.66706 0.08299 10 0.11961 0.079447 3.12892 0.13059 0.16252

28 Sodium +K 10 0.37892 0.09915 7.09805 -0.26977 10 0.86550 0.049324 -2.88704 0.03924 1.05501
119

18. STATION 09421500 (HOOVER) Colorado River below Hoover Dam, AZ-NV

STATION 09421500 Colorado River below Hoover Dam, AZ UPDATE 2018

SUMMARY OF QW OBSERVATIONS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUP

Obs WATER

YEAR

# OF QW

OBSV.

% P70300 

SUBST.

% P00060 

SUBST.

1 2014 51 0.0 0.0

2 2015 51 0.0 0.0

3 2016 57 0.0 0.0

4 2017 57 0.0 0.0

5 2018 57 0.0 0.0

STATION 09421500 Colorado River below Hoover Dam, AZ UPDATE 2018

REGRESSION STATISTICS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUPS

REGRESSION #1: VARIABLE = e**A * DISCHARGE**B

REGRESSION #2: VARIABLE = e**C * DISCHARGE**D * COND**E

VARIABLE=(mg/L), except for SALT LOAD (tons/day)

DISCHARGE=(CFS) COND=(uMHOS/cm)

GROUP=2014

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

1 SALT LOAD 51 0.98189 0.046299 0.52866 0.99493 47 0.99616 0.022004 -7.11968 0.98026 1.13140

2 Calcium 51 0.00816 0.046534 4.45591 -0.01231 47 0.40213 0.036746 -1.06465 -0.02228 0.81567

3 Magnesium 51 0.00510 0.058453 3.35946 -0.01221 47 0.53550 0.040377 -4.60228 -0.02843 1.17883

4 Chloride 51 0.00285 0.075486 4.54198 -0.01179 47 0.73819 0.039907 -7.92036 -0.02968 1.83574

5 Sulfate 51 0.00009 0.051227 5.41967 0.00139 47 0.72156 0.027164 -2.71584 -0.01150 1.19996

6 Carbonate 51 0.00231 0.028329 4.39128 0.00398 47 0.02263 0.029157 3.59366 0.00042 0.12068

7 Sodium +K 51 0.00299 0.075768 4.63897 -0.01210 47 0.68059 0.041009 -6.23662 -0.04312 1.62204
120

GROUP=2015

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

8 SALT LOAD 51 0.98189 0.046299 0.52866 0.99493 47 0.99616 0.022004 -7.11968 0.98026 1.13140

9 Calcium 51 0.00816 0.046534 4.45591 -0.01231 47 0.40213 0.036746 -1.06465 -0.02228 0.81567

10 Magnesium 51 0.00510 0.058453 3.35946 -0.01221 47 0.53550 0.040377 -4.60228 -0.02843 1.17883

11 Chloride 51 0.00285 0.075486 4.54198 -0.01179 47 0.73819 0.039907 -7.92036 -0.02968 1.83574

12 Sulfate 51 0.00009 0.051227 5.41967 0.00139 47 0.72156 0.027164 -2.71584 -0.01150 1.19996

13 Carbonate 51 0.00231 0.028329 4.39128 0.00398 47 0.02263 0.029157 3.59366 0.00042 0.12068

14 Sodium +K 51 0.00299 0.075768 4.63897 -0.01210 47 0.68059 0.041009 -6.23662 -0.04312 1.62204

GROUP=2016

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

15 SALT LOAD 57 0.99516 0.023607 0.53432 0.99587 53 0.99822 0.014734 -5.49603 0.99493 0.87591

16 Calcium 57 0.01218 0.031358 4.44732 -0.01024 53 0.05964 0.030636 2.05447 -0.01038 0.34707

17 Magnesium 57 0.00744 0.049732 3.36119 -0.01267 53 0.49326 0.035171 -8.70390 -0.01571 1.75387

18 Chloride 57 0.01142 0.034076 4.56770 -0.01077 53 0.44214 0.024337 -3.08587 -0.00618 1.10421

19 Sulfate 57 0.01092 0.027019 5.52748 -0.00835 53 0.51825 0.017123 -0.68406 -0.00735 0.89970

20 Carbonate 57 0.02555 0.031671 4.27909 0.01509 53 0.06030 0.032029 1.90403 0.01290 0.34738

21 Sodium +K 57 0.00039 0.047273 4.52012 0.00274 53 0.40565 0.032747 -4.91038 -0.00686 1.38038

GROUP=2017

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

22 SALT LOAD 57 0.99502 0.023518 0.53243 0.99447 57 0.99826 0.014041 -5.28650 1.00082 0.83724

23 Calcium 57 0.00378 0.037932 4.39870 -0.00699 57 0.20618 0.034172 -0.84839 -0.00126 0.75496

24 Magnesium 57 0.02011 0.048544 3.40022 -0.02080 57 0.56492 0.032645 -7.70825 -0.00867 1.59830

25 Chloride 57 0.00047 0.035657 4.48363 -0.00230 57 0.28582 0.030418 -1.36322 0.00408 0.84125

26 Sulfate 57 0.02117 0.028885 5.55209 -0.01270 57 0.68932 0.016423 -1.77178 -0.00471 1.05377

27 Carbonate 57 0.00703 0.026959 4.34398 0.00678 57 0.00923 0.027178 3.95427 0.00721 0.05607

28 Sodium +K 57 0.00051 0.044757 4.49874 0.00301 57 0.24648 0.039220 -2.31525 0.01045 0.98041
121

19. STATION 09427520 (PARKER) Colorado River below Parker Dam, AZ-CA

 

STATION 09427520 Colorado River below Parker Dam, AZ UPDATE 2018

SUMMARY OF QW OBSERVATIONS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUP

Obs WATER

YEAR

# OF QW

OBSV.

% P70300 

SUBST.

% P00060 

SUBST.

1 2014 80 0.0 0.0

2 2015 80 0.0 0.0

3 2016 74 0.0 0.0

4 2017 66 0.0 0.0

5 2018 66 0.0 0.0

 

STATION 09427520 Colorado River below Parker Dam, AZ UPDATE 2018

REGRESSION STATISTICS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUPS

REGRESSION #1: VARIABLE = e**A * DISCHARGE**B

REGRESSION #2: VARIABLE = e**C * DISCHARGE**D * COND**E

VARIABLE=(mg/L), except for SALT LOAD (tons/day)

DISCHARGE=(CFS) COND=(uMHOS/cm)

GROUP=2014

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

1 SALT LOAD 80 0.98739 0.053035 0.35867 1.01429 80 0.99707 0.025724 -7.39581 0.99371 1.15246

2 Calcium 80 0.08815 0.041093 4.06970 0.02762 80 0.36507 0.034512 0.29093 0.01759 0.56159

3 Magnesium 80 0.01208 0.065851 3.12138 0.01574 80 0.55742 0.044361 -5.04271 -0.00593 1.21333

4 Chloride 80 0.00699 0.086304 4.31864 0.01566 80 0.84279 0.034562 -8.89357 -0.01941 1.96358

5 Sulfate 80 0.00340 0.065987 5.37304 0.00834 80 0.64651 0.039554 -3.47221 -0.01514 1.31457

6 Carbonate 80 0.07260 0.035088 4.19897 0.02122 80 0.10189 0.034753 5.23959 0.02398 -0.15466

7 Sodium +K 80 0.00837 0.074161 4.42260 0.01473 80 0.69744 0.041229 -5.89318 -0.01265 1.53312
122

GROUP=2015

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

8 SALT LOAD 80 0.98739 0.053035 0.35867 1.01429 80 0.99707 0.025724 -7.39581 0.99371 1.15246

9 Calcium 80 0.08815 0.041093 4.06970 0.02762 80 0.36507 0.034512 0.29093 0.01759 0.56159

10 Magnesium 80 0.01208 0.065851 3.12138 0.01574 80 0.55742 0.044361 -5.04271 -0.00593 1.21333

11 Chloride 80 0.00699 0.086304 4.31864 0.01566 80 0.84279 0.034562 -8.89357 -0.01941 1.96358

12 Sulfate 80 0.00340 0.065987 5.37304 0.00834 80 0.64651 0.039554 -3.47221 -0.01514 1.31457

13 Carbonate 80 0.07260 0.035088 4.19897 0.02122 80 0.10189 0.034753 5.23959 0.02398 -0.15466

14 Sodium +K 80 0.00837 0.074161 4.42260 0.01473 80 0.69744 0.041229 -5.89318 -0.01265 1.53312

GROUP=2016

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

15 SALT LOAD 74 0.99605 0.024465 0.62164 0.98861 74 0.99823 0.016516 -6.45179 0.99630 1.01274

16 Calcium 74 0.00207 0.034019 4.29595 0.00394 74 0.10314 0.032476 0.07721 0.00852 0.60402

17 Magnesium 74 0.05805 0.039227 3.50921 -0.02477 74 0.26286 0.034945 -3.61827 -0.01702 1.02048

18 Chloride 74 0.03870 0.039819 4.70301 -0.02032 74 0.35871 0.032751 -4.24927 -0.01059 1.28175

19 Sulfate 74 0.03006 0.031077 5.60986 -0.01391 74 0.54206 0.021504 -3.18837 -0.00435 1.25969

20 Carbonate 74 0.02150 0.038806 4.24989 0.01463 74 0.02851 0.038938 2.96985 0.01602 0.18327

21 Sodium +K 74 0.01508 0.044388 4.72515 -0.01397 74 0.17765 0.040844 -2.30185 -0.00633 1.00610

GROUP=2017

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

22 SALT LOAD 66 0.99606 0.025099 0.69603 0.97997 66 0.99836 0.016339 -6.16279 0.99362 0.97456

23 Calcium 66 0.00477 0.040132 4.26206 0.00682 66 0.19974 0.036271 -2.09588 0.01947 0.90339

24 Magnesium 66 0.01428 0.050529 3.39406 -0.01492 66 0.50442 0.036111 -9.35924 0.01046 1.81210

25 Chloride 66 0.18240 0.034945 4.89095 -0.04051 66 0.39523 0.030292 -1.49060 -0.02781 0.90675

26 Sulfate 66 0.14203 0.029260 5.74461 -0.02922 66 0.63274 0.019295 -2.17597 -0.01345 1.12543

27 Carbonate 66 0.08588 0.028892 4.17671 0.02173 66 0.08949 0.029063 3.52675 0.02303 0.09235

28 Sodium +K 66 0.02892 0.049004 4.78690 -0.02075 66 0.19519 0.044965 -2.47091 -0.00631 1.03125
123

20. STATION 09429490 (IMPER) Colorado River above Imperial Dam, AZ-CA

STATION 09429490 Colorado River above Imperial Dam, AZ UPDATE 2018

SUMMARY OF QW OBSERVATIONS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUP

Obs WATER

YEAR

# OF QW

OBSV.

% P70300

SUBST.

% P00060

SUBST.

1 2014 77 0.0 0.0

2 2015 77 0.0 0.0

3 2016 77 0.0 0.0

4 2017 70 0.0 0.0

5 2018 70 0.0 0.0

STATION 09429490 Colorado River above Imperial Dam, AZ UPDATE 2018

REGRESSION STATISTICS, BY 3-YEAR SLIDING GROUPS

REGRESSION #1: VARIABLE = e**A * DISCHARGE**B

REGRESSION #2: VARIABLE = e**C * DISCHARGE**D * COND**E

VARIABLE=(mg/L), except for SALT LOAD (tons/day)

DISCHARGE=(CFS) COND=(uMHOS/cm)

GROUP=2014

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

1 SALT LOAD 77 0.97429 0.035576 1.98240 0.85096 77 0.99612 0.013920 -7.41571 1.01419 1.12887

2 Calcium 77 0.30298 0.034883 5.23552 -0.08937 77 0.57043 0.027569 -0.95965 0.01823 0.74414

3 Magnesium 77 0.48576 0.034312 4.54415 -0.12959 77 0.74703 0.024227 -2.46796 -0.00780 0.84227

4 Chloride 77 0.53912 0.048142 6.49329 -0.20233 77 0.89291 0.023363 -5.60010 0.00771 1.45261

5 Sulfate 77 0.45097 0.041543 6.90475 -0.14631 77 0.82355 0.023710 -2.90719 0.02411 1.17857

6 Carbonate 77 0.24614 0.042612 5.36022 -0.09461 77 0.27378 0.042105 3.02072 -0.05398 0.28101

7 Sodium +K 77 0.39468 0.058292 6.40543 -0.18290 77 0.83098 0.031010 -7.78367 0.06354 1.70434
124

GROUP=2015

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

8 SALT LOAD 77 0.97429 0.035576 1.98240 0.85096 77 0.99612 0.013920 -7.41571 1.01419 1.12887

9 Calcium 77 0.30298 0.034883 5.23552 -0.08937 77 0.57043 0.027569 -0.95965 0.01823 0.74414

10 Magnesium 77 0.48576 0.034312 4.54415 -0.12959 77 0.74703 0.024227 -2.46796 -0.00780 0.84227

11 Chloride 77 0.53912 0.048142 6.49329 -0.20233 77 0.89291 0.023363 -5.60010 0.00771 1.45261

12 Sulfate 77 0.45097 0.041543 6.90475 -0.14631 77 0.82355 0.023710 -2.90719 0.02411 1.17857

13 Carbonate 77 0.24614 0.042612 5.36022 -0.09461 77 0.27378 0.042105 3.02072 -0.05398 0.28101

14 Sodium +K 77 0.39468 0.058292 6.40543 -0.18290 77 0.83098 0.031010 -7.78367 0.06354 1.70434

GROUP=2016

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

15 SALT LOAD 77 0.97455 0.033905 2.10574 0.83782 77 0.99509 0.014991 -6.44979 0.99010 1.02305

16 Calcium 77 0.23007 0.040680 5.22639 -0.08880 77 0.69286 0.025866 -3.63200 0.06888 1.05926

17 Magnesium 77 0.38509 0.047123 4.70362 -0.14892 77 0.77974 0.028393 -5.89980 0.03982 1.26793

18 Chloride 77 0.64146 0.039156 6.57238 -0.20915 77 0.83675 0.026599 -1.54443 -0.06467 0.97059

19 Sulfate 77 0.58569 0.032159 6.97678 -0.15270 77 0.82656 0.020947 0.08956 -0.03010 0.82356

20 Carbonate 77 0.33994 0.044641 5.63189 -0.12794 77 0.68784 0.030906 -3.47098 0.03409 1.08850

21 Sodium +K 77 0.51145 0.049956 6.60779 -0.20412 77 0.84162 0.028635 -4.92693 0.00120 1.37929

GROUP=2017

Obs VARIABLE

#1

obsv.

R-square

#1

Std.

Error A B 

#2

obsv.

R-square

#2

Std.

Error C D E 

22 SALT LOAD 70 0.97654 0.033167 2.04035 0.84339 70 0.99584 0.014064 -6.74888 0.98939 1.06685

23 Calcium 70 0.27857 0.037045 5.23195 -0.09072 70 0.65557 0.025787 -2.59161 0.03924 0.94963

24 Magnesium 70 0.41587 0.044393 4.66327 -0.14762 70 0.78397 0.027198 -5.63192 0.02340 1.24964

25 Chloride 70 0.60445 0.040920 6.47289 -0.19936 70 0.86419 0.024156 -3.21451 -0.03843 1.17587

26 Sulfate 70 0.58495 0.034324 7.03326 -0.16059 70 0.86835 0.019475 -1.25270 -0.02295 1.00576

27 Carbonate 70 0.29313 0.032227 5.20417 -0.08179 70 0.60205 0.024361 -1.01986 0.02160 0.75548

28 Sodium +K 70 0.57623 0.045474 6.63128 -0.20898 70 0.88320 0.024051 -4.67568 -0.02116 1.37245

 
125

APPENDIX D

20 Station Flow and Salt over Time 

 
126

Figure D1 - Flow and TDS over Time for Sites 1-4 
127

Figure D2 - Flow and TDS over Time for Sites 5-8 

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

250

350

450

550

650

Flow 1,000 (ac-ft)

TDS (mg/L)

White River near Watson, Utah

TDS mg/L

Flow 1000-af

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Flow 1,000 (ac-ft)

TDS (mg/L)

Green River at Green River, Utah

TDS mg/L

Flow 1000-af

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

1800

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Flow 1,000 (ac-ft)

TDS (mg/L)

San Rafael River near Green River, Utah

TDS mg/L

Flow 1000-af

0

3,000

6,000

9,000

150

250

350

450

Flow 1,000 (ac-ft)

TDS (mg/L)

Colorado River near Glenwood Springs, Colorado

TDS mg/L

Flow 1000-af
128

Figure D3 - Flow and TDS over Time for Sites 9-12 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

250

350

450

550

650

Flow 1,000 (ac-ft)

TDS (mg/L)

Colorado River near Cameo, Colorado

TDS mg/L

Flow 1000-af

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Flow 1,000 (ac-ft)

TDS (mg/L)

Gunnison River near Grand Junction, Colorado

TDS mg/L

Flow 1000-af

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Flow 1,000 (ac-ft)

TDS (mg/L)

Dolores River near Cisco, Utah

TDS mg/L

Flow 1000-af

0

15,000

30,000

45,000

300

600

900

1200

Flow 1,000 (ac-ft)

TDS (mg/L)

Colorado River near Cisco, Utah

TDS mg/L

Flow 1000-af
129

Figure D4 - Flow and TDS over Time for Sites 13-16 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

75

125

175

225

Flow 1,000 (ac-ft)

TDS (mg/L)

San Juan River near Archuleta, NM

TDS mg/L

Flow 1000-af

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

200

400

600

800

Flow 1,000 (ac-ft)

TDS (mg/L)

San Juan River near Bluff, Utah

TDS mg/L

Flow 1000-af

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Flow 1,000 (ac-ft)

TDS (mg/L)

Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona

TDS mg/L

Flow 1000-af

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

300

600

900

1200

Flow 1,000 (ac-ft)

TDS (mg/L)

Colorado River near Grand Canyon, Arizona

TDS mg/L

Flow 1000-af
130

Figure D5 - Flow and TDS over Time for Sites 17-20 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Flow 1,000 (ac-ft)

TDS (mg/L)

Virgin River at Littlefield, Arizona

TDS mg/L

Flow 1000-af

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

400

500

600

700

800

900

Flow 1,000 (ac-ft)

TDS (mg/L)

Colorado River below Hoover Dam, Ariz-Nev

TDS mg/L

Flow 1000-af

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

500

600

700

800

900

Flow 1,000 (ac-ft)

TDS (mg/L)

Colorado River below Parker Dam, Ariz-Calif

TDS mg/L

Flow 1000-af

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

550

650

750

850

950

Flow 1,000 (ac-ft)

TDS (mg/L)

Colorado River at Imperial Dam, Ariz-Calif

TDS mg/L

Flow 1000-af