coal creek restoration project crested butte, co · coal creek restoration project crested butte,...

Measurable Results Project

Coal Creek Restoration Project Crested Butte, CO

2011 Monitoring Report

MRP Photo: Erosion control matting along Kebler Pass Road, September 2011

Prepared by: Michael Blazewicz Colorado Watershed Assembly’s Measurable Results Program Director Ashley Bembenek Soil and Water Scientist, Alpine Environmental Consultants LLC and Curtis Hartenstine Colorado Nonpoint Source Program, CDPHE Water Quality Control Division November 17, 2012

Coal Creek Watershed 2011 Monitoring Report

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT GOALS: ...................................................................................................... 3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: ........................................................................................................................ 5

Sediment Reduction Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 5

Check Dams and Inlet Filters ................................................................................................................ 5

Road Sediment Erosion Reduction ....................................................................................................... 6

Cut and Fill-slopes and Erosion Control ............................................................................................. 13

Water Chemistry Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 15

Goal One: Metals and Mining- Standards Evaluation and Progress toward TMDL Attainment........ 20

Water Quality Evaluation: COGUUG09- Coal Creek above Elk Creek and Splains Gulch .................. 22

Water Quality Evaluation: COGUUG11- Coal Creek from Elk Creek to the Crested Butte Water Supply Diversion and ELK-00 a TMDL Assessment Site ...................................................................... 23

Water Quality Evaluation: COGUUG12- Coal Creek below Crested Butte Water Supply Intake ...... 25

Mount Emmons Iron Fen & Gossan Characterization Project .............................................................. 27

Macroinvertebrate Survey ..................................................................................................................... 30

DATA COMPLETENESS: ............................................................................................................................. 33

REFERENCES CITED: .................................................................................................................................. 34

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Road Inventory Worksheet

Appendix B: MRP Road Inventory Standard Operating Procedure

Appendix C: Water Quality Evaluation Results

Appendix D: Selected Tables from the Draft TMDL for segments in the Coal Creek Watershed

Appendix E: Water Quality and Pollutant Loading Data from the Mount Emmons Iron Fen and Gossan

Study Area.

Appendix F: Water Quality and Pollutant Loading Data from the Coal Creek Watershed.


Page | 3

INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT GOALS: The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Division Nonpoint Source Program (NPS program), in conjunction with the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) created the Measurable Results Project (MRP) in 2010. The Colorado Watershed Assembly, a non-profit organization, manages the program with oversight from the CDPHE and the CWCB to meet the goals and objectives of the MRP. The goal of the MRP is to scientifically document the results that NPS program and CWCB projects are having in protecting or restoring water quality and stabilizing and restoring stream channels in Colorado. Specifically, the MRP intends to monitor and document the results associated with the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and stream restoration techniques. This monitoring is intended to convey progress or failure in achieving project goals and ultimately identify and prioritize the most cost-effective measures to achieve water quality improvement in Colorado streams within appropriate timeframes. The MRP is also tasked with assisting with the quantification of sediment load reduction from the project and the evaluation of nutrient load reduction in order to monitor and report on the effectiveness of the NPS grant to reduce sediment deposition into these waterways. Sediment and nutrient load reduction estimates are a required component of all NPS program funded activities. In 2011 the MRP assisted the Coal Creek Restoration Project (Project) (Figure 1) in obtaining background pre-project data as well as in developing the monitoring plan for the Project. The Project aims to work to address the four primary sources of contamination to Coal Creek, a tributary to the Slate and Gunnison Rivers, near Crested Butte, Colorado. The four sources targeted are: inactive mines, the Mt. Emmons Iron Fen (MEIF), Kebler Pass Road, and degraded riparian areas. The Coal Creek project area (hydrologic unit codes #COGUUG09, COGUUG11 and COGUUG12) is classified by the State of Colorado as “Recreation E, Aquatic Life Cold 1, Agriculture, and Water Supply”1. The Project received approval for an EPA Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grant in 2010 from CDPHE. As part of the required documentation for a successful grant award a Sampling and Analysis Project Plan (SAPP) was developed to support the Project Implementation Plan (PIP) submitted to CDPHE on May 5, 2011. The Coal Creek Watershed Coalition developed the SAPP in collaboration with the MRP in 2011. Data collected under the guidance of the SAPP are intended to help evaluate the chemical, biological and or physical changes to Coal Creek in response to the BMPs and restoration activities undertaken with 319-funding as well as to assist in pollution reduction reporting. This monitoring report is meant to support the on-going work of the SAPP and to verify that proper procedures are executed and that raw data is collected appropriately. The 2011 data collected by the MRP was intended to provide pre-project biological characterization of the Coal Creek (through macroinvertebrate sampling) as well as to assess and model sediment runoff from Kebler Pass Road. It

1 As defined in Regulation 35, Classifications and Numeric Standards for Gunnison and Lower Dolores River Basins, as adopted by the Colorado Water

Quality Control Commission. http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/regulations/wqccregs/100235wqccgunnisonlowerdoloresriverbasintablesnew.pdf

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/regulations/wqccregs/100235wqccgunnisonlowerdoloresriverbasintablesnew.pdf


Page | 4

also provides, with the assistance of Alpine Environmental Consultants LLC, data related to this 319-Project that was not collected by the MRP (sampling sites depicted as green dots in Figure 1).

Figure 1: Coal Creek NPS Project Location Map.


Page | 5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Results from 2011 pre-project monitoring are detailed by topic below.

Sediment Reduction Monitoring Data collected by: MRP, CCWC

Reporting: Michael Blazewicz

The Coal Creek Project Implementation Plan (PIP) lists as one of the environmental goals to, “Improve water quality in Coal Creek by reducing sediment loading from roadways and other anthropogenic sources”. The associated programmatic goal is to, “Identify or implement BMPs to control stormwater runoff and to reduce erosion and resultant sediment loading to Coal Creek.” In addition to these goals the NPS Program has the goal of reducing phosphorus and nitrogen loading to Colorado’s streams. These clearly defined goals mandate that sediment reduction monitoring is a key component of measuring project success. Project implementation for sediment reduction in 2011 consisted of chip-sealing sections of Kebler Pass Road, installing check dams in road-side ditches, and installing erosion control fabric on road bank fill and cut slopes, and installing storm drain inlet filters (Grate Guards™ Ecocare Products) in downtown Crested Butte.

Check Dams and Inlet Filters The most accurate values for determining the sediment reduction associated with these Coal Creek restoration activities are through obtaining field measurements. Field measurements of sediment reduction were made by recording the amount of material harvested from roadside check dams along Kebler Pass Road as well as from 3 storm drain inlet filters installed by the CCWC in downtown Crested Butte. Composite sediment samples from the sediment collected in roadside ditch check dams were collected at mile markers 28.5, 29, and 30 by the CCWC on July 6, 2011. These samples were sent to the CDPHE lab for total nitrogen and total phosphorus analysis as outlined in the project SAPP. Nutrient results along with volume of sediment were used to compute sediment load reductions for purposes of the NPS grant. In 2011 a load reduction was calculated according to Table 1 below.

Table 1: 2011 Coal Creek Watershed load reduction associated with check dams and grate guards

Total Sediment Removed

(cubic yards)*

Unit Weight

of Sediment

(lbs/yd)

Total Weight of Sediment Removed (total lbs)

Phosphorus, Phosphate (mg/kg)**

Phosphorus, Phosphate

(lbs/lb)

Nitrate Total

(mg/kg) **

Nitrate Total

(lbs/lb)

Phosphorus Load

Reduction (lbs)

Nitrogen Load

Reduction (lbs)

0.57 2700 1539 2433 0.002433 189 0.000189 3.74 0.29 *Numbers provided by Zach Vaughter OSM/VISTA Watershed Coordinator: “Sediment removed from Elk Ave/3rd grate guards: -30 gallons (sediment removed from 3 separate grate guards in downtown crested butte, cleaned weekly on every Friday for 8 weeks) Sediment removed from Kebler Pass ditch guards: -6 ditch guards at MM 29, first mile section without chip seal traveling west out of CB, yielded 3 gallons of sediment monthly; three months of monitoring at site produced 54 gallons. -2 Ditch guards at MM 30, cut slope east of Keystone Mine Rd, yielded 5 gallons of sediment at each ditch guard (1 full five gallon bucket) monthly. Total over three months = 30 gallons -Other sites were not always measured, as they never saw the amount of loading seen at MM 29 and 30.”

**Averaged from composite sample testing of MM 28.5 ditch, MM 29 ditch, and MM 30 ditch sediments.


Page | 6

The total load reduction prevented from entering the Coal Creek that was associated with the cleaning of check dams and inlet filters in 2011 was just over a half cubic yard of sediment. The sediment contained approximately 3.74 lbs of phosphorus and 0.29 lbs of nitrogen (Table 1 and Figure 2).

Figure 2: Experimental check dams installed by CCWC capture sediments moving off Kebler Pass Road.

Road Sediment Erosion Reduction The other two BMP implementation practices that were considered, the chip-sealing (i.e., paving) on portions of Kebler Pass Road and the installation of erosion control fabric on cut and fill slopes, were difficult to measure in the field due to the significant scope of the work. For this project a sediment prediction computer model allowed us to produce estimates suitable for project planning, relative comparison of pre- and post-treatment assessments, and the generation of load reduction values. There are a number of sediment prediction models; nearly all of which utilize some form or another of the Universal Soil Loss Equation2 (USLE). In 2011, the MRP consulted road-sediment expert Dr. Lee MacDonald, Professor at Colorado State University on the use of the Water Erosion Prediction Project web-based interface for roads (WEPP:Road)3, a physically based erosion simulation model developed by the United Stated Department of Agriculture (USDA). The model is built on the fundamentals of hydrology, plant science, hydraulics, and erosion mechanics. The MRP found the model useful for determining a load reduction associated with chip-sealing Kebler Pass Road.

2 http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/00-001.pdf

3 http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/cgi-bin/fswepp/wr/wepproad.pl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrological_transport_model#Physically_based_models

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erosion

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/00-001.pdf

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/cgi-bin/fswepp/wr/wepproad.pl


Page | 7

In order to run WEPP:Road Model the MRP and CCWC consulted with Dr. MacDonald. Professor MacDonald assisted in the development of a road-inventory worksheet (see Appendix A). A Kebler Pass road inventory of 1.9 miles of currently native soil roadway was conducted in October of 2011 and followed the protocols outlined in the MRP’s standard operating procedure for road inventory (Appendix B). The road inventory requires segmenting the road way into hydrologically distinct units (Figures 3, 4, and 5). These units are then treated like individual roads whose design, soil texture, gradient, length, width, surface type, traffic level, and condition of buffer are input to the WEPP modeling program.

Figure 3: Segmenting along Kebler Pass Road for the WEPP:Road modeling process (sheet 1).


Page | 8


Working with the WEPP:Road model we learned that sediment production in WEPP:Road is largely a function of runoff which makes paving (chip-sealing) much more beneficial for outsloped roads (due to the reduction in road surface erosion). Paving was not predicted to be beneficial for an insloped road with a bare ditch as the increase in runoff from the road will scour the ditch (increasing production by 50-60%) and increase the amount of sediment delivered to the stream (by ~2.5 times). WEPP:Road modeling by the MRP indicated that these bare ditches (which are prevalent along the upslope side of Kebler Pass Road) contribute 80-85% of the predicted erosion, and 70-85% of sediment delivered into Coal Creek from the Road. WEPP:Road also predicted that buffer slope and length contributed to sediment delivery into Coal Creek. Where fillslopes and buffers were short and steep more sediment finds its way into the Creek than when slopes are flat and well vegetated thus acting to “trap” sediments from entering the Creek.


Page | 9


Results from the Kebler Pass WEPP:Road modeling exercise indicate that chip-sealing the native road surface will create an overall net increase in the amount of runoff generated. Paved roads infiltrate less water than dirt roads and so this increase is expected. The model also predicts that paving would have an overall net increase in the amount of sediment delivered to Coal Creek (Table 2) via road segments that are “connected” (e.g. water and sediment are able to reach the stream without significant interruption). This increase in sediment delivery is due to the model predicting increased production and transport from the bare ditches that catch water from in-sloped segments of the road (as described previously). Because it would be impractical to only chip-seal outsloped segments of the road (where WEPP indicates reductions would occur) the decision to chip-seal all of Kebler Pass Road should include additional plans to reduce ditch erosion and sediment transport from in-sloped segments. That said it is also possible that the model is overestimating ditch erosion and underestimating the benefits of paving. Another important result of the modeling exercise was to focus attention on segment 25. Kebler Road segment 25 is an anomaly in the road and model output files. The segment consists of a steep rutted side road that connects a gravel pit operated by the County with Kebler Pass Road from the north side.


Page | 10

Because the gravel pit road was directly connected to an in-sloped ditch and then Coal Creek it was included in the road inventory exercise. Sediment generation is predicted to be very high in an unpaved condition (confirmed by the rutting that was observed). According to the model, paving this short steep segment would completely eliminate sediment production within this segment. Runoff from paving, however, would need to be managed as it flows downhill through BMPs that dissipate runoff energy and reduce erosion (e.g., stilling basin, check dams, vegetated swales).

Table 2: WEPP:Road predicted change in runoff and sediment delivery of “connected” road segments if chip-sealed* Road Seg #

Slope Change in average annual rain runoff (in) after paving

Change in average annual sediment leaving road segment (lbs)**

Change in average annual sediment entering Coal Creek from road segment (lbs)**

Predicted change in sediment delivery to Coal Creek

1 Outsloped 0 -372 -12 Reduction


4 Outsloped 0 -112 0 Reduction

5 In-sloped w/ditch 1.1 1208 1207 Increase






12 In-sloped w/ditch 1 248 244 Increase






25 Planar w/ ruts 1.3 -31796 -29691 Reduction








NET CHANGE FROM CHIP-SEAL (INCL. SEG#25) 15.2 -21828 -18062 Reduction*

NET CHANGE FROM CHIP-SEAL (W/O SEG#25) 13.9 9968 11629 Increase*

Notes: *WEPP:Road model assumes chip-sealing only without installation of BMPs to capture/reduce sediment generated from fill-slopes and ditches as a result of predicted increased runoff **Negative values indicate a reduction. Positive values indicate an increase.


Page | 11

In addition to the observations already mentioned, WEPP:Road results may provide additional

information to aid restoration decisions. Table 3 for instance provides a breakdown of sediment

production as a function of area for the “connected” road segments. Rather than focusing on total

delivery this breakdown highlights those segments that are producing sediment in abundance by area

and therefore may warrant priority status for BMP implementation (e.g. WEPP indicates that segments

7, 13, 25, 38, and 40 are producing >.25 lbs per sq. foot of road surface). As a next step these

segments should be observed in the field for signs of erosion (e.g., surface rilling or rutting) or

sedimentation in the areas with which they connect (ditch, fillslope, or stream channel) in order to

confirm the model and guide future BMP implementation.

Table 3: Delivery from existing “connected” segments Kebler Pass Road

Road Seg #

Type of Road

Approx. area of segment (length x total width) (ft. sq.)

Average annual rain runoff leaving road segment (in)

Average annual sediment leaving road segment (lbs)

Average annual sediment entering Coal Creek (lbs)

Average annual sediment leaving road segment (lbs/sq. ft.)

Average annual sediment entering Coal Creek (lbs/sq. ft.)

1 Outsloped 15805 0 372 13 0.02 0.00

3 Outsloped 1696 0 34 1 0.02 0.00

4 Outsloped 5871 0 112 0 0.02 0.00

5 In-sloped w/ditch

9540 1 2,229 2,216 0.23 0.23

6 Outsloped 19755 0 440 10 0.02 0.00

7 In-sloped w/ditch

7170 0.8 2,701 1,724 0.38 0.24

8 Outsloped 7452 0 169 14 0.02 0.00

10 Outsloped 31136 0 576 0 0.02 0.00

11 In-sloped w/ditch

7370 1 1,359 1,353 0.18 0.18


3830 1 643 637 0.17 0.17


6350 1.1 2,349 2,331 0.37 0.37


6182 1 1,049 1,046 0.17 0.17


2214 1 238 236 0.11 0.11

22 Outsloped 8234 0 210 0 0.03 0.00


16254 1 2,338 2,325 0.14 0.14

25 Planar w/ ruts

12720 1.3 31,859 29,754 2.50 2.34

26 Outsloped 4623 0 109 0 0.02 0.00

29 Outsloped 12995 0 306 0 0.02 0.00


Page | 12


5401 1 789 787 0.15 0.15

35 Outsloped 6253 0 107 15 0.02 0.00


19292 2 4,978 4,948 0.26 0.26


16203 2 4,484 4,456 0.28 0.28

42 Outsloped 4194 0 58 0 0.01 0.00

Another use of WEPP:Road was the comparative analysis of various management scenarios related to

chip-sealing and ditch management. Table 4 provides results of scenarios that compare runoff from

Kebler Pass Road with and without ditch vegetation (which acts to reduce erosion from and trap

sediments moving in the ditch), and with and without chip-sealing and the various combinations of

each. Interestingly WEPP:Road results seem to indicate that vegetating the roadside ditches (or

implementing other similar stabilizing and sediment trapping BMPs) provides a significant reduction

that is likely more cost effective than chip-sealing. However, paving road segments may reduce

chloride concentrations in adjacent waterways and eliminate dust control issues; both of which

provide environmental and social benefits.

Two road maintenance practices currently limit the ability of vegetation to become established in the

ditches. First, ditches are cleaned out by road crews to remove sediments that have eroded off the

road or adjacent cut slopes. This activity resets the ditches capacity to carry stormwater. The second

road practice is the application of magnesium chloride which is applied to control dust. Scraping out

the ditches removes vegetation and disturbs the soil surface which reduces plant growth and creates

more erosive surfaces. Magnesium chloride may limit or inhibit plant growth in the ditches due to

chlorosis (a condition that increases water-stress in plants).


Page | 13

Table 4: WEPP:Road comparison of Kebler Pass Road management scenarios on predicted runoff and sediment production*

Management Scenario

Road condition

Average annual rain runoff leaving Kebler Pass Road study area (in)

Average annual sediment leaving Kebler Pass Road study area (lbs)

Average annual sediment entering Coal Creek from Kebler Pass Road study area (lbs)

Chip-seal the road but leave roadside ditches bare

Native (bare ditch)

13.3 44077 23890

Chip-seal (bare ditch)

27.6 58583 36071

Change +14.3 +14506 +12181

Leave the road surface native but vegetate the ditches

Native (bare ditch)

13.3 44077 23890

Native (veg ditch)

13.3 13606 3840

Change 0 -30471 -20050

Convert from a native surface to a chip-seal and vegetate the ditches

Native (bare ditch)

13.3 44077 23890

Chip-seal (veg ditch)

27.6 9402 3227

Change +14.3 -34675 -20663 *Note: Segment 25 was omitted from these calculations as it was a significant outlier.

In conclusion ditch stabilization is a key component of sediment reduction from Kebler Pass Road. We recommend that the length of in-sloped ditches be reduced by installing additional drains and to increase vegetation cover (or similar sediment control BMPs) in roadside ditches. Chip-sealing may improve vegetation cover in the ditches by eliminating the need for magnesium chloride. Additionally chip-sealing would reduce sediment production from the out-sloped segments of the road surface. The WEPP:Road model predicts that the combination of chip-sealing and stabilizing roadside ditches with vegetation will produce the greatest reduction in sediment production from Kebler Pass Road.

Cut and Fill-slopes and Erosion Control In 2010, the CCWC re-vegetated and covered approximately 7,500 square feet of hillside with erosion control mats and EcoCare erosion control devices following a 2009 road inventory (Figure 6). In 2011 with assistance from the CCWC, MRP attempted to identify and quantify erosion from road cut and fill-slopes - both of which are abundant along Kebler Pass Road. Road inventory efforts in the fall of 2011 identified on a segment by segment basis cut and fill-slope lengths, angles, widths, and where possible


Page | 14

% cover. This data was compiled by the MRP and processed through WEPP:Disturbed4 model (another web-based model program developed by the USFS for use on disturbed hillslopes).

Data from WEPP:Disturbed did not indicate that any of the surveyed slopes were significant contributors to erosion. Running the model did, however, render information that may be useful in addressing erosion control of cut and fill-slopes:

Percent cover is the variable with the most influence on erosion. The addition of cover (>40%) on the exposed slopes reduces erosion potential significantly.

On the fill slopes (which typically have a less severe slope) it is likely that road gravels observed on them is largely a result of the native dirt road surface being "pushed" off of the road (e.g. by plowing or grading) rather than production from the slopes themselves. Trapping these sediments with vegetation - especially along those reaches that we found to be "connected" to the stream is a good idea. It certainly is possible (and likely) that in some places road water gets concentrated onto a fill slope and causes the formation of a rill and the subsequent erosion of the slope - the models are not good at considering this - field investigation (either through capture or survey) is the best way to quantify the rate of erosion of these spots. Chip-sealing of the road would reduce the effect of fine sediments being “pushed” over the fill slopes.

Road cut slopes that are "connected" should be given another field visit to verify percent cover, and consider whether it looks like sediment eroding from them (along with the road) is overwhelming the inside ditches indicating active erosion. The best time to observe this would be during/after a big rain event if possible!

The WEPP:Road models indicated significant contributions of sediment from the road surface. It is likely that many of the cut and fill-slopes that were observed along this portion of the road are not a significant source of sediment to the Coal Creek.

Observation and field quantification of erosion should be directed based on the context of the slope to the creek (i.e. its’ connectivity).

Figure 6: Erosion control matting along the fill-slope of Kebler Pass Road.

4 http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/cgi-bin/fswepp/wd/weppdist.pl


Page | 15

Water Chemistry Monitoring Data collected by: CCWC

Reporting: Ashley Bembenek, Alpine Environmental Consultants LLC

The 2011 CCWC SAPP identifies three goals: 1) metals and mining; 2) sediment and chloride control; and 3) riparian restoration. Progress toward goals one and two can be evaluated, to some extent, with water chemistry samples. The later sections of this part of the report evaluate water quality data with respect to each goal. Before we begin with an assessment of the results, it is best to summarize the type of data collected and evaluate its overall completeness and quality. Water Quality Monitoring Summary: Data Completeness and Quality In 2011, 72 water quality samples were collected from 19 locations throughout the Coal Creek Watershed during five sample events. Sample locations included the mainstem of Coal Creek and several prominent tributaries (Figure 7). Samples from each location were analyzed for total metals, dissolved metals, and hardness. All samples were analyzed by Tech Law, Inc., an EPA contract lab in Golden, Colorado. Nutrient samples were collected from selected locations; these samples were analyzed by ACZ Laboratories of Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Data from these samples builds upon an existing data set in the Coal Creek Watershed. Table 5 presents the sample locations and the 2011 sample collection schedule. Table 5 also identifies where duplicate samples and field blanks were collected for each sample event. Near the bottom of Table 5 the total number of samples, duplicates and field blanks are totaled for each event and the year. The CCWC SAPP states that duplicates and field blanks shall each account for 10 percent of the samples collected. In April 2011, sample duplicates and field blanks fell just below the goal at 8 percent (Table 5). In May 2011, the field blanks were also below the goal at 6 percent (Table 5). Shortfalls in sample duplicates and field blanks may be attributed to a lack of supplies during sample collection events (i.e. a bottle became contaminated and the bottle intended for the blank was used to collect the sample). In 2012, CCWC staff will include extra sample supplies for each team to prevent supply shortages that may result in the collection of fewer blank or duplicate samples. Aside from the shortfalls in April and May, CCWC staff and volunteers collected an adequate number of duplicate and field blank samples during sample events in February, August, and October (Table 5). The annual average rates are 11 and 10 percent for duplicates and blanks, respectively (Table 5). In general, CCWC staff tends to collect the blank and field duplicate at the same locations for each event and throughout the year (Table 5). The location where field duplicates are collected should be randomly selected for each event, so that over time the range of sample concentrations are represented in the duplicate pairs. This is important because some sample concentrations may approach the high or low ends of the method detection limits; which allows for an additional evaluation of precision. Although it is not technically incorrect to collect the field blank and field duplicate from the same location, it would be ideal to collect them at different locations to test field procedures at additional locations. Three dissolved sample bottles (Nalgene brand filter and bottle set) cracked during shipping in 2011. This underscores the need to carefully pack the sample coolers and fill them completely with ice. In the future CCWC staff will assure that coolers are packed appropriately.


Page | 16

Figure 7: 2011 Water Quality Monitoring Locations in the Coal Creek Watershed, near Crested Butte, Colorado.


Page | 17

Table 5. 2011 Sample Locations and Collection Schedule

February April May August October Annual Total

Coal-00

Coal Creek above pedestrian bridge on Butte

Ave.

x, Dup,

FB1 x, Dup, FB x x, Dup, FB 4

Coal-01

Coal Creek at Totem Pole Park below bridge

and SW discharge x2, Dup, FB x x x, Dup, FB x 5

Coal-02

Coal Creek above Crested Butte and below

irrigation diversions x x x 3

Coal-06

Coal Creek above Wildcat Trail bridge, and

below the CB water supply intake and the

Keystone WWTP outfall x x x x x 5

Key-00

Keystone Outfall Drainage above Kebler Pass

Road and Coal Creek x x x x x 5

Key-01

Keystone WWTP Outfall Drainage, the

western tributary to the Keystone Drainage x x, Dup x x 4

Key-02

North Interceptor ditch (stormwater flows)

sampled from culvert on road to WWTP x x x x 4

Key Ditch

Water from bar ditch and culvert

immediately west of the Keystone Outfall

Drainage x 1

Key-Opp

Tributary adjacent to Keystone outfall

drainages. x 1

Coal-10

Coal Creek above the Keystone WWTP

Outfall x x x x x 5

Coal-11

Coal Creek above Crested Butte water supply

intake and Keystone WTP Outfall. x x x x 4

Bog-00

Iron Bog outfall (sampled from culvert) at

Kebler Pass road, above Iron Fen x x x x x 5

Coal-12

Coal Creek above the Mount Emmons Iron

Fen. x x x x 4

Coal-15 Coal Creek below confluence with Elk Creek x x x x x 5

Elk-00

Elk Creek near mouth above Kebler Pass

Road and Coal Creek x x x x x 5

Coal-20 Coal Creek above Elk Creek x x x x x 5

Splains Splains Gulch at mouth above Coal Creek x 1

Coal-25

Coal Creek below junction of roads to Lake

Irwin, Ohio Creek and Kebler Pass summit. x x x x 4

IR-00 Lake Irwin Outlet at flume x, Dup, FB x, Dup, FB 2

9 13 17 17 16 72

1 1 2 2 2 8

1 1 1 2 2 7

11% 8% 12% 12% 13% 11%

11% 8% 6% 12% 13% 10%

Notes

1. Dup= Duplicate Sample, FB= Field Blank.

2. In February, snow and ice prevented sample collection at Coal-01. The sample was collected just upstream at 2nd and Elk.

Field Blanks Per Event

Percent Duplicates

Percent Field Blanks

Monitoring

Location

Water Quality Sample Events

Location Description

Samples Per Event

Duplicates Per Event


Page | 18

Field blanks serve two purposes- 1) field blanks assure that contaminants are not introduced into the sample during collection and 2) field blanks help assure accuracy (in a “secondary manner”) as the concentration of each parameter should theoretically be zero, or at least less than method detection limits. A field blank moves through the sample procedure, like any other sample, but is filled with deionized (DI) water. Uncontaminated deionized water does not have measureable concentrations of any metals, salts, anions, or other parameters. Thus, if the sample analysis results in measureable concentrations of any parameter, contamination occurred at some point during sample collection or analysis. Common sources of contamination include: contaminated DI water, sample contamination via physical pathways (i.e. not wearing gloves during sample collection), atmospheric contamination (i.e. dust from adjacent road), or contaminated equipment. Three of the eight field blanks collected by CCWC in 2011, had contamination issues. The contaminated blanks include the April field blank collected at Coal-00, and both blanks collected in August at Coal-01 and IR-00. The April field blank had copper concentrations above the reporting limit and silver concentrations were reported between the method detection limit (MDL) and the method reporting limit (MRL)- referred to as an estimated result (a J qualifier). The August field blank at Coal-01 had measurable concentrations of total manganese, dissolved manganese, and dissolved zinc between the MDL and MRL. The August field blank at IR-00 included dissolved zinc between the MDL and MRL. The lab quality assurance-quality control (QA-QC) reports do not include any issues that might relate to the metals detected in the field blanks collected in April and August. Since QA-QC results from the lab do not suggest an issue with laboratory contamination, CCWC staff should review the procedures for field blank collection, evaluate the deionized water source and monitor the results of field blank analyses carefully in the future. Field duplicates are collected to assess precision in the sample collection and analysis processes. They are collected at the same time and location as the “regular” sample but are analyzed independently. Tech Law, Inc., an EPA contract lab, uses a relative percent difference (RPD) threshold of 20 percent to identify problematic laboratory blanks and continuing calibration blanks. This threshold, 20 % RPD, was used to evaluate the duplicate pairs collected by CCWC in 2011. Table 6 presents a summary of the duplicate pair evaluation. Table 6 presents the RPD value for parameters where the RPD exceeded 20 percent. RPD values below 20 percent are not presented in Table 6, but are available upon request. Seven of the eight duplicate pairs collected in 2011 had at least one RPD value that exceeded 20 percent (Table 6). Dissolved or total molybdenum concentrations in five of the duplicate pairs had RPDs greater than 20 percent. Due to both the frequency of the molybdenum RPD exceedances and molybdenum’s importance in the Coal Creek Watershed, follow-up with the laboratory staff should occur to better understand the issue. The discussion with lab staff will be reported to CCWC and CDPHE-MRP staff.


Page | 19

Table 6. Summary of Field Duplicate Pairs Collected from the Coal Creek Watershed in 2011.

As mentioned at the start of this section, CCWC collected 72 samples from 19 locations in 2011. Each of these samples should have been paired with a flow measurement. Flow measurements provide context to interpret water quality data. Additionally, flow measurements are required to calculate pollutant loads which are an essential piece of data used to assess progress relative to the TMDL or other load reduction goals. The 2011 data set includes 42 flow measurements; or about 60 percent of the anticipated number of flow measurements. Flow measurement during the February sample event is not possible due to snow and ice cover. However, those nine samples collected in February account for just over 10 percent of the incomplete flow measurements. Deep and swift flows, which occur in April or May, often create conditions that are too dangerous for flow measurements. However, in 2011 high flow conditions accounted for just two of the missing flow measurements. Together, these practical limitations account for about 15 percent of the incomplete flow measurements. Cumulatively, CCWC completed about 75 percent of the anticipated flow measurements. The bulk of the incomplete flow measurements occurred at locations where flumes or timed-fill methods may have been suitable to measure flow. This underscores the need to better train staff and volunteers on methods such as timed fills and flumes.

Duplicate

Pair1

Collection

DateParameter > 20% RPD

Relative

Percent

Difference2

Total Lead 21.5%

Dissolved Molybdenum 47.7%

Total Moybdenum 45.9%

Total Copper 114.9%


Dissolved Silver 78.9%

Total Silver 67.3%

Total Lead 21.1%

Total Moybdenum 60.4%

Key-01 5/31/2011

Dissolved Cadmium 29.6%

Total Copper 20.6%


Dissolved Silver 92.50%

Total Iron 26.90%

Dissolved Zinc 21.4%

Coal-00 10/18/2011 Dissolved Molybdenum 30.3%

IR-00 10/18/2011 Dissolved Copper 36.9%

Notes

2. RPD= Relative Percent Difference, which is the absolute

value of the sample result minus the duplicate result

expressed as a percent of the sample result.

1. Duplicate Pair refers to the sample and field duplicate

collected at a given sample location.

Coal-01 2/16/2011

Coal-00 4/20/2011

Coal-00 5/31/2011

Coal-01 8/18/2011

IR-00 8/18/2011

None of the RPDs exceeded 20%

Coal Creek Watershed 2011 Monitoring Report *The data presented in this section is qualified based on the QA-QC results. Interpretations from the data is limited and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Page | 20

Due to contamination in field blanks and excessive RPD in field duplicates collected during 2011, the overall quality of the dataset is questionable. The integrity of the data was likely comprised in the field and additional training of CCWC staff and volunteers is required to resolve the data quality issues. In 2012 CCWC staff and volunteers received additional training. The field blanks collected during February, May, and October were not contaminated, so data from those months is higher quality. The following sections present a qualified analysis of the water quality data. Interpretations are limited and individual data should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Goal One: Metals and Mining- Standards Evaluation and Progress toward TMDL Attainment CCWC and partner organizations have identified arsenic, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, manganese and zinc as the primary metals of concern in the watershed. These six metals are the focus of the analysis. The water quality assessment uses two tools to evaluate water quality. First, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) numeric water quality standards (Regulations 31 and 35) and second pollutant load calculations, generated from paired water quality and flow data. Table 7 presents the numeric water quality standards for Segments 9, 11, and 12. Several of the criteria are “table value standard” (TVS). This designation addresses the fact that water hardness (primarily calcium and magnesium concentrations) influences the degree to which metals may impair a waterbody or the organisms found in it. Hardness concentrations measured at each of the sample locations were used to calculate the TVS for location. The water quality standards evaluation includes acute and chronic criterion for arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, manganese, and zinc. The results of the water quality evaluation are summarized by segment in the following paragraphs. The number of exceedances presented in the segment summary tables includes both chronic and acute exceedances (i.e. a single sample can generate two exceedances). Appendix C presents complete results of the water quality evaluation. The discussion references several tables presented in the draft TMDL. The tables are provided in Appendix D for reference.


Page | 21

Table 7. CDPHE WQCD Numeric Water Quality Standards for Segments in the Coal Creek Watershed

Physical and Biological Temporary Modifications

S= 0.002 As(ac)= 340 Fe(ch)= 300 (dis) (WS) Ni (ac/ch)= TVS

D.O.= 6.0 mg/l NH3 (ac/ch)= TVS B= 0.75 As (ch)= 0.02 (Trec) Fe(ch)= 1000 (Trec) Se (ac/ch)= TVS

D.O. (sp)= 7.0 mg/l CL2(ac)= 0.019 NO2=0.05 Cd (ac)= TVS (tr) Pb (ac/ch)= TVS Ag (ac)= TVS

pH= 6.5-9.0 s.u. Cl2(ch)=0.011 NO3= 10 Cd (ch)= TVS Mo= 210 (Trec) Ag (ch)=TVS (tr)

E. Coli= 126 col/100ml CN=0.05 Cl= 250 Cr III (ac)= 50 (Trec) Mn (ac/ch)= TVS Zn (ac)= TVS

SO4 (ch)= 250 (WS) Cr VI (ac/ch)= 16, 11 Mn (ch)= 50 (dis) (WS) Zn (ch)= TVS

Cu (ac/ch)= TVS Hg (ch)= 0.01 (tot)

S= 0.002 As(ac)= 340 Fe(ch)= 1000 (Trec)

D.O.= 6.0 mg/l NH3 (ac/ch)= TVS B= 0.75 As (ch)= 0.02 (Trec) Pb (ac/ch)= TVS Se (ac/ch)= TVS

D.O. (sp)= 7.0 mg/l CL2(ac)= 0.019 NO2=0.05 Cd (ac)= TVS (tr) Mo= 210 (Trec) Ag (ac)= TVS

pH= 6.5-9.0 s.u. Cl2(ch)=0.011 NO3= 10 Cd (ch)= TVS Mn (ac/ch)= TVS Ag (ch)=TVS (tr)

E. Coli= 126 col/100ml CN=0.05 Cl= 250 Cr III (ac)= 50 (Trec) Mn (ch)= 50 (dis) (WS) Zn (ac)= TVS

SO4 (ch)= 250 (WS) Cr VI (ac/ch)= 16, 11 Hg (ch)= 0.01 (tot) Zn (ch)= TVS

Cu (ac/ch)= TVS Ni (ac/ch)= TVS

S= 0.002 As(ac)= 340

D.O.= 6.0 mg/l NH3 (ac/ch)= TVS B= 0.75 As (ch)= 7.6 (Trec) Fe(ch)= 1000 (Trec)

D.O. (sp)= 7.0 mg/l CL2(ac)= 0.019 NO2=0.05 Cd (ac)= TVS (tr) Pb (ac/ch)= TVS Ag (ac)= TVS

pH= 6.5-9.0 s.u. Cl2(ch)=0.011 NO3= 100 Cd (ch)= TVS Mo = 300 (Trec) Ag (ch)= TVS (tr)

E. Coli= 126 col/100ml CN=0.05 Cl= 250 Cr III (ac)= 50 (Trec) Mn (ac/ch)= TVS Zn (ac)= TVS

Cr VI (ac/ch)= 16, 11 Hg (ch)= 0.01 (tot) Zn (ch)= TVS

Cu (ac/ch)= TVS Ni (ac/ch)= TVS

Notes

1. There are temporary modifications in place for segment 12. The temporary modifications expire of 3/31/2013. There are not temporary modifications for segment 11.

2. For hardness dependent parameters (i.e. TSV parameters), an average hardness value was calculated for each segment from surface water samples found on that segment.

4. Ac= Acute, Ch= Chronic, Dis= Dissolved, Sp= Spawning, Tr= Trout, Trec= Total Recoverable, WS= Water Supply.

5. The following also apply: Mean Water Temperature for Aquatic Cold Life Class 1: 17 degrees C and Uranuim 30 ug/L.

Cd(ch)=2.3, Zn(ch)= 518,

Expires on: 6/30/2013

Numeric Standards1,2,3,4,5

None

3. The Aluminum standard is found in Regulation 31. Chronic aluminum is a TSV parameter that is hardness dependent with a pH clause. If the sample pH is above 7, the hardness dependent

equation applies, if pH is below 7, the more strigent of 87 ug/l or the hardness dependent equation value. For pH values below 7 in the Coal Creek Watershed, 87 ug/l is the more strigent value and

is used for chronic Al standard evaluations for those samples. For pH values above 7, the values listed in the table are used for the chronic Al standard evaluation.

COGUUG12: Mainstem of

Coal Creek including all

tributaries and wetlands

from a point immediately

below the Crested Butte

water supply intake to the

confluence with the Slate

River, with the exception of

Wildcat Creek.

Aq Life Cold 1

Recreation E

Agriculture

Segment Classifications Inorganic (mg/l) Metals (ug/l)

COGUUG11: Mainstem of

Coal Creek from a point

immediately above Elk

Creek to a point

immediately below the

Crested Butte water supply

intake, and Elk Creek and

it's tributaries.

Aq Life Cold 1

Recreation E

Water Supply

Agriculture

COGUUG09: All tributaries,

including lakes, reservoirs,

and wetlands, to the Slate

River except for specific

l istings in Segments 2, 10,

11, 12 and 13.

Aq Life Cold 1

Recreation E

Water Supply

Agriculture

None


Page | 22

Water Quality Evaluation: COGUUG09- Coal Creek above Elk Creek and Splains Gulch Coal Creek above Elk Creek and Splains Gulch (Segment COGUUG09) has the fewest number of water quality exceedances in the Coal Creek Watershed (Table 8). However, some water issues are apparent from the data collected during 2011. First, total arsenic detection limits are generally not low enough to assess the new drinking water criterion for total arsenic (0.02 ug/L). Based upon estimated results, the chronic arsenic standard for drinking water was exceeded in nine samples at three locations (Appendix C). In general, CDPHE will not place segments on the 303(d) list based upon estimated results. Table 8. Water Quality Standards Evaluation Summary for COGUUG09- Coal Creek above Elk Creek and Splains Gulch

At the outlet of Lake Irwin (IR-00) total arsenic concentrations are below method detection limits. Total arsenic concentrations increase at COAL-25(downstream of the “Y”) and remain elevated at COAL-20 (Coal Creek above Elk Creek). The Forest Queen Mine which is above COAL-25 is a potential source of Arsenic. However, concentrations measured at the mouth of Splains Gulch (SP-00) in August are similar to those found in the upper reaches of Coal Creek, which suggests that other areas also supply arsenic. In this portion of the watershed, the geology transitions from sedimentary (Wasatch and Ohio Creek Formations) to an intrusive granodiorite unit. The shift in geology could play a role in elevating total arsenic concentrations in this portion of the watershed, but has not been investigated. In addition, arsenic mobility in sediments and soils is controlled by pH and redox conditions (Essington, 2004). Wetlands adjacent to Coal Creek, which are quite prominent from COAL-30 to COAL-20, may play a role in mobilizing arsenic by altering pH or redox conditions. At all sites in this portion of the watershed, the highest observed arsenic concentrations occurred in August and October. In late summer and fall groundwater contributions typically account for a larger portion of stream flow (Hornberger et al., 1998). Under such conditions, geologic strata and overlying sediments may exert a larger influence on surface water chemistry due to an increase in the relative proportion of groundwater. Additionally, surface-based flow from abandoned mine features is generally a very small portion of total flow under such conditions (following snow melt, surface-based flow from abandoned mine features may play a more prominent role). It appears that several factors, geology, groundwater hydrology, wetland geochemistry, and historic

Sample

Locations

Number of

Samples

Number of

Evaluations

Number of

Exceedances

Exceedance

Percent

IR-00 2 28 1 4%

COAL-25 4 56 0 0%

SP-00 1 14 0 0%

COAL-20 5 70 1 1%

Segment Total: 12 168 2 1%

COGUUG09- Coal Creek above Elk Creek and Splains Gulch

Segment Summary


Page | 23

abandoned mines, interactively control arsenic concentrations throughout the year in this part of the watershed. Additional sample collection will occur in the future (as funding permits) to identify arsenic source(s) more specifically. Dissolved copper concentrations exceeded the chronic standard on two occasions in 2011. The copper exceedance occurred in August at COAL-20 and in October at IR-00. Segment COGUUG09 is not included in the draft TMDL. Copper is addressed in the draft TMDL (CDPHE, 2011); arsenic is not.

Water Quality Evaluation: COGUUG11- Coal Creek from Elk Creek to the Crested Butte Water Supply Diversion and ELK-00 a TMDL Assessment Site ELK-00, Elk Creek at the mouth, is listed as an assessment site in the draft TMDL (CDPHE-WQCD, 2011). Samples collected from ELK-00 quantify the inputs from the Elk Creek Watershed, a portion of Segment COGUUG11. The Standard Mine is in the Elk Creek Watershed. A multi-phase reclamation project is underway at the Standard Mine. Samples collected from ELK-00 also help characterize reclamation outcomes at the Standard Mine. In 2011, five samples were collected by CCWC at ELK-00 (Appendix C). Acute cadmium standards were exceeded in three of five samples and the chronic cadmium standard was exceeded in five of five samples (Appendix C). Cadmium concentrations were three to five times the chronic cadmium standard (Appendix C). However, the cadmium concentrations measured in 2011 were lower, at times substantially lower, than the 85th percentile concentrations presented in the TMDL (Appendix D: Table 19). The chronic copper standard was exceeded in May (Appendix C). At ELK-00, the chronic lead standard was exceeded in May 2011. The lead concentration in Elk Creek was 1.40 ug/l; the highest concentration measured in 2011 (Appendix C). The TMDL reports an 85th percentile lead concentration of 2.98 ug/l for May (Appendix D: Table 19). The lead concentrations measured in 2011 were on the lower end of the range presented in the TMDL. The chronic and acute zinc standards were exceeded in all five samples collected from ELK-00 in 2011. The 2011 zinc concentrations were different from the 85th percentile concentrations presented in the TMDL (Appendix D: Table 19). In 2011 the zinc concentrations measured in April (315 ug/l), May (258 ug/l), August (217 ug/l), and October (184 ug/l) were substantially lower than the 85th percentile values presented in the TMDL, 518, 694, 556, and 911 ug/l, respectively (Appendix D: Table 19). The zinc concentration measured in February 2011, 326 ug/l, was similar to the concentration presented in the TMDL, 313 ug/l (Appendix D: Table 19). Overall, in 2011 cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations were lower than the concentrations presented in the draft TMDL. Although concentrations were generally lower in 2011, peak


Page | 24

metal concentrations occurred in May and June which was also observed in the TMDL data set (Appendix D: Table 19). In 2011 increased precipitation, especially snow, may have allowed for additional dilution to reduce metal concentrations (cadmium, lead and zinc) or reclamation activities at the Standard Mine may have improved water quality and contributed to the decline in metal concentrations. Alternatively, the 17 samples used to generate the 85th percentile concentrations presented in the TMDL may not accurately characterize the range of metal concentrations found in Elk Creek due to the small sample size. This segment of Coal Creek, from below Elk Creek to the water supply diversion, had the highest frequency of water quality exceedances (Table 9); however temporary modifications on Coal Creek below the water supply diversion have reduced the frequency of water quality exceedances on that segment. Table 9. Water Quality Standards Evaluation Summary for COGUUG11- Coal Creek from Elk Creek to the Crested Butte Water Supply Diversion

The effect of Elk Creek on Coal Creek is apparent in both the cadmium and zinc concentrations (Appendix C). At COAL-20, Coal Creek above Elk Creek, cadmium and zinc concentrations are below method detection limits (MDL) in most samples (Appendix C). At COAL-15, Coal Creek below Elk Creek, cadmium concentrations increase above MDLs and the chronic cadmium standard is exceeded in all of the analyzed samples (Appendix C). Similarly, zinc concentrations above Elk Creek, at COAL-20, are below MDLs for 80% of the samples (Appendix C). While at COAL-15, dissolved zinc concentrations increase to 50-60 ug/L (Appendix C). The elevated dissolved zinc concentrations measured at COAL-15 exceeded the chronic standard in April and May; the May sample also exceeded the acute criterion (Appendix C). Further downstream at COAL-12, Coal Creek above the fen and gossan complex, cadmium and zinc concentrations decline slightly relative to the concentrations measured at COAL-15 (Appendix C). At COAL-12 the only sample to exceed the chronic cadmium criterion was collected in August (Appendix C). Dissolved zinc concentrations fell from a range of 50-60 ug/L at COAL-15 to about 40 to 50 ug/L at COAL-12 (Appendix C). Like COAL-15 zinc concentrations at COAL-12 also exceeded the chronic and acute standards for zinc in May 2011 (Appendix C).

Sample

Locations

Number of

Samples

Number of

Evaluations

Number of

Exceedances

Exceedance

Percent

ELK-00 5 70 20 29%

COAL-15 5* 58 7 12%

COAL-12 4 56 3 5%

BOG-00 5* 58 16 28%

COAL-11 4 56 17 30%


* Sample analysis was not possible due to cracked sample bottles

COGUUG11- Coal Creek from Elk Creek to Crested Butte Water

Supply Diversion


Page | 25

The fen and gossan complex deliver water to Coal Creek via BOG-00 and through dispersed flow from springs and minor intermittent tributaries. Samples collected from BOG-00 in 2011 had elevated cadmium and zinc concentrations (Appendix C). In four of four analyzed samples from BOG-00 the dissolved cadmium and zinc concentrations exceeded the chronic and acute standards. During wet periods, as measured in April and May of 2011, where dispersed surface flows from the fen and gossan are most probable, cadmium and zinc concentrations at COAL-11 exceeded the sum of cadmium and zinc measured at BOG-00 and COAL-12 (Appendix C). Given the large dilution potential of Coal Creek during high flow periods, the increased metal concentrations at COAL-11 cannot be attributed to BOG-00 alone. Further, dissolved manganese concentrations measured at COAL-11 during April and May also exceeded the sum of manganese concentrations measured at COAL-12 and BOG-00 (Appendix C). This underscores the need to understand the quantity, timing, and duration of dispersed flow from the fen and gossan complex. Under drier conditions, as measured in August and October, metal concentrations at COAL-11 suggest that dispersed flow plays a far smaller role in altering water quality in Coal Creek. Water quality and loading patterns in this portion of the watershed will be discussed further later in this report. The TMDL identifies COAL-11 as an assessment site (CDPHE-WQCD, 2011). In 2011 dissolved cadmium concentrations at COAL-11 exceeded the 85th percentile concentrations of 0.73 and 1.64ug/L for April and May, respectively (Appendix D: Table 29). The concentrations measured in April and May of 2011 were 3.48 and 2.69 ug/L, respectively. During low flow conditions, as measured in August and October, dissolved cadmium concentrations at COAL-11 were 0.36 and 049 ug/L, respectively (Appendix C). These concentrations are below the 85th percentile values presented in the TMDL (Appendix D: Table 29). However, the concentrations measured in August and October still exceeded the chronic cadmium standard (Appendix C). Dissolved lead concentrations measured in 2011 were slightly lower than the 85th percentile presented in the TMDL (Appendix D: Table 29). Zinc concentrations at COAL-11 followed a pattern similar to cadmium concentrations where high flow sample concentrations exceeded 85th percentile values and low flow concentrations did not (Appendices C and D: Table 29). Zinc concentrations exceeded the chronic and acute criteria in all samples collected from COAL-11 in 2011 (Appendix C).

Water Quality Evaluation: COGUUG12- Coal Creek below Crested Butte Water Supply Intake Segment COGUUG12 begins immediately below the Crested Butte water supply intake on Coal Creek and continues to the confluence with the Slate River (Figure 7). Unlike other segments in the watershed, this segment does not have a water supply designation (CDPHE-WQCD Regulation 35). However, three alluvial wells have been identified near the end of the segment which may result in a use designation change to a water supply classification during the next rulemaking session. This segment includes permitted discharges from the Keystone Mine Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP; CDPHE-WQCD, 2011). The TMDL addressed the Keystone WWTP discharges by creating two assessment sites on this segment and a schedule for


Page | 26

evaluation at each site. COAL-10, Coal Creek immediately above the Keystone WWTP outlet, is the assessment site during April, May and June (CDPHE-WQCD, 2011). COAL-05/06, Coal Creek immediately below the Keystone WWTP outfall, is the assessment site for the remainder of the year (July-March; CDPHE-WQCD, 2011). The assessment schedule presented in the TMDL serves two purposes. First, during periods with additional dilution from snowmelt and spring precipitation (April-June) water quality criteria are more stringent; as hardness concentrations are much lower due to dilution provided by runoff (Appendices C and D: Table 20). Second, the hardness associated with the treated water (as measured following dilution in Coal Creek, Appendix D: Table 20) is used to calculate the TVS criteria (CDPHE-WQCD, 2011). The increased hardness (from July to March) increases the TVS criteria (Appendices C and D: Table 20). This adjustment means that water quality on Segment 12 below the WWTP outfall should more readily meet regulatory criteria from July to March. Currently, Segment COGUUG12 has a temporary modification where the chronic cadmium standard is 2.3 ug/l and the chronic zinc standard is 518 ug/l (CDPHE-WQCD Regulation 35). The temporary modifications expire on 6/30/2013. Appendix C presents the TVS concentrations for cadmium and zinc, the temporary modifications are included in table as well. Due to the temporary modifications currently in place on the segment, the TVS criteria for cadmium and zinc are not applied at this time. The TVS concentrations are provided for reference only. COAL-10, Coal Creek above the Keystone WWTP Outfall, serves as the assessment site for Segment 12 from April to June (CDPHE-WQCD, 2011). In 2011 samples were not collected at COAL-10 during the April and May sample events. In 2012, the sample events will include COAL-10 in April and May. During the remainder of the year samples collected from COAL-10 met temporary modifications for cadmium and zinc (Appendix C). There were not exceedances for the metals assessed at COAL-10 (Table 10). Table 10. Water Quality Standards Evaluation Summary for COGUUG12- Coal Creek below the Crested Butte Water Supply Diversion to the Confluence with the Slate River (not Wildcat Creek)

Sample

Locations

Number of

Samples

Number of

Evaluations

Number of

Exceedances

Exceedance

Percent

COAL-10 3 42 0 0%

KEY-00 5 70 11 16%

KEY-01 4 56 6 11%

KEY-02 4 56 17 30%

COAL-06 5 70 9 13%

COAL-02 3 42 2 5%

COAL-00 4 56 5 9%


COGUUG12- Coal Creek below the Crested Butte Water Supply

Diversion to Confluence with the Slate River (not Wildcat Creek)


Page | 27

Key-00, which receives both discharge from the Keystone WWTP and stormwater flows from the Keystone property, exceeded the temporary modifications for cadmium and zinc in April, May, and October of 2011 (Appendix C). The cadmium concentrations measured in April and May exceeded the temporary modification by two to three times (Appendix C). The zinc concentrations measured in April and May were close to double the temporary modification and well over ten times the acute criterion (Appendix C). In April 2011, metal concentrations at KEY-00 exceeded the chronic dissolved copper and total iron standards (Appendix C). In May 2011, KEY-00 samples exceeded the chronic and acute standard for copper and the chronic standard for lead (Appendix C). KEY-02, which captures stormwater flow, had a higher frequency of exceedances than KEY-01 (Table 10). A discharge permit is in place for the Keystone WWTP facility. The permit provides regulatory guidance for discharges. CDPHE staff reported that all requirements of the permit were satisfied during 2011. At COAL-06, Coal Creek below the Keystone WWTP discharge, the cadmium temporary modification was exceeded in three of five samples (Appendix C). The zinc temporary modification was exceeded on one occasion in 2011 (Appendix C). The elevated concentrations were measured during rising flow in April and May (Appendix C). Dissolved copper and lead concentrations exceeded criterion during this period (Appendix C). In both April and May copper concentrations at COAL-06 exceeded the chronic and acute standards (Appendix C). Lead concentrations exceeded the chronic criterion in April and May of 2011 (Appendix C). The TMDL does not address copper or lead (CDHPE-WQCD, 2011). COAL-06 is also an assessment site. The TMDL presents 85th percentile cadmium concentrations of 3.9, 0.76, and 0.92 for each of the three timeframes, respectively (Appendix D: Table 31). The April and August samples collected from COAL-06 exceeded the 85th percentile concentrations presented in the TMDL (Appendices C and D: Table 31). The TMDL presents 85th percentile zinc concentrations of 857.6, 214.8, and 263.8 for each of the three timeframes, respectively (Appendix D: Table 32). The February and April samples exceeded the 85th percentile concentrations presented in the TMDL (Appendices C and D: Table 32). At COAL-00, Coal Creek above the confluence with the Slate River, cadmium and zinc concentrations exceeded temporary modifications in April of 2011(Appendix C). Dissolved copper concentrations exceeded the chronic standard in April and May; the sample collected in May also exceeded the acute standard (Appendix C). Copper is not addressed in the draft TMDL.

Mount Emmons Iron Fen & Gossan Characterization Project A portion of the Coal Creek Watershed NPS grant was used to collect samples from the Mount Emmons Iron Fen (fen) and gossan study area (Figure 8). A fen is a groundwater fed wetland. A gossan is a heavily weathered section of ore or mineral vein that is exposed at the ground surface. The composition of a gossan is similar to the ore that it is derived from. Typically gossans are rich in pyrite, quartz, and base metals; however the degree to which each is


Page | 28

present is controlled by the amount of physical and chemical weathering that has occurred. Iron oxides are common and account for the red, brown, and yellow staining present at most gossans. In past CCWC studies, the fen and gossan were identified as large pollutant sources to Coal Creek. However, limited data was available to identify pollutant sources from the relatively large area. In 2011 a characterization project was implemented to better characterize pollutant sources and identify loads generated from various dispersed flows including small intermittent surface tributaries and seeps in the study area. The characterization project included surface water and groundwater samples; as well as vegetation monitoring. This discussion addresses the surface water quality data only. Samples were collected from the fen and gossan, as well as from down-gradient tributaries and culverts (Figure 8). Sample collection occurred in July, August, and October of 2011. Forty-five surface water samples were collected from 32 locations during 2011. Flow was measured on nine occasions during fen sample events. As mentioned previously, load calculations require flow measurements. Due to the limited number of flow measurements, only 20 percent, this discussion will focus on water quality characteristics, rather than pollutant loading. Loading data is presented at locations where flow was measured. Appendix E presents the surface water quality and loading data from the fen and gossan study area; as well as loading data from the Coal Creek Watershed. In July, as peak flows receded and the landscape began to dry, the first set of samples was collected from the fen and gossan study area to characterize high flow conditions. Ten water quality samples were collected and flow measurements were possible at eight of the locations (Appendix E). The metal concentrations measured in July were higher than the concentrations measured in August or October for most locations and parameters (Appendix E). In July the Gossan portion of the study area (GOSSAN-01, and GOSSAN-00) produced the largest loads in the study area (Appendix E). Water sampled at GOSSAN-01 flows to GOSSAN-00 via a small steep channel. The dissolved loads in this drainage ranged from about 22 to 38 lbs/day (Appendix E). Zinc comprised the bulk of the dissolved metal load; followed by manganese (Appendix E). Cadmium concentrations at these locations were elevated; 175 and 109 ug/l for GOSSAN-01 and GOSSAN-00, respectively. However, loads remained below 0.2 lbs/day due to the limited flow (Appendix E). Dissolved metal loads at the FEN-OUTFLOW were on par with those measured in the gossan drainage. Yet, dissolved iron accounted for roughly 25 percent of the metal load at the outlet of the fen, whereas dissolved iron was a negligible component of the dissolved metal load in the gossan drainage (Appendix E).


Page | 29

Figure 8: Surface water quality sample locations near the Mount Emmons fen and gossan


Page | 30

Although the data set does not allow for load calculations for August and October, the data set indicates that surface water locations on or down-gradient of the gossan have cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc concentrations that range from three to ten times higher than the concentrations found in surface samples collected from the fen portion of the study area (Appendix E). Iron concentrations are the exception, where concentrations measured at the fen are far higher than the concentrations measured at the gossan (Appendix E). Iron solubility is likely controlled by geochemical conditions found in the fen. At many locations the cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc concentrations measured in the fen and gossan study area are very high (Appendix E). However, their effect on Coal Creek is limited to some extent by relatively low surface-based flow and/or metal precipitation as water travels away from the source areas. Further investigation should occur to more clearly understand the interaction of ground and surface water, metal precipitation, and dispersed flow in the study area. Given the complex nature of flow in the study area, any future studies must include sample collection and flow measurement in Coal Creek to determine the net-impact on Coal Creek.

Macroinvertebrate Survey Data collected by: MRP

Reporting: Michael Blazewicz

Aquatic communities provide valuable information regarding the overall biological integrity of a given waterbody. While fish and periphyton (algae attached to rocks) are sometimes a component of a bio-assessment, macroinvertebrate communities, in particular, are often favored based on a combination of their relatively long life spans, limited mobility, representation in most Colorado streams, and ease of collection. Macroinvertebrate data has been collected on the Coal Creek since at least 2006. In 2011 seven previously sampled sites were identified by the CCWC and MRP for monitoring. Six of these sites were chosen to bracket restoration activities and one site (Splains Gulch) was identified as a control site to ensure macroinvertebrates are not being positively or negatively impacted from other unrelated activities. Sample sites, their description, and their GPS coordinates are listed below in Table 11 and Figure 9.

Table 11: 2012 MRP Macroinvertebrate Sample Sites

Site-ID Description/Reason for sampling Latitude North (decimal degrees)

Latitude West (decimal degrees)

Coal-25 Upstream of chip-seal 38.855087 -107.091268

Coal-20 Downstream of chip-seal 38.855758 -107.060743

Splains Gulch Reference tributary - control 38.855231 -107.064073

Coal-12 Upstream of Iron Fen 38.861779 -107.046304

Coal-11 Downstream of Iron Fen 38.863370 -107.034178


Page | 31

Coal-01 Totem Park (bracket upstream for Confluence)

38.871045 -106.985745

Coal-Con Confluence Parcel – area of active riparian restoration

38.877086 -106.978372

Figure 9: MRP 2011 macroinvertebrate monitoring sites.

Because existing data can be useful for investigating trends the MRP coordinated its macroinvertebrate sampling to coincide with sampling conducted by Bugs Unlimited, LLC. and the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory on August 16, 2011. Samples were collected with a rectangular framed kick-net per the 2010 CDPHE protocols which require a one-minute timed sample collected over an area of one square meter (1 m2) at a single riffle or run from within the study reach that represents the predominant velocity and substrate type. These collected samples were delivered to Bugs Unlimited LLC., for analysis. Results of the sampling were entered into an Ecological Data Application Systems (EDAS) (http://www.edas2.com/) and evaluated with EDAS software per CDPHE Policy 10-1: Aquatic Life Use Attainment Methodology to Determine Use Attainment for Rivers and Streams. Evaluation includes consideration of sampling station elevation, channel slope, and sub-region


Page | 32

designation for each subset of samples via a “Predictor Variable Import Sheet” as detailed in CDPHE Policy Statement 10-1 to develop a biotype for the site. The biotype for the project sites were identified using Policy 10-1. Sampling stations located upstream from Town were identified as “Mountain” while the two stations in or just downstream of Town (Totem Pole Park and Confluence Park) were identified as “Transitional” biotypes. Filing this information allowed the EDAS software to choose a multi-metric index (MMI) which calculated a score for each set or subset of reach samples. The attainment and impairment thresholds for transitional Class I Cold Streams such as the Coal Creek are identified in Table 12 “Aquatic Life Use Thresholds for Transition and Mountain Streams”. Thresholds are established based on analysis of the biological condition at reference sites around the state of Colorado within each biotype. As per the policy 10-1, MMI scores that fall below the impairment threshold are considered impaired. Those that fall below the impairment threshold are further evaluated with secondary statistics for Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) and Shannon Base 2 Diversity Index. If a Class 1 site fails to meet the criteria for either of these metrics then the site would be considered “impaired”.

Table 12: Aquatic Life Use Thresholds for Transition and Mountain Streams

Biotype Attainment Threshold

Impairment Threshold

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index

Shannon Base 2 Diversity Index

1-Transition 52 42 <5.4 >2.4

2-Mountains 50 42 <5.1 >3.0

Evaluation of the macroinvertebrate data for the 2011 sites sample by the MRP indicate that 6 of the 7 sites were not only in “attainment” under CDPHE Aquatic Life Standards but are also considered “high scoring” waters (>64 MMI score) (Table 13). The one site that was considered to be “impaired” was Coal-01. This sample was taken in just downstream of the public access area in Totem Pole Park. In 2010 a fuel spill was linked to poor macroinvertebrate health by Bugs Unlimited who conducted sampling and analysis as a consultant for CCWC. It appears that this issue may have a lingering effect on the site. However, the effects from the spill cannot be isolated from other impacts at the site. Totem Pole Park is also a popular recreation site; especially for children who spend time in the water and build small damns. Their activity may also influence the health of the macroinvertebrate community. Discussion on the changes of the macroinvertebrate assessments with regard to the restoration efforts will be included in follow up monitoring and reporting on this project by the CCWC in 2012.

Table 13: Coal Creek MMI, Hilsenhoff and Shannon Index Scores

Site MMI Score Hilsenhoff Biotic Index

Shannon Base 2 Diversity Index

Analysis

Coal-25 64.3 4.93 3.89 Attainment


Splains Gulch 79.6 3.15 2.94 Attainment



Page | 33


Coal-01 41.9 4.41 2.86 Impairment

Coal-Con 65.9 3.08 4.21 Attainment

Coal-Con (duplicate) 73.2 2.65 4.15 Attainment

DATA COMPLETENESS: The Coal Creek SAPP states that, “A target of 90% completeness will be considered acceptable. To be considered complete, the data set must contain all QC check analyses verifying precision and accuracy for the analytical protocol. Completeness is then determined by the following: % Completeness = (Number of Valid Measurements / Total Number of Measurements Planned) x 100”. Results for 2011 are listed in Table 14. 2011 was an unusually wet year. These conditions allowed for additional sample collection in the fen and gossan study area.

Table 14: Data Completeness

Parameter No. Valid Samples Anticipated

No. Valid Samples Collected &Analyzed

Percent Complete

Fen surface water metals 28 samples/field season

45 160%

Fen pH 28 samples/field season when surface water chemistry is sampled

45 160%

Fen Specific Conductance 28 samples/field season when surface water chemistry is sampled

45 160%

Fen groundwater metals 8 samples/field season

8 100%

Mine characterization – sediments

6 samples per site in 2011

Delayed until 2012 Not applicable

Mine characterization - surface water

4 samples per site in 2011

Delayed until 2012 Not applicable

Check dams – sediment capture

1 sample per representative site

3 100%

WEPP Calculations 1 assessment 1 100%

Macroinvertebrate Community Assessments

7 targeted samples per sample season

7 100%

Chip-seal - Chloride load reductions to Coal Creek

4 samples downstream of study reach/season

6 150%


Page | 34

REFERENCES CITED:

CDPHE-WQCD, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment- Water Quality Control

Division (2011): Total Maximum Daily Load Assessment Slate River/Oh-Be-Joyful

Creek/Redwell Creek/Coal Creek/Elk Creek Gunnison County, Colorado. Available at:

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/Assessment/TMDL/tmdls.pdf/Coal_Creek_Public_No

tice_Draft_May_2011.pdf

Essington, M.E. Soil and Water Chemistry: An Integrative Approach. CRC Press, 2004.534 pages Herman, G.M> (1996). Iron and Manganese in Household Water.. North Carolina Cooperative

Extension Service, March 1996. Publication # HE394 http://www2.ncsu.edu/bae/programs/extension/publicat/wqwm/he394.html

Hornberger, G.M., Raffensperger, J.P., Wiberg, P.L., Eshleman, K.N. (1998). Elements of Physical Hydrology. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press. 302 pages.

Coal Creek Watershed 2011 Monitoring Report: Appendix A

Page | 35

Appendix A: Road-Inventory Worksheet

APPENDIX A: ROAD INVENTORY FORM- SHEET 1

Road Name:

Date:

Names:

Location:

National Forest:

Segment Segment Segment Segment Active Total Road Cutslope Cutslope Cutslope Cutslope Ditch

number length % bare % rock width ( ) width ( ) slope (%) height ( ) slope (%) width ( ) % bare % bare

Surface type: Paved/Chip seal; Gravel; Native surface (dirt) Drainage type: Planar; Planar with ruts; Insloped with ditch; Outsloped; Outsloped with berm; Outsloped with ruts

Ditch condition: Bare; 35-65% vegetated; >65% vegetated


Page | 36

Traffic: Very high; High; Medium; Low; None Surface rilling class: Multiple > 3 cm deep; Few > 3 cm deep; Multiple < 3 cm deep; Few < 3 cm deep; None

APPENDIX A: ROAD INVENTORY FORM – SHEET 2

Road Name:

Date:

Location:

Segment Drain Fillslope Fillslope Fillslope Fillslope Buffer Buffer Buffer Traffic Connected to Culvert Geology Soil type

Number type height

( ) width ( ) slope % % bare

length ( ) slope % bare class stream (y/n) present (y/n)


Page | 37

APPENDIX A: ROAD INVENTORY FORM – SHEET 3

Names: Road Name:

Date:

National Forest: Location:

Segment Number Comments/Notes

Coal Creek Watershed 2011 Monitoring Report: Appendix B

Page | 38

Appendix B: MRP Road Inventory Standard Operating Procedure

Standard Operating Procedures for the

Inventory and Modeling of Sediment Transport from Roads

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

Water Quality Control Division

Measurable Results Project

December 2011

DRAFT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Standard Operation Procedure (SOP) describes general methods for inventorying and modeling the transport of

sediments from roads.

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Water Quality Control Division’s Nonpoint

Source Programs (NPS) Measurable Results Project (MRP) has the responsibility to assist in monitoring stream

restoration projects aimed at reducing non-point source pollution. At select stream restoration projects funded by

NPS grants the MRP and grant recipients are responsible for determining load reductions associated with

implementation of best-management practices (BMPs) along roadways.

The NPS’s Quality Management Plan (QMP) states that the quality assurance and quality control program will be

implemented through the mandatory use of smaller Sampling and Analysis Procedure Plans (SAPPs), which are

originated for program-specific projects, under the umbrella of a more comprehensive, long-term Quality Assurance

Project Plan (QAPP). One of the essential tools that will be used in meeting goals and implementing QAPPs/SAPPs

will be the use of SOPs.

The goal and purpose of this SOP is to document a methodology for the collection of road sediment data in order to

assist reporting efforts on load reductions associated with BMP implementation. It is the hope that a standard

methodology will be useful for tracking and assessing sediment output changes to a specific project site and for

assisting in determination if water quality standards are being met and if pre- and post-restoration conditions can

showcase project successes. The objective is to collect representative sediment production and capture data. It is

important that collection methods are consistent to maximize data usefulness and to ensure that data collected by

different samplers at different sites and at different times are comparable.

2.0 EQUIPMENT


Page | 39

1. Field maps (printed aerial photographs including topography)

2. Surveyor stake flags

3. Field tape (a range-finder may also be useful)

4. Clinometer(s)

5. Digital camera (w. extra batteries)

6. Road survey worksheet

7. Pens, pencils

8. Road safety reflective clothing

9. For field calculations: 5-gallon buckets, rebar, silt fencing, shovel, tarp, scale

3.0 SAMPLING PROCEDURES

Procedure for Estimating Road Erosion:

All non-paved roads erode. Activities such as grading can double or even triple sediment production. Ultimately

the rate of erosion varies depending on a number of factors which make computer modeling difficult. The most

accurate values are obtained through field measurements. When field generation of these values cannot be

completed due to the scope of the work, high cost, or other limiting factors, modeling can produce estimates suitable

for project planning, relative comparison of pre- and post-treatment assessments, and/or the generation of load

reduction values.

There are a number of empirically-driven models to predict erosion from a watershed/hillslope –SWAT, WEPP,

GRAIP are examples nearly all of which utilize some form or another of the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE).

There does exists another relatively new technique for developing a watershed sediment budget through cosmogenic

nuclide detection however the high cost (~$700 per soil sample) prohibits this method for most projects.

In 2011, the MRP consulted road-sediment expert Dr. Lee MacDonald, Professor at Colorado State University on

the use of the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) Model, a physically based erosion simulation model

developed by the USDA that seemed appropriate for the scale and budget of NPS Program projects. The model is

built on the fundamentals of hydrology, plant science, hydraulics, and erosion mechanics. The MRP found the

model useful for determining a load reduction calculation following the implementation of chip-sealing a dirt road.

The full WEPP model requires four inputs, i.e., climate, topography, soil, and management (vegetation); and

provides various types of outputs, including water balance (surface runoff, subsurface flow, and evapotranspiration),

soil detachment and deposition at points along the slope, sediment delivery, and vegetation growth. The WEPP

model has been improved continuously since its public delivery in 1995, and is applicable for a variety of areas (e.g.,

cropland, rangeland management, forestry, fisheries, and surface coal mining). A streamlined version of the model

has been made available over the internet (http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/) specifically for the rapid

calculation of sediment delivery from roads.

To run the web-based WEPP for road surfaces model (WR), a road survey must first be conducted in order to gather

inputs for the model. The main task of the survey is to ‘segment' the road study area into hydrologically distinct

units. These units are then treated like individual roads whose design, soil texture, gradient, length, width, surface

type, traffic level, and condition of buffer are input to the modeling program. (Note: The MRP found that a team

effort of 3-4 people will aid in the collection of this information. Also it was recommended by Dr. MacDonald that

data collected and entered into the WEPP model need not be more accurate than 2 significant figures – and that

model outputs should also be reported in 2 significant figures):

The process for conducting this road field survey is as follows:

1. Mark the beginning of your road study area using a survey stake flag, label the flag ‘A’. Mark this

location on your field map and/or collect a GPS location for this site using a survey grade GPS unit.

2. Decide if the road is crowned. If crowned, the road will be divided at the crown into two distinct

segments (e.g., A and B) as water falling onto the road will move in one direction or another (i.e.,

drivers left or right) due to the crown. If the road is not crowned decide what the drainage type of the

road is (planar; planar with ruts; in-sloped with ditch; out-sloped; out-sloped with berm; out-sloped

with ruts) (Note: each side of a crowned road is identified with its appropriate drainage type from this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrological_transport_model#Physically_based_models

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulics


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topography

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_balance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_runoff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsurface_flow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evapotranspiration


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposition_%28chemistry%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sediment_transport

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cropland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangeland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/


Page | 40

list). Walk the road looking for the point where that drainage type changes (e.g., a road transitions

from draining entirely to one side to having a crown - this marks the end to one segment and the

beginning to two new ones (one for each side of the crown). Where an in-sloped segment has a ditch

against a hillside follow the ditch to the culvert that sends water under the road - this point marks the

end of one segment and the beginning of another – label and place a survey flag here. Draw and label

your segments onto your field map (see Figure 1example).

Figure 1. Example of road segmenting.

3. Once the segment has been identified use the road-inventory form (Appendix A) to guide data

collection specific to that segment. Data collectors should utilize the WEPP:Road technical

documentation provided online by the USFS

(http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/wepproaddoc.html) as well as the glossary provided in

order to collect appropriate data.

4. Data collection techniques may include a number of field techniques including but not limited to:

utilizing two people and a clinometer in order to determine slope; utilizing a measuring tape, a range-

finder, pacing, and/or post-processing using GIS to determine distance/length; ocular estimates for

determining percent cover; soils/surficial geology maps for determining geology.

Notes on Running and Utilizing Data from the WEPP:Road Web-based Model

Hyperlinks around the page lead to further descriptions on definitions and how to input data – make sure to

read through these.

If the road is in-sloped, the fill length and gradient are for any fill that is below the culvert outlet. In many

cases this is zero, so you would enter the minimum value, which is 1 ft.

If the culvert outlet is directly into a defined channel, then there is every likelihood that the channel has

running water during the runoff times of the year (severe storms and snowmelt), so the fill and the forest

lengths are effectively zero in terms of retaining sediment, so use the minimum value of 1 ft. for each.

The following table denotes the minimum and maximum entries that WR can receive. Record your field

data appropriately or be prepared to address these limitations back at the office.

Topographic limitations in the WEPP:Road interface

Variable Range of Values

Road Gradient 0.1 to 40 percent

Crowned, Insloped side ends at culvert

Insloped ends at culvert

Crowned, Outsloped

Crowned road

Outsloped

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/wepproaddoc.html


Page | 41

Road horizontal

length 1 to 300 m

Road horizontal

width 0.3 to 100 m

Fillslope slope 0.1 to 150 percent

Fillslope horizontal

length 0.3 to 100 m

Buffer gradient 0.1 to 100 percent

Buffer horizontal

length 0.3 to 300 m

For drier climates such as Colorado years to simulate should be at least 50. Research from CSU has shown

that WR is relatively insensitive to the length of the simulation, so you can save some processing time by

just using 50 years. Very few people use 200 years, and it is unlikely that there is any change after 100

years given the underlying the stochastic climate model used in WR (communication with Lee MacDonald

1/8/11).

Road rock content below 20% has relatively little effect on erosion rates, but after that an increase in rock

cover can significantly reduce the predicted erosion rates.

There is not much erosion data for the mainline dirt roads like Kebler Pass (Crested Butte), so WR may not

apply as well as to the "typical" logging road (for which the model was designed). A high traffic level

automatically makes the road rutted (in WR), but Kebler Pass road is not rutted because it is so compacted

and highly maintained. Nevertheless, the high traffic will still increase the surface erosion rate by

increasing the amount of fine sediment. Therefore in this scenario one would set the traffic level as high

and ignore the fact that the Kebler Pass road is not really rutted. This will result in a predicted erosion rate

that may be too high because there is not much rutting or rilling. However, if you assume a low traffic rate

the predicted erosion rate is probably much too low, and the preference would be to assume a high traffic

rate and accept the resulting overestimate or road surface erosion and delivery.

Ultimately the decision to run the model on each segment is determined by the overall goals and questions

involved in the project. While WEPP may indicate that a particular road segment is producing a large

volume of sediment, that segment may have no impact on local water resources due to it not being

connected to surface water or demobilized by vegetation or a change in slope.

The question of “connectivity” may be important to the modeler as well as the restoration practioner. Note:

If a segment is deemed ‘not connected’ than it may not need to be modeled and may not be worthwhile

(from a water quality perspective) to spend the time and money to treat. ‘Connected’ segments can be

modeled in WEPP to determine an estimate of how much sediment is being delivered to the stream (these

numbers can be used to prioritize restoration/sediment stabilization activities). Further analysis may

include field sediment capture work on those segments highlighted by WEPP modeling.

When using models such as WEPP, be transparent about the simplifications and uncertainties that abound.

Know your watershed! A few days of field recon and some GIS work can greatly enhance one’s

knowledge of sediment sources and sinks (e.g. hill-slope or channel driven?) Sediment budgets are

inherently subject to spatial and temporal variability and uncertainty, however, a strategic plan and good

measurements can provide useful, actionable information!


Page | 42

Procedure for Modeling of Slope Erosion5:

Cut and fill slopes can erode from surface erosion, or from mass failure, and there are no good tools to predict mass

failure sediment delivery. The simplest approach to cut slope modeling is to look at the cut-slopes, and if they are

vegetated, they are unlikely to contribute any significant sediment to the system. If they are bare and show evidence

of eroding either through surface erosion, or through mass failure, then there will be a large source of sediment in an

in-slope road ditch that is erodible. The sediment, however, has not reached any stream systems until the road runoff

entrains the sediment and transports it from the road. If there is readily available sediment, then it is generally

recommend that modelers increase the road width to include all of the bare part of the cut-slope. If the road is in-

sloped, the select the in-sloped bare ditch option. If out-sloped, the area of road and length of out-slope flow path

have increased with the increase in road width, increasing the delivery of sediment to the road edge.

A more challenging way to deal with cut-slopes is to use the Disturbed WEPP interface. Select the appropriate

vegetation on the fill slope: bare (skid trail); poor grass if it is sparse, good grass if it is lush, shrubs, or forest, and

predict the erosion rate from the cut slope. You can compare this value to the amount of sediment delivered from an

in-sloping road with a bare ditch to determine if the ditch is eroding more than the cut slope is replenishing the

material. If it is, then you can reduce the amount of delivered sediment as the ditch will likely be armored. It is more

likely that you will predict less ditch erosion than what was delivered from the cut slope, in which case, one would

expect to see the ditch as an area of deposition. It is quite common to see in-sloped road ditches with sediment

deposited both from the in-sloping road surface and the cut-slope, since the gradient of the ditch is relatively low so

the ditch flow is unable to transport all of the sediment that is delivered to it.

For the ultimate modeler, the Power User, WEPP Windows can be used to set up a scenario with an in-sloping road

and a cut slope, both delivering to an inside ditch. Such an approach will allow you to see how much sediment

comes from each of the three elements, the road surface, the cut slope, and the ditch. Vegetation can be varied on the

cut slope, and erodibility of the ditch can be varied.

Notes on Running and Utilizing Data from the WEPP:Disturbed Model

The % cover is the most important input into the model. Cover matters. Get cover on fill and cut slopes

and erosion potential declines significantly.

Disturbed WEPP may not be sensitive enough to predict the small amounts of erosion that do come down

off of cut slopes.

Disturbed WEPP likely underestimates erosion because it only considers precipitation and fails to look at

the effects of groundwater seepage, wind, ice, etc.

Procedure for Field Calculation of Slope Erosion:

Hillslope erosion can be modeled using “Disturbed:WEPP” but often underestimates erosion as it only integrates

precipitation events. Real word conditions have more than precipitation affect erosion (wind, sloughing,

groundwater seeps). To generate a more accurate estimate of erosion, field measurements are preferred. The factors

that affect erosion on a hillsope are % cover, precipitation and soil type.

1. Select the area of hill/cut slope that is the focus of the study. Visually determine how the cut slope is

eroding: rills, gullies, or the entire slope?

2. Install silt fences created from 4’ lengths of rebar and geotextile fabric to cordon the focus area. The fence

should be at least 1.5’ tall but may vary depending on the size of the source material. Rills and gullies may

be bracketed 2 meters outside of the feature or whatever area is representative of the eroding surface.

Smaller rills/gullies may require a smaller area to monitor. If the entire slope is a focus area, set a number

of the fences (dependent on the area of the cut slope) and use that as a percentage of the cut slope when

determining erosion for the entire area (i.e. if only 25% of the area is monitored with fences, multiple the

rate determined by the fences by 4 to obtain an estimate for the entire cut slope).

3. When the fences are full of material, at the pre-determined maintenance period or at the end of the study,

calculate the volume of the material and its weight.

5 This topic paraphrased and directly quoted from personal communication with WEPP interface designer Bill Elliot,

USFS, 3/15/12. Disturbed WEPP interface can be found at http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/


Page | 43

a) Remove sediment from each sit fence with 5 gallon bucket and count each bucket of material

removed.

b) Weigh 30% of the buckets filled with material and spread out on tarp.

c) Remove large rocks and boulders- anything larger than gravel.

d) Weigh the rocks and gravel.

e) Determine a volume for the remaining fines.

f) Take a small sample of the fines and generate a dry weight using an oven (larger rocks will be

assumed to have negligible water content). The mass of this dry soil divided by the volume of this

dry soil will be the soil bulk density expressed in grams per cubic meter or lbs per cubic inch.

g) Multiply the bulk density of the soil by the volume of the fines determined in ‘step e’ in order to

get the mass for the fines.

h) Combine this weight with the weight of the rocks to obtain a dry mass of 1 bucket of material.

i) Calculate the dry mass of all the material collected from the fence by averaging the dry mass of

sampled material calculated in ‘step h’ and then multiplying that by the total number of buckets of

material captured from ‘step a’.

4. Determine the erosion rate of the sampled area by presenting the dry mass of the material obtained above

with the time it took for the material to fill the fence prior to obtaining the weight (sample time). Example:

If the estimated dry weight of the material is 2000lbs and the sample time was 6 months, the estimated rate

of erosion would then be 4000lbs/yr.

5. If this rate represents only a percentage of the cut slope sampled (see step 2), multiply the dry mass by the

balance of the area (ie if only 25 % of the area was included in the study, multiply the dry mass by 4 to

obtain the entire area dry mass), and apply the rate.

Procedure for Calculating Sediment Mass Caught in Ditches by Silt Fences and/or Check Dams:

1. To calculate the mass of sediment in a ditch that has been trapped behind a silt fence, the cross sectional

area of the ditch and the total area of the ditch must be calculated along with the mass of the material

trapped by the fence.

2. Calculate the cross sectional area of the sediment in the culvert by dividing into two triangles:

a. Determine depth of material in ditch (h).

b. Measure the base of the triangle (b). Essentially, this is half the width of sediment impounded by

the fence.

c. Area of a triangle – 1/2bh.

d. Multiple area of the triangle by 2 for cross-sectional area of the ditch.

b

h

3. Calculate area of the ditch longitudinally, create a triangle that extends from the edge of the silt fence to the

edge of the impounded sediment:

length of impounded sediment (b)

(h) – same as the (h)

applied above

4. Multiply the cross sectional area of the ditch by the longitudinal area of the ditch to obtain the volume of

the ditch occupied with impounded sediment.

5. Obtain the mass of the material impounded by:


Page | 44

a. Remove sediment from the ditch with 5 gallon buckets and count each bucket of material

removed.

b. Weigh 30% of the buckets filled with material and spread out on tarp.

c. Remove large rocks and boulders- anything larger than gravel.

d. Weigh the rocks and gravel.

e. Determine a volume for the remaining fines.

f. Take a small sample of the fines and generate a dry weight using an oven (larger rocks will be

assumed to have negligible water content). The mass of this dry soil divided by the volume of this

dry soil will be the soil bulk density expressed in grams per cubic meter or lbs per cubic inch.

g. Multiply the bulk density of the soil by the volume of the fines determined in ‘step e’ in order to

get the mass for the fines.

h. Combine this weight with the weight of the rocks to obtain a dry mass of 1 bucket of material.

i. Calculate the dry mass of all the material collected from the fence by averaging the dry mass of

sampled material calculated in ‘step h’ and then multiplying that by the total number of buckets of

material captured from ‘step a’.

6. Combine the volume with the mass to obtain an estimate of the mass/volume of the material impounded by

the silt fence.

5.0 QA/QC

See SOP for Field Procedures. The CDPHE has EPA approved QA/QC protocols in place for sample analysis.

6.0 DOCUMENTATION

1. Field Maps (later digitized into a GIS shapefile if possible).

2. Field data sheets (later entered into an excel spreadsheet).

3. WEPP log file

7.0 GLOSSARY

Delivery: refers to the amount of sediment that makes it into the stream channel. Delivery is determined by

physically following the sediment trail from the source of the production to the receiving water body. Follow the

output culvert thru the buffer to find the sediment trail.

Gravel Road: a type of unpaved road surfaced with gravel that has been brought to the site from a quarry or stream

bed.

Gullies: eroded surfaces greater than 1foot square.

Native road surface: Dirt road is a common term for an unpaved road made from the native material of the land

surface through which it passes, known to highway engineers as subgrade material.

Rills: eroded surfaces less than 1foot square.

Road Segments: Based on hydrologically distinct units. Distance between water bars, culverts, changes in

topography that affect hydrology.

Sediment Production and Delivery are distinct. Sediment production refers to the generation of sediment via

erosional processes. Production is defined by direct measurement or modeling to produce a rate.

Sediment delivery rate= sediment yield/sediment productivity

Sediment Yield: amount of sediment /time passing thru a cross section

Sediment Production: amount of sediment eroding forma landscape (can be determined from modeling USLE).

Width (of road): Active = the area in which most driving or traffic occurs. Total = the dimensions of the road

from the cut slope to the hill slope.

Coal Creek Watershed 2011 Monitoring Report: Appendix C

Page | 45

Appendix C: Water Quality Evaluation Results

Abbreviations and Notes for Appendix C:

The segments and sample locations are presented from upstream to downstream throughout

this appendix.

mg/L: Milligrams per liter; equivalent to parts per million (ppm).

ug/L: Micrograms per liter; equivalent to parts per billion (ppb).

PQL: Practical Quantitation Limit; the lower limit of the laboratories detection capabilities for a

given constituent. This value is not fixed and can vary due to dilution of a sample (done to

accommodate constituent concentrations above the upper detection limit of a given

procedure).

MRL: Method Reporting Limit; the lower limit of the laboratories reporting threshold. This

value is typically 5 times the PQL; which assures the accuracy of a given result (i.e. provides a

margin above the minimum detection capability). Values that fall between the PQL and MRL

are reported as J- qualified or estimated values.

TVS: Table Value Standard; a hardness-dependent water quality criteria established in

Regulations 31 and 35 by the CDPHE- Water Quality Control Division.

J or J Qualifier: Estimated result; the measured concentration was above the PQL but below the

MRL which means the value is estimated. In general, the CDPHE- Water Quality Control

Division will not list segments as impaired based upon estimated concentrations (CDPHE-WQCD

Regulation 31).

D: Diluted sample; a sample that was diluted by laboratory staff to accommodate constituent

concentrations above the upper detection limit of a given procedure or analysis. The factor is

typically a ten-fold dilution. The reported result accounts for the dilution and in general the

data can be interpreted as normal.

U: Undetected; the constituent was not detected in the sample. For standards evaluations

undetected values are treated as zeros. However, the actual concentration is not zero; it is less

than the PQL (i.e. <5).


Page | 46

Segment COGUUG09: Coal Creek above Elk Creek and Splains Gulch

Total

Hardness

Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Dissolved Fe Total Fe Dissolved

Pb

Dissolved Mn Dissolved

Zn

mg/L ug/L ug/L ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l

2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG09 IR-00 8/18/2011 24.00 1.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 104.00 0.00 2.25 15.90

Chronic NA 0.02 0.1 2.6 300.0 1000.0 0.5 50.0 36.8

Acute 340.0 NA 0.5 3.5 NA NA 13.3 1856.1 42.5

Water Supply Trout Water Supply Water Supply Water Supply

J,D U U U U J U J J

NA No No No No No No No No

No NA No No NA NA No No NoAcute Exceedance

Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL

Aquatic Life: Cold Class 1 TVS Numeric

StandardsRecreation E

Water Supply Classification Notes:

Agriculture Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance

Total

Hardness

Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG09 IR-00 10/18/2011 27.00 1.83 0.00 0.00 3.17 116.00 222.00 0.00 13.90 0.00

Chronic NA 0.02 0.2 2.9 300.0 1000.0 0.6 50.0 40.7

Acute 340.0 NA 0.5 3.9 NA NA 15.1 1930.3 47.0


J,D U U J J U U

NA No No Yes No No No No No

No No No No NA NA No No NoAcute Exceedance

Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Chronic Exceedance

Total

Hardness

Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG09 COAL-25 2/16/2011 34.00 4.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 156.00 0.00 18.80 0.00

Chronic NA 0.02 0.2 3.6 300.0 1000.0 0.8 50.0 49.6

Acute 340.0 NA 0.7 4.9 NA NA 19.6 2084.4 57.1


U U U U J U U



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Chronic Exceedance

Total

Hardness

Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG09 COAL-25 4/20/2011 35.00 3.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 122.00 329.00 0.00 27.50 0.00

Chronic NA 0.02 0.2 3.7 300.0 1000.0 0.8 50.0 50.8

Acute 340.0 NA 0.7 5.0 NA NA 20.3 2104.6 58.6


U U U J U U



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Chronic Exceedance

Total

Hardness

Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG09 COAL-25 8/18/2011 27.00 6.64 7.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 162.00 0.00 11.50 0.00

Chronic NA 0.02 0.2 2.9 300.0 1000.0 0.6 50.0 40.7

Acute 340.0 NA 0.5 3.9 NA NA 15.1 1930.3 47.0


J,D U U U J U U

NA No, J Qualifier No No No No No No No


Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Chronic Exceedance


Page | 47

Segment COGUUG09 Continued

Total

Hardness

Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG09 COAL-25 10/18/2011 29.00 4.65 4.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 354.00 0.00 24.30 0.00

Chronic NA 0.02 0.2 3.1 300.0 1000.0 0.6 50.0 43.3

Acute 340.0 NA 0.6 4.2 NA NA 16.4 1976.8 49.9


J,D U U U U U



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Chronic Exceedance

Total

Hardness

Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG09 SP-00 8/18/2011 27.00 5.66 6.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 121.00 0.00 3.67 0.00

Chronic NA 0.02 0.2 2.9 300.0 1000.0 0.6 50.0 40.7

Acute 340.0 NA 0.5 3.9 NA NA 15.1 1930.3 47.0


J,D U U U J U J U



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Chronic Exceedance

Total

Hardness

Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG09 COAL-20 2/16/2011 35.00 3.26 3.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 182.00 0.00 8.21 0.00

Chronic NA 0.02 0.2 3.7 300.0 1000.0 0.8 50.0 50.8

Acute 340.0 NA 0.7 5.0 NA NA 20.3 2104.6 58.6


J,D U U U J U U



Lab Qualifiers:

Classification Notes:Water Supply

Agriculture

Chronic Exceedance



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL

Total

Hardness

Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG09 COAL-20 4/20/2011 34.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 312.00 0.00 14.20 0.00

Chronic NA 0.02 0.2 3.6 300.0 1000.0 0.8 50.0 49.6

Acute 340.0 NA 0.7 4.9 NA NA 19.6 2084.4 57.1


U U U U U U



TVS Numeric

Standards

Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance

Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL

Aquatic Life: Cold Class 1

Recreation E


Agriculture

Total

Hardness

Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG09 COAL-20 5/31/2011 19.00 2.04 3.53 0.00 2.41 0.00 448.00 0.00 10.00 16.30

Chronic NA 0.02 0.1 2.2 300.0 1000.0 0.4 50.0 30.2

Acute 340.0 NA 0.4 2.8 NA NA 10.2 1717.1 34.8


J,D U U U

NA No, J Qualifier No Yes No No No No No


Chronic Exceedance



Water Supply


Classification Notes:

Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL


Page | 48


Total

Hardness

Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG09 COAL-20 8/18/2011 27.00 5.92 8.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 128.00 0.00 2.84 0.00

Chronic NA 0.02 0.2 2.9 300.0 1000.0 0.6 50.0 40.7

Acute 340.0 NA 0.5 3.9 NA NA 15.1 1930.3 47.0


J,D U U U J U J U



Chronic Exceedance

Lab Qualifiers:

Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL

TVS Numeric

Standards

Agriculture

Recreation E

Water Supply



Total

Hardness

Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG09 COAL-20 10/18/2011 31.00 4.62 3.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 111.00 0.00 6.71 0.00

Chronic NA 0.02 0.2 3.3 300.0 1000.0 0.7 50.0 45.8

Acute 340.0 NA 0.6 4.5 NA NA 17.7 2021.2 52.8


J,D U U U J U U



Chronic Exceedance

Water Supply

Agriculture


Lab Qualifiers:

Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL




Page | 49

Segment COGUUG11

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG11 ELK-00 2/16/2011 73.00 1.32 0.00 1.38 4.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 326.00

Chronic NA 0.02 0.3 6.8 300.0 1000.0 1.8 50.0 95.1

Acute 340.0 NA 1.3 10.0 NA NA 45.8 2688.5 109.6


J U U U U

NA No Yes No No No No No Yes

No NA Yes No NA NA No No YesAcute Exceedance

Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG11 ELK-00 4/20/2011 62.00 1.16 0.00 1.28 2.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 315.00

Chronic NA 0.02 0.3 6.0 300.0 1000.0 1.5 50.0 82.7

Acute 340.0 NA 1.1 8.6 NA NA 38.2 2546.2 95.4


J U U U U



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG11 ELK-00 5/31/2011 29.00 1.26 0.00 1.07 3.30 0.00 193.00 1.40 12.10 258.00

Chronic NA 0.02 0.2 3.1 300.0 1000.0 0.6 50.0 43.3

Acute 340.0 NA 0.6 4.2 NA NA 16.4 1976.8 49.9


J U J U

NA No Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes


Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG11 ELK-00 8/18/2011 61.00 2.61 0.00 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.04 184.00

Chronic NA 0.02 0.3 5.9 300.0 1000.0 1.5 50.0 81.6

Acute 340.0 NA 1.1 8.4 NA NA 37.6 2532.4 94.1


U U U U J


No NA No No NA NA No No YesAcute Exceedance

Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG11 ELK-00 10/18/2011 68.00 1.84 0.00 1.03 2.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 217.00

Chronic NA 0.02 0.3 6.4 300.0 1000.0 1.6 50.0 89.5

Acute 340.0 NA 1.2 9.3 NA NA 42.3 2625.7 103.2


J U U U U



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Chronic Exceedance


Page | 50


Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved Cd Dissolved

Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG11 COAL-15 2/16/2011 41.00 3.04 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 121.00 0.00 6.75 52.40

Chronic NA 0.02 0.2 4.2 300.0 1000.0 0.9 50.0 58.1

Acute 340.0 NA 0.8 5.8 NA NA 24.2 2218.5 67.0


U U U J U

NA No Yes No No No No No No


Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As


Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG11 COAL-15 4/20/2011 39.00 2.71 3.56 0.24 0.00 0.00 266.00 0.00 11.80 61.90

Chronic NA 0.02 0.2 4.0 300.0 1000.0 0.9 50.0 55.7

Acute 340.0 NA 0.7 5.5 NA NA 22.9 2181.9 64.2


J,D U U U

NA No, J Qualifier Yes No No No No No Yes


Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As


Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG11 COAL-15 5/31/2011 21.00 1.79 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 344.00 0.16 9.33 58.40

Chronic NA 0.02 0.1 2.4 300.0 1000.0 0.4 50.0 32.9

Acute 340.0 NA 0.4 3.1 NA NA 11.4 1775.3 37.9


J U U U J



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As


Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG11 COAL-15 8/18/2011 37.00 4.71 4.46 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.38 52.40

Chronic NA 0.02 0.2 3.8 300.0 1000.0 0.8 50.0 53.3

Acute 340.0 NA 0.7 5.3 NA NA 21.6 2143.9 61.4


J,D J,D U U U U J

NA No, J Qualifier Yes No No No No No No


Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As


Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG11 COAL-15 10/18/2011 ** 3.53 ** ** ** 0.00 ** ** **

Chronic NA 0.02 NA NA 300.0 1000.0 NA 50.0 NA

Acute 340.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA


J,D U

NA No, J Qualifier NA NA NA No NA NA NA

No NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

**The dissolved sample was cracked during shipping, so analysis was not possible.

Acute Exceedance

Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Chronic Exceedance


Page | 51


Hardness Dissolved

As


Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG11 COAL-12 4/20/2011 40.00 2.13 2.85 0.18 0.00 0.00 229.00 0.00 15.20 51.30

Chronic NA 0.02 0.2 4.1 300.0 1000.0 0.9 50.0 56.9

Acute 340.0 NA 0.8 5.7 NA NA 23.5 2200.3 65.6


J,D J U U J U



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As


Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG11 COAL-12 5/31/2011 22.00 1.62 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 236.00 0.00 6.85 39.80

Chronic NA 0.02 0.1 2.5 300.0 1000.0 0.5 50.0 34.2

Acute 340.0 NA 0.5 3.2 NA NA 12.0 1803.0 39.4


J U J U U J U

NA No No, J Qualifier No No No No No Yes


Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As


Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG11 COAL-12 8/18/2011 43.00 3.31 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 124.00 0.00 30.70 43.80

Chronic NA 0.02 0.2 4.4 300.0 1000.0 1.0 50.0 60.5

Acute 340.0 NA 0.8 6.1 NA NA 25.5 2254.0 69.8


U U U J U

NA No Yes No No No No No No


Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As


Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG11 COAL-12 10/18/2011 43.00 2.61 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 108.00 0.00 38.00 41.60

Chronic NA 0.02 0.2 4.4 300.0 1000.0 1.0 50.0 60.5

Acute 340.0 NA 0.8 6.1 NA NA 25.5 2254.0 69.8


U J U U J U



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As


Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG11 BOG-00 2/16/2011 18.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.10 297.00

Chronic NA 0.02 0.1 2.1 300.0 1000.0 0.4 50.0 28.8

Acute 340.0 NA 0.4 2.7 NA NA 9.6 1686.5 33.2


U U U U U U



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Chronic Exceedance


Page | 52


Hardness Dissolved

As


Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG11 BOG-00 4/20/2011 12.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 112.00 0.00 19.20 163.00

Chronic NA 0.02 0.1 1.5 300.0 1000.0 0.2 50.0 20.4

Acute 340.0 NA 0.3 1.8 NA NA 6.0 1473.4 23.5


U U U U J U



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As


Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG11 BOG-00 5/31/2011 6.00 0.53 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.00 375.00 0.00 22.50 159.00

Chronic NA 0.02 0.1 0.8 300.0 1000.0 0.1 50.0 11.3

Acute 340.0 NA 0.1 0.9 NA NA 2.7 1169.6 13.0


J U U U U



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As


Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG11 BOG-00 8/18/2011 ** ** 0.00 ** ** ** 0.00 ** ** **

Chronic NA 0.02 NA NA 300.0 1000.0 NA 50.0 NA

Acute 340.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA


U U

NA No NA NA NA No NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

** The dissolved metal bottle broke during shipping and lab analysis was not possible.

Acute Exceedance

Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As


Cu


Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG11 BOG-00 10/18/2011 16.00 0.00 0.00 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.80 360.00

Chronic NA 0.02 0.1 NA 300.0 1000.0 0.3 50.0 26.1

Acute 340.0 NA 0.3 NA NA NA 8.4 NA 30.1


U U U U U U


No NA Yes NA NA NA No No YesAcute Exceedance

Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Chronic Exceedance


Page | 53

COGUUG12

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn

mg/L ug/L ug/L ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l

2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 COAL-10 2/16/2011 45.00 1.32 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 89.00 277.00

Chronic NA 7.60 0.2 4.5 1000.0 1.0 1264.3 62.9

Acute 340.0 NA 0.8 6.3 NA 26.8 2288.4 72.6

NA NA 2.3 NA NA NA NA 518.0

Trout

J U U U U

NA No No No No No No No

No NA NA No NA No No NA



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL


Agriculture

Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance

Acute Exceedance

Temporary Modification

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 COAL-10 8/18/2001 42.00 2.37 0.00 0.35 0.00 104.00 0.00 25.30 87.40

Chronic NA 7.60 0.2 4.3 1000.0 1.0 1264.3 62.9

Acute 340.0 NA 0.8 5.9 NA 24.8 2236.4 72.6


Trout

U U J U



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL

Recreation E



Lab Qualifiers:

TVS Numeric

Standards

Agriculture


Chronic Exceedance

Acute Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 COAL-10 10/18/2011 42.00 1.96 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.20 138.00

Chronic NA 7.60 0.2 4.3 1000.0 1.0 1264.3 62.9

Acute 340.0 NA 0.8 5.9 NA 24.8 2236.4 72.6


Trout

J U U U U




Recreation E



TVS Numeric

Standards

Agriculture

Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL

Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance

Acute Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 5/20 5/20 1/2 2/2 100/250 1/2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 KEY-00 2/16/2011 518.00 0.00 0.00 1.55 4.96 0.00 0.00 167.00 276.00

Chronic NA 7.60 1.5 36.5 1000.0 14.2 2853.1 505.2

Acute 340.0 NA 7.1 63.3 NA 365.3 5164.0 582.6


Trout

U U J,D U U


No NA NA No NA No No NAAcute Exceedance

Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL



Agriculture Temporary Modification


Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance


Page | 54

COGUUG12 Continued

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 KEY-00 4/20/2011 345.00 0.00 0.00 7.27 26.70 1120.00 0.91 734.00 1270.00

Chronic NA 7.60 1.1 25.8 1000.0 9.4 2491.9 357.2

Acute 340.0 NA 5.0 43.2 NA 241.2 4510.1 412.0


Trout

U U

NA No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes


Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 5/20 5/20 1/2 2/2 100/250 1/2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 KEY-00 5/31/2011 128.00 0.00 0.00 5.22 48.70 736.00 3.49 436.00 946.00

Chronic NA 7.60 0.5 11.1 1000.0 3.3 1791.0 153.4

Acute 340.0 NA 2.1 17.0 NA 84.4 3241.6 176.9


Trout

U U D

NA No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes

No NA NA Yes NA No No NAAcute Exceedance

Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 5/20 5/20 1/2 2/2 100/250 1/2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 KEY-00 8/18/2001 686.00 0.00 0.00 1.38 2.02 0.00 0.00 12.20 76.50

Chronic NA 7.60 1.8 46.4 1000.0 18.8 3133.0 641.9

Acute 340.0 NA 9.1 82.5 NA 483.6 5670.5 740.3


Trout

U U J,D U U



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 5/20 5/20 1/2 2/2 100/250 1/2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 KEY-00 10/18/2011 276.00 0.00 0.00 2.86 7.94 0.00 0.00 92.60 588.00

Chronic NA 7.60 0.9 21.3 1000.0 7.5 2313.4 295.4

Acute 340.0 NA 4.1 35.0 NA 191.2 4187.1 340.6


Trout

U U D U U

NA No Yes No No No No Yes


Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance


Page | 55

COGUUG12 Continued

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 2.5/10 2.5/10 0.5/1 2/2 100/250 0.5/1 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 KEY-01 4/20/2011 492.00 0.00 0.00 6.41 30.10 505.00 0.00 791.00 1150.00

Chronic NA 7.60 1.4 34.9 1000.0 13.5 2804.6 483.5

Acute 340.0 NA 6.8 60.3 NA 346.8 5076.2 557.6


Trout

U U D U

NA No Yes No No No No Yes


Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 5/20 5/20 1/2 2/2 100/250 1/2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 KEY-01 5/31/2011 387.00 0.00 0.00 9.93 69.40 705.00 0.00 1070.00 1610.00

Chronic NA 7.60 1.2 28.5 1000.0 10.6 2589.1 394.0

Acute 340.0 NA 5.5 48.1 NA 271.5 4686.1 454.4


Trout

U U D U

NA No Yes Yes No No No Yes


Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 5/20 5/20 1/2 2/2 100/250 1/2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 KEY-01 8/18/2001 735.00 0.00 0.00 1.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.60 54.40

Chronic NA 7.60 1.9 49.2 1000.0 20.2 3205.8 680.7

Acute 340.0 NA 9.6 88.0 NA 517.6 5802.3 785.1

NA 2.3 NA NA NA NA 518.0

Trout

U U J,D U U U



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 5/20 5/20 1/2 2/2 100/250 1/2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 KEY-01 10/18/2011 559.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.34 0.00 0.00 12.40 76.80

Chronic NA 7.60 1.5 39.0 1000.0 15.4 2926.4 539.1

Acute 340.0 NA 7.6 68.0 NA 394.4 5296.7 621.7


Trout

U U U U U



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance


Page | 56

COGUUG12 Continued

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 KEY-02 4/20/2011 30.00 0.00 0.00 8.24 24.40 1740.00 1.73 570.00 1470.00

Chronic NA 7.60 0.2 3.2 1000.0 0.7 1104.6 44.5

Acute 340.0 NA 0.6 4.3 NA 17.0 1999.3 51.4


Trout

U U

NA No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes


Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 5/20 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 KEY-02 5/31/2011 14.00 0.00 0.00 4.10 37.50 677.00 3.34 165.00 642.00

Chronic NA 7.60 0.1 1.7 1000.0 0.3 856.9 23.3

Acute 340.0 NA 0.3 2.1 NA 7.2 1551.0 26.8


Trout

U U



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 KEY-02 8/18/2001 35.00 0.00 0.00 2.14 9.46 0.00 0.19 96.10 443.00

Chronic NA 7.60 0.2 3.7 1000.0 0.8 1162.8 50.8

Acute 340.0 NA 0.7 5.0 NA 20.3 2104.6 58.6

NA 2.3 NA NA NA NA 518.0

Trout

U U U

NA No No Yes No No No No


Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 5/20 1/2 2/2 100/250 1/2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 KEY-02 10/18/2011 47.00 0.00 0.00 4.42 12.50 0.00 0.00 189.00 1070.00

Chronic NA 7.60 0.2 4.7 1000.0 1.1 1282.8 65.3

Acute 340.0 NA 0.9 6.6 NA 28.1 2321.8 75.3


Trout

U U U U



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance


Page | 57

COGUUG12 Continued

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 COAL-06 2/16/2011 260.00 0.77 0.00 1.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 105.00 274.00

Chronic NA 7.60 0.9 20.3 1000.0 7.0 2267.8 280.7

Acute 340.0 NA 3.9 33.1 NA 179.6 4104.6 323.7


Trout

J U U U U



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 COAL-06 4/20/2011 57.00 2.00 3.84 5.21 14.50 886.00 7.62 389.00 1220.00

Chronic NA 7.60 0.3 5.5 1000.0 1.4 1367.9 77.0

Acute 340.0 NA 1.0 7.9 NA 34.8 2475.9 88.8


Trout

J,D



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 COAL-06 5/31/2011 23.00 1.27 0.00 2.64 5.28 341.00 0.52 82.20 435.00

Chronic NA 7.60 0.1 2.6 1000.0 0.5 1011.0 35.5

Acute 340.0 NA 0.5 3.4 NA 12.6 1829.9 41.0


Trout

U

NA No Yes Yes No Yes No No


Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 5/20 5/20 1/2 2/2 100/250 1/2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 COAL-06 8/18/2001 272.00 0.00 0.00 1.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.30 83.90

Chronic NA 7.60 0.9 21.1 1000.0 7.3 2302.1 291.7

Acute 340.0 NA 4.1 34.5 NA 188.3 4166.8 336.4


Trout

U U U U



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance


Page | 58

COGUUG12 Continued

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 5/20 2.5/10 1/2 2/2 100/250 1/2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 COAL-06 10/18/2011 ** ** 0.00 ** ** 0.00 ** ** **

Chronic NA 7.60 NA NA 1000.0 NA NA NA

Acute 340.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA


Trout

U U

NA No No NA No NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

** The dissolved metal sample bottle was cracked during shipping and lab analysis was not possible.

Acute Exceedance

Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 COAL-02 5/31/2011 26.00 0.90 0.00 1.75 4.16 0.00 0.28 59.30 313.00

Chronic NA 7.60 0.2 2.8 1000.0 0.6 1053.2 39.4

Acute 340.0 NA 0.5 3.8 NA 14.5 1906.2 45.5


Trout

J U U


No NA NA Yes NA No No NA



Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance

Acute Exceedance

Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL



Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 COAL-02 8/18/2001 139.00 1.03 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.00 97.50

Chronic NA 7.60 0.5 11.9 1000.0 3.6 1840.8 164.6

Acute 340.0 NA 2.3 18.3 NA 92.3 3331.8 189.8


Trout

J U U U U





Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance

Acute Exceedance

Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL



Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2.0 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 COAL-02 10/18/2011 56.00 1.17 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.60 82.40

Chronic NA 7.60 0.3 5.5 1000.0 1.3 1359.9 75.8

Acute 340.0 NA 1.0 7.8 NA 34.2 2461.3 87.4


Trout

J U U U U





Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance

Acute Exceedance

Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL




Page | 59

COGUUG12 Continued

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 COAL-00 2/16/2011 67.00 0.88 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.30 150.00

Chronic NA 7.60 0.3 6.4 1000.0 1.6 1443.6 88.3

Acute 340.0 NA 1.2 9.2 NA 41.6 2612.8 101.9


Trout

J U U U U



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 COAL-00 4/20/2011 51.00 0.58 0.00 3.03 5.65 373.00 0.17 231.00 704.00

Chronic NA 7.60 0.3 5.0 1000.0 1.2 1318.2 70.0

Acute 340.0 NA 0.9 7.1 NA 30.8 2385.8 80.7


Trout

J U J



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 COAL-00 5/31/2011 25.00 0.93 0.00 1.82 5.00 454.00 0.33 65.50 331.00

Chronic NA 7.60 0.1 2.7 1000.0 0.5 1039.5 38.1

Acute 340.0 NA 0.5 3.6 NA 13.9 1881.5 44.0


Trout

J U



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance


Page | 60

COGUUG12 Continued

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 COAL-00 8/18/2001 55.00 1.44 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.41 51.70

Chronic NA 7.60 0.3 5.4 1000.0 1.3 1351.7 74.7

Acute 340.0 NA 1.0 7.7 NA 33.5 2446.6 86.1


Trout

J U U U U



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance

Hardness Dissolved

As

Total As Dissolved

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total Fe Dissolved

Pb


Zn


2/2 0.5/2 2.5/10 0.1/0.2 2/2 100/250 0.1/0.2 2/5 10/20

COGUUG12 COAL-00 10/18/2011 59.00 1.08 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.50 70.30

Chronic NA 7.60 0.3 5.7 1000.0 1.4 1383.7 79.3

Acute 340.0 NA 1.1 8.2 NA 36.2 2504.5 91.4


Trout

J U U U U



Regulatory

Segment

Sample

LocationSample Date

PQL/MRL





Lab Qualifiers:

Chronic Exceedance

Coal Creek Watershed 2011 Monitoring Report: Appendix D

Page | 61

Appendix D: Selected Tables from the Draft TMDL for Segments in the Coal Creek Watershed

Notes:

These tables were originally presented in the draft TMDL for Segments COGUUG11 and COGUUG 12 (CDPHE-

WQCD, 2011). The complete report is available at:

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheadername1=Content-

Disposition&blobheadername2=Content-

Type&blobheadervalue1=inline%3B+filename%3D%22Coal+Creek+Public+Notice+Draft.pdf%22&blobheaderv

alue2=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1251807349451&ssbinary=true

The TMDL will be finalized at some point, which may affect the discussion presented in this report and

appendix. Changes are most likely to occur on Segment COGUUG12.

The tables presented below include the Page and Table number from the draft TMDL. References in the text

of this report use Appendix D: Table X.

Page 34- Table 19: Summary of ambient water quality by month at the Mouth of Elk Creek (ELK-00) a portion of COGUUG11: The sample size is 17.

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadername2=Content-Type&blobheadervalue1=inline%3B+filename%3D%22Coal+Creek+Public+Notice+Draft.pdf%22&blobheadervalue2=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1251807349451&ssbinary=true





Page | 62

Page 48- Table 29: Summary of ambient water quality and TMDL by season at the Coal Creek above the water supply diversion (COAL-11) on COGUUG11: The sample size is not provided.

Page 50- Table 31: TMDL and cadmium concentrations by season at Coal Creek below the water supply diversion and WWTP (COAL-06) on segment COGUUG12: The sample size is not provided.


Page | 63

Page 50- Table 32: TMDL and zinc concentrations by season at Coal Creek below the water supply diversion and WWTP (COAL-06) on segment COGUUG12: The sample size is not provided.

Coal Creek Watershed 2011 Monitoring Report: Appendix E

Page | 64

Appendix E: Water Quality and Pollutant Loading Data from the Mount Emmons Iron Fen and Gossan Study Area

FlowDissolved

As

Total

As

Dissolved

Cd

Total

Cd

Dissolved

CuTotal Cu

Dissolved

Fe

Total

Fe

Dissolved

Mn

Total

Mn

Dissolved

Pb

Total

Pb

Dissolved

Zn

Total

Zn

(cfs)

COAL-12 NM 1.66 <2.50 0.185 <0.500 2 3.06 <100 167 6.62 14.9 <0.500 3.92 36.1 38.2

BOG-00 0.77 <0.500 <2.50 0.762 0.837 <2.00 2.91 <100 <100 29.3 31.6 <0.500 1.56 186 179

FD-00 0.13 <0.500 <2.50 8.62 8.52 2.19 2.98 824 1040 323 329 <0.500 3.41 1790 1730

FD-01 0.35 <0.500 <2.50 13.4 12.7 2.89 4.82 729 4060 467 470 0.629 4.41 2830 2690

FEN-OUTFLOW 0.54 <0.500 <2.50 24 23.4 4.91 6.08 1810 2020 801 801 1.15 4.54 5130 4900

GOSSAN-01 0.17 0.606 <2.50 175 176 83.5 85.5 319 3860 2180 2190 61.2 72 18700 17500

GOSSAN-02 0.09 <0.500 <2.50 <0.100 <0.500 <2.00 3.94 <100 264 7.62 73.1 <0.500 5.52 63.4 67.4

GOSSAN-00 0.37 0.628 <2.50 112 109 73.1 74.6 332 418 2560 2560 16.1 19.2 16200 15300

GOSSAN-00W 0.19 0.624 <2.50 72.1 67.8 21.1 21.5 380 588 1330 1320 14 16.8 11600 11000

COAL-11 NM 1.66 <2.50 0.441 0.521 <2.00 3.26 <100 220 14.3 24.6 <0.500 3.48 78 80.6

FlowDissolved

As

Total

As

Dissolved

Cd

Total

Cd

Dissolved

CuTotal Cu

Dissolved

Fe

Total

Fe

Dissolved

Mn

Total

Mn

Dissolved

Pb

Total

Pb

Dissolved

Zn

Total

Zn

(cfs)

BOG-00 0.77 NA NA 0.003 0.003 NA 0.012 NA NA 0.122 0.131 NA 0.006 0.773 0.743

FD-00 0.13 NA NA 0.006 0.006 0.002 0.002 0.578 0.729 0.226 0.231 NA 0.002 1.255 1.213

FD-01 0.35 NA NA 0.025 0.024 0.005 0.009 1.375 7.657 0.881 0.886 0.001 0.008 5.337 5.073

FEN-OUTFLOW 0.54 NA NA 0.070 0.068 0.014 0.018 5.282 5.895 2.337 2.337 0.003 0.013 14.970 14.299

GOSSAN-01 0.17 0.001 NA 0.165 0.166 0.079 0.081 0.301 3.642 2.057 2.066 0.058 0.068 17.644 16.512

GOSSAN-02 0.09 NA NA NA NA NA 0.002 NA 0.131 0.004 0.036 NA 0.003 0.031 0.033

GOSSAN-00 0.37 0.001 NA 0.222 0.216 0.145 0.148 0.657 0.827 5.066 5.066 0.032 0.038 32.061 30.280

GOSSAN-00W 0.19 0.001 NA 0.073 0.068 0.021 0.022 0.384 0.594 1.343 1.333 0.014 0.017 11.713 11.107

Notes

1. NM= not measured. Where flow was not measured, loads cannot be calculated.

2. NA= not applicable.

Monitoring

Locationlbs/day

Metal Concentrations in ug/L from the Coal Creek Watershed on July 1, 2011

Monitoring

Location(ug/L)

Metal Loads in lbs/day from the Coal Creek Watershed on July 1, 2011


Page | 65

FlowDissolved

As

Total

As

Dissolved

Cd

Total

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total

Cu

Dissolved

Fe

Total

Fe

Dissolved

Mn

Total

Mn

Dissolved

Pb

Total

Pb

Dissolved

Zn

Total

Zn

(cfs)

BOG-WT 0.0028 <0.500 <2.50 0.163<0.500 1.36 <2.00 <100 <100 15.2 19.8 <0.100<0.500 108 107

BOG-00 NM <0.500 <2.50 0.327 0.55 0.627 4.84 <100 <100 8.61 14.5 <0.100<0.500 121 129

FD-01 NM <0.500 <2.50 6.88 6.45 3.24 4.11 8900 11700 832 834 0.555 0.896 2480 2350

BOG-OPP-4 NM <0.500 <2.50 4.48 4.32 2.79 4.28 1020 3530 740 753 1.17 1.72 1650 1610

BOG-OPP-5 NM <0.500 <2.50 2.64 2.35 12.2 3.53 3210 3380 591 599 1.17 1.14 985 981

FEN-INFLOW NM <0.500 <2.50 22.4 21 3.71 3.68 4950 5120 1120 1130 3.01 2.81 8630 8610

FEN SPRING #1 NM <0.500 <2.50 38.1 35.2 0.861 2.66 11900 11300 1340 1310 <0.100<0.500 9440 9030

FEN SPRING #3 NM <0.500 <2.50 50.1 49.1 0.909 2.75 11600 11600 1360 1360 <0.100<0.500 9250 9080

FEN SPRING #2 NM <0.500 <2.50 18.2 18.1 3.57 7.48 8140 10200 1450 1480 1.6 2.16 3250 3240

FEN-OUTFLOW NM <0.500 <2.50 12.8 11.9 2.16 3.52 1910 2100 1150 1170 1.12 1.27 4350 4250

WELL 1 NA 0.957 7.74 <0.100 1.53 94.4 439 24900 31100 194 233 0.82 71.4 25.9 200

WELL 2 NA 3.57 9.01 <0.100 1.42 54.8 195 40400 43600 229 248 1.12 18.1 <10.0 226

WELL 2.5 NA 11.7 17.2 0.273 1.45 5.66 16 17400 30900 83.4 97.9 13.4 36.8 206 246

WELL 3 NA <0.500 2.85 <0.100 1.34 18.4 1160 1680 3030 302 313 0.166 3.68 <10.0 483

WELL 4 NA <0.500 <2.50 2.07 13.7 20.6 2040 8490 18600 787 787 0.353 14 2440 3940

WELL 5 NA <0.500 <2.50 33.7 26.2 421 782 9240 12300 1300 1320 0.582 1.23 9240 9290

WELL 6 NA <0.500 <2.50 8.18 34.5 213 3990 18300 26400 1270 1280 1.39 12.6 2080 5370

WELL 7 NA <0.500 <2.50 15 13.8 7.6 9.35 <100 827 876 895 0.704 1.29 4820 4730

FlowDissolved

As

Total

As

Dissolved

Cd

Total

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total

Cu

Dissolved

Fe

Total

Fe

Dissolved

Mn

Total

Mn

Dissolved

Pb

Total

Pb

Dissolved

Zn

Total

Zn

(cfs)

BOG-WT 0.0028 NA NA 0.000 NA 0.000 NA NA NA 0.000 0.000 NA NA 0.002 0.002

Notes



Monitoring

Locationlbs/day

Metal Concentrations in ug/L from the Coal Creek Watershed on August 7, 2011

Monitoring

Location(ug/L)

Metal Loads in lbs/day from the Coal Creek Watershed on August 7, 2011


Page | 66

FlowDissolved

As

Total

As

Dissolved

Cd

Total

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total

Cu

Dissolved

Fe

Total

Fe

Dissolved

Mn

Total

MnDissolved Pb Total Pb

Dissolved

Zn

Total

Zn

(cfs)

BOG-WT NM <0.500 <2.50 0.324 <0.500 <2.00 <2.00 <100 <100 35.4 40.7 <0.100 <0.500 203 191

FEN-INFLOW NM <0.500 <2.50 18.6 18.3 2.58 2.16 4100 4080 1040 1030 0.794 0.907 7410 7020

FEN SPRING #1 NM <0.500 <2.50 36.9 35.6 2.03 16.7 12200 11800 1320 1300 <0.100 <0.500 9550 9030

FEN SPRING #3 NM <0.500 <2.50 51 55.2 <2.00 <2.00 11900 11500 1360 1360 <0.100 <0.500 9700 9320

FEN SPRING #2 NM <0.500 <2.50 17.6 17.4 4.23 4.7 8220 9140 1480 1490 1.39 1.76 3350 3220

FD-01 NM <0.500 <2.50 7.38 9.19 <2.00 2.5 6930 7180 881 1040 0.219 0.781 2470 2920

FD-00 NM <0.500 <2.50 2.48 2.63 <2.00 2.4 2540 3010 349 351 <0.100 <0.500 900 866

CULVERT #1 NM <0.500 <2.50 9.22 8.88 2.23 2.75 1420 1470 1030 1040 0.706 0.886 2920 2800

GOSSAN-00 NM 0.539 <2.50 196 186 65.9 69.2 184 240 2940 2940 31.1 33.6 20100 19300

WELL 1 NA 2.12 5 <0.100 <0.500 90 709 11400 12100 246 269 0.775 27.4 13.6 64.2

WELL 2 NA 0.818 4.95 <0.100 4.02 2.7 301 6160 11800 106 255 0.388 23.5 13.2 896

WELL 2.5 NA 15.9 20.2 <1.00 5.19 4.32 21.3 8550 14100 74.6 105 1.39 76.2 21.2 695

WELL 3 NA <0.500 <2.50 <0.100 2.99 29 3670 999 5120 361 378 0.118 10.2 343 1210

WELL 4 NA <0.500 <2.50 33.8 35.8 7.28 11.1 10400 14900 1290 1290 0.249 0.641 9370 8930

WELL 5 NA <0.500 <2.50 80.6 273 765 1410 9930 42800 1300 1310 1.05 17 9300 16700

WELL 6 NA <0.500 <2.50 0.222 19.4 3.12 129 30000 37900 1110 1160 <0.100 7.02 2060 3770

WELL 7 NA <0.500 <2.50 11.7 11.2 6.06 11.3 103 3730 942 946 0.252 3.18 4520 4370

Notes



Metal Concentrations in ug/L from the Coal Creek Watershed on October 20, 2011

Monitoring

Location(ug/L)

Coal Creek Watershed 2011 Monitoring Report: Appendix F

Page | 67

Appendix F: Water Quality and Pollutant Loading Data from the Coal Creek Watershed

FlowDissolved

As

Total

As

Dissolved

Cd

Total

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total

Cu

Dissolved

Fe

Total

Fe

Dissolved

Mn

Total

Mn

Dissolved

Pb

Total

Pb

Dissolved

Zn

Total

Zn

(cfs)

COAL-25 NM 4.02 <2.50 <0.100 <0.500 <2.00 <2.00 <100 156 18.8 22.9 <0.100 <0.500 <10.0 <10.0

COAL-20 NM 3.26 3.19 <0.100 <0.500 <2.00 <2.00 <100 182 8.21 19.7 <0.100 <0.500 <10.0 <10.0

ELK-00 0.5 1.32 <2.50 1.38 1.36 4.06 2.45 <100 <100 <2.00 <2.00 <0.100 <0.500 326 304

COAL-15 NM 3.04 <2.50 0.22 <0.500 <2.00 <2.00 <100 121 6.75 9.89 <0.100 <0.500 52.4 48.3

BOG-00 NM1 <0.500 <2.50 0.613 0.732 <2.00 2.12 <100 <100 16.1 16.2 <0.100 <0.500 297 275

KEY-00 NM <5.00 <5.00 1.55 1.83 4.96 9.19 <100 <100 167 218 <1.00 <1.00 276 281

COAL-10 NM 1.32 <2.50 0.825 0.924 <2.00 <2.00 <100 <100 89 89.6 <0.100 <0.500 277 263

COAL-06 NM 0.765 <2.50 1.07 1.37 <2.00 4.79 <100 <100 105 125 <0.100 0.52 274 271

COAL-01 NM 0.882 <2.50 0.385 0.537 <2.00 <2.00 <100 <100 25.3 26.8 <0.100 0.637 150 144

FlowDissolved

As

Total

As

Dissolved

Cd

Total

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total

Cu

Dissolved

Fe

Total

Fe

Dissolved

Mn

Total

Mn

Dissolved

Pb

Total

Pb

Dissolved

Zn

Total

Zn

(cfs)

ELK-00 0.5 0.004 NA2 0.004 0.004 0.011 0.007 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.879 0.820

Notes

1. NM= not measured. In February snow and ice cover prevented flow measurements.


Metal Concentrations in ug/L from the Coal Creek Watershed on February 16, 2011

Metal Loads in lbs/day from the Coal Creek Watershed on February 16, 2011

lbs/day

(ug/L)

Monitoring

Location

Monitoring

Location


Page | 68

FlowDissolved

As

Total

As

Dissolved

Cd

Total

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total

Cu

Dissolved

FeTotal Fe

Dissolved

Mn

Total

Mn

Dissolved

PbTotal Pb

Dissolved

Zn

Total

Zn

(cfs)

COAL-25 0.25 3.45 <2.50 <0.100<0.500 <2.00 2.06 122 329 27.5 37.2 <0.100 <0.500 <10.0 <10.0

COAL-20 4.64 3 <2.50 <0.100<0.500 <2.00 <2.00 <100 312 14.2 25.4 <0.100 <0.500 <10.0 11.8

ELK-00 NM 1.16 <2.50 1.28 1.16 2.68 3.04 <100 <100 <2.00 2.44 <0.100 <0.500 315 289

COAL-15 8.46 2.71 3.56 0.237<0.500 <2.00 2.64 <100 266 11.8 23.2 <0.100 <0.500 61.9 59.4

COAL-12 9.95 2.13 2.85 0.181<0.500 <2.00 <2.00 <100 229 15.2 21.9 <0.100 <0.500 51.3 48.5

BOG-00 NM <0.500 <2.50 0.421<0.500 <2.00 2.84 <100 112 19.2 21.3 <0.100 <0.500 163 156

COAL-11 11.43 1.05 <2.50 3.48 3.79 3 4.63 <100 210 189 193 <0.100 0.734 754 723

KEY-00 4.27 <0.500 <2.50 7.27 7.94 26.7 60.7 <100 1120 734 802 0.913 20.6 1270 1280

KEY-01 NM <2.50 <2.50 6.41 6.65 30.1 47.6 <100 505 791 808 <0.500 3.55 1150 1110

KEY-02 NM <0.500 <2.50 8.24 8.42 24.4 68.8 <100 1740 570 661 1.73 50.5 1470 1460

COAL-10 12.64 0.822 <2.50 4.48 4.43 11.9 5.88 <100 194 285 293 <0.100 0.756 1090 1060

COAL-06 15.90 2 3.84 5.21 5.36 14.5 18.1 203 886 389 395 7.62 27.2 1220 1130

COAL-01 NM 0.53 <2.50 3.61 3.63 6.74 12.7 <100 371 307 303 0.152 2.46 821 795

COAL-00 25.39 0.575 <2.50 3.03 3.27 5.65 10.1 <100 373 231 243 0.166 2.17 704 709

FlowDissolved

As

Total

As

Dissolved

Cd

Total

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total

Cu

Dissolved

FeTotal Fe

Dissolved

Mn

Total

Mn

Dissolved

PbTotal Pb

Dissolved

Zn

Total

Zn

(cfs)

COAL-25 0.25 0.00 NA NA NA NA 0.00 0.16 0.44 0.04 0.05 NA NA NA NA

COAL-20 4.64 0.08 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7.81 0.36 0.64 NA NA NA 0.30

COAL-15 8.46 0.12 0.13 0.01 NA NA NA NA 10.45 0.69 1.00 NA NA 2.34 2.21

COAL-12 9.95 0.11 0.15 0.01 NA NA NA NA 12.29 0.82 1.18 NA NA 2.75 2.60

COAL-11 11.43 0.06 NA 0.21 0.23 0.18 0.29 NA 12.95 11.65 11.90 NA 0.05 46.49 44.57

KEY-00 4.27 NA NA 0.17 0.18 0.61 1.40 NA 25.80 16.91 18.47 0.02 0.47 29.25 29.48

COAL-10 12.64 0.06 NA 0.31 0.30 0.81 0.40 NA 13.23 19.43 19.98 NA 0.05 74.31 72.27

COAL-06 15.90 0.17 0.33 0.45 0.46 1.24 1.55 17.41 75.98 33.36 33.88 0.65 2.33 104.63 96.91

COAL-00 25.39 0.08 NA 0.41 0.45 0.77 1.38 NA 51.08 31.64 33.28 0.02 0.30 96.41 97.10

Notes



Metal Loads in lbs/day from the Coal Creek Watershed on April 20, 2011

Monitoring

Locationlbs/day

Metal Concentrations in ug/L from the Coal Creek Watershed on April 20, 2011

Monitoring

Location(ug/L)


Page | 69

FlowDissolved

As

Total

As

Dissolved

Cd

Total

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total

Cu

Dissolved

Fe

Total

Fe

Dissolved

Mn

Total

Mn

Dissolved

Pb

Total

Pb

Dissolved

Zn

Total

Zn

(cfs)

COAL-20 NM 2.04 3.53 <0.100 <2.50 2.41 <2.00 <100 448 10 36.3 <0.100 <1.50 16.3 12

ELK-00 NM 1.26 <5.00 1.07 <5.00 3.3 4.44 <100 193 12.1 31.9 1.4 4.93 258 256

COAL-15 NM 1.79 <2.50 0.248 <2.50 <2.00 2.14 <100 344 9.33 31 0.164 <1.50 58.4 63.3

COAL-12 NM 1.62 <2.50 0.137 <2.50 <2.00 <2.00 <100 236 6.85 21.2 <0.100 <1.50 39.8 45.9

BOG-00 NM 0.529 <2.50 0.759 <2.50 <2.00 2.51 <100 375 22.5 31.9 <0.100 2.91 159 181

BOG-OPP-1 NM <0.500 <2.50 14.3 14.5 <2.00 2.37 244 412 322 323 0.298 <1.50 2200 2130

BOG-OPP-2 NM 0.669 <2.50 16.8 17.5 2.01 3.36 450 1130 342 346 0.535 <1.50 2530 2480

BOG-OPP-3 NM <0.500 <2.50 26.1 28.4 3.23 4.8 587 1380 560 566 0.97 2.49 4210 4090

CULVERT #1 NM <0.500 <2.50 18.4 18.2 2.4 3.53 412 1330 390 397 0.599 3.04 2830 2730

CULVERT#2 NM <0.500 <2.50 7.38 7.76 5.85 5.83 <100 <100 986 980 <0.100 <1.50 2130 2050

CULVERT#3 NM 0.664 <2.50 0.594 <2.50 <2.00 <2.00 <100 318 25.7 36.8 <0.100 <1.50 164 159

CULVERT#5 NM 0.549 <2.50 109 113 53.9 54.8 203 743 1810 1840 13.7 14.4 13500 13200

COAL-11 NM 1.59 <2.50 2.69 2.85 <2.00 4.28 <100 297 65.3 83 0.206 <1.50 433 448

KEY-01 3.37 <5.00 <5.00 9.93 9.66 69.4 82.2 <100 705 1070 1070 <1.00 4.33 1610 1560

KEY-02 NM <0.500 <5.00 4.1 <5.00 37.5 68.7 <100 677 165 196 3.34 25.1 642 641

KEY-00 3.35 <5.00 <5.00 5.22 5.51 48.7 76.7 132 736 436 459 3.49 19.7 946 937

KEY DITCH NM <5.00 <5.00 3.78 <5.00 9.12 9.69 <100 <100 581 583 <1.00 <3.00 1300 1270

KEY-OPP NM <0.500 <5.00 0.203 <5.00 <2.00 3.1 <100 239 37.1 50 <0.100 <3.00 157 157

COAL-10 NM 1.58 <2.50 2.44 2.5 <2.00 3.26 <100 302 67.8 86.2 0.173 1.56 407 417

COAL-06 NM 1.27 <2.50 2.64 2.83 5.28 7.91 <100 341 82.2 100 0.517 2.5 435 428

COAL-02 NM 0.896 <2.50 1.75 <2.50 4.16 6.85 <100 438 59.3 95.3 0.284 2.45 313 327

COAL-01 NM 0.896 <2.50 1.77 <2.50 4.3 6.62 <100 424 62.7 87 0.272 2.05 326 338

COAL-00 NM 0.929 <2.50 1.82 <2.50 5 7.56 <100 454 65.5 97.9 0.33 2.28 331 362

FlowDissolved

As

Total

As

Dissolved

Cd

Total

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total

Cu

Dissolved

Fe

Total

Fe

Dissolved

Mn

Total

Mn

Dissolved

Pb

Total

Pb

Dissolved

Zn

Total

Zn

(cfs)

KEY-01 3.37 NA NA 0.180 0.176 1.261 1.494 NA 12.81 19.450 19.4 NA 0.079 29.265 28.36

KEY-00 3.35 NA NA 0.094 0.100 0.880 1.386 2.385 13.3 7.878 8.29 0.063 0.356 17.094 16.93

Notes



Metal Loads in lbs/day from the Coal Creek Watershed on May 31, 2011

Monitoring

Locationlbs/day

Metal Concentrations in ug/L from the Coal Creek Watershed on May 31, 2011

Monitoring

Location(ug/L)


Page | 70

FlowDissolved

As

Total

As

Dissolved

Cd

Total

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total

Cu

Dissolved

Fe

Total

Fe

Dissolved

Mn

Total

Mn

Dissolved

Pb

Total

Pb

Dissolved

Zn

Total

Zn

(cfs)

IR-00 2.193 1.09 <2.50 <0.100<0.500 <2.00 <2.00 <100 104 2.25 10.1 <0.100 <0.500 15.9 13.3

COAL-25 2.304 6.64 7.71 <0.100<0.500 <2.00 <2.00 <100 162 11.5 16.2 <0.100 <0.500 <10.0 <10.0

SP-00 3.059 5.66 6.51 <0.100<0.500 <2.00 <2.00 <100 121 3.67 7.82 <0.100 <0.500 <10.0 <10.0

COAL-20 2.939 5.92 8.04 <0.100<0.500 <2.00 <2.00 <100 128 2.84 6.06 <0.100 <0.500 <10.0 <10.0

ELK-00 1.294 2.61 <2.50 0.936 1.1 <2.00 3.34 <100 <100 2.04 2.99 <0.100 0.568 184 169

COAL-15 5.033 4.71 4.46 0.263<0.500 <2.00 <2.00 <100 <100 2.38 5.01 <0.100 <0.500 52.4 49.4

COAL-12 6.564 3.31 <2.50 0.232<0.500 <2.00 <2.00 <100 124 30.7 32.8 <0.100 0.532 43.8 36.5

BOG-00 0.0036 NM <2.50 NM 0.65 NM <2.00 NM <100 NM 11 NM <0.500 NM 142

COAL-11 NM 2.7 <2.50 0.359 0.61 <2.00 2.07 <100 <100 36.2 39.1 <0.100 <0.500 89.5 86.4

KEY-01 0.52 <5.00 <5.00 1.63 1.32 <2.00 6.61 <100 <100 14.6 26 <1.00 <1.00 54.4 59.8

KEY-02 0.09 <0.500 <2.50 2.14 2.52 9.46 10.6 <100 <100 96.1 97.1 0.186 1 443 416

KEY-00 0.61 <5.00 <5.00 1.38 2.04 2.02 6.51 <100 <100 12.2 25 <1.00 1.99 76.5 77.3

COAL-10 5.84 2.37 <2.50 0.347<0.500 <2.00 <2.00 <100 104 25.3 26.7 <0.100 0.539 87.4 81

COAL-06 NM <5.00 <5.00 1.34 1.61 <2.00 2.96 <100 <100 20.3 28.6 <1.00 1.52 83.9 90.8

COAL-02 6.85 1.03 <2.50 0.542 0.63 <2.00 2.08 <100 <100 12 21.5 <0.100 <0.500 97.5 95.8

COAL-01 4.34 1.34 <2.50 0.196 0.51 <2.00 3.4 <100 <100 7.61 15.1 <0.100 <0.500 53.8 54

COAL-00 3.3 1.44 <2.50 0.289<0.500 <2.00 5.71 <100 <100 5.41 17.1 <0.100 0.561 51.7 59.1

Metal Concentrations in ug/L from the Coal Creek Watershed on August 18, 2011

Monitoring

Location(ug/L)


Page | 71

FlowDissolved

As

Total

As

Dissolved

Cd

Total

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total

Cu

Dissolved

Fe

Total

Fe

Dissolved

Mn

Total

Mn

Dissolved

Pb

Total

Pb

Dissolved

Zn

Total

Zn

(cfs)

IR-00 2.193 0.013 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.230 0.027 0.119 NA NA 0.188 0.157

COAL-25 2.304 0.083 0.096 NA NA NA NA NA 2.013 0.143 0.201 NA NA NA NA

SP-00 3.059 0.093 0.107 NA NA NA NA NA 1.996 0.061 0.129 NA NA NA NA


ELK-00 1.294 0.018 NA 0.007 0.01 NA 0.023 NA NA 0.014 0.021 NA 0.004 1.284 1.180

COAL-15 5.033 0.128 0.121 0.007 NA NA NA NA NA 0.065 0.136 NA NA 1.423 1.341

COAL-12 6.564 0.117 NA 0.008 NA NA NA NA 4.390 1.087 1.161 NA 0.019 1.551 1.292

BOG-00 0.0036 NA NA NA 0.000 NA NA NA NA NA 0.000 NA NA NA 0.003

KEY-01 0.52 NA NA 0.005 0.004 NA 0.019 NA NA 0.041 0.073 NA NA 0.153 0.168

KEY-02 0.09 NA NA 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.005 NA NA 0.047 0.047 0.000 0.000 0.215 0.202

KEY-00 0.61 NA NA 0.005 0.007 0.007 0.021 NA NA 0.040 0.082 NA 0.007 0.252 0.254

COAL-10 5.84 0.075 NA 0.011 NA NA NA NA 3.276 0.797 0.841 NA 0.017 2.753 2.551

COAL-02 6.85 0.038 NA 0.020 0.023 NA 0.077 NA NA 0.443 0.794 NA NA 3.602 3.540

COAL-01 4.34 0.031 NA 0.005 0.012 NA 0.080 NA NA 0.178 0.353 NA NA 1.259 1.264

COAL-00 3.3 0.026 NA 0.005 NA NA 0.102 NA NA 0.096 0.304 NA 0.010 0.920 1.052

Notes



Metal Loads in lbs/day from the Coal Creek Watershed on August 18, 2011

Monitoring

Locationlbs/day


Page | 72

FlowDissolved

As

Total

As

Dissolved

Cd

Total

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total

Cu

Dissolved

Fe

Total

Fe

Dissolved

Mn

Total

Mn

Dissolved

Pb

Total

Pb

Dissolved

Zn

Total

Zn

(cfs)

IR-00 2.37 1.83 <2.50 <0.100<0.500 3.17 <2.00 116 222 13.9 25.9 <0.100<0.500 <10.0 <10.0

COAL-25 1.41 4.65 4.32 <0.100<0.500 <2.00 <2.00 <100 354 24.3 52 <0.100 1.35 <10.0 <10.0

COAL-20 2.91 4.62 3.98 <0.100<0.500 <2.00 <2.00 <100 111 6.71 10.2 <0.100<0.500 <10.0 <10.0

ELK-00 NM 1.84 <2.50 1.03 0.98 2.59 <2.00 <100 <100 <2.00 <2.00 <0.100<0.500 217 198

COAL-15 1.9 NM 3.53 NM<0.500 NM <2.00 NM <100 NM 6.17 NM<0.500 NM 42.3

COAL-12 4.4 2.61 <2.50 0.123<0.500 <2.00 <2.00 <100 108 38 38.7 <0.100<0.500 41.6 39.1

BOG-00 0.252 <0.500 <2.50 1.03 0.89 <2.00 12.1 <100 <100 36.8 37.7 <0.100 0.584 360 344

COAL-11 6.04 2.07 <2.50 0.489 0.56 <2.00 <2.00 <100 <100 68.5 70 <0.100<0.500 146 138

KEY-00 NM <5.00 <5.00 2.86 2.55 7.94 7.65 <100 <100 92.6 94.9 <1.00 <1.00 588 571

KEY-01 0.0366 <5.00 <5.00 <1.00 <1.00 3.34 3.03 <100 <100 12.4 18.1 <1.00 <1.00 76.8 77.8

KEY-02 NM <5.00 <5.00 4.42 4.35 12.5 11.2 <100 <100 189 180 <1.00 <1.00 1070 946

COAL-10 5.75 1.96 <2.50 0.485<0.500 <2.00 <2.00 <100 <100 51.2 52 <0.100 1.12 138 129

COAL-06 NM NM <2.50 NM<0.500 NM 2.64 NM <100 NM 45.2 NM<0.500 NM 124

COAL-02 NM 1.17 <2.50 0.31<0.500 <2.00 2.5 <100 <100 18.6 26.1 <0.100<0.500 82.4 88.8

COAL-01 NM 1.16 <2.50 0.235<0.500 <2.00 <2.00 <100 <100 12.2 15.4 <0.100<0.500 72.2 72

COAL-00 5.48 1.08 <2.50 0.235<0.500 <2.00 2.5 <100 <100 10.5 12.8 <0.100<0.500 70.3 67.8

FlowDissolved

As

Total

As

Dissolved

Cd

Total

Cd

Dissolved

Cu

Total

Cu

Dissolved

Fe

Total

Fe

Dissolved

Mn

Total

Mn

Dissolved

Pb

Total

Pb

Dissolved

Zn

Total

Zn

(cfs)

IR-00 2.37 0.023 NA NA NA 0.041 NA 1.483 2.838 0.178 0.331 NA NA NA NA

COAL-25 1.41 0.035 0.03 NA NA NA NA NA 2.692 0.185 0.395 NA 0.010 NA NA


COAL-15 1.9 NA 0.04 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.063 NA NA NA 0.43

COAL-12 4.4 0.062 NA 0.003 NA NA NA NA 2.563 0.902 0.918 NA NA 0.987 0.928

BOG-00 0.252 NA NA 0.001 0 NA 0.02 NA NA 0.050 0.051 NA 0.001 0.489 0.468

COAL-11 6.04 0.067 NA 0.016 0.018 NA NA NA NA 2.232 2.281 NA NA 4.756 4.496

KEY-01 0.0366 NA NA NA NA 0.001 0 NA NA 0.002 0.004 NA NA 0.015 0.015

COAL-10 5.75 0.061 NA 0.015 NA NA NA NA NA 1.588 1.613 NA 0.035 4.280 4.001

COAL-00 5.48 0.032 NA 0.007 NA NA 0.07 NA NA 0.310 0.378 NA NA 2.078 2.004

Notes



Monitoring

Locationlbs/day

Metal Concentrations in ug/L from the Coal Creek Watershed on October 18, 2011

Monitoring

Location(ug/L)

Metal Loads in lbs/day from the Coal Creek Watershed on October 18, 2011

coal creek restoration project crested butte, co · coal creek restoration project crested butte,...

Documents