Geology topics

Research about Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming

Source-linked reports with geographic coverage including Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2023

Human factors used to estimate and forecast water supply and demand in the Upper Colorado River Basin

Water availability is a result of complex interactions between regional water supply and demand and underlying environmental, institutional, and economic determinants. For this study, water availability is defined as “access to a specific quantity and quality of water at a point in time and space, for a specific use, recognizing the social and economic value of water across uses and institutions that facilitate or hinder its equitable and efficient provisioning.” This report identifies the human factors that influence water supply and demand and summarizes (1) the extensive sets of data available to estimate these factors in the agricultural, municipal, and industrial water-use sectors and (2) factors of recreation and ecosystem services that influence water availability in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Lastly, future research needs are identified that can help prioritize collection and refinement of human factors of water use to improve water availability estimation and forecasting.

Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyomi↗

USGS2022

U.S. Geological Survey Colorado River Basin Actionable and Strategic Integrated Science and Technology (ASIST)—Information Management Technology Plan

Introduction More than 840 publications, 575 data releases, and 330 project web pages from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) pertain to the Colorado River Basin. Limited interconnections between Colorado River Basin publications, data, and web pages restrict the ability to synthesize and interpret scientific resources. Currently, these pieces are spread across multiple isolated locations, internal systems, data repositories, and local offices. The increasing size, complexity, and diversity of Colorado River Basin data creates additional need for integration. These different data types—including discrete, continuous, aerial, remote sensing, geophysical, geospatial, and other types in varied formats—are collected over numerous time and space scales and require data-intensive science and technology to integrate. Information management technology (IMT) resources are enterprise capabilities that the USGS workforce can leverage at multiple scales with consistent interoperable solutions to better facilitate integrated science. The USGS 21st Century Science Strategy directs the USGS to establish enterprise IMT capabilities that support integrated work through interoperable software and database solutions at multiple scales. This Information Management Technology Plan identifies nine steps to leverage new and existing technologies, data, models, and scientific knowledge to support integrated science projects conducted across the Colorado River Basin. These steps are transferable to integrated-science studies in other locations.

Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyomi↗

USGS2022

Addressing stakeholder science needs for integrated drought science in the Colorado River Basin

Stakeholders need scientific data, analysis, and predictions of how drought the will impact the Colorado River Basin in a format that is continuously updated, intuitive, and easily accessible. The Colorado River Basin Actionable and Strategic Integrated Science and Technology Pilot Project was formed to demonstrate the effectiveness of addressing complex problems through stakeholder involvement and use of 21st century technology to deliver integrated science. By identifying stakeholders and their science needs, the project team is better able to prioritize integrated science and design science delivery systems to support better adaptation and management measures for the long-term drought occurring in this basin. The project team is conducting outreach and coordination with stakeholders to meet the current and future science and technology needs in the basin and fulfill the USGS vision of integrated drought science throughout the Basin. As the USGS works to streamline the approach for sharing integrated drought science in the Colorado River Basin, the project is looking for input, involvement, and collaboration to ensure the science provided works for stakeholders.

Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyomi↗

USGS2021

Regional ensemble modeling reduces uncertainty for digital soil mapping

Recent country and continental-scale digital soil mapping efforts have used a single model to predict soil properties across large regions. However, different ecophysiographic regions within large-extent areas are likely to have different soil-landscape relationships so models built specifically for these regions may more accurately capture these relationships relative to a ‘global’ model. We ask the question: Is a single ‘global’ model sufficient or are regionally-specific models useful for accurate digital soil mapping? We test this question by modeling soil depth classes across the 432,000 km 2 upper Colorado River Basin in the Western USA using a single global model, multiple ecophysiographic models, and ensembles of the ecophysiographic models. Effective soil depth class observations ( n = 12,194) were derived from multiple soil databases. Fifty-seven environmental covariates were derived from a 30 m digital elevation model, climate data, satellite imagery, and aeroradiometric data. Three independent land classifications were used to stratify the area. Two expert-derived land classifications, USDA Major Land Resource Areas (MLRA) and US-EPA Level III ecoregions, divided the study area into multiple ecophysiographic regions based on vegetation and broad-scale physiographic differences. The third land classification divided the study area into broad landforms. Soil depth observations were split into separate training ( n = 10,470) and validation ( n = 1,724) datasets. First, a ‘global’ random forest model was used to model soil depth classes using all training observations and covariates. ‘Global’ denotes a model built with all training data across the extent of the area, not a model at world extent. Second, the land classifications were used to subset the observations into ecophysiographic sub-datasets and random forest models were refit for each region. Models fit by ecophysiographic region are referred to as regional models. Thirdly, predictions from each regional model were fused into regional-ensemble models. Accuracy, Brier scores, and Shannon’s entropy were used to compare model accuracy and uncertainty. Regional ecophysiographic models were also compared to models built for geographic areas that were defined solely to be approximately equal in area. Training dataset density and the imbalance ratio were investigated to determine if data characteristics influenced regional accuracy/uncertainty metrics. Accuracy for the global model using the validation set was 62.8%. Regional model accuracies ranged between 56.1% and 75.0%. We found: 1) useful inter-regional differences in global model accuracy were revealed when the global model was validated by region, 2) no consistent relationship between training observation density and accuracy/uncertainty metrics, 3) no meaningful differences in accuracy and uncertainty metrics between physiographic and geographic regions, 4) ensembles of regionally-specific models were approximately as accurate as global models, and 5) both region-specific models and ensembles of regional models were less uncertain than the global model. Overall, we recommend the use of soil depth class predictions made from MLRA regional ensemble models because this prediction had higher accuracy than the ecoregion ensemble model prediction, but lower uncertainty than both the global model and the landform ensemble model predictions. We answer our question: Ensembles of regionally-specific models are approximately as accurate as global models, but result in less uncertainty.

Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyomi↗

USGS2019

Investigation of recent decadal-scale cyclical fluctuations in salinity in the lower Colorado river

Beginning in the late 1970s, 10- to 15-year cyclical oscillations in salinity were observed at lower Colorado River monitoring sites, moving upstream from the international border with Mexico, above Imperial Dam, below Hoover Dam, and at Lees Ferry. The cause of these cyclical trends in salinity was unknown. These salinity cycles complicate the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) responsibility for managing salinity in the river for delivery of water to Mexico to meet treaty obligations. This study develops a conceptual model of the salinity cycles from time-series water quality, streamflow, and precipitation data in both the lower and upper Colorado River Basins in order to provide Reclamation the ability to understand, anticipate, and manage future salinity cycles in the lower river. Compared with the Lees Ferry record, both maximum and minimum salinity levels increase downstream by about 25% at Hoover Dam, by about 49% at Imperial Dam, and by about 69% at the northern international boundary with Mexico. In the upper basin, cyclical salinity trends are evident at the outflow of three major tributaries, where salinity is also noted to be inversely related to streamflow. Time series trends in precipitation within the catchments of the three upper basin tributaries indicate cyclical periods with above normal precipitation and periods with below normal precipitation. Periods of greater than normal precipitation in the contributing areas correspond with declines in salinity at the catchment monitoring sites and periods of less than normal precipitation correspond with rising salinity at the sites. Based on the conceptual model developed in this investigation, a multiple linear regression model was developed using a stepwise variable selection procedure to simulate salinity in Lake Powell inflow. Important variables in the explanation of salinity entering Lake Powell include flow from the three upper basin tributaries, seasonality, and mean precipitation in the upper basin, among others. The root mean square error of prediction for the MLR model was 31.48 mg/L (5.7%).

Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyomi↗

USGS2018

Estimates of water use and trends in the Colorado River Basin, Southwestern United States, 1985–2010

The Colorado River Basin (CRB) drains 246,000 square miles and includes parts of California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, and all of Arizona (Basin States). This report contains water-use estimates by category of use for drainage basins (Hydrologic Unit Code 8; HUC‑8) within the CRB from 1985 to 2010, at 5-year intervals. Estimates for public supply, domestic, commercial, industrial, irrigation, livestock, mining, aquaculture, hydroelectric and thermoelectric power, and wastewater returns are tabulated as (1) water withdrawals from groundwater or surface‑water sources of fresh or saline quality, (2) water delivered for domestic use, (3) wastewater returns and instream use (hydroelectric), and (4) consumptive use, or water that is consumed (USGS definition) and not available for immediate reuse. Water transported outside of the CRB (interbasin transfers) is not included as part of withdrawals and are not accounted for in any category of use within the CRB. Total withdrawals in the CRB (excluding interbasin transfers) averaged about 17 million acre-feet (maf) from 1985 to 2010, peaked at about 17.76 maf in 2000, and reached their lowest levels of 16.43 maf in 1990. Interbasin transfers to serve mostly public-supply and irrigation needs outside of the CRB are reported for 2000, 2005, and 2010 only, and averaged 5.40 maf. More surface water was used in the CRB than groundwater, averaging about 78 percent of total withdrawals, and its use increased less than 2 percent from 1985 to 2010, while groundwater withdrawals decreased about 12 percent. From 1985 to 2010, surface water averaged 98 percent of withdrawals in the upper CRB, and about 59 percent in the lower CRB. Nearly all withdrawals were freshwater, but some saline groundwater was used for mining and self-supplied industrial. Interbasin transfers have a large effect on flows in the Colorado River and are listed in this report separately with no explanation of how the water is used outside of the CRB. There are 34 interbasin transfers that conveyed an estimated 5.83, 5.20, and 5.18 maf out of the CRB in 2000, 2005, and 2010, respectively. The largest interbasin transfers are in the lower CRB and convey surface water (Colorado River water) to southern California; these accounted for 80 to 84 percent of total interbasin transfers in the CRB from 2000 to 2010. Intrabasin transfers are conveyances of surface water that cross drainage basin or State boundaries in the CRB, but the water does not leave the CRB. There are many intrabasin transfers in the CRB, but this report lists 11 that are mostly in the State of Colorado. The largest is the Central Arizona Project (CAP), through which more than 1.00 maf of water was provided to irrigate nearly 1 million acres in Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima Counties, as well as provide municipal water for Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona, during 2000, 2005, and 2010. In 2010, interbasin and intrabasin transfers accounted for 24 and 11 percent of the total water withdrawals in CRB, respectively, with the larger volumes being conveyed out of the lower CRB. Total population in the CRB increased from 4.56 to 9.44 million people from 1985 to 2010. Most of those people were in the lower CRB, with 86 percent of the total in 1985, and 90 percent of the total in 2010. Total public-supply withdrawals in the CRB provided most people with their potable water, and averaged about 1.63 maf from 1985 to 2010, ranging from about 1.07 maf in 1985 to about 2.10 maf in 2010, when it peaked. Most of public-supply withdrawals occurred in the lower CRB, ranging from 87 to 91 percent of total public-supply withdrawals in the CRB over the 25 years. Total domestic use, comprised of public-supply deliveries and self-supply domestic withdrawals, increased more than 90 percent from 1985 to 2010, from about 0.80 maf to about 1.54 maf. Domestic daily per-capita use rates in the CRB ranged from about 144 (1985) to about 121 (2000) gallons (gal) per ‑ capita between 1985 and 2010. When comparing domestic daily per-capita rates for the upper and lower CRB, people in the lower CRB, on average, used less water for domestic purposes at 128 gal per-capita daily (1985–2010), while those in the upper CRB for the same time period averaged 133 gal per-capita daily. The trend in daily per-capita use rates for the entire CRB fluctuated between the reporting years, but decreased overall, indicating that more people used less water in 2010 than in 1985, likely due to improved infrastructure, conservation, and improvements to water using appliances in homes and businesses. Irrigation accounted for most total withdrawals in the CRB, excluding instream use for hydroelectric power and interbasin transfers, averaging 85 percent from 1985 to 2010. Far more surface water than groundwater was used for irrigation in both the upper and lower CRB, but in the upper CRB, it accounted for an average of more than 98 percent of the total withdrawals (1985–2010), whereas in the lower CRB, surface-water withdrawals for irrigation averaged 61 percent of total withdrawals. On average, the upper CRB accounted for 56 percent of total irrigated acres, and the irrigation systems in the upper CRB trended towards more efficient sprinkler systems from 1985 to 2010. Long-term drought in the CRB substantially decreased the amount of streamflow available for irrigation. Increases in micro-irrigation acres, which can have efficiencies that exceed 90 percent and require 20–50 percent less water than sprinkler systems, likely contributed to reduced withdrawals in the lower CRB. For thermoelectric power, total withdrawals, including the use of reclaimed wastewater, were greater in the upper CRB from 1985 through 2005. In 2010, the lower CRB exceeded the upper by only 11,000 acre-feet. On average, thermoelectric consumptive use accounted for about 80 percent of the total withdrawals; however, consumptive-use data in the upper CRB was incomplete. Surface water was the primary source in the upper CRB and groundwater was the primary source in the lower CRB. In the CRB overall, water withdrawals for thermoelectric generation has decreased since 2000, except for groundwater withdrawals in the lower CRB. Power generation at thermoelectric plants was greater in the upper CRB from 1985 to 2000, and after 2005 the difference in power generation was small; however, the upper CRB continued to have more power generation. In both the upper and lower CRB, power generation increased from 1985 to 2005.

Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyomi↗

USGS1987

River basins of the United States: the Colorado

This leaflet, one of a series on the river basins of the United States, contains information on the Colorado River Basin, including a brief early history, a description of the physical characteristics, and other statistical data. At present, other river basins included in the series are The Columbia, The Delaware, The Hudson, The Potomac, and The Wabash.

Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyomi↗