USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · sir20085056

Simulation of Hydrodynamics and Water Quality in Pueblo Reservoir, Southeastern Colorado, for 1985 through 1987 and 1999 through 2002

Abstract

Pueblo Reservoir is west of Pueblo, Colorado, and is an important water resource for southeastern Colorado. The reservoir provides irrigation, municipal, and industrial water to various entities throughout the region. In anticipation of increased population growth, the cities of Colorado Springs, Fountain, Security, and Pueblo West have proposed building a pipeline that would be capable of conveying 78 million gallons of raw water per day (240 acre-feet) from Pueblo Reservoir. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with Colorado Springs Utilities and the Bureau of Reclamation, developed, calibrated, and verified a hydrodynamic and water-quality model of Pueblo Reservoir to describe the hydrologic, chemical, and biological processes in Pueblo Reservoir that can be used to assess environmental effects in the reservoir. Hydrodynamics and water-quality characteristics in Pueblo Reservoir were simulated using a laterally averaged, two-dimensional model that was calibrated using data collected from October 1985 through September 1987. The Pueblo Reservoir model was calibrated based on vertical profiles of water temperature and dissolved-oxygen concentration, and water-quality constituent concentrations collected in the epilimnion and hypolimnion at four sites in the reservoir. The calibrated model was verified with data from October 1999 through September 2002, which included a relatively wet year (water year 2000), an average year (water year 2001), and a dry year (water year 2002). Simulated water temperatures compared well to measured water temperatures in Pueblo Reservoir from October 1985 through September 1987. Spatially, simulated water temperatures compared better to measured water temperatures in the downstream part of the reservoir than in the upstream part of the reservoir. Differences between simulated and measured water temperatures also varied through time. Simulated water temperatures were slightly less than measured water temperatures from March to May 1986 and 1987, and slightly greater than measured data in August and September 1987. Relative to the calibration period, simulated water temperatures during the verification period did not compare as well to measured water temperatures. In general, simulated dissolved-oxygen concentrations for the calibration period compared well to measured concentrations in Pueblo Reservoir. Spatially, simulated concentrations deviated more from the measured values at the downstream part of the reservoir than at other locations in the reservoir. Overall, the absolute mean error ranged from 1.05 (site 1B) to 1.42 milligrams per liter (site 7B), and the root mean square error ranged from 1.12 (site 1B) to 1.67 milligrams per liter (site 7B). Simulated dissolved oxygen in the verification period compared better to the measured concentrations than in the calibration period. The absolute mean error ranged from 0.91 (site 5C) to 1.28 milligrams per liter (site 7B), and the root mean square error ranged from 1.03 (site 5C) to 1.46 milligrams per liter (site 7B). Simulated total dissolved solids generally were less than measured total dissolved-solids concentrations in Pueblo Reservoir from October 1985 through September 1987. The largest differences between simulated and measured total dissolved solids were observed at the most downstream sites in Pueblo Reservoir during the second year of the calibration period. Total dissolved-solids data were not available from reservoir sites during the verification period, so in-reservoir specific-conductance data were compared to simulated total dissolved solids. Simulated total dissolved solids followed the same patterns through time as the measured specific conductance data during the verification period. Simulated total nitrogen concentrations compared relatively well to measured concentrations in the Pueblo Reservoir model. The absolute mean error ranged from 0.21 (site 1B) to 0.27 milligram per liter as nitrogen (sites 3B and 7

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 38.1° to 38.9° latitude; -105.5° to -104.4° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Joel M. Galloway, Roderick F. Ortiz, Jerad D. Bales, David P. Mau. 2008. Simulation of Hydrodynamics and Water Quality in Pueblo Reservoir, Southeastern Colorado, for 1985 through 1987 and 1999 through 2002. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20085056

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Baseline water-quality inventory and summary for the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, New Jersey

The Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park (PAGR), established in 2011 in the City of Paterson, New Jersey, contains many cultural, historical, and natural resources. Because of the PAGR’s young age and limited resources, a long record of natural resource data is not available for use to guide future park management and planning decisions. A detailed natural resource inventory was identified as an immediate need in the “Foundation Document—Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park,” given the history of extensive industrial activity throughout the PAGR and the Passaic River Basin. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the National Park Service and the Urban Waters Federal Partnership for the Lower Passaic River, inventoried water-quality monitoring efforts and compiled historical water-quality data from secondary data sources to define baseline conditions in the PAGR and the surrounding study area. This report documents the methods used to harmonize water-quality data aggregated from multiple sources for the PAGR study area. Procedures implemented during data harmonization include compiling data from multiple sources, assessing the dataset for completeness, addressing metadata concerns, and creating a consistent and quality-assured dataset for future analysis. The harmonized dataset contains 14 aggregated surface-water sites, 1,103 individual sampling days, and 32,000 water-quality records throughout the period of record defined for this study (1952–2021). Summary statistics and comparison to water-quality criteria are provided for focus parameters that can support PAGR management, including field properties, suspended material, total dissolved solids, specific conductance, chloride, sulfate, Escherichia coli, nutrients, contaminants of concern related to fish consumption advisories, and litter and floatable debris. A spatial data gap was identified for the recreational area near the base of the Great Falls and immediately downstream from a known combined sewer overflow discharge location. Analytic data gaps were identified for continuous streamflow and water-quality parameters, floatable debris characterization, and harmful algal blooms identification. Continuous collection of contaminants of concern was identified as a temporal data gap, as these parameters were not consistently collected within the study area. The water-quality data synthesis and summary presented in this report can assist PAGR staff in understanding the complex baseline water resources within the study area and can serve as a baseline to design future water-quality monitoring efforts and evaluate changes in water quality over time. The harmonized dataset, as well as future New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and New Jersey Harbor Discharge Group monitoring data and assessments, can also be used to examine the status and trends in surface-water quality, support compliance with the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and further investigate changes to park water resources that can affect ecological and human health.

New Jersey↗

Slip tendency and dilation tendency of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming

This report presents the results of slip tendency and dilation tendency analysis of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, in the states of Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. This effort was undertaken as part of two studies: the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Office-funded Innovative Geothermal Exploration through Novel Investigations of Undiscovered Systems (INGENIOUS) project, which is a multidisciplinary, multi-institution effort to develop new methodologies and best practices to accelerate the discovery of new, commercially viable hydrothermal resources; and the U.S. Geological Survey Geothermal Resources Investigations Project. The goal of this work is to identify faults and fault segments that are appropriately oriented to be stress-loaded for slip or to dilate under the ambient stress conditions. Both conditions may make such faults more likely to host permeability and fluid flow relative to other faults in the region. Slip tendency and dilation tendency were calculated for all fault segments in the study area from the U.S. Geological Survey Quaternary Fault and Fold Database. Results demonstrate that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency are common in the Great Basin region. The areas containing many high slip tendency and dilation tendency fault segments are associated with high strain rates. These areas also host a relatively high proportion of the known hydrothermal systems. This indicates that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency in areas with high strain-rate are potentially most prospective for hosting hydrothermal systems. The database published in coordination with this report contains the slip tendency and dilation tendency results data, including the fault geometry and stress data used to calculate these quantities, for both the Great Basin study area and the smaller INGENIOUS study area.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, ↗

A spatial analysis of the groundwater emergence flood hazard in Long Island, New York, and coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound in New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island

Long Island, New York, and nearby coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound are densely populated and, like other coastal areas, are susceptible to flooding from several potential sources, including stormwater from precipitation events, tidal flooding and storm surge, and groundwater emergence flooding. Groundwater emergence fooding refers to the intersection of a rising water table with land surface or critical infrastructure. Many studies of flood drivers either neglect or only briefly discuss how shallow groundwater conditions may contribute to or exacerbate flood conditions. As a part of a comprehensive study of compound flood hazards in the coastal areas of Long Island and Long Island Sound, a spatial analysis was completed by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Long Island Sound Partnership, formerly called the Long Island Sound Study, using available regional datasets to characterize the potential hazard for groundwater emergence flooding. The approximately 3,100 square mile study area was subdivided into 11,407 grid cells that were 900 meters by 900 meters (approximately 3,000 feet by 3,000 feet), for the purpose of integrating the spatial datasets to calculate and map the groundwater emergence flood hazard. The depth to the water table, hydrologic soil groups, and National Land Cover Database were harmonized to the common grid. A groundwater emergence flood hazard score was calculated for each grid cell for current average conditions following a set of rules accounting for the depth to the water table and the percentage of area within each cell with slow infiltrating soils. A scenario with a higher sea-level position was also calculated for the Long Island part of the study area. The calculated groundwater emergence flood hazard score was reviewed in conjunction with the National Land Cover Database to identify developed areas and associated infrastructure that may be at risk of potential groundwater emergence flooding. Study results indicate that the groundwater emergence flood hazard is highest in coastal areas and near surface water where the water table is close to ground surface. Inland areas away from surface waterbodies are not likely to be exposed to groundwater emergence flooding. For Long Island, in the scenario with higher sea-level position, a greater groundwater emergence flood hazard is calculated for some locations closer to the coast and where land is submerged. Away from the coast and surface-water drainage, the groundwater emergence flood hazard is similar between the current average sea-level condition and the higher sea-level position scenario.

Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island↗