USGS Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · sir20195049

Water-budget analysis of the Upper Big Sandy Designated Ground-water Basin alluvial aquifer, Elbert, El Paso, and Lincoln Counties, Colorado, 2016

Michael S. Kohn·Jeannette H. Oden·L. R. Arnold
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Upper Big Sandy Groundwater Management District carried out a study in 2016 to evaluate potential groundwater storage changes within the Upper Big Sandy Designated Groundwater Basin (UBSDGB) alluvial aquifer, including groundwater flow between the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer and the Denver Basin bedrock aquifers. The UBSDGB alluvial aquifer is located along the ephemeral Big Sandy Creek on the east-central edge of the Denver Basin aquifer system and covers an area of about 66,560 acres within the UBSDGB. The UBSDGB alluvial aquifer consists of unconsolidated Quaternary sand and gravel deposits that contain an unconfined (water table) groundwater system. The western three-fourths of the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer overlies the Tertiary and Cretaceous bedrock formations that compose the Denver Basin aquifer system. The updated water budget for the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer, including annual change in groundwater storage in 2016, was determined by combining water-budget information from an existing Denver Basin model for about three-fourths of the study area with best estimates for the major water-budget components for the area outside the Denver Basin aquifer system. The western part of the UBSDGB was included in the Denver Basin model (modeled area), whereas the eastern part of the UBSDGB was not included in the Denver Basin model (unmodeled area). The water-budget components were first estimated for the modeled area using outputs from the Denver Basin model, which uses the modular finite-difference groundwater flow computer model MODFLOW-2000 with 1-mile grid cells. For this study, the Denver Basin model was updated with additional data from 2004 through 2016 to generate current (2016) estimates of water consumption in the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer. A basin-specific water budget for the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer from the Denver Basin model was computed using a modeling tool called ZONEBUDGET. The modeled area groundwater budget, along with previous studies, was used to estimate a groundwater budget for the unmodeled area, and results for the modeled and unmodeled areas were combined for an overall water-budget estimate for the entire UBSDGB alluvial aquifer. The net groundwater flow into the basin from adjacent alluvial aquifers was positive with flow entering the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer. Combining the total inflow from adjacent alluvial and the total outflow to adjacent alluvial aquifers resulted in a net flow from adjacent alluvial aquifers to UBSDGB alluvial aquifer of 5,125 acre-feet (ac-ft) in 2016. The net flow between the underlying bedrock aquifers and the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer was positive with flow entering the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer from the bedrock aquifers. The net flow from the bedrock aquifers to the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer was 347 ac-ft in 2016. Net recharge (precipitation and irrigation return flows minus evaporation) into the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer was negative with groundwater being removed from the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer over the total area of the basin. Combining the total inflow from recharge to the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer of 11,153 ac-ft in 2016 and the total evapo-transpiration of −11,656 ac-ft from the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer in 2016 resulted in a net recharge from UBSDGB alluvial aquifer of −503 ac-ft in 2016. Combining the modeled and unmodeled well pumping resulted in a total well pumping volume of −3,735 ac-ft in 2016 from the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer. The net groundwater flow to the stream network in the basin was negative with flow discharging from the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer into streams. Combining the total inflow from streams and the total outflow to streams for the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer resulted in −1,032 ac-ft in 2016 that was lost to the stream network in the UBSDGB. The net groundwater flow out of the UBSDGB was negative with flow leaving the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer. Combining the total area inflow to the basin from upgradient areas and the total area outflow from the basin for the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer resulted in a net flow out of the basin of −2,300 ac-ft. In the annual groundwater budget for 2016, groundwater storage in the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer system was removed because annual groundwater outflows from storage exceeded groundwater inflows to storage; in other words, water was removed from storage to balance the annual water budget. Combining the net flow from storage for the modeled area of 73 ac-ft and the inflow from storage for the unmodeled area of 2,025 ac-ft resulted in a net positive flow from storage of the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer of 2,098 ac-ft. Increased pumping since 1958 in the Denver and upper Arapahoe aquifers, not necessarily in the UBSDGB, has caused a change in flow from bedrock units, which were minor or non-contributors of inflow to the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer, to receiving outflow from the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer. Since 2000, aquifer storage has been an inflow component of the water budget, which means that outflow from the modeled area exceeded inflow for the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer. Increased recharge from wetter than average years could replenish the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer. From 2003 through 2016, 13 of the 25 observation wells completed in the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer had a decline in the groundwater-level elevation with an average decline of −2.21 feet, and 12 of the 25 observation wells had an increase in the groundwater-level elevation with an average increase of 1.54 feet. In general, wells at the eastern and western edges of the UBSDGB showed an increase in groundwater-level elevation that appears related to areas of groundwater discharge from the lower Dawson and Laramie-Fox Hills bedrock aquifers to the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer. The remaining wells exhibited water-level declines. Future work could include the development of a basin-specific model to serve as a basin management tool for modeling changes in groundwater levels and storage under various future groundwater recharge and withdrawal scenarios.

Explore related subjects

Scientific Investigations ReportReport
90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 38.5159° to 39.5665° latitude; -105.0674° to -103.1527° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Michael S. Kohn, Jeannette H. Oden, L. R. Arnold. 2019-07-22. Water-budget analysis of the Upper Big Sandy Designated Ground-water Basin alluvial aquifer, Elbert, El Paso, and Lincoln Counties, Colorado, 2016. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20195049

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

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↗
USGS2026

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, ↗
USGS2026

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↗