Geology Reports⌕ 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

Analysis of groundwater geochemistry in the Lansing, Michigan, area

Groundwater resources in the Lansing, Michigan, area are protected by a wellhead protection plan, but previous studies have indicated that groundwater in this area may be susceptible to surface contamination. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Lansing Board of Water & Light, analyzed geochemical and aquifer characteristics to assess the potential for contamination of groundwater resources. Recharge age categories were determined from tritium concentrations for some wells, and by using ternary diagrams and principal component analysis for other wells. These age classifications, combined with hydrogeologic and geochemical data, were analyzed by using statistical methods to identify trends that may indicate areas of increased groundwater susceptibility. Wells with modern recharge tended to have higher sodium, chloride, and chloride:bromide ratios than did wells with mixed recharge, suggesting greater surface connectivity and potential influence from anthropogenic sources such as road salt. In contrast, wells in the mixed age category exhibited more stable geochemistry and lower constituent concentrations. Classification and regression tree models identified aquifer geometry—particularly the thickness of the uppermost bedrock unit and presence of confining layers—as key predictors of recharge age and geochemical indicators. The trends identified from these analyses could help to reveal locations in the Lansing area that are among the most susceptible to contamination.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2026

Evaluating the number of realizations (train-test splits) necessary to ensure robust estimates of conventional hydrothermal resource favorability using Monte Carlo cross-validation, the Great Basin, Western USA

Supervised machine learning approaches used to produce favorability maps in resource assessments commonly partition an input dataset into training and testing subsets (that is, through train-test splits). However, if a single split is not representative of underlying resource conditions, the resulting favorability map may be biased, particularly with sparse or heterogeneous datasets. To mitigate the potential for unrepresentative favorability maps, recent works by U.S. Geological Survey researchers have used Monte Carlo cross-validation to implement a large number ( n) of randomized train-test splits to produce n realizations. The realizations are then aggregated using cell-wise median predictions to produce the resulting final favorability map, recognizing that the median will remove extreme values that might have been estimated from a comparatively few unrepresentative realizations. Theoretically, the median prediction at every cell converges to a single estimate as n approaches infinity, and the question addressed herein is: How many realizations are necessary to get a robust estimate (that is, an estimate unaffected by additional realizations)? Therefore, convergence metrics are described to identify the number of train-test splits and realizations needed to make a reliable map using the data and supervised machine learning workflow for conventional hydrothermal resource assessment of the Great Basin of the Western United States. For this study, robust prediction occurs with n approximately equal to 600 realizations, and smaller ensembles (for example, n is approximately equal to 200 or even 100) may be suitable during preliminary or exploratory analyses. Although the resulting threshold numbers will vary depending on the data and modeling approach used, the convergence metrics proposed and applied herein are applicable to other supervised machine learning studies that use Monte Carlo cross-validation.

California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah↗
USGS2026

Groundwater budget for the Portneuf River Basin, southeastern Idaho

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Idaho Department of Water Resources, developed the first groundwater budget for the upper Portneuf River Basin in southeastern Idaho, a tributary of the Snake River. A groundwater budget for the Portneuf River Basin supports water resource and administrative management decisions within the basin and for downstream users of the eastern Snake River Plain aquifer. The analysis quantifies inflows, outflows, and residuals for an aquifer system defined by the Idaho Department of Water Resources under three recent precipitation conditions: an average year (2016), a dry year (2021), and a wet year (2023). The budget was calculated for the basin and for two subbasins delineated by the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Portneuf River at Topaz, Idaho (13073000): the above Topaz subbasin, which includes the Portneuf-Gem valley, and the below Topaz subbasin, which includes Marsh Valley. Aquifer inflows include mountain-front recharge; areal recharge; recharge from applied water, including recharge from irrigation, canal seepage, and effluent returns; groundwater flow into the basin; and reservoir seepage. Outflows include groundwater pumping for agricultural, municipal, and domestic uses; subsurface outflow through the Portneuf gap; and discharge to streams as base flow. Estimated annual inflows for the full basin ranged from 116,880 acre-feet in 2021 to 154,880 acre-feet in 2023, and outflows ranged from 132,190 acre-feet in 2016 to 158,490 acre-feet in 2023. Basinwide residuals, the change in storage plus uncertainty, were −2,410 acre-feet in 2016, −18,410 acre-feet in 2021, and −3,610 acre-feet in 2023, and each subbasin had a mixture of negative and positive residuals. These basinwide results, interpreted as change in storage plus water-budget uncertainty, indicate minor net losses that increase with dry conditions, consistent with well depth-to-water measurements indicating gradual multi-decadal declines. Patterns in subbasin residuals are driven by irrigation practices and surface-water management; for example, the above Topaz subbasin relies more on groundwater for irrigation, resulting in more negative residuals during dry years. In contrast, the below Topaz subbasin depends more on surface water, producing positive residuals during dry years because of irrigation losses and canal seepage. The analyses for both subbasins indicate decades-long groundwater declines, which agree with the overall negative residuals calculated. The largest sources of uncertainty include climate inputs (precipitation and evapotranspiration) and poorly constrained components such as groundwater inflow and tributary stream infiltration. These findings provide insight into how climatic variables and irrigation practices affect groundwater inflows and outflows within the Portneuf River Basin.

Idaho↗