Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · sir20045095

Evaluation of Streamflow Losses Along the Gunnison River from Whitewater Downstream to the Redlands Canal Diversion Dam, near Grand Junction, Colorado, Water Years 1995-2003

Abstract

In 2003, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, Colorado River Water Conservation District, Colorado Division of Water Resources, and Bureau of Reclamation, initiated a study to characterize streamflow losses along a reach of the Gunnison River from the town of Whitewater downstream to the Redlands Canal diversion dam. This describes the methods and results of the study that include: (1) a detailed mass-balance analysis of historical discharge records that were available for the three streamflow-gaging stations along the study reach; and (2) two sets of discharge measurements that were made at the three stations and at four additional locations. Data for these existing streamflow-gaging stations were compiled and analyzed: (1) Gunnison River near Grand Junction (Whitewater station); (2) Gunnison River below Redlands Canal diversion dam (below-Redlands-dam station); and (3) Redlands Canal near Grand Junction (Redlands-Canal station). Data for water years 1995-2003 were used for the mass-balance analysis. Four intermediate sites (M1, M2, M3, and M4) were selected for discharge measurements in addition to the existing stations. The study reach is the approximate 12-mile reach of the Gunnison River from the Whitewater station downstream to the Redlands Canal diversion dam, which is about 3 miles upstream from the confluence with the Colorado River. For the mass-balance analysis, differences between the sum of the annual cumulative daily mean discharge at the two downstream stations and the annual cumulative daily mean discharges at the upstream station ranged from about -8,700 to -69,800 acre-feet (about -.8 to -1.1 percent), indicating that the downstream discharges generally were less than the upstream discharges. Moving 3-day daily mean discharge averages also were computed for each of the three stations to smooth out some of the abrupt differences between the downstream and upstream daily mean discharges. During water years 1995-2002, differences between the downstream and upstream moving 3-day daily mean discharges ranged from about -200 to +100 cubic feet per second (ft3/s) during one-half of each year, but the differences had absolute values as large as about 500 to 1,000 ft3/s during the other one-half of the year. The differences as a percentage of the upstream discharge ranged from 0 to -10 percent within the interquartile range and were as small or large as about -60 to +50. Two sets of discharge measurements were obtained during water year 2003. For measurement set 1 (February 5-6), discharge was measured 5-8 times over a 24-hour period at sites M1-M4, where measured discharges ranged from 527 to 608 ft3/s. Discharge was measured once each day at the Whitewater and below-Redlands-dam stations to verify discharge rating shifts; the Redlands Canal was not in operation at this time, so measurements were not needed at the Redlands-Canal station. Recorded 15-minute (unit) discharges ranged from about 575 to 615 ft3/s at the Whitewater station and from about 560 to 600 ft3/s at the below-Redlands-dam station during the February 5-6 period. Because of the inherent error in discharge measurements (5 percent for measurements rated good), and because the mean discharge at the below-Redlands-dam station, about 580 ft3/s, was only about 2.5 percent smaller than the mean discharge at the Whitewater station, about 595 ft3/s, it is concluded that there was no measurable streamflow loss along the study reach during measurement set 1. For measurement set 2 (May 14-15), discharge in the Gunnison River was about 2,000 ft3/s and increasing because of high-elevation snowmelt. Five discharge measurements were made at site M2 and discharge ranged from 1,668 to 2,117 ft3/s. Measured discharges at the gaging stations were 2,730 ft3/s at the Whitewater station, 1,268 ft3/s at the below-Redlands-dam station, and 819 ft3/s at the

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Gerhard Kuhn, Cory A. Williams. 2004. Evaluation of Streamflow Losses Along the Gunnison River from Whitewater Downstream to the Redlands Canal Diversion Dam, near Grand Junction, Colorado, Water Years 1995-2003. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20045095

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↗