U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey

Numerical Simulation of Vertical Ground-Water Flux 

of the Rio Grande from Ground-Water Temperature 

Profiles, Central New Mexico

Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4212

A contribution to the Ground-Water Resources Program

o

0> 

JQ

f

0>

Q

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

v \ / V /

22JAN97

 22APR97 

02JUNE98

 -- 12AUG98

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 

Temperature, in degrees Celsius

science 

USGS

for a changing world

Ground-water temperature profiles for the 

PDN01 piezometer nest, September 1996- 

August 1998
Numerical Simulation of Vertical Ground 

Water Flux of the Rio Grande from 

Ground-Water Temperature Profiles, 

Central New Mexico

By James R. Bartolino and Richard G. Niswonger

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4212

A contribution to the Ground-Water Resources Program

Albuquerque, New Mexico 

1999
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Charles G. Groat, Director

The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does 

not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey.

For additional information write to:

District Chief 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Water Resources Division 

5338 Montgomery NE, Suite 400 

Albuquerque, NM 87109-1311

Copies of this report can be purchased 

from:

U.S. Geological Survey 

Branch of Information Services 

Box 25286 

Denver, CO 80225-0286

Information regarding research and data-collection programs of the U.S. Geological Survey is available 

on the Internet via the World Wide Web. You may connect to the Home Page for the New Mexico District 

Office using the URL: http://nm.water.usgs.gov
CONTENTS

Page

Abstract.................................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................^ 2

Purpose and scope ....................................................................................................................................................... 2

Description of the study area....................................................................................................................................... 2

Hydrogeologic setting.................................................................................................................................................. 4

Previous investigations...............................................................................................^^ 4

Acknowledgments.........................................................................................._ 5

Methods and field observations ............................................................................................................................................ 5

Numerical simulation of vertical ground-water flux ............................................................................................................. 8

Assumptions ................................................................... 10

Model representation and discretization...................................................................................................................... 10

Hydraulic and thermal parameters............................................................................................................................... 11

Initial and boundary conditions................................................................................................................................... 12

Model calibration and fit.............................................................................................................................................. 13

Sensitivity analysis...................................................................................................................................................... 15

Optimization statistics................................................................................................................................................. 15

Results and discussion......................................................................................^^ 18

Comparisons with other work................................................................................................................................................ 21

Summary and conclusions...................................................................................................................................................^ 23

References cited..................................................................................................................................................................... 25

Supplemental information..................................................................................................................................................... 28

FIGURES

1. Location map of the Albuquerque area and locations of the temperature profile sites........................................... 3

2-5. Graphs showing:

2. Ground-water temperature profiles for the BRN02, COR01, PDN01, and RBR01 piezometer nests,

September 1996-August 1998....................................................................................................................... 9

3. Measured, regressed, and simulated ground-water temperatures at various depths for the BRN02,

COR01, PDN01, and RBR01 piezometer nests, October 1996-August 1998............................................... 14

4. Sensitivity of simulated August 1998 temperature profile to changes in hydraulic conductivity and

flux direction forthePDNOl piezometer nest............................................................................................... 16

5. Simulated vertical flux rates beneath the Rio Grande for the BRN02, COR01, PDN01, and RBR01 

piezometer nests, October 1996-August 1998 compared to discharge at the Rio Grande at 

Albuquerque gage.......................................................................................................................................... 20

TABLES

1. Description of piezometers installed and monitored for this study ........................................................................ 6

2. Model representation and discretization of the BRN02, CORO1, PDNO1, and RBRO1 piezometer nests............. 10

3. Hydraulic and thermal parameters used in the numerical models.......................................................................... 11

4. Ninety-five-percent confidence limits for optimal values of hydraulic conductivity used in simulations ............. 17

5. Estimated vertical hydraulic conductivity underlying the Rio Grande at the BRN02, COR01, PDN01,

and RBR01 piezometer nests ............................................................................................................................. 18

6. Simulated vertical ground-water fluxes between the Rio Grande and Santa Fe Group aquifer system at

the BRN02, COR01, PDN01, and RBR01 piezometer nests............................................................................. 19

iii
Page

7. Comparison of estimated vertical hydraulic conductivities in the current study with those from

previous work..................................................................................................................................................... 22

8. Comparison of simulated vertical fluxes in the current study with vertical fluxes estimated by 

Gould (1994) and mean monthly river discharge at the Rio Grande at Albuquerque gage for 

August 1994 and August 1998........................................................................................................................... 23

9. Lithologic log for piezometer nest BRN02 ............................................................................................................ 28

10. Lithologic log for piezometer nest COR01 ............................................................................................................ 29

11. Lithologic log for piezometer nest PDNOl............................................................................................................. 30

12. Lithologic log for piezometer nest RBR01............................................................................................................. 31

13. Summary of initial moisture content, dry-bulk density, wet-bulk density, and calculated porosity for

the BRN02,COR01, PDNOl, and RBR01 piezometer nests............................................................................. 32

14. Water-level depths below land surface for the BRN02, COR01, PDNOl, and RBR01 piezometer nests,

September 1996-August 1998............................................................................................................................ 33

15. Selected ground-water temperature measurements in the BRN02, COR01, PDNOl, and RBR01

piezometer nests, September 1996-August 1998............................................................................................... 34

CONVERSION FACTORS

Multiply By To obtain

centimeter (cm)

meter (m)

kilometer (km)

meters per second (m/s)

meters per second (m/s)

gram per cubic centimeter (g/cm )

joule (J)

joule (J)

watt per meter Celsius (W/m-°C)

joule per cubic meter Celsius (J/m3 -°C)

cubic meters per second (m/s) 

grams per gram (g/g)

0.3937

3.28084

0.6215

3.28084

283,000

62.427961

0.00095

0.2388

0.57779

15.1826

35.31

1.0

inch (in.)

foot (ft)

mile

feet per second (ft/s)

feet per day (ft/d)

pound per cubic foot

British thermal unit (International Table) (Btu)

calorie (International Table) (cal)

British thermal unit (International

Table) foot per hour square foot

degree Fahrenheit (Btu-ft/(h-ft2-°F))

calorie (International Table) per cubic

foot degree Fahrenheit (Cal/ft3 -°F)

cubic feet per second (ft3/s) 

ounces per ounce

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) can be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

= 1.8fC) + 32

iv
NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF VERTICAL GROUNDWATER FLUX OF THE RIO GRANDE FROM GROUNDWATER TEMPERATURE PROFILES, CENTRAL

NEW MEXICO

By James R. Bartolino and Richard G. Niswonger

ABSTRACT

An important gap in the understanding of the hydrology of the Middle Rio Grande Basin, 

central New Mexico, is the rate at which water from the Rio Grande recharges the Santa Fe 

Group aquifer system. Several methodologies including use of the Glover-Balmer equation, 

flood pulses, and channel permeameters have been applied to this problem in the Middle Rio 

Grande Basin. In the work presented here, ground-water temperature profiles and ground-water 

levels beneath the Rio Grande were measured and numerically simulated at four sites. The 

direction and rate of vertical ground-water flux between the river and underlying aquifer was 

simulated and the effective vertical hydraulic conductivity of the sediments underlying the river 

was estimated through model calibration.

Seven sets of nested piezometers were installed during July and August 1996 at four sites 

along the Rio Grande in the Albuquerque area, though only four of the piezometer nests were 

simulated. In downstream order, these four sites are (1) the Bernalillo site, upstream from the 

New Mexico State Highway 44 bridge in Bernalillo (piezometer nest BRN02); (2) the Corrales 

site, upstream from the Rio Rancho sewage treatment plant in Rio Rancho (COR01); (3) the 

Paseo del Norte site, upstream from the Paseo del Norte bridge in Albuquerque (PDNOl); and (4) 

the Rio Bravo site, upstream from the Rio Bravo bridge in Albuquerque (RBR01). All 

piezometers were completed in the inner-valley alluvium of the Santa Fe Group aquifer system. 

Ground-water levels and temperatures were measured in the four piezometer nests a total of 

seven times in the 24-month period from September 1996 through August 1998.

The flux between the surface- and ground-water systems at each of the field sites was 

quantified by one-dimensional numerical simulation of the water and heat exchange in the 

subsurface using the heat and water transport model VS2DH. Model calibration was aided by the 

use of PEST, a model-independent computer program that uses nonlinear parameter estimation.

Mean vertical hydraulic conductivities were estimated by model calibration and range 

from 1.5xlO~5 to 5.8xlO'6 meters per second (m/s). Mean simulated vertical ground-water flux 

for the BRN02 piezometer nest is 3.30x 10~7 m/s; for the COR01 piezometer nest is 3.58* 10"7 

m/s; for the PDNOl piezometer nest is 4.22* 10~7 m/s; and for the RBR01 piezometer nest is 

2.05 x 10" m/s. Comparison of the simulated vertical fluxes and vertical hydraulic conductivities 

derived from this study with values from other studies in the Middle Rio Grande Basin indicate 

agreement between 1 and 3.5 orders of magnitude for hydraulic conductivity and within 1 order 

of magnitude for vertical flux.
INTRODUCTION

An important gap in the understanding of the hydrology of the Middle Rio Grande Basin, 

central New Mexico, is the rate at which water from the Rio Grande recharges the underlying 

Santa Fe Group aquifer system. (The Middle Rio Grande Basin, as defined hydrologically and 

used here, is the area within the Rio Grande Valley extending from Cochiti Dam downstream to 

the community of San Acacia.) The New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (NMOSE) 

currently (1999) uses the methods of Glover and Balmer (1954) as the primary means of 

estimating this rate of recharge. Results of a numerical model of the Albuquerque Basin 

(Kernodle, McAda, and Thorn, 1995), however, indicate that the Glover-Balmer equations 

overestimate the volume of water recharged from the river during the 1901-94 period of 

simulation. Several other methodologies, including flood pulses and channel permeameters, have 

been applied to this problem in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, though results have been 

somewhat ambiguous. The direction and rate of vertical ground-water flux between the river and 

underlying aquifer and effective vertical hydraulic conductivity of the sediments underlying the 

river, however, can be estimated by measuring and modeling ground-water temperature profiles 

beneath the Rio Grande.

Purpose and Scope

This report describes a study designed to determine the direction and rate of vertical flux 

between the Rio Grande and underlying Santa Fe Group aquifer system, and to determine the 

vertical hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer system. This study uses temperature-profile, 

ground-water-level, and piezometer-core data to model the flux and determine effective vertical 

hydraulic conductivity of the Rio Grande inner-valley alluvium that underlies the river.

Description of the Study Area

The study area lies within the Rio Grande inner valley between the town of Bernalillo 

and Rio Bravo Boulevard in Albuquerque (fig. 1). By common definition, the inner valley is the 

area adjacent to the Rio Grande underlain by Quaternary alluvium of the most recent cut-and-fill 

episode of the river. In the study area, the inner valley is approximately 6 kilometers (km) wide 

and incised into older Santa Fe Group sediments.

The inner valley is the traditional location of irrigated agriculture, which is supported by 

extensive irrigation works; however, urbanization and industrialization are replacing farmland. 

Flood-control projects since 1925 have stabilized the channel of the Rio Grande and contributed 

to the growth of the bosque a dense riverside forest between the levees on either side of the 

river. The bosque is highly prized for recreation and is protected as a State park through much of 

the Albuquerque area.
I 106'40'

Bernalillo

35'05'- ,,l.-r

01234 kilometers

0 2 miles

Rancho

35'15'- /"'

Albucuerque

Figure 1. Albuquerque area and locations of the temperature profile sites. BRN, Bernalillo 

site; COR, Corrales site; PDN, Paseo del Norte site; RBR, Rio Bravo site.
Hydrogeologic Setting

The Santa Fe Group aquifer system is the principal aquifer in the Middle Rio Grande 

Basin. As defined by Thorn, McAda, and Kernodle (1993), the Santa Fe Group aquifer system is 

composed of Santa Fe Group (late Oligocene to middle Pleistocene) sediments as well as 

hydraulically connected post-Santa Fe Group valley and basin-fill deposits (Pleistocene to 

Holocene). In the inner valley, these younger sediments consist of an approximately 25-meter 

(m)-thick sequence of interbedded gravel, sand, silt, and clay of flood-plain and river-channel 

deposits of the Rio Grande. The Rio Grande and the ground-water system are connected 

hydraulically through this inner-valley alluvium, and the amount of fine-grained sediment with 

low hydraulic conductivity is a major factor controlling the rate of water movement between the 

Rio Grande and the aquifer system.

During the irrigation season, water within the inner valley is diverted from the Rio 

Grande at Angostura (approximately 10 river km upstream from the New Mexico State Highway 

44 bridge in Bernalillo) and flows through the Albuquerque area in a series of irrigation canals 

and smaller ditches for application to fields. This water either recharges to ground water, is lost 

through evapotranspiration, or is intercepted by interior drains and returned to the river. The 

other main component of the inner-valley surface-water system is a system of riverside drains, 

which are deep canals that parallel the river immediately outside the levees. They are designed to 

intercept lateral ground-water flow from the river, thus preventing waterlogged conditions in the 

inner valley. Within the study area, riverside drains and levees are present on both banks or only 

the east bank of the river. Thus, the main sources of recharge to ground water in the inner valley 

are infiltration from irrigation canals, segments of interior drains which are now above the water 

table, and applied irrigation water. Other sources of recharge are infiltration of sewage effluent 

and precipitation. The main sources of discharge from the ground-water system are seepage into 

the riverside drains, withdrawal from wells, and evapotranspiration. (Kernodle, McAda, and 

Thorn, 1995; Anderholm, 1997).

Detailed descriptions of the hydrogeology of the Middle Rio Grande Basin can be found 

in Hawley and Haase (1992) and Thorn, McAda, and Kernodle (1993). Descriptions of the 

hydrogeology of the inner valley can be found in Peter (1987) and Anderholm (1997). Winter 

1994-95 ground-water levels in wells completed in the Santa Fe Group aquifer system are shown 

in Tiedeman, Kernodle, and McAda (1998).

Previous Investigations

A large number of publications are available about the hydrogeology of the Middle Rio 

Grande Basin. A 1993 summary of the hydrogeologic framework and hydrologic conditions of 

the basin (including a summary of previous investigations) was presented by Thorn, McAda, and 

Kernodle (1993). A subsequent ground-water-flow model by Kernodle, McAda, and Thorn 

(1995) was based on this framework and provided the main impetus for the current study.

Several techniques have been used to determine recharge from the Rio Grande into the 

Santa Fe Group aquifer system. Gould (1994) installed permeameters at five sites along the Rio 

Grande in the Albuquerque area. Pruitt and Bowser (1994) and Roark (1998) used flood pulses in 

the Albuquerque reach of the river, and Gould (1995) developed water budgets. The ground-
water-flow model of Kernodle, Me Ada, and Thorn (1995) also provided estimates of recharge 

from the river. The NMOSE currently (1999) uses the Glover-Balmer equation (Glover and 

Balmer, 1954) as the primary method to calculate stream-aquifer depletion for water-rights 

administration.

Numerous wells have been installed in the inner valley, and lithologic descriptions of 

some may be found in Anderholm and Bullard (1987) and Thorn (1998). Progress reports and 

preliminary results for this study have been published by Bartolino (1997, 1998) and by 

Bartolino and Niswonger (1999a, 1999b). Niswonger, Hseih, and Constantz (1998) used data 

from this study to illustrate the use of computer animation to trace streambed infiltration.

Suzuki (1960) first proposed the use of temperature measurements as a means of 

estimating ground-water velocity. Stallman (1963; 1965) and Lapham (1989) contributed to the 

development of the method. Ronan and others (1998) reviewed the evolution and recent 

applications of the temperature method.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank F.E. Gebhardt and R.K. DeWees of the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), for assistance with piezometer design and installation. J.E. Constantz of the USGS 

contributed to study design and provided essential guidance in its execution. D.P. McAda of the 

USGS provided helpful suggestions during the simulation and analysis portions of the study.

METHODS AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS

Seven sets of nested piezometers were installed during July and August 1996 at four sites 

along the Rio Grande in the Albuquerque area (fig. 1). In downstream order, these sites are (1) 

the Bernalillo site, upstream from the New Mexico State Highway 44 bridge in Bernalillo 

(piezometer nests BRN01 and BRN02); (2) the Corrales site, upstream from the Rio Rancho 

sewage treatment plant in Rio Rancho (COR01 and COR02); (3) the Paseo del Norte site, 

upstream from the Paseo del Norte bridge in Albuquerque (PDN01 and PDN02); and (4) the Rio 

Bravo site, upstream from the Rio Bravo bridge in Albuquerque (RBR01). At each of the first 

three sites, one piezometer nest was located on the bank and the other nest was installed on a 

sandbar in the river channel. Piezometer nests were not installed in the active channel because of 

concerns about access during higher river stages and the destruction of the nest during these 

higher flows. At Rio Bravo, one nest was installed on the bank only, because of the lack of 

accessible sandbars. Except for the sandbar nest at Bernalillo, where two piezometers were 

installed at depths of 3.4 and 5.2 m, three piezometers were installed in each nest at depths 

ranging from 2.4 to 15.2 m. All piezometers were completed in the inner-valley alluvium of the 

Santa Fe Group aquifer system. The piezometer-numbering nomenclature followed in this report 

consists of a three-part identifier that includes the site location, and piezometer-nest designation, 

followed by the piezometer designation: BRNO 1 A, for example, is the deepest piezometer in the 

Bernalillo site number 1 nest.
Because of its location on an isolated sandbar in the channel, the BRN01 nest was 

inaccessible on two dates due to high flows in the Rio Grande. On three dates, the COR02 nest 

was submerged and thus water-level measurements were unreliable or the piezometers were not 

accessible. Water-level data for the PDN02 piezometer nest were anomalous, perhaps as a result 

of broken casing at depth. Because data for these three piezometer nests were incomplete, they 

were not simulated, and thus warrant no further discussion. Descriptions of the remaining four 

piezometer nests are shown in table 1.

Table 1 .--Description of piezometers installed and monitored for this study

[m, meters]

Piezometer 

nest

BRN02

COR01

PDN01

RBR01

Location description

East bank of the Rio Grande, 700

m north of the NM 44 bridge

West bank of the Rio Grande, 100

m north of Rio Rancho sewage 

treatment plant discharge

West bank of the Rio Grande, 30

m north of the Paseo del Norte

bridge

East bank of the Rio Grande, 200

m north of the Rio Bravo

Boulevard bridge

Latitude and 

longitude

35°19'44"

106°33'16"

35°17'00"

106°35'53"

35°11'00"

106°39'07"

35°01'48"

106°40'20"

Altitude of 

land surface 

(m above 

sea level)

1,540

1,530

1,515

1,595

Piezometer 

designation

A

B

C

A

B

C

A

B

C

A

B

C

Piezometer 

depth (m)

12.5

10.7

4.3

11.6

7.9

2.4

15.2

7.0

3.4

12.5

7.0

2.4

Piezometers were constructed of commercially available 0.9-m lengths of 1.9-centimeter 

(cm)-diameter galvanized pipe. Screens were constructed by drilling 20 holes of 0.3-cm diameter 

between 6.4 and 19 cm from the bottom end of the pipe. Two additional 0.3-cm holes were 

drilled diametrically through the pipe at 3.8 and 21.6 cm from the bottom end of the pipe. A 

standard 2.5-cm-long, 0.3-cm roll pin was inserted through the pipe at the top pair of holes, and 

several stainless steel kitchen scouring pads were packed tightly inside the pipe until they were 

level with the bottom pair of holes. This packing was done to keep sediment from entering the 

piezometer. A second roll pin was inserted through the bottom set of holes to hold the pads in 

place. A steel drive point was then loosely inserted into the bottom end of the pipe (the end 

nearest the screen). The 0.9-m lengths of pipe were connected using pipe thread compound and 

standard 1.9-cm galvanized threaded couplings.
A core was collected and piezometers were installed at each location with a Geoprobe 

soil-probing machine, model 8-MU, a truck-mounted hydraulic ram/percussion hammer. The 

soil-probing machine used 0.9-m joints of 2.5-cm diameter drill rod. First, a 2.5-cm core was 

collected continuously to the depth of refusal. Cores were not collected from horizons with 

gravel larger than 2.5 cm because these larger pebbles jammed the core barrels. Acetate sleeves 

containing the core were labeled, and a field description was noted. The core was then kept for 

later detailed description and analysis. The field description was used to choose piezometer depth 

and screen placement in the field. The deepest piezometer was then installed in the same hole 

using the soil-probing machine. The piezometer was driven 15-30 cm deeper than the final depth 

and pulled back to remove the loose drive point from the pipe end. This assured that the screen 

was open at the bottom in case clay sealed the openings along the side of the pipe during 

installation.

Subsequent piezometers in the same nest were installed by driving the soil-probing 

machine rod to the desired depth to create a pilot hole, then installing the piezometer as above. A 

pilot hole was necessary because the galvanized steel pipe used for the piezometers was not 

strong enough to be driven without it. After piezometer nest installation, relative vertical 

positions of the piezometers within the nest were determined with surveying instruments in order 

to calculate ground-water gradients within the nest.

Detailed lithologic descriptions of the core were prepared and are shown in tables 9-12 in 

the "Supplemental information" section at the end of this report. Colors were assigned using 

Munsell soil color charts (Munsell Color, 1990). Generally, river alluvium was uncemented and 

varied in size from coarse pebbles to silty clay.

Daniel B. Stephens and Associates analyzed seven sediment samples representing the 

most representative texture(s) from each piezometer nest for initial moisture content (gravimetric 

and volumetric), dry-bulk density, initial wet-bulk density, and porosity. The results of these 

analyses are shown in table 13 in the "Supplemental information" section. The dry-bulk densities 

were then used to obtain heat capacity and thermal conductivity of the sediments using empirical 

relations described in Lapham (1989). Other heat and hydraulic properties such as parameters for 

the van Genuchten equation (van Genuchten, 1980), dispersivity, and the heat capacity of water 

were obtained from the literature. These heat and hydraulic properties are discussed in greater 

detail in the "Hydraulic and thermal parameters" section of this report.

Ground-water temperatures were measured in the deepest piezometer in each of the four 

piezometer nests a total of seven times in the 24-month period from September 1996 through 

August 1998 using a 46-m Solinst electronic water-level unit with interchangeable probes. The 

temperature probe uses a thermistor to measure resistance with varying temperatures. A standard 

ohmmeter at the surface was then used to read the resistance, which was converted to 

temperature using a formula supplied by Solinst. The accuracy of the probe was checked against 

a thermometer prior to each series of measurements. After checking the water level in all 

piezometers in a nest, temperature was measured from just below the water table to the bottom of 

the piezometer in 15-cm increments. The ohmmeter reading was allowed to stabilize for a 

minimum of 20 seconds at each measurement point before the probe was lowered slowly to the 

next point to minimize disturbance of the water column. After the temperature profile was 

measured in a piezometer nest, the stream temperature was measured using the same probe. The
piezometers were allowed a minimum of 4 weeks after installation to equilibrate before waterlevel and temperature measurements were begun in September 1996.

Water levels were measured prior to temperature measurements using the water-level 

probe of the same electronic water-level unit used to measure ground-water temperature. Waterlevel depths are shown in table 14 in the "Supplemental information" section. Water levels for 

RBR01A were anomalous and are not included.

Ground-water temperature measurements with depth (in 15-cm increments) are shown in 

figure 2 and selected values are listed in table 15 in the supplemental data section at the end of 

this report. Despite the anomalous water levels in RBR01 A, the temperature profile 

measurements were not affected and are included.

The temperature measurement method for determining vertical ground-water flux is 

based on Lapham (1989), and the analysis is based on application of the heat and water transport 

model VS2DH (Healy and Ronan, 1996). Although this study uses methodology similar to that 

of Lapham (1989) in that data were collected over a year and that a saturated, one-dimensional 

system was simulated, temperature was matched at discrete depths and times instead of using 

temperature envelopes. In this latter respect, as well as the use of VS2DH, the methods used in 

this study resemble those of Ronan and others (1998).

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF VERTICAL GROUND-WATER FLUX

Numerical models of heat and water transport in the subsurface were constructed to 

simulate field conditions at each piezometer nest. The computer program used was VS2DH 

(Healy and Ronan, 1996), which simulates the flow of liquid water and energy in a one- or twodimensional variably saturated domain. VS2DH is based on the program VS2DT (Healy, 1990), 

which simulates solute transport in a two-dimensional variably saturated domain. Healy and 

Ronan (1996) described the equations used by VS2DH. To represent moisture content, specific 

moisture capacity, and relative hydraulic conductivity as functions of pressure head, the van 

Genuchten equation option was used within VS2DH.

Model calibration was aided by the use of PEST, a model-independent computer program 

that uses a variant of the Gauss-Marquardt-Levenberg method of parameter estimation using 

nonlinear regression (Watermark Numerical Computing, 1998). PEST allows observations to be 

weighted with different values; for this study, however, all observations were weighted with a 

value of one.

Because ground-water temperatures were measured at 15-cm increments, regression was 

used to fit a ninth-order polynomial equation to the measured data for each site (R2 = 0.999 for 

all temperature profiles) to more easily compare measured and simulated temperatures at nonfractional increments. The resulting equations were then used to generate temperature values for 

specified depths in the model. In the remainder of this report the term "regressed" temperatures 

refers to the temperature values generated by these equations.
0

1

2

3

03 4

1 C "5

.Sci" 

u

f 7

03 "a

C3

o

I 10

|n

Q 12

13

14

15

16

F BRN02A

r

'

^ \i-i~

' ! i'-

7 \ r. ; j

r \ I \ ; ' _ // '- ] \ Y ' / -

:- V7 -

- ' ' //'

" \ ;l|/'

r v y ? i * /^ 

r /I//-*

" i/1 '

: ' '

r :

-

 i i i i i i i i '

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 06SEPT96

14 - 170CT96

----- 02DEC96

15 ____ 21JAN97

"" "" " '" '" '" '"' '" "'" 16 - 21APR97

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 ------ 01JUNE98

Temperature, in degrees Celsius 1 1AUG98

0

1

2

3

2 4

0 c

e 5

8

tf 6

1 7

05 a

13 B

1 9

O

T3 10 .0fn(L>

13

14

15

16

F PDN01A i

h \ r A M

r; i i I 

n i/ / ! i

il : \ V 

l\: 

/ 

\ / 

u:

r ^ / -^ '^/ V / v- / 7 K-; V7 / i

| :\ /\/ : '.

\j V / -

\ 1 I I '-

\ /',/ !

)/y i

- U^ J

 , uJ l6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 09SEPT96

14 - 180CT96

 - - - 03DEC96

15 ____ 22JAN97

- 22APR97

0 3 6 9 121518212427 ------ 02JUNE98

Temperature, in degrees Celsius 12AUG98

0

1

2

3

03 A

1 5

8

8- 6

<g 7

tt

 o 8

8

£ 9

O

| 10

I 11

° 12

13

14

15

16

F COR01A

' ^f * I

 V " ^ /- /

i |V ' './

' ' c I / /

; / / /

7 ;V( ^ /

^ i \ /t /

: ; ! i /' J V / "

" 1 7 V ^;

l\^ /'.'/

' f /

t 'Afe ^

-:

L -;

- -

- ~

 i i i i i i i i 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27

Temperature, in degrees Celsius

 06SEPT96

 17OCT96

----- 02DEC96

---- 21JAN97

- 21APR97

- --- 01JUNE98

 1 1AUG98

0

1

2

3

2 4

1 5

rf 6

o 

<g 7

8

Tl 8

> 9

o 

1 10

fll

0 12

13

14

15

16

F RBR01A I

\ \ * N r / » ^

r \ h / i :

^ i / ! 1 ^

- I . i :

r i \ / j i

i \ \ : / 

: % > 1 V // i

: N ^ / \ // ;

\K'jr ^

\ // ' i

-;

:

7

:

-

:

"

i i i i i i i -

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27

Temperature, in degrees Celsius

 09SEPT96

220CT96

- - - - 04DEC96

---- 23JAN97

- 23APR97

 ----03JUNE98

 13AUG98

Figure 2.--Ground-water temperature profiles for the BRN02, COROl, PDNOl, and RBROl 

piezometer nests, September 1996-August 1998.
Though ground-water temperatures were measured seven times in the 24-month period 

from September 1996 through August 1998, 14 months passed between the April 1997 and June 

1998 measurements. For this reason, the numerical simulation for each piezometer nest was split 

into two runs: a winter-month simulation for the September 1996 to April 1997 period and a 

summer-month simulation for the June 1998 to August 1998 period.

Assumptions

A number of assumptions were made in the numerical simulation and data interpretation 

for this study. These include the assumptions inherent in VS2DH: single, constant-density liquid 

phase flow (Healy and Ronan, 1996). Other assumptions were made in designing the study and 

discretizing the model grid, including: (1) that flow from the river was vertical and could thus be 

represented by a one-dimensional model grid; (2) that flow and lithology were uniform across 

the river and the same at a piezometer nest installed on the riverbank; and (3) that one or two 

textural units in the models could adequately represent lithology at each site. Of these 

assumptions, the one that is most obviously violated is the assumption of exclusive vertical flow. 

Because the four piezometer nests modeled for this study were all on the riverbank, any flow 

reaching the nest had to have some horizontal component. By situating the nest as closely as 

possible to the river, the horizontal component was assumed to be minimized.

Model Representation and Discretization

One-dimensional models were constructed for each site using measured and estimated 

values of site-descriptive parameters. VS2DH treats the outermost cell around the grid perimeter 

as an inactive cell; thus, the one-dimensional model grids required three columns (two inactive), 

and an additional row at the top and bottom of the grid (both inactive). Cell size was uniformly 1 

m in the horizontal direction and 0.2 m in the vertical direction. The top cell for each grid was 

centered on a depth 3.1m below land surface. This 3.1-meter depth was selected as immediately 

below the deepest water level recorded in the deep piezometers for the four nests and was 

applied to each model to ensure uniform temperature conditions at the upper boundary. The 

bottom cell for each grid was centered on a depth 0.2 to 0.3 m above the deepest temperature 

measurement in the piezometer. Thus, the depth represented by the model depended on 

piezometer depth and varied between 6.6 and 11.6 m. All model grids were assigned two textural 

units, discussed in more detail below. Spatial characteristics of the four models constructed for 

the piezometer nests are shown in table 2.

Table 2.-Model representation and discretization of the BRN02, COR01, PDN01, and RBR01

piezometer nests

[m, meters]

Model characteristic

Grid spacing in horizontal direction (m)

Grid spacing in vertical direction (m)

Number of cells in the horizontal direction

Number of cells in the vertical direction

Number of textural units

BRN02

1

0.2

3

35

2

COR01

1

0.2

3

44

2

PDN01

1

0.2

3

58

2

RBR01

1

0.2

3

33

2

10
Hydraulic and Thermal Parameters

Hydraulic and thermal parameters used in the numerical models of the four piezometer 

nests w^re based on core analyses, values from the literature, relations to measured bulk densities 

from the^ literature, and model calibration. Hydraulic and thermal parameters used in the 

numerical models are shown in table 3.

Table 3. Hydraulic and thermal parameters used in the numerical models 

[m, meters; s, seconds; J, joules; W, watts; °C, degrees Celsius]

]

Dept 

te

Dept

tej

Hydraulic or thermal parameter

i range below land surface of 

ttural unit 1 (m)

a range below land surface of 

ttural unit 2 (m)

Initial saturated vertical hydraulic 

conductivity at 20 °C (m/s)

Specific storage, Ss (m" 1 )

Porosity, O

BRN02

3.1-6.2

6.2-10.1

5.0* 10'6 

SxlQ-4

0.36

COR01

3.1-6.2

6.2-10.9

S.OxlO'6 

5xl04

0.41

PDN01

3.1-8.8

8.8-14.7

l.OxlO'5 

SxlQ-4

0.36

RBR01

3.1-6.2

6.2-9.7

l.OxlO'5 

SxlQ-4

0.36

Basis for 

value

Field data/ 

calibration

Field data/ 

calibration

Field data/ 

literature

Literature/ 

calibration

Field data

van 0enuchten parameters:

Scaling length, a'(m)

Residual moisture content, 9r

Exponent relating saturation to 

pressure, P' (or n, or N)

Longitudinal dispersivity, aL (m)

Transverse dispersivity, aT (m)

Heat caracity of dry solids, Cs

(J/m-°C)

Therrjial conductivity of water -sediment 

at full saturation, K^) (W/m-°C)

-0.66

0.08

2.8

2

0.2

2.64x1 06

2.22

-2.36

0.13

2.1 

2

0.2

2.50x1 06

2.43

-0.66

0.08

2.8

2

0.2

2.71xl06

1.8

-0.14

0.28

2.1

2

0.2

2.57xl06

2.18

Literature

Literature

Literature 

Literature

Literature

Field data/ 

literature

Field data/ 

literature

I Initially, the model grid for each site consisted of one textural unit (a homogeneous unit 

in terms f)f all hydraulic and thermal parameters); in initial runs, however, PEST was unable to 

reach convergence. For all sites, the addition of a second textural unit improved results. The 

boundary between the two textural units was manually adjusted until PEST was able to reach a 

solution for the specified parameters. Both units in each model grid were assigned the same 

initial hyilraulic and thermal parameters, but, as discussed below, PEST was allowed to vary the 

hydrauliq conductivity of each unit separately. A comparison of the depth ranges for the textural 

units in tjjie model grids shown in table 3 and the lithologic logs in tables 9-12 shows that the 

resulting textural unit boundaries are not supported by the lithologic logs. This may be due to 

unrecognized variation in the sediments or poor representation of actual conditions by the model 

grids.

11
Initial vertical hydraulic-conductivity values were obtained by choosing a midrange 

horizontal hydraulic-conductivity value from the literature for the dominant lithology type at 

each piezometer nest and multiplying it by an anisotropy factor of 0.1. The ranges of horizontal 

hydraulic conductivity used to obtain the initial values are: 9.38-231*10~5 meters per second 

(m/s) (sand and gravel); 9.95-174,000* 10'10 m/s (silt, loess); 0.1-4,720* 10~ i0 m/s (clay); and 

2.55-2,550,000* 10'12 m/s (sandy clay) (Spitz and Moreno, 1996). PEST was then allowed to 

vary hydraulic conductivity during model runs to improve the calibration, discussed in detail 

below.

Specific storage was specified as 5*10"4 rn 1 . This was based on the following values 

found in Spitz and Moreno (1996): dense sandy gravel, 4.9-10* 10'5 rn 1 ; dense sand, 4.9-10*10~4 

m" 1 ; and loose sand, 1.3-2*10"4 m" 1 .

Porosity values were based on laboratory measurements made by Daniel B. Stephens and 

Associates of core samples collected during piezometer installation. A plausible range for 

porosity is between 0.20 (gravel and sand) and 0.46 (coarse sand) (Spitz and Moreno, 1996).

The van Genuchten parameters were taken from values for comparable lithology types 

listed in Stephens, Lambert, and Watson (1987). Listed ranges for these parameters in natural 

materials are: -0.84 to 1.39 m (scaling length, a'); 0.0 to 0.40 (residual moisture content, 6r); and 

1.2 to 5.8 (exponent relating saturation to pressure, P' (or n, or N)).

Longitudinal dispersivities were uniformly specified as 2 m, which was calculated using 

a travel distance of 20 m and the empirical relation shown in Spitz and Moreno (1996). 

Transverse dispersivities were uniformly specified as 0.2 m, based on a midrange value for the 

ratio of longitudinal to transverse dispersivity (Spitz and Moreno, 1996).

Dry-bulk densities from core analysis were used in conjunction with charts in Lapham 

(1989) to obtain values for heat capacity of dry solids and thermal conductivity at full saturation. 

Plausible ranges for these parameters are discussed in Lapham (1989). The heat capacity of 

water was taken from Lide (1990).

Initial and Boundary Conditions

VS2DH requires initial conditions to be specified for pressure heads and temperatures for 

all points in the model domain. Initial pressure-head conditions were interpolated from groundwater-level measurements made September 6-9,1996. All initial temperature conditions were 

measured September 6-9, 1996, for the winter-month simulations and June 7-9, 1998, for the 

summer-month simulations.

The uppermost cell of the model grid for all sites was centered on a point 3.1m below 

land surface. As mentioned earlier, VS2DH treats the outermost cells around the grid perimeter 

as inactive cells. The uppermost and lowermost active cells were designated as specified total 

head boundary and specified temperature boundary cells. The head values were determined by 

calculating the average gradient between the middle and deep piezometers in the nest for each 

field measurement and then interpolating gradients for intervening recharge periods. (A recharge 

period denotes a length of simulated time over which the model's hydraulic boundary conditions 

are constant. It is the same as a stress period in other models and does not imply a flux direction.)

12
The gradient between the middle and deep piezometers was chosen as more representative of 

conditions beneath the river. For RBR01, the gradient between the middle (RBR01B) and 

shallow (RBR01C) piezometers was used because of inaccurate water levels in the deep 

piezometer (RBR01 A).

The upper temperature boundary condition was set at 3.3 m below land surface for each 

site. This depth was below the lowest seasonal water table at each site and was chosen because 

temperatures above this depth appeared to be strongly influenced by diurnal temperature 

fluctuations. The regressed temperatures from September 1996 were specified as the initial 

temperatures for each site. The lowermost measured temperatures at each site were used to 

obtain f;he lower temperature boundary conditions in the same manner. Initial estimates in PEST 

for the temperature boundary conditions during intermediate recharge periods were calculated by 

interpolating in time between the regressed temperatures.

Model Calibration and Fit

Ground-water levels and temperatures were measured seven times during the study. 

Because data were not collected between April 1997 and June 1998, two model runs 

encompassing different time spans were made for each site: September 1996-April 1997 and 

June 1998-August 1998. For the first model run, the initial set of measurements in September 

1996 was used to provide initial conditions for the model, and the remaining four measurements 

were u^ed to match simulated temperatures. For the second model run, the June 1998 

measurements provided the initial conditions for the model, and simulated temperatures were 

matched to the August 1998 measurements.

PEST was used to estimate the top boundary water temperature for each recharge period 

using the regressed and extrapolated temperatures as the initial condition for each recharge 

period. By using recharge periods ranging from 1 to 4 days, the PEST-determined upper 

boundary-condition temperatures correlated well with the shallowest observed water 

temperatures. Subsequent runs indicated that the models were not sensitive to the initial 

temperature estimates used in PEST. Next, PEST was allowed to vary the hydraulic conductivity 

in addition to varying the boundary-condition water temperatures, which improved the 

correlation between regressed and simulated temperatures and resulted in PEST-determined 

values of hydraulic conductivity that were within one order of magnitude of initial estimates. 

Subsequent runs demonstrated that the final estimations of flux rates and optimal hydraulicconduc^ivity values were not sensitive to the initial estimates of hydraulic conductivity required 

by PES|T. On the basis of these results and the PEST output statistics for the optimal hydraulicconductivity values, these solutions were considered to be unique. The output statistics are 

discussed in greater detail below.

The PEST-calibrated models showed very good agreement between regressed and 

simulated temperatures (fig. 3). The difference between regressed and simulated temperatures 

varied from 0.00 to 2.1 degrees Celsius (°C). The difference for most depths and dates was less 

than 0.5 °C.

13
BRN02 COR01 PDN01 RBR01

E 

in 

 ^

^m

V)

a E

"CD in

E CD

c

CD 

O

<t? - 

3 

CO

T3

§ E

15 w

«»

&\ 

CD 

 

CD

E -

O 

N 

CD "CL

c E

JC "? 

0.0

CD ^

O

E 

m 

c\i

24 

22 

20

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

co 4

 ?

* n

024 

co 22 

2? 20

£18 

^16

T314 

C12

?l 

IS0) n

E°

OJ24

H22 

20

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0

a

- -Q - - -

t

*~

__ __

._ - - Q

@- jar

@

JH

n

zr _ __________ _g. _ __ .

-S A-

"^ ------- H ff - - - -0- s -

Q

OCTDECJANAPRAUG 

96 96 97 97 98 n 

20

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0

J3 ----- * - --S"

Q

Q

na TtJ

n - - -

Q- Q

Q

e Q

Q_ :_.~"""""ft""H"_A

a

--Q--&-Q-------- 

^ CB

Q" S

OCTDECJANAPRAUG 

96 96 97 97 98

18 

16 

14

1 1 12

o Measured temperature 1 g 

A Regressed temperature 6 

D Simulated temperature %

.__________.._ Q __

__43__ __________

-----Q-----W----- D

* _6a

-n TtJ @V./

M _ _.

s

o

H

-fi

jr.. & a^

--------g- - ----

Q

-3

^ fl

--iL 

 - 

---Hvy

13

.^.g.

~ ~ Q^

Q D

__.___________g__

_____H___ 0 __g_____ BM

---- --Q------ -

£

H_

A~ 23

.A.

H ,_ ra

2r "

a

DEC JAN APR AUG 

96 97 97 98

OCTDECJANAPRAUG 

96 96 97 97 98

Figure 3. Measured, regressed, and simulated ground-water temperatures at various depths for 

the BRN02, COROl, PDNOl, and RBROl piezometer nests, October 1996-August 1998.

14
Sensitivity Analysis

During the initial phases of model calibration, the models were tested for sensitivity to 

initial values of temperature and hydraulic conductivity used in PEST. These values were found 

to make little difference in model results, as discussed above. After the optimal values were 

deterrtiined, the PDN01 site summer-month simulation was then tested for sensitivity in the 

simulated vertical ground-water flux to changes in other major parameters: porosity, specific 

storage, heat capacity, and thermal conductivity. The summer-month average simulated flux 

calibration value using the optimal parameter values was 5.84xlO~7 m/s.

The porosity for the original solutions was set at 0.36 (table 3). By varying the porosity 

over 3 range of 0.30 to 0.45, the simulated flux varied between 5.84-5.85x 10" m/s a change of 

less than 1 percent from the average calibration value.

The specific storage for all simulations was set at 5* 10"4 m" 1 . A change in specific storage 

one oitder of magnitude higher or lower than this value caused the average simulated flux to vary 

between 5.53-7.31 x 10"7 m/s for a maximum variation of 25 percent.

The longitudinal dispersivity was specified as 2 m for all simulations. By decreasing this 

value about two orders of magnitude to 0.01 m, the average simulated flux changed to 7.57x10"7 

m/s, a variation of 30 percent. The transverse dispersivity was not changed because it has no 

effect on the one-dimensional simulations.

The two variables with the most uncertainty are the heat capacity of dry solids and the 

thermal conductivity of water-sediment at full saturation. A range of reasonable values foi; both 

these parameters was chosen from de Vries and Afgan (1975) and Lapham (1989); the values 

used fJ3r the simulated flux estimates (table 3) fell within these ranges. Because the two 

parameters are so closely related, their effects on the simulated flux were evaluated in tandem. A 

large heat capacity of 3.56xl06 joules per cubic meter Celsius (J/m3 -°C) and small thermal 

conductivity of 0.84 watts per meter Celsius (W/m-°C) resulted in a presumed uppermost 

average simulated flux value of 9.2x 10"7 m/s. A small heat capacity of 2.51 x 10 J/m3 -°C and 

large thermal conductivity of 2.5 W/rrr°C resulted in a presumed lowermost average simulated 

flux value of 3.2x10"7 m/s. Thus, the resulting range of average simulated fluxes varied from the 

average calibration flux value by a maximum of 58 percent.

Figure 4 is a comparison of simulated to regressed temperatures over a range of hydraulic 

conductivities for the PDN01 site. As described above, PEST was allowed to vary the hydraulic 

conductivity to find the best match between regressed and simulated temperatures. Because the 

simulations were done to find hydraulic conductivity, the degree of sensitivity of the temperature 

profile to the hydraulic conductivity (within one order of magnitude) is favorable (fig. 4).

Optimization Statistics

The uniqueness of a parameter estimation solution can be judged on the basis of several 

PEST putput statistics that are byproducts of the optimization problem. These include direct 

listing^ of 95-percent confidence intervals for estimated parameters as well as matrices of 

statistics describing the parameter estimation of the hydraulic conductivity and upper 

tempeitature boundary values.

15
1 7

8 8

I 10

CD

Q. 

CD 

Q

11

12

13

14 ~

15

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Temperature, in degrees Celsius

Regressed temperature

Simulated temperature, optimal hydraulic conductivity (mean, 6.7x10" m/s)

 - - Simulated temperature, larger hydraulic conductivity (mean, 6,7x10 m/s)

--------- Simulated temperature, smaller hydraulic conductivity (mean, 6.7x10 m/s)

 --- --- Simulated temperature, optimal hydraulic conductivity (mean, 6.7x10 m/s), upward flux

Figure 4. Sensitivity of simulated August 1998 temperature profile to changes in hydraulic 

conductivity and flux direction for the PDN01 piezometer nest (m/s, meters per second).

16
Table 4 shows the 95-percent confidence intervals for the estimated optimal hydraulic 

conductivities for all simulated sites. Note that the ranges of the 95-percent confidence limits for 

BRNO^ and PDN01 are less than one order of magnitude and for COR01 are less than three 

orders pf magnitude. However, the range of the 95-percent confidence limits for RBR01 is many 

orders of magnitude. This does not necessarily indicate that the simulated optimal hydraulic 

conductivities for RBR01 are unrealistic. The simulation output from PEST notes that 

"confidence limits provide only an indication of parameter uncertainty" and that "they rely on a 

linearity assumption which may not extend as far in parameter space as the confidence limits 

themselves." As noted above, at RBR01 the gradients were upward for much of the simulation 

period. For upward gradients, the simulated temperature profile changed very little in response to 

increases in the upward gradient and was insensitive to changes in hydraulic conductivity, 

resulting in the large 95-percent confidence interval. However, the simulated temperature 

profiles^ were quite sensitive to the simulated flux, demonstrating that the optimal hydraulic 

conductivities are probably realistic. (Because flux is an indirect parameter, confidence intervals 

were not calculated by PEST.) Of the four simulated piezometer nests, RBR01 has the lowest 

average^ flux, suggesting that flux at that site may be controlled by ground-water gradients rather 

than byi hydraulic conductivity.

Table ^.--Ninety-five-percent confidence limits for optimal values of hydraulic conductivity used

in simulations

[m/s, meters per second]

Piezometer 

nest

BRN02

COR01

PDN01

RBR01

Textural 

unit

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

Optimal 

hydraulic 

conductivity 

(m/s)

5.4xlO'6

6.4x1 0'6

9.6x1 0'6

l.lxiO'5

1.4xlO'5

4.3 xl(T6

1.2xlO'5

2.0xlO"5

95 -percent confidence limits of 

hydraulic conductivity (m/s)

Lower limit

2.77xl(T6

2.97xl(T6

l.SxlO'7

S.lxiO'7

6.8xlO"6

2.0xlO'6

6.1X10' 114

l.SxlO'95

Upper limit

1.04X10'5

1.4xl(r5

7.1xlO'5

2.3 xl(T4

6.0X10'5

1.4xlO'5

2.2xl0103

2.3 xlO85

pne of the model outputs from PEST is the covariance matrix, which describes the 

amount of confidence in the estimate of each parameter. The covariance was low for all 

parameters; however, it was not as low for temperature boundary values at the beginning of the 

simulations because these values had less effect on the simulated temperature profiles.

Another model output from PEST is the correlation coefficient matrix, which describes 

how well each parameter has been resolved. A parameter is considered well resolved if it has 

been simulated independent of all other parameters simulated that is, its optimal value would 

not change if other parameter values were changed. The hydraulic-conductivity values for all 

sites were well resolved relative to the PEST-determined boundary-cell temperature values. As 

stated above, PEST was allowed to vary only the boundary-cell temperature values, not the 

temperature profile itself.

17
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Temperature-profile simulation with VS2DH resulted in estimates of the quantity and 

direction of vertical ground-water flux between the Rio Grande and the Santa Fe Group aquifer 

system, as well as estimates of vertical hydraulic conductivity from model calibration. Though 

both vertical hydraulic-conductivity and vertical ground-water flux values are discussed as 

simulation results, the flux values are dependent on the vertical hydraulic-conductivity values 

and ground-water gradients that were measured and input into the model.

Vertical hydraulic conductivities estimated by model calibration are shown in table 5. All 

fall within the ranges of hydraulic conductivity by lithology given by Spitz and Moreno (1996) 

discussed earlier and appear plausible considering the lithologies at the sites (tables 9-12). 

Because two textural units were used in the numerical simulations of the piezometer nests, a 

mean was taken of the two hydraulic-conductivity values. In any numerical model, a vertical 

hydraulic conductivity that accounts for multiple hydraulic units is calculated as some average of 

the different values. To determine saturated hydraulic conductivity, VS2DH uses the distanceweighted harmonic mean between the value of adjacent cells (Lappala, Healy, and Weeks, 

1987). Because cell size was uniform for all models in this study, the simple harmonic mean was 

taken of the two textural units at each site to obtain the mean hydraulic conductivities shown in 

table 5.

Table 5.-Estimated vertical hydraulic conductivity underlying the Rio Grande at the BRN02,

COR01, PDN01, and RBR01 piezometer nests

[The mean hydraulic conductivity for each site was obtained by taking the harmonic mean of the 

hydraulic conductivities from each textural unit. °C, degrees Celsius; m/s, meters per second]

Hydraulic conductivity at 20 °C (m/s)

BRN02

COR01

PDN01

RBR01

Textural 

unit 1

5.4xlO'6

9.6x1 0'6

1.4xlO'5

1.2xlO'5

Textural 

unit 2

6.4x1 0'6

i.ixicr5

4.3 xlO"6

2.0xl(T5

Mean

5.8xl(T6

l.OxKT5

6.7xiO'6

1.5xlO'5

Simulated vertical ground-water fluxes between the Rio Grande and the Santa Fe Group 

aquifer system at the four piezometer nests are shown in table 6 and figure 5. Flux direction is 

downward at all nests at all times.

18
Table 6. Simulated vertical ground-water fluxes between the Rio Grande and Santa Fe Group 

aquifer system at the BRN02, COR01, PDN01, and RBR01 piezometer nests

[The mean and standard deviation for each site is calculated from daily averages. All water 

movement is downward, m/s, meters per second]

Average monthly vertical ground-water flux (m/s)

Date

September 1996

October 1996

November 1996

December 1996

January 1997

February 1997

March 1997

April 1997

June 1998

July 1998

August 1998

Mean

Standard deviation

BRN02

6.98xlO'7

2.79xlO'7

4.45 xlO'7

6.76xlO'7

4.19xl(T7

l.BxlO'7

3.57xlO'7

6.73 xlO'7

9.12X10'9

4.58xlO'9

6.46X10' 10

3.30xlO'7

2.72XKT7

COR01

8.54xlO'7

3.02xlO'7

1.99XKT7

2.61 xlO'7

3.60xl(r7

3.37xlO'7

4.00x1 0'7

2.58xlO'7

3.47xl(T7

2.84xlO'7

6.03 xlO'7

3.58xlO'7

2.22xlO'7

PDN01

8.95xlO"8

1.88xlO'7

4.94xlO"7

1.43 xlO'7

9.56xlQ-7

5.23 xlO'7

1.54xlO'7

3.19xlO'7

2.47xlO'7

7.89xlO'7

7.83xlO'7

4.22xlO'7

3.57xlO'7

RBR01

4.70xl(T7

2.25xlO'7

4.03x101

6.76xlO'8

2.26xlO'8

2.07xlO'8

6.15xlO'8

9.94xlO'8

3.79xlO'7

3.79xlO-7

9.32xlO'7

2.05xlO'7

2.50xlO'7

Of the four piezometer nests modeled, simulated vertical ground-water flux for the 

BRNOf piezometer nest has the least amount of short-term fluctuation (table 6; fig. 5). A 

comparison of the flux to river discharge at the Rio Grande at Albuquerque gage (08330000) 

(figs, t and 5) shows a broad correlation. Two exceptions are the large initial simulated flux and 

the increased simulated flux in late November 1996 that do not correspond to an increase in 

flow. This period of increased simulated flux roughly corresponds to a ground-water-gradient 

reversal to an upward direction between the BRN02A and BRN02B piezometers measured in 

December 1996 and January 1997 (table 14). A similar upward gradient was measured in August 

1998 but was not reflected by an increase in simulated flux. The mean simulated vertical flux

7 7

calculated from daily means is 3.30x 10" m/s and the standard deviation is 2.72* 10" m/s.

Simulated vertical ground-water fluxes for the COR01 piezometer nest also roughly 

correspond to the river discharge at the Rio Grande at Albuquerque gage (table 6; fig. 5). 

Exceptions are the large initial simulated flux, the sharp downward spike in mid-November 

1996, aiid the upward trend beginning in mid-July 1998. All measured ground-water gradients 

between the COR01A and COR01B piezometers are downward except for the August 1998 

measurement that corresponds to increased values for simulated flux (table 14). The mean 

simulated vertical flux calculated from daily means is 3.58* 10"7 m/s and the standard deviation is 

2.22 xlb'7 m/s.

19
 8

o 

u

u

1

.a

-5

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

9/06/ 

1996

10/017 10/267 11/20/ 12/15/ 1/09/ 2/03/ 2/28/ 

1996 1996 1996 1996 1997 1997 1997

3/25/ 4/19/ 5/24/ 6/18/ 7/13/ 8/07/ 9/01/ 

1997 1997 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998

1.6xlO'6

e 

s

§

1.0x10

l.OxlO'7

1.0x10

1.0x10

-8 -

-10

BRN02 simulated vertical flux 

COROl simulated vertical flux 

PDNOl simulated vertical flux 

RBROl simulated vertical flux

9/06/ 

1996

10/01/ 

1996

10/26/ 11/20/ 12/15/ 

1996 1996 1996

1/09/ 

1997

2/03/ 

1997

2/28/ 

1997

3/25/ 

1997

4/19/ 5/24/ 

1997 1998

6/18/ 

1998

7/13/ 

1998

8/07/ 9/01/ 

1998 1998

Figure 5.-Simulated vertical flux rates beneath the Rio Grande for the BRN02, COROl, PDNOl, 

and RBROl piezometer nests, October 1996-August 1998 compared to discharge at the Rio 

Grande at Albuquerque gage. Both flux and discharge are daily mean values.

20
The PDN01 piezometer nest shows the most short-term fluctuation in simulated vertical 

flux, ye^t much of the fluctuation appears to correspond with changes in river discharge (table 6; 

fig. 5). As with the other piezometer nests, initial simulated fluxes are large and decrease 

quickly. All measured ground-water gradients between PDN01A and PDN01B piezometers are 

downward except for October 1996 (table 14). This reversal seems to be reflected in a spike in 

simulated flux (fig. 5). The mean simulated vertical flux calculated from daily means is 4.22x10" 

7 m/s ai|id the standard deviation is 3.57xlO~7 m/s.

Simulated vertical fluxes for the RBR01 piezometer nest also show short-term fluctuation 

during several time periods (table 6; fig. 5). Again, simulated fluxes decrease rapidly from the 

beginning of the simulation, and except for an increase in simulated flux in February and March

1997 and a decrease in flux during June 1998, the fluxes do not appear to correspond to river 

discharge (fig. 5). Ground-water gradients between the RBR01B and RBR01C piezometers are 

downward for four of the measurements and upward for the October and December 1996 and 

August 1998 measurements (table 14). These gradient reversals correspond to a sharp spike in 

simulated flux in December 1996 and a general increase in simulated flux beginning in late June

1998 (4ble 6; fig. 5). The mean simulated vertical flux calculated from daily means is 2.05xlO~7 

m/s anc^ the standard deviation is 2.50x10"7 m/s.

AH sites show a significant decrease in simulated vertical flux during the first several 

days of each simulation. This is probably an artifact of the simulation and a result of the model 

adjusting to initial conditions. Another feature common to the simulated fluxes for each site is 

the paradoxical increase in ground-water flux for a reversal of ground-water gradient. This is 

most probably the result of a strong component of horizontal flow from the river that alters the 

temperature profile. Furthermore, the gradient reversals do not seem to correlate with river 

discharge. Other factors may also have a bearing on simulated vertical flux. First, the fluxes have 

very small values, and relatively minor unknown effects such as pumping wells near the nests 

could influence the estimates. Second, a significant horizontal component of flow could 

influence the simulated flux direction. Third, heads input into VS2DH were obtained by 

averaging the gradient between two piezometers in the nest and applying the resulting gradient to 

the entirje simulation depth, thus introducing possible errors. Finally, simulated vertical flux is 

quite variable and may be dependent on river discharge or stage, meteorological conditions, and 

other temporal variations. Thus, some caution needs to be exercised in applying these simulated 

vertical fluxes on a broad basis.

COMPARISONS WITH OTHER WORK

Three previous studies have obtained values for either hydraulic conductivity of riverbed 

sediments or flux between the river and aquifer: Gould (1994), Pruitt and Bowser (1994), and 

Kernodl^, Me Ada, and Thorn (1995). A comparison of values obtained for these studies with 

those frojm the current study indicate possible ranges for vertical hydraulic conductivity and 

vertical flux.

the studies of Pruitt and Bowser (1994) and Kernodle, McAda, and Thorn (1995) 

developed vertical hydraulic-conductivity values for the inner-valley alluvium underlying the 

Rio Grai^de. Pruitt and Bowser (1994) conducted a flood-wave test in which elevated spring

21
runoff was augmented with a release of water from Jemez Dam in May 1994. The response of 

ground-water levels in shallow piezometers next to the river at four sites was then noted and 

analyzed with a two-dimensional ground-water-flow model or response-curve matching. Two of 

the sites for that study correspond with sites chosen for the current study: Paseo del Norte and 

Rio Bravo. Pruitt and Bowser (1994) analyzed both with a ground-water-flow model and found 

that two model solutions with different hydraulic conductivities fit the observed data at both 

sites. The value obtained for this current study for the RBR01 piezometer nest is within Pruitt 

and Bowser's (1994) range, and the value for the PDN01 nest is within half an order of 

magnitude of their lower value (table 7).

Table 7.-Comparison of estimated vertical hydraulic conductivities in the current study with

those from previous work

[m/s; meters per second]

Hydrologic unit or site and study

Vertical hydraulic 

conductivity (m/s)

Paseo del Norte and Rio Bravo sites basin and valley 

fill deposits (Pruitt and Bowser, 1994)

Solution 1 7.1xlO"5 

Solution 2 7.1xlO'6

Model layer 1 (Kernodle, McAda, and Thorn 1995)

Inner valley 7.1*iO'7

Model layer 2 (Kernodle, McAda, and Thorn 1995) 

Candelaria Road to Isleta Boulevard 8.8* 10 

Remainder of inner valley 7.1*10 

Riverbed 1.8x10

Model layer 2 (Kernodle, 1998)

-9

Candelaria Road to Isleta Boulevard 1.8*10"8 

The current study (harmonic mean of two textural units)

BRN02 5.8xlO'6 

COR01 l.OxlO'5 

PDN01 6.7 xlO'6 

RBR01 1.5xlO'5

Kernodle, McAda, and Thorn (1995) constructed a three-dimensional ground-water-flow 

model of the Albuquerque Basin. Four values of vertical hydraulic conductivity from that study 

can be compared with values obtained for the inner-valley alluvium analyzed in the current 

study: one area of their model layer 1, two areas of their model layer 2, and the riverbed. For 

model layer 1, Kernodle, McAda, and Thorn (1995) applied a uniform hydraulic conductivity to 

the inner valley through the study area. In their model layer 2, the vertical hydraulic conductivity 

of the Candelaria Road to Isleta Boulevard unit can be compared with the value found for the

22
Rio Bra^o nest in the current study. The remainder of the inner-valley unit in their model layer 2 

can be compared with the remaining three piezometer nests in this study. The difference between 

the values from Kernodle, McAda, and Thorn's (1995) study for vertical hydraulic conductivity 

and thosfe from the current study ranges from 1.5 to 3.5 orders of magnitude (table 7). Their 

value forf riverbed vertical hydraulic conductivity can also be compared with values for all four 

piezometer nests and is within one order of magnitude for all four nests. An update of the 

original J\lbuquerque Basin model by Kernodle (1998) doubled the vertical hydraulic 

conductivity of the Candelaria Road to Isleta Boulevard unit, but other values shown in table 7 

remained the same, which improved the agreement between the vertical hydraulic conductivity at 

the RBRt)l nest and that of the Albuquerque Basin model to within three orders of magnitude.

0round-water flux between the river and aquifer has been calculated in the study of 

Gould (1^94). Nine or 10 permeameters were installed at each of five cross sections between 

Bernalill^> and Isleta. Two of these cross sections were near piezometer nests installed for the 

current s^udy: Paseo del Norte and Rio Bravo sites. Gould (1994) conducted permeameter tests 

over 4 consecutive days in August 1994 at each site, though she cautioned that her results were 

likely applicable to only the upper 1 m of river channel sediments. Table 8 compares Gould's 

(1994) average flux values for each site with mean daily values for August 1998 from the current 

study. Nc^te that vertical flux rates for the Paseo del Norte area differ by approximately one-half 

order of i^iagnitude and that the flux directions in the Rio Bravo area are reversed between the 

two studies. Also shown is mean monthly river discharge at the Rio Grande at Albuquerque gage 

for August 1994 and August 1998: the two differ by 5 percent, which is less than the difference 

between #ie vertical fluxes for the two studies.

Table 8.-Comparison of simulated vertical fluxes in the current study with vertical fluxes 

estimate^ by Gould (1994) and mean monthly river discharge at the Rio Grande at Albuquerque

gage for August 1994 and August 1998

[Positive numbers indicate downward water movement; negative numbers upward movement, 

m/s, meters per second; ft3/s, cubic feet per second]

Vertical flux (m/s)

Paseo del Norte

Rio Bravo

tytonthly mean discharge (ftVs)

Gould (1994) 

August 1994

1.02xl(X7

-6.60X10'7

696

The current study 

August 1998

7.83 xlO'7

9.32xl(T7

732

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Ari important gap in the understanding of the hydrology of the Middle Rio Grande Basin, 

central NeW Mexico, is the rate at which water from the Rio Grande recharges the Santa Fe 

Group aquifer system. Several methodologies, including use of the Glover-Balmer equation, 

flood pulsps, and channel permeameters, have been applied to this problem in the Middle Rio 

Grande B4sin. Ground-water temperature profiles and ground-water levels beneath the Rio

23
Grande were measured and simulated at four sites. The direction and rate of vertical groundwater flux between the river and underlying aquifer was simulated, and the effective vertical 

hydraulic conductivity of the sediments underlying the river was estimated from model 

calibration.

Seven sets of nested piezometers were installed during July and August 1996 at four sites 

along the Rio Grande in the Albuquerque area, although only four of the piezometer nests were 

simulated. In downstream order, these four sites are (1) the Bernalillo site, upstream from the 

New Mexico State Highway 44 bridge in Bernalillo (piezometer nest BRN02); (2) the Corrales 

site, upstream from the Rio Rancho sewage treatment plant in Rio Rancho (COR01); (3) the 

Paseo del Norte site, upstream from the Paseo del Norte bridge in Albuquerque (PDNOl); and (4) 

the Rio Bravo site, upstream from the Rio Bravo bridge in Albuquerque (RBR01). All 

piezometers were completed in the inner- valley alluvium of the Santa Fe Group aquifer system. 

Ground-water-level and temperature measurements were measured in the four piezometer nests a 

total of seven times in the 24-month period from September 1996 through August 1998.

One-dimensional numerical models of heat and water transport in the subsurface were 

constructed to simulate the field setting for each piezometer nest. The computer program used 

was VS2DH, which simulates the flow of liquid water and energy in a one- or two-dimensional 

variably saturated domain. Model calibration was aided by the use of PEST, a modelindependent computer program that uses a variant of the Gauss-Marquardt-Levenberg method of 

nonlinear parameter estimation. Hydraulic and thermal parameters used in the numerical models 

of the four piezometer nests were the products of core analyses, values from the literature, 

relations to measured bulk densities from the literature, hydrologic judgment, and model 

calibration.

Initial model runs found that the numerical solutions were not sensitive to initial 

boundary temperature and hydraulic-conductivity values simulated by PEST; thus, PEST was 

allowed to vary the hydraulic conductivity in addition to varying the boundary-condition water 

temperatures, which improved the correlation between regressed and simulated temperatures 

significantly using values of hydraulic conductivity that were within one order of magnitude of 

initial estimates. As is favorable, the final simulated temperature profiles and vertical flux rates 

were extremely sensitive to hydraulic conductivity. For these and other reasons, the numerical 

solutions were considered unique. The PEST-calibrated models showed a very good correlation 

between regressed and simulated temperatures. The difference between regressed and simulated 

temperatures varied from 0.0 to 2.1 °C; the difference for most depths and dates was less than 0.5

Mean vertical hydraulic conductivities were estimated by model calibration and range 

from l.SxlO"5 to 5.8xlO~6 m/s. Mean simulated vertical ground-water flux for the BRN02 

piezometer nest is 3.30x 10"7 m/s; for the COR01 piezometer nest is 3.58 X 10"7 m/s; for the 

PDNOl piezometer nest is 4.22x 10"7 m/s; and for the RBR01 piezometer nest is 2.05x 10"7 m/s.

Comparison of the simulated vertical fluxes and estimated vertical hydraulic 

conductivities from this study with values from other investigations in the Middle Rio Grande 

Basin indicate broad agreement. For example, a comparison of vertical hydraulic conductivities 

with the results of a 1994 study for two sites shows that the value obtained for this study for the

24
Rio Bitavo piezometer nest is within the 1994 study range and that the value for the PDN01 nest 

is within half an order of magnitude of the lower value for the 1994 study. A 1995 ground-waterflow r^odel used four values of vertical hydraulic conductivity that can be compared with values 

obtained for the inner-valley alluvium analyzed in this study: one area of model layer 1 and two 

areas qf model layer 2, and the riverbed. The difference between the values for vertical hydraulic 

conductivity from the 1995 model study and those from this study range from 1.5 to 3.5 orders of 

magnitude. The value for riverbed vertical hydraulic conductivity from the 1995 model study can 

also be^ compared with values for all four piezometer nests and is within one order of magnitude 

for all four nests. An update of the original Albuquerque Basin model in 1998 doubled the 

vertical hydraulic conductivity of the Candelaria Road to Isleta Boulevard unit, but the other 

values remained the same, which slightly improved the agreement between the vertical hydraulic 

conductivity at the RBR01 nest and that at the Albuquerque Basin model to within three orders 

of magnitude. A comparison of vertical flux rates to the 1994 study shows that flux rates for the 

Paseo (lei Norte area differ by approximately one-half order of magnitude, though flux rates in 

the Rio Bravo area are reversed between the two studies.

REFERENCES CITED

Anderholm, S.K., 1997, Water-quality assessment of the Rio Grande Valley, Colorado, New 

Mexico, and Texas Water quality and land use in the Albuquerque area, central New 

Mexico, 1993: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4067, 

73 p.

Anderfiolm, S.K., and Bullard, T.F., 1987, Description of piezometer nests and water levels in 

the Rio Grande valley near Albuquerque, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 87-122, 51 p.

Bartoli^io, J.R., 1997, Vertical hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer underlying the Rio Grande 

uping temperature profiles, Middle Rio Grande Basin, central New Mexico (abs.), in 

^artolino, J.R., ed., 1997, U.S. Geological Survey Middle Rio Grande Basin Study 

Proceedings of the First Annual Workshop, Denver, Colorado, November 12-14, 1996: 

IJ.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-116, p. 33-34.

_____1998, Temperature profiles of the aquifer system underlying the Rio Grande, Middle Rio 

Gkande Basin, New Mexico Second-year status (abs.), in Slate, J.L., ed., 1998, U.S. 

Oeological Survey Middle Rio Grande Basin Study Proceedings of the Second Annual 

Workshop, Albuquerque, New Mexico, February 10-11, 1998: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 98-337, p. 50-52.

Bartolijio, J.R., and Niswonger, R.G., 1999a, Numerical simulation of ground-water flux of the 

Rio Grande from ground-water temperature profiles, Middle Rio Grande Basin, New 

Mexico (abs.): Eos, v. 80, no. 17, p. SI34.

_1999b, Temperature profiles of the aquifer system underlying the Rio Grande, Middle Rio

Grande Basin, New Mexico Third-year status (abs.), in Bartolino, J.R., ed., 1999, U.S. 

Geological Survey Middle Rio Grande Basin Study Proceedings of the Third Annual 

Workshop, Albuquerque, New Mexico, February 24-25, 1999: U.S. Geological Survey 

O|>en-File Report 99-203, p. 66-68.

25
de Vries, D.A., and Afgan, N.H., eds.,1975, Heat and mass transfer in the biosphere: Washington 

D.C., Scripta Book Company, 594 p.

Glover, R.E., and Balmer, C.G., 1954, River depletion resulting from pumping a well near a 

river: American Geophysical Union Transactions, v. 35, no. 3, p. 468-470.

Gould, J., 1994, Middle Rio Grande permeameter investigations: Albuquerque, Bureau of 

Reclamation Technical Memorandum, December 1994, 13 p., attachments.

___1995, Middle Rio Grande Basin surface water budget for calendar years 1935, 1955, 1975, 

and 1993: Albuquerque, Bureau of Reclamation Technical Memorandum, August 1995, 

18 p., attachments.

Hawley, J.W., and Haase, C.S., 1992, Hydrogeologic framework of the northern Albuquerque 

Basin: Socorro, New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Open-File Report 

387, variously paged.

Healy, R.W., 1990, Simulation of solute transport in variably saturated porous media with 

supplemental information on modifications to the U.S. Geological Survey's computer 

program VS2D: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4025, 

125 p.

Healy, R.W., and Ronan, A.D., 1996, Documentation of computer program VS2DH for

simulation of energy transport in variably saturated porous media Modification of the 

U.S. Geological Survey's computer program VS2DT: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 96-4230, 36 p.

Kernodle, J.M., 1998, Simulation of ground-water flow in the Albuquerque Basin, central New 

Mexico, 1901-95, with projections to 2020 (Supplement two to U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4251): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 96-209, 54 p.

Kernodle, J.M., McAda, D.P., and Thorn, C.R., 1995, Simulation of ground-water flow in the 

Albuquerque Basin, central New Mexico, 1901-1994, with projections to 2020: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4251, 114 p., 1 pi.

Lapham, W.W., 1989, Use of temperature profiles beneath streams to determine rates of vertical 

ground-water flow and vertical hydraulic conductivity: U.S. Geological Survey WaterSupply Paper 2337, 35 p.

Lappala, E.G., Healy, R.W., and Weeks, E.P., 1987, Documentation of computer program VS2D 

to solve the equations of fluid flow in variably saturated porous media: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 83-4099, 131 p.

Lide, D.R., ed., 1990, CRC handbook of chemistry and physics: Boca Raton, Fla., CRC Press, 

variously paged.

Munsell Color, 1990, Munsell soil color charts: Newburgh, New York, Munsell Color, Macbeth, 

Division of Kollmorgen Instruments Corp.

Niswonger, R.G., III, Hsieh, P., and Constantz, J.E., 1998, Using streambed-temperature profile 

and computer model animation to estimate streambed infiltration (abs.): Eos, v. 79, no. 45, 

p. F246.

26
Peter, l<t.D., 1987, Ground-water flow and shallow-aquifer properties in the Rio Grande inner 

valley south of Albuquerque, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 87-4015, 29 p.

Pruitt, J., and Bowser, S., 1994, Flood wave test and transient groundwater analysis:

Albuquerque, Bureau of Reclamation Technical Memorandum, May 1994, 24 p. plus 

arjpendix.

Roark, i).M., 1998, Use of surface-water pulses to estimate hydraulic characteristics of the Rio 

Grande alluvium, Albuquerque area, New Mexico, in Slate, J.L., ed., 1998, U.S. Geological 

Survey Middle Rio Grande Basin Study Proceedings of the Second Annual Workshop,

A buquerque, New Mexico, February 10-11, 1997: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File

Report 98-337, p. 53-54.

Ronan, JA..D., Prudic, D.E., Thodal, C.E., and Constantz, J.E., 1998, Field study and simulation 

ofj diurnal temperature effects on infiltration and variably saturated flow beneath an 

ephemeral stream: Water Resources Research, v. 34, no. 9, p. 2137-2153.

Spitz, K)., and Moreno, J., 1996, A practical guide to groundwater and solute transport modeling: 

N$w York, John Wiley and Sons, 461 p.

Stallmaiji, R.W., 1963, Computation of groundwater velocity from temperature data, in Bentall, 

R.^ ed., Methods of collecting and interpreting ground-water data: U.S. Geological Survey 

Wfiter-Supply Paper 1544-H, p. 26-46.

___1965, Steady one-dimensional fluid flow in a semi-infinite porous medium with sinusoidal j r

surface temperature: Journal of Geophysical Research, v.70, no. 12, p. 2821-2827.

Stephen^, D.B., Lambert, K., and Watson, D., 1987, Regression models for hydraulic

conductivity and field test of the borehole permeameter: Water Resources Research, v. 23, 

no[ 12, p. 2207-2214.

Suzuki, $., 1960, Percolation measurements based on heat flow through soil with special 

reference to paddy fields: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 65, no. 9, p. 2883-2885.

Thorn, u.R., 1998, Description of piezometers installed in the Duranes well field area, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-415, 14 p.

Thorn, C.R., McAda, D.P., and Kernodle, J.M., 1993, Geohydrologic framework and hydrologic 

conditions in the Albuquerque Basin, central New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey WaterRe^ources Investigations Report 93-4149, 106 p., 1 pi.

Tiedeman, C.R., Kernodle, J.M., and McAda, D.P., 1998, Application of nonlinear regression 

methods to a ground-water flow model of the Albuquerque Basin, New Mexico: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4172, 90 p.

van Genuchten, M.Th., 1980, A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity 

of iinsaturated soils: Soil Science Society of America Journal, v. 44, no. 5, p. 892-898.

Watermark Numerical Computing, 1998, PEST model independent parameter estimation, 

version PEST98: Brisbane, Australia.

27
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Table 9.~Lithologic log for piezometer nest BRN02 

[ft, feet; m, meters; cm, centimeters]

Piezometer nest BRN02 Installation date: 07/23/1996

Core collected by: R. DeWees, F. Gebhardt, J. Bartolino

Location: East bank of Rio Grande, 700 m north of the New Mexico State Highway 44 bridge

Piezometers installed: BRN02A: Total depth = 12.5 m. Measuring point = 0.408 m above ground south pipe 

BRN02B: Total depth = 10.7 m. Measuring point = 0.335 m above ground north pipe 

BRN02C: Total depth = 4.3 m. Measuring point = 0.296 m above ground center pipe

Depth 

(ft)

Depth 

(m) Lithologic description

0-2 0-0.61 Dry, fine sand to silt with roots, etc. Dry color light-yellowish brown (10YR6/4).

2-4 0.61-1.2 Same as above.

4-6 1.2-1.8 Same as above with 10- to 13-cm zones of poorly sorted medium sand to silt.

Muscovite flakes in the coarser material. 

6-8 1.8-2.4 Same as above with 5- to 8-cm zones of silt/clay; in the capillary zone. Dry color for

fine sand/silt light-yellowish brown (10YR6/4), wet color for same is brownish yellow

(10YR6/6), wet color for silt/clay yellowish brown (10YR5/4). 

8-10 2.4-3.0 Same as above. Water at approximately 2.7 m.

10-12 3.0-3.7 Poorly sorted coarse sand with clay. Coarse pebbles start at approximately 3.6m. 

12-14 3.7-4.3 Coarse pebbles to sand with minor amounts of silt and clay mix. Cobble j ammed shoe. 

14-33 4.3-10.1 Soil-probing machine pushed until change felt at approximately 9.9 m. 

33-35 10.1-10.7 No recovery, shoe was badly bent-probably unconsolidated gravel and coarse sand. 

35-41 10.7-12.5 Soil-probing machine pushed until change felt at approximately 12.3 m. 

41-43 12.5-13.1 Fine sand to silt with varying amounts of clay. Wet color dark-grayish brown

(10YR4/2). Slight plasticity. 

43 13.1 REFUSAL

28
Table 10. Lithologic log for piezometer nest COR01

[ft, feet; m, meters] 

Piezoriieter nest COR01 Installation date: 07/30/1996

Core collected by: R. DeWees, F. Gebhardt, J. Bartolino, L. Schuh

Locatio^i: West bank of the Rio Grande, 100 m north of the Rio Rancho sewage treatment plant discharge

Piezom0ters installed: COR01 A: Total depth = 11.6 m. Measuring point = 0.320 m above ground south pipe

COR01B: Total depth = 7.9 m. Measuring point = 0.253 m above ground center pipe 

COR01C: Total depth = 2.4 m. Measuring point = 0.232 m above ground north pipe

(ft)_____(m)_______________________Lithologic description__________________

0-2 0-0.61 Dry, fine sand to silt with roots, etc. Dry color light-yellowish brown (10YR6/4). 

2-4 0.61-1.2 Same as above with dark-brown (7.5YR4/2) clayey silt layer at approximately 1 m.

Water at approximately 1 m.

4-6 1.2-1.8 Same as above, coarsening downward to coarse sand and silt mix. 

6-8 1.8-2.4 Fine sand to silt. 

8-10 2.4-3.0 Same as above with abrupt transition to coarse pebbles at approximately 2.9 m. Shoe

was badly bent by gravel.

10-26 3.0-7.9 Soil-probing machine pushed until change felt at approximately 7.8 m. 

26-28 7.9-8.5 Coarse pebbles to sand with minor amounts of silt. Shoe was badly bent by gravel. 

28-32 8.5-9.8 Soil-probing machine pushed until change felt at approximately 9.6 m. 

32-34 9.8-10.3 Fine sand to silt.

34-38 10.3-11.6 Soil-probing machine pushed until change felt at approximately 11.4 m. 

38-40 11.6-12.2 Fine sand to silt. 

40-42 12.2-12.8 Same as above.

42-47 12.8-14.3 Soil-probing machine pushed until change felt at approximately 14.2 m. 

47-49 14.3-14.9 Gradational change to silty clay, looks like caliche or otherwise very calcic. Mottled

color, very pale brown (1OYR7/3) to grayish brown (10YR5/2). 

49 14.9 REFUSAL

29
Table 11. Lithologic log for piezometer nest PDN01

[ft, feet; m, meters; cm, centimeters]

Piezometer nest PDN01 Installation date: 07/24/1996

Core collected by: R. DeWees, F. Gebhardt, J. Bartolino

Location: West bank of the Rio Grande, 30 m north of the Paseo del Norte bridge.

Piezometers installed:

Depth 

(ft)

Depth 

(m)

PDNOIA: Total depth = 15.2 m. Measuring point = 0.408 m above ground south pipe 

PDN01B: Total depth = 7.0 m. Measuring point = 0.335 m above ground north pipe 

PDN01C: Total depth = 3.4 m. Measuring point = 0.296 m above ground center pipe

Lithologic description

0-2 0-0.61 Dry, fine sand to silt with some clay and roots, etc. Dry color light brown (7.5YR6/3) 

in top 20 cm. Below this, approximately 15 cm of clayey silt, dry color brown 

(7.5YR5/2). Below this coarse sand to silt mix, dry color light-yellowish brown 

(10YR6/4).

2-4 0.61-1.2 Same as above with dark-brown (7.5YR4/2) clayey silt layer at approximately 1 m. 

Water at approximately 1 m.

4-6 1.2-1.8 Same as above with some clay. Water at 1.4 m. Wet color pinkish gray (7.5YR6/2).

6-8 1.8-2.4 No recovery.

8-21.5 2.4-6.6 Soil-probing machine pushed until change felt at approximately 6.4 m.

21.5-23.5 6.6-7.2 Same as above.

23.5-26 7.2-7.9 Same as above.

26-28 7.9-8.5 Same as above with few coarse pebbles at approximately 7.9 m.

28-30 8.5-9.1 Same as above without pebbles.

30-32 9.1-9.8 Same as above.

32-34 9.8-10.3 Same as above.

34-48 10.3-14.6 Soil-probing machine pushed until change felt at approximately 14.3 m.

48-50 14.6-15.2 Fine sand to silt. Wet color pinkish gray (7.5YR6/2).

50 15.2 REFUSAL

30
Table 12.~Lithologic log for piezometer nest RBR01

[ft, feet; m, meters]

Piezometer nest RBR01 Installation date: 07/29/1996

Core collected by: R. DeWees, F. Gebhardt, J. Bartolino

Location: East bank of the Rio Grande, 200 m north of the Rio Bravo Boulevard bridge

Piezometers installed:

Depth 

(ft)

Depth 

(m)

RBR01A: Total depth = 12.5 m. Measuring point = 0.271 m above ground west pipe 

(broken or blocked at 10 m, reinstalled to total depth of 10 m on 10/10/96 after breaking 

pipe several times below 10 m. Screen is obstructed)

RBR01B: Total depth = 7.0 m. Measuring point = 0.357 m above ground center pipe 

RBR01C: Total depth = 2.4 m. Measuring point = 0.326 m above ground east pipe

Lithologic description

0-2 0-0.61 Dry, fine sand to silt with roots, etc. Dry color light-yellowish brown (10YR6/4). 

2-4 0.61 -1.2 Same as above, but grades quickly into clayey silt, wet color light brown (7.5YR6/4).

Water at approximately 1.2 m.

4-6 1.2-1.8 Medium sand to silt, small percentage of clay. Pinkish gray (7.5YR6/2). 

6-8 1.8-2.4 Same as above. 

8-10 2.4-3.0 Same as above.

10-22 3.0-6.7 Soil-probing machine pushed until change felt at approximately 6.6 m. 

22-24 6.7-7.3 Same as above.

24-26 7.3-7.9 Same as above with 15-cm bed of coarse pebbles at 7.6m. 

26-28 7.9-8.5 Silty clay, pink (7.5YR7/3). 

28-30 8.5-9.1 Same as above. 

30-32 9.1-9.8 Same as above, light brown (7.5YR6/3). 

32-34 9.8-10.3 Same as above. 

34-36 10.3-11.0 Coarse sand to silt with some clay; very abrupt change at approximately 10.4 m.

Coarsens downward to include coarse pebbles at about 10.7 m. Pinkish gray

(7.5YR7/2).

36-38 11.0-11.6 Same as above without pebbles. 

38-40 11.6-12.2 Same as above. 

40-42 12.2-12.8 Same as above.

42-44 12.8-13.4 Same as above with coarse pebbles at 13.4 m. 

44-46 13.4-14.0 Same as above, no pebbles below 13.6 m.

46-48 14.0-14.6 Soil-probing machine pushed until change felt at approximately 14.5 m. 

48-50 14.6-15.2 Fine sand/silt, possible small percentage of clay, nonplastic. Pinkish gray (7.5YR7/2).

Liner failed. 

50 15.2 REFUSAL

31
Table 13. Summary of initial moisture content, dry-bulk density, wet-bulk density, and 

calculated porosity for the BRN02, COR01, PDN01, and RBR01 piezometer nests

[m, meters; %, percent; g/g, grams per gram; cm3/ cm3 , cubic centimeters per cubic centimeter;

g/cm , grams per cubic centimeter]

Initial moisture content

Piezometer 

nest

BRN02

BRN02

COR01

COR01

PDN01

RBR01

RBR01

Sample 

depth (m)

2.4-3.0

3.7-4.3

2.4-3.0

10.4-11.0

7.3-7.9

2.4-3.0

7.9-8.5

Lithology

Sand-silt

Gravel-sand

Sand-gravel

Sand-silt

Sand-silt

Sand-silt

Silty clay

Gravimetric 

(%, g/g)

0.4

3.0

0.2

0.3

4.1

0.2

4.6

Volumetric 

(%, cnvVcm3)

0.6

5.1

0.3

0.4

6.2

0.4

8.3

Dry- 

. bulk 

density 

(g/cmO

1.65

1.70

1.78

1.57

1.51

1.69

1.78

Initial

wetbulk 

density 

(g/cn/)

1.66

1.75

1.78

1.58

1.57

1.69

1.87

Calculated 

porosity 

(%)

37.6

36.0

32.9

40.7

43.1

36.4

32.7

32
Table \4.--Water-level depths below land surface for the BRN02, COROl, PDNOl, and RBROl

piezometer nests, September 1996-August 1998

[m, meters; --, incomplete or anomalous data]

Piezonieter

BRN02A

BRMJ2B

BRN(j2C

COR01A

COR01B 

CORQ1C

PDNOl A

PDN01B

PDN01C

RBRO^A

RBROlB 

RBRoic

!

Date

09/06/1996

09/06/1996

09/06/1996

09/06/1996

09/06/1996 

09/06/1996

09/09/1996

09/09/1996

09/09/1996

09/09/1996

09/09/1996 

09/09/1996

Piezometer

BRN02A

BRN02B

BRN02C

COROl A

COR01B

COR01C

PDNOl A

PDN01B

PDN01C

RBR01A

RBR01B

RBR01C

Waterlevel

depth 

(m)

2.719

2.472

2.466

1.695

1.274 

1.241

0.957

0.899

0.981

--

1.207 

1.180

Date

04/21/1997

04/21/1997

04/21/1997

04/21/1997

04/21/1997

04/21/1997

04/22/1997

04/22/1997

04/22/1997

04/23/1997

04/23/1997

04/23/1997

Date

10/17/1996

10/17/1996

10/17/1996

10/17/1996

10/17/1996 

10/17/1996

10/18/1996

10/18/1996

10/18/1996

10/22/1996

10/22/1996 

10/22/1996

Waterlevel

depth 

(m)

2.335

2.045

2.024

1.167

1.052

1.030

0.823

0.664

0.774

~

0.981

0.957

Waterlevel

depth 

(m)

2.777

2.682

2.725

1.460

1.384 

1.417

1.012

1.064

1.085

~

1.204 

1.241

Date

06/01/1998

06/01/1998

06/01/1998

06/01/1998

06/01/1998

06/01/1998

06/02/1998

06/02/1998

06/02/1998

06/03/1998

06/03/1998

06/03/1998

Date

12/02/1996

12/02/1996

12/02/1996

12/02/1996

12/02/1996 

12/02/1996

12/03/1996

12/03/1996

12/03/1996

12/04/1996

12/04/1996 

12/04/1996

Waterlevel

depth 

(m)

1.795

1.481

1.494

0.841

0.585

0.625

0.399

0.308

0.448

0.805

0.600

Waterlevel

depth 

(m)

2.780

3.063

3.109

1.332

1.253 

1.231

0.957

0.887

0.981

~

1.143 

1.170

Date

08/11/1998

08/11/1998

08/11/1998

08/11/1998

08/11/1998

08/11/1998

08/12/1998

08/12/1998

08/12/1998

08/13/1998

08/13/1998

08/13/1998

Date

01/21/1997

01/21/1997

01/21/1997

01/21/1997

01/21/1997 

01/21/1997

01/22/1997

01/22/1997

01/22/1997

01/23/1997

01/23/1997 

01/23/1997

Waterlevel

depth 

(m)

2.048

2.182

2.134

0.948

1.222

1.140

1.021

0.887

1.076

--

0.808

1.119

Waterlevel

depth 

(m)

3.018

3.164

3.237

1.366

1.201 

1.164

0.939

0.832

0.933

«

1.128 

1.125

33
Table 15. Selected ground-water temperature measurements in the BRN02, COROl, PDNOl, 

andRBROl piezometer nests, September 1996-August 1998

[m, meters; °C, degrees Celsius; , incomplete or missing data]

Depth 

Piezometer (m)

BRN02A 4.5

6.5

8.5

COROl A 4.5

6.5

8.5

10.5

PDNOl A 4.5

6.5

8.5

10.5

12.5

RBR01A 4.5

6.5

8.5

Piezometer

BRN02A

COROl A

PDNOl A

RBR01A

Date

09/06/1996

09/06/1996

09/09/1996

09/09/1996

Depth 

(m)

4.5

6.5

8.5

4.5

6.5

8.5

10.5

4.5

6.5

8.5

10.5

12.5

4.5

6.5

8.5

Water

temperature

22.5

19.9

16.7

18.3

17.1

14.8

13.3

23.7

22.1

19.9

15.1

12.8

22.9

19.9

15.0

Date

04/21/1997

04/21/1997

04/22/1997

04/23/1997

Water

ternDate

10/17/1996

perature

17.

18.

8

8

Date

12/02/1996

17.9

10/17/1996 18.5 12/02/1996

18.0

10/18/1996

10/22/1996

Water

temperature

10.5

10.1

10.8

8.6

8.7

10.0

11.3

10.8

8.6

7.4

8.6

10.3

10.0

9.5

10.9

16.

15.

18.

20.

20.

17.

14.

~

~

16.

6

2

4

1

7

6

9

5

Date

06/01/1998

06/01/1998

06/02/1998

06/03/1998

12/03/1996

12/04/1996

Water

temperature

16.7

15.4

13.8

10.1

9.6

9.3

9.9

14.2

11.1

9.4

8.9

9.5

14.2

11.9

11.5

Water

temperature

11

16

17.

15

16

16

16

9.

13

15

16

15

11

13

15

.6

.7

74

.8

.4

.9

.4

7

.1

.7

.8

.7

.1

.8

.8

Date

08/11/1998

08/11/1998

08/12/1998

08/13/1998

Date

01/21/1997

Water

temperature

6.1

12.7

01/21/1997

15

11

.0

.3

12.5

14.7

01/22/1997

01/23/1997

Water

temperature

23.0

20.3

15.8

15.7

14.3

12.0

10.9

22.9

20.0

16.3

11.9

10.6

22.5

18.3

13.7

15

1.

6.

9.

13

14

5.

9.

.7

9

0

1

.3

.5

5

9

34 . GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFF1CE:1999-J73-«01/2JOOO